Allen Boisjoli - Alberta stomps on vexatious OPCA lititgant

[LordEd]

I did not sacrifice my children!

Looked like you listed that as your sacrifice when we talked about it being credibility. So we can scratch that off.

But you still don't deny violence or drugs. Want to do that now?

What 'freedom' were you trying to ensure your children had? Freedom to beat their husbands/wives/children? Freedom to smoke and inject substances into their bodies?

[theSovereign1]

in order to get the RCMP to refuse to act for me and return the children, the social worker and my ex. presented them with an old custody order from like 2 years prior to my full custody order where we had shared custody...so as you can see you people do not know anything about this and really have no right to even comment and I find you all very arrogant for doing so. and even more arrogant for believing you have any right to judge anyone else's life. Sociopathic, pathetic, scum-suckers is what I will call you. Since you all love labels so much.

[LordEd]

Was it the "Drug Endangered Children Act" you didn't consent to, or the "Protection Against Family Violence Act" you didn't consent to?

[theSovereign1]

I did not sacrifice my children!

Looked like you listed that as your sacrifice when we talked about it being credibility. So we can scratch that off.

But you still don't deny violence or drugs. Want to do that now?

What 'freedom' were you trying to ensure your children had? Freedom to beat their husbands/wives/children? Freedom to smoke and inject substances into their bodies?

well and herein lies the problem...psychopathic control freaks like you believe people are not free to beat their wives or vice versa (the offended party always has the freedom to leave that situation...without government or psychopathic people who believe they have the right to force their will and beliefs on others), and yes the bodies are ours each one of us to do with and experience everything in life as we see fit...u psychopath! What gives anyone else the right, in your twisted opinion, to have a say in what i want to do with the body I have been provided with? Hmmmm? lets hear your psycho justification for trespassing on my right to life and happiness? I bet you drink alcohol and coffee huh?

[LordEd]

psychopathic control freaks like you believe people are not free to beat their wives or vice versa

and yes the bodies are ours each one of us to do with and experience everything in life as we see fit...

Thank you. That makes it perfectly clear.

[LordEd]

Oh, I forgot to ask, are you free to beat your children as well?

Edit: never-mind. I don't think I actually want to know that answer to that one. The malicious persecution rests.

[theSovereign1]

psychopathic control freaks like you believe people are not free to beat their wives or vice versa

and yes the bodies are ours each one of us to do with and experience everything in life as we see fit...

Thank you. That makes it perfectly clear.

well I am glad you finally know what freedom is and why so many people over the centuries decided to give their lives for it! whew..I really thought you were an idiot and I was gonna have to try and explain it for hours...

[theSovereign1]

why would it be anyone's responsibility to tell someone in an abusive relationship to leave? hmmmm? do you have any actual thoughts or do you just try and use ad hominem insults to slide your way by real arguments?

[theSovereign1]

why do you believe you have the right to trespass, dictate and force your beliefs and will on any life but your own? Because your a busybody with nothing else to do all day long than post fallacy on quatloose?

[JamesVincent]

I absolutely love it when morons trot out Biblical arguments for their behaviors. And for some reason it's always Old Testament, not New Testament, I can't figure that one out


Now let me show one of the reasons I love it: because it is very easy to destroy that argument. God's own words have commanded us to obey the laws:


Romans 13King James Version (KJV)

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

In case you have reading comprehension problems (like that will ever happen ) here it is in an easier to read version:

Romans 13Modern English Version (MEV)
Subjection to Authorities

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil works. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from him, 4 for he is the servant of God for your good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is the servant of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him who practices evil. 5 So it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for the sake of conscience.

6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are God’s servants, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: taxes to whom taxes are due, respect to whom respect is due, fear to whom fear is due, and honor to whom honor is due.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=MEV

So what was that about God telling you you can do whatever you want again?

[JamesVincent]

why do you believe you have the right to trespass, dictate and force your beliefs and will on any life but your own? Because your a busybody with nothing else to do all day long than post fallacy on quatloose?

Why do you have that belief? That everyone should kowtow to your beliefs?

[LordEd]

What's clear from your statements is why your children were removed. Why do you think you have the right to physically harm your wife?

[LordEd]

psychopathic control freaks like you believe people are not free to beat their wives or vice versa

Wanted to repeat this statement with emphasis so its absolutely clear to all psychopathic control freaks that there was an absolute need for the actions taken.

[Wake Up! Productions]

psychopathic control freaks like you believe people are not free to beat their wives or vice versa

Wanted to repeat this statement with emphasis so its absolutely clear to all psychopathic control freaks that there was an absolute need for the actions taken.

Oddly enough, I have heard Karl Lentz basically saying the same thing.

[NYGman]

psychopathic control freaks like you believe people are not free to beat their wives or vice versa

Wanted to repeat this statement with emphasis so its absolutely clear to all psychopathic control freaks that there was an absolute need for the actions taken.

Oddly enough, I have heard Karl Lentz basically saying the same thing.

What do you mean, you don't believe you should beat your women? What Bible have you been using?? A Quick google search finds these:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. [Ephesians 5:22-24]

And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow.[Deuteronomy 25:11-12]

If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. [1 Corinthians 11:6-7]

The intent here is not to debate religion, just to point out verses that can justify this point of view, however unjust we view these practices today. I want to say, I am against abuse of any kind, physical and mental.

[Arthur Rubin]

[37] A promissory estoppel involves one party in a legal relationship making a representation to another party in that relationship which leads the other party to believe that the first party will not insist on his strict legal rights. The second party’s reliance on that representation results in the second party altering his legal position on the strength of that promise. The party who made the representation is then barred from going back on the promise so long as it is inequitable to do so: Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd., [1947] K.B. 130. The promise must be a clear and unambiguous intention to affect the legal relationship between the parties and thus binding on the promissor: John Burrows Ltd. v. Subsurface Surveys Ltd., 1968 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1968] S.C.R. 607; Conwest Exploration Co. v. Letain, 1963 CanLII 35 (SCC), [1964] S.C.R. 20. Should the promise be broken, the reliance must be detrimental to the person relying upon it: Pentagon Construction (1969) Co. Ltd. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company, [1977] 4 W.W.R. 351 (B.C.C.A.); John Burrows Ltd., supra.
...
[T]he only true function of this doctrine is to affect existing contractual rights, not to manufacture contracts out of such ‘promises’ or ‘representations’ … this use of estoppel can be made only to affect accrued or inchoate rights, not to produce contractual relations where the essential ingredients of a contract, such as consideration or a clear and ascertained agreement as to terms, are lacking.

Now that we know what "promissory estoppel" / "estoppel of acquiescence" is, I have some questions for you:The legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law when the promisor (person making the promise) makes a promise to the promisee (person being promised) who relies on it to his or her detriment.

An aside, but the definition of "promissory estoppel" I've seen does eliminate consideration of "consideration". Are things different in Canada?

In the law of contracts, the doctrine that provides that if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present.

Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

(I know that's not a reliable source, but I believe quoting my Contracts textbook might be a copyright violation, and we don't want to go there.)

DEFINITION of 'Promissory Estoppel'

The legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law when the promisor (person making the promise) makes a promise to the promisee (person being promised) who relies on it to his or her detriment. A promissory estoppel is intended to stop the promisor from denying that the statements, words or even conduct did not happen. This is a legal doctrine used in the United States and other legal systems around the world.

Promissory estoppel allows a party to recover on a promise. It prevents, or estops, a person from arguing that his or her promise should not be upheld. The reliance on the promise must be reasonable, and the person trying to enforce the promise must rely on the promise to their detriment. In order to invoke a promissory estoppel, three elements must be present: the promisor, the promisee and a substantial detriment - an economic loss that occurs to the promisee if the promisor declines to honor the promise.

Read more: Promissory Estoppel Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pro ... z3sWnqdZaA

[Burnaby49]

I'm locking this discussion until I have a chance to think things over. It's turning into a runaway train and it has gone way too far into the issue of Boisjoli's children and his past actions.

[Burnaby49]

We moderators have discussed the situation and have decided to leave this topic locked. If something of interest comes up on Boisjoli I'll open a new discussion.