Figleaf

Can you be more specific about that please?

Immunity -- that's what I meant, not 'privilege'. http://www.gov.bc.ca/ajo/down/statutory_immunity.pdf And wiki of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

You're just astonishing. The dishonesty is incredible. You said a website was a Hamas website and it was not a Hamas website, it was owned by a group called the Zionist Organization of America. I made no comment on the INFORMATION, I was noting that YOU gave the wrong source for the information.

No its not. Its the exact same information. Where the f..ck do you think it comes from. Man you are clueless. Man, you are so full of it... Once again you think you have a smoking gun Figleaf only it looks awful limp to me. Read the information. Its the same. It all comes from the same place. If you took the time to read it you would see it is all coming from the same place. You said Palestinefacts.com is a Hamas website. It is not a Hamas website as the registration information proves. You either lied or you made a mistake. Which one? If the latter, how?

Well, that puts me in a quandary on several levels.

You've nailed it. This is a token gesture from Steve the same as the SSM motion. Maybe we should be grateful to some extent that his base can be pacified with such gestures.

Not likely.

Well, yes...to remind everyone, here is what you said: Here is a page that describes what Crown privilege really is and what it is used for (e.g. to keep national security secrets). Crown Privilege I don't see it the same way you do apparently. FTA Hmmm. I guess I've confused it with something else. What is the name for the privilege that protects the crown and its agents from civil litigation?

OMG he thinks he's running a bank too! http://www.thinkfree.ca/index.php?option=c...id=30&Itemid=44 Time to write a quick email to OSFI ( http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/ )

Whoa! this whole thing is a commercial scam! Check it out ... http://free.biz.pn/Products.html {emphasis supplied}Can you believe this shit? Now get a load of this!...

Rotten idea. Judges should make decisions based on the law, not based on the incentives of the electoral process. Like where? Do you think lawyers are exempt from criminal laws? No, it's the equivalent of being barred from looking for work in the field you've trained in (and maybe done) for years.

No its not. Its the exact same information. Where the f..ck do you think it comes from. Man you are clueless. Man, you are so full of it...

Umm, are you serious? If you buy lemons at Loblaws, are you supporting Weston Ltd? Of course you are. Suck on it. See above. That's demented. You're lying again. I haven't said any of that. All I've done is challenge inconsistencies, illogic and discrepnacies in YOUR comments.

You might want to send it to this particular corporation that's listed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, whose address is in Washington, D.C. They should cover all expenses incurred by all-caps names. Notice it says, "Company Information" on the browser tab. Now, why would it say that I wonder? Neat link. I suppose you think it means Canada is a corporation subject to U.S. law?

Okay Freeman, I'll do one last one here, but then I'm through playing sillybuggers with you. Suuuure they did. Yes, if the thing they did to obey was itself an offense in Canadian law. This sentence is confusingly structured and difficult to parse. I suppose you must mean: Not convicting those who obey defacto governments does not mean we must obey defacto governments. If that's what you mean, I agree. But so what? (Do you know what 'de facto' means in this context?) I have no idea what you think you mean by that sentence. It does not say anywhere that people can be convicted for not obeying de facto courts or governments. Is anyone suggesting that it does say that??? Certainly the law isn't saying that. It says you can't be convicted for obeying. It doesn't say you can't be convicted for disobeying. Just because s.15 says you can't be convicted for obeying, doesn't mean you can't be convicted for DISobeying all the OTHER SECTIONS of the code. You need to sit down and really think about what you are saying. Well (quite apart from the basic confusion of obeying and disobeying that underlies your whole argument) you need to know that Canada's governments are both de facto and de jure.

Okay, with one qualification. You have used the word 'lawful'. I don't think your nonsense is 'unlawful' in the sense that the law will try to stop your silly behavior. So instead of lawful, you have to prove that your claims about the law are true. In that you wear either on your head? I've read the letter you posted now ( http://www.thinkfree.ca/images//skelton%20lette.pdf ). I must tell you, there is not a hint in that letter that MP Skelton recognizes your claims as valid. Rather, the letter says she recognizes that you have written -- something -- to her. Her letter makes no reference to the meaning of your letter and simply recites sections of it back to you without comment. It is sad and sorry that you're so convinced about this stuff to the point you can publicly make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself. You have a profoundly wrong grasp of legal principles, methods, and content. Maybe you are some kind of con man and you already know this, or maybe you're an honest guy diligently working for what you believe in, but Brother, believe me, you have no hope of such badly conceived ideas ever going anywhere. Don't waste your time -- find something else to put your considerable energies on. Found a foodbank, or rescue greyhounds or something worthwhile.

Just read the thread here since my last post. I am groping for a metaphor to capture the thoroughgoing thrashing that Freeman has invited on himself! I'll have to settle for a pop culture reference. It's like the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad visits a wedding and Menard is The Bride. There's only one thing to do ... pile on! Hooey. I've quoted the whole relevant section of the Criminal Code, above. Now you quote for us exactly which clauses support your ludicrous interpretation. That's not a maxim of law, its a canon of statutory interpretation. This kind of mistake is glaring evidence of your amateurish knowledge of law. Your arrogance convinces you that a complex ancient social artifact that people study for years to know is something you can teach yourself by scattered, untutored, untested, wrongheaded, self-referential dilletantism. Okay, back to the normative/descriptive divide... if you are simply saying that that SHOULD BE the law, then that's one thing, but if you are asserting that nonsense as a true representation on the state of the law today, you are utterly fantastically wrong. No judge will ever buy this nonsense. They are two different words, so they may well have two different meanings. Quote the relevant sections you want to compare and show what you mean.

Rue lies, again. But didn't yous say just a moment ago that there was NO funding or support for Hamas? This is the problem you're having, Rue... you can't seem to keep your story straight. And on that subject, will you please explain why you said www.palestinefacts.com is a Hamas website, when in fact its registered owner is the Zionist Organization of America?

Exactly. That's a process that will equip you to make up a patchwork of ideosyncratic legalese, but tell you nothing about what the law really is. Welcome to your personal misguided understanding of what the law is. The law isn't like the bible, where you read it and make up what you like and no-one can gainsay you. The law is a shared enterprise that invokes COMMON agreement. Your exercise in private definitionalizing is, axiomatically, NOT law. Do you know the difference between a normative statement and a descriptive statement? But as a matter of reality as it is experienced in the real world, you cannot free yourself of the legal authorities by merely interpreting words to suit yourself. What do you mean? That you have the 'right' to believe and propagate nonsense? Yes, certainly. But will the state acknowledge your claim to be exempt from its laws based on such nonsense? No, it won't. Well, I did look at that section and here's what it says: If you bother to read it, you'll see it says simply nothing like what you imagined. Drivel. You're method leaves you missing both those 'wells'. BTW, your video mentions a concept you call 'Smoke'. Read your posts for great examples of it. And WHAT is with that funny hat of yours?

There will be resistance by the authorities but that's only because they are acting on presumptions, as you are. You presume that I am the same as you, and essentially I am, except I'll have made a claim of right that, witnessed and unrebutted, will stand as truth. Look up claim of right in the Criminal Code. At your suggestion, I did look up 'claim of right' in the Criminal Code. It appears only in these sections relating to defense of property: So I have no idea why you wanted me to read it, since, as you can see it says nothing in support of your claims to legal exceptionalism. (Not that any phrase in the Criminal Code even could establish the kind of general legal exceptionalism you seem to be claiming). What can you possibly mean that statutes are not necessarily law? It's a senseless statement. They may be invalid under a constitution, but thats it. Otherwise, they're laws. And whats this stuff about colours?

There is no point in indulging your mischaracterizations. What I wrote is all available for review. I asked you what you were saying about the relationship between the Islamic Association and Hamas. At no point did I assert anything about it. Go ahead and ACTUALLY QUOTE something that shows otherwise, if you can. Otherwise we'll chalk this whole series of your diatribes up as Just More Rue Lies. Speaking of which, how about you explain why you suggested the ZOA website at www.palestinefacts.com is connected to Hamas when that is clearly false.

I understand very clearly. The distinction lies entirely in the arbitrary, fraudulent definition structure you and your buddy Menard have dreamed up. Um, hi! So you know, I did not dream up the definition of 'person' found in Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition). You have dreamed up an arbitrary system of what definitions you will select and apply to give the aura of credibility to your campaign. [Edit: To be more specific, what I see you doing is cherry-picking definitions and constitutional notions and stacking them together in your own interpretive/artistic fashion with generous doses of misplaced jargon to act as glue. You then present your construct as a The Proper Truth about law, even though it has no coherent claim to being correct or superior to the real laws that people deal with. Even if, and its a big if, you were right that your interpretations are how the law SHOULD BE, they are absolutely not right about what the law REALLY IS. Anyone attempting to rely on your nonsense will be in for a rude awakening.] BTW, what's with the funny hat?

Technically, I think yes. It is 'foundational' legislation.

I'm looking for a fight? Okay. And by your own admission you want ALL Muslims condemned on that basis. Have you any idea how many Muslims there are in the world? You can really be amusing when you try! Tell me more about this 'intuitively true' concept -- does it mean anything?

I would only hope those that recognize themselves understand my feelings. Whether I report a post has nothing to do with who is the target of the reportable behaviour or whether he would like the report made. Greg has established a standard of behaviour and the idea of a standard is that it applies to all. And your standard is to report whom ever breaks the rules in your opinion, provided they are on the right of you. Aren't YOU left of me?