Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[D'rok]

http://www.ownlife.com/tax/lordne1.htm

The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Appellant; and
The Attorney General of Canada, Respondent; and
Lord Nelson Hotel Company Limited, Intervenant.
Supreme Court of Canada
1950:May 25, 26 / 1950:October 3.
Present:Rinfret C. J., and Kerwin, Taschereau, Rand, Kellock,
Estey and Fauteux JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA EN BANC

The Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the several Provinces are sovereign within their sphere defined by The British North America Act, but none of them has the unlimited capacity of an individual. They can exercise only the legislative powers respectively given to them by sections 91 and 92 of the Act, and these powers must be found in either of these sections.

Read that very carefully. The UNLIMITED capacity of the individual.
Now, where does it say, clearly and specifically, in the CCoC that as individuals with unlimited capacity, we cannot hire each other to be peace officers? Hmmm??? And that we cannot use those peace officers to ensure existing police follow the law?

FFS. This kind of idiocy is really trying.

What does the phrase "sovereign within their sphere defined by The British North American Act" mean to you, Mr. FOTL jurist extraordinaire? Are you going to try to redefine the word "sovereign" now? So, what is the sphere in which the Federal Government is sovereign? Answer is found in s. 91 of the former BNA Act:

1. Repealed.
1A. The Public Debt and Property.
2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
2A. Unemployment insurance.
3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.
5. Postal Service.
6. The Census and Statistics.
7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
8. The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.
9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
10. Navigation and Shipping.
11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.
12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.
14. Currency and Coinage.
15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.
16. Savings Banks.
17. Weights and Measures.
18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
19. Interest.
20. Legal Tender.
21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
22. Patents of Invention and Discovery.
23. Copyrights.
24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.
25. Naturalization and Aliens.
26. Marriage and Divorce.
27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.
29. Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

And the sovereign sphere of the Provinces? Answer in s. 92:

1. Repealed.
2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
3. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province
4. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
6. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
8. Municipal Institutions in the Province.
9. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.
10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:

(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
(b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.

11. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts. 15. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

It seems that the government, both Federal and Provincial, are sovereign over the Criminal Law and the Administration of Justice. So much for your little private police fantasy.

And you have been given clear court rulings that show that you do not have the authority to recruit a private force of "peace officers".

Of course, you will continue to ignore the law in favour of your fantasies, because that is the heart of the FOTL way.

 

[FreemanMenard]

FFS. This kind of idiocy is really trying.

What does the phrase "sovereign within their sphere defined by The British North American Act" mean to you, Mr. FOTL jurist extraordinaire? Are you going to try to redefine the word "sovereign" now? So, what is the sphere in which the Federal Government is sovereign? Answer is found in s. 91 of the former BNA Act:
And the sovereign sphere of the Provinces? Answer in s. 92:
It seems that the government, both Federal and Provincial, are sovereign over the Criminal Law and the Administration of Justice. So much for your little private police fantasy.

And you have been given clear court rulings that show that you do not have the authority to recruit a private force of "peace officers".

Of course, you will continue to ignore the law in favour of your fantasies, because that is the heart of the FOTL way.

Have you never heard of private prosecutions?

The court ruling you think is so clear, involved a CORPORATION not an individual, hiring an AGENT for PRIVATE purposes. We are individuals being hired by individual members of the public, to preserve and maintain the public peace. Are you incapable of distinguishing between corporations and individuals? Or between private and public purposes? It would seem you are.

But of course, YOU will continue to ignore the differences in favour of YOUR fantasies, where a fiction, is your GOD, and woe to those who do not bow to it as you do. That is the heart of the 'Child of The State' way.

 

[FreemanMenard]

OK
I don't care how long this takes.
So let's try again.
We know that you have said that FOTB whilst operating as a FOTB are acting through "the person".
Now, do the FOTB report contraventions of statute?
Yes or No?
Do you agree that when acting as a FOTB (through "the person") they too are bound by statute?
Yes or No?
If "Yes" would that be all statute law, or just those laws they choose?
If "No" why not?

'A' person, not 'the person' would be a more clear explanation. Remember a 'person' is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes, and not all share the same rights and duties, therefore do not have the same legal attributes.

Let me make it clear to you ONE last time. They are not empowered to enforce statutes or bylaws in the same way policy enforcement officers are. They are empowered to preserve and maintain the public peace in the same way that the police are due to their peace officer status.

 

[Mojo]

Have you never heard of private prosecutions?

Yes. They are a type of prosecution that can be brought without any involvement of the state or of peace officers.

 

[Mojo]

They are empowered...

By what?

 

[jargon buster]

Remember a 'person' is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes, and not all share the same rights and duties, therefore do not have the same legal attributes.

pssst..Rob, thats not the only definition of a "person" you know.

They are empowered to preserve and maintain the public peace in the same way that the police are due to their peace officer status.

And where does this power originate?

We are individuals being hired by individual members of the public, to preserve and maintain the public peace.

So according to your definition I can pay my own private army, pay them a fixed fee of a dollar and call them peace officers?
Wait..thats exactly what you're doing isn't it?

 

[jargon buster]

Why are there so many so called freemen in Canada?

I dont understand it, Canada, a country with millions of acres of totally uninhabited land has more than its fair share of people who want no part of society (FMOTL)
Why don't they simply FO into the woods and live there?

 

[D'rok]

Have you never heard of private prosecutions?

The court ruling you think is so clear, involved a CORPORATION not an individual, hiring an AGENT for PRIVATE purposes. We are individuals being hired by individual members of the public, to preserve and maintain the public peace. Are you incapable of distinguishing between corporations and individuals? Or between private and public purposes? It would seem you are.

But of course, YOU will continue to ignore the differences in favour of YOUR fantasies, where a fiction, is your GOD, and woe to those who do not bow to it as you do. That is the heart of the 'Child of The State' way.

You, of course, are utterly wrong. All law is against you, as is common decency. All evidence shows you to be a shameless liar. As does the trail of broken lives you leave in your wake.

There is one way in which you can prove that you are correct. You have made it abundantly clear that you have no evidence and that you will continue to ignore all the evidence that unmasks you as the charlatan you are. Therefore, dress up in your little costume, brandish your fake badge, and arrest a police officer. Go ahead. Don't just collect donations from gullible people that you have tricked into believing your lies. You do it. Show some honour and behave with some basic decency. Use yourself as the test for your methods.

Or do you have so little faith in your own obviously false teachings?

 

[D'rok]

I dont understand it, Canada, a country with millions of acres of totally uninhabited land has more than its fair share of people who want no part of society (FMOTL)
Why don't they simply FO into the woods and live there?

Because social assistance cheques wouldn't reach them if they did.

 

[D'rok]

I suppose this is an appropriate to time to re-post this, from the Supreme Court of Canada:

[19] On the level of principle, it is important to remember that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code is not designed to create a police force. It simply provides that certain persons who derive their authority from other sources will be treated as "peace officers" as well, enabling them to enforce the Criminal Code within the scope of their pre‑existing authority, and to benefit from certain protections granted only to "peace officers". Any broader reading of s. 2 could lead to considerable constitutional difficulties. Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that the administration of justice falls within provincial legislative competence. See Di Iorio v. Warden of the Montreal Jail, 1976 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152, and Attorney General of Quebec and Keable v. Attorney General of Canada, 1978 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218. Although the ability of the federal Parliament to create a national police force has never been challenged and any such exercise of authority is presumptively valid, to treat s. 2 of the Criminal Code as a broad grant of authority to thousands of persons to act as "peace officers" in any circumstances could well prompt a constitutional challenge. In the context of division of powers, legislation should be interpreted, when possible, so that it is not ultra vires. The assessment of legislation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, of course, subject to different considerations. See Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110.

[20] I would therefore conclude that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code serves only to grant additional powers to enforce the criminal law to persons who must otherwise operate within the limits of their statutory or common law sources of authority.

R. v. Nolan, [1987] 1 SCR 1212

Now, pray tell Mr. Menard, what is the source of your pre-existing authority to be a Peace Officer? Don't say it's the Criminal Code, because, as you can read above, it is explicitly not the Criminal Code from whence this authority comes for you. So what is it?

Still no answer?

 

[jargon buster]

But of course, YOU will continue to ignore the differences in favour of YOUR fantasies, where a fiction, is your GOD, and woe to those who do not bow to it as you do.

And who pray tell is your God Rob?
If it's not a "fiction" it really is going to be a revelation of some epic proportions.

 

[Stacey Grove]

They are not empowered to enforce statutes or bylaws in the same way policy enforcement officers are.

OK.

They are empowered to preserve and maintain the public peace in the same way that the police are due to their peace officer status.

By which authority do the FOTB have such powers?

 

[solzhenitsyn]

I dont understand it, Canada, a country with millions of acres of totally uninhabited land has more than its fair share of people who want no part of society (FMOTL)
Why don't they simply FO into the woods and live there?

Indeed. I also find it ironic that there should be so many FMOTL among those of us who, through sheer good fortune, were born in Canada, where we enjoy among the highest standards of living on earth, and where we are protected by one of the most stable, fair, and just states on earth. Perhaps if some of our intrepid FMOTL out there had ever traveled to other parts of the world, read a history book or newspaper, or even just paid attention in grade 6 social studies, they might appreciate just how ridiculous their claims are.

 

[bikerdruid]

Indeed. I also find it ironic that there should be so many FMOTL among those of us who, through sheer good fortune, were born in Canada, where we enjoy among the highest standards of living on earth, and where we are protected by one of the most stable, fair, and just states on earth. Perhaps if some of our intrepid FMOTL out there had ever traveled to other parts of the world, read a history book or newspaper, or even just paid attention in grade 6 social studies, they might appreciate just how ridiculous their claims are.

i have the best of both worlds.
i live in the woods, and still enjoy the benefits of socialized canadian society.

 

[D'rok]

Indeed. I also find it ironic that there should be so many FMOTL among those of us who, through sheer good fortune, were born in Canada, where we enjoy among the highest standards of living on earth, and where we are protected by one of the most stable, fair, and just states on earth. Perhaps if some of our intrepid FMOTL out there had ever traveled to other parts of the world, read a history book or newspaper, or even just paid attention in grade 6 social studies, they might appreciate just how ridiculous their claims are.

They remind of the "Occupy Bay Street" bunch here in Toronto. What exactly are they protesting? We protest our well regulated financial sector! We protest our lack of sub-prime mortgages! We protest the good governance that got us through the global recession mostly unscathed!

And to top it off, they hold their protests in a park many blocks away from Bay Street.

 

[tsig]

pssst..Rob, thats not the only definition of a "person" you know.

And where does this power originate?

So according to your definition I can pay my own private army, pay them a fixed fee of a dollar and call them peace officers?
Wait..thats exactly what you're doing isn't it?

Hi JB I'd like to hire you to enforce my rules against freeloaders.

 

[tsig]

'A' person, not 'the person' would be a more clear explanation. Remember a 'person' is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes, and not all share the same rights and duties, therefore do not have the same legal attributes.

Let me make it clear to you ONE last time. They are not empowered to enforce statutes or bylaws in the same way policy enforcement officers are. They are empowered to preserve and maintain the public peace in the same way that the police are due to their peace officer status.

I just hired JB as my MA policy enforcement officer so I'm sure the JREF will honor all his decisions.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

They remind of the "Occupy Bay Street" bunch here in Toronto. What exactly are they protesting? We protest our well regulated financial sector! We protest our lack of sub-prime mortgages! We protest the good governance that got us through the global recession mostly unscathed!

And to top it off, they hold their protests in a park many blocks away from Bay Street.

Agreed, although there is a big difference between most "Occupy" participants, who are merely exercising their legally-recognized democratic rights, and FMOTL, who purport to exercise imaginary rights that were largely concocted by a number of charlatans in the United States in the 1970s and 80s.

Having spoken just recently with many people, and asking them questions, I think we are actually in the majority, when our views and beliefs are properly presented, instead of the twisted view you seem to have.

Yesterday I was playing ‘Mr.Curious’ and was speaking with people on the street as they walked past. Had a chance to discuss in depth with a number of them my beliefs. And all of them agreed with me and the Freeman perspective. I asked them two questions:
1- Do you agree the people in the government should be bound by the law?
2- Do you think it is a good idea to have a civilian peace officer force to ensure that the existing police forces operate lawfully?

Guess what? EVERYONE agreed the people in the government should be bound by the law, and with the exception of one guy who was planning on being a cop, everyone thought the civilian peace officer force was a good idea!

Incidentally, if you had asked me those same questions as I was passing you by on the street, I would have agreed with you as well. So I agree with you: nearly everyone in Canada agrees with these broad statements. However, I wonder why you did not ask a third question, as follows, since it seems to more accurately address what you are proposing:

3 - Do you think it is a good idea that anyone, and especially me, Rob Menard, in particular, should be permitted by the democratically-electetd government of Canada to hire his own police force to enforce his own laws?

I can assure you that had you asked me that question, my answer would be something along the lines of "have you lost your mind?" Further, had you asked that question of other people passing you by on that street, the vast majority of those people would have answered "of course not." Surely you don't sincerely doubt that?

Now since those are among the beliefs of Freemen, it seems to me that the Freeman perspective, when properly presented, is quite agreeable to the vast majority of people. At least when they are not prejudiced and misinformed.

As I've argued above, I don't think that this is true at all.

 

[tsig]

I dont understand it, Canada, a country with millions of acres of totally uninhabited land has more than its fair share of people who want no part of society (FMOTL)
Why don't they simply FO into the woods and live there?

They want the benefits of civilization without the responsibilities of civilization.

 

[jargon buster]

They remind of the "Occupy Bay Street" bunch here in Toronto.

They remind me of the Sesame Street Bunch