Here to start the Apocalypse

[Burnaby49]

I live in Vancouver, same as Mark did, and I wrote up most of the postings on him. I actually met him once and we had a discussion of his beliefs and philosophies on a Skytrain ride back to Vancouver from the New Westminster courthouse where we'd met watching a trial. But I'm not stepping in and answering this one. Life's too short to play the stupid games namelessone wants to engage in.

[noblepa]

Is the nameless one perhaps, going to claim that there is no statute that defines the word "court", thereby making all courts illegal?

This strikes me as similar to the US tax denier argument that the US income tax code does not define the word "income" (true), so therefore, no one can have any income (in the definition of the law, since there isn't one), and therefore no one is required to pay income tax.

I can see him now, entering a court in Canada (or anywhere else, for that matter) and saying that, since there is no statutory definition of the word "court", that the proceeding lacks all jurisdiction. And walking out.

Oh, and namelessone, while I do not like to be the grammar or spelling police, your (note the correct usage) inability to spell words correctly or put a sentence together makes it just about impossible to tell if you have a point to make, and what that point might be.

If you want to engage in a real discussion here, please put just a little effort into your (again, the correct usage) writing. It really doesn't take that much time to read over what you have written, before you hit the send button.

Maybe we wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss you and your (ibid) ideas if we could understand just what you are talking about.

[notorial dissent]

Why should you have to define something that already has a perfectly good, well understood definition?

[Pottapaug1938]

Is the nameless one perhaps, going to claim that there is no statute that defines the word "court", thereby making all courts illegal?

This strikes me as similar to the US tax denier argument that the US income tax code does not define the word "income" (true), so therefore, no one can have any income (in the definition of the law, since there isn't one), and therefore no one is required to pay income tax.

I can see him now, entering a court in Canada (or anywhere else, for that matter) and saying that, since there is no statutory definition of the word "court", that the proceeding lacks all jurisdiction. And walking out.

Oh, and namelessone, while I do not like to be the grammar or spelling police, your (note the correct usage) inability to spell words correctly or put a sentence together makes it just about impossible to tell if you have a point to make, and what that point might be.

If you want to engage in a real discussion here, please put just a little effort into your (again, the correct usage) writing. It really doesn't take that much time to read over what you have written, before you hit the send button.

Maybe we wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss you and your (ibid) ideas if we could understand just what you are talking about.

I suspect that, like many drive-by trolls, here, namelessone has realized that he is going to get verbally sliced and diced, if he tries to engage us in any genuine dialogue. IF he ever shows up here again, he will probably use a full range of the usual excuses to avoid addressing our counter-arguments directly.

[Burnaby49]

I can see him now, entering a court in Canada (or anywhere else, for that matter) and saying that, since there is no statutory definition of the word "court", that the proceeding lacks all jurisdiction. And walking out.

'Income' isn't defined in the Income Tax Act of Canada either. Keith Lawson tried to get mileage out of that in his appeal of his income tax evasion conviction by saying that since income wasn't defined he didn't know what the Tax Act meant by income and, being an honest taxpayer wanting to file properly, his only option had been to not file any return at all. Worked as well as you'd expect.