Moderator: Burnaby49
No problem at all. When you have a name like mine, you get used to answering to "hey you!"JohnPCapitalist wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 12:41 am Whoops. I meant Donald, as in Netolitzky. Senior moment, and wrote the last post under pressure to run out for a meeting.
I'd disagree with the emphasized sentence for two reasons.You suggest that this may just be due to the fact that creating pseudo-law is hard, requiring sustained intellectual effort on the part of one or more people. That is true, but after Meads, it required no more intellectual effort than before. I'd argue that this lack of creativity is perhaps more a function of demoralization and "battle fatigue" than the inability to mount a sustained effort on a complex project. ...
Sorry gang. I have to inflict a quote on you from that inebriated windbag Burnaby49 because he's so incompetent he neglected, when posting that comment on strawmen and unilateral contracts, to note that Meads is currently being reviewed by its author judge Rooke regarding the relevance of these two legal theories to a lawsuit at Queen's Bench. The case is under discussion here;2 - It does get harder, a lot harder, as basic theories are demolished. The strawman and unilateral contracts, particularly the strawman, were overarching theoretical underpinnings for vast branches of alternate guru theories. Dove, Spirit, Menard, Porisky, Chief Rock, et al used the basic framework of these theories for entirely different ends. When the strawman was discredited it didn't just end one specific scam, it yanked out the foundations of a myriad of different Freeman scams. These theories represented the low-hanging fruit. After this it's very difficult to find a theory so universal in application yet so easily understood by the legally clueless. As Donald says it's more magic than law. Since none of the Freeman gurus really don't understand law they can't come up with a new legal angle, they have to go back to magic.
And the Strawman fared no better;[28] The basic and critical flaw with the Three/Five Letters scheme is the same defect which invalidates all foisted unilateral agreements. The law in Canada is clear: silence does not mean agreement and cannot create a binding authority except where authorized by legislation: reviewed in Meads v Meads, at paras 458-472. A document that purports to unilaterally impose an obligation on another has no legal effect: Papadopoulos v Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII) at para. 4; Henry v El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII) at para 3, 193 ACWS (3d) 1099, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34172 (14 July 2011).
[29] This would appear to mean that Rothweiler’s litigation is based on an imaginary “Default Judgment based on tacit agreement” that has no merit in law, and that is a basis on which I may strike out this action.
However the plaintiff Brenden Rothweiler has been given an opportunity to respond to the judgement and we can expect him to deliver a legal crusher to demolish Judge Rooke's decision.[13] The problem for Rothweiler is that this duality where he, the “living man”, has distinguished himself from the “BRENDEN-RANDALL:ROTHWEILER ESTATE” is the notorious “double/split person” or ‘Strawman’ concept, which has no basis in law. It’s a myth. He is just one individual. There is no separate “estate” linked to him. It does not matter what letter case one uses for his name or whether he adds strange punctuation inside the name. There is just one Brenden Randall Rothweiler.
[14] The ‘Strawman’ concept has been rejected in innumerable court decisions in Canada and every other country where it has appeared: Meads v Meads, at paras 417-446. Nevertheless, it seems to hold a strange fascination for OPCA litigants. If one could really split apart a physical and ‘legal’ aspects of an individual the results under the English tradition common law would probably be a slave, a human without legal status: Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 (CanLII) at paras 89-95, [2017] DTC 5024. Fortunately, that drastic outcome is nothing but a thought experiment, since it is impossible to achieve that ‘split’ under Canadian law.
Having spent time with these folk a few years back i can say they are nice folks generally. Some of the nicest in the whole freeman realm.DNetolitzky wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 1:25 pm Here's an example, the Squamish Sovereign Government (http://sovsqugov.org).
Presumably you'll have the difficulty of deciding what is and isn't pseudolaw? Won't law and pseudolaw shade into one another. There's a number of tendentious arguments that could be made on the basis of UNDRIP: it is so vague yet expansive there is a very broad scope for interpreting it to mean, well, whatever someone wants it to mean. It doesn't even define 'indigenous peoples' and some of the ideas are fairly ludicrous (e.g. Article 31 states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their ... as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies"). Assuming the UNDRIP will be enacted to have direct effect, I can see an obvious pseudolaw tax scam right there -- well, we will calculate our own taxes based upon alternative scientific 'estimation' approaches (really some ritual) which leads to a desired result. Of course, there is no such thing as alternative 'science' - either something is scientifically and/or mathematically rigorous, or it is not. I suspect it could cause enough mayhem without someone trying to rely on pseudolaw.DNetolitzky wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 1:25 pm On the question of whether inventing pseudolaw is hard, we may in Canada have a very interesting opportunity to examine that hypothesis in a tangible way.
Our federal government has announced it will implement the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Persons [UNDRIP]. Now, if you read UNDRIP, it contains some general statements about aboriginal self government. For some time what are legally defined as "Indian Bands" instead have been referring to themselves as "First Nations", and this language has been broadly adopted in public and government circles. There is also increasing reference to Aboriginal or Indigenous Law as a kind of separate domain of law, or as its own distinct legal apparatus.
When you combine all that, there is a foundation off of which to build an entirely new pseudolaw, separate from any other that has existed to date. In a nutshell, UNDRIP recognizes we aboriginal populations aren't Canadians and can control ourselves, you already recognize us as Nations, and we have a law of our own. And that's why I don't need a driver's licence.
The intriguing thing is that so far in Canada, aboriginal-based pseudolaw schemes have been nothing more than the old Freeman/Sovereign Citizen Pseudolaw Memeplex, with an aboriginal icing on the cake. You still encounter the Strawman, silence means consent rules, etc.
Here's an example, the Squamish Sovereign Government (http://sovsqugov.org). Burnaby49 - looks like they have a new website, are they back in action? If you poke around you'll see the same old familiar concepts, there's a defacto government, copyright in name motifs, the usual stuff.
Now, it doesn't have to be that way ... or so that's my hypothesis. It ought to be possible to actually use historical aboriginal-related resources to build a new and novel pseudolaw scheme which provides advantages to its practitioners. That would take more work, yes, but seems plausible to me.
There would be the distinct advantage of not having to face Meads v Meads.
But will that happen? My suspicion is it won't, and instead we'll see more aboriginal grounded pseudolaw schemes which simply take the Pseudolaw Memeplex, and swap in that UNDRIP is what authorizes rejection or reduction of Canadian government authority.
Donald
There are two answers to that. The first is the strictly legal perspective - the fact a government signs and endorses an international treaty has no effect on domestic law. Instead, that treaty must be implemented in some manner in domestic legislation before the treaty has a legal effect within Canada.nebuer wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 4:25 pm Presumably you'll have the difficulty of deciding what is and isn't pseudolaw? Won't law and pseudolaw shade into one another. There's a number of tendentious arguments that could be made on the basis of UNDRIP: it is so vague yet expansive there is a very broad scope for interpreting it to mean, well, whatever someone wants it to mean. It doesn't even define 'indigenous peoples' and some of the ideas are fairly ludicrous (e.g. Article 31 states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their ... as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies"). Assuming the UNDRIP will be enacted to have direct effect, I can see an obvious pseudolaw tax scam right there -- well, we will calculate our own taxes based upon alternative scientific 'estimation' approaches (really some ritual) which leads to a desired result. Of course, there is no such thing as alternative 'science' - either something is scientifically and/or mathematically rigorous, or it is not. I suspect it could cause enough mayhem without someone trying to rely on pseudolaw.
It does. Frankly, I don't think anyone who worked on the project back in 2012 imagined that as a plausible outcome. Having Meads v Meads adopted within the Commonwealth (to date Australia, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Jersey) is very gratifying. So is that the public appears to have found the case a useful resource.
Of course, if they just ratify it, then it might not mean very much. But what you said is that they'd go ahead and *implement* it: which I presume means make some or all of those ideas Canadian law. Then things would be a lot more complicated. But it depends on what your Parliament actually implements: having googled it quickly, it seems that one bill nearly went as far as trying to transpose UNDRIP into Canadian law (although that didn't gain much traction, to say the least).DNetolitzky wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 6:25 pmThere are two answers to that. The first is the strictly legal perspective - the fact a government signs and endorses an international treaty has no effect on domestic law. Instead, that treaty must be implemented in some manner in domestic legislation before the treaty has a legal effect within Canada.nebuer wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 4:25 pm Presumably you'll have the difficulty of deciding what is and isn't pseudolaw? Won't law and pseudolaw shade into one another. There's a number of tendentious arguments that could be made on the basis of UNDRIP: it is so vague yet expansive there is a very broad scope for interpreting it to mean, well, whatever someone wants it to mean. It doesn't even define 'indigenous peoples' and some of the ideas are fairly ludicrous (e.g. Article 31 states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their ... as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies"). Assuming the UNDRIP will be enacted to have direct effect, I can see an obvious pseudolaw tax scam right there -- well, we will calculate our own taxes based upon alternative scientific 'estimation' approaches (really some ritual) which leads to a desired result. Of course, there is no such thing as alternative 'science' - either something is scientifically and/or mathematically rigorous, or it is not. I suspect it could cause enough mayhem without someone trying to rely on pseudolaw.
So taking the hypothetical you identified, at present Status Indians have a potentially different tax obligation than other Canadians as a consequence of Indian Act ss 87, 90. Now, if the federal government were to announce "we have implemented UNDRIP", but those Indian Act provisions and the Income Tax Act have not been amended to as a consequence, then there would be very little basis to make an argument that, legally, the rules actually have been changed for aboriginal persons. Claims otherwise would, presumably, be pseudolaw.
Now, personally, when I write about pseudolaw subjects in Canada, I follow a bright line rule that until a Canadian court has rejected a concept, I treat that concept as though it might be real law, rather than pseudolaw. So that's the test I use. That means that there are a number of concepts floating about in Canada which I very strongly suspect are pseudolaw, but I don't out and out identify those concepts as such in the papers I prepare, until I can identify a court statement rejecting those motifs.
The reason I follow that very formal 'line in the sand' has to do with the character of my work with the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. My contract restricts how I can publicly comment on questions of law.
But, at the same time, that means for the purposes of my academic research and writing, there is not much question about what is 'in' vs 'out', when evaluating candidate pseudolaw.
Donald