Mohawks Of Kanehsatake Proved Right!
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Anal-ogy sounds invasive.
Ever hear of the UUC?
Bear, here is your printing press, just print up as many as you need to that you always have an extra one no matter how many you spend. A personally marked laminated one might be more practical as it's just a data entry on our end anyway.
§ 3-105. ISSUE OF INSTRUMENT. (a) "Issue" means the first delivery of an instrument by the maker or drawer, whether to a holder or nonholder, for the purpose of giving rights on the instrument to any person.
(b) An unissued instrument, or an unissued incomplete instrument that is completed, is binding on the maker or drawer, but nonissuance is a defense. An instrument that is conditionally issued or is issued for a special purpose is binding on the maker or drawer, but failure of the condition or special purpose to be fulfilled is a defense.
(c) "Issuer" applies to issued and unissued instruments and means a maker or drawer of an instrument.
Far as I know it should be honored anyplace you want to go as soon as you get it stamped, you know to stop forgers.
Now please don't drop in out of the blue.
Ever hear of the UUC?
Bear, here is your printing press, just print up as many as you need to that you always have an extra one no matter how many you spend. A personally marked laminated one might be more practical as it's just a data entry on our end anyway.
§ 3-105. ISSUE OF INSTRUMENT. (a) "Issue" means the first delivery of an instrument by the maker or drawer, whether to a holder or nonholder, for the purpose of giving rights on the instrument to any person.
(b) An unissued instrument, or an unissued incomplete instrument that is completed, is binding on the maker or drawer, but nonissuance is a defense. An instrument that is conditionally issued or is issued for a special purpose is binding on the maker or drawer, but failure of the condition or special purpose to be fulfilled is a defense.
(c) "Issuer" applies to issued and unissued instruments and means a maker or drawer of an instrument.
Far as I know it should be honored anyplace you want to go as soon as you get it stamped, you know to stop forgers.
Now please don't drop in out of the blue.
8O...:lol:
That's the only way you know how to think...:lol:
LG, oh forget it, I don't think MHz has taken her meds.
8O...
Of course it does, it was a new concept trying to get into your head. Good thing you managed to keep it out...;-)
United Uranium Corp?
UUC Motorworks?
UUC Tech Co. Ltd?
Universal Unit Converter?
Unitarian Universalist Church?
Ya, I've heard of a few UUC's. Do you have one in particular you may be referring to? The name is Bear, not the Amazing Kreskin.
Have your meds worn off?
The part you want is part 3, go for the hi-def file. All 5 are about a gb.
Hijacking Humanity - The Movie "They" Don't Want You To Know About!
You meant to type UCC, not UUC.
It would be nice if you knew what you were typing.
I can see why you would follow the nut job Maxwell, but how do you feel about his opinions of your God?
BTW: I suggest that you contact a tax lawyer before you try and apply anything you may have gleaned from watching his videos. He's so full of ****, that his eyes are actually brown.
I didn't give it to you for tax advice. Americans are a lot more active in that regard than Canadians anyway.
You seldom get the facts right even when the spelling was correct.
You seldom get the facts right even when the spelling was correct.
MHz, I watched the video's you linked. The man is a sham, he himself leads a cult of followers that is as nutty as a fruit cake.
His theory on people being "Corporate" and thus not available for income tax consideration, is absurd.
His illusive and misguided attempt to manipulate and explain law is absurd. Any first year law student could tell you that.
Which is why I guess you swallowed it hook line and sinker.
So what are your feelings on his opinions of your God?
And what facts were you trying to convey if I didn't manage to catch them, oh learned one?
I would thing laws geared to business practices would be more than relevant in issues that are treaty related.
Legally taxes in Canada are spelled out in 1867 in the BNAct, that was made unchangeable. The UCC (not UUC) deals with laws both domestic and international. By very basic question many pages back was ...Do Crown Lawyers use anything from that branch of law to argue their position as to what (almost any) Treaties do or do not mean. A document that touches on so many aspects of law cannot it be covered by common law.
That was pretty much the whole of my question. A yes or no would have been much faster.
Legally taxes in Canada are spelled out in 1867 in the BNAct, that was made unchangeable. The UCC (not UUC) deals with laws both domestic and international. By very basic question many pages back was ...Do Crown Lawyers use anything from that branch of law to argue their position as to what (almost any) Treaties do or do not mean. A document that touches on so many aspects of law cannot it be covered by common law.
That was pretty much the whole of my question. A yes or no would have been much faster.
Actually, not that it would be understood by you, they fall under "Contractual Law" and "Treaty Law". Since the Gov't has attempted to have Native Bands "incorporate", your version of reality may apply. But since you get your information on law from an occult leader, I doubt that you will grasp any concept I put forth.
So I say again, please don't think for one second you know more about law, let alone how it applies to Natives and Treaties.
Yet they've been changed several times.
Not according to you.
I'm sure at some level, where the laws intersect or find there basis in antiquity, the answer would be yes.
If your occult leader says so, I won't argue. Primerally because your statement makes no sense.
If you could communicate better, it wouldn't take as long. ;-)
I'm not sure what you would find cult like about this group (other than them all being lawyers). They do rule on what treaties mean and do not mean in this case.
Aboriginal Treaty Rights; Rv Marshall Case Comment
That's all I was on this thread for.
Aaaaahhh the paranoia of the fringe-dwellers. Although I think that there are people that would love to be in control of an authoritarian state as large as NorthAm or the world, it's extremely unlikely it will ever happen. There are too many variables for one thing, and some of the variables are extremely remote from the others. Geographical location alone can make people think differently from others. Humans haven't the capacity to manage things on that size of scale. Most don't even have the capacity to manage a company let alone a continent or the world. So far, the only effective management I've seen in countries seem to be not of the attitude to want to manage anything more. Others try but fail miserably.
But, I fail to see the relevance of this vid clip to what the OP is about.
PS If Hamas ever read some of those Canadian court cases could they use that as a backdrop 'traps and loop-holes' for what they are asked to sign at some point. Fact is if nothing much has changed there is a plan that stay in effect no matter what papers are signed and agreed on.
My reason for this PS as I don't think this was mentioned. One of the things that allowed this corruption was the ability to divert funds with nobody spotting it until after the fact. Even without any Natives being involved this has been known to happen in the white-eyes world. The solution was in the form of watch-dogs, whatever the hired produced as a trail (and it was deliberate that there was a trail) that others went over with a fine tooth-comb. At the level of today it would be like each politician being recorded every time he was talking about something to do what the taxpayers paid him for. In days gone but the Gov actyally funded then but at minor cost since they were part-times (retired professionals) and free workers. The scandles out Fed and Provincial Governments have is becuse it only catches the big mistakes. With watch-dogs the moment any money was diverted it would have gotten attention. That extra layer of protection add only a % or 2 to the overall costs. It saves a lot more than that.
My reason for this PS as I don't think this was mentioned. One of the things that allowed this corruption was the ability to divert funds with nobody spotting it until after the fact. Even without any Natives being involved this has been known to happen in the white-eyes world. The solution was in the form of watch-dogs, whatever the hired produced as a trail (and it was deliberate that there was a trail) that others went over with a fine tooth-comb. At the level of today it would be like each politician being recorded every time he was talking about something to do what the taxpayers paid him for. In days gone but the Gov actyally funded then but at minor cost since they were part-times (retired professionals) and free workers. The scandles out Fed and Provincial Governments have is becuse it only catches the big mistakes. With watch-dogs the moment any money was diverted it would have gotten attention. That extra layer of protection add only a % or 2 to the overall costs. It saves a lot more than that.
Though the decision out line in this article is based solely on Constitutional Law, it does have merit in Admiralty Law, and that just stands to reason MHz.
Did you read the article MHz. I think you made an error in what you think it supports. The articles basis is to the affects of the Constitutional Law decision regarding Aboriginal fisheries trade on Commercial fisheries laws.
Actually it's an article on how this will impact commercial fisheries legislation. It's commentary on legal findings, not how Admiralty law is applied to Treaties. lol.
I was talking about this UCC that MHz mentioned, not the article.
I googled "UCC law treaty" and got a variety of results but not one mentioned some group of lawyers ruling on treaties.
"The part of the treaty relied upon by Donald Marshall, was the trade clause. This provided as follows:
And I do further engage that we will not traffick, barter or Exchange any Commodities in any manner but with such persons or the managers of such Truck houses as shall be appointed or Established by His Majesty’s Governor at Lunenbourg or Elsewhere in Nova Scotia or Accadia.
What would you call this example? The article has many more similar examples. What dictionary would be used to define what the bolded letters below actually refer to.
The majority decision of the Supreme of Canada written by Mr. Justice Binnie, reached the opposite conclusion. After emphasizing the need to uphold the honour of the Crown when interpreting treaties, he concluded that the interpretation advocated by the trial Judge and Madame Justice Mclachlin left the Mi’kmaq with an “empty shell of a treaty promise.” He concluded that the Mi’kmaq treaty right to fish and trade survived the discontinuance of the exclusive trading arrangement with the British.
That would seem to mean, find the Crown (Government of Canada in this case) as the party that wins.
And you wouldn't, that was Mhz introduction to this...
Aboriginal Treaty Rights; Rv Marshall Case Comment
Which of course is a Legal brief on the westward implications on commercial fisheries and it Native counterparts. And has nothing to do with anything that MHz has babbled about in this thread to date. If you look at where the article was originally published...
LOL
BY...
Which of course would be why it was posted at a site pertaining to Maritime Law.
I love it when people who have no idea about what they speak of, think they actually know something.
I'm so willing to share what I know about Treaty Law and how it is applied to my community. Hell, I'm always willing to answer questions and share what I know about my peeps. I just feel compelled to bash people who presume to 'tell' me how it si.
An opinion on the adjudication of the Judge.
None based on reality.
Do you know how to read? Or even more importantly, understand what you read?
Means that Justice Binnie was compelled to make the Crown honour its obligations as set out in the original Treaty.
What was so hard about that to grasp?