The Tender For Law

English Only

ENGLISH is the international language of law and commerce. Knowing FRENCH is useful for understanding LEGAL ENGLISH, but FRENCH is not the international language of law and commerce, so we will ignore French speakers who speak to us in the language of a conquered people.

Non.

I understand that you are a proud Québécois, but the people here have nothing but contempt for you because of decades of transfer payments and NONE OF YOU understanding what Quebec sovereignty means. None of you know who Russell Rogers Smith is, and you're too proud and arrogant to teach. Just go away and be Retardier somewhere else.

Volume 3

Sep 07, 2013 8:10 PM

Sino GeneralChiefRock Sino General

Check this case out, now you will have to read but this just goes to show, how damn ignorant and foul these European judges really think they are superior over our nations, they think they can choose for us, determine things about us and push their laws upon us, cause we are less than nothing in their eyes, our status doesnt mean shit to them here is the statement about it, a good point this guy makes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I hope that was helpful and interesting. Just one last little point — it’s pretty clear that the courts have concluded that aboriginal status has no effect on the application of Canadian law, see R. v. Jones, 2000 CanLII 28221 (http://canlii.ca/t/2bqrq). In R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 SCR 701 the Supreme Court of Canada said … a state has exclusive sovereignty over all persons, citizens or aliens, and all property, real or personal, within its own territory.”

CanLII - 2000 CanLII 28221 (AB QB)

canlii.ca

[1] Johnstone J.: — Donald-David Jones (the "applicant") is charged with noncompliance with s. 231(1) of the Income Tax Act of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the "Act"), for failing to comply with demands made upon him pursuant to sub-para. 231.2(1)(a) of the Actto”

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 3, page 1153
Printed copy of this post
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 3, page 1153 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.
Unique ID: 462493170453287_557508874285049
Unique Facebook User ID:
1.015497754093E+016
Last Updated:
Type of Post:
link
Place of Post:
None

Read Comments 14

Pete Daoust

a state has exclusive sovereignty over all persons, citizens or aliens, and all property, real or personal, within its own territory.”

They deal with PERSONS, and these persons they deal with, has been created by the state, so therefor, these persons are considered INVENTORY sitting in the state's warehouse.....

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 3, page 1154
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 3, page 1154 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Pete Daoust

In THEIR bunkers, I have to play by THEIR rules, if of course, I am the APPLICANT....because I have to APPLY with the person I have in my pocket if I want to go there.....and the person I have in my pocket seems to be a TRUSTEE to their view......they even make you swear an AFFIDAVIT on that when you apply....

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 3, page 1154
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 3, page 1154 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Pete Daoust

In that case, R. v. Jones was the APPLICANT, so he definitly admitted being a PERSON and/or a CITIZEN when he applied.....with or without knowing that a state has exclusive sovereignty over all persons, citizens or aliens, and all property, real or personal, within its own territory.”

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 3, page 1154 · cut by a page break
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 3, page 1154 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export. A page break in the printout cut off the beginning of this comment, with its name.

Robert Cormier

I can't get my head around this. It leaped off the page at me as being so ludicrous as to be laughable. Am i missing something here? VI. Conclusion

[38] ..."The Royal Proclamation of George III contemplated licensing for purposes of CONDUCTING COMMERCE and DID NOT DEAL WITH the issues of sovereignty and JURISDICTION." Questions: Doesn't COMMERCE (by its very nature) itself dictate (deal with) the use of a specific JURISDICTION known as ADMIRALTY/COMMERCE? In other words, can commerce occur in any other jurisdiction other than admiralty? How can the court deny that it is engaging in commerce and that commerce does indeed "deal with" a (admiralty) JURISDICTION?

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 3, page 1155
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 3, page 1155 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.
Back to top