Abducted Children

B. Abducted Children

Note that all parts highlighted in bold is what is illegally omitted from our laws and enabling
secret war crime. Reading the laws by skipping the bolded wording is roughly how our laws
read at the present time.




Right from the onset of the Society abducting a child and also without police consent, frequently from the school, the rights of the parents to reasonably defend are removed. The Society will bring the matter to court within five days although they may have been setting up a case for a long period of time without the families knowledge.

Issues are exaggerated, against parents, by the Children’s Aid Society’s while matters of their own agency are self investigated and downplayed. If the matters are based on large amounts of false finding, the amount of work for a parent in defence can be huge and even impossible. A volume of malicious misrepresentation by the legal opponents, causes more volume of work in defense. The Society will likely serve the parents minutes before court whereas the parents don’t even have time to read the papers much less defend them or find adequate counsel. When the parent cannot respond in time, the court grants an order in favor of the Society at prejudice to the family and from there, law does not relate to family and the parent is legally at the Society’s mercy, due to intentional loopholes, in complete legal imbalance.

This is not the worst of it, depending on who is behind causing the child abduction, the Freemasons many members can stalk and “stage” false charges through mischief against the parents to further interrupt the right to defend. Freemason officers would be selected to handle the matter. The removals of rights to defend while detained will be addressed further on. In severe circumstances, the courts can blackmail the mentally healthy parents to ingest psychiatric drugs which then can cause disorder because they have the doctors under their control enough to pressure any and every one of them to knowingly false diagnose and prescribe.

In all these laws drawn up, proper “police protection” for families from abduction of children under the guise of apprehension, is very strategically and in no way co-incidentally omitted. The Societies are not addressed by police enforcement for crimes they could commit and therefore are in a phantom position, in Freemason principles, above the law. They dictate and not answer to police or the courts, in total violation of the Constitution of 1960, Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Criminal Code.

Today, the public is falsely informed to contact the Children’s Aid Society to report abuse. The Children’s Aid Society’s then simply cover-up the abuses that pertain to their own ring. This advise to the public is illegal and “Obstruction of Justice” as the Society’s are intended by the public to be policed by our police. The police and Society’s have made secret policies between themselves to allow the Society to freely abduct, molest, pimp or even kill our innocent children.

Families with children should not pay taxes in the portions set out for the youth bureaus because the protection as contracted is not happening. Their funds should be used for protection and defence from these war crimes. If the Societies were not a ring, they would not absolutely need this volume of loopholes so badly. Further, they would not illegally stalk and use bureaucratic torture by misuse of the court systems to destroy the lives of persons who try to properly challenge them. The wording illustrated in bold is the necessary corrections needed to adequately protect families from child abduction and bureaucratic tortures.

Generally a sexual abuse victim will attempt to tell once, but if the authorities are not protective and blame the child to the child, the child will likely never try to report it again. Check out who’s controlling our Youth bureau’s, it could make you cringe. Years ago there was a rumor started that once a child had been assaulted that there was something about the child that made other other paedophiles know they could also assault the child. In fact, there was nothing about the child, but the paedophiles clique together and likely if there is one paedophile lurking there are many. It is extremely important that the first time a child reports abuse, that everyone involved takes proper protective action. It is less likely that a child who has been abused will become a paedophile if the child “sees justice happen” in his/er protection and has the support of the natural parents.

REPORTING ABUSE --- If any person is aware of grounds to believe that a child may be in need of protection, they shall:
i) take the child to the protective custody of a Youth Bureau of the local police department for an initial investigation; or
ii) make a police report of all pertinent evidence, during which time, the police would conduct a proper investigation.

POWER OF APPREHENSION --- If a police officer is made aware of evidence that a crime/s have been committed against a child, they shall conduct an investigation uncontaminated by social workers and collect evidence from all witnesses, including Children’s Aid Societies, for the purposes of prosecution and may release the protective custody of the child to: i.) a family member that can provide security; or to ii.) a Child Protection agency, if there are no relatives available.

When individuals or groups have intentions to take over control of the lives of a group or nation it is a destructive downward spiral into murder because if they succeed in taking control, they will then molest, usurp and suppress which leads to dependence upon the offenders. At this point the offenders become enslaved to their victims for their survival. It was not care that lead one group to take over the other and that lack of care would lead to the “disposal” of the, now, dependants. It is an obvious cycle. It is the true multicultural native people that are responsible to maintain independent self-sufficient community supports and not allow a foreign entity access.
It seems that persons who have been raised under immoral beliefs and circumstances have gravitated towards positions of control and access to our children. The public have not properly policed this. We can diagnosis psychopathy but yet it appears that psychapths are running our system unchecked. They present themselves visually as absolutely perfect and unquestionable. They appear to be in wait for opportunity and also to then conceal the opportunity.

6. Article 6. War Crimes Act --- GENOCIDE: For the purpose of this statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed that causes or with intent to dis-empower and or destroy, in whole or in part, the structure of the family units and community supports within the group, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical or mental destruction in whole or in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or using measures intended to overpopulate a group for purposes of national infiltrations or infliction of war crimes;
(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

A good question now is: Are the most recent rises in Aboriginal Native populations due to past infiltrations of the Freemasons of Illegitimate children of the Monarchies impregnating and inseminating with the remaining Aboriginals and training them to grow up to be Freemasons to secretly attack peaceful Natives. Is the guise of Native Resource or Service being used as war crime base smoke screens?

Artificial Insemination Act R.S.O. 1950, Chap. 23, Administered by the Dept. of Agriculture, Regulations: C.R.O. 1950, Regs. 9 revoked and new O. Reg. 190/53, Ont. Gaz. Nov. 07/53; amended O.Reg. 74/54, Ont. Gaz. June 5/54; O. Reg. 184/57, Ont. Gaz. Aug. 24/57; O. Reg. 4/60, Ont. Gaz. Jan. 16/60.

The way our laws read right now, anyone can file an Application to take anyone’s child and they don’t need grounds, in total violation of the right to protection by the families. Maybe they just need Freemason connections and approval in a “backroom McMurtry kitchen deal”. This disrespects entirely the original inherent family and places more importance on who has more cars or a bigger house. The courts will not accept to file an Application by a citizen to take a child back from the Children’s Aid Society, even when the Society has illegally abducted the child under the guise of law. Our laws enforce child abduction under illusion of law appearing in total imbalance of favor to the Monarchy in Britain and their pedophile Freemasons chosen to control the Society’s.

21. CLRA -- APPLICATION FOR ORDER -- A parent of a child or any other related person who is genuinely significant to the child may apply to a court for an order respecting custody if,
(a) it is "shown by evidence" that the child is in need of protection under Part III (Child Protection Act);
(b) and based on evidence shown of serious aspects of the incidents of custody that risk exists of health or safety, of the child.

22. CLRA - JURISDICTION - A court shall only exercise its jurisdiction to make an order for custody of a child where co-parental, and lawful care and control issues in dispute have been resolved and all affected parties have been served and had been given opportunity to present their position under equal and reasonable processes of law or where,
(iii) no application, including overlapping issues of Appeal or Appeal period is current for co-parental, custody of or access issues to the child pending before another extra-provincial tribunal in another place or other division where the child is lawfully and habitually resident,
(2) HABITUAL RESIDENCE -- A child is habitually resident in the place where he or she lawfully resided,
(a) with both parents;
(b) where the parents are living separate and apart, with one parent under a separation agreement or with the consent or acquiescence of the other or under a court order; or 22
(c) with a person other than a parent on a permanent and lawful basis for a significant period of time.
whichever legally last occurred.
(3) ABDUCTION --The use of interference or intimidations to remove or withhold a child from the person who holds lawful care and control or without the consent of the person having lawful custody of the child does not alter the habitual residence or rights of the child and nor the rights of the lawful custodian unless there has been acquiescence or unreasonable delay without justifiable grounds in commencing due process by the person from whom the child is removed or withheld. Undue delay does not include time consumed by the abduction, forced confinement or bureaucratic suppressions.


23. CLRA -- SERIOUS HARM TO CHILD -- (1) Despite section 22 and 41, a court may exercise its jurisdiction to make or to vary an order or make an order under Part III (Child Protection Act) and/or a Writ of Apprehension in respect of the custody of a child where,
(a) the court is satisfied that the child would, on the balance of probabilities based on "evidence shown", suffer serious harm if,
(i) the child remains in the custody of the person legally entitled to custody of the child,
(ii) the child is returned to the custody of the person legally entitled to custody of the child, or
(iii) the child is removed from Ontario.
(b) the court has been shown that the child has been unlawfully taken and non-parentally abducted by an individual, group, organization or agency.
(2) -- Despite section 22 and 41, a court may exercise its jurisdiction .....

43. ccc. CORRECTION OF CHILD BY FORCE 43. Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

CORRECTION:
43. ccc. CORRECTION OF CHILD BY FORCE 43. (1) Every schoolteacher standing in the place of an educator or concerned person is justified in using force toward a pupil or child to prevent the child from causing harm to another, as the case may be, or who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances. The schoolteacher or concerned person is obligated to inform the parent whom holds lawful control of the child, and authorities if the circumstance warrant it, of perceived issues of correction.
(2) Every parent or person lawfully standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward their child, as the case may be, who is under his lawful care and control, or to prevent a child from causing harm to another, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

Keeping in mind that the Society should have their reasons for taking the child clear upon the time of taking the child and should be able to communicate that readily, the parent would need time to find counsel. This is not easy in family cases. The Children’s Aid should be required to report complaints to the police preferable before taking the child with police authority. Presumably if a matter was so serious that the Society had to snatch the child, it would be also a police matter. The parent would have to have early possession of the complaint in order to respond in equal benefit of family law in defence with proper documents and compiling of evidence. The parents may need to bring witnesses and evidence and request that the Children’s Aid produce witnesses, documents or articles of which are relied on for examination. In law the parents response times are violated which causes custody to be granted to the Society. Even if the judge makes an order that custody is temporary and “without prejudice”, the family is at prejudice entirely by the order. Just because someone is an educator of a particular subject does not make them “fit” or an authority to “raise” another person’s child.

46. CFSA -TIME OF DETENTION LIMITED - (1) When a child is brought to safety under section 40 or subsection 79(60) or a homemaker remains or is placed on premises Under subsection 78(2), a society shall, within two days, make known their position by proper service of documents to the parties and court and after that, to be heard on a date agreed to by the parties and in no more then 10 days without a specific request for an extension of time with grounds,
(a) the matter shall be brought before a court for hearing under subsection 47(1) (child protection hearing);
(b) the child shall be returned to the person who last had charge of the child or, where there is an order for the child's custody that is enforceable in Ontario, to the person entitled to custody under the order; or
(c) a temporary care agreement shall be made under subsection 29(1) of Part II (Voluntary Access to Service).
(2) IDEM: PLACE OF OPEN TEMPORARY DETENTION
-- Within twenty four hours after a child is brought to - safety -, or as soon thereafter as is practicable, the parties and court shall be served and the matter shall be properly brought before a court for a hearing, five days after the parent/s and affected parties, including the child are served and the court shall,
(a) where it is satisfied that no less restrictive course of action is feasible, order that the child remain in the place of open temporary detention for a period or periods not exceeding an agragate of thirty days and then be returned to the care and custody of the;
(i) lawful parent or guardian, or
(ii) order the child be discharged temporarily into the care of a society.

Family and Children's Services of St. Thomas and Elgin County v. F. (W.) (2003), 36 R.F.L. (5th) 310 (Ont. C.J.) Obiter: The time to dispute the legality, constitutionality or validity of an apprehension would appear to be at a "post-apprehension hearing"…, --shortly after the children were removed from the parents.

Children’s Aid Societies can just make up circumstances, or get their own affiliates to make anonymous calls of complaint to abduct a child. In these cases, the workers would refuse to produce the transcripts to the parents of the calls upon the request in a legal setting. If a Society has abducted a child and cannot show grounds of risk to the life of the child to have done so, the parents do not have the legal right to “file an application” to have the child returned or to apprehend the child. The later would be criminalized by labeling it child abduction, the exact opposite of the truth in who is the abductor. To have the child returned the parent has to be labeled to be in the wrong but is now reformed to have their child returned. In some cases, depending on who wants the child, nothing outside of full war defence can bring the child back to an innocent parent.

40. CFSA -- APPLICATION -- (1) A concerned party may apply, upon reasonable grounds, to the court to determine whether a child is in need of protection from an individual, organization or Children’s Aid Society’s employees.
(7) APPREHENSION WITHOUT WARRANT -- A child protection worker, person or peace officer who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that,
(a) a child is in need of protection; and
(b) there would be a substantial risk to the child's health or safety during the time necessary to return the child to his/er lawful guardian or bring the matter on for a hearing under subsection 47 (1) or obtain a warrant under subsection (2), or may without a warrant personally bring the child and or evidence of concern to a peace officer to determine if the child should be discharged to an alternative place of safety.

IDENTIFICATION APON APPREHENSION --- Before the police officers release the care and control of a child to a Child Protection agency, or any persons other then the original parents, the officers shall take and maintain a photo of the child, for purposes of possible needs of protection in the future for the child under Charter section 7.

It is appropriate that the child’s rights come first in a court of law. The rights of the child to be heard are entirely violated due to age by the law makers and the issues need public attention and pressure. By the same token, because the child’s rights are paramount, in theory but not practice, does not mean that the parents rights are to be voided.

Our judges and laws have a very clear tendency to disregard the rights of the families and their unity. There are two levels of the child’s parallel rights, to have enforcement of rights as an individual and as an active, associating member of their original family. Judges rarely show insight to consider the emotional losses of parents concerning unjust loss of their children, as though it were equivalent to losing a pet rock.

PREAMBLE -- FAMILY LAW ACT - Whereas it is desirable to encourage and strengthen the role of the family; and whereas for that purpose it is necessary to recognize the equal position of types of spouses or parents and agencies involved within the families and to recognize "the family" as inseparable without proven justifiable cause as a form of inherent roots, ancestry, support, unity, and balance of peaceful, healthy, loving procreation and that the immediate biological parents are inherently the most ideal for a child’s upbringing, regardless of financial or political status; and whereas in support of such recognition it is necessary to provide in law for the orderly, unified, reasonable and equitable settlement of the affairs of the parties affected upon need, and to provide nurturing decisions in balanced reasonable resolution for mutual obligations in family relationships, including the equitable and emotional sharing by parents or parties of responsibility for, access to and enjoyment of and with their children.

The internationally adopted Convention set up for protection is a complete joke, as they are not adhering to the duties the public expects, but handing our children over to principles opposite of family and fostering to produce psychopaths. The Monarchy’s family, influence and their Freemason tentacle like connections appear to be that wedge in the family gears. The Conventions inaction about crimes against the family shows that they are in agreement with enabling our children to be abducted and raped or pimped by authorities on our own tax dollar. The Children’s Aid Societies are not answering to Canadian authorities in any effective way and therefore the only authority the Societies could be answering to is the British Monarchy and the Freemasons. We have the right to be free of the British Monarchy’s imbalanced tyrannical control.

ARTICLE 1- CLRA - CONVENTION - The objects of the present Convention are:
(a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed from or retained in or by any Contracting State; (b) to ensure that rights of custody and access under the family laws of the Contracting State are not violating the Constitutional Rights and Criminal Laws effectively respected in the Contracting States; (c) to ensure that the Child Protection Agencies and courts are effectively respecting the rights of the child regardless of age; (d) respecting the rights of the original parents and secondly the original family; and (e) to ensure that police policies do not remove from the rights
of the family unit to be protected from unjust child abductions.

24. CLRA -- MERITS OF APPLICATION FOR CUSTODY OR ACCESS -- (1) The merits of an application under the Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child derived from the evidence shown by all affected parties.
(2) BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD -- In determining the best interest of the child for the purposes of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child, a court shall consider all the needs and circumstances of the child including,
(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,
(i) each person entitled to claim custody of or access to the child,
(ii) another member of the child's natural, birth or biological family, and
(iii) persons lawfully involved in the care and upbringing of the child;
(b) the views, circumstances and preferences of the child, which can reasonably be ascertained considering the child’s level of communication skills;
(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment of the party having lawful care and control.
(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;
(e) any plans proposed by: i. the parents or other family members for the care and upbringing of the child; and a plan of care by the Society if it is "shown by evidence" that the child could be a child in need of protection under Part III if care and control of the child were given to any other eligible parent or family member.
(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live; and
(g) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order made by reasonable processes of law between the child, whom has benefit by being a party to actions affecting themselves and each person who is a party to the application.

The Societies don’t need to prove any grounds to steal a persons children, they just have to have the “desire” to take the children and they are granted all that they ask, unquestioned. The Society’s are not required to prove to the police or to the courts that the child was in need of protection. They use hearsay, perjury and slander. Due to the loopholes assisting child abduction and molestation by the Societies employees, family and associates in particular, it is a matter of war defence, life against life, when a Society comes to your door to take your children. They appear to have formed a child abduction, child sex slavery, pedophile and possibly body parts ring enforced by inaction of our own police.

27. ccc. USE OF FORCE TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE: Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary
(a) to prevent the commission of an offence
(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it would be a. in violation of the criminal code, b. an official, under section 23.1 ccc. “Where One Party Cannot be Convicted; or d. might be arrested without warrant, and
(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or
(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a). R.S., c. C-34, s.

27. CORRECTION: (ii) that would be likely to cause unjust loss or injury to the person, their family members or property of anyone; or

15 (3) CFSA: FUNCTIONS OF SOCIETY - The functions of a children's aid society are to, (a) report all allegations or evidence that children who are under the age of sixteen years or are in the society’s care or under its supervision where there are reasonable grounds to believe that s/he may have been abused or be in need of protection or may have caused another person harm to the police to conduct an uncontaminated investigation;

138. CFSA - DISPENSING WITH CONSENT -- The court may not dispense with a consent of the parent who has not been proven to have harmed the child, who is hotly in dispute or Appeal of accusations and had care and control of the child immediately prior to the commencement of an application or applications and required under section 137 for the adoption of a child, except with the signed consent of the child, a sworn statement of the child's counsel and a Director showing the child’s informed agreement and where the court is satisfied that,
(a) it is in the child's best interests to do so; and
(b) the persons whose consent is required has given notice of the intent to dispense with consent of the proposed adoption and of the application to dispense with consent, or a reasonable effort to give the notice has been made and can be "shown".

After adoption, there is no way of proving that the child was in fact adopted and not dismembered for body parts. The police agree to turn a blind eye. Regardless that there is a staggering 2,000 foster children missing in North America in 2006, the police officers keep handing our children over freely to the phantom pedophile ring. These loopholes have lead to a pandemic of pedophiles in position of authority over children. If we do not stop them, our future generations will be destroyed.

The wording of section 140. CFSA is horrific in that it allows the adoption of abducted children and without need to show evidence to do so in court to have enforced the crimes by law. There are no options open for the parent and child to enjoy their right to associate regardless of lack of evidence in innocence. All rights are closed out in total violation of the Constitution and criminal code. These laws are very closely resembling war crime against the public.

140. CFSA -- DUTY OF SOCIETY -- (1) A society shall make all reasonable efforts to secure the adoption of every child who is lawfully available and has been:
(a) shown by material evidence to be in need of protection;
(b) made a Crown ward under proper and reasonable processes of law under Part III (Child Protection); and
(c) is in the society's lawful care and custody;
(2) WHEN SOCIETY MAY PLACE CHILD FOR ADOPTION -- No society shall place a child for adoption until the:
(a) outstanding appeals; and
(b) appeal deadlines have expired;
in matters where an affected party is "in dispute" concerning the constitutional validity of limitations, lack of legal "status" & protection or adversarial processes imposed and considering the magnitude of the issues affecting any Appellant, including the child;
(e) views, circumstances and preferences of the child have been submitted in writing; and
(d) where access has been lawfully discontinued and the time for commencing an appeal of the orders has expired.
(3) WHEN PROCEEDINGS CAN CONCLUDE - Concluding the custody portion of the best interest of a child as a priority may not in itself be concluded without first concluding:
a) any related losses to the child or relief to be provided;
b) any related losses or relief sought by other affected "family" members who may also have legal right and reasonable grounds for relief;
c) access and support;
d) that an affected parent may still hold true legal right to care and control of or access to the child regardless of a placement or adoption taking place.

162. (2)CFSA - PAPERS TO BE SEALED UP -- Subject to subsections (3) and 167 (6), the documents used upon an application for an adoption order ...shall be sealed up ..., and shall not be open for inspection except upon,
(a) an order of the court;
(b) a search warrant; or
(c) the written direction of the Registrar of Adoption…

165.(3) CFSA: PERSONS ENTITLED TO SHARE INFORMATION: Clause (2)(h) applies in respect of: 1. The Minister; 2. The Adoption Registrar; 3. an employee of the Ministry; 4. a child protection agency local director 5. The provincial police; or 6. “The Native Can. Mounted Police”, 7. the child; 8. the original family.

281. ccc. ABDUCTION OF PERSON UNDER FOURTEEN - Every one, agency or organization who, not ..... having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, unlawfully takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbors that person with the intent to deprive a parent... who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that person is guilty...

With the loopholes in the Courts of Justice Act, section 140., a Society is permitted to drag families through false and vexatious proceedings year after year, in horrible mental torture. Over the duration, the goal of the Treasonous authorities is to wear the parents out so that they will have no choice but to abandon the legal fight for the return of their children for lack of finances and resources. If the Society can keep the parent in red tape for a period of two years, the Society is automatically granted “ownership” of the children, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

Section 140. - C. of J. A. - VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS - Where a judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) is satisfied, on application, that a person or society has persistently and without reasonable grounds,
(a) instituted vexatious proceedings in any court; or
(b) conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner the judge may order that,
(c) no further proceedings be instituted by the person or society in any court; or
(d) a proceeding or process previously instituted by the person or society in any court not be continued.
(2) An application under subsection (1) shall be made only with the consent of the Attorney General, or without consent of the Attorney General if the Attorney General is an affecting party to the matter and the Attorney General is entitled to be heard on the application.

In family matters today it is so difficult to find adequate counsel that parents could be faced with representing themselves or remaining a victim of child abduction as the only options. It is totally ridiculous that a court would require an experienced lawyers quality of submissions from the parents. We employ the judges and it is crime against the public that they would make requirements unreachable or impossible considering the abilities and resources of the average parent.

UNJUST DISMISSALS OF SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES BASED ON FORMATTING

--- Regardless of the formatting of a litigants submissions and in the event that they are legible and include the required affidavits, information and evidence the action shall not be dismissed but shall be directed to allow equal benefit and opportunity in proceedings. If a litigant is unrepresented, it is no excuse to dismiss that the litigant may be unaware of rules, laws or rights that they may have and the judge shall implement the rules, laws or rights to the unrepresented party as the judge ought to be aware of.

The subpoenas that are set out for use by parents at the Ontario Court of Justice, 311 Jarvis St., Toronto, do not have a signature line for the Justice of the Peace to endorse. So, after the parent delivers the subpoenas to their witnesses, the Society can convince the witnesses to fail to appear and ensure no enforce of the subpoenas for that failure.

LACK OF J.P. SIGNATURE SPACE ON SUBPOENA OF ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE – The signature and stamp space for the Justice of the Peace shall be added to the subpoena forms at the Ontario court of Justice that are set out for public use forthwith so that the public may obtain enforcement of the subpoenas equally as the officials do in defence against the officials or societies.

The impact of lack of enforced police protection was also previously discussed in section: 46.(2)(a)(d) ccc. HIGH TREASON & 336. ccc. CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST which plays a powerful role in the abduction of children under the guise of law.

Edited out words: over which Parliament has jurisdiction,

OH CANADA !

The writer re-wrote the National Anthem to evolve with and reflect the true results of war crime circumstances experienced in loopholes and that any true multicultural Native who had been targeted, may relate to as follows:

Oh Canada
Our home and native land
Is taken by Freemasons
Who’ve raped our sons for command
The glory is gone
We see the lies
The truth is no longer free
They built the courts
And police to extort
Our land and economy
God save the world
To be glorious and free
We stand on guard
No matter how hard
For thee
We stand on guard
No matter how hard
For thee.