court file No: 26278-1

Notice of claim and extention to application for MIKA P RASILA

I Mika of the Rasila family acting as agent for the Deceased legal person MIKA P RASILA do truthfully and without vexation or forethought respond to the allegations of "Driving While Prohibited or License Suspended".

Information

First and foremost I am not licensed nor do I wish to contract or apply for such an unlawful licentious instrument. Among the charging instruments presented by the police was a fraudulent statutory instrument with the driver's license number 0007282 which I had not applied for nor did I contract for the use of. The police also wrote on their charging instruments that I was the "registered owner of a vehicle" which I am not I am the lawful owner of an E-350 van that was used as a carriage for my tools and also as a shelter and for private use.
Your officers unlawfully took into their possession 1 Chevy van and the contents of which I use for my work including power tools and other tools I use to earn a living, The cost of which exceeds 5000 dollars that I will not be able to retrieve due to the constraints of your legal requirements for government Identification which I do not have nor will I be applying for.
The property the officers seized was not in any way registered to any Canadian agency or entity and was held by me under allodial title and lawfully purchased by me. The Ford E350 van was a tool I use for work and it was also my home residence. It contained many private items that I can not recover including a letter I recieved after a 20 day long interrogation at the Innes jail by members of your itelligrnce community CSIS, RCMP, and one unknown agency. The letter detailed my exclusion and right of passage which was up until the incident in castelgar where the police took it upon themsleves to disregard said notice and steal my property, I was robbed, publicly humiliated, assaulted with shackles, and then left in a strange town without any means to continue my work as a traveling contractor/builder.

I am not a driver by definition and am not employed by anyone and I do not use a registered automobile so I do not work for the government of Canada as I lawfully use my allodial property.

a driver is One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

The statutory instrument provided had an erroneous and fraudulent (0007282) Drivers license number attached and I had not applied for nor would I acknowledge such a number to reference the Person known as MIKA P RASILA.

Whereas fraud vitiates all legal claims and charges I request this matter be dropped and all of my property returned to me without charge.

It was demanded of me to produce documents that I do not have and consequently, I was physically assaulted and placed in handcuffs when It is clear through your own provisions under the Canada evidence acts sections 50 and 50.2 that I am never required to.

Canada evidence act sections 50 and 50.2

Right of refusal to answer or produce document

50 (1) Any person examined under any order made under this Part has the like right to refuse to answer questions tending to criminate himself, or other questions, as a party or witness, as the case may be, would have in any cause pending in the court by which, or by a judge whereof, the order is made.

Nature of right

(2) No person shall be compelled to produce, under any order referred to in subsection (1), any writing or other document that he could not be compelled to produce at a trial of such a cause.

R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 501999, c. 18, s. 90

In the matter of the fraudulent "drivers license number 0007282"

Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)

Fraud

380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or

(b) is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

where the value of the subject matter of the offense does not exceed five thousand dollars.

Whereas I have not consented to the use of the fraudulent license number 0007282 to be used against me, this entire incident is fraudulent and must be disregarded and the officers in question should be strongly disciplined for their crimes of fraud and theft.

Furthermore

Statutory Instruments Act section 4 pertaining to the use of a fraudulent statutory instrument
R.S.C., 1985, c. S-22

Doubt as to nature of proposed statutory instrument

4 Where any regulation-making authority or other authority responsible for the issue, making or establishment of a statutory instrument, or any person acting on behalf of such an authority, is uncertain whether a proposed statutory instrument would be a regulation if it were issued, made or established by that authority, it, or he shall cause a copy of the proposed statutory instrument to be forwarded to the Deputy Minister of Justice who shall determine whether or not the instrument would be a regulation if it were so issued, made or established.

R.S., 1985, c. S-22, s. 42015, c. 33, s. 3(F)

No conviction under unpublished regulation

(2) No regulation is invalid by reason only that it was not published in the Canada Gazette, but no person shall be convicted of an offence consisting of a contravention of any regulation that at the time of the alleged contravention was not published in the Canada Gazette unless

(a) the regulation was exempted from the application of subsection (1) pursuant to paragraph 20(c), or the regulation expressly provides that it shall apply according to its terms before it is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) it is proved that at the date of the alleged contravention reasonable steps had been taken to bring the purport of the regulation to the notice of those persons likely to be affected by it.

R.S., 1985, c. S-22, s. 11R.S., 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.), s. 103

Proof of incorporated document, index, rate or number

18.5 (1) In any proceeding in which a document, index, rate or number — that is incorporated by reference in a regulation — is relevant, a certificate appearing to be issued by or on behalf of the regulation-making authority that includes any of the following statements is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presumed to be authentic and proof of the matters set out in those statements:

(a) a statement that the document attached to the certificate, or the index, rate or number set out in it, is the document, index, rate or number that was incorporated in the regulation on a specified date or during a specified period; or

(b) a statement regarding the manner in which the incorporated document, index, rate or number was accessible on that date or during that period.

No finding of guilt or administrative sanction

18.6 A person is not liable to be found guilty of an offense or subjected to an administrative sanction for any contravention in respect of which a document, index, rate or number — that is incorporated by reference in a regulation — is relevant unless, at the time of the alleged contravention, it was accessible as required by section 18.3 or it was otherwise accessible to that person.

Therefore Let it be known for the record that I mika of the rasila family am not a member of the corporation of Canada or any other organization I find reprehensible, intolerable, malicious, or otherwise criminal in its actions against the peaceful hard-working people that reside on this unceded land.

I claim only common law jurisdiction and waive the benefits of the court, but Regardless of which jurisdiction we are using in this matter the fact that I have not contracted with any such drivers license especially the one numbered 0007282 which was fraudulently and without my knowledge or consent issued by ICBC insurance corp.

I am an undocumented sovereign individual living peacefully and lawfully on the landmass known as Turtle island by those who are native to this land or North America and Canada as known by the colonialists who stole this land. The land known as British Columbia is as yet still unceded and the jurisdiction thereof is contested.

I am aware that in the year 2019 the issuing of tickets fines and summons was an 80 billion dollar a year industry for the corporation of Canada and with this latest covid agenda that number must be increasing exponentially, and I am certain that, that is its purpose, so I know that you will never stop instructing your officers to carry out these revenue collecting extortion and racketeering practices. I am however not a subject to this crime since I have not accepted any form of social contract that would compel my participation.

I request that the courts and your officers, once again leave me alone to carry out my lawful business of building and renovation, as was the case for the longest time after I had spoken to your courts, CSIS intelligence, OPP Intelligence and RCMP intelligence units back in Ontario when I was unlawfully detained at INNIS Jail in Ottawa Ontario for a period of 20 days of interrogation.

I am not a member of the corporation of Canada, and morally object to the unlawful confiscation of unregistered property.

I realize that I have to coexist within this legal framework among the registered and documented citizens of Canada and I also realize that your men have a job to do but as I am a foreign nation Sami Lapp sovereign I am not subject to the unlawful rules and policies of your Statutory legal society, nor am I subject to your Sachs Coburg Gotha german heritage queen masquerading as a british monarch.

I can only stand under the common law of the land and I waive the benefits of your court jurisdiction.

So in closing.......

What is the courts definition of theft? What is the courts definition of extortion? How about public humiliation? How about assault?
I'm sure the court would accept that these actions are criminal is this correct or so obvious that it does not need to be answered.
Is it the contention of the court that the commission of a crime is justified in the pursuit of a prosecution of a non crime?
Is it a crime to decline answering a question? is it a crime to refuse to volunteer information?

It is not my obligation to perform or to provide any evidence of anything, but three times in the last 4 years I was confronted, assaulted, publicly humiliated and robbed of my lawfully paid for property by costumed men who work for the corporation of Canada of which I am not a contracted member.

Is it not the crime of a despotic totalitarian regime that we have seen throughout history to forcefully compel people to show papers ?

I spoke with a few of the provinces lawyers and found that before they would accept me as a client I would first have to admit to something that simply is not true. I asked one of those lawyers how it was that It was being alleged that I had committed a criminal offence when I merely refused to participate in a licentious act by not providing Identification that no man can ever be required to or compelled to produce according to the corporations of canada's evidence sections 50 and 50.2?
The lawyer then told me that this legal statute was in her own words a "quasi-law" and it is my understanding that only is it a quasi-law but that a legal statute merely is a rule of a society given the force of law.
It is also my understanding that canada is still a common law jurisdiction meaning all things legal are arbitrary rules created by some entity that I have not contracted with since I am not a legal citizen of Canada or any other corporation.

As I was trying to get one these lawyers to accept my case It was clear that they wanted me to admit to legal offenses called "Operating a motor vehicle without a license and driving while prohibited" Neither of which are true.
Would the court have me lie to it to justify a reason to prosecute me? I deny all allegations and presumptions made against me by the british columbia police. I can only claim the common law and waive the benefits of any court that does not observe the common law.

Does this court condone commiting multiple crimes against a lawful individual who has not committed a crime which evidently is the standard operating procedure for todays police officers and even though they do it nicely with tact and a smile it does not change the fact that these actions are criminal. It simply means that the people who trained them know the psychology of compliance.
It is my observation that all legal enforcement causes loss or harm based on fraudulent and grammatically incorrect use of capitol status making those actions inherently unlawful.
Does this court condone criminal actions by its officers in the pursuit of collecting fines and summons?
Does this court condone criminal actions against lawful individuals by instigating conflict where if they had not there would have been none?
Does this court no longer accept the common law and the lawful defense of the common man?
Does this court abide by its sworn oath to do right by all manner of people under the laws of canada and for the usages of the province without fear or favor, affection or ill will?

Therefore I challenge the courts jurisdiction and say that I am innocent of all charges,claims and allegations. Show me one instance of where I have contracted, complied with, acquiesced to, accepted the benefit of or supported the government of Canada.

Sincerely and without vexation, Mika of the Rasila family. In propria persona sui juris without prejudice