Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet another example of Menard moving the goalposts:
FreemanMenard said:
So let us now agree, that everyone here accepts that one man cannot govern another without their consent.
Click to expand...
No one has ever claimed otherwise. What has been said however is that governments can (and do) govern an individual without obtaining the individual's consent. Even you are governed without your consent. You do not have the army to outgun your government's own army.
 
Last edited:
Rob if you wish to see an excellent example of a government governing individuals without their consent I urge you to google "Dale Farm", something that is happening right now here in England. Those being evicted by force are travellers ( gypsies) many of whom exist outside of "society". But as you will see tptb have access to the amount of force required and are willing to use it in order to obtain their goal.
 
So does London refer to London ON or London England?I am still not sure which court recognised one of the 'Peace Officers' as such.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So does London refer to London ON or London England?I am still not sure which court recognised one of the 'Peace Officers' as such.
Click to expand...
London, ON. Of course, we're still waiting for something other than a sketchy anecdote from a known liar to confirm this.
 
Symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease usually develop slowly and gradually worsen over time, progressing from mild forgetfulness to widespread brain impairment. Chemical and structural changes in the brain slowly destroy the ability to create, remember, learn, reason, and relate to others. As critical cells die, drastic personality loss occurs and body systems fail.
Click to expand...
Look familiar?
 
D'rok said:
Same tired routine. Get some new material please.

While you're at it, six weeks ago you asked for case law showing individual consent is not required. JLord provided it. You promised to respond. Here is the relevant post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7547672&postcount=2325

Live up to your word, honourable freeman. Address this information that you requested we provide.

Repeating your tired catch phrases in light of their total demolition by crystal clear case law is really, really pathetic.
Click to expand...

Just thought I'd pop in and help out just in case Menard's got D'rok on ignore as well.
 
FreemanMenard said:
So let us now agree, that everyone here accepts that one man cannot govern another without their consent.
Click to expand...

I used to live in a house where my neighbour used to think that he could play loud music night and day. After numerous complaints he wouldn't be reasonable so i had no choice but to get the police. Fast forward to a court appearance,resulting fine and the removal of his stereo and an anti social behaviour order showed him that he could be stopped against his will. He didn't consent to being taken to court (in fact he didn't turn up the first time) or losing his stereo or the threat of jail but it was forced on him. This was justice for me and the other neighbours. Left to you he'd just do what he liked cause no man could govern him without his consent and i'd have had no option but to kick the jeezus out of him. He was saved from himself and me by society. Just like you need saved from yourself. Off course you don't believe any of what you are saying it's just an act. Now, can i buy a ticket for one of your shows? I'm prepared to swap one potato from my garden for one but you're not getting any of my meat.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I read all your links and saw no specific questions. Care to just ask the questions, so I do not have to go through your links and try to figure out your questions?
Click to expand...

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.
 
cocana said:
Rob,

Got the evidence that you are immune from all statutory law, except those laws that you agree with? A verifiable court order or letter from the Canadian government should do the trick.

No? Thought not

Been telling people that this is what you have achieved? Yes
Been receiving money on the back of it? Yes
Been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? Yes


Once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole.
Click to expand...

Here ya go and if it is okay Cocana I'll repeat your question until Menard answers?

Oh, 'honourable' and Menard shouldn't be used in the same sentence - its against natural law.....
 
FreemanMenard said:
Not sure I can, actually, though if I had the time to dig, and this was important to me, I could find a post where someone disagreed with me stating the opposite.

So let us now agree, that everyone here accepts that one man cannot govern another without their consent.
Click to expand...


That isn't the claim you were asking people to prove. You were asking people to prove that they, personally, can govern their fellow man without their consent.

And none of this has any bearing on whether a legally constituted government can govern those within its jurisdiction.
 
D'rok said:
Personating peace officer
130. (1) Everyone commits an offence who
(a) falsely represents himself to be a peace officer or a public officer; or
(b) not being a peace officer or public officer, uses a badge or article of uniform or equipment in a manner that is likely to cause persons to believe that he is a peace officer or a public officer, as the case may be.
Punishment
(2) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


http://canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec130subsec1
Click to expand...


There's a case that might be relevant both in regard to this offence and to the definition of "peace officer" in the Criminal Code. See R. v. Burns, 2002 MBCA 161:
Which meaning was intended by Parliament in defining “peace officer”? Or did Parliament intend to encompass both? I do not think there is any doubt that Parliament used the word solely in its first meaning. Everyone referred to in the definition section, other than a “bailiff,” is patently a public or statutory officer performing public duties. There is no reason to believe that Parliament intended to include, as a peace officer, a person who was a private appointee performing non-public duties.
Click to expand...
 
Make sure you do that after you have read the cases jlord gave you.

Waste of space.

PS I have seen you have signed up on Ickes again, are you going to post at all?
 
cocana wrote
Rob,

Got the evidence that you are immune from all statutory law, except those laws that you agree with? A verifiable court order or letter from the Canadian government should do the trick.

No? Thought not

Been telling people that this is what you have achieved? Yes
Been receiving money on the back of it? Yes
Been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? Yes


Once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole.
Click to expand...
 
Mojo said:
There's a case that might be relevant both in regard to this offence and to the definition of "peace officer" in the Criminal Code. See R. v. Burns, 2002 MBCA 161:
Click to expand...

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?
 
D'rok said:
I suppose this is an appropriate to time to re-post this, from the Supreme Court of Canada:
R v. Nolan said:
[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
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...

No answer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom