Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[D'rok]

Here's a fact we can drag into it. The resources of Canada are owned by the people of Canada

The resources of Canada are owned by the provinces of Canada either by way of the Constitution, or, in the case of the prairie provinces, by way the of the Natural Resources Transfer Acts of 1930. But don't let that stop you from making up your own facts.

here is another: The only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representational one, and representation requires mutual consent.

I love how you all are pathologically inclined to ignore THAT fact.

Who's ignoring what facts about consent and governance again?

You have ignored all my previous posts (despite the fact I am one of the few answering your questions and not interested in insults) and likely will ignore this one as well.

Here are some court rulings where a person used your argument (that the government has no right to govern without their individual consent) and failed. Since you have asked so many times I assume you are unfamiliar with these rulings so I will link to hte case and post the relevant passages:


R. v. Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2007/2007abca45/2007abca45.html

[6] The applicant submits that the jurisdiction of the Court or the applicability of statutes such as the Traffic Safety Act is based on individual consent, and that consequently the courts below lacked the ability to hear this matter or convict him. In my view, those arguments are without merit and fail to raise a question of law of public importance

This decision alone owuld certainly give reason to conclude that individual consent to be governed by statutes is not required in Canada according to the de facto courts. This is sufficient and convincing, but there are lots of other cases where people have succesfully been "governed" by statute law through the courts without their consent:



Kanwar v. Kanwar, 2010 BCCA 407 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2010/2010bcca407/2010bcca407.html

[33] Mr. Kanwar argued that the matter is one of settled law in India, and without his written consent to being governed by Canadian law; the parties remain governed by Hindu law and the issues raised by Ms. Sukhija can only be resolved under the provisions of the laws of India. Ms. Sukhija argued that there are no such legal restrictions.

...

[43] Although both parties and the child were born in India, all applied for and received landed immigrant status in Canada, and as such, are subject to Canadian law.

R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca767/2008onca767.html

[20] More important, the essence of his argument is that ‘the Act does not apply to me because I choose to have it not apply to me’. Contrary to what Mr. Christie says, this is a jurisdictional argument (and one which is void of merit) that leads to a mistake of law which does not afford a defence. This court has already said in Klundert No. 1 – this kind of mistake of law is irrelevant to the fault requirement of the charge of tax evasion.

If you are still interested I will post links to other such cases:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii9368/2009canlii9368.html

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2000/2000bcsc190/2000bcsc190.html

I don't want to go too far with this at this point, because you may not respond at all, and if you do there is already enough to respond to in the first case posted.

As usual, it is you that is ignoring reality. You asked for this evidence. It was given to you. You ignored it. And you continue to repeat your lies. Typical.

 

[BobHaulk]

Here's a fact we can drag into it. The resources of Canada are owned by the people of Canada, and if there is no mechanism to monitor and disperse the value extracted fairly, then those who do so are committing theft from the owners.
.

Brilliant, funniest thing i've read today.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Do you like that fact?

here is another: The only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representational one, and representation requires mutual consent.

I love how you all are pathologically inclined to ignore THAT fact.

I imagine that most of us are inclined to ignore that "fact" because it is something that you have invented. There is exactly zero historical evidence supporting it. To put it bluntly, it is ********.

In the 150 year old history of the modern Canadian state, there is not one example of the state recognizing an individual's withdrawal of consent to be governed. On the other hand, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of examples of people being governed without their consent. For examples, please see Louis Riel, the FLQ, the 1990 Oka crisis, etc.

Of course, if you are able to provide one example, with any sort of credible evidence supporting it, I will stand corrected.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I love how you all are pathologically inclined to ignore THAT fact.

I swear, if it were written that the sky is blue and the grass is green Rob would twist it to mean "No man should ever pay for rhubarb" and claim it to be fact.

Here is a real fact:

Some American conmen invented some cons known as Sovereign Citizen and Commercial Redemption a long time ago. They fooled the gullible and stupid, made some money then got sent to prison.

The stupid and gullible mostly forgot about these cons and moved onto the next crazy conspiracy theory.

Later in history someone in Canada "researched" Law after falling foul of it. Unfortunately it wasn't real law, it was the gibberish scribblings of the Sov/Redemption numpties. He fell for the woo and used it to justify his own failings.

The Canadian repackaged the woo and sold it back to all the new gullible dimwits who missed it first time around.

Faced with mountains of proof and evidence that FOTL is 100% horse crap, and unable to produce one single solitary piece of evidence to prove otherwise, the new FOTL guru had to resort to telling bare faced lies in order to promote his little con.

People wondered if the new guru actually believed his own nonsense, as doing so would indicate some kind of inability to accept reality. Even when his own flock were imprisoned and they ended up in more trouble than had they ignored him, he resorted to blaming them for their woes.

FOTL-Waffle is complete nonsensical made-up rubbish, and that is a Fact!

 

[Stacey Grove]

FOTL-Waffle is complete nonsensical made-up rubbish, and that is a Fact!

Undeniably a fact.

 

[Hektor]

Do you agree that a physician needs your consent before providing their services to you personally? Or not?

Rob, again, you completely misrepresent the situation. Doctors can't just wander in and declare you their patient and imprison you. The government however, has created a legal process for those individuals who aren't mentally competent enough to determine their treatment. In that case, yet again, the government can through the legal system force patients to be treated without their consent yes. Governments have this power to you know, govern without every individual's consent and in no way have you ever demonstrated proof that they do not. Also, in no way does it reduce to either of your absurd situations (like you being able to open a clinic). Again, it is not surprising that these lawyers and apparently now public health nurses did not point any of this out to you.

 

[Hans]

I wonder how Menard deals with eminent domain which may be called compulsory purchase (?) in Canada

 

[Robrob]

Do you agree that a physician needs your consent before providing their services to you personally? Or not?

It's been explained to you before, you (or anyone else) can be committed against their will if deemed a danger to themselves or others. Likewise, if you are unable to provide informed consent (e.g. unconscious, incoherent, under age) a care provider may treat you regardless.

Here's a fact we can drag into it. The resources of Canada are owned by the people of Canada, and if there is no mechanism to monitor and disperse the value extracted fairly, then those who do so are committing theft from the owners.

Do you like that fact?

If by "fact" you mean something you made up, OK.

The only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representational one, and representation requires mutual consent.

I love how you all are pathologically inclined to ignore THAT fact.

See above.

 

[Mojo]

here is another: The only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representational one, and representation requires mutual consent.

I love how you all are pathologically inclined to ignore THAT fact.

If you go back up the thread a bit you'll find a link to your constitution.

 

[FreemanMenard]

If you go back up the thread a bit you'll find a link to your constitution.

(1)This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.


Don't see how you can claim it applies to me.
Unless you wish to claim the above does not say what it does.

 

[Paul]

Don't see how you can claim it applies to me.

It's quite simple, the government of Canada or an individual province has authority over you.

Unless you wish to claim the above does not say what it does.

You're the one doing that.

 

[Border Reiver]

Simple Rob, the Federal Government's powers are defined is s.91 of the Constitution Act (1867) [formerly the British North America Act] and the provincial governments' powers are listed in s.92. There you can find what they are empowered to do. The Charter governs how said governments deal with us the citizens.

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, --
The Public Debt and Property.
The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.
Postal Service.
The Census and Statistics.
Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.
Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
Navigation and Shipping.
Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.
Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.
Currency and Coinage.
Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.
Savings Banks.
Weights and Measures.
Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
Interest.
Legal Tender.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
Patents of Invention and Discovery.
Copyrights.
Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.
Naturalization and Aliens.
Marriage and Divorce.
The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.
The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.
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 any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.
Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada

Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures.
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,


The Amendment from Time to Time, notwithstanding anything in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as regards the Office of Lieutenant Governor.
Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.
The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
Municipal Institutions in the Province.
Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Muni-cipal Purposes.
Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes,--
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:
Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
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.
The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
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.
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.
Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.
Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation

 

[Hektor]

Also note part VII, S 52 (1) of the Constitution act, 1982

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Emphasis is my own. Apparently I am misreading this, because I see nothing that references this act merely being a statute that Rob can just withdraw his consent from.

 

[Hans]

Under Canadian law when can you be charged with sedition?

 

[Border Reiver]

Under Canadian law when can you be charged with sedition?

In the following circumstances:

59. (1) Seditious words are words that express a seditious intention.

Seditious libel

(2) A seditious libel is a libel that expresses a seditious intention.

Seditious conspiracy

(3) A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out a seditious intention.

Seditious intention

(4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression “seditious intention”, every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who

(a) teaches or advocates, or

(b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,

the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 60.
Exception

60. Notwithstanding subsection 59(4), no person shall be deemed to have a seditious intention by reason only that he intends, in good faith,

(a) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in her measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in

(i) the government or constitution of Canada or a province,

(ii) Parliament or the legislature of a province, or

(iii) the administration of justice in Canada;

(c) to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter of government in Canada; or

(d) to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters that produce or tend to produce feelings of hostility and ill-will between different classes of persons in Canada.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 61.
Punishment of seditious offences

61. Every one who

(a) speaks seditious words,

(b) publishes a seditious libel, or

(c) is a party to a seditious conspiracy,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 62.
Offences in relation to military forces

62. (1) Every one who wilfully

(a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,

(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force, or

(c) advises, counsels, urges or in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of “member of a force”

(2) In this section, “member of a force” means a member of

(a) the Canadian Forces; or

(b) the naval, army or air forces of a state other than Canada that are lawfully present in Canada.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 63.

If you follow that pesky Criminal Code of Canada

 

[D'rok]

(1)This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.


Don't see how you can claim it applies to me.
Unless you wish to claim the above does not say what it does.

Hilarious. Idiocy of the highest order.

It takes a really special brand of wilfull stupidity to fail to recognize that human rights-based limitations on the powers of government are actually beneficial to individuals and salutory to individual liberty.

Yes, Rob. The Charter (which, by the way, is only part of the Constitution of Canada) does not apply to you. It applies to the government. It limits the authority of government over you. It is a guarantee of human rights and a tool of anti-tyranny.

No wonder you reject it.

 

[JLord]

Do you agree that a physician needs your consent before providing their services to you personally? Or not?

No, not always. It's depends on the province, but usually if a physician deems you incompetant to make medical decisions, they can force treatment without consent. If they deem you a danger to yourself or others and that is confirmed by a review board then they can keep you locked in custody and force treatment. The current system in Canada gives a lot of potential powers to doctors. And if you are caught in this situation, you can't get out of it with magic words. In many ways you are at the mercy of the doctor and totally reliant on the doctor's competance and honesty.

 

[ComfySlippers]

The current system in Canada gives a lot of potential powers to doctors. And if you are caught in this situation, you can't get out of it with magic words.

In fact using Rob's magic words is likely to put you in that situation in the first place, as demonstrated by Lance and others. ...Pay Menard $800 and end up in a mental ward.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Under Canadian law when can you be charged with sedition?

Why yes indeedy;

...Three days later, he was placed under arrest by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on charges of sedition. After being found guilty, he was...

Wiki

 

[ComfySlippers]

I do hope that "The National"s Lysanne Louter and Adrienne Arsenault are familiar with the A4V scam before they interview Menard.

It would be unfortunate if they were unaware of the original inventor of this scam - Roger Elvick, a conman who was jailed for a long time because of said scam which is being copied by Menard.

During preliminary hearings, Elvick frustrated court officials by denying his identity, claiming the court had no jurisdiction over him or his straw man, and constantly interrupting with unfathomable questions about procedure. A judge ruled Elvick mentally unfit to stand trial and committed him to a correctional psychiatric facility, where he was diagnosed with an "unclassified mental disorder" and underwent nine months of treatment before facing trial. Elvick then surprised prosecutors by changing his plea to guilty.

Link