The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
LightinDarkness said:
Hrm, I did not know this. I thought there was just one big overarching law society like the US has the American Bar Association. I went to the website and it didn't seem province specific, trying to find which one hes come into conflict with previously then...
Click to expand...

The Canadian Bar Association is not the Law Society. That's just the professional organization for lawyers.

Here in Ontario, we have the Law Society of Upper Canada, or LSUC (we win best acronym award). (Upper Canada was the name of the former British Colony that is now Ontario).

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/

Menard lives in British Columbia, and he has been sanctioned by the Law Society of BC and punished by the BC Supreme Court.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/

In Alberta, they have the Law Society of Alberta.

http://www.lawsocietyalberta.com/
 
Last edited:
I posted this many pages back. It's probably time for a repost:

Law Society of British Columbia said:
In 2008, the Law Society obtained court orders and consent orders from the Supreme Court of BC prohibiting the following individuals and businesses from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law or punishing them for contempt of orders that the Law Society had previously obtained to prevent them from engaging in unauthorized practice:

Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver has been prohibited by the Supreme Court from appearing as counsel, preparing documents for use in proceedings, and identifying himself in any way that suggests he is a lawyer. He was also ordered to pay costs.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/publicat...04-27_upl.html
Click to expand...
Court order attached:
 

Attachments

Last edited:
cwalner said:
Unfortunately that only applies to the legal fiction, Robert A Menard, not the sovereign human being.
Click to expand...
Curses! Foiled again! Send Agent Smith into the Matrix before the freedom fighters break their chains completely!
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
D'rok wrote

I spit it in his face before he just ignores it :rolleyes:

I do like the idea about the FBI though:D

JB
Click to expand...
The FBI has no jurisdiction here. It would have to be the RCMP or CSIS. And CSIS would only get involved if they thought FOTLers could become a threat to domestic security. Which they just might if they follow through with their threats to grab land and arm themselves.
 
D'rok, your posts continue to be invaluable. Thanks for posting the Menard thing again, I didn't see it last time you posted it - its quite revealing.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't using all these legal dictionaries actually ignoring how things operate in reality. This is how I think its supposed to work:

1) Unless another meaning is given, words in the law have their ordinary meaning.
2) When it comes to words that only exist in the law and have no other ordinary meaning, and the definition of the word is NOT set forth elsewhere in the law, THEN you can use a legal dictionary as a resource.

So, when it comes to the FMOTL shenanigans around "persons" and "human beings" their often cited references to Black's law in the 1800s is moot because the words retain their ordinary meaning in the law. The only time Black's law or any other legal dictionary matters is when both (1) the word is not already defined in the law and (2) it doesn't have any ordinary meaning beyond the legal realm (terms like estoppel).
 
LightinDarkness said:
D'rok, your posts continue to be invaluable. Thanks for posting the Menard thing again, I didn't see it last time you posted it - its quite revealing.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't using all these legal dictionaries actually ignoring how things operate in reality. This is how I think its supposed to work:

1) Unless another meaning is given, words in the law have their ordinary meaning.
2) When it comes to words that only exist in the law and have no other ordinary meaning, and the definition of the word is NOT set forth elsewhere in the law, THEN you can use a legal dictionary as a resource.

So, when it comes to the FMOTL shenanigans around "persons" and "human beings" their often cited references to Black's law in the 1800s is moot because the words retain their ordinary meaning in the law. The only time Black's law or any other legal dictionary matters is when both (1) the word is not already defined in the law and (2) it doesn't have any ordinary meaning beyond the legal realm (terms like estoppel).
Click to expand...

I think that's pretty accurate. I'm only really familiar with how things are done in Canadian law, and Black's is more of an American thing. It's strictly an informal source here. If a Canadian judge is deploying the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation, he or she would be much more likely to refer to a standard English dictionary of some sort rather than Black's.

Which actually illustrates even more just how foolish Menard is. Horatius showed clear textual evidence for why Menard is wrong about the term "private passenger vehicle". But even supposing there was some ambiguity about the term (there isn't), courts would use what is called "Driedger's modern principle" of statutory interpretation. Which is this:

"Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Driedger

Ambiguity is resolved contextually and according the purpose of the law. The "gotcha" loophole approach to statutory interpretation just does not work. Even if it wasn't clear in the text, it would be clear in the scheme and object of the Act and the intention of Parliament that private passenger vehicles are motor vehicles that require motor vehicle documents.
 
D'rok said:
Ambiguity is resolved contextually and according the purpose of the law. The "gotcha" loophole approach to statutory interpretation just does not work. Even if it wasn't clear in the text, it would be clear in the scheme and object of the Act and the intention of Parliament that private passenger vehicles are motor vehicles that require motor vehicle documents.
Click to expand...

In other words, using intention and precedent (Common Law concepts) to determine what the statute really meant.

Norm
 
D'rok said:
But even supposing there was some ambiguity about the term (there isn't), courts would use what is called "Driedger's modern principle" of statutory interpretation. Which is this:

"Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Driedger
Click to expand...



Canada also has "Interpretation Acts", which tell you how other acts are to be interpreted (Duh!). The Alberta one states:


Definitions and interpretation provisions

13 Definitions and other interpretation provisions in an enactment

(a) are applicable to the whole enactment, including the section containing the definitions or interpretation provisions, except to the extent that a contrary intention appears in the enactment, and

(b) apply to regulations made under the enactment except to the extent that a contrary intention appears in the enactment or in the regulations.
Click to expand...
 
horatius wrote
And on that topic, does anyone know if there's an electronic version available?
Click to expand...

google "blacks law pdf"

There are a few sites you can get older versions from.

Its Blacks 2nd that they quote the most and thats available online.

regarding my last post
Merlincoves proof of the statement was a powerpoint slide produced by John Harris :D

Brilliant

asky/JB
 
D'rok said:
I think that's pretty accurate. I'm only really familiar with how things are done in Canadian law, and Black's is more of an American thing. It's strictly an informal source here. If a Canadian judge is deploying the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation, he or she would be much more likely to refer to a standard English dictionary of some sort rather than Black's.
Click to expand...


There are certainly legal dictionaries for English law (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, and Words and Phrases Legally Defined, for example) and I'm sure there are equivalent works in Canada.

But even this is beside the point. These dictionaries are secondary sources - works that describe the law, not prescribe it. All they do is summarise definitions arrived at in legislation and case law. They are persuasive, but not authoritative in the way a judicial decision or a piece of legislation is. For a definition given by them to have any actual legal authority it needs to be backed up with a reference to the relevant case law or legislation.

The idea that a textbook published by a commercial publisher can somehow trump statute or case law is totally stupid.
 
fromdownunder said:
In other words, using intention and precedent (Common Law concepts) to determine what the statute really meant.

Norm
Click to expand...

Horatius said:
Canada also has "Interpretation Acts", which tell you how other acts are to be interpreted (Duh!). The Alberta one states:
Click to expand...

D'rok said:
Yup.



And yup.
Click to expand...

jargon buster said:
horatius wrote


google "blacks law pdf"

There are a few sites you can get older versions from.

Its Blacks 2nd that they quote the most and thats available online.

regarding my last post
Merlincoves proof of the statement was a powerpoint slide produced by John Harris :D

Brilliant

asky/JB
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
There are certainly legal dictionaries for English law (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, and Words and Phrases Legally Defined, for example) and I'm sure there are equivalent works in Canada.

But even this is beside the point. These dictionaries are secondary sources - works that describe the law, not prescribe it. All they do is summarise definitions arrived at in legislation and case law. They are persuasive, but not authoritative in the way a judicial decision or a piece of legislation is. For a definition given by them to have any actual legal authority it needs to be backed up with a reference to the relevant case law or legislation.

The idea that a textbook published by a commercial publisher can somehow trump statute or case law is totally stupid.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight - are the FOTLers making an argument analogous to, "The word murder can be found in Webster's dictionary, therefore murder is prescribed"?
 
Oh no!

Banned again from David Ickes :D

After assisting in the destruction of Rob Menards reputation and Merlincove the moderators total lack of basic understanding of the subject it would appear free speech is not part of the FMOTL philosophy.
They now seem to be going the way of Veronicas barnpots on FMOTL by banning everyone who has an opposing view.
By the way it was a comment about that which got me banned :rolleyes:

asky/JB

PS Banned from TPUC again as well
Just look at the "General" thread from TPUC
http://tpuc.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=3236a846f2d9a5eb98c38aaf41fe10e3
Its all chemtrails and "Im not paying for......."
"Rebels" I mean, really.........
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom