Government agents like Adrien Swittzer Crown Attorney, break the law every day

Part 2/4 of my daily TV program


Watch live video from Bud the Oracle's Cyber Temple on Justin.tv

Who are the criminals? The agents of the government who harm harmless people, who steal your property and never have to answer to the law. Section 337 criminal code,

Public servant refusing to deliver property

337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 297000.

My personal Claim of Right/lawful excuse



On Wolves and Crack addicted Crows


Watch live video from Bud the Oracle's Cyber Temple on Justin.tv

A Message from the omnipresent office of the Altered State

If there is another election, please consider this alternative to the present political conundrum that you find yourselves in.



This former Seattle Police Chief and Bud the Oracle think exactly the same on this subject

A call from the Attorney General's office

Vancouver police harass Bud the Oracle

Today while proceeding peacefully from Trout Lake I was accosted by the same police officers who arrested me on the 11th (see link in the title of this post). It was under false pretense that I was chased down to "test the buds" in my hat to see if they were real. They never mentioned a warrant against my former person KK and they knew full well from having confiscated my other crown on the 11th that these buds were not real. This incident was witnessed by a friend on his property.

I think I will charge them with harassment on Monday.

I have a right to disregard an illegal warrant

Why would anyone submit to a blatantly violent criminal organization?

Public servant refusing to deliver property

337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 297.

There is no valid lawful reason for the federal crown to withhold the camcorder from Robin! He had demanded it and the Federal Crown in conjunction with the VPD have committed a criminal offense. This evidence of the willingness of the government agents top subvert the rule of law gives me the right to keep myself safe via lawful excuse from these violent criminals as a matter of survival.

I am willing to swear before my God that I believe the evidence shows that the government of Canada is out to harm me, therefor I have the duty to my life to keep myself safe and am confident that any Judge before which I might come will agree with me.

Thoughts on Marc Emery's last rally before he begins to serve his American Jail sentence

Cocaine buds of Rahim Jaffer? Conservatives tough on you doing drugs, not their buddies.

Below is a CBC Radio interview about the success of Portugal's drug policy



From CBC News article in Title Link

Rahim Jaffer, the former Edmonton MP and National Caucus Chair for the Conservative Party, faces impaired driving and drug charges after an incident early last Friday.

Jaffer was elected as a Reform MP in 1997, in the riding of Edmonton-Strathcona. He lost his seat in the last federal election to NDP MP Linda Duncan. Jaffer is married to Helena Guergis, the Minister of State for the Status of Women.

The Ontario Provincial Police in Caledon, Ontario confirmed the news today in a release, excerpted below:

On Friday September 11, 2009 at 12:45am a Caledon OPP officer on general patrol on Regional Road 50 observed a grey Ford Escape travelling northbound at a high rate of speed through the village of Palgrave.

The officer conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle and after detecting the odour of alcohol on the drivers breath an investigation was conducted.

Thirty-seven year old Rahim JAFFER of Angus was charged with Drive Motor Vehicle Over 80 milligrams of alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(b) Criminal Code of Canada and Possession of a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) contrary to section 4(1) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

JAFFER will be making his first appearance in Orangeville Criminal Court on October 19, 2009. His licence was suspended for a period of 90 days under the Administrative Drivers Licence Suspension (ADLS) program.

Why don't these guys get drug tests at work? Including alcohol. If these people are impaired how would Canadians hope to get good policies which spend their taxes wisely? how do we know that he doesn't share his cocaine at home? Why do these people support drug pushers yet pretend that they are so hard on crime? Do they have friends in the crime business for whom they will do political favors for drugs.?

Would the drug cartels not want the prohibition policies to be hard so that their product remains lucrative? Why does Harper surround himself with criminals? Brian Mulroney, Rahim Jaffer. Such losers as Maxime Bernier? Is he such a poor judge of character? Should all politicians who make important laws not be drug tested to understand who might be co opted by their addictions to promote a policy beneficial to their suppliers?


Watch live video from Bud the Oracle's Cyber Temple on Justin.tv

An interesting little talk on creativity after my LSD trip today

Recorded on Youtube before I heard this wonderful speaker above

Crown Attorney Jessica Lawn, another criminal?

My day started off with another liar calling me. Sgt Jeff Rice, of the Professional Standards Gang, a fixer for crooked cops, complained about receiving so many emails about my Camcorder. When he went away he assured me that there should be a release by the Crown Attorney as he saw no need to hold the camera. That was nearly 3 weeks ago. Still no camera. WTF is the problem?

I then phoned the Crown Attorney's office, and got in touch with Jessica Lawn (I kid you not) She may have law in her name but there isn't a glimmer of honest justice to her. I was assure she would review the files and get in touch with me. I called again in the afternoon and was assured that I would be hearing from her today. Still nothing at 6 PM.

This is another blatant example of there being no Rule of Law in Canada.

There is absolutely not one single reason to legally withhold my camcorder. It was not used in the commission of any crime except as a recording of the assault on myself and the camera operator. It was in the possession of that operator when the police arrested him on false allegations and later released him without charges.

The police copied the video and should have left the original video on the camera as it is evidence of an assault on us. Why is that camera still not in my friends possession? Under what pretext are they keeping his lawful property?


Watch Sharon Presley - Dealing with Authority Figures in Educational  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Why is crime by the Crown/government and police never a crime in Canada?

BC is the only province without civilian oversight of internal criminal investigations. The VPD has deservedly earned itself a reputation of being a criminal organization with several murders under its belt. How could I even hope for a fair investigation into the assault perpetrated upon me by the jailers?

Jeff Rice is already trying to shift the blame of the assault onto me. He hasn't even seen the video footage and he wants to interview me? What a joke this process is. A pile of criminal bullshit masquerading as law and order.

Internet input into Bud the Oracle's situation

by Robert Menard » Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:26 pm Reposted here by Bud the Oracle who appreciates any and all constructive input and will evaluate it and use whatever i can in my situation.

Hi all, Don't know if you know who Bud Oracle is, but he claims Freeman status and is charged with selling herb. I have looked at what he is facing, and although I would not have done the same things, and would have prepared myself much better, I do applaud his courage and drive and think he deserves our support and assistance. Tio that end I have developed the following, and will be posting it on various forums he is known to visit, and if he takes the suggestions he may come out of this well on top.

Buds Defence

They will try to get you to argue about what your rights are and are not. Do not go there. It is not up for debate and can get you tied up endlessly. The argument you can win and which they do not want to fight is the one concerning the colour of right.

Did you honestly believe you had the right and was it a result not of negligence but of due diligence? Was that belief reasonable to an average man, with the same information?

You must realize that this fight is about perception and control, and the perception of control of the control of perception. You will win by fighting their control of the perception of control, if that makes any sense. By changing the publics perception of governmental control, you win. The good news is you can do things those in the government cannot, such as your WebTV and blogs and public actions.

You must find the door they do not want opened and then demand it be opened for your defense. There is something they are fearful of, and it is easy to see if you look at what they use to try and make you feel fear, anger or shame. They will try to get you to agree to argue about what your rights are and you will lose if you allow any man that power. It should not be up to debate in that court, as if the judge rules on what your rights are, and you did not grant him that power, you have lost your power to determine your own rights. It will be very tempting to argue about what your rights are and are not, but only ego will speak there and you will lose. You can't go through them, you need to deek them out, and be wise and gentle, not loud and pokey.


If you argue about what your rights are they will have you on the ropes.
If you argue about what you thought your rights were, you can dance around them.

The defence you must aim for is called 'colour of right'.
You will have to establish three things.
1- You honestly believed you had the right to do what you were doing.
2- This belief is not a result of negligence, but of diligence and positive action.
3- It is reasonable.

This is where the process will come in very handy. If you have done it properly, you will have a Courtesy Letter and the NUI and COR along with evidence of service and lack of response on their part.

These provide proof of your beliefs, that you expressed them, invited discussion and negotiation and was refused and then acted accordingly. This is all lawful and just. It also demonstrates action on your part, and not negligence. Thus the first two are established and it is the third that will send them running. Is it reasonable.

Now there are naysayers who will refuse to examine that aspect, and rely instead on a judges interpretation. However it will not be their opinion that matters, nor will you leave it up to the judge to decide if your beliefs are reasonable. You can bring witnesses to explain these beliefs, and if asked I would consider it a duty to stand and speak the truth.

You will rely on your community of Freemen and your fellow Canadians.

At this point you can ask they open the door they really want kept closed. Ask how many people have in fact made the same claims. On the record demand the government disclose just how many people out there feel as you do and have served NUI and CORs on the government. Hundreds? Thousands? How many is required for it to be deemed reasonable, and would that number grow if others knew of its existence?

Open that door and the public becomes aware of its existence, and the flood begins. They do not want that information disclosed. Their action against you is in part to silence you and discredit the movement, not only to enforce what they see as just law. If you argue your rights, you will end up in endless and unprofitable conflict and you may end up granting the power to decide your rights to another. Do not do that. Arguing about what you honestly thought your rights are, without arguing what your rights are, will bring you to the place where you can claim colour of right, if you establish that you acted diligently and your beliefs are reasonable to others in your community. This is where you can open that door they so dearly want kept closed and ignored. Force them to reveal just how many have made similar claims, and your actions and beliefs become reasonable and righteous and defended by colour of right.

This however will not alone ensure your success. You will also have to show spiritual and emotional growth. Imagine this was a computer game. Remember how when you met the Judge you felt they had acted with honour and respect? Imagine they gave you a small seed. If when you return you do not have that you will lose. What you should do is plant it, grow it, get more and when you return, you should have grown a field, collected a bushel and made a cake for them. What he did was simply grant you dignity as one human being to another. Felt good eh? Now do that with all the cops you meet, the people you talk to, even your detractors, bring that energy to bear in your interactions, and correspondence.

Also, you cannot never ever corner your opponent. And that is just what you have done. You must leave them an out, and allow them to save face. Your goal should not be their destruction, but their agreement, with their destruction assured if they fail to agree. You will have to find a path that allows all that, and it may seem like you are backing down, but all you are doing is demonstrating reasonableness and a desire for peaceful coexistence. You could agree for instance to not sell publicly anymore, and to do so only from the privacy of an office or cafe established for that purpose. I am willing to bet, that if you win the court battle by establishing you acted with colour of right, you would have little difficulty finding investors for your cafe. take careful steps, freeman bernard: clan mcmahon
_________________________
god is my judge

An interesting post in the same thread on CC Forums: Freeman discussions

Bud's free, on the land, living his life as he sees fit. It would have been interesting to see how they would've treated Bud had he not been beaten and threatened with indefinite imprisonment if he refused to sign an undertaking to appear for his former person---by the way, on these forms, the name of the person is listed as follows:

"Re/Objet Surname." That thing is not Bud the Oracle, not in my view.

View on ExposureRoom

As for "unsubstantiated claims", well, I could give an argument as to how "to substantiate" is "to understand", but I'll just assert it. Thus, the claims are "not understood"---tell us something we don't know =]

View on ExposureRoom

"...and Fred, you are misleading people, selling a product which clearly has never had a successful test drive but is none the less touted as working."

Presuming Fred were selling membership within the WFS, which he doesn't seem to me to be doing, that would not be a product so much as a service; the argument is, roughly, that the governmental (steering) services of Canada are not to the liking of many, and, therefore, they ought to have the option of being listed with a different governmental (steering) service provider. No one is suggesting that there is not a duty to have some sort of governmental service provider---merely that there is some degree of choice.

The argument may be drawn thusly:

(0) Immutable/Natural/Divine Rules:
(I) Thou shalt not murder.
(II) Thou shalt not steal.
(III) Thou shalt not covet.
(IV) Thou shalt not bear false witness of the law.
Whether grounded in Holy Writ or in one's own emotional acceptance of these precepts or otherwise, these are not disagreed upon by any reasonable person.

(1) Jus/Lex Gentium (Right/Law of Man):
"It was by virtue of this jus gentium that wars were introduced (that is, when declared by the prince for the defence of his country or to repel an attack) and nations separated, kingdoms established and rights of ownership distinguished. Individual ownership was not effected de novo by the jus gentium but existed of old, for in the Old Testament things were already mine and thine, theft was prohibited and it was decreed that one not retain his servant's wages. By the jus gentium boundaries were set to holdings, buildings erected next to one another, from which cities, boroughs and vills were formed. And generally, the jus gentium is the source of all contracts and of many other things." (Bracton)

"Manumission is the giving of liberty, that is, the revelation of liberty, according to some, for liberty, which proceeds from the law of nature, cannot be taken away by the jus gentium but only obscured by it, for natural rights are immutable." (Bracton)

Thus, many buildings, both on land and on paper do obscure our liberty and immutable natural rights. Further, these rights are not contained in any charter, as "all jura are incorporeal and cannot be seen" (Bracton). As rights cannot be seen, then, where do we find them? The Judge Henry of Bracton reports that "virtues and jura exist in the soul." Thus, by implication, souls exist and insofar as men have jura, or rights, they must have souls, as rights exist in the soul---no soul = no rights.

This brings us to a curious predicament, however, regarding corporations, for, as Edward Coke observes, "a corporation...has no soul." (10 Rep. 32). Thus, if a corporation has no soul, it has not the thing in which jura reside.

Then how does one come to be member of a corporation? As a corporation is soulless, it has no jura; and, therefore, any right it suggests that it has over an individual must be given it by that individual. I take this to be what "denial of consent" is all about---one refuses to give his own jura to a soulless artificial person.

(2) Exopolitics

"The best way to predict the future is to invent it." --Alan Kay

"Roundhousekick, you are a simpleton that is being misled." --chrisbennett.

Ah, so anyone who believes in immediate exopolitical change is either a simpleton being misled or a huckster selling snake oil to the simpletons. It is misleading to suggest that change may happen overnight; the only change possible is incrementally enacted through a loaded process of dialogue between the oppressors, who hold all/most of the cards, and the oppressed, whose last, best hope for peace is to shame the oppressors into giving up some of their cards---for example, the lovely piece of card paper upon which The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is drafted.

"A true intellectual doesn’t preach the religion of gradual change but instead steps out of the mental framework of privilege to defend those on the other side. A true intellectual helps the other side develop the tools it needs and does not participate in neutralizing defiance." --Prof. Denis Rancourt,
"My contention is, all kids have tremendous talents. And we squander them, pretty ruthlessly. So I want to talk about education and I want to talk about creativity. My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status. (Applause) Thank you. That was it, by the way. Thank you very much. (Laughter) So, 15 minutes left. Well, I was born -- no. (Laughter)

I heard a great story recently -- I love telling it -- of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson. She was six and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this little girl hardly ever paid attention, and in this drawing lesson she did. The teacher was fascinated and she went over to her and she said, "What are you drawing?" And the girl said, "I'm drawing a picture of God." And the teacher said, "But nobody knows what God looks like." And the girl said, "They will in a minute.""
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Thus, the literary status quo after the introduction of Wars is quite possibly of some importance, but it is certainly inappropriate to use the literary status quo as ground for neutralization of creative defiance thereof.

The problem goes deep---the simpleton is being misled; misled? Is he an animal, being pulled by a cord down some path, or is he making his own decisions? Again, the language used to critique this stuff speaks quite a bit of the set of the critics of creative defiance.

View on ExposureRoom