[Your Name and Address]Darren Geneva StreetGeographic area known as St. Catharines, Ontario [Date] TO:Mayor of the City of St. CatharinesCity Hall50 Church StreetSt. Catharines, Ontario NOTICE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PEREMPTORY NORM VIOLATIONS Dear Mayor, I write to place you formally on notice regarding provisions of the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001 that govern the “City of St. Catharines.” I am commencing a judicial review in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice challenging these provisions as void ab initio and of no force or effect, pursuant to: - Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 - Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens), including Articles 1, 7, 8, 15, 16, and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Core Violations The Municipal Act violates non-derogable rights by: - Incorporating inhabitants of geographic areas into municipal corporations without knowledge or consent (s. 1). - Granting corporate municipalities the rights of a natural person, while subordinating natural persons (s. 2). - Imposing perpetual property taxation, liens, and tax sales on homes that are fully paid (ss. 264–267, 342–351). - Enforcing by-laws that burden freedom of conscience (ss. 8–11, 426–439). - Treating the Mayor and Council as a Board of Directors of a corporation, managing inhabitants as corporate assets. These actions violate: - Article 16 ICCPR – Right to recognition as a person before the law. - Article 18 ICCPR – Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. - Article 8 ICCPR – Freedom from slavery and servitude. - Article 7 ICCPR – Freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. - Article 1 ICCPR – Right to self-determination. Duty After Notice As of receipt of this Notice, you are personally aware that the Municipal Act is under judicial challenge for violating jus cogens norms. Peremptory norms cannot be excused by domestic law. No official may defend violations by claiming to be “just following orders” or “just applying statutes.” Any continued enforcement after notice may expose individual actors — including yourself — to personal liability under international law.

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:

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).

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision. Article 6 1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court. 3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases. 5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women. 6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant. Article 7 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. Article 8 1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited. 2. No one shall be held in servitude. Article 11 No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation. Article 15 1 . No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRRYXiDRdtM&pp=ygUcV2hpc3RsZSBibG93ZXIgRWRnYXIgU2NobWlkdA%3D%3D