Critical question requiring a level 5 response, that was a hint and a request for a knowledgeable answer.

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).

And so in operating purely human rights, rights that are inherent and depend on not statutory recognition, i had thought that only the one office was empowered under statute(applicable de jure on the agent in the office, eg. the officer who is in that office and who is empowered to deal with these situations), empowered under the common law(eg. peremptory norms as in nevsun) and empowered under the constitution(s.24 and 52) and i recognize that office is the single agency that is the competent office who possessed the full and unrestricted inherent jurisdiction for the full recognition and observance of human rights because that executive agent is the one who is empowered and is the best equip to deal with such claims and provide remedy for the violation of the rights and who is therefor the "other" mechanism expressed in art. 2(2) of the iccpr which is seemingly the least canada could do to uphold their obligations under the international human bill of rights and other ratified norms.

But now i am confused in that i see talk about using the superior courts for judicial review regarding the violation of these rights and i do not understand why that process would be attempted, or would be used(because it would seem to me that the use of said court willingly would be to consent to be operating within the body), as opposed to the competent court that was created, or is to be created when required, for the purpose of remedying the violation of peremptory norms with the federal court acting in standby only if that officer fails in his duty in which then the federal court would have automatic inherent jurisdiction in such a case through mandamus.

As the state is clearly set up for the benefit of the crown i had thought this was ingenious as it meant remedy would be denied to all but those who could figure out where and how to get it and it allowed for quiet private remedy which would only go public, eg. federal court, if the proper office failed to provide remedy which would also inspire that office to provide remedy to keep things quiet.

So the question is this: is using any other means to attempt to acquire remedy(such as the superior courts) not a method by which remedy itself is limited as the person or persons attempting to acquire remedy are actually operating within the state and so using it as a vehicle for the claim rather than as an independent individual standing in equality before the law in regards to canada but calling on the state to live up to the obligations, the very ones it itself knowingly and willingly ratified because of the fact that it is only through ratification could it declare itself to be a free and democratic society operating internationally, or is there something i am missing in this regard.

6 comments