11/09/2021
IMHO this defence can be used for any "violation" anyone has recieved from these people. The whole "Law Society" fiasco is nothing more then deception and fraud. Think about it...these people get paid to LIE for a living! It's simple stuff, None of it actually exists and none of us have a duty to believe their BU****IT! The icing on the cake is: none of them can ever justify forcing someone to partake in their FRAUD!
The restrictions and rules laid out in the Constitution & Bill of Rights have been USURPED! Every ststute "code" they create is to USURP and circumvent the restrictions laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights! Do you think it's a coincidence that every position of authority is occupied by someone who has a law degree and has been called to the BAR?
FICTION OF LAW DEFINED & EXPLAINED
Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it under the pretence of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact what is known to be contrary to truth. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench. ~ 😬🤭🤫😲🤐😷🤔lectlaw.com
Legal Fiction
rule assuming as true something that is clearly false. A fiction is often used to get around the provisions of constitutions and legal codes that legislators are hesitant to change or to encumber with specific limitations. Thus, when a legislature has no legal power to sit beyond a certain midnight but has five hours more of work still to do, it is easier to turn back the official clock from time to time than it is to change the law or constitution. ~ Encyclopedia Britannica
Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio Definition:
Latin: Of an illegal cause there can be no lawsuit.
Related Terms: Jus Ex Injuria Non Oritur, Equity, Clean Hands
If one is engaged in illegal activity, one cannot sue another for damages that arose out of that illegal activity.
In Scott v Brown (1892; quoted in a subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decision of 1894, Walsh v Trebilcock), Justice Lindley wrote:
"Ex turpi causâ non oritur actio"
This old and well known legal maxim is founded on good sense, and expresses a clear and well recognized legal principle which is not confined to indictable offences. No court ought to enforce an illegal contract or allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of a contract or transaction which is illegal, if the illegality is duly brought to the notice of the court, and if the person invoking the aid of the court is himself implicated in the illegality. It matters not whether the defendant has pleaded the illegality or whether he has not. If the evidence adduced by the plaintiff proves the illegality the court ought not to assist him."
In Hardy, Justice Diplock wrote that the ex turpi rule means:
"... the courts will not enforce a right which would otherwise be enforceable if the right arises out of an act committed by the person asserting the right (or by someone who is regarded in law as his successor) which is regarded by the court as sufficiently anti-social to justify the court's refusing to enforce that right."
In Hall v Herbert, Justice Gibbs of the British Columbia Court of Appeal added:
"The principle underlying ex turpi causa is not limited to circumstances where the injuries are sustained during the course of a joint criminal enterprise.
"It is available wherever the conduct of the plaintiff giving rise to the claim is so tainted with criminality or culpable immorality that as a matter of public policy the court will not assist the plaintiff to recover. It is no longer the law in British Columbia that the defence is confined to cases of joint criminal enterprise or applies only in contract.
"The defence applied here, as fair-minded, right-thinking people would be outraged if the court lent its assistance to a drunk driver to recover damages from his drunk passenger."
An example is an injury suffered by a passenger in a stolen car, which that passenger knew to be stolen and was a free participant in the joyriding. If a vehicle crashes injuring the passenger, there may be no action in tort against the driver under the ex turpi causa non oritur actio principle.
Also sometimes referred to as simply ex turpi or ex turpi causa.
REFERENCES:
Duhaime, Lloyd, Legal Definition of Contributory Negligence
Fleming (Gombosh Estate) v The Queen [1986] 1 SCR 415
Hall v Herbert 53 BCLR 2d 201; also at 28 MVR 2d 94 or 6 CCLT 2d 294 or 46 CPC 2d 192 (BCCA, 1991)
Hardy v Motor Insurers' Bureau [1964] 2 All ER 742
Scott v Brown (1892) 2 QB 724
Walsh v Trebilcock 23 SCR 695 (1894)
Categories & Topics:
Dictionary of Latin Law Terms
Duhaime's Tort and Personal Injury Law Dictionary
https://www.HowToWinInCourt.com?refercode=BA0034
😳🙄😠😡🤬😢😭😲🤩😘🥳😏😎🤭🤫🤐🤧🤒😷🤑🕵️♀️💩👩🔬💩👮💩☠️🎬🍀☁️⛅️☀️🤝👷📧📬🕉☯️⚜️🔮🗽⚖️🛀
