PolyNewbie Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 We're also not at war (not a real one anyway) nor do we have the hubris to colonize the world. We are getting 120 tanks for our "peacekeeping" efforts in Afghanistan. Since when does this not mean war ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 [see post #84.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 [see post #85.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 I have no idea why the damn quotes won't work properly there. I've tried everything to get them to straighten out, to no avail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Not the oath...just plain sarcasm...I have a transcript somewhere of my call to the Bar ceremony...when I find it, I'll post the oath to be debated. How about telling us everything FTA ? Is this the only promise you make or are there other secret promises ? Are you a representative of the crown ? Secret promises???? I just said I would post the form of oath I took upon becoming a lawyer...here...in public (keeping in mind I took the oath in a public courtroom...being recorded...available for any member of the public to get a copy of). WTF are you talking about???? You ask if I am a representative of the Crown? The simple answer is no. I am an officer of the court and I did swear an oath to Her Majesty the Queen...but I do not have lawful authority to bind the Crown to any legal obligation, and indeed, I am an adversary to the Crown in basically all of the work I do (as I am a criminal defence lawyer) so, again, the answer to your question is no. FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 I've been told that you lawyers are a representative of the crown. I've also seen lawyers laugh about how corrupt they are. I'm not the first person to come along that is highly suspicious of the Canadian legal profession. I have met quite a few that share my views and have had similar experiences with the self governing bodies of lawyers. In my engineering class, the final year had a course in ethics. The lawyer that taught it started talking about how noble, honorable and distinguished he was for being a lawyer. One person got up and left in disgust and he had to spend 1/2 hour dealing with the rest of the class members that distrusted the profession as much as I do now - I didn't then and didn't know what the fuss was about. I do now. No wonder The Wind In The Willows has the Evil Weasels as the evil force to overcome for the main characters. I was recently reminded of that great book I read in grade eight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 FTA, what is "crown priviledge" in the Canadian legal system ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Figleaf, grab your text that you want to quote by highlighting with the mouse, then click the +quote button and paste into your message. Its not how I use it but I think that will work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 I have no idea why the damn quotes won't work properly there. I've tried everything to get them to straighten out, to no avail.I am willing to help. First, your post #46 fails to display properly only because you used too many quotes. You did nothing wrong. For some reason, the forum software bugs out and fails to display properly if a post contains more than ten quotes. The only way of having it display properly is to spread your response out over more than one post. The others are slightly different. I could not correct the mark-up on all of your quotes -- your variations identified in bold -- because that would actually take them above the "ten quote limit" bug and everything would fail. Do you want your post #77 to look sort of like this: 1) Does an unrebutted affadavit stand as truth? No, the finder of fact can evaluate the credibility of an unrebutted affidavit, just like unrebutted testimony. The affidavit (thanks for the sp correction) I use states I am a living, breathing human being and not a corporation/person in commerce. How would one go about rebutting the affidavit when the truth stands before them? Without knowing very much about where you are trying to use it, I don't think your problem is that anyone is rebutting your affidavit. I think your problem is that your affidavit is likely irrelevant and possibly nonsensical. Sort of like this... Unless I've consented to the labels of 'person' or 'corporation' of course. Their other option would be to try and create joinder between me and the person, hence the need to divest yourself of the governments creation. 5) What is The Province of Ontario? Does it differ from the geographical area known as Ontario? Figleaf---An entity created under the constitution of Canada; the split-sovereign government over the geographical area known as Ontario. Source please. Source? Okay -- The Vast Wisdom of Figleaf (unpublished). When one is ticketed and the event has taken place in the Province of Ontario, as the ticket says, which is it talking about? It doesn't matter. Did I commit an offense on the land by my body or did the alleged offense occur in the legal fiction known as the Province of Ontario. Both. 7) Are either of those entities listed anywhere as corporations? Figleaf---They are not corporations. See above. Above, you refered to a municipality. They are often corporations. Canadian provinces are not. Ok, I was speaking of legal title. You registered your car, your house, your dog, your children. They have their fingers on everything. Children are not property. You can own your dog or your car without registering it (but you can't drive it). How is it that they can take your property without your consent unless you have contracted with them. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that sovereignty is a matter of contract. It's not. See where it says "PROVINCE OF (YOUR CHOICE)" on the vehicle registration. They've laid partial claim to it and you did it willingly. The government makes no claim in property over your car by having you register it. Automobile registration is a regulatory matter, not a property matter. Les, I don't wish to be insulting, but your complaints are almost all based on a radically mistaken understanding of the foundations and premises of our laws. Homework assignment: find how many definitions there are for the word 'person' in the statutes and see if ANY of the statutory definitions include, 'woman', 'man', 'human' or people (persons is the plural of person) and please let me know, this info is critical. Yeah, I'll get right on that. ? Continued in next post due to quote-limit bug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Do you want your post #78 to look like this: If you say I need a licence to drive then you are correct. BUT, I am not a driver in commerce. There you're in the realm of the nonsensical again. This notion you have of 'in commerce' is incoherent. I'm travelling on the road in my private capacity and have no obligation to hold a license or insurance. Well, look, there are validly enacted statutes that specify that you ARE required to have a license and insurance, your 'private capacity' notwithstanding. I will put up a bond for a certain amount that will cover any liability for damage I may cause through an unintentional collision. I can agree with you that such a method could be a reasonable substitute for public liability insurance, but if the statutes don't accept it, the statutes still apply. 14) Can a lawyer appoint or become a trustee for a person? Lawyers can do whatever a normal citizen can do in terms of creating trusts or being trustees. They also have license to hold client money or property in trust under the terms of retainer agreements. As I am trying to separate my body from the gov't issued person you may infer why I ask. I can see that you don't believe there is a distinction, oh well. In all honesty, I have no idea what you mean. 15) Is the gov't issued Birth Certificate the base document from which all other forms of gov't ID are derived? Other methods can be used if Birth Certificates are unavailable. Such as? Different agencies might accept different documents or proofs. At the most extreme if you have no luck establishing your identity you can apply to the court to request a ruling to establish who you are. 24) Is a judge who enters a plea on my behalf without my consent presuming to represent me? No. How so? Why would a judge speak on my behalf if I don't wish to 'plea' or beg? Am I obliged to beg? I don't hold the judge out to be an authority over me. This is a legal power judges have... to enter a plea of not guilty if the defendant is absent or won't speak. All it means is the crown is put to the task of proving their case. Also, it doesn't matter what you think of the judge's authority. Perhaps your problem is that you aren't able to distinguish between normative arguments and descriptive statements. How is a question like, "Who is the injured party on a charge under the Highway Traffic Act or Narcotic Control Act?" based on an incorrect premise or malformed. In that particular case the incorrect premise in your question is the implicit assumption that there is/needs to be an injured party. ? If I am correct in my presumptions, let me know. I will try to PM you indicating where some of your typos were located. Alternatively, you could just look up the code of my responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 I've been told that you lawyers are a representative of the crown. I've also seen lawyers laugh about how corrupt they are. I'm not the first person to come along that is highly suspicious of the Canadian legal profession. There are a large number of self-regulating professions, and many people who encounter their discipline process from outside of the profession react the same way ... that the profession shields its members. It's possible. It may be better or worse at different times in different places in different professions. Sometimes perhaps a profession may harbor a cabal of wrongdoers within it. Sometimes a profession might go on a kick of rectitude and housecleaning. But consider ... complainants' perceptions are not likely to be 100% impartial and unbiased about their own cases, and they approach the professional regulator with a built in skepticism about at least one member. I believe there are probably two sides to this issue with some truth to them. In my engineering class, the final year had a course in ethics. The lawyer that taught it started talking about how noble, honorable and distinguished he was for being a lawyer. One person got up and left in disgust and he had to spend 1/2 hour dealing with the rest of the class members that distrusted the profession as much as I do now - I didn't then and didn't know what the fuss was about. I do now. The mob prejudices of sophomores is hardly a convincing argumentum ad populupulus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 FTA, what is "crown priviledge" in the Canadian legal system ? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 If I am correct in my presumptions, let me know. I will try to PM you indicating where some of your typos were located. Alternatively, you could just look up the code of my responses. Charles, you are a prince! I knew about the quote limit, but I think I know now where it all first went astray (after that the attempted corrections no doubt buggered it up more) ... but I'll check the code to be sure as you suggest. Thank you for your help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 FTA, what is "crown priviledge" in the Canadian legal system ? 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. Who are you people? This same idiotic exchange has happened before...and I direct you to review the response I gave back then...Crown Privilege FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 FTA, what is "crown priviledge" in the Canadian legal system ? 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. Who are you people? This same idiotic exchange has happened before...and I direct you to review the response I gave back then...Crown Privilege FTA The same? The page you linked to lacked my clarifying and perfectly succinct definition quoted above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 FTA:Who are you people? This same idiotic exchange has happened before...and I direct you to review the response I gave back then Thats the Googled definition but what is the legal definition in Canada ? What does Crown Priviledge allow Canadian lawyers to get away with ? If you are questioned wrt your role in a crime can you use crown priviledge to get out of it and avoid any responsibility ? I know from dealing with the Law Society Of Upper Canada and many lawyers that lawyers here have a different, magical definition of extortion that is different from what is on google. I'm assuming that its very hard to file a criminal complaint against a lawyer because no one wants to take legal responsibility for it which is why you must be prepared to lay down 6 figures and hire a lawyer even to file a criminal complaint. I assume that the lawyer can invoke crown priviledge, absolving themselves of any responsibility for the crimes committed then sue which ever lawyer filed the complaint for lack of being able to prove the case and therefore false arrest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreemanMenard Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Hello and good day! I am the loud mouth excrement re-distribution specialist in the video which started this discussion. Hi! You may not agree with my views and that of course is your right. This is the internet and if you wish to denigrate me for my beliefs feel free to do so; I will merely look at you as I would look at a simple child. I have read with much interest this entire thread and will do my best to reply to the key issues. I see no need to defend against vitriolic attacks however. Nor will I be discussing the why’s of the initial removal of the child. At the time it happened, I had no problem with the government providing services and ensuring the safety and well being of children. My issue arose when a government agent made claims and stopped counterclaims or defense by threatening the child. That was simply wrong and it started all this. When a well packaged web of lies has been gradually sold to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and it’s speaker a raving lunatic. Also, bear in mind that video is over two years old, and I have learned much since then. Also since then people have successfully discharged their student loans using the process mentioned, with over $67 Million being discharged in BC last year. Also, over the Easter Weekend, that video which normally averages about 150 hits daily received a whopping 20,000 hits! I found out why on Saturday morning. Tell you about it shortly. As for anyone who wishes to claim I am a hypocrite without ever even meeting me or looking at the truth, well go head. You have no information yet you make silly assertions. I bet you have a license because you are a good ‘citizen’ but you never read the Motor Vehicle Act under which you applied nor could you show me where it says you have an obligation to apply for a license to engage in a perfectly lawful activity. People also continually refer to ‘society’ and act like one actually exists. A society is a thing and legally speaking, things have names and if you know not the name of a thing all knowledge of a thing must perish. Know what all members of a society can do? Name their society. There will be a unanimous agreement as to the name of their society and the simple fact is people who can’t name their society DON’T HAVE ONE. Society’s have names. Read very carefully judgments from the SCC. ‘In a free and just society’ they always say, but they never say which one. Ever wonder why? The Lawyer here is a member a proper society or association. You likely are not and unless you can name your society, you have been severely duped. If someone told you they were going to visit their best friend and then was incapable of telling you the name of that best friend, do they even have a friend? The big problem we face as a ‘community’ is highlighted by the following quote spoken by a Canadian lawyer David Sherman: Toronto lawyer David Sherman, an authority on tax law, has little patience for detaxer theories. "Detaxers say that because of such and such an analysis going back to the Magna Carta or something, the government can't impose taxes and therefore the income tax is voluntary. That's like telling someone that you can cure AIDS by boiling toads under a full moon and inhaling the steam while you stand on one foot reciting Hamlet's soliloquy backwards. The idea is any medical professional would recognize that as nonsense, though someone desperate enough might try it if [he doesn't] know what's going on. These detaxers think they can know law without having any legal training. They read something that looks like it is written in English, but it's not, it's actually law and they think they understand it." Do you see the problem? According to him, people without legal training can’t know the law, yet they are still bound by it? Guess who made those words. LAWYERS. Now who is claiming the sole right to understand them. LAWYERS. Nice little game you got going there! His attitude is arrogant, condescending and is reminiscent of Animal Farm. People like him treat their fellow man like they are sheep, who simply can’t read the writing on the wall when it is actually he who may benefit from taking his nose out of the law books and studying a bit of history. If you study the history of the Notary Society in BC you will find their authority is not statutorily granted at all, it is statutorily accepted. It is actually a very interesting story. In the 1800’s some Notary Publics set up shop in BC. I believe they came from Alberta. Both the government and the Law Society tried to stop them. Both failed as a function of law and then the Law Society demanded that all their members have Notary powers too. That’s why all lawyers in BC are also Notary Publics. In BC Notary Publics do not have power by virtue of a statute or by enactment; they have power in spite of the government, not because of it. If you read Section 18 of that Act, you will see that a Notary Public can hold a court and I have a friend who is a lawyer and Notary and he is prepared to exercise his powers and duties and create judgments. I will ask him if he minds me sharing his number and if he doesn’t I will put you in contact with him. I have successfully used a Notary Public to create judgments and Estoppel. Also, many statutes do not enact but merely declare. Think of it like this, if I author a comprehensive rule book of hockey, does that mean I created the game? Read the Law and Equity Act. It states “The laws enacted and declared…” Bills of Exchanges and Notary Publics and claims all existed prior to the government not because of it. Furthermore, we can use all of them against the people in the government. Someone stated: No, the finder of fact can evaluate the credibility of an unrebutted affidavit, just like unrebutted testimony. When we use a Notary, HE is the witness of fact and that is why the process is so powerful. By the time you get to court (if you have to go at all) all the facts are laid out, they are indisputable and the other party is in estoppel from disputing them and the facts are in your favor. Additionally, you must be operating on the presumption that there is a conflict thus the need for a finder of fact. However when used properly the result is a complete avoidance of conflict. The goal is peace through discussion and negotiation, not victory by conflict. Of course a judgment is only a piece of paper and unless the people with the guns agree that it is actionable it has no value. I pointed out to him Section 6 of the Sheriffs Act which does state they are officers of every court in British Columbia. When a Notary Public holds court by opening a file and accepting claims and witnessing the process, that is a proper common law court de jure in British Columbia and the judgments will be accepted and acted upon by the Sheriffs and Deputies here. The reason they have no problem doing so is because all I am doing is asking them to expand their area of service and accept their duties. They are actually happy to do so and will give judgments created by a Notary the same weight as they would one originating in the Supreme Court. (Excuse me Sheriff? Um, you have power over here too! Really? Hey I guess you are right! Thanks!) If you don’t believe me, call them and ask them. Tell them I sent you. They like me and know me very well. And where the Sheriff goes, the cops soon follow. They will take their lead from them. So it seems a moot point, you arguing I can’t use a Notary to do what I claim and yet I am actually rather busy doing just that. People who tell me I can’t do something whilst I am actually doing that thing make me laugh. It all boils down to what do the people with the guns think and what will they do? As much as I enjoy an intelligent and reasonable discussion and exchange of potentially diverse ideas, it doesn’t change what the people with the guns think and do. I could be right as rain, but if the people with guns don’t know it, they can’t act upon it and I could end up right in prison. I would rather be right outside of prison. I will not however abandon right to avoid prison. In any event, this is an entirely moot point and I will tell you why. I received a phone call from a rather excited man last Saturday morning. I was awakened by this call and so cannot confidently recall it exactly but he read to me parts of it. He is sending me a copy and I will post a PDF file when it arrives. He has sent out notices and made claims and he received a reply from his ex-MP who no longer was representing him. Her name is Carol Klepton and she happens to be the Minister of Revenue. She acknowledged receipt of his notice and claim, stated she would not be disputing it, agreed he now existed outside the legislative framework and thus no longer bound by statutes and accepted his status as a ‘Freeman-on-the-Land’ as per his claim. She then cordially wished him well. You can very easily find her number, call her up and simply ask her if it is true. I told him to take that to his Notary, have copies made and served on the police and Sheriffs. He likely did that this morning. So, the people in power are now finally recognizing the truth. We can create binding judgments very easily which will be lawfully enforced by Big Men With Guns and those same people with guns are now accepting that they have no right or power to enforce statutes against us without our consent. If you don’t believe me do your own due diligence and make some phone calls and simply ask these people. They will tell you. Simple fact is I am right. They are service providers and I can say NO. Furthermore, I now believe that all the statutes are actually merely the rules which are supposed to be applied ONLY to government agents and everyone else is free to do as they please provided they do not harm, damage or use fraud or mischief in their contracts. They tricked us into voluntarily becoming government agents and employees and thus standing under statutes. As for having an obligation to pay for say the use of the roads, or good healthcare, I have no problem paying for fairly provided and agreed upon services, but when someone thinks that because I am willing to pay for road creation and maintenance they now have the right and power to dictate virtually all aspects of my life, or how we raise our children, or what we do in the privacy of our own homes, they can take a hike, likely with my boot up their ass. Furthermore people refer to these things called ‘benefits’. That too has a definition and it states that the recipient has to feel they gained an advantage. I don’t feel I gained any advantage at all. I feel like I was fully and completely dishonored and betrayed by the country and so called society I was willing to put my life on the line for as a young man. There is no benefit to deception and ignorance. Two parties can receive the exact same package but if one paid more than the other it is possible one may not feel they received a benefit. I am glad you are happy with what they give you. The following is the letter which I believe led to her acknowledgment. It was sent to an Agent of the CRA and a copy was sent to the previously mention MP and the Minister of Finance and a whole bunch of others too. April 2, 2007 NOTICE To: Allan Tocher CC: TWIMC Hello and good day! I am Robert-Arthur: Menard a Freeman-on-the-Land in this common law jurisdiction. We met a few days ago when I was acting lawfully for my friend Ross. You invited me into the offices where we had a little discussion. At that time you informed me that you had looked at my account and found that I had not filed in many years. I informed you at that time that I did not have an account with you and that I did not have a Social Insurance Number. You then told me that I did have a number thus an account with you and you stated that you had looked in a file. However, I had never given you a date of birth nor did I associate myself with any number nor did I authorize you or anyone else to act on my behalf. So how do you know you were looking in the right file? I know for a fact that you weren’t looking in the right file as whoever’s file you were looking at is someone who consents to being represented and governed and has an account with you and has a Social Insurance Number. I have no account with you nor do I have a SIN. I am not a SINner. You also informed me that it was possible to file income tax returns without a SIN. However since the SIN is also the account number and I don’t have an account with you, why would I file? Additionally, the collection of taxes is a function of government and I have chosen to revoke consent to be represented and thus exist free of government. I know that as a government agent you do not like to think that people can do such a thing. I believe this is the case because those who benefit from any societal mechanism rarely wish to understand that mechanism, especially if it appears to grant them power, control or authority over their fellow man and actually understanding that mechanism would remove, diminish or erode that apparent power, control or authority. During the meeting, you seemed to threaten me with legal action and you spoke of how the courts have previously ruled against others. You said some of them were still in jail. For the record when you said that you had an arrogant smirk and spittle on your chin. I point out I am not others, I have revoked consent and I do not have a government. Furthermore I would be willing to guess that not a single one of the people whom you referred to are in possession of a document like the one I have. It is signed by a Queens Counsel who works for the Department of Justice and in it she clearly acknowledges me as a Freeman-on-the-Land who exists outside of the legislated framework and over whom they claim no statutory authority. Since a lawyer with the DOJ recognizes me as a Freeman-on-the-Land and not subject to the ITA why do you not wish to do so as well? I believe it is because you are concerned not with truth, justice or law, but with your own personal power and place at the trough. This is made very apparent in the recording of our conversation when you rejected outright without first considering a lawful and just position. You rejected immediately without looking at the law or the logic or the reasoning behind the position and you did so for no other reason than because if true you lose power to demand, order and intimidate. It was not wise to threaten me. To be a bully and to threaten me is stupid. To be a bully I can easily outrun and threaten me is next to suicide. You seem to think that either you directly or the people who hired you have some lawful right to govern me without my consent. Are you operating on the belief that you are morally or physically superior to me and therefore you may govern me without the benefit of consent? Were you appointed by God? Or was the party that hired you as an agent claim to be appointed by God? You also mentioned that the courts have sided against previous ‘natural persons’ although I never identified myself as one. All cases are different and I draw your attention to the case of R v. Lutes. In that case the court found that because there was no joinder created by Lutes between him and a SIN and established by the prosecution that the accused owed CRA nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Squat. Yes, Allan, in this case the court ruled that if someone did not have a SIN, they did not have an account with CRA and if they had no account with CRA they did not have any obligation to file. It all boils down to the SIN and how it is evidence of an association of an employee/employer type between the federal government and the individual. Your ability to demand payment or performance is limited to those who are federal government employees by virtue of their SIN. You also asserted that it was not allowed to abandon a Social Insurance Number yet you were completely incapable of telling me where it says that a human being in Canada may not choose to abandon a SIN nor could you establish that those words, if they did exist, had anything to do with me. According to Human Resources, the people responsible for issuing a SIN, they told me that it is an employee identification number and they agreed there was no legal difference between ‘working legally in CANADA’ and working ‘legally for CANADA.” Since when is it lawful for any entity to demand I work for them without contract or agreement? I once was a government employee and when I was I had a government employee identification number or SIN. I am no longer a government employee and therefore no longer have a number. I have taken the liberty of posting a recording of our conversation on line at my website along with a PDF copy of this letter. In order to allow others to do their own due diligence, I am also posting your phone number so people can call you directly and hear for themselves how you are incapable of showing where it says we have to have a SIN nor can you show where there is an obligation to file if we do not have one. Hopefully you will when speaking to them use your analogy that someone abandoning a SIN is the same as dropping a brick on your head. That complete and utter lack of reason and logic is quite funny and demonstrates the mindset of the average government employee. You don’t want anyone overturning the trough do you? You simply can’t imagine anyone not existing under your thumb and accepting your ‘services’. Incidentally if any gigolo tried providing sexual services to a woman the way the CRA and their agents provide services to the people of Canada, they would face charges of rape. Can you tell me how we go about telling you we do not want your services or are you like a rapist who thinks that his victims received services? The greatest danger facing Canadians is in fact people like you who as government agents are so full of their own arrogance and ignorance that they feel they can make demands and extract energy without recognizing the need for consent. You are not a lawyer and therefore your words were merely your untrained opinion and not a lawful legal determination and thus created no obligation, agreement or contract. I do not contract with those who are deceivers and bullies. You I feel are both. I am in possession of correspondence signed by a lawyer and Queen’s Counsel employed by the Federal Ministry of Justice. In it they acknowledge my status as a Freeman-on-the-Land and that I exist free of all statutory obligations such as those found in the Income Tax Act. But as I said before, you and the people who work for CRA don’t like thinking people can say no to you do you? Incidentally, the fact that every agent I saw in your office was morbidly obese while all your so called clients were thin and gaunt was not lost on me. The parasites grow fatter than the host and do not care about its health. I know my business better than you or your principal. Speaking of them, In order to confirm and support my beliefs, I made some phone calls to HRC. That’s Human Resources Canada. This led me to wonder what difference HRC has with a Human Resource Department with a corporation and I have come to the conclusion there is no difference as each deal with their employees. I called HRC and spoke with a nice lady. I told her I needed a Federal Employee Identification Number and was informed by her that a Social Insurance Number is the same as the federal Employee Identification Number as they refer to a SIN as an Employee Identification number. I then called CRA and asked a lady to see if she could open a file with only a name and no date of birth provided or Social Insurance Number and was informed by her she could not check records properly with only that information. I told her I did not have a SIN and she informed me that if I did not have a SIN I did not have an account with them and I would have to apply for a SIN with HRC. So I called them back. I asked HRC why I should have a SIN and was told by the lady on the phone that I needed one to work legally in Canada. I asked if there was any difference between working legally in and working legally for Canada. She did not know that there was. She confirmed that in order to pay into the Canada Pension Plan one needed a SIN and she acknowledged that a SIN is referred to as an Employee Identification Number by them and she further agreed that her organization is called Human Resources Canada and further that all other HR departments in the private sector deal with employees. She agreed with me that the evidence clearly indicates that having a SIN means that one is an employee of the federal government. I then asked her where it said that we could not abandon our SIN and she could not show me where it said we could not do such a thing and she then agreed that if the number was in fact indicative of an employee/employer relationship we have to have the right to abandon, or else we are merely slaves to our employers. She agreed that an employee has a right to quit and no longer associate with an employer, regardless of who they may be, and that if they did not wish to be a government agent or employee it would be unlawful to force them. She seemed rather open to being persuaded by logic and reason. You stated in our conversation that “we exist in a statutory framework”. I remind you that I have never given you the right to speak on my behalf and when you use the word ‘we’ you must be speaking about yourself and other government agents. I agree YOU people do exist and operate within a statutory framework. As a Freeman-on-the-Land I do not exist within your statutory framework and therefore you have no right or basis to make any demands upon me. It’s really very simple; you have chosen to exist and operate as a government employee and I have chosen to not. You are bound by the rules that are applicable to government agents and I am not. You made your choice and I made mine. You don’t like my choice however because it means you have no authority over me and the ITA is not applicable to me. Over the next few months, thousands of people will be abandoning their Social Insurance Numbers and closing out their accounts with you. Many may choose to become Freesouls-on-the-Land and fire their representatives and exist completely free of all government. Many will do so due to the unending arrogance and smarminess of those who claim to be providing us with services. We can and will say no to your services and then as a service provider you will go hungry. Although there is nothing I can do to stop you from holding Ross’s money, I can lawfully engage in a course of action in the hopes of hastening your performance of duties. Towards that ends, I will distributing thousands of newsletters of the type you have already seen, as well as engaging in a Nationwide education campaign to see how many people I can teach about the benefits of not working in or for the federal government. In your case the concept of winning the battle but losing the war comes to mind. What will it cost the CRA when 18,000 people abandon their SIN’s and escape the obligations found in the ITA not only in terms of money but in terms of ability to instill fear? I think when that happens you will know that it is only a matter of time until 100X more do the exact same thing and then CRA and people like you are finished. Well not exactly finished, but you will be limited to governing not the populace of a country, but only those who have secured employment as a government employee. And this is how it should have been all along. Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Robert-Arthur: Menard Freesoul-on-the-Land All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended by The Grace of God. Feel free to check out the challenge found on www.thinkfree.ca Namaste! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 FTA:Who are you people? This same idiotic exchange has happened before...and I direct you to review the response I gave back then Thats the Googled definition but what is the legal definition in Canada ? What does Crown Priviledge allow Canadian lawyers to get away with ? If you are questioned wrt your role in a crime can you use crown priviledge to get out of it and avoid any responsibility ? I know from dealing with the Law Society Of Upper Canada and many lawyers that lawyers here have a different, magical definition of extortion that is different from what is on google. I'm assuming that its very hard to file a criminal complaint against a lawyer because no one wants to take legal responsibility for it which is why you must be prepared to lay down 6 figures and hire a lawyer even to file a criminal complaint. I assume that the lawyer can invoke crown priviledge, absolving themselves of any responsibility for the crimes committed then sue which ever lawyer filed the complaint for lack of being able to prove the case and therefore false arrest. Seriously, Poly, this is about as weak as you've ever been. The links that show up on the first page alone of the Google search include definitions spelled out by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Department of Justice, and the Canadian Parliament. Is that "legal" enough for you? I guess the trouble is, you'd have to read the definitions and then you'd know what Crown Privilege is and you'd have to stop insinuating that it is some kind of secret lawyer-conspiracy rule that allows us to rape and plunder at our pleasure. The rest of your assumptions are completely absurd and hopelessly wrong. Lawyers questioned about their involvement in a crime have the same Charter rights as any citizen...no more no less. An issue of solicitor-client privilege may arise but that's something that would routinely be worked out by the court. Crown (government) lawyers may be the physical persosn who assert Crown privilege as agents of the state...but the privilege is not theirs personally...it is the Crown's. If a government lawyer is alleged to have committed a crime, Crown privilege cannot be used to protect them from prosecution. Police officers salivate over the opportunity to charge lawyers with criminal offences...perhaps the difficulty you've faced is the lack of a case as opposed to the lack of anyone wanting to take responsibility. In the event that you have to file a private prosecution because the police refuse to do it then, yes, you may have to hire a lawyer...but I charged a steep $6,500.00 for a very complex private information process hearing that I did a few weeks ago...a far cry from "six figures". I can't even find the words to respond to your last paragraph because it has absolutely no foundation in reality. FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 If a government lawyer is alleged to have committed a crime, Crown privilege cannot be used to protect them from prosecution. A fellow I know, an ex lawyer now, one of formerly high regard recently completed a stay in gaol for some offenses.....while he had an ex chief of police, a retired and decorated Major General and some rather emminent clerics vouching for him at the trial and still he went away for awhile.....now once he was a crown prosecuter, but I guessed he missed that law class where crown privilege was discussed or else rather than get beat up weekly and learn the finer aspects of the prison laundry system, he would have used it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 FTA -- did you have any specific criticism to make about the way I defined crown privilege? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesActive Posted April 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 Rob, thanks for your timely post! As you well know, it's difficult to get these ideas across to some people. Let's see if what you've contributed here today helps a few more to realize that it might just be possible to ThinkFree. I hope that you'll check back and comment again. And uhmmmmm, er, sorry 'bout that "annoying" comment I made earlier. No ill will meant bro! Boy, is my face red. You forgot to mention why the hits on the video spiked so suddenly!?! Figleaf, if you can't make the distinction between a human being (reality) and a person (fictional) then you may never understand the concepts being put forth. This link may help you with some of the basics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreemanMenard Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 Rob, thanks for your timely post! As you well know, it's difficult to get these ideas across to some people. Let's see if what you've contributed here today helps a few more to realize that it might just be possible to ThinkFree. I hope that you'll check back and comment again. And uhmmmmm, er, sorry 'bout that "annoying" comment I made earlier. No ill will meant bro! Boy, is my face red. You forgot to mention why the hits on the video spiked so suddenly!?!Figleaf, if you can't make the distinction between a human being (reality) and a person (fictional) then you may never understand the concepts being put forth. This link may help you with some of the basics. Hi Les! Good work here on your part holding the fort. The video spiked so suddenly due to (I believe) a memo from the government to their agents telling them that statutes are not laws and to look to this video to understand why. I am also now in possession of a letter signed by Carol Skelton. She as an MP clearly acknowledges the right to exist without a government. If anyone else wishes to dispute or debate with me, I am happy to provide them with the address of a Notary Public who will register their dispute, provided they are willing to act under full commercial liability and threat of perjury. If not, then the LAW will simply not be able to hear you, as you will be whispering like a thief. If anyone wishes to disute or disagree with me, let them do so on the same level I oprate upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 Alcan or Reynolds wrap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 If fruitcakes could fly, this place would be an airport. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 18, 2007 Report Share Posted April 18, 2007 Figleaf, if you can't make the distinction between a human being (reality) and a person (fictional) then you may never understand the concepts being put forth. I understand very clearly. The distinction lies entirely in the arbitrary, fraudulent definition structure you and your buddy Menard have dreamed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.