Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Stacey Grove]

JLord's offline at the moment, so while we're waiting, Rob what about D'rok's Security of the Person question?

 

[Cocana The Second]

D'rok,

How ebil and cowwupt of you.



Menard (Robby Do),

I missed you again, such a shame. No evidence from you once again though I see.

Don't suggest that we haven't addressed your consent of the governed point though. We've done it ad nauseum on this very thread. Meanwhile the cupboard remains bare on your side. Quel surpriz eh?!

EVIDENCE, Rob - put up or shut up, please.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Fancy a stab at it, Rob?

Sure. "REVENUE RECEIPT - TREASURY USE ONLY" You can find that on many a Birth Certificate. Do you not wish to know who received what revenue, what they did with it and where it is now? Do you not wonder who they received it from and what was used as 'security'?

Every individual has the right to the security of the person.

Clearly person and individual ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

So what is this security, you know, in the techinical language of law?

SECURITY. That which renders a matter sure; an instrument which renders certain the performance of a contract. The term is also sometimes applied to designate a person who becomes the surety for another, or who engages himself for the performance of another's contract. See 3 Blackf. R. 431.

The term security is usually applied to a deposit, lien, or mortgage voluntarily given by a debtor to a creditor to guarantee payment of a debt. Security furnishes the creditor with a resource to be sold or possessed in case of the debtor's failure to meet his or her financial obligation. In addition, a person who becomes a surety for another is sometimes referred to as a "security."


Of course you could always ask The Securities Exchange Commission if a security is a physical document. I have, but you won't believe me... Or you could swith gears and claim that it means 'safety' and that the language of law is not a technical language, but is simple English, but only in this case...

Done.

 

[FreemanMenard]

JLord's offline at the moment, so while we're waiting, Rob what about D'rok's Security of the Person question?

Wow are you always so impatient?

Now that I have answered, care to answer mine? You know how you can directly as one human being govern another without their consent if you are both equal? And without breaking the law, or claiming that you have more authority than someone who hires or elects you to act as their representative.

Care to answer THAT?

 

[Bishop]

It is not us who when reading the words 'consent of the governed' claim it does not mean 'consent of the governed'. It is the people here who try to claim that it means 'consent of the people'. It is not us who claim 'equality' does not mean 'equality'. It is the people here who claim 'equality does not mean what you think it means'.
It is not us who label actual law as 'your rules', though it is you who claim your rules are the actual law.
It is not us who stretches the definition of society so that people are deemed to be members not due to their consent as the definition demands, but due only to their existence within a specific geographical area.
It is not us who constantly redefines words in Acts and statutes so they have no resemblance to the English language.
It is not us who claim that because something is happening, it must be ok, and the people doing it must have the lawful right to do it, for no other reason than they are.

How many people have driver's licenses and never read the Act under which they applied BEFORE submitting an application? And how many of them can find the Section of the Act which clearly, specifically and unequivocally removed the rights which clearly existed prior to that Act being deemed 'law' by them?

As for people being concerned about my income and if I report it to CRA: Why would I do that if I do not even have an account with them, and who is willing to claim I have a duty or obligation to have a SIN and thus an account with them?

You people claim to demand 'evidence' and 'proof', but that which you point to in order to support your continued allegations of criminal wrong doing on my part, well that does not qualify as evidence at all does it? But you accept it without question. You require no evidence to justify your hatred and anger and vilification, yet demand it in order to believe in equality and freedom.

See a problem with that?

............

Are you being deliberately dense? For the hundredth time, Menard, we are not interested in your personal arguments. In the context of this discussion, it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong about the true nature of law. In fact, if it makes things simpler, then fine, let's say you're right. Statutes are contracts and require individual consent, blah blah blah. So there's no argument there. The question still remains. When has a judge - the only person with the power to enforce that this definition of law be used across the land - ever agreed with this in an official ruling?

 

[D'rok]

Wow are you always so impatient?

It's been years since you first started selling this idiotic lie. Substantiate it already or retract it and refund your customers.

 

[Hans]

As for people being concerned about my income and if I report it to CRA: Why would I do that if I do not even have an account with them, and who is willing to claim I have a duty or obligation to have a SIN and thus an account with them?

So you have an agreement with them to avoid paying taxes or are you just avoiding paying? So if some law abiding Canadian writes them and ask if they have agreed to allow you to NOT pay taxes - that won't cause you any difficulties?

I mean the CRA knows about you right? LOL

 

[Stacey Grove]

Done.

Not at all.
D'rok asked for evidence, not your wordplay.
Try again.

 

[D'rok]

Sure. "REVENUE RECEIPT - TREASURY USE ONLY" You can find that on many a Birth Certificate. Do you not wish to know who received what revenue, what they did with it and where it is now? Do you not wonder who they received it from and what was used as 'security'?



Clearly person and individual ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

So what is this security, you know, in the techinical language of law?

SECURITY. That which renders a matter sure; an instrument which renders certain the performance of a contract. The term is also sometimes applied to designate a person who becomes the surety for another, or who engages himself for the performance of another's contract. See 3 Blackf. R. 431.

The term security is usually applied to a deposit, lien, or mortgage voluntarily given by a debtor to a creditor to guarantee payment of a debt. Security furnishes the creditor with a resource to be sold or possessed in case of the debtor's failure to meet his or her financial obligation. In addition, a person who becomes a surety for another is sometimes referred to as a "security."


Of course you could always ask The Securities Exchange Commission if a security is a physical document. I have, but you won't believe me... Or you could swith gears and claim that it means 'safety' and that the language of law is not a technical language, but is simple English, but only in this case...

Done.

Not done. Same idiotic semantic games. Provide evidence.

 

[D'rok]

D'rok,

How ebil and cowwupt of you.

Thank you.

 

[FreemanMenard]

So you have an agreement with them to avoid paying taxes or are you just avoiding paying? So if some law abiding Canadian writes them and ask if they have agreed to allow you to NOT pay taxes - that won't cause you any difficulties?

I mean the CRA knows about you right? LOL

Of course they know about me. There is no agreement, except that the SIN is the account number, and no one is obliged ot have a SIN, and those who do not have no obligation to CRA, as they do not have an account.

See the SIN is the evidence of the agreement, the lack of SIN is evidence of the lack of agreement.

No agreement (or consent) no obligation.

Simples.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Not at all.
D'rok asked for evidence, not your wordplay.
Try again.

D'Rok has repeatedly stated he is not interested in discussion, and engages in interrogations, and I am not obliged to answer him. Since he does not wish to answer ANY of my questions, I am not responding to his, and have him on ignore.

That is fair is it not?

 

[D'rok]

Of course they know about me. There is no agreement, except that the SIN is the account number, and no one is obliged ot have a SIN, and those who do not have no obligation to CRA, as they do not have an account.

See the SIN is the evidence of the agreement, the lack of SIN is evidence of the lack of agreement.

No agreement (or consent) no obligation.

Simples.

Evidence?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Not at all.
D'rok asked for evidence, not your wordplay.
Try again.

How about before I answer any more of yours, you answer ONE of mine.

Can't do it can you?

(waiting for the inevitable insults now, used by you as a way of hiding your inability to answer my simple questions)

 

[Hans]

Of course they know about me. There is no agreement, except that the SIN is the account number, and no one is obliged ot have a SIN, and those who do not have no obligation to CRA, as they do not have an account.

See the SIN is the evidence of the agreement, the lack of SIN is evidence of the lack of agreement.

No agreement (or consent) no obligation.

Simples.

Yep I say simple - so you're evading taxes - I do hope they never find out about your selling products and not letting them in on it......LOL

 

[D'rok]

D'Rok has repeatedly stated he is not interested in discussion, and engages in interrogations, and I am not obliged to answer him. Since he does not wish to answer ANY of my questions, I am not responding to his, and have him on ignore.

That is fair is it not?

I have answered your questions. Many times. Those times are over. Now provide evidence for your claims. Notice the topic of this thread?

How's Lance doing lately?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Yep I say simple - so you're evading taxes - I do hope they never find out about your selling products and not letting them in on it......LOL

How am I evading, when that requires one to have an obligation to begin with? I am 'avoiding' by not agreeing with them. Of course such a distinction is likely beyond you..

 

[Hans]

How about before I answer any more of yours, you answer ONE of mine.

Can't do it can you?

(waiting for the inevitable insults now, used by you as a way of hiding your inability to answer my simple questions)

Provide some evidence Mr Menard

 

[JLord]

jlord wrote

Even this scenario is impossible because a freeman system of law simply would be unable to maintain order as long as it stuck to its principles.
How could they control the criminals if the rule is "no man may govern another without his consent"?

Its ludicrous.

I'm not trying to say that a freeman system of law would maintain order or work better than the current system or that it would be preferable in any way, just that in order to implement such a system they need more than magic words. They would need to gain control of the country through political means or revolution or something.

 

[Hans]

How am I evading, when that requires one to have an obligation to begin with? I am 'avoiding' by not agreeing with them. Of course such a distinction is likely beyond you..

Are you paying taxes as all other Canadian are suspose to do?

Nope. Tax evader

You are avoiding them by avoiding them - they'll be catching up with you soon I'm sure......LOL

Don't you sell magic words and documents to make the CRA go away?