Yes, as in maritime law, law of the sea.
Here comes the can of worms...
If the Canadian courts are in similar construct to US courts, then it is about jurisdiction with respect to the power of the court as exemplified by the flag within. In the US, the flag denotes admiralty law in place. How so? The US flag flown in courts is fringed, meaning military, territorial - belonging to the federal (wrong court to begin with).
The flag in court denotes the law as expressed by admiralty law:
"...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
Now as pursuant to the US, the sea comes on land:
"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all."
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM
We now come to the loophole. The law in question concerning Mr. Moore has definitions for its terms. The one in question is "person". If the definition is the same as the US in its codes, then Mr. Moore has a way out. The term "person", as an example, means:
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
11405.70. "Person" includes an individual, partnership, corporation, governmental subdivision or unit of a governmental subdivision, or public or private organization or entity of any character.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
SECTION 3479-3484
3482.1. (a) As used in this section:
(1) "Person" means an individual, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, club, or other legal entity.
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 1235.110-1235.210
1235.160. "Person" includes any public entity, individual, association, organization, partnership, trust, limited liability company, or corporation.
Notice that "Man" or "Woman" is not used. If you can make the claim of being a "Man" or "Woman", then the "law" is not relevant to you given Canadian Law is setup in this fashion.
Now, where will these worms lead us?
'til dawn...
