Bud, since you claim you are no longer part of Canada, did you get permission from Immigration to visit or live here? And did they forget to tell you that while you are here, it doesn't matter what society or country you are from, you have to follow Canada's rules? If you don't want to do that, go back to Deulusionalsocietyland. What's that? You don't have your own country where you can just change the rules to your liking?

I don't dare to speak for the Oracle, but I believe that he does enjoy a Common Law right to live here, which is based on ancient court precedents over the centuries, and not on any acts or statutes passed by Canada's Parliament.
The Common Law also means that the Oracle can't assault his neighbor without consequences, neither can he steal from him, etc - those would be the "rules" you refer to.
If you are going to try and mock and belittle the Oracle, you might at least do your homework first - he seems to know a lot more about this country's legal system than his detractors here do.

He does not have any Ancient Common Law rights on any of Canada's rules have been changed from ancient times. Some things have stayed the same but much has been updated, rewritten, changed, deleted or added over the centuries (including acts!). And it's Current Law that decides the consequences of things like assault or theft. It's Current Law that decides whether Bud can live here in Canada.

Please get with the times. I mean, come on.

You have absolutely no clue, and your arrogance will keep you clueless.

The UN estimates about 12 Million people are stateless and do not have citezenship in any country.

http://internationalaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/worlds_stateless_people_stranded_by_war

Diplomatic immunity also exempts many people from Canadian law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

http://books.google.ca/books?id=yCFkTkYZ...law&f=false

Here, big pharma has been extended a legal immunity.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/698416

There are lots more examples of immunity granted from particular laws that have been extended to natives, politicians and judges, and police and military, and of course, people that smoke pot for medical reasons.

And, There are legal examples of lawful excuss that have been granted by the courts.

http://lawiscool.com/2008/09/11/fear-of-global-warming-provides-lawful-excuse/

Scented - these things are not ancient law, they are in effect today.

What do any of the above have to do with Bud's case? He's not without a country due to war, he's never been granted any sort of diplomatic immunity, and he's not got a medical exemption.

You are comparing Bud to all kinds of court accepted exemptions, BUT BUD DOESN'T HAVE ONE. No court has ever approved his claim to immunity and fee demand documents.

Actually I`m curious on that particular point of law. I understand your position here but i also understand perhaps why this is a position of contention.

If indeed we are entitled to ancient principles of law, (Which are indeed referenced quite often in legal dictionaries and other books) who has the authority to revoke access to that? If it is government, what makes that authority a legitimate authority. If it is the will of the people, why is that a just justification if an individual claims it is not?

The reason I find affinity with Bud's arguments (though certainly not Bud himself) is because to me, this all seems illegitimate. Government ultimately depends on the acceptance of mob rule as a legitimate form of rule making and enforcement. No laws which are made today are not backed up by a gun or other expression of power over the individual.

Governments just simply do not seem morally legitimate to me and I find it difficult to accept in principle that ancient legal principles are just tossed away because a government has made it so. Since this to me is a moral truth, I think it's a valid position. While the laws of Canada may say one thing, I'm quite willing to accept that what I am saying is better and indeed, even perhaps that what the government is saying is flatly wrong. Just because someone has all the guns or the support of the majority does not make them right.

Cheers

"You are comparing Bud to all kinds of court accepted exemptions, BUT BUD DOESN'T HAVE ONE. No court has ever approved his claim to immunity and fee demand documents."

Well, the highest court of Canada has acknowledged that there is an individual named Chief Justice Bud the Oracle from The Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society. The Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society's Charter is at the end of the Society's First Roll of Parliament. I encourage you to read it and to find out exactly what sort of Law Bud follows...you seem to have been conditioned into a fundamentally authoritarian mindset wherein you actually believe in grants of "approval" from others---those are all just theatrical props, you know, right?

I'm not saying that it has anything to do with how right or wrong any law is, just that the current laws are what are currently enforced. Bud can claim all he want's that ancient monarchy laws and biblical laws are the only ones he has to follow, they are still going to hold him to modern expectations and standards.

They acknowledged his new name and that he made his own little society. Is there any record that he is exempt from any laws ordinary Canadians must follow? And claims from Bud don't count - I want to see court issued documents that clearly state acceptance of Bud's claims and demands.