Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Manitoba  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 20
view profile
History
question for Canadian lawyersPage 2 of 2    (1, 2)
Suggesting you didn't want to become a lawyer because you 'have a conscious, and dislike deceiving people' is either dishonest, ignorant, or potentially both.


With a statement like this, I would only ascertain that your litigation skills might be lacking. No harm, no foul.
 haywiresue
Joined: 9/27/2006
Msg: 21
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 7/29/2011 3:51:08 PM
I found the following information on the Vancouver Community College website out of their Multilingual Legal Glossery.

Term "immoral"

Language "English"

Plain Language Definition "not following accepted rules and standards of behaviour"
Context/Example " Her grandmother told her that when she was young, people thought you were *immoral* if you lived with your boyfriend before you got married."

Related words "bad, wicked, profligate"

IMO in law this is a "grey area" that can be argued in a positive or negative way, and thats why lawyers make the big bucks.........
 Belle Requin
Joined: 2/17/2007
Msg: 22
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 8/12/2011 5:35:35 PM
So which of your posts did you want to stand by?
Given your clear lack of reading comprehension, it's no wonder you haven't done anything to actually find the answer to your question.

Had you searched the criminal code, you would have clearly noted that 'immoral' is not defined. Then, you would have had to look at case law to see what if any definition the courts had chosen to use.

You've missed the entire point- I've told you where to get your answers, I've told you why, you still want to create absurd tautological arguments.


With a statement like this, I would only ascertain that your litigation skills might be lacking.
In fact, litigation skills are half what you say, and half how you say it- though as you've never actually practiced law, I'm sure you wouldn't have realised this yet. Lawyers aren't allowed to be deceptive or dishonest- so the most likely explanations are either that you're ignorant of what is actually required or permitted from lawyers, or you're lying as to why you 'decided' not to be one. And that being said, my litigation skills are pretty damn good.
 Belle Requin
Joined: 2/17/2007
Msg: 24
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 8/14/2011 1:09:43 PM

This is a discussion thread, not a law class.
And yet the question was for lawyers. At least it's nice to know you're admitting to wanting to continue on in ignorance instead of actually learning the answer to your question.


No, the entire point is the CC has terms in it that aren't defined, leaving it open to abuse.
Again- a complete lack of any awareness, knowledge, or comprehension as to how the system works. So you get charged- whoopty do. That's when a judge gets to determine (according to legal principles you haven't bothered to look at) if what you did was immoral. Had you gone looking for case law, it would have been laid out for you. But noooooooooooooooooooo, you've determined that there is a problem and are unwilling to learn that what you think is a problem, is a complete figment of your imagination.
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 26
view profile
History
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 8/15/2011 12:01:30 PM

In fact, litigation skills are half what you say, and half how you say it- though as you've never actually practiced law, I'm sure you wouldn't have realised this yet. Lawyers aren't allowed to be deceptive or dishonest- so the most likely explanations are either that you're ignorant of what is actually required or permitted from lawyers, or you're lying as to why you 'decided' not to be one. And that being said, my litigation skills are pretty damn good.


I know I've never meet an honest attorney. After they accept the retainer, the BS comes out. That's where billable hours came from. Anyone else ever meet an honest lawyer?
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 28
view profile
History
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 8/16/2011 5:07:49 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^ What did I tell you.... Billable hours.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 29
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 8/22/2011 5:35:44 PM
"Canada is a COMMON-LAW jurisdiction."

Um nope it is not a common law jurisdiction. Like the rest of the world it is under Admiralty jurisdiction. Statute law is not law but has the force of law. It is not common law principles used in statutes. It is increasingly coming to light that it is Admiralty law via the UCC. The use of Capitalized legal corporate fictions used on all your government contracts ie drivers licence, SIN , Income tax, Medical, Banking documents, Etc Etc..


CPP is a joke , CPP was joined to the income tax in 1967 (3 years after they brought the cpp in). In the the income tax act 248(1) you will see the definitions only apply in the act. Some worth analyzing are Business, corporation, Employed, Employee, Employer,Employment, Office, Officer, person,legal Representative, individual, taxpayer,salary or wages, After you really understand these definitions, and how they change you from a natural person into one of these fictitious legal creatures like officer, it will become clear to you.

Nowhere in the the 2452 pages of the income tax can you find , in prescribed form any expressed declaration that the income tax can operate not withstanding (in spite of) the Canadian bill of rights. So if someone says you have to pay income tax and you know who you are, and you know sec 2 of the Canadian bill of rights you say "fine" I'll pay just show me where in the act it says the income tax is allowed to operate in spite of the bill of rights and that it's allowed to infringe on you human rights.

You will see the only way is if you are tricked by forgetting who you are and replacing your natural person with officer etc. how is this done? Through a joinder (joining or coupling together uniting two or more constituents or elements in one, uniting another person in some legal step or proceeding union concurrence.) How must it occur? It must be voluntary by unconstrained by interference unimpelled by another's influence spontanious acting on oneself. Proceeding from free and unrestricted will of person. This is the trick, It's like the guy in the Van trying to get the kiddies to come with him with a lolli pop.If you don't take the loli pop you don't get to go for the ride. Do you really want to?

Why must it be voluntary? Universal declaration of human rights Dec 10 1948 article 4 - No one shall be held in slavery or servitude, slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Through Tacit consent this can occur. It means if you didn't say no to it, then you agree to it.

I suggest people also study and understand the word INCLUDES, It's not what you think it means. It's linked to the legal maxim Inclusio unis est exclusio alterius which means The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation one one person is an absolute exclusion of ALL others.

Canadian Interpretation ACT
Person - Or any word of expression descriptive of a person INCLUDES a corporation.

The word Person in law comprises Natural persons and artificial persons. The parts of the whole for example are Citizen, Driver, Voter, Human,. Taxpayer, Director, Officer, Owner and many more. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.
Some more examples of the use of includes in Canadian statutes.

Assessment Act- "Land" - includes (a) land covered by water

Land Act - "Construction purpose" includes without limitation

Canada Elections act - "Person" - includes elector voter and candidate.

Motor Vehicle Act- "Accident" - includes an intentional collision, Wow, when people go to court to deal with an accident the courts are only dealing with guilty parties, By holding a license the have admitted it was intentional. The use of includes for legal purposes is tricky.


Back to the Income tax,
Is income tax voluntary? It depends...

Are you working in your own capacity for your own benefit? if yes then it's voluntary.

OR

Are you working in the capacity of a legal Representative of a federally created artificial person, for it's benefit ? If yes then it's not voluntary because you are receiving a benefit.

Canadian Law Dictionary 5th edition pg 134

Individual- A person. Under the bill of rights RSC 1985 c44 , "the right of the individual" extends to natural persons only, and not to corporations RV Colgate - Palmolive ltd (1972)

Why is it within the income tax act your refereed to as an Officer, taxpayer, person, Client etc?

Canada Customs an Revenue Agency c17 act 1999

1) The powers duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include All matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction(parliament has jurisdiction over indirect taxes not direct taxes) , not by law assigned to any department, board or agency of the Government of Canada other than the agency, relating to

A) Duties of customs and matters incident thereto

B) Duties of Excise

C) Stamp duties and the preparation and issue of stamps and stamped paper.

d)INTERNAL TAXES, unless otherwise provided , including income taxes and

E) such other subjects as may be assigned to the Minister by Parliament or the Governor in Council

So we see Parliament has jurisdiction over indirect taxes, they go on to call income tax an internal federal tax within the Parliaments jurisdiction. So somehow within this box is the only place income tax exists.



Is the income tax a fraud? It appears not.

"Juries ignorant est cum jus nostrum ignoramus " - translation -It is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights.

Is Income tax unconstitutional ? Appears, No

Income tax is a federal INTERNAL tax making it an indirect tax, which is only applicable to a federal created artificial person know as an "OFFICER"

Was Income tax supposed to be temporary? No.....

Committee of the Whole July Th 1917 Sir Thomas White Min of Finance

" I have placed no time limit upon this measure but merely have placed upon hansard the suggestion that a year or two after the war is over , the measure should be REVIEWED by the minister of finance of the day, with a view of judging whether it is suitable to the conditions which prevail"

Is Income Tax Illegal ? No....
The original Income War tax act has the required enacting clause. Today's version is just an amended version of the original. The biggest difference being the original was only 39 pages in length



Some say you will be stripped of all benefits the system offers, thats not necessarily true.

A natural person has the right to contract because , upon our birth we are endowed with the gift of freewill, and the natural right to self determination. This natural right can be exercised with or without knowledge to enter into legally binding contracts, the responsibility and choice is yours.

Canadian Law dictionary Th ed pg 163

Contract- A contract is a legally recognized agreement between two or more persons, giving rise to obligations that may be enforced in the courts. By such agreements the parties not only restrict their present or future freedom to act , by the limitations imposed upon themselves by the agreement , they are creating a set of legal rules , binding as regards to themselves and only themselves

So .. the power you have is you can literally take control and deal under these private contracts., but if your unaware of your power you'll fall into the default benefit systems the Government has created.

Freedom of Contract Canadian Law Dictionary 5th ed pg 115

The ability of parties to agree to the most advantageous bargain between them without interference from the courts. In the eighteenth century there was little restriction placed on this freedom, the philosophy being that men could pursue their interests in the way they saw fit and that the duty of the law was merely to give effect to the intentions of the parties. This position still finds expression today.

So .. we have a powerful right to structure our life and our work relationships the way that we want.

Privity of Contract Canadian law dictionary 5th ed Page 220

The doctrine where by one can enforce contractual rights against another only if one was party to the contract. Under the general doctrine of privity of contract, no one who is not an original party to a contract is entitled to seek to enforce the terms of the contract or is bound by any of it provisions.

Some ways to exercise your rights - THE COMMON OPTION

- If you want you can voluntarily represent the taxpayer.

-Work for the taxpayer for the benefits of CPP (although there are many private pension plans that perform better).

-File an Income Tax Return for the taxpayer you represent.

-Learn the limited rights of the taxpayer.

-Obey every law applicable to the taxpayer.

-Just remember the taxpayer is an artificial person.

-It can't be hurt and has no feelings

-It's creator leaves it with only enough to survive.

-It's creator is more concerned about it's OWN survival

REMEMBER Your human rights don't apply to the taxpayer


The Forgotten Option

-To earn a living to sustain your life

-Exercises your "liberty" and present yourself as a natural person.

-Exchange your physical and intellectual "property" for compensation.

-Only choose benefits you are willing to pay the price for.

-Don't remain disadvantaged and let others choose for you.

-Become personally responsible and learn to exercise your rights.

-Never again let deception of man destroy your gift of freedom (just as MBU alluded to in his post)

Learn to live with respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law, so you can become healthy wealthy and wise.

Summary:

Default Contract of service

Relationship = Government servant (like Ronald Reagan once said" The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination")

ID required = Social insurance number

Payment = Taxable renumeration

Mandatory Benefit

Canadian pension plan = Officer

Employment insurance = Insured Person

Workers Compensation = Worker

You are one of two things,

Slaves living in the Illusion of freedom

OR

Free living in an Illusion of slavery

The fraudulent mature of the whole affair is IMMORAL :) Maybe thats why there is no clear definition of immoral LOL

Actually there is a definition of immoral in Backs Law dictionary on page 920 third ed

IMMORAL Contrary to good morals; inconsistent with the rules and principles on morality; imimicical to public welfare according to the standards of a given community, as expressed in law or otherwise.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 31
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 8/22/2011 10:20:23 PM
Well yes i suppose unless it has been redefined in the definition section of the statute,Blacks would be okay. Morality falls into concensus reality no? We belong to the society called the law society so they decide what is moral.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 33
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 8/23/2011 5:22:50 AM
We have had a de facto government in control of Canada since 1931. And, we have had a de facto Monarch of Canada since Queen Victoria's death in 1901. This plundering federal government has direct control over the Provincial governments - thus making them also part of the fraud. A "de facto" government exists by usurpation. Government "assumed" power in 1931. In relation to a government gaining sovereign powers, the word "assume" is synonomous with "usurp", according to the Webster Dictionary.



On September 19, 1931, the United Kingdom left the revised gold standard,[3] forced to suspend the gold bullion standard due to large outflows of gold across the Atlantic Ocean. The British benefited from the departure. They could now use monetary policy to stimulate the economy through the lowering of interest rates. Australia and New Zealand had already been forced off the gold standard by the same pressures connected with the Great Depression, and Canada quickly followed suit with the United Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard



While the Statute applied to Canada without the need for ratification, the British North America Acts (the then written elements of the Canadian federal Constitution) was excluded from the Statute's application. The exclusion of the Acts was the result of a disagreement between the Canadian provinces and the federal government over how the North America Acts would be amended in an independent Canada. The disagreement was only resolved with the passing of the Canada Act in 1982, thus completing the so-called patriation of the Canadian Constitution back to Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931

There is even a "law" within the Canadian Criminal Code that may have been in place before 1931. Section 15 says: "No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs." If a "person" - a body without a freewill mind and subject to the de facto Crown is not subject to this de facto government, how much less would a freeman with Common Law Rights be subject to the "laws" of this type of government?

Through unlawful actions of this defacto government, the Bankers have changed Canada into a Slave state . The Bankers' Fiat currency (which is created by commercial banks through debt) and the income tax is how we are controlled. We have a debased state of MORALS and currency.

A "de jure" government is one emplaced by lawful methods and with the consent of the People. Have you ever heard of any lawful procedures - like a referendum, ever being voted upon by Canadians at any time in the past? Voting currently is voting for club officers. You must join the club (register to vote) to vote for anything in Canada.

Canada Elections act - "Person" - includes elector voter and candidate.
(a person is an artificial entity - a corporation not a flesh and blood human being)

You know like i was talking about above, an artificial person or as you like to call it "citizen"."Citizen"; however, means one who is subject (under the authority of) to government in our Roman admiralty law system. You contract into just about every statute that has authority over you with your signature.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 34
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 8/23/2011 6:39:57 AM
Check out the Lord Nelson Hotel Supreme Court Case, the Statute of Westminster 1931, the British North America Act 1867-1982

The fraud of trudeaus constitution,
http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1982/eirv09n16-19820427/eirv09n16-19820427_049-the_fraud_of_trudeaus_constituti.pdf

The British North America Act of 1867 is an act of British Parliament and has never been "accepted" as our Constitution by the Canadian people through referendum.

Black's Law dictionary describes "constitution" as being "a charter of government deriving its sole authority from the governed."

We are constitutors without a constitution :)
 CuriousDav56
Joined: 3/16/2007
Msg: 35
view profile
History
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 8/27/2011 4:12:21 PM
I'm sure its like asking a mechanic to lend you his wrench so you can change your own oil here...
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 36
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 9/2/2011 7:13:52 PM
Here is an interesting fellow from Manitoba

Freeman Dean Clifford - Empower yourself - presumptions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DnqoUxxPkI
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 37
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 9/12/2011 7:01:27 PM
here is an updated link the one above does not work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lhPhos88_g

Also here is the anti-terrorist well worth watching regularly

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAntiTerrorist#p/u/1/JENWiSr3GkA
 williamjay
Joined: 12/11/2010
Msg: 38
view profile
History
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 12/20/2011 7:55:09 PM
even definitions need to be defined?? = legalese for "it means whatever we mean it to mean, on a case by case basis, depending on the phase of the moon complicated by the mood of the judge and hopefully never appeaaled"
 edjoecdn
Joined: 5/25/2006
Msg: 39
view profile
History
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 12/26/2011 9:57:18 AM
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary

or as suggested earlier ( before the thread was jacked) research case law.

Supreme court of Canada, the highest court of your Province, local case law...

Immoral.... as it is applied to .... ? A performance ? one exposing one self...? what ?

A simple word like that ( with a zillion applications) is viewed within the application of the descriptor...

Don't focus on "the word"... for as you can see... it's not defined.... for a reason!
 williamjay
Joined: 12/11/2010
Msg: 41
view profile
History
question for Canadian lawyers
Posted: 12/26/2011 11:20:38 AM
well, it is a judge who decides on each case, then the decision is handed down, no surprise there. We expect them to decide on arguments presented. Punish the wrong-doer, (infidel) or save the innocents, (righteous), any prejudice or intention can allow one to do the wrong thing for the right reason and the other way around too.

I agree that sometimes there is a political agenda or local policy to guide a judge, but think that it's mostly the lawyers who fall prey to that type of interference. Like a policy of "charge the man" in all domestic disputes, that's the crown prosecutors office or police to decide to charge, taken aside from law and reason, (and taken away from the woman in many cases), but it's then the judge who may restore it . . . same with morals, a judgment call by definition, as it's about prevalent attitude about the potential to harm rather than any actual harm.

It's nice to see this thread getting back to the answer, proper.
Show ALL Forums  > Manitoba  >