The Freeman Movement and England

[Architect]

Sure. That is how it starts.

Next thing we know you are going to paint yourself blue and start wearing kilts.

There are about 5m folk in my country who wouldn't have a huge problem with the kilt bit!

 

[Lothian]

There are about 5m folk in my country who wouldn't have a huge problem with the kilt bit!

but they would resent paying for the paint.

 

[D'rok]

Sure. That is how it starts.

Next thing we know you are going to paint yourself blue and start wearing kilts.

If we started wearing kilts up here in Canuck winterland, we wouldn't have to worry about the blue paint. At least not on or about our kilty bits. Brrrrr....

I wonder if it's possible to look like a fierce freedom fighter in a parka and mukluks.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Also obviously false. People every day, in Canada and every other civilized country, are punished without their consent for violating statutes.

No, they all have consented and the proof is evidenced by virtue of the fact that they are in possession of things like government issued identification. Likely they did not realize when they were consenting, but they all did.

Leading me to guess that they aren't smoking their own supply, so to speak.

Your guesses are just that, guesses. They are not fact.

Quote:
The truth is no man can govern me without my consent.
Plainly false.

Well, I know you can't, and I know you can't speak for others here in Canada, and everytime they try to govern me, I make my stand, defend my claims and they retreat. The people in the government, courts, police departments, are just that, merely people, and they have no divine right or power to govern their fellow man without the consent of the one they seek to govern. You stating “Plainly False” does not make it so, and if true then try to govern me without my consent. Try to hire someone to do it. Try to find anyone in Canada willing to claim they have the right. You won't find one and I can show you what happened when the Supreme Court here tried doing that to me. They issued an order. I stood against it, pointed out certain truths rather publicly, and they had it withdrawn. This is verifiable by looking at the Website of The Law Society of British Columbia. Maybe you folks who know so much about the law could call them and offer them some help, cause I am kicking their ass and there is nothing they, their courts, or the government can do to govern me without my consent. But apparently it is so plainly false, that all you have to do is say it is plainly false. Why not call them and explain what makes it so plainly false. They really would love to have that argument to bring to court. But they can't and don't.

I just find the hubris staggering. Suppose I, a non-physicist, were to start studying quantum mechanics and came to conclusions that professional physicists constantly told me were wrong. I may not like the blow to my ego, but I couldn't - without making up some fantastic and disparaging story about physicists - maintain my stance. And I like to think that good old Occam's razor would lead me to at least consider that it was I who was in the wrong.

You want hubris? Read the words of one David E. Sherman, one of the premier tax lawyers of Canada. He is on record as stating that detaxers read the Income Tax Act and think they understand it because they think they are reading English but are not. It is law and they can't understand it without the training he has. And yet he will argue those same words are laws that we are all bound to obey. “These are your laws. You can't understand them, but we can. You must do what we say without question, for those reasons.” That is the position they present. Mine is that we can all read and know what those words mean and not merely assume they mean what the great masses have been led to believe they do. I believe that one does not have to be a member of a specific profession to know the law. According to you, only lawyers can make that claim, and everyone else must follow them. You speak about the experts in the law and imply that it is due to my ego that I refuse to bow to their interpretations. I simply do not see that as ego. I see it as freewill and exercising the right to make my own choices. Do you consider that to be hubris?

That was the scenario.
[STEPS 1 - 10]
Here's the question: what do you do now? What is the next step under the Freeman plan? To whom do you appeal?

My step at that point would be to re-examine my actions in steps 1 through ten as you defined them and realize which one lead me to the reality I was experiencing and what to do differently the next time. In this situation you have described, the change would take place sat step 5. Based on your scenario, the property in question is not held under a claim of right, as per Section 38 and 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada nor has the owner established lawful excuse to disobey by way of a Claim of Right as per Section 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Thus I would do those things. I would also under those Sections appoint a whole bunch of people to protect my property, amongst them being the Sheriff and his Deputies and sworn peace officers. So when they came they would find a lot more then mere discussion, and if arrested, they would be liable for a fee schedule and in court I would have a claim of right to justify my actions. Plus, because the property is held now under a claim of right, the same people you said would come and remove it, will now act to defend it.

I didn't ask for court proof; I asked for documentation. Where is it? Has no one ever video-taped an encounter with the police where your strategy succeeds? Is all you have really post-hoc anecdotes? C'mon. This is a sceptics' site. We require more than that to be convinced.

I will do what I can when I have the power to post links here. I simply have no other way to do so.
For instance if I could post links I could show you where the law society changed their public notice board and removed an order of the Supreme Court which police and the law society wanted to enforce against me. It is not there anymore and there is a notice that it has been changed, with one thing removed, because new information came to light.

I also asked you to elaborate on your interpretation of s. 15 of the Criminal Code. Can you do that?

Yes I can. I like the interpretation I read here and it coincides with the teachings I have read elsewhere. The analogy I have heard a professor of law give had to do with an airplane and the pilot thereof having a heart attack and a passenger having to take over the duties of pilot. He then became the defacto pilot, and those who chose to accept his commands could not be punished for doing so. However the defacto pilot could not enjoy the same benefits of authority that the original lawful dejure pilot was entitled to. I personally do not see that section as containing the greatest amount of remedy. I see 38, 39, 126 and 127 as far more empowering.

I'm guessing that you don't want to talk about Canadian court cases because you know they have been complete failures. For example, you tried but failed to use FOTL arguments to get intervenor status in United States of America v. Emery, et al.

I used no FMOTL arguments in that case at all. And again with the guessing. Your guess is wrong. Since you like guessing so much guess again.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to cut into your income from your fraudulent legal advice, now would we?

Have you any evidence that I engage in the unlawful action of fraud? If so present it, if not, is this acceptable behaviour here? Accusing someone without evidence in print is libelous and thus unlawful in itself. There are many I have helped who are quite happy with my efforts and the outcome. That link you gave directs to a page upon which one cannot find the words legal or advice. So how can you justify claiming I am offering either? I wonder if the moderator here will allow this act of libel to stand?

So if Freemen On The Land choose to lose their status as persons, I say let them. That means we'll be able to kidnap them, beat them up, steal their wallets, sell them into slavery, and anything else we want to because, if they are no longer legally persons, then they have no rights.

Well now this is getting absurd. We do not advocate doing any of those things to you, but you claim to have the right to do that to use merely because upon reading words you chose to ignore we find a level of freedom you do not wish to claim for yourself. Do you claim the right to do those things to say illegal aliens? In Canada all are bound by the Criminal Code sections which deal with harming another human being, damaging their property, or using fraud. Simply because I refuse to contract with you, or your representatives does not mean you are now free to break the law. And the fact that you actually think like you apparently do is to me sufficient reason to not want to associate or contract with you or belong to your society. If you honestly believe those words, it is you that is insane. Incidentally, as a human being I have human rights, and these are not granted by governments or the courts and one of them is the right to defend myself against those insane people who think that because I do not have government issued ID they can kidnap, beat me up, steal my property, sell me into slavery or anything else like that. Try it and see how we Freeman can and will exercise our right to defend our life and liberty. You have abandoned yours and done so with pride. Don't think that we can't fight just because you may have lost sight of what it means to be free. If this is the predominant perspective of the regulars on this board, I would like to know.

What I don't understand is why the NWO or whoever would bother putting this "fake" legal system over the top of a "real" system and try to fool everyone into following it when they could just get rid of the "real" system in the first place.

Your assumption is that they could 'just get rid of the real system in the first place'. That is a false assumption. They are just people, and they have no power to obviate the law, merely operate within it. They operate as fictions and corporations and the law can give rise to a fiction, a fiction can not give rise to the law. I mean no offence or disrespect, but your belief, that any human being would have such power is a symptom of how badly you have been conditioned to believe they have a level of power which they do not. This belief is to your detriment and their gain and one which is not shared by Freemen. Let me ask you this? The same question can be reversed. If they had the power to get rid of the REAL system, then why would they need to create the obviously fake one now?

I would like to address the questions regarding insurance and operator competence. I am not adverse to either and have developed a concept which we are trying to get off the ground. I have done significant research into the lawfulness of the concept and am confident it would work. I do not have the skills however to do the administrative aspects and we are slowly bringing that together. It involves a group of 1000 people all putting $1000 in trust and agreeing to share liability. It is called PACLIP for Private Automobile Collision Liability Insurance Program. Once entered in all have $1M in liability and the money earns interest. If no one has an accident then that money continues acting as insurance and earning money. If there is an accident, then the fund pays out, only for collision liability mind you, and all share the burden. However there will be a great deal of incentive to operate in a far more courteous and safe manner. The individual groups could form and define who they wanted in their co-op and limit it to say families with four wheel drives, so they would not bear the burden that young aggressive men in sports cars tend to be. They could have their own group, and they would quickly see the cost of their own actions drawn from their own pockets. If no one in your group was liable for a collision over your lifetime, (not sure what the odds of that are) then your money is returned to you, it has earned interest the entire time, and you only had to pay $1000 ONCE not as in some cases several thousand a year. Every year.

I understand you all wish to have proof spoon fed to you and claim that I am making the extraordinary claim thus must be the one to provide proof. I look at it differently. I live my life the way I want, and when people such as government agents, law societies, police, bylaw enforcement, court operators and the like come into my life and try to govern, control, tax or regulate me, I make them prove their claim that they have the power to do any of those things without my consent and not a single one of them ever can. Thus it is them claiming the right to govern, which to me is the extraordinary claim, even if generally accepted, and me saying prove it, and them failing to do so. Every time.

Well these have been my replies, sorry if I could not respond to every question, some seemed mean spirited and some rhetorical. As for the unlawful acts I have seen some engage in here, to wit saying I act fraudulently and offer legal advice, which to me is libel, and suggesting violence against the people who claim their rights as did the guy who advocated kidnapping, well, some of you people need to check yourself.

The fact remains not a single one of you is willing to claim that you may govern me without my consent. And I have never met anyone who does make that claim and is willing to defend it. Cowardly on keyboards sure, but not to my face. So until I meet someone who does try to govern me, I will act as I do and continue sharing my words and beliefs and I am setting up some pretty big shows coming up. I know you have all by way of repetition deemed the Freeman knowledge to be 'debunked'. However your words here on this forum have no effect or force in real life, and thousands of people every week are coming to this knowledge and embracing the empowerment it brings. I will let them know that some folks here have without examination deemed these beliefs to be bunk and I am sure they will decide to abandon them once the see you have labelled them as woo.

In any event, those of you who seem to think I am wrong, please call the Law Society of British Columbia. They would love to know how to govern me without consent.

 

[volatile]

Post links with spaces between the punctuation.

 

[D'rok]

I will do what I can when I have the power to post links here. I simply have no other way to do so.
For instance if I could post links I could show you where the law society changed their public notice board and removed an order of the Supreme Court which police and the law society wanted to enforce against me. It is not there anymore and there is a notice that it has been changed, with one thing removed, because new information came to light.

You can post links. Just remove the "http://" part.

Yes I can. I like the interpretation I read here and it coincides with the teachings I have read elsewhere. The analogy I have heard a professor of law give had to do with an airplane and the pilot thereof having a heart attack and a passenger having to take over the duties of pilot. He then became the defacto pilot, and those who chose to accept his commands could not be punished for doing so. However the defacto pilot could not enjoy the same benefits of authority that the original lawful dejure pilot was entitled to. I personally do not see that section as containing the greatest amount of remedy. I see 38, 39, 126 and 127 as far more empowering.

The plane analogy is not bad. In the simplest terms, s. 15 precludes punishment for obeying what was, at the time, a lawful authority even if that authority subsequently becomes unlawful, such as in a succession dispute. It is anachronistic and not particularly relevant anymore. So, how do you justify relying on it to avoid obeying Canadian statutes?

I used no FMOTL arguments in that case at all. And again with the guessing. Your guess is wrong. Since you like guessing so much guess again.

Are these, or or these not arguments from your affidavit in that case?

"The Treaty allows for the Extradition of those activities which are ‘against the law’ in the host Country. However, the actions of the accused were not ‘against the law’ at all, they contravened a statute and to label a statute as a law without examining the need of consent is disingenuous. Laws do not require consent in order for the contravention of them to be unlawful. Rape, murder and the like do not require any ones consent in order to be against the law. Actions of the type the accused are charged with do require at the very least a foundation of consent in order for the actions to be ‘illegal’."

"By My hand and compelled by My Faith and in the interest of justice, this Affidavit is humbly served by Robert-Arthur: Menard, a Freeman-on-the-Land, as a Friend to the Court, in defence of Canada’s Sovereignty, for the purpose of protecting the fundamentals of justice, in the defence of Freedom and in the hopes of finding a peaceful resolution.

Created by My Self without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity."

Distinction between statutes and laws - check
Advert to natural law - check
Claim statutes lack consent and are therefore ulawful - check
Sign-off as self-identified FOTL human - check
Implied distinction between Rob the person and Rob the human - check

No FOTL arguments? Give me a break. At least try to be honest in your claims here.

Have you any evidence that I engage in the unlawful action of fraud? If so present it, if not, is this acceptable behaviour here? Accusing someone without evidence in print is libelous and thus unlawful in itself. There are many I have helped who are quite happy with my efforts and the outcome. That link you gave directs to a page upon which one cannot find the words legal or advice. So how can you justify claiming I am offering either? I wonder if the moderator here will allow this act of libel to stand?

You know the answer to this very well. You are not licensed to practice law in BC. You offer legal advice and legal documents for direct and indirect benefit. You, fraudulently and under false pretences, offer legal services to your customers. I note that you avoided my question about the Sponagles' case. Did you, or did you not set them up with their Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right, as you have done for your customers in the past?

You think this is libel? Sue me. I could use the practice and the laugh.

While you're at it, please compose an apology to the memories of Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, and Nellie McClung, who, unlike you, struggled for personhood and freedom to the benefit of us all.

 

[Fiona]

<snip>

You want hubris? Read the words of one David E. Sherman, one of the premier tax lawyers of Canada. He is on record as stating that detaxers read the Income Tax Act and think they understand it because they think they are reading English but are not. It is law and they can't understand it without the training he has. And yet he will argue those same words are laws that we are all bound to obey. “These are your laws. You can't understand them, but we can. You must do what we say without question, for those reasons.” That is the position they present. Mine is that we can all read and know what those words mean and not merely assume they mean what the great masses have been led to believe they do. I believe that one does not have to be a member of a specific profession to know the law. According to you, only lawyers can make that claim, and everyone else must follow them. You speak about the experts in the law and imply that it is due to my ego that I refuse to bow to their interpretations. I simply do not see that as ego. I see it as freewill and exercising the right to make my own choices. Do you consider that to be hubris?

This is all true if I understand you aright but it has nothing at all to do with FOTL. With an understanding of any body of law one can do what a lawyer can do: no question. There is nothing mystical about it and there is nothing unusual about it either. But using the law well is no challenge to the law at all: so I don't see your point really

My step at that point would be to re-examine my actions in steps 1 through ten as you defined them and realize which one lead me to the reality I was experiencing and what to do differently the next time. In this situation you have described, the change would take place sat step 5. Based on your scenario, the property in question is not held under a claim of right, as per Section 38 and 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada nor has the owner established lawful excuse to disobey by way of a Claim of Right as per Section 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Thus I would do those things. I would also under those Sections appoint a whole bunch of people to protect my property, amongst them being the Sheriff and his Deputies and sworn peace officers. So when they came they would find a lot more then mere discussion, and if arrested, they would be liable for a fee schedule and in court I would have a claim of right to justify my actions. Plus, because the property is held now under a claim of right, the same people you said would come and remove it, will now act to defend it.

Same again so far as I can see

I will do what I can when I have the power to post links here. I simply have no other way to do so.
For instance if I could post links I could show you where the law society changed their public notice board and removed an order of the Supreme Court which police and the law society wanted to enforce against me. It is not there anymore and there is a notice that it has been changed, with one thing removed, because new information came to light.

And again

<snip

Have you any evidence that I engage in the unlawful action of fraud? If so present it, if not, is this acceptable behaviour here? Accusing someone without evidence in print is libelous and thus unlawful in itself. There are many I have helped who are quite happy with my efforts and the outcome. That link you gave directs to a page upon which one cannot find the words legal or advice. So how can you justify claiming I am offering either? I wonder if the moderator here will allow this act of libel to stand?

Seems to me there is no fraud: you are an unqualified lawyer offering legal advice to those who know you are not qualified. I can't see a problem there: of course those who take your advice are not covered if you should prove to be incompetent: and there is no professional indemnity or whatever equivalent you have there: but you are probably cheap and if folk can't afford a lawyer then you might well be very helpful in certain areas you have made a study of. The only thing which seems dodgy in any way is associating a perfectly normal and reasonably useful service with an ideology which seems to confer more than you can claim. In what sense are you different from the ordinary person in an advice bureau giving general advice and personal representation at various tribunals and courts which do not require rights of audience? In what sense is the use of the FOTL rhetoric not just as much an obfuscation as the jargon used by lawyers to give themselves status? They have studied and have a good grasp of different aspects of the law as well as the way the system works: I am better than many lawyers on scottish child care law because I specialise in child care and it is my business to know: but I do not have the same level of knowledge in other areas and I am not bound by the professional standards they have. That is what makes them a safer bet than me in general. How are you different?

Well now this is getting absurd. We do not advocate doing any of those things to you, but you claim to have the right to do that to use merely because upon reading words you chose to ignore we find a level of freedom you do not wish to claim for yourself. Do you claim the right to do those things to say illegal aliens? In Canada all are bound by the Criminal Code sections which deal with harming another human being, damaging their property, or using fraud. Simply because I refuse to contract with you, or your representatives does not mean you are now free to break the law. And the fact that you actually think like you apparently do is to me sufficient reason to not want to associate or contract with you or belong to your society. If you honestly believe those words, it is you that is insane. Incidentally, as a human being I have human rights, and these are not granted by governments or the courts and one of them is the right to defend myself against those insane people who think that because I do not have government issued ID they can kidnap, beat me up, steal my property, sell me into slavery or anything else like that. Try it and see how we Freeman can and will exercise our right to defend our life and liberty. You have abandoned yours and done so with pride. Don't think that we can't fight just because you may have lost sight of what it means to be free. If this is the predominant perspective of the regulars on this board, I would like to know.

Not sure if I am understanding this correctly but you seem to accept the legitimacy of the criminal law but not the civil law: again the difference is that in civil matters the issue is usually between two parties other than the state. In this country many such matters allow representation by anyone the litigant chooses and again I cannot see you are doing anything special at all. What am I missing?

<snip>

I would like to address the questions regarding insurance and operator competence. I am not adverse to either and have developed a concept which we are trying to get off the ground. I have done significant research into the lawfulness of the concept and am confident it would work. I do not have the skills however to do the administrative aspects and we are slowly bringing that together. It involves a group of 1000 people all putting $1000 in trust and agreeing to share liability. It is called PACLIP for Private Automobile Collision Liability Insurance Program. Once entered in all have $1M in liability and the money earns interest. If no one has an accident then that money continues acting as insurance and earning money. If there is an accident, then the fund pays out, only for collision liability mind you, and all share the burden. However there will be a great deal of incentive to operate in a far more courteous and safe manner. The individual groups could form and define who they wanted in their co-op and limit it to say families with four wheel drives, so they would not bear the burden that young aggressive men in sports cars tend to be. They could have their own group, and they would quickly see the cost of their own actions drawn from their own pockets. If no one in your group was liable for a collision over your lifetime, (not sure what the odds of that are) then your money is returned to you, it has earned interest the entire time, and you only had to pay $1000 ONCE not as in some cases several thousand a year. Every year.

Seems like an insurance company to me: what is the difference?

I understand you all wish to have proof spoon fed to you and claim that I am making the extraordinary claim thus must be the one to provide proof. I look at it differently. I live my life the way I want, and when people such as government agents, law societies, police, bylaw enforcement, court operators and the like come into my life and try to govern, control, tax or regulate me, I make them prove their claim that they have the power to do any of those things without my consent and not a single one of them ever can. Thus it is them claiming the right to govern, which to me is the extraordinary claim, even if generally accepted, and me saying prove it, and them failing to do so. Every time.

Still don't see anything unusual, much less extraordinary

<snip>

 

[D'rok]

<snip> Seems to me there is no fraud: you are an unqualified lawyer offering legal advice to those who know you are not qualified. I can't see a problem there: of course those who take your advice are not covered if you should prove to be incompetent: and there is no professional indemnity or whatever equivalent you have there: but you are probably cheap and if folk can't afford a lawyer then you might well be very helpful in certain areas you have made a study of. The only thing which seems dodgy in any way is associating a perfectly normal and reasonably useful service with an ideology which seems to confer more than you can claim.

Not quite. Have a look at s. 15 (authority to practice law) and the definition of "practice of law" and "practising lawyer" in s. 1.

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document... Act SBC 1998 c. 9/00_98009_01.xml#section1

 

[Fiona]

I am aware of such provisions D'rok and I thought I had made that clear in my post: but in civil law there are many tribunals which allow representation by unqualified people: for example in this country social security appeals; appeals against assessments to tax; child care hearings to name but a few. This happens all the time and there are a lot of bodies which provide free advice and representation.

 

[Furcifer]

Um, the law doesn't differ that much in BC, your proposed insurance program would only cover minimum liability on 2 cars. not 1000. Seriously, there isn't 1 person in Vancouver that's going to risk his or her $1000 (plus possible additional liabilities) on the good driving skills of the other 999 (it's more like the other 4 million or whatever the GVR is these days). Have you ever driven in Richmond??? I saw a 99 bus get rear ended twice while sitting at a stop. That's no small feat.

Anyways, we await your links Freeman. Please don't dissapoint.

 

[Architect]

Never mind.

 

[Architect]

but they would resent paying for the paint.

Racist.

 

[tsig]

. It involves a group of 1000 people all putting $1000 in trust and agreeing to share liability. It is called PACLIP for Private Automobile Collision Liability Insurance Program. Once entered in all have $1M in liability and the money earns interest. If no one has an accident then that money continues acting as insurance and earning money. If there is an accident, then the fund pays out, only for collision liability mind you, and all share the burden. However there will be a great deal of incentive to operate in a far more courteous and safe manner. The individual groups could form and define who they wanted in their co-op and limit it to say families with four wheel drives, so they would not bear the burden that young aggressive men in sports cars tend to be. They could have their own group, and they would quickly see the cost of their own actions drawn from their own pockets. If no one in your group was liable for a collision over your lifetime, (not sure what the odds of that are) then your money is returned to you, it has earned interest the entire time, and you only had to pay $1000 ONCE not as in some cases several thousand a year. Every year.

.

Congratulations you have just reinvented a mutual insurance company.

 

[D'rok]

I am aware of such provisions D'rok and I thought I had made that clear in my post: but in civil law there are many tribunals which allow representation by unqualified people: for example in this country social security appeals; appeals against assessments to tax; child care hearings to name but a few. This happens all the time and there are a lot of bodies which provide free advice and representation.

Our learned friend is trying to practice criminal law.

 

[Agatha]

I would like to address the questions regarding insurance and operator competence. I am not adverse to either and have developed a concept which we are trying to get off the ground. I have done significant research into the lawfulness of the concept and am confident it would work. I do not have the skills however to do the administrative aspects and we are slowly bringing that together. It involves a group of 1000 people all putting $1000 in trust and agreeing to share liability. It is called PACLIP for Private Automobile Collision Liability Insurance Program. Once entered in all have $1M in liability and the money earns interest. If no one has an accident then that money continues acting as insurance and earning money. If there is an accident, then the fund pays out, only for collision liability mind you, and all share the burden. However there will be a great deal of incentive to operate in a far more courteous and safe manner. The individual groups could form and define who they wanted in their co-op and limit it to say families with four wheel drives, so they would not bear the burden that young aggressive men in sports cars tend to be. They could have their own group, and they would quickly see the cost of their own actions drawn from their own pockets. If no one in your group was liable for a collision over your lifetime, (not sure what the odds of that are) then your money is returned to you, it has earned interest the entire time, and you only had to pay $1000 ONCE not as in some cases several thousand a year. Every year.

What happens if someone in the group has a fault-accident and, say, a young child is left paralysed and needing round the clock care for the rest of its life? $1m will not be anywhere near enough, how is the remainder to be funded? And the rest of the group then have no money to draw on should another one have an accident, what happens then?

My car insurance costs me £285 a year for fully comprehensive, which XE.com informs me is $468 Canadian dollars. If I have an accident or motoring conviction, my premium goes up, so I already see the cost of my actions from my pocket.

How does your scheme differ from conventional motor insurance other than not giving you as much coverage?

I also have another question. Over on the DI forums (again, sorry! ) some posters appear to be attempting to get out of paying their mortgage and one of the grounds they are using is that the funds that the bank/building society loaned them was not backed by an asset (gold or similar). There's a discussion of it here: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71143

Now, say I was lucky enough to have £10,000 in the bank, and drew it out to loan it to someone so that they could buy a car. I didn't have anything backing that £10,000, it was just money I had in the bank. If my friend subscribes to this FOTL stuff, can he use this to avoid paying me back?

 

[Furcifer]

I am aware of such provisions D'rok and I thought I had made that clear in my post: but in civil law there are many tribunals which allow representation by unqualified people: for example in this country social security appeals; appeals against assessments to tax; child care hearings to name but a few. This happens all the time and there are a lot of bodies which provide free advice and representation.

I think this may have changed recently. I know the Landlord Tennant tribunal now requires you to be represented by a member of the Upper Canada Law Society. Or by yourself if you choose to do so.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Not quite. Have a look at s. 15 (authority to practice law) and the definition of "practice of law" and "practising lawyer" in s. 1.



You are not claiming that body of words has ANYTHING to do with me are you? The Law Society tried and failed, so I don't see how you can. I do see how you are operating on the assumption that it does though. That is where you fail. That body of words to which you linked is not my law and does not affect me. Peace eh?

The plane analogy is not bad. In the simplest terms, s. 15 precludes punishment for obeying what was, at the time, a lawful authority even if that authority subsequently becomes unlawful, such as in a succession dispute. It is anachronistic and not particularly relevant anymore. So, how do you justify relying on it to avoid obeying Canadian statutes?

Are these, or or these not arguments from your affidavit in that case?

"The Treaty allows for the Extradition of those activities which are ‘against the law’ in the host Country. However, the actions of the accused were not ‘against the law’ at all, they contravened a statute and to label a statute as a law without examining the need of consent is disingenuous. Laws do not require consent in order for the contravention of them to be unlawful. Rape, murder and the like do not require any ones consent in order to be against the law. Actions of the type the accused are charged with do require at the very least a foundation of consent in order for the actions to be ‘illegal’."

"By My hand and compelled by My Faith and in the interest of justice, this Affidavit is humbly served by Robert-Arthur: Menard, a Freeman-on-the-Land, as a Friend to the Court, in defence of Canada’s Sovereignty, for the purpose of protecting the fundamentals of justice, in the defence of Freedom and in the hopes of finding a peaceful resolution.

Created by My Self without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity."

Distinction between statutes and laws - check
Advert to natural law - check
Claim statutes lack consent and are therefore ulawful - check
Sign-off as self-identified FOTL human - check
Implied distinction between Rob the person and Rob the human - check

No FOTL arguments? Give me a break. At least try to be honest in your claims here.

You know the answer to this very well. You are not licensed to practice law in BC. You offer legal advice and legal documents for direct and indirect benefit. You, fraudulently and under false pretences, offer legal services to your customers. I note that you avoided my question about the Sponagles' case. Did you, or did you not set them up with their Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right, as you have done for your customers in the past?

You think this is libel? Sue me. I could use the practice and the laugh.

While you're at it, please compose an apology to the memories of Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, and Nellie McClung, who, unlike you, struggled for personhood and freedom to the benefit of us all.

All the things you pointed to and CHECKED were said on the record and not disputed. I did not claim the right as a Freeman-on-the-Land to be granted Intervenor status merely beccause of that status, and that portion of the hearing had nothing to do with those facts. You will notice those facts were entered into the record, and not disputed by the members of the law society. The court merely ruled that regardless of said facts, they did not meet the standard they claimed was required for intervenor status. Thus all those things mentioned could be argued as successfully entered on the record as facts, accepted as such, but did not lead to intervenor status. To imply that they are not true because they were stated and did not lead to said status is disingenuous.

I distinguish between the law and statutes. The law says murder is wrong. Statutes say growing pot is wrong. I accept that it is wrong to harm another, damage their property or use fraud or force in my contracts. I am free to do anything else provided I did not consent to membership in a society bound by rules to the contrary. Since I did not consent, I am not bound, and since you did, you are. Thus I can engage in activities without permit or license which you feel are a requirement. I do give up certain benefits, but these do not include access to public commons or roads or their use.

Furthermore, there is no way on earth one can claim that one party can govern another without abandoning the concept of equality. And here in Canada equality is paramount and mandatory. Thus no man, regardless of who else may have appointed or elected him, may claim the right to govern another without consent. Like it or not, it is the truth and no one can change it.

As for the concept of personhood, if it such a good thing, why do you not leave it up to each individual to decide for themselves if they want it and instead of imposing it on all while denigrating those who remind others of their right to do just that? Why would you think I owe an apology to those who sought it at the expense of their right to individual Freeman status? They were tricked and fooled, and you think they should be celebrated.

As a Freeman I have the right and power to defend myself against ANYONE who would seek to harm me, damage my property or use fraud or force in their contracts, even those who by others are accepted as 'authorities'. To me they are merely people, and have no more power over me than some bum on the street. And since I know how to deal with them, when they come around, and they have not for quite a while, I know how to deal with them in a manner that does not breach the peace, is respectful, and yet allows me to do exactly what I want, even if it appears to be in contravention of a statute and would land you in jail.

Deal with it. Your words here have no effect and do not modify my behavior, actions or ability to spread this information. And if you think it is widespread now, just wait till the New Year and what happens when I release my next video. And if I could be governed without my consent, then there would have to be a way to stop me. And if it was lawful, then the Law Society would have used it already. There is a reason I am not facing charges. I DO NOTHING UNLAWFUL. And yet I act with complete disregard for the words relied upon by the people in the government, courts, law society and others to claim authority. And I teach others to do the same thing and the tide is very rapidly growing. You may not see it, spending all you time in here, repeating your mantra of "It's Woo Insanity!" to each other with such repetition you now buy it without question. For each one of you there are 1000 willing to look at this information. Of them there are 100 who will act without needing to see others do so, and once they act, the rest follow suit.

So sit here and keep calling it woo. Dismiss it and reject it. Ridicule it and laugh at it. Does not matter to me at all. I do enjoy meeting new people and seeing what their reactions and responses are to this information, and this has been most instructive and revealing, and so I thank you.

Now I have answered as many questions put to me as I could and I would like to ask one in return. Who here would like to claim that they personally have the right to govern me without my consent and wants to try doing just that? If none stands, then lets agree that no one here feels empowered enough to attempt to govern me without my consent, and as such they do not have the power to appoint or hire another to do so.

Have a great day. Please do not ask any more questions without doing me the honor of answering mine, as I have clearly answered far more questions then I have had answers, and if this is a discussion and not an interrogation, I am owed an answer. It is a simple question, and at the heart of the issue.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing who is going to make the claim.

Rob

 

[Lothian]

I distinguish between the law and statutes. The law says murder is wrong. Statutes say growing pot is wrong. I accept that it is wrong to harm another, damage their property or use fraud or force in my contracts. I am free to do anything else provided I did not consent to membership in a society bound by rules to the contrary.

Can you please provide the case reference for one case where someone has broken a statute and has successfully argued that the statute does not apply to them as they did not consent to it. If you can't I claim to own you.

 

[volatile]

As a Freeman I have the right and power to defend myself against ANYONE who would seek to harm me, damage my property or use fraud or force in their contracts, even those who by others are accepted as 'authorities'. To me they are merely people, and have no more power over me than some bum on the street.

Sorry, can I ask again: do you mean you actually have the right to do this (as in, you could do this and avoid all sanction, with the right FMOTL form of words), or you believe you ought to have this right?

 

[D'rok]

All the things you pointed to and CHECKED were said on the record and not disputed. I did not claim the right as a Freeman-on-the-Land to be granted Intervenor status merely beccause of that status, and that portion of the hearing had nothing to do with those facts. You will notice those facts were entered into the record, and not disputed by the members of the law society. The court merely ruled that regardless of said facts, they did not meet the standard they claimed was required for intervenor status. Thus all those things mentioned could be argued as successfully entered on the record as facts, accepted as such, but did not lead to intervenor status. To imply that they are not true because they were stated and did not lead to said status is disingenuous.

I said "you tried but failed to use FOTL arguments to get intervenor status in United States of America v. Emery, et al." You denied this. You were proven wrong by your own words. Move on.

You can babble whatever you want "on the record" and it will not be disputed if it is not dispositive to the issue. Pro-tip: that is not a victory.

<snipped idiotic lecture>

Present some evidence that your legal "reasoning" is true.

Now I have answered as many questions put to me as I could and I would like to ask one in return. Who here would like to claim that they personally have the right to govern me without my consent and wants to try doing just that? If none stands, then lets agree that no one here feels empowered enough to attempt to govern me without my consent, and as such they do not have the power to appoint or hire another to do so.

Instead of repeating myself, I'll point you to the answer I gave your FOTL brother from across the pond:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5165658#post5165658

In other words, it is plainly obvious that we are governed by consent.