Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Border Reiver said:
You do realize that this means that the law applies eqally to all people, right? If I was to say something that caused people to believe that if they used certain words and or phrases that they could get the gov't to pay their utility bills, student loans, etc., that I accepted money for teaching these words and phrases to people and that as a result of this they ended up without utilities, bankrupt, etc. that I could be found guilty of a fraud?



We've dealt with this one before, society is more than two people. Society in Canada deals with that whole representational democracy business. Whereby certain persons, selected by other persons set the laws for the governance of all. If we don't like the rules, we vote in people who will change them. Witness what is presently happening with the long gun registry as and example of changing the law. Many people objected to the idea of a federal registry of real property, and lo, it is finally removed.



Still equal before the law.



Equality before the law was explained to me in a Social Studies class around Grade 5 or 6 in Northern Ontario. No one has ever attempted to argue that absolute equality is even possible - some of us are smarter than others, others are physically stronger, some of us have access to greater resources than others, and there really is no practical way to carry out that sort of levelling.



The exact wording is this:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.



Not sure where you found "individual" in there, but the word person in the context of the Charter refers to human beings.

Rather than copy and paste a "Wall-o-text" tm I'll just link to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Digest dealing with section 7. Scroll on down to the section on "Security of the Person" and you will see that it does not refer to financial instruments.

It would appear that this guy has misinterpreted the Charter.



Yes he does, that is a separate right guaranteed by the Charter(s.2(d))



Since, he's incorrect about what security of the person means, there is no trust relationship to nullify



If you're referring to a financial security then you are wrong. If you are referrign to your personal, physical and psychological integrity, then yes.



There are. they are called Canada Savings Bonds and they are available at many fine financial institutions here in the Great White North.



Meaning that there is a judicial entity that can be held accountable in court.


We do, that's why the Mounties, OPP, Surete, and the various municipal police forces don't get to bust down our doors for ◊◊◊◊◊ and giggles, or carry out routine assassinations for people who speak out against the government.



Well, you've confirmed that the Freemen have an inability to accept the accepted interpretations of the law, and are willing to rely on rhetoric rather than attempt actual social change.
Click to expand...

The problem with the part you stated in bold is the fact that the security has nothing to do with safety, and I was in court, (don't remember the case) where the judge stated that the security referred to had nothing to do with safety and that it did not guarantee safety at all.

Incidentally, can you explain how your opinion of my actions justifies you labeling ALL Freemen, (tens of thousands of us at least) and acts as confirmation for you, that all have an inability to accept 'accepted' (:confused:) interpretations, and are willing to rely on rhetoric? Can you also explain how we are not creating social change?
Thanks.

PS- do you often rely on such amazingly broad generalizations when dealing with those who do not hold the same opinion as yourself?
 
Last edited:
Haven't forgot you JLord, but have to head out soon for dinner and some fun, will try to get to you later tonight or tomorrow.
 
FreemanMenard said:
You asked, I answered to the bast of my ability, and you attack me cause you do not like the answer.

Pretty sure that in none of those cases, was the idea rejected outright. Additionaly, the "Security of the Person', can mean more than one thing, can it not?

Do you agree that the term 'security' can mean a financial instrument or not? Do you agree that the term 'security of the person' when used in the Charter does not mean 'safety'?

I cannot agree that there is no support for my theories in any of those reported cases, as I have not read them. Do you expect me to read all of them? I do not agree there is no support for my beliefs at all however, as I have had independent verification from accountants who used to work for the government.

Answer this: Who owns the resources of the country, if not the people?
Click to expand...
Stop asking inane questions and provide evidence for your claims. Any evidence at all. Just for once. For a change.

Incidentally, how am I selling my opinion merely by sharing it? And why does it concern you so much even if I do?
Click to expand...
Give me a *********** break.

http://shop.worldfreemansociety.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3_7&products_id=6

What is the name of that product you are selling? That's right. "Security of the Person".

Can you not make it through a single post without lying?

Oh, and it concerns me because I actually care about the lives and well-being of my fellow citizens. I do not like con artists.
 
Last edited:
I was in court, (don't remember the case) where the judge stated that the security referred to had nothing to do with safety and that it did not guarantee safety at all.
Click to expand...
I was in court (don't remember the case)where the judge stated that the security referred to had EVERYTHING to do with safety and that it did guarantee safety.
touche.
 
FreemanMenard said:
He didn't, he simply rejected the argument that security of the person meant safety or protection, and he moved past that point VERY quickly.
Click to expand...

So even if we accept your story as the truth, it still does not prove your claim that the security refers to something financial.
 
Rob, why have you posted the same post twice?
(3173 and 3243)
The points you posted have been addressed, do you want the post addressing again?

Note: the second instance of the post has been deleted. I didn't want everyone thinking jargon buster was losing his mind, so I'm posting this note here to let you know that at one point in time, there was a second exact duplicate of post #3173 6 posts above this one.
Posted By: kmortis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D'rok said:
Stop asking inane questions and provide evidence for your claims. Any evidence at all. Just for once. For a change.
Click to expand...

That's the amazing thing.
Even after its recent haircut this thread is eighty two pages long and Rob has never provided one shred of verifiable evidence to back up his claims.:D
 
Last edited:
Stacey Grove said:
That's the amazing thing.
Even after its recent haircut this thread is eighty two pages long and Rob has never provided one shred of verifiable evidence to back up his claims.:D
Click to expand...
If there's one thing he excels at, it's failure.
 
Rob, as I have followed this thread I see repeated claims by you that the skeptics misrepresent your beliefs or create straw men to break down. I would have to say that I tend to understand your belief structure in a similar way as they do. In the interests of avoiding misunderstanding and making it clear to all us lurkers out there why don’t you clearly lay out what you believe at least on the most controversial subjects that we have explored in this thread.

I think I know how you believe the system to be but according to you I don’t, so without a huge amount of text can we get a succinct answer to a few oft repeated claims and counter claims. I will phrase the questions hoping for either yes/no or 1 sentence answers realizing that it may be difficult. I want you to know that at no time am I looking for a gotcha moment only clarification so I can understand your point of view better.

1) Is all statute law contract law?
2) For a person to be convicted of a statutory crime must they consent?
3) Can a person claim their bond for fiat currency?
4) If yes, has it ever been accomplished in Canada?
5) Is there a Law Society conspiracy to hide “true” law from the public?
6) If yes, who is “in” on it?
7) Do you believe the only real law is essentially “do no harm”?
8) Do you believe law comes from a higher power?

Just to be clear my (mis)understanding of your point of view would be an affirmative answer to all these questions other than 6. And six would be answered with essentially TPTB. I know I left out many contentious points but you get my drift. I really believe if you would take the energy to be more succinct on what you do believe instead of arguing about what you don’t believe all the lurkers here would get a much better feel for who is actually doing the misrepresentation.
 
Yep 82 pages of no evidence but lots and lots of waffle and 'ideas'.

We await the evidence that the 'ideas ala Menard' work - anything less is just more jaw flapping.
 
FreemanMenard said:
The problem with the part you stated in bold is the fact that the security has nothing to do with safety, and I was in court, (don't remember the case) where the judge stated that the security referred to had nothing to do with safety and that it did not guarantee safety at all.
Click to expand...

That would be because the Charter deals with government - persons in Canada interactions and individual safety cannot be guaranteed without unreasonable government intervention. It governs how agents of the Crown interact with the public and imposes reasonable restrictions on said interactions. For instance, security of the person is established by the licensing of drivers by the provinces - ensuring your safety by requiring all persons operating a vehicle to have a demonstrate basic level of competancy by obtaining a drover's license.

Incidentally, can you explain how your opinion of my actions justifies you labeling ALL Freemen, (tens of thousands of us at least) and acts as confirmation for you, that all have an inability to accept 'accepted' (:confused:) interpretations, and are willing to rely on rhetoric? Can you also explain how we are not creating social change?
Thanks.

PS- do you often rely on such amazingly broad generalizations when dealing with those who do not hold the same opinion as yourself?
Click to expand...

It's not just you. In my day job I deal with legal issues for the CF. in the course of my job I have dealt with several dozen Freemen, all of whom have espoused the same or very similar ideas as yourself:

A. I didn't consent to this law so it doesn't apply to me;
B. I don't want to pay taxes so I won't;
C. Wait a minute, you can do this to me even if I don't consent; and
D. My legal person is different from my physical body and what one does shouldn't affect the other.

Granted you don't seem to want to claim to be an "Ally of Her Majesty" and demand that the CF intervene when the bailiffs come to repossess their house for non payment of taxes. But there are enough similarities that I can draw the inference that Freemen are generally the same and that you are all people for whom a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
 
D'rok said:
A lawyer that misrepresnets the testimony of witnesses is not a good lawyer and would have a very short career as a litigator.
Click to expand...

I believe the phrase used by judges in that circumstance is called leading the witness. Something that they tend to frown upon. But of course it is what Rob would consider a good lawyer.
 
I cannot agree that there is no support for my theories in any of those reported cases, as I have not read them. Do you expect me to read all of them?
Click to expand...

Bearing in mind the burden of proof lies with you and that you have spent thousands of hours researching and studying the law I would have thought that finding a case that backed your position would have been something of a priority.
Obviously not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom