[Delwin]

thelaw thelaw:

Delwin Delwin:

thelaw thelaw:

Delwin Delwin:

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

:roll:

The Charter, as the Bill of Rights, was written and passed by Diefenbaker, genius.

What did Trudeau do? Entrench it in the constitution, repatriate said constitution without Quebec as a signatory, and create a constitutional crisis that has yet to be resolved.

You want to mark a Liberal "achievement"?

Try each October 30, smart guy.

Completely different documents:

First of all, the bill of rights was limited in scope, being a federal statute, it only applied to federal laws. It was easily amendable by parliament, and it lacked legislation which would guarantee democratic, mobility, equality, official language, and minority language rights. It also does not offer protection for aboriginal treaty rights. It also happens to contain about 1/4 of the text of the charter, it was easily amendable by parliament, and all law essentially took priority over individual rights.

By entrenching the charter, Trudeau, guaranteed us these rights and ensured that they could not be denied whether we are in federal, provincial or civil court.

Sounds like cause for celebration to me.

Please enlighten me on why I should celebrate Oct.30.

Get a copy of the queens bench Winnipeg Centre File No CI 05-01-432332 Between GERALD ZUCAWICH and BANK of Montreal then get back to me.
You obviously have only political propaganda; and no practical experience in such matters. The master ruled the constitution does not apply to the bankin protecting your constitutional rights you think you have.. I have experienced corrupt judges and this is just another one.

I'm sorry, I could only find limited info. From what I gather, the bank owned the land, the city was developing, they expropriated they land from the bank, your first suit was against the bank, in 84?, you had two subsequent cases against the dept. of Urban Affairs in 89, and 90, and received what you believed to be inadequate compensation ? Your going to have to help me out, I can't obtain the details without actually going there.

I am sorry for your loss, and it certainly explains your perspective. I always felt that Trudeau made a mistake by not including the right to own property in the charter. However, as this right is not in the charter, how can you argue that it is not protected ?

Totally wrong It deals with the bank stealing my trading account saying it was for my protection. I used to make a living trading stocks ; but the bank has now suspended my trading account. I have $38000 cash plus stocks in the account and can't even get into my on line trading account. When someone deprives you of your possesions that is theft.

Sorry, wrong Zucawich. Same argument applies though, we were unfortunately never given the right to own property, so your case is not a charter issue.But why don't you explain what evidence was withheld by Mr.Haldane and Mr.McNicol, and why you don't believe you should have to pay taxes.


P.S. Master Carol Sharpe is a fine Judge.

[thelaw]

Delwin Delwin:

thelaw thelaw:

Delwin Delwin:

thelaw thelaw:

Delwin Delwin:

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

:roll:

The Charter, as the Bill of Rights, was written and passed by Diefenbaker, genius.

What did Trudeau do? Entrench it in the constitution, repatriate said constitution without Quebec as a signatory, and create a constitutional crisis that has yet to be resolved.

You want to mark a Liberal "achievement"?

Try each October 30, smart guy.

Completely different documents:

First of all, the bill of rights was limited in scope, being a federal statute, it only applied to federal laws. It was easily amendable by parliament, and it lacked legislation which would guarantee democratic, mobility, equality, official language, and minority language rights. It also does not offer protection for aboriginal treaty rights. It also happens to contain about 1/4 of the text of the charter, it was easily amendable by parliament, and all law essentially took priority over individual rights.

By entrenching the charter, Trudeau, guaranteed us these rights and ensured that they could not be denied whether we are in federal, provincial or civil court.

Sounds like cause for celebration to me.

Please enlighten me on why I should celebrate Oct.30.

Get a copy of the queens bench Winnipeg Centre File No CI 05-01-432332 Between GERALD ZUCAWICH and BANK of Montreal then get back to me.
You obviously have only political propaganda; and no practical experience in such matters. The master ruled the constitution does not apply to the bankin protecting your constitutional rights you think you have.. I have experienced corrupt judges and this is just another one.

I'm sorry, I could only find limited info. From what I gather, the bank owned the land, the city was developing, they expropriated they land from the bank, your first suit was against the bank, in 84?, you had two subsequent cases against the dept. of Urban Affairs in 89, and 90, and received what you believed to be inadequate compensation ? Your going to have to help me out, I can't obtain the details without actually going there.

I am sorry for your loss, and it certainly explains your perspective. I always felt that Trudeau made a mistake by not including the right to own property in the charter. However, as this right is not in the charter, how can you argue that it is not protected ?

Totally wrong It deals with the bank stealing my trading account saying it was for my protection. I used to make a living trading stocks ; but the bank has now suspended my trading account. I have $38000 cash plus stocks in the account and can't even get into my on line trading account. When someone deprives you of your possesions that is theft.

Sorry, wrong Zucawich. Same argument applies though, we were unfortunately never given the right to own property, so your case is not a charter issue.But why don't you explain what evidence was withheld by Mr.Haldane and Mr.McNicol, and why you don't believe you should have to pay taxes.


P.S. Master Carol Sharpe is a fine Judge.

and who in toronto would know what kind of a judge master sharp is in winnipeg but some government bureaucrat telling her what to do. why did.t you allow the case to proceede; no defence. CCRA using the banks as their prostitutes and claiming no charter rights apply. If you post the facts presented in the case you will know the answer.

[Wally_Sconce]

I think our charter of rights was poorly written. if it had stronger language garanteeing the right to bear arms, then the fiberals would have pissed away a billion dollars on trying to control the gun owners that don't need to be controlled.

[thelaw]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

I think our charter of rights was poorly written. if it had stronger language garanteeing the right to bear arms, then the fiberals would have pissed away a billion dollars on trying to control the gun owners that don't need to be controlled.

IN a democracy the government does not give you rights- you have all the rights as you have to be sovereign -independent- not a government or slave of the queen.before you can form a democracy. Your god given right. In forming a democracy the people give the government powers as to how they want to be governed, by them ratifying a document- agreement called a constitution. The Statute of WESTMINSTER is the defining document that gave the people of Canada their freedom. Why have the people not been allowed to creat a constitution of their own? Because the people in government did not want to have rules to be governed by and educated the people with propaganda that the bna act was their constitution. P.E.Tru was a con artist not a great P.M.
Thorson v. A.G. Canada 1975 S.C.R.138, 43 D.L.R.3rd 1. a taxpayer has a right to challenge a public statute in court although his interest may be no more than that of an interested taxpayer. A taxpayer now has the locus standing to challeng the constitutionality of a public statute;.
1991 the Stinchcombe Supreme court of Canada threw out the decision because all relevant information was not disclosed. We know in my case this is the situation where The defendant refused to provide all the relevant information requested . Wielcome to the internet P.M. DEAL WITH THIS INJUSTICE.