The Freeman Movement and England

[FreemanMenard]

No, it has historical significance. But no force in law.



Neither of which give the DoI force of law. "To be or not to be, that is the question" is also one of the best-known sentences in the English language, but has no force in law.



.... which doesn't give the DoI any force in law.



NICE AVOIDANCE ATTEMPT drkitten! Well done! You sure tried to shift the focus of the discussion away from equality to the legal importance of the Declaration, but let us now get back to what is important. (Oh I am sorry, did I ruin your attempt to avoid the subject?)

Here it is< do not drop it again:
We are all equal before the law.

Simple, easy to read, and only a fool would argue it, and only a deceiver will now try to point to ANYTHING else, as this is the foundation of the topic of discussion, not the legal relevance of one document over any other, as these truths would be true regardless of these other documents. RIGHT?

 

[jsfisher]

You can put up 'money' which is somehting of value, and I can put up 'property' or 'other things of value' and get this... IT IS STILL A WAGER! WOW EH/

As soon as you offer something of value, then we might have a wager. So far, though, you haven't done that.

By the way, you really should use one of those noun definitions; we have been using "wager" as a noun, as in "IT IS STILL A WAGER!" Since you take so much pleasure "teaching you guys these simple things..." you should at least try to be correct on the simple things.

Hey isn't Independence Day the day this was adopted By your Congress? Hmmm... no force of law you say.... Is that not a legal holiday?

[mode=pedant]
No, actually, it is not a legal holiday.
[/mode]

 

[FreemanMenard]

As soon as you offer something of value, then we might have a wager. So far, though, you haven't done that.

By the way, you really should use one of those noun definitions; we have been using "wager" as a noun, as in "IT IS STILL A WAGER!" Since you take so much pleasure "teaching you guys these simple things..." you should at least try to be correct on the simple things.




[mode=pedant]
No, actually, it is not a legal holiday.
[/mode]

I believe I said 'I would wager'... Now are you saying that is not a verb? It looks to me like it is...

Also, I am accepting a previously extended challenge, thus I have no need to put up anything except my own effort.

I am however happy to help teach you these simple things.

You sure are good at avoidance of the issues though! Well done! Do others here learn from you?

And as for putting up something of value, I am putting up freedom and personal reputation. I am glad that you took the time to inform us all that these are to you, of no value. You do not value freedom, nor reputation, not mine and not your own. It is good to see you for who you are.

 

[drkitten]

NICE AVOIDANCE ATTEMPT drkitten! Well done!

You asked questions -- I answered them. I'm sorry the answers weren't to your liking. Perhaps you should ask better questions next time.

(Oh I am sorry, did I ruin your attempt to avoid the subject?)

Not really. My "subject," as you put it, is that you are a scam artist, a snake oil salesman, and a charlatan. That you are selling legal theories with no merit whatsoever and that when you get caught in a palpable untruth, you try to pretend that you were talking about something altogether different.

For example, when someone offered you $10,000 for a demonstration of any legal proceeding in which your legal theories have been validated, you attempt to offer an obviously bogus attempt to avoid having your legal theories tested, and suggest that if you avoid being arrested, you've not committed a crime. This is a palpable untruth,... but when called on it, you start burbling about the legal force of the Declaration of Independence.

.... which has none, despite your extensive arguments in its favor. But when I point out that your arguments are themselves palpably untrue, you again try to dodge the issue.

Here it is< do not drop it again:
We are all equal before the law.

Simple, easy to read, and only a fool would argue it, and only a deceiver will now try to point to ANYTHING else, as this is the foundation of the topic of discussion,

No. The topic of discussion is whether or not you are a scam artist, a snake oil salesman, and a charlatan. Whether you are selling legal theories with no merit whatsoever. And the longer you avoid producing any evidence that the theories you peddle have any merit, the more compelling becomes the conclusion that you are.

And feel free to try to change the subject again. One of the nice things about JREF is that it's fairly popular on the Web, it comes up fairly highly ranked on a Google search, and it never forgets. Which means that the next blatant attempt to change the subject will be recorded and come up any time someone wants to look for "Robert Menard" or "Robert Arthur Menard" to see whether or not you're a scam artist.

The longer you try to defend your scam, the more the evidence piles up for Google to find.

And I invite it. Please. Abuse me some more. Prove for the benefit of Googlers yet unborn just how far your scam extends.

 

[jsfisher]

I think it is sad you need to have a personal payoff to have these things settled.

Sad that I might require a "personal payoff" as you call it, but not said that you do the same?

Double standard much?

Personally, I do not do what I do for myself, and intend to act regardless of whether fools here are silly enough to honour the challenge they have stupidly extended. I doubt they will for it is they who hide in the shadows, hide their names, and play their games. And when they are called on it, they resort to name calling and avoidance.

Oh, wait! You will make the Northern Vancouver to Victoria trek with the entire stake being just personal pride and bragging rights? Good for you! I accept your wager.

Just watch, just like you, they will now make excuses as to why there is now a NEW need for them to profit from me accepting their challenge... Bear in mind that was not the original challenge. But they will seek to change it, and claim that because I am not putting up $10K, they will not either. Even though the original offer was them and them alone putting up the money. It was a challenge and I WAGER they will not honour their own words and their own challenge.

Oops, no. You backed out already. And now you are equivocating by referring to this as a challenge. I never challenged you. I did want to explore the details of the wager proposition you were offering, but you weren't being completely honest with that. And now you are trying to squirm out of it.

First you said you wanted to engage in a little wager; now, you are saying you won't.

 

[FreemanMenard]

No. The topic of discussion is whether or not you are a scam artist, a snake oil salesman, and a charlatan. Whether you are selling legal theories with no merit whatsoever.

Okay, lets change it then to what you want. Let us examine these ideas and I trust you will allow me to defend myself right? Here we go:

We are all equal before the law. Is this true or not? If true I am not guilty as you charge, so we need to look at this issue and it now becomes the topic of discussion. (Unless you wish to deny me the right to defend myself against your charges, and be a part of the discussion) I claim we are. All Equal, before the law.

Do you dispute this, or deny it, or wish to avoid it again, or what?

La de da de da de da
We are all equal before the law.
No one here will dispute.
None of them can refute.

 

[drkitten]

Okay, lets change it then to what you want. Let us examine these ideas and I trust you will allow me to defend myself right?

I have been allowing you to do so. You've been avoiding the point with irrelevancies.

Here we go:

We are all equal before the law. Is this true or not? I claim we are. All Equal, before the law.

Do you dispute this, or deny it, or wish to avoid it again, or what?

I've not avoided it. I stated (post 3338) that equality before the law is a consequence of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. What I dispute is its relevance to the question at hand, which is the question of just how great a scam and charlatan you are.

If true I am not guilty as you charge, so we need to look at this issue and it now becomes the topic of discussion.

How does equality before the law make you not a charlatan?

I claim that pi is greater than the square root of two. If true, you are a fraud, a charlatan, a liar, a cheat, a welcher on bets, and generally a cad.

 

[TSR]

We are all equal before the law. Is this true or not? If true I am not guilty as you charge, so we need to look at this issue and it now becomes the topic of discussion.

.
Wrong: We are all equal before the law, which means we are all subject to the same laws. -- which makes you guilty as charged, since you claim special privileges which are the result of your "status" (a status which does not, in fact or in law, even exist.)
.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Sad that I might require a "personal payoff" as you call it, but not said that you do the same?

Double standard much?



Oh, wait! You will make the Northern Vancouver to Victoria trek with the entire stake being just personal pride and bragging rights? Good for you! I accept your wager.

Fine I look forward to you placing $10 K in escrow with Duhaime. Let me know when you have done so. That was the wager, not the fiction going through your brain. But you did accept the offer as expressed in MY POST and not in yours. Gonna back out now or are you putting $10K in escrow?




Oops, no. You backed out already. And now you are equivocating by referring to this as a challenge. I never challenged you. I did want to explore the details of the wager proposition you were offering, but you weren't being completely honest with that. And now you are trying to squirm out of it.

First you said you wanted to engage in a little wager; now, you are saying you won't.

Nope, you have been continually confused Same wager same challenge same acceptance. But yu just keep dancing tryihg to change the wager and put words in my mouth. You said you accepted the wager. Here are the details to what you accepted.

You put money in escrow with a lawyer in Victoria BC. His name is Duhaime. He is widely respected, a very good lawyer, a caring man, and a clearly impartial party to our wager. There should be no reason for you to reject him as a suitable ref and money holder. Nor should you expect any trust when you are all strangers on the net.

I will have to travel from North Vancouver to Victoria through four or five different police jurisdictions, and on a ferry operated by the provincial government to collect it.

I will do so in my auto, unregistered, without license or insurance, or government issued plates, clearly marked as such as well. It will say Freeman all over it! It will be unmistakeable.

I will inform the police of my course and date of travel and give them all plenty of time to stop me. I will not go poke them, nor ram them with my vehicle, nor go look for them. I will clearly inform them of my intent and time of departure, and they will have ample opportunity to bring battle. If they do not, they have forfeited, and I win the wager and collect the money held in escrow.

If they choose to stop me, then the battle is on, and I will prove they acted unlawfully in a proper court dejure.

I will take pictures along the way and when I get to Victoria I will establish to Duhaimes satisfaction that I completed the challenge by showing up with a witness to testify as to the route, the vehicle without government issued plates, and my smiling face.

I am willing to bet that I can do so and either avoid a legal battle entirely or win it fully should they wish to try and bring it.

Is that not what you have accepted? Is that not the only challenge and wager on the table?

My wager is that if I accept their challenge they will back out of it, and if they do not I win. That is my wager. It revolves around a CHALLENGE they extended.

So show me your punk-ass avoidance dance now. Go ahead, change the terms to something ludicrous without agreement and then claim you are in honor.

 

[TSR]

So show me your punk-ass avoidance dance now. Go ahead, change the terms to something ludicrous without agreement and then claim you are in honor.

.
You mean, like you did when you changed the challenge for you to show any evidence that your legal theories are anything more than a confidence game designed to sell your crap into a wager, or when you then stated your intention to act regardless, making your previous demand for cash moot?
.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I've not avoided it. I stated (post 3338) that equality before the law is a consequence of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. What I dispute is its relevance to the question at hand, which is the question of just how great a scam and charlatan you are.

Cart meet horse. Horse meet cart.

The clause is a result of the equality, NOT the other way around. In the absence of that clause, would equality not exist? If so, how could they then craft it and say it?

Tis is the question that destroys your statement:
Does equality require that clause of the Constitution to exist? (It is a trick question, as there are places on the planet where equality is recognizedm and noit subject to the US Constitution.)

So is equality a result of that clause in the constitution, or is that clause there because equality existed prior and they merely acknowledged it in that clause?

hee hee hee Can't wait for your response to this.. This stuff is gold for my project too!

 

[TSR]

So is equality a result of that clause in the constitution, or is that clause there because equality existed prior and they merely acknowledged it in that clause?

.
"consequence" != "result"

Now, care to get back to your claims of special status in direct contradiction to your "equality" argument?
.

 

[jsfisher]

I believe I said 'I would wager'... Now are you saying that is not a verb? It looks to me like it is...

Oh, goody. Time for a little fact checking. It all started in this post:

...a clearly impartial party to our wager....and I win the wager

Noun and noun.

Nope cause then that would not be a fair wager would it?...and is sufficient to cover my end of the wager.

Noun and noun.

...IT IS STILL A WAGER! WOW EH/...Also, wagers do not have to be of equal amount on each side.

Noun and noun. And it was in this post, above, where you quoted a dictionary and highlighted the definition for a verb-form of the word, wager.

It wasn't until this later post where you finally used it as a verb:

...It was a challenge and I WAGER they will not honour their own words and their own challenge.

Gee, so the little fact checking points out that your were trying to lie your way out of minor error citing a definition. Rather than man-up to your faux pas, you continued to dodge and weave and spin in the hopes no one will notice the truth.

Your track record for mistakes, blunders, and out-and-out lies does not work to your benefit, FreemanMenard. You should consider a different approach.

 

[jsfisher]

Is that not what you have accepted? Is that not the only challenge and wager on the table?

Nope, and nope.

 

[FreemanMenard]

.
Wrong: We are all equal before the law, which means we are all subject to the same laws. -- which makes you guilty as charged, since you claim special privileges which are the result of your "status" (a status which does not, in fact or in law, even exist.)
.

There is equality before the law and there is equality under the law, and before you can be under the law (statutes), when you are before the law (Equality), you must choose to go under the law (Consent to statutes).

Those who stand before the law, are equal, before the law.

Those who choose to stand under the law are equal under the law.

Where one stands is their choice.

Equality means the right to choose whether we stand before or under the law. You have chosen the latter and are under some other man and their words which you call law. You are UNDER. I have chosen the former, and stand BEFORE the law.


Same laws you say...

Who made them? Did they just naturally appear? Or did some human being make them, and if so, and we are both equal before the law, can't I make my own that are contrary to theirs or that render theirs void? Are we all equal or not when we stand before the law? Cause if you say we are, but I have to agree to and abide by words that some other man made, some other man who is only equal to me, then I have the right to reject them, do I not? Cause we are equal BEFORE the law, as in BEFORE these things you call law have even come into being.

Yeap if we are all equal, before the law, then your words or those of your reps can only have force over me with my consent. Unless you want the things I make up and call law to have power over you.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard View Post
...a clearly impartial party to our wager....and I win the wager
Noun and noun.

I would say verb and noun, though I am glad we are not discussing participles or adverbs. But hey if it important to you to play grammar Nazi... and use that to avoid truth, go at 'er!

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard View Post
Nope cause then that would not be a fair wager would it?...and is sufficient to cover my end of the wager.
Noun and noun.

Verb and verb. I say this, cause I was the author of those words, and intent is what counts, and I am the only authority as to my intent, though I do see the confusion and will try to express myself in a clearer fashion in the future.

I see you are kinda anal about this, and if there is any reason to argue about whether a word is a noun or a verb or being used as one or the other, you will use this to bring the topic of discussion to a halt. I bow to your superior knowledge of English grammar. You are clearly superior in your mind.

Now can we get back to what the topic of discussion, or should we continue with grammar lessons?

 

[drkitten]

Cart meet horse. Horse meet cart.

The clause is a result of the equality, NOT the other way around. In the absence of that clause, would equality not exist?

Not only "would" it not, it demonstrably did not.

Have you ever heard of the Dred Scott decision?

If so, how could they then craft it and say it?

That's handled in the amendment procedures in Article V. The same procedures could be used to make the United States an absolute monarchy.

Does equality require that clause of the Constitution to exist?

No, of course not. But equality under the law does require some form of binding legal structure that recognizes equality as a principle. You won't find that in English common law (indeed, equality under the law is specifically not a principle of ECL as it would violate the "trial by a jury of ones peers" principle).

So is equality a result of that clause in the constitution, or is that clause there because equality existed prior and they merely acknowledged it in that clause?

It's the result of that clause in the Constitution, of course. Absent that clause, there would be no (Federal) claim to equal protection, and Dred Scott and similar cases would still be binding case law -- case law, of course, being even MORE binding under the common law tradition.

----

We're done here, by the way. You've now proven to my satisfaction that you are indeed a fraud and a charlatan.

 

[drkitten]

Equality means the right to choose whether we stand before or under the law.

Really? You were very quick to produce a dictionary in support of your claim about what a "wager" means.

I deny that (nonsensical) definition and challenge you to support it.

 

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard View Post
...a clearly impartial party to our wager....and I win the wager
Noun and noun.

I would say verb and noun, though I am glad we are not discussing participles or adverbs. But hey if it important to you to play grammar Nazi... and use that to avoid truth, go at 'er!

Put down the shovel, FreemanMenard. The hole is deep enough.


(Verb, seriously? You really said that? Wow.)

 

[TjW]

So the Declaration of Independence has no historical significance or force in law. Okay.....


Here enjoy this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"[2] and "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[3] The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy,[4] and promoted the idea that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.


Hmmm.... so this is what is used to interpret the Constitution, which you claim does have force. Hmmm....

Hey isn't Independence Day the day this was adopted By your Congress? Hmmm... no force of law you say.... Is that not a legal holiday?

Are you claiming that we are not all equal before the law or not? Cause I do. What do you say. No dancing around or avoidance. Are we or are we not equal before the law. That is the starting point. You can seek argument all you want, or focus on trivialities, or what have you, but this question is the key you all wish to avoid. ARE WE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW OR NOT?

Here is another question. Did the people who made and published the Declaration of Independence from the political power of the day have the right to do so? Or not? And if so, what makes you think we do not have the same right?


We will get back to that though. I want to see if any of you have the guts to ante up like you said you would.

The Declaration of Independence certainly has historical relevance. It may have philosophical relevance, and one could claim rhetorical relevance. Has its language influenced people? Of course. But it has no force in law, and thus, no legal relevance.

The Declaration of Independence isn't -- and can't be -- used to interpret the Constitution. Under the U.S. system, people interpret the Constitution. For the United States, the people whose opinions matter regarding the interpretation are called Supreme Court Justices.
Are their individual opinions influenced by the Declaration? Probably. And probably also by The Federalist Papers, another collection of writings that does not have the force of law.

You might want to take a look at Independence Day Fun.
Just so you know, there is no such thing as a legal holiday in the U.S. The President and Congress can only legally establish an “official" holiday for its employees and the District of Columbia, and that does not obligate the states, and certainly not individual citizens, to observe it.
Independence Day wasn't a holiday for federal employees until 1870 -- 94 years after the signing of the Declaration. It wasn't a paid holiday until 1938.

Are we equal under the law? Certainly not. By law, I, a U.S. citizen, can hold public offices that you, as a Canadian citizen, may not. The law treats us differently.

But equality under the law would also seem to be irrelevant, since your whole philosophy seems to be based on the idea that you can unilaterally decide what is and is not law, based on whatever fictions -- like July 4th being a "legal holiday" because the Declaration of Independence was signed nearly a month later -- happen to pop into your mind.
Are you familiar with Calvinball?