Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[catsmate]

By what?

Statute?

 

[catsmate]

I just hired JB as my MA policy enforcement officer so I'm sure the JREF will honor all his decisions.

But was the contract handwritten on duck-egg blue paper and signed in blood under a full moon?

 

[jargon buster]

But it's a statute Rob agrees with so it's OK, and according to Rob it's not OK if the people he tries to arrest don't consent to the statute, thats not allowed, they have no choice.

Its buffoonery at its very best.

 

[bikerdruid]

just out of curiosity......
is there any aspect of the FOTL movement that is actually rational?
is it all fantasy, or was there ever a point where it had a modicum of credibility?

 

[Horatius]

http://www.ownlife.com/tax/lordne1.htm

The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Appellant; and
The Attorney General of Canada, Respondent; and
Lord Nelson Hotel Company Limited, Intervenant.
Supreme Court of Canada
1950:May 25, 26 / 1950:October 3.
Present:Rinfret C. J., and Kerwin, Taschereau, Rand, Kellock,
Estey and Fauteux JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA EN BANC

The Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the several Provinces are sovereign within their sphere defined by The British North America Act, but none of them has the unlimited capacity of an individual. They can exercise only the legislative powers respectively given to them by sections 91 and 92 of the Act, and these powers must be found in either of these sections.

Read that very carefully. The UNLIMITED capacity of the individual.
Now, where does it say, clearly and specifically, in the CCoC that as individuals with unlimited capacity, we cannot hire each other to be peace officers? Hmmm??? And that we cannot use those peace officers to ensure existing police follow the law?

How's about we read a little bit more, as well as carefully?

The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled. It is part of that protection that Parliament can legislate only on the subject matters referred to it by section 91 and that each Province can legislate exclusively on the subject matters referred to it by section 92. The country is entitled to insist that legislation adopted under section 91 should be passed exclusively by the Parliament of Canada in the same way as the people of each Province are entitled to insist that legislation concerning the matters enumerated in section 92 should come exclusively from their respective Legislatures. In each case the Members elected to Parliament or to the Legislatures are the only ones entrusted with the power and the duty to legislate concerning the subjects exclusively distributed by the constitutional Act to each of them.

No power of delegation is expressed either in section 91 or in section 92, nor, indeed, is there to be found the power of accepting delegation from one body to the other; and I have no doubt that if it had been the intention to give such powers it would have been expressed in clear and unequivocal language. Under the scheme of the British North America Act there were to be, in the words of Lord Atkin in The Labour Conventions Reference [[1937] A. C. 326], "watertight compartments which are an essential part of the original structure."

Neither legislative bodies, federal or provincial, possess any portion of the powers respectively vested in the other and they cannot receive it by delegation. In that connection the word "exclusively" used both in section 91 and in section 92 indicates a settled line of demarcation and it does not belong to either Parliament, or the Legislatures, to confer powers upon the other.(St. Catharine's Milling Co. v. The Queen, [[1887] 13 Can. S. C. R. 577 at 637], by Strong J.; C. P. R. v. Notre Dame de Bonsecours Parish [[1899] A. C. 367, -- per Lord Watson and Lord Davey -- See Lefroy's Canada's Federal System, 1913, p. 70 note 10(a)]).

Delegations such as were dealt with In re Gray [[1918] 57 Can. S. C. R. 150] and in The Chemical Reference [[1943] S. C. R. 1], were delegations to a body subordinate to Parliament and were of a character different from the delegation meant by the Bill now submitted to the Court.

So, what are those powers?

Powers of the Parliament.
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, --

The Public Debt and Property.
The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.
Postal Service.
The Census and Statistics.
Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.
Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
Navigation and Shipping.
Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.
Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.
Currency and Coinage.
Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.
Savings Banks.
Weights and Measures.
Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
Interest.
Legal Tender.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
Patents of Invention and Discovery.
Copyrights.
Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.
Naturalization and Aliens.
Marriage and Divorce.
The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.
The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.
Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.
Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada



Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures.
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,

The Amendment from Time to Time, notwithstanding anything in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as regards the Office of Lieutenant Governor.
Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.
The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
Municipal Institutions in the Province.
Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Muni-cipal Purposes.
Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes,--
Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/const/lawreg-loireg/p1t13.html


So, you're trying to use a ruling that re-iterated the nature of the powers of the levels of government to somehow support your notion that they don't have the authority to pass laws, even though those powers are explicitly granted to them in the very document the courts were applying.

 

[D'rok]

Agreed, although there is a big difference between most "Occupy" participants, who are merely exercising their legally-recognized democratic rights, and FMOTL, who purport to exercise imaginary rights that were largely concocted by a number of charlatans in the United States in the 1970s and 80s.

Excellent point.

 

[Toke]

I saw a tv program some years ago.
Among other things it claimed that private security guards/rent-a-cops outnumbered police officers 8-1 in Canada and 20-1 in the US.

The program were on some of the problems that arise from having non-police officers running around enforcing something or other. I assume that there are strict rules on what they can and cannot do.

A lawyer could surely help Rob and associates with setting up a private security company and advise them on what they could do with it. I suspect they will be sorely disappointed at the last part.

 

[Mojo]

I saw a tv program some years ago.
Among other things it claimed that private security guards/rent-a-cops outnumbered police officers 8-1 in Canada and 20-1 in the US.

The program were on some of the problems that arise from having non-police officers running around enforcing something or other. I assume that there are strict rules on what they can and cannot do.

See the Canadian Criminal Code, s. 130, for example.

ETA: and section 2.

 

[BobHaulk]

just out of curiosity......
is there any aspect of the FOTL movement that is actually rational?
is it all fantasy, or was there ever a point where it had a modicum of credibility?

The rational bit is where Menard gets your money for his information.

 

[Horatius]

I saw a tv program some years ago.
Among other things it claimed that private security guards/rent-a-cops outnumbered police officers 8-1 in Canada and 20-1 in the US.

The program were on some of the problems that arise from having non-police officers running around enforcing something or other. I assume that there are strict rules on what they can and cannot do.

A lawyer could surely help Rob and associates with setting up a private security company and advise them on what they could do with it. I suspect they will be sorely disappointed at the last part.

It would be possible to do that, but he'd still have to deal with the Dreaded Laws That Aren't Laws:

Canada

In Canada, private security falls under the jurisdiction of Canada's ten provinces and three territories. All ten of Canada's provinces and one of its territories (the Yukon) have legislation that regulates the contract security industry.[10] These eleven jurisdictions require that companies that provide security guard services and their employees be licensed.

Most provinces in Canada regulate the use of handcuffs and weapons (such as firearms and batons) by contract security companies and their employees, either banning such use completely or permitting it only under certain circumstances. Additionally, in some provinces, some terms, or variations of them, are prohibited either on a uniform or in self reference.[11]

Canada's federal laws also restrict the ability of security guards to be armed. For example, section 17 of Firearms Act makes it an offense for any person, including a security guard, to possess prohibited or restricted firearms (i.e. handguns) anywhere outside of his or her home.

There are two exceptions to this prohibition found in sections 18 and 19 of the Act. Section 18 deals with transportation of firearms while Section 19 deals with allowing persons to carry such firearms on their persons to protect their lives or the lives of other persons, or for the performance of their occupation (Armour Car Guards, Licensed Trappers), provided an Authorization to Carry (ATC) is first obtained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_guard#Canada



There are also a few other aspects of private security that will throw a wrench in their plans. For instance, in Ontario:

General Rules and Standards of Practice

These are some of the rules that security guards must be mindful of during their day-to-day activities. They can be found between sections 35 and 40 of the PSISA.

Security guards must always carry their licence with them when they are working (including “plain-clothes” security guards, e.g. loss prevention personnel or bodyguards). They must also identify themselves as security guards, and show their licence, if a member of the public asks them to do so.
With the exception of bodyguards and loss prevention personnel, security guards must wear a uniform while working. See below for further information on the Uniforms Regulation.
Security guards are prohibited from carrying any symbol of authority, other than their licence and uniform (for example, a metal badge is prohibited).
Security guards are prohibited from holding themselves out as police officers, or performing police-related duties. For this reason, they are also prohibited from using the following words when referring to their work as security guards:

Detective or Private Detective
Law Enforcement
Police
Officer

For example, security guards are prohibited from referring to themselves as “security officers”.

Code of Conduct

This regulation defines what kind of behavior is appropriate or inappropriate for security guards to display while they are working. Security guards will find that respecting the Code of Conduct is, in most cases, a matter of common sense – security guards are expected to treat members of the public in a respectful and professional manner. For instance, security guards must:

Act with honesty and integrity
Comply with all federal, provincial and municipal laws
Treat all persons equally (without discrimination)
Avoid using profanity or abusive language
Avoid using excessive force
Not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs while on duty.

http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/engl...de/TheActandCodeofConduct/SG_act_conduct.html

 

[JLord]

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.

Are you saying that this is your opinion of what the law should be, or that you believe this is actually the position held by de facto courts in Canada?

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.

The de facto court has not distinguished between the two terms regarding the applicability of statutes without consent. So what sort of distinction are you making and what authority is it based on?

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.

Of course it is not literally the document itself that does anything. The document just states what rules the courts and police will enforce and what they will do to enforce those rules. It seems like a semantic game to say the statute can't force you to do anything, but the police and courts who obey that statute can. I still find your previous statement misleading if you are leading people to beleive that the statute has no power over them but you are actually only referring to the literal piece of paper itself. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "The document doesn't force anything, it is the force applied by those willing to follow the document that compel your compliance with its rules." Otherwise you give people the false impression that nothing will happen to them if they ignore the document.

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.

So then the sections that use the language "anyone who" are represent rules that don't require consent. Does this apply to other statutes as well?

Also, are you saying that the sections using this language are always correct and agree with your unwritten set of lawful rules? Because it would seem very strange the current version of the criminal code section using this language would match up with your unwritten beliefs about what the law should be.

Also, the Criminal Code of Canada specifically says that statutes are required to punish someone criminally in Canada as it specifically prohibits anyone from being charged with common law offences not found in the CCC.

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?

It is good to hold the police accountable.

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?

Elected representatives have more power that other people to make laws, hire police, punish people for impersonating police, etc. This is given to them by the rules of law as enforced by the de facto courts and the police and as agreed to by a majority of people. Until the law changes or the system is overthrown elected officials will have more power than other citizens for this reason. As with all man made rules, it doesn't come from any external source.

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?

First of all, I have never claimed that this is stated in the criminal code or that it is stated in any particular manner. But I will answer regardless.

Section 2 of the CCC defines peace officers. It includes police, bailiffs, JPs, etc. We know from R. v. Burns that a privately hired bailiff is not a peace officer. So doing the job listed under s.2 does not make someone a peace officer if they are hired by a private citizen. The de facto courts have ruled regarding the interpretation of this section and the matter is decided for the time being. So a privately hired police officer is not a peace officer as defined in the criminal code.

Section 130 makes it a crime to impersonate a peace officer or wear anything that could reasonably lead someone to falsely conclude that you are a peace officer. So a privately hired peace officer who represents that he is an actual peace officer would be guilty of this offence.

This still doesn't get to the person hiring the peace officer as you specify in your question. For that you would have to look at section 21 dealing with parties to an offence. That would make it clear that if you hire someone to commit an offence you are equally guilty of that offence.

So this is how I would come to the conclusion that you cannot privately hire peace officers and you cannot hire a private police force to impersonate peace officers.

However, I'm not saying that your plan is necessarily going to result in this offence. It depends how you do it. For instance, to be found guilty of impersonating a peace officer you have to be impersonating someone that is defined as a peace officer under section 2. So someone falsely claiming to be a Texas Ranger, or grand poobah, or a secret FBI agent would not be guilty because these positions are not peace officers as defined under s.2 (remember that peace officers have to be hired by the government of Canada).

So if you hire people to go around saying "we're the Menard freedom defence force" or something and they videotape the police you should be fine as long as they aren't in police looking uniforms. If they are claiming to be peace officers then they would likely be guilty and by extension so would the person who hired them.

So it isn't as simple as you asked but that's my answer.

 

[Toke]

Thanks Mojo and Horatius,
I am not surprised that there are some regulations to throw gravel in robs machinations. Or at least block his fantasies.

 

[JLord]

just out of curiosity......
is there any aspect of the FOTL movement that is actually rational?
is it all fantasy, or was there ever a point where it had a modicum of credibility?

There was at one point in the sense that a lot of the arguments were untested. I'm thinking mainly of the various arguments relating to the obligation to pay taxes, like the popular idea that only a "person" has to pay and not a human, or the idea that wages are not income because they are traded for your sweat and blood and therefore to tax them would amount to slavery. The stuff like redeeming your birth bond, and claims of right, etc., I don't think had really taken off yet and the whole movement was moreso a tax protest kind of thing.

This created a kind of heyday period in Canada where there were actual lawyers selling people on these schemes. It was the same type of pitch as today only back then the arguments had not been tested in court and were therefore legitimate open questions. Now of course the majority of lawyers probably would not have considered them to be very good arguments, but officially it was undecided. So a lot of people were convinced to not pay taxes on the basis of arguments that were coming from lawyers and that must have sounded pretty convincing.

Then when these cases first went to court and the arguments were ruled to have no merit the movement lost some steam because to lawyers it was now decided. Over and done with. There was one particular lawyer that I knew of however who carried on with the seminars and whatnot and eventually was disbarred. The tax thing kind of lost interest and most of the same sort of arguments were eventually adopted into the wider freeman movement. You still see within freeman philosophy that same original idea that person is different from a flesh and blood man.

If you take a look at detaxcanada.org you can almost see how the tax movement transitioned into the wider freeman movement. As a historical document (the site hasn't been updated much, or at least looks pretty much the same as it always did) that website is pretty interesting to see how not wanting to pay tax morphed into what we have now with the freeman movement. Of course this is only in Canada and I know lots of other people have pushed this thing along the way. But that site is always a blast from the past to look at and marvel at its beauty.

 

[JLord]

jlord, I admire your tenacity, it's not going to help you though, he's not going to respond to anything that disproves his argument.

I think he's probably more likely to respond now that you are saying he won't. I bet he'll answer, although it was a pretty long post and now it looks like we'll have a few pages of clown jokes. We'll see. I may be reposting it in a few days if it just gets buried.

He still hasn't got back to you with your "person" cases post.

Why not just try a "clown" joke.

Sounds tempting, but I've never been that type of skeptic. I don't want to discourage Freeman Menard from responding seriously to my points and turn it into a flame war. I would prefer to just let people judge our respective posts on merit rather that who can come up with funnier insults.

 

[D'rok]

So, as it happens, I encountered a legal problem today for which Mr. Menard, with his extensive expertise in such things, is uniquely suited to advise.

I came into work this morning to discover that opposing counsel in one of my upcoming cases has served notice that they will be making a constitutional challenge against the particular provision of the particular Act that is at the root of the issue in the case in question. What sort of constitutional challenge? Glad you asked!

It is being argued that the particular provision is unconstitutional because its effects violate a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Which section? Wait for it...

Security of the Person.

As I understand it, based on my extensive reading of Menardian jurisprudence, counsel is arguing that the particular provision is unconstitutional because the government issued a birth bond to their client that can be redeemed for cash or services using said client's birth certificate.

I must admit that I am mystified at how this is relevant to my case, but hey! Who am I to question the expert!

So, Mr. Menard...how would you advise that I proceed in this case? I'm afraid I'm not in a position to make a donation, but that shouldn't be an issue for an honourable chap like yourself, right?

I need your help. I need the benefit of your years of study. How is the birth bond, the existence of which I, of course, would never question, relevant to the constitutionality of a provision in an Act of Parliament? Hmmmm?

 

[Hans]

Would this have anything to do with the King Inn's stand on Droit du seigneur as addresed by the Archiepiscopal Peculiars and the noted inferior status of the Audit Ales?

 

[jargon buster]

I bet he'll answer,

He well might, it will probably be along the lines of "can you show me how one man may govern another without his consent".

 

[jargon buster]

"cause no harm or loss or use fraud in your contracts"

I would wager that every action a freeman wishes to engage in or withdraw his participation to results in a loss or potential loss to someone down the line.

From the very outset they dump on their own "three laws"

 

[D'rok]

Would this have anything to do with the King Inn's stand on Droit du seigneur as addresed by the Archiepiscopal Peculiars and the noted inferior status of the Audit Ales?

But of course.

 

[jargon buster]

Sounds tempting, but I've never been that type of skeptic. I don't want to discourage Freeman Menard from responding seriously to my points and turn it into a flame war. I would prefer to just let people judge our respective posts on merit rather that who can come up with funnier insults.

Unfortunatly Menards posts dont have any merit, in taking him seriously its akin to talking to a man who thinks hes Napoleon and trying to convince him hes wrong.