The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
As an example of how badly he fails at this new "applicability" technique, here is a thread where he claims to have found a right to "travel" (as distinguished from driving) in the Alberta Traffic Safety Act. How does he do this? By willfully misinterpreting the distinction between "commercial vehicle" and "private passenger vehicle", both of which are types of vehicles under the Act and either of which can also be "motor vehicles" or not.

To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle and also a motor vehicle (like a car) requires motor vehicle documents (license, reg, insurance, etc). To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle but not also a motor vehicle (like a bicycle) does not require motor vehicle documents. Same goes for commercial vehicles (like a rickshaw vs. a taxi - although there's probably some regulation somewhere that covers things like rickshaws).

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110682

I would dearly love to see Menard try this frivolous argument in traffic court. Of course, he won't, because as the thread notes, he's conning some poor schmuck in Alberta to do it for him.
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
This is Rob Menards latest reply to the little scenario I offered him about driving an uninsured untaxed deregisted vehicle around whilst smoking weed

I thought he had taken the time to sober up before writing this but Im not sure


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112022&page=22
asky
Click to expand...



All of which falls apart if his assertions that "driving" only refers to the "commercial" activities he asserts it does, as opposed to the more typical definition of "operating a motor vehicle".

From Ontario:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK0

“driver” means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway; (“conducteur”)

“driver’s licence” means a licence issued under section 32 to drive a motor vehicle on a highway; (“permis de conduire”)
Click to expand...


The act doesn't define "drives", which means it is given its usual meaning:

drive (drv)
v. drove (drv), driv·en (drvn), driv·ing, drives
v.tr.
1. To push, propel, or press onward forcibly; urge forward: drove the horses into the corral.
2. To repulse or put to flight by force or influence: drove the attackers away; drove out any thought of failure.
3. To guide, control, or direct (a vehicle).
4.
a. To convey or transport in a vehicle: drove the children to school.
b. To traverse in a vehicle: drive the freeways to work.
5.
a. To supply the motive force or power to and cause to function: Steam drives the engine.
b. To cause or sustain, as if by supplying force or power: "The current merger mania is apparently driven by an urge . . . to reduce risk or to exploit opportunities in a very rapidly changing business environment" (Peter Passell).
6. To compel or force to work, often excessively: "Every serious dancer is driven by notions of perfectionperfect expressiveness, perfect technique" (Susan Sontag).
7. To force into or from a particular act or state: Indecision drives me crazy.
8. To force to go through or penetrate: drove the stake into the ground.
9. To create or produce by penetrating forcibly: The nail drove a hole in the tire.
10. To carry through vigorously to a conclusion: drove home his point; drive a hard bargain.
11.
a. Sports To throw, strike, or cast (a ball, for example) hard or rapidly.
b. Basketball To move with the ball directly through: drove the lane and scored.
c. Baseball To cause (a run or runner) to be scored by batting. Often used with in.
12.
a. To chase (game) into the open or into traps or nets.
b. To search (an area) for game in such a manner.
v.intr.
1. To move along or advance quickly as if pushed by an impelling force.
2. To rush, dash, or advance violently against an obstruction: The wind drove into my face.
3. To operate a vehicle, such as a car.
4. To go or be transported in a vehicle: drove to the supermarket.
5.
a. Sports To hit, throw, or impel a ball or other missile forcibly.
b. Basketball To move directly to the basket with the ball.
6. To make an effort to reach or achieve an objective; aim.
n.
1. The act of driving.
2. A trip or journey in a vehicle.
3. Abbr. Dr. A road for automobiles and other vehicles.
4.
a. The means or apparatus for transmitting motion or power to a machine or from one machine part to another.
b. The position or operating condition of such a mechanism: "He put his car into drive and started home" (Charles Baxter).
c. The means by which automotive power is applied to a roadway: four-wheel drive.
d. The means or apparatus for controlling and directing an automobile: right-hand drive.
5. Computer Science A device that reads data from and often writes data onto a storage medium, such as a floppy disk.
6. A strong organized effort to accomplish a purpose. See Synonyms at campaign.
7. Energy, push, or aggressiveness.
8. Psychology A strong motivating tendency or instinct related to self-preservation, reproduction, or aggression that prompts activity toward a particular end.
9. A massive, sustained military offensive.
10.
a. Sports The act of hitting, knocking, or thrusting a ball very swiftly.
b. Sports The stroke or thrust by which a ball is driven.
c. Basketball The act of moving with the ball directly to the basket.
11.
a. A rounding up and driving of cattle to new pastures or to market.
b. A gathering and driving of logs down a river.
c. The cattle or logs thus driven.
Click to expand...


From Alberta:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-h-8/latest/rsa-2000-c-h-8.html

(f.1) "driver" or "operator" means a person who drives or is in
actual physical control of a vehicle;
Click to expand...

BC doesn't seem to define "driver" at all, which again means it's given it's usual meaning.

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document...rsbc 1996 c. 318/00_act/96318_01.xml#section1


So how does he justify this distinction between "driving" and "travelling"?


ETA:

Looks like that's an old version of the Alberta law. The new one says:

(k) “driver” means a person who is driving or is in actual physical control of a vehicle;

(l) “driving” or “drive” includes having the care or control of a vehicle;
Click to expand...

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-t-6/latest/rsa-2000-c-t-6.html
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
This is Rob Menards latest reply to the little scenario I offered him about driving an uninsured untaxed deregisted vehicle around whilst smoking weed

I thought he had taken the time to sober up before writing this but Im not sure
Click to expand...

rob menard said:
As for the challenge, how about this.

It will be clearly, specifically and unequivocally established that we have the common law right to travel in British Columbia and Alberta, and it will be established that I exercise that right regularly and with the knowledge of the local constabulary, and the holders of highest offices in the government.

How I do that is entirely up to me.
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that nothing in this "challenge" says anything about him not getting pulled over, ticketed, imprisoned, or in fact suffering any legal consequences as a result of his actions. It really says a lot about what a con job the whole thing is -- and how much he knows it and is just taking all the FOTL rubes for a ride.
 
remirol said:
It's worth noting that nothing in this "challenge" says anything about him not getting pulled over, ticketed, imprisoned, or in fact suffering any legal consequences as a result of his actions. It really says a lot about what a con job the whole thing is -- and how much he knows it and is just taking all the FOTL rubes for a ride.
Click to expand...


It sounds as if he either intendes to travel in a way that doesn't require him to have a licence (on foot, by bicycle, by public transport or as a passenger in someone else's car), or as you say that he'll drive, then claim he was free to do that because he actually did it, irrespective of whether he gets ticketed or not.

Rolfe.
 
I've made a crude Venn diagram to help the FOTL thickies understand the Alberta Traffic Safety Act:

(click to embiggen)





 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
It sounds as if he either intendes to travel in a way that doesn't require him to have a licence (on foot, by bicycle, by public transport or as a passenger in someone else's car), or as you say that he'll drive, then claim he was free to do that because he actually did it, irrespective of whether he gets ticketed or not.
Click to expand...

The latter is what I'm thinking -- end up saying something like "In no way did the four tickets I received while having my car crushed change that I had the right to do what I did; I was just unlawfully prosecuted."

It's the sort of weaseling a third-grader could see through, honestly. Sad.
 
D'rok said:
As an example of how badly he fails at this new "applicability" technique, here is a thread where he claims to have found a right to "travel" (as distinguished from driving) in the Alberta Traffic Safety Act. How does he do this? By willfully misinterpreting the distinction between "commercial vehicle" and "private passenger vehicle", both of which are types of vehicles under the Act and either of which can also be "motor vehicles" or not.

To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle and also a motor vehicle (like a car) requires motor vehicle documents (license, reg, insurance, etc). To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle but not also a motor vehicle (like a bicycle) does not require motor vehicle documents. Same goes for commercial vehicles (like a rickshaw vs. a taxi - although there's probably some regulation somewhere that covers things like rickshaws).

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110682

I would dearly love to see Menard try this frivolous argument in traffic court. Of course, he won't, because as the thread notes, he's conning some poor schmuck in Alberta to do it for him.
Click to expand...


Of course, he forgets that those definitions are also established in the Act so they can be used in the related rules or regulations, which also have the force of law. The term "private passenger vehicle" is used in those rules.

“for hire” with respect to a vehicle, means that the vehicle owner or operator, or the operator’s employer, is being paid for the service that the vehicle is being used to provide, but for the purposes of sections 23 and 25, a motor vehicle is not “for hire” when the operator drives a private passenger vehicle for the transportation of passengers on an incidental or occasional basis and receives compensation in respect of the transportation of those passengers only in one or more of the following forms:
Click to expand...


This implies that private passenger vehicles can be motor vehicles, otherwise why make this exception?

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...ta-reg-320-2002/latest/alta-reg-320-2002.html


It's also used to make some distinctions about when a trailer needs to have breaks:

(4) Despite subsection (1), and in addition to subsection (3), the following trailers are not required to have brakes:

(a) if the towing vehicle is a private passenger vehicle,

(i) a trailer with a maximum gross weight of not more than 910 kilograms, or

(ii) a trailer with a maximum gross weight of less than half of the unladen weight of the towing vehicle;

(b) if the towing vehicle is a commercial vehicle,

(i) a trailer, other than a pole trailer, that has a maximum gross weight of not more than 2300 kilograms, if the maximum gross weight of the trailer is less than half of the unladen weight of the towing vehicle,

(ii) a pole trailer that has a maximum gross weight of not more than 6800 kilograms, if the maximum gross weight of the trailer is less than half of the unladen weight of the towing vehicle,

(iii) a trailer used to transport agricultural products that has a maximum gross weight of not more than 3650 kilograms when being towed unladen, or

(iv) a trailer used to transport agricultural products that has a maximum gross weight of not more than 3650 kilograms when being towed at a speed not in excess of 25 kilometres per hour.
Click to expand...


http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...ta-reg-122-2009/latest/alta-reg-122-2009.html


So much for his contention "they use the Never Mention Again trick, where they mention something, then never refer to it again." Oh, and also his contention that "they also acknowledge ... that they are not regulating it."


Regulation Fail.
 
Horatius said:
Of course, he forgets that those definitions are also established in the Act so they can be used in the related rules or regulations, which also have the force of law. The term "private passenger vehicle" is used in those rules.




This implies that private passenger vehicles can be motor vehicles, otherwise why make this exception?

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...ta-reg-320-2002/latest/alta-reg-320-2002.html


It's also used to make some distinctions about when a trailer needs to have breaks:




http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...ta-reg-122-2009/latest/alta-reg-122-2009.html


So much for his contention "they use the Never Mention Again trick, where they mention something, then never refer to it again." Oh, and also his contention that "they also acknowledge ... that they are not regulating it."


Regulation Fail.
Click to expand...

Game. Set. Match.
 
LightinDarkness said:
I really think the judges that deal with these guys should print this out and provide it as "helpful information to help you ascertain the obvious."
Click to expand...

I am forced to conclude that it would make no difference. FOTL stupidity is bulletproof.
 
D'rok said:
I am forced to conclude that it would make no difference. FOTL stupidity is bulletproof.
Click to expand...



Although it would be amusing to see his reaction to the above-quoted regulations. Is there anyone who posts there who'd like to copy it over?
 
D'rok said:
I am forced to conclude that it would make no difference. FOTL stupidity is bulletproof.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Even if we printed out color charts and had someone stand up there and cite direct laws to them it would still all be a conspiracy to keep them down by THE MAN.
 
jargon buster said:
What specifically do you want posting on Ickes

JB
Click to expand...



Mostly what we talk about in this post. I'm wondering how he'll react to proof that they do, in fact, mention the term "private passenger vehicle" again, and at least once in the context of a "private passenger vehicle" also being a "motor vehicle".

As this completely destroys the case he's apparently hoping to actually use in a real court, I'd like to see how he plans to weasel out of it.

It will also be interesting to see how others react to the fact that either he has obviously missed this all, which brings up questions of his competence, or has deliberately failed to mention it, which brings up questions of his honesty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom