Let's go through this by paragraph: "Thank you for your recent inquiry to the Ministry of the Attorney General�s web site about whether Ontario is a common law jurisdiction. I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Ministry." "I've been asked..." - That doesn't mean that's what they are DOING. They don't actually have the AUTHORITY to "Respond on behalf of the ministry". Who were that asked BY?

"It is accurate to say that Ontario is a common law jurisdiction, that is, a territory with applicable law based in part on the common law." - It is...but it isn't when it comes to US.

"The expression �common law� refers to the law developed over the years by judges in deciding court cases. The expression is usually used to distinguish this body of law from �statute law�" - That, of course is a STATUTORY definition, and NOT what COMMON LAW means as regards RIGHTS. COURTS ARE A STATUTORY BODY! " i.e. the law adopted in statutes passed by the Legislature or by Parliament for Canada as a whole. However, statute law prevails over common law, so the Legislature can change the common law by passing legislation." - Whenever you touch money, you throw away your common law rights for statutory privilege, is basically what is being said here.

The rest is just more stuff about common law governing civil matters. He mostly lies through ommission at the beginning, but he's answered your question (with qualification). I'm not sure you are going to get your "knock out punch" here.

Thank you Scott! :) :)

Whoah! "...but It isn't when it comes to US"? :/ I never thought to question this fact let alone take this angle. OMG! So when folks are searching for "remedy" by asking whether Ontario is a common law jurisdiction, they are FUCKED because they're looking at the DATA "Ontario is a common law juridiction" when there's another "layer" which renders the point moot. Is this correct?

Does the "other layer' have anything to do with these "good courts" being ADMIRALTY courts?

No. Stop trying to think. You suck at it.

Fuck! Alright. Yeah I realize that. I'm looking for the mechanism here now that I've FINALLY noticed I had been focussing on the DATA. :(

"Legal RULES are not more or less valid because they have more or less common law or statutory content." I notice that he does not write "The LAW is not more or less valid because..." Why did he respond with "Legal rules..."? Or is this not a significant distinction?

It is. LAW has NOTHING to do with LEGAL.

LEGAL=SURETY AND ACCOUNTING.

Let's revise it to LEGAL = THE LAW OF SURETY and ACCOUNTING. Just so we're not confused. WHICH "LAW" do you speak of when you say "LAW". The word LAW doesn't appear ANYWHERE on government forms, acts, codes, or statutes.

"The word LAW doesn't appear ANYWHERE on government forms, acts, codes, or statutes." Yes I recall you mentioning that LAW isn't defined ANYWHERE.

:/ Incredible! This guy had the presence of mind to call "legal" what it actually is (rules) and not refer to it as "the law". Holy shit! This just reminded me of when a "Superior" Court Justice began talking about "Our LAWS" and then corrected herself mid sentence and said "Our rules..." instead.

Law is defined in MANY places. Laws of chemistry and physics come to mind. What does LAW mean? Do you even know?

LAWS are immutable and/or unchanging. The law of gravity is an example.

Way back in my 'freedumb" days I recall reading about a hierarchy in law. I'm going back six or seven years so my memory may not serve me, but, as I recall the hierarchy was stated as: 1) The law of nature ( here i am referring to gravity etc.) 2) Ecclesiastical Law 3) Trust Law 4) Common Law (Law of the land) 5) Maritime/Admiralty Law (Acts/Statutes/commercial law) This is a good time to establish definitively the truth. Is there a hierarchy in law, and if so what is it?

Actually we've learned here in The Tender for Law that TRUST law IS the HIGHEST law Harry.

I asked our FORMER lawyer how these courts have any JURISDICTION in a TRUST matter. The lawyer suddenly felt that he could no longer represent us. Was it something I said? :/

He can FEEL that way all he wants, he still needs your permission to withdraw.

In WRITING, state that you REQUIRE an answer to your question before you PERMIT him to withdraw.

1) Trust Law 2) Canon Law 3) Maritime/Admiralty Law (Acts/Statutes/commercial law) ALL THREE ARE "LEGAL".

:)

Nice thread :D

Because all of you have missed the point: 1) Trust Law 2) Canon Law 3) Maritime/Admiralty Law (Acts/Statutes/commercial law) ALL THREE ARE "LEGAL".

No no no.....I didn't missed on that, in fact, I stay as LEGAL as fuck :D