rob menard
16-05-2009, 09:25 PM
To Whom It May Concern
The World Freeman Society will be holding a public forum and dialogue to determine if there are contentious issues needing adjudication and whether those issues affect the people operating the existing courts. If so then we need to establish new courts to determine their liability.
Is the Law Society a cult which simply has secured for itself a position of control over our lives? Does it meat the definition of a cult? Do the people in the Law Society have some basic and fundamental right to govern those who are not a member of the Law Society cult? Are the Acts written in English, or do they have their own language which us mere mortals cannot understand because we are not a member of their club, cult, society, organization? This is what David Sherman, a highly respected by some, tax lawyer who has made his entire career by milking people with the Income Tax Act.
Toronto lawyer David Sherman, an authority on tax law, has little patience for detaxer theories. “These detaxers think they can know law without having any legal training. They read something that looks like it is written in English, but it's not, it's actually law and they think they understand it."
http://www.camagazine.com/index.cfm/ci_id/6778/la_id/1/camagazine/1/print/true.htm
So there you have it. Look at what defines a 'cult'. They have their own language or assign new meanings to old words. We are a country governed by laws, that only lawyers can create, interpret and understand and yet we are all bound by them and have no right even trying to read them. The arrogance of David Sherman's of this world must be addressed. What if all these rules they have made are applicable only to them and those stupid enough to go begging to them?
Our goal is to establish 13 simple and basic truths in a proper judicial forum and then use those newly established yet fundamental truths to examine and weigh the actions of every lawyer, judge and police officer. If it is found that any of those people have been committing crimes, or have been grossly negligent, and it is established based on a balance of probabilities that they have been doing so their entire careers or at least a fair part of it then we will seize all their property, they will forfeit that property to the communities they have been plundering and they will be left with the clothes on their back, a sum of money equal to a welfare cheque and their family pictures. They will not face charges, nor have any chance to defend their actions or these seizures in a court of law. This gentle and needed correction will not harm them physically nor deny them their freedom, and considering what they are willing to do to their fellowman to maintain their power, they should consider themselves very lucky.
The following are some of the things that will be costing people the property they bought with their ignorance. Pay very close attention Sky Train Police officers.
Did they threaten to arrest for failure to produce government ID and are they incapable of demonstrating that we have an obligation to have such a thing? If those conditions are established, then it is clear the officers involved are grossly negligent, have been abducting people under the colour of law, unlawfully forcibly confining them and committing extortion.
When the police read you the rights enumerated under the Charter they ask “Do you understand” and those words are an offer which can be accepted or rejected. If officers do the same things regardless of the response to that question then they are operating without any legal protection or justification. They did not arrest and transport to jail, they abducted under the color of law and unlawfully forcibly confined without any justification or excuse.
Did they attempt to enforce a statute before seeing evidence you were subject to that statute? Did they fail to distinguish between a statute and the law or a person and anyone? If so then they were operating outside the legislative framework within which they can provide their services without incurring individual liability.
Believe it or not the people in the courts need your be consent before they can provide their services. This consent must the result of clear and informed intercourse and not bullying, extortion, coercion or threats. However the existing court operators never secure clear and informed consent, relying instead upon the appearance of consent and pervert justice to ensure that appearance is never tested.
A justice of the peace issues a summons to attend court. They command apparently under the name of Her Majesty, but never properly identify the Majestic Being for whom they speak, nor do they establish that you are bound to accept the commands of said being, let alone those that speak on her behalf. They do so knowing they have armed men who will without thought or concern attack those who fail to accept the command or order.
Unless we are not all born equal, then all orders must generate liability for a bill. Police Officers and judges who give orders do so at the expense of incurring a liability and if a bill is presented after an order is issued and the bill is not paid, the one who issued the order has committed fraud.
A judge orders a man to not leave his courtroom and yet denies him a chance to be heard. He then has the man arrested for contempt of court, yet the man had no standing in court. When informed he was assaulting and abducting a Freeman on the Land and there was no consent, the judge turned white and started to shake. Released after an hour and a bit, anyone else would have been unlawfully and forcibly confined over a Christmas holiday weekend. On a balance of probabilities this man has been bullying and operating without consent his entire tenure. He is a criminal and operates accordingly.
A police officer demands a man give him his name and show documentation or face arrest for obstructing a peace officer in the performance of his duties. However there is no evidence the man has a duty to have either of those things and demanding them under threat of arrest is a breach of the peace, by one sworn to uphold the peace.
A child social worker comes into a home or hospital room and legally removes a child that does not even legally exist. They have no right to provide their services to the unregistered, and when they do and that involves separating the infant from the parents without the consent of the parents they are abducting an infant under the color of law.
The Law Society goes to court to secure a court order restricting the rights of another even though they have no contract or agreement. Without even a hearing the court grants the order and the police like eager attack dogs are ready to pounce. Unfortunately neither the Law Society, nor the people in the court can identify under full commercial liability the party affected by the order. They know it is a sham and a fraud, but they do not care, they merely want to create plausible deniability and color of right for the attack dogs they try to trick into attacking. The lawyers will say 'We never said it was him!” The court will say “We never said it was him.” and the cops will say “No one told us it wasn't him!” and then cops with guns out and adrenaline rushing break down doors and beat down people to enforce an order. And neither the people who sought it or gave it are willing to claim they can identify the party affected by it. But the cops, who did not seek it or grant it do feel they can identify the affected party. And then the lawyers will defend the cops and the court will agree saying the police had color of right or were acting in good faith, and even if they make the same mistake repeatedly they are allowed to continue. They do after all make money for the ones who gave the order and those who sought it. It is a conspiracy of ignorance and deception, with the judges being deceptive and the cops being ignorant and the lawyers laughing all the way to the bank, while human misery and suffering increases.
A judge rules that the term person refers to all human beings, even though legal dictionaries present a clearly different definition and the ruling results in us all being considered the property of those who create and interpret and enforce statutes. The ruling completely destroys the need for consent to be governed, and ignores the term 'persons and classes of persons' found in many Acts and regulations. The ruling means you are in all ways except name a slave, incapable of understanding the rules, but bound by them anyway. They will explain them as the need arises with a whip.
These people with their arrogance and need for control will soon make it illegal to question how they exercise and gain their power. This is the growth of fascism in this country and it starts with unaccountable cops, judges and lawyers all playing a little game called hide the liability sausage.
Do you believe judges and lawyers and cops should be bound by the laws they attempt to enforce, or are they all above it, and we their children and beasts of burden?
On June 23rd, 2009 , 6:30 PM at the Vancouver Public Library the World Freeman Society will open a dialogue concerning these and other issues, provided the RCMP, The Law Society of British Columbia and elected officials deign to grace us with their presence. If not they will be replaced with stuffed monkeys and their refusal to engage in public dialogue used as prima facie evidence that they know they are engaging in criminal activities in the way they operate the justice system, and they are all subject to the seizure and forfeiture of their property. All of it. We will give it to the poor and those who now honestly try to help the destitute.
The purpose of this forum and dialogue is to benefit the public and achieve a peaceful positive change by demonstrating that there are issues which are contentious and need to be judicially determined and as they affect the ability of the people in the existing courts to rule, regulate, order and control us without our consent, and will likely result in many of them having all their property seized, they are not a suitable candidates for the needed adjudication.
The World Freeman Society will be holding a public forum and dialogue to determine if there are contentious issues needing adjudication and whether those issues affect the people operating the existing courts. If so then we need to establish new courts to determine their liability.
Is the Law Society a cult which simply has secured for itself a position of control over our lives? Does it meat the definition of a cult? Do the people in the Law Society have some basic and fundamental right to govern those who are not a member of the Law Society cult? Are the Acts written in English, or do they have their own language which us mere mortals cannot understand because we are not a member of their club, cult, society, organization? This is what David Sherman, a highly respected by some, tax lawyer who has made his entire career by milking people with the Income Tax Act.
Toronto lawyer David Sherman, an authority on tax law, has little patience for detaxer theories. “These detaxers think they can know law without having any legal training. They read something that looks like it is written in English, but it's not, it's actually law and they think they understand it."
http://www.camagazine.com/index.cfm/ci_id/6778/la_id/1/camagazine/1/print/true.htm
So there you have it. Look at what defines a 'cult'. They have their own language or assign new meanings to old words. We are a country governed by laws, that only lawyers can create, interpret and understand and yet we are all bound by them and have no right even trying to read them. The arrogance of David Sherman's of this world must be addressed. What if all these rules they have made are applicable only to them and those stupid enough to go begging to them?
Our goal is to establish 13 simple and basic truths in a proper judicial forum and then use those newly established yet fundamental truths to examine and weigh the actions of every lawyer, judge and police officer. If it is found that any of those people have been committing crimes, or have been grossly negligent, and it is established based on a balance of probabilities that they have been doing so their entire careers or at least a fair part of it then we will seize all their property, they will forfeit that property to the communities they have been plundering and they will be left with the clothes on their back, a sum of money equal to a welfare cheque and their family pictures. They will not face charges, nor have any chance to defend their actions or these seizures in a court of law. This gentle and needed correction will not harm them physically nor deny them their freedom, and considering what they are willing to do to their fellowman to maintain their power, they should consider themselves very lucky.
The following are some of the things that will be costing people the property they bought with their ignorance. Pay very close attention Sky Train Police officers.
Did they threaten to arrest for failure to produce government ID and are they incapable of demonstrating that we have an obligation to have such a thing? If those conditions are established, then it is clear the officers involved are grossly negligent, have been abducting people under the colour of law, unlawfully forcibly confining them and committing extortion.
When the police read you the rights enumerated under the Charter they ask “Do you understand” and those words are an offer which can be accepted or rejected. If officers do the same things regardless of the response to that question then they are operating without any legal protection or justification. They did not arrest and transport to jail, they abducted under the color of law and unlawfully forcibly confined without any justification or excuse.
Did they attempt to enforce a statute before seeing evidence you were subject to that statute? Did they fail to distinguish between a statute and the law or a person and anyone? If so then they were operating outside the legislative framework within which they can provide their services without incurring individual liability.
Believe it or not the people in the courts need your be consent before they can provide their services. This consent must the result of clear and informed intercourse and not bullying, extortion, coercion or threats. However the existing court operators never secure clear and informed consent, relying instead upon the appearance of consent and pervert justice to ensure that appearance is never tested.
A justice of the peace issues a summons to attend court. They command apparently under the name of Her Majesty, but never properly identify the Majestic Being for whom they speak, nor do they establish that you are bound to accept the commands of said being, let alone those that speak on her behalf. They do so knowing they have armed men who will without thought or concern attack those who fail to accept the command or order.
Unless we are not all born equal, then all orders must generate liability for a bill. Police Officers and judges who give orders do so at the expense of incurring a liability and if a bill is presented after an order is issued and the bill is not paid, the one who issued the order has committed fraud.
A judge orders a man to not leave his courtroom and yet denies him a chance to be heard. He then has the man arrested for contempt of court, yet the man had no standing in court. When informed he was assaulting and abducting a Freeman on the Land and there was no consent, the judge turned white and started to shake. Released after an hour and a bit, anyone else would have been unlawfully and forcibly confined over a Christmas holiday weekend. On a balance of probabilities this man has been bullying and operating without consent his entire tenure. He is a criminal and operates accordingly.
A police officer demands a man give him his name and show documentation or face arrest for obstructing a peace officer in the performance of his duties. However there is no evidence the man has a duty to have either of those things and demanding them under threat of arrest is a breach of the peace, by one sworn to uphold the peace.
A child social worker comes into a home or hospital room and legally removes a child that does not even legally exist. They have no right to provide their services to the unregistered, and when they do and that involves separating the infant from the parents without the consent of the parents they are abducting an infant under the color of law.
The Law Society goes to court to secure a court order restricting the rights of another even though they have no contract or agreement. Without even a hearing the court grants the order and the police like eager attack dogs are ready to pounce. Unfortunately neither the Law Society, nor the people in the court can identify under full commercial liability the party affected by the order. They know it is a sham and a fraud, but they do not care, they merely want to create plausible deniability and color of right for the attack dogs they try to trick into attacking. The lawyers will say 'We never said it was him!” The court will say “We never said it was him.” and the cops will say “No one told us it wasn't him!” and then cops with guns out and adrenaline rushing break down doors and beat down people to enforce an order. And neither the people who sought it or gave it are willing to claim they can identify the party affected by it. But the cops, who did not seek it or grant it do feel they can identify the affected party. And then the lawyers will defend the cops and the court will agree saying the police had color of right or were acting in good faith, and even if they make the same mistake repeatedly they are allowed to continue. They do after all make money for the ones who gave the order and those who sought it. It is a conspiracy of ignorance and deception, with the judges being deceptive and the cops being ignorant and the lawyers laughing all the way to the bank, while human misery and suffering increases.
A judge rules that the term person refers to all human beings, even though legal dictionaries present a clearly different definition and the ruling results in us all being considered the property of those who create and interpret and enforce statutes. The ruling completely destroys the need for consent to be governed, and ignores the term 'persons and classes of persons' found in many Acts and regulations. The ruling means you are in all ways except name a slave, incapable of understanding the rules, but bound by them anyway. They will explain them as the need arises with a whip.
These people with their arrogance and need for control will soon make it illegal to question how they exercise and gain their power. This is the growth of fascism in this country and it starts with unaccountable cops, judges and lawyers all playing a little game called hide the liability sausage.
Do you believe judges and lawyers and cops should be bound by the laws they attempt to enforce, or are they all above it, and we their children and beasts of burden?
On June 23rd, 2009 , 6:30 PM at the Vancouver Public Library the World Freeman Society will open a dialogue concerning these and other issues, provided the RCMP, The Law Society of British Columbia and elected officials deign to grace us with their presence. If not they will be replaced with stuffed monkeys and their refusal to engage in public dialogue used as prima facie evidence that they know they are engaging in criminal activities in the way they operate the justice system, and they are all subject to the seizure and forfeiture of their property. All of it. We will give it to the poor and those who now honestly try to help the destitute.
The purpose of this forum and dialogue is to benefit the public and achieve a peaceful positive change by demonstrating that there are issues which are contentious and need to be judicially determined and as they affect the ability of the people in the existing courts to rule, regulate, order and control us without our consent, and will likely result in many of them having all their property seized, they are not a suitable candidates for the needed adjudication.