Posted On: 09/07/2016 4:37:30 PM
Post# of 1288
(ON its FACE) vs. ( AS APPLIED ) it has been brought to my attention that the reason Bill has dropped appealing for a license is because Canada's MMPR program was unconstitutional and therefore a unconstitutional program can not grant a license, as such an appeal would be moot.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.............
The Canadian court ruled that parts of the MMPR program was unconstitutional AS APPLIED. (in-part_ not as a whole)
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge
If the entire en- acting MMPR statue was unconstitutional on its face in every word sentence and clause than yes it would be moot to fight for a License steming from legislation that was Facally unconstitutional in every word, sentence and clause.
Bill is entitled for relief for any arbitrary actions which kept him from getting a license under the old MMPR program.
Zoning would no longer be a bar if we had our hearing and got back our zoning. Remember it was Bill who pointed out the go-cart track case that governs our case.
That leaves 4 other reasons of denial which equates mere hearsay by a newspaper (Globe and Mail) that discloses the fact that their paper is for satire and are immune from any presumed facts that are not true.
Although I did read in their MMPR program that HC could deny a
" for what ever reason they wish or choose , above and beyond that listed " ,
such a statement / rule that is "ON ITS FACE" , totally unconstitutional because that makes a moving target out of any potential applicant to be the subject of arbitrary and prejudicial behavior for what ever reason. The Target, which is a license can not be a moving target for arbitrary interests.
That being said, Bill has mislead some into believing appealing for a license and zoning is moot because of a unconstitutional rulling.
But what one must understand the ruling did not strike the entire legislative enactment only a portion thereof.
I Fought hard for Bill up to the day he dropped our Appeal for both a license and Zoning. Zoning was everything because it was the only legitimate reason for our denial of a license.
A CEO's fiduciary responsibility is first to his shareholders and getting a license and zoning back is priority above all.
APPEAL is mandatory and required for shareholder interest dropping our appeal is a breach of fiduciary duty.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.............
The Canadian court ruled that parts of the MMPR program was unconstitutional AS APPLIED. (in-part_ not as a whole)
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge
If the entire en- acting MMPR statue was unconstitutional on its face in every word sentence and clause than yes it would be moot to fight for a License steming from legislation that was Facally unconstitutional in every word, sentence and clause.
Bill is entitled for relief for any arbitrary actions which kept him from getting a license under the old MMPR program.
Zoning would no longer be a bar if we had our hearing and got back our zoning. Remember it was Bill who pointed out the go-cart track case that governs our case.
That leaves 4 other reasons of denial which equates mere hearsay by a newspaper (Globe and Mail) that discloses the fact that their paper is for satire and are immune from any presumed facts that are not true.
Although I did read in their MMPR program that HC could deny a
" for what ever reason they wish or choose , above and beyond that listed " ,
such a statement / rule that is "ON ITS FACE" , totally unconstitutional because that makes a moving target out of any potential applicant to be the subject of arbitrary and prejudicial behavior for what ever reason. The Target, which is a license can not be a moving target for arbitrary interests.
That being said, Bill has mislead some into believing appealing for a license and zoning is moot because of a unconstitutional rulling.
But what one must understand the ruling did not strike the entire legislative enactment only a portion thereof.
I Fought hard for Bill up to the day he dropped our Appeal for both a license and Zoning. Zoning was everything because it was the only legitimate reason for our denial of a license.
A CEO's fiduciary responsibility is first to his shareholders and getting a license and zoning back is priority above all.
APPEAL is mandatory and required for shareholder interest dropping our appeal is a breach of fiduciary duty.
(0)
(0)
HONOR is ENERGY, positive ENERGY,
it has no FACE, SO what's FUELING the NEGITIVE ?
it has no FACE, SO what's FUELING the NEGITIVE ?
