Nightmare Neighbours in Kelowna

[LordEd]

hondacivicwanted was unable to back up their claims when I asked.

You really don't want him to, unless you want more freemen-based documents and legal interpretations devoid of any reality.

[brounal]

Hmm on the front lines of this stuff as landlord and realtor since deal with lots of landlords and lots of tenants.

My opinion from years of dealing with drug dealers, users...all this stuff...

First legalize marijuana already! At least possession. Its pretty much legalized anyway the police will rarely arrest simple users with small amounts. Its not easy to get search warrants ,and really they are not going to jail for simple possession for very long or at all ,no room in the jails for simple weed smokers.
Just like prohibition with alcohol which also didn't work, so laws dealing with marijuana are not working. And now you have the matter even more muddy with people on medical marijuana.Sure some don't like the smell ,some don't like the idea of it.

Our society is so hypocritical. On one hand we keep talking about the evils of drugs like marijuana. But then every movie you watch from the 70s Cheech and Chong shows right up to the modern Weeds tv series and pretty much every comedy movie coming out of Hollywood shows people smoking weed. Just like they have speed limits of 100km/hr on highway but they still make cars that can go triple that.Some shows even glorify Cocaine use. And now we have Breaking Bad making it look cool to sell and make meth!

There are countries in the world where marijuana is legal ,talking simple possession. Amersterdam pretty sure is one.
Now also pretty sure that hard drugs, cocaine, meth , heroin are illegal still there. I draw the line at hard drugs.
Problem is that many marijuana dealers /users will cross over and do/sell some of the hard ones as well. There are lots of just weed users don't get me wrong but with weed being criminalized it does bring in organized crime into the picture and they can make more money by hooking people on the addictive stuff.

But back to the neighbor thing. I have had to deal recently with some problem tenants. Not simple weed smokers but dealers and dealers/users that were dealing hard drugs. I got rid of them . I have my tricks . Legally to evict can take a very long time .
And they can do a lot of damage to the property in that time. They still did considerable damage to the property before got rid of them. The system is very pro tenant in BC and they need to streamline things both in areas of tenants rights and landlords rights and in areas of general law and punishment for hard drug dealers,weapons punishment sentences,etc.
Police do their best but their hands are so tied with our weak justice system.
But there are ways to get rid of the really bad tenants. And have developed some effective strategies thru the years.
I am not going to go into them here. Most of them I reserve for my clients.

But I think people have a right to live in safety. And many drug users even simple weed users don't have much if any consideration for their neighbors. Sometimes your best answer is to simply move out. But you may find you move and your 60 year old neighbor is on medical marijuana! LOL course that is different from living next to crack dealers and crack whores!

It can be scary to get rid of some of these people. They can be intimidating,they can have weapons,they can threaten,intimidate, sometimes retaliate. And it takes a lot of courage to stand up to them.

But in the end most of them will leave.

[hondacivicwanted]

hondacivicwanted was unable to back up their claims when I asked. You really don't want him to, unless you want more freemen-based documents and legal interpretations devoid of any reality.

waste of time to reply to persons who are unwilling to accept what others may have to say. you can call my argument freemen based documents, your choice. at least answer the following? Are you the one who was in a court with the documents? are you the one who took the time to read and learn the law? if my documents and argument is so bunk and full of bull why am I not in jail found guilty??

I don't consider this a freeman on the land argument as it is not the same. no one from this forum ever asked if i could back up my claims? in less you consider looking for an avenue to attack and discredit.

what would you like to see that may back my claims??

[LordEd]

I don't consider this a freeman on the land argument as it is not the same. no one from this forum ever asked if i could back up my claims? in less you consider looking for an avenue to attack and discredit.

Sure, your cut-and-paste claim of right has absolutely nothing to do with freemanship. You just came up with that idea on your own that the definition of 'person' is somehow optional to you.

That document in itself is enough to discredit you. No other information is needed. Your argument will likely boil down to that drug laws are not actually laws and her constitutional rights are violated in that she was 'doing no harm' per common law.

are you the one who took the time to read and learn the law? if my documents and argument is so bunk and full of bull why am I not in jail found guilty??

I have no idea if you've broken any laws yet. I did spend some time when it was brought up here. I came to a different conclusion. If you are following the process, you will have returned your tax returns for fraud and de-registered your vehicle or created your own license plates. Perhaps it will be for a routine traffic ticket. Perhaps your unsent tax returns will catch up with you. I hope you have the opportunity to present all of your documents and have the opportunity to waste weeks of court time over jurisdiction and attempting to dis-associate your physical self from your legal self, and I hope castanet or another news carrier provides good coverage of your progress.

You will be cheered on and advised by your forums. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the judge's jurisdiction will be loved and any youtube video you sneak out will be considered resounding victories.

And when its all over, this will be your fate: http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2011 ... th-in-jail.

Just remember that you have chosen this way of life. I found the idea of the movement interesting as a theoretical exercise. Anybody using it in reality should be promptly classified with those wearing tinfoil hats.

But feel free to ignore my replies and explain how her rights are violated. I already know the route you will take. Others probably don't. If you can't handle arguing on a simple internet forum, how do you expect to be able to convince a judge with the power to (correctly) charge you with obstruction or contempt?

[hondacivicwanted]

Sure, your cut-and-paste claim of right has absolutely nothing to do with freemanship. You just came up with that idea on your own that the definition of 'person' is somehow optional to you.

That document in itself is enough to discredit you. No other information is needed. Your argument will likely boil down to that drug laws are not actually laws and her constitutional rights are violated in that she was 'doing no harm' per common law.

I have no idea if you've broken any laws yet. I did spend some time when it was brought up here. I came to a different conclusion. If you are following the process, you will have returned your tax returns for fraud and de-registered your vehicle or created your own license plates. Perhaps it will be for a routine traffic ticket. Perhaps your unsent tax returns will catch up with you. I hope you have the opportunity to present all of your documents and have the opportunity to waste weeks of court time over jurisdiction and attempting to dis-associate your physical self from your legal self, and I hope castanet or another news carrier provides good coverage of your progress.

You will be cheered on and advised by your forums. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the judge's jurisdiction will be loved and any youtube video you sneak out will be considered resounding victories.

And when its all over, this will be your fate: http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2011 ... th-in-jail.

Just remember that you have chosen this way of life. I found the idea of the movement interesting as a theoretical exercise. Anybody using it in reality should be promptly classified with those wearing tinfoil hats.

But feel free to ignore my replies and explain how her rights are violated. I already know the route you will take. Others probably don't. If you can't handle arguing on a simple internet forum, how do you expect to be able to convince a judge with the power to (correctly) charge you with obstruction or contempt?

I never posted a cut-and-paste claim of right. lol :dyinglaughing: Are you for real, lord ed? The documents I tried post on this forum are 2 affidavit's and 1 notice of constitutional question.

the Court date for Trial has already come and gone. At the pre trial the Trial Readiness Report from the Prosecutor estimate: 1 day, Defense has raised numerous charter arguments which will likely extend the trial for several days if they are heard.

if you wish to convince the judge have your paperwork ready with copies provided to the court and the prosecutor/crown 14 days before the trial. I had the paperwork in the court file and provided to the crown 2 days before the pre trail. The argument is done on paper, not in person before a judge. just so you know when you are at a court your issue at bar is with the prosecutor/crown not the judge. I am only trying to share of what has already happened in the past, not what I or others may do in the future.

What is this process? returning tax forms, deregistering the motor vehicle and creating your own index marker. it sounds interesting I have never tried it. I do not own a motor vehicle and do not have a index marker.

[Treblehook]

Freemen !! What are these creatures? Endless, nonsensical ramblings that appear to be the work of semi-illiterate neanderthals. What contribution has anyone claiming association to this group made to community or society?

[LordEd]

Since your documents were removed, I can't re-refer to them for accuracy (nor do they belong here). I will re-state this: you DO have to pay taxes, you DO have to have a driver's license (correction from before: in order to drive), the 'law of the land' is defined by parliament/elected officials on behalf of their constituents (us), and if you break the laws you CAN and WILL be punished for it. You can't "opt out" of Canada without leaving the borders.

She was selling controlled substances. Evidence was gathered and she was arrested. There is no constitutional protection for stupidity.

Since you did not agree with this prior, I still classify you under the freeman umbrella and wish you a similar fate.

Since you think there's something charter, lets cross them off.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

Nothing here

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Nope. Drug dealing isn't an expression

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

Nobody stopping her from assembling

(d) freedom of association.

She's free to associate with her customers (just not sell what she was selling)
(Skipping the democratic ones as we aren't talking about her right to vote or the length of political offices)

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

(didn't see her trying to enter or leave)

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Limitation
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

Just to group them together as section 3a negates her pursuit for livelihood in this fashion as there is a valid law in force.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

She's being deprived due to breaking the law

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

She allowed him to enter and remain, and then chose to sell. She was not required or forced to.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Specific law, so not arbitrary

10-13 have to do with the arrest and treatment during arrest, which I don't think is in question. 14 is for an interpreter. 15 is for equality

16-23 official language related,

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Needs to be a right/freedom denied for this to apply.

25-29. Rights of various groups
30. Add Territories as needed where it says 'province'
31. Charter doesn't extend legislative powers
32. Charter applies everywhere in canada



Which point would you like to bring in question?

[Graphite]

Legalizing pot has nothing to do with this thread. Bang your drums elsewhere.

[hondacivicwanted]

Deleted by Trip/Please use a link. Thanks

[LordEd]

Ok, you can cut/paste material. You've proven that. That's not providing an argument. You can't just say charter violation and provide the entire charter as evidence.

Make a clear opening statement. "I believe her charter rights are violated because ______". Then go into proving that statement. Re-posting material is not understanding.

You are focusing on the word 'person', which has a distinctive freeman odour to it. Even IF (to which I do not accept) there is some method of not accepting the jurisdiction of the arresting officer, can you provide any evidence that she (the drug dealer in this specific case) had not accepted it?

[noneofyourbiz3]

anything in quotations should have legal description. No? Paste those along with it for clarity if I am correct.

[LordEd]

Deleted by Trip/Please use a link. Thanks

I even have to make your argument for you since you can't make it in a cohesive manner...

What you are trying to point out by cutting/pasting the entire charter along with a few freeman points is that it uses the terms 'person', 'citizen' and 'everyone' in different places. You would like to try to point out that because they are using different words that they must mean different thing. You did not provide a conclusion to what you think that possibility means.

Inserted in the middle you seem to make an argument that when an officer is asking if you "understand" that they are actually asking you in a cryptic way to "stand under" a set of laws instead of asking whether you comprehend. This is a common freeman basis for arguments which has little basis in reality. I would suspect (and if KL or TM could verify it would be helpful) that if you insisted on "not understanding" when you are being arrested that it would not result in them giving up due to lack of right and letting you go, but would more likely result in any leniency in their interpretation evaporating (I believe KL called this the 'attitude test' in another thread).

This is just from what I remember prior to the deletion.

[Foxic-Kitty]

If the city of Kelowna had suspected her of drug dealing and did not evict her prior to someone complaining...
That's Probably because she's part of something a bigger.

The lady who's trying to rat her out is an idiot. Especially to go on public TV...

Personally, I would rather live with the 'noise' then *bleep* off bikers =O

[Roadster]

If the city of Kelowna had suspected her of drug dealing and did not evict her prior to someone complaining...
That's Probably because she's part of something a bigger.

The lady who's trying to rat her out is an idiot. Especially to go on public TV...

Personally, I would rather live with the 'noise' then *bleep* off bikers =O

If she had a response from the city or the cops that they were on it she might not have gone to TV. Seems she made several attempts to go to the proper authorities and was given a brush off, thats when you use the media and those who coulda dealt with it know that. Meanwhile you would rather let people ruin yer life to avoid peezzing them off,,, I would like several of "you" as my neighbors, I could party in my back yard every night, all I need is a biker to be there, right? For what bikers have to do with this,,,,

[process99]

Just an offtopic footnote about the biker thing.
Bikers, the real ones don't deal dime bags nor do their old ladies.
Real bikers deal with hundreds of pounds of drugs and have the cash and resources to use airplanes and helicopters to move their product.
So the comment about Id rather deal with the noise instead of pissing of the bikers is laughable at best. I suspect the person who made this comment has never even spoken to a REAL biker or drug dealer and is only familiar with what the media spoon feeds them combined with some mompop dimebag dealers and a very vivid imagination.

If that had been a biker run outfit , you would never know about it, Kelly would not have been seen again and their would be NO video. These are just the real facts of how THEY do business. Need proof just look at what happened to the young girl who decided to cross a biker over his grow show.. where is she now? Was there any video? Thats just one example as there are many even locally of things like that. It seems that many people around here who have crossed them in one way or another just "dissapear". Thats how they conduct business.

Kelly clearly was dealing with someone who was just floggin some pot to make some extra money for whatever and they were very amateur as NO ONE deals to strangers let alone says "DO I KNOW YOU?" AKA the mom pop op.(well only street pushers peddle to strangers to be absolutely on target here).

Another thing to consider is if you did meet a real biker salesman and said I want say 300 grams they would laugh and walk away. They deal with multiples of pounds if not tonnage when they make transactions. This is what makes them so dangerous as when your dealing with amounts of that size and value there is always guns and the threat of death.
This is not so with a dimebag dealer. Most of them can't even afford a "collector" to fix a ripoff.

P99