FreemanMenard

Call it what you want. To make a long story short: you will refuse to pay taxes. Now, do not get me wrong. Trust me, I believe you are in the right and I will not fault you for refusing to pay taxes. However, your "business plan" is unoriginal. I am sure there are many people who do the same. My suspicion is that their success is a function of how private their highly original plans are kept. I have one question for you: Why the fanfare? While I am at it. This: is a peculiar statement. Do you know something about how police officers operate that we do not know? I certainly am interested to see how FreemanMenard's venture works out. I hope that he will keep us posted. As to the other comment, I only wish that I could tell all of you everything that I have learned / observed about police officer's behaviour in the course of my job. Unfortunately, much of my knowledge is privileged or is otherwise not able to be released due to ongoing matters. I can enlighten you about one particular story where my 19 year old client, born in Afghanistan, lived here since infancy, no criminal record, found himself in the middle of a road-rage induced brawl. He was charged with a multitude of very serious indictable offences including assault causing bodily harm for using his car to run down one of the white combatants. There was no evidence of these crimes mind you, other than the fact that my client's car was indeed at the scene. In fact, eyewitnesses described a completely different set of facts from what the complainants had told the police...but the poor kid was charged anyway. The Crown would later stay the charges after I implored him to actually listen to the audiotape of the interrogation that my client was subjected to. Among other things, the officers screamed at my client that they had a flight waiting to take f--king terrorists back to Guantanamo and that he was going to be on it if he didn't confess to what he had done. They told him that because of him his mom and dad and grandmother (all Canadian citizens) were going to be deported back to Afghanistan, and that they had already spoken to immigration officials in this regard (complete lie). And on it went. Thankfully, my guy managed to maintain his composure and not make a confession. Oh, and plus, the complainants later recanted their bullshit stories and fled the jurisdiction...so actually, my guy was innocent. I also know of a case that the police fabricated a 911 call in order to gain entry to a home that they suspected of being a drug house. It was a drug house, I'll be fair about that, but one officer actually took the lie so far as to describe on the witness stand, under oath how he passed EMS staff leaving as they walked up to the front door. The problem...EMS has some pretty damn good records of where their people are and what they are doing at all times. You can make up a 911 call, but you can't make paramedics who clearly were never there appear out of thin air. Crown stayed these charges literally immediately before the lying officer was going to be forced to explain why there were no EMS personnel ever dispatched to that location, and why he placed his service revolver to the head of the accused's dog and threatened to kill it if he didn't admit that the drugs in the house were his. I've posted on other threads that I will still call the police if I need help, and I accept that most officers are honest and just trying their best to do a very difficult and thankless job. That being said, the number of situations like the above that I keep seeing are on the rise, and it causes me to get pretty critical about police threat / intimidation tactics. That's a small sample of what was behind my comment. FTA Wow that's horrible! Especially the first story. My sister the lawyer (who now works for Immigration Canada) would freak if she heard about it. Recently I have had two cases come my way concerning the same type thing. Doing what I do I knew that I would be facing armed men wishing to impose their masters will. I gave it much thought and finally realized that the situation was made threatening and dangerous not only by their actions but by my inaction. What could I do to remove from them their belief that they had either the right or need to initiate violence when making an arrest? I decided to create and serve a Notarized Promise of Peace and Goodwill. It is attached to a Fee Schedule. If facing arrest I don't resist and accept their orders under protest and duress and upon that fee schedule. This POP was served upon the SG and Chief of Police. It is my belief that it does in fact remove from them the color of right to use violence when arresting me. Whether this happens as a function of law or merely human nature I don't know, but I found an immediate difference in the way they would act when dealing with me. The next time I faced arrest (On a BS un-endorsed warrant. They kept trying to intimidate me and I kept refusing to let them. This was about four years ago when I first started on this path. Now they don't) they officer merely touched me gently and told me I was under arrest. I said under protest and duress and on my fee schedule I peacefully accept. He said 'Noted' and did so in his little book, showing me his notation. We then waited very civilly drinking coffee until the paddy wagon showed up and then he placed the cuffs on me as lightly as possible. Since then we have spoken numerous times and we act with respect towards each other. I consider peace officers who are capable of and willing to distinguish between statutes and law, persons and people, legal and lawful to be my best friends. When they can see that the right to use violence in the fulfillment of their mandate does not necessarily generate the need to do so, there may be hope. I have seen a nice change in the VPD and although it may be only me who sees it, maybe everyone would if they too promised peace. Now I live in North Vancouver and the RCMP's here all seem cool and many are hotties. My buddy thinks it's because they mainly issue tickets and people are less likely to get aggressive with a woman who looks like a model. Now whenever I have to deal with a peace officer I immediately offer them God's Peace. If they refuse that offer they will have some 'splainin' to do. It really seems to put them in check. They are so used to dealing with anger and rebelliousness that it is almost a slap in their face and they don't know how to take it. Plus no body seems to want me in court. It's weird. The last encounter I had a West Vancouver Police Officer thought he had the right to enforce statutes against me. After he ran my name through his computer he told me "Mr.Menard the West Vancouver Police Department would deeply appreciate it if you would refrain from drinking alcohol in public. Thank you have a good night." Minutes previously he was talking about confiscating it and issuing a violation ticket. Your second story I think highlights why so many people are growing so distrustful of the justice system. (Many refer to it disparagingly as the Just-Us System) Do you think the Crown knew the officer was lying and stayed only when he saw the jig was up? Or did he stay the charges as soon as he realized the officer was lying? And if so is the officer facing charges? Assuming there is a growing trend to manufacture evidence and lie outright under oath, as you and many others say, how would you suggest we address it? History tells us that is the kind of thing that is far easier to nip in the bud. As for my 'venture', I would likely call it more of an adventure as I am off to Calgary this weekend to meet potential investors and maybe put on a little seminar. Peace, eh? Rob

Does Menard think selling exclusively to his committee of rubes will prevent him from getting charged with bootlegging? Go ahead :Menard, see what you get! is a peculiar statement. Do you know something about how police officers operate that we do not know? FTA is a criminal defence lawyer, so I'll bet Yes. Man I don't want to be drawn into this... But.... I do know something about how they operate and because of that I will share with you what I think I know. Please understand I could very well be wrong. However, I have tested my theories and they seem to hold water. Police Officers wear two hats. One is the hat of "Peace Officer" and their duty is to keep the peace and to do so lawfully. The other is the hat of Law Enforcement Officer and before they can ever accept that role, they must fisrt see ID issued by the people in the government. Issued as a result of you applying. (Apply means to beg) You can argue with me, shoot spit balls or otherwise reject. If you want the truth, you will call these people, and very simply ASK THEM. Now I close off... but I do intend to extend an honorable offer in the next few days to FTA Lawyer. I will do so by sending a private email, as there are too many children on this site who do frustrate me and add NOTHING to this discussion. (Nice spit balls) Rob You know where to find me. So do the cops. I am not fearful of either of you. I would very much appreciate a lawful and binding discussion however. Peace eh?

I suspect Rob is waiting for an answer to his question, if he's still even watching this thread, and just became frustrated by your tactics. By ball do you mean our delusion of being of being free, not above law but sanguine alongside it? The statutes are yours if you want them. Enjoy! "Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty" You're either willing to go along with ever increasing restraints on your liberty or you're not. I see many deceptive practices where you don't. I see advantages to political/spiritual separation from the state where you see benefits to sticking with the system. Now what? Were you looking to be fulfilled by a happy ending? Nope, just was a weird way for 12 pages of discourse to end that's all. I don't buy into what you are preaching, but by all means pursue it to your collective hearts' content. I'm not looking to stop you. FTA Hi I'm back and will end my discussion here with these words. My outburst was a result of my growing frustration with my fellow man and although I am aware of and speak about the importance of compassion, I never claimed to be a perfect example of it and if my words lacked compassion I humbly apologize. This discussion will not solve anything, as it has no legal weight and creates no agreement or binding contract. It is in fact a big waste of my time and creates only frustration. (Not so much with you FTA, but your cheering section. I don't mind them cheering you, but shooting spitballs is rude) So this is what I am doing. I found an investor for my concept which I am calling Shepherd's Haven. I will be opening a little cafe and therein I will sell beer, wine and pot to those who have secured Freeman status. I will operate in British Columbia but not in The Province of British Columbia. I will operate in Vancouver City but NOT in the Corporation of the City of Vancouver. Because I won't be operating in the Corporation their bylaws will not be applicable to me. Because I will not be operating in the Province of British Columbia their statutes will not be applicable to me. Since I will be operating as a Freeman-on-the-Land statutes such as the Income Tax Act and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act will not be applicable to me. And you will see that what you have been led to believe by the government is a lie. If they don't come and try to bust me you will have a chance to see the truth. Of course some will still refuse to see. That's why the entire process is going to be turned into a movie. And I will be operating under a claim of right and fee schedule and will be fully prepared to bring legal action against anyone that interferes with my lawful actions. If the so called authorities do not come down on me will you then accep[t that I am acting lawfully and that statutes are not laws and persons are not people? In any event, I wish you all well and if I am wrong it will soon be apparent. If I am right, that to will be apparent. If you would like to verify these words call the Licensing official for The Corporation of the City of Vancouver and ask him about me. He is a very nice man named Paul Teichrob. Ask him if he has any intent of trying to stop me from acting in Vancouver City but not in TCOTCOV. Ask him if anyone in his organization wishes to claim my path is unlawful. Have a good one my children. Let your Nanny state take care of all your needs and desires. Don't bother even trying to learn the words that they use to restrict you. But don't cry to me when they are putting you to bed early and making you do your homework. I am now an adult and will not be nannied by service providers. You could also call the VPD and ask them what their response would be. Their answer will surprise you.

I asked a question and you are all avoiding it. It is a good question and worthy of an answer. How can you know what you receive is a 'benefit' if you have no idea what you traded for it? I await a reply to that question. Anything else will be seen as dishonorable avoidance. Just answer the question.... Bye Why does a benefit have to be traded for something? If my mom walks over and hands me an ice cream cone and keeps walking, what have I traded? Nothing. Have I benefited? I'd say so. I like ice cream. People who say there are no stupid questions haven't hung around Maple Leaf Web lately. FTA You did not answer the question; you asked a different one in the hopes people will NOT see you are incapable of answering the first. Answer the question. How do you know you received a benefit (resulting from a transaction) ( I modified for your BENEFIT) if you do not know what you traded for it? Your reference to a gift is disingenuous at least and fraudulent at worst. You realize you are comparing the government to a parental figure do you not? That is my point. There comes a point in time where the parent has no authority. What if YOU are the parent, the one who gave the ice cream (I like it too) is merely a NANNY and the one who recived the cone is the owner of the shop? You are a mere employee who can be fired and you are acting like you are the owner. You are not. We are. And we can fire you. Thanks for the ice cream. It was mine to begin with. Get out. So, FTA lawyer... wanna really play? Care to post publicly your contact information and invite me to bring actiuon to bear? Happy to do so. I have posted my information and invite you to act against me any time, if you are willing and capable of establishing I engage in unlawful activities. Saying NO to de facto governments is not unlawful. Up your name. Identify yourself. Show yourself and accept liability for your actions. Or are you a COWARD???? I am Robert-Arthur: Menard. Anyone wants a say in this discussion of true people they will have no problem identifying themselves. Those who choose not to identify themselves are hiding in the shadows and should be laughed at and then ignored. What is your name FTA LAWYER? If you can't share that, everything else you shared is SHIT. We should accept your opinion when you have not even sharted your name? Is that like believing I am a member of a nameless group? Identify yourself publicly or accept you are a punk. Put your dick on the table or admit you either don't have one or can't reach the table. It's one or the other. You know my name. Why do we not know yours? Is it because you are scared to identify yourself because you know you are a deceiver? Those who serve TRUTH are not scared to speak their name. I spoke mine, now speak yours or be seen as a liar, deceiver and manipulator who is in fact bound by our future and coming courts. Whats your name? Will you answer the question or carry on with the standard deceptive lying and dishonorable tactics we are all growing so tired of? One simple question, which instead of answering you will attempt to avoid, likely by calling into question my intelligence or knowledge of your specific area of study. What you won't do is answer the question. That is what lawyers are trained to do: Deflect questions which would erode their power. I bet you will not answer but will once again try to deflect. The question is still on the table. Moms and ice cream have nothing to do with it. Nice try. You refer to an ice cream from your mother and call that a benefit. I would call it a gift as you have not established there was any transaction. Wait I see what you are doing! Gifts are good things, benefits are good things, therefore all benefits are gifts and all gifts are benefits! We should just look at everything the government gives us and takes away from us as a gift! And as you are a member of the governing group, we should be deeply appreciative to you, and serve you, cause you are like our mom, and we are all ignorant kids who can't tell when we are being served and when we are being FUCKED. We should just assume you have our best interest at heart, even though you are purposely deceiving us and have your dick buried deep in our ass. Yes you are serving me and all others and we owe you for this. Please ignore our screams and us yelling NO! We don't know any better. Keep fucking us. We like it. Hey as a defense lawyer you can use this next time you defend a rapist! He is only acting how the government and the various law societies act! Must be legal, right? NOT! I am not a rapist; I am a de facto lover. I am not a criminal; I am a de facto government official. I say both should be imprisoned. How about I put my de facto boot right up your butt? I see now what you do. Are you sure you are a lawyer, cause you suck at this. Benefits and gifts are both good things, but just because they are both good things does not mean that one is the other. If a benefit is a result of a transaction and I do not know what I gave up how can I call that which I received a 'benefit'? Use your sophistry if you wish to avoid this issue, or answer the question with honour. How can anyone know that what they receive BY WAY OF LAWFUL TRANSACTION is a benefit if they do not know what they traded for it? One simple question. There really is only one answer and whether or not you can provide that answer will determine your level of honor and honesty. Will you answer or once again avoid? Just answer the question. How do I know what you provide for me is a benefit if it is not a gift and I don't know what it cost me? HOW??????????? Answer or accept default ok?

I asked a question and you are all avoiding it. It is a good question and worthy of an answer. How can you know what you receive is a 'benefit' if you have no idea what you traded for it? I await a reply to that question. Anything else will be seen as dishonorable avoidance. Just answer the question.... Bye

Thank you Freeman Wikipedia..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto Sarcasm is the last refuge of a defeated wit. I will type in the definition from Black's later as I do not have it handy. I will also show you the definition of 'person' if you care. So how do you know something is a benefit if you don't know what you gave up for it? Care to answer that very simple question? There really is only ONE truthful reply... We can engage in honest and peaceful and meaningful debate, or you can fling sarcastic quips like a child. If you think your sarcasm and lack of response to honest questions is making you look cool, or intelligent, you should think again. And if this is how people treat each other in your 'civil society' you can see why sooooo many are soooo willing to say NO to it. Did you bother looking up and doing your own due diligence? I Bet you did not.

I thought you had a copy of Black's: de facto = actual; existing in fact; having effect even though not formally or legally recognized de jure = existing by right or according to law Unfortunately, you don't understand the terms...and I'm not trying to be condescending. De facto doesn't mean lawful or unlawful as your ultimatum suggests...it just means in factual existence. Something can be de facto and lawful or de facto and unlawful. The state of lawfulness has no bearing on whether something exists in fact. De jure means lawful...and if something is lawful, it is so whether or not it is the de facto state of affairs. As far as your "vested interest" comment, it doesn't hold water. If your theories were sound and statutes that proscribe criminal offences using the word "person" instead of "everyone" could be ignored, then I'd have a vested interest in adopting your theory (because I could use it to get countless clients out of criminal trouble). Believe me, I'm really trying to see your side of things here...I mean that sincerely. But every time I see you and your colleagues refer to the Charter or the Criminal Code as a source of authority for the concept of a Freeman, I just can't buy that. As much of this banter is now becoming very tiresome, I am going to leave you with a suggestion that a quote from your last post has actually completely blown you out of the non-incorporated body (in the non-personem meaning) of H2O that you have been swimming in: You can't. It's your belief system, so you have no-one to blame but yourself. By your philosophy you as a human being free on the land cannot impose power over anyone...and even if you could, you certainly could not seize it...that requires conflict and violence, two things you very expressly say you never use. Anyway, look, we will simply continue to disagree as to the actual merits of your position. I understand what you are trying to assert, but I've yet to see it done without resort to the very statutes you profess to undermine. If you can show me the path then I'm prepared to acknowledge it...I just haven't seen it yet. I have no desire to turn in my birth certificate and abandon my participation in government...but I won't deny you the opportunity to try to do it for yourself. But, at the same time, don't assert that the reason I don't become a Freeman is because I am part of the "Big Secret" or am a diaper-wearing fool...maybe, just maybe, after having heard you out and considered your arguments, I choose the status quo. FTA A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do act in their stead. de facto leader of a country or region is one who has assumed authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or legitimate means; very frequently the term is reserved for those whose power is thought by some faction to be held by unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate means, often by deposing a previous leader or undermining the rule of a current one. De facto leaders need not hold a constitutional office, and may exercise power in an informal manner. contrast with de jure: De jure is also translated as "by law" and de facto is also translated as "in practice". Pirates take over the ship. Are they the 'Captain'? Technically yes. Lawfully? NO. We have de facto courts and de facto governments. From my perspective that means they are not there lawfully. Would you care to address the words spoken by the Chief Justice I alluded to earlier? She stated adjudicators require the consent of both parties to the adjudication. Do you agree with that position or not? Seizing something does not require conflict. Remember, they are de facto. I am not planning on taking that they can have it. Our goal is to create an actual Society of Canadian Freemen and start our own far less deceptive government. You can have your de facto government, we will have a proper one. (See I am not against government per se, I am against de facto ones hijacking our system and then pretending they are real. Additionally when did I say or imply that I intended to 'impose power' on others? I believe in using agreements not imposition. See? With that you are actually projecting your own mindset. You seem to think that one party has to impose their will over another in order to develop an proper and lawful de jure government. I once looked at an employee hand book applicable to Walmart employees and used that to control and correct an employee. Does that mean I too must be a Walmart employee? I look to statutes recognizing they bind government agents and I use them to bind them. If I go to a zoo and see a tiger in a cage and I acknowledge the cage, would you claim the right to put me in it? "Hey look at the tiger in its cage." "You mentioned the cage, you must be in it with the tiger!" Your logic does not hold water. You point to a body of words, claim it gives you or others authority over me. Then if I pick up those words to prove to you they are not mine, you claim that by so doing I have accepted your claims. That is the deceptive and sophistic mindset that is causing so many to agree with me. If I was merely completely wrong, and people were happy with the system the lawyers have inflicted upon them, nobody would pay me any attention. As it is thousands across Canada are asking questions that no one in the government wishes to answer and it is this continued arrogant silence that is eroding your de facto legal system. So as a defence lawyer, have you ever heard of the defense called 'colour of right'? If so, would you agree that an uncontested claim properly served and resulting in a default judgment properly signed by someone acting as a judicial officer would generate said defense? So in closing, I thank you for your time and kind reply, I appreciate we have differences of opinions and I apologize if my words were disrespectful. I don't think you are wearing diapers, merely attached to the idea of limited liability and not full responsibility. You are welcome to choose the status quo. Just don't try imposing it on us, when you and members of your named society are the only ones benefiting from these things you call 'laws'. I look at it like an egg. An egg is a good thing at first as it protects a developing embryo from outside influences and allows it to develop to a point. Then however that same structure which once was so comfortable and safe now becomes that chicks greatest threat and either it busts out of that egg or it dies. The legal system you are a part of is the egg. Many of us are now rejecting it, not because we don't appreciate all you did, but now you are a hindrance to our growth and soon will be seen as obsolete. Those who want to stay behind can do so. They can accept the status quo. Recognize also, I am not pointing to a body of words and saying "Those are your Law!" I am pointing to a body of words and saying "Those are not my Law and if they be yours then let them bind you only!" You however are pointing to a body of words I did not author or agree with and are trying to claim they are my law. It is you imposing upon me by pointing to those words as MY law. If I examine a contract to prove that I am not a party to it, am I a party to it merely for examining that contract? That's what your argument seems to suggest. Have a good one! Rob

Racist guns suck. I believe things are changing. Would you like to learn how to seize 160 Acres of unsurveyed crown land? There are of course limits to what you can then therein do, but if you are using it for as you say to grow your own food and a roof I see no problem there.

You said: "because you don't have a choice" I don't see the words removing my moral choice to refuse to obey de facto, I just see that some people have abandoned their morals and created a situation where they can't be convicted for doing so. You think I am going to allow people like that to 'rule' or 'govern' me you are so sadly mistaken. Of course you probably think neither I nor anyone else has a choice about living under your society and their rules eh? By your society and their rules I am referring to whatever Law Society you happen to be a member of. I think this is where we differ greatly. I think we ALWAYS have choice, many lawyers and government agents want us to believe otherwise. I think only a member of the de facto power would support that claim. As a defense lawyer you ever heard of the defense of compelled by faith? What happens when millions are saying no to your present de facto government for those reasons? What happens when we decide to seize the de jure sovereign power? You need to study history a little. A couple hundred years ago there were many arrogant people in power who looked upon the little people with disdain. They had created a bunch of laws that benefited themselves over their fellow man and claimed those same people could not understand those words. A lot of those people who thought they had power woke up one morning wondering where their head was at. What does de-facto mean again? I do know but want to make sure we are in agreement. Which word most closely describes de facto? Would it be 'lawful' or 'unlawful'. Pick ONE only. If it is the second one please do not tell me I have no choice, ok? You must listen to the government say the lawyers. Wait a minute, the government is composed of whom mostly? Why all lawyers! You must listen to the de facto government says the de facto government! Let me ask you this FTA, have you ever made any money by defending others against charges brought under statute? Because if so it would be easy to see that you have a vested interest in maintaining the deception. Now to Figleaf: When you report me to the Office of Your Mom, are you going to identify yourself as 'Figleaf' or do you have a name? If as members of a society we agree to give up certain rights and freedoms in exchange for societal benefits, how do we know what we receive are in fact benefits if we don't know what rights and freedoms were traded? Would you buy a car, never know what you paid for it then go around claiming "I got a great deal!"? Have a great day everyone! Rob

Hi Geoffrey. It is possible it is not a clear case of salvage but may be a 'potentially' fraudulent use of registration. Historically, registration meant signing over a ship and all chattel contents for safe keeping to the harbour master, the agreement being said ship and chattel contents would be returned in the same condition upon payment of docking and maintenance fees. Chattel contents included anything that could be subject to contracts. Includes slaves, the condemned, prisoners, those in debt, livestock, tangible fungible items, commercial and other Instruments of Law, and just about anything else a ship could carry, bring to port and put on the dock. I can no longer confidentially claim they are using salvage rights as they may be accomplishing the same thing using merely registration. I do not believe they kidnapped her. I think honestly they were over worked and due to that could not give us services due. I think they did their best to serve and the term 'kidnap' is very harsh and one that likely would not apply, as I don't think there was any criminal intent on their part at all. They too were doing their best. Honestly I think the people involved cared very deeply and I would agree Elizabeth is being cared for now by people who love her as much as I and are likely better suited for raising her. I think it has all unfolded rather nicely and if my anger and frustration from years ago echoes now on the Internet I ask you see I now sing a different tune. If that is not a fair reply please let me know. Thanks! Rob

So I did a quick review of my records and can find NO evidence of contract between myself and the people or organization you mention. Do you think I am supposed to be scared of them or that they have power over me or they have some right to control my actions? Have you not even tried to listen to my argument? They exist within a statutory framework. I do not. Neither they nor their words govern me. Tell them all you want. Big deal. What can they do? Nothing and the reason is no jurisdiction. What makes you think those strangers have any control or say over my life or actions? I really am curious. Please tell. Now you are resorting to the defense of "I'M TELLING MOM!" Hee Hee You are funny.

SWEET! Thank you sooo much for that link! I don't suppose you have more contact information so as I can serve notice and make claim on the head official do you? That would be greatly appreciated. Hey!! You want to race see who can get a letter to him first? Mine will be notarized. Thanks Eh? Seriously thanks...

{emphasis supplied}Can you believe this shit? Now get a load of this!... No you attack me by claiming I have mercenary motives. And yet you have yet to address the arguments or defend your position. (Don't listen to him! Look what he does over there!) You are getting your ass kicked and reaching for straws. And you are actually supporting my position by doing so. You are the one who brought this information to the attention of this board not I. How can you claim I am using this forum to engage in commerce or that I am scamming? Care to elaborate? I have certain beliefs. I have written books about those beliefs. I present seminars concerning said concepts and beliefs to those who wish to attend. I also do sell packages online and have done so without a profit motive. I inform my fellow man about what I offer, do so honourably, lawfully and honestly. I am not a rich man and I do engage in lawful contracts. My name was used on this forum and unkind things said about me. I responded honorably and in proper defense. I never mentioned my outside activities nor offered for sale anything on this forum. How does any of that make me a commercial scam artist? And incidentally, I sell many packages at cost. I can't absorb the cost of shipping so I seek donations. Here's a question for you: You speak of being a member of a civil society. As a member of society you agree to give up certain human rights and freedoms otherwise enjoyable in exchange for certain so called benefits. If you don't know what those rights and freedoms you are giving up are, how do you really know what you are receiving are in fact benefits? Would you buy a car and not knowing what you paid for it tell your friend you got a great deal? If this was a discussion on say gardening, and I owned a garden shop with a web site, would I be labeled as a commercial scam artist or spammer for being a part of the discussion, even though I never brought to the attention of the board my outside activities? Thats like saying you can't be involved in a discussion on chess if you own a store that sells chess sets. This is the 'civil society' which was spoken of earlier? Have a good one! Rob

Okay, with one qualification. You have used the word 'lawful'. I don't think your nonsense is 'unlawful' in the sense that the law will try to stop your silly behavior. So instead of lawful, you have to prove that your claims about the law are true. In that you wear either on your head? I've read the letter you posted now ( http://www.thinkfree.ca/images//skelton%20lette.pdf ). I must tell you, there is not a hint in that letter that MP Skelton recognizes your claims as valid. Rather, the letter says she recognizes that you have written -- something -- to her. Her letter makes no reference to the meaning of your letter and simply recites sections of it back to you without comment. It is sad and sorry that you're so convinced about this stuff to the point you can publicly make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself. You have a profoundly wrong grasp of legal principles, methods, and content. Maybe you are some kind of con man and you already know this, or maybe you're an honest guy diligently working for what you believe in, but Brother, believe me, you have no hope of such badly conceived ideas ever going anywhere. Don't waste your time -- find something else to put your considerable energies on. Found a foodbank, or rescue greyhounds or something worthwhile. Hi Figleaf! I appreciate your response and trust my delay in replying is not seen by you as dishonorable on my part. Without judging, I like your spirit; you argue and present your position with logic and humour and a certain gentleness and concern for my well being which I am in fact appreciative of, and I thank you. Your quip about my underwear made me laugh right out loud, and I think that it is a good thing when two parties can express divergent opinions and elicit laughter in the other. That idea gives me hope. I thank you for honouring my underwear. I will now do my best to respond to you with as much honour and good spirit as you have brought and if I fail, I ask in advance you forgive me. You will please note I am not claiming that an exchange of ideas with you is 'playing silly buggers'. Furthermore you will note I have posted full contact information and I do not hide. Not saying you do, but my dick is on the table. First of all, I will not label your position and beliefs as nonsense even after I fully and completely examined them. The most I will do is simply inform you I can't accept your position as my own, but if you be comfortable there, I will not denigrate you, ok? I would ask the same. Nor will I denigrate you for your sentence structure or grammar as I can see you are doing your best to share your perspective and I am fully aware how incredibly contentious my beliefs are and how well I can present them. I know the truth maliciously wielded can harm as much as any lie, and I have no desire to harm any one. You have asked me to distinguish between 'lawful' and 'true'. Wow.. Honestly that is a very good question. I thank you for asking it. Thinking... I know there are things which 'appear' lawful yet are not true, they are legal, and they are even defined as fictions at law. I know there are things not true, yet serve the purpose of making it easier to care for our fellow man and address the fundamental failures of pure common law. That is a very good question and if we were playing a friendly game of chess you would have me scratching my chin. Ok so here is what I think. Lawful is this: I have been asked to define 'law' with one word before and the best answer I found was 'remedy'. Law fixes. It was then pointed out to me true Law never harms (it simply can't) and I was asked to think on that. This is what I saw. I looked very deeply into my own heart and I saw very clearly I have a duty of compassion to my fellow man. I saw the fundamental need for love and the way truth joined those two. I saw how I am (was) pretty much a failure at all those things and I felt like a child who was crawling on a path others dance upon. I saw how I have just as much right to accept and follow that path and that even though I crawl, at least I found the path and those who truly dance there will not hate me for that. They will actually help me. I think we are all one, regardless of skin tone, religion, political beliefs, or any other characteristic which instead of being celebrated for diversity was used to divide us. I think we are all part of one thing and when you boil it down, even man made geographical boundaries are meaningless. Look at a tree. All different parts, merely sharing because as parts they all care about the whole unit and just share what they have to give. The whole unit benefits and those parts that give the best receive the greatest returns. I have looked in the Acts and have deconstructed many of them. By this I mean a whole lot. This involves doing word searches. Know what words you never find in any Act? You will NOT find LOVE. You may find compassion, as I think I found it once. (I am not sure that was in a POBC Statute.) I never found truth without it being linked to a personal opinion. So how can anyone even define 'true' without it being very closely linked to personal opinion? What is completely true for me, may be nonsense to you. Bear in mind, respectfully, that's a double edged sword. Lawful I would say is far easier. That which I can do without harming another, damaging their property or using fraud or mischief in my contracts that is all lawful. Some of that I accept may not be true or right, when one embraces the concept that we are all one and all part of the same Tree of Humanity. It says you can't be convicted for obeying. It doesn't say you can't be convicted for disobeying. This I think is where the crux of the argument would boil down to. I agree it doesn't say explicitly you can't be convicted for disobeying. Nor does it say explicitly you can be. Therefore there is doubt and where there is doubt there must be freedom unless you wish to bind with uncertainties. You are pointing to what it does not say and so will I. Hope you don't mind. You opened the door. It does not say you can be convicted for disobeying and if they wish to convict you for something they really have to say so first, right? But in this case they didn't. Thank you for opening that door. I like playing with you. The parts of the Criminal Code that refer to anyone I am willing to accept as binding law. I have no desire to harm, damage or defraud. Acts that refer to a 'person' must require my consent. In any event, as for me being a 'silly bugger' I would ask you see that any functioning society or community requires discussion and deliberation, and that us engaging in such a process is healthy and helpful, while labeling said procedure as anything less is in fact quite counter productive. I hope you can parse that sentence. Peace eh? Rob Edited to add: I failed to address the main point you raised. If you look at the letter you will see she used the words 'noted'. In law this counts a very great deal. She also acknowledged claims of rights. She also described that to which she was NOT disagreeing. She is acknowledging and declining contest. Three words for you: Color of Right. Two more: Amazing defense. Thing is you seem to think you need their permission before acting but the law really does not work like that. You need to serve notice and make claim OR ask permission before acting. But you and many others have been so conditioned to think the only way to move forward is to seek the permission of others. Who are these others? I see pirates. I see deception and ignorance. A hundred years ago real men served notices, made claims and acted with honor. They would never even think of 'applying'. Peace out respond to the others later. Rob

Actually it was a belly laugh....And if you wish to know the name of the society you live in I suggest you take a trip to your local library (first leaving sufficiant funds to cover your costs) then examine an up to date atlas and read, again, leaving sufficiant funds to cover the costs of whatever state funded edjimacashun you may have received....once you have found the atlas, fund where you live. The state name are in caps. Now where do I send the bill? Canadian Cancer Society Law Society of British Columbia The Society of Notary Publics of British Columbia The Canadian Bar Association The Society of Electrical Engineers Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Do you notice a common theme yet? No let me continue. The Law Society of Upper Canada The Royal Society of Canada The Hume Society Parkinson Society Canada The Canadian Society for Civil Engineering The John Howard Society of Canada Look for the one word common throughout. Legal things have legal names and when it comes to societies they almost always use that word in their name. Even if one exists, could you please show me the function of law that would allow for you to demand I be a member of and thus subject to the rules of any society? It requires mutual consent and a common goal. It has nothing to do with being born within a certain geographical area. I don't consent with you or share with you any common goals as you have not even stated any. Well, I have done as you asked, just cause I am a genuinely nice guy. I found I live in a geographical area commonly referred to as British Columbia. I am aware however that geographical areas do not have legal powers, nor do they have standing at law. There is another thing called The Province of British Columbia which is not an area but is a legal entity with certain powers within the borders of the geographical area. That legal entity is providing de-facto government to those who consent and has NO POWER over those who choose to not consent. Their ability to provide government to the inhabitants of the area is limited by law in the fact that they require consent prior to providing governance and simply peacefully existing within an area does not grant consent to be governed. Neither British Columbia nor The Province of British Columbia are by definition societies, although I may be convinced that the latter is one, provided the characteristics of a society are proven. One of those characteristics however would have to be that membership must be fully and completely voluntary with no coercion, duress or deception involved and that people could cancel memberships at anytime. Incidentally, your method of attacking me instead of my position is rather lame I feel and I wonder if you would not do better by addressing the arguments rationally and respectfully instead of passing personal judgments and attacks merely because you do not immediately see my position as rational or just. In any event, I wish you all well! It's a beauty day here and I am going to get some sun!