It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Acts, Statutes, Laws and YOU.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Editing... Hit enter by accident.
edit on 30-8-2011 by Lightrule because: (no reason given)


Alright, at first I wasn't going to post this. Then a few things happened...

Our story is up-to-the-minute in this case. My sister has just returned from a trip to Israel and Europe, while she was there she purchased 4 bottles of wine, 1 for me, and 3 for my mom. She was told she could mail wine to Canada so she did. She packed them and sent them together under my mother's name, while in Amsterdam. Today the card showed up stating there was a package for my mom. Since my sister and I are both visiting dear old mom at this very moment we decided to be nice and go pick up her package before she returns from work. We head to the post office and my sister heads in all excited to share some European as well as Israeli wines with us. Boy oh boy did she come out pissed, with an open, empty box, oh wait sorry they were nice enough to forward the shredded paper packaging and bubble wrap to us.

As she was walking to the car I could see she had a single white piece of paper. When she handed it to me and I saw the Customs Office on the letterhead I knew exactly what had happened. They had STOLEN our personal property. The letter they put in the box stated that the Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act forbids the mailing of wine into Canada from overseas.

While I always present a calm face in situations like this, I couldn't help feeling like a bomb was about to go off inside of me. However, I did what I always do, I smiled and told my sister to write a letter and to get her wine back. She thought this was a excellent idea and obviously with my background she asked if I would be willing to write it. Of course I would write it for her, when we got back to the house I fired up my laptop and started looking for her remedy.

In the first 5 lines of the act the remedy is provided. They do not define the word person within the act. Simple!!. Deny the fact the sender nor recipient are subject to the act and therefor declare your property and the act of it being taken theft. Invoice the Justice Dept. and get your money back. Or provided they still have the wine and have not destroyed it demand the property.

I outlined my planned letter to my sister, she heard out my whole plan and proposal then when I was finished said to NOT worry about it. At first I thought maybe she didn't want me to waste my time of such a trivial issue (its NOT trivial) but then a few minutes later I heard her on the phone to the post office. When she was done I pressed her for why she didn't want me to write the letter.

The answer is what lead me to post this topic. She said that she didn't want me to write a letter because she didn't wish to be "flagged" by the government as being "non-cooperative". She didn't want to be subject to additional searches every time she travels. She didn't want every piece of her mail searched.

The reason I decided to make a post regarding this is to point out the fact the conditioning is working!

While my sister may not have the same level of law or legal training I have doesn't mean she should have to fear her government to the point if she disagrees with bureaucratic bullspit she will be put on a list of people that are treated like common thugs and criminals. Nobody should have to be afraid of government.

The sad thing of course is my sister is not alone, many people out there cave into the governments pressure for fear of some sort of retribution coming from thugs in uniforms with guns.

So what can we do ATS? The will to fight is being broken down in people before they even know the battle has begun.

-Lightrule


edit on 30-8-2011 by Lightrule because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 




In the first 5 lines of the act the remedy is provided. They do not define the word person within the act.

First, I do not believe challenging the law simply because they do not define the word "person" is going to be successful. The word "person" is pretty self explanatory. The fact that the intoxicating liquor is being mailed to an address in Canada means that it is being mailed to a person that is within the jurisdiction of Canada therefore making them subject to the act.


Simple!!. Deny the fact the sender nor recipient are subject to the act and therefor declare your property and the act of it being taken theft.

Second, international mail is probably subject to inspection by customs therefore the search and subsequent seizure of contraband by government authorities is not theft.


The answer is what lead me to post this topic. She said that she didn't want me to write a letter because she didn't wish to be "flagged" by the government as being "non-cooperative". She didn't want to be subject to additional searches every time she travels. She didn't want every piece of her mail searched.

The reason I decided to make a post regarding this is to point out the fact the conditioning is working!

The big question is, what did the government do to instill this fear in your sister?

What evidence do you or your sister have that shows that anyone that is not completely cooperative with the government is subject to this additional scrutiny?

If there is no evidence of this additional scrutiny or "flags" for non-conformists, then I would label the fear of this unreasonable. Maybe even borderline paranoia.


Nobody should have to be afraid of government.

You are correct but you should not blame an unreasonable fear of the government on some sort of government conditioning.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by Lightrule
 




In the first 5 lines of the act the remedy is provided. They do not define the word person within the act.

First, I do not believe challenging the law simply because they do not define the word "person" is going to be successful. The word "person" is pretty self explanatory. The fact that the intoxicating liquor is being mailed to an address in Canada means that it is being mailed to a person that is within the jurisdiction of Canada therefore making them subject to the act.


Simple!!. Deny the fact the sender nor recipient are subject to the act and therefor declare your property and the act of it being taken theft.

Second, international mail is probably subject to inspection by customs therefore the search and subsequent seizure of contraband by government authorities is not theft.


The answer is what lead me to post this topic. She said that she didn't want me to write a letter because she didn't wish to be "flagged" by the government as being "non-cooperative". She didn't want to be subject to additional searches every time she travels. She didn't want every piece of her mail searched.

The reason I decided to make a post regarding this is to point out the fact the conditioning is working!

The big question is, what did the government do to instill this fear in your sister?

What evidence do you or your sister have that shows that anyone that is not completely cooperative with the government is subject to this additional scrutiny?

If there is no evidence of this additional scrutiny or "flags" for non-conformists, then I would label the fear of this unreasonable. Maybe even borderline paranoia.


Nobody should have to be afraid of government.

You are correct but you should not blame an unreasonable fear of the government on some sort of government conditioning.



Apparently the whole concept of law is over your head at this current time. Honestly I don't want to teach a lesson so let me ask you a few simple questions.

What contract did my sister sign that made her subject to the Importing Intoxicating Liquor Act?
(Hint: Simply existing in a country is NOT a contract.)

How exactly is paying a third party (Liquor Board in this case) a fee for the wine make it legal to send NOT collusion?

The Law

-Lightrule



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 



Heyyyy, are you a Canadian?

Why do we fear our government? Well, they do have nearly all the guns.

Do they condition us to submit? Constantly. Why do we submit? For fear of imprisonment or death.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 




Apparently the whole concept of law is over your head at this current time. Honestly I don't want to teach a lesson so let me ask you a few simple questions.

After reading your post, I saw a few holes in your argument. I am merely pointing them out to you so that you may either explain them or improve your argument in some fashion.

Instead, you would rather dismiss what I have said and blame it on not wanting to "teach a lesson." Honestly, this sounds strangely like another instance where we disagreed. In that post you claimed that you did not want to make a good argument because you did not want to provide "legal advice."

If you wanted to make your point, instead of just complain that the big bad government doesnt let you do EXACTLY what you want to do, you would go as far as "teaching a lesson" to make that point. Heck, maybe if you explained your position a little I would see where you were coming from and agree with you.


What contract did my sister sign that made her subject to the Importing Intoxicating Liquor Act?
(Hint: Simply existing in a country is NOT a contract.)

Society says that those that exist within a country's jurisdiction are subject to that country's laws. So if your sister exists within the boundaries of Canada, she is subject to all laws including the Importing Intoxicating Liquor Act.


How exactly is paying a third party (Liquor Board in this case) a fee for the wine make it legal to send NOT collusion?

I read the law but that does not provide the reasoning behind passing the law. One would have to speak to the legislature or proponents of the law about that. What you do not understand is that there is always a reason behind passing a law. A good reason? Not always. But there is a reason nonetheless. That reason was not just so they could specifically impede your sister's intention of importing some wine for personal consumption. There was probably some sort of problem that the legislature was attempting to address by passing this law.

Above Top Secret is not just a message board where you can simply state your opinion as fact and have no challenge from others that read it. There are members out there that have a differing opinion, will challenge your position or evidence and are very good at doing so. If your argument is a good one, it will stand on its own. If not, you better be prepared to defend it or it will not last long. Not providing a defense for your position because you "dont feel like it" is not defending it at all.
edit on 31-8-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: delete



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 




Heyyyy, are you a Canadian?

No, but most democratically driven, constitutional governments operate closely enough to be able to speak on them.


Why do we fear our government? Well, they do have nearly all the guns.

Just because the government has nealy all the guns does not mean that the government will use them on a citizen for writing a letter.


Do they condition us to submit? Constantly. Why do we submit? For fear of imprisonment or death.

Does the government want you to follow the law? Yes. Are there penalties for breaking the law? Yes, this can include imprisonment. Will the government cause increased scrutiny or the undue persecution of one citizen because of a letter being written to them that expresses disagreement with a specific law like the Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act? No, it is unreasonable to fear something like that. The government probably receives hundreds of thousands of letters of dissent to a specific law or policy but the people who write those letters are still around to talk about it.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010

Above Top Secret is not just a message board where you can simply state your opinion as fact and have no challenge from others that read it.






To get this thread back on topic...

This is all a result of us demanding that the Gov "do something."

The Gov should never do something.
It is the Gov's job to pass laws and to appoint Judges to rule on said laws.

Somehow the corporations have conditioned us to pass judgement on our Gov,
based on the "quality of services" they provide. Thus the corps can look good
and the gov will look bad. Makes it easy to pollute and cheat without
anyone being able to notice.

What can we do about it?

Audit every single purchase the government makes.
Just like we would if we were watching a company that we owned stock in.

Governments get "very little scrutiny".
The gov should get the opposite of that.

Not judgment (like is popular now), but scrutiny.

And that's the issue isn't it.
They are watching us.
Putting us on lists.
We should return the favor.



David Grouchy


For Americans...

I know people hate him.
But Bill Gates nails it in this video.




Too bad the audience is surly and scratching their socks.

edit on 31-8-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


In my experience, they record every interaction you have with them and will use all of it against you in any way they can when your time comes.

In one way it's a means of attacking your character in the court of law. In other ways it serves to discourage dissent, as it has very successfully in the OP's sister's case.

We don't just fear getting hassled, losing money or careers, homes and reputations. We fear them because they are allowed to physically harm us and there is really nothing we can do about it. It's only natural for any human being to fear that. They know it, they remind us of it every day because it's how you force people to respect laws.

Police officer or not, open carrying of a firearm in public is just a way of saying "I'm in charge now", it's not about defending yourself. In what parts of Canada do LEOs really need to carry on their person at all? The reserves maybe? They won't EVER give me that right though. Firearm ownership is discouraged here through the legislation. You are seriously putting all your freedoms at risk by owning one legally because every firearms related charge is a criminal offense. Not registered, criminal, not stored locked in a case, criminal, own a handgun, don't you dare store it in your car, criminal.

You're a criminal here if you go 100km/h in a 50km/h zone. A criminal!

Only violent people belong in cages.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 




In my experience, they record every interaction you have with them and will use all of it against you in any way they can when your time comes.

What is this experience that you speak of? Did you write a letter of protest to the government showing dissent for some law or policy? What evidence do you have that they recorded the letter, and the fact that you sent it, to be stored until "your time comes?"


In one way it's a means of attacking your character in the court of law. In other ways it serves to discourage dissent, as it has very successfully in the OP's sister's case.

I am pretty sure that they cannot bring up a completely random letter that you sent to the government, in protest, during a trial that has nothing to do with the subject of that letter.


We don't just fear getting hassled, losing money or careers, homes and reputations. We fear them because they are allowed to physically harm us and there is really nothing we can do about it. It's only natural for any human being to fear that. They know it, they remind us of it every day because it's how you force people to respect laws.

I am sorry but you live in Canada not some fascist state. The police do not physically harm you unless you resist arrest. Even then, the police are only supposed to use reasonable force to effect the arrest. The court system can not even sentence you to physical harm. They can only sentence you to prison. The penalty of prison, or any other sentence handed down by the courts when found guilty, is what is used to force people to respect laws.


Police officer or not, open carrying of a firearm in public is just a way of saying "I'm in charge now", it's not about defending yourself. In what parts of Canada do LEOs really need to carry on their person at all? The reserves maybe?

The reason police officers carry weapons is so they can effectively defend themselves or someone else from another person using deadly force. Bottom line. The year there is no violent crime in Canada is the year that the police will not carry guns.


They won't EVER give me that right though. Firearm ownership is discouraged here through the legislation.

That sounds like something you should take up with the legislature of your country. If you can gather enough public support you might be able to get somewhere.


You are seriously putting all your freedoms at risk by owning one legally because every firearms related charge is a criminal offense. Not registered, criminal, not stored locked in a case, criminal, own a handgun, don't you dare store it in your car, criminal.

Even in the United States where, compared to other countries, they have very liberal gun control laws, you have to register handguns and certain other firearms under penalty of law. And why would you want to store a firearm in you car? So a criminal steals your car and they get a bonus of receiving a firearm as well? It is simple common sense not to store a firearm in your vehicle because it is totally unsecure. Where commons sense fails, legislation occurs.


You're a criminal here if you go 100km/h in a 50km/h zone. A criminal!

Only violent people belong in cages.

A criminal in the sense that you broke the traffic law. I fail to believe that you can be sentenced to jail time for simply speeding.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


I don't know how to break down posts yet so I'll do this in bullet format, you should still understand.

I'm not just speaking of letters to customs, I mean every interaction. They record whatever they can on you to build a profile of your character which they can later use against you by addressing certain traits, habits, activities and history with law enforcement, It's not meant to determine if you have done anything illegal, it's meant to give them 'dirt' on you in case you wish to use their system against them someday. Basically no matter who you are, if you try and stand up to them for yourself or others they will use this data to make arguments in court to bring your character into question and therefore your testimony against them. In my experience, respected professionals like physicians will have their testimony in court called into question by the crown based on a routine traffic stop "in the wrong end of town". As if a doctor driving through the east end of a city indicates an unreliable character. You see they will use everything in every way they can to convict. I can't say for certain that letters to customs would be used, but surely your history of attempted importation of contraband would be used to call your character into question, if you had to defend yourself one day based on your own testimony in court. You should fear their database, because they know more about you than your closest friends. I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure that you're wrong and they will use a letter of dissent against you if they could find any way to make you look guilty because of it. If a simple traffic stop is enough, then why not a letter that you bothered to write in protest?

You're right, but what they call "reasonable force" is often times applied differently than it sounds. The psychological fear we are talking about doesn't come from fear of prosecution I don't think. It's the primal fear of predator vs prey. They are constantly on the hunt for you misbehaving, or ways they can take your money. When you run, they come down on you like a pack of wolves. Individually they aren't so powerful, but together they form a force which cannot be resisted. This is what people must fear, it's only natural right?

Cops need guns, okay fine. Why do they need them on their hip though? Wouldn't it be a better idea to keep them safe locked in the trunk of their cruiser, like every other Canadian has to do? If they carried concealed sidearms so as not to intimidate people would that really put them in any danger at all? It's not like cops are getting ambushed around here like they do in the states sometimes, and have to return fire at any moment within a fraction of a second.

The Canadian public hates guns for the most part and believe the only people who should have them are the police, so they can defend us from those evil criminals. How well trained we all are already, eh?

Well I disagree with you that laws need to be used to promote "common sense". Saying I can't store a gun in a car because somebody may steal the car doesn't make any sense to me at all. They can always steal it from me, unless it's in my hands and loaded. That would mean I should never get to own a gun because there is always a chance it could be stolen. It's my responsibility and no one else's to prevent that from happening. I agree with licensing, but not not federal registration. They should get to make sure I'm trained to be safe with a gun, but they should never get to know what guns and how many I have. Why is that any of their business? As long as I follow the laws, what does it matter? They want the data so they can use it later.....

It's a criminal offense, in Canada that means a felony. So you may not go to jail but you will have a criminal record which does wonders to control your behavior all your life. I'm lucky I'm not in that situation!

The law;
www.mto.gov.on.ca...



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 




I don't know how to break down posts yet so I'll do this in bullet format, you should still understand.

If you want to copy what I said and post it as quoted content, type the word quote inside of these things [ ] before the copied content and /quote inside of these things [ ] at the end. That should show my quoted content the way it looks in my posts in your posts. Play with it a little bit and preview it until it looks right. It took me forever to figure that out so I know how you feel.


They record whatever they can on you to build a profile of your character which they can later use against you by addressing certain traits, habits, activities and history with law enforcement, It's not meant to determine if you have done anything illegal, it's meant to give them 'dirt' on you in case you wish to use their system against them someday.

I am sorry but I fail to believe that the Canadian Government maintains a federal database on its citizens that records every interaction you have with them. A person's criminal record yes, a traffic stop yes, but a letter of protest is not something that is tracked by the government. There is no crime in writing a letter to the government in protest unless it is threatening in some manner.


In my experience, respected professionals like physicians will have their testimony in court called into question by the crown based on a routine traffic stop "in the wrong end of town". As if a doctor driving through the east end of a city indicates an unreliable character.

Well, a simple traffic stop no matter where it is conducted is not any reason to bring someone's integrity into question. Unless that doctor, during the traffic stop, was found to be in possession of contaband or was convicted of some other type of crime, the evidence is circumstantial and would never be allowed in a court of law. In fact, any attorney that attempted this type of tactic would have a lot of explaining to do to the judge and could face an ethics violation.


The psychological fear we are talking about doesn't come from fear of prosecution I don't think.

Well I think that would depend on the person. A minority of people may have a misconception that the police are going to physically assault them for breaking the law but this is not what happens. I would say the majority of people do not want to break the law in the first place. But a smaller majority does not engage in criminal activity because if they are caught, they are facing prison or some other sentance.


Cops need guns, okay fine. Why do they need them on their hip though? Wouldn't it be a better idea to keep them safe locked in the trunk of their cruiser, like every other Canadian has to do? If they carried concealed sidearms so as not to intimidate people would that really put them in any danger at all? It's not like cops are getting ambushed around here like they do in the states sometimes, and have to return fire at any moment within a fraction of a second.

If a police officer is in a position they are going to need a firearm, 99% of the time it is going to be a split second decision. Meaning they are not going to have time to go back to their vehicle, unlock the weapon and then return to the situation and use it. This would cost the life of the police officer or anyone else threatened.

What you have to do is weigh the possibility of being placed in a situation where an officer immediately needs a firearm and the public relations aspect of not being armed. I would say in this day and age, the danger of needing a firearm and not having it is greater than the public relations of not being seen carrying a weapon.

Continued in next post.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 


Continued from last post.



They can always steal it from me, unless it's in my hands and loaded. That would mean I should never get to own a gun because there is always a chance it could be stolen.

If your gun is stored in your house, it can be secured in a heavy safe that cannot be accessed by anyone but you. In a vehicle, there is only a pane of glass between someone and your firearm. Even if you have some sort of safe or other means of securing the firearm in your vehicle, the vehicle can simply be driven away allowing the criminal all the time he or she needs to gain access to the firearm.

I am not arguing against transporting a firearm from your residence to a range or some deal but routinely storing a firearm inside of a vehicle is unacceptable.



I agree with licensing, but not not federal registration.

In the United States, it is not a federal database but is the responsibility of the state to maintain those records.

Well, there are several other reasons why databases are maintained.

If the gun is stolen, the police have access to the serial number and type of weapon so that it may be entered as stolen.

If the police are investigating someone for a crime and apply for a search warrant to search their residence, it is a sound tactic to know if someone has a firearm before kicking in their door. It is a matter of officer safety.

If they are investigating someone for a crime, in which a firearm was used, and they develop a suspect, they can use the database to see if any firearms are registered to them.

If the owner of a firearm suddenly is convicted of a crime and becomes a "prohibited person" who is no longer allowed to possess any type of firearm, a database can be checked to ensure they do not have any firearms registered to them.

There are probably several other reasons that I cannot think of at this moment.


It's a criminal offense, in Canada that means a felony. So you may not go to jail but you will have a criminal record which does wonders to control your behavior all your life. I'm lucky I'm not in that situation!

Yes, when the legislature takes a particular crime seriously, it deems the offense a felony and attaches heavy penalties. Gun laws, even in the United States, carry heavy penalties because of the nature of a firearm. The quick solution and rule to keeping yourself out of trouble? Know the gun laws and do everything in your power to abide by them. This is also the responsibility that one takes on when owning a firearm.

If you really disagree with the gun laws, start a petition or lobby your local representative to try to get the law changed. If you have enough popular support it can happen.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
My sister works in shipping, international contracts, cross border services, international freight whatever else you want to call it, basically she makes sure all our goods moving around the world get there as fast and as safe as possible. She works with Canadian customs everyday, she knows a few people that work at the customs house that is holding her wine. Those same friends are trying to help her out right now, however they provided some great internal SOPs. For instance the record of my sister attempting to ship something "illegal" here will last for no less than 10 years, during which time all her mail will now be flagged for additional screening.

Canada Post confirmed this with me yesterday. Her name is flagged and under the agents discretion could be subject to additional screening. Customs also stated any correspondence regarding the same file is kept in the file for the 10 years, if at any point during the next 10 years she sends anything else deemed "illegal" every file under her name will be active for 10 years from that date. So lets say 9 years from now she sends too many packages of cigars or whatever, this file regarding the wine will be reset for another 10 years. Before getting the details from her friends she knew customs kept files on every incident, just not the details of it. Obviously this was her reluctance to let me write a letter.

As a legal professional I can also confirm that these files built by government agencies like Canada Customs and Revenue, Canada Post and any other agency that gets involved would be used. For example if my sister were to get arrested protesting something like the G20 the government would run her name and collect the files from its other agencies. In this case they would relate the illegal booze and the letter I would have wrote as examples of my sister being anti government, its the exact evidence they would need and love to use to prove she was a "terrorist" or "extremest".

As for not living in a fascist state... What are you talking about? Did you not hear about the G20 in Toronto? Conveniently forgot? Peaceful protesters were arrested without charge and held for hours, their rights destroyed. Others were sprayed by tear gas and pepper spray, beat with batons. Many of them for doing NOTHING. Guilty of only being present. Being sent to prison is an assault on your freedom and liberty, it is physical harm as well as psychological. Trust me, its my job I see broken "criminals" everyday.

You tell me I'm wrong and have no evidence and blah blah blah, yet this is the stuff I was taught in law school. The very basic stuff. Are you saying everything I was taught is wrong? The acts, statues and codes you so lovingly believe is law, isn't. I'm sorry I don't know how to prove it to you if you are unwilling to look past your ego.

(YES I AM PURPOSEFULLY EXCLUDING THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN MY VIEWS AS THE LEGAL SYSTEM WAS MEANT FOR AND STILL IS MEANT FOR CORPORATIONS ONLY!!!)
I don't know how to make things any clearer than this:

The Law
and
The Legal System

Are completely separate, yet purposely and cleverly intertwined to appear as one and the same. You like 99% of the population of the planet believe these to be the same because you never have been or could be bothered with looking in depth at it. Just like everyone else.

I mean you do not even know the definition of person in Canada does not include the flesh and blood human. Legal definitions are NOT the same as our common everyday definitions. To make this clear to you, above you said its a crime to break traffic laws. No crime can be committed even if I were driving 240Kph in a 50Kph zone. Don't believe me? Whip out your legal dictionary and read the definition for crime. I got mine right here and I don't see anywhere it saying a crime includes "code infractions". Which is what speeding is by the by, look it up.

Maybe my questions to were were simply too advanced in the area of law to be useful to you? Cause you did not answer them. You simply posted your opinion.

Its like amateur hour on ATS when it comes to law, I swear it.

FYI, a contract does exist between my sister and government that allows them to force this crap on her, yes I know what it is. I just wanted to see if you would be bothered to dig. But instead you posted some asinine comment based solely out of ego. Something retarded about government having some sort of right to tell people what to do inside some stupid imaginary lines on a piece of paper, you based it on nothing as far as I could tell.

To finalize, if our courts were to stick to just plain old law you would find that everything that needs to be covered by the criminal code is already taken care of without the need for a legal system.

-Lightrule



edit on 2-9-2011 by Lightrule because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 


I wish I didn't read that, but I knew I was right. They probably have a lot of lists in a lot of different agencies for keeping a record of suspicious behavior. I bet a lot of that info is shared as part of the SPP agreement too.

But did you see my link? Street racing and dangerous driving are criminal offenses in Ontario now right?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 


Yeah I saw the link. Bill 203 is pretty funny, however it does address a few things that should have been in the traffic safety act to begin with. Street racing for example.

Do we really want our taxi, limo, bus and tractor trailer drivers street racing? Hell no! (You'll understand this joke once you read my link.)

Read this slowly and carefully, when you finish read it again. If you have any questions, U2U me.

-Lightrule
edit on 4-9-2011 by Lightrule because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join