Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Horatius]

I was elected by the members of The World Electorate Society to govern you.

Fair enough.

Now prove it.


Stephen Harper can.

 

[Jon.]

Shall and may are in the Interpretation Act. Must is not. Wonder why that is?

Because, to anyone with more than a fourth-grade education, its meaning is clear.

 

[Jon.]

For some reason it really sounds like having your cake and eating it too.

Clearly, you understand FOTL philosophy quite well.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Whu... bu... what? "Must" is an imperative. By its very definition, it creates an obligation; in this case, an obligation that is a prerequisite to a certain action (using or operating a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway).



Of course I have a choice to not attend your party, just like anyone who doesn't like the Motor Vehicle Act has the choice to not use or operate a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway. However, if choose to I attend your party, then I am obliged to enter through the front door; similarly, if you choose to use or operate a motor vehicle on a highway, you are obliged to take the steps I quoted from the Act.

I can't believe I have to explain this to someone who claims to be an adult.



Actually, if you look at case law, "shall" is a less clear term than "must," although it's pretty clear now (I think it's in the Interpretation Act) that, in statutes at least, it's an imperative term.

Anyway, as Stacey Grove asked, how is "must" deceptive, and how would "shall" or "is obliged" be any clearer?

Did they use the word 'shall' or 'must'? Clearly if they wanted an unequivocal obligation, they would have used the word which is defined in the Interpretation Act as an imperative. They would have said 'shall'. Did they or not? If not, then they did not define the action as an imperative UNEQUIVOCALLY.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Because, to anyone with more than a fourth-grade education, its meaning is clear.

I see. but the words 'shall' and 'may', those require clarification for those with legal degrees?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Clearly, you understand FOTL philosophy quite well.

How would YOU know, when clearly, you do not?

 

[Jon.]

I see. but the words 'shall' and 'may', those require clarification for those with legal degrees?

Someone obviously thought so. Personally (speaking as someone with a law degree), I agree that "shall" required interpretation (it could be imperative, it could be a prediction about the future); however, I never thought it was really necessary to define "may."

 

[Mojo]

We would not have to convince a jury of that, the other side would have to prove the common law right to travel no longer exists in Canada.

The right to travel is not the same thing as a right to drive.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Because, to anyone with more than a fourth-grade education, its meaning is clear.

So to you, if I say "You must come to my party through the front door" you interpret that as an obligation to attend, right? Since you have a 4th grade education...

 

[Moss]

Someone obviously thought so. Personally (speaking as someone with a law degree), I agree that "shall" required interpretation (it could be imperative, it could be a prediction about the future); however, I never thought it was really necessary to define "may."

It's rather interesting that he tries to interpret the ambiguous term that needed interpretation as the clearer and only relevant term when there is an unambiguous term.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The right to travel is not the same thing as a right to drive.

Thats right, cause travel does not involve commerce, but driving is a commercial activity and is using the public roads for private profit. Traveling is not. Thanks for understanding.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Shall and may are in the Interpretation Act. Must is not. Wonder why that is?

I've dimmed the lights and turned the TV off. I truly can not believe the sheer idiocy of today's Menardisms. It is beyond belief that anyone who brags of having a higher than average I.Q. can publically display such an ignorance of the English Language and such a worryingly paranoid attitude to words.

 

[BritPunk]

"Insanity"

Mr Renard, you have accused me , in the public domain, of suffering from "insanity", a term which has very specific meanings and consequences in law. As someone with thousands of hours studying law, I am sure you are aware of the consequences of this.
Please withdraw this statement and cease and desist from repeating it forthwith.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

Hey want to see a really incredible trick? Ask him how he came up with that definition. Bring popcorn.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Thats right, cause travel does not involve commerce, but driving is a commercial activity and is using the public roads for private profit. Traveling is not. Thanks for understanding.

Centuries-old American Legal Dictionaries have little relevance in 2012, never mind the 1980's when the scam you fell for was dreamed up.

You live in Canada. It is 2012. Grow up.

 

[Bishop]

Fair enough.

Now prove it.


Stephen Harper can.

While I agree with you, I don't think that discussing political philosophy is the best way to debunk freeman claims about the requirement of consent. The reason that Menard can't force any of us to pay him is because he does not have the ability to physically enforce it. If he did, then it wouldn't matter if we consented or not.

 

[Moss]

Thats right, cause travel does not involve commerce, but driving is a commercial activity and is using the public roads for private profit. Traveling is not. Thanks for understanding.

The relevant issue is your actual ability to drive and the subsequent safety of the other travelers on said public roads. Prove that your commercial interests have influence on that. (Protip: it is a commonly held belief that the bodily safety of persons trumps profit. And I don't consent to excuses from you.)

 

[Jon.]

So to you, if I say "You must come to my party through the front door" you interpret that as an obligation to attend, right? Since you have a 4th grade education...

Did you actually read my earlier posts?

Hmmm....

Repeating your mantra does not make it true.

Now, who said that?

Of course I have a choice to not attend your party... However, if choose to I attend your party, then I am obliged to enter through the front door...

"You must come to my party through the front door" = "If you wish to come to my party, you must enter through the front door."

... the imperative is not absolute, but is contingent upon choosing to have a particular state of affairs exist or continue to exist.

Ironically, by putting a comma between "party" and "through," you have actually made the imperative created by "must" absolute, not contingent. But then, as virtually every one of your theories has indicated, grammar and the parsing of sentences is not your strong suit.

 

[Mojo]

The other merely describes a choice which if taken, then obligates you. i.e. "You must come to my party, through the front door."

As I have mentioned before, this sort of despotism is a typical result of the sort of society you advocate.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Fair enough.

Now prove it.


Stephen Harper can.

Now you are learning Grasshopper! That is exactly what a Freeman says to government agents who wish to claim authority to govern without consent. And since they can never do it, they are left wide eyed and frustrated.

There may be hope for you yet!