Statute Of Westminster 1931 Puns

COVID-19

All your usual COVID discussion is welcome. But also remember, /r/coronavirusuk, where you too can pretend to dob your neighbours in.

Weekly Freetalk

How have you been? What are you doing? Any fun things coming up?

We will maintain this submission for ~7 days and refresh iteratively :). Further refinement or other suggestions are encouraged. Meta is welcome. But don't expect mods to spring up out of nowhere.

Sorting

On the web, we sort by New. Those of you on mobile clients, suggest you do also!

If the Statute of Westminster never happened in this timeline, why aren’t the Dominions puppets of Canada/the restored UK? Is this to represent the relative autonomy they’d have once London collapsed, or does it have something to do with the Act which consolidated some of the territories like Australasia together after WW1? If they were still puppets it would be cool RP-wise to be able to grant them independence whilst retaining them in the faction in a Commonwealth-style deal after retaking the Home Islands. It could also lead to a split with the Entente faction if France and Sardinia went with Germany after WK2 (the faction could be renamed to ‘Commonwealth of Nations’ like in Führerreich).

On this day in 1931, this statute declared that British Law would no longer apply to Canada (with some significant exceptions!). Arguably, this was the most important step towards Canada's tortuous path towards complete independence since 1848, when the government became responsible to the Canadian parliament and not to London.

Where are we today? I would say we are 99% independent. The Queen (fictitiously as the Queen of Canada) still approves our choice of Governor General and ambassadors. Of course, it is unimaginable that she would disapprove, but what of future monarchs?

Just looking at the dates, we have Irish war of independence from 1919-1921, but then in 1926 we have the Balfour Declaration that all dominions in the Empire are equal in status, and in 1931 we have the Statute of Westminster allowing independence to any dominion that wants it.

It's interesting that so much strife and warfare was required for Irish independence, when just a decade later it was suddenly available to everybody if they requested it. Is this partially because Irish independence opened the issue of independence in the British Empire as a whole, or is the timing a bit of a coincidence? (e.g. independence was more motivated by national identities forged in WWI than by the example of the Irish)

Question in title.

Few Canadians realize the significance of the 1931 Statute of Westminster. It was probably the biggest step towards full independence since Confederation - until Trudeau's repatriation of the Constitution in 1982.

On that day, British Law no longer applied in Canada, except for:

1. Changes to the Constitution, which had to be passed by the British Parliament, and

2. Final appeals in the justice system - which were to Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London (repealed by Parliament in 1949).

It's fair to say, that we are now 99% independent. The Queen still approves the PM's choice of Governor General as well as our ambassadors.

Running an empire is expensive. And nobody felt the financial burden of a globe spanning empire quite like the British. Parliament realized this once the great depression hit, and almost immediately liberal and anti imperialist elements in parliament had discussed giving the dominions more power separate from The Empire. The conservative elements battled them for years, until 1933, when the conservatives finally folded and agreed to give the Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, and The Irish Free State more autonomy from the crown. After much negotiation, the following articles were drafted and passed through parliament.

1. In this Act the expression "Dominion" means any of the following Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.

2. (1) The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion.

(2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion.

3. It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.

4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

5. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the Legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the Parliament of a Dominion.

6. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1

We are implementing the new amendments to the Second Statute of Westminster:

• A commitment to a joint-voting bloc in the UN, on non-vital matters (and some vital).
• A voluntary cooperation article, entitling either party to aid the other in non-NATO operations as deemed necessary.
• A vocal commitment to the same goals in international affairs.
• Peaceful international cooperation such as foreign development aid, and multilateral organisations such as the UN, bilaterally.
• Increased shared defence and intelligence intel.
• Routes for further defence collaboration in development, exercises and deployment.
• Further cooperation in the Commonwealth and Commonwealth activities.
• Increased encouragement of UK-Canada FDI, both ways.
• Returning preference to British immigrants in immigration law, repealed in 1967.

This will join the points of the Second Statue of Westminster previously ratified.

Prime Minister Tim Farron has proposed officially a bilateral deal to be known as the "Second Statute of Westminster" between the UK and Canada. The deal will encompass the modern current relationship enshrining the joint values and cooperation such as AUSCANNZUKUS and Five Eyes, as well as a few new dedications in the post-EU era.

As part of the deal:

• The Second Statute of Westminster establishes a permanent bilateral commission between the two countries as a method of resolving issues and promoting cooperation. This will be hosted in Ottawa and London and to be paid for by both countries.
• The two countries will share and enjoy a free trade deal on all goods and services to the effect of mass reduction of tariffs. There will be exceptions allowed for key industries for both countries but only under bilateral approval.
• The armed forces of Canada and the UK will share information and cooperate together in joint exercises regularly.
• The UK and Canada will cooperate and share information diplomatically to ensure a joint promotion of interests.
• Canadians will be granted freedom of movement to the UK and Britons will be granted exceptions in immigration to Canada.

I thought it just legally reaffirmed that the dominions were autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, according to the Balfour Declaration. However the following passage of the book claims Canada was no longer within the Empire after the Statute of Westminster. http://fraser.cc/FlagsCan/Nation/CanFlag.html

"Even Diefenbaker's choice of words is revealing, for Canada had not been "within the empire" since the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931."

#Government of New Zealand

The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1948
July 10th, 1948
Wellington, New Zealand

In the desire to abolish the ineffectual and counterproductive New Zealand Legislative Council, and in effect, modify the constitution by amending the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 in order to abolish said body, and in the desire of placing New Zealand on equal legal and constitutional terms as the Commonwealth Realms and respect a spirit of national sovereignty, Parliament has acted to adopt the Statue of Westminster 1931 through the passage of the The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1948. This will mean that from this moment on, New Zealand has formally and legally accepted accepted the full de jure and de facto sovereignty offered by the British Parliament through the Statute of Westminster 1931, and henceforth the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 has been repealed.

Sections Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six of the Statute of Westminster 1931 have been adopted, meaning New Zealand now has authority to legislate extraterritoriality, to bar the Parliament of the United Kingdom from legislating for New Zealand without its consent, and to establish jurisdiction over merchant shipping and Courts of Admiralty. New Zealand is now also guaranteed an independent foreign policy, and will no longer as such be automatically placed in a state of war should the United Kingdom declare war on any nation from this moment on. However, with no such high court of appeal, ultimate authority, and last resort existing in New Zealand, the nation hopes that in good faith, it will still have access to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom as it has had before the passage of this bill.

With the passage of this bill, New Zealand claims the status of a Commonwealth Realm, like that of Canada and Australia, and will maintain His Majesty King George the VI, and his successors, as a reigning Monarch, along with the other devices of Monarchy and Dominion Government such as the Office of the Governor General. With the adoption of the Statue of Westminster, New Zealand also binds itself to the rule of unanimous consent regarding any changes to be made in the rules of royal succession or royal style and titles, as defined in the Statute itself:

> **And whereas it is meet and proper t

Your citation should tell you the code section you allegedly violated. Sometimes it will be hand printed by the officer in a box or blank; other times it's preprinted on the ticket, with the officer simply checking the appropriate box. In either case, near the statute number, you will often find a very short description of the law. You might see something like, "VC 22350"—meaning "Vehicle Code section 22350." Or "TC 545.351," for "Transportation Code section 545.351."

Once you find the law you're accused of breaking, read it carefully. The penalties for traffic offense are typically less severe than those for more serious violations of the law. But the state—either a prosecutor or the citing officer—still has the burden of proving you committed the offense. When you read a statute, you want to figure out exactly what components—called the "elements"—make up a violation of the law.

I've used this successfully recently to battle a ticket in Hawaii where an airport cop pulled me over and wrote me a ticket for speeding. Looked up the statute and they were required to prove their case by either getting me on radar of following me for one mile. This was a small aiport only 3/4 of a mile total around, and he didn't get me on radar. I cited the statute, showed they didn't meet the burden of proof, and they dismissed the case. All by mail without a court appearance.

IMO it's worth your time. Most statutes can be found online.

I've been to traffic court before and 100% of the people found guilty say things like "the sun was in my eyes" or "this isn't fair" or "the cops are just trying to make their quota" and the successful ones cite the specific statute, bring up exceptions found in the statute (i.e. no parking at any time except for temporary loading and unloading -"I was moving into my new apt and the statute allows for this exception") and successfully argue why the state hasn't proven their case.

Conversely, Hogwarts professors have an extremely hard time convincing muggleborn parents that their child is a Witch or Wizard.

The rapist is still alive, but has no assets. Because the rapist was a minor at the time, his parents' homeowners insurance policy is liable -- if they are still in business and I can find out who they are.

I found an atty who will take my case if I can find that policy. The mortgage company was "United States Mortgage and Title Guaranty Company of New Jersey" but they don't appear to be in business anymore. Most likely they were acquired by another company, since you can't just drop people with a 30-yr mortgage.

Any ideas on how to find out who acquired them? Or is there another way to locate a homeowners insurance policy from 1966?

I have copies of both the deed and the mortgage to the house where I was raped.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

https://www.nj.com/news/2019/05/what-you-should-know-about-njs-tough-new-law-giving-sexual-assault-victims-more-time-to-sue-their-abusers.html

Update 9:24 EST 11.11.21: I received a message that this post was automatically removed by a bot, but I can still see it. Not sure if others can see it or not. Thanks for all the support and good advice!

Update 10:37 am EST 11.11.21: I am trying to find the mortgage co only because they might have a record of the homeowner's insurance policy. Until a mortgage is paid off, the mortgage co partly owns the property and has an interest in making sure it is insured so they don't lose their asset in a fire, tornado, etc. The atty I'm working with advised me to find the homeowner's insurance policy, so I'm going on his advice.

I just found this company so am calling them now: https://www.cullen-hemphill.com/library/homeowners-insurance-can-cover-child-sex-abuse-claims.cfm

Things you said and done 10 years ago are not necessarily reflective of who you are now. Obvious exception s apply to criminal and severely harmful actions. But comments and views can change over time and shouldn't derail your life if you can demonstrate change.