Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ahem, you are proving my point. Thank you.

An individual becomes a citizen by consenting to being governed.

Fish in the sink indeed.
Click to expand...

Its the word BODY that is important Rob, the "governed" are defined as a body of people , not an individual.

Or are you suggestting that we abandon the word "governed" altogether after all if you are not a citizen and as such are not part of the governed, if thats the case then why are you prattling on about your consent at all?

If the consent of the governed only applies to citizens then if you claim you are not a citizen then why use the term at all?

fish in the sink without water methinks
 
Last edited:
Rob
Now we have established that you are a non-citizen of Canada the only rights you have are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is PART I OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

Now do you recognise the fact that this protection is only available to you if you admit that you have a responsible government?

If you renounce the government then you must renounce the Charter, do you renounce them?
 
jargon buster said:
Its the word BODY that is important Rob, the "governed" are defined as a body of people , not an individual.

Or are you suggestting that we abandon the word "governed" altogether after all if you are not a citizen and as such are not part of the governed, if thats the case then why are you prattling on about your consent at all?

If the consent of the governed only applies to citizens then if you claim you are not a citizen then why use the term at all?

fish in the sink without water methinks
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the right of association? Do you claim that you can associate people into one group against their will and without their consent?

What do you call a body of people who are governed without consent? SLAVES.

Why are you such a strong advocate for slavery JB?

Sheesh JB you can do better can't you?
 
jargon buster said:
Rob
Now we have established that you are a non-citizen of Canada the only rights you have are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is PART I OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

Now do you recognise the fact that this protection is only available to you if you admit that you have a responsible government?

If you renounce the government then you must renounce the Charter, do you renounce them?
Click to expand...

The Charter does not grant rights, but acknowledges them.
They existed prior to it, and will after.
Don't you have a life JB?

Sorry stupid question. You are just asking these questions for some light hearted relief right? Not to help anyone, but simply to amuse yourself. Fortunately I do have a life, and must now go live it. Feel free to claim this is a victory for you!

:D
 
FreemanMenard said:
So it's not a discussion, but an interrogation. Nice.
Click to expand...
Pay attention to the thread title. This is about you, not me.

Provide some evidence for your claims. Here are some possible starting points:

1. Security of the person
2. Statutes are contracts
3. Statutes don't apply to you

Get busy.
 
Are you familiar with the right of association?
Click to expand...
We did this before Rob, you dont have a "right of asociation" unless you recognise the government, its they who would enforce your right of association.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

If you dont recognise the government who are you going to go to for help if someone withholds your right of association?

If someone were to hold you against your will and stop you associating with others and the only way out was to phone someone who would you call?
PS they have tougher friends than you
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
We did this before Rob, you dont have a "right of asociation" unless you recognise the government, its they who would enforce your right of association.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have to correct you here. All such rights are protections FROM government actions. It is only when the govt takes away your freedom of association that you (meaning a Canadian) can appeal to s. 2 of the Charter. And it is to the courts that you would appeal - i.e., you would challenge the actions of the govt in court based on s. 2 of the Charter.

However, it is true that the right flows from the Constitution, which was ultimately enacted by the government. It is simply an example of the enlightened society in which we live - i.e., the govt has created mechanisms to limit its own power and to increase the liberty of citizens.

And yet FOTLers toss around idiocies about slavery.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I have to correct you here. All such rights are protections FROM government. It is only when the govt takes away your freedom of association that you (meaning a Canadian) can appeal to s. 2 of the Charter. And it is to the courts that you would appeal - i.e., you would challenge the actions of the govt in court based on s. 2 of the Charter.

However, it is true that the right flows from the Constitution, which was ultimately enacted by the government. It is simply an example of the enlightened society in which we live - i.e., the govt has created mechanisms to limit its own power and to increase the liberty of citizens.
Click to expand...

Thanks D'rok
I get a little muddled occasionally in ROBWORLD.

I would however like to point out that Rob isnt a citizen ;)
 
D'rok said:
Pay attention to the thread title. This is about you, not me.

Provide some evidence for your claims. Here are some possible starting points:

1. Security of the person
2. Statutes are contracts
3. Statutes don't apply to you

Get busy.
Click to expand...

Who started the thread? :D

Here try this on for size.
A statute is defined not as 'a law' but 'a legislated rule of a society given the force of law' and a society is defined as 'a number of people joined by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal' then it seems self evident, that the statute can only have the force of law over those who are by consent, members of that particular society.

Thus statutes require your consent for them to be enforceable against you, for you can simply decide to not join a particular society.

Is that clear enough for yoU?

Did you wish to claim that you can be forced to be a member of a society? Bear in mind, we have the right to associate and not associate as we choose.

:D
 
jargon buster said:
Thanks D'rok
I get a little muddled occasionally in ROBWORLD.

I would however like to point out that Rob isnt a citizen ;)
Click to expand...
That's the hilarious part. If it really was true that he had the authority to reject the govt of Canada and establish his own personal sovereignty, then he also rejects the Constitution and could no longer appeal to the Charter of RIghts.
 
FreemanMenard,

I've decided I'm to work as a surgeon. I don't have any medical training in that field, but I have a strong stomach and some (fairly) sharp knives.

Getting business has been a bit difficult so I put some cool sounding letters after my name in the hope that people will believe me to be a proper surgeon.

I don't contract with the government or medical establishment or anything like that.

Can they stop me from operating on people?

Of course, I'm not keeping it a secret, because I need the business, so that cop-out isn't available to you.

What can I do to prevent prosecution?

Please hurry as I think the air freshener is wearing out and it's getting a bit ripe in here.

Cheers
 
Here try this on for size.
A statute is defined not as 'a law' but 'a legislated rule of a society given the force of law' and a society is defined as 'a number of people joined by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal' then it seems self evident, that the statute can only have the force of law over those who are by consent, members of that particular society.

Thus statutes require your consent for them to be enforceable against you, for you can simply decide to not join a particular society.

Is that clear enough for yoU?

Did you wish to claim that you can be forced to be a member of a society? Bear in mind, we have the right to associate and not associate as we choose.
Click to expand...

Great more skewed logic taken from one of your many sites
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thinkfree/13things.pdf

Thus statutes require your consent for them to be enforceable against you, for you can simply decide to not join a particular society.
Click to expand...
wrong and you know it, if not you would have provided evidence
 
uk_dave said:
FreemanMenard,

I've decided I'm to work as a surgeon. I don't have any medical training in that field, but I have a strong stomach and some (fairly) sharp knives.

Getting business has been a bit difficult so I put some cool sounding letters after my name in the hope that people will believe me to be a proper surgeon.

I don't contract with the government or medical establishment or anything like that.

Can they stop me from operating on people?

Of course, I'm not keeping it a secret, because I need the business, so that cop-out isn't available to you.

What can I do to prevent prosecution?

Please hurry as I think the air freshener is wearing out and it's getting a bit ripe in here.

Cheers
Click to expand...

If someone is silly enough to want to let you do so, and you want to do so, and both parties are consenting, how can they stop you? I am assuming though you are not misrepresenting your lack of education, as that would be fraud.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I thought you did not want a discussion?

Such wiffle waffle...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/society


SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.
Click to expand...
I asked for a citation for your definition of statute. You made up a definition and presented it as the actual definition of the word. I don't accept your made up definition.

So, again...


Citation please.

ETA: I accept the definition from the source you linked:

"A statute is a written law passed by a legislature on the state or federal level."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statute

Now, I still need evidence that you can withdraw consent to statutes. To be more precise, that you can do so and not suffer the consequences when caught doing so.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom