![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
So, this affirmation, "good guys don't hide", it's probably because they want your personal address so bad so they can pay you a visit, if you see what I mean. I hope nobody will get hurt at this point.
All rights reserved (just kidding)
Moderator: Burnaby49
They can say hello to my little friend.coffee kitten wrote: . . .they want your personal address so bad so they can pay you a visit. . .
What's to do?coffeekitten wrote:But I do think something has to be done, but we need to be careful.
No. It's not very complicated. https://m.facebook.com/home.php?refsrc= ... 0077643471grixit wrote:Does he audit people before they can join his Sea Org?
One thing done is to alert organizations of intended freeman/sovcit scams aimed at them.coffeekitten wrote:And, yeah, I know we can’t do much, but hopefully,more and more people will be aware of their tricks. And they could maybe face suits from some of their victims and lose, let's hope so.
How rich. It is essentially the same "security of the person" theory foisted by Duncan's arch rival, Robert Menard.coffeekitten wrote:OK Let's be a little more informative about what the new TFL crew made in Quebec is about these days.
. . .They are now making a big deal of this first article: "1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.
He also possesses juridical personality." In french, security is "sûreté", and then Daoust (chief of Quebec section) concluded that it is question of the surety : "surety
. . . The new TFL group pretends that because of our birth certificate, we are slaves and got to pay the huge debt of a corrupted government, but if we use our surety (yep, the number on our certificate is a account number, lol), we don't need to pay our taxes, our Hydro-Quebec account, our tickets and so on. . .
The difference being that Duncan and Daoust seem to be working the subscriber/follower angle far better than the drunken Menard could ever manage.. . .They have over a thousand members. . .
It is the only province in Canada where common law is based on French court law.Arthur Rubin wrote:Question for any Quebecois legal experts:
Is provincial law in Quebec based on English common law (the real thing, not what FOTLs say it is) or French court law? For what it's worth, in the US state of Louisiana, state law is based on French court law, to the extent that Federal law doesn't exclude the provisions.
The Civil Code of Quebec is based on the Napoleonic Code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law That's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.notorial dissent wrote:I'm not quite sure what you are meaning by "French court law" in this instance, unless you are trying to say Napoleonic Code/Civil Code. Canadian New France and LA were first under the French Crown as provinces of France and so operated under what I would assume would have been the French common law of the time. France lost New France in the 1760's with what is now Quebec going to England and the rest to Spain and eventually back to France under Napoleon. Each then coming under the common law of the respective new countries. What was French common law was retained by the English for civil law and the rest was superseded by English common law. LA was first under Spain after the treat, and then returned to France under Napoleon who abolished what had been French and then Spanish common law in the province, and instituted the Code Napoleon, which is still the basis for modern French law, and of which a good deal still survives in LA, the only US state that has what is essentially an entirely statute based legal system. Napoleon never controlled Quebec and so there is no reason that what I think you are calling "French court law" ever existed in Quebec.
Whether one is talking constitutional law, statutes, common law or the Napoleonic Code it makes little difference since there is no legal system since the beginning of time that has sanctioned theft from national treasuries. Make no mistake about it the "surety" and "security of the person" theories advocate stealing.coffeekitten wrote:The Civil Code of Quebec is based on the Napoleonic Code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law That's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.notorial dissent wrote:I'm not quite sure what you are meaning by "French court law" in this instance, unless you are trying to say Napoleonic Code/Civil Code.
It amazes me that the gullibles who believe either Duncan's "surety" or Menard's "security of the person" theory don't ask a few questions:notorial dissent wrote:arayder, what you are saying here is basically the truth of the matter. As one legal finding stated, they reach their conclusions/beliefs ONLY through a "tortured reading" of the law and statutes, and then pretty freely pick and choose what they are choosing to torture. One of the favorites down here is to cherry pick a definition of a term from one (completely unrelated)statute and then insist it be applied to another to get the results they want.