The Person vs Human Being Thread (split from the Deerfoot Speeding Cam thread) - Page 5 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

jammies · 03-20-2009, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flylock shox

And the last time I saw some nutbar raise the "person" argument in court, the judge leaned back in her chair, counted the tiles in the ceiling, and then asked the sheriffs to remove said nutbar from the courtroom.

Are you saying that the judge wasn't overborne by the resounding truth and chose not to allow this innovative thinker to define the terms on which the case would be tried? Who did she think she was, some kind of authority within the legal system or something?

If only we lived in the US, where such egregious abuse of judicial power could be curbed by turfing her in the very next election! Down with the Legalists, up with the People**!

** "People" is a term copyrighted by the Free Thinkers society to identify a group of "Persons", not to be confused with a group of "Actual You's". Use is restricted under the terms of the Nah Nah Nah I Can't Hear You Act of Nineteen Eleventy Twelve.

Unauthorized use will be dealt with. You don't want to find out how.

Tower · 03-20-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Allow me to be the first lawyer to come out and say that the premise that you can apply the Bills of Exchange act to citations issued for offences is gibberish. The Bills of Exchange Act deals with voluntary commercial transactions, not with penalties imposed for breach of laws passed by Parliament or Legislatures. The specific Acts (i.e. Traffic Safety Act) occupy the field in terms of defining offences, penalties, mechanisms for contesting, etc. There is no room for the Bills of Exchange Act to operate in the sphere of tickets and fines.

You may want to read the Provincial and Federal Interpretation Acts, the Judicature Act, the Rules of Court, and the Traffic Safety Act before coming up with any more theories. In addition, you may want to also take a constitutional law course to understand why the Federal Government power relating to Banking and Bills of Exchange does not operate within the Provincial sphere of Regulating Highways in the Province which is where the power to fine is derived. (Assuming of course that your assertion that a ticket is a bill of exchange isn't ludicrous on it's face.)

Thank you for coming out, and I sincerely mean that. I look forward to referencing this in the not to distant future!

Tower · 03-20-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike F

I've just watched a bunch of Robert Menard's "Bursting the Bubble of Government Deception" and I'll be the second lawyer to call it gibberish.

The notion that the fact that the Bill of Rights lists no hierarchy under God means that every person is second only to god and thus not subject to government power is ridiculous.

Similarly, the idea that the Income Tax Act has no power because it lacks a preamble is laughable.

Thank you also!!! I also look forward to referencing this in the not to distant future!

troutman · 03-20-2009, 08:38 AM

How did I miss this thread?

I acted as a Federal Crown Prosecutor in the S. Okanagan. Every year we had to prosecute a few fellows who strongly believed the government had no right to tax them. They all ended up paying the arrears, interest, fines, or went to jail.

Tower · 03-20-2009, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flylock shox

I thought this brand of lunacy sounded familiar (he said, providing a link to a similar thread by the same OP).

Allow me to be the second lawyer to say that this line of argument has been roundly rejected by courts right across this country and holds no legal water whatsoever. And the last time I saw some nutbar raise the "person" argument in court, the judge leaned back in her chair, counted the tiles in the ceiling, and then asked the sheriffs to remove said nutbar from the courtroom.

And I in no way wish to imply that the OP is a loony or a nutbar. I only wish to say that, in my personal and professional experience, I have only seen this type of argument advanced by loonies and nutbars.

Edit: Curses! Make that the THIRD lawyer. God. This place is just crawling with lawyers.

Umm Thank you?

Nope I really am not a nut bar at all. But I will reference this in the not too distant future!

CaptainCrunch · 03-20-2009, 08:42 AM

advertisement

Vinny Gambini: I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he would testify. No discovery of any tests he's conducted or reports he's prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of all witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we can properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have his reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini?
Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
Vinny Gambini: Thank you, sir.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Overruled.

troutman · 03-20-2009, 08:47 AM

Humans
Humans being

We're just humans (That's what makes us)
Humans being (That's what makes us)

We're just humans (That's what makes us)
Humans being (That's what makes us)

- Sammy Hagar

Bobblehead · 03-20-2009, 09:03 AM

I work in a firm that does income tax, and every year some people believe the whole "we aren't required to pay income tax because it was a temporary measure to pay for WW I" spiel. And then we patiently explain that those people are charged with Income Tax Evasion and lose.

As a matter of fact, here is one from Wednesday.

Quote:

Moman, who is from Neepawa, about 190 kilometres west of Winnipeg, argued the tax is unconstitutional and the Tax Act is unenforceable. The provincial court of Manitoba disagreed.

"No court in Canada has ever agreed with the idea that the federal government cannot levy income taxes," the revenue agency release stated.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/st...x-evasion.html

I guess this should also be filed under the "some people never learn" category:

Quote:

Moman was previously fined $5,000 in January 2003 after being convicted of failing to file personal income tax returns from 1996 to 2000.

valo403 · 03-20-2009, 09:10 AM

What's with all this referencing in the not to distant future? Did you just request a recess? Surely such a sound theory as yours doesn't require days of digging to overcome challenges to the most basic elements of your claim.

Although not a lawyer, not quite at least, I'm also going to call gibberish. As I asked before, provide some case support for your claim. Even if you found me a series of cases that in reality gave your cause no support, at least I'd think you were trying. As it is, it appears you just latched on to a wild scheme that seemed to make sense when it rattled it's way into your head.

flylock shox · 03-20-2009, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tower

Umm Thank you?

Nope I really am not a nut bar at all. But I will reference this in the not too distant future!

But why? Why would you reference it? To whom? To accomplish what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I work in a firm that does income tax, and every year some people believe the whole "we aren't required to pay income tax because it was a temporary measure to pay for WW I" spiel. And then we patiently explain that those people are charged with Income Tax Evasion and lose.

As a matter of fact, here is one from Wednesday.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/st...x-evasion.html

I guess this should also be filed under the "some people never learn" category:

And the bizarre thing is that it's not as though these folks are just coming up with these arguments on their own. They are, as the links Tower has provided demonstrate, loosely organized. No matter how many times the courts reject these arguments, they keep on being made.

Good on you for your firm's patient explanations. I used to be amused by these types of arguments, but now I've started to lose my lunacy-tolerance. It's just annoying now. Maybe it's time for a vacation.

Rathji · 03-20-2009, 09:19 AM

Am I the only one who was looking forward to being able to use my speeding tickets as money?

malcolmk14 · 03-20-2009, 09:27 AM

I forwarded this to a family member who has practiced law for twenty years, and he said he got halfway through the first post and couldn't read any further.

Hogwash, I tells ya.

VladtheImpaler · 03-20-2009, 09:36 AM

Despite being a lawyer ... after patiently reading through this thread, I have decided that I am going to drive at least 25 over the speed limit and use the tickets to pay for my groceries. That's an extra $750/month I can put into RRSP's to reduce my taxes yet further. Thanks Tower - ignore the haters.

Burninator · 03-20-2009, 09:44 AM

I don't really understand what's going on here or what the OP is getting at, but I thought law is not just enforced as the letter of the law, but also as precedent (ie. what other court cases have decided) so semantic word play (not sure if that's whats going on here) doesn't trump the law.

CaptainCrunch · 03-20-2009, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't really understand what's going on here or what the OP is getting at, but I thought law is not just enforced as the letter of the law, but also as precedent (ie. what other court cases have decided) so semantic word play (not sure if that's whats going on here) doesn't trump the law.

True and commercial law in not applicable to criminal law.

Rathji · 03-20-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't really understand what's going on here or what the OP is getting at, but I thought law is not just enforced as the letter of the law, but also as precedent (ie. what other court cases have decided) so semantic word play (not sure if that's whats going on here) doesn't trump the law.

As I understand it, he is claiming (some very questionable things about Bill of Exchange Act) that make a previous precedent apply to the case of traffic tickets.

corporatejay · 03-20-2009, 11:45 AM

Just so i'm clear. What you are claiming is you don't want to pay taxes or obey laws. You do however want to use all of the services that the government provides you with and you want everyone else to obey those laws?

Tower · 03-20-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Just so i'm clear. What you are claiming is you don't want to pay taxes or obey laws. You do however want to use all of the services that the government provides you with and you want everyone else to obey those laws?

There are many problems IMO that need addressed in Canada today. But for the main topic of discussion, it's not about sticking it to the man or about getting away with speeding ticket violations / Parking Ticket Violations. It is the way we as human beings are being treated by civil servants. The feeling that you and I have no choice. Why don't people vote? Could it be that they feel it does not matter even at the sub conscience level? Now imagine you have the ability to directly affect change. You get pretty pumped. If I have found a way to control my stake in Canada the country and leave Canada the Corporation behind I'm all happy and I'm pretty sure if this checks out many other people will be just as pumped and excited as well.

I was talking about it with someone very close to me about this issue and Freeman ideas. As a whole it is not the complete answer, but the status quo is NOT the answer as well. But a movement like this will invoke change. It will force change. I am not an anarchist. I am not a hater. I am very much overtly friendly and passionate toward man.

As far as taxes it is stated previously that I am paying taxes. I will continue to pay taxes. However I want to know exactly where my money goes. I will not fight a war indirectly that I do not agree with. I will not build a multi million dollar bridge that helps select few. I will not pay for a plush lifestyle for a representative a specially if he or she is not doing the job I believe we deserve.

SportsJunky · 03-20-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rathji

My bet is http://www.thinkfree.ca/

From this site:

Quote:

The simple fact is if this is a free society, we have the right to leave. If we do not have that right, it is neither free, nor a society

Hack&Lube · 03-20-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Humans
Humans being

We're just humans (That's what makes us)
Humans being (That's what makes us)

We're just humans (That's what makes us)
Humans being (That's what makes us)

- Sammy Hagar

The last great, greatest Van Halen song. Too bad it was for the movie Twister. It's a sick song and Eddie was magnificent. Shine on CP. Shine on.