Property Rights An Issue in Nomination!!!

For those of you that attended the Great Debate in Sauble Beach last week, a question was posed to the Candidates with respect to Property Rights through a Crown Patent and its relation to the Magna Carta.

Mr. Wunderlich declared in essence that we ,  as people of the Province of Ontario do in fact possess Property Rights as did Mr. Walker.

I would first like to address this point in with the following:

The Constitution Act as proclaimed by Mr. Trudeau gave us a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter was in fact devised from the Universal Declaration of Rights and Freedoms as proclaimed by the United Nations in 1944.

I direct your attention to Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Rights and Freedoms:

Article 17.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Now have a look at the Canadian Charter  Article 17:

Article 17.

17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.

If you were to review the Canadian Charter, you will find there is no reference to property rights what so ever, therefore in Law we do not as a people have any rights to own anything.

The Candidates were in the original question, asked  if they would support Property rights as contained in Crown Patents as supported by the Magna Carta.

Mr. Wunderlich went into a diatribe of measuring property with chains, while Mr. Walker explained he had no idea as to what the questioner was talking about and Michael Schmidt responded with a concise definition of a Patent and the fact that the Magna Carta was the supreme Law thus supporting the proposition that with a Crown Patent we indeed have property rights contractually in those instances where a Patent exists.

 To further enlighten those not familiar with the Magana Carta I offer:

The Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the 1100 Charter of Liberties, when King Henry I, had specified particular areas where his powers would be limited.

The 1215 document contained a large section which is now called clause 61 (the original document was not actually divided into clauses). This section established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the King if he defied the provisions of the Charter, seizing his castles and possessions if it was considered necessary. This was based on a mediaeval legal practice known as distraint, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch. In addition, the King was to take an oath of loyalty to the committee.

In May, King John offered to submit issues to a committee of arbitration with the Pope as supreme arbiter, but the barons continued in their defiance. With the support of Prince Louis the French Dauphin and of King Alexander II of the Scots, they entered London in force on 10 June 1215,with the city showing its sympathy with their cause by opening its gates to them. They, and many of the moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King John to agree to a document later known as the ‘Articles of the Barons’, to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on 15 June 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on 19 June 1215.

A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal chancery on 15 July: this was the original Magna Carta.

“The Crown Land Patent Grants were established for the settlement of Canada and created so the land would be granted free. There may have been certain conditions such as building a home or clearing the land within three years time,” Marshall said. “The letters patent are what would be considered a contract; they are their own legislation and had specific reservations for the Crown such as, for example, mineral extraction and white pine. Everything else was for the owner of the land and they could do anything they wanted with that land, as long as the landowner respected neighbouring land, water or air, as expressed under Common Law.

It also states in these patents that it is for the heirs and assigned forever. So everything that is in those patents stands and was to continue on.”

Marshall says, it would seem that any legislation created after existing land patents does not trump original land patents. If new patents were issued they would be subject to current legislation. The OLA is using these documents as means of fighting back against intrusive government legislation such as wetland, endangered species habitat, tree cutting by-laws, and the Places to Grow Act which are violations of their property rights.

Ultimately the issue will have to come before the Lieutenant Governor or Governor General because the land patents are Crown documents and as such a contract between citizens and the Crown. The Federal and Provincial governments are merely administrators of the documents.

“A land patent is a contract, a letter patent, a piece of legislation, a royal proclamation that is specific to the Crown only. Because the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors of the province have the authority to veto, amend, revoke or repeal all pieces of legislation, except the Letters Patent.”If we are unable to meet with the Governor General’s office we will have to follow through and start initiating court cases.”

Marshall says even if landowners possess only a portion of the original land grant they are still entitled to the document. For a $50 fee landowners can obtain a certified copy of the Crown Land Patent Grant relating to their property by contacting the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources with the lot, concession and original township information.

The regulations imposed upon us by the NGO’s and Municipalities as well as the Province and Feds are in fact void when the Patent is applied using the Magana Carta to enforce your rights. Such things as zoning, the right to inspect are of no effect provided the Patent was originally issue to a Man in Service of the King.

 Since the Patents are the only means to secure our property rights I suggest that if you own property here then get a copy of the original Patent and file it with the Ontario Property Association and support their efforts to obtain  a Supreme Court order protecting those Rights.

 And since Michael Schmidt was the only Candidate to support the proposition publicly, (as he was the only one that knew what was being talked about) I submit he is the best man to replace Bill Murdoch.