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
This is my first time ever getting a ticket and I am completely frustrated and don't know what to do.
On July 7th, I was driving to work, taking my usual route and it's about a 15 minute drive for me. At the first red light, I noticed I had a bit of time thanks to the countdown so I quickly…
I'm hoping somebody can point me in the right direction to track down various radar gun error codes.
Way back in March of this year I was stopped for speeding, 86kmh in a 60 Community Safety Zone, on Mayfield Rd., on the outskirts of Brampton. (Aloa school)
My husband was driving my car and passed a school bus with flashing lights. He did not realize this until he was past the bus. The driver honked at him but there were no cops nearby and he didn't get pulled over. I believe the driver or witnesses reported this and we got issued a…
Hey guys I was hoping for some advice on my first ever ticket.
I just moved to the Aurora area and made a prohibited left turn between the prohibited hours. This is my very first ticket so I am unsure as to how to precede. I have already requested and received my court date and I assume the next…
i am 25 with a G2 Drivers license. had a lot to drink saturday night. woke up the next morning and drove home around 1pm sunday. got pulled over for speeding, police officer smelled booze had me blow a breathalyzer. i blew 0.035 . he aloud my passenger to drive my truck home. he gave…
Hi, last summer I was pulled over when I made a left turn from he middle lane at Harbor and Yonge Street (heading east on the Gardiner and taking the Yonge exit). I swear they nabbed about 10 people in 5 minutes. Anyways, I decided to challenge in court, my court date is in April and I have just…
In Kanda, the court established that this offence is a strict liability charge. In other words, you can offer a defence of due diligence. In Kanda the defendant explained the…
Last July I got pulled over for failure to obey stop sign at a T-intersection in my neighbourhood. After I got my trial date I requested disclosure in November. Sent in another request for disclosure in early January and in mid-January got a call to pick it up at the court office. The disclosure…