Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception

[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?

I was in the process of answering and I have much to do besides debate online. Now you have been answered. Will you do me the simple courtesy of a reply? I notice MDancer has yet to reply to my simple question as to the name of his society choosing instead to abandon the contest with a sneer or arrogance. But everyone sees he has left the contest and can't return unless he is willing to answer one very simple question: What is the name of the society he claims he is a member of and to which I owe duties.

You ask if I recognize I owe. Ok, for this purpose I agree. I owe society. I have a cheque. What name should I make it out to? What is the name of the Society I should make my check payable to?

When you can tell me the name I should put on that cheque and that name has the word 'Society' or 'association' in it, I will pay. Until then I simply can't pay what You feel I owe as I don't have a legal name of a party to receive payment. )

I don't owe squat to anything that does not even have a name. Sheesh....

[M.Dancer]

I notice MDancer has yet to reply to my simple question as to the name of his society choosing instead to abandon the contest with a sneer or arrogance.

I don't owe squat to anything that does not even have a name. Sheesh....

Actually it was a belly laugh....And if you wish to know the name of the society you live in I suggest you take a trip to your local library (first leaving sufficiant funds to cover your costs) then examine an up to date atlas and read, again, leaving sufficiant funds to cover the costs of whatever state funded edjimacashun you may have received....once you have found the atlas, fund where you live. The state name are in caps.

Now where do I send the bill?

[LesActive]

Actually it was a belly laugh....And if you wish to know the name of the society you live in I suggest you take a trip to your local library (first leaving sufficiant funds to cover your costs) then examine an up to date atlas and read, again, leaving sufficiant funds to cover the costs of whatever state funded edjimacashun you may have received....once you have found the atlas, fund where you live. The state name are in caps.

Now where do I send the bill?

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?

[FreemanMenard]

I notice MDancer has yet to reply to my simple question as to the name of his society choosing instead to abandon the contest with a sneer or arrogance.

I don't owe squat to anything that does not even have a name. Sheesh....

Actually it was a belly laugh....And if you wish to know the name of the society you live in I suggest you take a trip to your local library (first leaving sufficiant funds to cover your costs) then examine an up to date atlas and read, again, leaving sufficiant funds to cover the costs of whatever state funded edjimacashun you may have received....once you have found the atlas, fund where you live. The state name are in caps.

Now where do I send the bill?

Canadian Cancer Society

Law Society of British Columbia

The Society of Notary Publics of British Columbia

The Canadian Bar Association

The Society of Electrical Engineers

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Do you notice a common theme yet? No let me continue.

The Law Society of Upper Canada

The Royal Society of Canada

The Hume Society

Parkinson Society Canada

The Canadian Society for Civil Engineering

The John Howard Society of Canada

Look for the one word common throughout.

Legal things have legal names and when it comes to societies they almost always use that word in their name.

Even if one exists, could you please show me the function of law that would allow for you to demand I be a member of and thus subject to the rules of any society? It requires mutual consent and a common goal. It has nothing to do with being born within a certain geographical area.

I don't consent with you or share with you any common goals as you have not even stated any.

Well, I have done as you asked, just cause I am a genuinely nice guy. I found I live in a geographical area commonly referred to as British Columbia. I am aware however that geographical areas do not have legal powers, nor do they have standing at law.

There is another thing called The Province of British Columbia which is not an area but is a legal entity with certain powers within the borders of the geographical area. That legal entity is providing de-facto government to those who consent and has NO POWER over those who choose to not consent. Their ability to provide government to the inhabitants of the area is limited by law in the fact that they require consent prior to providing governance and simply peacefully existing within an area does not grant consent to be governed.

Neither British Columbia nor The Province of British Columbia are by definition societies, although I may be convinced that the latter is one, provided the characteristics of a society are proven. One of those characteristics however would have to be that membership must be fully and completely voluntary with no coercion, duress or deception involved and that people could cancel memberships at anytime.

Incidentally, your method of attacking me instead of my position is rather lame I feel and I wonder if you would not do better by addressing the arguments rationally and respectfully instead of passing personal judgments and attacks merely because you do not immediately see my position as rational or just.

In any event, I wish you all well! It's a beauty day here and I am going to get some sun!

[geoffrey]

These people are such a joke. "I don't pay my taxes but society screws me so much." They even invent their own legal logic to apply to situations.

You complain about people attack your person instead of your arguments, ok, here is some questions about your illogical ramblings. Mr. Menard, can you explain to me the following inventions of yours in the video:

- How, as your video claims, the government used Maritime Salvage to kidnap your daughter? I may be mistaken, but I'm sure your daughter wasn't an abandoned shipping container or vessel in international waters?

Perhaps she was. But essientially I think your full of it.

- Tell me how you have the right to operate a motor vehicle? You do have the statutory right to freedom of movement, but you don't have any inherent right to operate a motor vehicle. Show me where this exists. Do you also have the inherent right to operate an aircraft or how about a semi-trailer in downtown wherever you live? Do you have insurance on your non-motor-vehicle? When you collide with someones car, your certainly going to be seeing that indentured servitude that you try to avoid.

- Why do you believe you have a right to a GST rebate when you don't file income tax? Why should my money go to you when you contribute nothing yourself. Essientially, you want all the benefits of government, with none of the responsibility. Your a freeloading bum.

- Explain to me how a traffic ticket or a bill at the restuarant is a bill of exchange. Your wrong here unforunately, but I'm going to enjoy your defence of this argument.

- I'd love to see you explain this "I don't have to pay my student loans because there is no money in circulation." Unfortunately, your dictionary educated arguments would tell you that "1 : something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment"(Websters, 2007). Fiat currency is money. Your argument is based on a complete falisy. You've just found someone to disagree with you on this topic.

It's sad that you led all these people like LesActive and others that aren't educated in the law to think they can violate the law at will, without consequence. You honestly have no idea what your talking about, yet bring others down with you. Your a very very sad person, and you may end up getting alot of people in some serious trouble through your recklessness.

If you want to be a shit disturber, do so, but only take yourself down please. I do, however, admire your ability to stand in front of a group of people for an hour and half and keep a straight face while spewing your little inventions.

[ScottSA]

You ask if I recognize I owe. Ok, for this purpose I agree. I owe society. I have a cheque. What name should I make it out to? What is the name of the Society I should make my check payable to?

When you can tell me the name I should put on that cheque and that name has the word 'Society' or 'association' in it, I will pay. Until then I simply can't pay what You feel I owe as I don't have a legal name of a party to receive payment. )

I don't owe squat to anything that does not even have a name. Sheesh....

This is an answer? You first acknowledge that you owe society a debt ( "Ok, for this purpose I agree. I owe society" ) and then do some mumbling, apparently work yourself into a fit of spleen, and then announce you don't owe society because it doesn't have a name ( "I don't owe squat to anything that does not even have a name" ). That's not an answer. It's not even coherent. It's a semi-educated bluster that reverts to the legalistic sophisms your entire temper tantrum against the very legal system you mock rests upon.

Again, put the legalities out of your mind. "Society" is not a legal entity. It is a name for a cooperative of individuals who live under certain constraints for the deemed benefit of all. Society doesn't take checks. What society requires is cooperation with its norms...at least the larger norms, and that requires adherence to a body of laws agreed to, not individually, but representatively. It's fine and dandy if you want to declare yourself outside society, but on a point of honour, shouldn't you absent yourself from its benefits as well?

This question is not rocket science. Anyone with the capabiltiy to use a bit of logic can figure out what

I'm asking here. If you want to treat my question like a high school debate on semantics, then lets not continue. If you want to try to honestly answer my question, then please do.

[PolyNewbie]

FTALawyer: perhaps the difficulty you've faced is the lack of a case as opposed to the lack of anyone wanting to take responsibility.

You don't understand. The crimes that were committed against me were done so in public (extortion, threats, promise of no habeus corpus, royal screwing), and I had a witness come up and give me his business card afterwards. The lawyer took the business card out of my hands, laughed and said he couldn't do anything - he was just a high level public servant - older guy, manager of something. I had to smash that lawyers hand against the table to get the witnesses card back. I later contacted the witness and he explained that he contacted his lawyer and that because there was a lawyer that commited the crimes he should stay out of it so I got twice from you lawyers. The lawyer that committed the crimes can go after the witness.

This is why I absolutely hate lawyers and its why I think the whole legal profession is just rotten with corruption. I similar things have happened to others. Not all lawyers are lying criminals but if you want to be a lying criminal and you can afford law school, I would say that that is definetly the path to take.

I explained all this to the law society but do you think the law society would pick up the phone and call the other witness that was there and that had signed a contract that the lawyer denied the existance of and extorted me over ? - no way. They are too important and they don't do investigations. You see we public are just "specks" to the legal profession and anything and everything goes with lawyers when they choose to screw the public.

You need to lay down almost 6 figures to even file a criminal complaint against a lawyer - it doesn't matter if you have witnesses because the legal profession will just intimidate those to protect their own.

[ScottSA]

FTALawyer: perhaps the difficulty you've faced is the lack of a case as opposed to the lack of anyone wanting to take responsibility.

You don't understand. The crimes that were committed against me were done so in public (extortion, threats, promise of no habeus corpus, royal screwing), and I had a witness come up and give me his business card afterwards. The lawyer took the business card out of my hands, laughed and said he couldn't do anything - he was just a high level public servant - older guy, manager of something. I had to smash that lawyers hand against the table to get the witnesses card back. I later contacted the witness and he explained that he contacted his lawyer and that because there was a lawyer that commited the crimes he should stay out of it so I got twice from you lawyers. The lawyer that committed the crimes can go after the witness.

This is why I absolutely hate lawyers and its why I think the whole legal profession is just rotten with corruption. I similar things have happened to others. Not all lawyers are lying criminals but if you want to be a lying criminal and you can afford law school, I would say that that is definetly the path to take.

I explained all this to the law society but do you think the law society would pick up the phone and call the other witness that was there and that had signed a contract that the lawyer denied the existance of and extorted me over ? - no way. They are too important and they don't do investigations. You see we public are just "specks" to the legal profession and anything and everything goes with lawyers when they choose to screw the public.

You need to lay down almost 6 figures to even file a criminal complaint against a lawyer - it doesn't matter if you have witnesses because the legal profession will just intimidate those to protect their own.

Polly, you believe everything is a plot. Were I your lawyer I would run away as fast as I could. You are your own worst enemy when it comes to grownup coherent debates. I can only imagine the looks you got. All those quizzical looks they gave you when you embarked on your *ahem* case? Here's a hint: it wasn't because they were trying to think up a new plot to deal you dirt.

[Figleaf]

Just read the thread here since my last post. I am groping for a metaphor to capture the thoroughgoing thrashing that Freeman has invited on himself! I'll have to settle for a pop culture reference.

It's like the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad visits a wedding and Menard is The Bride.

There's only one thing to do ... pile on!

Menard:

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.

Hooey. I've quoted the whole relevant section of the Criminal Code, above. Now you quote for us exactly which clauses support your ludicrous interpretation.

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

That's not a maxim of law, its a canon of statutory interpretation. This kind of mistake is glaring evidence of your amateurish knowledge of law. Your arrogance convinces you that a complex ancient social artifact that people study for years to know is something you can teach yourself by scattered, untutored, untested, wrongheaded, self-referential dilletantism.

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.

Okay, back to the normative/descriptive divide... if you are simply saying that that SHOULD BE the law, then that's one thing, but if you are asserting that nonsense as a true representation on the state of the law today, you are utterly fantastically wrong. No judge will ever buy this nonsense.

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.

They are two different words, so they may well have two different meanings. Quote the relevant sections you want to compare and show what you mean.

[Adda]

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

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

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

The Constitution recognizes the birthright of the people. The drafters were people. The constitution does not grant such rights. Canada is a corporation listed with the US Securites and Exchange Commission in Washington District of Columbia. It is by waiving your recognized rights, by not remaining silent for example, that you lose them and no other way except under threat, duress or intimidation. A lot of that going on for sure but likely in ignorance. Those who beleive Canada owns the soil knows not that Canada is a corporation. Those that beleive the crown owns land have not ponderd how it is one takes title that no one had to give, sell or trade. It's a farce. Creator of the dust owns the fruits of it as man claims the fruits of his labour as his own. Give respect where due. I drive on creators roads made of creators dust which he did not include any need for licensing and not on roads owned by any crown that simply made claim to that what cannot rightfully or humanly be claimed.

[Figleaf]

Menard wrote:

... 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?

Okay, with one qualification. You have used the word 'lawful'. I don't think your nonsense is 'unlawful' in the sense that the law will try to stop your silly behavior. So instead of lawful, you have to prove that your claims about the law are true.

I like my hat; it matches my underwear!

In that you wear either on your head?

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

I've read the letter you posted now ( http://www.thinkfree.ca/images//skelton%20lette.pdf ).

I must tell you, there is not a hint in that letter that MP Skelton recognizes your claims as valid.

Rather, the letter says she recognizes that you have written -- something -- to her. Her letter makes no reference to the meaning of your letter and simply recites sections of it back to you without comment.

It is sad and sorry that you're so convinced about this stuff to the point you can publicly make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself. You have a profoundly wrong grasp of legal principles, methods, and content. Maybe you are some kind of con man and you already know this, or maybe you're an honest guy diligently working for what you believe in, but Brother, believe me, you have no hope of such badly conceived ideas ever going anywhere. Don't waste your time -- find something else to put your considerable energies on. Found a foodbank, or rescue greyhounds or something worthwhile.

[Adda]

Just read the thread here since my last post. I am groping for a metaphor to capture the thoroughgoing thrashing that Freeman has invited on himself! I'll have to settle for a pop culture reference.

It's like the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad visits a wedding and Menard is The Bride.

There's only one thing to do ... pile on!

Menard:

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.

Hooey. I've quoted the whole relevant section of the Criminal Code, above. Now you quote for us exactly which clauses support your ludicrous interpretation.

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

That's not a maxim of law, its a canon of statutory interpretation. This kind of mistake is glaring evidence of your amateurish knowledge of law. Your arrogance convinces you that a complex ancient social artifact that people study for years to know is something you can teach yourself by scattered, untutored, untested, wrongheaded, self-referential dilletantism.

What about the laws of the universe. What do laws of man have to do with those real las of life in reality?

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.

Okay, back to the normative/descriptive divide... if you are simply saying that that SHOULD BE the law, then that's one thing, but if you are asserting that nonsense as a true representation on the state of the law today, you are utterly fantastically wrong. No judge will ever buy this nonsense.

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.

They are two different words, so they may well have two different meanings. Quote the relevant sections you want to compare and show what you mean. The controlled substance is only controlled if you have what is controlled. just because you have what is controlled does not mean it is controlled. You make joinder by recognizing a controoled substance by name. So person is not the only title to trap you.

Violence begets violence and is not but an archaic solution (not a solution at all) that leaves humanity no better than it is or will be if attitude does not change. It is violence that got us here so why the heck would one do such a thing. Do you all not know you are part of the one and that vioence affects all. Enough violence.

The pen is mightier than the sword and it is the pen the banker uses to take your voluntary pledges. It is the pen you can end your time in the game as a token and enter as a player, off the board.

A birth certificate is not personal identification (court case here to that effect), it is a token to play the game of monopoly we are all in. As of now your birth certificare is/was treated as personal identification and is why you are treated as the token. Move token to jail, do not pass go do not collect $200 of funny money, and the man goes for the ride because he thinks he knows the rules of the game but does he? How you use the token decides your fate and no other is responsible. You bring violence upon yourself for your ignorance as do I. Work for money and you are a taxpayer not by law but by voluntary choice to be employed which is to be used under federal jurisdiction under public works like you use a shovel. Employed means not a man or principal but token or trustee. Tokens are used to play games not people, except people that forgot that little bit of life. Recognize that and you learn to play the game not in war but in peace. There is no need for violence, however, if the eyes are of violence then they will see violence as a remedy.

Not.

A simple use of the pen to the effect. I SO and SO am the principal and heir of the account XXXX you are holding in trust for me. Make the return to the principal, close and release immediatly, works each and everytime to date in criminal cases, thus no need for violence and works for civil matters because its the truth. Of course we include the proof a birth cetificate is not personal identification, also truth. The agent is the agent. Recognize the agent as an agent and yourself as the principal and give your wonderful servant some simple instuctions by pen than argue over your account/wallet he is holding in trust for your benefit. Resistance is futile....and the very cause of your own grief.

Violence begets violence

[Adda]

Menard wrote:

... 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?

Okay, with one qualification. You have used the word 'lawful'. I don't think your nonsense is 'unlawful' in the sense that the law will try to stop your silly behavior. So instead of lawful, you have to prove that your claims about the law are true.

I like my hat; it matches my underwear!

In that you wear either on your head?

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

I've read the letter you posted now ( http://www.thinkfree.ca/images//skelton%20lette.pdf ).

I must tell you, there is not a hint in that letter that MP Skelton recognizes your claims as valid.

Rather, the letter says she recognizes that you have written -- something -- to her. Her letter makes no reference to the meaning of your letter and simply recites sections of it back to you without comment.

It is sad and sorry that you're so convinced about this stuff to the point you can publicly make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself. You have a profoundly wrong grasp of legal principles, methods, and content. Maybe you are some kind of con man and you already know this, or maybe you're an honest guy diligently working for what you believe in, but Brother, believe me, you have no hope of such badly conceived ideas ever going anywhere. Don't waste your time -- find something else to put your considerable energies on. Found a foodbank, or rescue greyhounds or something worthwhile.

I beleive his intent is good but ditto.

[ScottSA]

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

Can you back this with a link?

[Figleaf]

Okay Freeman, I'll do one last one here, but then I'm through playing sillybuggers with you.

Menard wrote:

"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.

Suuuure they did.

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.

Yes, if the thing they did to obey was itself an offense in Canadian law.

Just because we gave up the right to convict those who obey de-facto entities creates no obligation upon us to obey them.

This sentence is confusingly structured and difficult to parse. I suppose you must mean:

Not convicting those who obey defacto governments does not mean we must obey defacto governments. If that's what you mean, I agree. But so what? (Do you know what 'de facto' means in this context?)

Where does it say clearly, specifically and unequivocally that we can now be convicted FOR NOT OBEYING?

I have no idea what you think you mean by that sentence. It does not say anywhere that people can be convicted for not obeying de facto courts or governments. Is anyone suggesting that it does say that??? Certainly the law isn't saying that.

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.

It says you can't be convicted for obeying. It doesn't say you can't be convicted for disobeying.

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.

Just because s.15 says you can't be convicted for obeying, doesn't mean you can't be convicted for DISobeying all the OTHER SECTIONS of the code. You need to sit down and really think about what you are saying.

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

Well (quite apart from the basic confusion of obeying and disobeying that underlies your whole argument) you need to know that Canada's governments are both de facto and de jure.

[Figleaf]

Actually it was a belly laugh....And if you wish to know the name of the society you live in I suggest you take a trip to your local library (first leaving sufficiant funds to cover your costs) then examine an up to date atlas and read, again, leaving sufficiant funds to cover the costs of whatever state funded edjimacashun you may have received....once you have found the atlas, fund where you live. The state name are in caps.

Now where do I send the bill?

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?

Neat link. I suppose you think it means Canada is a corporation subject to U.S. law?

[ScottSA]

Actually it was a belly laugh....And if you wish to know the name of the society you live in I suggest you take a trip to your local library (first leaving sufficiant funds to cover your costs) then examine an up to date atlas and read, again, leaving sufficiant funds to cover the costs of whatever state funded edjimacashun you may have received....once you have found the atlas, fund where you live. The state name are in caps.

Now where do I send the bill?

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?

Neat link. You I suppose you think it means Canada is a corporation subject to U.S. law?

Ah, so that's the nonsense behind the idea that Canada is a corporation registered with the SEC? Damn, some people shouldn't be taught to read.

[LesActive]

Neat link. I suppose you think it means Canada is a corporation subject to U.S. law?

That would be silly. Does General Mills proscribe the rules for Kellogg's? Different corporations.

[LesActive]

Ah, so that's the nonsense behind the idea that Canada is a corporation registered with the SEC? Damn, some people shouldn't be taught to read.

Ok ok you're right. It's so much safer not to look, not to question. They built it and we came and now we're stuck with playing the game. The information you need is more in you than it is in the laws you've created.

You don't need to be literate to understand it at its base but it does help to unravel the web.

[FreemanMenard]

Menard wrote:

... 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?

Okay, with one qualification. You have used the word 'lawful'. I don't think your nonsense is 'unlawful' in the sense that the law will try to stop your silly behavior. So instead of lawful, you have to prove that your claims about the law are true.

I like my hat; it matches my underwear!

In that you wear either on your head?

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

I've read the letter you posted now ( http://www.thinkfree.ca/images//skelton%20lette.pdf ).

I must tell you, there is not a hint in that letter that MP Skelton recognizes your claims as valid.

Rather, the letter says she recognizes that you have written -- something -- to her. Her letter makes no reference to the meaning of your letter and simply recites sections of it back to you without comment.

It is sad and sorry that you're so convinced about this stuff to the point you can publicly make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself. You have a profoundly wrong grasp of legal principles, methods, and content. Maybe you are some kind of con man and you already know this, or maybe you're an honest guy diligently working for what you believe in, but Brother, believe me, you have no hope of such badly conceived ideas ever going anywhere. Don't waste your time -- find something else to put your considerable energies on. Found a foodbank, or rescue greyhounds or something worthwhile.

Hi Figleaf!

I appreciate your response and trust my delay in replying is not seen by you as dishonorable on my part. Without judging, I like your spirit; you argue and present your position with logic and humour and a certain gentleness and concern for my well being which I am in fact appreciative of, and I thank you. Your quip about my underwear made me laugh right out loud, and I think that it is a good thing when two parties can express divergent opinions and elicit laughter in the other. That idea gives me hope. I thank you for honouring my underwear.

I will now do my best to respond to you with as much honour and good spirit as you have brought and if I fail, I ask in advance you forgive me. You will please note I am not claiming that an exchange of ideas with you is 'playing silly buggers'. Furthermore you will note I have posted full contact information and I do not hide. Not saying you do, but my dick is on the table.

First of all, I will not label your position and beliefs as nonsense even after I fully and completely examined them. The most I will do is simply inform you I can't accept your position as my own, but if you be comfortable there, I will not denigrate you, ok? I would ask the same.

Nor will I denigrate you for your sentence structure or grammar as I can see you are doing your best to share your perspective and I am fully aware how incredibly contentious my beliefs are and how well I can present them. I know the truth maliciously wielded can harm as much as any lie, and I have no desire to harm any one.

You have asked me to distinguish between 'lawful' and 'true'.

Wow..

Honestly that is a very good question.

I thank you for asking it.

Thinking...

I know there are things which 'appear' lawful yet are not true, they are legal, and they are even defined as fictions at law.

I know there are things not true, yet serve the purpose of making it easier to care for our fellow man and address the fundamental failures of pure common law.

That is a very good question and if we were playing a friendly game of chess you would have me scratching my chin.

Ok so here is what I think.

Lawful is this:

I have been asked to define 'law' with one word before and the best answer I found was 'remedy'.

Law fixes.

It was then pointed out to me true Law never harms (it simply can't) and I was asked to think on that.

This is what I saw.

I looked very deeply into my own heart and I saw very clearly I have a duty of compassion to my fellow man. I saw the fundamental need for love and the way truth joined those two.

I saw how I am (was) pretty much a failure at all those things and I felt like a child who was crawling on a path others dance upon.

I saw how I have just as much right to accept and follow that path and that even though I crawl, at least I found the path and those who truly dance there will not hate me for that. They will actually help me.

I think we are all one, regardless of skin tone, religion, political beliefs, or any other characteristic which instead of being celebrated for diversity was used to divide us. I think we are all part of one thing and when you boil it down, even man made geographical boundaries are meaningless.

Look at a tree. All different parts, merely sharing because as parts they all care about the whole unit and just share what they have to give. The whole unit benefits and those parts that give the best receive the greatest returns.

I have looked in the Acts and have deconstructed many of them. By this I mean a whole lot. This involves doing word searches. Know what words you never find in any Act? You will NOT find LOVE. You may find compassion, as I think I found it once. (I am not sure that was in a POBC Statute.) I never found truth without it being linked to a personal opinion.

So how can anyone even define 'true' without it being very closely linked to personal opinion? What is completely true for me, may be nonsense to you.

Bear in mind, respectfully, that's a double edged sword.

Lawful I would say is far easier.

That which I can do without harming another, damaging their property or using fraud or mischief in my contracts that is all lawful.

Some of that I accept may not be true or right, when one embraces the concept that we are all one and all part of the same Tree of Humanity.

It says you can't be convicted for obeying. It doesn't say you can't be convicted for disobeying.

This I think is where the crux of the argument would boil down to.

I agree it doesn't say explicitly you can't be convicted for disobeying. Nor does it say explicitly you can be.

Therefore there is doubt and where there is doubt there must be freedom unless you wish to bind with uncertainties.

You are pointing to what it does not say and so will I. Hope you don't mind. You opened the door. It does not say you can be convicted for disobeying and if they wish to convict you for something they really have to say so first, right?

But in this case they didn't.

Thank you for opening that door.

I like playing with you.

The parts of the Criminal Code that refer to anyone I am willing to accept as binding law. I have no desire to harm, damage or defraud.

Acts that refer to a 'person' must require my consent.

In any event, as for me being a 'silly bugger' I would ask you see that any functioning society or community requires discussion and deliberation, and that us engaging in such a process is healthy and helpful, while labeling said procedure as anything less is in fact quite counter productive. I hope you can parse that sentence.

Peace eh?

Rob

Edited to add:

I failed to address the main point you raised.

If you look at the letter you will see she used the words 'noted'. In law this counts a very great deal.

She also acknowledged claims of rights.

She also described that to which she was NOT disagreeing.

She is acknowledging and declining contest.

Three words for you:

Color of Right.

Two more:

Amazing defense.

Thing is you seem to think you need their permission before acting but the law really does not work like that.

You need to serve notice and make claim OR ask permission before acting.

But you and many others have been so conditioned to think the only way to move forward is to seek the permission of others.

Who are these others? I see pirates. I see deception and ignorance.

A hundred years ago real men served notices, made claims and acted with honor. They would never even think of 'applying'.

Peace out respond to the others later.

Rob

[Figleaf]

Whoa! this whole thing is a commercial scam! Check it out ...

http://free.biz.pn/Products.html

We are pleased to announce the availability of ThinkFREE Packages which consist of the DVD "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" ...full of information on the law including 5 books in PDF format, two hard copy books one titled "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" and the other Letters from a "Freeman", a Freeman Package with examples of the documents used to become a Freeman-on-the-Land, and some pamphlets you can copy and pass out to increase the level of freedom. ...

$142.28 + delivery fee of 11.38 CAD

{emphasis supplied}

Can you believe this shit?

Now get a load of this!...

Speaking fees are very reasonable and well worth the price. ... what previous attendees have to say:

http://www.thinkfree.ca/index.php?option=c...&id=2&Itemid=45

[Figleaf]

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/ )

[FreemanMenard]

Whoa! this whole thing is a commercial scam! Check it out ...

http://free.biz.pn/Products.html

We are pleased to announce the availability of ThinkFREE Packages which consist of the DVD "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" ...full of information on the law including 5 books in PDF format, two hard copy books one titled "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" and the other Letters from a "Freeman", a Freeman Package with examples of the documents used to become a Freeman-on-the-Land, and some pamphlets you can copy and pass out to increase the level of freedom. ...

$142.28 + delivery fee of 11.38 CAD

{emphasis supplied}

Can you believe this shit?

Now get a load of this!...

Speaking fees are very reasonable and well worth the price. ... what previous attendees have to say:

http://www.thinkfree.ca/index.php?option=c...&id=2&Itemid=45

No you attack me by claiming I have mercenary motives.

And yet you have yet to address the arguments or defend your position.

(Don't listen to him! Look what he does over there!)

You are getting your ass kicked and reaching for straws. And you are actually supporting my position by doing so.

You are the one who brought this information to the attention of this board not I.

How can you claim I am using this forum to engage in commerce or that I am scamming?

Care to elaborate?

I have certain beliefs.

I have written books about those beliefs.

I present seminars concerning said concepts and beliefs to those who wish to attend.

I also do sell packages online and have done so without a profit motive.

I inform my fellow man about what I offer, do so honourably, lawfully and honestly.

I am not a rich man and I do engage in lawful contracts.

My name was used on this forum and unkind things said about me.

I responded honorably and in proper defense.

I never mentioned my outside activities nor offered for sale anything on this forum.

How does any of that make me a commercial scam artist?

And incidentally, I sell many packages at cost. I can't absorb the cost of shipping so I seek donations.

Here's a question for you:

You speak of being a member of a civil society. As a member of society you agree to give up certain human rights and freedoms otherwise enjoyable in exchange for certain so called benefits. If you don't know what those rights and freedoms you are giving up are, how do you really know what you are receiving are in fact benefits?

Would you buy a car and not knowing what you paid for it tell your friend you got a great deal?

If this was a discussion on say gardening, and I owned a garden shop with a web site, would I be labeled as a commercial scam artist or spammer for being a part of the discussion, even though I never brought to the attention of the board my outside activities?

Thats like saying you can't be involved in a discussion on chess if you own a store that sells chess sets.

This is the 'civil society' which was spoken of earlier?

Have a good one!

Rob

[FreemanMenard]

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...

[FreemanMenard]

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/ )

So I did a quick review of my records and can find NO evidence of contract between myself and the people or organization you mention.

Do you think I am supposed to be scared of them or that they have power over me or they have some right to control my actions?

Have you not even tried to listen to my argument? They exist within a statutory framework. I do not. Neither they nor their words govern me. Tell them all you want. Big deal. What can they do? Nothing and the reason is no jurisdiction.

What makes you think those strangers have any control or say over my life or actions?

I really am curious. Please tell.

Now you are resorting to the defense of "I'M TELLING MOM!"

Hee Hee

You are funny.