Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'law'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type



Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



Found 7 results

  1. Can people criticise Sikhi? Recently some woman in Austria was fined and jailed for calling the muslim prophet a pedo. Now obviously different people will have different opinions on this, some will agree some won't. In European countries this is a very touchy subject and we now live in a politically correct culture where most people hesitate to voice their opinions in case they offend someone. With people being jailed for criticising religion, political correctness it makes you wonder if freedom of speech really exists. But what about sikhi, let's say khalistan was created, would the Hindus, Christians, dalits and whatever be allowed to criticise Sikhi? Would they be allowed to question the divinity of the gurus, guru granth sahib ji, miracles, sikh ithias, question and criticise the lives of the gurus and other sikh figures. Would they be allowed to give their own interpretation of guru granth sahib ji? If not, but one of them decides to, how would we deal with it? In most middle eastern countries you have you head chopped off for questioning Islam, what would happen in a sikh country? Not a trick question, just interested in knowing what others think of this ...
  2. SSA Sangat Ji, I was looking at various things and what not and came across the 3 main quotes on the entrance hall at Harvard Law School and was shocked to find a quote on there from a book many of us on here belittle and say that there is nothing of value to find in it. The 3 quotes are: “An unjust law is no law at all.” - Saint Augustine (Augustine of Hippo) “To no one will We sell, to none will We deny or defer, right or justice.” - Magna Carta of King John “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both.” - Qur’an I am as shocked as many of you are to find a quote from the Quran at a prestigious place of learning such as Harvard Law School, how on Earth do you guys think it got there? My second question I guess is that how can we as a community get scripture from the Guru Granth Sahib at these places as it'll raise awareness for Sikhi when people read it and what not and could potentially lead to more people becoming Sikh? WJKK WJKF Source: http://library.law.harvard.edu/justicequotes/explore-the-room/west/
  3. Lieutenant-General Kuldeep Singh Brar, 78, was targeted by the gang in revenge for his role in the 1984 Indian military strike on the Golden Temple, in Amritsar - one of the holiest shrines for Sikhs. Lt-Gen Brar was involved in Operation Blue Star against Sikh separatists, who the Indian authorities said were sheltering inside the temple. His attackers had vowed to get revenge, even though most of them were only infants at the time of the Golden Temple clash, London's Appeal Court heard. And their chance came when Lt-Gen Brar visited London with his wife, said Mr Justice Dingemans, having left his habitual security guards behind in India. The five jailed over the attack were Mandeep Singh Sandhu, 36, of Green Lane, Great Barr; Dilbag Singh, 38, of no known address; Harjit Kaur, 40, of Hayes, Middlesex; Barjinder Singh Sangha, of Wolverhampton; and Lakhbir Singh, 27, of Crockets Lane, Smethwick. Clockwise from top left: Mandeep Singh Sandhu, Dilbag Singh, Barjinder Singh Sangha, and Harjit KaurAll five were jailed for wounding with intent - with the majority of the gang being sentenced at London's Southwark Crown Court in December last year. Sandhu and Dilbag Singh were each handed 14-year terms, Harjit Kaur received 11 years, Sangha got 10-and a-half years and Lakhbir Singh received 10 years. All save Sangha took their cases to the Appeal Court challenging their sentences this week. Mr Justice Dingemans told how Lt-Gen Brar was attacked by the gang while he and his wife strolled through a street in Marylebone, north London. In the hours before the ambush, Harjit Kaur had tailed the Brars around the capital - keeping her accomplices up to speed with their movements. And when the couple reached Old Quebec Street the general was attacked, suffering severe neck wounds after Sangha slashed at him with a knife. The court heard how the pensioner desperately fought back and managed to beat off his attackers, escaping with a 12-inch gash running from neck to jaw. He said later that the attack left him with long-term 'anxiety', while his wife had been 'devastated'. Mr Justice Dingemans, sitting with the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, and Mr Justice Sweeney, said the gang were guilty of a 'very grave offence' committed in a public place. Dismissing the appeals, the judge concluded: "This was a high-profile and well-organised attack. "We are not persuaded that the sentences imposed were excessive." http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/10/17/gang-who-attacked-pensioner-have-appeal-thrown-out/
  4. Was just reading the Laws governing Dastar in UK, and how they might apply to Singhni in UK that wore Dastar? The main line in contention is: "(2A) A requirement imposed by regulations under this section (whenever made) shall not apply to any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban. Any thoughts? An Act to exempt turban-wearing followers of the Sikh religion from the requirement to wear a crash-helmet when riding a motor-cycle. (15th November 1976) BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :- Amendment of Road Traffic Act 1972. 1972c. 20 1. In section 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 there shall be inserted after subsection (2) the following new subsection :- "(2A) A requirement imposed by regulations under this section (whenever made) shall not apply to any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban." 2. This Act may be cited as the Motor-Cycle Crash-Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976.
  5. I recently heard about a horrible law case and this's how it went down... A man married a woman 14 years ago while the woman's daughter was 3. In 2013 the daughter is now 17 and has a boyfriend, the step dad found out about this and slapped the daughter (just like what would happen with most indian parents). The daughter got mad and went to her boyfriend where they came up with a plan to charge the step dad for rape even though he didn't do anything like that. The step dad gets arrested for this and spends 3 months in prison while the step daughter and her mom take all the money from their joint bank account. The Gurdwara raises money for the man and he's released on bail. But the step daughter doesn't want this so she comes up with all these false allegations like being touched and being raped, while getting all of her friends to be "witnesses" to a fake crime. The man has no money because it all got taken while he was in jail so he can't afford a lawyer. What I find disgusting is that the step dad treated the daughter like his own and made sure she didn't go through any problems, he even bought her a brand new car and was willing to pay for her college even though she wasn't his real daughter. What would he have to do? He could face up to 5-10 years in jail over a crime he didn't commit.
  6. Ok, to start (mods will filter this) <banned word filter activated> government. <banned word filter activated> it, its wife, and children. Ok, now to continue 10 maxims of law: Any good lawyer who has not sworn an oath to be British Accreditation Registry's phudi will tell you this is true: (also makes sense, also tested in court by me, with victories ) http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3448%C2'> Or google 10 maxims of law cuz that guy is on prozac (which is reason for mass murders) and is talking about love, peace, let me get naked for that police to encounter me, etc. Pick up the good, shoot out the bad. I Vreak Downn Eech Vun Phor Ju. 1. A workman is worthy of his hire: Posession is 9/10ths of the law (won't get into last tenth which is just the legal right or wrong). I have ipod in my pocket, or let's say 2 bills cash. By law, (not any statute cuz law always win) unless there is a valid claim that the money is stolen, a valid claim filed by someone (real person only law, gov. is fiction) that money is yours. Nobody can come up to you and say I think you stole it, blah blah blah, prove you didn't. Doesn't matter in civil law places either where it guilty until innocent cuz the gov. can't rebut your affidavit (more on that below). 2. All are equal under the Law 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: "No one is above the law."; "Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few."). Force has meaning as for example you file lien on POTUS (obama) it probably won't be enforced, but you can destroy his credit with it and hit him the f up. Everything else, Prime minister, to police officer you can crank them with this. Obv. some places incl. states this is harder as some counties dont take liens vs gov. agents but I give you gun you find bullets. You have knowledge and info I have the lassi I am drinking. 3. In Commerce truth is sovereign 13:8. Legal maxim: "To lie is to go against the mind." Few things, pretty much it's related to the things below but it also goes well it's related to the things below. Law is supposed to pplz telling truth for honesty or bcuz of consequences but remember they have to prove you lie. (More on this later). 4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12). Yes, an affidavit is supposed to be even 3 signatures or statement written with penalty of perjury but I encourage the panth to only go for bigger matters so spend the $5-10 per seal (find a good one) for a notary cuz it looks GOOD! (Some will say page, but it's per document a doc. can have multiple pages, blah blah blah, other party can't say <banned word filter activated> anyway [gov. as in thing that can't speak by itself]) 5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: "He who does not deny, admits."). Main and HUGE thing, I submitted an affidavit where I said I am not subject to these gov. rules, they all gov. agents speak hog-wash, etc. etc. gov. did not rebut it in court. It is truth (post later on). 6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or "duel," of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.). Basically, a judge can only judge what you let him, if both parties are talking judge has no power to come in between. If you two settle outside of court for example, judge has to be silent. Whether he'll try something depends on if this is India or not but I swear all you kukkars are in UK. 7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: "He who fails to assert his rights has none."). Yea, it's cool to scream (submit) cuz otherwise it's assumed that nun happen. As in this system is basically the word I'm looking for ignorantly corrupt. A judge can pretend to say I thought you were a gov. agent subject to Canadian law for example, cuz u didn't rebut it. It goes on and on but basically use this the other way too. There are things like without prejudice or something on docs mean it's in negotiation and can't be brought up in court. (Ain't fully research this part) so you can use this to your advantage (or your mother will beat you). 8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim: "He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it."). Really just a repeat of points 5 and 6. 9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility (One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath that he consents to claim against his commercial liability in the event that any of his statements or actions is groundless or unlawful, has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority.) (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen, maxim: "He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit."). This is long one, ADD kids please don't lose it here; basically it means that one who has no interest in the case has no reason to be there. You can fabricate interest for example you see cop abusing someone even verbally (I'll look up stuff for you) you can easily say you have interest blah blah, and ask the person a dollar for your help in which case you have interest now due to employment. Remember it is interest, no authority in the land has jurisdiction to challenge what that interest means. If you are there for someone you are there for someone. Remember this is battlefield, make your own weaponary. 10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter-affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: "If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved."). Yea, judge can't touch lien this is Sikhsangat.com not lawsangat.com so I won't post full commerical lien process here but google that exact thing you'll find stuff from everywhere I'll go into it later but probably only after I feel comfortable and done it once or twice which is most likely months away. My Story--- Youth robbery charges cuz they try to rob me, got sucked. Ok, house arrest learned this june last year, brought to feds, this that got them stuck in lien bill, met them somewhere too close to probation location. Admitted in court, yea I went there but can you prove it's me that probation addresses (all caps is fiction, also other party to contract ie. gov. has no respond see was it points 5 and 6)? Kinda nervous case dismissed due to my motion, they admitted they couldn't have convicted me, blah blah. Here this crazy kid is. Relevant Canadian Sections since I looked them up but really it doesn't matter. You don't need any of this I'll give example: I am 'charged' by state of New Mexico. For Idk Drunk Driving, Speeding, No License, w.e Ok but no-one is injured and they are not the injured party (see point 9). --- I would go in give letter to attorney say it's for the 'STATE' put in w.e song I was listening to blah blah, ask them is it not true that w.e make <banned word filter activated> up and for so-so reason I am not subject to your bs. (Put like cuz ur not real, this that, common law, ABRA KADABRA). If you say nothing then it means you agree to this: Legal Maxim: Silence Is Acquiescence. Swear affidavit with all those points, file motion to dismiss serve them with it. Ok. Done. This doesn't get into how to not even be charged for statues again, as some people have on their names in CPIC (Canadian Stalkers People Database) do not arrest without express written consent of attorney general. But I ain't there yet, don't care to be and this is the basics that everyone can grasp and which don't vary and which are UN-BREAKABLE. (read again). Even peace officers in commonwealth swear to uphold law of land, keep peace, and stop it from being breached. Nothing about penal/criminal code (look it up, ask w.e). Law of land well the only law the land can have is that. Cuz it's all semantics this ish works, and I guess they get into cuz god's creatures live in harmony (humans) and this is how we live in peace. It's pretty much called law of land cuz law of sea is the statutes etc. in a way cuz ur signing up to board and there must be discipline tc. I guess (ain't research it but trust me). --- CANADIAN SECTIONS (let me stop rambling about the New Mexico thing, it's an ugly desert. ) s. 32 says something like parliament authority provinces. etc of charter (constitution act 1982 or something). Look up R V Dell 2005 line 6-8 admits that charter does not apply to private parties (us). S. 52 of const. act says this is supreme law of canada anything else no force or effect. R V Big Drug Mart 1982 or 1986 w.e w.e restates that any statutes against that don't matter. Ok Class, if charter don't apply to you and it is top? Vut else does. NOTHING. --- Ok, let me post this to other Sikh Sites and other sites now. Thank You. Remember tho in the largest 'common law' country of all an affidavit won't save you level iv ceramic plates might. Remeber our 2.5 strikes doctrine? one point for hit and run/guerilla/ambushes and only .5 for pitched battle. Teaching people is much more warlike and better so 1 point than going to jail even for less than 24 hrs getting bail and then getting out and beating it cuz u lost time, patience etc. It is NO FUN waiting to sign someones bail, or sitting in a <banned word filter activated> small <banned word filter activated> cell getting orange juice and tuna sandwich. But there is time for it, and don't let it scare you. Adult jail is soft, been there once for less than 24 like I said just talked about this stuff but wasn't in jail jail, we'll see. 99.99% + 1 of men are kaami khote attempting to trap women in marriages to don't worry about them. Girls respond to dominance, so mamis just act big and you'll be fine. Peace and Blessings. And please see my thread about christmas light on Nishan Sahib. F Rexdale. O <banned word filter activated>, keeps posting but giving me server error. Sorry about that.
  7. Hi I am a first year dental student and I am required to get changed into scrubs Before going into a clinic but the problem is I cant fit the srubs over my Dastar! also i am required to wear a visor but i find it hard to put the legs of the visor over my ears as my ears are covered by my dastar. does any one have any tips? what does other sikh dentists/ surgeons do to over come these problems? also leagaly do I have any rights to ask the dental school to allow me to wear a different uniform from the rest of students, e.g one that i can button up so i dont have to put on over my head. please reply with any suggestions whatever they are even if you are not a dentist or surgeon but just have some good ideas or knowledge of the law thanks :biggrin2:
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use