now it says if an "owner or occupant" is not satisfied with the terms of this order...blah blah, to send to appeal to property standards committee by registered mail...I would much rather deliver it fastened to a "car part" to this fuckers office as if I have no binding contract what would I have to appeal!?
Dealing with the same thing here in Toronto, Kelleran. The definition for PERSON in the City of Toronto Act is: INCLUDES a Municipality, Local Board AND The Crown. You should ask them- WHICH ONE AM I?
BY-LAWS are simply put, whether defined in Bouviers or Blacks as; "Rules of a corporation for THEIR OWN internal governance." Do you work and/or are employed by THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX?? You need to start REBUTTING these PRESUMPTIONS they are making under the FICTION and/or COLOR of Law they operate under.
Ask By-Law-buddy this simple question in a NOTICE FOR FULL-DISCLOSURE: What is the jurisdiction of LAW in Ontario? I'll give you a hint. Its discussed in section 80. of the Provincial Offences Act, AND, section 42.3 of The Police Services Act. In fact, it even says in that Police Officers Manual, that a police officer is usually not to interfere in Municipal By-Law matters.
no shit! well it would be cool to have a visit...I'm sure there is 60 amp serviced marinas...but really...I have zero boating knowledge...I can however find out
Kelleran- Derek Hill and Philip LaForet are from the Windsor-area there, too... if i had to do it all over again, i would've started asking for the By-Law-officer here in Toronto's Performance/Hazard/Surety Bond right up front: where is it, where can i go to see it, what does it say your duties and obligations are, where can i get a certified-copy of it, where is your Risk Management department
PLUS- apparently, if somebody issues you an ORDER, the Bills of Exchange Act somewhere then says that person must take a BILL from you, for trying to compel performance from you
I probably know some of your relatives Derek, there are a few Morans' I know in the area....My objective is to keep it very simple, if the by-law/code they want me to "comply" with applies to me, hey no problem I am happy to remedy ...I just need to know HOW it applies ..."because I have a badge"...does not convey that info in my opinion...and Trespassing, and planning to remove ANYTHING other than something the dog may have left behind is theft as far as I can tell.
KELLERAN- this whole 10-minute audio-clip is classic, but, listen at 3:40 where the Judge/court is told that if he is going to give an ORDER, that under the Bills of Exchange Act, then he is LIABLE for a BILL, and how quickly that seems to end that... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DX7ZI7S60w
My family there are either Evons, LeBlancs, Silivrias, or Boismiers. He THINKS he can get away with Trespassing on your property because you dont understand the difference between Common Law, and the ROMAN MUNICIPAL ADMIRALTY LAW he operates under. You have to REBUT-that-PRESUMPTION, and let him know you DO know the difference...
yes, that thought crossed my mind about "orders" here is a quote at the bottom of the "order" : "OFFENCE - A person is guilty of an offence if the person fails to comply with an order, direction or other requirement made under the BUILDING CODE ACT, 1992. A person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000 for a first offence and to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a subsequent offence. Subsection 36 (1) (b) and 36 (3)." ...my thoughts...how much should I charge to honour this order?? lol
"A person this...a person that..." and this is the BUILDING CODE ACT?
Then here is the definition for PERSON they are relying on:
�person� includes a corporation;
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06l21_e.htm#BK104
As for what that really translates to into 'plain-speak,' i will leave that up for Scott...me and the terms PERSON, and CORPORATION, dont work well together ;)
lol, I hear ya Derek...I was on fire during that Phone call...he referred to his badge so often I thought i was going to explode and of course he has a badge and I have no clue...I was quite distraught that he had showed up when I wasn't home...
"TORT- a BY-LAW-OFFICER is guilty of a Tort if the By-Law-Officer violates my Anglo-Saxon-Jute Common Law and/or Natural Law Inherited rights. A By-Law-Officer who is CONSIDERED to be a Tortfeasor is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 for the first Tortious act and to a fine of not more than $100,000 for a subsequent Tortious act. Subsection #Becauseifuckingsaidso!"
I know- i had a creative-surge there, might use it for myself too. Though i think Scott may take exception with my use of TORT, but it was just what happened to pop-into-my-head at the time as a substitute for OFFENCE...
I think i just got the thumbs-up that TORT was a good substitute for OFFENCE, i THINK. Two words, Kelleran: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, which consists of; RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE and WILFULL BLINDNESS. This is what this by-law-officer will eventually COMMIT with you...
"Person" means any individual, association, partnership, company, corporation, firm, agent, trustee and the heirs, executors or other legal representatives of any of the foregoing.
http://www.townofessex.on.ca/pdf/planning/Zoning%20Bylaw%201037.pdf