as it is normally defined in many codes under admiralty law.

As in maritime law, or law of the sea? And how would admiralty law apply in this situation? I'm not being facetious... I would really like to know.

Yes, as in maritime law, law of the sea.

Here comes the can of worms...

If the Canadian courts are in similar construct to US courts, then it is about jurisdiction with respect to the power of the court as exemplified by the flag within. In the US, the flag denotes admiralty law in place. How so? The US flag flown in courts is fringed, meaning military, territorial - belonging to the federal (wrong court to begin with).

The flag in court denotes the law as expressed by admiralty law:

"...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

Now as pursuant to the US, the sea comes on land:

"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all."
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM

We now come to the loophole. The law in question concerning Mr. Moore has definitions for its terms. The one in question is "person". If the definition is the same as the US in its codes, then Mr. Moore has a way out. The term "person", as an example, means:

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

11405.70. "Person" includes an individual, partnership, corporation, governmental subdivision or unit of a governmental subdivision, or public or private organization or entity of any character.


CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
SECTION 3479-3484

3482.1. (a) As used in this section:

(1) "Person" means an individual, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, club, or other legal entity.


CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 1235.110-1235.210

1235.160. "Person" includes any public entity, individual, association, organization, partnership, trust, limited liability company, or corporation.

Notice that "Man" or "Woman" is not used. If you can make the claim of being a "Man" or "Woman", then the "law" is not relevant to you given Canadian Law is setup in this fashion.

Now, where will these worms lead us?

'til dawn...

Now, where will these worms lead us? 'til dawn...

Are you a lawyer?  Just curious.

There's a simple solution - Michael Moore should become a Canadian citizen. I'm sure it's crossed his mind.

There's a simple solution - Michael Moore should become a Canadian citizen. I'm sure it's crossed his mind.

Do you think they would take him?

Now, where will these worms lead us?

I have no idea. You lost me at:

If the Canadian courts are in similar construct to US courts, then it is about jurisdiction with respect to the power of the court as exemplified by the flag within.

And that was the first paragraph. Not a lawyer, sorry. Hopefully someone with a more legal brain than mine can carry the torch along.

Michael Moore should become a Canadian citizen.

Of course not! Don't be ridiculous. Dissent from within is far more powerful. And then he wouldn't be able to claim that American right-wing strongmen are keeping him down. If he lives in Costa Rica, for example, how can he claim to be a martyr at the hands of the right-wing establishment?

meh, he's addressing Canadian citizens. I don't see how that isn't "putting forth" with the intent to address them. If he was talking about them, maybe, but he's speaking to them specifically...

"Are you a lawyer? Just curious."

No, I wouldn't want to do that -- be part of the scam. It's just an interest of mine.

"There's a simple solution - Michael Moore should become a Canadian citizen. I'm sure it's crossed his mind"

He would fair better uncovering the occult of the US government.

'til dawn...

No, I wouldn't want to do that -- be part of the scam. It's just an interest of mine.

AH!  I am liking you more and more!

Join JU.  It is free!  And I like your take on it all.  My wife is a paralegal so I do speak legalese!  I dont like it, but I do speak it (and yes it greases the spokes of life).

"I have no idea. You lost me at..."

Simply stated... If the Canadian courts are similar to US courts, then you are likely to have admiralty law playing its part in the courtroom [Most countries have mixed jurisdiction -- common law, equity, and admiralty law.] where it shouldn't.

You may find yourself having access to only one set of courts (as in the US -- access to Article I courts but not Article III courts) which are for property ( ) and they are judging you in your "person" (criminal).

'til dawn...

and some yall complain the loudest about sloppy fact checking and selective reporting on the part of the dreaded msm.

just a little tiny bit of digging woulda led you to discover whatta non-issue this is.

PART 16
COMMUNICATIONS *

Interpretation

Definitions
319. The definitions in this section apply in this Part.

"election advertising" « publicité électorale »
"election advertising" means the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated. For greater certainty, it does not include**

(a) the transmission to the public of an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, a commentary or news;

( the distribution of a book, or the promotion of the sale of a book, for no less than its commercial value, if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of whether there was to be an election;

(c) the transmission of a document directly by a person or a group to their members, employees or shareholders, as the case may be; or

(d) the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his or her personal political views***.

* this would be the part of the act under which s 331 falls.

** ooops. seems as if there are some exclusions goin on.

*** it's really sad and disturbing to see those who profess to be the most supportive of america's freedoms eagerly--and, to be frank, ignorantly--calling for enforcement of a provision they mistakenly believe to limit freedom of speech.

on the other hand, i believe the head of one country's government threatening to cut off grants of financial aid to another country's populace should they not vote the way they're told has gotta qualify as inducing "electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate"

"electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate"

You mean like America is doing to Palestine after they voted in Hamas?