Example of What Works to Create Change
This excerpt of a longer news video tells a story on many levels of the…
Don’t take ANYONE’s word for what “the law is”. If you understand common law you have a TOTALLY different understanding of law than most people including trained lawyers. Legislated Acts are a different form of law.
Why are lawyers misunderstanding the law?
Because lawyers are not generally trained in common law processes or principles. They learn the civil law polices, procedures that the system enforcing the legal games that are designed to trick, trap and manipulate their clients into…. well you know, you’re here!
Finding the Acts that appear to be law is easy. Reading Acts is not tough, but there are some tricks to know. We’ll look at one right now and maybe more later…..
Here’s a quick video that is an excerpt from a course available here. We explore the claim of “the law says this” and by reading the law yourself you can see if that is what “an Act” actually says.
We look at the State Immunity Act…
3. (1) Except as provided by this Act, a foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of any court in Canada.
- 4. (1) A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court if the state waives the immunity conferred by subsection 3(1) by submitting to the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with subsection (2) or (4).
State submits to jurisdiction
(2) In any proceedings before a court, a foreign state submits to the jurisdiction of the court where it
(a) explicitly submits to the jurisdiction of the court by written agreement or otherwise either before or after the proceedings commence;
(b) initiates the proceedings in the court; or
(c) intervenes or takes any step in the proceedings before the court.
(3) Paragraph (2)(c) does not apply to
(a) any intervention or step taken by a foreign state in proceedings before a court for the purpose of claiming immunity from the jurisdiction of the court; or
(b) any step taken by a foreign state in ignorance of facts entitling it to immunity if those facts could not reasonably have been ascertained before the step was taken and immunity is claimed as soon as reasonably practicable after they are ascertained. [***** ARE YOU SOVEREIGN BUT DON’T KNOW IT?]
Third party proceedings and counter-claims
(4) A foreign state that initiates proceedings in a court or that intervenes or takes any step in proceedings before a court, other than an intervention or step to which paragraph (2)(c) does not apply, submits to the jurisdiction of the court in respect of any third party proceedings that arise, or counter-claim that arises, out of the subject-matter of the proceedings initiated by the state or in which the state has so intervened or taken a step.
Appeal and review
(5) Where, in any proceedings before a court, a foreign state submits to the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with subsection (2) or (4), that submission is deemed to be a submission by the state to the jurisdiction of such one or more courts by which those proceedings may, in whole or in part, subsequently be considered on appeal or in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
5. A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings that relate to any commercial activity of the foreign state.
Death and property damage
6. A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings that relate to
(a) any death or personal or bodily injury, or
(b) any damage to or loss of property
that occurs in Canada.
80 Therefore, the guiding principle in the interpretation of the s. 6(a) exception, more consonant with the principles of international law and with the still important principle of state immunity in international relations, is found in the French version of the provision. It signals the presence of a legislative intent to create an exception to state immunity which would be restricted to a class of claims arising out of a physical breach of personal integrity, consistent with the Quebec civil law term “préjudice corporel”. This type of breach could conceivably cover an overlapping area between physical harm and mental injury, such as nervous stress; however, the mere deprivation of freedom and the normal consequences of lawful imprisonment, as framed by the claim, do not allow the appellant to claim an exception to the State Immunity Act….
“negative blogger” article
http://www.genuinewitty.com/2012/07/05/still-not-convinced-kevin-annett-jason-bowman-are-lying-ive-got-more/ (not hot linked – cut and paste this one)
Update on the ITCCS court action:
Any comment…? Leave them below.