Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

[Hallow]

Hallow contradicts me! And even cites some of the same legislation that I used. Particularly Hape;

R. v. Hape
[2007] 2 SCR 292, 2007 SCC 26 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/1rq5n

However, given the size of Hallow's vague and (at least to me) incomprehensible posting, I'm not going to spend the time necessary to attempt to refute it. I've already analyzed the issue once. So I'll just make two points;

1 - I've made an extensive posting analyzing why United Nations feel-good treaties do not override domestic law in Canada. Hallow has made an extensive posting saying otherwise. I'll leave it to the readers to study both and come their own conclusions which of us is correct. And Hallow and I are on the same footing! I'm not a lawyer either.

2 - If Hallow is correct why did Pomerleau lose? I've been to a vast amount of Freeman/Sovereign trials and court hearings where they argue their positions based on United Nations treaties. They have, without exception, lost. So if Hallow and John Spirit are correct in their interpretation of the law why do they all lose using this argument?

[Hallow]

Hallow contradicts me! And even cites some of the same legislation that I used. Particularly Hape;

R. v. Hape
[2007] 2 SCR 292, 2007 SCC 26 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/1rq5n

However, given the size of Hallow's vague and (at least to me) incomprehensible posting, I'm not going to spend the time necessary to attempt to refute it. I've already analyzed the issue once. So I'll just make two points;

1 - I've made an extensive posting analyzing why United Nations feel-good treaties do not override domestic law in Canada. Hallow has made an extensive posting saying otherwise. I'll leave it to the readers to study both and come their own conclusions which of us is correct. And Hallow and I are on the same footing! I'm not a lawyer either.


2 - If Hallow is correct why did Pomerleau lose? I've been to a vast amount of Freeman/Sovereign trials and court hearings where they argue their positions based on United Nations treaties. They have, without exception, lost. So if Hallow and John Spirit are correct in their interpretation of the law why do they all lose using this argument?

As for point 1 - Absolutely correct, or about 70% correct. Article 8.2 of the ICCPR (thou shalt not be held in servitude) may not be accepted as authoritative in Canada, but s.7 of the Charter is. Liberty being the opposite of servitude.

As for point 2 - I answered in the post that follows, I believe, but good a question, the answer to which, reveals much.

Here it is here
You guys are hilarious. I cannot speak for others and you have no clue who I am, what I have done, nor how. I am aware of people who did claim rights under the Charter but did so as citizens. Big mistake. They also go at it via a statutory court. Another big mistake. Unless in all your wisdom you know something I do not, only the Minister of Citizenship may grant citizenship. I never asked for nor has the said minister granted me the privilege of serving under Her Majesty. Article 8.2 of the ICCPR is found in domestic law at s.7 of the Charter. Liberty being the opposite of servitude. Anyhoo. You dudes are not the law and your opinions are just that, opinions. Ya ya, I know, so are mine. I know, show you the proof. Show me yours and I may show you mine..............hahahahahahaha

[Hallow]

I am no student of law and you guys are the experts.

The first part of your statement is readily apparent from the hash of snippets from here and there.

I'll let the Canadian members of this forum respond to your laundry list in greater detail; but I can assure you that in the United States, your purported distinctions between "common law" and "statutory" courts would get any case based on that premise a swift dismissal. The same goes for a case based on a long-outdated legal compendium such as the 4th edition of Black's Law Dictionary.

Not my distinctions, the courts. I did not say common law courts.........

Scarola v. M.N.R., 2002 CanLII 741 (TCC)
[27] In R. v. Unnamed Person, [1985] O.J. No. 189, Zuber J.A. said, The term "inherent jurisdiction" is one that is commonly and not always accurately used when arguments are made with respect to the jurisdictional basis upon which a court is asked to make a particular order. The inherent jurisdiction of a superior court is derived not from any statute or rule of law but from the very nature of the court as a superior court (see, generally, I.H. Jacob, The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, 1970, C. Leg. Probs. 23).

[25] In Bogie v. The Queen, 97 DTC 1079, Brulé J. said at page 1080: The Court, as a statutory creation, does not have the inherent jurisdiction……..

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson [1995] 4 SCR 725
30 Discussing the history of inherent jurisdiction, Jacob says (at p. 25): the superior courts of common law have exercised the power which has come to be called "inherent jurisdiction".

R v. Wagner, 2015 ONCJ 66 at para. 116
“Finally, at the developing fringes of the new natural law, which goes by the name human rights…..”

[Burnaby49]

As for point 1 - Absolutely correct, or about 70% correct. Article 8.2 of the ICCPR (thou shalt not be held in servitude) may not be accepted as authoritative in Canada, but s.7 of the Charter is. Liberty being the opposite of servitude.

As for point 2 - I answered in the post that follows, I believe, but good a question, the answer to which, reveals much.

Here it is here
You guys are hilarious. I cannot speak for others and you have no clue who I am, what I have done, nor how. I am aware of people who did claim rights under the Charter but did so as citizens. Big mistake. They also go at it via a statutory court. Another big mistake. Unless in all your wisdom you know something I do not, only the Minister of Citizenship may grant citizenship. I never asked for nor has the said minister granted me the privilege of serving under Her Majesty. Article 8.2 of the ICCPR is found in domestic law at s.7 of the Charter. Liberty being the opposite of servitude. Anyhoo. You dudes are not the law and your opinions are just that, opinions. Ya ya, I know, so are mine. I know show you the proof. Show me your and I may show you mine..............hahahahahahaha

Actually I think I know who you are. If you say it's ok for me to attach a name to the Hallow ID I'll hazard a guess.

[Hallow]

Here it is here
You guys are hilarious. I cannot speak for others and you have no clue who I am, what I have done, nor how. I am aware of people who did claim rights under the Charter but did so as citizens. Big mistake. They also go at it via a statutory court. Another big mistake. Unless in all your wisdom you know something I do not, only the Minister of Citizenship may grant citizenship. I never asked for nor has the said minister granted me the privilege of serving under Her Majesty. Article 8.2 of the ICCPR is found in domestic law at s.7 of the Charter. Liberty being the opposite of servitude. Anyhoo. You dudes are not the law and your opinions are just that, opinions. Ya ya, I know, so are mine. I know show you the proof. Show me your and I may show you mine..............hahahahahahaha

Actually I think I know who you are. If you say it's ok for me to attach a name to the Hallow ID I'll hazard a guess.

No secrets here, nor anything to hide........go for it

[Burnaby49]

Ok. I'm guessing that you're Marcus the Servant King. Pot grower and champion falconer;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9393

[Burnaby49]

And a comment on this;

Unless in all your wisdom you know something I do not, only the Minister of Citizenship may grant citizenship.

Nope. Anyone in born in Canada is a citizen, even a baby born at Vancouver airport while mother is just in transit changing planes from Singapore to London. I was born in Victoria, British Columbia which automatically made me a Canadian citizen with no application to, or permission from, the Canadian government. These are the rules as to who becomes citizens;

birth in Canada (except where either parent is a representative of a foreign government, their employee, or anyone granted diplomatic privileges or immunities AND neither parent is a citizen or permanent resident)

naturalization in Canada after five years' residence as a landed immigrant

grant of citizenship to a foreign woman married to a Canadian man after one year's residence as a landed immigrant

grant of citizenship to women who lost British subject status prior to 1947 upon marriage to a foreign man or his subsequent naturalization

registration of a child born outside Canada to a Canadian "responsible parent" (being the father, if the child was born in wedlock, or the mother, if the child was born out of wedlock and was residing with the mother, if the father was deceased or if custody of the child had been awarded to the mother by court order)

So Hallow, if you were born in Canada you are automatically a citizen whether you like it or not and the minister has no involvement in that. To be pedantically correct we do not have a 'Minister of Citizenship'. The correct title for the Honourable Minister Ahmed Hussen is the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Fun fact. While Canada has been a nation since July 1, 1867 Canadian citizenship separate from the United Kingdom didn't exist until January 1, 1947. Before that we were British subjects. Burnaby49, born in 1949, dodged that bullet. The first Canadian citizen was Lionel MacKenzie King, our prime minister at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... p_Act_1946

[Pottapaug1938]

And a comment on this;

Unless in all your wisdom you know something I do not, only the Minister of Citizenship may grant citizenship.

Nope. Anyone in born in Canada is a citizen, even a baby born at Vancouver airport while mother is just in transit changing planes from Singapore to London. I was born in Victoria, British Columbia which automatically made me a Canadian citizen with no application to, or permission from, the Canadian government. These are the rules as to who becomes citizens;

birth in Canada (except where either parent is a representative of a foreign government, their employee, or anyone granted diplomatic privileges or immunities AND neither parent is a citizen or permanent resident)

naturalization in Canada after five years' residence as a landed immigrant

grant of citizenship to a foreign woman married to a Canadian man after one year's residence as a landed immigrant

grant of citizenship to women who lost British subject status prior to 1947 upon marriage to a foreign man or his subsequent naturalization

registration of a child born outside Canada to a Canadian "responsible parent" (being the father, if the child was born in wedlock, or the mother, if the child was born out of wedlock and was residing with the mother, if the father was deceased or if custody of the child had been awarded to the mother by court order)

So Hallow, if you were born in Canada you are automatically a citizen whether you like it or not and the minister has no involvement in that. To be pedantically correct we do not have a 'Minister of Citizenship'. The correct title for the Honourable Minister Ahmed Hussen is the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Fun fact. While Canada has been a nation since July 1, 1867 Canadian citizenship separate from the United Kingdom didn't exist until January 1, 1947. Before that we were British subjects. Burnaby49, born in 1949, dodged that bullet. The first Canadian citizen was Lionel MacKenzie King, our prime minister at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... p_Act_1946

As an aside: my paternal (step) grandmother, a native of New Brunswick, became a US citizen in 1943. Her naturalization certificate lists her citizenship as "British".

As in Canada, babies born within the United States automatically acquire US citizenship, unless they are "Indians not taxed" (of which there are no more) or are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (by which is meant children of diplomats -- thus if the Duchess of Cambridge were to deliver a third child while on a US visit, that child would not acquire US citizenship at birth).

[Pottapaug1938]

Not my distinctions, the courts. I did not say common law courts.........

Scarola v. M.N.R., 2002 CanLII 741 (TCC)
[27] In R. v. Unnamed Person, [1985] O.J. No. 189, Zuber J.A. said, The term "inherent jurisdiction" is one that is commonly and not always accurately used when arguments are made with respect to the jurisdictional basis upon which a court is asked to make a particular order. The inherent jurisdiction of a superior court is derived not from any statute or rule of law but from the very nature of the court as a superior court (see, generally, I.H. Jacob, The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, 1970, C. Leg. Probs. 23).

[25] In Bogie v. The Queen, 97 DTC 1079, Brulé J. said at page 1080: The Court, as a statutory creation, does not have the inherent jurisdiction……..

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson [1995] 4 SCR 725
30 Discussing the history of inherent jurisdiction, Jacob says (at p. 25): the superior courts of common law have exercised the power which has come to be called "inherent jurisdiction".

R v. Wagner, 2015 ONCJ 66 at para. 116
“Finally, at the developing fringes of the new natural law, which goes by the name human rights…..”

And yet, you make a grand distinction between "statutory" courts and other courts. You ignore the fact that common law can be, and often is, changed or eliminated through what you view as statutory law (the almost universal demise of "commonlaw marriage" is but one example). You also engage in "quote mining" of out-of-context snippets from legal decisions to buttress your weak arguments. Again, I'll let the Canadians here answer you in greater detail; but your arguments would get absolutely nowhere in the U.S.

[Arthur Rubin]

I'll let the Canadian members of this forum respond to your laundry list in greater detail; but I can assure you that in the United States, your purported distinctions between "common law" and "statutory" courts would get any case based on that premise a swift dismissal. The same goes for a case based on a long-outdated legal compendium such as the 4th edition of Black's Law Dictionary.

Not my distinctions, the courts. I did not say common law courts.........

That's true ... but you did say "statutory courts". What other kind of court is there?

[NYGman]

I'll let the Canadian members of this forum respond to your laundry list in greater detail; but I can assure you that in the United States, your purported distinctions between "common law" and "statutory" courts would get any case based on that premise a swift dismissal. The same goes for a case based on a long-outdated legal compendium such as the 4th edition of Black's Law Dictionary.

Not my distinctions, the courts. I did not say common law courts.........

That's true ... but you did say "statutory courts". What other kind of court is there?

Kangaroo Courts
Freeman of the Land Denny's District Court
Court of Public opinion
Courteney Cox
The Peoples Court
Tennis Court
Basketball Court
Courtland Street

The list goes on

[Arthur Rubin]

Not my distinctions, the courts. I did not say common law courts.........

That's true ... but you did say "statutory courts". What other kind of court is there?

...
The Peoples Court
...

Actually, The Peoples' Court, in its California incarnation, was an actual alternative civil court under California law. Judge Wapner was an actual retired judge. The current incarnation in Florida is just a binding arbitration platform, fees and fines paid by the production company, rather than by the clients. (That is, the appearance fees exceed the small claims court limit, so any payment is withheld from the appearance fees of the losing party and given to the winning party.) I have no idea how Divorce Court decrees are implemented; it's still binding arbitration, but enforcement might need to take additional steps ratified by the actual (statutory) courts.

[Pottapaug1938]

As Hallow said earlier, he is no student of the law; and as I pointed out earlier, that is apparent from his uneducated writings on the law.

Like many before him and like many yet to come, he mines quotes out of genuine legal decisions and cites them, out of context, in an attempt to buttress his points. A classic example of the dangers inherent in doing so comes from the US Supreme Court's decision in Zorach v. Clauson (343 US 306). On page 313, Justice Douglas includes the following sentence as part of his opinion:

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."

Many people have used this single sentence to, among other things, attempt to prove that there is no "wall of separation" between church and state in the United States, and that a belief in God can be required for many public purposes. That was not at all Douglas's purpose in writing that sentence; and he was only trying to give some background for the holding in the case, which was that the State of New York can release children from school so that they may receive religious instruction, as long as the instruction takes place away from the school campus and as long as no public funds are involved in the release.