Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
I love how you do part quotes to avoid the context.

So to you, 'Every individual has the right to the protection of the individual' makes sense?

Yes or no please....:D
Click to expand...

It makes a lot more sense than your stupid bond story that you nicked off the American sovereigns from years ago.
 
Last edited:
solzhenitsyn said:
In fact, it is not "us" that says that. It is the Supreme Court of Canada. Are you familiar with that institution?



It is irrelevant if it makes no sense to you. It makes sense to the Supreme Court of Canada. Their opinion is very important. Your opinion is not important at all. Indeed, it is of absolutely zero legal significance.
Click to expand...

You mean the institution headed by Beverly MacLaughlin who publicly stated that since Canada is a common law jurisdiction, and equality is paramount and mandatory, that no one could provide adjudication services without the consent of both parties to the adjudication? Is that the one you mean?

Like you said their opinion is very important. And she said it and heads it.
Deal with it.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I love how you do part quotes to avoid the context.

So to you, 'Every individual has the right to the protection of the individual' makes sense?

Yes or no please....:D
Click to expand...

I am not the person to whom you directed the question, but, yes, that statement makes sense to me, even after your equivocation and spin.

You have the right to the security (meaning, as I said above, protection and integrity) of your person (which encompasses your physical body as well as your personality and, presumably, your soul if you believe in such things). However, that right is limited by the following words of the section: "and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

In other words, you are entitled to protect yourself and not be deprived of that protection except in accordance with certain principles, which are the subject of many, many court cases and which I will not even attempt to set out here.

You are not entitled to a "birth bond" or any such financial instrument, unless you have validly purchased one and not sold, surrendered, or otherwise forfeited it.
 
FreemanMenard said:
You mean the institution headed by Beverly MacLaughlin who publicly stated that since Canada is a common law jurisdiction, and equality is paramount and mandatory, that no one could provide adjudication services without the consent of both parties to the adjudication? Is that the one you mean?

Like you said their opinion is very important. And she said it and heads it.
Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the one I mean. And trust me, I have to deal with the SCC's opinion on things every single day.

Anyway, please refer me to the SCC decision where this is stated so that we can see what the issue and context was.
 
FreemanMenard said:
You mean the institution headed by Beverly MacLaughlin who publicly stated that since Canada is a common law jurisdiction, and equality is paramount and mandatory, that no one could provide adjudication services without the consent of both parties to the adjudication? Is that the one you mean?
Click to expand...

Cite?

FreemanMenard said:
Like you said their opinion is very important. And she said it and heads it.
Deal with it.
Click to expand...

So you agree that the SCC's opinion is important and relevant (indeed, it governs the interpretation of statutes and words in statutes)? Then why do you persist in your wilful blindness about things like the meaning of the word "security" in the Charter?

ETA: Oh, and it's McLachlin.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Then can you explain it please? Thanks!
Click to expand...

Happily.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that the right to life, liberty and security of the person "would appear to relate to one's physical or mental integrity and one's control over these...''
Click to expand...

. . . security of the person is not restricted to physical integrity; rather, it encompasses protection against "overlong subjection to the vexations and vicissitudes of a pending criminal accusation" . . . These include stigmatization of the accused, loss of privacy, stress and anxiety resulting from a multitude of factors, including possible disruption of family, social life and work, legal costs, uncertainty as to the outcome and sanction.
Click to expand...
 
solzhenitsyn said:
Yes, that is the one I mean. And trust me, I have to deal with the SCC's opinion on things every single day.

Anyway, please refer me to the SCC decision where this is stated so that we can see what the issue and context was.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I seem to be missing something. When exactly did I state it was a SCC decision? I don't recall. CAn you help me with that too please? Thanks!:D
 
FreemanMenard said:
You mean the institution headed by Beverly MacLaughlin.....
Click to expand...

Beverly is awesome, especially when she said;
Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thank you for playing guys! Keeping it alive.....
Click to expand...

I'm confused. What are we keeping alive?
Did Rob not get the memo explaining that any thought of FOTL-Waffle being anything other than a con died in the '80s ?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Really? 4000 posts, 101 pages, and STILL none of you can claim the right to govern your fellow man without consent. YOU have to point to an imaginary fiction.

THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE WILL SEE.
Click to expand...
Anyone can "claim" anything they like -- doesn't mean it has any basis in reality, let alone any legal standing.

You are correct about one thing, this (thread) is what people will see should they decide to research your claims. And they will quickly discover your lies and misdirections.
 
Stacey Grove said:
LOL
How many times has it been pointed out to you in this thread that none of us made that claim?
It is only you who says we have made that claim, even after your mistake has been pointed out to you umpteen times, and still you continue to do so.
Hilarious.
Click to expand...

I never said anyone here made that claim. You are right you are hilarious.
I said no man can do so.
You then say 'the government' can. ( a fiction composed of people)

Do you claim the government can? Do you ignore or reject it is composed of people?
 
Pantaz said:
Anyone can "claim" anything they like -- doesn't mean it has any basis in reality, let alone any legal standing.

You are correct about one thing, this (thread) is what people will see should they decide to research your claims. And they will quickly discover your lies and misdirections.
Click to expand...

No what they will see is you calling them lies to hide your inability to support your basic beliefs.
 
Let us know how your latest A4V scheme plays out. Do you have any revenue projections for sales of this one? I don't suppose that you can go back to the well too many times. Your usual customer base must be a little disenchanted by now. Once bitten, etc.

Do you suppose that this thread will drum up some new business? I think you over-estimate the prominence of this obscure forum. Thanks, though.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I never said anyone here made that claim. You are right you are hilarious.
I said no man can do so.
You then say 'the government' can. ( a fiction composed of people)

Do you claim the government can? Do you ignore or reject it is composed of people?
Click to expand...

Yes, the government can. It is composed of people. People with guns. Like these guys:

100_4056.JPG


Are they a "legal fiction"?

:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom