Here is the issue. Canada is a corporation sole, that being said your either operating in it, or out of it, and constitutionally being in it requires informed consent regardless of what the state does or claims in its acts because forced representation is not called representation it is an act of slavery, representation and agency require consent and so consent is the controlling factor. That being said every office is an agency of the crown(even when some agency connections are hidden or and denied domestically to give the arms length illusion of independence through legal fiction, those offices are clearly created and or controlled by the crown through operations of law) and so i had thought that when someone was exercising their human rights outside of the structure of the state that there was only one office in canada that was created with jurisdiction over the person(the human beings operating their natural personality outside the body corporate), over the subject matter(laws of canada including internationally recognized human rights) and over the remedy(variable but as regards to recognized human rights violations). And so because of the structure of canada in that as a corporation sole one is either within it or without it, and the determinations of the scc along with the fact that the scc has evidenced that only the federal executive has the power to deal with beings without it, it had appeared to me that all superior courts are statutory creatures operating within it, yes they possess inherent jurisdiction but that jurisdiction has been limited by statute(cleverly as a domestic way to avoid remedy and one which is effective in that the courts were given jurisdiction over those that were operating rights "within" the corporation which through the use of these courts implies consent and so effectively limits the courts inherent jurisdiction in that the scc has stated that someone has to use the normal rules, be it civil or criminal, to access that courts inherent jurisdiction and so this fraud seems to work in that when someone enters one of these courts by choice as the competent forum, or by force or threat without immediately rebutting the courts jurisdiction in that there is a better forum, eg. that one executive office, then the individual's consent is had to the civil or criminal jurisdiction which regardless of "if" the inherent jurisdiction is eventually accessed the individual has consented into giving up some of his rights through his choice of court in using civil and or criminal procedure and operating within that corporate structure. The scc has questioned in some instances, and stated in others, that it is possible to give up rights(note: not that they are lost forever as they are inalienable but, in cases like i am describing it would seem lost in terms of for the purpose of that claim due to the consent to operate within the corporate structure for remedy).

I Think Therefore I Am Having the ability to clearly think without being influenced by a structural system. The first level of that is you must be able to separate yourself from narratives. You must be able to separate yourself from that which is influencing what you are seeing. Real critical thinking starts with recognizing the filter you’re looking through. If your thoughts are shaped entirely by a narrative—whether it's from media, religion, politics, or even your own upbringing then you're not truly thinking for yourself, you're reacting through the narrative. Everything in reality that you engage with is filtered through a lens of belief created through a narrative. The moment you can step outside that narrative, even just a little, and ask: “Why do I believe this? Where did this thought come from?”—that’s when independent thinking begins. It’s not always comfortable, but it’s necessary. A human being doesn’t just think the narrative—they feel it. The belief becomes part of their identity, tied into emotion, memory, and sometimes even trauma. So, when you challenge the narrative, it’s not just a logical disruption—it feels like an attack on their very sense of self. The reason why people have trouble to see clearly, is because when they're confronted with logic, confronted with a illogical position, when they start to see their illogical position, the emotions rise and interferes with the thinking. When a human is confronted with logic that contradicts their current belief, the recognition begins—but at the same time, the emotion tied to that belief activates. It rises almost like a defense mechanism. That emotion doesn’t just sit quietly in the background. It clouds judgment, redirects focus, and can even trigger fear, anger, or shame—all of which shut down the deeper layers of reasoning. So even if the Human Being sees the contradiction, the emotional weight pulls them back into the safety of the narrative. That’s what makes clarity so hard to reach—not because it’s unreachable, but because the mind is trying to process truth through a storm of unresolved emotion.

Legal Brief: Individual Suspension of Treaty Operation under Article 57 of the Vienna Convention Title: Invocation of Article 57 for Personal Suspension of Treaty Obligations due to Structural Absorption and Peremptory Norm Breach I. Legal Basis – Article 57 of the Vienna Convention “The operation of a treaty in regard to all the parties or to a particular party may be suspended in conformity with the provisions of the treaty.” II. Context of Application – Structural Absorption and Constructed Identity 1. In the Canadian context, domestic legal structures have forcibly incorporated the population into the state’s legal identity through. o Appointment into corporate and municipal offices; o Licensing and residency mechanisms; o Statutory obligations that convert individuals into acting organs of the state. 2. This absorption transforms individuals into de facto parties to international treaties signed by Canada, since their conduct and identity are now indistinguishable from that of the state for the purposes of international responsibility. 3. Accordingly, the population — having been made structurally into the state — acquires the standing to invoke legal mechanisms under the treaty, including suspension under Article 57. III. Grounds for Suspension – Violation of Peremptory Norms and ICCPR Rights 4. The performance of the treaty in Canada has resulted in: o Violations of non-derogable rights under the ICCPR (Articles 6, 7, 16, 18); o Suppression of conscience, identity, and dignity; o Erasure of recognition through fabricated legal personhood. 5. These violations activate peremptory protections under Articles 53, 64, and 71 of the Vienna Convention. 6.Article 57 now provides a legal route to suspend the treaty’s application to the structurally absorbed individual, until such time as full conformity with peremptory norms is restored. IV. Invocation by the Individual 7. As a being whose legal identity has been absorbed into the Canadian state structure:

If the state automatically and by default, incorporates you into their corporate body, what other means or methods available that is- not a court order?? As in Sam Levy,: a judicial declaration is but only ONE remedy. The obligation is on the individual to rebut all statutory designation . The state does not take your waiver to be recognized as a statutory creature, rather than a man with full legal capacity. They automatically violate 7 of Charter, 16 and 18 of the ICCPR. Calling the state out by way notice and affidavit results in the state's escalation of enforcement on you under threat of punishment.. How other than a court order, can you remove the shackles? What are the means or methods to remove state coercion?. Can you prove it? Show me please .

There is a paperback copy of the book Structural Captivity of man. The inside contents of the book are longer then the digital copy. Its twice as long . https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B0G6FRH4FD/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A1Y53T3O3Q25L8&psc=1 The Universal Consciousness of Being eBook : John Spirit, Eternallyaware: Amazon.ca: Kindle Store