Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Toke]

Here is an idea for an outfit for the peace officers.
(The article is in Danish, but I am sure it is in english language news too.)

 

[Border Reiver]

So Rob, if it was wrong before it got into the CCC, and is still wrong now, can you please explain why you had earlier indicated that you had consumed alcohol and operated a motor vehicle, and had also used a scheduled drug? By the by, what about the offences that have been repealed, or the modifications to the act that have taken place over the years as society and its needs have changed?

There are a number of offences that you have indicated that you are unhappy with, namely so-called victimless crimes. I guess if they are in the Code though there shouldn't be any problem with seeing people prosecuted for them should there?

Now, how do your FPO identify themselves as PO? Uniforms? What do they look like?

Although I have to admit, your FPO sound more like a neighbourhood watch than a group of POs

 

[FreemanMenard]

That's fine, I will remind you later if need be.



So are you saying that the current version of the Criminal Code of Canada corresponds perfectly with your personal views of right and wrong? Because you appear to be claiming that all actions described in the Criminal Code are wrong in a moral sense. It would be unusual given the numerous and constant changes to the Criminal Code that its current version would be your perfect representation of right and wrong.

This leads me to wonder whether or not people are bound by statutes they don't agree with and haven't consented to?

This is just your opinion though. The criminal code is not concerned with what is "ok" in a moral sense. It exists to designate what actions will lead to criminal punishment. If something is not in the Criminal Code then regardless of whether it is right or wrong morally, you can rest assured that you won't be criminally punished for it. So if legislators remove something from the criminal code then it is "ok" in that people are now free to do that thing without criminal punishment. The statute dictates what happens, not any moral arguments.

I would like you to look very closely at the words I posted and show me where you see anything that even remotely suggests I claimed or suggested that the CCC responds PERFECTLY with my personal views of right and wrong.

Because you appear to be claiming that all actions described in the Criminal Code are wrong in a moral sense.

I was not claiming that. Sorry if that is what you took from it. I will try to be clearer for your benefit next time. That said, I think most (MOST) things therein can be shown to be either harming someone else, their property or using fraud or other mischief in your agreements and contracts. I think you would be hard pressed to find things therein which I would not consider to be morally wrong.

So are you saying that if the Criminal Code does not say you can’t do something, it is okay to do it? If they removed the section dealing with murder, then in your mind, it would be suddenly okay to go and murder people? The ONLY thing stopping you from murdering toddlers with a baseball bat and eating their bodies after ravaging it is the fact that these actions are spoken against in a certain body of words, and without that body of words, and the authors thereof, (thank God for those people, cause without them how would we know right from wrong eh?) you would be running amok, killing kids and eating them? What is in your heart and in your own mind about right and wrong is determined solely by what they put in the criminal code? If something ain’t on this particular menu, it ain’t food?

What you are arguing for is the position that your own moral code is determined by the words OTHER people put on paper.

If they did not say it was not okay, it is.
Then,
If they did not say it is okay, then it is not.

All because you abandon your right to determine right and wrong, in favour of accepting what others whom you have never met, have decided.

Them recording what they feel is and is not right, does not grant them the power to determine what is and is not right.

Furthermore, the Criminal Code does not establish so much what is right and wrong, nor is it a comprehensive collection of all that is wrong, what it does is set limits on the punishment placed upon those who do the wrong recognized.

Initially the Code may have been an attempt to codify the common law of crimes as it existed at the time, but it is a statute like any other and regardless of whether you morally agree with it or not, I don't see how that would change your theory regarding individual consent.

Take away a statute, a crime can still exist.
That which is not a crime when the statute does not exist
Was never a crime to begin with

Murder is a crime, regardless of it is in the codified books.
Growing pot is only a crime because it is.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Hey Rob! good to see you again.

 

[Border Reiver]

Rob, you are deliberately ignoring what has been said.

you earlier posted that

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard
The Criminal Code does not make the offense, it 'codifies' it. I am not placing the importance on 'it', but upon 'that which it holds'. IN the absence of it, I would still claim that the actions described within are wrong. They are not wrong merely because they are described within. They were wrong before the authors of the CCoC decided to codify them...

You have also postulated that, for example, "growing pot is only a crime because it is" (presumably within the CCC). Since it is codified in the CCC, did that not make it a crime to grow pot prior to its inclusion in the CCC?

You've contradicted yourself wrt the purpose of the CCC.

BTW, it is as you actually state - it is to provide a codified list of what is not lawful to do and the punishments that are acceptable for their transgression. By codifiying crimes and punishments Parliament was attempting to regulate sentencing and to clean up the mess of mixed statute and common law offences that existed prior to its introduction in the 1890s.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Rob, you are deliberately ignoring what has been said.

you earlier posted that



You have also postulated that, for example, "growing pot is only a crime because it is" (presumably within the CCC). Since it is codified in the CCC, did that not make it a crime to grow pot prior to its inclusion in the CCC?

You've contradicted yourself wrt the purpose of the CCC.

BTW, it is as you actually state - it is to provide a codified list of what is not lawful to do and the punishments that are acceptable for their transgression. By codifiying crimes and punishments Parliament was attempting to regulate sentencing and to clean up the mess of mixed statute and common law offences that existed prior to its introduction in the 1890s.

YOUR ARGUMENTATIVE SPIRIT MEANS YOU LOOK FOR CONTRADICTIONS WHERE NONE EXIST. YOU ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH (oops) finding holes then listening to what the other party has to say.
I did not contradict myself at all, you PRESUMED that growing pot is a crime contrary to the criminal code. It is not.
Therefore no contradiction.

 

[jargon buster]

Take away a statute, a crime can still exist.
That which is not a crime when the statute does not exist
Was never a crime to begin with

Murder is a crime, regardless of it is in the codified books.
Growing pot is only a crime because it is.

Actually Rob, how it is, is exactly the opposite to your reasoning.
Murder is a crime and growing pot is a crime if men say they are crimes, they are both exactly the same.
If the men in power decide that murder is not a crime then it isnt, simple as that.

Have you not grasped it yet Rob?
All crimes are only crimes because men say they are crimes.

If the PTB decided tomorrow (and the majority of the population agreed to abide by it)that wearing silly hats and a pony tail were crimes then thats what they would be and you would either have to take the hat off and cut the pony tail (BTW you should anyway, you are too old for it now) or you would be prosecuted.

 

[BobHaulk]

Once the Freemen On The Beat are operational can we expect other public services being supplied for free by the freemen? One wonders what other skills a freeman could offer the community. Hey rob hows freeman island going btw? Maybe i could find how it's all running in practice. Haven't you a whole community with a subterranean recording studio and plenty of opportunity for artists and jugglers? It's all being done for free by swapping skills and stuff so how's it working out, is it a model for the rest of us? I spend most days in my studio but it's not a subterranean recording studio, that sounded so cool.
You're a dreamer rob, but you're not the only one.

 

[D'rok]

YOUR ARGUMENTATIVE SPIRIT MEANS YOU LOOK FOR CONTRADICTIONS WHERE NONE EXIST. YOU ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH (oops) finding holes then listening to what the other party has to say.
I did not contradict myself at all, you PRESUMED that growing pot is a crime contrary to the criminal code. It is not.
Therefore no contradiction.

It is a crime contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. You did realize that the Criminal Code is not the only source of Criminal Law, right?

Now, of course, you are still avoiding the point - namely that you claimed that what is described in the CC is morally wrong. Period. Still want to go there, or are you going to back down from that ridiculous position? Here's some motivation for you - I'd bet that your customers would not be pleased to hear you venerate that piece of legislation crafted and enforced without their consent.

And also, do FOTLers get to remove consent to Freemen on the Beat (thanks Bob, that's a keeper) enforcement of statute? How do you plan to arrest and prosecute someone who has not consented to being governed by statutory law? Have you given up on that particular delusion? That would progress of a sort, I suppose.

Please address this obvious flaw in your fantasy scheme.

 

[D'rok]

Also, please provide the evidence that the courts and police in London, ON have recognized the Peace Officer status of FOTB and that you have successfully arrested someone using that status.

Or are you also backing away from that obvious lie?

 

[Stacey Grove]

And also, do FOTLers get to remove consent to Freemen on the Beat?

That is an excellent point. Can a FOTB arrest a FOTL if the FOTL says "I do not consent" to the FOTB? Or is consent to FOTB mandatory In order to be a FOTL?


Oh, I too would like to see the evidence that the court and police recognise the status of FOTB, Rob.
Again: who was arrested and who arrested them?

 

[D'rok]

Oh this is priceless. Over on WFS, Menard has posted an example of "holding police accountable" in the success stories section. Who held the police accountable in this example? Lawyers of course.

A WOMAN who was subjected to a “humiliating” police strip search has won an apology and £4,750 damages with help from the activist comedian Mark Thomas.

Care worker Anna Gavenciakova, 34, was “unlawfully” detained by officers on Bournemouth’s Holdenhurst Road last September and then searched at Boscombe Police station She said she could not find any solicitors willing to take on a case against the police but found a specialist London firm after emailing Mark Thomas asking for help.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...apologise_for__unlawful__detainment_of_woman/

I wonder if activist comedian Robert-Arthur: Menard refers people in need to a good law firm?

Wait, no...I know the answer to that. He takes their money, tells them lies, and gets them deeper in trouble.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Actually Rob, how it is, is exactly the opposite to your reasoning.
Murder is a crime and growing pot is a crime if men say they are crimes, they are both exactly the same.
If the men in power decide that murder is not a crime then it isnt, simple as that.

Have you not grasped it yet Rob?
All crimes are only crimes because men say they are crimes.

If the PTB decided tomorrow (and the majority of the population agreed to abide by it)that wearing silly hats and a pony tail were crimes then thats what they would be and you would either have to take the hat off and cut the pony tail (BTW you should anyway, you are too old for it now) or you would be prosecuted.

WOW... you have just revealed your thought process haven't you?

So now we get to your true perspective. And boy is it a doozy. You no longer claim that the law is the shared common morals or ethics of a community, democratically agreed upon, but is merely the wishes whatever they may be, of a certain class of men, whom we do not know. What is right and what is wrong for people in your group, is not a function of conscience, or ethics, or morals but is determined solely by what some men tell you. In your world view, doing what is right is merely doing what you are told or commanded, and doing wrong means not doing what you are told. You have abandoned ALL claim to higher moral ground, and even your own humanity. You are not a man, you are a dog. You do not have equals, you have masters.


I think now I see why you so vehemently oppose this movement. It is for people who have a conscience, who have their own set of morals, and ethics, and do not need others to tell them right from wrong. That is not you. It was you who once claimed that if not for the Criminal Code you would commit murder, did you not?

You are clearly a sociopath, and can justify your sociopathy by claiming you were just doing what you were told. That is why you so staunchly defend the status quo and look at your actions against your fellowman as mere light hearted relief.

I have never been happier to not be someone in my life, or happier to know I do not think like someone else does. I have pity for you. Right and wrong for you, is not a function of any internal decision making at all. Someone failed miserably in raising you. You are a puppet on strings pulled by others, and lack the ability to formulate a course of action based upon what you feel is right and wrong, and have to rely upon others to tell you what is acceptable, or not.

if right and wrong is merely a function of doing what you are told, as you claim, then someone somewhere up the chain of command must be deciding what is okay and not, and that decision is not based upon doing what they are told at all. People like you, willing to do anything they are ordered to do, and who take following orders as the height of morally correct behaviour are a far greater danger to the people, than folks like me, who choose to follow their own morals. At least we have morals. All you have is an ability to do what you are told. Must be nice, not having to actually think about right and wrong, and being able to abdicate responsibility for your actions by claiming you were just following orders.

I wonder, how did that defense work out historically?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Once the Freemen On The Beat are operational can we expect other public services being supplied for free by the freemen? One wonders what other skills a freeman could offer the community. Hey rob hows freeman island going btw? Maybe i could find how it's all running in practice. Haven't you a whole community with a subterranean recording studio and plenty of opportunity for artists and jugglers? It's all being done for free by swapping skills and stuff so how's it working out, is it a model for the rest of us? I spend most days in my studio but it's not a subterranean recording studio, that sounded so cool.
You're a dreamer rob, but you're not the only one.

You can expect all you want. Does not mean it will be provided.


It's going good thank you, though your idea that it is all done for free is way off. Of course your idea of what FMOTL is actually all about is way off, and has been from the get go.

 

[FreemanMenard]

That is an excellent point. Can a FOTB arrest a FOTL if the FOTL says "I do not consent" to the FOTB? Or is consent to FOTB mandatory In order to be a FOTL?


Oh, I too would like to see the evidence that the court and police recognise the status of FOTB, Rob.
Again: who was arrested and who arrested them?

The idea that consent is required to arrest someone breaking the law, (not a statute) is one of your misconceptions concerning FMOTL. The CCoC identifies those actions for which ANYONE can arrest ANYONE else, without a warrant.

A man was arrested for committing assault against another, by someone who had joined CCCPO. He identified himself as a peace officer when he brought the arrested to the police station. The cops asked him about it, and their documentation they presented to the court stated that he was originally arrested by a peace officer. Happened in Ontario, with the OPP accepting his status. do not have more info, and do not feel like digging through tens of thousands of emails to find it.

Hey how about you just read the definition of peace officer in the criminal code where it states anyone hired to preserve and maintain the public peace is a peace officer, then try showing me where it states that the ability to so hire is restricted to those in the government.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

WOW... you have just revealed your thought process haven't you?

So now we get to your true perspective. And boy is it a doozy. You no longer claim that the law is the shared common morals or ethics of a community,

I don't believe anyone here (apart from FMOTL) have ever claimed that. This is likely because it is an plainly observable fact that it is not true. Visit China for instance.

democratically agreed upon, but is merely the wishes whatever they may be, of a certain class of men, whom we do not know. What is right and what is wrong for people in your group, is not a function of conscience, or ethics, or morals but is determined solely by what some men tell you.

Again, this is what most of us have been trying to explain to you for years now. Indeed, this is what grade school social studies teachers explain to their students. Of course, in Canada, where you were lucky enough to be born, our "certain class of men" happen to be held accountable to the public by a liberal democratic system which helps to make life here relatively pretty great. But this doesn't have to be the case. Again, this is a plainly observable fact. Again, see China or dozens and dozens of other countries for examples.

In your world view, doing what is right is merely doing what you are told or commanded, and doing wrong means not doing what you are told. You have abandoned ALL claim to higher moral ground, and even your own humanity. You are not a man, you are a dog. You do not have equals, you have masters.

No one said anything about doing what is right. We are only trying to explain to you what the word "law" means.

I think now I see why you so vehemently oppose this movement.

We oppose FMOTL because it is a nonsense scam. I strongly support serious movements that actually try to improve our community and our society. FMOTL does not fit that category.

It is for people who have a conscience, who have their own set of morals, and ethics, and do not need others to tell them right from wrong. That is not you. It was you who once claimed that if not for the Criminal Code you would commit murder, did you not?

What? All anyone has said that if the Criminal Code (or any other statute or common law principle) did not prohibit killing other people (and indeed, in certain circumstances even today it does not), then killing other people would not be a crime. 99.99% of people will still believe it is morally wrong and would not do it. However, it would not be a crime.

You are clearly a sociopath, and can justify your sociopathy by claiming you were just doing what you were told. That is why you so staunchly defend the status quo and look at your actions against your fellowman as mere light hearted relief.

Well, by that diagnosis, you live in a world where 99.999999% of the people are sociopaths. That must be frightening.

I have never been happier to not be someone in my life, or happier to know I do not think like someone else does. I have pity for you. Right and wrong for you, is not a function of any internal decision making at all. Someone failed miserably in raising you. You are a puppet on strings pulled by others, and lack the ability to formulate a course of action based upon what you feel is right and wrong, and have to rely upon others to tell you what is acceptable, or not.

if right and wrong is merely a function of doing what you are told, as you claim, then someone somewhere up the chain of command must be deciding what is okay and not, and that decision is not based upon doing what they are told at all. People like you, willing to do anything they are ordered to do, and who take following orders as the height of morally correct behaviour are a far greater danger to the people, than folks like me, who choose to follow their own morals. At least we have morals. All you have is an ability to do what you are told. Must be nice, not having to actually think about right and wrong, and being able to abdicate responsibility for your actions by claiming you were just following orders.

I wonder, how did that defense work out historically?

Again, you have horribly missed the distinction between "law" and "right and wrong". They are two different things. Please consult a dictionary for clarification.

 

[D'rok]

The idea that consent is required to arrest someone breaking the law, (not a statute) is one of your misconceptions concerning FMOTL. The CCoC identifies those actions for which ANYONE can arrest ANYONE else, without a warrant.

The Criminal Code is a statute. FOTLers aren't governed by statutes. Or so you've been shouting from the internet hilltops for years now. Have you finally given up that nonsense? Or are there now special categories of statutes that FOTLers are governed by whether they consent or not?

Either way, I think you'd better clarify your wacky ideas. You wouldn't want to sell the lie that FOTLers can withdraw consent to being governend by statutes when you no longer believe that to be the case, would you? That would be dishonest now would it.

I wonder how your customers would feel to know that statutes don't apply to them, except for when they get arrested for contravening a statute by an FOTB who, ironically, claims to get his authority to do so from a statute.

It's quite the scam you've got going here. Take money for teaching people that they don't need to consent to statutes. Then take money for teaching other people that statutes empower them to enforce statutes on the first group.

Diabolical.

 

[Stacey Grove]

The idea that consent is required to arrest someone breaking the law, (not a statute) is one of your misconceptions concerning FMOTL.

I am only going on what you have said in the past. You have stated that laws made by man require an individual's consent to be bound by them. Now, considering that all law, be it statute or indeed common law, is man made, are you saying that consent is not required for some man made law?

 

[Horatius]

Hey how about you just read the definition of peace officer in the criminal code where it states anyone hired to preserve and maintain the public peace is a peace officer, then try showing me where it states that the ability to so hire is restricted to those in the government.

Actually, it states:

(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,

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-1.html#h-2

So, are you admitting that you're now a person as referred to in statutes?



Oh, and while we're at it, I hope you're not hiring any of your Droids in Alberta, because:

Part 1
Employer’s Authorizations and Peace Officer’s Appointments
Employer’s authorization
5(1) No person shall employ or engage the services of a person as a peace officer unless that person is an authorized employer.
(2) A person applying to the Minister for an employer’s authorization to employ or engage the services of one or more peace officers must provide the information and comply with any other conditions provided for in the regulations.
(3) The Minister may issue an employer’s authorization to an applicant and may impose any terms and conditions on the employer’s authorization that the Minister considers appropriate, which may include requiring the authorized employer to implement or comply with policies, standards of conduct, practices, procedures, protocols or rules provided for in the regulations.
(4) At any time after issuing an employer’s authorization the Minister may impose new terms and conditions or vary any existing terms and conditions in the employer’s authorization and must inform the authorized employer in writing of the addition or variation.
(5) An authorized employer must, in accordance with the regulations, notify the Minister of any changes in the information provided or requirements met under subsection (2).

http://www.albertapolice.ca/publications/bill-016.doc

 

[D'rok]

A man was arrested for committing assault against another, by someone who had joined CCCPO. He identified himself as a peace officer when he brought the arrested to the police station. The cops asked him about it, and their documentation they presented to the court stated that he was originally arrested by a peace officer. Happened in Ontario, with the OPP accepting his status. do not have more info, and do not feel like digging through tens of thousands of emails to find it.

Ah, so no evidence then.

Hey how about you just read the definition of peace officer in the criminal code where it states anyone hired to preserve and maintain the public peace is a peace officer, then try showing me where it states that the ability to so hire is restricted to those in the government.

It's been done in this very thread. The onus is squarely on you to prove your outlandish claims.