Jump to content

Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception


LesActive

Recommended Posts

Rob Menard is a Freeman and has put together a couple of videos of his seminars. Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception (#1 on the googlevideo.ca top 10) is an hour and forty minute introduction to the notion of our individual sovereignty, how we've signed it away and how to claim it back, and The Magnificent Deception, a continuation on the philosophy, law, love, the truth of our predicament and the remedy available to all who want it.

Whatever your beliefs on the subjects of statism, liberty, peace and money, you will find this interesting. I'm about to rescind all of my gov't issued ID. Wanna know why someone would do that....enjoy

Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception

Magnificent Deception

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rob Menard is a Freeman and has put together a couple of videos of his seminars.

Quel est un Freeman? C'est que je ne pense pas qu'il réclame il est?

J'ai regarde le premier cinq minutes. Cet homme est absolument insense, les enfants comme la securite sur les gouvernement prets?

J'espere que est un croquis de comedie.

Votre identifiant est francais, je suppose que vous le parlez. Si non, je demande pardon.

Je suis curieux que Charles Anthony pense a ce Freeman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, the name's not french, it's an english pun. Too bad you couldn't get past 5 minutes, you may have learned something had you spent more time. You may find that he is a little annoying in his character but he knows what he's talking about.

The gov't stole his daughter, he wanted to find out how they could do such a thing when it's a maxim of law that no man has authority over another without his consent. He found out how he unwittingly gave his consent away and how he could claim back his sovereignty. When I met him I thought he was a little out there myself. The concept is very strange at first, being conditioned to accept everything the gov't tells us as being in our best interests. Try watching it again, this time with an ear to listening to the words he's employing and not his physical antics. You may come away with a different attitude.

I've no idea whether Charles Anthony considers himself a Freeman or not. I can assume from his posts here that he would probably be a voluntaryist/libertarian. Great! He'd love this video. We need more people taking responsibility for themselves.

cheers, Les

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually let the rest of it run while I was checking my e-mail and stuff last night. I've got to say that this guy is absolutely insane, and I know his type. It's funny that he's never actually got much of this to work yet, like the student loans concept.

Apparently I don't have to register my car because the motor vehicle act doesn't have to apply to ALL cars, just people that willingly submit their cars to the act. I'd like to see how well that goes over.

And if I write my MP saying I don't accept their representation, no new laws apply to me.

That's why I was asking what CA would think... how such a person could exist within a statist system.

Eventually, I think this will all catch up to him and he'll pay the price for his actions. They always get you on tax evasion, isn't that the case. But apparently, watching this, I don't have to pay taxes because the Income Tax Act is overly confusing to the general population (I may have trouble with that argument being an accountant).

The government doesn't actually float a bond for every registered baby.

Uneducated angry people make for the funniest attacks on statism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, the name's not french, it's an english pun. Too bad you couldn't get past 5 minutes, you may have learned something had you spent more time. He is a little annoying in his character but he knows what he's talking about.

The gov't stole his daughter, he wanted to find out how they could do such a thing when it's a maxim of law that no man has authority over another without his consent. He found out how he unwittingly gave his consent away and how he could claim back his sovereignty. When I met him I thought he was a little out there myself. The concept is very strange at first, being conditioned to accept everything the gov't tells us as being in our best interests. Try watching it again, this time with an ear to listening to the words he's employing and not his physical antics. You may come away with a different attitude.

I've no idea whether Charles Anthony considers himself a Freeman or not. I can assume from his posts here that he would probably be a voluntaryist/libertarian. Great! He'd love this video. We need more people taking responsibility for themselves.

cheers, Les

The Fremen were the downfall of the Spice Empire.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually let the rest of it run while I was checking my e-mail and stuff last night. I've got to say that this guy is absolutely insane, and I know his type. It's funny that he's never actually got much of this to work yet, like the student loans concept.

That's your opinion.

Apparently I don't have to register my car because the motor vehicle act doesn't have to apply to ALL cars, just people that willingly submit their cars to the act. I'd like to see how well that goes over.

The Highway Traffic act applies to persons (a legal title), not people. It also applies to motor vehicles (a legal title) and not conveyances. A driver is a person in commerce, that's why they have licenses. 'Person' isn't defined in the HTA. The Interpretation Act defines it thus:" "person" , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation;". Look up the legal definition of 'includes'.

And if I write my MP saying I don't accept their representation, no new laws apply to me.

Too simplistic. If you deny your consent to be represented in gov't no statute has the force of law. It does work, I've seen it in action. It's quite simple to expose the state for the scam that it is really.

That's why I was asking what CA would think... how such a person could exist within a statist system.

As it's the person that 'exists' within the system there is no contradiction. It's the human that lives outside of it. The person 'acts' in commerce while the human acts in equity. There is equity, common law and commerce. When you recognize the person for what it is you'll see that mixing commerce and common law as they do with the HTA is unlawful without your consent.

Eventually, I think this will all catch up to him and he'll pay the price for his actions. They always get you on tax evasion, isn't that the case. But apparently, watching this, I don't have to pay taxes because the Income Tax Act is overly confusing to the general population (I may have trouble with that argument being an accountant).

He's already spoken with the CCRA, as have many others who simply resign their SIN and all the other gov't issued ID. Relieve them of their duties to interfere in your life. Where there's a will there's a way. Learn the questions that they can't answer and expose the fraud.

The government doesn't actually float a bond for every registered baby.

How do you know this?

Uneducated angry people make for the funniest attacks on statism.

Educated statists bely the gift with which they were born by signing themselves into slavery and calling it a benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Highway Traffic act applies to persons (a legal title), not people. It also applies to motor vehicles (a legal title) and not conveyances. A driver is a person in commerce, that's why they have licenses. 'Person' isn't defined in the HTA. The Interpretation Act defines it thus:" "person" , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation;". Look up the legal definition of 'includes'.

Let's see you get out of a speeding ticket by telling the judge the law only applies to your person.

Too simplistic. If you deny your consent to be represented in gov't no statute has the force of law. It does work, I've seen it in action. It's quite simple to expose the state for the scam that it is really.

Wrong. If you live within the borders of our sovereign territory, Canada's laws apply to you, whether you like it or not. You always have the freedom to leave. It's something that has existed for a few hundred years, called the Rule of Law.

As it's the person that 'exists' within the system there is no contradiction. It's the human that lives outside of it. The person 'acts' in commerce while the human acts in equity. There is equity, common law and commerce. When you recognize the person for what it is you'll see that mixing commerce and common law as they do with the HTA is unlawful without your consent.

Like I said, your consent is you living under the laws of the land. If you don't like them, you have the freedom to leave to another jurisdiction. You do not have the freedom to live here under your own laws.

You have given consent by not leaving this morning when you woke up. The laws of Canada apply to you.

He's already spoken with the CCRA, as have many others who simply resign their SIN and all the other gov't issued ID. Relieve them of their duties to interfere in your life. Where there's a will there's a way. Learn the questions that they can't answer and expose the fraud.

So these people cannot work, cannot claim government benefits, cannot do anything? Excellent. I see he gives seminars. That income needs to be reported. You can earn a living in Canada, enjoy all the services of Canada and not pay taxes. This guy is a freeloader. It'll catch up to him.

The government doesn't actually float a bond for every registered baby.
How do you know this?

How do you know this? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The level of bonds issued at all levels of government is dependant on the cash needs of the government in that period of time. It flucuates considerably at time. There is no relation to the issue of bonds and birth rate.

Nor have I seen a security in my entire life, including a search specifically today, that uses a persons future economic contributions when they are a baby as a security.

Educated statists bely the gift with which they were born by signing themselves into slavery and calling it a benefit.

I'm hardly a statist, but I realise that certain institutions exist for various reasons. I also realise that by living in Canada as a Canadian citizen I have certain rights and obligations. If I want to be free of those obligations, I can leave the country and renounce my citizenship. Where I would go for more freedom, who knows? But while you are in a country, your subject to all the laws of that country, no matter what you declare yourself to be.

I can declare myself supreme ruler of Alberta today, it doesn't make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... If you deny your consent to be represented in gov't no statute has the force of law. It does work, I've seen it in action.

Two words: BUP KISS.

The person 'acts' in commerce while the human acts in equity. There is equity, common law and commerce. When you recognize the person for what it is you'll see that mixing commerce and common law as they do with the HTA is unlawful without your consent.

If there isn't a name for the psychological condition wherein the sufferer compulsively voices nonsensical content in a particular dialectical form, e.g. legalese, there should be. 'Jargolalia', perhaps. You can see this kind of thing in other specialized dialects as well. A famous example is the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. If you live within the borders of our sovereign territory, Canada's laws apply to you, whether you like it or not. You always have the freedom to leave. It's something that has existed for a few hundred years, called the Rule of Law.

But I was born in Canada - does that mean I was born into slavery? Born into an obligation that I had no say about? Shouldn't I have a choice as to whether or not I want to be a part of their agreement?

If I don't get a say, that's tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. If you live within the borders of our sovereign territory, Canada's laws apply to you, whether you like it or not. You always have the freedom to leave. It's something that has existed for a few hundred years, called the Rule of Law.
But I was born in Canada - does that mean I was born into slavery? Born into an obligation that I had no say about? Shouldn't I have a choice as to whether or not I want to be a part of their agreement?

If I don't get a say, that's tyranny.

You do have a say. You can leave. That's not tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do have a say. You can leave. That's not tyranny.

We are all equal before the law... so who has the power to put demands and obligations upon me without my agreeing to it? That would make someone else superior to me before the law. According to the Canadian Bill of Rights, that shouldn't be happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all equal before the law... so who has the power to put demands and obligations upon me without my agreeing to it? That would make someone else superior to me before the law. According to the Canadian Bill of Rights, that shouldn't be happening.

Yes, your all equally agreed to the law. You can't exist outside the law because you feel like it.

What is this Canadian Bill of Rights? Def the Chiefs document? The portions dealing with human rights aren't applicable anymore with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the only aspects still used (and the only reason the bill still exists) is some rough ideas on property rights. Don't try to use terms when you don't understand them. Your playing the cards of this Freman. Unfortunately, some people are stupid enough to believe someone that randomly shouts out legalese.

You agree to the laws of Canada by being in Canada. If you don't agree, then you can leave. It's as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see you get out of a speeding ticket by telling the judge the law only applies to your person.

It rarely makes it to court unless you're dealing with an overzealous cop who doesn't know the law. If it does get to court the human retains in personam juridiction and is not recognizable to the court as long as the human refrains from giving jurisdiction to them. Most often the ticket never gets written in the first place. When you hand your license to the cop you give your jurisdiction up right there. You can challenge subject matter jurisdiction at any time. Who is the damaged party? It's a civil suit so is the charge in the nature of a contract dispute or a tort? Who does the judge represent? The Crown? The bailiff? The cop? Jurisdiction is in the mind.

I sent a by-law officer away simply by asking a series of questions of him as to where he got his authority? He left when he contradicted himself without even knowing it. He claimed that I lived within the City of London. I asked him to factually state what that was and he said I was in it. I asked if he meant the geographical area known as London? He said yes. I then asked where he got his authority from and he said, 'The City of London". I asked if he got his authority from the ground cuz that would be pretty cool if that's all it took. He didn't answer so I pointed out that his citation pad has written at the top, "The Corporation of the City of London". He couldn't prove an equity relationship between me and the corporation and had to leave for some reason.

Wrong. If you live within the borders of our sovereign territory, Canada's laws apply to you, whether you like it or not. You always have the freedom to leave. It's something that has existed for a few hundred years, called the Rule of Law.

Like I said, your consent is you living under the laws of the land. If you don't like them, you have the freedom to leave to another jurisdiction. You do not have the freedom to live here under your own laws.

You have given consent by not leaving this morning when you woke up. The laws of Canada apply to you.

Canada, love it or leave it, eh? The rule of law applies to me. What is that? "This nation is founded upon the principles recognizing the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law." If this is what you're referring to then I would point out section 32 of the Charter, which absent evidence to the contrary, only applies to the Government of Canada and its employees. I would also say that the preamble sets up a hierarchy that places God at the top. Does the rule of law come between you and God? A pension has been ruled as a benefit bestowed upon an employee of a corporation. Do you contribute to CPP? How is it that you come to be an agent for the government?

I don't have all the answers. In fact, I have very few. I do, however, have a lot of questions. I was born here and have certain unalienable rights. The right to freedom of association on this land exists apart from gov't approval. They know I exist and that's all they need to know. Why should they be involved in my private affairs?

So these people cannot work, cannot claim government benefits, cannot do anything? Excellent. I see he gives seminars. That income needs to be reported. You can earn a living in Canada, enjoy all the services of Canada and not pay taxes. This guy is a freeloader. It'll catch up to him.

If you find benefit in what the gov't offers in exchange for your subservience then good for you. Keep it up and I hope you live a long and prosperous life. I shouldn't be forced to accept their services at the point of a gun. Why does it always take the threat of violence if it's such a benefit? I do not enjoy all the services of Canada, please don't assume to know what I enjoy. I do pay taxes, lots of them. I just don't pay income tax because I'm not liable, same as thousands of other people living here.

I have a private contract as an artist and am not 'employed' (a legal title). If the CCRA attempted to interfere with this private contract I would press criminal charges for attempting to be a 3rd party intervenor. There are ways to continue living without being 'employed'. You can do anything you want and it is excellent, it just takes a lot of work to undo what you've done and a little creativity to protect yourself. Most employers would be leery at the prospect of hiring one of us, sure, doesn't mean it can't be done.

How do you know this? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The level of bonds issued at all levels of government is dependant on the cash needs of the government in that period

of time. It flucuates considerably at time. There is no relation to the issue of bonds and birth rate.

Nor have I seen a security in my entire life, including a search specifically today, that uses a persons future

economic contributions when they are a baby as a security.

You, being an accountant, have more knowledge on securities than I would. That you haven't seen such a security doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm not claiming that it exists either, that is yet to be seen. Can you tell me what the floating number on my Birth Certificate represents? Is there a specific reason why the Canada Bank Note Company is chosen to print the document? Is it a security interest or is it worthless paper? Who has legal title to it? Can I do whatever I want with it? Is the name on the BC an intangible security interest recognized by the PPSA?

Why won't the gov't answer these straight forward questions that have been repeatedly put to them? Why do they capitalize all or part of the name when that is contrary to the Canadian Style Rules of Grammar? Do you recognize the notarial process of petition for disclosure and the lawful method of obtaining tacit agreement by non-responsive default through silent acquiescence? Many notarial requests tendered, none answered.

I'm hardly a statist, but I realise that certain institutions exist for various reasons. I also realise that by living in Canada as a Canadian citizen I have certain rights and obligations. If I want to be free of those

obligations, I can leave the country and renounce my citizenship. Where I would go for more freedom, who knows? But while you are in a country, your subject to all the laws of that country, no matter what you declare yourself to be.

You got it! Sorta. You can renounce your citizenship and remain in Canada while keeping the peace and remain free of all obligations that you don't consent to. It's the keeping the peace part that's fundamental to the process. Here's an excerpt from the definition of person in Bouvier's Law Dictionary:

Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

Can you see the distinction? The law can, you just need indisputable truth as proof. The only form of 'ID' that I'll use is my Statement of Birth and perhaps a personal ID that I'll make and have notarized. The SoB does not have a legal name on it and is proof of an event, my coming into the world, and was NOT issued by the gov't. It is private and protected by the Guardianship Act. Your person is created by the gov't. When you return their property back to them they're now 'it' and liable for it. Did the gov't create you or did they merely create a person and that's the entity they act upon? Law is fiction, a creature of the mind and so can't relate to reality until we agree that it does. I don't know about you but that seems like a nonsense exercise. If you simply assume it and don't question it, it is real to you. Just as no one can claim authority from the ground, no one can be held liable to a benefit that they didn't consent to. That holds especially true for contracts that don't fully disclose their intentions, like signing up for your SIN # before you can even understand what it is that you're doing because you haven't finished your adolescent hormonal rush.

I can declare myself supreme ruler of Alberta today, it doesn't make it so.

Obviously. This isn't about the assumption of power, that's what the gov't does. I don't want to rule anyone. I want them to leave me alone until I choose to interact with them. Sovereign, a king without subjects who follows the rule of law. I will not hurt anyone, deprive anyone of their enjoyment of their property or commit fraud in any contract.

That's called keeping the peace and it's a pretty simple concept. Anything after that is administrative procedure and requires my express written and notarized consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe it, but I did listen to the whole first presentation...I don't agree with those here who have called this guy insane, and that's the problem.

If he were truly insane, everyone would see that and just ignore his ranting. Unfortunately, he has some intelligence and a convincing presentation style...so many will likely be duped into believing his spew.

Ask yourself this, why is it that many of his points are made by reciting the legal definition of a term that comes from a statute...when he suggests statutes are not law (unless you agree they are). He picks and chooses bits of the legal system that support his raving and simply discards stuff he doesn't like.

For example, he likes to rely on Black's Law Dictionary at numerous points as his authority for certain definitions...but, when he gets to the part where he rants about the rule of law, he doesn't give you this citation from Black's:

The doctrine that every person is subject to the ordinary law within the jurisdiction.

Of course, if he did give you this definition of the rule of law, it would completely dismantle his entire presentation.

Another example...he says everything is an offer which you can choose to accept or not (even if it is a legal direction or order etc). He specifically relies on the principles of the law of contract and the application of the Bills of Exchange Act when discussing his theory. He suggests that no one can validly take you to court if you don't dishonor them and you "accept every offer they make" and don't create a conflict. The key, he says, is just to use a conditional acceptance of every offer (i.e. I accept, but on the following conditions).

Problem is, a conditional acceptance as per the law of contract is actually a rejection, with a new offer (aka a counteroffer). His diatribe just doesn't hold water.

Another example...he rails on about the magical powers of a Notary Public and how if you use all of the ins and outs of particular procedures you can get a win on any dispute. What he fails to mention is that a Notary Public gets all of his powers from a statute...yes, that's right, the same statute that he says somehow the rule of law lets you ignore (if you don't consent). So, the person on the other side of his dispute can just send him a letter that says he doesn't consent to the authority given to a Notary Public under the Act and then he's screwed...right?

He suggests that his sister, who's actual title he cannot even remember, by saying "no comment" to whether he is right or not is somehow an endorsement by a federal government lawyer as to the soundness of his legal analyses...pretty weak.

Maybe what I should do...in the interests of my time and everyone else's...is rather than pick apart everything he says that's wrong is just allow him to do it himself by me reminding everyone of where his starting position was for his journey into "deconstructing statutes"...

He says the federal government stole his baby becuase he created the legal entity of the baby's "person" as chattel property (like any book or cowboy hat or bag of weed he may own) and then abandoned that property by the act of registration of the baby's birth, allowing the Federal government the legal right to seize that property.

Okay...that's fine logic...

Anyway, I know I am just a willing slave who has been brainwashed, and everything I am posting right now is just a desparate attempt by a lawyer to try and get everyone to fight in court and maintian the enslavement of all Canadian citizens...so maybe I'll just sign off.

FTA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, your all equally agreed to the law. You can't exist outside the law because you feel like it.

I haven't agreed to anything. And I'd prefer it if people didn't assume that I'm part of their 'society' just because I was born into it. You can't impose law upon people because you feel like it. They should have to agree to the conditions of agreement, or dispute the conditions and come to a different agreement, or have no agreement.

What is this Canadian Bill of Rights? Def the Chiefs document? The portions dealing with human rights aren't applicable anymore with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the only aspects still used (and the only reason the bill still exists) is some rough ideas on property rights.

Okay, let's move on to a document which you might find more fitting: Pierre's Charter. Section 15, Equality Rights: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law...". If we are all equal before and under the law, who makes the law? I question the authority of another human being (my equal) to impose a law upon me (an equal) without consent. Unless they claim a higher authority over my life than I have?

Don't try to use terms when you don't understand them. Your playing the cards of this Freman. Unfortunately, some people are stupid enough to believe someone that randomly shouts out legalese.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me stupid. I'm trying to discuss an issue with you, and so far I haven't referred to anyone in this conversation as being stupid. I would dispute the claim that you say he 'randomly shouts out legalese'. If anything it appears that he has done his homework and is attempting to decipher much of the legalese that governments use against us.

You agree to the laws of Canada by being in Canada. If you don't agree, then you can leave. It's as simple as that.

It was my understanding that I was an individual with rights and I am free to speak out against government agencies if I so choose. My choices are not between conforming or leaving - I can also challenge the powers that be and question their imposing influence over my life. I haven't broken any law - however, I am suggesting that the government has broken a fundamental constitutional right by imposing its laws upon me without my consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your playing the cards of this Freman. Unfortunately, some people are stupid enough to believe someone that randomly shouts out legalese.

Are insults the norm with you? Please, let's be rational. Just because the concept of freedom seems alien to all of us in the beginning doesn't mean it's a fruitless endeavour.

I'm trying to be as specific as I can when I 'randomly shout legalese'. This is a huge undertaking and I'm not a lawyer, none of us are. We can't be. Lawyers pledge an oath to the their private society which is their primary concern before protecting us. We also aren't allowed to interpret the rules that they write. Because of that we can't know the law. Ignorance of the law IS an excuse in that case. Where do you think the rule of law originates? I guarantee you it was a document that everyone could understand. Ignorance of that law is no excuse because it is innate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't agreed to anything. And I'd prefer it if people didn't assume that I'm part of their 'society' just because I was born into it.
That is the way all human societies have operated since the dawn of time. Anyone born into a society is automatically bound by the rules and laws of that society and their formal concent is not required. Nothing is ever going to change that. However, you do have choices: work within the system to change the rules or leave the society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I know I am just a willing slave who has been brainwashed, and everything I am posting right now is just a desparate attempt by a lawyer to try and get everyone to fight in court and maintian the enslavement of all Canadian citizens...so maybe I'll just sign off.

FTA

I expect a lawyer to do nothing less than protect his interests and those of his private society. What was the oath that you took?

I'll come up with some questions for you after dinner, if you would be so kind as to indulge me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If somebody wants to live as a Freeman -- escape the State while still living within the State -- he is taking a huge risk. It is certainly techinically possible but involves giving up practically all statist comforts. I have heard that the best chances of success are with people who start young: work for cash, never apply for a student loan, never open a bank account, never apply for a social insurance number, never drive a car, etc. etc. It can actually be easier if your parents do not register your birth. Ultimately, one has to avoid a bureaucratic paper trail. Very difficult and practically impossible without accepting a drastic simplification of lifestyle choices.

Outside of the city, there is more chances of success if you can live off the land -- hunting, fishing, farming, etc. in secluded areas.

In the city, freemen abound. They are effectively living and earning their living on the street -- hobos and prostitutes -- for whom anarchy is a reality.

Anyone born into a society is automatically bound by the rules and laws of that society and their formal concent is not required. Nothing is ever going to change that.
I disagree. If State services or actions become unaffordable or inept or untrustworthy relative to private functions, the State can conceivably whither away gradually.
You agree to the laws of Canada by being in Canada. If you don't agree, then you can leave. It's as simple as that.
No, it is not as simple as that. [Where I am right now, it is about a two month walk to the nearest border. Luckily, I am a good swimmer.]

If you drop everything and deny all of our "obligations" to the Canadian state, you will be pursued by Canadian agents even if you are in a foreign country. That is tyranny.

You do have a say. You can leave. That's not tyranny.
No. That is tyranny.
Je suis curieux que Charles Anthony pense a ce Freeman?
Je m'en fous fiche -- pardon my French.

Un internaute qui nous demande de discuter un sujet d'apres un video qui dure de plus d'une heure (et sans scenario!) n'est pas serieux. Ce n'est pas comme ca qu'on echange l'information sur l'internet.

De plus, il y en a assez de fils absurdes dans ce forum qui debute d'une telle maniere.

J'ai regarde le premier cinq minutes.
Vous etes genereux.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ClearWest and LesActive,

Do you not see the logical disconnect in asserting that your Constitutional Charter rights have been violated by the government imposing statutes upon you without your consent?

If you want to follow this line of thinking, everything you base your arguments on must exists independent of statute law. You cannot rely on statutes and man-made societal principles / laws / rights as the basis or foundation for your inherent rights.

And, no matter how you slice it, the Constitution Act, 1982 is a statutory instrument. See, your guy's principled argument is completely self-destructive. If I don't consent to the imposition of the Charter, then I simply don't acknowledge your s. 15 Charter right to equality before the law and, now where are we?

You are relying on man-made societally agreed norms / laws to found the rights which you then say give you the ability to not be subjected to man-made societally agreed norms / laws. Are you not?

And if you are not, then please, explain it to me...because I truly have an open mind on this topic...I just can't see any merit to what is being put forth.

FTA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I know I am just a willing slave who has been brainwashed, and everything I am posting right now is just a desparate attempt by a lawyer to try and get everyone to fight in court and maintian the enslavement of all Canadian citizens...so maybe I'll just sign off.

FTA

I expect a lawyer to do nothing less than protect his interests and those of his private society. What was the oath that you took?

I'll come up with some questions for you after dinner, if you would be so kind as to indulge me.

I'm happy to have further discussion on this topic. I await your questions. In the meantime, I'll search for the transcript of the complete oath that I took if it is of interest to you.

FTA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I don't consent to the imposition of the Charter, then I simply don't acknowledge your s. 15 Charter right to equality before the law and, now where are we?
We are in a dog-eat-dog world -- the same world in which poor people in Canada live.
You are relying on man-made societally agreed norms / laws to found the rights which you then say give you the ability to not be subjected to man-made societally agreed norms / laws. Are you not?
In our current State of affairs, Yes.

However, if I and every other private citizen in Canada can defend the land we each privately own, the answer is No.

And if you are not, then please, explain it to me...because I truly have an open mind on this topic...I just can't see any merit to what is being put forth.
This is the mistake you are making: you are assuming that State-monopolized law is the only possible law. It is not.

Many disputes between individuals can be settled without resorting to any agent of the law.

The following thread:

Not enough cops -- Why does crime go unpunished?

examines alternatives to State-monopolized law services in great detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I know I am just a willing

I'm happy to have further discussion on this topic. I await your questions. In the meantime, I'll search for the transcript of the complete oath that I took if it is of interest to you.

FTA

I took an oath or two. I don't remember the words much, it was well over 25 years ago...but I think it had to do with the Queen and her lawfull successors and obeying the laws of the nation and those placed over me........

And I swore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself this, why is it that many of his points are made by reciting the legal definition of a term that comes from a statute...when he suggests statutes are not law (unless you agree they are). He picks and chooses bits of the legal system that support his raving and simply discards stuff he doesn't like.

He cites statutes and statutory definitions because those are the 'rules of the corporation'. As the statutes apply to them we use the statutes to hold them accountable.

For example, he likes to rely on Black's Law Dictionary at numerous points as his authority for certain definitions...but, when he gets to the part where he rants about the rule of law, he doesn't give you this citation from Black's:

QUOTE

The doctrine that every person is subject to the ordinary law within the jurisdiction.

Of course, if he did give you this definition of the rule of law, it would completely dismantle his entire presentation.

What is the ordinary law? What is jurisdiction? What is a person?

Another example...he says everything is an offer which you can choose to accept or not (even if it is a legal direction or order etc). He specifically relies on the principles of the law of contract and the application of the Bills of Exchange Act when discussing his theory. He suggests that no one can validly take you to court if you don't dishonor them and you "accept every offer they make" and don't create a conflict. The key, he says, is just to use a conditional acceptance of every offer (i.e. I accept, but on the following conditions).

Problem is, a conditional acceptance as per the law of contract is actually a rejection, with a new offer (aka a counteroffer). His diatribe just doesn't hold water.

It is a rejection, of sorts. It is a counter offer, of sorts. It relies on the plaintiff being able prove his case before it gets to court. It's called discussion and it's a way to avoid conflict.

Another example...he rails on about the magical powers of a Notary Public and how if you use all of the ins and outs of particular procedures you can get a win on any dispute. What he fails to mention is that a Notary Public gets all of his powers from a statute...yes, that's right, the same statute that he says somehow the rule of law lets you ignore (if you don't consent). So, the person on the other side of his dispute can just send him a letter that says he doesn't consent to the authority given to a Notary Public under the Act and then he's screwed...right?

Wrong. A Notary Public is used only as a witness who is recognized by the courts to validate documents like affidavits and notices. We are peaceful people and wish to negotiate and discuss rather than dispute and go into dishonour. We are protecting ourselves from them, not each other.

He suggests that his sister, who's actual title he cannot even remember, by saying "no comment" to whether he is right or not is somehow an endorsement by a federal government lawyer as to the soundness of his legal analyses...pretty weak.

And that comment was disingenuous and overtly dismissive considering his other research.

Maybe what I should do...in the interests of my time and everyone else's...is rather than pick apart everything he says that's wrong is just allow him to do it himself by me reminding everyone of where his starting position was for his journey into "deconstructing statutes"...

He says the federal government stole his baby becuase he created the legal entity of the baby's "person" as chattel property (like any book or cowboy hat or bag of weed he may own) and then abandoned that property by the act of registration of the baby's birth, allowing the Federal government the legal right to seize that property.

Okay...that's fine logic...

Ya know, it's not like he's the only one out there who's been screwed by the gov't for no logical reason nor is he the only one who is following through on his ideals. There is plenty of info on the subject if you'd care to look. There are many resources available. Some are reliable, some are not. We have powers of discrimination, use them. I'm not going to present everything I know into this forum if only for the sake of time. He's not asking that you believe it without researching it. That would be foolish. I'm merely pointing out that this info is out there and you can make of it what you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...