Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[solzhenitsyn]

The Criminal Code is a statute.
...
It's quite the scam you've got going here. Take money for teaching people that they don't need to consent to statutes. Then take money for teaching other people that statutes empower them to enforce statutes on the first group.

Diabolical.

Nonsensical.

 

[D'rok]

Nonsensical.

I stand corrected.

 

[Stacey Grove]

do not have more info, and do not feel like digging through tens of thousands of emails to find it.

Oh right. Yet another one of your stories you claim is fact yet you haven't bothered to check it's authenticity. I remember you doing exactly the same on Icke's, relying on an email as a source of proof. Priceless.

 

[Hans]

Oh right. Yet another one of your stories you claim is fact yet you haven't bothered to check it's authenticity. I remember you doing exactly the same on Icke's, relying on an email as a source of proof. Priceless.

Not priceless but instead an example of doing a Menard

 

[D'rok]

I suppose this is an appropriate to time to re-post this, from the Supreme Court of Canada:

[19] On the level of principle, it is important to remember that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code is not designed to create a police force. It simply provides that certain persons who derive their authority from other sources will be treated as "peace officers" as well, enabling them to enforce the Criminal Code within the scope of their pre‑existing authority, and to benefit from certain protections granted only to "peace officers". Any broader reading of s. 2 could lead to considerable constitutional difficulties. Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that the administration of justice falls within provincial legislative competence. See Di Iorio v. Warden of the Montreal Jail, 1976 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152, and Attorney General of Quebec and Keable v. Attorney General of Canada, 1978 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218. Although the ability of the federal Parliament to create a national police force has never been challenged and any such exercise of authority is presumptively valid, to treat s. 2 of the Criminal Code as a broad grant of authority to thousands of persons to act as "peace officers" in any circumstances could well prompt a constitutional challenge. In the context of division of powers, legislation should be interpreted, when possible, so that it is not ultra vires. The assessment of legislation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, of course, subject to different considerations. See Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110.

[20] I would therefore conclude that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code serves only to grant additional powers to enforce the criminal law to persons who must otherwise operate within the limits of their statutory or common law sources of authority.

R. v. Nolan, [1987] 1 SCR 1212

Now, pray tell Mr. Menard, what is the source of your pre-existing authority to be a Peace Officer? Don't say it's the Criminal Code, because, as you can read above, it is explicity not the Criminal Code from whence this authority comes for you. So what is it?

 

[Horatius]

In the context of division of powers, legislation should be interpreted, when possible, so that it is not ultra vires.

For those of us not lawyers....

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

Ultra vires is a Latin phrase meaning literally "beyond the powers", although its standard legal translation and substitute is "beyond power".

Which would seem to be Menard's standard MO: Read more into the law than is actually there, via creative misuse of definitions.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Not priceless but instead an example of doing a Menard

Well, relying on an email as proof backfired terribly for him over on Icke's. I'm just surprised that he hasn't learned from his mistakes rather than continuing to make the same ones.

 

[D'rok]

For those of us not lawyers....

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




Which would seem to be Menard's standard MO: Read more into the law than is actually there, via creative misuse of definitions.

Yup. The SCC is saying that a broad definition of "Peace Officer" is beyond the powers of the Federal Government because it would interfere with the Provincial Governments' power re the administration of justice.

Thus, as you have correctly posted, the Alberta govt has the power to further narrow the definition of "Peace Officer" as it applies in Alberta, as do all the other provinces should they choose to do so.

Peace Officers cannot be anyone. They can only be someone who is explicity listed in s. 2 of the CC or someone with pre-existing authority, usually from another statute, who is so empowered.

It should also be noted that, for those Peace Officers who get that status from a pre-existing authority, the scope of their ability to enforce the Criminal Code is limited by that pre-existing authority. In other words, most Peace Officers are not empowered to go around arresting people for Criminal Code offences. Their authority as Peace Officers is usually quite limited.

 

[JLord]

I would like you to look very closely at the words I posted and show me where you see anything that even remotely suggests I claimed or suggested that the CCC responds PERFECTLY with my personal views of right and wrong.

Well that's why I was asking you whether this was your position. I thought it might be because you said that even if there were no criminal code, you "would still claim that the actions described within are wrong." This suggests that you believe all the actions described in the criminal code are wrong in a moral sense. You have now clarified your position further.

That said, I think most (MOST) things therein can be shown to be either harming someone else, their property or using fraud or other mischief in your agreements and contracts. I think you would be hard pressed to find things therein which I would not consider to be morally wrong.

So would you be enforcing the Criminal Code of Canada or not? You are correct in saying that most of what is included in the Criminal Code is morally wrong, but there are certainly examples you could point to of things that are not morally wrong and that shouldn't be considered crimes at all. Does this mean that people are still bound by the Criminal Code even though they haven't consented? Or are they only bound to follow the parts that you consider to be morally wrong?

So are you saying that if the Criminal Code does not say you can’t do something, it is okay to do it? If they removed the section dealing with murder, then in your mind, it would be suddenly okay to go and murder people?

Certainly not. As I was very clear to say, the Criminal Code is not there to tell us what is right or wrong in a moral sense. It is only there to tell us what rules the government is going to enforce against us regardless of consent. Whether or not something appears in the Criminal Code of Canada has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong morally.

What you are arguing for is the position that your own moral code is determined by the words OTHER people put on paper.

I never suggested this to be the case. However this appears to be what you are doing since you are apparently going to be enforcing the Criminal Code on police officers against their will simply because of words that other people put on paper.

This is what I find so surprising about your latest effort. Not that there's anything bad about gathering evidence of crimes, but the fact that we were still in the middle of an unfinished conversation about your claim that people are not bound by statutes they don't consent to. And in the middle of this you come out with a plan to enforce statute law on police officers without their consent.

Take away a statute, a crime can still exist.
That which is not a crime when the statute does not exist
Was never a crime to begin with

Murder is a crime, regardless of it is in the codified books.

You are making a fallacy of equivocation here. There are two distinct definitions here of the word "crime" and you are not distinguishing between them. Crime in a moral sense exists seperate from statute. Crime in a legal sense in Canada is solely determined by statute.

So in Canada if it's in the Criminal Code it is a crime in the legal sense regardless of its moral standing. Anyone charged with a crime is having statute law imposed on them against their will and without their consent. If you are using "crime" in a moral sense then I don't undertsand why you would reference the Criminal Code of Canada (unless you consider it to be a perfect moral document), because to most people it is not hard to find many prohibited things that are not wrong in any moral sense.

 

[jargon buster]

Due to the excessive amount of backfiring by the leader I suggest the weapon of choice for the 3CPOs

 

[Hans]

One correction on the backfiring pistol - it would be loaded with dum-dum bullets

 

[BobHaulk]

You can expect all you want. Does not mean it will be provided.


It's going good thank you, though your idea that it is all done for free is way off. Of course your idea of what FMOTL is actually all about is way off, and has been from the get go.

I'll start with your last point first, my idea of freemen on the land is it's a fantasy which you're trying to make money from and others use to delude themselves into thinking they are a rebels. Your second point that things aren't done for free in your freeman utopia would be true if indeed you had a freeman utopia but since you live in rented accommodation paid for by the benefits system of your country, which are paid for by the taxes paid by those who actually work, i think i'll move on to your first point. I get exactly what i expect from you, nothing and as far as you providing me with anything the only thing you provide me with is the opportunity laugh at you. As i say i don't think you are a con man i just think you're a bit thick and prey on others who are a bit thick to boost your self image after all if your weren't Rob Menard freeman guru you'd just be rob menard long term unemployed man in his early fifties with nothing to show for his life, in a hat. Nothing wrong with that btw, maybe a bit embarrassing for you at school reunions but hey you probably don't go to them.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Either the people of Canada have a right to hire from amongst themselves people to preserve and maintain the public peace, and call them peace officers, or they do not.
If they do not, then neither do their representatives or agents.
If they do, the CCCPO is them doing that, and is lawful.



So the only question is, do the people of Canada have a right to hire peace officers or not?

If not the existing ones are unlawful.
If they do, than CCCPO is lawful.

 

[Border Reiver]

They do have the right, and have set out regulations and laws on how it is to be done so that some yahoo doesn't hire a lunatic to "keep the peace".

Check with the individual provinces, because as D'rok pointed out under the Constitution, the provinicial legislatures are the representatives of the people of Canada who set those particular rules.

 

[Mojo]

The idea that consent is required to arrest someone breaking the law, (not a statute) is one of your misconceptions concerning FMOTL. The CCoC identifies those actions for which ANYONE can arrest ANYONE else, without a warrant.

A man was arrested for committing assault against another, by someone who had joined CCCPO.

Is assault one of "those actions for which ANYONE can arrest ANYONE else, without a warrant"?

 

[FreemanMenard]

I'll start with your last point first, my idea of freemen on the land is it's a fantasy which you're trying to make money from and others use to delude themselves into thinking they are a rebels. Your second point that things aren't done for free in your freeman utopia would be true if indeed you had a freeman utopia but since you live in rented accommodation paid for by the benefits system of your country, which are paid for by the taxes paid by those who actually work, i think i'll move on to your first point. I get exactly what i expect from you, nothing and as far as you providing me with anything the only thing you provide me with is the opportunity laugh at you. As i say i don't think you are a con man i just think you're a bit thick and prey on others who are a bit thick to boost your self image after all if your weren't Rob Menard freeman guru you'd just be rob menard long term unemployed man in his early fifties with nothing to show for his life, in a hat. Nothing wrong with that btw, maybe a bit embarrassing for you at school reunions but hey you probably don't go to them.

Well, since the very foundation of your belief is completely wrong, (I underlined where you are completely wrong) everything that follows is as well.

It sure does apparently make you happy though to think the worst about me though doesn't it? Ever questioned that part of your personality?


Incidentally, I am not in my early fifties, and I have plenty to show for my life. Chief amongst them is the accolades I have received from thousands who appreciate my efforts.

Must be sad to weigh your life based only on the trinkets you have collected. But hey if it works for you....

Incidentally, as I am not a 'Child of the Province' I not only do not collect the benefits they can, I am not even qualified to do so. And anyone who is qualified to do so, is in fact, legally speaking a ward of the state, or child of the province. So tell me, are you qualified to collect benefits? Are you paying into a pension plan? If so, regardless of how much you work, you are a child of the state, and subject to the rules they make for their wards.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Incidentally, as I am not a 'Child of the Province' I not only do not collect the benefits they can, I am not even qualified to do so. And anyone who is qualified to do so, is in fact, legally speaking a ward of the state, or child of the province. So tell me, are you qualified to collect benefits? Are you paying into a pension plan? If so, regardless of how much you work, you are a child of the state, and subject to the rules they make for their wards.

Whilst I understand these questions are directed towards Bob Haulk, I would like to add my own thoughts on this. You mention benefits, pensions and work. All subjects related to money. I would like to make it known that despite any faults that I may have I do not con gullible people out of their money in return for lies and false hopes where law is concerned. An accusation that I have no hesitation in directing towards yourself.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Whilst I understand these questions are directed towards Bob Haulk, I would like to add my own thoughts on this. You mention benefits, pensions and work. All subjects related to money. I would like to make it known that despite any faults that I may have I do not con gullible people out of their money in return for lies and false hopes where law is concerned. An accusation that I have no hesitation in directing towards yourself.

An accusation unsupported by ANY evidence.

YAWN.

 

[Stacey Grove]

An accusation unsupported by ANY evidence.

YAWN.

Well, I have read some of you "educational packs" I have watched your videos and have read your pamphlet that claims that one needs never to pay another parking ticket again. A pamphlet that I might add contains instructions how to A4V a parking fine. Now, you may claim that all of these things are available free for those that take the time to find them on the Internet, and that may indeed be true, however one cannot ignore the fact that you continue to sell these items for your personal gain. Your publications do contain lies. Therefore I stand by my accusation.
I would add that I do take consolation in the knowledge that you will never receive any of my own money for your BS.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Well, I have read some of you "educational packs" I have watched your videos and have read your pamphlet that claims that one needs never to pay another parking ticket again. A pamphlet that I might add contains instructions how to A4V a parking fine. Now, you may claim that all of these things are available free for those that take the time to find them on the Internet, and that may indeed be true, however one cannot ignore the fact that you continue to sell these items for your personal gain. Your publications do contain lies. Therefore I stand by my accusation.
I would add that I do take consolation in the knowledge that you will never receive any of my own money for your BS.

And nothing you have pointed to points to a con.