you guys are morons. i havent seen anyone get paranoid.
my concentration and confidence skyrockets. My mind is focused and goal oriented. i removed those posts because i was trying to edit something but it didn't work and i accidentally posted 2 more posts.
you guys are the ones who are paranoid.
Some of the most intelligent people i know smokes weed.
you guys are morons. i havent seen anyone get paranoid.
my concentration and confidence skyrockets. My mind is focused and goal oriented. i removed those posts because i was trying to edit something but it didn't work and i accidentally posted 2 more posts.
you guys are the ones who are paranoid.
Some of the most intelligent people i know smokes weed.
I'm not so sure about the "concentration" and "focused"
A Quo warranto writ. Its a writ which takes precedence over motions and certain petitions. Essentially what went down is something like this,...
Not to rain on your parade but, quo warranto writs are very rare. There are only 57 hits in CanLII for "quo warranto" in Ontario. If you refine that search down even more to family law cases it results on 1 that I could see.
M.W. v. E.B., 2003 CanLII 2360 (ON SC)
Date: 2003-05-05
Docket: 15548/03
Parallel citations: 38 RFL (5th) 443
URL: CanLII - 2003 CanLII 2360 (ON SC)
And if you read that case law you will see in what context the terminology is used...
A man and woman presumingly the parents a children in question had CAS take their children away on an alarming call claiming that they abused the children by way of neglecting them.
Rarely happens but, does happen. Neglect to have a sudden removal has to have evidence of some physical attribute. Usually low weight, or an infection that has gone untreated for a very long time. What kind of "neglect" were they accused of. I have read CAS' requirements for removal and the paperwork to remove a child on neglect is no small feet. They have 24 hours to get them to a doctor then only 48 hours to bring forward a motion.
So, if you have more details as to the "neglect" that was being alleged against the parents that would help make your "story" more realist.
The man mainly spoke and interrupted the justice immediately and proclaimed sovereignty in the court.
Doubtful, if this was being heard on motion please provide the date, time and court room this happened in. I would be MORE THAN HAPPY to pull the record and order the transcripts. They are a matter of public record and you were there and saw it happen.
Your probably thinking some of you...oh it must be that stupid freeman shit. But hear me out mk?
The reason "freeman on the land" is such a bad idea as it mostly is an attempt to "trial by ambush" the courts. They hurl as much stuff as possible, write huge useless documents and basically "ambush" the arguments with piles of nonsense at times. I call it what it is... Trial by ambush - load up with piles of stuff and hope the judge will be too lazy to sit down and read all 500 pages of the crap and prove every point wrong.
HE proclaimed sovereignty and reserved all rights. Not just his. When the justice tried to speak about following court rules he responded point of order under what authority do you have to address me in that capacity. Justice was referring to the word "You".
Again, I'll believe you when I see the transcripts and read the filed materials.
The man began to explain his reasoning behind the writ of Quo warranto and demanded that CAS produce IMMEDIATELY substantial evidence to back their claim.
Under what Act did they claim quo warranto under? The Federal Act? CAS is a provincial body BTW...
The CAS was given an opportunity to respond by oral statements, they claimed that they are relying on parens patria.
Parent of the nation... Really? (That is what "parens patria" means everyone.)
The court, not CAS, assumes the role of parens patria if an order is made for protection.
The court's role on the adjudication of child protection proceedings has a dual character. In determining whether or not a child is in need of protection, the court's role is to determine disputed facts between litigants, and there is no rationale for its relaxing the rules of evidence. However once a determination has been made that a child is in need of protection, the rights of the parents are subjugated to the best interests of the child, and the court assumes a role much more closely aligned with the historical parens patriae jurisdiction exercised in England and described in Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. L.(L.).
the man immediately responded with how parens patria was at the courts discretion with the presumption of jurisdictional requirements were met.
The man is correct it is the court that acts parens patria and not CAS. But, before the court can assume the role it has to determine that there is a protection issue.
Continued... (As you often have to do when responding to this poster...)
He went on and explained that CAS has harassed them constantly and that they wish to do harm by way of kidnapping.
Now, note my psydonym here on this site. What I generally focus on. Crown has NEVER brought a criminal charge under 283.(1) Abduction against any CAS worker. This is blabbering nonsense spewed from CanadaCourtWatch.Com.
So the hearing was resumed and the agent was present. The man continued and demanded to see evidence and made an oral submission of another writ called writ of Certiorari. He demanded the court accept it and the court clerk recorded it on the spot.
Honestly, we are now now having someone request a judicial review from a higher court. I hope they weren't in the Superior Court because well, Certiorari demands can only be met by one other higher court I think. (OrleansLawyer? Is this correct?) Usually you see certiorari claims (writs) when dealing with tribunals.
Not sure how often the Family Services Act sees this stuff... Too lazy weeding through this one to bother even searching on CanLII and based on my last searches that resulted in one (1) hit... I can only assume that it isn't very often.
The justice asked if she was able to speak to address this issue so the defendant can defend themselves (Holy shit!!).
I am confused. Did the justice pass judgement on the certiorari cause I think, I could be wrong though, that this would require a higher court justice to hear the matter.
CAS position was again relying on the statement from an anonymous tip and that certain privacy issues were present. The justice flat out said other than the anonymous tip what other compelling evidence do you have or wish to present to support this order.(their motion was also addressed the same day).
All the other BS aside... This is the relevant matter to consider and probably the truth of it all. You don't need all the other Latin words to impress a justice. Basically, you just ask for the evidence that has to be addressed. If there isn't anything but a "tip" from an anonymous source it isn't admissible. If they were in front of a justice for "neglect" in accordance with CAS' guide lines... then there is a high score raiting and (here you go for all those who missed me) COGENT AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE that scores very high on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES (probably a striking rate of 80%).
They didn't bring forth anything and stated that they do not have any other evidence they wish to bring forth. The man instructed the justice that mala fide is sufficiently present, the justice followed the instruction and asked the worker what made her authorized this. The agent did not give a reason other than following the protocol.
You are claiming that the argument presented was on fraudulent deception (mala fide). What did CAS gain from the removal that constitutes "fraud".
The justice then stated that the court finds that bona fide is lacking and that the children services act does provide immunity of all types for CAS agents under the presumption that they act in good faith/bona fide. The justice also ordered the immediate arrest for violation of the criminal code of Canada and placed a charge on the agent for kidnapping a youth unlawfully.
So the justice said that the removal of the children under the Family Services Act was not done in "good faith" ("bona fide").
Now this is where I call extreme bullshit. (See red highlight.) Big time. I follow matters across a number (even as far as Winsor) when it comes to 282.(1) and 283.(1). I would get about 10 phone calls if that actually happened. It hasn't happened and I will be calling Windsor, Hamilton, London, Kitchener, Waterloo, Brampton, Toronto and Oshawa court houses to chat with my friends in the clerks offices to see if there was a bench warrant issued in a child protection matter for child abduction.
The justice also issued their own writ of Mandamus immediately returning the child to the parents.
Why a "writ"? Just issue an order for the immediate return? This just seems odd and I have never heard of this before. Maybe I am just stupid. I accept that.
3 writs in 1 hearing, CAS lawyer was pissin sweat because how nervous he was.
Best part is i knew EXACTLY why and how he did it Now i was invited to go see them on sunday because i chatted with him after and asked how much he really knew .
That is how you get shit done. Im done my 2 cents
Care to share how you "knew EXACTLY why and how he did it"?
i did not see the court file number i glanced at it.
we tried to get transcript, court clerk said that it was locked. I dont know all the detailsd only what i saw with my own eyes.
again we tried to pull the transcript but the court clerk said the transcript were either locked or lost. Its not often when people claim sovereignty and do it right.
for the fmotl from what i can tell this man served nothing other than a writ. That is not exactyl ambushing, and he backed everything up with law, otherwise the justice wouldnt have a problem arresting them or kick them out, but they couldnt because he seized the court.
the justice was acting as the assigned administrator over the hearing, but it was revoked when all rights were reserved. Hence the principle(parents) revoked the justices right to address(too long to explain).
under the act it wasnt clear for quo warranto, my assumption is CAS, it also applies to provincial.
my guess was that the CAS was relying on that the court would take parens patria.
never been to canadawatch.com or w/e. Shit happens all the time, but it never hits public record because its "not the best interest of the public". Public is NOT what you think it is.
it might not be agent per se but the one who authorized that CAs should be involved and to remove the child.
you re right it requires a higher court. HE was in provincial so it was heard and moved to superior. Yes in the same day. i missed 5 minutes here because i was trying to find the people who were involved. My thoughts was that they may just have it another day but they considered it pressing and thus checked and confirmed that superior court can hear it the same day.
i didnt claim anything since this wasnt my case so i dont have the full story.
go for it, like i said not my case. But i wouldnt be surprised if there isnt one, i know my personal charges were removed when a superseding bond underwritten the crown. Its how pardons are granted. More power to you. Windsor.
I dont know why they didnt jsut order it, maybe it was because what the man did in the court, i dont understand it either.
i know how he seized the court but im not going to explain it to you, because you would have to hit some law libraries and understand contract law. Get what adhesion contracts are and understand that courts are just for profit private corporations. Then you can piece things together.
If you have anymore questions that i didnt respond to, your shit out of luck chances are because this is all i know since this was not my case to begin with and the man divulged very little. HE did give alot but im not putting it here.
we tried to get transcript, court clerk said that it was locked. I dont know all the detailsd only what i saw with my own eyes.
All it would have is a publication ban generally. Transcripts have to be ordered and are not cheap depending on the length etc. So they wouldn't have it right away. Someone has to order it and then they type it up. But, that costs $$.
again we tried to pull the transcript but the court clerk said the transcript were either locked or lost. Its not often when people claim sovereignty and do it right.
Again, they have to have it on file it is how the courts work and the law. Unless there is some order banning publication, and even with that, you can see the materials, just not publish them.
for the fmotl from what i can tell this man served nothing other than a writ. That is not exactyl ambushing, and he backed everything up with law, otherwise the justice wouldnt have a problem arresting them or kick them out, but they couldnt because he seized the court.
He would have served a cross motion and not a writ in my personal opinion. A cross motion to whatever they were bringing forward under the Family Services Act.
the justice was acting as the assigned administrator over the hearing, but it was revoked when all rights were reserved. Hence the principle(parents) revoked the justices right to address(too long to explain).
Best to explain if you want people to "believe" the story...
my guess was that the CAS was relying on that the court would take parens patria.
They have to. They can't take it. The court has to first make a finding in accordance with the Family Services Act before they can do anything. That requires evidence to do that. CAS presented none possibly. You don't need a "freeman" strategy to be successful on that. The prejudice is on CAS to present evidence of abuse to request the court to act.
never been to canadawatch.com or w/e. Shit happens all the time, but it never hits public record because its "not the best interest of the public". Public is NOT what you think it is.
you re right it requires a higher court. HE was in provincial so it was heard and moved to superior. Yes in the same day. i missed 5 minutes here because i was trying to find the people who were involved. My thoughts was that they may just have it another day but they considered it pressing and thus checked and confirmed that superior court can hear it the same day.
In a situation where children are removed under the Family Services Act by CAS I am not surprised that they would move it to the SCJ if it was brought before the OCJ first. You could do this easily and you don't need to throw latin to do it.
i didnt claim anything since this wasnt my case so i dont have the full story.
If you can get the details it would be rather helpful. But, it sounds like the whole matter didn't balance on any "freeman" strategy but, the simple fact that CAS didn't have any cogent and relevant evidence.
go for it, like i said not my case. But i wouldnt be surprised if there isnt one, i know my personal charges were removed when a superseding bond underwritten the crown. Its how pardons are granted. More power to you. Windsor.
That is because it is a pardon on a criminal charge and that is its purpose. This is a civil court not criminal different rules.
i know how he seized the court but im not going to explain it to you, because you would have to hit some law libraries and understand contract law.
Trust me, you can explain it. My brain won't explain. I also have access to a very large law library and materials. More than most lawyers have access to.
Get what adhesion contracts are and understand that courts are just for profit private corporations. Then you can piece things together.
I know what an adhesion contract is but, I don't understand the context you are presenting it in.
Every time you agree to a EULA you are committing yourself to an "adhesion contract" ("take it or leave it"). Leases and insurance contracts are adhesion contracts... Are you trying to state that there is some sort of contract between the litigants and the justice?
If you have anymore questions that i didnt respond to, your shit out of luck chances are because this is all i know since this was not my case to begin with and the man divulged very little. HE did give alot but im not putting it here.
So, basically, you are keeping the key to the castle to yourself. Fine. I am of the opinion that the castle doesn't even exist and is mostly a story.
i thought these problems only occur when you stop smoking weed?
Slug, I think the occasional time that you've rolled a doobie in the past, isn't considered chronic.
Ok, ok, maybe I've rolled a few too (pre-child). I never inhaled though.
Last edited by mcdreamy; 05-10-2013, 08:17 PM.
Reason: eta: never inhaled :)
Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.
Comment