Saturday, November 7, 2009

A blogger by the name of Malaclypse IV sounds suspiciously the same as the Registrar of the UDS

"Right... "if you are not with us, you are against us." Who else said that?"

I have no idea who said that; of course, I didn't. What I did say is that Scented Nectar's vitriol is of the same form and content as that of the VPD's low-ranking officers and of Sheriff Services. There are plenty of ways to be supportive, but utilizing the rhetoric of the oppressors is probably not one of them.

"Super Nova?"

Or any release of photons, really. They take time to travel, and, so, those closer to the event receive them first; and those up in orbit are obviously closer to extra-planetary events than those sucking along on the ground. So, to extend the metaphor, we've got a Space Station up in orbit beaming fantastically sensitive pictures back down to the ground, and the rabble are disbelieving them because they don't actually believe that civillians are capable of fashioning their own vehicles capable of obtaining temporal escape velocity---which is only 11m/s, you know.

It's highly metaphorical, but, then, so is government.
Regardless, I don't see why you take fun in bringing others down, man---like, do you do psychedelics with people and tell them how stupid and wrong their trips are? It seems rather clear that the Society's form is peaceful and fun, so why get all hung up negatively on the specific content? Positive hangups are welcome, but a negative hangup, well, that's just grabbing ahold to tear down the coatrack, as it were---we built The Unincorporated Deuteronomical Coatrack as a place for your livery, should you choose it; it was not built as a sink for vicious and petty invective.

And I know all of this sounds odd given the temper of our Chief Justice, but, come on, he is a Chief Justice! How many of you have been acknowledged as a Chief Justice by Canada?

"'They' are all the people and laws standing in the way of what Bud's doing."

Well, insofar as "the way" is a road, they seem to be getting out of Bud's way. They tried to have Bud do things their way, but he wouldn't play properly in their field, so they told him "get out of our way!" and ejected him from the Courthouse. So Bud's not in their way, and they are certainly not going to leave their way for Bud's way---as it were.

Also, these things you call laws, they are not laws; they are acts, like conveyances of land, birth certificates, etc. They're not "laws" except insofar as you may be required or may desire to call them such.

"And if you are saying the VPD etc, share my view that Bud's going to get a dangerous label, then that just proves my point - which is that that is how they will view him."

I am saying that low-ranking VPD officers and members of the Sheriff Services make the same sort of slanderous observations as you. What this shows is that both they and you have difficulty interpretting the peaceful actions of others without recourse to the categories of mental illness; historically, you would have said something like "he's a witch!" or accused Bud of practicing Dark Magic or of being possessed by a demon---indeed, it is a sort of magic, to use words in the way that we have, but that is another topic entirely. What on earth is a "dangerous label"?

"Personally, I don't think he's any real threat to the gov't and their status quo, since his methods are ineffective. But they'll probably flag him as a potential loose cannon. I'm not wishing this on him, just warning him to be careful."

Ineffective? The matter was struck from the list last time Bud went to Court, and nothing has come of it since; Bud has spoken with a higher-up in Canada's Public Prosecution Office, and she's given no hint that any new process against Bud the Oracle is forthcoming. What is ineffective about this? It's certainly not finished, but to call it ineffective---if this is ineffective, surely most other efforts are also ineffective, no? Tell me, is Bud being more or less effective than someone who pleads guilty?

"But that's not over yet for sure. They haven't dismissed it. Who knows what's coming?"

Dismissed what? It is nothing appurtenant to Chief Justice Buf the Oracle. More or less, the loop, as it were, has already been run. IT is this:

(I) Arrest as KLAUS KACZOR
(II) Night in Jail
(III) Court in morning, under duress, voiding any extractd recognizance.
(IV) Day of Recognizance's Return: "I am not Klaus Kaczor, I am Chief Justice Bud the Oracle as it says in this parliamentary record. Your inferior court should have no trouble syncing up with Parliament..."
(V) JP: "Uh...this is Mr. kaczor's matter. IF you're not Mr. Kaczor, stop disrupting our court!"

And that is that, more or less, with (II) possibly extended.

"Noooooooo! Not this again. frown Go away with all that freeman crap about laws vs acts. It means nothing since you're required to follow both, you get into legal shit if you get caught breaking both, and no one has ever won immunity from all acts anyways."

You simply don't seem to get it. It's not about "winning" immunity as though it were a prize to be handed down by some superior. If you're going to use incredibly precise terms like "legal shit", I'm just not certain why you feel so strongly on this matter...further, statements of the form "no one has ever" are v. difficult to prove.

"Apples and oranges. Bud's trying to claim that he's allowed to break all the laws that are called 'acts'."

No, he is not trying to claim that at all. He is not trying to claim that he is "allowed to break all laws" or any laws. The acts of a society have the force of law over the members of that Society. Bud is not a member of Canada, and, therefore its acts have no force of law over him. Now, one cannot say 'I am not a part of any society' but it is an accepted intercultural norm that every man carry some body of positive law with him. And Bud does: the same as Elizabeth II. Elizabeth I was once indicted similarly to Bud, and, similarly to Bud, though she was indicted in her proper person, she refused to plea: monarchs and heads of state do not plea before men.

"You can't assume that someone who pleads guilty is competing with Bud for effectiveness. There are many reasons why people plead, and you can't assume they are all activists trying to effect change."

Well, a plea is a great shot in the arm to the status quo, so, if they're not trying to effect change, what're they trying to do, cement the status quo? There are many justifications as to why people plead, but, to my mind, there is one statement sufficient to render all guilty pleas to cannabis charges incorrect, except for pragmatic reasons: the charge is unjust, and it is improper to countenance an unjust charge with a guilty plea. A guilty plea is not merely a bare admittance of the facts contained in the indictment; a guilty plea implies acceptance of the justness of the law under which one is charged, for who but an unreasonable person would knowingly plead guilty to an undue charge?

"Buf? Bud IS Klaus K in every legal way as far as responsibility for his actions goes. If he did something under the name Klaus, he is still responsible after changing his name to Bud.", they're not the same person at all. Chief Justice Bud the Oracle is a person in his own right, and this is well evidenced by the Record of the Justice Committee meeting. Klaus Kaczor did not "change his name" to Bud. The name plate from the House of Commons says Chief Justice Bud the Oracle---nothing about Klaus Kaczor.

"Stage II arrest will be even more extended the next time he get brought in for anything. Perjury. He should have admitted that KK used to be his name. Instead he pretended KK had nothing to do with him."

Uh, sorry, arrests cannot be extra-judicially lengthened. Perhaps things will get crazy during the olympics due to suspension of much judicial process, but who knows. As for your talk of perjury, that is simply silly. Ed Fast called him Bud the Oracle in parliament; Klaus Kaczor did not used to be Bud the Oracle's name; they're two different persons. The situation is different from one person changing that person's name to something else; this is the adoption of an entirely different persona. It would make more sense if you thought of persons as masks instead of something integral to a body, etc.

"It should be very easy to prove. Bud is using the freeman cult's method of affidavitted immunity claims and made up fee demands. The 'win' of this method is an esstopple that has been court validated. As shown in that very long thread on the freemen, not even the cult leaders have got that yet."

No, Bud the Oracle was created Chief Justice at the First Parliament of The Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society, which was held openly in the court at The University of British Columbia's George F. Curtis Law Building. The Parliament was held openly, and advance notice was given. He also read all of Deuteronomy. This would be kooky even by freeman standards; many of them are mature, responsible adults, you see...

so, once the Society was created, I decided it would be good for us to go before some Parliamentary Committee, etc. to get the Chief Justice on Record as such---and it happened, so that's great. So, Canada can never pull a "you're just this guy, we have no idea what Bud the Oracle is; you're crazy!" If Bud is crazy, Parliament is crazy, too, because he's just saying what appears in Parliamentary Record.

"Bud IS a member of Canada. His pretend society does not have their own country."

We have our own country; their names are in a big red file folder. We're not big, but we're small, etc. etc. Chief Justice Bud the Oracle is from The Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society, not Canada.

"He lives in Canada, is a citizen of Canada, and obviously subject to Canada's rules, including the ones called 'acts'."

Well, no, he lives on Mount Pleasant. He is not subject to acts of Canada, though, of course, he is subject to acts of God, such as contained in the new and old testament. You're free to live in Canada, tho, I have no idea what that is---some sort of federation, like on Star Trek?

"Blather on about monarchy all you want, but what's that going to get you? Bud is no monarch or head of state, except maybe of Delusionaland."

That is simply untrue; he is Chief Justice of The Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society. This position stands in relation to the Society's proper Monarch as Chief Justiciar Ranulph de Glanvil stood to his King, who was off fightin' crusades. So, he is not quite a monarch de jure, but he is an acting monarch, while the King is away. He wore his own Crown in the House of Commons, when it was sitting at Vancouver as the Justice Committee. You were not there, so perhaps you cannot appreciate the signifigance of this fact...

"Plea whatever you want. The court doesn't figure or even care that you find the law unjust, they just want to know if you did the thing you are charged with."

So far the tack for Bud has been to avoid pleas, as pleas are what create justiciable controversies, that is, A pleads X and B pleads Y, and the judge must decide whose plea is better. Guilty/Not Guilty is not just wanting to know whether or not you "did the thing you are charged with." Even straight that isn't true; one may have comitted the act with which one is charged but plead not guilty of necessity, etc. etc. Not that I am saying Bud is doing that, before you get all head up about how he's not going to meet that burden---I'm just saying that a plea is about more than whether or not one did what one was charged with.

"As for status quo, people who plead guilty are not supporting the bad law."

Of course they are. They're giving another notch in the Occupying Canadian Forces' Drugwar Belt. Perhaps I too much believe that things are either increasing or retrograding, but, if that is the case, pleading guilty is hardly an increase in support, so it must be retrograde.

"They are simply people who have to find the best way of dealing with a situation of being arrested. In some cases the best outcome for the person is to plead guilty, and sometimes not."

Best outcome considered in terms of what? How can it be "best" to plead guilty to a charge under an unjust law? Maybe it is "better" than pleading not guilty for selfish reasons, but "best"?

"Mal, you are a theocratic nutbar. Who are you to declare that the god you happen to believe in gets to prohibit things, and that freedom is doing only the things your god allows?"

Oh, if that were it, yeah, that would be a bit much. I can't remember if you had the pleasure of this stuff in the last go-round that was deleted, and I have tried to avoid it because it will simply incite invective, but, since you asked so nicely:

"WE confess and acknawlege Empyris Kingdomis dominiounis and citeis to be distinctit and ordenit be God the poweris and authoritie in the same (be it of Emperouris in thair Empyris of Kingis in thair Realmis Dukis and Princes in thair dominiounis and of vtheris Magistratis in fre cieteis) to be goddis haly ordinance ordenit for manifestatioun of his awin glorie and for the singular profite and commoditie of mankynde sa that quhasaeuer gangis about to tak away or to confound the haill state of ciuile policeis now lang establischit we affirme the same men not onlie to be enemeis to mankynde bot alswa wickitlie to fecht aganis goddis expressit will We farther confess and acknawlege that sic personis as ar placit in authoritie ar to be luifit honourit feirit and haldin in maist reuerend estimatioun becaus that thay ar the lieutennentis of god in quhais sessiounis god him self dois sit and Juge (ye euin the Jugeis and Princes thame selfis) to quhome be God is geuin the sworde to the praise and defence of gude men and to reuenge and punische all oppin malefactouris Mairouer to Kingis Princes rewlaris and magistratis we affirme that cheiflie and maist principallie the conseruatioun and purgatioun of the Religioun appertenis sa that not onlie thay ar appointit for ciuile policie bot alswa for mantenance of the trew religioun and for suppressing of Idolatrie and superstitioun quhatsaeuer As in Dauid Josaphat Ezechias Josias and vtheris heichly commendit for thair zeall in that caise may be espyit And thairfoir we confess and awow that sic as resist the supreme power (doing that thing quhilk appertenis to his charge) do resist goddis ordinance And thairfoir can not be giltless And farther we affirme that quhasaeuer denyis vnto thame thair ayde counsell and confort quhylis the Princes and rewlaris vigilantlie trawaill in executioun of thair office that the same men deny thair help supporte and counsell to God quha be the presence of his lieutennent dois craif it of thame" (1560 Confession of Faith Ratification Act, emphasis added)

"Chap. xix. Of the Law of God

GOD gave to Adam a Law as a Covenant of Works by which he bound him and all his posterity to personall entire exact and perpetuall obedience promised life upon the fulfilling and threatned death upon the breach of it and endued him with power and ability to keep it

THIS Law after his fall continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness and as such was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments and written in two tables the four first commandments containing our duty towards God and the other six our duty to man

BESIDE this Law commonly called Moral God was pleased to give the people of Israel as a Church under age Ceremoniall Laws containing severall typicall ordinances partly of worship prefiguring Christ his graces actions sufferings and benefits and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties all which Ceremoniall Laws are now abrogated under the New Testament

TO them also as a body politick he gave sundry judiciall laws which expired together with the state of that people not obliging any other now further then the generall equity thereof may require

THE Moral Law doth for ever bind all as well justified persons as others to the obedience therof and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it neither doth Christ in the gospell any way dissolve but much strengthen this obligation

ALTHOUGH true believers be not under the Law as a Covenant of Works to be thereby justified or condemned yet it is of great use to them as well as to others in that as a rule of life informing them of the will of God and their duty it directs and binds them to walk accordingly discovering also the sinfull pollutions of their nature hearts and lives so as examining themselves thereby they may come to further conviction of humiliation for and hatred against sin together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience It is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions in that it forbids sin and the threatnings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them although freed from the curse thereof threatned in the Law The promises of it in like manner shew them Gods approbation of obedience and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof although not as due to them by the Law as a Covenant of Works so as a mans doing good and refraining from evil because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other is no evidence of his being under the Law and not under Grace

NEITHER are the forementioned uses of the Law contrary to the grace of the Gospell but do sweetly comply with it the spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God revealed in the Law requireth to be done"
(Confession of Faith Ratification Act 1690)

Very boring, as I said.

"What of people who have different religions, or no religions? Are they to bow to your god and his rules? Do you think everyone should have to follow your god and that's free enough for all, OR, are you saying that Bud should get exemptions based on religious beliefs?"

Other people may do what they like---and even if that were the case, what would be worse about my suggesting that others need bow to my God than your suggestion that Bud need bow to Parliament of Canada and its "rules"? It has nothing to do with religious beliefs; it has to do with the content of the Law of God, a perfect rule of righteousness.

"If that's the case, do it the proper way like Chris is, and you'll have a chance of actually getting it."

No, he is going for something quite different; he is going for a personal exemption that will likely not result in any creation of a regulated market, which is a fine thing, but it is not really enough, imo.

No comments: