Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
jargon buster said:
Rob, for someone who doesn't recognise government and its statutes you were very quick to go running to "nanny Google" when I used your WFS logo on a blog claiming breach of copyright.
Click to expand...

And how did that work out for you?
Seems in that case I knew the law better than you, eh?
:D :D :D
 
FreemanMenard said:
So you won't even look at the link. It is called willful ignorance. It is not me saying he said it, but a journalist for an accounting magazine. It was published and he is quoted.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem accepting it as a legitimate quote. It simply doesn't support your case at all. It's a rhetorical overstatement to make the point that detaxers don't have a *********** clue what they are talking about when they quote or interpret law.

Kind of like FOTLers.
 
uk_dave said:
I wonder, is this what it comes down to: You don't understand legalese and you resent this fact so you want to believe it shouldn't be allowed?

Does the same apply to math and physics?

Oh and I just noticed that we have a thread about tennis courts being used to launch missiles.... tennis courts? Do they speak legalese on tennis courts?
Click to expand...

I see. I can't understand it, but you can and do, even though you may not be a lawyer, right?
 
D'rok said:
Do Acts of Parliament or Provincial Legislatures apply to you? You have repeatedly and consistently said they do not. These are the laws of Canada, as you perfectly well know.

So, once again, stop the idiotic sophistry. You claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.
Click to expand...
*Ahem*
 
D'rok said:
I don't have a problem accepting it as a legitimate quote. It simply doesn't support your case at all. It's a rhetorical overstatement to make the point that detaxers don't have a *********** clue what they are talking about when they quote or interpret law.

Kind of like FOTLers.
Click to expand...

Not according to David Sherman. Unless I missed that part. Can you show me where he stated that it was a rhetorical overstatement? Or is that merely your unsupported opinion on what he said?

:D:D:D:D
 
FreemanMenard said:
Yes, you are.


Do these surgeons, engineers and computer techs need the consent of their clients to provide services or can they impose their services upon them,
Click to expand...

Actually in some cases yes they can impose their services on you, for example you may get hit by a car (hopefully the driver is insured) and end up unconscious on an operating table. Are they going to let you bleed to death because they can't get your consent to stop it?

How about if you do some really shoddy work on your property and it starts to lean alarmingly towards a public highway or footpath? Think they can't impose a structural engineer on you and force you to carry out their instructions to make the building safe?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Not according to David Sherman. Unless I missed that part. Can you show me where he stated that it was a rhetorical overstatement? Or is that merely your unsupported opinion on what he said?

:D:D:D:D
Click to expand...
Those of us who, for instance, are capable of reading words like "include" without interpreting them to mean "exclude" are capable of reading in context. You don't even need a legal education for that.

Unlike FOTLers, who have some sort of conceptual issue with the use of the English language. I won't speculate on why they have that deficiency.
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
Actually in some cases yes they can impose their services on you, for example you may get hit by a car (hopefully the driver is insured) and end up unconscious on an operating table. Are they going to let you bleed to death because they can't get your consent to stop it?

How about if you do some really shoddy work on your property and it starts to lean alarmingly towards a public highway or footpath? Think they can't impose a structural engineer on you and force you to carry out their instructions to make the building safe?
Click to expand...

Implied consent.

Your second argument relies upon a component of imminent danger to the public causing harm. Do they have a right to stop you if it does not?
 
D'rok said:
Those of us who, for instance, are capable of reading words like "include" without interpreting them to mean "exclude" are capable of reading in context. You don't even need a legal education for that.

Unlike FOTLers, who have some sort of conceptual issue with the use of the English language. I won't speculate on why they have that deficiency.
Click to expand...

ahem...
“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001, or a person having the powers of such an officer, when performing any duty in the administration of any of those Acts,

(d.1) an officer authorized under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,

(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,


SO, are things not mentioned also peace officers, such as say The Guardian Angels, or is it that anything not mentioned is excluded?

Get a grip!
 
FreemanMenard said:
None of you have explained how they can govern their fellow man without consent and without destroying the concept of equality.
Click to expand...

Here is how they do it in Canada.

Someone accuses you of breaking some rule in a statute and reports this to police. Police lay a charge without your consent and you are given a court date. If you don't show up a warrant will go out for your arrest and when you next encounter the police they will take you away at gunpoint without your consent. They will hold you in jail against your will until you first court appearance where you will be asked to enter a plea. If you do not enter a plea then a plea of not guilty will be enter and a trial date scheduled. You will be forcibly held until your trial date and brought at gunpoint to your trial where the court will hear the evidence against you and if you are found guilty then you will be given a punishment. This punishment again will be forced upon you without your consent.

There are numerous examples of this happening to people who take substantially the same position you do. For example here is an example of someone who didn't consent to the original notice to appear, was arrested for failing to appear and brought to court at force without their consent. Then they refused to enter a plea and a plea of not guilty was entered for them without their consent. A trial was held without consent and despite making the same kind of objections that you do (that the court has no jurisdiction over people without consent). The person was found guilty and thrown in jail against their will and without consent. This was all done by force.

Whether this conflicts with you political ideals or your notion of equality is irrelevant. This is simply what happens when people take the position that you do. It is repeated and predictable and we know of no instance where these same sort of results did not occur. This is how the de facto government of Canada through their de facto court can and does govern people without their consent.
 
D'rok said:
Do Acts of Parliament or Provincial Legislatures apply to you?
Click to expand...

Find me one.

I bet you will find they are not enacted by the legislature, but by HER MAJESTY.

HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, enacts as follows:
Click to expand...


Very simple word comprehension test for you.
WHO IS DOING THE ENACTING?
 
FreemanMenard said:
ahem...
“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001, or a person having the powers of such an officer, when performing any duty in the administration of any of those Acts,

(d.1) an officer authorized under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,

(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,


SO, are things not mentioned also peace officers, such as say The Guardian Angels, or is it that anything not mentioned is excluded?

Get a grip!
Click to expand...
:dl:

I have to admit, I didn't think you'd embarass yourself quite that easily. Shoulda known better.

ETA: While you're at it, can we get your statutory interpretation rules for "and" and "or"?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Find me one.

I bet you will find they are not enacted by the legislature, but by HER MAJESTY.




Very simple word comprehension test for you.
WHO IS DOING THE ENACTING?
Click to expand...
I know how our government makes laws. All I want to know is if they apply to you. Do they?
 
D'rok said:
:dl:

I have to admit, I didn't think you'd embarass yourself quite that easily. Shoulda known better.

ETA: While you're at it, can we get your statutory interpretation rules for "and" and "or"?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Looks to me (and the lawyers and judges I spoke with), that the word 'includes' limits the definition of peace officer to only those things specifically mentioned, and excludes anything not specifically mentioned.

But you need to laugh as a way of avoiding the truth, right?
 
And how did that work out for you?
Seems in that case I knew the law better than you, eh?
Click to expand...

No it simply blew your consent theory out of the water.
Firstly you had to consent to the copyright act and secondly me ignoring the copyright act and doing exactly as i pleased didn't help me one bit.
It proved you consent to the acts and my non consent was totally ignored.

Yup, you came out of that looking great.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Looks to me (and the lawyers and judges I spoke with), that the word 'includes' limits the definition of peace officer to only those things specifically mentioned, and excludes anything not specifically mentioned.

But you need to laugh as a way of avoiding the truth, right?
Click to expand...
So much for C3PO then, eh?

Actually, you're not far wrong on this one, so I'll retract my laughing dog. It's true that you can't claim to be a peace officer if you aren't on that list. But that list is an open one and does not foreclose on the possibility of other persons being added to the list. If it was a truly exclusive list it would say "peace officer" means.

In other statutory contexts, "includes" or similar words are really wide open and is used to illustrate examples of a category rather than limits of a category.


ETA: Here's a really important example. I hope you will agree with me on this:

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Find me one.

I bet you will find they are not enacted by the legislature, but by HER MAJESTY.




Very simple word comprehension test for you.
WHO IS DOING THE ENACTING?
Click to expand...

Before I launch into the detailed post that I alluded to a couple of pages back (blimey the thread is lengthening so quickly and STILL Menard evades), I'm going to suggest that you try understanding certain principles of constitutional law. The separation of powers, the roles of the monarch and government would be good places for you to start.

Now, once again back to the core issue, on what basis do you claim that you are not bound by statutory law? What is your magic wand that allows you to sidestep any law you don't agree with? Given that you're making money out of this teaching, you must have the answer if you're acting honestly. What is it?

And please don't come out with the same old rhetoric about governing and consent. Remember the following:

1. Democracy does not require unanimity for the formation of a government, so that's your 'governing argument' dead in the water right there.
2. Statutes are not automatically repealed when governments change. They remain on the statute books as law until they are repealed. Statutes and government are separate. Whether you vote for a government or not, statutes remain right where they are. Again, consent to be governed is irrelevant.
3. Statutes are not contracts, so contract arguments are rubbish and pointless too.
4. Equality of men - yeah, so what? All are equal before the law. Guess what - statutes are part of the law.

So, once again, how have you cracked it? How is that that you claim to be free of all statutory law?

As I mentioned yesterday, credit to you for avoiding the question for years now. However, don't mistake that as suggesting that you make yourself look credible in the process. By evading all the time you are revealing your true colours and demonstrating that your theories are nothing more than hot and smelly air.

Lets see if you give a straight answer this time. I know you won't but it's always interesting to watch each attempt at dodging.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom