Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment

[Burnaby49]

When you’re the defendant in a criminal trial and trying to get the charges dropped through sovereign gibberish it’s never a good sign to have the court respond to your main arguments with this:

2 - The applicant now applies for these charges to be dismissed. The essence of the applicant’s argument is that he possesses two distinct personas. One the ‘real live flesh and blood man’ and the other a ‘straw man’ or ‘dummy corporation’. The former is designated in the applicant’s material as ‘Kym-Anthony:’[1] and the latter as KYM ANTHONY SWEET.[2] According to the applicant’s argument, the real person is not subject to the laws of Queensland, and the charges should be dismissed.

3 - Merely setting out the argument is sufficient to show it is nonsense.

Or having your evidence dismissed as if it’s just worthless drivel;

Some of the applicant’s documents have the appearance of form documents,[8] and it seems to be common for overseas based charlatans to exploit the gullible by selling these form documents as ‘solutions’ to a variety of legal problems.[9] None of the documents are of any legal effect whatsoever.

The “charlatan” referred to in footnote 9 is one of my favourite fools;

The one to whom the applicant refers, Russell Jay Gould, is a resident of the United States of America. He claims to have unlocked the secrets of ‘quantum grammar’ and in doing so he saved America from once again becoming a colony of the United Kingdom because of a secret pre-revolution postal contract. In this way he became the ‘postmaster-general of the world’. (I am not making this up.)

However the judge was in error in stating that Gould “unlocked “the secrets of “quantum grammar””. That was the life’s work of David-Wynn Millar, the deceased king of Hawaii. However Gould stabbed Miller in the back and took over his title of Postmaster-General of the World by court martialing Miller and throwing him out of his own organization for the heinous criminal offense of “failing in his duty to know and maintain fluency for now-time cognition in the field”. It’s all recorded in one of the most hysterically funny sovereign videos I’ve ever seen, a standout in a field in no way lacking in serious contenders. Even the title is a winner;

FOR THE STAND-DOWN-COURT-MARTIALING OF THE :David-Wynn: Miller.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaMOsVXQOU4

Back to Mr. Sweet. He’d been charged with marijuana offenses;

Kym Anthony Sweet, committed two offences contrary to the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The first allegation is that between February and August 2019, he unlawfully produced cannabis in amount exceeding 500 grams. The second allegation is that on 1 August 2019, he possessed hydroponic equipment that he had used in connection with producing cannabis.

R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216
https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/ ... c/2021/216

And he responded with the strawman argument. He probably got this from Miller’s vast library of videos. Millar had released a six part video seminar on how to claim your strawman along with associated documents and it appears these documents formed the basis for the application.

However the judge did not disregard all documentary evidence. A primary source of information backing the court’s decisions came from one of our own Quatloos posters!

ARTICLES: - Netolitzky, D J, ‘A Pathogen Astride the Minds of Men: The Epidemiological History of Pseudolaw’, paper delivered at the Centre d’expertise et de formation sur les intégrismes religieux et la radicalisation symposium: ‘Sovereign Citizens in Canada’, Montreal, 3 May 2018
Netolitzky, D and Warman, R, ‘Enjoy the Silence: Pseudolaw at the Supreme Court of Canada’, 2020 57-3 Alberta Law Review 715, 740

It’s an insultingly short decision that you can read it for yourselves because it's past midnight and I'm up at 6AM babysitting my five year old grandson. Grandparents are an exploited resource. The decision ends with;

[8] Criminal liability attaches to a person where they ‘do the act or one or more acts in a series which constitutes or constitute the offence’.[12] On any view of the present allegations, that could not be the ‘straw man’ or ‘dummy corporation’ mentioned by the applicant. The applicant’s own writings describe this purported alternate persona as ‘an artificial person’, a ‘legal entity’, ‘an artificial legal person’ and a ‘legal fiction’. Even if it existed in law, it is not capable of doing the act or acts that attract criminal liability. Of the two entities claimed by the applicant to exist – the applicant as ‘a real live flesh and blood man’ and the ‘straw man’ – the only one who could have done the acts that constitute the offences is the applicant, constituted in the corporeal form of the person who appeared in court to make this application. That is the person who was charged by the police, committed to stand trial by a Magistrate and against whom the present indictment was presented. That person is subject to the criminal law of this State and may be found to be criminally liable for his own acts. Even if the applicant possesses a ‘legal split-personality’, a proposition I reject, it could not alter this reality.

[9] There is no room for doubt or confusion as to who is said to have done the criminal acts and who is to stand trial in relation to the allegations. That is the applicant. His apparent wish to be identified by a name that is different to the name he was assigned at birth is of no moment at all.[13] However he is known, and no matter how odd the punctuation, he remains the same person – the one alleged to have committed the offences charged in the indictment.

[11] There being no merit to the application, it must be dismissed.

[The Observer]

Somewhat amazing that the works of Millar can still attract people willing to try utter nonsense. I am guessing that desperation on the part of Sweet was partly to blame since he was facing a criminal conviction, but I figure that the regular consumption of cannabis played a part as well. Too bad he didn't hook up with the Paraclete of Pot; not that it would have changed the results, but it would have given us more laughs.

[serfmaninthepolis]

One of my problems with this sort of reasoning, e.g. calling something "nonsense" is that it is not an argument. It does not say what it is, just that it is not sensible. It is indefinite. For appellate purposes, you tend to need reasons, and if all the first instance judge does is say 'this is nonsense,' without giving some reasons as to why, it is sort of difficult to see how it could even be reviewed on appeal, because the Judge is not giving reasons for his decision, he is simply saying the claim is nonsense.

But it's not nonsense of the highest order, e.g. "mfmmbmbbvvbnnnv vvvndfjhdjdjsdjvfv" where the letters don't even denote any speech in the language of the Court. It seems to me that the best argument against this sort of thing would not be "it is nonsense" but explaining how it is a person becomes subject to the jurisdiction of a Court.

Unfortunately, as anyone who has taken law school jurisprudence type courses knows, there is no agreement on this among jurists. In a good jurisprudence course you would be exposed to views ranging from natural law to positivism to "law is an artifice for oppressing hte working classes," a sort of critical legal realism. There tends to be an agreement upon WHAT it is states will do in given situations, but not very much so on WHY they do what they do. The only thing a reasonable person could agree to, I think, is that there is nobody with sufficient martial strength to oppose the state and its functionaries, so it does what it does, right or wrong.

I think, tho, that has the general standard of education declines, it is really that the Judiciary and Lawyers find this stuff to be gibberish, like, it's not even that they have taken jurisprudence (which tends to be an elective, but it is a course at law school) so they might have very little idea that there are multiple points of view about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the state.

Cannot one see the idea of a judge adjudicating a case for a slave, in the Bad Old Days, and hte slave saying "My Lord, I was born free and independent, and Mr. Jones seeks to reduce me to his moveable thing!" and the Judge saying that is "nonsense"?

[serfmaninthepolis]

"Criminal liability attaches to a person where they ‘do the act or one or more acts in a series which constitutes or constitute the offence’"

This, for example, is false. They have to do the act in a particular place at a particular time, which are matters for trial. For example, one could put to the officer on cross-examination "I put it to you that the events took place in North America, not where you said that they took place." Or "I put it to you that they took place in a different year than you said." Etc. This will at least be humorous for the Judge, unless he lacks the judicial temperament.

[Pottapaug1938]

One of my problems with this sort of reasoning, e.g. calling something "nonsense" is that it is not an argument. It does not say what it is, just that it is not sensible. It is indefinite. For appellate purposes, you tend to need reasons, and if all the first instance judge does is say 'this is nonsense,' without giving some reasons as to why, it is sort of difficult to see how it could even be reviewed on appeal, because the Judge is not giving reasons for his decision, he is simply saying the claim is nonsense.

But it's not nonsense of the highest order, e.g. "mfmmbmbbvvbnnnv vvvndfjhdjdjsdjvfv" where the letters don't even denote any speech in the language of the Court. It seems to me that the best argument against this sort of thing would not be "it is nonsense" but explaining how it is a person becomes subject to the jurisdiction of a Court.

Unfortunately, as anyone who has taken law school jurisprudence type courses knows, there is no agreement on this among jurists. In a good jurisprudence course you would be exposed to views ranging from natural law to positivism to "law is an artifice for oppressing hte working classes," a sort of critical legal realism. There tends to be an agreement upon WHAT it is states will do in given situations, but not very much so on WHY they do what they do. The only thing a reasonable person could agree to, I think, is that there is nobody with sufficient martial strength to oppose the state and its functionaries, so it does what it does, right or wrong.

I think, tho, that has the general standard of education declines, it is really that the Judiciary and Lawyers find this stuff to be gibberish, like, it's not even that they have taken jurisprudence (which tends to be an elective, but it is a course at law school) so they might have very little idea that there are multiple points of view about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the state.

Cannot one see the idea of a judge adjudicating a case for a slave, in the Bad Old Days, and hte slave saying "My Lord, I was born free and independent, and Mr. Jones seeks to reduce me to his moveable thing!" and the Judge saying that is "nonsense"?

You might want to look at the famous Crain and Wnuck cases.

[serfmaninthepolis]

"The oft-cited opinion in Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d at 1417, observes that one reason not to refute frivolous arguments is that “to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.”" (Wnuck)

The problem with this is that this changes "nonsense" (indefinite) into something definite, frivolous. It is not really a good argument to call any denial of the authority of a Sovereign entity/tax service "frivolous" or "nonsense," because this is a topic in academic philosophy, economics, etc. If the idea is protecting idiot laypeople without even a BA from academic philosophy, because it is "nonsense" that is possible, but it is not, IMO, tenable.

The problem is that if every rejection of state authority is considered "frivolous," that gets pretty close to suggesting the Executive Branch has an inherent capacity to do anything it wants, and that objecting to the authority of that Branch, and its subsidiaries, is a waste of the Judiciary's office---but that is exactly what the Judiciary exists to do, to reign in the Executive Branch and others.

It is not like someone claiming the right to, say, murder, which was always prohibited in the USA from day 1, even before codified in any enactment. It is more like suggesting that jaywalking is ultra vires the authority of the Legislature to enact, or the executive to enforce, either in general, or in the particular case. Now, the executive can certainly lean on decades of enforcement of jaywalking bylaws, maybe even more than a century at this point, but that is not the same as the suggestion that 'we never had a state that didn't punish murderers and thieves of some description.' We have certainly had states without income taxation, which emerges in the 20th century.

"The time and money that are spent in addressing a frivolous position can be considerable. For example, the Court's discussions of Mr. Wnuck's three arguments (in part I.C above) did not write themselves but required time to research and write. Admittedly, the research was not heavy intellectual lifting, but it did take time. Chaos can be spread quickly and easily; imposing order takes time and effort." (Wnuck)

This argument is even worse: no matter what the defense, the Judge must give reasons for why he thinks it is not a good defense. This is, again, bordering on "it's too costly to prepare reasons for why the Executive has the capacity to do what it did to you, but everyone knows it did, so we won't bother giving you reasons." I just don't know how that could be something that could be the subject of an appeal, unless at the appellate level you get the same sort of muddy reasoning.

It seems like you have two possible situations, one where something is designated as frivolous without reasons, and one where it is designated as frivolous with reasons, the latter treading toward giving a "color" of merit to the argument. But for appellate purposes, I just can't see how saying "this is frivolous, and I need not say why" could be reviewed.

It is sort of like the pornography, or "community standards" tests for obscenity, you just make reference to that subjective interpretation, but that can hardly be the standard used for tax purposes, or the other purposes that people deny the Legislature's capacity to make a law, or the Executive's capacity to enforce a law.

I would favor a judicial explanation, for criminal matters, along the lines of "In the old days, in our common law tradition, if you refused to plead, we would have stacked weights upon your chest until you pled or were dead. And so you must understand that our life is in your hands in these matters, and it is a requirement that you plead or die!"

Of course, this goes against the various modern theories of Government which do not see the Government as some divine institution with a natural right to rule but...well, it cannot be individual consent, and if it is "democratic" consent, who says the threshold is 50%, who says it is 66%, etc. etc? Who says the voting age is 21, or 18? Who says a senator must be age X? Once you take Government off of its pedestal, it becomes very difficult to see how it gains its authority---it is very easy to see it has coercion, this is acknowledged even in the most anti-statist Libertarian economics, but there is the issue of jurisdiction (power to declare the law) being different from coercion. It seems pretty intuitive that both the Government and a Pirate Ship have coercion, they can both throw you into the brig. It is defensible, tho to my eye, jaundiced (or perhaps my eye is jaundiced) to suggest that both a Government and a Pirate Ship equally have jurisdiction.

Also, I think that the freeman/sovcit types make the mistake that the Government employees in any branch of Government have some sort of coherent, top-down view of what they do. In most cases they have gone to K-12, got good grades, gone to law school, got good grades, gotten hired, did what htey did, and they keep doing it unless they get reviewed or in trouble, then they just didn't do that again. So it is not a system where anyone "knows what they are doing." I knew one old bureaucrat, an Episcopalian, Freemason, the average type these ppl would think was in on the Grand Conspiracy. His attitude, over lunch, was to grandly gesture and say "my God, why do you think it has to make sense?"

[AnOwlCalledSage]

<snip>

A lot of words there, and I can confirm that they are actual words, but arranged in an order that makes Edward Ellis' gibberish look almost comprehensible.

Even EWE's gibberish contains a few nuggets of information when you get used to his style, but that copy pasta? Nah.

[wserra]

It is not really a good argument to call any denial of the authority of a Sovereign entity/tax service "frivolous" or "nonsense"
...
The problem is that if every rejection of state authority is considered "frivolous,"

Well, then it's a good thing that neither Wnuck, Crain nor anyone here has made those arguments. This entire post consists of throwing otherwise perfectly useful electrons at straw men.

It is of course not uniformly frivolous to argue that, in taking a certain action, certain govt actors have acted outside of their powers. That argument is made every day, and (in the correct contexts) in perfectly good faith. It is not unusual to see it win. It's the reasoning (such as it is) behind the claim that renders it frivolous. For example, arguing that the govt can't tax your income because you "exchanged [your] skilled labor and knowledge for pay" (Wnuck) or because your income "is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state" (Crain) - those are frivolous. And they are frivolous not because I say so, or because any single court has said so, but because multiple courts have repeatedly said that not only are they wrong, but that they're stupid.

no matter what the defense, the Judge must give reasons for why he thinks it is not a good defense.

When courts have rejected the particular "defense" over and over? Why? Because you'd like the judge to do so?

It seems like you have two possible situations, one where something is designated as frivolous without reasons,

Well, If you believe that citing the fact that courts have rejected a particular position repeatedly is "without reasons", then I suppose you're right. However, I doubt you'll find that many people agree with you.

and one where it is designated as frivolous with reasons

This would be the first, say, dozen cases rejecting some dumb argument. Not enough for you?

But for appellate purposes, I just can't see how saying "this is frivolous, and I need not say why" could be reviewed.

If you're actually looking for an answer, here it is: because the appellate court will also know that previous courts have repeatedly rejected the particular position.

It is sort of like the pornography, or "community standards" tests for obscenity

No, it's not at all like that. However, we can use the obscenity analogy correctly: it would be similar to some prosecutor's office charging someone with obscenity for publishing Fanny Hill after the decision in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966) - in other words, trying to relitigate something already conclusively decided.

I would favor

Yeah, I guess that's the key. I am, however, unaware of how what you would favor affects the law.

[Dr. Caligari]

Serfman:
Suppose I sue you and allege that your post was so stupid that reading it caused me to lose my mind, run out into traffic and get killed (but I subsequently got better).
I ask for $30 billion in damages, plus an order that the Court send you to Gitmo to be waterboarded to death because you are guilty of felony stupidity.
What should the court do:
(a) Schedule a trial and let a jury decide?
(b) Write a 90-page opinion about why my claims are invalid? or
(c) Say my lawsuit is "frivolous" and dismiss it out of hand?

[Pottapaug1938]

Hey, serfmanomanischewitz, or whatever your name is -- check this out:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... rbosity%20(PVB,makes%20the%20argument%20sound%20plausible.

[serfmaninthepolis]

<snip>

A lot of words there, and I can confirm that they are actual words, but arranged in an order that makes Edward Ellis' gibberish look almost comprehensible.

Even EWE's gibberish contains a few nuggets of information when you get used to his style, but that copy pasta? Nah.

It's always possible you just can't read English. I mean, there are always two options when you cannot comprehend something, it is above your mind, or it is nonsense. People tend to gather into peer-groups of relatively the same speed, so, you know...

Like, if you accept the axioms of extension and specification, you can prove there is no Universe...so, like, it is always a question of the domain of discourse. Nothing contains everything.

[serfmaninthepolis]

It is not really a good argument to call any denial It is sort of like the pornography, or "community standards" tests for obscenity

No, it's not at all like that. However, we can use the obscenity analogy correctly: it would be similar to some prosecutor's office charging someone with obscenity for publishing Fanny Hill after the decision in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966) - in other words, trying to relitigate something already conclusively decided.

I would favor

Yeah, I guess that's the key. I am, however, unaware of how what you would favor affects the law.

(1) The problem with your view is that the Courts are no longer charged with maintaining nothing more than ancient customs, striking down anything that conflicts with precedent. That's simply not how they function, and there are going to be multiple precedents for lots of situations, a good canvassing of this is The Myth of the Rule of Law (1995 Wis. L. Rev. 199 (1995)):

"In the real world, it is entirely appropriate to assume that
once you have confirmed your hypothesis, all other hypotheses
inconsistent with it are incorrect.

In the legal world, however, this assumption does not hold. This is
because unlike the laws of nature, political laws are not consistent. The
law human beings create to regulate their conduct is made up of
incompatible, contradictory rules and principles; and, as anyone who has
studied a little logic can demonstrate, any conclusion can be validly
derived from a set of contradictory premises. This means that a logically
sound argument can be found for any legal conclusion."

(2) Well, it depends on what you think the law is. Is it something that people discover, or is it something they invent? And if invented, who invents it? Everyone has a jurisdiction, even if they don't have coercion to enforce it.

[serfmaninthepolis]

Hey, serfmanomanischewitz, or whatever your name is -- check this out:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... rbosity%20(PVB,makes%20the%20argument%20sound%20plausible.

I agree, they use far too many words to say "you have no authority over me, though you might be able to coerce me, I surrender. Are you a military occupier?"

I mean, that is basically where they seem to want to go, though, I think, they have this nostalgic fixation with the "rule of law" which, of course, means very little more than that the State must publish its intentions to beat you about the head and shoulders in some formal way in advance of beating you about the head and shoulders.

Also, like the claim of "frivolity," this sort of view could be (tho isn't necessarily) a collateral attack where one simply denies the coherence of the words and phrases use, as a way to avoid having to deal with them.

It is similar to the recourse to psychiatry often used in the Soviet Union---my interest in most of this stuff is that you can watch its evolution. For example, in the 1990s in Canada you often didn't even get case reports in many instances, because depending on the time/place they would simply send the poor dear for a psychiatric evaluation for having questioned the jurisdiction of the Court.

I think the USA is better about case reports, but in Canada, they only really came after it became economically untenable to gaslight everyone who said "Crown? I am subject to a HAT? That's schizophrenic drivel" into thinking THEY were the mental patient.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It's always possible you just can't read English. I mean, there are always two options when you cannot comprehend something, it is above your mind, or it is nonsense. People tend to gather into peer-groups of relatively the same speed, so, you know...

Like, if you accept the axioms of extension and specification, you can prove there is no Universe...so, like, it is always a question of the domain of discourse. Nothing contains everything.

I can read English, but you don't appear to be able to write it.

Absolute gobbledegook, all sound and fury signifying nothing, as someone who could write English once wrote.

[Pottapaug1938]

Hey, serfmanomanischewitz, or whatever your name is -- check this out:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... rbosity%20(PVB,makes%20the%20argument%20sound%20plausible.

I agree, they use far too many words to say "you have no authority over me, though you might be able to coerce me, I surrender. Are you a military occupier?"

I mean, that is basically where they seem to want to go, though, I think, they have this nostalgic fixation with the "rule of law" which, of course, means very little more than that the State must publish its intentions to beat you about the head and shoulders in some formal way in advance of beating you about the head and shoulders.

Also, like the claim of "frivolity," this sort of view could be (tho isn't necessarily) a collateral attack where one simply denies the coherence of the words and phrases use, as a way to avoid having to deal with them.

It is similar to the recourse to psychiatry often used in the Soviet Union---my interest in most of this stuff is that you can watch its evolution. For example, in the 1990s in Canada you often didn't even get case reports in many instances, because depending on the time/place they would simply send the poor dear for a psychiatric evaluation for having questioned the jurisdiction of the Court.

I think the USA is better about case reports, but in Canada, they only really came after it became economically untenable to gaslight everyone who said "Crown? I am subject to a HAT? That's schizophrenic drivel" into thinking THEY were the mental patient.

They have no "nostalgic fixations"; they have delusions, fantasies, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and much more.

A lot of things "could be" -- I could be the first man to flap my arms and fly to the moon; but the odds of my doing so can easily be guessed.

No, it is not "similar to the recourse to psychiatry used in the Soviet Union".

Canada has long used case reports in its body of law; indeed, they are essential to it. They are "gaslighting" NO ONE; and one can question the mental acuity of anyone who makes claims, in court or in pleadings, which are not based on fact or law.

It IS, as in Crain and Wnuck, a matter of something which does not merit serious consideration, because it is so far out of the realm of legal reality, and concerns areas which have been repeatedly litigated already. Our courts are already busy enough, and then some; and they do not need their dockets clogged up with frivolous lawsuits which only repeat the same old disproven claims.

[eric]

Canada has long used case reports in its body of law; indeed, they are essential to it. They are "gaslighting" NO ONE; and one can question the mental acuity of anyone who makes claims, in court or in pleadings, which are not based on fact or law.

I will admit that Canada is not great on having all judicial decisions available online, Quebec is one of the few exceptions. If you speak French, you can even find myself mentioned. However, as the previous poster is upset about, if you want to go prior 1990, there isn't a lot online, unless it is particularly important. Gee whiz, I was online before the internet, in the days of Darpanet and Fidonet, so life has changed since then. With respect to questioning the sanity of those who don't want to follow the normal rules of court and have had to do a psych evaluation, there are probably around six Canadian miscreants mentioned here on Quatloos, all post 2000, there is another sad case from a couple of months ago that I haven't got around to posting yet. The only one that I am personally aware of and mentioned here who had had his psych evaluation done prior to 2000 is our old friend Jamie Sterritt. BTW, he seems to have flown off the radar, appeared very rough in his last postings, so he may no longer be in the land of the living. Here's his detention order for anyone who is interested:
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/docu ... /1542_1985
BTW, that due to privacy concerns, I suspect that this link may only be valid for a short period of time.
*** edited for grammatical clarity

[serfmaninthepolis]

They have no "nostalgic fixations"; they have delusions, fantasies, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and much more.

A lot of things "could be" -- I could be the first man to flap my arms and fly to the moon; but the odds of my doing so can easily be guessed.

No, it is not "similar to the recourse to psychiatry used in the Soviet Union".

Canada has long used case reports in its body of law; indeed, they are essential to it. They are "gaslighting" NO ONE; and one can question the mental acuity of anyone who makes claims, in court or in pleadings, which are not based on fact or law.

It IS, as in Crain and Wnuck, a matter of something which does not merit serious consideration, because it is so far out of the realm of legal reality, and concerns areas which have been repeatedly litigated already. Our courts are already busy enough, and then some; and they do not need their dockets clogged up with frivolous lawsuits which only repeat the same old disproven claims.

The problem with this comparison is that you can use science to demonstrate, based on physics principles, that no one can fly to the moon by flapping his arms, it's not just a "precedent," e.g. the reason we have not observed someone fly to the moon is because of various other observations we have made about materials, lift, density of the atmosphere, etc. etc.

You can't make arguments like that for law, unless you are a complete positivist, and then you run into problems like:

"It may well be, in order that Canada's true constitutional status may be preserved that a constitutional charter similar to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States will be essential. No doubt it will be if the doctrine of the "Supremacy of Parliament" is pushed to the extreme mirrored in a declaration that "Parliament has power to order the destruction of all blue-eyed babies". .For the law must be taken to intend what is reasonable; (Lex semper inten-dit quod convent rationi) " (Campbell Motors Limited v. Gordon, 1946 CanLII 242 (BC CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/gdffz> p. 45)

And as soon as you admit that it would be unnatural, or immoral, or whatever word you want to describe the case, for Parliament to order the destruction of all blue-eyed babies, then you are committed to a system of natural judicial review, as a control on parliament; that is, parliament is not supreme, because there are certain laws parliament simply cannot make, or, if having made them, the Executive branch cannot enforce them. The "branch" language is related to the "tree" metaphor---trees can be greatly varied, but they all have trunks and roots, and they all have some system for moving water from the earth into the top of the tree, the "Crown" of the tree, if you will.

So, perhaps you think that parliament can order the destruction of all blue-eyed babies, and if Mama and Papa Blue-eyes apply to the Superior Court of their Province for an injunction preventing the destruction of their baby, the only real analysis the Judge needs to do is ask "did Parliament enact this law? Is the baby blue-eyed? Therefore it should be destroyed, and my hands are tied."

The problem is that you are using "proof" equivocally, which is a problem with law since the Enlightenment, when you get the word "law" used both for scientific laws (which are demonstrable and are the same everywhere, e.g. there is not one law of gravity in Perisa, another in Athens) and for positive "laws", which vary by time and place.

Scientifically, by observing cars in a 50km/h zone, you would think the speed limit is a sort of gradient, e.g. somewhere around 60km/h, because most people do slightly over 50km/h. Then you see someone get pulled over for 56km/h and you go observe the court proceeding and the Constable, who was himself going 57km/h just ten minutes beforehand, stands up and says 'the legal reality is that the speed limit is 50km/h, and we all must obey the law' even though everyone who drives goes over the speed limit, goes through yellow lights at least sometimes, etc. etc. But the "legal reality" (not the scientific reality) in Court is that everyone agrees 'we are all good children who never go over 50km/h in a 50km/h zone.'

So, "scientific proof" is different from "legal proof." Someone who said that he could fly to the moon with his arms would indeed be crazy---someone who says "I am born free and equal, so you have no jurisdiction," that is not really so crazy. There is no science experiment that demonstrates who ought to be the Judges, and Judges do not say "I am a Judge in fact because i have the power to order you," they tend to rely on something more like "I am a judge in law because I ought to be a Judge because I am trained properly and have been duly constituted a judge within our polity." IF they say their judge-ship is simply based on their capacity to coerce, that tends to be reviewable for appellate purposes, though they only tend to do that to low-value litigants who cannot afford lawyers.

Like, a Judge can cite for contempt, that is true, but it is not his POWER to lock someone up for contempt that makes him a Judge, he has that power because he is a Judge for some reason, he is not a judge because he can say "Bailiff, lock him up until he accepts my authority!" Or is that why you think he is a Judge, because he can lock people up?

These are all questions that one might address in a Law School jurisprudence class, not necessarily because they bear on teh practice of law in courts, but because they are certainly questions in philosophy of law and are a sort of pedagogical exercise.

[serfmaninthepolis]

Actually, one should say physical laws and positive laws, because the Greek physis, from which physics comes, is translated natura in Latin, so natural laws are physical laws, e.g. the laws of nature. But positive laws are those put in place by agreement, so then the issue becomes "whose agreement"? There is no agreement about fire burning, it does not gain its capacity to burn from agreement, so that is a natural law, that fire burns. But that you may not have a fire on the beach with your friends, because X, X is an agreement, it is not a natural law, it is a positive law.

The positivists in some sense reduce positive laws to a sort of "natural law," because they will argue in this way: "we observe that if you have a fire on the beach, the fireman comes and pours water on it, and the constable comes and gives you a ticket, therefore, it is a physical law, just as what goes up must come down, that if you have a fire, the fireman and constable arrive to do their things." But as I said above, this means there is no capacity for any sort of natural judicial review, which is not necessarily a problem, but my gut feeling is most people would not say parliament has the capacity to slaughter blue-eyed children, with the Judiciary's hands tied absent some positive framework for judicial review.

[Pottapaug1938]

There goes serfwhateverheis, again -- chasing, like a dog after a rabbit, after a side topic of mine. He again uses the "argument from verbosity" logical fallacy, at great length, to completely miss the point of my comment, which responded to his assertion that "like the claim of 'frivolity,' this sort of view could be (tho isn't necessarily) a collateral attack where one simply denies the coherence of the words and phrases use, as a way to avoid having to deal with them."

Yes, it "could be", in someone's delusion; but it "could not be," in anything like the cases which we are discussing.

Now, serfsomethingorother, my patienmce is REALLY getting thin. Your next serving of word salad might get tossed.

[serfmaninthepolis]

There goes serfwhateverheis, again -- chasing, like a dog after a rabbit, after a side topic of mine. He again uses the "argument from verbosity" logical fallacy, at great length, to completely miss the point of my comment, which responded to his assertion that "like the claim of 'frivolity,' this sort of view could be (tho isn't necessarily) a collateral attack where one simply denies the coherence of the words and phrases use, as a way to avoid having to deal with them."

Yes, it "could be", in someone's delusion; but it "could not be," in anything like the cases which we are discussing.

Now, serfsomethingorother, my patienmce is REALLY getting thin. Your next serving of word salad might get tossed.

[word salad tossed]