Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Horatius]

So, in the last few pages of Menard trying to apply the definition of "security" from the Canadian Interpretation Act to the Charter, which was established by the Canada Act of 1982, has anyone bothered to point out that the Canada Act was an act of the UK parliament, not the Canadian Parliament? And as such, would be interpreted using the UK Interpretation Act?

And take one guess which word is not defined in the UK Interpretation Act.

 

[slowsmile]

And take one guess which word is not defined in the UK Interpretation Act.

Sure city (anag) (8)?

 

[sadhatter]

Um G20. Remember it? It is a developing police state that only a statist can't see developing.

I am not swaying anyone you say? Funny how so many are coming around every day though.

Yes, no one said the system was perfect, merely a site better than the freeman idea of having two kinds of folks, the ones that pay for everything and the ones that use everything and don't pay.

Please rob, tell me where you would rather live than Canada.

 

[BobHaulk]

Originally Posted by BobHaulk
Writing 96 is the fix is part of what you need do, i've seen it on one of your piss poor video's. Maybe there are other things too but part of what you claim requires you write this.
Nope. Never said that. Not even close.
Maybe your comprehension skills are so shot by being so conditioned to obey, that your cognitive dissonance kicked in and you simply could not understand what was being said.


Hey who here is being interviewed today and invited to share their beliefs nationally?
That would be me.
And who made it possible?
That would be YOU all!
Thank you!
Well I have to prepare for my interview later today

Mr Menard`s seems to be playing with words. Quote from the video: Circle No 96. write accepted next to it and sign your name unquote

mikeyman

Thanks Mikeyman i really didn't want to have to watch one of his piss poor videos again to find out exactly what the magic ritual was.
Hey Menard do you really think by your crap wordplay people would be fooled? My continuing question which you never answer is, using the information in your 96 is the fix video i can get out of paying for my utilities with money i've earned and just circle whatever and do this and that with a bit of some thingimy thrown in to cover it.

 

[Border Reiver]

So, in the last few pages of Menard trying to apply the definition of "security" from the Canadian Interpretation Act to the Charter, which was established by the Canada Act of 1982, has anyone bothered to point out that the Canada Act was an act of the UK parliament, not the Canadian Parliament? And as such, would be interpreted using the UK Interpretation Act?

And take one guess which word is not defined in the UK Interpretation Act.

Not to be a pendant, but the Constitution Act 1982 and the Constitution Act 1867 have been adopted as Canadian legislation and therefore subject to our own Interpretation Act.

 

[jargon buster]

How did your interview go Rob?

PS Honest people don't need thick skin.

 

[Hans]

Oh yes belated thanks to BorderReiver for the information on Sedition

 

[kmortis]

Ok, I had to clean this place out again. If you guys mess it up again, there will be trouble. And, yes, you can be moderated without your consent here.

The alternatives are strict adherence to the MA or not posting. Am I clear?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[sadhatter]

Nope. Never said that. Not even close.
Maybe your comprehension skills are so shot by being so conditioned to obey, that your cognitive dissonance kicked in and you simply could not understand what was being said.


Hey who here is being interviewed today and invited to share their beliefs nationally?
That would be me.
And who made it possible?
That would be YOU all!
Thank you!
Well I have to prepare for my interview later today.

Your tone implies we are jealous, and it couldn't be farther from the truth. We want people to see, on a large scale your beliefs, because your beliefs pass much better when it is drunken pub talk between people, and folks forget bits and just give an overview. You explaining your point of view, on a large scale, where " Oh, i don't remember what he said specifically, but the gist is this, and isn't that cool?" doesn't come into play, is exactly what we would want rob.

People tend to take what their friends say with a little too much weight, and as such passing from person to person, from a marketing standpoint, is where you would want to be. The last thing you would want, is to have you , explaining this to masses of people, without them being conditioned to believe, or having incentive to believe ( disagreeing with friends is something most people avoid as much as they can.).

Really, what you have been doing, is the best thing you could be doing, you have a built in screening process for skeptics, ensuring that the vast majority of folks who know about you are the kind of folks who would believe, ct'ers, et al. This, well it is simply a poor choice, refusing the interview and just giving links to your sites, and maybe a canned statement would have worked in your favor, especially if you gave the reason you couldn't as something like " i am much to busy working on freeman projects at the moment.". But a real interview? This is not only you shooting yourself in the foot, but doing so with a lazer sight, and high powered rifle.

 

[BobHaulk]

TRANSLATION: logic or reason.

I prefer Ableton, the interface is more intuitive and the warping of beats is better. Oops sorry wrong forum.

 

[Horatius]

Not to be a pendant, but the Constitution Act 1982 and the Constitution Act 1867 have been adopted as Canadian legislation and therefore subject to our own Interpretation Act.

But they weren't written by the Canadian legislature, and as such, if any case turned on the particular definition of the words used, wouldn't the courts go back to the original intent of the people who wrote it? That would be the UK, where they don't have the limited definition of "Security" as used in Canada.

If the courts are going to read the Charter in this manner, then someone screwed up, in not amending either the Charter or the Canadian Interpretation Act when they adopted this as Canadian law.

 

[Bosozoku]

Generally the one speaking is the one who decides the meanings of the words they use . . . .

That's an interesting concept - is that part of FOTL or just your opinion of what "the law" says?

Here's a hypo. Let's say that Person A agrees to build a house for Person B. A and B enter into a contract in which B agrees to pay A $200,000 after A finishes building the house. "Dollars" is not a defined term in the contract. After A finishes building B's house, B wheels out $200,000 worth of Monopoly money. B cites to the proposition that "generally the one speaking is the one who decides the meanings of the words they use," and argues that in his mind "dollars" means "Monopoly money." They consent to let you decide the case, they further agree not to withdraw consent to the original agreement. Who has to pay, and in what denomination?

 

[D'rok]

But they weren't written by the Canadian legislature, and as such, if any case turned on the particular definition of the words used, wouldn't the courts go back to the original intent of the people who wrote it? That would be the UK, where they don't have the limited definition of "Security" as used in Canada.

If the courts are going to read the Charter in this manner, then someone screwed up, in not amending either the Charter or the Canadian Interpretation Act when they adopted this as Canadian law.

They were indeed written by the Canadian legislature. The Brits didn't write those acts, they just passed them in the UK Parliament at our request as we didn't have the authority to ammend our own constitution at the time.

 

[Mojo]

Generally the one speaking is the one who decides the meanings of the words they use.

That's an interesting concept - is that part of FOTL or just your opinion of what "the law" says?

A similar statement has often been cited in court:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”​

This passage was used in Britain by Lord Atkin and in his dissenting judgement in the seminal case Liversidge v. Anderson (1942), where he protested about the distortion of a statute by the majority of the House of Lords. It also became a popular citation in United States legal opinions, appearing in 250 judicial decisions in the Westlaw database as of April 19, 2008, including two Supreme Court cases (TVA v. Hill and Zschernig v. Miller).

Source

ETA: but I doubt it was ever with approval.

 

[Border Reiver]

Oh yes belated thanks to BorderReiver for the information on Sedition

You're welcome.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Many posts have been made in my few hours absence!
Including a new Mod Warning...

I know it's difficult at times but lets discuss JB's thread topic, without making it personal.

It's clear as daisies to any sane person who popped into here that the nonsense that is "Rob Menard's FOTL Claims" is utter tripe. This is not DIF afterall. "Rob Menard's FOTL Claims" are 100% whale blubber and anyone who teaches said claims, especially if they charge money for doing so, would be what 98% of human beings call a conman.

Now behave while I go pollish my Security.

ETA: Stop being pedantic Rob. We know that you don't actually write "96 is the fix" on the bogus forms ffs.
And your GoogleFu is rubbish if you think we have unknowingly helped promote the FOTL-Con for you.

 

[jargon buster]

Since Robs recent admittance to trolling the site I have had a little look over on WFS (Robs site) to try and get to the bottom of why he actually post here.
Rob has started various threads and his views to responses go a long way to establish the reason he comes here.

Rob has started 17 threads here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewforum.php?f=36&start=0

His viewings to response rate is extraordinary.
viewings over 48,000
responses 69??????

Its no wonder he comes here, it must be for the company.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Its no wonder he comes here, it must be for the company

That and, as he has recently admitted, to promote his teachings and videos by "playing us".
We are his biatches remember! (Hi CBC!)

Is there a JREF rule about using JREF to promote/advertise your business?

Must dash, a Security has just landed in my garden....

 

[jargon buster]

I wonder how his interview went this afternoon?
Im sure he will be here to put his own spin on it, then if it airs..wow.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I wonder how his interview went this afternoon?
Im sure he will be here to put his own spin on it, then if it airs..wow.

Perhaps we should have a little wager or maybe do a Poll! ?


a/ It was all lies anyway, there was never a genuine chance of an interview.

b/ "I chose not to contract with CBC"

c/ "They edited it to make me look like a clown"

d/ He was too stoned to turn up and cannot legally "travel in a personal conveyance".

e/ "Did I tell you about the time the police computer said I'm a freeman and must be left alone? No? Let me tell you a story... I'm a freeman and must be left alone. Cos I have really big IQ and I can prove this because, conveniantly, I had my mental status asessed just a few days ago. I am Wolverine, fear me."

f/ "Shee thish birf catifacut? it hash a .. shhh, thish ish secrit, it hash a number on the back that ish secrit. shhh. It's secrit. You're my beshtest mate you are. See thish number on the .. the back of this burf catificut, its shecret it ish. Shhh. Dont tell noone. Cos its shesckrit. Hey, look at the back of your burf sertificut, it hash a secrit numba. Hahahahaha. hic. I know da troof. Its a sekrit numba that you wood knot no. hic. Shhh. Its seekrit. JackieG? ... Man he's stoned again. Scroo tha sheepul. Do you undershtand the word Secu.. Seco.. SecUiriTy? Are you a afraid of the truth?. /// etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.