Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hans said:
We look forward to one of four reactions:

Menard will ignore it

Menard will deny it

Menard will try to wordsmith it into something else by using sematics

Menard will make up some silly philosophical question to try and change it.....
Click to expand...

FreemanMenard said:
Hi. Very interesting, and useful.
So you know it is not applicable (IMHO) with what we are doing, as we are not hired by companies nor operating privately. Hired directly by the public, to provide a public (not private) service.

Thanks eh?
Click to expand...

Hans was right. Looks like a combination of 3 and 4.

Public Services said:
Public services is a term usually used to mean services provided by government to its citizens, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing private provision of services. The term is associated with a social consensus (usually expressed through democratic elections) that certain services should be available to all, regardless of income. Even where public services are neither publicly provided nor publicly financed, for social and political reasons they are usually subject to regulation going beyond that applying to most economic sectors. Public service is also a course that can be studied at a college and/or university.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_services
Click to expand...

Menard's little peace officer fantasy is, by definition, a private "service" provided by the private sector.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Nor did you hire the RCMP. You are not the only member of the public. And we were in fact hired by members of the public, to keep the public peace. Remember according to you lot, your individual consent is not required.:D
Click to expand...



Yes, but according to you lot, it is.


So, please explain the reasoning by which one part of the public can act to hire peace officers over the objections of other parts of the public. And then explain why this reasoning doesn't apply to the enforcement of laws by regular police officers.
 
Horatius said:
Yes, but according to you lot, it is.


So, please explain the reasoning by which one part of the public can act to hire peace officers over the objections of other parts of the public. And then explain why this reasoning doesn't apply to the enforcement of laws by regular police officers.
Click to expand...

Still not distinguishing between statutes and laws are you? We will not be enforcing provincial statutes, we will be keeping the peace. That is not a statutory power is it, nor does it require the consent of the one who is breaching the peace.

Did you think it did? Guess what? That is a result of you not knowing what our beliefs are, trying to assign certain beliefs to us, (strawman argument) and then getting frustrated when we do not act according to your preconceived misconception of what a FMOTL actually is.

Tell me, why would any member of the public not want his neighbours to promise to be peaceful themselves, and to preserve and maintain the pubic peace?
 
Rob has mentioned that a police force and a court has recognised the status of Rob's police officers as legitimate. However, in my opinion the police do not possess the authority to make such a determination. It is not for the police to have such powers.
As for the courts, I would say that in the absence of a court decision which states that FOTB do indeed hold the position that Rob suggests, any claim by Rob that the courts do accept the status of the FOTB holds absolutely no weight.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Still not distinguishing between statutes and laws are you?
Click to expand...


Of course not; that's the sort of stupidity you engage in.


We will not be enforcing provincial statutes, we will be keeping the peace. That is not a statutory power is it, nor does it require the consent of the one who is breaching the peace.
Click to expand...


Except you're basing your alleged ability to hire peace officers on a statute.



Tell me, why would any member of the public not want his neighbours to promise to be peaceful themselves, and to preserve and maintain the pubic peace?
Click to expand...



But that's not what your "peace officers" are doing. They're promising to go out and ensure others are peaceful. That's an assumption of authority by people of unproven ability that I'm not at all comfortable with.
 
Freeman Menard:

1. Regarding your theory that the de facto court cannot enforce statutes against someone unless they have consented to the statute. Given that there is no case law supporting this position, wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to your theory as a speculative argument that might be accepted by the court rather than portray it as something that is already accepted by the de facto court?

2. You have posed the question "How does a document physically force two people to do what neither of them wishes to do?" Surely you are well aware that certain documents (such as the Criminal Code of Canada, Income Tax Act, etc.) carry a credible threat of force that is often carried out against those who do not follow the rules contained in the document, effectively forcing them to do what they may not want to do. It therefore seems disingenuous to question how something can happen when it is common knowledge that it happens all the time. Do you have any further clarification to your position?

3. Regarding your plan to enforce the Criminal Code of Canada against police officers. Do you intend to enforce this statute against people regardless of whether they have consented to it? Because it seems to me that this contradicts your previously stated theory of individual consent.
 
JLord said:
3. Regarding your plan to enforce the Criminal Code of Canada against police officers. Do you intend to enforce this statute against people regardless of whether they have consented to it? Because it seems to me that this contradicts your previously stated theory of individual consent.
Click to expand...


I'm wondering whether they're going to enforce it against themselves:

1. Get sworn in
2. ?
3. Turn self in for offence against Criminal Code S. 130

Seems to just be a shortcut to the usual FOTL result.
 
JLord said:
Freeman Menard:

1. Regarding your theory that the de facto court cannot enforce statutes against someone unless they have consented to the statute. Given that there is no case law supporting this position, wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to your theory as a speculative argument that might be accepted by the court rather than portray it as something that is already accepted by the de facto court?

2. You have posed the question "How does a document physically force two people to do what neither of them wishes to do?" Surely you are well aware that certain documents (such as the Criminal Code of Canada, Income Tax Act, etc.) carry a credible threat of force that is often carried out against those who do not follow the rules contained in the document, effectively forcing them to do what they may not want to do. It therefore seems disingenuous to question how something can happen when it is common knowledge that it happens all the time. Do you have any further clarification to your position?

3. Regarding your plan to enforce the Criminal Code of Canada against police officers. Do you intend to enforce this statute against people regardless of whether they have consented to it? Because it seems to me that this contradicts your previously stated theory of individual consent.
Click to expand...

Hi JLord, Noisy in here isn't it?

1- That is not a true representation of my beliefs. Statutes can contain 'things' which are applicable without consent, but they would be applicable without the statute. Just because someone codifies something, does not make it generally applicable, nor does it imply that because it is applicable, the party is governed by the statute. There is a reason WHY in the Criminal Code the term 'Anyone who' is used, and in other statutes, the term 'any person who'. Those who want to see the truth will look at the things controlled and regulated by both those terms.

2- Here we disagree. The document itself does not in fact force people at all. Other people will point to it as justification for their actions however. That was the point I was trying to make. The document itself is dead and without agreement from others creates no obligations, nor restrictions, in and of itself.

3- Those sections which have within them not 'any person who' but 'anyone who' do not require consent. They all deal with offences at law, and do not require any statute for them to be deemed unlawful. What seems to you to be my position, is heavily tainted by preconceived misconceptions. Murder is unlawful and is in the criminal code for that reason. It is not unlawful merely because it is included.

Hope that helps clarify.

So tell me, do you think it is a good idea for the populace to be able to hold the police and the people in the government accountable to the law, or do you think they should have a monopoly on that ability, and thus effectively be above the law?

2- If a people have the power to elect a representative and due only to this agent relationship those elected have the right to hire peace officers on behalf of those they represent, would those they represent not have that power themselves? If not, where did the representatives get the authority to do so?

3- Where in the criminal code does it state clearly, specifically and unequivocally that the public does not have the right to hire directly peace officers to police their representatives and those they hire?

Thank you.


Fair is fair, I answered your questions, now please return the decency and answer mine.
 
Mojo said:
I'm wondering whether they're going to enforce it against themselves:

1. Get sworn in
2. ?
3. Turn self in for offence against Criminal Code S. 130

Seems to just be a shortcut to the usual FOTL result.
Click to expand...

Wow I have never seen even on this forum such circular reasoning! If according to you, they have the power to enforce that, they are peace officers, and thus it is not enforceable against them.
 
Horatius said:
Of course not; that's the sort of stupidity you engage in.





Except you're basing your alleged ability to hire peace officers on a statute.







But that's not what your "peace officers" are doing. They're promising to go out and ensure others are peaceful. That's an assumption of authority by people of unproven ability that I'm not at all comfortable with.
Click to expand...

No I am not. I am pointing out that even that statute recognizes our ability to do so, and that would exist even if it didn't. See how simple it is? The ability is not a function of it's inclusion, but it's inclusion does recognize the previously existing right. Just because "All 'A's are also 'B's" does not mean "All 'B's are also 'A's". Too bad you can't see that. You would suffer under far less confusion.
 
FreemanMenard said:
No I am not. I am pointing out that even that statute recognizes our ability to do so, and that would exist even if it didn't. See how simple it is? The ability is not a function of it's inclusion, but it's inclusion does recognize the previously existing right. Just because "All 'A's are also 'B's" does not mean "All 'B's are also 'A's". Too bad you can't see that. You would suffer under far less confusion.
Click to expand...

I will say that I agree with you for the sake of discussion. I guess that then I would say that you contribute to the confusion by referencing statute to support your understanding of "law" or proposed actions. In fairness if the codification of "law" has no value inherently then please when you try to prove your position don't use statute as evidence.

It would be far more effective if you just stated your "law" and where you have come to believe it is the one true "law". Now I have confused myself because the only sources we have for "law" are from writing which is just codifying someones thoughts and therefore has no special merit. ie bible, blacks law dictionary.
 
Werdum said:
I will say that I agree with you for the sake of discussion. I guess that then I would say that you contribute to the confusion by referencing statute to support your understanding of "law" or proposed actions. In fairness if the codification of "law" has no value inherently then please when you try to prove your position don't use statute as evidence.

It would be far more effective if you just stated your "law" and where you have come to believe it is the one true "law". Now I have confused myself because the only sources we have for "law" are from writing which is just codifying someones thoughts and therefore has no special merit. ie bible, blacks law dictionary.
Click to expand...

Fair enough Werdum. How do I refer to something though, if it is codified, without the other parties, saying "It's codified! You are pointing to a statute!" It would seem that by others codifying it, we can no longer claim it is based on law, at least on this forum.

Much law is custom, and is not codified. And is hard to establish as custom, when there are so many which change based on location. But there is one custom common to the common wealth, and that is equality. And that carries with it built in defenses against those who would claim the right to govern without consent.

PS- Nice to meet you. I hope you and I can discuss with the same level of maturity used by JLord and I, and clearly lacking with most of the rest here. Incidentally, care to take a stab at the three questions I posed?

Peace eh?
 
Horatius said:
No, he seemed to brush on past that.
Click to expand...

The peace officer IS the 'person'. e.g. when acting as a PO, they are operating through a 'person'. Sorry I missed that.

Will you now take such time and energy to point out to all and sundry the three questions I posed, or will you ALL brush past those?
 
1- So tell me, do you think it is a good idea for the populace to be able to hold the police and the people in the government accountable to the law, or do you think they should have a monopoly on that ability, and thus effectively be above the law?

2- If a people have the power to elect a representative and due only to this agent relationship those elected have the right to hire peace officers on behalf of those they represent, would those they represent not have that power themselves? If not, where did the representatives get the authority to do so?

3- Where in the criminal code does it state clearly, specifically and unequivocally that the public does not have the right to hire directly peace officers to police their representatives and those they hire?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom