dpwozney

This “Oath of Citizenship” refers to “Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada”. The “Oath of Citizenship” is different than the “Oath of Allegiance” in this Fifth Schedule.

“Members of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada” and “Members of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province” are people. Do these people not adhere to the so-called “supreme law of Canada”?

Then why has not Section 128 and the Fifth Schedule of this document been updated or amended? Section 128 states: “Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; ....”. The Fifth Schedule states: “Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”.

In your view, is this “Crown of Canada” different than, or the same as, the “Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”?

What particular Crown do you claim that you are no longer under?

The so-called “Attorney General”, Chris Bentley, stated his allegiance to Elizabeth the Second. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states: “Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”. The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.

To whom does this “emphasis” belong other than just you? The Constitution Act, 1982 states “... Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God ...”.

According to the Interpretation Act, 1889, references to the Crown are references to the Sovereign. The Queen is not sovereign. If the Crown is sovereign, the Crown is the Sovereign. The Crown is a real non-man-made legal entity, a real non-man-made being. Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of the Crown.

It doesn't what? The Constitution Act, 1982 states that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, which means that the Queen is not supreme because the Queen is not God. How is "The Queen" absent in the context of the Constitution? How is "The Crown" absent in the context of the Constitution?

Your system of government does not exclude God, so the Queen is not supreme in your system of government. Your system of government does not exclude God, so the Queen is not sovereign in your system of government.

If you accept the validity of the Constitution Act, 1982, then you agree with what it states. The Constitution Act, 1982 states that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, which means that the Queen is not supreme because the Queen is not God.

If you accept the Constitution Act, 1982 as being valid, then you have to agree that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize that the Queen is not supreme.

Your “Sovereign of Canada” is not sovereign. The Sovereign is sovereign, by definition. So, your “Sovereign of Canada” is not the Sovereign.

In your view, is the “Sovereign of Canada” not sovereign? If you accept the Constitution Act, 1982 as being valid, then you have to agree that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God.

According to the Interpretation Act, 1889, references to the Crown are references to the Sovereign. The Queen is not sovereign. If the Crown is sovereign, the Crown is the Sovereign. The Crown is a real non-man-made legal entity, a real non-man-made being. Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of the Crown.

In your view, is the “Sovereign of Canada” not sovereign? Do you claim that the Crown is not sovereign?

According to the Interpretation Act, 1889, references to the Crown are references to the Sovereign. The Queen is not sovereign. The Crown is sovereign. The Crown is the Sovereign. Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of the Crown.

Canadian law requires that the executive government and authority of and over Canada be vested in a Queen. Prince Charles will never be a Queen.

David Archer does not account for certain extra mechanisms that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which results in the so-called “missing carbon sink”. These extra mechanisms, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, need to be adequately explained and understood if the extent of human impact on the global carbon cycle is to be acceptably assessed and reliably predicted.

Even though there are several statements of probability, there are also several key statements of certainty. For the IPCC, at least some important fundamental science is settled. The following is an example of one of the IPCC's statements of certainty: “Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3}”. In the article “Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO2 in the Air”, available here, Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, The University of Oslo, Norway, writes: “In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. ...”.

For someone who is a global warming skeptic, the science is not settled. There is an important difference between a global warming denier and a global warming skeptic. A denier asserts that various claims of global warming claimants are not correct. A skeptic asserts that various claims of global warming claimants are not certain.

Before 1969, Bank of Canada notes were not dollars, but rather, they were promises to pay dollars to the bearer on demand. In 1969, merely removing “will pay to the bearer on demand” and adding “this note is legal tender” did not make Bank of Canada notes become dollars.

Voting in their elections could be construed as giving voluntary implied consent and support to the idea that Elizabeth the Second is Canada's Queen. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states: “Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”. The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.

During election campaigns, how many different choices are there for Queen? How many different possible outcomes, for who is Queen after voting day, do elections involve?

“A corporation is a fiction, by definition, ...”, according to Patrick Healy in a statement found in evidence provided to the Canadian Parliament's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2002. “A corporation is a ‘fiction’ as it has no separate existence, no physical body and no ‘mind’”, according to Joanne Klineberg in a presentation to the Canadian Aviation Safety Seminar in 2004.