Well its almost the Holly Jolly shopping time,

This email isn't my typical email saying go to my site. First its to
wish all of you Happy and safe holiday's

Second, I would like you to forward this email on to any and all
sailor's or boaters you may know.

For those of you who didn't know, I have for some time been
challenging the Hamilton Port Authority on its conduct, their un-fair
business practices and anti-competition behaviour will and has been
affecting the industry, that is to say in Hamilton there is no
competition , the port Authority won't allow it, for some you would
say "so what" well aside from limiting were and how much you will
spend, telling you what you can and can't do on your and my public
port

What may make matter worse is that The Hamilton Port Authority could
very well take over the Ontario lake area, When you run into problems
with them, don't bother complaining because they are there own
government.

On February 25th, 2005 I am in court with the port over my right to
enter their controlled lands like the Harbour or the marina, they
simple don't want my kind there, and that makes me fighting mad, a
charter challenge for sure!! a law suit? maybe ...but changes at the
port are going to come with your help, so I guess I'm looking for
support, be it by forwarding this email on, sending your comments, or
hey I wouldn't mind the company on the 25th in Hamilton court..

As a boater my right to access our water ways is top of my list, you
might want to make it yours as well.

Also for those of you who want to read more of this topic, you can
pick up Decembers issue of GAM (released prob dec 20th)
MAGAZINE Canada's oldest sailing magazine, see what the editor and
others also say about this issue including my comments here is there
link.
http://www.gamonyachting.com

And as this story unfolds I will post it on my website under HPA Fight

Remember change is a funny thing, kinda happens without you really
noticing it sometimes, and then its to late, but to change things you
wanted changed or think should be changed takes some sort of an
effort, if you succeed in that change there is nothing more
satisfying.

Thanks For your support

Randy Desnoyers
www.yachtware.net

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Tue, 07 Dec 2004 05:02:17 GMT

Good going, Randy. I like a guy that puts his foot down and stands up
for himself. You have a lot more power than you think. I'm not sure
what your situation is, but I wish you the best.

I'm in the process of buying a boat and when I get it, the first thing
I'll do is get it out of registration. Without any registration or
license, they will have no jurisdiction. I also won't be a "boater"
since whatever statute authorizes them probably has a definition for
"boater". Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would want a license
to go sailing anyway!

Good luck!

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Pat Drummond
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:05:15 -0500

AuntieSpam wrote:
....
> I'm in the process of buying a boat and when I get it, the first thing
> I'll do is get it out of registration. Without any registration or
> license, they will have no jurisdiction. I also won't be a "boater"
> since whatever statute authorizes them probably has a definition for
> "boater". Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would want a license
> to go sailing anyway!

Not licensing your boat to avoid laws concerning boats won't work. You
should aquaint yourself with the regulations regarding boating.

Go to http://boatingincanada.com and learn about rules for boat
licensing and registration, operator certificates, mandatory equipment,
radio licenses, radio operator licenses, border issues, alcohol on
board, and 'rules of the road'. From these summaries you will learn that
a boat license is not mandatory for all sailboats -- but you shouldn't
try to enter U.S. waters without one!
--
* BoatingInCanada.com *

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:36:15 GMT

Pat Drummond wrote:
> AuntieSpam wrote:
> ...
>
>> I'm in the process of buying a boat and when I get it, the first thing
>> I'll do is get it out of registration. Without any registration or
>> license, they will have no jurisdiction. I also won't be a "boater"
>> since whatever statute authorizes them probably has a definition for
>> "boater". Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would want a
>> license to go sailing anyway!
>
>
> Not licensing your boat to avoid laws concerning boats won't work. You
> should aquaint yourself with the regulations regarding boating.
>
> Go to http://boatingincanada.com and learn about rules for boat
> licensing and registration, operator certificates, mandatory equipment,
> radio licenses, radio operator licenses, border issues, alcohol on
> board, and 'rules of the road'. From these summaries you will learn that
> a boat license is not mandatory for all sailboats -- but you shouldn't
> try to enter U.S. waters without one!
> --
> * BoatingInCanada.com *
====
This is a very good web site with links to lots of information. Thank
you for pointing it out me.

I haven't researched all the acts yet (though I will over time), but I
did have a look at a licensing application. It's wording leads me to
believe that licensing a boat is absolutely voluntary. I suppose the
real question might be whether or not I have rights to own property,
especially since I would consider my boat to be private property. Maybe
what it takes is for someone to challenge the jurisdiction of whatever
authority mandates licensing to truly uncover the truth.

As an aside, I'm on the coast, which I believe offers different freedoms
than internal waters, but still, I believe the licensing issue is the
same straight across the board.

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Jack Dale
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:28:25 GMT

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:36:15 GMT, AuntieSpam
wrote:

> I suppose the
>real question might be whether or not I have rights to own property,
>especially since I would consider my boat to be private property. Maybe
>what it takes is for someone to challenge the jurisdiction of whatever
>authority mandates licensing to truly uncover the truth.
>
>As an aside, I'm on the coast, which I believe offers different freedoms
>than internal waters, but still, I believe the licensing issue is the
>same straight across the board.

There is nothing in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that
guarantees the right to own property.

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:02:33 GMT

Jack Dale wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:36:15 GMT, AuntieSpam
> wrote:
>
>
>> I suppose the
>>real question might be whether or not I have rights to own property,
>>especially since I would consider my boat to be private property. Maybe
>>what it takes is for someone to challenge the jurisdiction of whatever
>>authority mandates licensing to truly uncover the truth.
>>
>>As an aside, I'm on the coast, which I believe offers different freedoms
>>than internal waters, but still, I believe the licensing issue is the
>>same straight across the board.
>
>
> There is nothing in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that
> guarantees the right to own property.
>
====
I haven't found any right to own property in the Charter either, but
it's reasonably clear in the Bill of Rights and even clearer in the
British North American Act. The Charter does not replace the Bill of
Rights, nor does it replace our true constitution, the BNA, which was
intended to reflect the Magna Charta (noted in the preamble).

Like all rights, they are for those who demand them.

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Jack Dale
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:55:58 GMT

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:02:33 GMT, AuntieSpam
wrote:

>>
>====
>I haven't found any right to own property in the Charter either, but
>it's reasonably clear in the Bill of Rights

It was replaced by the Charter. The Bill of Rights had little legal
standing and could be overruled easily, e.g., The War Measures Act.

> and even clearer in the
>British North American Act.

Where?

> The Charter does not replace the Bill of
>Rights, nor does it replace our true constitution, the BNA, which was
>intended to reflect the Magna Charta (noted in the preamble).

The Magna Carta was a power grab by John's barons. The references to
property are related to feudal property.

Remember that our Charter rights are subject "to such reasonable
limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free
and democratic society."

You really must license or registered if your engine is 10 hp or
more. (http://www.tc.gc.ca/BoatingSafety/sbg-gsn/markings.htm)

If you choose to follow your course of action, you will definitely
have problems if you wish to take your boat to the US for a visit.

Jack

__________________________________________________
Jack Dale
Swiftsure Sailing Academy
Director/ISPA and CYA Instructor
http://www.swiftsuresailing.com
__________________________________________________

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:14:04 GMT

Jack Dale wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:02:33 GMT, AuntieSpam
> wrote:
>
>>I haven't found any right to own property in the Charter either, but
>>it's reasonably clear in the Bill of Rights
>
>
> It was replaced by the Charter. The Bill of Rights had little legal
> standing and could be overruled easily, e.g., The War Measures Act.
====
The BOR was not replaced by the Charter as it was never repealed and
cannot be repealed. Upon your request, the Dept of Canadian Heritage is
happy to mail to you the BOR or the Charter or both in whatever
quantities you wish upon your asking.

In the body of your email/letter specify what quantity and format you
want along with a mailing address.

Available in certificate (11" x 13”) and poster (18" x 23") formats and
in alternative formats: braille, audio cassette and diskette, from:

Box 15-7-B
Human Rights Program
Aboriginal Peoples’ and Human Rights Programs Directorate
Department of Canadian Heritage
Hull QC K1A 0M5
Telephone: (819) 994-3458
Fax: (819) 994-5252
Email: rights-droits@pch.gc.ca

>>and even clearer in the
>>British North American Act.
>
> Where?
====
This may have been an unclear statement on my part. The BNA
incorporates the Magna Charta in the preamble. This, to me, confers a
right to property.

>>The Charter does not replace the Bill of
>>Rights, nor does it replace our true constitution, the BNA, which was
>>intended to reflect the Magna Charta (noted in the preamble).
>
>
> The Magna Carta was a power grab by John's barons. The references to
> property are related to feudal property.
>
>
> Remember that our Charter rights are subject "to such reasonable
> limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free
> and democratic society."
>
>
> You really must license or registered if your engine is 10 hp or
> more. (http://www.tc.gc.ca/BoatingSafety/sbg-gsn/markings.htm)
>
> If you choose to follow your course of action, you will definitely
> have problems if you wish to take your boat to the US for a visit.
====
With no disrespect, Jack, my initial question was to try to clarify
whether or not licensing or registering of person or property in regards
to sailing was mandatory or voluntary. I somewhat agree with you that I
might encounter problems if I choose to not do either, but though it is
possible that charges could be laid, I still see no evidence that a
conviction would be eminent or even likely. That you or anyone would
say I "must" is not evidence enough for me to believe that I must.

There is still the perplexing question: "Why must I apply for and sign
for something that is mandatory?" These are the actions of someone
doing something that is voluntary, not mandatory. If it were truly
mandatory, then it would make sense that the appropriate paperwork would
simply be assigned without application and without signature.

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Jean Dufour
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:53:32 -0500

AuntieSpam wrote:

> haven't researched all the acts yet (though I will over time), but I
> did have a look at a licensing application. It's wording leads me to
> believe that licensing a boat is absolutely voluntary.

Hi!

.... voluntary for boats powered by a 7.5 Kw (10 hp) engine or less...

see:

Small vessel regulation article 7 and 8 at:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/crc1487/sec7%2Ehtml

then click on next for article 8.

If you're powered by a 9.9 hp engine or less then you're not obligated to do
so.

Jean Dufour
Montreal, Qc

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:14:35 GMT

Thank you. Legalese is code. The Act defines Pleasure Craft as:

"pleasure craft" means a vessel used by an individual for pleasure and
not for a commercial purpose;

"pleasure yacht" [Repealed, 1998, c. 16, s. 1]

This could mean that so long as the boat isn't being used for "pleasure"
or "a commercial purpose", the regs wouldn't apply. It could, for
example, be used to live on. Also, there are different legal
definitions for the words "person" and "individual". Example,
artificial person or natural person. The Bill of Rights, for example
applies only to natural persons, while most Acts apply to artificial
persons, also known as government created entities.

Researching and unraveling exactly what is referred to within Acts is a
task at best. I suspect (suspicion only, at this time) that a joinder
is created when someone signs up for an operator's license or registers
or licenses the boat. What drew me to wonder about this is that the
application I read to license a boat clearly states that the individual
must "apply" for the license and must sign for it. This becomes a
legally binding contractual agreement which can only be done voluntarily
and without duress. I believe that if it were truly mandatory, that the
license would be assigned without making an application and without
having to sign.

If I'm following a dead end hunch and licensing really is mandatory,
then it would fly in the face of the Bill of Rights.

I'll certainly need to go through the Shipping Act and the Regulations
thoroughly and carefully, but it sure would be a boon to hook up with
someone who has already researched this and drawn conclusions.

Jean Dufour wrote:
> AuntieSpam wrote:
>
>
>> haven't researched all the acts yet (though I will over time), but I
>>did have a look at a licensing application. It's wording leads me to
>>believe that licensing a boat is absolutely voluntary.
>
>
> Hi!
>
> ... voluntary for boats powered by a 7.5 Kw (10 hp) engine or less...
>
> see:
>
> Small vessel regulation article 7 and 8 at:
>
> http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/crc1487/sec7%2Ehtml
>
> then click on next for article 8.
>
> If you're powered by a 9.9 hp engine or less then you're not obligated to do
> so.
>
> Jean Dufour
> Montreal, Qc
>

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Jean Dufour
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:47:27 -0500

AuntieSpam wrote:

> If I'm following a dead end hunch and licensing really is mandatory,
> then it would fly in the face of the Bill of Rights.
>
> AuntieSpam

Then what about driver's licences and licence plates on cars?

:-O

Jean Dufour
Montreal, Qc

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:24:33 GMT

Jean Dufour wrote:

> AuntieSpam wrote:
>
>>If I'm following a dead end hunch and licensing really is mandatory,
>>then it would fly in the face of the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>AuntieSpam
>
>
> Then what about driver's licences and licence plates on cars?
====
What about them? You still have to apply for and sign for these. From
what I understand, it's done voluntarily. It's important to be able to
differentiate between legal entities and natural entities. Once you
register something, you enter into a contract where you become the
registered owner and, by your agreement, are bound to the laws governing
registered owners. Same goes for drivers. To help make it a sticky
point, whatever vehicle you're driving came with a Manufacture's
Statement of Origin (MSR) which you never actually see. This is
tantamount to the vehicle being registered before you make the purchase.
When you buy it, you are simply transferring ownership, not actually
owning it outright.

In other words, you are in the scheme and must play by the rules.
However, if you are mechanically inclined and are able to build your own
motor vehicle from scratch, it would be my contention that you would be
able to drive it on the street with no paperwork so long as you did it
without a Driver's License. By doing so, you would have no joinder to
the statutes governing registered motor vehicles and drivers. You might
get harassed by police officers, but at the end of the day, you would be
right. The question is, "how thick is your skin?"

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Pat Drummond
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:15:42 -0500

Jean Dufour wrote:
> AuntieSpam wrote:
>>If I'm following a dead end hunch and licensing really is mandatory,
>>then it would fly in the face of the Bill of Rights.
>
> Then what about driver's licences and licence plates on cars?
>
> :-O
>
> Jean Dufour
> Montreal, Qc

Yes, indeed! A moot point whether it's mandatory or not (I believe it
is if your boat falls into the right category). In the current
atmosphere of heightened security and policing, I wouldn't go boating
without all the licenses, cards, safety equipment, permits and
environmental stickers I could get my hands on.

--
* http://BoatinginCanada.com *

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:39:03 GMT

Pat Drummond wrote:

> Jean Dufour wrote:
>
>> AuntieSpam wrote:
>>
>>> If I'm following a dead end hunch and licensing really is mandatory,
>>> then it would fly in the face of the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>
>> Then what about driver's licences and licence plates on cars?
>>
>> :-O
>>
>> Jean Dufour
>> Montreal, Qc
>
>
> Yes, indeed! A moot point whether it's mandatory or not (I believe it
> is if your boat falls into the right category). In the current
> atmosphere of heightened security and policing, I wouldn't go boating
> without all the licenses, cards, safety equipment, permits and
> environmental stickers I could get my hands on.
====
To this day, that is your right. I wouldn't care infringe upon it out
of respect for your rights.
--
AuntieSpam

From:	Karl Pollak
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:48:13 GMT

x-no-archive: yes
AuntieSpam wrote:

>believe that licensing a boat is absolutely voluntary. I suppose the
>real question might be whether or not I have rights to own property,
>especially since I would consider my boat to be private property. Maybe

You can own your boat all you want. but if you want to actually put it in
the water and operate it, you had better do it by law like everybody else.

>what it takes is for someone to challenge the jurisdiction of whatever
>authority mandates licensing to truly uncover the truth.

You are not licensing the ownership of the boat but your authorization to
use it.

--
Greetings from Lotusland

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:12:55 GMT

Karl Pollak wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> AuntieSpam wrote:
>
>>believe that licensing a boat is absolutely voluntary. I suppose the
>>real question might be whether or not I have rights to own property,
>>especially since I would consider my boat to be private property. Maybe
>
>
> You can own your boat all you want. but if you want to actually put it in
> the water and operate it, you had better do it by law like everybody else.
====
I have no intention of breaking any laws. This is why I'm asking
questions and taking all that I hear with a grain of salt. If these are
mandatory requirements, then I'll do what is required, but I have not
"yet" found clear evidence that it is mandatory.

>>what it takes is for someone to challenge the jurisdiction of whatever
>>authority mandates licensing to truly uncover the truth.
>
>
> You are not licensing the ownership of the boat but your authorization to
> use it.
====
If this is true, then it's my guess that it goes against our
constitutional right to the enjoyment of property which requires no
authorization.

I may be spitting into the wind here, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Karl Pollak
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:34:10 GMT

x-no-archive: yes
AuntieSpam wrote:

>> You are not licensing the ownership of the boat but your authorization to
>> use it.
>====
>If this is true, then it's my guess that it goes against our
>constitutional right to the enjoyment of property which requires no
>authorization.

You can enjoy it all you want in your own backyard and ain't nobody gonna
tell you no dif'rent. But if you want to use it on the water, well, the
water belongs to Her Majesty, so you will have to do it Her way.

Just as you do not need to licence or insure your car as long as it never
leaves your own private land. But if you want to use the public rodas,
well, you know what to do.

>I may be spitting into the wind here, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

You think?

--
Greetings from Lotusland

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:11:22 GMT

Karl Pollak wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> AuntieSpam wrote:
>
>
>>>You are not licensing the ownership of the boat but your authorization to
>>>use it.
>>
>>====
>>If this is true, then it's my guess that it goes against our
>>constitutional right to the enjoyment of property which requires no
>>authorization.
>
>
> You can enjoy it all you want in your own backyard and ain't nobody gonna
> tell you no dif'rent. But if you want to use it on the water, well, the
> water belongs to Her Majesty, so you will have to do it Her way.
====
Would that be the same gal who declared all British subjects to be
Canadian? Maybe I can ask her about it sometime, but I wonder if it had
something to do with the UN Declaration of Human Rights being drawn up
which included something like, "Slavery in all it's forms shall be
abolished". Maybe she didn't want to contravene that little order...
nor alter the effectiveness of Her rule by too much.

> Just as you do not need to licence or insure your car as long as it never
> leaves your own private land. But if you want to use the public rodas,
> well, you know what to do.
====
I don't question that there are obligations to uphold when someone
enters into a contract, such as getting a driver's license. What I do
question is whether or not someone who does not enter into a contract
still has to uphold those obligations as if he had entered into the
contract. I find it pretty odd that something that is "mandatory" must
be applied for and signed for. Sort of like a program that you can
choose to be part of if you wish, but you don't really have to.

>>I may be spitting into the wind here, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
>
>
> You think?
====
I do. Since you're from Lotusland, you're probably familiar with the
False Creek squatters who, despite government efforts, have refused to
leave their anchor and to this day still sit there on the hook. Maybe
they know something you don't? Or maybe they just lucked in to
something by chance through their willingness to do what makes sense and
what they believe is right?

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Karl Pollak
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:39:35 GMT

x-no-archive: yes
AuntieSpam wrote:

>I do. Since you're from Lotusland, you're probably familiar with the
>False Creek squatters who, despite government efforts, have refused to
>leave their anchor and to this day still sit there on the hook. Maybe
>they know something you don't? Or maybe they just lucked in to
>something by chance through their willingness to do what makes sense and
>what they believe is right?

Yes, they know that sitting in federal water protects them from the City
Hall that has no jurisdiction over them or the said federal waters.

It's the City Hall that wants them out of there. Actually, they don't
really want them out of the creek the City Hall lunatics and particuarly
the enviuous neighbours on shore want to find some way to TAX the boaters
out of there.

--
Greetings from Lotusland

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:30:07 GMT

Karl Pollak wrote:

>>I do. Since you're from Lotusland, you're probably familiar with the
>>False Creek squatters who, despite government efforts, have refused to
>>leave their anchor and to this day still sit there on the hook. Maybe
>>they know something you don't? Or maybe they just lucked in to
>>something by chance through their willingness to do what makes sense and
>>what they believe is right?
>
>
> Yes, they know that sitting in federal water protects them from the City
> Hall that has no jurisdiction over them or the said federal waters.
>
> It's the City Hall that wants them out of there. Actually, they don't
> really want them out of the creek the City Hall lunatics and particuarly
> the enviuous neighbours on shore want to find some way to TAX the boaters
> out of there.
====
Maybe they do know they can't be touched. There was an issue about
whether False Creek was inland water or not. The bunch of complainers
have taken it to Ottawa to get a verdict on the issue, and, I'm sure,
will do what they can to garner whatever federal support they can to get
these individuals out. What good is respect when it doesn't apply to
someone doing something you don't like?

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Pat Drummond
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:23:02 -0500

Karl Pollak wrote:
> You are not licensing the ownership of the boat but your authorization to
> use it.
>

Boat licences are not at all like car licenses. Still, when you cross a
border (or travel through a federal canal or lock), your boat must have
either a license number (by province) or be registered (by Canada). So
even though the license data could be stored in shoeboxes in some
government basement (I once heard a rumour to this effect), you should
still have one.

Vessel Licensing http://BoatinginCanada.com/license.html
"Note that licensing does not imply clear title or ownership of the
boat. Licensing is an identification system not a title system. ..."
--
* http://BoatinginCanada.com *

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:45:00 GMT

Pat Drummond wrote:

> Karl Pollak wrote:
>
>> You are not licensing the ownership of the boat but your authorization to
>> use it.
>>
>
> Boat licences are not at all like car licenses. Still, when you cross a
> border (or travel through a federal canal or lock), your boat must have
> either a license number (by province) or be registered (by Canada). So
> even though the license data could be stored in shoeboxes in some
> government basement (I once heard a rumour to this effect), you should
> still have one.
>
> Vessel Licensing http://BoatinginCanada.com/license.html
> "Note that licensing does not imply clear title or ownership of the
> boat. Licensing is an identification system not a title system. ..."
====
I guess it's the authorizing statute that makes them different, but on
the whole, what is a license if not to give someone permission to do
something that is illegal?
--
AuntieSpam

From:	Terry Spragg
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:16:29 -0400

Karl Pollak wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
> AuntieSpam wrote:
>
>
>
>>believe that licensing a boat is absolutely voluntary. I suppose the
>>real question might be whether or not I have rights to own property,
>>especially since I would consider my boat to be private property. Maybe
>
>
> You can own your boat all you want. but if you want to actually put it in
> the water and operate it, you had better do it by law like everybody else.
>
>
>>what it takes is for someone to challenge the jurisdiction of whatever
>>authority mandates licensing to truly uncover the truth.
>
>
> You are not licensing the ownership of the boat but your authorization to
> use it.
>
>

We are already guaranteed the right to enjoy our property in the
Canadian bill of rights and ancient common law. The common law
demands we kill any politician, save only the King and his family,
who voted for laws that abrogate these rights. That is the common
law. It cannot legally be changed by anyone. Read the Magna Charta.

The fee is supposedly to license the use of navigational aids
installed at tax payer expense, which means we own them, not the
government, and the fees are supposed to be collected from
commercial users who have no right to them, not being taxpayers or
owners of the property. It is not to be collected from the owners,
as we have already paid for them. Jump up and down, pound on the table!

The government is instituted to defend and uphold the common law and
provide a system of justice that there be peace in the land, lest we
riot and kill them. S'truth!

The only ones who object to this are of course the commercial users,
who want the fees shared amongst all of us to save them money. Their
legal prostitutes work for their employers, in courts, to screw
anyone else they can. Govermnment lawyers want to remember who they
work for, as they too can be killed by the population if it gets
riled enough. Don't let propoganda convince you otherwise.

As owners, we have the right to charge non owners for the use of our
property. This is the common law. We have the right to defend our
property by force, including our guns. Don't let them chip away at
your rights.

The purchasers of the goods they move over water should pay all of
the costs of importation when they purchase the goods. The general
population should not be forced to subsidise commercial interests'
use of navigation aids, as we have already paid for them by our
taxes. We own the water equally with every human on the planet, and
the neccessities of life such as air and water, amongst others,
should not be taxed at all in any way. Your politicians are lobbied
to ignore the rights of the citizens, and those who are stupid
enough to piss of their voters can be made to suffer in many ways.
You could start by phoning them so they cannot use their phones, and
writing them and by voting against them so they don't earn pensions
for political service. Let them know your intentions and they will
listen. Get your friends to help. Agitate!

Only boaters that cause damage need concern themselves with
restitution for actual damages caused by negligence, etc. Sue offenders.

I suggest we start a political party to roll back gold plated
salaries and pensions for politicians and shrink government
generally. Call it The Tax Payer's Party (TTPP) We should
re-establish our control over government before they bury us.

Demand taxpayer's rights, now! Get them off of responsible boater's
backs, starting with sailors and low power to weight ratio powered
vessels like trawlers and other non-planing types.

Boaters insured for liability should have no other obligations.

If you want to get in the thick of it right now, demand your road
taxes back for marine fuel. Get a receipt for gas used on the boat
and demand a tax credit on your income tax form under "other". Make
them take you to court. You don't have to talk to them on the phone,
or at your door. If only a few did this, they would go away when it
became obvious they will lose money on the deal.

Terry K

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:24:53 GMT

There, now. This makes sense. I don't question this. What I do
question are the things in life that don't make sense... such as
licensing being mandatory for a guy like me just to sail my boat! I'm
SOL with my driver's license since I voluntarily signed up for that scam
of a program, but sailing, I might still have a chance there... so long
as, as you say, I demand that my right to sail unfettered be upheld.
There might be hell to pay, but at the end of the day, who really has
the power? And if anyone wants to ask me if it's worth it, ya, it is!
The only paperwork I want on my boat is the bill of sale.

Terry Spragg wrote:
>
> We are already guaranteed the right to enjoy our property in the
> Canadian bill of rights and ancient common law. The common law demands
> we kill any politician, save only the King and his family, who voted for
> laws that abrogate these rights. That is the common law. It cannot
> legally be changed by anyone. Read the Magna Charta.
>
> The fee is supposedly to license the use of navigational aids installed
> at tax payer expense, which means we own them, not the government, and
> the fees are supposed to be collected from commercial users who have no
> right to them, not being taxpayers or owners of the property. It is not
> to be collected from the owners, as we have already paid for them. Jump
> up and down, pound on the table!
>
> The government is instituted to defend and uphold the common law and
> provide a system of justice that there be peace in the land, lest we
> riot and kill them. S'truth!
>
> The only ones who object to this are of course the commercial users, who
> want the fees shared amongst all of us to save them money. Their legal
> prostitutes work for their employers, in courts, to screw anyone else
> they can. Govermnment lawyers want to remember who they work for, as
> they too can be killed by the population if it gets riled enough. Don't
> let propoganda convince you otherwise.
>
> As owners, we have the right to charge non owners for the use of our
> property. This is the common law. We have the right to defend our
> property by force, including our guns. Don't let them chip away at your
> rights.
>
> The purchasers of the goods they move over water should pay all of the
> costs of importation when they purchase the goods. The general
> population should not be forced to subsidise commercial interests' use
> of navigation aids, as we have already paid for them by our taxes. We
> own the water equally with every human on the planet, and the
> neccessities of life such as air and water, amongst others, should not
> be taxed at all in any way. Your politicians are lobbied to ignore the
> rights of the citizens, and those who are stupid enough to piss of their
> voters can be made to suffer in many ways. You could start by phoning
> them so they cannot use their phones, and writing them and by voting
> against them so they don't earn pensions for political service. Let
> them know your intentions and they will listen. Get your friends to
> help. Agitate!
>
> Only boaters that cause damage need concern themselves with restitution
> for actual damages caused by negligence, etc. Sue offenders.
>
> I suggest we start a political party to roll back gold plated salaries
> and pensions for politicians and shrink government generally. Call it
> The Tax Payer's Party (TTPP) We should re-establish our control over
> government before they bury us.
>
> Demand taxpayer's rights, now! Get them off of responsible boater's
> backs, starting with sailors and low power to weight ratio powered
> vessels like trawlers and other non-planing types.
>
> Boaters insured for liability should have no other obligations.
>
> If you want to get in the thick of it right now, demand your road taxes
> back for marine fuel. Get a receipt for gas used on the boat and demand
> a tax credit on your income tax form under "other". Make them take you
> to court. You don't have to talk to them on the phone, or at your door.
> If only a few did this, they would go away when it became obvious they
> will lose money on the deal.
>
> Terry K

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Karl Pollak
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:39:36 GMT

x-no-archive: yes
AuntieSpam wrote:

>There, now. This makes sense. I don't question this.

You should question it. It was nothing but sheer nonsense.

--
Greetings from Lotusland

From:	Terry Spragg
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:19:55 -0400

Karl Pollak wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> AuntieSpam wrote:
>
>>There, now. This makes sense. I don't question this.
>
> You should question it. It was nothing but sheer nonsense.

Bollocks!

The gov has no power to regulate pleasure, only commerce. Regulated
pleasure is not pleasure at all. The root of all law is the defense
of a man's right to pleasure, equally for all men, given by God,
enforced on the king, deniable to no man. To impune a man's right
to pleasure is to jail him unjustly.

Karl seems to think that his brains really are supposed to stay in
the heel of his bruised boots while he is on parade before the
dictator. Not so, Karl. Live it up!

I served 30 years to protect the rights of a free man like you, but
I can't force you to excercise your rights if you are afraid of
them, or need an authorotative mommy to protect you from some evil
you do not recognise.

There is no evil, except in the cowardice such an attitude displays
and encourages.

There must be a complainant and evidence before justice can force
retribution, and that is the basis of the common law, wether you
like it or not.

We are a free people. Free from what you say?

Free from oppressive rich bastards who think they can tell the serfs
what to do, or not do.

If you owe no outstanding debts, you are a free person and may do
exactly as you like, so long as no other free man complains. If a
man complains, you must answer him before justice in court. The
government has no right to restrict a man from his pleasurable
persuits, including operating his own car a car for pleasure on the
road that he ownes in common with every taxpayer. We, the public, do
demand that every vehicle display a reputable identification number,
for commercial restriction purposes, and for identifying those who
would leave an accident scene where they are alledged to have caused
damages. The government is tasked with collecting user fees for
commercial abusers, thieves of our property: roads, marine aids,
radio spectrum, air, and water. These things do not belong to the
government, which is contracted, paid, and enslaved to administer
it's just useage by the public, who own it all.

What contract? The electoral conrtact, where men ask for jobs,
promising to serve those who hire them above other applicants by
voting for them. They get paid with our money, voluntarily
contributed to defend and support the administration of justice.
Once sworn into their service contract, they are bound to serve the
public and keep their promises. We are the public.

The government does not own anything, except research which it
obtained from government servants and contractors, which it must
share wilh the public. It is only a paid steward of our property.

It is a legal thing that some people do not respect, especially
civil servants and fools.

The law is to protect free people from damages caused by others, and
don't you ever forget it, or you will become a slave to whomever can
intimidate you. We will defend you with our blood, sweat, toil and
taxes.

If there is a tort, there is the justice administration to support
and enforce your demand for justice. If you feel injured, go
complain to a justice of the peace, or the police if there was violence.

You may sue anyone who interferes with your lawful pleasure, and
that includes abusive cops, and other government public servants,
who are bound by contract law to serve at the public's pleasure, not
to oppress it.

This old, black letter law. Demand justice.

If you want the real skinney, contact the libertarian party of
Canada, and support them.

No more need be said.

Terry K

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:57:55 GMT

Terry, yours are the words of a sane man and of someone I care to call a
Canadian -- thank you for your service.

FYI, and take it for whatever it's worth, if anything, what you said is
the power of the common man, or natural person (a legal capacity). The
spin begins when the beareaucratic tyrants get you to agree to sign up
for their programmes, ie: Social Insurance Number. I believe that our
right to contract is possibly the most powerful right we have. By
contracting with the government, we create a joinder, thereby a
fictional entitiy (artificial person) which binds us to the contents of
the contract. In other words, do what you do as a natural person and
you can only be tried in a common law court (there are still a few left
in this country) instead of equity court where the cards are sure to be
stacked against you. In a common law court, you cannot be tried as a
fictional entity!

Terry Spragg wrote:

> Karl Pollak wrote:
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> AuntieSpam wrote:
>>
>>> There, now. This makes sense. I don't question this.
>>
>>
>> You should question it. It was nothing but sheer nonsense.
>
>
>
> Bollocks!
>
> The gov has no power to regulate pleasure, only commerce. Regulated
> pleasure is not pleasure at all. The root of all law is the defense of a
> man's right to pleasure, equally for all men, given by God, enforced on
> the king, deniable to no man. To impune a man's right to pleasure is to
> jail him unjustly.
>
> Karl seems to think that his brains really are supposed to stay in the
> heel of his bruised boots while he is on parade before the dictator.
> Not so, Karl. Live it up!
>
> I served 30 years to protect the rights of a free man like you, but I
> can't force you to excercise your rights if you are afraid of them, or
> need an authorotative mommy to protect you from some evil you do not
> recognise.
>
> There is no evil, except in the cowardice such an attitude displays and
> encourages.
>
> There must be a complainant and evidence before justice can force
> retribution, and that is the basis of the common law, wether you like it
> or not.
>
> We are a free people. Free from what you say?
>
> Free from oppressive rich bastards who think they can tell the serfs
> what to do, or not do.
>
> If you owe no outstanding debts, you are a free person and may do
> exactly as you like, so long as no other free man complains. If a man
> complains, you must answer him before justice in court. The government
> has no right to restrict a man from his pleasurable persuits, including
> operating his own car a car for pleasure on the road that he ownes in
> common with every taxpayer. We, the public, do demand that every vehicle
> display a reputable identification number, for commercial restriction
> purposes, and for identifying those who would leave an accident scene
> where they are alledged to have caused damages. The government is tasked
> with collecting user fees for commercial abusers, thieves of our
> property: roads, marine aids, radio spectrum, air, and water. These
> things do not belong to the government, which is contracted, paid, and
> enslaved to administer it's just useage by the public, who own it all.
>
> What contract? The electoral conrtact, where men ask for jobs,
> promising to serve those who hire them above other applicants by voting
> for them. They get paid with our money, voluntarily contributed to
> defend and support the administration of justice. Once sworn into their
> service contract, they are bound to serve the public and keep their
> promises. We are the public.
>
> The government does not own anything, except research which it obtained
> from government servants and contractors, which it must share wilh the
> public. It is only a paid steward of our property.
>
> It is a legal thing that some people do not respect, especially civil
> servants and fools.
>
> The law is to protect free people from damages caused by others, and
> don't you ever forget it, or you will become a slave to whomever can
> intimidate you. We will defend you with our blood, sweat, toil and taxes.
>
> If there is a tort, there is the justice administration to support and
> enforce your demand for justice. If you feel injured, go complain to a
> justice of the peace, or the police if there was violence.
>
> You may sue anyone who interferes with your lawful pleasure, and that
> includes abusive cops, and other government public servants, who are
> bound by contract law to serve at the public's pleasure, not to oppress it.
>
> This old, black letter law. Demand justice.
>
> If you want the real skinney, contact the libertarian party of Canada,
> and support them.
>
> No more need be said.
>
> Terry K
>

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Jean Dufour
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:31:48 -0500

Terry Spragg wrote:

> The gov has no power to regulate pleasure, only commerce.

Not true! Constitutional Act 1867, section IV, article 91, class 10.

see at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html

It is a federal jurisdiction to make laws over navigation whether it's for
commerce or pleasure. Navigation it says and when you cruise for pleasure,
you navigate. The term is not restrictive in a court of law else it'd be
labelled as "commercial navigation".

> To impune a man's right to pleasure is to jail him unjustly.

Then, if it's for his own pleasure, I guess you'd have no objection against
someone shooting people in the street! Rape is very pleasant to rapists.
Paul Bernardo would love you! He did all that for his pleasure.

> but I can't force you to excercise your rights if you are afraid of
> them, or need an authorotative mommy to protect you from some evil
> you do not recognise.There must be a complainant and evidence before
> justice can force retribution, and that is the basis of the common law,
> wether you like it or not.

Then rip the numbers of your boat, (because I think you still have them on
or plainly have no boat) go take a ride alongside a RCMP or whatever
provinvial, municipal patrols that enforce the law in your area and you'll
sure have your day in court. If they miss it, you can also surrender
yourself to the local authorities saying you commited an infringement of
the Small Vessel Regulation and won't comply to their stupid law. Don't ask
other people to do it for you.

> We are a free people. Free from what you say?

Article 1 of the Charter of Rights says we are free in this manner:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by
law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Get yourself elected if you wan't democracy to have anything to do with
your issues over the laws on navigation.

> Free from oppressive rich bastards who think they can tell the serfs
> what to do, or not do.

You may want to make the Charter say what you want but it doesn't. Again, I
will take my example of licence plates on cars. You drive around without
them? Them numbers of a licenced boat or the name for a registered boat
have the same purpose of tracing you out if you commit an infraction with
it or commit a crime with it such as wreckless driving. I know, I already
had one been caught for that.

> The law is to protect free people from damages caused by others, and
> don't you ever forget it, or you will become a slave to whomever can
> intimidate you.

There, you said it yourself and this cigarette boat that was intimidating
me and other boaters by passing at 70 milles an hour very close to us was
caught thanks to his licence number.

> If you want the real skinney, contact the libertarian party of
> Canada, and support them.

Call a horse a horse: The Anarchist Party of Canada. They're even affraid
to show their true colors.

> No more need be said.

Indeed!

Jean Dufour
Montreal, Qc

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 04:22:04 GMT

Jean Dufour wrote:

> Terry Spragg wrote:
>
>
>>The gov has no power to regulate pleasure, only commerce.
>
>
> Not true! Constitutional Act 1867, section IV, article 91, class 10.
>
> see at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html
>
> It is a federal jurisdiction to make laws over navigation whether it's for
> commerce or pleasure. Navigation it says and when you cruise for pleasure,
> you navigate. The term is not restrictive in a court of law else it'd be
> labelled as "commercial navigation".
====
While a statute can't be read as a book, it also can't be read by a
section alone. Legalese just isn't that way. What is pleasure? And to
whom does this statute refer to? A natural entity or an artificial
entity? There is no blanket statement such as "everyone" unless the
word "everyone" is defined within the Act, Regs, other Act sharing the
same title, or the Interpretations Act. Failing a definition there, one
would look at Canadian Law dictionary, Blacks Law, and if still no
definition, the common language dictionary. The latter offers a
definition that would not allow an Act to be written where it is given
jurisdiction over "everyone", natural and artificial..

>>To impune a man's right to pleasure is to jail him unjustly.
>
>
> Then, if it's for his own pleasure, I guess you'd have no objection against
> someone shooting people in the street! Rape is very pleasant to rapists.
> Paul Bernardo would love you! He did all that for his pleasure.
====
These are also common law infractions and you'd have to answer to the
charges whether you enjoyed yourself or not. The pleasure is not an
issue except possibly to help determine your sanity.

>>but I can't force you to excercise your rights if you are afraid of
>>them, or need an authorotative mommy to protect you from some evil
>>you do not recognise.There must be a complainant and evidence before
>>justice can force retribution, and that is the basis of the common law,
>>wether you like it or not.
>
>
> Then rip the numbers of your boat, (because I think you still have them on
> or plainly have no boat) go take a ride alongside a RCMP or whatever
> provinvial, municipal patrols that enforce the law in your area and you'll
> sure have your day in court. If they miss it, you can also surrender
> yourself to the local authorities saying you commited an infringement of
> the Small Vessel Regulation and won't comply to their stupid law. Don't ask
> other people to do it for you.
====
The wiser man would write to the authorizing body and ask if these regs
apply to a natural person acting in their capacity of a natural person.
For the record, I've done this, though not regarding the Shipping Act.
If you want to see how pathetic the government is when a natural
person steps up to the plate and asks questions regarding rights, try it
yourself. You'll never see a better song and dance performed anywhere.
That in itself tells me something.

>>We are a free people. Free from what you say?
>
>
> Article 1 of the Charter of Rights says we are free in this manner:
>
> 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
> freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by
> law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
>
> Get yourself elected if you wan't democracy to have anything to do with
> your issues over the laws on navigation.
====
The Charter does not apply to common law rights as the BOR does. The
BOR refers to natural entities (individuals as defined by Canadian Law
Dictionary) and the Charter refers to legal entities. They are both
useful in their proper text, but one does not alter the other in any
way. If you don't like the way you're treated as the holder of a
government issued license, then use the Charter; if you don't like the
way you're treated as an individual, use the BOR.

>>Free from oppressive rich bastards who think they can tell the serfs
>>what to do, or not do.
>
>
> You may want to make the Charter say what you want but it doesn't. Again, I
> will take my example of licence plates on cars. You drive around without
> them? Them numbers of a licenced boat or the name for a registered boat
> have the same purpose of tracing you out if you commit an infraction with
> it or commit a crime with it such as wreckless driving. I know, I already
> had one been caught for that.
>
>
>>The law is to protect free people from damages caused by others, and
>>don't you ever forget it, or you will become a slave to whomever can
>>intimidate you.
>
>
> There, you said it yourself and this cigarette boat that was intimidating
> me and other boaters by passing at 70 milles an hour very close to us was
> caught thanks to his licence number.
====
You would have the right to seek compensation. Common law is very
strong on the responsibility of every man. Unfortunately, in the world
of legalese, compensation is often nothing more than a slap on the wrist
or a fine.

>>If you want the real skinney, contact the libertarian party of
>>Canada, and support them.
>
>
> Call a horse a horse: The Anarchist Party of Canada. They're even affraid
> to show their true colors.
====
To find true anarchy, search through the back doors of our government.
If you're tenacious, you'll find that our country, the Confederation of
Canada, has been hijacked and pillaged primarily through international
bankers and Canadian bureaucrats who are at their beckon call.

>
>>No more need be said.
>
>
> Indeed!
>
> Jean Dufour
> Montreal, Qc

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Karl Pollak
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 05:11:31 GMT

x-no-archive: yes
Jean Dufour wrote:

>Terry Spragg wrote:
>> The gov has no power to regulate pleasure, only commerce.

>Not true! Constitutional Act 1867, section IV, article 91, class 10.
>
>see at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html
>
>It is a federal jurisdiction to make laws over navigation whether it's for
>commerce or pleasure.

Jean, the guy is a Libertarian troll and you took his bait.

>Then rip the numbers of your boat, (because I think you
>still have them on or plainly have no boat) go ...

Maybe you have missed the point in his previous message where he made it
clear that he was lying. First he claimed to be in Hamilton, then claimed
"I live on the coast", without bother ring to say which one. My guess is
that is he probably on the West Coast and the whole crap about Hamilton was
made up from some local news story.

>Get yourself elected if you wan't democracy to have anything to do with
>your issues over the laws on navigation.

He can't. There are never more than 100 idiots with a vote in any given
riding to vote Libertarian.

--
Greetings from Lotusland

From:	Jack Dale
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:49:47 GMT

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:31:48 -0500, Jean Dufour
wrote:

Jean

As a former Social Studies teacher I must say. "Well researched and
well written."

Jack

__________________________________________________
Jack Dale
Swiftsure Sailing Academy
Director/ISPA and CYA Instructor
http://www.swiftsuresailing.com
__________________________________________________

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:37:27 GMT

Jack Dale wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:31:48 -0500, Jean Dufour
> wrote:
>
> Jean
>
> As a former Social Studies teacher I must say. "Well researched and
> well written."
====
Not to detract from the knowledge of a Social Studies teacher, but there
is a large gap between a teacher and a judge.
--
AuntieSpam

From:	Terry Spragg
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:16:08 -0400

Jack Dale wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:31:48 -0500, Jean Dufour
> wrote:
>
> Jean
>
> As a former Social Studies teacher I must say. "Well researched and
> well written."
>
> Jack

Jack,

It seems unclear to me exactly what you are saying. Did you teach
english, too?

Terry K

From:	Terry Spragg
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:03:31 -0400

Jean Dufour wrote:
> Terry Spragg wrote:
>>The gov has no power to regulate pleasure, only commerce.

> Not true! Constitutional Act 1867, section IV, article 91, class 10.
> see at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html
>
> It is a federal jurisdiction to make laws over navigation whether it's for
> commerce or pleasure. Navigation it says and when you cruise for pleasure,
> you navigate. The term is not restrictive in a court of law else it'd be
> labelled as "commercial navigation".

Operation is not the same as navigation. The law does not purport to
restrict kids on logs or other pleasures on our waters. For boats in
navigable water where shipping may be present, prudence is required,
and liability ensues. For small craft not in shipping lanes, no
regulations beyond identification are required, and those only to
protect the rights of ownership and liability in the event damages
occur as a result of negligent disregard for the rights of others.

There is a difference for inland and navigable waters. The
regulations are intended to protect public rights against commercial
interests.

>>To impune a man's right to pleasure is to jail him unjustly.

> Then, if it's for his own pleasure, I guess you'd have no objection against
> someone shooting people in the street! Rape is very pleasant to rapists.
> Paul Bernardo would love you! He did all that for his pleasure.

Oh, get a life. If you commit a crime against a free man there is
reason for a free man (or person, sorry ladies, the language is a
little unwieldy sometimes) to lodge a complaint. Without a complaint
there is no reason for the government, whom we elect and empower
under contract and oath, to harass free people over minor alleged
violations of the commercial code of justice regulations, and you
know it. Commercial code regulations are intended to regulate
commercial users of property which belongs to the public, not to the
commercial operator, and certainly not to the government civil
servant contracted stewards of our common property, paid for out of
our taxes. The public consists of us, free electors, not government,
which cannot own the water, nor regulate the owner's lawful
pleasure. The common law is based on the golden rule and equality
before the law. If it's good for the goose, it' s good for the
gander. If you don't want to be murdered, don't murder, if you
don't want your stuff stolen, don't steal, and this applies to
government authority, administered by human persons contracted to
perform a service to we, the people, who wield the only authority in
this democracy and free country. We demand that commercial vehicles
pay a fee to use our roads, etc.

Don't go communist on me, we do have a right to own property, so
obviously that it is not necessary for it be enshrined in
regulation, or do you contend that no one may freely own property?

In one small way, I would agree that our possessions own us, in that
we must take care of them if we want to use them, in terms of
training, maintenance, fuel, etc. For that matter the earth owns
our bodies, we only borrow them from God. We do not have to ask
permission from the government, our servants, to use our own property.

If you don't believe it you will wind up in jail for theft. Unless
you are in government, in which case the mob will string you up,
like they did Mussolini, for the commie socialist fascist
dictatorial tyrannical enemy of freedom and all free men that you
are, or seem to be, in innocent misinformed, illogical ignorance.

You sound quite daft to me and I hope to all other free men.
The americans won their freedom by revolution similar to the
uprising which imposed the Magna Charta on the tyrant king, at sword
point in 1066. It was required reading when I was a boy in school,
and you should read it too. Canada won it's freedom under a contract
from the Monarch subject to it under God. All law in Canada must
support the Magna Charta, or God and the King commands an uprising
and death to those who would vote to pass any law violating the
eternal and undeniable rights of a free people enforced in it.

That's us, right? RIGHT!

Buy me a beer, mate, we'll drink to freedom, or die trying.
>
>>but I can't force you to excercise your rights if you are afraid of
>>them, or need an authorotative mommy to protect you from some evil
>>you do not recognise. There must be a complainant and evidence before
>>justice can force retribution, and that is the basis of the common law,
>>wether you like it or not.

>
> Then rip the numbers of your boat, (because I think you still have them on
> or plainly have no boat)

I have been peacefully enjoying the freedom of sailing my own boat
for over 30 years, youngster. I own my own navigable shoreline, and
welcome all free men who need to moor there.

> go take a ride alongside a RCMP or whatever
> provinvial, municipal patrols that enforce the law in your area and you'll
> sure have your day in court. If they miss it, you can also surrender
> yourself to the local authorities saying you commited an infringement of
> the Small Vessel Regulation and won't comply to their stupid law. Don't ask
> other people to do it for you.

>>We are a free people. Free from what you say?

> Article 1 of the Charter of Rights says we are free in this manner:
>
> 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
> freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by
> law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
>

Other rights are guaranteed undeniably and eternally by common law.
Read the Magna Charta, the lawful foundation and authority for the
Canadian charter. It has been The Common Law for a thousand years.
It will never change, while men are men. Women like it too.

The common law is all a free man requires. The Napoleonic code is
for the french in France, is possibly more expansive, and is also
guaranteed by law forged by the revolution against the tyranny of
unbridled, lawless power. It's principal is Justice, Equality, and
Fraternity, if I recall. It's their business, not mine.

It is not necessary to obtain permission from the gov for any
pleasure you may choose or invent in Canada or America, so long as
there is no reason for anyone to complain. That is called freedom
and Habeus Corpus.

> Get yourself elected if you wan't democracy to have anything to do with
> your issues over the laws on navigation.

Men have been elected and are sworn under legal contract to defend
the law under the constitution and bill of rights in the name of the
people as servants and stewards of the public accounts. Woe to them
that violate it.

I believe they should all be audited as contracted employees and
should be required to demonstrate their competence and sobriety by
regular drug tests, just like bus drivers or commercial pilots.
Cocaine money does not show up in audits, but users are subject to
extortion. I don't want such types employed in my government services.

I will simply ignore unjust laws, until they become onerous enough
that we must take up arms in defense of justice and lawful laws.
That is our right and duty. Sue me. I'll sue you back.

>>Free from oppressive rich bastards who think they can tell the serfs
>>what to do, or not do.

> You may want to make the Charter say what you want but it doesn't. Again, I
> will take my example of licence plates on cars.

There is a school of argument that says they are an unlawful
regulation and violation of human rights exceeding a reasonable
requirement for identification placards, as we should not be
required to pay a fee to use our own roads, bought and paid for by
taxes. Registration of identity plates might be required to enable
apprehension of hit and run, or safety notices under warranty, but
that might be an optional service to be sold and purchased freely in
the marketplace and maintained by manufacturers seeking to mitigate
their liability and lost sales if they were not to offer such
warranty protection or for safety reasons.

The manufacturers could make that information registration
available to police in pursuit with a warrant. This argument holds
for the gun registry, by the way, another waste of taxpayers' money,
an unnecessary and useless, untrustworthy burden on police staff.
But to impose a penalty or fee on people who have not committed any
crime of torts, who do not require a license to break the law by
stealing the use of our publicly owned roads is a violation of a
person's right to be considered innocent until proved guilty.
Commercial users of our roads are subject to the code of commercial
regulation, fair weights and measures, and are required to register
as fee paying licensed users and to display such license clearly.
Did you ever check those big trucks for plates? Why not enforce
their compliance, if they would illegally enforce it on we
innocents? Lobbyists?

But, enough folks agree there is a need to identify offenders who
hit and run, that we tolerate it for justice's sake, even with
inefficient administration, regulation and application, under the
dictatorship of the democratic majority over the rights of the
minority who differ. Someone with the wherewithal may void that
requirement some day, given the errors in it's administration. I
would oppose complete deregulation as would the majority. There
have been referenda concerning this, I believe. No law will ever be
final so long as lawyers will argue it in the supreme court. It
isn't worth another revolution, as it is not unbridled tyranny.

You drive around without
> them? Them numbers of a licenced boat or the name for a registered boat
> have the same purpose of tracing you out if you commit an infraction with
> it or commit a crime with it such as wreckless driving. I know, I already
> had one been caught for that.

So, you are a convicted criminal offender, then? your own advice and
practice has served you so well that we should listen to your logic?

>
>>The law is to protect free people from damages caused by others, and
>>don't you ever forget it, or you will become a slave to whomever can
>>intimidate you.

> There, you said it yourself and this cigarette boat that was intimidating
> me and other boaters by passing at 70 milles an hour very close to us was
> caught thanks to his licence number.

I have no problem with requiring identification numbers, so that the
rightful owner of a vessel may be ascertained, if there is lawful
reason to need to identify him. Otherwise I support our right to
privacy and freedom from harassment.

>>If you want the real skinney, contact the libertarian party of
>>Canada, and support them.

> Call a horse a horse: The Anarchist Party of Canada. They're even affraid
> to show their true colors.
>
I don't believe that.

I am not an anarchist. I believe in a logical and correct
administration of justice under lawfully consistent laws. I do not
know each and every Libertarian personally, so I will not slander
them as a group, or defame them as you so unlawfully do, you
admitted, convicted, antisocial, illogical, bigoted, tyrannical,
dictatorial, criminal, you, unless you "misspoked" yourself. In
which case, I offer my humblest apology.

Some government weasels want to limit our democratic control over
them, by spin quackery and propaganda, and destruction of our
historically defined language for reasons unclear but likely to
include bribery, graft and extortionist commercial lobbyist lawyer
prostitutes seeking to undermine not only every contract ever
written, but even our right and power to make lawful and willingly
enjoined contracts which we are bound to honor by the common law.

This is a country governed by the common law, and equal justice for
everyone, innocent until proved otherwise.

Read the Magna Charta, it governs us all, thank God and the common
man, so long as the language is unequivocally comprehensible. We
must defend the reputability of our language. No government may
dictate any change in it's historical meaning without destroying
logic itself.

"Tack" will never mean "gybe." Navigators who can not keep even that
much straight deserve damp, lonely deaths, or ports and customs
unexpected.

Terry K

From:	Jean Dufour
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:40:17 -0500

Terry Spragg wrote:

> You drive around without
> > them? Them numbers of a licenced boat or the name for a registered boat
> > have the same purpose of tracing you out if you commit an infraction with
> > it or commit a crime with it such as wreckless driving. I know, I already
> > had one been caught for that.
>
> So, you are a convicted criminal offender, then? your own advice and
> practice has served you so well that we should listen to your logic?

If you read the laws as badly as you read me, no wonder this argument is getting
nowhere:

I HAD THE CIGARETTE BOAT OWNER/OPERATOR ARRESTED AND CONVICTED.

Understand whatever you want about the law, do whatever you wish with your boat,
you DO have the right to challenge the law then ensue the consequences if you
are convicted of an infraction.

As your distinction between inland and coastal waters, It already had been
dismissed by the Supreme Court in "whitbread v. walley" in which they made the
following interpretation:

"The nature of navigation and shipping activities as they are practised in
Canada makes a uniform maritime law which encompasses navigable inland waterways
a practical necessity. Much of the navigational and shipping activity on
Canada's inland waterways is closely connected with that which takes place
within the traditional geographic sphere of maritime law. Much of maritime law
is the product of international conventions and the legal rights and obligations
of those engaged in navigation and shipping should not arbitrarily change as
their vessels cross the point at which the water becomes or ceases to be tidal.
Such a geographic divide is completely meaningless from a division of powers
perspective for it does not indicate any fundamental change in the use to which
a waterway is put. In this country, both tidal waters and inland navigable
waterways are part of the same navigational network and should be subject to a
uniform legal regime."

http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1990/1990scc138.html

The distinction between pleasure craft and commercial ship was also dismissed in
the judge's comments over this same case:

"The inclusion of pleasure craft within the ambit of maritime law gains further
support, by way of analogy, from the jurisprudence on the federal government's
jurisdiction over aeronautics. Once Canadian waters are conceived of as a single
navigational network, it becomes clear that the activity of navigation is very
akin to the activity of aeronautics, and it seems to me that the factual
similarity should lead to similar constitutional treatment. In Johannesson v.
Municipality West St. Paul, [1952] 1 S.C.R 292, this Court ruled that
aeronautics was a distinct legislative matter that came within Parliament's
power to make laws for the "peace, order and good government of Canada". This
was because it was a matter that went "beyond local or provincial concern or
interests and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the Dominion as a
whole". As such, it satisfied the test espoused in Attorney-General for Ontario
v. Canada Temperance Federation, [1946] A.C. 193, at p. 205. As pointed out by
Professor Hogg, dicta in both Johannesson and the earlier Privy Council decision
of In re Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada (The Aeronautics
Reference), [1932] A.C. 54, suggested that federal jurisdiction over aeronautics
extended to intraprovincial as well as interprovincial aeronautics, and the
Court of Appeal for British Columbia quickly ruled to this effect; see Jorgenson
v. North Vancouver Magistrates (1959), 28 W.W.R. 265, and Hogg, op. cit., at p.
496. Professor Hogg goes on to suggest that "the most plausible reason for
subjecting local airlines to the same regime as the interprovincial and
international airlines is the fact that both kinds of carriers share the same
airspace and ground facilities, so that their operations are necessarily closely
integrated"; op. cit., at p. 496.

In my view, this interpretation of the jurisprudence on federal aeronautics
jurisdiction is directly applicable to the case at bar and the question it
raises as to the scope of Parliament's jurisdiction over maritime law. What
Professor Hogg says of local airlines and interprovincial and international
airlines can, with appropriate modifications, equally be said of pleasure craft
and commercial ships -- they share the same waterways and (in many cases) the
same port facilities "so that their operations are necessarily closely
integrated". This integration points to the need for a uniform regulatory and
legal regime in the case of navigation and shipping as much as it does in the
case of aeronautics. It points, in other words, to the need for a broad reading
of the relevant head of federal jurisdiction. I would think that if this need
can be accommodated in respect of aeronautics, which comes within Parliament's
narrowly interpreted power to legislate for the "peace order and good
government" of Canada, it can surely be accommodated in respect of the
activities that come within Parliament's jurisdiction over navigation and
shipping since, as I pointed out earlier, that head of power has always been
broadly interpreted."

Supreme court dismissed the case with costs. If you have that kind of money to
loose in a case where the jurisprudence says you're wrong, go ahead, be my
guest. T'won't cost me a penny personally.

And Auntie Spam: If you're willing to accept Mr. Spragg interpretation over the
opinion of the majority of experienced boaters who advised you on the opposite,
I wonder why you bothered to ask the question here in the first place. Make your
own interpretation by yourself, you'll have a hard time coming with worst advice
than his.

Jean Dufour
Montreal, Qc

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 04:02:09 GMT

Jean Dufour wrote:

> And Auntie Spam: If you're willing to accept Mr. Spragg interpretation over the
> opinion of the majority of experienced boaters who advised you on the opposite,
> I wonder why you bothered to ask the question here in the first place. Make your
> own interpretation by yourself, you'll have a hard time coming with worst advice
> than his.
>
> Jean Dufour
> Montreal, Qc
====
I didn't start this thread nor did I enter it with a question. Comments
were made and I responded. In defense of Terry, I have to say that I
appreciate his views and what he has said. I also have to say that I
appreciate the views of others, including yourself. I don't disagree
with you, but I believe there are two different government systems and
this is how both you and Terry can be correct in your opinions, yet
miles apart in agreeing.

Personally, I don't believe there is any authority with carte blanche to
pass legislation which contravenes human rights (not withstanding
legislation passed with a sunset clause, such as martial law or
terrorist Acts). However, there is a legal spin that misleads people
into thinking that that there is only one system of government.

The quick of it is that Natural Persons and Artificial Persons both
exist and are both different. Artificial persons do not have
inalienable human rights, family rights, nor property rights, but
natural persons do. I'm not attempting to educate anyone on the matter
of sailing unlicensed, but I am definitely researching it with the
intent that if I am able to do so legally, then I will.

Unfortunately, the deal I was pursuing on a boat has hit a snag and the
owner and myself have decided not to proceed at this time. Perhaps I
will start a new thread where I will ask for advice on the purchase of
this boat and what a reasonable offer would be. The positive aspect of
it though, is that it gives me a bit more time to establish more
specifically how and where I am fully within my right to sail my
unregistered and unlicensed boat and if it is within my right to do so.
After all, I don't want to break any laws, I just want to exercise my
rights. If I get to that point, I'll be sure to come back and let you
all know what happened and how it happened, though it really doesn't
seem that anyone would be too interested.

We ought to let this thread pass in the night since it's not really
relevant to sailing anymore.
--
AuntieSpam

From:	AuntieSpam
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:34:52 GMT

Karl Pollak wrote:

> AuntieSpam wrote:
>
>
>>There, now. This makes sense. I don't question this.
>
>
> You should question it. It was nothing but sheer nonsense.
====
I didn't see it as that at all. There were some very good points made
and on the whole, it shows me that there are some people who don't
believe all things are as they appear... especially in the great
bureaucratic system of ours.

--
AuntieSpam

From:	Karl Pollak
Subject:	Re: Hamilton Port Authority
Date:	Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:22:36 GMT

x-no-archive: yes
randy@yachtware.net (Randy) wrote:

>For those of you who didn't know, I have for some time been
>challenging the Hamilton Port Authority on its conduct, their un-fair
>business practices and anti-competition behaviour will and has been
>affecting the industry, that is to say in Hamilton there is no
>competition , the port Authority won't allow it, for some you would
>say "so what" well aside from limiting were and how much you will
>spend, telling you what you can and can't do on your and my public
>port

I think that first of all, you shoold consult a qualified lawyer. It is
quite clear from your post that you do not have much of a grasp of the
issues involved. Not to mention that it is not a very good idea for you to
be discussing the merits (if any) of your case here, before you present
your argument before the judge. Normally, that is considered to be
contempt of court. Nobody will send you to jail over it, but it does not
win you any friends in court, either.

It is apparent that you consider the Port Authority to be a private
enterprise. It is not, it is a Crown agency and as such it has no business
in being in any competition. The responsibility for ports belongs to the
Federal Crown and it has delegated some of its duties as well as powers to
the local authority.

>What may make matter worse is that The Hamilton Port Authority could
>very well take over the Ontario lake area,

Yes, if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tells them to do so.

>When you run into problems with them, don't bother complaining
>because they are there own government.

Actually, they are the Queen's government.
But let's not bicker over minor details.

>On February 25th, 2005 I am in court with the port over my right to
>enter their controlled lands like the Harbour or the marina, they
>simple don't want my kind there, and that makes me fighting mad, ...

Depends, Ihave a sneaking suspicion thatif you approach them as you suggest
here, that they may have a good reason for not wanting you there. Oh by
the way, your right to enter their lands? It does not exist. You just
don't have one of those.

>As a boater my right to access our water ways is top of my list, you
>might want to make it yours as well.

The Ministre has the powers to designate which waters or lands are
accessible to you and which are not. That is an absolute discretionalry
power and no court can change that. You are wasting your time.

Now there is a right that you do have, the right to waste your own time.

--
Greetings from Lotusland