RE: Actions in law

["Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>]

Ansgar,

Spend some time and actually read something.

You have stated, "I'd like to see a person charged for "trespassing" e.g. a shop during business hours."

I have pointed this out again and again. See the case…

Harrison v. Carswell (Harrison v. Carswell (1975), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200)

See previous posts for a summary of this. The claimant was the owner. The respondent was expelled and charged. The 
rights of the mall owners where considered by the court to supersede the rights of the respondent.

Your choice to look at selected items and decide that you know everything first. In law there is always another side to 
the argument. Stop acting impolitely and spend the time learning something new. By reading the cases you will see that 
there was a alternative side – the defence stated agreements as well.

Maybe if you take the time to read the materials I have sent you, you may be able to formulate a valid answer and not 
just spout about how you know everything.

What is so difficult that makes you fail to understand “Not authorised”. This means that you have expressly been 
authorised or you are NOT authorised. I always though it a simple concept. I am sorry that I fail to see your troubles 
with understanding this.

Illegal, or unlawful, describes that which is either prohibited or not authorised by law.

You have this idea that if it is not codified than you can do it. This is wrong. 

I have sent the Maxim of property to you. You keep forgetting that ALL judges are lawyers. They use the definitions I 
am giving you. What to look it up in a dictionary – see Black’s Legal dictionary. 

You have received cases. Your failure to comprehend them makes them no less valid. As pointed out to you, Germany has 
property rights enshrined in their constitution. 

Regulations are created by administrative agencies. Violation of a regulation often results in administrative law 
proceedings or legal action.

CAVE v. ROBINSON JARVIS & ROLF (A FIRM) [2002] UKHL 18

In the judgment of Morritt LJ:

"the commission of the act was deliberate in the sense of being intentional and that that act or omission, as the case 
may be, did involve a breach of duty whether or not the actor appreciated that legal consequence."

Read it, the dicta, the orbita and the comments during the trial.

 

Now You keep stating that I have supplied you with nothing. 

So first a definition as I have stated Maxims and you seem to fail to understand the word.

“MAXIM - An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted as being just and consonant 
with reason.

Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general 
customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined 
what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other 
cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted.

 

The application of the maxim to the case before the court is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making 
the application is to ascertain how the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the 
same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.” (The Law Library Lexion)

 

Now re-read the Maxim for property.

Or "from heaven all the way to the center of the earth". In law, can refer to the obsolete cuius est solum eius est 
usque ad coelum et ad inferos maxim of property ownership.

 

The maxim of property is law. Learn what you are talking about and try to understand before you rant. You like google 
for getting answers. Try google maxims of property.

Regards,

Craig


Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within 
those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.

DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you 
must not use or disclose the information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us promptly by reply 
email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the email and destroy any printed copy.  

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You may not rely on this message as advice 
unless it has been electronically signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax signed by 
a Partner of BDO.

BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, 
interception, corruption or unauthorised access.