Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception

[M.Dancer]

The first clue that this is a hoax or at worst, crackpots is the claim that their video is/was a number 1 video on google.ca

The video has been viewed around 96,000 times.

The current number one video has ben viewed..........over a million and a half times....

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4733293919754933024

[FreemanMenard]

The first clue that this is a hoax or at worst, crackpots is the claim that their video is/was a number 1 video on google.ca

The video has been viewed around 96,000 times.

The current number one video has ben viewed..........over a million and a half times....

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4733293919754933024

Weird eh? Went from an average of about 150 hits a day to 15,000 on Easter Saturday and about half that on Sunday, then died right off and went back to the previous level. On Easter Saturday it was in fact #1.

Honestly it blew me away.

It was a very huge anomaly and a large spike and yet does not mean there was any attempt at a hoax.

Very curious to me, as I know I had nothing to do with it and yet it clearly happened. Originally I thought maybe I had, um, 'infected' someone with my beliefs and they, being a web nerd type, tweaked the ratings with their 'web control magic' to create the illusion of so many hits.

I now believe (for very good reason) a government memo went out directing agents to examine at least these concepts. Right or wrong, people are in fact acting upon them, and the people in the government need to know from whence we come. That is the only logical reason I can see for the anomalous spike.

It has never been about being right or wrong; it has always been about how willing you are to stand REGARDLESS.

It must be so very convenient to be able to dismiss all new and thus unfamiliar or otherwise unacceptable concepts with a label that dismisses the other party due to your own lack of ability to see their argument. That's a very powerful tool, until someone points out your are using it. Then you are pretty much hooped.

In any event, this is the internet and carries no weight. I have a challenge standing as yet uncontested.

Any takers?

Any one who wants to respond to me better be willing to ante up, or be seen and treated as a punk.

Sincerely,

Robert-Arthur: Menard

Freesoul-on-the-Land

[email protected]

604-721-0890

My Face may be viewed by any and all here: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7978193591273339771

I have NOTHING to hide.

Notices, Claims and other Instruments may be served via this good Notary:

Chad Kwan

Look him up.

[PolyNewbie]

Figleaf:The distinction lies entirely in the arbitrary, fraudulent definition structure you and your buddy Menard have dreamed up.

If thats the cae its no worse than the legal profession and courts and the face they present to us, being "noble honerable & distinguished" is a bold faced lie. If anything they are exactly the opposite.

[FreemanMenard]

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.

Um, hi! So you know, I did not dream up the definition of 'person' found in Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition). That book has been around much longer than I. Would you like to know the definition? Or do you prefer staring at the shadows on the wall in your own little cave?

[onesentient]

Hello FreemanMenard! Most importantly...my heart goes to you for the situation with your daughter! It is very nice to meet you! My name is Joyce-Marie. I've seen your videos, read your material, and I'm a member at your website. I have one question...how do I claim ownership of my two children?? I understand how 'I' can become a freeman on the land, but what about my children?? I live in the US so I'm not sure if anything applies like it does in Canada. Have a wonderful day FreemanMenard!

Joyce-Marie

A living, breathing, spiritual being!

[Figleaf]

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.

Um, hi! So you know, I did not dream up the definition of 'person' found in Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition).

You have dreamed up an arbitrary system of what definitions you will select and apply to give the aura of credibility to your campaign.

[Edit: To be more specific, what I see you doing is cherry-picking definitions and constitutional notions and stacking them together in your own interpretive/artistic fashion with generous doses of misplaced jargon to act as glue. You then present your construct as a The Proper Truth about law, even though it has no coherent claim to being correct or superior to the real laws that people deal with.

Even if, and its a big if, you were right that your interpretations are how the law SHOULD BE, they are absolutely not right about what the law REALLY IS. Anyone attempting to rely on your nonsense will be in for a rude awakening.]

BTW, what's with the funny hat?

[LesActive]

Even if, and its a big if, you were right that your interpretations are how the law SHOULD BE, they are absolutely not right about what the law REALLY IS. Anyone attempting to rely on your nonsense will be in for a rude awakening.

There will be resistance by the authorities but that's only because they are acting on presumptions, as you are. You presume that I am the same as you, and essentially I am, except I'll have made a claim of right that, witnessed and unrebutted, will stand as truth. Look up claim of right in the Criminal Code.

Or does the thought that people can responsible for their own actions actually scare you that much?

Statutes are not necessarily law. They kinda look like it with all the pretty fictional colours though.

[ScottSA]

Seems to me that the latterday cynics hereabouts who lable themselves "freemen", ought not use the internet, since the flipside of acknowledging no overlord is not partaking in the overlord's benevolence. If you owe society nothing, isn't it incumbent upon you not to take anything from society? By doing so, are you not acknowledging a debt?

[FreemanMenard]

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.

Um, hi! So you know, I did not dream up the definition of 'person' found in Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition).

You have dreamed up an arbitrary system of what definitions you will select and apply to give the aura of credibility to your campaign.

[Edit: To be more specific, what I see you doing is cherry-picking definitions and constitutional notions and stacking them together in your own interpretive/artistic fashion with generous doses of misplaced jargon to act as glue. You then present your construct as a The Proper Truth about law, even though it has no coherent claim to being correct or superior to the real laws that people deal with.

Even if, and its a big if, you were right that your interpretations are how the law SHOULD BE, they are absolutely not right about what the law REALLY IS. Anyone attempting to rely on your nonsense will be in for a rude awakening.]

BTW, what's with the funny hat?

All I did was look up every word in certain statutes using proper Law dictionaries and some rather old English ones.

Yes I pick and choose my words and I do my best to define them to my benefit. Welcome to the Law. You would prefer I not even try, and just take the words of the Lawyers and accept their definitions, even if doing so goes directly against my own internal moral code.

I like Humpty Dumpty's quote:

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

I have chosen to interpret their words in a manner that empowers myself and frees me of their demands. You wish to point to their words and claim they are law. Go head. But just don't try acting for me.

How does this sound. You have the right to point to a body of words and the right to claim that body of words is your law and binds you. I have the same right. You get to point to the words you want and I get to point to the words I want. I will not impose my words upon you and you don't impose your words upon me. Sound good so far? Or do you have some sick desire to rule over your fellow man and if so is it because you simply do not trust yourself?

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.

There are some people who wish to walk around with diapers so they can avoid personal responsibility. Others are waking up and taking off the diapers and you don't like it because we will see you as a child still coddled by the state. You will argue that we all have to follow the same rules and then act like a child and demand services and benefits. Guess what? There are certain rules for children and others for adults. There are certain rules that apply to those who desire the limited liability a 'person' provides and there are those who wish to live responsibly and more fully. There are those (most everyone with a license) who are viewed legally as a 'Child of the Province' even though they are adults. They are viewed as children because they seek permission to engage in entirely lawful activities from de-facto governments.

You also seem to think that I reject law. I do not at all. I love Law. I merely distinguish between things you do not. If this is what you call 'picking and choosing' so be it. I will remind you of the maxim which states: He who distinguishes well learns well.

You look at something cursorily, call it a brick wall and then claim anyone who would question it is crazy. I have approached and examined very closely the things you observe form a distance and have found that it is only canvas painted to look like brick. Refuse to touch it if you want, spend your life thinking it is what it is not. You will spend you life in a box created entirely of your own ignorance.

And you will not keep me in it.

Wear your diapers if you want and demand all the government services and coddling you possibly can. Just because you need diapers (ie statutes) to regulate YOUR life does not mean everyone does. There are many people waking up, spiritually speaking, we are saying no and you simply can't make us say different and there is nothing you can do about it, either directly or through your representatives and their agents because you are still a child of the province and wearing your diapers.

Have a fantasticalmorgasticallyjoyous day.

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

Namaste!

[FreemanMenard]

Seems to me that the latterday cynics hereabouts who lable themselves "freemen", ought not use the internet, since the flipside of acknowledging no overlord is not partaking in the overlord's benevolence. If you owe society nothing, isn't it incumbent upon you not to take anything from society? By doing so, are you not acknowledging a debt?

Can you please tell me the actual legal name of the Society you are referring to? If you are a member of it you should be able to name it. It will likely have the word 'Society' or 'association' in it. Go head, look in your wallet and find your membership card. Pull it out and tell me the name of your society.

Thanks.

PS: If you can't do that I claim you don't have a society at all and your entire argument is based upon a fallacy.

[M.Dancer]

Reynolds Wrap it is.

[FreemanMenard]

Reynolds Wrap it is.

Enjoy your shadows!

[ScottSA]

Seems to me that the latterday cynics hereabouts who lable themselves "freemen", ought not use the internet, since the flipside of acknowledging no overlord is not partaking in the overlord's benevolence. If you owe society nothing, isn't it incumbent upon you not to take anything from society? By doing so, are you not acknowledging a debt?

Can you please tell me the actual legal name of the Society you are referring to? If you are a member of it you should be able to name it. It will likely have the word 'Society' or 'association' in it. Go head, look in your wallet and find your membership card. Pull it out and tell me the name of your society.

Thanks.

PS: If you can't do that I claim you don't have a society at all and your entire argument is based upon a fallacy.

I'm not talking about a legal definition, I'm talking about honour. Do freemen have honour, or do you claim the 'right' to be free from it too? If so, we have nothing more to talk about. If, on the other hand, you claim that your's is an honourable endeavor, then I ask you again: if you claim you have no obligation to civil society, would it not be honourable to withdraw entirely from civil society? Is it fair that you take from civil society but not give back?

I must say, Diogenes did a better job of defending his tomfoolery than do you with Sophist wordplay.

[Figleaf]

Even if, and its a big if, you were right that your interpretations are how the law SHOULD BE, they are absolutely not right about what the law REALLY IS. Anyone attempting to rely on your nonsense will be in for a rude awakening.

There will be resistance by the authorities but that's only because they are acting on presumptions, as you are. You presume that I am the same as you, and essentially I am, except I'll have made a claim of right that, witnessed and unrebutted, will stand as truth. Look up claim of right in the Criminal Code.

At your suggestion, I did look up 'claim of right' in the Criminal Code. It appears only in these sections relating to defense of property:

Defence of Property

Defence of personal property

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or

( in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,

if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

Assault by trespasser

(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

Defence with claim of right

39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Defence without claim of right

(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.

Defence of dwelling

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.

Defence of house or real property

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Assault by trespasser

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

Assertion of right to house or real property

42. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.

Assault in case of lawful entry

(2) Where a person

(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or

( not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,

assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.

Trespasser provoking assault

(3) Where a person

(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or

( acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,

assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

So I have no idea why you wanted me to read it, since, as you can see it says nothing in support of your claims to legal exceptionalism. (Not that any phrase in the Criminal Code even could establish the kind of general legal exceptionalism you seem to be claiming).

Statutes are not necessarily law. They kinda look like it with all the pretty fictional colours though.

What can you possibly mean that statutes are not necessarily law? It's a senseless statement. They may be invalid under a constitution, but thats it. Otherwise, they're laws.

And whats this stuff about colours?

[FreemanMenard]

Seems to me that the latterday cynics hereabouts who lable themselves "freemen", ought not use the internet, since the flipside of acknowledging no overlord is not partaking in the overlord's benevolence. If you owe society nothing, isn't it incumbent upon you not to take anything from society? By doing so, are you not acknowledging a debt?

Can you please tell me the actual legal name of the Society you are referring to? If you are a member of it you should be able to name it. It will likely have the word 'Society' or 'association' in it. Go head, look in your wallet and find your membership card. Pull it out and tell me the name of your society.

Thanks.

PS: If you can't do that I claim you don't have a society at all and your entire argument is based upon a fallacy.

I'm not talking about a legal definition, I'm talking about honour. Do freemen have honour, or do you claim the 'right' to be free from it too? If so, we have nothing more to talk about. If, on the other hand, you claim that your's is an honourable endeavor, then I ask you again: if you claim you have no obligation to civil society, would it not be honourable to withdraw entirely from civil society? Is it fair that you take from civil society but not give back?

I must say, Diogenes did a better job of defending his tomfoolery than do you with Sophist wordplay.

I believe very strongly in honour, I will not however agree that I owe anything to a something which doesn't actually exist. If this thing called 'civil society' actually exists, you can tell me its name.

Secondly, let us suppose that you wish to claim there is a society and that it has no name and yet I owe something to it. Are you honorable enough to accept full responsibility for the actions of your representatives and their agents? Because if so, I will immediately give you a bill.

I feel I owe my fellow man compassion, holders of offices respect, and the law obedience. You however seem to think I should obey office holders out of respect for the law.

I answered your question now answer mine.

Do you distinguish between 'statutes' or 'Acts' and Law? Because if not, WE have nothing more to discuss, as you simply lack the intelligence to properly distinguish between one and the other and we will simply be speaking different languages using the same sounds.

So do you distinguish, or are you one of the simpletons that believe statutes are law?

[FreemanMenard]

RE: Claim of Right

By operating upon a claim of right you will have the right and power to use violence to stop even cops from taking your property.

There is a maxim at law which states :The inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other.

By seizing your right to use violence to defend property, you remove from the police the power to use violence to seize it, as two can't have that same right. Only one may.

Color of right and color of law are related but different concepts.

When you look through the Criminal Code look at offenses like rape or extortion and they use the term 'anyone' and applies to all regardless of consent. Those are actual 'laws'. Now look at say the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and how it refers to 'persons'.

There is a very big difference between the two and they use them for a reason. One means one thing and the other means something entirely different.

If you refuse to distinguish, you will never see the difference and never see our perspective or understand why we do what we do.

Have a great day!

[Figleaf]

All I did was look up every word in certain statutes using proper Law dictionaries and some rather old English ones.

Exactly. That's a process that will equip you to make up a patchwork of ideosyncratic legalese, but tell you nothing about what the law really is.

Yes I pick and choose my words and I do my best to define them to my benefit. Welcome to the Law.

Welcome to your personal misguided understanding of what the law is. The law isn't like the bible, where you read it and make up what you like and no-one can gainsay you. The law is a shared enterprise that invokes COMMON agreement. Your exercise in private definitionalizing is, axiomatically, NOT law.

You would prefer I not even try, and just take the words of the Lawyers and accept their definitions, even if doing so goes directly against my own internal moral code.

Do you know the difference between a normative statement and a descriptive statement?

I have chosen to interpret their words in a manner that empowers myself and frees me of their demands.

But as a matter of reality as it is experienced in the real world, you cannot free yourself of the legal authorities by merely interpreting words to suit yourself.

How does this sound. You have the right to point to a body of words and the right to claim that body of words is your law and binds you. I have the same right.

What do you mean? That you have the 'right' to believe and propagate nonsense? Yes, certainly.

But will the state acknowledge your claim to be exempt from its laws based on such nonsense? No, it won't.

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.

Well, I did look at that section and here's what it says:

Obedience to de facto law

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.

If you bother to read it, you'll see it says simply nothing like what you imagined.

...There are certain rules that apply to those who desire the limited liability a 'person' provides and there are those who wish to live responsibly and more fully. There are those (most everyone with a license) who are viewed legally as a 'Child of the Province' even though they are adults. They are viewed as children because they seek permission to engage in entirely lawful activities from de-facto governments.

Drivel.

I will remind you of the maxim which states: He who distinguishes well learns well.

You're method leaves you missing both those 'wells'.

BTW, your video mentions a concept you call 'Smoke'. Read your posts for great examples of it.

And WHAT is with that funny hat of yours?

[M.Dancer]

The problem with discussing certain ideas and concepts with people of undetermined mental stability is that to a third party onlooker, it is difficult at first glance to distinguish the difference between the parties.

When someone starts asking what the name of the society we belong to (Canada?)...... best to check to see if the toaster has antennae and whether the microwave has speakers and walk slowly backwards away making no sudden movements......

[FreemanMenard]

But will the state acknowledge your claim to be exempt from its laws based on such nonsense? No, it won't.

That is where you are very wrong. If I prove to you the state has in fact recognized as lawful these claims then would you maybe be willing to change your mind?

If all you can do is critique my clothing your argument can't be too powerful. I like my hat; it matches my underwear!

I will scan a letter sent by MP Carol Skelton, Minister of Revenue who does in fact recognize as valid claims made.

So you know, you are getting to the contest quite late. It's all over and I have already won.

And people telling me I can't do something, and I am crazy for thinking I can, well, they can call me crazy all they want. I will be busy doing that which they claim can't be done.

Peace eh?

Rob

[FreemanMenard]

Obedience to de facto law

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 section led to a very interesting conversation with a bunch of lawyers and they agreed with my analysis.

Because of that section, we can't convict someone merely for obeying the order of a de-facto government or court. However in the absence of that section we would be able to.

Just because we gave up the right to convict those who obey de-facto entities creates no obligation upon us to obey them. Where does it say clearly, specifically and unequivocally that we can now be convicted FOR NOT OBEYING?

No lawyer could show me that, and all agreed that we do in fact have de-facto courts and government and we still have the right to refuse to accept their orders.

Just because they specifically mention that we can't throw them in jail for accepting orders does not mean they can now throw us in jail for not. The moral aspect of obeying a de-facto entity does not change.

You have every right in the world to completely reject orders from them as they are de-facto and not de jure.

If you don't believe me do some due diligence. Ask a lawyer if that section does not imply and preserve the right to refuse their directives and orders.

Peace!

[ScottSA]

I believe very strongly in honour, I will not however agree that I owe anything to a something which doesn't actually exist. If this thing called 'civil society' actually exists, you can tell me its name.

I have. It's called civil society. You just won't accept it because it's a philosophical term and not a legal term.

Secondly, let us suppose that you wish to claim there is a society and that it has no name and yet I owe something to it. Are you honorable enough to accept full responsibility for the actions of your representatives and their agents? Because if so, I will immediately give you a bill.

A bill for what?

I feel I owe my fellow man compassion, holders of offices respect, and the law obedience. You however seem to think I should obey office holders out of respect for the law.

Not at all. I'm saying that if you are going to absent yourself from obligation to civil society, then you ought, honourably, to absent yourself from its benefits also. Are you willing to do that?

I answered your question now answer mine.

Do you distinguish between 'statutes' or 'Acts' and Law? Because if not, WE have nothing more to discuss, as you simply lack the intelligence to properly distinguish between one and the other and we will simply be speaking different languages using the same sounds.

So do you distinguish, or are you one of the simpletons that believe statutes are law?

You are taking a narrow legalistic viewpoint and engaging it with Sophist wordplay. I am neither equipped nor interested in debating legal semantics with you. FTA is I'm sure willing to engage you in that context, but I'm simply trying to get a straight answer from you on the logic and moral aspects of your ideology of cynicism. Are you able to parse out what I'm saying here or are you convinced that the totality of reality is contained in the legal terms you reject? Let me ask again:

If society, by whichever name you use to define it, is owed nothing by you, does it owe you anything? If, for instance, you reject the social contract implied by the law, does the law owe you its protection? As an honourable step, ought you not declare yourself an 'outlaw' in the feudal sense and live without legal protection? Further, ought you use fruits of society like the internet if you reject society's claims over you?

[FreemanMenard]

[ScottSA]

When I used to work in Centre Block a long time ago, we refered to these MP reply letters as "PFO" letters. It stands for "please f--- off", and as you'll note, it says "yeah we got the letter, yeah we know what you said, now please forget we exist and go play with hand grenades". In no way does it give any form of legitimacy to your philosophy of legalistic Cynicism.

In any event, you have not answered my question.

[FreemanMenard]

I believe very strongly in honour, I will not however agree that I owe anything to a something which doesn't actually exist. If this thing called 'civil society' actually exists, you can tell me its name.

I have. It's called civil society. You just won't accept it because it's a philosophical term and not a legal term.

Secondly, let us suppose that you wish to claim there is a society and that it has no name and yet I owe something to it. Are you honorable enough to accept full responsibility for the actions of your representatives and their agents? Because if so, I will immediately give you a bill.

A bill for what?

I feel I owe my fellow man compassion, holders of offices respect, and the law obedience. You however seem to think I should obey office holders out of respect for the law.

Not at all. I'm saying that if you are going to absent yourself from obligation to civil society, then you ought, honourably, to absent yourself from its benefits also. Are you willing to do that?

I answered your question now answer mine.

Do you distinguish between 'statutes' or 'Acts' and Law? Because if not, WE have nothing more to discuss, as you simply lack the intelligence to properly distinguish between one and the other and we will simply be speaking different languages using the same sounds.

So do you distinguish, or are you one of the simpletons that believe statutes are law?

You are taking a narrow legalistic viewpoint and engaging it with Sophist wordplay. I am neither equipped nor interested in debating legal semantics with you. FTA is I'm sure willing to engage you in that context, but I'm simply trying to get a straight answer from you on the logic and moral aspects of your ideology of cynicism. Are you able to parse out what I'm saying here or are you convinced that the totality of reality is contained in the legal terms you reject? Let me ask again:

If society, by whichever name you use to define it, is owed nothing by you, does it owe you anything? If, for instance, you reject the social contract implied by the law, does the law owe you its protection? As an honourable step, ought you not declare yourself an 'outlaw' in the feudal sense and live without legal protection? Further, ought you use fruits of society like the internet if you reject society's claims over you?

In answer to your question "Bill for what" why for giving me an order. Orders create liability for bills. If you don't believe me go to a restaurant, place an order and see if you are then liable. It works with judges too.

ANYONE gives you an order you have the power and right to create and present a bill. I know you don't believe me, but you should look up a guy named Winston Shrout.

Tell me who is so good that they can give another man an order and not be liable for a bill? Hmmm? As a function of law, bills ALWAYS follow orders. One creates the other.

Before we go further let us agree on a definition of a society. I will use the accepted legal definition. "A number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal."

If I do not consent, I am not a member of your society and your rules do not apply to me and I have no right to secure societal benefits.

You think I should leave because I refuse to give you my consent, but no where in that definition do you find any mention of geographical area and nor is it lawful to extract consent by saying "give it or leave!".

You point to things like roads and the internet and think that all these things are only available to members of your society. (Which as I said unless you can tell me the name of it I must believe it simply does not exist) I pay through private contracts and your belief that we should obey or go live in the bush is a great way to create a very stagnant community.

I do not believe a society owes anything to those who are not members thereof, however all human beings have duties to each other regardless of societal membership. Are you claiming one must be a member of a society to accept any humanistic duties?

Tell you what. I have left The Province of British Columbia, I have not left British Columbia and there is NOTHING anyone can do to make me leave one or join the other. NOTHING.

These statutes you call 'laws' are the rules that apply within The Province of British Columbia. I am not in it so the rules and benefits are not applicable to me. Are you even willing to distinguish between the two?

Now did you answer my simple question? I feel I am being honorable and civil in my reply. So please just answer yes or no: Do you distinguish between law and statute?

I guess if you can't answer you will just make a childish comment and try to be funny talking about toasters in the hopes that no one will realize you have completely failed to answer the question and you are completely incapable of doing so. People who are watching KNOW I just scored a huge point. Instead of answering the question, or admit you can't with honor, you instead insult the one who asked the question and dismiss the query with arrogance. From that guy I am expecting a "whatever' like you get from adolescent females.

So I tried to be honourable and answer your questions. Your turn.

Do you distinguish between law and statute? Between 'person' and 'human being'?

[M.Dancer]

When I used to work in Centre Block a long time ago, we refered to these MP reply letters as "PFO" letters. It stands for "please f--- off", and as you'll note, it says "yeah we got the letter, yeah we know what you said, now please forget we exist and go play with hand grenades". In no way does it give any form of legitimacy to your philosophy of legalistic Cynicism.

In any event, you have not answered my question.

That was truly funny. Not funny as in a punch line, but funny as in look, he fell down the stairs and spilt hot coffee over his precious polyester suit....