Michael Moore Breaks Canadian Law

Opening his mouth against Canada's popular will

from JoeUser Forums
It was bound to happen sooner or later - Michael Moore's ritual destruction of politics, this time on both sides of the border. Now he's into Canadian electoral interference.



Next time Moore comes to Canada, he should be charged with violating the Canada Elections Act s. 331:

331. No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is

(a) a Canadian citizen; or

(b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

2000, c. 9, s. 331; 2001, c. 27, s. 211.


Michael Moore publicly announced this statement Friday:

Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right?

These are no ordinary times, and as you go to the polls on Monday, you do so while a man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest? Is that how you want millions of us down here to see you from now on? The next notch in the cowboy belt? C'mon, where's your Canadian pride? I mean, if you're going to reduce Canada to a cheap download of Bush & Co., then at least don't surrender so easily. Can't you wait until he threatens to bomb Regina? Make him work for it, for Pete's sake.

But seriously, I know you're not going to elect a guy who should really be running for governor of Utah. Whew! I knew it! You almost had me there. Very funny. Don't do that again. God, I love you, you crazy cold wonderful neighbors to my north. Don't ever change.

Michael Moore


Could it be any more clear that Moore is inducing people not to vote for Stephen Harper, a guy who "should really be running for governor of Utah", not the Prime Minister of Canada? As Moore is not a Canadian citizen, he is not entitled by Canadian law to influence this election. For all those free speech types out there, this is seen as a restriction of right. Sure, it may be. But it is the law. And for all those who respect the rule of law should have no problem condemning Moore. After all, the elections laws have so far held up in Court, with the Courts saying that the government has a right to restrict freedom of speech in an election (specifically, the restriction of publishing Atlantic results in the BC time zone before their polls close).

People like Moore ought to be charged when they come up to Canada.
international
11,464 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Asphinctersayswhat.

Michael asks, "What?" ::
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here now, what's all this abooot?

Ah well, I'll forgive him. Mainly because he's right. (right as opposed to wrong. )

I'll talk to my bother in the RCMP. He'll get off, believe me.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'll talk to my bother in the RCMP. He'll get off, believe me.

Too bad.  Aiding and abetting scofflaws does not reform them, only encourages them. Today you agree with him.  Tomorrow you may not.  Be careful of the dogs you lie down with.  You may get up with fleas.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
lock his fat azz up till he is skinny.. no sentence just those terms.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I congratulate Michael Moore for capitalizing on the American dream. What all my years didn't prepare me for was how easily celebrity status can be had with a few well placed lies. Just think, all it takes is some creative editing and stretching the truth to get documentary status.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

stretching the truth to get documentary status

He stretched it into a lie.

But I feel sorry for the Canadians.  They got the kiss of death.  Every time Michael Moron supports a candidate, they lose!

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Titan:
I congratulate Michael Moore for capitalizing on the American dream.

And yet he felt compelled to share his bilious and rampaging feelings on an unsuspecting Canada...

Guy:
Every time Michael Moron supports a candidate, they lose!

Ya gotta admit, Michael's endorsement means a lot... to the opposition.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Liberalism is losing. They just don't understand that liberalism is one it's way out, and they have no idea why.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
This would be an interesting case considering: 1) Proof of intent must be demonstrated; one must show that he willfully put it forth to the Canadian citizens. 2) There is a loophole if one of the terms in the "law" is defined as it is normally defined in many codes under admiralty law.

'til dawn...
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm no lawyer, but let me weigh in on this:
1) Proof of intent must be demonstrated; one must show that he willfully put it forth to the Canadian citizens.

He "willfully" put it up on his website, listing his own name as author. Even if it was ghost-written, it still was posted on the website bearing his name and face and did not list any alternate author.

2) There is a loophole if one of the terms in the "law" is defined as it is normally defined in many codes under admiralty law.

Again, not being a lawyer, I have no idea what that means.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Posting / placement to his own website is not putting it forth to/ soliciting Canadian citizens. That is what you have to prove. Jurisdiction of the "law" is defined.

'til dawn...
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Posting / placement to his own website is not putting it forth to/ soliciting Canadian citizens. That is what you have to prove. Jurisdiction of the "law" is defined.

How about if he posted it on a Canadian Web Server?

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is fine if you can prove that by putting it on a Canadian webserver "he" was putting it forth to / soliciting Canadian citizens. Then you have him. Otherwise, chalk it up to a lesson learned.

However, there is still part two, of a possible loophole in the terminology of the "law".

'til dawn...
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

That is fine if you can prove that by putting it on a Canadian webserver "he" was putting it forth to / soliciting Canadian citizens. Then you have him. Otherwise, chalk it up to a lesson learned.

I was not trying to prove it with Mickey.  I was just curious.

besides, given his track record, I would expect the Liberals to put out a contract on him for his kiss of death.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Surfer:
Posting / placement to his own website is not putting it forth to/ soliciting Canadian citizens. That is what you have to prove.

So Canadians don't have access to American internet sites? News to me.

I thought that by addressing his diatribe towards our "most important neighbors to the north" that he was trying to get the attention of the people of Canada.

Guess I must have been wrong?

Guy:
I would expect the Liberals to put out a contract on him for his kiss of death.

Indeed, an endorsement from Michael Moore is unwelcome, at best. (That is probably the understatement of the day.)
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
as it is normally defined in many codes under admiralty law.

As in maritime law, or law of the sea? And how would admiralty law apply in this situation? I'm not being facetious... I would really like to know.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
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...
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Now, where will these worms lead us?

'til dawn...

Are you a lawyer?  Just curious.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's a simple solution - Michael Moore should become a Canadian citizen. I'm sure it's crossed his mind.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's a simple solution - Michael Moore should become a Canadian citizen. I'm sure it's crossed his mind.


Do you think they would take him?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now, where will these worms lead us?

I have no idea. You lost me at:
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.

And that was the first paragraph. Not a lawyer, sorry. Hopefully someone with a more legal brain than mine can carry the torch along.

Michael Moore should become a Canadian citizen.

Of course not! Don't be ridiculous. Dissent from within is far more powerful. And then he wouldn't be able to claim that American right-wing strongmen are keeping him down. If he lives in Costa Rica, for example, how can he claim to be a martyr at the hands of the right-wing establishment?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
meh, he's addressing Canadian citizens. I don't see how that isn't "putting forth" with the intent to address them. If he was talking about them, maybe, but he's speaking to them specifically...
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Are you a lawyer? Just curious."

No, I wouldn't want to do that -- be part of the scam. It's just an interest of mine.

"There's a simple solution - Michael Moore should become a Canadian citizen. I'm sure it's crossed his mind"

He would fair better uncovering the occult of the US government.

'til dawn...
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, I wouldn't want to do that -- be part of the scam. It's just an interest of mine.

AH!  I am liking you more and more!

Join JU.  It is free!  And I like your take on it all.  My wife is a paralegal so I do speak legalese!  I dont like it, but I do speak it (and yes it greases the spokes of life).

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I have no idea. You lost me at..."

Simply stated... If the Canadian courts are similar to US courts, then you are likely to have admiralty law playing its part in the courtroom [Most countries have mixed jurisdiction -- common law, equity, and admiralty law.] where it shouldn't.

You may find yourself having access to only one set of courts (as in the US -- access to Article I courts but not Article III courts) which are for property ( ) and they are judging you in your "person" (criminal).

'til dawn...