Eight hundred years later and Magna Carta 1215 is still looked

upon as the cornerstone for which our liberties are derived from
today. It was established as the Rule of Law with which Great
Britain, the United States of America, Canada and all other
Common Law countries based their constitutions on in regards
to: rights and justice. By the end of the 13th century Magna Carta
was recognized as a document that was the "highest law" of the
land and no executive mandate or legislative act could infringe
on this law.

The Rule of Law...

Our constitutions represent the law of the land today, but are the governing bodies
obeying its supreme command?
Unalienable rights were established and the right to "due process" of the law is
recognized as supreme. Meaning, that natural laws were recognized and any law that
came into conflict with natural law is -- not was -- null and void. The government and
courts have and must, still today, follow this law. It is not for them to remove or infringe
on our liberties as our liberties are derived from this -- the Common Law -- that has
stood the test of time for 8 centuries.
I brought case law that recognized our supreme law into the courts here in Ontario,
CA. The judges I had faced ignored such established law -- therefore, committing

treason against the supreme law of the land that is our heritage. It was as if they thought
I was making this stuff up, but no, it exist in case law and also with long established
Common Law Maxims (principles).
In my opinion, this information should be part of every day learning. How can we
protect and preserve our freedoms if we don't know the roots of those
freedoms and the basic process of protecting them (filing documents and the
process of addressing matters in court)?
These judges who ignore this documentation with their own points of view are creating
new case law that is poisoning our justice system -- essentially leading us away from the
foundation of where our liberties reside. Whether they are doing so because of their own
incompetence or if they are doing so intentionally, does not change the fact that this falls
along the lines of treason. The most alarming aspect of this is that it is happening on a
grand scale as more and more people are waking up to the realization that tyranny is on
the horizon (if it isn't here already) and making a stand in our courts (among other
places).
Here in Canada, you would think that every individual who has studied the legal
profession would automatically put iconic documents such as the Charter and Bill of
Rights well ahead of any other learning materials as they represent Canada's place in
the free world. But that just doesn't seem to be the case. The key line in those documents
rest in the preambles where it states something along the lines (they slightly differ)
of, "...the nation of Canada is founded upon principles that recognize
the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."
RULE OF LAW. Rules of law are general maxims, formed by the courts, who having
observed what is common to many particular cases, announce this conformity by a
maxim, which is called a rule; because in doubtful and unforeseen cases, it is a rule for
their decision; it embraces particular cases within general principles. ~ Bouvier's Law
Dictionary Revised 6th Edition 1856.
Once you realize that Common Law Maxims represent established indisputable
truths in law and tie that into the fact that we have long recognized that we have
been "endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights" -- hence God being recognized
as supreme and those rights being natural to every man's existence -- than no judge
can pass a decision contrary to this established concept of law... because it is

supreme and he has no authority to state otherwise as the Rule of Law dictates his
decision for him.
Maxim (Rule of Law): "Liberty is more favored than all things." (Libertas
omnibus rebus favorabilior est).
This is a Rule of Law and "There is no disputing about rules of law" (Non est
certandum de regulis juris).
So, we have Rules of Law
that protect these Godgiven unalienable rights
(a.k.a. Common Law
Rights or Natural Rights).
Is there case law that
supports this claim? Yes.
Should the courts today be
guided by that case law?
Absolutely! They (courts) are neutral and the law commands them -- already established
case law commands them along with the long established Common Law principles that
our Common Law nations are founded upon.
In one of my arguments pertaining to the natural right to use the roads, I point out
some case law that has been established over the last 100 years. One relates to when the
Highway Traffic Act first came into effect (or began to be enforced). It's actually an
interesting read as it is a piece of documented history from 1913 where an individual was
traveling down a city road under construction and hit a pipe alongside the road.
The key part that I bring up in my argument was the matter addressing how the Act
forced this individual to register his private property with the government, plate it and
that he had to pay for this action. In Greig v. City of Merritt, [1913] D.L.R. 852
(B.C.Co.Ct.), these are the reasons why the judge justified the infringement of the
Common Law right to use the roads freely:
The object of such provisions is clearly for the benefit of the public. In the event of the
law being violated the offender can be readily identified by the number on his car and

brought to justice. The car whilst not an outlaw on the highway is yet without a doubt
a very dangerous machine unless under very careful control.
I have to agree with the above reasons, but then he goes on to say the following:
The statue, containing as it does some drastic provisions affecting ones
common law rights and especially so in the matter of the burden of proof, is clearly
framed with an eye to the protection of the public, and the question of revenue is I
think merely incidental in the Act.
Look at the bold wording (I added) here: he is recognizing that Common Law rights are
being infringed upon here -- and he uses the word "drastic" when implying that they
are. OK, so now you have to prove you own something you are in possession of?
Remember what appears to be an old saying now, "possession is nine tenths of the law"?
And then there is the mention of revenue, implying that the state cannot create an
avenue of revenue from a natural right. Sure, there is a one time fee here and the idea
was that the Act was not intended to be a revenue generator. That would have been an
infringement on a natural right and seen as unlawful in a just court. Therefore, that
law would be of no force and effect.
The Act has probably been amended a hundred times since then. Now, let's have a look
at how far removed we are from this basic Common Law Right in comparison to what
this judge has stated...

I'm not sure when, but an annual licensing fee came into play which probably
started out as a couple of dollars. It's now at $70 a year here in Ontario and
probably higher in parts of Canada and the USA. Also add on the driver's
licensing renewal fees.
There was a time when police were not allowed to run your plates as it was an
invasion of privacy (privacy is a huge issue today with police advocating for
warrantless access requests for private information on its citizens). Now they
have brought in scanning devices that will scan numerous plates instantly from a
certain distance.
They can stop and detain you for no lawful reason.
They can issue hefty fines (extortion) for practically no good reason (under the
guise of your safety and security no doubt).

I was ordered not to use my vehicle (or anyone else's) for 72 hours after
consuming 2 pints of beer, then I had to pay $180 for permission to use
a motor vehicle on the road again. They also took/towed my private property
which cost me another $200 to get back.
This is the one that really bothers me (not that any of the above don't)... That they
can deny you your right to use the road in your private property for reasons
completely unrelated to you using the road. Such as for not paying a fine
for not having a dog license (another blog coming on this soon).

The last point is going way overboard when it comes to infringing on your God-given
natural rights that have been declared in historic documents as well as being long
established in our courts over many centuries. These documents represent the Rule of
Law for our Civil Servants to follow as it is the foundation of our freedoms.
So, how did we get so far off track?
Ever heard of the phrase, "Inch by inch, it's a cinch"? They have been doing it gradually
over time and doing so with the help of the mainstream media. With the serious lack of
integrity the mainstream media has, they have been keeping us in the dark about so
many important issues.
I believe, deep down inside, we all feel there is something very wrong about what is
transpiring in regards to the statutory laws governments are hammering us with and it
all gets lost with the array of alarming current events like the threat of terrorism.
Personally, I think all of this is part of a much bigger plan and the only hope for a
positive future is for The People to wake up to the roots of their freedoms -- before they
are gone for good.
I'm doing something about it and so should you as our basic liberties are on the line
here. If you feel you can't do anything about it, then help support people like
me who are acting on your behalf.
Can you imagine the world we could be living in if government and Civil Servants
actually followed the rule of law? The courts would not be flooding with so many
meaningless cases where time and resources are being wasted and taxpayers would see
huge savings. Or imagine, how things would be if The People woke up to their heritage

and armed themselves to the teeth as the Declaration of Independence commands

us to do and demand that the government follow the rule of law or perish.
Is our destiny in the hands of We The People or is it in the hands of the Elite few who
control government for their best interests -- not ours? Is the Rule of Law actually still in
existence today?

"...law can serve as the motivating force behind revolutionary activity. In writing the
Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson explained that it had become
necessary for the colonies to dissolve their formal ties with Great Britain because the
king of England had abused his autocratic power by denying Americans their
inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights, Jefferson
said, are guaranteed by an unwritten Natural Law. The American Revolution, then,
was fought to restore the Rule of Law in the United States, which was not fully
accomplished until the power of government was subordinated to the will of the people
in the state and federal constitutions." ~ Online at thefreedictionary when looking up
the word "revolution".

Until next time, this is the commoner known as Shawn,

with the family name Cassista, educating everyone about
their natural rights -- long established in the fight for
Truth, Freedom and Justice -- with which Liberty
will reign!