Since Canada is a British Colony and the only real law which governs the people is God's law, Common Law dictates that everyone has the right to free travel unobstructed by any person(s) places or thing's. Driving is a right instead of a privilage in this case. Also, in accordance to the Black's Law dictionary the definition of a driver is anyone who engages in commerce. Commerce meaning taking money and such like a chauffeur, taxi driver etc. My question is then , why do we need a license to drive up we are not engaging in commerce.
Since Canada is a British Colony and the only real law which governs the people is God's law, Common Law dictates that everyone has the right to free travel unobstructed by any person(s) places or thing's. Driving is a right instead of a privilage in this case.
Also, in accordance to the Black's Law dictionary the definition of a driver is anyone who engages in commerce. Commerce meaning taking money and such like a chauffeur, taxi driver etc.
My question is then , why do we need a license to drive up we are not engaging in commerce.
Nonsense. Your entire argument is taken apart piece by piece in Meads vs Meads, you can read about it at your leisure. http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003 ... 571ed1.pdf In the meantime, wishing that something is so does not make it so.
Nonsense.
Your entire argument is taken apart piece by piece in Meads vs Meads, you can read about it at your leisure.
Such "freeman of the land" arguments have been around for a while and have never gotten anywhere in Court. The ideology is based on a very narrow, selective interpretation of laws that are convenient to the movements beliefs. Its certainly not a belief or strategy thats supported on these forums. A good read for anyone considering such an approach is the above mentioned divorce case involving a self-declared "freeman on the land" heard by Chief Justice John Rooke. He wrote a 185-page analysis of the freeman arguments and their legal implausibility. Here's the ruling in non-PDF form: http://www.canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/201 ... qb571.html And here's a NP article on the ruling: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/28 ... -movement/
Such "freeman of the land" arguments have been around for a while and have never gotten anywhere in Court. The ideology is based on a very narrow, selective interpretation of laws that are convenient to the movements beliefs. Its certainly not a belief or strategy thats supported on these forums.
A good read for anyone considering such an approach is the above mentioned divorce case involving a self-declared "freeman on the land" heard by Chief Justice John Rooke. He wrote a 185-page analysis of the freeman arguments and their legal implausibility.
You sound like one of those kooky Sovereign Citizen rejects. For those who are unaware of them, here is a related video about how they operate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_y-gLm9Hrw
You sound like one of those kooky Sovereign Citizen rejects.
For those who are unaware of them, here is a related video about how they operate:
Stanton is correct when he points out you're attempting to use a very narrow and selective view of the law. Regardless, lets lay it out for you... The Constitution Act of Canada (Commonly called refered to as "The Charter") is what gives individuals their legal rights. Section 6 gives you the right to remain in Canada or to move from province to province. Section 6(3) however puts limits on those rights: (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to (a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and (b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services. Another section that may apply is Section 9, which focuses on arbitrary detention. While I'm sure you would argue that by not being able to drive that it is impossible for you to excersize your right to move from Province to Province, there is nothing anywhere that says you must be able to excersize your rights in whatever fashion is most convenient to you. Therefore, take a bus, plane, horse, bicycle, skateboard, roller-blades, snowshoes, skis, or simply walk. Without a valid driver's license, you're not allowed to drive. The law for driver's licenses and the fees behind them are to protect all people on the roads and sidewalks. The rules ensure people know how to drive safely, even if they choose not too. And the money helps to pay for maintenance to those roads, emergency services for those injured on the roads, and for enforcement to reduce those injuries. So feel free to test your argument in court. My guess is you'll only annoy the judge and the fine will be increased, meaning that more money is collected for keeping our roads safer.
Stanton is correct when he points out you're attempting to use a very narrow and selective view of the law. Regardless, lets lay it out for you...
The Constitution Act of Canada (Commonly called refered to as "The Charter") is what gives individuals their legal rights. Section 6 gives you the right to remain in Canada or to move from province to province. Section 6(3) however puts limits on those rights:
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
Another section that may apply is Section 9, which focuses on arbitrary detention. While I'm sure you would argue that by not being able to drive that it is impossible for you to excersize your right to move from Province to Province, there is nothing anywhere that says you must be able to excersize your rights in whatever fashion is most convenient to you. Therefore, take a bus, plane, horse, bicycle, skateboard, roller-blades, snowshoes, skis, or simply walk. Without a valid driver's license, you're not allowed to drive.
The law for driver's licenses and the fees behind them are to protect all people on the roads and sidewalks. The rules ensure people know how to drive safely, even if they choose not too. And the money helps to pay for maintenance to those roads, emergency services for those injured on the roads, and for enforcement to reduce those injuries.
So feel free to test your argument in court. My guess is you'll only annoy the judge and the fine will be increased, meaning that more money is collected for keeping our roads safer.
I've seen this bullcrap before so I'm going to lock the thread. In fact, when I lived in Michigan, one of the organizations I volunteered for helped track and monitor Freemen/Sovereign Citizens, so I'm quite familiar with their tactics. Simply put, the nonsensical garbage on the OP is pure fiction and no court in Canada accepts it. Black's Law Dictionary is not Canadian legislation. If you think it is, you are wrong. This forum is here to help people understand and fight traffic offences, and/or get a better understanding of traffic laws, safety practices and driving. We are NOT here to act as a soapbox for neurotic anti-government fringe groups. Also, for your information, Canada stopped being a colony in 1867.
I've seen this bullcrap before so I'm going to lock the thread. In fact, when I lived in Michigan, one of the organizations I volunteered for helped track and monitor Freemen/Sovereign Citizens, so I'm quite familiar with their tactics.
Simply put, the nonsensical garbage on the OP is pure fiction and no court in Canada accepts it. Black's Law Dictionary is not Canadian legislation. If you think it is, you are wrong.
This forum is here to help people understand and fight traffic offences, and/or get a better understanding of traffic laws, safety practices and driving. We are NOT here to act as a soapbox for neurotic anti-government fringe groups.
Also, for your information, Canada stopped being a colony in 1867.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Hi everyone. I'm asking for a friend who has a question of interpretation.
He was ticketed for using a hand-held device. He contends that he was acting within the exemption provided under Subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
Hey guys i just wanted to know what speeds you see others do on the roads on a regular basis. As we all know no body drives 100 km. It seems they only hit that speed twice once on the way up and once on the way down.
it seems the De Facto limit on the 401 is about 120-130. But lately i dont know if…
On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date…
Anyone know any more information? Apparently kathleen wynne mentioned trying to introduce legislation after more than 20 years of no speed cameras. My guess is that it wont happen, since they've tried before many times to bring it back after it was abolished.
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I posted this in the 3 Demerit Section and haven't received any
responses.
I received a failure to stop at an amber light ticket on April 17, 2009. At my First Attendance Meeting I asked to read the police officer's notes and remember thinking how ridiculous they were and the difficulty…
I was on the right side of the road going straight when a pedestrian waved down the taxi driver in the lane next to me. He pulled over to the right without any notice or signalling and hit me with the side of his car.
There were many witnesses but I immediately had a concussion and did not think of…
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My…
If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember -…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural…