Newsreal Archives/Critic' Corners

Karl H. Eisbrenner update June, 2003.

IM CONFUSED

Here I am looking at my name on the Law Society Web Page under Find Lawyer I see it twice: it's among "lawyers" [i.e. members in good standing] who "voluntarily" ceased practice of law in 2002 and it's among "lawyers" who "voluntarily" didn't renew their 2003 membership/license.

My license to practice law is like a piece of fruit from a certain, exclusive tree, and that tree is called a "statute". That word was born in TIMES NEW ROMAN i.e. eclectic, multicultural, accretive, acquisitive, seeking, conquering, controlling, absolute, globalrule times.

We learn "then" they had "statues" but we don't; then they had "idols" but we don't, then they fought wars barbarically but we don't; that was then and this is now and things just aren't the same now as they were then.

After all, our coliseum gladiators do not kill each other; they just maim, fake, or hit each other with armor, sticks, rubber bullets, bats, and clubs.

After all, our times are not full of "fear and wonder", or "cakes and ale", or "bread and circuses", they just make us lock our doors, bar our windows so we can live in our little cells "above ground", afraid to go out at night and perturbed, if not pissed off, at all those "Praetorian Guards", now called "Police" hiding, surveilling, and sniffing around like "dogs of war?"

What is going on? Are the Policy Police really so worried about "us"? Why? What are they afraid of that we need "B" movies of ourselves being surveillanced... is this another new "discovery" of Canada? And are Canadians going to listen or hear "The Yanks Are Comin'".

Then, they called themselves "Caesar" - [Ger. "Kaiser"], [Russ. "Tsar"], but we are much more politically correct now aren't we, The Very Honorable Mr. Justice Alan McEachern, Chief Justice of The Province of British Columbia, at least by what he says [if not means] in his 1999 Compendium of Law published on the Home Page of the B.C. Superior Court, is true.

Just read the first page of the Index and ask yourself why he, of all people would write about law and then tell people they don't have to believe what he says, and that not even he has to believe what he says, neither do any other judges, lawyers or anyone else for that matter. The Canadian Judicial Council is to superior Canadian judges [i.e. Officers of Canada subject to Penalty, Responsibility, Liability and Accountability according to our Constitution] what the Law Society of British Columbia is to British Columbia lawyers.

Here's why I am confused.

A Law Society Member of BC = an Officer of the Supreme Court of British Columbia;

An Officer of the Supreme Court of British Columbia = an Officer of Canada;

An Officer of Canada = someone who does something that isn't exclusively assigned to the provincial legislature.

A Member of the Law Society, according to its Code of Conduct, is a member of the Branch of the Administration of Justice.

The Administration of Justice is exclusively provincial jurisdiction, power and authority. So, if a Member of the B.C. Law Society is an Officer of Canada, and Officers of Canada cannot do things exclusively provincial, then those Members are like eunuchs, they cannot do what their Code of Honor tells them too.

They don't have to. They are self-governing schizophrenics.

The Canadian Forces Code of Conduct says flat out its basic principle is simple, clear and direct: = the golden rule, treat your neighbour as yourself, a principle spoken, pronounced and reportedly lived by a man called Jesus.

That principle in that [universal military code] is part of another principle: thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart, strength, soul and mind [echoing the "medicine wheel" -emotional, physical, spiritual and mental quadrants], and your neighbour as yourself. This is the law and the prophets. The Preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says Canada is founded on "principles that recognize the Supremacy of God".

Statutory interpretation [derived from Rabbinic Hermeneutics via such prominent jurists who liked to compare "dicta" about Torah [Constitution] teaches us "to recognize" = "to give effect to". So, there you have it. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is really a theological document disguised as a constitutional [legal] document. Any theologian worth his salt ["pay" in the Times Old Roman] can see it.

It functions as the basis or foundation stone for a "theocracy", i.e. government where faith and practice combine into one governing entity.

The Times Old Roman saw places like "Judea" [i.e. provinces] ruled by a) puppet kings installed by b) Rome [i.e. federal government].

So, with all due respect, please don't take seriously what the Law Society of BC says on its web page, you don't need to, because Mr Justice McEachern says his own Compendium on law can't be counted on to be true, and he cannot be held responsible for saying what he didn't mean.

Isn't that another principle that recognizes the "supremacy of God"? I mean, "father forgive them for they know not what they do" does recognize at least that, doesn't it?

My confusion increases.

Does this mean the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not suitable to be on B.C. School shelves because it clearly recognizes something the School Act acts [with prompt efficiency] to quash, i.e. God, let alone "God's supremacy". Maybe this is one for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association to look at. After all, belief in the Supremacy of God does embrace Judaism, Christianity [both faces, sides of it, with all its anabaptist sectarian blemishes], and Islam.

Indeed, take "Jesus is the Christ" or "Jesus is the Son of God" out of these word worshipping variants on the same theme, and you wonder what all the fighting was for in the first place!

I wonder whether this is an issue the provincial court would be interested in, given its function in these Times New Roman is the exact equivalent of the synagogue's function in the Times Old Roman... meeting place of first instance for the general public aggrieved by their "theocratic" rulers.

If I were someone who didn't believe in God, let alone God's supremacy, I'd sure wonder whether I really want to live in a "theocracy". Has bureaucracy gone "bureau" crazy... what's next? Another "Jesuit Order" black robed, gowned, frocked, or otherwise cross-dressed telling us what we can and cannot believe?

We live in catacombs above ground now. So these cannot be a repeat of the Times Old Roman, can they?

eisbrenner

p.s. don't forget to turn on the "night light".