Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacey Grove said:
Hilarious buffoonery at its best.


Incredible stupidity.
Click to expand...

I was just going to copy that here. Notice the change of meaning of 'security'?


We as individuals have the right to the security of our person. A security is a financial instrument, and is similar to a stock certificate, just like those issued by publicly traded companies.


I thought you were supposed to use a little misdirection when you palmed the pea.
 
Menard can’t keep his stories straight!

At 1:29:55 this January 31, 2010 web radio show (http://truthfrequencyradio.com/2010/freeman-on-the-land-w-rob-menard-nov-272009/) Menard repeats his story about backing down cops at a public drinking in public stop.

But this time the story is about “a guy in Ontario” Menard claims was released by the cops after they found his freeman you-can't-touch-this status in their computers.

Sound familiar?

If you recall several years earlier Menard started telling the same story about himself claiming he used the same method, under the same circumstances, in North Vancouver. See 7:30 on this 2007 video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba5G3VNI4P0&feature=youtu.be).

It appears that Menard has gotten such a good response to his story that he has repeated and even embellished upon the original tale.

Consistent with the narcissistic personality our boy has come to believe that a story merely believed is better than the truth.
 
tsig said:
I was just going to copy that here. Notice the change of meaning of 'security'?


We as individuals have the right to the security of our person. A security is a financial instrument, and is similar to a stock certificate, just like those issued by publicly traded companies.


I thought you were supposed to use a little misdirection when you palmed the pea.
Click to expand...


This is an example of the fallacy of EquivocationWP.
 
tsig said:
I was just going to copy that here. Notice the change of meaning of 'security'?


We as individuals have the right to the security of our person. A security is a financial instrument, and is similar to a stock certificate, just like those issued by publicly traded companies.


I thought you were supposed to use a little misdirection when you palmed the pea.
Click to expand...

What makes you think there was any change in definitions?
 
Look at all the definitions of the term 'security' in all the Acts, and show me where the definition is not an instrument. Start with those governing the Securities Exchange Commission.
 
Jon. said:
What makes you think there wasn't?
Click to expand...
Generally the one speaking is the one who decides the meanings of the words they use. Tell me then, what does the word 'security' legally mean to you, when used by The Securities Exchange Commission? And have you looked at any of the Acts and looked at the definitions they use for that word? Or not?
 
I think we should look at the Interpretation Act, as that is what we must look at first. What does it say?
“security” means sufficient security, and “sureties” means sufficient sureties, and when those words are used one person is sufficient therefor, unless otherwise expressly required;
Now lets look at an Act governing the exchange of securities.
"security" includes

(a) a document, instrument or writing commonly known as a security,
(b) a document evidencing title to, or an interest in, the capital, assets, property, profits, earnings or royalties of a person,
(c) a document evidencing an option, subscription or other interest in or to a security,
(d) a bond, debenture, note or other evidence of indebtedness, share, stock, unit, unit certificate, participation certificate, certificate of share or interest, preorganization certificate or subscription other than
(i) a contract of insurance issued by an insurer, and
(ii) an evidence of deposit issued by a savings institution,
(e) an agreement under which the interest of the purchaser is valued, for the purposes of conversion or surrender, by reference to the value of a proportionate interest in a specified portfolio of assets, but does not include a contract issued by an insurer that provides for payment at maturity of an amount not less than 3/4 of the premiums paid by the purchaser for a benefit payable at maturity,
(f) an agreement providing that money received will be repaid or treated as a subscription to shares, stock, units or interests at the option of the recipient or of any person,
(g) a profit sharing agreement or certificate,
(h) a certificate of interest in an oil, natural gas or mining lease, claim or royalty voting trust certificate,
(i) an oil or natural gas royalty or lease or a fractional or other interest in either,
(j) a collateral trust certificate,
(k) an income or annuity contract, other than one made by an insurer,
(l) an investment contract,
(m) a document evidencing an interest in a scholarship or educational plan or trust,
(n) an instrument that is a futures contract or an option but is not an exchange contract, or
(o) a permit under the Oil and Gas Activities Act,
whether or not any of the above relate to an issuer, but does not include an exchange contract;

Looks to me like the word 'security' means a financial instrument.
What does it mean to you?
 
Oh, it’s it the oldest “sovereigns citizen“, “detax“, “freeman on the land” game in the book!

The word "security" has several different common and legal meanings and usages but our poor fez wearing boy tries to pretend those meanings are not only interchangeable but that, in essence, the word only has one meaning. . .the one he needs it to be today.

Utterly predictable!
 
Last edited:
I have not looked at any acts dealing with securities for some time, but I can tell you a few things that are relevant:

1) Securities (in the financial sense) is an area of provincial jurisdiction, so no definition contained in legislation dealing with financial securities can apply to the Charter, which is not only federal legislation (or, arguably, British legislation), but also overrides any federal or provincial statute, to the extent of any conflict.

2) Homonyms are just that; the fact that two words are homonyms for one another does not make them legally equivalent.

3) Once the courts have considered a part of a piece of legislation, the legislation has the meaning given to it by the courts. As far as I am aware, no court in Canada has ever construed the word "security" in section 7 of the Charter as referring to a financial instrument.

4) Even if 3) were not the case, it is a long-standing principle of statutory interpretation that the meaning of words is to be determined by their usual dictionary meaning in the context in which they are found. Section 7 deals with life and liberty, as well as the security of the person, and the circumstances under which one may be deprived of those things under Canadian law. It is much more consistent with the context of section 7 to construe the word "security" as referring to physical safety and integrity (which are similar to life and liberty) than to some imaginary financial document (which is not).

5) While I have not read the Hansard transcripts around the drafting (not the adopting; that was done by the UK) of the Charter, I would expect that if Mr. Trudeau were making reference to a financial document, that it would have become common knowledge between 1981 and now, and people wouldn't have to pay you for the sooper sekrit code words to make their debts go away.
 
Well, I was in court when a judge specifically stated that the term security did not refer to safety or protection. I guess that the term security, when used in every other Act refers to a document, but here it does not, though there is NOTHING to support that right? hahaha
 
And you've never, ever come across terms like security guard, security camera, national security - ie security as in terms of keeping people safe from crime?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Look at all the definitions of the term 'security' in all the Acts, and show me where the definition is not an instrument. Start with those governing the Securities Exchange Commission.
Click to expand...

You referred to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not to "all the Acts", and most certainly not the legislation governing the Securities Exchange Commission. I truly have no idea why you would suggest that the meaning of the word "security" in the context of one of the various Securities Acts is in any way relevant to the meaning of the word "security" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a mind-boggling proposition.

Incidentally, the meaning of the expression "security of the person" in s. 7 of the Charter has been the subject of dozens of Supreme Court decisions and thousands of lower court decisions. Not one single, solitary decision out of those thousands of decisions has suggested that "security of the person" has anything whatsoever to do with a financial instrument.

As but one example, here is an excerpt from one of the leading SCC decisions (although a bit dated now) interpreting s. 7 of the Charter, R. v. Morgentaler,
[1988] 1 SCR 30 (SCC) (available here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii90/1988canlii90.pdf):

Canadian courts have already had occasion to address the scope of the interest protected under the rubric of "security of the person". In R. v. Caddedu (1982), 40 O.R. (2d) 128, at p. 139, the Ontario High Court emphasized that the right to security of the person, like each aspect of s. 7, is a basic right, the deprivation of which has severe consequences for an individual. This characterization was approved by this Court in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, at p. 501. The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that the right to life, liberty and security of the person "would appear to relate to one's physical or mental integrity and one's control over these...'' (R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. 1984 CanLII 44 (ON CA), (1984), 48 O.R. (2d) 395, at p. 433.)

That conclusion is consonant with the holding of Lamer J. in Mills v. The Queen, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863. In Mills, Lamer J. was the only judge of this Court to treat the right to security of the person in any detail. Although the right arose in the context of s. 11(b) of the Charter, Lamer J. stressed the close connection between the specific rights in ss. 8 to 14 and the more generally applicable rights expressed in s. 7. Lamer J. held, at pp. 919-20, that even in the specific context of s. 11(b):

. . . security of the person is not restricted to physical integrity; rather, it encompasses protection against "overlong subjection to the vexations and vicissitudes of a pending criminal accusation" . . . These include stigmatization of the accused, loss of privacy, stress and anxiety resulting from a multitude of factors, including possible disruption of family, social life and work, legal costs, uncertainty as to the outcome and sanction.

If state-imposed psychological trauma infringes security of the person in the rather circumscribed case of s. 11(b), it should be relevant to the general case of s. 7 where the right is expressed in broader terms. (See Whyte, supra, p. 39).

I note also that the Court has held in other contexts that the psychological effect of state action is relevant in assessing whether or not a Charter right has been infringed. In R. v. Therens, at p. 644, Justice Le Dain held that "The element of psychological compulsion, in the form of a reasonable perception of suspension of freedom of choice, is enough to make the restraint of liberty involuntary" for the purposes of defining "detention" in s. 10 of the Charter. A majority of the Court accepted the conclusions of Le Dain J. on this issue.

It may well be that constitutional protection of the above interests is specific to, and is only triggered by, the invocation of our system of criminal justice. It must not be forgotten, however, that s. 251 of the Code, subject to subs. (4), makes it an indictable offence for a person to procure the miscarriage and provides a maximum sentence of two years in the case of the woman herself, and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment in the case of another person. Like Beetz J., I do not find it necessary to decide how s. 7 would apply in other cases.

The case law leads me to the conclusion that state interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitute a breach of security of the person. It is not necessary in this case to determine whether the right extends further, to protect either interests central to personal autonomy, such as a right to privacy, or interests unrelated to criminal justice.
Click to expand...

Here is wikipedia's summary:

Thirdly, there is the right to security of the person, which consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health[9] and of the right protecting the "psychological integrity" of an individual. That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual. (Blencoe v. B.C. (Human Rights Commission), 2000)
This right has generated significant case law, as abortion in Canada was legalized in R. v. Morgentaler (1988) after the Supreme Court found the Therapeutic Abortion Committees breached women's security of person by threatening their health. Some judges also felt control of the body was a right within security of the person, breached by the abortion law. In Operation Dismantle v. The Queen (1985) cruise missile testing was unsuccessfully challenged as violating security of the person for risking nuclear war. In Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) (2005), some Supreme Court justices even considered Quebec's ban on private health care to breach security of the person, since delays in medical treatment could have physical and stressful consequences.

Some people feel economic rights ought to be read into security of the person, as well as section 15 equality rights to make the Charter similar to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The rationale is that economic rights can relate to a decent standard of living and can help the civil rights flourish in a liveable environment.[10] There has also been discussion within the Supreme Court and among academics as to whether security of the person guarantees some economic rights. Theoretically, security of the person would be breached if the government limits a person's ability to make an income, by denying welfare, taking away property essential to one's profession, or denying licenses. However, section 7 is primarily concerned with legal rights, so this reading of economic rights is questionable. Many economic issues could also be political questions.[11]
Click to expand...

So, over to you, Mr. Menard. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your apparently absurd claim that s. 7 of the Charter has anything whatsoever to do with a financial instrument?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Well, I was in court when a judge specifically stated that the term security did not refer to safety or protection. I guess that the term security, when used in every other Act refers to a document, but here it does not, though there is NOTHING to support that right? hahaha
Click to expand...

Since you're so big on definitions, here's a word you might like to look up in the dictionary of your choice:

CONTEXT
 
FreemanMenard said:
Generally the one speaking is the one who decides the meanings of the words they use.
Click to expand...

We're not speaking generally. We're speaking specifically about who decides the meaning of the words used by Parliament/the Legislature in the legislation they pass. The answer to that question is explicitly, unequivocally the courts. And you have not provided one decision from the courts where the courts have defined "security of the person" in s. 7 of the Charter as meaning a financial instrument. The reason you have not done so is of course because no such decision exists. This means that you have completely made it up.
 
Every individual had the right to the security of the person. But according to you, security means safety, or protection, and person is synonymous with individual. Sooo....
Every individual has the right to the protection of the individual.
But wait...
That makes NO SENSE!:D
 
solzhenitsyn said:
Incidentally, the meaning of the expression "security of the person" in s. 7 of the Charter has been the subject of dozens of Supreme Court decisions and thousands of lower court decisions. Not one single, solitary decision out of those thousands of decisions has suggested that "security of the person" has anything whatsoever to do with a financial instrument.
Click to expand...
And also quasi-judicial tribunal decisions. I know, because I litigated just such a Security of the Person case just last month. I wonder why everyone involved was only concerned about physical and psychological security? I guess we just weren't educated enough in the law.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Every individual had the right to the security of the person. But according to you, security means safety, or protection, and person is synonymous with individual. Sooo....
Click to expand...

In fact, it is not "us" that says that. It is the Supreme Court of Canada. Are you familiar with that institution?

FreemanMenard said:
Every individual has the right to the protection of the individual.
But wait...
That makes NO SENSE!:D
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant if it makes no sense to you. It makes sense to the Supreme Court of Canada. The SCC's opinion is very important. Your opinion is not important at all. Indeed, it is of absolutely zero legal significance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom