Michael Schmidt’s lawyer Karen Selick talks about sentencing philosophy

This is the speech Karen Selick had prepared to give in court on Friday:

Karen Selick talks to the media after the sentence was handed down Friday.

“Your Honour, I do not envy you your task today.  Today, you have to choose between enforcing the law, and doing justice—because regrettably, we cannot assume that they are one and the same.

Here in your courtroom there sits a crowd of some 60  people: supporters of Michael Schmidt, people who have been helped by him, people who have benefitted from the very same regulatory offences that you have convicted him of.

Your task today is to punish this man for the very acts that they are here to pay homage to him for.

You have no guidance before you, no precedents to tell you what is the “going rate” for a raw milk offence.  You will have no choice but to exercise your own discretion, to use your independent judgement, to summon up all the wisdom you have acquired over the years, and to impose a fitting sentence.

I checked the Courts of Justice Act to see whether perhaps your oath of office would give you some guidance as to how to resolve the conflict between enforcing the law and doing justice.  I was dismayed to find that it doesn’t.  There is no reference in your oath of office to doing justice.   You promised only to “execute the duties of a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice”.

So you have to ask yourself, “Which is more important?  Why am I really here? Why do we have a court system at all?”  For me, the answer is crystal clear.  We have a court system to do justice.  The courts are an independent branch of government, not mere minions of the legislature—because sometimes the legislature makes mistakes. Sometimes it enacts laws that were ill-conceived in the first place, or if they were once wise and useful, have now outlived their usefulness.  And that is why we have a separate branch of government, the judiciary, to take an independent look at individual cases in a way that the legislature cannot.  Your job is not to rubber-stamp the will of some legislators who lived 70 years ago.  Your job is to do justice.

And it is my view that justice does not consist in punishing someone who has never done anyone any harm.  It does not consist in punishing someone whose supposed “victims” are sitting here hoping desperately that you will not punish him enough to prevent him from continuing to “victimize” them”

41 Comments

Filed under News

41 responses to “Michael Schmidt’s lawyer Karen Selick talks about sentencing philosophy

  1. Was there more after the “….”?

  2. The Bovine

    That was a mistake, the …

  3. Karen
    Thanks you for taking the high road. The morally defensible position.
    Bastiat, Spooner, Paine, Locke, and Jefferson have all smiled at you from their graves. If we do not stand on principle we stand for nothing.
    God bless you for giving it your best.

    Let us hope the people wake up and dismantle this morally reprehensible system before it is too late.

  4. Never give up the fight. When you fight for right, you aren’t required to win; you are only required to battle courageously. The victory will be won from above.

  5. rainhard pitschke

    I don’t see that the judiciary is at all independent of legislature…as you pointed out in his ‘oath’. Since you are a member of the bar….your swear an oath to the same…..first….and not to your client. If all 3 parties here…judge, plaintiff, ‘legal representative’ of the defendent are on the same team….what is this but a conspiracy? I realize….”the wheels of justice grind slowly…..”, but, let’s be realistic…….you are not allowed to present this case in the only way that matters. As a jurisdictional challenge. Commonlaw as trumping Statutory law. This is why Michael has the support he does and why any child could rule on this in his favour. It is nobody’s business who or how he contracts….with anyone. Private civil remedies for breach can be pursued in other venues. Commonlaw determines a crime to have occured if their is damage or a victim….neither of which are present here.
    I’m sure you’re a nice person and may believe in Michael, justice, raw milk…but the conflict of interest, and ‘cognitive dissonance’ you must suffer because of this will….I sincerely hope….lead you to a crisis of conscience….and resignation from this criminal cabal of licencing, regulating, ‘money whores’. Thank you for (more or less) counselling the chief administrator of this tribunal to do the same.

    • Peter

      I concur that it is nobody’s business who Michael contracts with, or how. However, that is not the matter before the courts. The issue is that he did not contract with the undercover agent (aka – member of the public operating with the protection / oversight of the state). As Michael was simply in breach of public policy, resorting to common law does not apply (unless you can clearly and holistically challenge the governments general implementation of pre-emptive/preventative regulations).
      I do not concur that being a licensed lawyer necessarily puts her on the same team as the court and/or the judiciary. It might, on its face, be construed that way, but need technically not be so. However, a big issue with utilizing licensed lawyers is their tendency to want to retain “favor” with the court for future cases, and they have the opportunity to make “deals” with the Crown (prosecutor) (see Michael’s original case in 1994). Nothing I have seen would suggest she is resorting to either. In my opinion, just generally misguided…
      And, yes, I concur that this is by no means a constitutional issue. But when you retain a constitutional lawyer, you can be sure that is the argument which will be made. To every hammer, everything looks like a nail.
      PS – Thanks for having the balls to say what you did.

      • rainhard pitschke

        LOL…thanks for ‘engaging’ peter. Please see Michael’s facebook page for a painting I just posted there which explains my perception of our so-called society. These days everything is a constitutional issue. That’s my whole point and the way out of this criminal persecution of a fine decent human being providing a product of the highest quality. It is apparent that all public utilities, services, and infrastructure are being privatised and corporatized for private profit. These courts are such corporate entities. There is only one avenue out and that is to ‘nip it in the bud’. No lawyer will do this because they either don’t know, and/or their oath precludes it. It is to challenge jurisdiction on first appearance by denying joinder with the capitalized name on all their documents. When one’s name is called and the defendant acknowledges the “Capitus Dominitas Maxima” designation by saying…”Yes…that’s me.” the rest is a foregone conclusion. All equality and rights before the law have been surrendered.

  6. rainhard pitschke

    Furthermore…your search for precedent is not a pursuit for justice. It is the same avoidance of ‘real searching’ as displayed in the famous Nasruddin story of him searching for a lost item under a streetlight…not because he lost it there….but because the light is better.

  7. Beverley Viljakainen

    Again, thank you, Karen, for a job very well done! I know we’re all playing our parts to see justice done (or not!), but your role in all of this is an inspiration for all of us to never give up, to learn to articulate clearly, rather than simply complain, and to do what we can to provide correct information about milk and other food production to all who have ears to hear so that reason may eventually prevail. Bless you!

    • Beverley

      Any intelligent person can easily make the case that pasteurized milk is dangerous from a nutritional perspective. Yet we are not trying to lock pasteurized milk drinking people in cages like they are trying to do to us.

      The argument should not be about the safety of milk at all…..

      Making yourself safe is solely your responsibility. Not that of the state. Let’s stick to absolutes and not go down the slippery slope of the safety of a product as everything in life carries it’s inherent risks and we as adults evaluate those risks for ourselves and make the choices we have to live with.

      The argument needs to be that government exists solely to protect our rights – not to be our mommies and make sure we are safe. If that were the case, rock climbing, motorcycles, horse riding, alcohol, cigarettes, and even perhaps automobiles should be outlawed by our mommy the state.

      Do you think anyone has a God given right to make sure others don’t drink raw milk? Drink alcohol? Eat McDonalds big Macs? Or anything else?

  8. Peter

    Justice is the administration of what is fair. What is fair is a measure… So what is the measuring stick? We have adopted in our society the idea that precedent tells us what is just. But is 25 years in jail for the taking of someone’s life just? Surely we can see that man made justice is an arbitrary determination, be that a ruling by the king (judge), the legislature (setting fines), or otherwise, and that natural justice is ultimately always just.
    Karen seems to suggest, as a matter of principle, that justice does not consist in punishing someone who has not done any harm. And as a function of natural law / natural justice, she is correct. However, so long as we adopt, or don’t challenge the notion that the government is justified, as a matter of principle, to implement and impose pre-emptive/preventative measures (statutory regulations), contrary to nature, then we have no standing to complain about such imposition.
    Whereas it does not appear that Karen is inclined the challenge, on principle, the justification of pre-emptive laws which result in victimless crimes (i.e. which we might then see also challenges speeding laws), her statement is without merit, and perhaps even hypocritical.
    In my opinion, it seem evident that Karen is still confused between what is fair by natural law, and what is fair by civil law.
    Moreover, that a bunch a people (60 or otherwise) desire the service of a Mr. Schmidt does not grant him the right to circumvent the legislature’s intent for protecting the public, be that 70 years ago, or otherwise…
    Penalties for violating public policy are not inherently “justice”, but are more of a deterrent. Fines for speeding down the road does not create justice, but is more of a deterrent for speeding again (and perhaps for keeping police officers employes… 🙂
    I, for one, am entirely grateful for living in a civil society where the government does enforce law (often labeled as harassment), and that we have an independent judiciary where we can challenge the government’s actions against the principles of law. I, for one, and most grateful for Tetley’s strict execution of his duties, independent the emotional whim of the public, the Defendant, or his supporters.

  9. rainhard pitschke

    Peter: Thank you for that. I (almost) totally agree with you! As you pointed out, Karen’s appeal is hypocritical in light of natural law. But what can she do? The venue is a de-facto (illegitimate)court and she represents the ‘Law Society’…not our society. A real court would consist of a jury trial of peers and impartial ‘expert’ testimony producing real evidence. Even though her mandate is for ‘constitutional defense’, this body has no ‘teeth’. It’s like the whole system of government where the ‘opposition’ makes wind, but complies to the same structure. Better than nothing, but like in a war, the stronger saying you can use knives….but no guns….and you have to ask us if you can rent a knife….against our guns. She’s been begging, not challenging.

    • Peter

      In my opinion, it is prudent to challenge general jurisdiction. The court she was arguing in is anyway part and parcel of the general judiciary, which is governed by law. I do not at all buy into the notion (victim mentality) “but what can she do?” I would suggest standing on principle, and appeal that higher up, and not caving/compromising principle for the sake of seemingly immediate expediency, though the latter has been referred to me as being perhaps more pragmatic (though the measure of that is subjective).
      The overriding (or underpinning) law of the court she found herself in was common law/natural law. So if you are content with the form of law (statutory) for which the court was created to administer (provincial offenses), don’t claim injustice against the principles of natural law.
      And to say that this body has no teeth, I disagree. See what happens when you disobey an order issued by that court. It has teeth because it is part and parcel of the general judiciary at law. The form of law administered in this body is not unfounded, and enforced by the police (teeth).

      • rainhard pitschke

        You entirely misconstrued my comment “What can she do?”…and all that follows is not true or also misconstrued according to my understanding. She is a lawyer, bound to uphold the POLICY of the law society….that’s why I say it…not because she has ‘a victim mentality’. How is a ‘provincial offences’ court a ‘natural law court’? Nonsense! It only decides on matters of statutes, bylaws, acts and ‘codes'(which includes criminal code)…..none of which are real law. Those very words denote something else decided and agreed upon by CONSENT. Natural law is universal and can be called God’s Law….basically, do no harm to another (including not interfering with property) and honour all contracts..(don’t cheat or lie.) That underlies all law including our charter.
        You also misunderstood my ‘teeth’ part. Of course this phony court has teeth…they will put you in jail right there for not ‘rising’…that’s all they do have….. goons with guns everywhere ready to inflict ‘justice’ immediately. The ‘opposition’ has no teeth. A ‘defendent’ has no teeth when supported by a conspirator for the other side.

        The other thing you say about ‘standing on principle’ vs. ‘expediency’ plays into their game plan too. They hold all the cards and make money like crazy the longer it goes on. Try sueing for damages after. All on public funds or out of the vast profits (from previous victims who couldn’t ‘stay the distance’)and ridiculous fees lawyers charge. With the recent ‘appointment’ (what a joke…. more lawyers) of two anti-frivilous-charter-challenge characters paid to further the corporate takeover…to the Supreme Court, nothing will change the grand plan. To foist rules of a corporation…not the people….on non-consenting folk. They enforce ‘policy’, not law. just like the cops who misuse their office as ‘peace officer’ and instead are merely revenue generators…policy enforcers. The whole thing is just a business. It should be treated as such. Their ‘summons’ should be returned…Not Interested!

  10. Peter I think you are the one confused. When government does anything other than protect the inalienable rights of the citizens it become the aggressor. And this is very evident in Micheal’s case.

    Would anyone seriously argue that they have the God given right to keep someone else from drinking raw milk?

    Are you familiar withFrédéric Bastiat’s “The Law”?

    Click to access thelaw.pdf

    How about G. Edward Griffin
    “An Idea whose time has come”
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958&q=An+Idea+Whose+Time+Has+Come+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=186&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

    • Peter

      Yes, I am familiar with Bastiat’s “The Law”, and the fine work of Mr. Griffin. Thanks. In deed, they are worthy resources. Are you familiar with the Law of Nations, the Principles of the Law of Nature applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Principles?
      If the government is unjust in its actions against it’s citizens, then it is prudent that we make the case before the courts and identify the seemingly competing principles, or identify a harmonious interpretation. It is the best mode of interpretation to harmonize laws with laws.
      If someone is unable to take responsibility, does that person not still have the unalienable right to life? And who is there to protect that right to life? In general, the government is there for those who are not thinking. Is the institution of public policy for protecting the unthinking a trespass on your unalienable rights? Perhaps it is. Perhaps I am confused, and welcome your clarification.
      PS – Who is suggesting that you don’t have the God given right to drink raw milk? Your statement suggests it is possible you are confused about what “unalienable” is…

      • Peter I think the courts are the last place one gets any justice in the real world. I think the whole concept of a government being the arbiter of it’s own power ( the 3 branches of government theory) to be a very flawed concept. I has not worked at all in the US and I don’t think it has ever worked anywhere in the world at any time.

        The US had the concept of divided sovereignty, (between the States and Washington) what is often refereed to as federalism or a federation. It was known as the rule of 98 in Jefferson’s time and the cause has been picked up by the http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/ recently. This worked better than anything else that had been tried – for a time but has been destroyed by federal encroachment.

        Anyhow all governments on the face of the earth today seem to be absent any effective controls for their people to control their governments tyranny other than violently taking them back.

        I find your suggestion to rely on the courts for any type of justice laughable, one would have as much success in flying kites in thunderstorms to gain electric for one’s home..

      • rainhard pitschke

        “If someone is unable to take responsibility, does that person not still have the unalienable right to life? And who is there to protect that right to life? In general, the government is there for those who are not thinking. Is the institution of public policy for protecting the unthinking a trespass on your unalienable rights? Perhaps it is. Perhaps I am confused, and welcome your clarification.”

        Yes! thank you! The truth! As soon as one enters a courtroom and claims the right to self determination, one is an adult. A thinking, breathing human who does not need nor seeks protection. This is acknowledged by them, for instance when my friend and I ‘appeared’ in that same Newmarket court last year. He was charged with ‘no licence, insurance, registration and obstruction of police’. (Case # 39468, Ocurrence # 10-266662, Oct 19, 27, Nov. 10 2010 ) They tried every trick they could to get him to admit he was the ‘person’ (the NAME), ‘cross the bar’, purjor himself, agree to ‘allegations or hearsay’ like his birthday or ‘residence’. Three adjournments complete with threats, intimidation,surrounding by phallanx of cops in the hall, surveillance. The result? Charges withdrawn. No ‘lawyer’. Just two grown-ups not wishing to do business. One document offered…his birth certificate. They were free to do whatever they wished to that piece of paper….but not the free body and soul of the man!

        The courts are for babies or incompetants who are not willing or able to take full liability for their actions. When there, they of course don’t understand the language which is spoken because it’s not English, but a counterfeit. Lawyers are the ones trained in the occult (hidden) meanings and arcane rituals, weird and cruel practices, etc. “Let he who allows be decieved”.

      • Peter

        Not sure how this will appear on the site, but it is in response to your comment, starting with: “Peter I think the courts…”
        You are welcome to take exception to the 3 branches of government theory. I would suggest that whether it has worked, or is working or not is subjective. There are competing forces in the human condition. We want things to be fair, and yet we want to be special. Where it is the aim of a civil society to administer our affairs to what is fair, the best root we can employ is freedom (civil freedom is the right to do whatever we want so long as we don’t trespass on the rights of others). And for the purpose of administering this, we employ something called “rights”. Without the civil administration of justice, there would effectively be no rights to uphold or enforce. Without enforcement of rights, there would be no civil society. So who is charged with the function of enforcement? Who is charged with the function of adjudicating? You are welcome to construct your own “system”, and see it through to fruition. In deed, I am all ears. However (thought I may not be schooled to your liking, or by any “recognized” institution), I nonetheless believe you would be hard pressed to come up with something substantially better, let alone implement it into reality…
        You are welcome to dismiss the existing system, and the principles that govern it. I concur that it is in deed fundamentally flawed, for it can only adjudicate the effects, and can never account for the cause (thoughts, feelings, emotions, intuition, and all pre-ceding circumstances). However, I am not so convinced that the underlying principles are themselves flawed in logic. But they are insufficient at truly administering justice. And for that, we must live in true faith and acceptance… There are few I know who are willing/able to reside in that space…

      • Peter

        @ rainhard above…
        I am very well familiar with your perspective about what is or is not a person, or that you are a living soul. If there be one comment that may assist you, it is this: The name and birth certificates are only signposts to a legal person. And if you choose not to be a legal person, then you also have no legal (civil) remedy. In other words, you are a sovereign. As such, there is no neutral 3rd party to adjudicate right vs wrong. As such, you have nothing to complain about. So if they put you in prison, you may think they are wrong, and you are right, but what good is that? There is nothing enforcing your “rightness”. So go ahead on a hunger strike, or go to jail for your convictions. No one is stopping you.
        Also, if I may, the word “court”, and “bar” are themselves symbols. That you appear in “court” and don’t cross the “bar” are themselves evidence of your role-playing according to the symbols. And if you appear in “court” to have your “right” confirmed is itself evidence that you are desirous of civil discourse. As such, you are then and there inherently and necessarily a legal person. To suggest otherwise not just evidence, but proof of your general ignorance of the application and administration of civil justice.

      • rainhard pitschke

        Peter, this comment stream is getting a little unmanageable, but this is in reply to your last one where you say you are familiar with the symbolic nature of the birth certificate, etc. Your points bring us right back to the beginning and you shrug your shoulders and say…’you may be right….but in jail.’ This is/will be my situation for defying jurisdiction (as is happening with many sovereigns) and in Michael’s case for trying to use this system for justice. Either way, we have not a judicial system but a brutal tyranny. thus, your attitude is based on personal fear of their power. If this system was based on legislation which truly had the interests of freedom and increased ease of it’s population I would whole-heartedly support it. “By their works are they known”. Private banks and insurance companies determine legislation though. Our common wealth of resources and infrastructure built by our own citizens….is not ours but is rented back to us at carefully increasing rates. We can only look at the real world for evidence that none of this is to our common benefit. Safety and justice are the justifications for building more jails, despite falling crime rates. The medical world is an industry, (a failing one considering cancer, diabetes, heart disease exponential increase….a success because of the money it makes). The tiniest part of all taxation goes to services….and that too is dissappearing courtesy of Rob Ford.
        Trust law applies here. We are the benefiiaries of the trust of our common-wealth. The managers of this have abused and sold it. They have usurped their authority. They have forgotten they work for us as public servants and act like ‘lords’. We are economic ‘serfs’. Cows on a farm…just like in “Animal Farm”. My new slogan is…’two legs bad…one leg (sovereign) good.’

  11. Peter

    @ rainhard,

    In re-reading the above posts, I can see why you might almost totally agree. Perhaps we differ in that I don’t necessary dismiss statutory law has having just application. As such, the Provincial Offenses court has it’s place in administering it, and the employment of teeth to enforce their orders is in general, appropriate.
    I concur that a provincial offenses court is only there to administer statutory law. And so if it can be shown that the matter before the court is to the exclusion of statutory law, than that is what is to be done/argued. However, the moment you sell to/engage the public, statutory law (public policy) applies.
    IMHO, the facts against Michael are insurmountable (Ironic that the proponent of responsible food freedom was the one that was irresponsible – but don’t tell that to his supporters). I seriously doubt a higher appeal will go beyond the initial hearing. I suppose the one saving grace for Michael going forward, is that Karen is pro-bono, and so perhaps not much will be lost in trying to take it to the next level.

    • rainhard pitschke

      “And so if it can be shown that the matter before the court is to the exclusion of statutory law, than that is what is to be done/argued. However, the moment you sell to/engage the public, statutory law (public policy) applies.”

      Your first sentence is the solution and the second is the problem…ie., the assumption of law, the colour of law, and the reason it must be challenged if we are to have any life at all since all of life is commerce.

      • Peter

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that you come from the perspective that there is no place for statutory law governing public affairs. Please remember that statutory law does not regulate/govern your private affairs, including private commerce.
        I would suggest that, to comprehend public, it must be appreciated as being a corporate body politic, which is the subject of a particular government. When one governs his/her own life, governance no longer resides in the state, and you are thus in the private domain.
        Accordingly, if I create a corporate body politic (i.e. my own public), I necessarily have the authority to govern and regulate it… I hope that clarifies my reasoning for “the second” sentence.

    • rainhard pitschke

      peter, you need to get an education…a new one like I had to. I suggest you work your way through the list of links to the right here under ‘Parapolitics’.

  12. rainhard pitschke

    To Karen, re:
    “I checked the Courts of Justice Act to see whether perhaps your oath of office would give you some guidance as to how to resolve the conflict between enforcing the law and doing justice. I was dismayed to find that it doesn’t. There is no reference in your oath of office to doing justice. You promised only to “execute the duties of a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice”.

    And so….how can you continue to support such a system with your oath? How can you serve two masters? Notwithstanding the fine work your outfit is doing for the oppressed….but would you support me for instance for challenging the monopoly of the Law Society of which I am not a member and not even allowed to talk about in advisory capacity? So what’s going on here?

    • Peter

      I truly believe you would develop a greater and harmonious perspective of the system, including “licensed lawyers”, if you could appreciate the fact that you have no right to mingle with someone else’s “public”. In deed, neither her oath, nor that of the Judge, are conflicting. As per my earlier post: What is just is a measure. So what is the stick to measure against?

      • rainhard pitschke

        I’m done here. I’ve said my piece. you don’t get it. I don’t need a ‘harmonious perspective’ for organized crime and either does Michael. He will starve himself to death and/or go to jail rather than comply. That’s a man! I was caged and abused for a weekend for nothing at the G20, and it made an activist of me. I’m 60 years old and I see what’s happened to Canada, and indeed the world in ever accelerating fashion. I was born in Germany also so now I can finally understand how my father was eased into supporting things…..just like you.

      • rainhard pitschke

        I have every right to ‘mingle with someone elses pubic’…if they invite me and I like the look of it. Oh wait….I need a permit for that don’t I?

      • Peter

        Thank you for pointing out that I don’t get it. I may be wrong, but I get the sense that the statement is made out of frustration, rather than one out of understanding (If you judge, understand…). And I am not saying that you don’t have an understanding. I just question whether you understand what I’m trying to convey.
        Reflecting on your comments about being 60, born in Germany, and what is happened to Canada, or suggesting that Michael is “a man” suggests you have a perspective not from a sense of being self empowered, but a victim of the way things are. Perhaps I am wrong, and in either way, no doubt you are right. We all are. And the mind is great at edifying the fact that we are right. Alex Jones, for one, is a prime example of that. However, such is a bias, which clouds thinking.
        The only thing I endeavor to support is clear thinking. To suggesting that I am “supporting things” other than that would, I believe, be taking me out of context.

      • Peter

        Good, so you have that right (to mingle, etc.). If you don’t mind me asking… who/how will that right be enforced? You can delegate that function to someone else, or you can enforce it yourself.

      • rainhard pitschke

        Yes, peter, I was getting frustrated yesterday with you….and me. I apologize for judging, lecturing….mainly trying to ‘win’ in a discussion which I entered actually to learn how and why people support this system of Statutory law….and to see if my own thinking might have blind spots. By giving my background, you are more right than you know about feeling ‘victimized’. It’s fine and true to say that’s not an empowered position, but the facts are what they ‘were’ (personally) and much of what I’m saying is to point out how this system intentionally victimizes and how to empower people to stop it. We are on the same page as far as wanting clear thinking….not rationalizing or whining. I don’t whine…I challenge and do not comply. Most of the support I see Michael recieving here and elsewhere is in the form of ‘we should be allowed to…” or ” it’s not fair….”. This is not empowered. Civil disobedience is mandatory in this case as much as one has to stand up to a schoolyard bully and say “NO!”…that’s all…just NO.

        As far as your other questions relating to what law ‘should’ be used here or in any dispute, I say…the civil courts,(commonlaw as laid down in the original Magna Carta) are all in place and function well. Affadavits can be sworn, claims, liens, etc. are all there as ‘instruments’. With Michael’s case, I’ve changed my opinion. It’s not personal for him. He’s not trying to get out of trouble. He’s forcing their hand. The heavier it is, the better…for the cause. The Ghandi approach. Of course this is not about justice there…they just want money and reliance on the opinions of ‘certified’ experts. Well the experts recieved their certification and special status of large sums of money because they ‘submitted’ to whatever indoctrination…not education or ‘common knowledge’ was demanded of them. A far worse victimization spiritually and morally. The worst victimization on this planet is the fractional reserve and compound interest money system where banks invent figures for loans and people slave their lives away to repay. The courts do the same thing with ‘fines’, court costs, lawyers fees, for invented ‘crimes’ with no victim or damage. I support neither….and will expose both…just like Alex Jones…with anger and passion. I’m a stubborn German too. Just not so nice as Michael.

      • rainhard pitschke

        “Good, so you have that right (to mingle, etc.). If you don’t mind me asking… who/how will that right be enforced? You can delegate that function to someone else, or you can enforce it yourself.”

        Pleas re-read my response. I substituted ‘pubic’ for public, ( a legal trick which changed everything, lol ) I will not enforce, or allow forced mingling pubic-ly. Either will my ‘mate’..she has no authority…and knows it. It’s all voluntary. Sheesh! Mingling seems to have more conditions than law….and sometimes none at all!

  13. Peter are you guys listening to your own hyperbole and do you really believe any of it?

    You said:
    “Please remember that statutory law does not regulate/govern your private affairs, including private commerce.”

    I don’t know about Canada but statutory law does nothing but stick it’s nose in these 2 areas and every area of life imaginable.

    Is this what you see as the purpose of government? To be the busy body from hades that knows no bounds in it’s own authority nor what it does with this authority? I am just curious because this does seem to be what you believe, and from my observations what many people believe. That government is a cross between their mommy and God. Personally I find this viewpoint aberrant and extremely dangerous to the cause of liberty.

    • Peter

      To clarify, I see that they see that they have a duty of care for those who are unable or unwilling to take responsibility (the public). And you can disagree with that to your heart’s content. The human condition seeks the path of least resistance, and thinking is hard work. Thinking is required to be responsible. You cannot be free unless you can take responsibility.
      As to being dangerous to the cause of liberty, I can only assume you are referring to civil liberty. If you are talking about absolute freedom… it is there for the taking… anytime… with all it’s consequences. And if you are looking for spiritual/mental freedom, this is not directly dependent on construct or execution of civil law.

  14. rainhard pitschke

    Peter, what are you talking about? Lol. “statutory law does not regulate/govern your private affairs, including private commerce.” That’s exactly all it does! You need a permit to burn some twigs in your yard, have a dog or cat, start a business, get married….on and on. Let’s see you build a house any way you please, drive a vehicle you made, bake bloody cookies, and then sell any of these items. And then see if you can avoid taxation on them and in the end pay more tax because it’s ‘income’. Oh…and no clotheslines or carrying your (half bottle) beer while strolling. You’re living in a cage and thinking you’re free!
    NO! I don’t believe in all this! I remember when a man could carry his 22 on a subway without being surrounded by militarized thugs and horrified frightened babies thinking he’s going to shoot them.
    Don’t put your seat belt on and get a $500 fine? Are you kidding me peter or is someone paying you?….because you seem rather intelligent so I won’t question your reason..or sanity.

    • Peter

      Thanks for the various examples. They are good ones. Each one needs to be looked at in a given context. And then, if in deed the context does not justify the imposition, it would be appropriate to challenge the application in court. Just because there is a law on the books that impedes on our private affairs does not mean it is just. I am merely identifying the general perspective of the legislature / judiciary, and the underpinning notions for it. I would suggest that if one sees how they see it, one could work with it. If you can’t, one is typically forever complaining and fighting. To each their own. If you like fighting, then do that. In all you do, have fun. There is ultimately no right and wrong… Everything just is.

      • SA

        Mr inalienable rights:
        You seem to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. (Isn’t that ironic, since you don’t like sheep!)
        You have some noble ideas mixed in with arrogance, ignorance and, hate.
        Yes, there is a lot I don’t know, and a lot to learn…but what seems to be racism (if I look into one of the attachments you suggested) or what I interpret in your replies to be a war/fighting disposition, is not a noble path, especially when a more a kinder, gentler (dare I say more loving) and strategic course of action can be used.

        Despite my antipathy towards many of the ideas presented, and sympathy towards others, I have found the dialogue, objectively, interesting….so thank you both for the discussion.
        But if you talk about God from the Judeo-Christian Bible, consider this: God is Love.(I John 4:8)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s