ON: WHAT AUTHORITY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOWSince Magna Carta, maritime laws are not Supreme, and historically when they act like common law does not exist, means they expect big positive law changes.

With NAFTA [1993] the entire legal system became obligated to obey all new NATO /UN treaties, where we slip ever further under NATO's definition of what's 'prescribed by law' in order to protect what they call a 'free and democratic society' Under these new TPPT obligations, things can only go from bad to worse, We actually now have about the same rights as a Haitian in their NATO courts.

TPPT actually gives a legal excuse that 'forces' the Harpster to pass laws like Bill C-51[before their new corporate NATO rule starts enforcing harsher laws] by now making it afederal crime to protest about the slavery that is being imposed on all ordinary residents. The first victims of this policy are the old MMAR members, who now will be going to Federal Courts to face federal charges for violations under their new MMPR program.

TO BACKTRACK A BIT [to make a point]: With the Harpster giving of all Maritime jurisdiction from sea to sea to sea to NATO in the 1st 100 days in Office, resulted in implementing of the Contraventions Act, [2006] where person charged with any drug charge can chose between going to BCSC or being fast-tracked in drug court [which is under NATO maritime rule] Today, if you're charged under the CDSA, you get to chose which court you go to, because all charges are served by a provincial warrant.

Under new TPPT obligations [after tabling their rulings] ordinary residents will be forced to go to Federal Court, because it's now a federal warrant being served, for breaking a new MMPR rule. AND under TPPT those Courts must protect these new corporate MMPR growers' right to maximize their profits, and let's face it, Federal Court is not likely to let us break their own treaty obligations.

The only way [at present] to have a choice of going to Federal Court or BCSC will be if you hold a certificate proving that you're a member or agent in a Marijuana Party EDA, because in law, it's like a birth certificate for an adult to be recognized as an individual, who cannot be deprived of any benefit that ordinary residents lost under BCSC case law IN OTHER WORDS: simply by being a card carrying member of a Marijuana Party EDAmeans you can refuse to have any CDSA /MMPR charges heard in their Federal Courts.

In most cases this should result in the charges being dropped, when that activity is already covered by BCSC case law precedents, and if they disagree, means you can defend that the Charter should recognize that your rights are close enough to the right given to someone like you in BC - In Federal Court, those case law precedents have already been overturned, because they are inconsistent with NATO case law, BUT if you really want to defend a right under their Federal privileges, then go for it,

because one thing we cannot do under common law is export our goods to another NATO country.

FRANKLY, our defence of: As long as we stay under common law rules that complywith BCSC case law precedents means we never lost any rights, because no bodyunder Maritime jurisdiction can trespass on our common law commercial premisesunder Freedom of Contract, especially in an election year One fact that they don'twant you to know is NAMELY: both Federal Court and the BCSC are directly forbiddento trespass on anyone who Peacefully upholds genuine individual common law rights.

The #1 reason why we all should be interested in gaining these individual rights isBECAUSE: Bill C-51 only applies to disorganized protesters, and no card-carrying individual can be mis'taken' as someone who has no right to attract voters by voicing politically unflattering condemnation for what Harper is doing in order to get votes. What 95% of all people who just use cannabis, who would never grow or sell it, can still expect is that the chances of getting arrested are slim. But this individual status can save you from getting harassed at a road side spot check [for example]

The 5% that grow our medicine can really be protected by forming a legal common lawcorporation [in order to be a farmer under an EDA] and in this way, this farm can keep on selling their excess crop to dispensaries that now also operate as EDA agencies [just like BC case law allows now] - it also means that any dispensary that complies withgetting a basic note from a doctor are legal under common law [like BC case law allows] Maritime Law can only give you quasi-illegal, or quasi-legal status - because they really are the criminals who operate under the fraudulent colour of international law. We simply are not the criminals for insisting that as individuals our case law is Supreme. The only way to protect any common law grandfather rights is to operate under common law.

What they really don't want you to know is how easy it is to comply with being a common law EDA agency, with just a small computer or on a new smart phone. All the EDA agency does is tell a basic Quickbooks program that you're a co-op when you download it, and no agent using this software can buy or sell to a non- registered member without causing a red flag [for example] and as long as the management does not rifle /misappropriate funds from the agency means no-one can be busted for upholding our EDA's right to protect our commercial premises

Management will need to learn how easy it is to operate and how secure it is to comply with our IC75-2R8 day-sheet /protocol, and frankly once our common law computer system is in place, it's actually easier to be compliant with Revenue Canada and Elections Canada than any other regular GST business, because there are no traps [as long as] the agency does not create them by contracting with anyone who acts like you now must obey /submit to their statutory rules.

The only authority under statutory law that can tell an EDA agency what to do is the Chief of the Fire Department. Any body else calling themselves a Health or Water Inspector [for example] are only understatutory regulations and they can only suggest that you do something. In law, all we need is a plausible excuse [like] i'm sorry we cannot do that because it would be encroaching on what we want to do, because common law is Supreme the moment you insist that it is. And now you know why they don't want you to know how to protect your real common law rights.

BOTTOM LINE: We are doomed to no voice, if we cannot get 5% of the votes in the next election [in any given District] - BUT under their rules if any EDA does pass this threshold means we get be a recognized voice in that community; and if we get 50 EDAs to reach the 5% threshold means the entire country gets our rights back.

Ask any politician. If anyone attracts the disenfranchised and youth to vote then they will winby a landslide AND all we need is 5% of those who vote to vote for our candidate and we allwin a lot more than just legalizing cannabis. But it won't happen without a good voter turnout