Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[D'rok]

It must be remembered that Menard's as well as our own attempts at statutory interpretation are irrelevant. It is the court's interpretation that is important.

Quite right. Here's a trial court decision denying the power of Notaries to advise and assist on probating wills:
http://canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1998/1998canlii3215/1998canlii3215.html

Here's the appeal upholding the decision:
http://canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2001/2001bcca383/2001bcca383.html

Oops. I guess they aren't all-powerful after all.

 

[Horatius]

I discussed this claim about notaries in the thread about FoTLs in England. It's pretty much still relevant:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5967354#post5967354

The link you posted to has nothing to do with an Affidavit of a Notary Public. They did not attest my signature, they put their own.

You should read Section 18 of the Notary Act. Says they have the power to fulfill any duty under any Act.

Which Notary Act would that be?


Are you referring here to the document linked in this post?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9668427/TO-BE-A-FREEMAN

Check that out Asky...
I trust the Minister of Finance choosing to not dispute is sufficient?

That Notary seems to be from Saskatchewan. In looking about a bit, I found this pdf:

The
Notaries Public
Act​

being
Chapter N-8 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978 (effective
February 26, 1979) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan,
1979-80, c.32 and 96; 1983, c.11; 1984-85-86, c.33; 1986-87-88,
c.50; 1989-90, c.54; and 1990-91, c.L-10.1.

http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/N8.pdf

..which doesn't even have 18 sections. It does, however, have a section 3, which lists the powers of a Notary Public:

Powers
3 Every notary public shall during pleasure have, use and exercise the power of drawing, passing, keeping and issuing all deeds and contracts, charter-parties and other mercantile documents in Saskatchewan, and also of attesting all commercial instruments that may be brought before him for public protestation and otherwise acting as usual in the office of notary, and may demand, receive and have all the rights, profits and emoluments rightfully appertaining and belonging to the calling of notary public.

...which unsurprisingly doesn't agree with what you've posted above.


The Government also has a website that discusses the powers of a Notary Public:

The Notaries Public Act authorizes notaries public to:

* prepare certain commercial documents;
* administer oaths;
* take or receive affidavits, declarations and affirmations; and
* perform all other tasks historically associated with notaries public.

http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/Notaries-Public-Act


So, that particular document does nothing for you, as the person who notarized it does not have the power under the Act that you claim they do.



Now, BC does have a section 18, that lists:


(ETA: Link

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96334_01 )

18 A member enrolled and in good standing may do the following:

(a) draw instruments relating to property which are intended, permitted or required to be registered, recorded or filed in a registry or other public office, contracts, charter parties and other mercantile instruments in British Columbia;

(b) draw and supervise the execution of wills

(i) by which the testator directs the testator's estate to be distributed immediately on death,

(ii) that provide that if the beneficiaries named in the will predecease the testator, there is a gift over to alternative beneficiaries vesting immediately on the death of the testator, or

(iii) that provide for the assets of the deceased to vest in the beneficiary or beneficiaries as members of a class not later than the date when the beneficiary or beneficiaries or the youngest of the class attains majority;

(c) attest or protest all commercial or other instruments brought before the member for attestation or public protestation;

(d) draw affidavits, affirmations or statutory declarations that may or are required to be administered, sworn, affirmed or made by the law of British Columbia, another province of Canada, Canada or another country;

(e) administer oaths;

(e.1) act as a consultant under sections 9 (2) (a) (ii), 12 (1) (c), 26 (1) (c) (ii) and 29 (1.1) (b) of the Representation Agreement Act if the member qualifies as a member of a class of persons prescribed under section 42 (2) (a) of that Act;

(f) perform the duties authorized by an Act.

I'll assume that last bolded bit is the piece you misquoted as "Says they have the power to fulfill any duty under any Act", which is of course quite a different kettle of fish. The line that actually appears in the Act pertains to other actions that Notaries are specifically authorized to do by other Acts. It's not a blanket permission to "fulfill any duty under any Act".

There's a nice little website people can go to to search BC laws (unsurprisingly, called http://www.bclaws.ca/ ). There, we find things like:


Real Estate Development Marketing Act

Assurance of title

11 (1) A developer must not market a development unit unless the developer has made adequate arrangements to ensure that a purchaser of the development unit will have assurance of title or of the other interest for which the purchaser has contracted.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), a developer has made adequate arrangements to ensure that a purchaser of a development unit will have assurance of title or of the other interest for which the purchaser has contracted if

(a) arrangements have been made for title to the development unit to be held in trust by a lawyer, notary public or another person, or class of persons, specified by the superintendent until title or the other interest for which the purchaser has contracted is assured,

....which authorizes a notary public to hold things in trust for real estate developers.



and the Land Surveyors Act

(2) This Act does not affect or interfere with the right of

...

(b) a notary public to provide notary services under the authority of the Notaries Act,

...which further defines their powers.


Of course, this highlights exactly how stupid FreemanMenard thinks his marks are, in that he knows the ones paying his bills won't even do this trivial amount of fact checking. Sad thing is, he's probably right about that.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Now that we are at the point where it is merely a matter of opinion and interpretation, and mine is defendable, do you Sol, still claim I purposely lied? And if not are you big enough to apologize or not?

Your opinion and interpretation is not defendable. It is totally inconsistent with the principles of statutory interpretation, totally inconsistent with the purpose and intent of The Notaries Act, totally inconsistent with all decisions of the BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal considering that Act, and totally inconsistent with reality. In short, it is one of the most absurd things that I have ever read.

That being said, I do apologize because it is possible to draw more than one conclusion from your absurd statement. In my opinion, it is possible that you either (a) purposely lied by stating something which you knew or ought to have know was completely untrue; or (b) you are suffering from some sort of mental disease (i.e., you have lost your mind.) So, yes, if you are suffering from a mental disease, I sincerely apologize and hope that you get the help that you need.

EDIT: On second thought, perhaps I'm being unfair. I think you should be entitled to an opportunity to correct your statement if it was just an honest mistake. So I do sincerely apologize for stating that you lied and I now invite you, after considering the absurd consequences of your interpretation if accepted by the courts, and reading the materials provided by D'Rok and Horatius, to admit that you made an honest mistake and then we can move on.

Of course, if you refuse to do that, then I must stand by my earlier conclusion that you were either purposely lying or you suffer from some sort of mental disease.

 

[Bosozoku]

But then the duties expressed in the first parts would not be found in any Act at all, so your logic is faulty.

While that may be true for some of the things listed in the Notaries Act (such as administering oaths), I disagree that that is the case for others. The duties included in the Notaries Act include assisting in the execution of wills, attesting commercial instruments, and the like. In Canada, there are separate statutes which detail the formalities required to execute a will or commercial instrument. Why, if the Notary already has the power to perform any duty in any act would the legislature feel the need to specifically reference these particular duties in the Notaries Act?

I also have to question why the legislature would include such a broad grant of authority at the end of the statute. Don't you think if they intended to give notaries should a broad grant of power (again, to perform any duty in any act) that they would have included this at the beginning of the statute (if not in the Constitution)?

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Here's another fun consequence of Rob's "interpretation." In s. 1 of the Legal Profession Act "practice of law" includes the things which notaries public are authorized to do under s. 18 of the Notaries Act. Also, by s. 31 of the Legal Profession Act, lawyers are also notaries public:

(1)A member of the society is entitled to use the style and title of "Notary Public in and for the Province of British Columbia", and has and may exercise all the powers, rights, duties and privileges at any time pertaining to the office of notary public.

So Rob, do you still believe that all Notary Publics and all members of the Law Society are authorized to perform ANY duty granted to ANY person in ANY Act? Or do you admit that you made a mistake?

I've admitted my mistake, and again, I invite you to admit yours.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

- Security of the Person means a financial instrument that the government secretly holds based on your value as a slave

- All of the above is legal - i.e., it is the way the law really is.

Obvious ******** which you sell to vulnerable people, harming them in every case.

Provide some evidence.

Stumbled on this little nugget:

The government’s response to Robert Menard’s 96 fix & accepted for value (a4v)
by MITCH on MAY 13, 2010


A month or two ago I posted the article Can you pay your bills with your birth certificate?

In that post I talked about a friend who has gone through all of the proper steps to pay his bills using his birth certificate. He sent copies of appropriate Notices to the Receiver General, the Bank of Canada, Canada Revenue Agency, and Minister of Finance.

He has since forwarded me two of the responses that he received. Yes, he did receive a response from all 4 agencies. He said the other two were short and sent via email. My friend gave me permission to copy the letters to my blog as long as I remove any personally information which I have done.

The letters are attached to the bottom of this post. You will notice a lot of legal wording in these letters. The one from the Minister of Revenue talks a lot about income tax, even though the notices sent to him mentioned nothing about income tax at all. If you haven’t already read those notices they are included in the article about paying your bills with your birth certificate.

If there are any experienced freemen on the land out there reading this it would be great to get your response to the government’s response to Robert Arthur: Menard’s 96 fix, also known as ‘accepted for value’.
—

Response from the Minister of National Revenue

Dear Mr. Name Removed For Privacy,

I am writing in response to your correspondence received on March 19 and 22, 2010, concerning your income tax affairs.

It seems you have received misleading information with repect to Canaed’s tax laws. The federal government has the legal authority to levy and collect taxes. This authority and the constitutionality of Canada’s tax system have been confirmed by ever major court decision that has dealt with these issues. The courts have confirmed the legality of the Income Tax Act under the Constitution Act, which includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Moreover, section 248 of the Income Tax Act provides a definition of “person” or any word or expression descriptive of a person. Various individuals and groups, however, refer to concepts such as “natural person,” “corporation sole,” “animator,” and “free-man-on-the-land,” terms whose meanings are not clear and that do not affect a person’s oblications under the Act.

Under Canada’s income tax system, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) does not control or censor the advice that Canadians exchange concerning income tax matters. While taxpayers are entitled to their own opinions, they are, nonetheless, responsible for their obligations under legislation passed by Parliament and enforced by the court system.

The CRA’s concern is that taxpayers who follow misleading information and accept incorrect advice could expose themselves to serious financial and legal problems, including reassessments, penalties, and interest charges, because of their failure to comply with the law. It is especially unfortunate that some taxpayers may have paid considerable fees for such misinformation. Some of the misleading information distributed by certain groups and individuals about income tax and the duties of the CRA is addressed on the CRA Web site at www.cra.gc.ca/myths.

The documents you included with your correspondence have no legal force or effect. The CRA cannot assist you in paying your personal financial obligations. I sugest that you contact your creditors directly if you are unable to meet your obligations and wish to discuss payment.

I trust that this information will be helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Keith Ashfield

—

Response from Director General of the Bank of Canada

Dear Mr. Name Removed For Privacy,

We are writing in response to your letter, post-stamped February 24th 2010, addressed to the Receiver General for Canada. Given the nature of your request, we have been asked to respond to your letter and take appropriate action, if required.

After a review of the content of your correspondence, we wish to inform you that the items included is not a negotiable instrument recognized by the Financial Administration Act, nor is it a payment issued by the Receiver General and therefore we cannot accept it for payment.

As we are unable to respond directly to your demand, the papers included with your correspondence are being returned to you.

Yours sincerely,

Murielle Boucher
Director General
Banking and Cash Management Sector

SOURCE: http://forum.worldfreemansociety.or...144be71c4e8c1484f048fe2cbb1b3&start=20#p93035

 

[Mojo]

This gets better and better. Notaries get to be Mayor of Vancouver, and Director of Finance, and City Clerk, and City Treasurer, and Auditor

Notaries really are all-powerful!

They have some interesting duties under the B.C. Bee Act as well.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Here's another fun consequence of Rob's "interpretation." In s. 1 of the Legal Profession Act "practice of law" includes the things which notaries public are authorized to do under s. 18 of the Notaries Act. Also, by s. 31 of the Legal Profession Act, lawyers are also notaries public:



So Rob, do you still believe that all Notary Publics and all members of the Law Society are authorized to perform ANY duty granted to ANY person in ANY Act? Or do you admit that you made a mistake?

I've admitted my mistake, and again, I invite you to admit yours.

so you want to bring that one out eh?
Read the section Titled Application of Act.
Tell me do you see ANYTHING in there stating clearly and specifically that it is applicable to the public?
Anything at all that does not rely upon assumption?
Now bear in mind, the one group clearly excluded, is LAWYERS but ONLY when acting as a JJP.
But some JJP's are not lawyers, but drawn from members of the public. Why are they not mentioned also?
The only reason is that it is not generally applicable to the public, and thus there is no need to mention JJP's drawn from the public.
If ONLY JJP's drawn from the law society are exvcluded, and those from the public are not, what is the result? Some JJP's bound and some not, right?
And that destroys any claim of impartiality.

Keep trying sol.

 

[FreemanMenard]

They have some interesting duties under the B.C. Bee Act as well.

Yeap that's right. If all the judges died for some reason, a Notary can still fulfill their function.

Got a problem with a Plan B?

And can you explain why the Notaries agree with my interpretation?

 

[jargon buster]

Flip flop, we are all supposed to forget about Notary Publics now and concentrate on lawyers.

Really rob, your slight of hand is slipping.

 

[jargon buster]

And can you explain why the Notaries agree with my interpretation?

sigh....evidence please.

 

[Mojo]

Yeap that's right. If all the judges died for some reason, a Notary can still fulfill their function.

If they aren't too busy rounding up and destroying diseased bees.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

so you want to bring that one out eh?
Read the section Titled Application of Act.
Tell me do you see ANYTHING in there stating clearly and specifically that it is applicable to the public?
Anything at all that does not rely upon assumption?
Now bear in mind, the one group clearly excluded, is LAWYERS but ONLY when acting as a JJP.
But some JJP's are not lawyers, but drawn from members of the public. Why are they not mentioned also?
The only reason is that it is not generally applicable to the public, and thus there is no need to mention JJP's drawn from the public.
If ONLY JJP's drawn from the law society are exvcluded, and those from the public are not, what is the result? Some JJP's bound and some not, right?
And that destroys any claim of impartiality.

Keep trying sol.

Who are you trying to kid? I'm not one of your marks. I have replied to this "interpretation" of yours already a number of times. I'm happy to dredge up those old posts if you like. Suffice to say that your interpretation is absurd (although admittedly less absurd than your Notaries Act interpretation, so that's good I guess.)

Why don't we return to your Notaries Act interpretation? Do you admit that you were wrong or not?

 

[solzhenitsyn]

If they aren't too busy rounding up and destroying diseased bees.

Or building hospitals.

 

[Bosozoku]

Yeap that's right. If all the judges died for some reason, a Notary can still fulfill their function.

Got a problem with a Plan B?

And can you explain why the Notaries agree with my interpretation?

I'd have to guess that they didn't fully understand your interpretation, or that they were not lawyers. But without discussing it with them, it's difficult to say.

I don't presume to be familiar with the law of British Columbia, but to say that a notary may perform any duty in any Act would be a blatantly unconstitutional statutory provision in any Western country. It would be a plain violation of separation of powers, as it would give judicial officers (notaries) the ability to perform duties duties delegated to other branches. For instance, it is generally the "duty" of the legislature to levy taxes. In your view, may a notary public levy a tax? Under your reading of the statute, it appears they can.

If you think this is possible - if you think that notaries have the power to perform any duty in any act - then why aren't people fighting tooth and nail to become notaries?

 

[D'rok]

They have some interesting duties under the B.C. Bee Act as well.

I like the Duty to Disinfect in s. 20.

I think we all have that duty after contact with Menardian Freemanism.

 

[D'rok]

Stumbled on this little nugget:



SOURCE: http://forum.worldfreemansociety.or...144be71c4e8c1484f048fe2cbb1b3&start=20#p93035

That's a good one. I think this is even better:

 

[jargon buster]

If it does exist (freeman valley) he's keeping it a secret from the guys on his own website and Facebook.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

And can you explain why the Notaries agree with my interpretation?

This is an interesting question. No, I cannot think of any explanation as to why "the Notaries" agree with your interpretation. Therefore, without some evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that "the Notaries" do not agree with you.
Indeed, after two minutes spent browsing the BC Notaries website, I found this list, produced by the Society of BC Notaries, which quite clearly shows that "the Notaries" do not agree with your "interpretation" at all:

What Services Can a BC Notary Provide?


Affidavits for All Documents required at a Public Registry within BC
Authorization of Minor Child Travel
Business Purchase/Sale
Certified True Copies of Documents
Commercial Leases & Assignment of Leases
Contracts and Agreements
Easements and Rights of Way
Estate Planning
Execution/Authentications of International Documents
Health Care Declarations
Insurance Loss Declarations
Letters of Invitation for Foreign Travel
Manufactured Home Transfers
Marine Bills of Sale and? Mortgages
Marine Protestations
Mortgage Refinancing Documentation
Notarizations/Attestations of Signatures
Passport Application Documentation
Personal Property Security Agreements
Powers of Attorney
Proof of Identity for Travel Purposes
Purchaser's Side of Foreclosures
Representation Agreements
Residential and Commercial Real Estate Transfers
?Restrictive Covenants and Builder's Liens
Statutory Declarations ?
Subdivisions and Statutory Building Schemes
Wills Preparation
Wills Searches
Zoning Applications

Some BC Notaries provide these services:
Marriage Licences
Mediation
Real Estate Disclosure Statements

SOURCE: http://www.notaries.bc.ca/resources/showContent.rails?resourceItemId=624

I can't find any mention of sitting as judges in the British Columbia Supreme Court or Court of Appeal (or of serving as Mayor of Vancouver, destroying diseased bees or building hospitals.)

This then leads one to the conclusion that you are either (a) not telling the truth; or (b) suffering from some mental disease.

 

[Bosozoku]

Here are the requirements to become a notary in British Columbia. In contrast to the United States, it looks like there actually are a few hoops you have to jump through to become a notary in BC. However, if it were true that notaries could perform any duty in any Act, why wouldn't every person in BC's dream in life be to graduate from Simon Fraser university and to get a notarial seal? They would presumably have the power to perform any duty granted in any Act (including the power to assess taxes). Rob, does that seem like a reasonable interpretation of the statute to you?