The Tender For Law

Volume 3

Sep 07, 2013 8:10 PM

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�

Read Comments

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.....

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....

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.�

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?