Neueste Beiträge

Montreal woman convicted of posting anti-police graffiti on Instagram

Montreal woman convicted of posting anti-police graffiti on Instagram

MONTREAL -- A woman who posted an image online of a senior Montreal police officer with a bullet in his head was convicted Thursday of criminal harassment.

Jennifer Pawluck was charged in 2013 after snapping a photo of graffiti, which she didn't draw, and uploading it to Instagram, a photo-sharing social media site.

Quebec court Judge Marie-Josee Di Lallo said she had no doubt the criteria necessary to find Pawluck guilty of harassment had been met.

Jennifer Pawluck, charged after posting online a photo of a graffiti showing Montreal police commander Ian Lafreniere with a bullet in his head, leaves a courtroom following her arraignment, in Montreal, Wednesday, April 17, 2013. (Paul Chiasson / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

The judge also made it clear that online behaviour can have repercussions.

"We must be conscious that a simple click from a smartphone or computer, that takes just a fraction of a second, can have serious consequences," Di Lallo said. "At a time when social media is taking more and more place in our lives, we must be even more vigilant."

Cmdr. Ian Lafreniere, one of the city's most visible police officers and the man whose face was on the graffiti, told Pawluck's trial the image shook him up, scared his children and caused his wife to stop working for several months.

Pawluck, now 22, testified in late February she posted the snap without even knowing who Lafreniere was. She conceded the image was not "peaceful" in nature but that she'd sent it as a statement against police in general -- not one officer in particular.

The judge expressed skepticism about Pawluck's claim on the identity issue, given her involvement as an activist during student demonstrations in 2012.

Lafreniere is the main voice of the police force during major events and was very visible on TV during the highly charged student protests, which featured numerous clashes between authorities and demonstrators.

His name was scrawled on the graffiti and his name spelled two different ways was among the hashtags added by Pawluck, including an anti-police tag .acab -- which stands for all cops are bastards.

The judge said she felt the evidence presented was sufficient.

"Seeing your face drawn, with a bullet in the head, one cannot help but feel threatened," Di Lallo said. "And this, even if you're a police officer."

A smirking Pawluck left the courthouse repeating "no comment" as a friend shielded her from cameras. Her lawyer, Valerie De Guise, also declined to speak.

Pawluck was charged under a summary offence, meaning the maximum sentence is six months in jail or a $5,000 fine. Sentencing arguments will take place May 14.

Following her April 2013 arrest, there was intense debate online over whether a criminal charge was necessary in such circumstances. Thursday's guilty verdict reignited that debate.

Prosecutor Josiane Laplante said the question of freedom of expression did not come up during the short trial, which focused strictly on the harassment issue.

Laplante hopes the case will result in increased online prudence.

"I think it's very important to think of the impact we have when we put something on the Internet, the impact on other people when we post something," Laplante said.

Lafreniere told The Canadian Press he wouldn't comment for the time being.

source: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/montreal-woman-convicted-of-posting-anti-police-graffiti-on-instagram-1.2341840

is it just me or does this appear as a revenge prosecution of something that would normally be considered an utter and complete non event?

peace,

ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining

Re: The Basic Definition

perhaps the difference in the definitions has to do with our alternate perceptions.

I don't doubt for a moment that we have different perspectives, nor do I doubt for a moment that one's perspective influences one's opinion.  However, I'm not asking for an opinion, nor have I expressed mine.  I'm asking for a description.  After all, someone on the inside - you describe yourself as "an insider" - should have a pretty good view of that which he is inside.

Let's try this another way.  You write that you are "an insider who has met many good people in the movement".  What movement?  Please don't give me a label - characterize it.  There are good people among the Knights of Columbus, the Shriners, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.  I can describe to you what characterizes any group, official or unofficial, of which I am an "insider".  Are you saying that you can't?  The only description you've given so far equally fits the Little Sisters of Mercy and the Weathermen.

I pursue this not to give you a hard time.  I am truly interested in hearing about "Freemen on the Land" from someone who has shown himself to be perceptive and good-humored.  As Jesse James said to Judge Roy Bean, don't leave me hangin'.

"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Re: The Basic Definition

perhaps the difference in the definitions has to do with our alternate perceptions. yours is a definition from the outside reliant on news items, court cases, youtube vids and shitty attitudes you have dealt with pertaining to the fotl community. where my view is more that of an insider who has met many good people in the movement and given greater aknowledgement to the good points of the fotl as a movement.

due to our alternate points of view we may never arrive at a concrete definition other than some folks in the freedom thing call themselves freeman on the land and some dont.

sorry i cant be more helpful on this.
peace,
ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining

Re: The Basic Definition

Thanks for your prompt answer, ninj.  As for my less-than-prompt reply - well, I've been really busy.  Saturday morning is the first chance I've had.  BTW, it seems your board is somewhat misconfigured.  The "reply quote" function yields only a blank reply space, the "quote" button on the toolbar pulls up a url box, and normal BBcodes [x] [/x] don't work.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Anyway, to the definition of FOTL.  First of all, what you wrote is not a definition.  You instead ascribe certain characteristics to those whom you view as Freemen.  You wrote:

the difference, i belive should (note i said should) lay in the activism. the willingness to not stand by when others are abused by any of the arms of government (or anyone else). the willingness to find a issue and attempt to make changes so it is no longer an issue. presenting actual evidence researched from valid sources so as to change the current situation for a more free, peaceful, fair and just society.

Those attributes also characterize Dr. King, Gandhi, Mandela, depending on your point of view William Lyon Mackenzie, and many, many others less well known.  I like to think it characterizes me.  It does not characterize Menard et al, those commonly regarded as "Freemen".  Nothing says that you must accept the common definition.  But you haven't provided one of your own.

there are many things that require taking a stand. the catch is many are unwilling or unable to do that. the world does a good job at keeping folks in general either to ignorant or to scared to even try to effect any change or even draw attention to the problem. i belive the original intent was for the freeman on the land movement to be the ones willing to empower others to stand up against a seemingly endless string of legal, political, financial, military, etc. systems that are not good for the people in general; many also restricting what can be seen as basic rights and freedoms.

Exactly the same comment.  All of what you wrote applies to many, many people whom no one would view as FOTLs.  You could, I suppose, respond that you do so view them.  If you do, you have your own (quite idiosyncratic) definition of the term.  What differentiates FOTLs from simply those people who are committed to social justice?  Idiosyncratic definitions are not much use to common discussion.  After all, I can insist that "apple" really means "Volkswagen", but few people will then understand that by "orchard" I mean "car dealership".

thanks for the question!

And thanks for your answer.

"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Re: Kevin Annett. wearing collars and taking dollars.

Yeah don't bother unless you're cooking or doing laundry and need something to listen in the background.

Very little to no content.

I think there won't be any Clifford news until the trial.

Re: Kevin Annett. wearing collars and taking dollars.

i take it you must mean one of these:

Radio Free Kanata on April 12, 2015 Guests, Ryan Gable and Dean Clifford
Radio Free Kanata on April 5, 2015 Guests, Ryan Gable and Dean Clifford
Radio Free Kanata on March 29, 2015 Guests, Ryan Gable and Dean Clifford
Radio Free Kanata on March 22, 2015 Guests, Ryan Gable, Theresa Harrison and Dean Clifford
from: http://www.bbsradio.com/radiofreekanata

i havent had the few hours of my life to sacrifice at the alter of stupid and fraud. but if i find some tie i will give them a listen. it seems they must be up to something so will write some on it when i sit through them. i find both parties painful on my brain but it must be done to sink to the bottom get to the bottom of whats going on.

hanging with annett is a new low for clifford. he is going to get covered in the kind of dirt that just dont wash off.

peace,
ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining

Re: Kevin Annett. wearing collars and taking dollars.

You didn't listen to the Annett / Clifford post-bail interview?

The talk is all "divestment" (they really love that word), which seems to be a recognition that Freeman remedies do not work and simultaneously an attempt by them to create their own society outside of Canadian Jurisdiction but still on Canadian soil.

That seems to signal to me an attempt at making some type of Freeman compound.

Re: Kevin Annett. wearing collars and taking dollars.

i do not belive kevin has the parts. shadows are his friend. but i could see some crazy religous nuts with a sov cit bent doing the dirty work.

from one of kevins sites:

Arrest the Convicted War Criminals on our Land!
Posted on April 7, 2015

Official Communique from The Provisional Council of the Republic of Kanata
Winnipeg

read the item: http://itccs.org/2015/04/07/arrest-the-convicted-war-criminals-on-our-land/

i think its safe to say kevin is promoting violence to the freedom movement with special effort towards deans followers.

peace,

ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining

Re: Kevin Annett. wearing collars and taking dollars.

I guess what I'm asking is not so much what the rhetoric is, but what does Annett's statement mean in real world terms.

Are they going to try to get some land and have some type of WACO or Ruby Ridge stand off with the cops?

Re: Kevin Annett. wearing collars and taking dollars.

as to kevins republic of kanata, its a fake. a fraud. a phoney. first dear reader we must understand kevin has been a liar for profit since he first appeared to the general public via his feel bad shlockumentary on canadas genocide, unrepentant. if its anyone its he who is unrepentant.

so after being run off of most places he could put his hand out he settled on the freedom movement as its fairly easy to tell folks what they want to hear. it gets much easier if the marks are predisposed to calling anyone who dosent agree a shill or agent or troll or whatever. most will not even entertain reading anything that does not agree with what they belive. and this gave the minister of fraud kevin a grand opening. all he had to do was dummy up a few follower and hiarchy (all or most of them fake people or ones who dont know there name is used) and figure out how to tell the marks what they want to hear. and as far as frauds go his is brilliant in its choice of dupes, and ability to create its own following. normally i would not put such a large cut n paste but in case it goes missing i thought i would post this item in its entirety. here is the basis of kevins common law court.....

The Republic of Kanata: Questions and Answers
The Republic of Kanata and its Common Law: The Facts

Ten Basic Questions and Answers
republic of kanata

1)What is the Republic of Kanata?

A sovereign nation of many nations that have broken free from the British monarchy and its tyrannical system of "crown law".

Kanata is convened under a public Proclamation of January 15, 2015 that establishes it as a constitutional republic under the common law. The Republic has over 1,000 founding signatories but reflects the wishes of nearly 60% of Canadians, who when polled in 2013 favored an end to all ties with the British monarchy.

The Republic of Kanata is also the fulfillment of the aspirations of the first patriots who attempted unsuccessfully to create such a Canadian Republic in 1837. "Kanata" is an Iroquois word meaning "our communal village".

2)Is the Republic of Kanata an actual lawful government?

Yes. Its founding Constitution disestablished the political authority of the British crown in Canada and replaced it with a sovereign nation consisting of free, self governing people. The legal legitimacy and jurisdiction of the Republic was created by an Act of Supremacy in its first General Congress, which established a High Court of Justice to administer the common law everywhere in the new nation. The authority of all former agents and officials of the crown was formally revoked by this Act.

3). How does the new Republic affect my life?

Freedom from Debt Slavery: You are now freed from all of your former debts, mortgages and taxes, which were declared legally null and void by the Constitution of the Republic. Any attempt by agents of the old regime of "Canada" to collect such debts or coerce you are now illegal acts, and the perpetrators can be arrested by Republican sheriffs and tried for treason by the common law courts of the new Republic. All banks, credit and money supply are now under the control of the people.

No income tax: Abolished under the new Constitution.

Prosperity: You are eligible to receive up to two hundred hectares of land formerly held by the so called "crown", as well as a guaranteed annual income from the wealth formerly hoarded by the crown agencies and their super-rich corporate partners.

Justice: You now have direct control over the law and the courts of the land by electing their judges, juries and sheriffs.

Direct Democracy: If you are sixteen years or older, you can now vote in elections every two years to the General Congress and every year to local governing bodies. You can also now recall any elected or non elected public official, judge or sheriff who has violated their oath of office or lost the confidence of the people.

4)What is the common law?

The basis of all legitimate government and authority. It is inherent in all men and women and establishes them as unconditionally free, self governing and sovereign people whose life and liberty cannot be subverted by any power.

The common law is superior to and outweighs all government statutes and other legal systems such as church "canon law" and so-called "admiralty law" employed by governments to rule arbitrarily. "The common law is common sense written by God in the hearts of the people" (Justice Edward Coke, 1628)

5)Are common law courts legal and valid?

Yes. Their authority and legitimacy as upholders of the rights of the people is recognized by the United States Supreme Court as well as Canadian "crown" courts, which are descended from the English common law tradition. That tradition recognizes that the people themselves are the best guarantors of their own freedom; and that therefore, the law is upheld and defined by citizen juries and enforced by local county sheriffs beholden to the people and not a central government.

5)Who is Kevin Annett and what is his role in the Republic?

Kevin is a leader of the common law and Republic movement, and of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS). He serves as a special adviser in common law to the Republican government and works actively with many victims of crimes against humanity, in Kanata and around the world. He is also the Convener of District One (West Coast) in the Republic.

Kevin is also a Nobel Peace Prize Nominee and award winning author and human rights figure. Born and bred on the prairies and west coast, Kevin is the former United Church minister who first exposed and documented genocide by church and crown in the Indian schools. (www.hiddennolonger.com) . A biography of Kevin and more information is found at www.itccs.org and www.KevinAnnett.com .

7)How do I go about joining the Republic and getting involved?

The Republic of Kanata is a fact: as of January 15, 2015, you live within its common law jurisdiction anywhere on the territory of the former "Dominion of Canada". However, you can declare your formal citizenship within the Republic by taking a Pledge to the Republican constitution and receiving official identification as a member of the Republic, including a passport and citizenship papers. You can also take an oath of office as a sheriff or other public official, and become involved in your local branch and District, by contacting [email protected] .

8)Do indigenous nations have to be a part of the new Republic?

No. If any genuine indigenous nation decides unanimously not to be affiliated with the Republic, they may legally secede and establish their own separate nation within the general Federation of the Republic. However, the indigenous nation may not create laws or practices that violate the Constitution and common law of the Republic. If the indigenous nation remains within the Republic, they will have guaranteed representation in a separate Chamber of Indigenous Nations within the General Congress.

9)Am I at risk under the new Republic?

There are risks involved in any freedom movement. But the law and the people are with us, and more police are coming over to our jurisdiction every day alongside our growing network of sworn common law sheriffs.

Your liberty and security will be guaranteed the more you make the Republic a reality by your own refusal to participate in the old system called "crown law" and "Canada". Turn away from the old and reclaim the land, the law and the future, for all of us.

10)What do I do next?

Take the pledge to the Republic

Join your nearest Republican branch and help educate and mobilize your family and neighbors for the Republic

Stop paying taxes and mortgage payments, and issue our Revocation Order to all government and corporate agencies and agents

Receive training as a common law sheriff or peace officer

Defend your fellow members of the Republic

Issued January, 2015

by the General Congress of the Federated Republic of Kanata

Convened in Winnipeg under Common Law Jurisdiction

i suspect he put winnipeg there to appeal to the locals. but at any rate this is a fine example of telling the crowd what they want to hear. the crowd providing the echochamber. and no one doing 15 minutes woth of research on this collared clown.

peace,

ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining