Re: Society for Historical Arch. / DIVER LAW, THE LAW

Subject:

Comments:
: : : The 33rd Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology in Quebec city last weekend was great. There were many interesting papers by avocational, professional and accademic archaeologists. : : : There was considerable discussion on divers' rights to access and utilization of shipwrecks as archaeological sites. This seemed to have come to a head,and effectively summed up by Dr. Paul Johnson's (from the Smithsonian Institute) remarks to solicitor Steve Yormak, "if your client wants to dive the Hamilton and Scourge on a just have a look basis, I have no problem with that, I would endorse it." : : : I find his remarks particularly interesting in light of the proposed Bill 13 in Ontario. My general feeling is that a very small group of archaeologist in the Province have read the Ontario Heritage Act and been telling divers you can't do this and you can't do that, this site or that site is restricted or protected all of which are untrue and beyound the scope and range of the Ontario Heritage Act. I think Dr. Johnson summed up the general sentiment of the archaeological community on the subject of diver access to shipwreck sites. If a minimal impact approach is used there is nothing from an archaeological perspective wrong with it. : : : I am very concerned that Archaeologists in the Ministry of Citizenship Culture and Heritage have intentionaly mislead the sport divers of Ontario on the legalities of the Ontario Heritage Act and appropriate site utilization in terms of basic archaeology and method to suit their own ends. : : : Scott McWilliam : : : : To add: : : 1. Limitations, liabilities and legal disabilities are imposed by legislative enactments (Usually Congress) on statutory "persons" (not a diver) , but such limitations, liabilities and legal disabilities do not apply to the free and independent People in the absence of a voluntary contractual agreement. : : 2. Under American jurisprudence and Law, the free and independent People cannot be compelled by legislation to suffer the limitations, liabilities and legal disabilities imposed upon such statutory "persons" (not a diver), such as: (1) Statutory Diver Registration, (2) Statutory Diver Licenses, (3) Statutory Financial Responsibility. : : 3. Government is instituted to secure the imprescriptible rights of the People (Divers) and to protect their feedoms. : : 4. No factual evidence, no legal citation, and no logical argument can be produced in support of the position that the free and independent People have suffered a loss of status and character as free and independent and are now subject to the statutotily imposed limitations, liabilities and legal disabilities. : : 5. The free and independent People of America have the right to refrain from participation in any statutoty created financial responsibility program imposed upon statutory "persons." : : 6. The free and independent People of America have the right to use their private owned property (boats, automobiles, etc.) in any reasonable manner and to be free from any warrantless property seizure, impoundment, or forfeiture unless an injury is caused to the person or property of another under common law. : : 7. There are two jurisdictions of law which are criminal in nature and these are: (1) Original Jurisdiction commom law, and (2) admiralty maritime (under international contract law). : : 8. Under the so-called statutory jurisdiction, only statutory "persons" (legal fictions) and not (flesh and blood) People, have limitations, liabilities and disabilities (specific compelled performance and nonperformance) imposed upon them. : : 9. It is therefore only a "crime" for a statutory "person" to refrain from participation in statutory (1) Diver Registration, (2) Diver licensing, or (3) Liability Coverage )by means of a commercial insurance contract) which are imposed upon such statutory "persons." : : 10. Statutory "criminal" penalties imposed upon statutory "persons" for violation of statutory enactments do not have any application to (flesh and blood = divers) People in the absence of evidence supporting the presumption of voluntary participation and subjection to the statute (by voluntary contractual agreement) by the People. Steve A. : : The undersigned believes man on the soil of Ohio is one of the free and independent People and not a statutory "person" (as defined in Title 26). The undersigned believes each of the above statements to be true and correct and cannot be proved false by any manner of reasonable evidence, factual. legal, Lawful or logical argument. : : : Independent= not an Employee of the State, or subject to 1933 Bancrupcy tax procedures : : ********************************************* : Well kinda sorta maybe, most of your argument is based on the US constitution which doesn't count for much in this case. This situation is 100% Canadaian and there are an entirely different set of rules covering this playing field. But in general you do have some good points, that might be worth concidering in that this is a cross boarder trend.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: