"...Enforced the collective ownership of land..."

I have a few questions on the Convention of Consent that either concern me or I'm unsure what it actually means once implemented:

1. This phrase in #1 - If successful, those elected will work for, and answer to, their constituent base, and as such, can be removed at any time by their constituent base. So with the

2. use of the word "signature" - in common/living law for people (not persons), a signature is for a "dead" entity (person, corporation, etc). Why is the word "autograph" not being used instead? This goes back to legal vs lawful - legalise is for "dead" entities, the law is for the living man and woman. So even using the word "legal" makes me uncomfortable, as when I "sign", it's not me, the woman, but the "dead entity" represented by my birth certificate/driver's license/passport/etc.

3. This phrase in #2 (first paragraph) - ...the collective ownership of land and rights of property and the independence they apportion. I already read somewhere in this forum that current land owner's titles will be respected. What does it mean for future land owners? Will they only be able to purchase based on what the Collective Head of State says they can buy, or will this be handled by the proposed citizens group in each riding? Because the wording suggests otherwise. And, what if many people in the citizens group in the riding of which you live don't like you - that means you have to move as "they" will decide you can't buy property.

4. This phrase in #2 (2nd paragraph) - ...and as such elected representatives will oversee our system of governance and provide “assent” to allow for bills to become law and for letters patent and orders in council to have legal effect. This seems to contradict a later statement that we the people will have Final Decision-Making Authority if the "assent" comes from the elected representatives. Should not all the voting decisions on a given subject in each of the ridings be the "assent"?

5. This phrase in #2 (4th paragraph) - ...will retain the compliance and upholding of all current government(s) agreements on “INDIGENOUS TREATY RIGHTS”. It's my understanding that there problems with current agreements as they were established by lobbyists and corruption. How will this get addressed?

6. This phrase in #3 - ...local non-partisan elected “Citizen and Indigenous Committees” that are government funded. We need to get away from gov't funding as much as possible. These local citizens/indigenous committees should & will be the basis from which decisions are made. This is exactly where we the people exist and live as free men and women. No monetary links should be set as that's where & how all corruption begins. The decisions from each riding would be implemented either within the immediate riding, provincially or federally and thus tabulated accordingly. Depending on who implements the decision, these would be the public servants/politicians/gov't employees who get paid. But I certainly agree that the decisions that gets implemented comes from we the people via the citizens/indigenous committees.

7. This phrase in #3 (2nd bullet point) - ... and Queen’s Privy Council... Why is there even a Queen's Privy Council? Canadians are not accountable to England, and any power or authority from England must be halted immediately. I'm assuming this includes the Crown of Canada and crown land - these terms come from England's monarchy and are not reflective of a self-governing, self-determining people.

8. This phrase in #3 (4th bullet point) - All media around policies, legislation, changes needed, etc., must be factual, non-divisive, and must embody a free and democratic society, which includes the respect for diversity of opinions and beliefs. This is a very nice-sounding sentence, but completely contradicts free speech. The whole essence of free speech means others will have opinions and beliefs that you do not agree with, ie inherently "divisive". And who gets to decide that what's in the media is "factual"? What's going on right now with all the "fact checkers" has created more division. We must allow media to be free again, SO THAT they will hold accountable the one's getting paid to implement the decisions made by the local committees. This means no gov't funding of any media, and no gov't funding of most organizations. Period.

I appreciate all the work that has gone into this Convention of Consent. It is not easy what you are doing.

If I'm going to autograph (or sign?) this, I need a bit more clarity.

I hope this uploads.

thank you

I've looked thru other posts on this forum so my original query has somewhat been satisfied however the document to sign still has some muddled areas which someone changed from the original. Why? And how does this affect the legality of the document?