Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception

[geoffrey]

How did the government use Maritime Salvage to kidnap your daughter, my question stands unanswered. It's a quite simple answer really...

[LesActive]

OMG he thinks he's running a bank too!

http://www.thinkfree.ca/index.php?option=c...id=30&Itemid=44

Time to write a quick email to OSFI ( http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/ )

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...

yikes! What did I start now? I thought this would be an interesting thread with this group but .... wow ...so sorry for the hassle Rob. I had no idea this kind of thing would happen. Conflict bites.

by the way, Figleaf has us on her ignore list.

[FreemanMenard]

How did the government use Maritime Salvage to kidnap your daughter, my question stands unanswered. It's a quite simple answer really...

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

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA -- did you have any specific criticism to make about the way I defined crown privilege?

Well, yes...to remind everyone, here is what you said:

Crown privilege is the right of the government and its agents to screw someone over, bankrupt him, jail him, defame him, and get away with it.

Here is a page that describes what Crown privilege really is and what it is used for (e.g. to keep national security secrets).

Crown Privilege

I don't see it the same way you do apparently.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

Speaking of the Law look to Section 15 of The Criminal Code of Canada. It refers to de-facto governments and courts. When you know what that Section actually says, you will know why we all have the right to say NO to both the courts and the government, if we so choose.

...

Have a fantasticalmorgasticallyjoyous day.

Yes, I often create my own words and then apply my definition to them.

Namaste!

Section 15 of the Criminal Code in it's entirety:

15. No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs.

This one is really quite simple...it says that if you commit an act or omission that would be criminal in Canadian law because you are following the law imposed upon you by the de facto lawmaker (person who in fact is making and enforcing laws even if de jure (in law) they have no right to do so) you will not be convicted of an offence.

So, actually, what it says is that because you don't have a choice to refuse to follow the laws being imposed upon you by a person exercising sovereign power, you won't be punished for following a law that would otherwise be considered a criminal act. It's designed to deal with a scenario like where a country is illegally occupied and the victims of such occupation are compelled by law to do criminal things.

In Canada, we have an exception to s. 15 to ensure that people can't get away with war crimes or crimes against humanity by relying on this section. From a SCC case called R. v. Finta:

In the absence of this exception, even Hitler could have defended charges against him by claiming that he was merely obeying the law of the country.

As a German citizen he too was subject to the laws of the state, and was required to comply with the legislation

mandating the "Final Solution". If obedience to de facto law were permitted to be used as an automatic defence then not even the most despotic tyrant, the author and enforcer of the most insidious laws against humanity, could be convicted for the crimes committed under his regime. This would be an unacceptable result. Hence, Canadian courts have the discretion to convict a person of a war crime or a crime against humanity notwithstanding the existence of laws in the country where the offence was committed which justified or even required such conduct.

Not only do you make up meanings to words, you appear to also just make up meanings to sections of the Criminal Code.

FTA

[Figleaf]

FTA -- did you have any specific criticism to make about the way I defined crown privilege?

Well, yes...to remind everyone, here is what you said:

Crown privilege is the right of the government and its agents to screw someone over, bankrupt him, jail him, defame him, and get away with it.

Here is a page that describes what Crown privilege really is and what it is used for (e.g. to keep national security secrets).

Crown Privilege

I don't see it the same way you do apparently.

FTA

Hmmm. I guess I've confused it with something else. What is the name for the privilege that protects the crown and its agents from civil litigation?

[FreemanMenard]

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

[M.Dancer]

Canada is a corporation listed with the US Securites and Exchange Commission in Washington District of Columbia.

Can you back this with a link?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[M.Dancer]

You might want to send it to this particular corporation that's listed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, whose address is in Washington, D.C. They should cover all expenses incurred by all-caps names.

Notice it says, "Company Information" on the browser tab. Now, why would it say that I wonder?

At the risk of receiving censure, if you are not nuts then your are an idiot.

On the otherhand, possible both.

[Figleaf]

At the risk of receiving censure, if you are not nuts then your are an idiot.

Well, that puts me in a quandary on several levels.

[FTA Lawyer]

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.

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:

What happens when we decide to seize the de jure sovereign power?

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

[M.Dancer]

I'll make this simple for you. If you live in BC it's because the legal government of BC, who inherited the rights and duties of Government form the crown exerted dominion over the land. If you do not recognise that fact because your toaster told you or becasue you are just a freak, fine, then the land is Indian land and you are squatting uninvited on their land. If they burn your house down, confiscate your chattel and enslave your kin...it's only because there's no legal entity called BC, or Canada.

[M.Dancer]

OMG he thinks he's running a bank too!

http://www.thinkfree.ca/index.php?option=c...id=30&Itemid=44

Time to write a quick email to OSFI ( http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/ )

You thought they were run of the mill crackpots?

The intersting thing though, as they reject the legal society, they are willing to use it....the legal tender, the post services....this sort of thing ain't new. It's been tried in the states by nutbars there, who thought they could park where ever they wanted for free, use what ever services they want for free, not pay property taxes......litter....

I believe a judge was murdered and the "Freeman" now spends his days muttering to himself and to any aryan nation thug who will listen.

Anyway, thse fools are pointless, i will add them to my ignore list. Maybe one day when they are beingf put inthe back of an RCMP cruiser I can say ..."hey, I heard of those nuts...."

[M.Dancer]

How did the government use Maritime Salvage to kidnap your daughter, my question stands unanswered. It's a quite simple answer really...

If anyone was removed it was no doubt because of a court ordered psychiatric assessment.....

[FreemanMenard]

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.

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:

What happens when we decide to seize the de jure sovereign power?

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

[M.Dancer]

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.

Thank you Freeman Wikipedia.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

[FreemanMenard]

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.

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.

[M.Dancer]

I'm sorry if you thought it was sacasm. It was actually an accusation.

Something like, plagiarism, the first refuge of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

[Figleaf]

Immunity -- that's what I meant, not 'privilege'.

http://www.gov.bc.ca/ajo/down/statutory_immunity.pdf

And wiki of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

[FreemanMenard]

Immunity -- that's what I meant, not 'privilege'.

http://www.gov.bc.ca/ajo/down/statutory_immunity.pdf

And wiki of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

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

[PolyNewbie]

ScottSA:Polly, you believe everything is a plot. Were I your lawyer I would run away as fast as I could.

They operate on inceduliuty and the lawyer actually laughed at me when I said I would report it. The response was "no one will believe you ha ha ha". This is why I have no problem believing that on winter and summer solistice and halloween most of the kids go missing and end up being the subject of satanic rituals. The whole NWO operates on incdreduluity and RGM Regulating Group Mind. Somehow 86 % of the population can be made to believe anything, no matter how rediculous but can never believe anything that goes against convention.

Government works because this psychological affect outlined by John McMurty PhD, FRSC in a paper entitled Understanding 911 and The 911 Wars. He uses 911 as an example to explain the psychological phenomenon of RGM. This paper is posted on the Science For Peace University Of Toronto website. Its only 30 pages and easily read.

[FTA Lawyer]

Immunity -- that's what I meant, not 'privilege'.

http://www.gov.bc.ca/ajo/down/statutory_immunity.pdf

And wiki of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

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

[FTA Lawyer]

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?

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?

You are still getting de facto and de jure all f'd up. Explain to me the foundation of your statement that we have de facto courts and de facto governments. How do you suggest that you would have a de jure government, when Black's defines de facto government as exactly what you propose to do:

An independent government established and exercised by

a group of a country's inhabitants who have separated themselves from the parent state.

OOPS! Freemen are the de factos! Dammit, you blew it! Oh, but wait, I forgot...all you have to do (because you are a freeman) is just twitch a little, lick your elbow turn around four times and change the definition of the words to what you want them to be!

I need to know the context of your "alluded to" comments that you attribute to some Chief Justice, and I need to know the actual words before I can comment...particularly in light of the fact that you interpret the letter from the MP you posted earlier as a ringing endorsement.

As to your colour of right issue, the methodology you describe is likely workable, but I fear I don't understand what you are putting up a defense against?

FTA

[FreemanMenard]

Immunity -- that's what I meant, not 'privilege'.

http://www.gov.bc.ca/ajo/down/statutory_immunity.pdf

And wiki of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

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?

[guyser]

How does anyone know you are Robert Arthur Menard? How does anyone know you arent really Santa?

FTA Lawyers name is.......FTA Lawyer. Thats is about all anyone has to know. If he isnt a lawyer, so what? He will screw up and we will know in time. (He is, I have no doubt)

Calling a man out (oh...how do we know its a guy??) on the internet is pretty silly. I suspect you are getting riled as your "case" presented on MLW seems a bit weak.

Unpuff the chest Francis.....