Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[D'rok]

i have the best of both worlds.
i live in the woods, and still enjoy the benefits of socialized canadian society.

I think the way you live is pretty cool. Mrs. D'rok would never agree, but I could see myself living that way one day.

At any rate, it shows just how much freedom we really do have to live on our own terms within the exisiting system.

 

[sadhatter]

Well you can claim it comes down to guns, I think it comes down to love, and truth.

The people with the guns? Have you no idea how many guns there are out there in the hands of the people?

The vast majority of people who have drivers licenses never read the Acts under which they applied, same is true with the vast majority of people who have SIN’s, and they all seem to be convinced that one needs a license to travel on the road in an automobile, and not a single one of them can point to the section within that Act removing the previous right to do so. The minority, are in fact not looking for a free ride, that is the belief presented by the detractors, to justify their claim to the right to use force to control. The truth is you are not representing our views accurately at all, and since you have already grown attached to the idea that those are our beliefs, and have attacked us not for our beliefs, but what you think they are, you now justify continuing to do so, and refusing to examine what they truly are.

Having spoken just recently with many people, and asking them questions, I think we are actually in the majority, when our views and beliefs are properly presented, instead of the twisted view you seem to have.

Yesterday I was playing ‘Mr.Curious’ and was speaking with people on the street as they walked past. Had a chance to discuss in depth with a number of them my beliefs. And all of them agreed with me and the Freeman perspective. I asked them two questions:
1- Do you agree the people in the government should be bound by the law?
2- Do you think it is a good idea to have a civilian peace officer force to ensure that the existing police forces operate lawfully?

Guess what? EVERYONE agreed the people in the government should be bound by the law, and with the exception of one guy who was planning on being a cop, everyone thought the civilian peace officer force was a good idea! Now since those are among the beliefs of Freemen, it seems to me that the Freeman perspective, when properly presented, is quite agreeable to the vast majority of people. At least when they are not prejudiced and misinformed.

You are right in that I personally have no way to force what I believe is the law, and the path of violence is not one I have ever threatened, advocated nor employed. (Unlike a certain party on this forum who stated quite plainly he would like to fly over here and commit murder, and the only thing stopping him was the idea he would go to prison for it. ) However if you think this means I am powerless, you would be wrong. And you may wish to do a little head count, in regards to how many people there are for every cop. (900-1 approx.) And those people in the army, did you forget, they are our friends and family, and are not going to blindly accept orders to kill us to silence us. You can’t kill or shoot an idea dude. The fact is many of them agree with us. The people in the government are bound by the law. The police need to be policed. These are very simple concepts, and I can’t believe yo would argue against them.

So how am I going to win you ask? Your claim that I can’t win is based upon a completely erroneous understanding of my beliefs, and ignores the fact that I can go out, and present my actual ideals and beliefs, not the twisted and misrepresented mess you seem to think it is. I am surprised you did not claim that the majority of people do not want to kick puppies down the street, an then try to imply that is what Freemen do. You speak of maturity, and yet likely, if you are with the majority, are legally operating in the position of a child of the province, or ward of the state without even realizing it! I do not see a political win as out of the question at all, although I imagine we have slightly different views on ‘political’. As a matter of fact, I have found that people are very accepting of the Freeman perspective, but of course it, and not what YOU think it is, has to be presented. It seems to me it is you acting immaturely, and that is highlighted by your speaking of violence, and underscored by your ignorance of our actual views.

What can I do you ask. You claim the vast majority disagree with us, but that is where YOU are wrong. When the right questions are asked, just about everyone seems to agree. So let me tell you what I can do. I can do something you can’t stop me from doing. Something which the people in the government can’t stop, nor the police, nor the courts. Something not even the populace can stop me from doing. Something which when done properly actually gains the support of many of the people in the police and courts and wins over the majority. Something which if anyone tries to stop me from doing makes them look like fools and enemies of the people. I can do something I am very very good at. I can do it very cheaply, and do not need guns.

I do not think it is a hopeless battle, if I did I would not be in it. Nor do I seek profit. And the only reason you think I would, is because you can’t see us winning, and that is because you can’t even see us, nor our ideals and beliefs.

Nice rant but it has little to do with what i said, and contains some very telling remarks.

Of course if you " ask the right questions" someone is going to agree with you, these kinds of questions are called loaded questions. If i wanted to get someone to agree, textualy or verbally to segregation , i could as " Do people get along better with folks who are different or folks who are like them?" does that mean that the person actually agrees with me, or that i phrased a question in a way that would make their agreement to a simple statement ( should the police follow the law, and do folks get along with people that are like them, respectively.) seem to imply they agree with me on a greater issue?

This shows you are versed in the ways of the huckster rob, and doesn't inspire confidence in those who are also versed.

When you explain your claims, sans jargon and rhetoric, your average person says " well, that would be nice, but then again, if everyone did it , it would be ****** anarchy. " but the common response is " Well not everyone would do it." but then that is just creating and underclass of the folks who actually feel it is their duty to pitch in.

You claim to have an issue with there being an underclass, but it is not that you dislike the premise of one group having more power, you just want to be the leader of the group with more power, and know, through no currently extablished legal means, will you ever get to be in a position of power of that nature.

What you seem to miss , is that the law is simply a way to keep things going as good as they can be. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the law we all follow is wrong, a complete misinterpretation. The fact remains the people with the guns, and the people who think things are much better than they would be in your " I'll take what i want, you get the leftovers" world, do not agree with your version.

You like to rant about truth, and justice, but you are simply ignoring the pragmatism of the matter. You do not have the power to change this, and once you start doing anything other than milking coin out of the gullible , then your going to come up against force. And seeing as you only have sway over a tiny minority, once it gets to this point, you can and will be stopped.

But you know this, and that is why your various projects are always just on the verge of being done. And why you avoid doing anything real to prove your beliefs. Because once you do something that will get you slapped down, your followers will see your beliefs for the sham that they are. Based in illogical interpretations, mysticisim the likes of a D&D spell, and greed.

 

[jargon buster]

But you know this, and that is why your various projects are always just on the verge of being done. And why you avoid doing anything real to prove your beliefs. Because once you do something that will get you slapped down, your followers will see your beliefs for the sham that they are. Based in illogical interpretations, mysticisim the likes of a D&D spell, and greed.

And thats exactly why none of his many videos show him actually doing anything apart from talking to a converted audience or phoning people and asking them loaded questions.
Wouldn't it be nice seeing him driving around in a car with no plates with a big spliff and then explaining to the police he doesn't consent when they pull him over.
Im sure some of his minions would like to see that as well.

 

[D'rok]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated material and response to same

Since you're online, any advice for me with my Security of the Person case?

 

[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?

A little help here?

 

[FreemanMenard]

A little help here?

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...

I need details, and proof that what you are saying is true. What is the name of the opposing counsel and the defendant? Where is this court case taking place? That way I can do a little research and get back to you, and have evidence that you are not just pulling my leg.

There is no reason for you to not give me the name of the opposing counsel is there? Nor any reason to not give the name of the accused eh? After all it is in the public record.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Nice rant but it has little to do with what i said, and contains some very telling remarks.

Of course if you " ask the right questions" someone is going to agree with you, these kinds of questions are called loaded questions. If i wanted to get someone to agree, textualy or verbally to segregation , i could as " Do people get along better with folks who are different or folks who are like them?" does that mean that the person actually agrees with me, or that i phrased a question in a way that would make their agreement to a simple statement ( should the police follow the law, and do folks get along with people that are like them, respectively.) seem to imply they agree with me on a greater issue?

This shows you are versed in the ways of the huckster rob, and doesn't inspire confidence in those who are also versed.

When you explain your claims, sans jargon and rhetoric, your average person says " well, that would be nice, but then again, if everyone did it , it would be ****** anarchy. " but the common response is " Well not everyone would do it." but then that is just creating and underclass of the folks who actually feel it is their duty to pitch in.

You claim to have an issue with there being an underclass, but it is not that you dislike the premise of one group having more power, you just want to be the leader of the group with more power, and know, through no currently extablished legal means, will you ever get to be in a position of power of that nature.

What you seem to miss , is that the law is simply a way to keep things going as good as they can be. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the law we all follow is wrong, a complete misinterpretation. The fact remains the people with the guns, and the people who think things are much better than they would be in your " I'll take what i want, you get the leftovers" world, do not agree with your version.

You like to rant about truth, and justice, but you are simply ignoring the pragmatism of the matter. You do not have the power to change this, and once you start doing anything other than milking coin out of the gullible , then your going to come up against force. And seeing as you only have sway over a tiny minority, once it gets to this point, you can and will be stopped.

But you know this, and that is why your various projects are always just on the verge of being done. And why you avoid doing anything real to prove your beliefs. Because once you do something that will get you slapped down, your followers will see your beliefs for the sham that they are. Based in illogical interpretations, mysticisim the likes of a D&D spell, and greed.

Well that's a nice rant you have there too! See how I just dismissed your beliefs and opinions by calling them a rant?

As for the ability to formulate questions resulting in the answer being sought that is EXACTLY what every good lawyer does. But you claim that is the actions of a huckster. So you must be claiming that lawyers and the entire legal system are all such hucksters, right? So why do you support and defend a system clearly dominated by hucksters?

As for the power to change things, you may feel you are powerless in the existing system, and incapable of changing it. And therefore all others must be equally impotent. However I honestly do think I can plant seeds of change, which will take root. And know what supports that belief? YOU AND YOUR RESPONSES! Even the people who reject the beliefs can't seem to stop talking about it, and that is really all I need. If there was nothing there, you would not give it any energy at all, nor would the authorities. But clearly they are. And so are you.

As for the threat of force, I have been repeatedly stopped and then released. You want proof, but I prefer to act with respect to the cops, and they appreciate it. And because of that, they act with respect in turn. You want me to post proof that will harm my relationships with them, cause them unnecessary harm, and make it far more difficult for me to plant seeds in their minds. So I do not jump through the hoops you ask me to. One guy here asked me to go and punch a cop and then claim I did not consent to any arrest. I prefer to treat them with respect, and understanding of their situation.

What do you consider a tiny minority?
Bear in mind, this forum is the tiny minority, and all of you surround yourself with others (a small number) most who are employed by the existing system, and you all think you are the majority. If you would take off your blinders, you would see you are actually in the minority, and the majority want change.

 

[D'rok]

I need details, and proof that what you are saying is true. What is the name of the opposing counsel and the defendant? Where is this court case taking place? That way I can do a little research and get back to you, and have evidence that you are not just pulling my leg.

There is no reason for you to not give me the name of the opposing counsel is there? Nor any reason to not give the name of the accused eh? After all it is in the public record.

I said "upcoming case". The hearing hasn't happened yet, so no public record. I'm sure you'll understand why I can't give you specific details until after the hearing.

Now, some general advice would suffice. In what way is the birth bond relevant to the constitutionality of a provision in an Act of Parliament? Just a simple explanation is all I require.

 

[jargon buster]

As for the threat of force, I have been repeatedly stopped and then released. You want proof, but I prefer to act with respect to the cops, and they appreciate it. And because of that, they act with respect in turn. You want me to post proof that will harm my relationships with them, cause them unnecessary harm, and make it far more difficult for me to plant seeds in their minds. So I do not jump through the hoops you ask me to. One guy here asked me to go and punch a cop and then claim I did not consent to any arrest. I prefer to treat them with respect, and understanding of their situation.

And all because you follow statute law.
Well done Rob.

Although you claim to be able to ignore statute law you never do, why is that?

PS he will now claim he smokes weed and drinks beer in parks

 

[bikerdruid]

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.

this seems like a very fair assessment.
thank you for the straight forward response to an honest question.
any comments, mr. menard?

 

[D'rok]

As for the ability to formulate questions resulting in the answer being sought that is EXACTLY what every good lawyer does. But you claim that is the actions of a huckster. So you must be claiming that lawyers and the entire legal system are all such hucksters, right? So why do you support and defend a system clearly dominated by hucksters?.

A lawyer that misrepresnets the testimony of witnesses is not a good lawyer and would have a very short career as a litigator.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I said "upcoming case". The hearing hasn't happened yet, so no public record. I'm sure you'll understand why I can't give you specific details until after the hearing.

Now, some general advice would suffice. In what way is the birth bond relevant to the constitutionality of a provision in an Act of Parliament? Just a simple explanation is all I require.

There must be a record of the upcoming case and that must be in the public record. As a matter of fact, merely filing documents puts them in the public. I would like to read the documents which have been filed. In the public. I do not understand why you can't give the specific details. Clearly you must be lying if you do not want to give information which is already in the public. That is the same argument used against me when I would not provide information, yet in my case the information was thousands of miles away, and in your you have easy access to it.

So do you want us to think you are lying? Or will you share the details?

 

[jargon buster]

Clearly you must be lying if you do not want to give information which is already in the public. That is the same argument used against me when I would not provide information, yet in my case the information was thousands of miles away, and in your you have easy access to it.

If you think for one second that people actually believe you would leave a document thousands of miles away when you could simply scan it and keep it on a memory stick to show your proof you are very deluded indeed.

 

[D'rok]

There must be a record of the upcoming case and that must be in the public record. As a matter of fact, merely filing documents puts them in the public. I would like to read the documents which have been filed. In the public. I do not understand why you can't give the specific details. Clearly you must be lying if you do not want to give information which is already in the public. That is the same argument used against me when I would not provide information, yet in my case the information was thousands of miles away, and in your you have easy access to it.

So do you want us to think you are lying? Or will you share the details?

There is no public record prior to the hearing. This is not a court. You are asking me to break the law and to violate legal ethics. Why am I not suprised?

You make claims about court cases that have actually been resolved in public court and then pretend not to know what they are.

Consider me to be lying. It makes no difference to the question. Security of the Person is a constitutional issue that has been litigated often, as you can easily see here:

http://canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-7.html#_Toc68429135


The question that you are dodging is:

In what way is the birth bond relevant to the constitutionality of a provision in an Act of Parliament?
Will you not stand by your claims regarding Security of the Person? Why on earth not?

 

[FreemanMenard]

There is no public record prior to the hearing. This is not a court. You are asking me to break the law and to violate legal ethics. Why am I not suprised?

You make claims about court cases that have actually been resolved in public court and then pretend not to know what they are.

Consider me to be lying. It makes no difference to the question. Security of the Person is a constitutional issue that has been litigated often, as you can easily see here:

http://canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-7.html


The question that you are dodging is:

In what way is the birth bond relevant to the constitutionality of a provision in an Act of Parliament?
Will you not stand by your claims regarding Security of the Person? Why on earth not?

I did not know it was not a court. Forgive me if your constant attacks have caused me to raise my defenses. I was not asking you to breach any legal ethics, though the idea of a lawyer having any is laughable to the vast majority of people. For instance, as a lawyer, do you agree that we are all equal before the law, and therefor one man cannot govern another lawfully without consent, or not? If not, then you have abandoned equality, and any claim to being ethical. But I know where you stand on that. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others, right? Or you will claim that I do not understand what the term equality means, but you of course, with your years of specialized education, do know what it means, and in this case, it is not to be plainly interpreted, but in a way that results in the opposite of equality.


The section speaks of every individual having the right to the security of the person. Clearly the term 'person' and 'individual' must mean different things, therefore they may force that distinction. Without more knowledge of the case, the term security, if it refers not to safety, but is used as it is elsewhere in law, and is to be plainly interpreted, then must refer to a financial instrument, of some sort, which is not being held by the individual, but which he has a right to.

This means there is a trust relationship.
Therefore there is association.

And the guy has a right to associate or not as he sees fit, right? And to demand the return of his security. And if he did there would be no more trust relationship, and therefore rules that would govern the trust and him, would no longer apply.

And yes I do still stand by my belief that there is a security, as plainly and routinely interpreted in law, and we have a right to it. And incidentally, it has been recently confirmed for me by someone who spoke with a high ranking accountant who used to work with the government. We own this country. There are stocks. It is operating as a corporation, and we have a right to hold that security ourselves, and when we do not, those who do are our trustees, and may treat us legally as if we are their wards or children of the state.

Sure seems to be a lot of people talking about **** like this lately, especially with the whole occupy movement thing, which we Freemen are using to share our beliefs.

Hope that helps!

PS- Please do not say I do never answer questions anymore ok? Thanks.

 

[Horatius]

Hey do you think talking snidely about someone instead of addressing their opinions and arguments is a mature thing to do,

I wasn't aware there was anything indirect about the majority of posts aimed at you.

To be frank, talking about him is far more interesting than talking to him. It's boring "discussing" things with a person who just ignores the substance of your posts, repeats the same nonsense you just addressed, and then insults you.

 

[kmortis]

This thread has several breaches of the Membership Agreement that need to be seen to so I'm closing it until a member of the Moderating Team has time to do a clean-up. As always - don't try to continue this discussion elsewhere until the thread has been reopened.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

Ok, it's open again. Let me stress that the MA reaches even into this thread. There is no Freeman on the Forum here. Understand?
Keep the conversation on topic (the topic is NEVER the other posters), keep it civil (even when you don't want to) and I don't want any more off-topic nonsense (only on-topic nonsense).
80 posts that were made over the last week are now in AAH because you guys couldn't control your more base urges. So stop it.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[D'rok]

...

PS- Please do not say I do never answer questions anymore ok? Thanks.

You have not answered the question. All you have done is repeated your unsupported and long-debunked claims for the umpteenth time. This was the question:

In what way is the birth bond relevant to the constitutionality of a provision in an Act of Parliament?
My case has absolutely nothing to do with any financial instruments.

You have claimed this:

The section speaks of every individual having the right to the security of the person. Clearly the term 'person' and 'individual' must mean different things, therefore they may force that distinction. Without more knowledge of the case, the term security, if it refers not to safety, but is used as it is elsewhere in law, and is to be plainly interpreted, then must refer to a financial instrument, of some sort, which is not being held by the individual, but which he has a right to.

Here are 3948 chances for you to find some support for this claim.

http://canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&searchPage=eliisa%2FmainPageSearch.vm&text=%22security+of+the+person%22&id=&startDate=&endDate=&legislation=legislation&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals

In each and every one of those cases, you will find that "Security of the Person" does not mean what you say it does.

Do you agree that there is no support whatsoever for your interpretation in any reported case? If so, then why do you sell the lie that your interpretation is correct?

 

[Border Reiver]

I did not know it was not a court. Forgive me if your constant attacks have caused me to raise my defenses. I was not asking you to breach any legal ethics, though the idea of a lawyer having any is laughable to the vast majority of people. For instance, as a lawyer, do you agree that we are all equal before the law,

You do realize that this means that the law applies eqally to all people, right? If I was to say something that caused people to believe that if they used certain words and or phrases that they could get the gov't to pay their utility bills, student loans, etc., that I accepted money for teaching these words and phrases to people and that as a result of this they ended up without utilities, bankrupt, etc. that I could be found guilty of a fraud?

and therefor one man cannot govern another lawfully without consent, or not?

We've dealt with this one before, society is more than two people. Society in Canada deals with that whole representational democracy business. Whereby certain persons, selected by other persons set the laws for the governance of all. If we don't like the rules, we vote in people who will change them. Witness what is presently happening with the long gun registry as and example of changing the law. Many people objected to the idea of a federal registry of real property, and lo, it is finally removed.

If not, then you have abandoned equality, and any claim to being ethical.

Still equal before the law.

But I know where you stand on that. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others, right? Or you will claim that I do not understand what the term equality means, but you of course, with your years of specialized education, do know what it means, and in this case, it is not to be plainly interpreted, but in a way that results in the opposite of equality.

Equality before the law was explained to me in a Social Studies class around Grade 5 or 6 in Northern Ontario. No one has ever attempted to argue that absolute equality is even possible - some of us are smarter than others, others are physically stronger, some of us have access to greater resources than others, and there really is no practical way to carry out that sort of levelling.

The section speaks of every individual having the right to the security of the person.

The exact wording is this:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Clearly the term 'person' and 'individual' must mean different things, therefore they may force that distinction. Without more knowledge of the case, the term security, if it refers not to safety, but is used as it is elsewhere in law, and is to be plainly interpreted, then must refer to a financial instrument, of some sort, which is not being held by the individual, but which he has a right to.

This means there is a trust relationship.
Therefore there is association.

Not sure where you found "individual" in there, but the word person in the context of the Charter refers to human beings.

Rather than copy and paste a "Wall-o-text" ^tm I'll just link to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Digest dealing with section 7. Scroll on down to the section on "Security of the Person" and you will see that it does not refer to financial instruments.

It would appear that this guy has misinterpreted the Charter.

And the guy has a right to associate or not as he sees fit, right?

Yes he does, that is a separate right guaranteed by the Charter(s.2(d))

And to demand the return of his security. And if he did there would be no more trust relationship, and therefore rules that would govern the trust and him, would no longer apply.

Since, he's incorrect about what security of the person means, there is no trust relationship to nullify

And yes I do still stand by my belief that there is a security, as plainly and routinely interpreted in law, and we have a right to it.

If you're referring to a financial security then you are wrong. If you are referrign to your personal, physical and psychological integrity, then yes.

And incidentally, it has been recently confirmed for me by someone who spoke with a high ranking accountant who used to work with the government. We own this country. There are stocks.

There are. they are called Canada Savings Bonds and they are available at many fine financial institutions here in the Great White North.

It is operating as a corporation,

Meaning that there is a judicial entity that can be held accountable in court.

and we have a right to hold that security ourselves,

We do, that's why the Mounties, OPP, Surete, and the various municipal police forces don't get to bust down our doors for ◊◊◊◊◊ and giggles, or carry out routine assassinations for people who speak out against the government.

and when we do not, those who do are our trustees, and may treat us legally as if we are their wards or children of the state.

Sure seems to be a lot of people talking about **** like this lately, especially with the whole occupy movement thing, which we Freemen are using to share our beliefs.

Hope that helps!

PS- Please do not say I do never answer questions anymore ok? Thanks.

Well, you've confirmed that the Freemen have an inability to accept the accepted interpretations of the law, and are willing to rely on rhetoric rather than attempt actual social change.

 

[FreemanMenard]

You have not answered the question. All you have done is repeated your unsupported and long-debunked claims for the umpteenth time. This was the question:

In what way is the birth bond relevant to the constitutionality of a provision in an Act of Parliament?
My case has absolutely nothing to do with any financial instruments.

You have claimed this:


Here are 3948 chances for you to find some support for this claim.

http://canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&searchPage=eliisa%2FmainPageSearch.vm&text=%22security+of+the+person%22&id=&startDate=&endDate=&legislation=legislation&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals

In each and every one of those cases, you will find that "Security of the Person" does not mean what you say it does.

Do you agree that there is no support whatsoever for your interpretation in any reported case? If so, then why do you sell the lie that your interpretation is correct?

You asked, I answered to the bast of my ability, and you attack me cause you do not like the answer.

Pretty sure that in none of those cases, was the idea rejected outright. Additionaly, the "Security of the Person', can mean more than one thing, can it not?

Do you agree that the term 'security' can mean a financial instrument or not? Do you agree that the term 'security of the person' when used in the Charter does not mean 'safety'?

I cannot agree that there is no support for my theories in any of those reported cases, as I have not read them. Do you expect me to read all of them? I do not agree there is no support for my beliefs at all however, as I have had independent verification from accountants who used to work for the government.

Answer this: Who owns the resources of the country, if not the people?

Incidentally, how am I selling my opinion merely by sharing it? And why does it concern you so much even if I do?