The Tender For Law

Volume 6

May 01, 2014 12:49 AM

Read Comments

T?lis B?auns

Police don't necessarily need a warrant to search a vehicle, but can do it based on REASONABLE probable cause. "In her dissenting opinion, Justice Debra McCloskey Todd rightly noted the ruling �heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure which our people have enjoyed as their birthright.� www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-5-2013oajc%20-%201017924602181959.pdf?cb=1

Stuart Stone

Hang on...do citizens exist???

Let me paraphrase Marc Stevens...citizens pledge their allegiance to the state in exchange for protection...However, the various supreme courts have ruled that the state does not owe a duty of protection to the public.

Ergo, if the state cannot/is not obligated to provide protection, then doesn't it follow that there now an invalid contract as one party is not fulfilling its obligations?

Consequently, isn't the concept of citizens/citizenship also invalid, thus removing the right to search the vehicle, in much the same way they can't search Santa Claus, the Easter bunny or Jeebus' vehicle?

If this is a shitstain pulled from the dictionary of my arse, please forgive me and delete the offending post

Mike Lamb

Makes sense since most REGISTER their private property with the DMV/STATE fictions, hence do not have lawful allodial ownership. THEY can pretty much do whatever THEY want with THEIR property, but most don't even know the difference between driving and traveling, let alone the truth of the REGISTRATION CONTRACT.

Pete Daoust

People

The aggregate of the individuals who comprise a state or a nation.

In a more restricted sense, as generally used in Constitutional Law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or a nation who are invested with political power for political purposes (the qualified voters).

Pete Daoust

Now, try to find in one of there "club house stuff", the word MAN or WOMAN.

So far, the closest thing I have found is.

EVERY "HUMAN BEING" HAS THE RIGHT TO THE LIFE, SURETY, INTEGRITY AND LIBERTY OF "HIS" PERSON.

:-P

T?lis B?auns

In Canada is this incorrect? "We the People" is not, and never has been, us individually, it is us as a whole, a collective, as represented by a parliament. That is why it is said the parliament is sovereign, the parliament is "We the People", and gains it's authority from the electoral consent of the governed, not by individual consent, or royal decree, or the will of god. We have a "Sovereign", but she doesn't represent any authority or any sovereign power here. In an independant nation, the authority behind government in Canada comes from majority rule, same as in every other democratic system. The monarch has merely been a ceremonial provision since the magna charter and the subsequent creation of parliament. The notion of royal sovereignty was removed with a sword to the kings throat, and given to a parliament of the people. This was where the notion of parliamentary sovereignty was born. Assent from the monarch today is merely a formality, not some sort of nessessary permission or something. The parliament of this sovereign independant nation still holds the sword to her throat, and it is this parliament of the people that holds the sovereignty.

Chip Douglas

Brauns' post makes me wonder Scott, based on this section of the Criminal Code...who then is in the DE JURE possession of the sovereign power?

Obedience to de facto law

15. 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 the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-5.html#docCont