Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Moderator: Burnaby49

arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by arayder »

arayder wrote:
cudgel wrote:...Seems several of your own Judges think otherwise as they got disqualified by their boss who knew the privately pending tort of discrimination and intimidation was inescapable and disqualified 7 of the judges from ever sitting in front of the good minister…
Please document this claim.
Hey, Belanger, I didn't ask for a rambling video on your Google page about a meeting you recall from 9 years ago or what your toked up assumptions are about what the meeting brought about.

I asked for documentation of your claim.

It's time to put up, ole son!
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by Burnaby49 »

webhick wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:
The Observer wrote:The one thing that we should be very grateful for to Peterson and/or Belanger is providing us with more ideas for titles to hand out to those shills who are nearing that time for recognition.

After all, who would turn down the title "Shill of The Vampiric Order of Quatloos?"
Damn it. I've already got a title.
Earlier in the week I was going to change your title to "Infamous Ranting Canadian of the Northern Southernmost Northern Tundra" but then I didn't.
Thank you, I'm quite happy with my current title and that one is quite a handle. In any case I was whining more than ranting and I'd prefer not to be known as the "Infamous Whining Canadian". However I am certainly getting somewhat infamous amongst the Vancouver Freemen, most of them seem to know me now, happily only as Burnaby49.

Since Vancouver is only a short drive from the US border I think just Southernmost Northern Tundra is sufficient.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by Burnaby49 »

I just had a moment to visit those links, but they seem to be there. I don't know what their prior content was as I never attended before, but I don't get 'deleted' notices or anything like that.

Blogspot, youtube, and g+ are all google products. Perhaps he suffered from a temporary server glitch?
Well Peterson's videos that I watched on ecclesiasticsalvation are still gone. Fortunately I saved my favorites for future viewing entertainment.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by notorial dissent »

arayder wrote:They may have traced the IP addresses of a few visitors back to government agencies, possibly even prosecutor's offices, and realized they are sealing their own fate by shooting off their big mouths.
While that does make a good deal of sense(but then I'm sane, at least that's my story and I'm sticking to it, and not trying to cheat the gov't or my fellow man), let's not ignore the possibilities of unbridled paranoia and encroaching dementia on the part of poor dear Eddy "the parasite" Belanger. He's never shown any sense, or sense of self preservation prior to this, and it would appear his ego won't let me backtrack on an issue, so there he is, stuck in stupid mode.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
morrand
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by morrand »

The Observer wrote:The one thing that we should be very grateful for to Peterson and/or Belanger is providing us with more ideas for titles to hand out to those shills who are nearing that time for recognition.

After all, who would turn down the title "Shill of The Vampiric Order of Quatloos?"
I would, if it matters. My people have been fighting vampires for a long time, and it's personally offensive [FN1] to be called one, especially by the likes of a stream of unconsciousness like "cudgel."

But, yeah, there is that. Too bad you can't come up with one from
cudgel wrote:an old boys club that intimidates all into bed with a festering old and quite dead prostitute
...or can you?

[FN1] Or at least it is when the thread gets silly enough to permit such umbrage.
---
Morrand
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by Hilfskreuzer Möwe »

LordEd wrote:I just had a moment to visit those links, but they seem to be there. I don't know what their prior content was as I never attended before, but I don't get 'deleted' notices or anything like that.

Blogspot, youtube, and g+ are all google products. Perhaps he suffered from a temporary server glitch?
Huh! You might very well be correct - all sorts of things popped back up, including what were previously apparently missing Youtube comments.

I am glad the blog is still there - and we even have a brand new CERI member, "Minister Allen Bennett", from Saskatchewan (http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.ca/201 ... stice.html), with his very own Notice to miracle away the state. Oh wait, no this isn't new, it's dated to 2006. What gives?

I hope that's just a draft, as it looks like "Minister Bennett" neglected to fully edit the template provided by "minister" Belanger:
4. It is privately understood ,agreed, consented and accepted by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that I, Minister of Christ Allen Bennett. , deny that I am the legal representative of the fictitious corporate entity known as BELANGER Edward Jay Robin or any other derivative, combination of, partial, abbreviated all capitalized letters or reversed formation of my name.

...

12. It is privately understood ,agreed, consented and accepted by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that I Minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger, do hereby aver that anyone trespassing against me under the guise of prosecuting the said fictitious entity in a civil matter commits a crime of obstruction, nuisance and intimidating me to accept the unlawful jurisdiction of the said court and the joinder with the said fictitious entity. Ezekiel 33:6

13. It is privately understood ,agreed, consented and accepted by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that I, Minister of Christ Allen Bennett, do hereby aver that anyone man or woman trespassing against me, the minister and creation of Jehovah/ YHWH under the guise of prosecuting the said fictitious entity BELANGER Edward Jay Robin formed in fraud without my informed consent in a civil matter or criminal matter commits a crime of common nuisance, obstruction of my ministry and is aiding and abetting the crime of conspiracy to commit fraud. Ezekiel 33:6
[Emphasis added.]

Oopsie!

Now THAT'S some serious transubstantiation! Or identity crisis!

(probably cause by vampirism or something.)

And it sounds like "Minister Bennett" was probably facing some kind of drug or weapons possession charges.
18. It is privately understood , agreed, consented and accepted by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that he private man named Pilagi posing as a RCMP officer in plain clothes never identified himself a to me God's minister, as the woman named Angie Searle witnessed, before the unnecessary assault and unlawful arrest on the date in February in question and he without a search warrant and without just cause obstructed my ministry and invaded private unregistered Church property and a closed bag inside the Church auto contrary to 176 of your criminal code and committed a nuisance upon my ministry.


Oh, those clean-livin' God-fearin' folk. They have a tough time, you know.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by arayder »

Hilfskreuzer Möwe wrote: And it sounds like "Minister Bennett" was probably facing some kind of drug or weapons possession charges.
18. It is privately understood , agreed, consented and accepted by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that he private man named Pilagi posing as a RCMP officer in plain clothes never identified himself a to me God's minister, as the woman named Angie Searle witnessed, before the unnecessary assault and unlawful arrest on the date in February in question and he without a search warrant and without just cause obstructed my ministry and invaded private unregistered Church property and a closed bag inside the Church auto contrary to 176 of your criminal code and committed a nuisance upon my ministry.


Oh, those clean-livin' God-fearin' folk. They have a tough time, you know.

SMS Möwe
Ah yes, weed and fire arms. Always a bad combination. Just ask Dean Clifford.

And how did all these guys get to be ministers?
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by notorial dissent »

arayder wrote:And how did all these guys get to be ministers?
Obviously they paid Parasite Belanger whatever his going rate is these days for him to go ooga booga you're a fake pretend minister now. I wonder if he wears a funny hat and does a little dance when he is fleecing the flock for something like this?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7550
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by wserra »

arayder wrote:And how did all these guys get to be ministers?
To borrow a Johnny Carson line: they went to the Millman College of Heavenly Knowledge. "We train the ministers of tomorrow - sign up with us today, and you're a minister tomorrow."
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by arayder »

notorial dissent wrote:
arayder wrote:And how did all these guys get to be ministers?
Obviously they paid Parasite Belanger whatever his going rate is these days for him to go ooga booga you're a fake pretend minister now. I wonder if he wears a funny hat and does a little dance when he is fleecing the flock for something like this?
When one asks and answers the question of how Belanger gained the authority to declare folks to be God's ministers we get to the real fiction in this little circus.

Brushing aside constitutional law, judicial statutes and centuries of case law Eddy whines that the judicial systems of the Western democracies are phony. But the fact is that in Eddy's little head, and nowhere else, was made up his little phony church, his decrees of its orthodoxy, its ministries and his self-serving tall tales about his authority.

If that's not a fiction, I don't know what is!
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7502
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by The Observer »

morrand wrote:I would, if it matters. My people have been fighting vampires for a long time,...
They have been fighting non-existent, fictional creatures for a long time? When do you think it would be a good time to let them know that they can quit?
Too bad you can't come up with one from
cudgel wrote:
an old boys club that intimidates all into bed with a festering old and quite dead prostitute
...or can you?
I could, but I really don't want to get into the gutter with Belanger and Peterson. And as silly as the conversations get on Quatloos at times, there is definitely a line here that should not be crossed.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6107
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

wserra wrote:
arayder wrote:And how did all these guys get to be ministers?
To borrow a Johnny Carson line: they went to the Millman College of Heavenly Knowledge. "We train the ministers of tomorrow - sign up with us today, and you're a minister tomorrow."
This reminds me of a storefront church (once?) located a few miles from my house, in a tiny old mom-and-pop corner grocery store in a poor neighborhood. Listed as "Pastor" on the church's sign was something like "Bishop Elder Dr. C.C. Jones, D.D., J.D., Ph. D., D.S.W." I always wanted to find out where the good Bishop got all those degrees....
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by Famspear »

Pottapaug1938 wrote:......I always wanted to find out where the good Bishop got all those degrees....
Possibly at the same exalted institute of learning where I earned my degrees in Fahrenheit, Celsius and Kelvin.....

:Axe:
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
kirk james kirk

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by kirk james kirk »

Perhaps the positions of Belanger and Peterson are grounded in the following respecting the Constitutionality thereof:

"To compel religious practice by force of law deprives the individual of the fundamental right to choose his or her mode of religious experience, or lack thereof. Such laws will fail at the first stage of Oakes and proportionality will not need to be considered."

Ref.: Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by Burnaby49 »

Some of these so called ministers at least partly justify their position that they don't have to pay tax on the basis that Hutterites in Canada are not taxed because it is against their religious beliefs. Completely false of course. This claim stems from a 1975 case (Wipf v The Queen, 73 DTC 5558 (FCTD)), and the change in tax law that resulted from it. In Wipf, the issue wasn't about whether or not the Hutterites were taxable but only how the tax should be apportioned. In that specific case everything in the colony was owned by a few individuals. This was done because the Hutterites don't believe in owning property but somebody's name has to be on the land titles and other legal hallmarks of ownership. So the Income Tax Department taxed the individuals who legally owned everything. The Hutterites appealed, and won, on the basis that taxes should be apportioned por-rata amongst all of the colony's members. The federal government changed the income tax laws to match up to the decision.

This was relevant in Blackmore, a recent high-profile case where a Mormon leader (really more of a cult than a mainstream Mormon church) had a profitable non-farming business and tried to use the hutterite law to spread the taxes amongst all the members of the colony. The Tax Court determined that the Hutterite law was not relevant to Blackmore's case and dismissed his appeal;

http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/d ... 8/index.do

Blackmore has this to say about Wipf;
[14] Section 143 of the Act was enacted in response to litigation by some Hutterite colonies and to the eventual Federal Court of Appeal decision in Wipf v Canada, [1975] FC 162 (FCA), respecting this litigation. Bill C-11 of the 30th Parliament, 3rd session, 26 Elizabeth II, 1977, repealed the then section 143, which dealt with steam and energy corporations, and replaced it with the current section that addresses “communal organizations”. The new provision is applicable to 1977 and subsequent taxation years and taxed communities that could come within this provision by superimposing a deemed trust over the communities’ activities and providing an option whereby a community could elect how income would be attributed to its members.

[15] In Wipf v The Queen, 73 DTC 5558 (FCTD), the litigation concerning the Hutterites arose when some of those colonies refused to be bound by an agreement that other Hutterite colonies had reached with the government of Canada respecting how such colonies would be taxed. After those colonies (all members of the Darius Leut Hutterian communities), that were in disagreement, challenged their assessments, the Tax Review Board, in 1972, affirmed the assessments issued by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) in regard to their earned income. That decision was appealed to the Federal Court – Trial Division in 1973. The Federal Court held that the total profits from a colony’s business activities should be apportioned in equal shares among its members, notwithstanding that they had assigned or deposited their share with the colony’s leadership as its trustee or their corporation. The Court concluded that the members earned income through the colony’s farming activities, despite evidence adduced that no colony members had any income, property of any type or money from government sources. In reaching its conclusion, the Federal Court – Trial Division referred to numerous articles contained in the Constitution of the colony’s incorporation provisions.
We discussed Blackmore here;

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9530&p=165037&hilit ... re#p165037
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by Hilfskreuzer Möwe »

Hi kirk, and welcome to Quatloos. Nice to see a legal argument, by the way, and an important one.

I think it would be helpful to quote out a bit more of Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony to provide some context:
[92] Canadian law reflects the fundamental proposition that the state cannot by law directly compel religious belief or practice. Thus, this Court has held that if the purpose of a law is to interfere with religious practices, the law cannot be upheld: Big M Drug Mart ...To compel religious practice by force of law deprives the individual of the fundamental right to choose his or her mode of religious experience, or lack thereof. Such laws will fail at the first stage of Oakes and proportionality will not need to be considered.

[93] Cases of direct compulsion are straightforward. However, it may be more difficult to measure the seriousness of a limit on freedom of religion where the limit arises not from a direct assault on the right to choose, but as the result of incidental and unintended effects of the law. In many such cases, the limit does not preclude choice as to religious belief or practice, but it does make it more costly.

[94] The incidental effects of a law passed for the general good on a particular religious practice may be so great that they effectively deprive the adherent of a meaningful choice … Or the government program to which the limit is attached may be compulsory, with the result that the adherent is left with a stark choice between violating his or her religious belief and disobeying the law … The absence of a meaningful choice in such cases renders the impact of the limit very serious.

[95] However, in many cases, the incidental effects of a law passed for the general good on a particular religious practice may be less serious. The limit may impose costs on the religious practitioner in terms of money, tradition or inconvenience. However, these costs may still leave the adherent with a meaningful choice concerning the religious practice at issue. The Charter guarantees freedom of religion, but does not indemnify practitioners against all costs incident to the practice of religion. Many religious practices entail costs which society reasonably expects the adherents to bear. The inability to access conditional benefits or privileges conferred by law may be among such costs. A limit on the right that exacts a cost but nevertheless leaves the adherent with a meaningful choice about the religious practice at issue will be less serious than a limit that effectively deprives the adherent of such choice.
[Emphasis added.]

I’m going to limit my commentary to income tax, because I think that’s what Mr. Peterson is trying to avoid. If one were to hold an honest belief that it is against their religion to pay income tax, then that would very likely mean that the Income Tax Act, which compels payment of income tax, is in breach of the Charter, s. 2(a) right to freedom of religion. What Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony is all about is when Charter, s. 1 can override that breach. It reads:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
So the right to express religious belief is not unlimited – it can be put under restrictions that are “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Whether a Charter breach is permitted under Charter, s. 1 is evaluated by a procedure set out in this case: R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 (http://canlii.ca/t/1ftv6). In Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony the Supreme Court of Canada is applying this “Oakes Test”.

First, look at the place the word "compels" shows up in this quote. If you read the case that is referenced after "compels", R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 SCR 295 (http://canlii.ca/t/1fv2b), you will see that case was a Charter challenge to those old laws that used to prohibit Sunday shopping, because that was the 'Lord's Day of Rest'. In Big M, the Supreme Court concluded that was forcing a religion on people - "compelling" - and that's basically prohibited. Laws can make secular compulsions, but not religious ones.

So the rest of the quoted analysis is about secular obligations. Notice that the Court says that belief that has a cost is a less serious factor – it’s a question of whether you can pick or choose to follow your religious beliefs, or not.

Mr. Peterson and Mr. Belanger do not have to pay income tax. All they have to do is live in a manner so that their income is low enough that they do not meet the minimum tax threshold. It’s a choice. If they choose to live in a manner where their income is above that threshold, then they are obliged to pay income tax. It’s that simple.

There really isn’t any argument that the Canadian government is entitled to collect income tax. There’s a nice summary of various points that have been argued in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras. 341-347. The same judgment reviews arguments that “God’s Law” trumps other authority: paras. 276-285. You can read Meads v. Meads here (http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq), if you are interested.

I hope that's helpful.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by Burnaby49 »

Mr. Peterson and Mr. Belanger do not have to pay income tax. All they have to do is live in a manner so that their income is low enough that they do not meet the minimum tax threshold. It’s a choice. If they choose to live in a manner where their income is above that threshold, then they are obliged to pay income tax. It’s that simple.
As far as I can tell that is exactly what Belanger is doing so he is apparently meeting his claimed religious requirements about not paying taxes without any hassle from the CRA.

Peterson is another matter. His beachside house, either rented or owned, indicates significant income so he is clearly taxable. He claims $1,000,000 taxes owing but who knows except him and the CRA. However, given his comments and the cloud of foisted unilateral agreements he's sent off to CRA officials, it seems the CRA has him in its sights. That makes Belanger's outdoor video very interesting. As a local I can confirm that the video is clearly not in the Vancouver area, or even on the British Columbia mainland. Probably on the east coast of Vancouver Island (not much on west coast, very rugged and storm-swept, east coast very sheltered). I spent a lot of time in central Vancouver Island in my youth and the scene is very reminiscent of the type of cottage homes and bays from Nanaimo north to Campbell River. Since he no longer lives in Vancouver the CRA may not know where he currently lives. If that is the case there is enough information in Belanger's video for the staff of the Victoria Tax Service Office (responsible for all of Vancouver Islands) to locate him.

Financially it may not matter where he is located. I believe he practices as a financial adviser so his business can be wherever there is a computer.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7550
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by wserra »

kirk james kirk wrote:Perhaps the positions of Belanger and Peterson are grounded in the following respecting the Constitutionality thereof:
Only if they are unable to read with the comprehension of the average third-grader - something which in fact would startle no one here.

I'll be a lot shorter than Möwe: in Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, plaintiffs argued that the Alberta requirement of a photo driver's license violated their sincerely-held religious prohibition on being photographed, and thus what we in the U.S. would call Free Exercise. They lost. If the govt can force you over religious objection to choose between having your picture taken and not driving, do you somehow believe it can't impose a tax?

And then there's that requirement of a sincerely-held religious belief. Most folks would conclude that the Church of Christ - Deadbeat doesn't have them.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
kirk james kirk

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by kirk james kirk »

Thank you for the interesting feedback, it is most appreciated.

My attention was drawn to the term "religious practice" in the citation from Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony noted below.

"To compel religious practice by force of law deprives the individual of the fundamental right to choose his or her mode of religious experience, or lack thereof. Such laws will fail at the first stage of Oakes and proportionality will not need to be considered."

I question whether Belanger and/or Peterson are taking the position that Her Majesty, her Ministers, her statutes, etc. constitutes a religion in and of itself. Furthermore, that any law forcing them to participate in that system constitutes compelling religious practice by force of law in a prohibited manner as enunciated above. I am not familiar with any authorities whereby such an argument has been advanced. Has anyone seen such an argument put forth in a non-statutory proceeding?

KJK
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7550
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

Post by wserra »

kirk james kirk wrote:I question whether Belanger and/or Peterson are taking the position that Her Majesty, her Ministers, her statutes, etc. constitutes a religion in and of itself. Furthermore, that any law forcing them to participate in that system constitutes compelling religious practice by force of law in a prohibited manner as enunciated above.
Abraham Lincoln was in the middle of an argument, one in which he saw his opponent's position as sophistry. When he couldn't take any more, Lincoln said, "Wait. How many legs would a calf have if you called its tail a leg?" "Why, five", said his opponent. "Wrong", replied Lincoln. "Four. Calling a calf's tail a leg doesn't make it one." It doesn't make any difference at all whether "Belanger and/or Peterson" claim that government is a religion. It isn't, and them calling it one doesn't make it one.
I am not familiar with any authorities whereby such an argument has been advanced.
And I'm not familiar with any authorities which rule on whether telling me I can't have $1B violates my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. WHAT A TRAVESTY!
Has anyone seen such an argument put forth in a non-statutory proceeding?
What is a "non-statutory proceeding"?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume