1. OFFER - political promises made prior to the voting.
2. ACCEPTANCE - by the electorate (voting into Office)
3. INTENTION - To win Party control of the Government, candidates make promises and the electorate accept these promises.
4. SUFFICIENT & EQUAL CONSIDERATION - For the electorate vote the candidate/Party promises to ....
5. CERTAINTY OF TERMS & CONDITIONS - The voters elect the candidate (Party) to be the ruling Party for a maximum of 5 years under the conditions of offer candidates have made on behalf of their respective Parties.
6. MENTAL & LAWFUL CAPACITY TO CONTRACT - Age of majority to run and/or vote.
7. LEGALITY OF PURPOSE - A writ has been dropped to elect a Government.
8. GENUINE CONSENT (knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily)- Name on ballot/name on voters list.
There is a contract make between the various parties and the electorate who elect their candidate to the office of MP/MPP. To enter into a contract with false intentions (lies when asking for the vote) is to create a fraud. There are laws governing fraud that
would punish those who deceive.
A judge that tries to interfere with a contract is an interloper. He/she may only see that the legal contract is fulfilled as to the content (promise/acceptance & conditions) of said contract.
Therefor elected MPs/MPPs take note, the electorate will, under the rules of contract, be able to take legal action against you if you fail to satisfy your part of the contract.
When the electorate of Canada vote you into Office, on the basis of your promises,
and as MPs/MPPs you do not carry out the stated/printed promises, there could be a class action suit because you neglected to satisfy your part of the contract. We executed our part of the contract by electing you to Office. You are therefore obligated
to honour your part of the contract.
FYI “A contract is a legally recognized agreement made between two or more persons. Such agreement gives rise to obligations that may be enforced in the court, the failure to observe which creates a liability to pay compensation in the form of damages.” G. Fridman
Law of Contract in Canada 3 (1976)
VOTERS put your Mps/MPPs on notice. By casting your vote in favour of your elected candidate, and the candidate accepting the results (win) you have a binding assumpsit contract.
{This was sent to every sitting member in Ottawa and Queens Park. None refused the contract. After 20 legal days it became a binding Common Law Contract.}
Glenn Hutton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts
Note: http://en.wikipedia.org...
What Makes A Contract?
Posted on Sunday, February 25 at 12:27 by DiogenesContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
This also, of course, assumes that the member reading this actually cares.
That final assumption is the crux of the matter.
As long as members are willing slaves to their so-called "leaders" and the "official party line", they are of absolutely no use whatsoever to the electorate they are supposed to be representing.
And like all slaves, they'll do whatever their masters bidding is; after all, no one enjoys the feel of the lash on their back.
Now, just who their masters really are, now that is a question worthy of the asking.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
The author has knowledge of contract law and ca contract, a social contract has been violated by those we elected as it the case with the BC Liberal who once elected as a liberal switched to the Cons, and confidence men they are
There may be strong grounds for a suit
I am at the point of suggesting a two tiered form of governance. those who do not vote to bear the brunt of taxations and other government grabs, bad law and legisation
and those who actually participate in democracy to reap any benefits
As it stands elected officials and their minions are in a private club of sorts, are they not?
---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]
it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"
lex ferenda
The question is, will any court have the balls to follow through with a lawsuit?
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
what I see mainly on these pages is the constant seeking of authority that is already ours,
Our Greatest Fear —Marianne Williamson
it is our light not our darkness that most frightens us
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous,
talented and fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small does not serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other
people won't feel insecure around you.
We were born to make manifest the glory of
God that is within us.
It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone.
And as we let our own light shine,
we unconsciously give other people
permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear,
Our presence automatically liberates others.
-Marianne Williamson
And from what Is we DO play small
In fact I know of no one who plays large with out an usurpt power from us.
---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]
it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"
lex ferenda
I don't recall the name of the judge or the lawsuit that he ruled on, it was during the last century.
Listen, I am a pretty RED Tory, but even I know that his is very poor reasoning. Crossing the Floor pre-dates the BNA Act and is a long and acceptable part of Westminster parliamentary custom and convention. Thus, in terms of our system - it is valid and constitutional.
Constitutionality in this Country is based on Law, Custom, and Convention - and NOT on legal interpretation and innovation or rhetoric. Your legal argument is rhetoric and would not hold-up in Court.
Do you understand the difference between representative democracy and delegational (direct) democracy?
have your ever read Burke's "Letter to the Sheriff of Bristol"? Have you read JS Mill's musing this issue?
You will get your chance to to punish Emerson - at the next election.
---
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ (Edmund Burke)
---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.
<br />
I have stated my case incorrectly judging by your response and I didn’t realise one political affiliations had anything to do with ones ability to reason, so thank you for your input as it may help me to understand how the political mind works.<br />
<br />
Although the argument is not mine it does seem to make sense as it was presented by its author. That a mans word , whether in politics or not is not good says much about the man and that liars are accepted as politicians says more about the electorate, in which case we the electorate fully deserve the politicians and laws we get.<br />
<br />
The concept of truth and honour having fallen by the wayside is what has give rise to the criminality prevalent in the world of today, Now that I realise there is only ones internal moral compass (whatever it may be) to guide then in that case we truly are living in kaos.<br />
<br />
Phoney wars for phoney reasons, profit before people, epidemic crack cocaine being used openly in the streets most likely brought to these shores by the Cocaine Importing Agency (CIA) according to already know evidence, rouge RCMP and other police forces killing with impunity, and the list goes on, seems to be just fine and dandy to a servile population according to your reasoning of what are acceptable behaviours. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I haven’t read the literature spoken of, perhaps it will come my way but if it is recommended because it justifies your position, perhaps I am better of without it. <br />
<br />
Moral bankruptcy must stop where it is convenient for you and your Tory crew, no matter the colour <br />
Extracted from a wiki article by Ron Dart,<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory</a> <br />
<br />
“As right-wing support for the Federal Progressive Conservatives bled away to the Reform Party and then the Canadian Alliance, Red Tories increasingly gained control of the federal party. After the victory of the "Blue Tory" Peter MacKay at the 2003 PC Convention, and in violation of a contract signed with the Red Tory David Orchard, MacKay merged the Tories with Stephen Harper's Alliance.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>---<br> [juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]<br />
<br />
it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights" <br />
<br />
lex ferenda
It tells me that the entire system makes up the perfect definition of "conflict of interest" and that we can expect nothing but more of the same crap and worse from the ruling establishment.
They've lost my mind long ago. They only way they control me these days is 100% through coercion, and that's increasingly not working as I learn how to better deal with these assholes. I tell everyone who'll listen what the deal is so that more can be free of the bullshit. When there's finally not enough suckers left to fool, that's when the establishment will spontaneously fall. If we're really lucky, what will rise from the ashes will be a little better than before.
So you are a "pretty RED Tory", eh? Well good for you, but I sure hope you're at least female!
Jokes aside, I read the wikipedia definition and it gave me a headache instead of any insight as to what the "Red Tory" religion is all about.
My only serious question to you is how can anyone say they are an X, Y and Z and still have a mind that's open to alternate points of view and continual inquiry?
You'll have to define "punish" for us. I hope most people will see through the fog on that kind of claim. So, when the voters "punish" Emerson, he'll walk away in greater comfort than before he was "punished". Oh my, that's so scary, and obviously it's not scary enough to make Emerson back off.
In closing, the issue in question is all about the on going fraud committed during the last election. The next election won't help those who have been wronged and it won't stop Emerson from ripping off all of those who he lied to, and it most certainly won't stop the next bribe taking liar from crossing over.
What's your advise, suggest that the voters consult their favorite astrology charts or something?
Of course not, since the laws are made up by the liars on the campaign trail and enforced by their appointees.
should have been addressed to the pretty red truly tory
---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]
it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"
lex ferenda