Mark "Ceylon" Haining, Goofy GOODFer

[TheNewSaint]

A lot of the real maple syrup we get in stores is Canadian; but in Massachusetts it's very easy to find syrup made in New England.

I've lived in the southeast and midwest, and Vermont maple syrup isn't too hard to find. I remember bringing some home from Vermont in a small metal can with a handle and a screw-on cap, like those used to store gasoline.

[Burnaby49]

I like Maple Syrup. The real stuff, not the Maple-ish Syrup we get in the UK.

You need to go to Canada to get Maple Syrup. (You can get some Canadian Maple Syrup in US specialty stores, but you have to look.)

Burnaby, please check me on this, but I've been told the (US? Canadian?) Grade B syrup (generally more flavorful than Grade A) has become Grade A dark, with the previous Grade A becoming Grade A amber.

Could be. For some strange reason the more insipid and bland maple syrup is the more expensive it is. The dark is much more flavourful than the light and is also cheaper so that's what I buy. Light amber is at the top of the price list. It's possible, for PR purposes, that the dark has been reclassified from grade B to an alternate Grade A to get rid of the poorer quality connotations. However it's not a matter of quality, both are chemically equivalent, but of perception.

[Pottapaug1938]

Burnaby, please check me on this, but I've been told the (US? Canadian?) Grade B syrup (generally more flavorful than Grade A) has become Grade A dark, with the previous Grade A becoming Grade A amber.

Could be. For some strange reason the more insipid and bland maple syrup is the more expensive it is. The dark is much more flavourful than the light and is also cheaper so that's what I buy. Light amber is at the top of the price list. It's possible, for PR purposes, that the dark has been reclassified from grade B to an alternate Grade A to get rid of the poorer quality connotations. However it's not a matter of quality, both are chemically equivalent, but of perception.

As in my earlier post, the lighter and lighter-flavored stuff was called "fancy" because it could be used in things, such as tea or coffee, where you don't necessarily want a stronger maple taste. It comes from the first run of the season. As the season progresses, the syrup becomes darker and has a stronger flavor. Burnaby is correct in that the reclassifications were done partly because "Grade B" syrup was perceived as being of lesser quality. I like to buy the new Very Dark/Strong Grade A because, among other things, I can transport it more easily when I go camping, since I need less of it.

[longdog]

You'd think Robin Hood of all people would know how to how to hold a bow at full draw. I can't even begin to work out what's going on with his right hand.

[letissier14]

So if Ceylon is nothing to do with GOODF anymore, why is he re-posting videos he made previously to his Facebook page, which advertise GOODF. Surely as he claims he was kicked out of GOODF he would have edited his old videos? Unless of course he is still involved with GOODF

https://youtu.be/pAVp3Cs0jrk

[notorial dissent]

Or he's just too lazy, and it's all about the attention anyway, but puzzling still.

[Chaos]

it's all about the attention

and to show he spelled 'SssPanKerC' wrong.

[letissier14]

Oh dear



https://youtu.be/nqG_cVfY9i8

[mufc1959]

[rumpelstilzchen]

These dickheads fail to realise that no matter how convincing an argument they present on youtube rebutting Meads it does not make any difference, Meads remains to be good law.

[rumpelstilzchen]

As the Ceylon thread has been bumped it is probably a good time to remind everyone of Ceylon's prediction from six months ago:

We may mock but he states at 7m 05s that we're very nears the end of this now and he doesn't give it more than 6 months before the whole system comes crashing down.

Mark your diaries my friends, the end of life as we know it cometh sometime before 08/04/2017.

Who will be the April fool though I wonder....

Six days to go and the system looks just as strong as it always has. Looks like Ceylon is the April Fool. No surprises there.

[notorial dissent]

Why is the buffoon ranting about a Canadian decision that has NO precedent or standing in the UK, except as a bad portent for what could possibly happen in UK law to the freeloaders if someone gets ambitious?

Also for someone in the know, where did he come up0 with that ridiculous pseudonym? I won't even begin to admit what my mind does with that every time I come across it.

[Burnaby49]

These dickheads fail to realise that no matter how convincing an argument they present on youtube rebutting Meads it does not make any difference, Meads remains to be good law.

Actually it isn't good law, at least for you UK types, since it is Canadian jurisprudence. However it's been the most-cited case in Canada since it was released in 2012.For those of you who don't follow my Canadian forum posts I just wrote-up a very recent decision where the Plaintiff went to Queen's Bench in Alberta, the home of Meads v Meads and told them it fraudulent and null and void. Not the most tactful thing to do at QB.

A. Preliminary Issue - Status of Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)

[48] Mr. Pomerleau in his written filings at various points criticizes the Meads v Meads decision of Associate Chief Justice Rooke of this Court. For example, in his April 18, 2016 filings Mr. Pomerleau says this decision is irrelevant to his litigation. He “object and REBUT” the Meads v Meads judgment. Mr. Pomerleau’s arguments and evidence are valid. He states that relying on Meads v Meads is “frivolous, improper, irrelevant and would constitute an abuse of process”, and is “PRIMA FACIE evidence that there is NO MERIT” to the CRA’s defence.

[49] More drastically, Mr. Pomerleau’s March 23, 2016 Application in Pomerleau v CRA #1 states that the Meads v Meads judgment is invalid. It is a fraud designed to deceive and injure humanity:

The FACT that a court Judgment (i.e Meads v. Meads) and/or Court cases (i.e. Meads v. Meads) and/or any/every documents/CONTRACTS (i.e Meads v. Meads) which are/is/was/were INTENTIONALLY made with the INTENT to DECEIVE/ AID and ABET humanity into FRAUD via ignorance of these CONTRACT FACTS are NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tune, ad infinitum. Any/all FRAUDS by virtue of its INTENT and CREATION remain as such, any/all FRAUDS exposed, all CONTRACTS are NULL and VOID upon its discovery where a FRAUD revealed is, in FACT, NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tune, ad infinitum.

[50] As a decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Meads v Meads judgment is a binding authority for a Master of this Court. I inquired during the hearing on Mr. Pomerleau’s position concerning that decision. He confirmed he had read it. Mr. Pomerleau was at this point more circumspect. He restated his respect for the Court and its decisions, but nevertheless indicated he believed the Meads v Meads judgment was engineered with the intent of concealing from Canadians their true rights, particularly when they did not use the exact correct terminology and/or language.

[51] Meads v Meads is binding case law on a Master and relates to many elements of Mr. Pomerleau’s litigation. In Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 703 (CanLII) at paras 32-46 I reviewed how the Meads v Meads decision is not merely a binding authority in this Court, but has been broadly endorsed by courts in Canada and the Commonwealth. I therefore reject Mr. Pomerleau’s argument that I cannot rely on this decision, or that it is “in FACT, NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tunc, ad infinitum.” Meads v Meads is instead a correct statement of Canadian law on this subject.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11388

Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency)
2017 ABQB 123
http://canlii.ca/t/gxnsd

[rumpelstilzchen]

Sorry, I admit I should have made myself more clear.
I wasn't referring to the UK I was referring to the jurisdiction where Meads was decided and I was also referring to the author of the "rebuttal" who I believe is Menard who AFAIK is in Canada. I remember he penned a lengthy piece titled something like "Meads deconstructed" and I think this is it. My criticism was directed towards him. He appears to believe if he can make a convincing argument on the internet about the interpretation of a statute or case law then it must follow that his interpretation is the true position of the law. Unfortunately for him, as we all know, he doesn't get to make such decisions. That was my point. No matter how convincing his argument is the law does not change until those who matter say it does.
I know Ceylon uploaded the video and Ceylon is in the UK but it is not his work. He is only repeating what I believe is a Canadian's work. Oh, a Canadian who was too shit-scared to attend his own trial and to put into practice what he preaches.

[aesmith]

I know Ceylon uploaded the video and Ceylon is in the UK but it is not his work

Is anything he posts his own work? Sometimes I don't think he's even read the material.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I know Ceylon uploaded the video and Ceylon is in the UK but it is not his work

Is anything he posts his own work? Sometimes I don't think he's even read the material.

Fair comment. In fact I believe it would be correct to say there is a general rule of grammar that states the only time the words "ceylon" and "work" can appear in the same sentence is when "work" is preceeded by "does not".

[notorial dissent]

Blowhard Bobby is certainly one of the ones in Canada who threw a hissy fit and stamped their feet over Meade, there are/were at least two or three others who names excape me at the moment. No I have to admit that I thought it was Ceylon who was expounding.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It is definitely not Ceylon's. He is incapable of such a task. If it is not Menard's maybe it is the work of that nutjob connected to UCADIA? But, no matter who wrote it, it has no effect on the decision.

[Burnaby49]

It is definitely not Ceylon's. He is incapable of such a task. If it is not Menard's maybe it is the work of that nutjob connected to UCADIA? But, no matter who wrote it, it has no effect on the decision.

Good guess, It's Frank O'Collins of UCADIA. Look at the first comment:

http://mikiverselaw.blogspot.ca/2012/10 ... a_832.html

The source website;

http://ucadia.blogspot.com/2012/10/opca ... inion.html

no longer exists, so no doubt that will make this "rebuttal" just that much more powerful. Allen Boisjoli has been relying on it for years, to no effect.

[Hercule Parrot]

Actually it isn't good law, at least for you UK types, since it is Canadian jurisprudence.

It​ is nonetheless well known here, and influential.

Eg https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/3 ... ghts-back/