Re: How clever this BILL-13 is, you are a sole corporation, diver.

Subject:

Comments:
: Steve, you are twisting things here let me post the whole section : From Bill 13 : Prohibitions : 4. (1)?No person shall engage in any of the following activities unless the person is specifically authorized to do so : by the terms of a licence issued under Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act: : 1. Enter a heritage wreck, or cause an object to enter a heritage wreck. : 2. Move part of a heritage wreck. : 3. Remove silt or other naturally occurring substances in a marine heritage site. : 4. Remove a protected artifact from a marine heritage site. : 5. Damage a heritage wreck or a protected artifact. : 6. Take any other action that alters or adversely affects, or is likely to alter or adversely affect a marine : heritage site, a heritage wreck or a protected artifact. : 7. Any other activity specified in regulation. : : Discovery of evidence : 6. A person who finds physical evidence that a site is likely a marine heritage site which is not listed in a record : published under section 5, : (a) shall not do anything that may alter or adversely affect the site; and : (b) shall notify the Minister of the nature and location of the evidence and the site as soon as possible. : Offence : 7. (1) Every person who contravenes subsection 4 (1) or does not comply with section 6, and every director or officer : of a corporation who knowingly concurs in the contravention or failure to comply, is guilty of an offence and on : conviction is liable, : (a) if the person is an individual, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more : than one year, or to both; or : (b) if the person is a corporation, to a fine of not more than $250,000. : : : Let me level on you divers, the 20 pound sledge hammer: : : (from message 1542) : : . It is not whether (7{b}...on page 3), IF, if the person (diver)as the mainly selected citizen, is a corporation, for a fine of $250,000.00. : : How clever they are!! on this Bill-13. : : You are. Don't make a mistake about it. : Sorry you are wrong about the meaning of this section. Section 7a) deals with fining and punishing individuals, where as Section 7b) is used in punishing and fine Businesses that violate the law. Person in the case does not have the same meaning as person in the second case. : Example, I own a salvage company and employ 4 divers. I decide to salvage the anchor off of a wreck. If the wreck was declared a Heritage site, then I would be prosecuted under the laws deriving from Bill 13. Now what and who would be charged? : 1) Each of the four divers present during the removal would be charged and subjected to a $50,000.00 (maximum) fine or one year imprisonment. : 2) My salvage company would be subjected to a maximum fime of $250,000.00 : See the difference? A diver is not a corporation. This bill does not say that. : : . I can show you with irrefutable evidence of, what you are, diver. Yes, you the diver. : : . Reams of Court cases speak about this, law books, and specifically in Black's Law Dictionary for lawyers by West Law, the Bible of the Marshall Law School at Cleveland State University, this alma matter, that every single diver/citizen/unemployed person, without exception in not so claimed, is classed, labeled, and stamped by their law, as I just finish examining, is a sole corporation, pursuant to law. That's right, every single diver, singly or in a group, is a Sole Corporation. : This is US law, get it straight. This is not applicable to Canada. : : . . . . problem #2, = at 7.2(?)....commission of the offence....the Crown in right of Ontario. : : (this took me by surprise, how dare they?) : The articles in question : Offence : 7. (1) Every person who contravenes subsection 4 (1) or does not comply with section 6, and every director or officer : of a corporation who knowingly concurs in the contravention or failure to comply, is guilty of an offence and on : conviction is liable, : (a) if the person is an individual, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more : than one year, or to both; or : (b) if the person is a corporation, to a fine of not more than $250,000. : Forfeiture : (2)?The court may also order that any vessel or equipment used in the commission of the offence be forfeited to the Crown in right of Ontario. : Guess what Steve, this is legal in Canada. Break the law, be convicted of the offence, the Crown can confiscate the property used to commit the offence. I know that there are similar laws in the US : : . Do you know how to prove this one singular thing, for this "right" is a Crown fiction, operating in commerce? I didn't think so. : Sigh, wrong again, read the Canadian Constitution, it is not the US Constitution. Now if you want to fight this section of the bill please see section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights (I believe that is the appropriate section) : : . . . . . but many divers will volunteer for the privelege of the Offender to the Defendant; the priveledge (trustee) to be a "subject", for the fiction punishment, or the settling of the accounts. However, in this scam, they will take all they can, cash and property, up to the limit of the bond stated, being the $250,000.00 upon EACH diver, hereinafter so described. : Sigh, the courts deside the fines and if confiscation of property is required. A judge is not likely to screw an individual if he was just site seeing the wreck. But if he was removing artifacts, you can expect the hammer to fall to the tune of $50,000 not $250,000.00. Canadian courts are not know for doling out the maximum punishment. Judges are not controlled by the Crown, or the political system up here, they are not elected. They also tend to be very independent, and very much a pain in the Governments backside : : . Regardless of the offered "deal", the "offer", the bond must be tendered, for it is a bond for the purpose intended. And they ARE telling you what that is. What a Contract! Whow! : It is not a contract, it is a proposed law. A law that deals with limiting access to wreck sites that are deemed to be Heritage sites. This means that the wreck in question has some sort of historical or heritage value. : : . And by these, the diver is NOT-REQUIRED to sign anything or anywhere, just be a silent like a "subject" slave, and the Contract is formally effective. "Leave it to us." "Don't worry." : And is it any different in the US when your government passes a law? No of coarse not, you speak up and have your say. You attempt in change the outcome. : Steve I'm not sure what you are trying to say half the time, and that is a big problem. You seem more intent on creating confusion and division here in this newsgroup, but I maybe wrong, but this is the impression that you are giving me (and others). : And before anyone fires off another shot at me, yes the bill goes way overboard with punishment. There are also issues of intellectual property rights and copyrights. Case example, I find the wreck of the Rob Roy (Huron style fish bout) with the 200 lbs brass cannon from the wreck of the Alice Hackett (wrecked in 1827). The cannon is most definitely of significant historical importance, but not necessarily the Rob Roy. The knowledge of the wreck location is most definitely mine, I own it! Can the government force me to disclose the location? I say no, they say yes. Canadian Constitution says? This would go to the Canadian Supreme Court. ON THESE GROUNDS the bill could be declared illegal, and such be defeated before it could become law. : This is the type of information that will be usefull for defeating the bill. : Phil

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: