September 7, 2011 - Inconsistencies

Inconsistencies
There are many issues which I see as inconsistencies in  Ontario's justice system. Let's look at some over the next few blogs...

Every judge and Justice I've asked, to date, tells me that maxims of law have standing in their court. A maxim is basically case law that is above contestation. Memorize a few of these, they empower! A maxim of law, per Bouvier's Law Dictionary is defined as:

MAXIM. An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.

A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved by all.

"An action is not given to one who is not injured."

This seems simple enough, but if upheld in court most of the revenue collected for "driving offences" would dry up. 

Law is suppose to be remedial, that is, when someone has been injured the law is suppose to step in and impose a remedy, some sort of compensation. The one causing should have to compensate the one injured.

Most "driving offences" are based on the possibility that 'the public' might be injured. In other words, no one has, as yet, been injured. While that may sound like an agreeable route to take, it has become the bases for the loss of an untold number of our rights. Think of all the 'offences' for which we can be charged where no one was injured. 

In any real offence—Criminal or Civil in nature—an injury must have already occurred.

While we have been programmed to think that charging those who might hurt us is good, you have to ask yourself, "Is that just?"

Use what you read here as a part of your research to establish your understanding.
Your actions remain your responsibility.
All natural rights reserved. © 2012 steven, a man. <><