June 26, 2011 - The Civil Case

The Civil Case
To have a justiciable civil case there must be a contract with these three elements present:

  1. the meeting of the minds - two or more people come to a voluntary agreement, after full disclosure 
  2. a breach of obligation - one of the parties breaches their obligation as detailed in the agreement
  3. evidence of injury - the other party to the agreement is damaged as a direct result of the breach

This agreement is a contract whether verbal or written.

All three of these elements must be proven in order for a judge to give a ruling.

In the case of a Highway Traffic Act offence, which, as shown in the previous posting, must be civil for the province to have jurisdiction, do we have these three elements? Lets go through each one.

The Meeting of the Minds
Do you have a contract? Well we have a licence. Per Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856:

LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85.

However, look on your driver’s licence for the signatures. I can find only my own. Perhaps being as they consider themselves as issuing authority the fact that they have given you one which you can sign is sufficient. When you applied to enter into this contract were you given full disclosure? 

A Breach of Obligation
If a policy enforcer has ever given you an offence notice, that represents an alleged breach of your obligation.

Evidence of Injury
Here we may have a problem unless you were in an accident. Was someone injured by your failure to come to a complete stop, when you did not put your seat belt on, or when answered your cell phone? 

It seems that our courts of justice have become blind to more than issues of race, colour, religion, gender, etc. Law is suppose to be remedial not preemptive. By that I mean that is suppose to give remedy to the one you have injured. Preemptive means that they charge you because you might hurt someone. The overwhelming case of late is that they injure us (take our money by way of a fine) if we fail to stop or don't have our seat belt on, because our action might hurt someone. That's not law, that's fraud.

If we do not put a stop to that abuse of law all our rights will gradually be taken from us.

Have you noticed that the one issuing a complaint against you in provincial offences court is HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN? How does she or it play in all this...?

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. <><