-Caveat Lector-
Franklin Wayne Poley wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> If "Party of Citizens" can get the court to admit that the Bible is the
> supreme law book in BC, then we win the case, don't you agree? As far as I
> can tell, when pro-lifers and pro-abortionists or so-called "pro-choicers"
> argue it out by invoking Biblical Law, the pro-lifers win easily.
> Agree/disagree? What is the best argument anyone can make from the Bible
> that God favors abortion?
> FWP.
You are Poley.
Joshua2
=============
> >>---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:19:27 -0800
> >>From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Subject: [LIFE-GAZETTE] BC's Definition of God.
> >>
> >>From: "Franklin Wayne Poley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>Dear Office of the Attorney General:
> >> I recently sent an email to your office, asking how your
> >administration defines "God". Could you please acknowledge receipt of that
> >email letter and acknowledge that you are working on an answer to the
> >question?
> >> The question is far from frivolous. I lead a registered BC political
> >party called "Party of Citizens". Last night we met from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.
> >in Metrotown LIbrary to hear POC candidate Gordon Helmholtz Watson speak on
> >the topic "God's Law or the New World Order". Mr. Watson believes that THE
> >BIBLE IS THE SUPREME LAW BOOK in British Columbia and he will be arguing a
> >pro-life case before Judge Howard on that basis. As you know there is
> >legislation which can be argued as supporting the pro-life position and
> >there is legislation which can be argued as supporting the pro-abortion
> >position. For example, Mr. Watson repeatedly points to two sections of the
> >Criminal Code of Canada which clearly proscribe abortion. They are still
> >valid law and contrary to popular misconception, laws proscribing abortion
> >have not been "struck down".
> >> Judge Howard will therefore be presented with two sides of a ledger
> >consisting of provincial and federal legislation and she must decide which
> >has greater weight. However, there is also the matter of the Bible as a law
> >book and its weight in a BC court. Mr. Watson of course will be arguing
> that
> >the Bible is clearly pro-life and anti-abortion.
> >> My question to you has to do with the "God" of the Canadian
> Constitution
> >and whether this is the God of the Bible. If it is, Mr. Watson is quite
> >right in arguing from the Bible in court. Moreover, he is also requesting a
> >trial by jury. I have before me the Jury Act and I note a list of
> >Definitions at the beginning of the act as is typical of legislation. There
> >is no definition of "God". Why should there be? Well, I read in the
> >information sheet which the Sheriff's Office sends out to prospective
> jurors
> >that "The right to a trial by jury of one's peers is a cornerstone to our
> >democratic society and is one of its oldest institutions." Recently, when I
> >was called in for jury duty, I noted that 7 out of the 8 jurors took an
> oath
> >on the Bible, "so help me God" and the 8th. took an affirmation. While the
> >affirmation is described in Section 32, the Oath on the Bible is not
> >mentioned anywhere in this act. It is important for legislation to tell us
> >what an affirmation is and to give a list of definitions. It is vitally
> >important to know how this God in "so help me God" is defined. Given that
> >most jurors take an oath on the Bible, I would expect expect an answer
> along
> >the lines of saying that in BC and Canada, the legal system accepts the
> >long-standing historical understanding of the God invoked in the Bible. Is
> >that correct?
> >> According to Black's Law Dictionary, common law derives its authority
> >"solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity or from the
> >judgements and decrees of the courts, recognizing, affirming and enforcing
> >such usages and customs." Mr. Watson therefore believes that the British
> >Coronation Service is still highly relevant to this matter. Do you agree?
> >Last night he presented us with a manuscript titled "The Coronation of Her
> >Majesty Queen Elizabeth II", June 2, 1953. The Introduction is written by
> >the Archbishop of Canterbury and it says "Then the heads of the two
> Churches
> >of England and Scotland present the Holy Bible to the Queen, wherein is
> 'the
> >Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes.' So the
> >foundations are laid." The Archbishop is saying that the Holy Bible is the
> >SUPREME LAW IN BRITAIN. Would you agree that by common law it is also the
> >supreme law in British Columbia?
> >> We can also approach this matter from the perspective of the
> >Constitution of Canada. According to the Canada Year Book, the Constitution
> >is the foundation of all legislation in Canada and no legislation can stand
> >if it is in violation of the Constitution. The Canada Year Book includes
> the
> >Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution and the Preamble to the
> >Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads "Whereas Canada is founded upon
> >principles that recognize the supremacy of God...." Dennis Mills, MP has
> >sent me some 60 pages of Commons Debates from 1981 dealing with whether to
> >include the word "God" in the Charter. Doug Roche, MP says that "...rights
> >exist because they are implanted in every human being by God...." (March
> >16/81). Whether you agree with Mr. Roche or not, it is clear that "God" is
> >the very foundation of the Constitution, which is the foundation of
> >legislation in Canada.
> >> Don Boudria, MP, wrote on Oct. 22, 1999, in reply to my email that
> "This
> >information may be useful in responding to your comment to 'spell out what
> >it means by 'God' in the Constitution/Charter of Rights'-which would appear
> >from the Canadian experience and that of other countries to be a matter for
> >churches and religious communities to consider." I agree that churches and
> >religious communities should be vitally interested in defining 'God'.
> >However, law enforcement authorities should have as much interest in the
> >matter. If 'God' is just a word; if law enforcement authorities are to use
> >this word as loosely as a drunk speaking in a beer parlour, which seems to
> >be the present state of affairs, then the system of justice will be
> >corrupted because the very foundation of law is meaningless. The rest of
> the
> >system of law then regresses to a system of order without justice,
> >administered by shallow word mongers. I think the place to start arresting
> >this corruption is with a clear definition of 'God' in law.
> >>I look forward to your reply.
> >>Sincerely-FWP
> >>(President, Party of Citizens).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>[Attachments have been removed from this message]
> >>
> >>>* Life Gazette chronicles the development of world cultures which have
> >Constitutions recognizing the supremacy of God, from Liberian to Iranian to
> >"Culture X" *
> >
> >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
> >
> > GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
> >Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
> >forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
> > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
