The Freeman Movement and England

[tsig]

Um your question is unclear and ambiguous.
Do you mean 'All your peace officers will have cameras and badges" or do you mean "All your peace officers will ONLY have cameras and badges.'?

I meant what I asked without your obfuscations.

Do you always answer a question with a question.

 

[dafydd]

LMAO! Cult leader! Why thank you.

You are showing things that are a year and a half old, which was a suggested or proposed course of action which we decide to not follow, though something very similar to that has developed.

And no Asky, try as you might to deceive and divide, it is not bestowed by me, it is claimed by those who become Freemen. I guess that is the part you are trying to hide by raising the Cult Leader Boogie Man eh?
LMAO!

PS You do have more tricks up your sleeves then these lame ass attempts to disparage don't you? Nothing more recent? And hey, regardless of if it was a good idea or not, (I thought it was), it did in fact develop into a society with thousands of people in it... All willfully consenting to membership and choosing to deny duty or obligation the governments you bow to. Hmmm...

And we grow daily... and exponentially...

So you can't give us any examples of freeloaders triumphing over the system.What a surprise.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I would like to accept your challenge, but I do not feel you folks are honourable nor can you be trusted, as you hide your identity, act immaturely, and those are the signs of one not to be trusted.

However I do have remedy and know how we can do it.

You put money in escrow with a lawyer in Victoria BC. His name is Duhaime. He is widely respected, a very good lawyer, a caring man, and a clearly impartial party to our wager. There should be no reason for you to reject him as a suitable ref and money holder. Nor should you expect any trust when you are all strangers on the net.

I will have to travel from North Vancouver to Victoria through four or five different police jurisdictions, and on a ferry operated by the provincial government to collect it.

I will do so in my auto, unregistered, without license or insurance, or government issued plates, clearly marked as such as well. It will say Freeman all over it! It will be unmistakeable.

I will inform the police of my course and date of travel and give them all plenty of time to stop me. I will not go poke them, nor ram them with my vehicle, nor go look for them. I will clearly inform them of my intent and time of departure, and they will have ample opportunity to bring battle. If they do not, they have forfeited, and I win the wager and collect the money held in escrow.

If they choose to stop me, then the battle is on, and I will prove they acted unlawfully in a proper court dejure.

I will take pictures along the way and when I get to Victoria I will establish to Duhaimes satisfaction that I completed the challenge by showing up with a witness to testify as to the route, the vehicle without government issued plates, and my smiling face.

I am willing to bet that I can do so and either avoid a legal battle entirely or win it fully should they wish to try and bring it. I will however act in a manner that I decide is prudent and respectful. I define my course and path and the steps I take.

Imagine I am claiming I can walk through a den of lions and not be attacked. That is the bet. Then you say, “Well do so banging this drum, poking them with a stick and wearing a raw roast around your neck!”

That won’t happen. I have told you what I will do, and the parameters of the actions.

There is nothing deceitful in the offer nor do I have some trick up my sleeves like having it on the back of a truck or something silly. Me in my auto, on the road, traveling to Victoria to pick up your money. I will bring a witness, film it, and lay a foundation which you can witness before I do so.

Gonna put up the $10K in escrow now or not? You do not have to identify yourself to me, but you will have to Duhaime, but he will not tell me who you are either, as he will have confidentiality duty with you. So you have nothing to fear except losing your money, and being shown to be the fools you are.

So let me know if you silly people want to test my mettle and play my game for a while. Put up or shut up, as it were....

PS-Travel through at least four police jurisdictions and contract with BC Ferries required for me to win! If you are all so certain, you should jump on this limited time offer!

 

[FreemanMenard]

So you can't give us any examples of freeloaders triumphing over the system.What a surprise.

Ah! You hurt my feewings wif your freeloaders comment...

It was so very clever too! Who needs proper discussion when you have such witty one liners?

 

[FreemanMenard]

"A change in the collective does not happen until the change happens in the individual. The individuals make up the collective. This is why we are here. We are looking at the collective insanity and seeing how it works, and that is the first step in liberation." Eckhart Tolle

Hmmm......

 

[tsig]

Thank you. I stand corrected. But my position was confirmed right? You are saying that right? I may have got the name of the document wrong, and I thank you for correcting me, but it does say what I said it did, and my point clearly made, and since you had opportunity to dispute it, when you kindly corrected me, you have agreed with the original position.

Why you would not just admit that fact with your correction of my mistake makes me wonder if you were trying to gloss over the fact that my point was well made. Maybe you over looked it, being in such a rush to find fault and judge another...

You were wrong and that makes you right?

 

[FreemanMenard]

I was wrong about the name of the document. Not the contents or the implications of them. So no, I am not right BECAUSE I was wrong. I was wrong, AND I was right. But about TWO different things.
Can't you do ANY better? Sheesh...

Its like I am trying to play chess and you insist on checkers. And you want to eat them.... Seriously can't you even try?

 

[jsfisher]

...a clearly impartial party to our wager...

Wager, eh? So you'd be placing a matching $10,000 in escrow, right?

 

[tsig]

I was wrong about the name of the document. Not the contents or the implications of them. So no, I am not right BECAUSE I was wrong. I was wrong, AND I was right. But about TWO different things.
Can't you do ANY better? Sheesh...

Its like I am trying to play chess and you insist on checkers. And you want to eat them.... Seriously can't you even try?

Just can't help contradicting yourself I see.

I don't have to argue with you, just quote you and watch you argue with yourself.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Wager, eh? So you'd be placing a matching $10,000 in escrow, right?

Nope cause then that would not be a fair wager would it? I am risking a lot more then any of you. I identify myself you do not, so my real life reputation is on the line.

I am according to you risking arrest and violence, jail, and potential harm maybe leading to DEATH.

I am risking my property being seized unlawfully, and if they decide to bring action, I will have to engage and expend a whole lot of energy to fight them in court. All of this is worth far more then $10K, and is sufficient to cover my end of the wager.

Have you never seen a poker game where someone puts up something of value? Are you saying I am not risking anything? Or is this your way of avoiding thew challenge and folding without having the maturity to do it with grace?

So you will not be putting up anything, is what you are saying right? You fold, is what you are saying right? Okay, good bye. You do not want to man up and ante up.

Anyone else want to fold as I go all in?

 

[FreemanMenard]

I was wrong, AND I was right. But about TWO different things.

Wow how you can just ignore one sentence that clearly follows another and take it all out of context is astounding! Yes my friend, I was wrong and I was right. I have been right in the past, and I have been wrong in the past, and often at the same time.

I remember a time where it was right to date this particular woman, but wrong to take her to the restaurant I did. I was wrong AND I was right. WOW.. How does that work? Here is the tricky part. Watch while I show you the trick:

IT WAS TWO SEPARATE YET RELATED THINGS!

Isn't that just too tricky? Wow eh? Imagine that! You do not have to be right about all things, and being wrong about one does not mean you are wrong about all of things! And it works both ways! Wow... how does such magic work you wonder? It is called L O G I C.

But that is okay, you focus on avoiding the truth of the matter, and continue to try to bring nonsensical (and quite embarrassing for you) displays of logic to bear, and see how that works for you.

Here is what you are trying to avoid: Either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution acknowledges that all men are created equal and that this concept is so obvious that no sane or reasonable man could argue it.

So do you all wish to now argue it?

 

[TjW]

Wow how you can just ignore one sentence that clearly follows another and take it all out of context is astounding! Yes my friend, I was wrong and I was right. I have been right in the past, and I have been wrong in the past, and often at the same time.

I remember a time where it was right to date this particular woman, but wrong to take her to the restaurant I did. I was wrong AND I was right. WOW.. How does that work? Here is the tricky part. Watch while I show you the trick:

IT WAS TWO SEPARATE YET RELATED THINGS!

Isn't that just too tricky? Wow eh? Imagine that! You do not have to be right about all things, and being wrong about one does not mean you are wrong about all of things! And it works both ways! Wow... how does such magic work you wonder? It is called L O G I C.

But that is okay, you focus on avoiding the truth of the matter, and continue to try to bring nonsensical (and quite embarrassing for you) displays of logic to bear, and see how that works for you.

Here is what you are trying to avoid: Either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution acknowledges that all men are created equal and that this concept is so obvious that no sane or reasonable man could argue it.

So do you all wish to now argue it?

Sure. You were wrong about two separate things. The document and its relevance. Had you been right about it being in the US constitution, then it might have had some relevance.
Since nothing in the Declaration of Independence, beautiful rhetoric that it is, has the force of law, it isn't relevant.

 

[FreemanMenard]

So the Declaration of Independence has no historical significance or force in law. Okay.....


Here enjoy this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"[2] and "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[3] The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy,[4] and promoted the idea that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.


Hmmm.... so this is what is used to interpret the Constitution, which you claim does have force. Hmmm....

Hey isn't Independence Day the day this was adopted By your Congress? Hmmm... no force of law you say.... Is that not a legal holiday?

Are you claiming that we are not all equal before the law or not? Cause I do. What do you say. No dancing around or avoidance. Are we or are we not equal before the law. That is the starting point. You can seek argument all you want, or focus on trivialities, or what have you, but this question is the key you all wish to avoid. ARE WE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW OR NOT?

Here is another question. Did the people who made and published the Declaration of Independence from the political power of the day have the right to do so? Or not? And if so, what makes you think we do not have the same right?


We will get back to that though. I want to see if any of you have the guts to ante up like you said you would.

 

[jsfisher]

Nope cause then that would not be a fair wager would it? I am risking a lot more then any of you. I identify myself you do not, so my real life reputation is on the line.

So, when you use a word like "wager", it means something different than what we'd find in a dictionary of the English language. I see. Are there other words you used that might be important here that have special, known only to Menard meanings?

What you are describing is more like a dare. It has an extra twist, though, since you are trying to goad us into daring you to do something. You want us to dare you into this Northern Vancouver to Victoria traversal.

Why would we do that? How would you make it worth our time? Oh, I know, how about since you are so confident you can pull this off, you make it a real wager? You know you are going to win the wager, right?, so it's not like you'd be putting anything at risk.

I am according to you risking arrest and violence, jail, and potential harm maybe leading to DEATH.

Perhaps, but that is not of any benefit to me. I've faced short odds in the past, but 0-to-1, as you are proposing, would be a first.

I am risking my property being seized unlawfully, and if they decide to bring action, I will have to engage and expend a whole lot of energy to fight them in court. All of this is worth far more then $10K, and is sufficient to cover my end of the wager.

Again, this is not a payoff to me if you fail.

Have you never seen a poker game where someone puts up something of value? Are you saying I am not risking anything? Or is this your way of avoiding thew challenge and folding without having the maturity to do it with grace?

You are asking me to pay you $10,000 if you succeed, and you pay me $0 if you don't. So, from my point of view, you are risking nothing. Continuing your poker analogy, would you play poker with someone who insisted he kept any of his winnings from you, but anything you won went in the shredder, not your pocket?

So you will not be putting up anything, is what you are saying right? You fold, is what you are saying right? Okay, good bye. You do not want to man up and ante up.

Interesting straw man you erected there, but I see you are the one refusing to ante.

Get back to us when you actually believe in your own teachings.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Sure. You were wrong about two separate things. The document and its relevance. Had you been right about it being in the US constitution, then it might have had some relevance.
Since nothing in the Declaration of Independence, beautiful rhetoric that it is, has the force of law, it isn't relevant.

I take it from your post you have seen my acceptance of the challenge folks here extended, and now by ignoring it, you are folding and do not wish to honour the challenge. Of course you may not have been involved in the original challenge, but since you all act like a swarm, I thought you would accept. Regardless, you can't claim you haven't seen it, nor can you claim you are willing to put anything up.

We do agree on that right?

So we agree you fold.

Okay bye!

 

[FreemanMenard]

wa·ger (wjr)
n.
1.
a. An agreement under which each bettor pledges a certain amount to the other depending on the outcome of an unsettled matter.
b. A matter bet on; a gamble.
2. Something staked on an uncertain outcome; a bet. See Synonyms at bet.
3. Archaic A pledge of personal combat to resolve an issue or case.
v. wa·gered, wa·ger·ing, wa·gers
v.tr.
To risk or stake (an amount or a possession) on an uncertain outcome; bet.
v.intr.
To make a bet.

Nope, standard dictionary agrees with me. You can put up 'money' which is somehting of value, and I can put up 'property' or 'other things of value' and get this... IT IS STILL A WAGER! WOW EH/

I love teaching you guys these simple things...

Also, wagers do not have to be of equal amount on each side. Have you never heard of 'odds'? Do you know why they exist?

 

[TSR]

Nope, standard dictionary agrees with me. You can put up 'money' which is somehting of value, and I can put up 'property' or 'other things of value' and get this... IT IS STILL A WAGER!

.
And what of value to *me* or anyone here is it that you will be putting up?
.

 

[drkitten]

So the Declaration of Independence has no historical significance or force in law.

No, it has historical significance. But no force in law.

This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"[2] and "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[3]

Neither of which give the DoI force of law. "To be or not to be, that is the question" is also one of the best-known sentences in the English language, but has no force in law.

The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive.

.... which doesn't give the DoI any force in law.

This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy,[4] and promoted the idea that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

But "should be" doesn't mean "is"; since Lincoln never served on the Supreme Court -- in fact, was never a Federal judge at all -- he was never involved with "interpreting" the United States Constitution at all.

Hmmm.... so this is what is used to interpret the Constitution, which you claim does have force.

No, this is what one particular figure believed should be used to interpret the Constitution, a suggestion that was not generally adopte.

Hey isn't Independence Day the day this was adopted By your Congress? Hmmm... no force of law you say.... Is that not a legal holiday?

But the adoption of Independence Day does not establish the text of the Declaration of Independence as having any sort of force of law.

Are you claiming that we are not all equal before the law or not?

We are, but that's due to the Constitution (and specifically to the 14th Amendment) -- prior to the 14th Amendment, we most definitely were NOT equal before the law, as the Dred Scott decision showed.

So if the best that you can state about the legal force of the Declaration of Independence is that it prefigured a later Constitutional amendment,.... well, then it's not especially surprising that you can't name a single court case that has actually been decided in your favor.

 

[drkitten]

So, when you use a word like "wager", it means something different than what we'd find in a dictionary of the English language. I see. Are there other words you used that might be important here that have special, known only to Menard meanings?

I submit that you shouldn't be surprised. Why should "wager" be the one unique word in the English language that a Freeman on the Land theorist understands and uses correctly?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Again, this is not a payoff to me if you fail.

If that is the case, then it is not a harm to you if I succeed. So why would you care about the Freeman perspective at all? You disagree with it. Are there not a whole bunch of perspectives you disagree with? Do you concern yourself with every perspective or opinion with which you disagree?

I think it is sad you need to have a personal payoff to have these things settled. Personally, I do not do what I do for myself, and intend to act regardless of whether fools here are silly enough to honour the challenge they have stupidly extended. I doubt they will for it is they who hide in the shadows, hide their names, and play their games. And when they are called on it, they resort to name calling and avoidance.

Just watch, just like you, they will now make excuses as to why there is now a NEW need for them to profit from me accepting their challenge... Bear in mind that was not the original challenge. But they will seek to change it, and claim that because I am not putting up $10K, they will not either. Even though the original offer was them and them alone putting up the money. It was a challenge and I WAGER they will not honour their own words and their own challenge.