The Common Law rights and freedoms of Life,
Liberty and Property, as enshrined by the
Magna Charta of 1215 still remain intact for the natural-person
(human being), John Doe.
The artificial-person/corporation JOHN DOE
only has rights as provided by its creator,
John Doe remains free in the Common Law world.
JOHN DOE is a slave in the Statute
A new web-site has been created to assist with your understanding of your fundamental rights, click here to visit this new site by Steve.
The correct spelling for this Great Charter
is Magna Charta, but the pronunciation is like "carta"
(the H is silent). If you use the incorrect
spelling, you will not be referring to the
correct document. Here is the definition,
and spelling, from Black's Law Dictionary
Magna Charta. The great charter.
The name of a charter (or constitutional
enactment) granted by King John of England
to the barons, at Runnymede, on June 15,
1215, and afterwards, with some alterations,
confirmed in parliament by Henry III, and
Edward I. This charter is justly regarded
as the foundation of English constitutional
liberty. Among its thirty-eight chapters
are found provisions for regulating the administration
of justice, defining the temporal and ecclesiastical
jurisdictions, securing the personal liberty
of the subject and his rights of property,
and the limits of taxation, and for preserving
the liberties and privileges of the church.
Magna Charta is so called, partly to distinguish if from
the Charta de Foresta, which was granted about the same time,
and partly by reasons of its own transcendent
The Canadian Constitution & Fundamental Rights:
Here is an interesting article from David:Kevin-Lindsay about International Law and the Constitution. Worth reading.
The International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights:
Here is an educational video about the ICCPR, from eternally aware.
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC):
Here is a PDF document that discusses UCC and US Court Jurisdiction. A good read.
Ever wondered what these words mean? Here
is an idea, quoted from a document prepared
by Lynne Meredith:
Protecting your Rights by Signing Documents
by Lynne Meredith
It is a maxim of American law that any statute
contrary to the Constitution, which is the
supreme law of the land, is null and void
and no Citizen is bound to obey an unconstitutional
"An unconstitutional statute, though
having the form of law, is in reality, no
law and imposes no duties, confers no rights,
creates no office, bestows no power on anyone
and justifies no actions performed under
it..." (late Am Jur 2d Sec. 256).
It is also a maxim of the Common Law that
no Sovereign American Citizen of the 50 Republic
states can be compelled in any action against
his or her will. The 50 Republic states currently
have an admitted [Territorial] "Government
de facto," which Black's 2nd Law Dictionary
defines as, "a government not established
according to the Constitution ... a government
deemed unlawful, deemed wrongful or unjust,
which nevertheless receives habitual obedience
from the bulk of the community."
When the Citizen educated in the constitutional,
lawful and just (de jure) American law decides
he or she no longer wishes to join the herd
of habitually obedient (enslaved) sheeple
being led to slaughter by blind and unquestioned
obedience to unconstitutional, unjust, and
unlawful laws, he or she is sometimes faced
with defacto employees and foreign agents,
uneducated in law, oblivious to our Constitution
and drunk with a false sense of power. Faced
with guns, handcuffs and a potential night
in jail while the law is debated, such a
Citizen can be put in a position of "compromise"
in order to "buy their peace."
There is a remedy and recourse, out of "de
facto" statutes and back to "de
jure constitutional law."
Typically all it takes to "buy your
peace" with the de facto government
agent or official is a signature. In their
mind, you have consented to waive your rights.
However, if you write the words, "Without
Prejudice" above your signature, you
are declaring that you are not waiving any
of your rights under the Constitution or
Common Law and any document containing the
words "Without Prejudice" cannot
be used as evidence against you, in Court
"Where an offer or admission is made
"without prejudice,"... it is meant
as a declaration that no rights or privileges
of the party concerned are to be considered
as thereby waived or lost..." Black's
The following information comes from Bouvier's
1914 Law Encyclopedia, under "Compromise."
"It must be permitted of men to buy
their peace without prejudice to them. It
has been held that one may buy his peace
by compromising a claim which he knows is
without right (Daily v. King 70 Mich. 568,
44 N.W. 959) but the compromise of an illegal
claim will not sustain a promise." Read
v. Hitching. 71 ME 590.
Documents Signed "Without Prejudice"
are Not Admissible as Evidence "It may,
however, be considered settled that letters
or admissions containing the expression in
substance that they are to be 'without prejudice'
will not be admitted in evidence...an arrangement
stating the letter was without prejudice
was held to be inadmissible as evidence ...
not only will the letter bearing the words,
"without prejudice" but also the
answer thereto, which was not so guarded,
was inadmissible ...". Ferry v. Taylor
33 Mo. 323, Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass 55,
Molyneaux v. Collier 13 Ga. 406.
"When correspondence had commenced "without
prejudice" but afterwards those words
were dropped, it was immaterial; 6 Ont 719.
When you do not want to be "presumed"
to be waiving rights or acquiescing to de
facto statutes, you should sign all documents,
"without prejudice," above your
signature. These documents cannot then be
used as prima facia evidence against you.
However if you are making claims that you
may want to use as potential evidence in
your favor, do not sign "without prejudice.".
Vancouver Property Rights Denined:
In 1972, Vancouver City took away some property
rights from those living in Vancouver, B.C.
without any Member of Parliament attempting
to protect those rights. This is more evidence
of the Government's desire to remove your
rights one by one. Read here for the current research into this situation.
"Whereas it is essential, if man is
not to be compelled to have recourse, as
a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny
and oppression, that human rights should
be protected by the rule of law,"
(Preamble - Universal Declaration of Human Rights)