Siegfried Shrink wrote:Not even a BOLO
Siegfried Shrink wrote:Not even a BOLO
Chaos wrote:smart money is on him and Betty relaxing on a beach.
They put out a no bail arrest warrant on me five years ago so I left the area and kept my head down for 18 months...eventually I got tired of evading them so I walked into Bath city police station with evidence of treason against five individuals....the policy enforcers wouldn't even look at the evidence but they wouldn't arest me either......I never was arrested and never complied with any of their demands however, they are now stealing monies from my entitlements each month to pay the fine they put on me in my absence....I put them on Notice and sent them the affidavit I drerw up and served on the so called court manager and legal advisor of Chippenham magistrates (not) court....still the theft continues....
I would add another Notice to stop to the quisling warrant officer and make it threatening....she is aiding and abetting high treason and she knows it. Maybe we should gather the troops and seize the bloody court?....these ignorant wankers need to be held accountable I'm sick of this BS.
WTF is a Confiscation court?!?
When they know that you have an asset and you commit a so called criminal offence the passed an act so they can size your asset to cover their costs the thieving bastards
They want his house.....he served time for a cannabis charge when there is NO law against cannabis anyway....(he would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for that pesky Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) ..I proved that a couple of years ago when the CPS backed off from attempting to prosecute Danielle Delioness ...she was growing hemp in protest and they decided to prosecute her for growing cannabis ...corrupt nastards....after putting them on notice of the fascts the CPS (traitors) claimed no further action would be taken due to lack of evidence....they had 30+ well established plants so where did the evidence go?
20 k so I'll have to sell my he (probably means h/a - home address) to raise it
Stupid boy.David Robinson wrote:genocide
Burnaby49 wrote:He last signed on to Quatloos on March 8th, over six months ago. Then after 1,874 postings he just disappeared. Nothing in his postings to indicate why. You can read them here;
Angolvagyok wrote:Burnaby49 wrote:He last signed on to Quatloos on March 8th, over six months ago. Then after 1,874 postings he just disappeared. Nothing in his postings to indicate why. You can read them here;
I'm sorry this is so off-topic, but whatever happened to Peanut Gallery?
Burnaby49 wrote:Give him credit he's right about another thing too. Cannabis isn't illegal under common law. As I understand common law nothing is illegal under it because "illegal" inplies criminal actions which are the creation of legislated statutory law. Common law is civil.
222 (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.
(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.
(3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.
Marginal note:Culpable homicide
(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.
(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(a) by means of an unlawful act;
(b) by criminal negligence;
(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
(d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.
265 (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
271 Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
Arson — disregard for human life
433 Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life where
(a) the person knows that or is reckless with respect to whether the property is inhabited or occupied; or
(b) the fire or explosion causes bodily harm to another person.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 433;1990, c. 15, s. 1.
434 Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property that is not wholly owned by that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years
234 Culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 217.
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
343 Every one commits robbery who
(a) steals, and for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property;
(b) steals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person;
(c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or
(d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.
We're having a bit of a debate about whether criminal offenses are statutory or common law. At least, are some offenses common law? I say no. Am I right or are there common law criminal offenses?
Common law criminal offences: initially all criminal offences in the English tradition were common law. However, in every Commonwealth country I'm aware of Parliament decided to codify criminal law into legislation, which of course in Canada is our Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.
That extinguishes common law criminal offences. If you have a look at section 9 that is made explicit:9 Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, no person shall be convicted or discharged under section 730
(a) of an offence at common law,
but nothing in this section affects the power, jurisdiction or authority that a court, judge, justice or provincial court judge had, immediately before April 1, 1955, to impose punishment for contempt of court.
So section 9 extinguishes all common law offences except for contempt of court, which remains a non-codified common law offence.
Interestingly, Parliament did however codify the maximum possible penalty for contempt of court which proceeds in a summary manner:708(2) A court, judge, justice or provincial court judge may deal summarily with a person who is guilty of contempt of court under this section and that person is liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ninety days or to both, and may be ordered to pay the costs that are incident to the service of any process under this Part and to his detention, if any.
However, if the Crown charges someone with criminal contempt of court, and they are found guilty, they can in theory receive any sentence, since none is specified in the Criminal Code. Case law has established some limits on that, naturally.
Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests