Abortion – “My body My Right!” Why this argument fails to logic and reason.

o-ABORTION-facebook.jpg

Abortion.  Such a touchy subject and one that many women will scream about.   In fact with the current american election looming, the subject has come up due to Hilary’s opinion that the unborn have no rights in law until they are born.   Which means, in her eyes, that a child can be ripped apart via abortion right up until the time labor starts.

This has caused a debate on abortion to renew again.  I’ve seen this debate happen numerous times over  the past forty years.   However, now with age comes wisdom and understanding.

The understanding that “my body my right” is false.     I will list my reasons why.

Let’s begin with conception.    Life starts there.   The mother’s egg is dormant until the father’s sperm penetrates the egg and gives it the spark of life and energy it needs to start cell reproduction.

One of the arguments from women is that they give life or create life.   Technically this is incorrect.   At best you can call a woman an incubator.   They carry and gestate that child in their body but the “spark” that created that life, came from the father.

The cells reproduce and form a child.   During that process there are many stages.    Many argue that there is no “life” until there is a heartbeat or a brain etc.    This really is a strawman argument.  Since as I stated the spark started at inception.

Now, with that being said many argue that the fetus can be aborted right until week 31-35.  In Canada, this is 24 weeks.  This is what a fetus looks like at that time.

fetus24weeks

Now I don’t know about you, but this does not look like a bunch of cells that get scraped off the uterus wall.     Yet, the abortions can and do happen this late.

So the argument of “My Body, My Right” is false.  It disregards the life of the child as nothing.   So I can understand how some could see it as murder.

If anyone has watched the Videos from the investigation into Planned Parenthood, you would have seen the horrors that they present.   Selling the aborted baby parts for profit.   The staff separating brain, legs, arms as if they were never human life.

Then we have father’s rights.   Or rather, the lack of reproductive rights.    Many of the people who argue for abortion always mention that “If the father didn’t want a child, they shouldn’t have had sex”.     This argument is without any kind of reason, coherent thought or logic.    The reason being is, the same logic can be applied to the women.   “If she didn’t want a child she shouldn’t have had sex”.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not against abortion completely.   I firmly believe there should be allowances in law for it.  Such as cases of women or girls getting pregnant from rape, or incest.   Or in medical needs, such as her life is in danger from the pregnancy.   Those to me seem to be reasonable.

We have had over 50 years in Canada of proper sex education, women have access to more than twenty kind of contraceptive options.   Everyone, and I mean everyone knows the pill is not 100 percent and yet we still have unwanted pregnancies.

So maybe it’s time ladies to stop blaming men for your pregnancy?   Men have 3 options to them.  A condom, Abstinence or a vasectomy.    The power, the choices and the rights are all yours.   So if you get pregnant and it is unwanted, then to me, it is your fault. At least, ninety percent on you.

As, I have written, men do not have rights when it comes to being a father or not.   You scoff and will rant, but it is true.

Men have zero choice in becoming a father.   Once the sperm, penetrates the egg and cell division starts then women have all the power and the choice in society.    If a woman gets pregnant here are her choices.

1.  She can choose to abort.  2.  She can choose to keep the child.  3. She can choose to give the child up for adoption.  4. She can choose to not name the child’s father on the birth certificate.   5. She can choose to force the father to pay child support.  6.  She can choose to let the father give up his so called “parental rights as father”.   7.  She can choose to deny the father any visits to the child.

All the choices are hers.     This is why,  I think the laws  in this country concerning abortion need to take a more balanced approach to, well, every aspect.

We need to have this discussion as a nation.   People need to be honest and less selfish about it and that will start with you ladies, cause we men, don’t have the rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

What happened to our homes are our castles?

Bodiam Castle, East Sussex, UK
Bodiam Castle, East Sussex, UK

What happens when your home is no longer your castle?  What does it feel like when you, get told that you have no rights on who enters your home or when?

I found out today that in Canada, we do not have any rights to our property.  At least the government believes we don’t.    In the interest of safety, they have created laws that empower their  agents to think they can tell us that they can, without any warrant, to enter our homes.

Now the reason may sound reasonable to some, but the reason does not matter to me.  It is the rights they trample over.

Today during a neighborhood association meeting, we had a representative from the fire department.   She was quite nice and I had a great respect for that branch.   Until today that is.     She had been there to represent the local fire department and with a smile, informed us that the Carbon Monoxide detectors had almost been installed in all the homes in my area, except for a few.   She then proceeded to inform us that in those homes that they were unable to gain access to, they would ticket the homeowners and basically enter the home, without a warrant to install these Carbon Monoxide detectors/inspect the home.

Of course being who I am, this raised huge red flags to me.   Our homes are supposed to be our sanctuaries and no one, should be allowed to enter except in emergency or with a warrant if suspected of a crime.

According to the fire department however, they can and will enter people’s homes if the home owners refuse them entry when they come knocking for the carbon monoxide detectors.

The legal implications for this is huge.    The first implication is that you have no say on who enters the home if they are a government agent.   The police are supposed to get a warrant to enter someone’s home, but the fire department doesn’t if there is no apparent emergency?

If the fire department can be granted these powers, with no due process, then what else has the Canadian governments created?

Needless to say this made me instantly angry.   Here was a government representative, telling us homeowners that we had no say.   No authority.     Well needless to say that I promptly informed her that no law can decide who enters my home and If they tried I will fight them in court and defend my home from intrusion, because without a warrant, I consider anyone entering my home as a home invader.  Uniform or not.     She then tried to threaten me with getting a police officer to come in to “explain” the law to me.

This kind of heavy strong arm tactic is the same type that dictatorships use and if you don’t capitulate they throw you in jail or kill you.    No cop can enter your home without your permission or a warrant, or unless there is some emergency like a 911 call from inside the home, fire, or break in.

They cannot, ever enter without a warrant.   To do so, they would be violating your rights to privacy and your home.    Think of all those people who have been victims of a home invasion and imagine the home invaders being the government.    The feelings you would feel would be no different.    Many people who have experienced this from cops or any government agency have described their feelings after as the same as those who have had a home invasion by criminals.     No difference.

Now, someone at the meeting cited that police can enter with just cause, and the answer is a swift no they can’t.   They need to get a warrant to enter.  If they have “just cause” then they can bring that to a judge, while just cause is not usually enough to get an arrest warrant, it can be enough to justify a warrant to enter someone’s home, but to give any other agencies sweeping powers to enter your home with any due process is a violation of a person’s rights.

We need to stop letting these people get away with this.  We need to stop being so passive when it comes to government and law enforcement.

Maybe they are misunderstanding the law?   Maybe they have been told by their superiors they can do this and let the lawyers handle any blowback?   Who knows, but this is not what living in a free country means.

Feminism is an Ideology based on Hate.

woman-hitting-man-2915823

I will say this over and over, until feminism ideology is treated by society, exactly what it is, which is an ideology of hatred of men.   Period.   People are leaving feminism ideology in droves but it won’t be finished unless it is legally recognized as a hate group.  Much like Neo-Nazi’s are treated.

I’ve heard the arguments from pro-feminists who give this world view description of it that is pure fantasy and not based on reality.   Even from the so called men, who support feminism, have been brainwashed in this ideology of hate, that they cannot even see it.

Here are some common arguements and lies that pro-feminists use to defend the hate group ideology.

1.  Feminism is about equality for all.

Yes we have all heard that one, and we all know it isn’t true.   The dictionary is a book that has the definitions of words in the english language and it tells a different definition.

Here it is: Feminism

The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Now this reads like it is about equal rights but it isn’t.    Here is a real definition of equality.

Egalitarianism

The doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

Notice the difference feminists?   No?  Let me “mansplain” for you.

The first definition devotes the energy to supporting women’s rights only.    It operates on the assumption they are treated less than men.

Egalitarianism however, is one of equality, for everyone.   Not based on gender, not based on race, or sexuality.     In other words, it doesn’t give special treatment for one group.

Back to common arguments in the defense of feminism:

2. Feminism cares about men!

No actually it doesn’t.   It is a sexist, bigotted and homophobic ideaology.   It is a facist movement that was co-oped back in the 60s, by angry women.   They teach in gender studies courses the division of people.  It classifies them and puts them into victim groups with white men being the oppressors.

Let’s delve further into this. intersectionality:

The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage:
through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us’

The whole definition is about separating and categorizing based on oppression.   This ideology is taught in gender studies courses and taught this is still happening in western culture and society.    It teaches that we need to label ourselves and plot our victim hood on some scale of privilege vs oppression.

The final thing about intersectionanilty is that is doesn’t include white males.   Not one feminist, or their supporting men, will say that white men are an oppressed class and part of this intersectionanility.   In fact they will go out of their way and angrily pronounce that white men are the most privileged people in society, who oppress everyone else.

3.  Feminism loves men:

Sure they do, because this is their main scapegoat for all their projection of self hate.

Here is a classic example of blaming men by a blogger who wrote an article about why the world needs feminism.

https://andienns.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/77-reasons-we-still-need-feminism/

The gist of the article is that men are still the oppressors and still   I will follow up on this article with a list of my own to counter this one because this is the type of nonsense we need to speak out against.

4.  Feminism isn’t about hate.   It’s about love!

I heard this one by so many feminists, that it makes me so angry every-time I hear it.   It also shows they are down syndrome retarded in their thinking.     Here are some quotes by feminists that show the love!

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”
Catherine MacKinnon

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”
Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.

“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, ‘even if she does not feel forced.’
Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”
Andrea Dworkin; from her book Ice and Fire .

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”
Robin Morgan

 

From ‘A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

MALE:…represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants…the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN:…an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched…a contradictory baby-man…

I could go on and on but you get the idea.  Feminism is about the hatred and subjugation of men.   It teaches men they are evil and that women are best people.

It is time we denounce feminism, challenge it’s conceptions and presume it is gospel truth and fight the hatred of it.

We have allowed feminist ideology to infect society in such a way it is now affecting everyone as a whole.   It is a lie that teaches hate.   It infects our schools, our government, our jobs, even our homes.

Stand up.  Say no to feminism and challenge anyone who supports it.   It will be the only way we can stop this hate group.

Differences in Law – Explained.

I recently had a discussion with a group of people online about the differences in law.   The majority of people believe that law has different categories with their own rules and regulations.

ALL CIVIL LAWS ARE CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE

Here is how law works.  I’ll start off with the top level.

Criminal vs Civil.

Criminal Law deals with crimes that have victims.  Like rape, robbery, property damage or murder.   These fall under a crime with a victim because someone was always hurt or damaged by another’s actions.  And in most cases there is reparations or jail or both.

Civil cases are all contract cases.   This is where the above mentioned discussion got heated, and I understand why.   In Civil Law there are sub categories.

Family Law, Divorce Law, Personal Injury Law, Traffic Tickets, Small Claims, and more.

So I can see why many people would confuse these as being totally separate and have nothing to do with civil cases.   However all these things are contractual and fall under civil courts and that is why they handle them.

Divorce Law.     This deals with with break up of the marriage contract either due to a violation of one or both of the parties or just a mutual amicable split.

The contract was the marriage contract you signed when you got married that allowed the government to have authority over your divorce should you get divorced and as well to define your marriage with rules. (there are laws for marriage you can look up online, results vary depending on your government).

Traffic Court – These deal with fines or violations of the contract you have with the government that you signed when you got your drivers licence concerning the rules of the road.   This is also why they call any breach of the contract a “violation” and not a crime in court.  Simply because it is a violation of a contract.

Small Claims while not always dealing with contracts between parties, the parties in court at some point individually have signed a contract somewhere that gave the government authority over the situation.   For example, two neighbors having a dispute over a fence line.     Seems innocuous and doesn’t sound like it involves contracts, but each property owner signed documents with lawyers when they purchased their property and in those documents they agreed to abide by the laws governing the area concerning the property and agreed that the government would have final say.     That was part of the land deed you signed for.   A contract.

As well to note some contracts are verbal –   If you asked to borrow my car and I said only if you filled the tank of gas, and you agreed, that is considered a verbal contract.  Because this falls on the property or even public property (which the government owns) then they have jurisdiction.

Personal Injury law is also contractual in much the same way that small claims is.   It’s part of the whole land deed contract rules as well as public land rules.    The agreement was made  when you signed the deed papers for your property.  Or if you fall on public property you would take the city to court and the court would determine if the city is liable under the contract due to a violation, like not keeping a sidewalk in proper repair and it collapses under you into a sinkhole.   That would make the government in breach of the contract by virtue of the public trust and property owners who pay taxes for the repair and upkeep.

One gentlemen claimed that this simply wasn’t true that any contract isn’t valid if your “tricked” into signing it without full disclosure.   However, the government fully discloses everything and calls it Acts or Statutes or Code.    The majority of people aren’t educated in this and assume these sub categories are all different, when essentially they are all the same.  Just the terms for each contract are different.

Think about how many times you sign documents with a government agency.  Those are all contracts friends.

We live in a “Democratic” (I use the term loosely), society.   In a democracy, we are ruled by consent of the governed.  They get that consent in different ways.   One way and the most commonly known way is the voting process.  We give our consent by voting in the person who we think should govern.   What they don’t tell you is all the other ways that they gain your consent.    And that is via the contract.    They have to do it this way because then we wouldn’t be living in a “Free” country.  We would be openly be slaves.

They need you to consent to abide by their rules for the road for example.  They have to because everyone has the right to use those roads as they are paid for by taxes when you fill your tank of gas.    So you and everyone has the right.  Which is why they are called public roads.   They use the licence system to convince people that it’s for safety and it weeds out the unsafe drivers and you sign the documents, go through some rudimentary testing and sign some documents and you get a plastic card with your photo for the privilege of using the roads by their rules instead of just using them to begin with.

And when something happens, and you end up in court, it is called a violation and comes with a fine.   The fine is a penalty for violating the contract.  Refusal to pay that fine ends in jail time or your property taken.  Remember you agreed to this when you signed that contract.

Let’s look at it this way.   IF all these laws apply all the time to everyone then why do they need you to sign forms in order to get a licence ?   Why do they need you to sign a marriage licence?

If you think about it, you realize the laws don’t apply all the time and if they don’t apply all the time, then when do they apply.  They only apply during certain circumstances and only if you gave your consent.  That is the only logical answer.

If I’m walking on the sidewalk and a cop arrests me for a violation under the highway traffic act and I didn’t have a licence or even if I had a licence. would that act apply to me if I was walking on the sidewalk?

The simple answer would be no.  It would not, simply because the highway traffic act applies to people who signed the contract and the terms deal with people who are “drivers”.   Not a pedestrian walking on a sidewalk.

So in reality all civil cases are contractual.  They have different names that even lawyers who specialize in the sub categories can’t see it.   It’s no wonder the general public can’t.

Contracts, Traffic Tickets, The Traffic Court Cases and you.

I love this topic.  I have heated arguments with lawyers, professors, and many others who believe that a drivers licence is something magical that bestows abilities and powers that one would not normally have in life.

They refuse to believe, what it really is.  It is a contract.  That’s it.  It makes so much sense when you understand the government is nothing but a corporation.  A corporation or a government cannot force you to do something against your will.  It needs your agreement in order to perpetuate the myth you are free.   They don’t like not being in control so they have made up the myth that we must have permits, licences and such to do things we could do without that little plastic card.   They use their legalese to achieve this.  To get us to sign documents.  Let me break down some words so you understand.

When you apply for something you are in law, begging permission to do something to which you would normally not be allowed to do.

The roads are public roads. In law, a public road is defined as a public way to which everyone has the RIGHT to use.

So let me take the drivers licence again.   You apply for the licence.  You are asking permission to drive on the roads which by definition, you have every right to use.

Technically in law you wouldn’t have to get a licence.  So they trick you into believing it.  Now, what they are doing is getting you to sign an agreement with them.  A contract.    There are a few things that make a contract legal.

1.  Two or more parties on the contract

2.  Negotiation, Full disclosure.

3.  A benefit to both parties

4. Agreement of the parties.

This is what any licence is .   It’s a contract.  The terms and conditions are listed out in the act associated with the licence.  In the case of the drivers licence it would be the highway traffic act.    The benefit to you is that they don’t arrest you.  The benefit for them is they make billions of the public.

Now when you break one of the terms of the contract, you get issued a fine, or a ticket.  It’s a document which is basically the same as a bill you would get in a restaurant.  It has the name of the company, the violation, the cost and the signature of the person who issued it.

You go to court and you can either pay it or fight it.   Most people just pay it.  98% of cases are won in favor of the crown attorney.  The reason is that they keep the fine low enough that most people just couldn’t be bothered to fight it and just pay it.  So as such they bring in billions every year in traffic violations alone.

In the court if you decide to fight it, then the odds are not ever in your favor.   Again, the crown attorney and the judge are paid from the same pot.  Second, if you have a drivers licence then you agreed to the rules and the licence is the proof of contract (even though they won’t tell you that).   It’s also a civil matter.  Not a criminal one.  This should be proof enough to most that it is a contract.  A contract is civil and the terms can be violated.  A crime involves usually another person and some harm is usually involved.  A contract violation isn’t a crime, but a breach of a term.

So with that understanding, that’s why they call it a violation, and not a crime.  I’ve seen some judges try to justify it when put into a corner by lying and saying it’s a Quasi crime.

It’s simply a violation of a contract.    Now the sticky part on lower court judges is when the people who don’t fall for the propaganda don’t get a licence and get stopped.  Then the court is in a bind.  They will do everything to try to get the defendant to admit he broke some law.  In they don’t, they use a little known court room rule.

The court room rule book has a rule to which the judge can make a judgement without any law, precedent, and go based solely on his personal opinion.   In other words, he can throw out the rules, ignore law, supreme court cases and just make a ruling based on how much he likes you or doesn’t.

Go look up the courtroom procedure rules for your local courthouse.   It’s in there. That one rule allows a judge to ignore law.  How fair and just is that?

The other thing to keep in mind is that a judge is not held accountable for his/her rulings.   At least as far as if, they rule and their ruling turns out to be incorrect or seems to be biased, they can’t be sued, or arrested.  Even if they send someone to jail for life and it is found out 20 years after that the person was innocent and the judge was biased.  He is still a free man and the person lost 20 years of their life due to that improper judgement.  How fair is that?

Lower court judges will ignore supreme court rulings.  They will ignore case law.  If they don’t like you then your toast.  Doesn’t matter if you have court cases a mile high to back your case.  They can and will ignore that.  They will tell you things like “that is your interpretation” and because it is not theirs, they will ignore it.  They will say things like your not a member of the bar, so your not qualified to interpret law.  Yet, apparently, ignorance of the law is not an excuse either.

So in the lower court you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  My best advice to people is try to stay out of that court if your not prepared to fight, spend some time in jail or pay money.

The lower courts are also defacto courts.  Lawyers and judges hate that word, and claim they are not defacto.   Here is what it means.

What is DE FACTO?

In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful. legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office orsupreme power, but by usurpation, or v.-ifiirespect to lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but who has never had plenary possession of the same, or is not now in actual possession. 4 Bl. Comm. 77, 78. So a wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. 4 Kent, Comm. 30. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. As to de facto “Corporation,” “Court,” “Domicile,” “Government,” and “Officer,” see those titles. In old English law. De facto means respecting or concerning the principal act of a murder, which was technically denominated factum. See Fleta, lib. 1, c. 27,

Law Dictionary: What is DE FACTO? definition of DE FACTO (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Defacto means they are not there by any constitutional means  but is corporate in nature. A company. And the law society is a registered company.   So it is defacto, because it’s members are all part of that society and because that society is a registered corporation it is illegitimate.

However, unless the masses wise up and start ignoring them, then they will continue to operate as if they are Dejure.

Now, when dealing with the police.   This is tricky.  Police are not trained to interpret law, and are backed by the Crown attorney and the judge.   A cop is supposed to be peacekeeper first and enforcer 2nd.  Unfortunately they are not trained in peacekeeping as much as they are enforcement.

If you take a traffic ticket to court and fight it, then the ONLY evidence a crown attorney has, is the cops word.  (Traffic cameras excluded).   His testimony is deemed as truth and has more force than your arguments, cases etc in the judges eyes.  This is why so many wrongs happen in court.  There are effective ways to get a judge to throw out the cops testimony and leave the crown attorney with nothing but his opinion.  You have a slight chance of winning then, but it’s doubtful, and you would still have to appeal but the appeal with have more force without a cops testimony.    Also, keep in mind the crown attorney doesn’t even look at the case until that day, sometimes not until the case is even called.  So if you do your work and try to get copies of the “evidence ” before, keeping records and copies of any correspondence with dates and times, and even tracking information. Then your chances increase a tad, because you have tried to get what is called “discovery”.  A crown attorney has to give you discovery before your court date, but you have to demand it.  And if they don’t provide it, a judge can and will throw a case out.  Or in some cases will berate the crown and give them more time to give you discovery.  Discover is a nice thing that has force in law.   If they have no evidence then they will revoke their claim and the case is dismissed.  Sometimes you get idiot crown attorneys who will refuse to believe a civilian can beat them in court and will take it to the hilt.  That’s fine. If you do your homework, learn how to defend yourself effectively in a courtroom setting then you won’t be the one to look bad.

This is not legal advice.  Just personal knowledge based on research and discussions from documentation, videos, audio and more.   There are others out there who can effectively help you with traffic or tax cases in court if you need it.  Marc Stevens is one. I highly recommend you contact him.  Doesn’t matter where in the world you are. He can provide solid advice based on personal experience in court rooms.  And no he is not a lawyer but a radio host.

Law Society

The law society is a society.  It’s member’s practice law.  They are the ones we call when we have a legal issue and need someone in court.

Remember what I said about societies in my first post?   This is a society.  It was created by and owned by, you guessed it.  The banking family.  The ownership of every company called a law society in the world in any country that was conquered, acquired or colonized by England has one.   The law society has it’s own members who pay their dues and in return they get the protection of their society and as well, they have their own language.   They don’t admit to it,  and after many conversations with lawyers who think I’m incorrect, I’ve found out they don’t even teach their new lawyers about law dictionaries anymore.  Many believe that book form law dictionaries like “Black’s Law Dictionary” is a myth or a hoax.

I call these so called lawyers, ill informed.   And what’s worse, is they won’t believe you, even if you show them the truth.  I had a few months long discussion with one, and I kept citing the law dictionary and he refused to believe it because according to him, the law dictionaries have no basis in law.  Even though they define the words he uses in law everyday.

The law society is a twisted concept, that on it’s face seems noble and honorable.  It is, the arm that holds society back.   It enforces it’s will on all who come within it’s walls and it’s not for the benefit of the people but the crown corporation.

The words they use are a twisted form of English to make people think they are speaking English.  They have redefined simple common place words, to have a slightly different meaning so they can have an advantage.

Driver is my favorite.  As they keep changing it’s definition to try to gain the advantage in court.   Every new edition of a law dictionary has a new definition of this word because people keep fighting this in court.   For my example I will use the original definition and I will go on to explain why this is important.

The original definition said

One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

Law Dictionary: What is DRIVER? definition of DRIVER (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Now, the key words here is employed to conduct.   Employed (Hired or working) to conduct .. meaning to transport either goods or people.

This makes sense since the government by it’s own words is supposed to manage the resources of the lands and manage trade within and without the lands.   A driver then under that definition would be a commercial driver.  One who is using the roads (public roads) for personal gain.  So it makes sense to me that a “Driver” should be licensed and taxed for the money they make using the public roads that I as a non driver pay for via the gas tax.

So anyone really who makes a living transporting goods or people using the roads is a driver. At least under that legal definition.   This definition comes directly from the law society.

Yet we are forced to pay for driver licenses and taxed on it every year on our birthdays.   Many people don’t think of this that way and that is due to the twisting of the language.   Another thing in law they don’t tell you is the word MAY is synonymous with the word MUST.   Basically in law you can switch the one word for the other.   So when you read on the provincial government websites for drivers licenses you will see it say you MUST get a drivers license.   This is legalese again.  They use this to trick you into believing that you have to get a commercial license to use the roads you already pay for.

The public misconception is that a drivers licence magically makes you safe on the roads and competent to drive a vehicle.  Despite the fact there are thousands of accidents every day, by allegedly “competent drivers”.    Despite the fact that, up until the early sixties, people didn’t need a licence to drive a car on the roads for personal use.   It wasn’t until they used legalese in their wording on the documents that people began to believe the myth that a plastic card made you safe on the roads.    By that simple legalese trickery by substituting the word MAY with MUST, they ensured a billion plus dollars every year, plus fines from tickets, because tickets by the way are commercial bills in their nature.  I will get into that in another post.

The law society dictates what the words mean in their legalese.  Seemingly common words we take for granted have vastly different meanings or multiple meanings they use at will without our knowledge.    Look at it this way, in Quebec they speak a more guttural and slang version of french.  In Paris they speak a true form of french.   We speak English and the law society speaks a bastardized version of it.

Due to the fact the law society is a registered corporation and is also owned by the same people who own the government, they use that advantage to manipulate the people that they get true justice in all levels of court.  The lower court system isn’t about fairness or justice.  It’s about making money.  That branch brings in money in fines, fees and judgement’s in favor of the crown.  Not the Queen, the crown corporation.   They are a court of contracts.  This is why all lower court judges won’t answer the question if they are working for the crown corporation or the queen.  The can’t because then no one would listen to them anymore.

Another thing many people don’t realize about the law society, or rather they are beginning to suspect, is that they protect their own.  A judge is just a lawyer in a black dress.  He oversees cases and makes judgement on them in lower courts.   The usual penalty is a fine.  Which goes to the crown corporation.   That’s his job.  It’s not to ensure justice. It’s making money.  The judge, the crown prosecutor and the lawyer you hire, are all members of the same society.  They work together.   In many circumstances, judges are also chosen from the city attorney pool, usually a crown prosecutor will get promoted to judge.  And that is based on how many convictions he has gotten in his favor.  That means the more he wins and the more fines the crown makes, the better his chances at a promotion.   The judge, because they usually come from the prosecution side of the equation, are biased and tend to judge in favor of the crown.  This way he gets his bonus’s and raises.  They both get paid from the same source as well.

This is the system the law society set up.    Next blog post will be on the court rooms and the scams they do there.

Some words to look up are

Person

Driver

Monster

Some dictionaries you can find online are Black’s Law dictionary, Canadian Law dictionary.    You can also find these law dictionaries in ebook form and to buy in book stores.   Be aware, according to the current crop of lawyers out there, these books are a myth, hoax or don’t mean anything.