The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.

[Shwa]

Because we wouldn't allow it. I wouldn't allow it. Smallc wouldn't allow it. Anyone with a brain wouldn't allow it. Thus far it's only continued because the settlements have been relatively small and reasonable. If they started to get unreasonable, the Canadian people would start to care about it and do something about it.

But had you traced back smallc's reasonable comment you would have noticed that we were not talking about "unreasonable." That is your interjection, which is unreasonable. If you would like to try and answer the question on smallc's behalf again, please do. Or, allow smallc to reply if he/she wishes. It's up to you.

[GostHacked]

Neither. It is a rights revolution.

But ....

Restoration of rights will naturally cause the return of property, payments for loss of use, and often penalties for abuses.

So it's a rights revolution with the intent of getting land and money.

[bush_cheney2004]

....So it's a rights revolution with the intent of getting land and money.

Yes...the same thing others seek in the settlement of lawsuits. Imagine that.....

[g_bambino]

You see the problem here is that you are equating an imaginative condition ("could be removed by a vote") as "proof" that the people are not divorced from the Crown.

The hypothetical scenario isn't the proof; it's the very real clause in the constitution that makes the hypothetical scenario entirely possible that is proof.

An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province...

Constitution Act 1982; S.41

The additional evidence is that which you, like CR, have completely ignored: S.III.9 of the Constitution Act 1867 and the five sources I presented in this post.

[Moonbox]

Logic is a delusion one keeps telling themselves. It is not a universal measure of fairness or correctness. Reason is based on the collection of prejudices and experience one has. It too does not define fairness or correctness. That is why we have laws and courts to weigh out justice.

The laws themselves are based on the concepts of cold hard logic, reason, justice and fairness. The judges make their decisions based on the law, precedence, and their interpretations of logic, reason and fairness.

Sometimes their decision defies individual logic and reason (individual delusions and prejudices). We hear outrage at court decisions all the time and mostly they are void of facts.

That's entirely true. Individual logic and reason are not how the laws were formed. They were formed with about 2000 years of precedence, experience and collective logic and reason which we continue to build on today.

Section 25 over-rides all law that conflicts with it.Silly boy, Section 1. is not primary just because it appears in first order. It is Section 1 only because it is the most general of principles.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're absolutely clueless. Section 1 was placed first because it was meant to limit the sections that came after it. Indeed, it's widely known as a limitations clause and that's the intent with which it was written. I dare you to google "Canadian Charter Limitations Clause" and tell me what comes up in your search results.

But maybe you haven't throughly read the Constitution and missed this:

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Interestingly enough, the Charter is Part 1 of the Constitution Act.

Aboriginal Jurisprudence is a well studied philosophy of law. It is not precedent. It is jurisprudence. Maybe if you studied law you might better understand how wrong you really are in all of this.

Another example of your pathetic critical reasoning skills. Your right. Aboriginal Jurisprudence is not precedence. I never said that, however, so the fact that you brought it up just shows how much you're flailing around here. I said that you don't understand what the word jurisprudence means. In legal terms, the concept that previous settlements and court cases determine how following cases will be viewed is called precedence. You were calling it jurisprudence. I was highlighting how little you know about our legal system. I have studied law and while I haven't gone to law school, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you've never opened a legal text book in your life.

Your dreaming about natural law over-riding a constitution is about as whacky as right-wing nuts justifying murdering someone because they believe in abortion.

Again, I didn't say that. You're REALLY struggling here haha. I said that Natural Law is one the central pillars of jurisprudence and any worthwhile legal system in the world. It's the use of reason to analyze a situation and create rules and judgements. Section 1 of the Charter is an EXAMPLE of Natural Law in our legal system and is indeed PART of our Constitution. Are you starting to get it? You're flopping around like a beached fish.

No, we are discussing jurisprudence, not just precedent.

Actually, we were discussing how your use of the word jurisprudence in this thread clearly highlighted that you didn't have any understanding of EITHER.

[charter.rights]

The laws themselves are based on the concepts of cold hard logic, reason, justice and fairness. The judges make their decisions based on the law, precedence, and their interpretations of logic, reason and fairness."

No they are not.

Logic is not particular to law. Facts and reason, yes, but only so far as the facts form a reasonable belief in accordance with legal precedence. Logic is a schizophrenic concept and has no place in justice, at all, whatsoever.

The rest of your back-peddling is comical to say the least and no doubt is an attempt to hide your incompetence. That we will dismiss and move onward.

[charter.rights]

Moonbox and Smallc

I've booked you at the 9th Annual Aboriginal Law Conference so you can learn something about aboriginal jurisprudence and land law. Out of all the MLW posters you seem to be in most need of it.

But wait...they probably wouldn't let you in. Ignorance is prohibited.....

We have been asked to present....

Edited July 15, 2010 by charter.rights

[Moonbox]

Logic is not particular to law. Facts and reason, yes, but only so far as the facts form a reasonable belief in accordance with legal precedence. Logic is a schizophrenic concept and has no place in justice, at all, whatsoever.

And this, my friends, is by far the single most idiotic thing I have read in 2 years on this forum. I invite everyone in this thread to put their face squarely in their palm, and feel sorry for this poor wretched soul.

log·ic (ljk)

n.

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logic

The rest of your back-peddling is comical to say the least and no doubt is an attempt to hide your incompetence. That we will dismiss and move onward.

We need not look any further than your posts to get glorious examples of stupidity and shining examples of complete and utter ignorance in our search for comedy.

According to you, logic (which by definition is the study and application of reason) has no place in a justice or legal system. Apparently reason does have a place in law, according to charter.rights, but not logic...

I'm beginning to wonder if you even finished highschool with a comment like that.

[charter.rights]

And this, my friends, is by far the single most idiotic thing I have read in 2 years on this forum. I invite everyone in this thread to put their face squarely in their palm, and feel sorry for this poor wretched soul.

log·ic (ljk)

n.

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logic

We need not look any further than your posts to get glorious examples of stupidity and shining examples of complete and utter ignorance in our search for comedy.

According to you, logic (which by definition is the study and application of reason) has no place in a justice or legal system. Apparently reason does have a place in law, according to charter.rights, but not logic...

I'm beginning to wonder if you even finished highschool with a comment like that.

More {sigh} backpeddling and strawman arguments. Is that all you have, child?

Next, you'll be shouting using caps right?

Edited July 15, 2010 by charter.rights

[GostHacked]

More {sigh} backpeddling and strawman arguments. Is that all you have, child?

Next, you'll be shouting using caps right?

You did say:

Logic is a schizophrenic concept and has no place in justice, at all, whatsoever.

Logic, fact, reasoning are all part in parcel to how justice is done. If there is no logic, then there is no justice. And yes you basically need all three for justice to be effectively served.

This man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah there is the bullet, logic concludes the man was shot with a gun.

[Moonbox]

Since when is mocking an idiotic post called backpeddling?

You just tried to tell us that logic (the study and application of reason) has no place in a justice or legal system. That's your whole argument this entire thread broken down into one simple sentence. As far as your concerned, logic and reason have no place in the application of law in Canada.

We've already learned that that you don't believe that the People have any influence over the Crown (patently false) and now we learn that logic and reason also have no influence over them. This is indeed what you've been saying the whole thread. As far as your concerned, the Crown's decisions will be based entirely on what YOU tell them.

You've been caught in quotation about 50 times in this thread by various posters either telling us something totally false (and easily proven to be) or so childishly stupid and contradictory that even a 5th grader could point out their fallacies.

My advice is for you to is to just stop embarrassing yourself. I only half-heartedly mean that, however, because every time I log on to the site I get to read something hilariously dumb.

[Moonbox]

This man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah there is the bullet, logic concludes the man was shot with a gun.

Wait...wait...I think I get it now. This is how it works:

The man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah, there is the bullet. It's pretty clear he died of food poisoning. He must have eaten some bad meat.

charter.rights I'm catching on now, right???? Logic is a myth right???

[charter.rights]

Since when is mocking an idiotic post called backpeddling?

You just tried to tell us that logic (the study and application of reason) has no place in a justice or legal system. That's your whole argument this entire thread broken down into one simple sentence. As far as your concerned, logic and reason have no place in the application of law in Canada.

We've already learned that that you don't believe that the People have any influence over the Crown (patently false) and now we learn that logic and reason also have no influence over them. This is indeed what you've been saying the whole thread. As far as your concerned, the Crown's decisions will be based entirely on what YOU tell them.

You've been caught in quotation about 50 times in this thread by various posters either telling us something totally false (and easily proven to be) or so childishly stupid and contradictory that even a 5th grader could point out their fallacies.

My advice is for you to is to just stop embarrassing yourself. I only half-heartedly mean that, however, because every time I log on to the site I get to read something hilariously dumb.

Whiff whiff. Your brain is oxygen deprived. Strawman, backpeddling, red-herring, fals authority...man you are full of it.

[charter.rights]

Wait...wait...I think I get it now. This is how it works:

The man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah, there is the bullet. It's pretty clear he died of food poisoning. He must have eaten some bad meat.

charter.rights I'm catching on now, right???? Logic is a myth right???

Logic is a delusion.

You want to play this game?

The bullet wound could be shrapnel. It could be an arrow hole. It could even be a puncture wound with around object. It could even be a post-surgery laparoscopic entry wound, left open for drainage. There are lots of possibilities. The bullet could be a red-herring placed there to make people like you come to the wrong conclusions. You can pretend it is a bullet hole and pretend on that basis you have the murder weapon, but until the autopsy is completed and the facts are revealed all we have is a dead guy.

The courts don't care about your delusions or your theories. They want the facts - evidence and witness testimony. Anything less is a witch hunt....which if you remember from the middle ages was propagated by delusional thinkers who tried to use their logic to convict witches of casting magic spells over them.

So keep up you red-herrings, strawman, and your delusional logic. It has no relevance here and you are a fool for trying to promote it as anything other than your incontinent thinking process.

Edited July 15, 2010 by charter.rights

[GostHacked]

Logic is a delusion.

You want to play this game?

You sure you are up to it?

You said logic does not have a place in justice.

I replied.... as an example:

This man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah there is the bullet, logic concludes the man was shot with a gun.

IN which MoonBox replied.

Wait...wait...I think I get it now. This is how it works:

The man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah, there is the bullet. It's pretty clear he died of food poisoning. He must have eaten some bad meat.

It's obvious he IS mocking you.

And then you said.

The bullet wound could be shrapnel. It could be an arrow hole.

It could be, but with the bullet as evidence, logically it came from a gun. My logic tells me you have a reading comprehension problem.

The courts don't care about your delusions or your theories. They want the facts - evidence and witness testimony. Anything less is a witch hunt....which if you remember from the middle ages was propagated by delusional thinkers who tried to use their logic to convict witches of casting magic spells over them.

You might be better off saying that logic plays a subjective role in justice. I'd buy into that.

[Moonbox]

Logic is a delusion.

Logic can't be a delusion. That comment itself is the biggest delusion possible. Let's dumb it down for you even more.

You are hungry. You want to not be hungry. Eating food would make you not hungry. What's the logical solution?

The bullet wound could be shrapnel. It could be an arrow hole. It could even be a puncture wound with around object. It could even be a post-surgery laparoscopic entry wound, left open for drainage. There are lots of possibilities. The bullet could be a red-herring placed there to make people like you come to the wrong conclusions. You can pretend it is a bullet hole and pretend on that basis you have the murder weapon, but until the autopsy is completed and the facts are revealed all we have is a dead guy.

No, what we have are some facts. We have a wound that looks like a bullet hole. We have a dead man. We have a bloody bullet nearby. Logic and reason take us the rest of the way to make an assumption. It is not a certainty, but it is a likelihood, and it's almost certain to be correct.

With the given facts, and with even a sniff of intelligence, most people would be able to come to this conclusion. It makes SENSE to assume that man died of a gunshot wound.

I'll grant that your imagination is pretty good with coming up with those other possibilities, but there was no mention of shrapnel in the area, no blood trail or other foreign object and no mention of the man having any surgery. You came up with that with pure imagination. Most of your arguments have worked that way as well, because, like I said before, you've been quoted about 50 times here with EASILY PROVEN falsehoods.

The courts don't care about your delusions or your theories. They want the facts - evidence and witness testimony. Anything less is a witch hunt....which if you remember from the middle ages was propagated by delusional thinkers who tried to use their logic to convict witches of casting magic spells over them.

Reason is not a delusion. To say so is absolutely insane. The phrase, "Beyond a REASONABLE doubt" is simple evidence that this is how a court of law operates. Logic is not a delusion, because it is the application of reason. The facts and evidence are things that HELP a judge make a reasonable decision.

If, for example, you have a hundred witnesses and a video tape of a man killing a woman, the judge would use these facts to come to the logical conclusion that the man killed the woman. If logic and reason are a delusion, as you claim, the judge could just as easily decide that Winston Churchill came back from the dead, doctored the video tape and bribed 100 witnesses to testify against the man.

This is the sort of lunacy your arguments have contained thus far. I'm finding it hilarious.

[GostHacked]

So now that we have established that logic is needed, and a integral part in justice.... we can go back to the topic of this thread

[Moonbox]

So now that we have established that logic is needed, and a integral part in justice.... we can go back to the topic of this thread

You, me and almost everyone else in this thread have. I think charter.rights is a lost cause. His entire argument hinges on a court system, government and reality completely devoid of logic.

[g_bambino]

You, me and almost everyone else in this thread have. I think charter.rights is a lost cause. His entire argument hinges on a court system, government and reality completely devoid of logic.

No, no, the courts only impose on the landless Canadian people the will of an unrestrained and illogical crown.

[yarg]

Logic is a delusion.

You want to play this game?

The bullet wound could be shrapnel. It could be an arrow hole. It could even be a puncture wound with around object. It could even be a post-surgery laparoscopic entry wound, left open for drainage. There are lots of possibilities. The bullet could be a red-herring placed there to make people like you come to the wrong conclusions. You can pretend it is a bullet hole and pretend on that basis you have the murder weapon, but until the autopsy is completed and the facts are revealed all we have is a dead guy.

So, in your argument against logic (which in and of itself is illogical) you present a crime scene and analyse the possible cause of death with a series of unlikely but possible causes, seems only logical to me that one would not want to close your mind to other possible causes of death. Eiher you made a mistake giving this example, or you don't know what logic is.

[charter.rights]

So, in your argument against logic (which in and of itself is illogical) you present a crime scene and analyse the possible cause of death with a series of unlikely but possible causes, seems only logical to me that one would not want to close your mind to other possible causes of death. Eiher you made a mistake giving this example, or you don't know what logic is.

No. I did not propose the crime scene nor did I analyze the cause. Ghosthacked proposed the scenario and I cast doubt on his logical conclusion by proposing other "logical" (delusional) possibilities. The point is that logic has no bearing on a factual conclusion and that no conclusion is possible until all the facts are in. Nor did I suggest that reason was not used in the course of decision, as Moonbox suggests. Rather reason is used to weigh facts and witness credibility but only to the degree that the conclusion is uncertain but there is a reasonable amount of evidence that can lead to a most likely conclusion.

No, what we have are some facts. We have a wound that looks like a bullet hole. We have a dead man. We have a bloody bullet nearby. Logic and reason take us the rest of the way to make an assumption. It is not a certainty, but it is a likelihood, and it's almost certain to be correct.

With the given facts, and with even a sniff of intelligence, most people would be able to come to this conclusion. It makes SENSE to assume that man died of a gunshot wound.

I'll grant that your imagination is pretty good with coming up with those other possibilities, but there was no mention of shrapnel in the area, no blood trail or other foreign object and no mention of the man having any surgery. You came up with that with pure imagination. Most of your arguments have worked that way as well, because, like I said before, you've been quoted about 50 times here with EASILY PROVEN falsehoods.

Here is perfect example of your delusional thinking.

Ghosthacked only provided 2 pieces of information:

"This man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah there is the bullet..."

There is only one piece of physical evidence. The bullet. While there is a wound it is delusional to conclude that it is a bullet wound for the potential possibilities mentioned earlier.

Now where you are severely deluded is to add evidence and make conclusions that are not there. There is no bloody bullet. You invented that from nowhere.

Then based on your imagination you make the equally retarded conclusion:

"With the given facts, and with even a sniff of intelligence, most people would be able to come to this conclusion. It makes SENSE to assume that man died of a gunshot wound."

You would get laughed out of very police station in the world if you attempted to "assume" what you have. And your assertion that "most people" could come to the same conclusion is childish at best. Most people would ask for the information and facts, not look at one piece of evidence and make a wild guess as you have....

But THEN if that wasn't enough you go beyond retarded and suggest that the lack of information about the scene (was there shrapnel, puncture wound, or a surgical history all of which are merely suggestive counters and possibilities) is licence enough to certify that your conclusion is absolute. How stupid can you be?

I did not "imagine" those outcomes. I suggested them in order to get you to see that your conclusion could have no basis in fact. Rather evidence MUST be compiled BEFORE and reasonable conclusion can be reached. And since it is just as possible that a great number of incontinent thinkers like you would come to the same misinformed conclusions gives us proof that the justice system needs courts and informed judges to rule on the guilt or innocence of accused. In your world you would have hung him for coming to a "logical" conclusion of the scenario. You fit right in there with the witch burners, and torturers of the middle ages, and the McCarthy nuts during the mid-20th century. You are delusional and have no chance at being resaonable (let alone sensible) with that kind of seriously flawed thinking.

Edited July 15, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

You, me and almost everyone else in this thread have. I think charter.rights is a lost cause. His entire argument hinges on a court system, government and reality completely devoid of logic.

Now you are speaking not only for most people, but all of the people in this thread. Can you provide me with the science behind your authority to speak on everyone's behalf please?

No one cares what you think because your thinking is flawed and your conclusions are delusional. And your imagining that you speak for everyone is clear cut evidence of a psychological or personality disorder. Which is it?

[Bonam]

Logic is a delusion.

Haha, this just keeps getting better and better. Gotta add that to the list of 4 quotes from earlier.

[Shwa]

The hypothetical scenario isn't the proof; it's the very real clause in the constitution that makes the hypothetical scenario entirely possible that is proof.

The word "could" is conditional, much less certain that the words "can" or "will." Thus, there are many things that the constitutional clause "could" allow, you just have to use your imagination to see the range of those things. As a proof of your assertion however, that particular clause says nothing. It's only action is all in your mind.

The additional evidence is that which you, like CR, have completely ignored: S.III.9 of the Constitution Act 1867 and the five sources I presented in this post.

Could you please point out the post in this thread in which I "completely" ignore the sources you have presented? Thanks!

[Moonbox]

The point is that logic has no bearing on a factual conclusion

This is the most ignorant and flat out retarded thing I have ever read. I'm done here and I've seen all I need to see.

charter.rights, I wish you luck in life, because you're going to need all the help you can get.

May God have mercy on your poor soul.