Right to Travel FOUND in Traffic Safety Act

[rob menard]

So I have been working with a guy who has an issue with the Calgary Police.

This has caused me to read the Traffic Safety Act.
Wait till you see what I found!


Now bear in mind, that I know they use sleight of word to hide concepts, yet for some reason they seem bound to have to mention them, and it is a matter finding where they have hidden the truths we hold as obvious, yet still need to prove to the courts, if we step in there.

In this case they use the Never Mention Again trick, where they mention something, then never refer to it again. By doing so they hope you miss it, but they also acknowledge its existence and that they are not regulating it. What ever it is. I is a clever trick, as it releases them of liability, and works well at hiding concepts. They are easily overlooked when mentioned only once.

This man was traveling in his private unregistered, uninsured automobile, without a drivers license. There were no plates on the car. He did so for 17 days until he was pulled over and issued violation tickets/invoices for failure to have Motor Vehicle Documents.

Read the Act and you may find something very interesting. I guess it depends on your readig skills.

They define a number of things.
Vehicle
Motor Vehicle
Motor Vehicle Documents
and strangely enough something called a
'Private Passenger Vehicle'.

They only mention the private passenger vehicle in the definitions and later once to distinguish between those and commercial vehicles! All motor vehicle documents refer to those things that MOTOR VEHICLES need, and the only apparent difference between the two is the existence of the documents. Those include in the definitions the plates, stickers, licenses and permits, insurance documents and the like.

Having distinguished between the two, they cannot claim that one does not exist. And since they do not claim there is a need for any documentation for the PPV, nor do they attempt to regulate nor control their basic usage, it can be readily and easily claimed that the guy in question was merely using a private passenger vehicle, not a motor vehicle, and as such was not subject to the regulations covering the operation of motor vehicles.

Private Passenger Vehicles are clearly mentioned and distinguished from Motor Vehicles. Plates, insurance, permits and the like, are all explicitly restricted to Motor Vehicles. There is no requirement specifically mentioning any need for plates, permits, insurance or anything else in order to use a Private Passenger Vehicle on the public roads for private non-commercial purposes.

So to the nay-sayers, I would like to respectfully say nana nana boo boo, and neener neener.

:D

[mark1963]

So I have been working with a guy who has an issue with the Calgary Police.

This has caused me to read the Traffic Safety Act.
Wait till you see what I found!


Now bear in mind, that I know they use sleight of word to hide concepts, yet for some reason they seem bound to have to mention them, and it is a matter finding where they have hidden the truths we hold as obvious, yet still need to prove to the courts, if we step in there.

In this case they use the Never Mention Again trick, where they mention something, then never refer to it again. By doing so they hope you miss it, but they also acknowledge its existence and that they are not regulating it. What ever it is. I is a clever trick, as it releases them of liability, and works well at hiding concepts. They are easily overlooked when mentioned only once.

This man was traveling in his private unregistered, uninsured automobile, without a drivers license. There were no plates on the car. He did so for 17 days until he was pulled over and issued violation tickets/invoices for failure to have Motor Vehicle Documents.

Read the Act and you may find something very interesting. I guess it depends on your readig skills.

They define a number of things.
Vehicle
Motor Vehicle
Motor Vehicle Documents
and strangely enough something called a
'Private Passenger Vehicle'.

They only mention the private passenger vehicle in the definitions and later once to distinguish between those and commercial vehicles! All motor vehicle documents refer to those things that MOTOR VEHICLES need, and the only apparent difference between the two is the existence of the documents. Those include in the definitions the plates, stickers, licenses and permits, insurance documents and the like.

Having distinguished between the two, they cannot claim that one does not exist. And since they do not claim there is a need for any documentation for the PPV, nor do they attempt to regulate nor control their basic usage, it can be readily and easily claimed that the guy in question was merely using a private passenger vehicle, not a motor vehicle, and as such was not subject to the regulations covering the operation of motor vehicles.

Private Passenger Vehicles are clearly mentioned and distinguished from Motor Vehicles. Plates, insurance, permits and the like, are all explicitly restricted to Motor Vehicles. There is no requirement specifically mentioning any need for plates, permits, insurance or anything else in order to use a Private Passenger Vehicle on the public roads for private non-commercial purposes.

So to the nay-sayers, I would like to respectfully say nana nana boo boo, and neener neener.

:D

Interesting.

[tom bombadil]

Coo, ta! I like it!

Now to find a like for like ommision on the brit files. Haystack anyone?

Go's to show its not what you know but who you know.



Nelly

[number_6]

So I have been working with a guy who has an issue with the Calgary Police.

This has caused me to read the Traffic Safety Act.

What relevance is the Traffic Safety Act? As it is statute law the individual can claim non consent so none of it would apply anyway. The definition of vehicle, motor vehicle and vehicle documents in an Act are of no interest to anybody that does not consent to be bound by the Act as it won't apply to them.

So to the nay-sayers, I would like to respectfully say nana nana boo boo, and neener neener.

Why such glee concerning an Act? It doesn't apply anyway does it? You have stated on this forum before that you, rob menard cannot be bound by statute law.
Just tell your friend to tell the magistrate he does not consent to statute law and they will drop the charges won't they?

Why would a FOTL waste their time dissecting an Act?

[jackieg]

What relevance is the Traffic Safety Act? As it is statute law the individual can claim non consent so none of it would apply anyway. The definition of vehicle, motor vehicle and vehicle documents in an Act are of no interest to anybody that does not consent to be bound by the Act as it won't apply to them.



Why such glee concerning an Act? It doesn't apply anyway does it? You have stated on this forum before that you, rob menard cannot be bound by statute law.
Just tell your friend to tell the magistrate he does not consent to statute law and they will drop the charges won't they?

Why would a FOTL waste their time dissecting an Act?

For the benefit of others.
Rob's not selfish.

[fotheringsmirth]

Frivolous. Private passenger vehicles are distinct because they fall under other legislation, not the specific act which you mentioned.

[number_6]

For the benefit of others.
Rob's not selfish.

But the message is that we may withdraw consent to any statute law. Interpreting an Act and using the interpretaion for a defence is spreading the message that an Act is in fact enforceable. How is that of benefit to others?
Why cannot this driver who has been stopped by the police just say he does not consent to this Act?

[fotheringsmirth]

But the message is that we may withdraw consent to any statute law. Interpreting an Act and using the interpretaion for a defence is spreading the message that an Act is in fact enforceable. How is that of benefit to others?
Why cannot this driver who has been stopped by the police just say he does not consent to this Act?

The idea that statues are non-applicable if an individual withdraws consent is the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard. It manages to misunderstand just about every single thing there is to know about the way the law actually operates and instead either pretends that the law can be circumvented by rigid adherence to semantics and litigious 'gotcha' games or that even if it's not literally true that you can contravene statute law, it at least should be the case. Both arguments are essentially irrelevant.

I've tried these thought experiments before when I last came on here several months ago, but I'll try it again:

Businesses are corrupt and greedy. They employ extremely skilled lawyers to find ways that they can dodge legislation and spend lots and lots of money negotiating with Parliament to have Acts of Parliament written in favourable terms to them. If a corporation could just contravene statute by refusing to consent (and as legal persons, they could under these arguments), why has not a single corporation done so?

[rob menard]

The idea that statues are non-applicable if an individual withdraws consent is the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard. It manages to misunderstand just about every single thing there is to know about the way the law actually operates and instead either pretends that the law can be circumvented by rigid adherence to semantics and litigious 'gotcha' games or that even if it's not literally true that you can contravene statute law, it at least should be the case. Both arguments are essentially irrelevant.

I've tried these thought experiments before when I last came on here several months ago, but I'll try it again:

Businesses are corrupt and greedy. They employ extremely skilled lawyers to find ways that they can dodge legislation and spend lots and lots of money negotiating with Parliament to have Acts of Parliament written in favourable terms to them. If a corporation could just contravene statute by refusing to consent (and as legal persons, they could under these arguments), why has not a single corporation done so?

Because people can do things corporations cannot, regardless of the fact that they also have been given the status of personhood.

A corporation exists by function of the consent of the officers and shareholders, and simply does not exist prior to that. Upon deny that consent, it no longer exist. Is this true for a human being who denies consent to be governed by statues?

No, this is not the case for a human being, for they exist regardless of whether or not they have consented to legislation being their rules of existence and upon removal of that consent, do not automatically dissolve as a corporation would.

We get to escape because we are not corporations, but are human beings.
They are not human beings and exist only as a function of statutes.
We do not.

We can be free.
They cannot.

I see it as so obvious, really.

[fotheringsmirth]

Because people can do things corporations cannot, regardless of the fact that they also have been given the status of personhood.

A corporation exists by function of the consent of the officers and shareholders, and simply does not exist prior to that. Upon deny that consent, it no longer exist. Is this true for a human being who denies consent to be governed by statues?

No, this is not the case for a human being, for they exist regardless of whether or not they have consented to legislation being their rules of existence and upon removal of that consent, do not automatically dissolve as a corporation would.

We get to escape because we are not corporations, but are human beings.
They are not human beings and exist only as a function of statutes.
We do not.

We can be free.
They cannot.

I see it as so obvious, really.

Please cite relevant legal authorities, also, you're ignoring the fact that there are statutes governing the illegal actions of CEOs and other business officials. It falls under corporate crime, and the literature on it is extensive. If CEOs used incredibly high-powered lawyers (and they do), they would simply not consent to statutes governing corporate crime. Why don't they do this?

[rob menard]

Please cite relevant legal authorities, also, you're ignoring the fact that there are statutes governing the illegal actions of CEOs and other business officials. It falls under corporate crime, and the literature on it is extensive. If CEOs used incredibly high-powered lawyers (and they do), they would simply not consent to statutes governing corporate crime. Why don't they do this?

First ask them.
Second, they entered into an agreement, when they decided to act as a corporation. They agreed to certain rules. They did that in order to secure limited liability.
They then broke those rules.
At that point you cannot claim to be exempt from the statutes that you originally agreed to. However, just because they agree to those burdens does not mean people who are not corporations are also bound by those same burdens.

Is that too simple for you, or not simple enough?

[fotheringsmirth]

First ask them.
Second, they entered into an agreement, when they decided to act as a corporation. They agreed to certain rules. They did that in order to secure limited liability.
They then broke those rules.
At that point you cannot claim to be exempt from the statutes that you originally agreed to. However, just because they agree to those burdens does not mean people who are not corporations are also bound by those same burdens.

Is that too simple for you, or not simple enough?

Corporations act in certain cases as seperate legal entities from the people who sit on their board of directors. I don't really understand where you're coming from with this, can you cite any kind of case or text in which it's stated that becoming a corporation acts as consent to statute law which did not previously apply?

Also, if the claims about statute law are true then every single criminal defense lawyer would make use of the argument. Why don't they do this?

[rob menard]

Well in Canada, the status of corporation is achieved by way of application under the Corporation Act and you have to sign an agreement stating that you agree to be bound by that Act and the other statutes of the Province within which you applied.

By way of signature and application, they agreed.

People can avoid that, and exist without the steps needed to bring a corporation into being.

You do know how people are created, right?
You do know how corporations are created right?

YOU DO SEE A DIFFERENCE RIGHT?

[number_6]

number_6 wrote:
Just tell your friend to tell the magistrate he does not consent to statute law and they will drop the charges won't they?

rob, you never acknowledged this point I made earlier.
Why do you feel you need to study an Act as a means of securing a defence when the motorist can simply say he does not consent to the Act?
I was under the impression you have told us in the past that numerous people in Canada are doing this and the Courts accept it.

[rob menard]

Simply stating something, with no proof as you do all the time, does not work in court.

If I claim in court that a certain statute does not apply to me and am asked to prove it, I will use the statute in question. By analyzing their words and their mandate I deduce where they are stepping out of their mandate. Their mandate is found in the statutes you claim I should not be reading, becaue they do not aply to me.

So lets sum up.
I claim a statute does not apply to me, read it and find evidence within that I am correct.
You claim I should not be reading it if it does not apply to me.
But there are cops and others who are simply dumb and stupid and I have to interpret their words and mandate for them, else they step outside of their framework and break the law.

Allow me to make it real simple for you.
The is a store called Walmart and they have an Employee handbook.
If I am dealing with a Walmart employee who is harming me and acting in a way I think is outside the rules found in HIS handbook, I will read it, find where they are wrong and take that to their supervisor. At no point in time am I ever subject to the rules in that handbook.

The exact same thing is happening here.
Except we are dealing with government employees, and not Walmart employees.
But we are looking at the book of rules that regulate government employees, in order to regulate government employees, while not being one ourselves.

How is that not so very easy for you to see?


Law says that remedy must exist,. Your position seems to be that if we search for the remedy in the words they use to claim authority, we are accepting their words as having authority over us.

Those words have no authority over us, and when we read them we see that and have proof in the words they try to use against us. How would you have us act?
Those words have nothing to do with me!
prove it! Says the judge.
"Well, if we read those words..."
"You read those words and you would not have done so if they did not apply to you!"

Now take that incredibly illogical position and apply it to a contract. I claim I have a contract and you owe me because of it. Wanna read it? By doing so you agree that you are a party to the contract. If you do not read it, you have no ability to claim it does not apply to you. If you do, you agree it does. It is a catch-22 and is an unlawful position.

Now I answered your quyestion, did not avoid or evade.
Now do the same i return if you can.

1- Are they not merely human beings, those in the government and courts?
2 - Are we not all equal?

Now answer those. I answered yours. Be fair and simply answer and we can end this silly debate. I have explained WHY we who are not bound by the Acts but can use them to prove our truths. IT is not only those Acts that we can use, but they are the easiest, as it is the other party bringing them into court.

So answer mine now.
Human YES OR NO?
Equal YES OR NO.

You answer these honestly and I win immediately, and that is why you are the one avoiding the questions, while trying to claim I was avoiding.

No avoidance on my part, now let us see if you will answer my two questions, or will you merely avoid again, as you always do, and once again be seen to be a big FAIL.

[rob menard]

And let us not digress too far from the topic of this thread. It would appear some would want to see it derailed and are trying to argue why we would look into the Act in the first place instead of focusing on what was found. Classic diverssionary tactic of the failed debater.

In the TSA of Alberta, there is clear evidence of a distinction between a commercial motor vehicle and a non-commercial Private Passenger Vehicle.

They do not seek to regulate or control the latter and clearly state that documents referring to the former are available only for motor vehicles and not private passenger vehicles.

This is a fundamental truth, and supports the position the Freeman have been saying all along, and now, when police come to us with their words, we can simply use those words, avoid conflict, educate the officers, and be on our way.

And we can also seek a judicial review using only their words.

See the power here is we do not have to fight their words with others, we just take those away from them, so they cannot use them against us, and then we still have the Bill of Rights and a host of others statutes and law to use against them.

I believe in the Krav Maga type of legal defense. Use what ever you can. Their words, your heart, the Bible, custom, public opinion, case law, precedence, what ever works is what you are allowed to use, and if your opponent is using a body of words against you, only a fool would fail to study those words, and only a deceiver would try to get you to believe that studying those words is an acceptance of them as your law, or that the wisest course of action would be a childish plea of non-application through non-consent.

Even in court, when I claimed the necessity of consent, I still had to provide logical and reasonable support for that position. The mere claim all on it's own did not suffice. I had to bring a reasonable argument i support and I did. It was based upon the two simple questions that number_6 seeks to avoid like the plague. however in court, they could not play the childish games he plays here, and the questions could not be avoided, and when asked and answered, the plainly visible truth could not be denied by anyone.

That is why some seek to avoid answering the simplest questions, and will seek to derail the threads topic.

[number_6]

So lets sum up.
I claim a statute does not apply to me, read it and find evidence within that I am correct.

I was under the impression that you claim that you are not bound by statute law and that the police and Courts where you are located accepted that the fotl was an acceptable defence and statute law does not apply to fotl.
So do you need the Act itself for proof that the Act does not apply rather than simply not consenting to the Act?

[rob menard]

So are you avoiding my questions AGAIN?

It is on you now to answer my questions, not ask more of your own.
Play Fair and answer or stop asking.
I answered, you have not.
You have avoided answering while claiming I was.
I answered.
You have not.

Whay do you continue asking questions when it is clearly your turn to answer?

Do they teach you that question avoidance technique any where special, number_6?

Human? Yes or No.
Equal? Yes or No.

Answer please.

[rob menard]

So do you need the Act itself for proof that the Act does not apply rather than simply not consenting to the Act?

Nope, I only have to ask two simple questions, and the proof is there for all to see.

Wanna know what questions those are now?
:D
Care to try answering them?
:D

Or shall you continue to act the Twit?

[rob menard]

I GET YOU NOW!

Having lost the argument so completely, now you are whining about how it was won!

I get you now...
You are just whining about your obvious FAIL and now seek to undermine how the other party outsmarted you and clearly won!

You should not feel bad; it was not that hard.

Haa Haa Haa

[vladmir]

Allow me to make it real simple for you.
The is a store called Walmart and they have an Employee handbook.
If I am dealing with a Walmart employee who is harming me and acting in a way I think is outside the rules found in HIS handbook, I will read it, find where they are wrong and take that to their supervisor. At no point in time am I ever subject to the rules in that handbook.

The exact same thing is happening here.
Except we are dealing with government employees, and not Walmart employees.
But we are looking at the book of rules that regulate government employees, in order to regulate government employees, while not being one ourselves.

How is that not so very easy for you to see?



Makes sense to me Rob.
Number_6 cant find fault with the example,
so he is just crying and distracting his mind from seeing the solution,
just so he can feel good about not seeing the truth.

[number_6]

The problem with the wallmart example is that the employees' handbook relates only to the employees.
In law however the handbook relates to everybody.
I understand that you claim it does not, however I disagree.

You are looking for an answer within the Act.
But your argument should be that as any Act does not apply your answer is elsewhere in law where it is agreed that Acts are not law.

[rob menard]

The problem with the wallmart example is that the employees' handbook relates only to the employees.
In law however the handbook relates to everybody.
I understand that you claim it does not, however I disagree.

Your disagreement is based upon a strictly held set of convictions based upon complete falsehoods embraced since childhood and which you refuse to examine, as an adult.

If this was court, I would have the ability to present evidence, and ask questions, and have those answers entered as evidence. You however simply refuse to allow your brain to look at simple answers to simple questions, and if you did, you would not believe what you presently apparently do.

But that would mean you would have to accept you were wrong. And your ego will not for some reason allow that to happen.

You believe one thing and I believe another. My belief is based on a logical and reasonable examination of the facts. Yours is based upon childish emotion, long held yet obviously mistaken convictions, and a refusal to answer, support, examine or shift your perspective.

You are essentially sticking your fingers in your ears, squeezing your eyes shut and screaming lalalalala....

But there must be a part of your brain that knows you are doing that, and your beliefs are simply not supported by logic or reason, and are a result of willful ignorance and avoidance.

Have a good day.

[rob menard]

You are looking for an answer within the Act.
But your argument should be that as any Act does not apply your answer is elsewhere in law where it is agreed that Acts are not law.

Not true. I look for it elsewhere and find support for the belief in the Acts. They are limited, and I can prove it using them too.

Who are you to tell me what my argument should be, when what I used so clearly kicks ass, and is merely supportive of other facts found elsewhere?

You do not win a poker hand with only one card, and here I have found clear eviencce that EVEN the Act in question acknowledges the right to travel. IT is not ONLY there, but it certainly helps seal the deal, and win the argument.

Why exactly do you think I should not read the words others are trying to use to claim authority? Especially when doing so clearly establishes the claims previously made by us that they are limited in their application?

I do not understand your complaint, unless you are whining.

Party A says 'Body of Words I' are applicable to Party B.
Party B says No they are not, try proving they are.
Party A brings forth the 'Body of Words I' and reads some of them into the record.
Party B then reads another portion of 'Body of Words I' and establishes the limits of the applicability of 'Body of Words I'.
Party B has always known and has been loudly claiming that 'Body of Words I' does not apply to him, for he never authored them, nor agreed to them, yet the people who enforce 'Body of Words I' will not accept anything but 'Body of Words I' to limit it.
Can Party A claim that Party B should not have to use 'Body of Words I' in order to limit the actions of those who enforce 'Body of Words I' when such a limitation is the only thing they accept?

The topic of this thread, Mr. De-railer and avoider, is that the right to travel in a private passenger vehicle is clearly established in the Act the police enforce, and we have enormous remedy available in the words they try to bring against us, merely by seeing how the truth, which is also found in the Bill of Rights, yet not so clearly, is in fat found here.

No you whine about how the truth you seek to avoid so strenuously, is found even in the Acts the police seek to use against us.

Why do I look to an Act to prove they do not apply to me?
To prove to idiots that they do not apply to me, because they are not law.

Now will you answer the two simple questions I have asked you and which I could ask in court, answers to which open an absolute floodgate of logic and reason which leaves all authorities in the dust of human awareness?

Of course you won't.

You fear awareness.
Hence your avoidance.

If you were to answer my questions, I would not need any Act to prove they are not applicable to me. That is another reason I use the Act. People like you refuse to give straight and honest answers, choosing instead to avoid and evade and obscure the truth.

[number_6]

Not true. I look for it elsewhere and find support for the belief in the Acts. They are limited, and I can prove it using them too.

So are the Acts law?

[thegoodnessisgood]

Please cite relevant legal authorities, also, you're ignoring the fact that there are statutes governing the illegal actions of CEOs and other business officials. It falls under corporate crime, and the literature on it is extensive. If CEOs used incredibly high-powered lawyers (and they do), they would simply not consent to statutes governing corporate crime. Why don't they do this?

Clearly YOU are misunderstanding the whole thing... A corporate / legal person is a CREATION of the law society , as such it is their property with which they can do anything they want. that includes the legal person who has the same name as you - it is a corporate fiction.

A living man or woman however is not a legal person unless they consent to being it, kind of like on a monopoly board, being the shoe or the car. I'll be the shoe, you be the car, "ok". However you are not one and the same as the shoe or the car, you're only using it.

It is up to the judge / prosecutor / witnesses to prove that you ARE a legal person. They may point to the drivers license, hello, does anyone in the court room have evidence they can swear to under oath that the license does not reference the legal person and not the living man or woman known as so and so. No? Well then I'm sorry but that is a legal person and you don't have evidence to show that I AM one of those. Sure, I may have one however, I am only an agent, and the true owner and responsible party for that PERSON (per meaning OF, SON meaning SION, or "one of OURS / slave") is the law society since they created it.

A PERSON ****IS**** a corporation. No natural persons, body politics or other kinds of persons are what you and I would call a man or a woman. Person, as a legal term refers ONLY to legal persons. A legal person is the creation of the law society that they create based on the statement of your parents that informed on you to the state that you are there. They then create the legal person and CAPITOLISE on YOUR NAME (capitol letters surname) it is not you it just has the same name for convenience....!

So when you don't consent to the statutes and acts which apply solely to persons, you are really only consenting to not be in a state of joinder with your person, and are in fact standing as a man or woman, actual.

[number_6]

A living man or woman however is not a legal person unless they consent to being it, kind of like on a monopoly board, being the shoe or the car. I'll be the shoe, you be the car, "ok". However you are not one and the same as the shoe or the car, you're only using it.

Go and study law FFS.

[thegoodnessisgood]

Thanks Rob, your ineffable philosophy and character, and uniquely wise perspective as always shines through and we are all able to get wonderful pearls of wisdom from your discoveries and explanations. There is often as much between the lines as there is in them, in a good way.

I've seen this type of material work in a court, for real, for anyone who doubts it.

I for one am very grateful for Rob's contributions to the freedom movement worldwide, he's really made a difference and thanks a lot man. I read and learn and then think how I can astutely apply... :)

[thegoodnessisgood]

Go and study law FFS.

Read the legal dictionaries.

PERSON

STATUTE

ACT

SOCIETY

PROVE THAT I AM A PERSON AT LAW. YOU CAN'T. YOU DON'T HAVE FIRST HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, AND IF YOU DID CLAIM TO HAVE IT, YOU WOULD BE PERJURING YOURSELF, OR DEMONSTRATING INCOMPETENCE TO THE COURT.

[number_6]

Read the legal dictionaries.

PERSON

STATUTE

ACT

SOCIETY

PROVE THAT I AM A PERSON AT LAW. YOU CAN'T. YOU DON'T HAVE FIRST HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, AND IF YOU DID CLAIM TO HAVE IT, YOU WOULD BE PERJURING YOURSELF, OR DEMONSTRATING INCOMPETENCE TO THE COURT.

Yes, but if you have studied law you will already know that a legal dictionary is not a legal authority.
Show me a reference in law where an individual may withdraw their consent to being a person.

[number_6]

I've seen this type of material work in a court, for real, for anyone who doubts it.

There are many people on here who claim to have "seen it work"

However, in the cases that are publicised on here where the defendant is known and the cases may be examined they normally fail.
Two that are known so far on here have been to jail as a result of being fooled by this stuff.

[johngr]

Two that are known so far on here have been to jail as a result of being fooled by this stuff.

Absent proof, primarily that they otherwise wouldn't have gone to jail (and secondarily and somewhat tangentially that the overall impositions and rights they'd have given up and/or signed away with attorney representation were less disadvantageous than the jail sentences), the statement above is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Unrelated note: if they want your signature, there's probably something they want to do but can't lawfully do without it.

[vladmir]

Thanks Rob, your ineffable philosophy and character, and uniquely wise perspective as always shines through and we are all able to get wonderful pearls of wisdom from your discoveries and explanations.

I for one am very grateful for Rob's contributions to the freedom movement worldwide, he's really made a difference and thanks a lot man. I read and learn and then think how I can astutely apply... :)
Robs insights are like a breath of fresh air! I always feel enlivened reading his clear worded and logical posts.

[number_6]

Absent proof, primarily that they otherwise wouldn't have gone to jail

They wouldn't have gone to jail if they had not believed statute law does not apply to them and had conducted themselves in a manner according to statute law.

[number_6]

Makes sense to me Rob.
Number_6 cant find fault with the example,
so he is just crying and distracting his mind from seeing the solution,
just so he can feel good about not seeing the truth.

The Wallmart analogy fails.
At no point does Wallmart insist or even believe that rob too is bound by the Wallmart employees' handbook, they only insist that an employee is bound by the handbook and that Wallmart may control only the employee's actions in this instance.

[hogglepop]

First ask them.
Second, they entered into an agreement, when they decided to act as a corporation. They agreed to certain rules. They did that in order to secure limited liability.
They then broke those rules.
At that point you cannot claim to be exempt from the statutes that you originally agreed to. However, just because they agree to those burdens does not mean people who are not corporations are also bound by those same burdens.

Is that too simple for you, or not simple enough?

Hi Rob,

IM a little confussed on this point - ive been on the 'No COnsideration for Morgages' FOTL page on this forum. People are claiming that as money is essentially worthless, the bank has given no consideration and therfore the repayment is void. I queried why ppl took out the mortgages knowing this to be the case.

The unanimous response was ' they have made the system such that we need mortgages to buy houses, there is no other way'. Therefore its there fault, and we are just in taking out a mortgage and then not abiding by there rules retrospectivly.

Is not the same here ? Is it not possible to use this as a defence ?

Cheers,
SAm :)

[number_6]

The unanimous response was ' they have made the system such that we need mortgages to buy houses, there is no other way'.

There is another way, pay for the house outright.

The only reason we need mortgages is due to the price of houses.
Perhaps blame should be laid at the vendor's feet.
It is the seller's greed that sets the price.

[fotheringsmirth]

If your standard of proof is what somebody says on a forum, then I guess you could take Rob Menard at his word that this kind of thing 'works' (although I seem to remember on one of the James Randi forums someone had unearthed documentary proof of his arguments not working in court) the standard of proof generally required isn't just what someone says, though. If you want proof that this kind of thing works then you'd need to get serious about it and check out the law reports and journals...they're pretty concise.

The law isn't really a 'system' in the monolithic sense...it's comprised of various aspects. On the point of consent to statute being individual consent you'd need to check out the literature that surrounds what the term 'government by consent' means to realise what it means. What is the origin of the term? Who were the theorists who came up with the idea? It's not very hard to find this sort of information out - all the books are so old that they're in the public domain. The case law, furthermore is extensive (though a bit more difficult to access).

It's pretty easy to find that 'consent' it means consent of the majority of the population (a little more complex than that, but it'll do for now) rather than consent of each individual under the jurisdiction of Parliament.

[lightindarkness]

Absent proof, primarily that they otherwise wouldn't have gone to jail (and secondarily and somewhat tangentially that the overall impositions and rights they'd have given up and/or signed away with attorney representation were less disadvantageous than the jail sentences), the statement above is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Unrelated note: if they want your signature, there's probably something they want to do but can't lawfully do without it.

As someone who has taught logic while in graduate school, you fail. That was not a post hoc ergo propter hoc. For something to be post hoc ergo propter hoc the claim must be made that causation occurred due to the order of events. That claim was not made. The claim was made that Freeman, due to practicing the FMOTL legal rituals, were held in contempt and thrown in jail because of it. The claim is true.

No 6 is of course right, and watching the flailing about on here is as always quite comical. Those who have went into court and tried FMOTL rituals have found themselves in jail because of those rituals. Why? Because they do not work, having no basis in the law.

[lightindarkness]

Oh, and by the way, you do have a right to travel wherever you want - as long as you are walking or using some other form of transport that is not regulated (good luck finding one). If you'd like to DRIVE somewhere then you will be subject to the regulations around it.

I know, I know, it sucks living in a society where you cant freeload off the rest of us...

[fotheringsmirth]

As someone who has taught logic while in graduate school, you fail. That was not a post hoc ergo propter hoc. For something to be post hoc ergo propter hoc the claim must be made that causation occurred due to the order of events. That claim was not made. The claim was made that Freeman, due to practicing the FMOTL legal rituals, were held in contempt and thrown in jail because of it. The claim is true.

No 6 is of course right, and watching the flailing about on here is as always quite comical. Those who have went into court and tried FMOTL rituals have found themselves in jail because of those rituals. Why? Because they do not work, having no basis in the law.

And the idea that it's a unique movement is false. It basically falls under the typical tax protest/individual sovereignty woo-woo.

[vladmir]

Law says that remedy must exist,. Your position seems to be that if we search for the remedy in the words they use to claim authority, we are accepting their words as having authority over us.

Those words have no authority over us, and when we read them we see that and have proof in the words they try to use against us. How would you have us act?
Those words have nothing to do with me!
prove it! Says the judge.
"Well, if we read those words..."
"You read those words and you would not have done so if they did not apply to you!"

Now take that incredibly illogical position and apply it to a contract. I claim I have a contract and you owe me because of it. Wanna read it? By doing so you agree that you are a party to the contract. If you do not read it, you have no ability to claim it does not apply to you. If you do, you agree it does. It is a catch-22 and is an unlawful position.

Now I answered your quyestion, did not avoid or evade.
Now do the same i return if you can.

1- Are they not merely human beings, those in the government and courts?
2 - Are we not all equal?

Now answer those. I answered yours. Be fair and simply answer and we can end this silly debate. I have explained WHY we who are not bound by the Acts but can use them to prove our truths. IT is not only those Acts that we can use, but they are the easiest, as it is the other party bringing them into court.

So answer mine now.
Human YES OR NO?
Equal YES OR NO.

You answer these honestly and I win immediately, and that is why you are the one avoiding the questions, while trying to claim I was avoiding.

No avoidance on my part, now let us see if you will answer my two questions, or will you merely avoid again, as you always do, and once again be seen to be a big FAIL.

There number_6, maybe you didnt see Rob's question,
a simple yes or no answer will suffice!
Answer the question already you big pussy.

[rob menard]

We keep trying to do that. But you ignore them when brought, and refuse to answer questions when asked.

We will operate on the belief that the reason you refuse to answer the questions posed to you is because you are incapable of answering them, and as such, your questions are not worth answering.

The questions you are ducking, which if you answered would lead to the answer of your other questions, is are the people in the government and the courts, you know the people who wrote the ACTS, are they merely people or not?
And are we as people equal or not?


See if you were willing to answer those questions, yours become outright silly.

That is why you avoid them.
We will operate on the belief that in your mind you know the truth even though you clearly seek to avoid it.
So are they people? YES
Are we equal YES

So to answer your question, because you are apparently incapable of doing so, unless you wish to claim that they are not people, or that we are not equal, their words cannot have any force or effect without the CONSENT of the other party. That is a function of EQUALITY.

See do you not feel incredibly stupid now number_6? Your entire argument rests upon willful ignorance, which, if you answered my questions when posed, would not be available to you, and you would not look so astoundingly stupid.

They are people and we are equal and that means their words, cannot have the force of law over me without my consent, unless my words can have the force of law over them without theirs. And that is ludicrous. There is simply no way that some other human beings words can have the force of law over me without my consent without abandoning equality amongst human beings. See if their words are law, without consent of others, we cannot be equal. And yet we are. So if we are all equal, as you have agreed through your silence, how can their words have the force of law over others without consent? It is easy to see they cannot.

And I did not need an Act, statute or court ruling to get there. Just logic and reason. Which I am sure you are incapable of using, so it is kinda unfair to you.

And lightindarkenss says you need a license to travel on the road. Well that is the position of all idiots, until they learn to read. And certainly in Alberta, the right to travel in an unregistered auto, without license or permit is very clearly acknowledged as existing in the Traffic Safety Act. And it is clearly not mentioned in other statutes in Canada. SO it would seem, that lightindarkness's position is truth, except in Canada, the US or other Common Law countries. Unless of course he is willing to claim that we are not all equal. If we are, then who had the power to remove a previously existing right? No one! Then it must still be there. Unless someone removed it. And we are all equal, number_6 said so. Since that is the case, no one has the power to remove my rights without my consent, therefore it must still be there.

The only way it cannot be there is if we are not all equal. But number_6 agreed we are equal.

So it is still there.

You did agree we are all equal right number_6? If not now is the time to speak up, anfd deny it!

haa haa haa haa

number_6 = FAIL
lightindarkness = FAIL

[rob menard]

As someone who has taught logic while in graduate school, you fail. That was not a post hoc ergo propter hoc. For something to be post hoc ergo propter hoc the claim must be made that causation occurred due to the order of events. That claim was not made. The claim was made that Freeman, due to practicing the FMOTL legal rituals, were held in contempt and thrown in jail because of it. The claim is true.

No 6 is of course right, and watching the flailing about on here is as always quite comical. Those who have went into court and tried FMOTL rituals have found themselves in jail because of those rituals. Why? Because they do not work, having no basis in the law.

Well as someone who has not taught logic, but can smell bullshit, and uses logic very well, I see you trying to use what is called an 'appeal to authority' as the basis of your argument. Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it

You having taught logic in graduate school (even if true, though highly unlikely) has no bearing, and is mentioned by you only to 'appeal to authority' and as a logic instructor, you would have to give yourself a failing grade.

Did you get fired from your teaching job because you were incapable of using logic and could only rely on appeals to authority for you logical arguments?

If it wasn't an appeal to authority, why mention what you used to do?

haa haa haa

lightindarkness = FAIL

[rob menard]

Oh, and by the way, you do have a right to travel wherever you want - as long as you are walking or using some other form of transport that is not regulated (good luck finding one). If you'd like to DRIVE somewhere then you will be subject to the regulations around it.

I know, I know, it sucks living in a society where you cant freeload off the rest of us...

Unless of course, you are not ignorant and have studied the law and live in a common law jurisdiction. Like oh Alberta. Or BC. Or Ontario. Or anywhere in the commonwealth.

In the Traffic Safety Act in Alberta the right to travel in an unregistered automobile is clearly acknowledged. So why would you lightindarkness say the above?

Simple. You are wrong and too proud to realize or accept that truth. See YOU taught logic while in 'graduate' school, and that means YOU cannot accept equality as a foundational belief. You must feel you are superior to others, otherwise why mention your grad school days teaching logic?

Do you think you are better than those who did not go to graduate school, and if not, why did you mention it previously, if it was not important to you?

Of course you will continue to hold your position and because you know it is truth, refuse to look at evidence to the contrary. And you know it is truth, fo ryou have not seen evidencce to the contrary, for you refuse to look at it when it is presented.

All can see right through your epic logic FAILURE, lightindarkness.

Those who can do.
Those who can't teach.
Those who can't teach, tell people they used to teach, in graduate school, and they use that as an appeal to authority.

The third one there is you lightindarkness.
:D

[number_6]

.
1- Are they not merely human beings, those in the government and courts?

Yes, they are merely human beings.
Not forgetting the same would also apply in a Court under common law in the freeman system: Those common law Judges (or peers) would also be human, wouln't they?

2 - Are we not all equal?

Of course we are equal.
That is why members of the judiciary are bound by the same laws as ourselves.
Oh, and don't forget the same would apply in a FOTL common law Court.

What's your point, rob?
Human Judges (or peers) who are equal to the defendant in a FOTL common law Court would still have the power to punish offenders would they not?

[johngr]

As someone who has taught logic while in graduate school [I can say with authority, that] you fail.

Fixed it for you.

The next time you want to represent yourself as having an advanced education and teaching experience in philosophy, you might wish to consider avoiding ambiguous and nonsensical in context statements to express such a thing.

Absent explication of the mechanism or causation process, I take a claim, backed up by nothing, that the rooster's crowing causes the sun to come up as implicitly post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

[girlgye]

Speaking of the subject of Alberta. Perhaps we need to focus our energy on the theft of our land as well as our chattels as that is the story here in England where the wording is any mechanically propelled vehicle must have a valid drivers licence, m.o.t and insurance. It is the word vehicle that is operative. So as you know, they have resorted to stealing the vehicle and making even more money out of this than they ever did before.

Tent City Poverty - YouTube

To me anything which says vehicle and admitting to the legal term vehicle will get you into hot water as will defining yourself as a 'human' being. Human being synomynous with person.

Notice when he interviews one of the detainees how he says I have to show my id. Oh yes they are wanting that contract for everything these days even the permission to live of brownfield shite and live in a tent. Folks you all know Canada is freezing in the winter months but with Alberta's wealth?

Why there isn't an uprising I fail to see.

[rob menard]

Yes, they are merely human beings.
Not forgetting the same would also apply in a Court under common law in the freeman system: Those common law Judges (or peers) would also be human, wouln't they?



Of course we are equal.
That is why members of the judiciary are bound by the same laws as ourselves.
Oh, and don't forget the same would apply in a FOTL common law Court.

What's your point, rob?
Human Judges (or peers) who are equal to the defendant in a FOTL common law Court would still have the power to punish offenders would they not?

Those people acting as judges only have the power to provide that service if both parties agree to the adjudication. Otherwise we are not equal. Until both calls him 'Judge' he is merely a third party intervenor and is not a party to the conflict, is he?

Since he is not a party to the conflict, and is equal to those who are, he has no natural and inherent right to adjudicate unless and until both parties agree to have him do so. The courts here operate like that and use deception to achieve the appearance of consent.

So we now have consensus, and you are trying to hide it with a red herring. We are talking about existing de-facto courts that are not dealing with issues where someone was harmed or caused loss but was merely exercising their rights. The situation you raise is one where there is actual harm, and in that case the defendant could in fact refuse the adjudication services, and become an outlaw. If they want to. However those courts would not be providing administration services and imposing our rules on those who do not consent.

Because you are so attached to your beliefs, you ask the stupidest questions trying to find holes in our position, but all you do is highlight your inability to distinguish, use logic or reason or even think.

Can you distinguish between a crime where someone is harmed, and engaging in actions that are not criminal but are regulated by others who think they have a right to stop you from doing said action? Like say growing a plant for personal use. Or using the road for private purposes.

If you can't please leave the class now and find a seat on the short bus...

[number_6]

Those people acting as judges only have the power to provide that service if both parties agree to the adjudication. Otherwise we are not equal. Until both calls him 'Judge' he is merely a third party intervenor and is not a party to the conflict, is he?

So in a FOTL Court any adjudicator must be agreed by both sides?
What if an agreement can not be made?
What if one side or the other objects to every adjudicator presented to them?

Since he is not a party to the conflict,

Now you are being silly, rob.
An adjudicator cannot be a party to the conflict.

So we now have consensus, and you are trying to hide it with a red herring.

Red herring?
No, I am just pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

The situation you raise is one where there is actual harm, and in that case the defendant could in fact refuse the adjudication services, and become an outlaw. If they want to.

Your painting a pretty unatractive picture of a FOTL aspiration.

However those courts would not be providing administration services and imposing our rules on those who do not consent.

So consent to common law can be withdrawn also?


Because you are so attached to your beliefs, you ask the stupidest questions trying to find holes in our position, but all you do is highlight your inability to distinguish, use logic or reason or even think.
Of course, rob.
I have noticed that you especially find it impossible to post when addressing a disbeliever without eventually resorting to sarcasm or ridicule. It is a poor tool when used in adult debate.

Can you distinguish between a crime where someone is harmed, and engaging in actions that are not criminal but are regulated by others who think they have a right to stop you from doing said action? Like say growing a plant for personal use. Or using the road for private purposes.

Ask a typical family with two children who live on a road where the speed limit is 30mph if they would prefer a system where twelve year old kids or even younger without insurance or a driving licence can drive past their front door at any speed they wish. Or of course, they could be drunk, as long as they cause no harm or loss. You haven't got a hope in hell of obtaining a majority.


If you can't please leave the class now and find a seat on the short bus...

Yes, rob. You do like to ridicule don't you.
But that is the trait of most FOTL posters.

[rob menard]

If the adjudicator is not a party to the conflict, he has no right to impose services without both agreeing to it. It is by the agreement of the two, that the one who is not a party is granted the power to adjudicate. Unless of course you wish to claim that anyone who is not a party to the conflict is automatically empowered to impose adjudication services. Since we are all equal.


Quote:
Can you distinguish between a crime where someone is harmed, and engaging in actions that are not criminal but are regulated by others who think they have a right to stop you from doing said action? Like say growing a plant for personal use. Or using the road for private purposes.
Ask a typical family with two children who live on a road where the speed limit is 30mph if they would prefer a system where twelve year old kids or even younger without insurance or a driving licence can drive past their front door at any speed they wish. Or of course, they could be drunk, as long as they cause no harm or loss. You haven't got a hope in hell of obtaining a majority.

So your answer I take it is no you cannot. For in in your example you bring forth a hypothetical situation as the likely actions of a Freeman, and they simply are not. They are not responsible, they offend community standards and generate sufficient fear to actually be classified as harm. Your example is ludicrous, for you even use a child as your example. Unbelievable. The right to travel on the road way does not give one free reign to act in an irresponsible manner, and having a license is no promise of the opposite. Whether one is in possession of a license is also no indication of their ability to operate their automobile responsibly and equating the two is childish and ingenious.

As for painting a picture of Freeman aspirations, pointing out the logical outcome of refusing to consent to a lawfully convened court of law is not an aspiration, and you labeling it as one is evidence of more attempts on your part to use deception to avoid the actual issues.

As for obtaining a majority, all I need is the righteous minority. And the fact that you think I need the majority, is evidence of your mindset, and herd like conditioning. I do not need a majority to give me an okay to follow a path I know to be true to my own conscience and heart. It is sad you apparently feel you do.

As for insults, well, your style of discussion and lack of ability to answer questions directly, constantly seek to subvert the discussion with illogical hypothetical situations does in fact cause one to naturally look at you as ridiculous, and worthy of ridicule.

If you do not wish to be ridiculed, perhaps you may wish to act in a less ridiculous manner. Of course, this perspective requires you to accept responsibility for your own actions, and to see how they bring about certain natural responses in others, and then change them, but you prefer to blame others for your words and the effect any one with an ounce of sense would know they would create.

If you want people to stop ridiculing you, stop being ridiculous.

[number_6]

So your answer I take it is no you cannot. For in in your example you bring forth a hypothetical situation as the likely actions of a Freeman, and they simply are not. They are not responsible, they offend community standards and generate sufficient fear to actually be classified as harm.

True. It would be irresponsible behaviour. So if it could be classed as harm you may have to find a method of controlling an individual's speed when driving a car?

Your example is ludicrous, for you even use a child as your example. Unbelievable.

Not at all.
With the absence of statute law, how would you prevent a child from driving?
You surely aren't suggesting a minimum age along the lines of the laws that are already in place? Would you have an age of majority? How could you enforce that without statute?

The right to travel on the road way does not give one free reign to act in an irresponsible manner,
But with the abolition of rules it's a behaviour you'll have to accept.
Unless of course you intend to impose rules on drivers?

and having a license is no promise of the opposite.
Not a promise, no. But somebody who has passed a recognised level of competence when driving is preferable to somebody who hasn't.


As for painting a picture of Freeman aspirations, pointing out the logical outcome of refusing to consent to a lawfully convened court of law is not an aspiration, and you labeling it as one is evidence of more attempts on your part to use deception to avoid the actual issues.
I doubt many here in the UK would like a Country where "outlaws" roam the streets.
Maybe Canada is different?

As for obtaining a majority, all I need is the righteous minority.
So you do not agree with majority rule?
Surely with the WFS you have that righteous minority required.
When are you setting up your community?
Would a righteous minority in a FOTL community have preference over the majority in that community?


And the fact that you think I need the majority, is evidence of your mindset, and herd like conditioning. I do not need a majority to give me an okay to follow a path I know to be true to my own conscience and heart. It is sad you apparently feel you do.

You may have trouble convincing the majority with that one.
Best of luck with it.

As for insults, well, your style of discussion and lack of ability to answer questions directly, constantly seek to subvert the discussion with illogical hypothetical situations does in fact cause one to naturally look at you as ridiculous, and worthy of ridicule.

My style of discussion is my style of discussion.
If you find it childish or irritating, just ignore me.
When you resort to your taunts you let yourself down.

If you want people to stop ridiculing you, stop being ridiculous.

Is that the reason you fled from the Randi forum?

[rob menard]

The harm is easily controlled by the use of law.

You prevent a child by driving by placing the liability for their actions on their parents until they reach a suitable age. Likely 18.

We do not propose the abolition of rules. That is a strawman argument.

Outlaws do not roam the streets. They run and hide for they can be lawfully killed. Few if any will chose that route.

As for the majority, I say that a deception widely held is none the less still a deception. And in a court of law, I do not need to convince the majority of any given community, do I? Does being right to you mean a majority must agree with you, and without that agreement, you are wrong? I put that in bold cause I challenge you to answer it and not avoid and evade as you usually do.

As for fleeing the RANDi forum, when it becomes obvious that I am dealing with those who are proud of their childish mindsets, and I realize I have far better things to do, I take my leave, without fleeing. All they can do is insult anonymously on the internet. I have helped establish a global society, am establishing a Common Corps of Peace Officers, and am in the process of convening proper lawful courts. What are they doing? Nothing, really. While they sit and insult and pat each other on their respective backs for their shared and embraced ignorance, thousands are awakening, learning about this movement, joining it and actually doing somehting.

Why would I flee from such obviously ineffectual, anonymous and unimportant people with so little ability to stop me from engaging in the course of action I have chosen? Moving past them in this race is not 'fleeing them'. It is leaving them in my dust. Our numbers grow. This is a widespread movement crossing many social and religious boundaries. We are coming. We are uniting. We are growing exponentially. There is NOTHING anyone on that forum can do to stop it. All they do is sit around and anonymously insult and derail discussion. They were a complete waste of time and energy. And still we grow in numbers and acceptance.

The people on that forum have all FAILED and will continue to fail and are completely incapable of stopping us, and so resort to name calling and insults and with pride at their inability to expand their minds and shift their paradigms.

And you call this fleeing... haa haa haa haa

Did you think I needed to get their consent or agreement BEFORE I engaged in a lawful course of action? One which although they cry about it like children, are incapable of stopping.

That is the proof in the pudding you know.
All your insults and detraction does not stop us from acting and eventually winning. And we win because your side is limited to insults and illogical arguments.

We act.
You do not. Unless you consider posting on the RANDI forum to be acting, and if so, I have to laugh. Is that really all you people can bring to bear against the growing tide of awareness?

Any idea how ineffectual such an action actually is? Especially when we are doing so much more. Meetings, serving documents on the courts, putting on shows, songs being written and sung, many videos being posted, standing our ground proudly and not anonymously. Compare that to what you do, which is post insults anonymously on the internet.

Who do you think will win?
:D

[number_6]

You prevent a child by driving by placing the liability for their actions on their parents until they reach a suitable age. Likely 18.
How would that differ from a statute?

We do not propose the abolition of rules. That is a strawman argument.

Rules in addition to law not causing harm or loss?
Really?
Who will make these rules, how will you enforce them if breaking them causes no harm or loss?

Outlaws do not roam the streets. They run and hide for they can be lawfully killed. Few if any will chose that route.
rob, if you are advocating a community where those that have been forced to leave may be lawfully killed you are shooting yourself well and truly in the foot.

As for the majority, I say that a deception widely held is none the less still a deception. And in a court of law, I do not need to convince the majority of any given community, do I? Does being right to you mean a majority must agree with you, and without that agreement, you are wrong? I put that in bold cause I challenge you to answer it and not avoid and evade as you usually do.

No, of course being right needs no majority.
However inflicting your will without force probably does require consent of the majority.
Although I note that your acceptance that killing others can be lawful may indeed mean that a minority of people such as yourself may inflict it's will on the majority.




Who do you think will win?

Time will tell.
But my money is not on the FOTL.

[rob menard]

rob, if you are advocating a community where those that have been forced to leave may be lawfully killed you are shooting yourself well and truly in the foot.

I am not advocating that at all, and I do not see how anyone could claim I made any where near that statement.

They would not be forced to leave, they would be choosing to abandon law, and thus would be seen by the community at large as dangerous and requiring action.

Are you advocating a community where those who have abandoned law may roam freely? Where those who do accept law have no remedy? That is what it sounds like to me.

[number_6]

I am not advocating that at all, and I do not see how anyone could claim I made any where near that statement.

They would not be forced to leave, they would be choosing to abandon law, and thus would be seen by the community at large as dangerous and requiring action.

Seriously, rob if you are saying a fellow human being is "requiring action" and such action is that they may be killed perhaps you should reconsider that carefully. It doesn't bode well.

Are you advocating a community where those who have abandoned law may roam freely? Where those who do accept law have no remedy? That is what it sounds like to me.
I never said that.
The system we have in place does a pretty good job of preventing that happening.

[herald holmes]

Outlaws do not roam the streets. They run and hide for they can be lawfully killed. Few if any will chose that route.
rob, if you are advocating a community where those that have been forced to leave may be lawfully killed you are shooting yourself well and truly in the foot.

What I believe Rob is saying is that outlaws have no protection at Law as they chose to abandon Law.

I cannot see how killing an outlaw simply for being an outlaw is not murder. Protecting against those that do not respect their life and the lives of others is a different set of circumstances.

[asky]

What I believe Rob is saying is that outlaws have no protection at Law as they chose to abandon Law.

Does that also go for FMOTL advocates who choose to ignore Statute law?

asky

[prajna]

I doubt many here in the UK would like a Country where "outlaws" roam the streets.
Maybe Canada is different?

You mean we would like it less than having them in the government, the police, the media, banking, business, ..., which is the present case in the UK and most other countries?

Who gives a shit about the law, acts, statutes, treaties, licenses, registration, taxes, etc. when none of those have done anything to prevent our governments from waging wars of aggression, poisoning the planet for the next 4.5 BILLION YEARS, letting loose genetically modified organisms (as well as lacing our food with them), and a host of other crimes against humanity and the planet.

Who gives a fuck about your laws when they simply lead to chaos and control. What fucking moral right has that bullshit, corrupt, lawless system to even deign to advise someone like me, who actually cares about the well-being of the species and the planet?

[number_6]

What I believe Rob is saying is that outlaws have no protection at Law as they chose to abandon Law.

I cannot see how killing an outlaw simply for being an outlaw is not murder. .

According to rob in rob's world an outlaw may be lawfully killed.
Bang goes the freemen belief of wishing to cause no harm or loss.

[herald holmes]

Does that also go for FMOTL advocates who choose to ignore Statute law?

asky

What is statute law? It is not Law, it is 'given the force of Law' 'through consent'.

It is contract, to force anyone to contract with the STATE is against the Law.

It must be voluntary, therefore those that CHOOSE NOT to become agents of government and who ARE NOT REQUIRED to follow legislation ARE NOT outlaws.

[asky]

What is statute law? It is not Law, it is 'given the force of Law' 'through consent'.
Really?
Care to show some evidence to back up this claim?
It is contract, to force anyone to contract with the STATE is against the Law.

No one is forcing anyone to consent to anything

It must be voluntary, therefore those that CHOOSE NOT to become agents of government and who ARE NOT REQUIRED to follow legislation ARE NOT outlaws.
Fine, you choose not to consent to the statutes and then remain within society and break them and see how you go.

asky

[rob menard]

How so? Does not 'necessity' trump 'wishes'? My desire to do no harm does not preclude me from defending myself, and your implication that my previous stated wishes to do no harm means I am bound to not defend myself is again ludicrous, though now expected from you.

Read some history on the law. In days of old outlaws could be shot on sight, as they were deemed to be grave threats against the community at large, had committed actual crimes, not regulatory infractions, though when the courts became corrupt, many chose that path, and were harboured by towns who realize that power corrupts, and the courts were unfair.

Because I said that according to law, something may be done, does not mean I advocate such action, and again, this is you either purposely trying to attribute beliefs to me which I do not hold, or you are severely handicapped when it comes to word comprehension.

You sure do have a knack for completely misdirecting a point, and trying to put on others beliefs that you really need to stretch in order to attribute to them.

All you do is take what I state, twist that to absurd proportions, attempt to attribute to me those absurdities, and then ask questions trying to get me to defend those absurdities.

I think most intelligent people can see what you are doing, when you do it. Which is constantly.

[asky]

Stick to the point Rob
Do you believe that statutes are relevant/enforceable or not?

asky

[number_6]

Read some history on the law. In days of old outlaws could be shot on sight, as they were deemed to be grave threats against the community at large, had committed actual crimes, not regulatory infractions, though when the courts became corrupt, many chose that path, and were harboured by towns who realize that power corrupts, and the courts were unfair.
Thankfully those days have gone, rob. In the UK it is very rare for a criminal to be shot on sight.

Because I said that according to law, something may be done, does not mean I advocate such action, and again, this is you either purposely trying to attribute beliefs to me which I do not hold, or you are severely handicapped when it comes to word comprehension.
Perhaps according to the law in a FOTL community it may be done, but in our community I am pleased to say we don't kill people nor is it allowed.

[rob menard]

Really?
Care to show some evidence to back up this claim?

No one is forcing anyone to consent to anything


Fine, you choose not to consent to the statutes and then remain within society and break them and see how you go.

asky

The claim that all men are created equal? It has been deemed to be self evident. As such, since statutes are the words of such men, bound by equality, they cannot have the force of law over another without consent. Is that logic and reason proof enough for you? It is for most high school children.

As for this imaginary society of yours you are incapable of naming, it is not a geographical area, and leaving it does not require on to physically move at all. That sure is going to piss you off ain't it? Go do what you want, but do it elsewhere, is your belief. However, your society does not own the geographical area, and we can abandon one, without ever leaving the other.

Unless you wish to claim that you have the lawful right to force us to leave a geographical area because we refuse to join your imaginary society, and bow to your imaginary masters.

Is that the case? Do you honestly think we can be forced to leave because we refuse to consent to the governance you have chosen to accept? Seriously?

[number_6]

The claim that all men are created equal? It has been deemed to be self evident. As such, since statutes are the words of such men, bound by equality, they cannot have the force of law over another without consent. Is that logic and reason proof enough for you? It is for most high school children.

Isn't common law the words of men also?

[herald holmes]

According to rob in rob's world an outlaw may be lawfully killed.
Bang goes the freemen belief of wishing to cause no harm or loss.

I believe you missed the point number_6, they have no protection at Law.

Lawfully killed?? for that to happen they must have murdered someone without remorse nor seeking forgiveness as the Law requires to show it's compassion.

It's like putting down a rabid dog, this day and age the psychology of the outlaw would be seriously taken into question. We have come along way as a specie.

[asky]

Stick to the point Rob
Do you believe that statutes are relevant/enforceable or not?

asky

[number_6]

Lawfully killed??
Not my words, rob said it.

for that to happen they must have murdered someone without remorse nor seeking forgiveness as the Law requires to show it's compassion..
rob said if they become an outlaw they may be lawfully killed.
rob didn't mention that they must have killed somebody.

Surely you don't wish a FOTL community to step backwards and have a system of capital punishement do you?

[rob menard]

Stick to the point Rob
Do you believe that statutes are relevant/enforceable or not?

asky

I do not see how one can claim that statutes have the force of law over a man without that man's consent, and still be able to claim that they hold equality to be paramount.

Because of equality, and the fact that statutes are merely the words of men, they can only lawfully enjoy force of law over those who do consent.

They are the words of a man or group of men, which another group may have agreed to. They cannot use those words to deny some non consenting man rights at law. Because of equality.

A group of people, all of whom are equal may choose to obey a certain body of words called a statute and give it the force of law. However not a single one of them, nor as a group, can claim that body of words which they had the opportunity to agree to, are now the law on others who do not have the ability to agree or not.

Because of equality.

The position that statutes do not require the consent of the governed requires a complete abandonment of the rule of law and the concept of equality.

You can only agree to what words you will accept have the force of law over you. Because we are equal. You had a choice. And so do we. Because we are equal. You do not have the power to do that for others, even if you are joined by many, and you hire ignorant people with guns to enforce your will. It does not make it lawful. Because we are equal.

It is absolutely impossible for you to lawfully establish that statutes enjoy the force of law without consent without abandoning equality, something which many feel is so fundamental as to be self evident.

And you want proof of that which so many consider self evident...

[number_6]

I do not see how one can claim that statutes have the force of law over a man without that man's consent, and still be able to claim that they hold equality to be paramount.

Because of equality, and the fact that statutes are merely the words of men, they can only lawfully enjoy force of law over those who do consent.

They are the words of a man or group of men, which another group may have agreed to. They cannot use those words to deny some non consenting man rights at law. Because of equality.

A group of people, all of whom are equal may choose to obey a certain body of words called a statute and give it the force of law. However not a single one of them, nor as a group, can claim that body of words which they had the opportunity to agree to, are now the law on others who do not have the ability to agree or not.

Because of equality.
...

Exactly the same could be said regarding common law.

[asky]

Stick to the point Rob
Do you believe that statutes are relevant/enforceable or not?

asky

A simple "yes they are" or "no they are not" will do thanks.

asky

[herald holmes]

What is statute law? It is not Law, it is 'given the force of Law' 'through consent'.
Really?
Care to show some evidence to back up this claim?

It's common knowledge to those who have studied statute Law.

Quote from your Law makers:

"A statute is a legislated rule of a society given the force of Law within that society"

The Law society made these statues up at the request of people in Government to regulate government agents behavior in the public. Basic isn't it.

It is contract, to force anyone to contract with the STATE is against the Law.
No one is forcing anyone to consent to anything

What is forced licensing on those who are not government employees? What is forced registration on those who buy a car for private use? What is forced obedience to defacto rules created by the Law society?

It must be voluntary, therefore those that CHOOSE NOT to become agents of government and who ARE NOT REQUIRED to follow legislation ARE NOT outlaws.
Fine, you choose not to consent to the statutes and then remain within society and break them and see how you go.


It depends on the society, if I don't like the society I can join another or create my own. Isn't freedom the most awesome treasure we have.

[asky]

Quote from your Law makers:

"A statute is a legislated rule of a society given the force of Law within that society"

Care to find me a reference to this quote (you made up)

asky

[rob menard]

Exactly the same could be said regarding common law.

Yes it could, and it could also be said about KIPPERS!
You can say any silly thing, does not make it true.
And applying 'statute as law' is one thing and clearly requires consent.
Applying 'law' where there is a victim, is a different thing, as the offender denied the victim the ability to consent.


Did you not see the part about 'rights at law'?
Word comprehension dude. Work on it.

[herald holmes]

Quote from your Law makers:

"A statute is a legislated rule of a society given the force of Law within that society"
Care to find me a reference to this quote (you made up)

asky

Sure I'll do a simple search for you, as soon as you tell me to whom and where I can send the bill and expect payment.

[rob menard]

Sure I'll do a simple search for you, as soon as you tell me to whom and where I can send the bill and expect payment.

hee hee hee

:D:D:D

[asky]

You can say any silly thing, does not make it true.

The irony in that is most amusing.:)

What is truth?
A belief is true if,and only if, it corresponds to fact.
What is fact?
Fact is that which IS --independant of our perception or belief.

asky

[rob menard]

The irony in that is most amusing.:)

What is truth?
A belief is true if,and only if, it corresponds to fact.
What is fact?
Fact is that which IS --independant of our perception or belief.

asky

I agree, and the silliest thing uttered on this board I think comes from those who think statutes are law and do not require consent.


As for the initial purpose of this thread, the truth is based upon the fact that certain words can be found in a certain Act, and as that Act binds the police, and it is what they use to stop people on the road, it establishes that a fundamental right, long espoused by FMOTL as existing, is in fact recognized by an Act.

Why then I ask myself, do you group of naysayers FAIL completely to analyze those words in that Act? Did you not want proof? Here it is. Now you ignore it.

Why all the run around to try and get people away from the topic of the thread? The right to travel on the highways and roads in Canada is recognized by the Act that I would think you would accept as the highest governing body, as it is the ones the armed men and women rely upon.

Yet no honest, intelligent discussion about those words and their implication.

Just more of the same diversionary tactics.

Hmmm....

[asky]

Back to the original post then Rob
If as you have said in the past "Statutes are not applicable to me" then why do you spend time reading and disecting them?

Is this why you use the Wallmart quote as you have spent some time reading and familiarizing yourself with its staff policy document?

Come on Rob make up your mind, do the acts apply to you or not?
asky

[herald holmes]

Wow, this forum got the bottom of the barrel trolls eh!

Rob, was this found in the Alberta traffic Act?

[asky]

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-t-6/latest/rsa-2000-c-t-6.html
(h) “commercial vehicle” means a vehicle operated on a highway by or on behalf of a person for the purpose of providing transportation but does not include a private passenger vehicle;

(jj) “private passenger vehicle” means a vehicle used solely for personal transportation,

as Rob couldnt be bothered posting his evidence here it is

asky

Sorry forgot this
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/259/259-81.htm
259:81 Private Passenger Vehicle. – ""Private passenger vehicle'' shall mean a motor vehicle, except motorcycles, tractors, snowmobiles, OHRV's and mopeds, which is designed and used for the purpose of transporting 10 persons or less and used for the transportation of human beings with their necessary personal belongings, and not exceeding 8,000 pounds in gross vehicle weight.

[herald holmes]

A “private passenger vehicle” seems to me to be an exclusive taxi for your family and friends, that you have to operate and insure.

What is a passenger defined as? Where would that part of the puzzle be found?

[jackieg]

The irony in that is most amusing.:)

What is truth?
A belief is true if,and only if, it corresponds to fact.
What is fact?
Fact is that which IS --independant of our perception or belief.

asky

Almost....
"facts are merely something to be dispelled with.(that to which we agree upon)
When all the facts have been dispelled, the only thing left standing is the truth."

[jackieg]

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-t-6/latest/rsa-2000-c-t-6.html




as Rob couldnt be bothered posting his evidence here it is

asky

Sorry forgot this
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/259/259-81.htm

I'm going to change one word....vehicle to automobile.
""Private passenger vehicle'' shall mean a motor vehicle, except motorcycles, tractors, snowmo....
To....
""Private passenger automobile.'' shall mean a motor vehicle, except motorcycles, tractors, snowmo
The word automobile turns your statute into garbage....pure unadulterated rubbish.

[number_6]

I'm going to change one word....vehicle to automobile.
.

So the FOTL method is to simply change words contained in Acts?

[number_6]

Sure I'll do a simple search for you, as soon as you tell me to whom and where I can send the bill and expect payment.

It will take more than a simple search.
You will not find any reference in law where it contains your statement.

Although it can be easily found on FOTL sites. It is a myth.
Interesting you use the "I will charge you" as a get out clause to mask your mistake.

[herald holmes]

Originally Posted by jackieg View Post
I'm going to change one word....vehicle to automobile.
.
So the FOTL method is to simply change words contained in Acts?
Priceless.

I don't understand jackieg's logic neither #6.

What's the point JG with the ackie in-between. lol

[number_6]

I do not see how one can claim that statutes have the force of law over a man without that man's consent, and still be able to claim that they hold equality to be paramount.
Common law operates on exactly the same principle.

Because of equality, and the fact that statutes are merely the words of men, they can only lawfully enjoy force of law over those who do consent.
Common law too is the words of men. Common law works on the same principle.

They are the words of a man or group of men, which another group may have agreed to. They cannot use those words to deny some non consenting man rights at law. Because of equality.
Same goes for common law, rob.

A group of people, all of whom are equal may choose to obey a certain body of words called a statute and give it the force of law. However not a single one of them, nor as a group, can claim that body of words which they had the opportunity to agree to, are now the law on others who do not have the ability to agree or not.
That applies to common law also, rob.

Because of equality.

The position that statutes do not require the consent of the governed requires a complete abandonment of the rule of law and the concept of equality.
Er, same as common law.

rob you utilise an argument why statute law is not law, but when you apply that same argument to common law it has the same result.
What is your point?

[vladmir]

All you do is take what I state, twist that to absurd proportions, attempt to attribute to me those absurdities, and then ask questions trying to get me to defend those absurdities.

I think most intelligent people can see what you are doing, when you do it. Which is constantly.
Oh yeah we see it alright. Just more FAIL by the disinformants.
Which of course leads to more enlightenment for the readers.

[herald holmes]

It will take more than a simple search.
You will not find any reference in law where it contains your statement.

Although it can be easily found on FOTL sites. It is a myth.
Interesting you use the "I will charge you" as a get out clause to mask your mistake.

Are you saying I should not be paid for my labor to someone else. sheesh


International law

A Statute is a legislative rule given the force of law by consent within a society. The term statute is also used to refer to an International treaty that establishes an institution, such as the Statute of the European Central Bank, a protocol to the international courts as well, such as the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Statute is also another word for law. The term was adapted from England in about the 18th century.

[girlgye]

Are you saying I should not be paid for my labor to someone else. sheesh


International law

A Statute is a legislative rule given the force of law by consent within a society. The term statute is also used to refer to an International treaty that establishes an institution, such as the Statute of the European Central Bank, a protocol to the international courts as well, such as the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Statute is also another word for law. The term was adapted from England in about the 18th century.

It's been done before. they accuse you of not giving them proof. Then someone gives them the proof and that is what they are here for. You will get no thanks either.

Merlincove/I_Am.
I am appalled that clearly there is an orchestrated attack as per, clearly being organised on another forum and brazingly so.
He has clearly stated that statutes don't apply to him unless he wishes them to and yet they feign ignorance saturate the thread and weasle out with nonsense questions until it becomes unbearable to read or be here any longer.

[asky]

- Google Search

The above is an advanced google search for your text.
Dont you find it strange that there are no legal/lawful definitions within the 4 results.
They are all sourced from Wikipedia which actually you could have written yourself ;)

Nice try

asky

[merlincove]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=A+Statute+is+a+legislative+rule+given+the+f orce+of+law+by+consent+within+a+society.+The+term+ statute+is+also+used+to+refer+to+an+International+ treaty+that+establishes+an+institution%2C+such+as+ the+Statute+of+the+European+Central+Bank%2C+a+prot ocol+to+the+international+courts+as+well%2C+such+a s+the+Statute+of+the+International+Court+of+Justic e+and+the+Rome+Statute+of+the+International+Crimin al+Court.+Statute+is+also+another+word+for+law.+Th e+term+was+adapted+from+England+in+about+the+18th+ century.&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

The above is an advanced google search for your text.
Dont you find it strange that there are no legal/lawful definitions within the 4 results.
They are all sourced from Wikipedia which actually you could have written yourself ;)

Nice try

asky

totally meaningless aside because the law dictionary states quite clearly that a statute is only enforcable by consent.

[fotheringsmirth]

totally meaningless aside because the law dictionary states quite clearly that a statute is only enforcable by consent.

Consent of a majority of the population through a) democratic elections and b) passive consent through staying in the realm. Basic stuff...read Locke, Rosseau and Hume, because that's where they're the theorists the people who came up with that term were also reading, and it's very, very clear that it's consent of a collective society rather than the consent of each individual person. To secure that kind of consent and even have something resembling society would be literally impossible, and none of these guys were nihilists.

[number_6]

totally meaningless aside because the law dictionary states quite clearly that a statute is only enforcable by consent.

Which legal dictionary?
Always remembering that a legal dictionary is not a legal authority.

[rob menard]

Consent of a majority of the population through a) democratic elections and b) passive consent through staying in the realm. Basic stuff...read Locke, Rosseau and Hume, because that's where they're the theorists the people who came up with that term were also reading, and it's very, very clear that it's consent of a collective society rather than the consent of each individual person. To secure that kind of consent and even have something resembling society would be literally impossible, and none of these guys were nihilists.

You are I feel very wrong here, but I am appreciative of your efforts as they do highlight the key point of contention which needs examining.

It will boil down to consent, and whether it was informed consent, or not; and whether a majority can impose their will on another, without consent, and if staying in 'the Realm' as you call it is consent.

Those are hte basic issues that your statements bring to mind.

I am of the other camp, and feel that consent can only be achieved individually, and that one can stay in a geographical area ('the Realm') and not consent.

I would like to invite you to examine these ideas together, knowing we are starting out at opposite ends, but each willing to use logic, reason and law to determine the truth. I am willing to bet I can establish that you are mistaken, and that even something such as 'The Realm' which is key to your argument, actually requires consent to exist, as it too is a fiction. I also have some pretty good reasonable scenarios where your position becomes ludicrous. Finally, I can point to the existing voter turn out and using numbers alone raise serious questions about anyone's right to demand someone leave an area because they refuse to accept the services of another.

Finally I will bring equality to the table, and using that alone, prove your position must abandon that paramount concept to exist.

[jackieg]

So the FOTL method is to simply change words contained in Acts?
I suggest to you that IF the word "automobile" displaces "vehicle" your statutes do not apply by the very lack of jurisdiction.

[herald holmes]

Originally Posted by fotheringsmirth
and it's very, very clear that it's consent of a collective society rather than the consent of each individual person.

Bingo, name your society?

Each individual must consent to be a member of the society before the societies rules have any force(collective) of Law over them, or are you now saying you are forced to be a member of a nameless society so the society can force it's rules upon you.

Can one society place their rules upon another? Are societies equal at Law? Can my society force you off the land cause you wont be a member or follow it's rules?

[the worm that turned]

Bingo, name your society?

...

Can one society place their rules upon another? Are societies equal at Law? Can my society force you off the land cause you wont be a member or follow it's rules?


In answer to your questions - Yes (Nazis). No (Nazis). Yes (Nazis). And that was prior to going to war and when they were an official political party (voted in). And at the same time met by the British PM and US President who thought he was ok!!!

I asked my MP about social contract and he refused to converse with me. Says it all really.

All it takes is for people to follow their heart and ask for a view of the social contract. If there isn't one then there is no rule. If there is a contract then let us see it. Should have a choice to sign it shouldn't we?

[herald holmes]

Yes they do seem to have the Nazi idealism, but they must operate in respect to the Law.

The only thing The Law Society and The World Freeman Society have in common is the Law and both must operate on it and play fair.

Both sides need to learn to distinguish and respect each other.

[joe white]

You are I feel very wrong here, but I am appreciative of your efforts as they do highlight the key point of contention which needs examining.

It will boil down to consent, and whether it was informed consent, or not; and whether a majority can impose their will on another, without consent, and if staying in 'the Realm' as you call it is consent.

Those are hte basic issues that your statements bring to mind.

I am of the other camp, and feel that consent can only be achieved individually, and that one can stay in a geographical area ('the Realm') and not consent.

I would like to invite you to examine these ideas together, knowing we are starting out at opposite ends, but each willing to use logic, reason and law to determine the truth. I am willing to bet I can establish that you are mistaken, and that even something such as 'The Realm' which is key to your argument, actually requires consent to exist, as it too is a fiction. I also have some pretty good reasonable scenarios where your position becomes ludicrous. Finally, I can point to the existing voter turn out and using numbers alone raise serious questions about anyone's right to demand someone leave an area because they refuse to accept the services of another.

Finally I will bring equality to the table, and using that alone, prove your position must abandon that paramount concept to exist.rob give it up. you don't even practice your ideas on your home forum. that's what happens when you focus on 1. plus you want to debate the consent of the individual with another individual? you just gave it up.

[rob menard]

First post and you are telling me to 'give it up'?

And if you know so much about what happens on other forums why not introduce yourself here using the names I would know you by?

And finally t'was not a debate I sought, but a fair, honest respectful sharing of divergent perspectives.

You would not be 'JoeReality' would you?:D

[joe white]

First post and you are telling me to 'give it up'?value is measured by the number of posts? then i guess the higher the number, the more they demonstrate a lack of content.
but kids like to count numbers. learn your abc's yet?

And if you know so much about what happens on other forums why not introduce yourself here using the names I would know you by?would this change the content of what's being said? let me see; i tell you my other forum name and what is being said changes. rob the magician. and stop pretending you practice your ideas on your forum.

And finally t'was not a debate I sought, but a fair, honest respectful sharing of divergent perspectives.you said you wanted to prove a point and that the other's point is wrong. that's called a debate. it can be friendly or unfriendly,but it's still a debate.

You would not be 'JoeReality' would you?:Dabsolutely not, and you're reality is wanting.

[vladmir]

Great, another troll. Welcome.

[number_6]

Bingo, name your society?
Society is the population.
Or is your argument that the population does not exist because it does not carry a name such as the WFS?
Don't forget that the WFS in reality is not a society. It doesn't occupy land or have it's own infrastructure etc. In fact the WFS consists of nothing more than a few webpages, webpages that do not even exist in reality, but travel as tiny signals through the internet.

[number_6]

Great, another troll. Welcome.

Great.
Another member who is able to debate the pitfalls of the FOTL theory in an adult manner.
Welcome joe white.

[prajna]

Great.
Another member who is able to debate the pitfalls of the FOTL theory in an adult manner.
Welcome joe white.

Seems you have a bad echo, 6. Maybe if you turn your microphone down a little.

[number_6]

Seems you have a bad echo, 6. Maybe if you turn your microphone down a little.

What do you think joe white is me?

[number_6]

First post and you are telling me to 'give it up'?

Why would you draw attention to the number of posts a member has made on this forum in an attempt to cast doubts on the validity of that member's opinion?
Are we not all equal?
Are we not all human?
Is your opinion of more worth only because you have made more posts?

[prajna]

What do you think joe white is me?

Of course not, only a 'mini me' of you. He has only shown the most basic trolling skills so far; no threat to your esteemed position, don't worry.

[number_6]

I suggest to you that IF the word "automobile" displaces "vehicle" your statutes do not apply by the very lack of jurisdiction.
You could choose any statute, replace one word with another and argue that the statute fails.

Good job we have the judiciary in place to interpret law.

[herald holmes]

Society is the population.
Or is your argument that the population does not exist because it does not carry a name such as the WFS?

Wow, for someone who thinks they are smart, you sure speak strange.
Population is a number of people, society has a little more.

Like:

SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.


Mutual consent, see there is that pesky word again, CONSENT.


Don't forget that the WFS in reality is not a society. It doesn't occupy land or have it's own infrastructure etc. In fact the WFS consists of nothing more than a few webpages, webpages that do not even exist in reality, but travel as tiny signals through the internet.

WFS is a society and has all the above features. Name your society, do you have one?

[number_6]

Wow, for someone who thinks they are smart, you sure speak strange.
Population is a number of people, society has a little more.

pop·u·la·tion   /ˌpɒpyəˈleɪʃən/ Show Spelled[pop-yuh-ley-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.the total number of persons inhabiting a country, city, or any district or area.
2.the body of inhabitants of a place:
3.the number or body of inhabitants of a particular race or class in a place: the native population; the working-class population.
4.Statistics. any finite or infinite aggregation of individuals, not necessarily animate, subject to a statistical study.
5.Ecology.
a.the assemblage of a specific type of organism living in a given area.
b.all the individuals of one species in a given area.
6.the act or process of populating: Population of the interior was hampered by dense jungles.


herald homes said:SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.
Mutual consent, see there is that pesky word again, CONSENT.


so·ci·e·ty   /səˈsaɪɪti/ Show Spelled [suh-sahy-i-tee] Show IPA noun,plural-ties, adjective
–noun
1.an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
2.a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
3.the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
4.a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.
5.such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.
6.those with whom one has companionship.
7.companionship; company: to enjoy one's society.
8.the social life of wealthy, prominent, or fashionable persons.
9.the social class that comprises such persons.
10.the condition of those living in companionship with others, or in a community, rather than in isolation.
11.Biology. a closely integrated group of social organisms of the same species exhibiting division of labor.
12.Ecclesiastical. an ecclesiastical society.

I see you resort to typical FOTL behaviour and only care to acknowledge definitions that suit your argument.
You are so predictable.


WFS is a society and has all the above features.
I agree that WFS owns a few webpages.
I would also accept that WFS does have members.
How many members exactly are there in the WFS?

Are you saying that WFS owns land and infrastructure?
Could you elaborate?

Name your society, do you have one?
Yeah rob has done all of this before.
Your next argument will be that anything without a name does not legally exist.
Is your argument that society does not exist?

[prajna]

Wow! So many meanings to choose from! How spoilt we are for choice. Now, do we have free choice of which meaning we may choose? (Remembering that in the 'King's English' may can also mean must or some such thing.)

Who gets to decide what choices we make? And what gives anyone the right to impose their choices on us?

When it comes to the meaning of words we all have a great deal to learn; whether they are legal words or words for concepts like freedom. When you fully understand freedom you will be free. When you fully understand who you are you will also understand freedom. And many other words and things beyond words.

The first thing you can observe, though, is that all these words, ideas, concepts, beliefs, have so many different meanings. You will choose from amongst all those meanings whatever is most in tune with your heart (if you listen to your heart) or with your head (which doesn't actually choose, instead your prejudices and other acquired programming choose).


Quote:
pop·u·la·tion   /ˌpɒpyəˈleɪʃən/ Show Spelled[pop-yuh-ley-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.the total number of persons inhabiting a country, city, or any district or area.
2.the body of inhabitants of a place:
3.the number or body of inhabitants of a particular race or class in a place: the native population; the working-class population.
4.Statistics. any finite or infinite aggregation of individuals, not necessarily animate, subject to a statistical study.
5.Ecology.
a.the assemblage of a specific type of organism living in a given area.
b.all the individuals of one species in a given area.
6.the act or process of populating: Population of the interior was hampered by dense jungles.

Quote:
SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.
Mutual consent, see there is that pesky word again, CONSENT.

Quote:
so·ci·e·ty   /səˈsaɪɪti/ Show Spelled [suh-sahy-i-tee] Show IPA noun,plural-ties, adjective
–noun
1.an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
2.a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
3.the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
4.a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.
5.such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.
6.those with whom one has companionship.
7.companionship; company: to enjoy one's society.
8.the social life of wealthy, prominent, or fashionable persons.
9.the social class that comprises such persons.
10.the condition of those living in companionship with others, or in a community, rather than in isolation.
11.Biology. a closely integrated group of social organisms of the same species exhibiting division of labor.
12.Ecclesiastical. an ecclesiastical society.

[the worm that turned]

You could choose any statute, replace one word with another and argue that the statute fails.

Good job we have the judiciary in place to interpret law.

Interpret law?

Surely law is law and needs no interpretation.

Interpret man-made legislation, perhaps.

[number_6]

Interpret law?

Surely law is law and needs no interpretation.

Interpret man-made legislation, perhaps.

Doesn't man make common law?

Also when case law and legislation conflict there is a presumption that legislation takes precedence.

[number_6]

Wow! So many meanings to choose from! How spoilt we are for choice. Now, do we have free choice of which meaning we may choose? (Remembering that in the 'King's English' may can also mean must or some such thing.)

Choose what you wish.
However remember a Judge is likely to apply the literal rule.

[herald holmes]

#6 you are either completely clueless or a member of the Law Society.

You never rebutted the consent bit.

Then you must agree society needs the consent of each man before he is a member and given status.

Unbelievable, I know you don't believe the nonsense you type, if you truly do than forgive my harsh thoughts of you disability.

[egozero]

gay
troll/fag war

how many pages of this shit? wheres the useful posts

[number_6]

Then you must agree society needs the consent of each man before he is a member and given status. .

No, I disagree.
Consent is implied.
Our representatives sit in the House of Commons.
(There's a clue in the word "commons")

[number_6]

#6 you are either completely clueless or a member of the Law Society.

Ah, I understand you now. A member of the Law Society is incapable of understanding law.
Unlike FOTL who have studied law for a couple of months at the University of Youtube, and then graduate with an understanding of law that far exceeds the knowledge of the whole of the legal profession combined.

[johngr]

Ah, I understand you now. A member of the Law Society is incapable of understanding law.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" --Upton Sinclair.

[h2pogo]

No, I disagree.
Consent is implied.
Our representatives sit in the House of Commons.
(There's a clue in the word "commons")

Imply = to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated

so if i send notice that i refuse consent???

representatives ?? now your being naive..

[number_6]

so if i send notice that i refuse consent???

Try it.
Others have and then refused to recognise statute law is law and ended up in prison.
See how you get on.

[number_6]

representatives ?? now your being naive..

I am astonished that there does not appear to be a FOTL candidate contesting any seat in the forthcoming election.
Surely if even one FOTL was elected he/she could spread the word.
Considering the WFS is apparently international could they not offer a candidate?

[h2pogo]

Try it.
Others have and then refused to recognise statute law is law and ended up in prison.
See how you get on.

I fail to see how the rules of a criminal organization can be lawful..

[prajna]

I fail to see how the rules of a criminal organization can be lawful..

Quite right. Neither does the 'law': Ex dolo malo actio non oritur - A right of action cannot arise out of fraud.

[prajna]

I am astonished that there does not appear to be a FOTL candidate contesting any seat in the forthcoming election.
Surely if even one FOTL was elected he/she could spread the word.
Considering the WFS is apparently international could they not offer a candidate?

It is only possible to be astonished by that if you are so ignorant of the political system that you think it has some kind of legitimacy. It is, in fact, designed to get people to surrender responsibility to some 'representative' who can be manipulated far more easily than can the general populace.

I don't need someone to re-present me, I am perfectly capable of presenting myself, and do so whenever confronted by agents of the State.

Gandhiji said, "Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. And a citizen who barters with such a state shares in its corruption and lawlessness."

You can't win by playing a rigged game; only a fool, or worse, would encourage others to do so.

[merlincove]

Try it.
Others have and then refused to recognise statute law is law and ended up in prison.
See how you get on.

6, you arte a lone voice in the darkness, the light is over here, come over, you'll be surprised :D

Not consenting does not equate to a prison stay, i have not been to prison for refusing to consent, i have stood in my power as a human being and refused to recognise any juristiction over me by another.

i abide by equality, that i am an equal human being, not above or below anyone in a court of apparent law.

How can there be any swing in any direction if all parties are equal?

there can not, and in my case there has not been, hense my freedom and liberty have remained intact.

[number_6]

i have not been to prison for refusing to consent, i have stood in my power as a human being and refused to recognise any jurist.

Are you willing to withdraw consent to every law passed by legislation?
Or are you picking and choosing those "safe" ones?

[number_6]

I fail to see how the rules of a criminal organization can be lawful..

So if a FOTL finds himself in Court, is found guilty by that evil corrupt Court and is imprisoned, who does he complain to that the Court is a criminal organization?

[number_6]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" --Upton Sinclair.

Luckily then the greater understanding of law a barrister obtains during his/her career there is more opportunity that his/her income will increase. A barrister that does not understand law is likely to be very poor.

[egozero]

gay
troll/fag war

how many pages of this shit? wheres the useful posts

ga

[h2pogo]

So if a FOTL finds himself in Court, is found guilty by that evil corrupt Court and is imprisoned, who does he complain to that the Court is a criminal organization?

I would plead guilty but would not accept the charges..

[karl j]

I would plead guilty but would not accept the charges..

Actually this might work better:-

When you attend court and before anything else happens Ask the following questions:-

"Magistrate/Your Honour, I am here today to assist the court in clearing up this matter but first I wish to ask some questions before going any further so that I might clarify my position and better understand these proceedings."

The Magistrate/Judge will hopefully just give you the opportunity to ask your questions, if not then force the issue before letting them continue. "Magistrate/Your Honour, as I am representing myself am I not entitled to ask the court for clarification before proceedings can begin.?"
At this point you really should be able to ask your questions as follows:-

"Magistrate/Your Honour, Am I entitled to a fair hearing/trial.?"
(Yes is the expected answer)

Magistrate/Your Honour, Would a conflict of interests be an impediment to me receiving a fair hearing/trial.?
(Emphatic yes should be the answer)

"Magistrate/Your Honour, if it was shown that a conflict of interests indeed exists will the matter will dismissed.?
(Yes is the expected answer)

"Magistrate/Your Honour, who does the prosecutor work for.?"
(State/Province of .........) and probably a dawning of realisation from the Magistrate/Judge

Magistrate/Your Honour, who do you work for.?
The answer to this question will almost certainly never be given, if it is then your work is done for you.
(I really hope I don't have to tell you what your response would be )

If the answer is not given then you must push to have the answer given so that your "Process of clarification can be completed before proceeding any further."

The results at this point are too numerous to suggest but I would hope that your case will be likely adjourned and later withdrawn or dismissed on a technicality.

Being a Freeman is one thing but using their own rules against them is sometimes so much easier.!!!

[h2pogo]

thanks karlj :)

[number_6]

Actually this might work better:-

When you attend court and before anything else happens Ask the following questions:-

"Magistrate/Your Honour, I am here today to assist the court in clearing up this matter but first I wish to ask some questions before going any further so that I might clarify my position and better understand these proceedings."

The Magistrate/Judge will hopefully just give you the opportunity to ask your questions, if not then force the issue before letting them continue. "Magistrate/Your Honour, as I am representing myself am I not entitled to ask the court for clarification before proceedings can begin.?"
At this point you really should be able to ask your questions as follows:-

"Magistrate/Your Honour, Am I entitled to a fair hearing/trial.?"
(Yes is the expected answer)

Magistrate/Your Honour, Would a conflict of interests be an impediment to me receiving a fair hearing/trial.?
(Emphatic yes should be the answer)

"Magistrate/Your Honour, if it was shown that a conflict of interests indeed exists will the matter will dismissed.?
(Yes is the expected answer)

"Magistrate/Your Honour, who does the prosecutor work for.?"
(State/Province of .........) and probably a dawning of realisation from the Magistrate/Judge

Magistrate/Your Honour, who do you work for.?
The answer to this question will almost certainly never be given, if it is then your work is done for you.
(I really hope I don't have to tell you what your response would be )

If the answer is not given then you must push to have the answer given so that your "Process of clarification can be completed before proceeding any further."

The results at this point are too numerous to suggest but I would hope that your case will be likely adjourned and later withdrawn or dismissed on a technicality.

Being a Freeman is one thing but using their own rules against them is sometimes so much easier.!!!

So this would not be limited to cases involving statute law?
Show us just one example of that working in Court.

[merlincove]

Are you willing to withdraw consent to every law passed by legislation?
Or are you picking and choosing those "safe" ones?

i choose to enter into fair and honourable contract where i can see that such a contract is fair and honourable.

if a contract is not fair and honourable how can it be it be a contaract, moreover it would be one person exerting their will over and upon another?

i choose to contract into a beneficiakl union where and when i can see and recieve the full benefit for the services which i pay for.

i do not use the public health system, i have a private health contract which benefits me more, i pay for my daughters' educations. As a freeman i believe i am free to choose the contracts that i enter into if and when i see the benefit of that contract.

i believe that is honourable and is something that i use as a foundation to my reality.

This is why i have not studied A4V, and furthermore why i choose to pay for the services that i employ, such as water rates, utility consumption, road tax etc.

this of course may not be to every freemans tune, but i do not walk in their shoes and i respect their rights to fix their realities according to their own comprehensions.

And rather than question, ridicule and take the piss out of people, i believe that while people are living a life that holds the values of 'cause no other harm or loss' then i believe such concepts should be fortified rather than torn down, because with more people walking a cause no other harm or loss reality the world would be a more peacefull place for us and our children.

[number_6]

And rather than question, ridicule and take the piss out of people, i believe that while people are living a life that holds the values of 'cause no other harm or loss' then i believe such concepts should be fortified rather than torn down, because with more people walking a cause no other harm or loss reality the world would be a more peacefull place for us and our children.

I would not take the piss out of people that cause no harm or loss. But that is not what we see here. We see people who unlike yourself do not want to pay their debts, do not wish to pay for utilities and want a free ride. I would consider that causing loss.

[merlincove]

I would not take the piss out of people that cause no harm or loss. But that is not what we see here. We see people who unlike yourself do not want to pay their debts, do not wish to pay for utilities and want a free ride. I would consider that causing loss.

not if A4V works, and do we know that it doesn't?

[herald holmes]

No, I disagree.
Consent is implied.
Our representatives sit in the House of Commons.
(There's a clue in the word "commons")

Now you use the word, CONSENT. Implied or not, consent is still required. Implied consent can be removed by simply stating I do not consent and remove your associations, now try and prove you have implied consent.

To be someones representative requires consent.

COMMONS. Those subjects of the English nation who are not noblemen. They are represented in parliament in the house of commons.

You guys just keep falling over, it's ok it takes time to learn to walk.

[number_6]

Now you use the word, CONSENT. Implied or not, consent is still required. Implied consent can be removed by simply stating I do not consent and remove your associations, now try and prove you have implied consent.
If that is the case, remove your consent.
See how you get on.


To be someones representative requires consent
COMMONS. Those subjects of the English nation who are not noblemen. They are represented in parliament in the house of commons.
Then remove your consent, then ignore statute law and come back here with your result.


You guys just keep falling over, it's ok it takes time to learn to walk.

We fall over?
pleasuredome went to jail, girlgye went to jail, Harris is now bankrupt.
If that's considered not stumbling, thanks but no thanks.

[herald holmes]

If that is the case, remove your consent.
See how you get on.



Then remove your consent, then ignore statute law and come back here with your result.




We fall over?
pleasuredome went to jail, girlgye went to jail, Harris is now bankrupt.
If that's considered not stumbling, thanks but no thanks.

So now you finally see the truth, consent is required.

People in Government are criminals, the faster we as a people work together and wake up to the widespread supported corruption, the faster we can hang these treasonous ticks on humanity, all of them including the treasonous supporters.

I was just doing my job is no excuse.

From what I read pleasuredome never completed the claim, and girlgye used her license and claimed to be agent. I don't believe in this commercial redemption crap, anyone who tries it plays with fire.

Capturing the moral high ground, bypassing commerce is where I have always found remedy.



(By hang, I mean to air in public and have the public enact justice)

[number_6]

So now you finally see the truth, consent is required.

No, that is not what I said.

If you believe that you are able to withdraw your consent, then prove it.

Film yourself contravening statute law in full view of the police and show us how they were powerless over your immunity.

How about filming yourself carrying a firearm in full view down Oxford Street on a Saturday afternoon?

[theoneandonly]

No, that is not what I said.

If you believe that you are able to withdraw your consent, then prove it.

Film yourself contravening statute law in full view of the police and show us how they were powerless over your immunity.

How about filming yourself carrying a firearm in full view down Oxford Street on a Saturday afternoon?

[saracasm]Yess what a responsible suggestion [/sarcasm] :rolleyes:

I think the police would have every right to arrest you doing that, the whole point of being a freeman-on-the-land is being responsible. I think walking down the street with a firearm would cause alarm to others which is not very responsible is it...

I dont understand why you are so against people standing on their own two feet and taking care of their own affairs not being interferred with by others trying to impose their will (Government).

[number_6]

I think the police would have every right to arrest you doing that, the whole point of being a freeman-on-the-land is being responsible. I think walking down the street with a firearm would cause alarm to others which is not very responsible is it...

Really?
So being irresponsible can be punished in a FOTL community even if it is only covered by statute?
Would carrying a firearm be prohibited in a FOTL community?
How would that be enforced?

[herald holmes]

No, that is not what I said.

If you believe that you are able to withdraw your consent, then prove it.

Nice try, but it's up to you to show you have my consent to begin with.

Film yourself contravening statute law in full view of the police and show us how they were powerless over your immunity.

How about filming yourself carrying a firearm in full view down Oxford Street on a Saturday afternoon?

You seem to think cops operate according to Law, they will torture you for not complying to an order. They are corporate thugs hired to collect.

Because you use force does not mean you are right, usually if you have to use force you are trampling on someones rights.

[number_6]

Nice try, but it's up to you to show you have my consent to begin with.



You seem to think cops operate according to Law, they will torture you for not complying to an order. They are corporate thugs hired to collect.

Because you use force does not mean you are right, usually if you have to use force you are trampling on someones rights.

So you only talk the talk?

[herald holmes]

So you only talk the talk?

What are you on about. Police will kill you for a seat-belt violation if you cannot show DL and insurance.
They will kill you while you walk through an airport. Police are criminal thugs sent to collect.

Now you want me to walk up to them with a gun and camera to prove they are thugs, we all know they are, what would that prove other than police are thugs. A fact well established.

[number_6]

What are you on about. Police will kill you for a seat-belt violation if you cannot show DL and insurance.

Are you in the UK?
Or are you fantasising
A FOTL killed for no insurance or DL?
How come? A FOTL doesn't require either.

They will kill you while you walk through an airport. Police are criminal thugs sent to collect.

Now you want me to walk up to them with a gun and camera to prove they are thugs, we all know they are, what would that prove other than police are thugs.

If you truly were immune from statute law, they would be powerless.
But they aren't are they?
You obey just like the rest.

[herald holmes]

Are you in the UK?
Or are you fantasising
A FOTL killed for no insurance or DL?
How come? A FOTL doesn't require either.



If you truly were immune from statute law, they would be powerless.
But they aren't are they?
You obey just like the rest.


There are thousands of people (not only freeman) who are tasered and die, for civil infractions that no proof of claim was brought.

People are not powerless to act like thugs when they are thugs by nature.

[number_6]

There are thousands of people (not only freeman) who are tasered and die, for civil infractions that no proof of claim was brought.

People are not powerless to act like thugs when they are thugs by nature.

So even though you claim that you are not bound by statute law you in fact are.

[merlincove]

So even though you claim that you are not bound by statute law you in fact are.

no, what is being said is that people are the victims of police brutality, no matter their standing as a freeman or not.

it is unlawful for the police to arrest a freeman who has not broken any common law crime, and yet it still happens, which is more a show of their dicatatorial stance than the freemans stance outside of statute law.

[herald holmes]

So even though you claim that you are not bound by statute law you in fact are.

I am not immune to simple thuggery, none of us are. But we can tip the scales back in our favor.

They receive no revenue from myself at all, and if they intercourse with me, anyway it goes, it cost them a lot more than it cost myself. People say to buy gold, noway it is four 4x the price it should be. Hold onto cash people, stuff it in your mattress.

I have been locked up for my beliefs, no man should be locked up for his beliefs. Funny thing was they had a duty of care and I had all my teeth fixed and a mole removed, that would have cost me thousands. I didn't accept any benefit as I was willing to go have it done, but at the time held against my will without a valid claim.

Should we not change the system or create a system where all benefit and not just a handful of bankers and friends.

[number_6]

Should we not change the system or create a system where all benefit and not just a handful of bankers and friends.

I am not against changing the system.

I am however against a movement that peddles the belief that the system can be beaten by unproven legal arguments that have no basis in law. (All available to be purchased on DVD) They fail every time.

The only way is to change the law.

[merlincove]

I am not against changing the system.

I am however against a movement that peddles the belief that the system can be beaten by unproven legal arguments that have no basis in law. (All available to be purchased on DVD) They fail every time.

The only way is to change the law.

Maybe the only way is to scrap the Law and abide by common law.

This is what FmotL is doing, bringing awareness to the corruption evident in the law of statute, and furthering the law of the land.

[h2pogo]

I am not against changing the system.

I am however against a movement that peddles the belief that the system can be beaten by unproven legal arguments that have no basis in law. (All available to be purchased on DVD) They fail every time.

The only way is to change the law.

there already are laws against rape, murder ,wars ,treason,fraud,extortion..kidnap

why not use existing laws to protect ourselfs..

[herald holmes]

I am not against changing the system.

I am however against a movement that peddles the belief that the system can be beaten by unproven legal arguments that have no basis in law. (All available to be purchased on DVD) They fail every time.

The only way is to change the law.

That tells me you don't know what law is, and have only been told what it is.

the legal system is a private system, defacto.
We simply want to go back to a lawful system, dejure.

You cannot change the law, The Law is the principles of truth. How can you change that which is true, not your truth or my truth, but that which is true.

Like: All are equal before the law.

The Law is the foundation. It is something to always consider.

On the other hand you can change statutes as they are not based on what is true, and therefore subject to change at the whim of it's creators.

[rob menard]

Yeap, number_6 really, and I mean REALLY tipped his hand there eh?

Change the law he said.


Clearly we now know, that when dealing with him, and speaking of law, he refers to something which he could change, if he had power, and we know it as something that no man can change.


He obviously has absolutely no idea what the law is. He clearly thinks it is a collection of words his nanny assembled.

[prajna]

No, that is not what I said.

If you believe that you are able to withdraw your consent, then prove it.

Film yourself contravening statute law in full view of the police and show us how they were powerless over your immunity.

How about filming yourself carrying a firearm in full view down Oxford Street on a Saturday afternoon?

No. 6, I have withdrawn my consent, broken 'the law' in full view of the police, had them note down that I was not prepared to comply with them, and had no action taken against me. In fact they even went so far as to help me and sincerely to wish me an enjoyable protest. I documented some of those exchanges in the thread Was Gandhi a FMOTL (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058658139&postcount=1). And no, I'm not going to prove it to you, I proved it to myself in practice and that is all I need to do.

For your information, over 1,100 people have died in police custody since 1993 and no police officer has ever yet been successfully prosecuted for even one of those deaths. Go look at their own statistics.

Do you seriously think that the bunch of arseholes who put all this coercive legislation in place are going to assist us in tearing it all down? You say you think 'the law' needs to be changed; how do you propose to change it? I propose we simply ignore it (which is what I do) and if they have a problem with me doing that then we get to address its validity when they confront me about it. So far they appear to have hesitated to do so. Read into that what you wish.

[boots]

In the Australian Constitution it states:

92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free
On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce,
and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal
carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

Your birth certificate is proof in the government's eye's that you are a Vessel in trade.


Chapter III of the Judicature.

States:

76 Additional original jurisdiction
The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on
the High Court in any matter:
(i) arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation;
(ii) arising under any laws made by the Parliament;
(iii) of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
(iv) relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of
different States.


No one in a common law jurisdiction can refuse you the right to travel. ie car.

Look hard and you will find the gems.:)


.

[number_6]

He obviously has absolutely no idea what the law is. He clearly thinks it is a collection of words his nanny assembled.

And you do, rob?
Why is it that your theory always fail in Court?
Why are you now finding it necessary to disect statute law to assist a "friend" when all he has to do is withdraw his consent to the statute he is being charged under?

I suggest members here read this interesting thread:

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/boards/thread.aspx?thrid=509096&topid=121&action=msgsvd&pg=39

It concerns a so called FOTL who was charged with no insurance, licence or VRM and has failed in Court. He lost his van complete with tools and flopped attempting to recover his fee schedule. Now apparently he is not going to show up for the trial as he's running scared. Although obviously on his facebook page he claims a success. (You really have to start at page 1, do your own research!) We see the appearance of Rob Menard in this thread in the link above with a different attitude towards others when he is not surrounded by those that dare not challenge him, if you go a few pages back he even challenges anybody that think they are "a man" to 'phone him on the mobile number he posts. If you go to page 45 you will read that Rob who claims that the police never bother him as he is immune admits he has been arrested on at least a dozen occasions.

[haarp]

I am not immune to simple thuggery, none of us are. But we can tip the scales back in our favor.

They receive no revenue from myself at all, and if they intercourse with me, anyway it goes, it cost them a lot more than it cost myself. People say to buy gold, noway it is four 4x the price it should be. Hold onto cash people, stuff it in your mattress.

I have been locked up for my beliefs, no man should be locked up for his beliefs. Funny thing was they had a duty of care and I had all my teeth fixed and a mole removed, that would have cost me thousands. I didn't accept any benefit as I was willing to go have it done, but at the time held against my will without a valid claim.

Should we not change the system or create a system where all benefit and not just a handful of bankers and friends.

Are you Veronica?

[herald holmes]

Are you Veronica?

What is a Veronica?

[merlincove]

What is a Veronica?

that's a who is :D

[herald holmes]

that's a who is :D

The question was "Are you Veronica?"

Who I am is irrelevant, what I am is the question and what I am is not Veronica.

[lightindarkness]

And you do, rob?
Why is it that your theory always fail in Court?
Why are you now finding it necessary to disect statute law to assist a "friend" when all he has to do is withdraw his consent to the statute he is being charged under?

I suggest members here read this interesting thread:

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/boards/thread.aspx?thrid=509096&topid=121&action=msgsvd&pg=39

It concerns a so called FOTL who was charged with no insurance, licence or VRM and has failed in Court. He lost his van complete with tools and flopped attempting to recover his fee schedule. Now apparently he is not going to show up for the trial as he's running scared. Although obviously on his facebook page he claims a success. (You really have to start at page 1, do your own research!) We see the appearance of Rob Menard in this thread in the link above with a different attitude towards others when he is not surrounded by those that dare not challenge him, if you go a few pages back he even challenges anybody that think they are "a man" to 'phone him on the mobile number he posts. If you go to page 45 you will read that Rob who claims that the police never bother him as he is immune admits he has been arrested on at least a dozen occasions.


Another sterling example of FMOTL "sucess" :rolleyes:

No 6, you continue to do saints work in a den of vipers. Even the moderator is in on the stalking and harassing.

[girlgye]

So now you finally see the truth, consent is required.

People in Government are criminals, the faster we as a people work together and wake up to the widespread supported corruption, the faster we can hang these treasonous ticks on humanity, all of them including the treasonous supporters.

I was just doing my job is no excuse.

From what I read pleasuredome never completed the claim, and girlgye used her license and claimed to be agent. I don't believe in this commercial redemption crap, anyone who tries it plays with fire.

Capturing the moral high ground, bypassing commerce is where I have always found remedy.



(By hang, I mean to air in public and have the public enact justice)

Prison prison prison. Thats all you ever hear from her. I'm sick of the pathetic attempts at flaming by telling blatant lies as to how and why we were incarcerated too.

There is subtle flaming going on here Merlin designed to provoke. It is not polite. It is not clever and isn't cricket. Polite and not rude my arse. She is clever how she goes about it but we all know she is talking crap as usual when it comes to the facts about myself and pleasuredome.

So this is a formal complaint Merlincove. Flaming by deliberately misappropriating the facts.

Using insult imagery such as we carry guns or encourgage children to drive without permission and all that other stuff that is used.
This isn't intelligent arguing the opposition it is flaming and incitement to anger.

I have her on ignore but people keep repeating what she is saying and I'm not having lies told about me. End of.

The level of this is pruerility personified. This is not sharpening the tool box it IS WASTING EVERY BODY'S TIME

[girlgye]

No. 6, I have withdrawn my consent, broken 'the law' in full view of the police, had them note down that I was not prepared to comply with them, and had no action taken against me. In fact they even went so far as to help me and sincerely to wish me an enjoyable protest. I documented some of those exchanges in the thread Was Gandhi a FMOTL (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058658139&postcount=1). And no, I'm not going to prove it to you, I proved it to myself in practice and that is all I need to do.

For your information, over 1,100 people have died in police custody since 1993 and no police officer has ever yet been successfully prosecuted for even one of those deaths. Go look at their own statistics.

Do you seriously think that the bunch of arseholes who put all this coercive legislation in place are going to assist us in tearing it all down? You say you think 'the law' needs to be changed; how do you propose to change it? I propose we simply ignore it (which is what I do) and if they have a problem with me doing that then we get to address its validity when they confront me about it. So far they appear to have hesitated to do so. Read into that what you wish.
Here here
Actually I'm obeying the principles of common law. Sensibly written and common sense. There has to be some law and order but not the kind of crap that I have been subjected to.
Officially because they thought it was a good idea to give me 6 points for driving over a 30 mile speed limit in an open country dual lane road and 3 points for driving over some chevrons and then a disqualification for having no insurance when parked. My other freeman argument about going 15 miles over the limit was thrown out has now cost 7 people their business and the loss of ooooh about 30 people's jobs. See me not being able to contribute to my landlord cost him his business and so in turn it cost all those who also had business around me. Really fucking clever that is oh lets rattle the change out of her bones and as Mr David Mayer Rothschild believes I'm poluting the planet so that his little creature mates down at the southpole can't survive. So get rid of my car and licence. Yeah and everyone else's livelihood. I had no in the matter either. It wasn't like I said er yes I'll pay these fines and will you please give me my car oh no.

So the right to travel will always be mine and as soon as they lock me up for it I will pursue the damages. Anyone who has been unsucessful at pursuing a fee schedule ought not to get into the sandbox as clearly they haven't a clue what they are doing.

Will that stop Rockerfella, as I confidently predicted at the beginning of last year ,tearing down the internet unless it is used purely for commercial gain? No.

Will that stop them coming to me with guns, tazers, and soft toe boots? No.

So I hope you are all investing in alternative technology like CB radio and looking into the prospect of communities and barter.

This is all to be the subject of living off the grid. So if any of you are interested in that started doing the due and come to the rescheduled conference.

[number_6]

rob menard said:

So I have been working with a guy who has an issue with the Calgary Police.

Would that be Mika, rob?

[herald holmes]

Prison prison prison. Thats all you ever hear from her. I'm sick of the pathetic attempts at flaming by telling blatant lies as to how and why we were incarcerated too.

There is subtle flaming going on here Merlin designed to provoke. It is not polite. It is not clever and isn't cricket. Polite and not rude my arse. She is clever how she goes about it but we all know she is talking crap as usual when it comes to the facts about myself and pleasuredome.

So this is a formal complaint Merlincove. Flaming by deliberately misappropriating the facts.

Using insult imagery such as we carry guns or encourgage children to drive without permission and all that other stuff that is used.
This isn't intelligent arguing the opposition it is flaming and incitement to anger.

I have her on ignore but people keep repeating what she is saying and I'm not having lies told about me. End of.

The level of this is pruerility personified. This is not sharpening the tool box it IS WASTING EVERY BODY'S TIME

Do you know me? Addressing myself with such slander is not becoming. You discredit my honor,

Did you not produce license when ordered too? Did you not state you were acting as agent?

[girlgye]

Do you know me? Addressing myself with such slander is not becoming. You discredit my honor,

Did you not produce license when ordered too? Did you not state you were acting as agent?

Oh so you are a she?
Actually my post wasn't aimed at you. You quoted and posted up No6 aka Jasmine75 also a prosecution solicitor and self confessed patsy to elite parlour games.

Now I used to like her and even offered her out for lunch. I'm not averse to a sceptic running me through the mill as I consider it good intellectual prowess to be able to see the errors in your own judgement and thinking. However, the style which I can't believe is the same person is getting offensive and rude beyond the pale and pathetic to say the least. Scraping at the bottom of the barrel to start using ridiculous analogies now and trying to intimidate everyone with threats of prison.

Listen, if any of us cared about getting a good kicking or prison do you think we would waste our time here. I'm going to die like a fly at some point may as well go down trying than stand there like a sheep and get mowed over eventually.
Read my tag line.

I like you Herald and you do sound like Veronica but I never thought it until someone asked you. I can see why they think it.

Everything is here herald homes - read it - if it interests you. :)


I am woman and not a person.
Although I am keeping all admiralty documents until I am sure that they don't contain a bond. As for the contract of the license doesn't apply to me. No.

Might have done when I signed up for it in the first place but that was until I realised it was a specious contract.

P.S I have no6 blissfully on ignore. I haven't put lid there yet as I find him funny so far.

[herald holmes]

Oh so you are a she?
Actually my post wasn't aimed at you. You quoted and posted up No6 aka Jasmine75 also a prosecution solicitor and self confessed patsy to elite parlour games.

Now I used to like her and even offered her out for lunch. I'm not averse to a sceptic running me through the mill as I consider it good intellectual prowess to be able to see the errors in your own judgement and thinking. However, the style which I can't believe is the same person is getting offensive and rude beyond the pale and pathetic to say the least. Scraping at the bottom of the barrel to start using ridiculous analogies now and trying to intimidate everyone with threats of prison.

Listen, if any of us cared about getting a good kicking or prison do you think we would waste our time here. I'm going to die like a fly at some point may as well go down trying than stand there like a sheep and get mowed over eventually.
Read my tag line.

I like you Herald and you do sound like Veronica but I never thought it until someone asked you. I can see why they think it.

Everything is here herald homes - read it - if it interests you. :)


I am woman and not a person.
Although I am keeping all admiralty documents until I am sure that they don't contain a bond. As for the contract of the license doesn't apply to me. No.

Might have done when I signed up for it in the first place but that was until I realised it was a specious contract.

P.S I have no6 blissfully on ignore. I haven't put lid there yet as I find him funny so far.


If you start off assuming I am a she that would lead to presumptions of other things. We wouldn't want that now.

I had no idea 6 was a solicitor, must not be a very good one.
I had a brief chat with 6 and 6 does seem to worship Nazi idealism, but harmless. Like a butterfly with teeth, only with teeny tiny teeth.

6 is a distractor and provocateur, I doubt 6 is a prosecution solicitor. I'd watch out for 7.

[herald holmes]

Here here
Actually I'm obeying the principles of common law. Sensibly written and common sense. There has to be some law and order but not the kind of crap that I have been subjected to.
Officially because they thought it was a good idea to give me 6 points for driving over a 30 mile speed limit in an open country dual lane road and 3 points for driving over some chevrons and then a disqualification for having no insurance when parked. My other freeman argument about going 15 miles over the limit was thrown out has now cost 7 people their business and the loss of ooooh about 30 people's jobs. See me not being able to contribute to my landlord cost him his business and so in turn it cost all those who also had business around me. Really fucking clever that is oh lets rattle the change out of her bones and as Mr David Mayer Rothschild believes I'm poluting the planet so that his little creature mates down at the southpole can't survive. So get rid of my car and licence. Yeah and everyone else's livelihood. I had no in the matter either. It wasn't like I said er yes I'll pay these fines and will you please give me my car oh no.

So the right to travel will always be mine and as soon as they lock me up for it I will pursue the damages. Anyone who has been unsucessful at pursuing a fee schedule ought not to get into the sandbox as clearly they haven't a clue what they are doing.

Will that stop Rockerfella, as I confidently predicted at the beginning of last year ,tearing down the internet unless it is used purely for commercial gain? No.

Will that stop them coming to me with guns, tazers, and soft toe boots? No.

So I hope you are all investing in alternative technology like CB radio and looking into the prospect of communities and barter.

This is all to be the subject of living off the grid. So if any of you are interested in that started doing the due and come to the rescheduled conference.

I'm interested in fee schedules, it's got me thinking.

Why not test them against yourselves, seems simple enough to iron out the bugs.

Do up a claim, notarized and default, enact fee schedule and file a claim in court, with friends representing the defendant.

Ask a crap load of questions and take it as far as you can, then go home and iron.

[herald holmes]

Governance without consent is dictatorship. Nazis also believe no consent is required.

What is Government without consent?

People suffer under more taxes and statutes now than the people under Hitler, one used outright force and the other subterfuge tactics.

One is no different than the other, only varience is speed.

[merlincove]

Guys, however much you'd like to discuss each other, there is a thread premise somewhere, can we try and get back on track please :D

[herald holmes]

Guys, however much you'd like to discuss each other, there is a thread premise somewhere, can we try and get back on track please :D

Sorry I'll try to stay focus.

[herald holmes]

I think people have this backward, why do men need to prove they are free from other men's trespasses to other men? Makes no sense..

I'd like 6's crew to prove these guys acted lawfully:

5 Agents busted in Unlawfully! Caught on film - hand camera - YouTube

The ordeal this women went through is extraordinary, is this a free and just society you claim all must live in and accept? Outrageous.

I am reading her thread now, on this forum..

[johngr]

Governance without consent is dictatorship. Nazis also believe no consent is required.

What is Government without consent?

People suffer under more taxes and statutes now than the people under Hitler, one used outright force and the other subterfuge tactics.

One is no different than the other, only varience is speed.

"Governance" is a bullshit third-level abstraction. It obsures the existence of government agents -- men with agendas and interests doing the "governancing".

[scarecro]

No, that is not what I said.

If you believe that you are able to withdraw your consent, then prove it.

Film yourself contravening statute law in full view of the police and show us how they were powerless over your immunity.

How about filming yourself carrying a firearm in full view down Oxford Street on a Saturday afternoon?

How about lets look at a guy walking down the street "OBEYING" the statutes and see what happens:

Santa Fe Police Confront Man for Open Carring Legally - YouTube

Cleveland Heights Ohio Gestapo NAZI SS Police Order Citizen to Ground at Gunpoint For Open Carrying - YouTube

[girlgye]

Wow he handled that remarkably well. He made some mistakes at the end but I could hear him getting decidely nervous as his voice tremoured. Hey youtube dude I doubt you come on here but Scarecro tell that guy he did real good.

Thanks for posting baby and welcome to the fold. :D

I love you already. hehehehehehehehehehehehhehee

You see when evidence is posted up it kinda falls on deaf ears so to be a pain I will keep bumping this post up methinks.

I 'm talking bout the first vid. Haven't watched the second yet.

Now I'm hoping you are the scarecro that I know :D

[scarecro]

Now I'm hoping you are the scarecro that I know :D

I am. :D

[asdffdsa]

I thought Mika got his freeman status revoked, because a few folks claimed he was ungreatful to them and stalked them?

[rob menard]

Freeman status is not granted by others, and thereofre cannot be revoked.

Sometimes I wonder if I am trying to communicate with a separate species or something.

Who could revoke your Freeman status when it is a result of standing on your own?

Sure does identify a certain mindset where status is not a result of ones own actions, but of someone else conferring it upon them, like a gift or medal..

[merlincove]

i stand in the power of being a freeman of my own free will and natural ability, and i would suggest that others do the same.

Only a child asks for permission.

Freeman is not a status. For a status is of or pertaining to a place within the state.

Freeman do not seek permit, nor allowance from the state to embrace the freedom that God alone gave.

[asdffdsa]

Freeman status is not granted by others, and thereofre cannot be revoked.

Sometimes I wonder if I am trying to communicate with a separate species or something.

Who could revoke your Freeman status when it is a result of standing on your own?

Sure does identify a certain mindset where status is not a result of ones own actions, but of someone else conferring it upon them, like a gift or medal..

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/boards/thread.aspx?thrid=509096&topid=121&action=msgsvd&pg=65
Post 20

[asky]

Rob Wrote
Freeman status is not granted by others,

Or acknowledged.

asky

[rob menard]

That one, I have to bow to.
:) :rolleyes: :D

THAT was funny.


Well played, too bad you left the table so many posts ago!

[asky]

Here Rob
Have a look at this post from another forum


Originally Posted by
D'rok View Post
As an example of how badly he fails at this new "applicability" technique, here is a thread where he claims to have found a right to "travel" (as distinguished from driving) in the Alberta Traffic Safety Act. How does he do this? By willfully misinterpreting the distinction between "commercial vehicle" and "private passenger vehicle", both of which are types of vehicles under the Act and either of which can also be "motor vehicles" or not.

To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle and also a motor vehicle (like a car) requires motor vehicle documents (license, reg, insurance, etc). To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle but not also a motor vehicle (like a bicycle) does not require motor vehicle documents. Same goes for commercial vehicles (like a rickshaw vs. a taxi - although there's probably some regulation somewhere that covers things like rickshaws).

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110682

I would dearly love to see Menard try this frivolous argument in traffic court. Of course, he won't, because as the thread notes, he's conning some poor schmuck in Alberta to do it for him.

Of course, he forgets that those definitions are also established in the Act so they can be used in the related rules or regulations, which also have the force of law. The term "private passenger vehicle" is used in those rules.

Quote:
“for hire” with respect to a vehicle, means that the vehicle owner or operator, or the operator’s employer, is being paid for the service that the vehicle is being used to provide, but for the purposes of sections 23 and 25, a motor vehicle is not “for hire” when the operator drives a private passenger vehicle for the transportation of passengers on an incidental or occasional basis and receives compensation in respect of the transportation of those passengers only in one or more of the following forms:

This implies that private passenger vehicles can be motor vehicles, otherwise why make this exception?

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...-320-2002.html


It's also used to make some distinctions about when a trailer needs to have breaks:

Quote:
(4) Despite subsection (1), and in addition to subsection (3), the following trailers are not required to have brakes:

(a) if the towing vehicle is a private passenger vehicle,

(i) a trailer with a maximum gross weight of not more than 910 kilograms, or

(ii) a trailer with a maximum gross weight of less than half of the unladen weight of the towing vehicle;

(b) if the towing vehicle is a commercial vehicle,

(i) a trailer, other than a pole trailer, that has a maximum gross weight of not more than 2300 kilograms, if the maximum gross weight of the trailer is less than half of the unladen weight of the towing vehicle,

(ii) a pole trailer that has a maximum gross weight of not more than 6800 kilograms, if the maximum gross weight of the trailer is less than half of the unladen weight of the towing vehicle,

(iii) a trailer used to transport agricultural products that has a maximum gross weight of not more than 3650 kilograms when being towed unladen, or

(iv) a trailer used to transport agricultural products that has a maximum gross weight of not more than 3650 kilograms when being towed at a speed not in excess of 25 kilometres per hour.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...-122-2009.html


So much for his contention "they use the Never Mention Again trick, where they mention something, then never refer to it again." Oh, and also his contention that "they also acknowledge ... that they are not regulating it."


Regulation Fail.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5830808#post5830808

asky

[girlgye]

I am. :D

hehehehehehehehehehehe
Dude. slaps his back. All me mates are coming! Yay!
I'm knackered now. I'll pm you later. :)

[girlgye]

Freeman status is not granted by others, and thereofre cannot be revoked.

Sometimes I wonder if I am trying to communicate with a separate species or something.

Who could revoke your Freeman status when it is a result of standing on your own?

Sure does identify a certain mindset where status is not a result of ones own actions, but of someone else conferring it upon them, like a gift or medal..

hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Awwwwww
You have to admire the drone like tenacity to keep repeating the same jiggery pokery ever time. I swear they are hollow machines. Nothing human could be like this surely...:D

[herald holmes]

hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Awwwwww
You have to admire the drone like tenacity to keep repeating the same jiggery pokery ever time. I swear they are hollow machines. Nothing human could be like this surely...:D

With talk like that girlgye you'll start a conspiracy theory that all trolls are robot's controlled by the 'moon matrix.'

[rob menard]

Followed your link.

404 Error - File not found

Same thing happens when people try to follow your logic.

[rob menard]

Asky, are you on another forum under the name D'rok and using my name and posting stuff there? Are you thinking that it matters to me? These people whose opinions you post, and whom I do not know. Is there a reason you post that?

I THINK THERE IS!

Why are you soooooo obsessed with me that you would go post elsewhere under such a name and then provide links to it here, and act like you are what doing me a favor by showing the level of your obsession?

Yes I get it. YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH ME AND YOU POST ELSEWHERE UNDER D'ROK!!!!

Whoop de do.

Thanks for the link. Like we can't tell it is you posting under another name, and using a different face. How many do you have?

[rob menard]

Here asky
have a quick look at a post from another forum.

The sense of incredible lightness of being that's rising in me like the rising sun, is incredible. Sometimes when reading/listening to Rob and others, I'm stupified by how much I missed out on, and it was right under my nose the whole time!

For every naysaying closed-minded one like you found, I can find 10 that are opening.

[asky]

Rob wrote
For every naysaying closed-minded one like you found, I can find 10 that are opening.
Not on WFS forums you cant.
I joined and theres no one there.
Also thats quite a claim Rob
The people who believe this nonsense as opposed to those who dont is an astonishing 10 to 1 ?????????

By the way I am not D'rok although I am honoured you would think that (hes very clever and destroyed your arguments last time you ventured over on James Randis site (7 posts wasnt it before you bailed)
Im Jargon Buster over there (its no secret by the way)

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=private+passenger+vehicle&language=en&searchTitle=Statutes+and+Regulations+of+Alberta&path=/en/ab/laws/regu/alta-reg-320-2002/latest/alta-reg-320-2002.html

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=private+passenger+vehicle&language=en&searchTitle=Statutes+and+Regulations+of+Alberta&path=/en/ab/laws/regu/alta-reg-122-2009/latest/alta-reg-122-2009.html

there are the two links working
Maybe you would care to counter the argument.

asky

[haarp]

Rob wrote

Not on WFS forums you cant.
I joined and theres no one there.
Also thats quite a claim Rob
The people who believe this nonsense as opposed to those who dont is an astonishing 10 to 1 ?????????

By the way I am not D'rok although I am honoured you would think that (hes very clever and destroyed your arguments last time you ventured over on James Randis site (7 posts wasnt it before you bailed)
Im Jargon Buster over there (its no secret by the way)

there are the two links working
Maybe you would care to counter the argument.

asky

JB, You post on DI, you post on FMOTL, you post on TPUC and all manner of sites that are devoted to personal freedom from the crap and tyranny that has oppressed human beings for years. But you do this out of the goodness of your heart.

Shit, is called on you! There is a vested interest on your part. Your posts can be found at most times during the day and you are always promoting the State and ridiculing Freeman work. Your employment has to be based around your disinformation or you are a jobless no mark who delights on creating crap because you don't get any.

So no, not well done! Just a bad show on your part.

[rob menard]

To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle and also a motor vehicle (like a car) requires motor vehicle documents (license, reg, insurance, etc). To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle but not also a motor vehicle (like a bicycle) does not require motor vehicle documents. Same goes for commercial vehicles (like a rickshaw vs. a taxi - although there's probably some regulation somewhere that covers things like rickshaws).

He sure is making a lot of assumptions here, none of which are supported by anything in the Act.

It refers clearly to vehicles, and motor vehicles and private passenger vehicles.
It states very clearly that all documentation of the type he refers to is applicable only to motor vehicles. The contention that a private passenger vehicle does not mean a vehicle, or that it requires documentation of the type ONLY available for motor vehicles is also not supported.

I would go to the RANDI forum if I thought there was anyone there not completely closed minded and proud of their ignorance. Ask them if they wish to accept my offer to treat a challenge.

And D'rok will get all sorts of chances to see me in action. And his calim that I am conning someone implies that he is incapable of deciding for himself a course of action suitable for himself.

Why is it when people take a course of action the PAY & OBEY crowd refuse to examine, they need to label the one who takes it as a schumck, and me a con man? Is it so difficult to accept that others can make up their own minds?

[asky]

harrp did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?
My,my arnt you the cranky one.
I post where when and what I like on websites (its called freedom of choice) do you wish to deny me that right.
I could say the same about you posting unsubstantiated nonsense and disinformation but that would be rude.
Now get yourself a bowl of cornflakes and cheer up.

asky

[rob menard]

Just so you know I too post what when and where I want.

Regardless of dares and taunts.

And dares from the childish who have folded, to go and speak with those who seriously lack logical analysis skills on some forum which prides itself on its ignorance is just more hypocrisy form you.


But I expect that from you


DANCE ASKY DANCE

[asky]

Rob
Dont you realise how childish you sound?
You remind me of the kid at school who used to go around shouting "ner,ner,ne,ner,ner"

Grow up

asky

[rob menard]

Well it has been fun sharpening my sharp logical abilities on teh stone headed, but I have a lot to do over the next little bit and no more time for this time sink, so a bunch of people are on ignore.

I wonder what it is like to be ignored by so many, and why would you stick around a forum where that happened?

Is there a limit to how many people have to ignore someone till the mods realize they are a negative influence seeking to disrupt the purpose of the forum?

[haarp]

Rob
Dont you realise how childish you sound?
You remind me of the kid at school who used to go around shouting "ner,ner,ne,ner,ner"

Grow up

asky

Asky all pissed off now....... Diddums!

[asky]

Harrp
Stop swearing
Its not nice

asky

[rob menard]

XXXX all pissed off now....... Diddums!

Who? :D

[asky]

Rob
Your ego wouldnt allow you to put me on ignore we both know that.

asky

[merlincove]

Can we please get back to topic.

:D

[number_6]

He sure is making a lot of assumptions here, none of which are supported by anything in the Act.

It refers clearly to vehicles, and motor vehicles and private passenger vehicles.
It states very clearly that all documentation of the type he refers to is applicable only to motor vehicles. The contention that a private passenger vehicle does not mean a vehicle, or that it requires documentation of the type ONLY available for motor vehicles is also not supported.


rob, I think the Canadian Courts have interpreted "private passenger vehicles"

http://canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&sortOrder=relevance&searchPage=eliisa%2FmainPageSearch.vm&text=%22private+passenger+vehicle%22&id=&startDate=&endDate=&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals

It appears they do require insurance.

[haarp]

Harrp
Stop swearing
Its not nice

asky

Again, do you have the absolute right to make me not "use" words to amplify or tone down my posts..... If so please produce your proof.....

You are not nice so can you be asked to stop posting your crap?

Can humans be asked anything and expectations become obligations?

No, an expectation is not an obligation and never will be!

asky = FAIL!

[number_6]

haarp perhaps you missed this two posts previous?

Can we please get back to topic.

:D

Perhaps you should heed the request?

[haarp]

Again, do you have the absolute right to make me not "use" words to amplify or tone down my posts..... If so please produce your proof.....

You are not nice so can you be asked to stop posting your crap?

Can humans be asked anything and expectations become obligations?

No, an expectation is not an obligation and never will be!

asky = FAIL!

.

[haarp]

haarp perhaps you missed this two posts previous?



Perhaps you should heed the request?

But please number6 don't answer the points! Are they too difficult for your slave mind?

[number_6]

But please number6 don't answer the points! Are they too difficult for your slave mind?

Perhaps whilst derailing you missed this below which I posted?
Have a read through the link
rob, I think the Canadian Courts have interpreted "private passenger vehicles"

http://canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&sortOrder=relevance&searchPage=eliisa%2FmainPageSearch.vm&text=%22private+passenger+vehicle%22&id=&startDate=&endDate=&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals

It appears they do require insurance.

[rob menard]

Respectfully, the things you point to did not come form a 'Canadian' court, but a provincial one and the term private passenger vehicle is not defined in Nova Scotia MVA at all and has very little to do with the TSA of Alberta.

Using the TSA of Alberta, can you show where it says clearly, specifically and unequivocally to the same degree that it is established for motor vehicles that a private passenger vehicle requires permit, registration, license, insurance, plates, stickers and the like? Especially when all those things are specifically mentioned as being applicable ONLY to motor vehicles?

http://canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-t-6/latest/rsa-2000-c-t-6.html

There you go. Search for 'private passenger vehicle' and show me where it says that they require things that motor vehicles require.

CAN YOU DO THAT WITHOUT RELYING UPON ASSUMPTIONS OR NOT?
If not, then it is established that a private passenger vehicle does not need to be licensed, registered or show plates and stickers.


Also you should maybe know what Alberta is like, as far as the rest of Canada goes.

Pointing to the statutes of Nova Scotia to find the definition of private passenger vehicle is improper statute interpretation when we are dealing with the Alberta statutes, the term is defined in the TSA and not in the NS statutes.

[lightindarkness]

Excellent analysis going on here to show that FOTL is a myth. Do keep up the good work - Rob and the FOTLers are on the run again. I don't know why they keep running away.

Well, I know why Rob is. If we embrace logic and reason it means Rob can't scam people for bogus FOTL legal documents...but its good for the conscious, Rob.

[mark1963]

Excellent analysis going on here to show that FOTL is a myth. Do keep up the good work - Rob and the FOTLers are on the run again. I don't know why they keep running away.

Well, I know why Rob is. If we embrace logic and reason it means Rob can't scam people for bogus FOTL legal documents...but its good for the conscious, Rob.

???

[rob menard]

We are? Well you just keep telling yourself that. I am sure it makes you feel good. Regardless of the fact it is not true.

lol


Guess you never heard of duck back and reload? Or flank them while seeming to retreat? Or retreat to be chased?

Yeap, we are running away because you won with all your libelous insults and accusations. I am not in fact in the process of releasing a new video and have given up completely cause of the strength and logic of your arguments.

Sheesh.


So how about we all refrain from hitting the quote button that way we can continue to ignore the people who seek only to insult and denigrate and avoid proper discussion. How about we refer to the post number, and not hit the quote button?

[number_6]

So how about we all refrain from hitting the quote button that way we can continue to ignore the people who seek only to insult and denigrate and avoid proper discussion.

It would be pretty difficult to quote something that by your own admission you have ignored:rolleyes:

[asky]

Thats right everyone put the naysayers on ignore.

If you cannot see that this is NLP brainwashing by Rob then you are already too far gone.

Just listen to the leader and surround yourself with believers.

Its the naysayers (Reality checkers) that may make you think twice before causing yourself a whole world of trouble.

asky

[girlgye]

???

This is just really really insulting Mark it should go to the complaints team. Imagine if it was said about David Icke it is the same thing. Even though tirelessly people have posted endless videos where they risk their lives everyday to show people that this stuff works it is real and they can only resort to thuggery to which they will be held accountable. They never EVER TAKE IT ALL THE WAY I CAN ASSURE YOU. This, the kind of base slander which is being orchestrated on another site to which they so brashly and condescendingly refer. Like a pack of bullies.

Please refer to post number. That means

STOP PULLING OUT THEIR QUOTES
Then we can go back to having our development, question, debate and answer without this constant deafening white noise clouding the threads.

As soon as someone starts disrespecting this put them on ignore too whoever they are.
There is some tough shit going down here for some people and they are not getting the help and support because their threads are being turned to shit. AGAIN.

[asky]

girlgye wrote
As soon as someone starts disrespecting this put them on ignore too whoever they are.

NLP

Ignore at your peril

asky

[antipharisee]

Karczewski, Raymond
2-16. Two Million Dollar Traffic Stop, The
http://sites.google.com/site/judicialdeception/homepage-two

[antipharisee]

1-13. Legal Brief to Support a Demand for Dismissal of Charges of "Driving without a License".
http://sites.google.com/site/judicialdeception/

[number_6]

Karczewski, Raymond
2-16. Two Million Dollar Traffic Stop, The
http://sites.google.com/site/judicialdeception/homepage-two

What's the point?

Karczewski has never received any money.

[shepherdess]

I have been to the FOI site and asked " what is the name of our society"

with the following responses

to Leader of the House of Commons,

Reply :The Freedom of Information Act gives a right of access to recorded
information held by public authorities; it is not about answering
questions posed by applicants. A proper and thorough search cannot be
carried out without a clearly worded and specific FOI request.

If you wish to re-phrase your question as a request for recorded
information we would of course be happy to address your query. A valid
request under the FOI Act is one that asks to see recorded information
held by the public authority, such as information on a specific issue,
or process, not one that asks for opinion or seeks answers or
calculations.

Rerequest:I am not sure if your reply is a standard reply, or an actual
request for the information I require to be rephrased.
My question is :
What is the name of the society we live in ?
To clarify, I mean the group of UK residents that we are part of,
which includes the system we pay tax to support. That which
government etc refer to as "society".
I believe my first request was clear enough to be understood and
therefore request you reply immediately and without delay to
prevent a request for internal review.
Kind regards

Reply:I would like to reiterate that the Freedom of Information Act gives a
right of access to recorded information held by public authorities; it
is not about answering questions posed by applicants.
If you would like to discuss any issues relating to taxation please
contact Her Majesty's Treasury.
If you would like to discuss the definition of 'society' please contact
the Department for Communities and Local Government.

So I wrote again, appealing :I am writing to request an internal review of Office of the Leader
of the House of Commons's handling of my FOI request 'The name of
our society'.

My question was "What is the name of the society we live in?
I feel that is an entirely self explainitary question but was asked
to clarify. I stated that I wanted to know the name of the society
we live in, and by society, I mean the society we pay taxes to
support.
The reply I then got was to ask someone else about taxes.
I do not wish to know about taxes, I want to know the name of the
society we live in.
This is the society we pay taxes to support, the society that the
police claim they affect by "making society a safer place" etc
Its a simple question, "what is the name of the society we live in
or are supposed to belong to?"A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...

I received a response saying they do not have to answer as they believe my request to be vexatious!

[shepherdess]

I also wrote to the LPA, but because I accidentally said lancashire police force, she would not answer the question as she was not from the police force, and told me to check the LPA website after saying they dont have that information.

She told me to go to the council and got narky because the automated request put her name the wrong way round.

So I started a new request to the LPA without accidentally saying police force and they said,

Beverly wood has already answered this.

I wrote to the LAW SOCIETY, and they dont have that information.

And Ive also written to the communities guy mentioned previously and he sent me this :

Dear Ms Sivyour,

Thank you for your recent email about the meaning of "society" in relation
to Improving Opportunity Strengthening Society.

I think the information you request is already in the public domain: The
original strategy document
(see link attached
[1]http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/... )
states, at page 20:

'This is a strategy for Great Britain and will apply in Northern Ireland
only
to those matters that are reserved or excepted under the provisions of the
Northern Ireland Act 1998. It acknowledges that race equality and
community
relations are matters for the Northern Ireland Administration, which is
developing strategies for race equality and community relations. It also
acknowledges that there are separate devolution arrangements for Scotland
and Wales. This strategy has been developed in consultation with the
Scottish
and Welsh administrations, who are committed to its aims and will produce
their own action plans, outlining how they will promote community cohesion
and race equality over the next three years.'

I hope this is the information that you require

Tony Lord
Race Equality Diversity
Communities and Local Government

Please note I work part-time (Tues - Thurs) and that I am now out of the
office until 20th April


I have told his this is nonsense but he's away until 20th April so cant reply.

[girlgye]

I have been to the FOI site and asked " what is the name of our society"

with the following responses

to Leader of the House of Commons,

Reply :The Freedom of Information Act gives a right of access to recorded
information held by public authorities; it is not about answering
questions posed by applicants. A proper and thorough search cannot be
carried out without a clearly worded and specific FOI request.

If you wish to re-phrase your question as a request for recorded
information we would of course be happy to address your query. A valid
request under the FOI Act is one that asks to see recorded information
held by the public authority, such as information on a specific issue,
or process, not one that asks for opinion or seeks answers or
calculations.

Rerequest:I am not sure if your reply is a standard reply, or an actual
request for the information I require to be rephrased.
My question is :
What is the name of the society we live in ?
To clarify, I mean the group of UK residents that we are part of,
which includes the system we pay tax to support. That which
government etc refer to as "society".
I believe my first request was clear enough to be understood and
therefore request you reply immediately and without delay to
prevent a request for internal review.
Kind regards

Reply:I would like to reiterate that the Freedom of Information Act gives a
right of access to recorded information held by public authorities; it
is not about answering questions posed by applicants.
If you would like to discuss any issues relating to taxation please
contact Her Majesty's Treasury.
If you would like to discuss the definition of 'society' please contact
the Department for Communities and Local Government.

So I wrote again, appealing :I am writing to request an internal review of Office of the Leader
of the House of Commons's handling of my FOI request 'The name of
our society'.

My question was "What is the name of the society we live in?
I feel that is an entirely self explainitary question but was asked
to clarify. I stated that I wanted to know the name of the society
we live in, and by society, I mean the society we pay taxes to
support.
The reply I then got was to ask someone else about taxes.
I do not wish to know about taxes, I want to know the name of the
society we live in.
This is the society we pay taxes to support, the society that the
police claim they affect by "making society a safer place" etc
Its a simple question, "what is the name of the society we live in
or are supposed to belong to?"A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...

I received a response saying they do not have to answer as they believe my request to be vexatious!
OH really under what law is it vexatious and frivolous. Please direct me to the lawyer who will be able to direct me to the statute to where you base your assumption.

You see if you use the word Society. Social Work, Social Health are you not talking about Society's Departments?

Thank you for referring information to directing me to the Communities Departments. I will address my question there. In the meantime do you have in your possession any information about Society in any of these Government Departments that you could pass to me?

I strongly doubt that so I don't think you are in position legally to tell me under any Authority whatsoever that my question or position is vexatious. Yet you have 'social' departments branded as communities which no doubt are part of society are they not? What Society is that?

If there is one thing I am aware of is that part of my taxation burden goes to your Department to release Information that public requests although I take it on board that you do not wish me to ask you questions. You expect me to know what Information it is I require under the myriad forms of information you know doubt possess. Is this correct?

Once again thank you for your attention to this matter.


A verbal response I had today was 'I receive benefits from the Govt that I don't really need but I get them. so.'..

That is what society is. Yes that is how a society can run itself.

Where is this going? Logic wise?

[shepherdess]

I have to say GG, As yet, I have not received any answers from any of the departments I have asked.

It seems none of them know.

I only got onto looking at this after the mention of "names" for legal existence which came from Rob I think.

All I've had is definitions, ie society is a group of individuals working toward a common goal.

Well, IMO, nobody in the hundreds of houses surrounding mine, has any common goal other than making themselves financially better off.

So is this the common goal that society shares? If so, its not my society.

And, if it doesnt have a name, and cant legally exist, then everyone else is being duped too. (which obviously we know)

If it doesnt have legal exisitance, and it doesnt have a common goal - what the hell is it other than a parasite?

[shepherdess]

girlgye wrote


NLP

Ignore at your peril

asky

Asky,

Firstly, why do you always sign your posts "asky" when we already know its you from your avatar, and the fact it says "posted by asky"?

Secondly, you could have two identical situations in two different courts with very different outcomes at any time.

It all depends on a huge number of inputs, including if the judges wife blew him before work that morning!

And just a short note with regards to the "evidence" you have been supplying, well its all bollocks! Anyone could have written, photoshopped, created a web-page etc.

Its not evidence dear, Its only YOUR evidence (please refer to entheogen's posts on "my proof")

[karl j]

he would reply but he's banned....

[bones]

he would reply but he's banned....



snigger ... hheeheh