originally posted on January 1, 2022
On December 31, 2021, I brought a letter to the headquarters of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) on Cambie Street confessing to the intention to auction off the bag of $100 worth of cocaine that I previously confessed to possession of, as well as the intention to buy more and sell that too.
I spoke to an officer (who gave me his badge number, 2239) for roughly five minutes, a little after 1PM.
During our respectful and informative interchange, he did express an opinion that I strongly disagree with. He claimed that I am abusing the justice system by disobeying the law to achieve my own agenda.
According to the Crown, the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada. If someone disobeys the supreme law of Canada, then why does the same criticism not apply to them?
If the supreme law of Canada states that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, “to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect”, and it appears reasonable that it is inconsistent with the Constitution to impose the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act upon an ISS member in Canada, then isn’t a person who attempts to impose that legislation upon me disobeying the law for their own ends?
He said I should hire a lawyer and I claimed I can’t afford one. He said if I can’t afford one then I should not be continuing with these intentions.
So if one doesn’t have enough money, then the supreme law of Canada is not applicable to them?
After he expressed the above opinion, he did not wish to hear out any rebuttal I made to it, so I’m expressing those rebuttals here, and I called the information line and got his email address so that he may be alerted that I am publicly posting the letter confessing to the intention to traffic cocaine here, in a place overtly visible to the public, along with these details of our discussion. I hope that I am presenting his opinions respectfully and accurately, as he was very respectful to me and considerate of my dignity.
When there is a disagreement as to the interpretation of the Constitution, there is a way for the courts to be consulted so that the definitive applicable interpretation can be expounded by the courts. It is called a constitutional reference question. The Governor General can refer questions to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court then has the duty under the law to answer those questions.
The Attorney General is the official legal adviser of the Governor General. The Attorney General has not responded to my request to consider several constitutional reference questions listed on page 31 of the supplementary arguments to the constitutional claims I am making.
If the official legal adviser of the nation refuses to have my questions answered, and I am detained or prosecuted for actions that contravene legislation that reasonably appears likely to be “of no force or effect”, as “the supreme law of Canada” states, then doesn’t this amount to a person claiming to have made rules and threatening you with punishment for breaking the rules but then not being willing to be explicitly clear with you about precisely what the rules are? The Constitution states that laws are made for “the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada”. Is it good government to refuse to answer a person’s reasonable questions, about precisely what the law is, while threatening to enforce the law upon them?
The reasons that I allege that it is inconsistent with the supreme law of Canada for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be imposed upon me are presented in Appendix A of the Canada Interactive Legislature Charter, starting on page 10. If my claims are thought to be so unreasonable that it is not worth the government’s time to consider them, then I will act upon the liberties that the supreme law of Canada appears to me to reasonably state that I am entitled to, and if the authorities wish to detain me, then I shall present my constitutional arguments to a court and see whether the court agrees. This appears to be the only opportunity reasonably available to me to have my questions definitively answered. I believe that this is an important part of what courts are for: to enforce the Constitution upon the government when the members of the government refuse to willingly abide by it. That is why courts are designated as being independent of the government and impartial in any disagreement of law between the government and any person in Canada.
In the end of my interchange with the VPD officer, he refused to take the letter I had brought, so I have no official record that any enforcement authorities have been made aware of the auction I intend to open bidding on, on January 31, for the $100 bag of cocaine that I previously confessed to possession of. However, I have emailed him a link to this post, and I plan to alert several other authorities to it as well.
The Criminal Code of Canada, in section 24, distinguishes between an “attempt” to offend the law, versus “preparation” to offend the law in a way that is “too remote to constitute an offence”. Perhaps what I’ve done so far has been too remote to constitute an offence. However, accepting the first bid on an auction for a bag of $100 worth of cocaine is, I believe, quite literally an intention to traffic. So if the authorities do not detain me on January 31 when bidding opens, then the only explanation that I believe makes any sense is that they are dutifully abiding by “the supreme law of Canada”, as it would be in contravention of the supreme law for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be enforced upon me for reasons expressed above, primarily in Appendix A of the Canada Interactive Legislature (CIL) Charter. The authorities might not be willing to admit that, but the one thing that would definitively prove them wrong is a court hearing my constitutional arguments and affirming their validity, so the authorities may not want to see those arguments presented to a court, and the only way to do that is to not charge me for contravening laws that may be “of no force or effect”.
I am, on the other hand, willing to have the regulations enacted by the CIL, in the Charter of Commerce for controlled drugs and substances in Canada, imposed upon me. This legislation is created in a way that allows every voter to exercise their fundamental democratic constitutional rights at any time that they wish, instead of only providing the means to exercise these rights once every few years when given permission by authorities and denying them the rest of the time. These regulations are quite severe, and I intend to follow them.
According to the regulations enacted by the CIL in its Charter of Commerce for controlled drugs and substances, I may not sell to a person unless that person has affirmed an affidavit in front of someone authorised to take legal affirmations, such as a Notary Public. I must have every unit of drug that I transact tested by a public facility for verification that the drug is purely what it is claimed to be, to detect anything toxic such as fentanyl, the primary cause of death in the greatest epidemic in Canada right now: the opioid crisis. People are not being killed by the drugs they are buying. They are being killed by the toxins being put into those drugs without their knowledge, which appears to me to be murder. They are being murdered. Testing drugs helps less people in Canada be murdered.
If you ever see me acting in any way that contravenes the Charter of Commerce enacted by the CIL, then I absolutely agree that you should alert authorities to have me thrown in jail, because these regulations are created for the safety of users of these drugs and if I contravene these regulations then I may cause people to die. So please read the Charter of Commerce, and feel free to hold me publicly accountable to the regulations presented in it. That is your right, because it is a law made by a legislative assembly that I am governed by.
The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, on the other hand, appears to be of no force or effect in its applicability to me because it is created by a legislative assembly that denies fundamental democratic constitutional rights for years at a time without demonstrable justification. So if you wish to see this Act imposed upon me, then I am sure that a court will be willing to hear my constitutional claims and adjudicate them according to prior precedent, which is all I ask.
The VPD officer claimed that I am breaking the law, but if the law he claims I am breaking is “of no force or effect”, as section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may provide, then I respectfully allege that the officer’s claim is inaccurate.