Challenging court jurisdiction

Has anyone done this before? I know two people in ontario that went to court and had all there charges thrown out. One was for no proof on insurance and speeding. Individual asked questions about jurisdiction, and old driving case law, and had them tossed out. Another charged several times for no insurance, no license/suspended, improper plates, and three times had the charges thrown out appearing in court for a short period of time each time.

The other which shocked me at first was when someone else had 10 charges thrown out in court without appearing at all for a trial the day before. Do you think its more beneficial for us to learn more about case law, jurisdiction and other things that may help us? I have done research on case law and seen promising and not so promising results.

Do you have more details ? This sounds a bit like an urban legend to me.

When people told me this I thought it was a legend too. I started looking up more into the topic. Case law into driving which the first Driver License was issued in 1929 in alberta for operators. People argue legislation gives them the power to regulate traffic, which it does under the constitution act. For some reason in canada people like to cite the charter, which is only a small part of the canadian constitution. Much if not all dismissals are from challenging court jurisdiction using disclosure. For example on one site that lists every company in the world, it lists almost every canadian organization as a company or corporation. Likewise, I personally have never had problems with the police. I have gotten pulled over in the past for minor and more serious offenses, and usually let go, but that was years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mukxKL3egwI

Restrictions on secondary activities

49. (1) A member of a police force shall not engage in any activity,

(a) that interferes with or influences adversely the performance of his or her duties as a member of a police force, or is likely to do so;

(b) that places him or her in a position of conflict of interest, or is likely to do so;

(c) that would otherwise constitute full-time employment for another person; or

(d) in which he or she has an advantage derived from being a member of a police force. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 49 (1); 2009, c. 30, s. 50 (1).

Obedience to de facto law

15 No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 15.

Please don't promote the "freeman" ideas in Canada they will work only to your disadvantage. Exponential levels of frustration will ensue getting you essentially no where, and you will be in a far worse place than you would have been if you had used traditional methods of challenging your ticket.

I'll be locking this post. We've all seen this before and it goes no where.