Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

[grixit]

Danny Dogwalker
The Great One
Liberty Tool
Lawful Bunny
and now Freddy Freepickle

We've got enough characters now for a small parade. Or a Sov Stars in Concert gathering.

[Jeffrey]

DC's Youtube just posted a fresh video clearly meant to win over the courts, titled "Magistrates are some of the dumbest human beings on the planet" with description "They are dumb people, they have no clue what is going on and they are just a rubber stamp to believe anything the police say."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH-R9wag-LA

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

So I’ve been doing some Internet archeology, with Freddie Freepickle as my primary subject. Long story short, I have identified what I believe is a hitherto undiscussed Robert Arthur Menard book, entitled:

• Your Child Or Her Life! DECEPTION AND EVIL IN THE Ministry of Children, Family and Community Development”, by Robert Arthur: http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thinkfr ... orlife.pdf

This is identified as a publication of The Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society, “Justice is Truth in Action”.

A bit of context. When Menard first emerged his cause célèbre was the alleged abduction by child welfare authorities of a child he had fathered with an underage street-child who probably had significant (if not severe) substance issues. I have discussed in some detail this scenario and an associated website in this post (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9578&p=162087#p162087). It may be worthwhile to have a quick look at that post for narrative background.

“Your Child Or Her Life!” is a longer treatment of this general subject, and I believe was produced after the original Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society website (http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/elizabeth/), which is itself quite a blast from the Internet past.

“Your Child Or Her Life!” may be incomplete, since at page three the author encourages the reader to fill out forms that are provided with the text. Those, however, do not exist. That does not undermine the very curious nature of this document. In brief, this missive is a general critique of the British Columbia child welfare apparatus, which is characterized as a malevolent construct that only serves to seize children for profit. Rob describes it this way:

Once they start tugging on your child it will be too late. Remember, they do not care who they hurt. They will not say sorry or make amends when they hurt you. Like near-sighted drunken gorillas driving a breakless steam-roller, once they have you in their sights, you are in danger. Even if they find no cause for action, their vehicle is so unyeilding that you will be run over. …

The Freepickle provides a narrative of his history with Megan, the mother of his child, and the child herself, Elizabeth Anne Elaine. I might attempt to summarize this but … I think raw feed is appropriate. Spelling is not corrected.

My Story: (Belive it or not)
The following is the truth. One day back in April of 2000, I was chatting on line with a woman in Arizona. We had been chatting for a few weerks and most of our conversations had to do with the nature of God. She told me that she had just had the strangest feeling that I was going to be called to serve God and it would be the most difficult thing I had ever done. I said “Why does He have dietary restrictions?” Just then my neighbour came down the stairs and pounded on my door. Ben is a very large native man. He stands 6’4” and weighs 225lbs. He was very intoxicated and he told me that his spirit guide had told him to take me to the bar. The bar he was reffering to was a dive and not my type of place. I refused to go. He threw my jaket at me, shut down my computer and tyhreatened to knock me out and carry me if he had to. I decided to humour him and go for a quick beer.

Within two minutes of walking in, a beautiful young woman walked in the bar. I swear I thought I spoke the following words, Ben says he never heard me say them however. I heard them like they had come from my own mouth. “She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” I noticed all the crack dealers and pimps eyeing her like she was the dinner special and I got a huge sadness settle upon my heart. I was like a big wet carpet and I thought my heart my stop. Suddenly, something grabbed the love in my heart and communicated with mne by vibrating it. “Take her child as your own and you will be foreever blessed.” In my minds eye, I had a picture of my father and mother and I realized he had never raised his voice to her let alone his hand. I was being asked to love her and her child like my father had loved his wife and children. I said “Okey Dokey” to the power that grabbed my love and I became a daddy at that moment.

I invited Megan over to our table and in the first fivew miniutes told her she was pregnant. She didn’t believe me. She was only a week or two pregnant and was showing absolutely no physiological signs. She had no place to stay that night so I invited her over to my place and she accepted. We became a couple a fewq days later. At this time she was into hard drugs and hjarder living. I told her God had told me she was pregnant and she dismissed it refusing to believe in a God. When she later found out she was pregnant, it blew her away that I had known and claimed God told me. It empowered her considerably. Apparently, knowing God loves us can do that. She totally cleaned up her act. She quit smoking, drinking and partying and started to look at getting her GED. We were together throughout her pregnancy and moved into a new place together. We had purchased baby things in anticipation of Elizabeth’s arrival and we were excited and hopeful. We were a family in both act and intent. We were happy.

Elizabeth was born healthy and very beautiful on Dec 3rd, 2000. This little miracle was a result of my love for her and her mother and her mother’s near heroic successful efforts to clean herself up. The next day was without doubt the happiest of my life. When I first held Elizabeth, my heart swelled till I thought it would burst. It was like I had never loved before. I was pumped and motivated and so incredibly hopeful for the future. I was a daddy and Elizabeth was born without any signs of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or cognitive dysfunction due to cocaine abuse.

On Dec 5th 2000, without first conducting any investigation or assessment, the state ‘legally’ removed her. They did so through agents Celia Huber and Charles Hodgson. They claimed that Elizabeth only had one care giver. We told them they were wrong, she had two, we were a family in act and intent and had they investigated they would have known that. We told them we would prove in court that they had not investigated and that we were a family. Celia Huber, in the presence of Charles Hodgson, told us that if we tried, she would see to it that Elizabeth spent the first five years of her life going from foster home to foster home to foster home. What loving parent would risk that?

They tore our family apart and made Megan care for Elizabeth all alone. They halved the level of care that Elizabeth was to receive and they doubled Megan’s work load. They endangered Elizabeth’s life through their criminal actions.

I sat down with their Act and I had Black’s Law dictionary on one side and Bouviers on the other. I looked up every single word. It took me three days. When I was done, I was stunned. I said one word “Sonofabitch”. Some of their words do not mean what
you think they do. They expand definitions and they use a great deal of deception. It is much like those laser engraved pictures which you can only see if you focus past the image. To see their deception you have to dig past layers of twisty words, but its there.

They came into my life and destroyed our family and seriously harmed the two people I loved the most. I committed no crime, faced no charges nor called into court, yet I lost my family. They threatened an innocent two day old infant with permanent irreparable harm and endangered Elizabeth’s life. They are deceivers and rely on our ignorance for their authority. They exercise that authority without understanding, restraint or compassion. They should know better than to threaten an infant. Their evil and vile lies destroyed my family and almost destroyed me.

“There is no cruder tyrany than that which is perpetuated under the shield of Law an in the name of justice.”
Montesquieu (1689-1755)

Their Story (The road to where is paved with what?)
Obviously these workers didn’t just pull a name out of a hat. They must have felt they had reason to act and in the interest of truth and justice, I will tell you their side too. I am not saying they were wrong to investigate. The mother did have a history of drug abuse. Also, they asre used to men who abuse their spouses and abdicate parental responsibilities. Me standing as I was, willing to shoulder the burden of a child not mine by blood must have seemed very weird to them. Also there was a very big difference in ages. Elizabeth’s mother was a minor when I met her and only 17 years old. Although she presented herself as and acted like an adult and was wise beyond her years, the difference in ages made them believe I was a predator.

They must have been morally offended by the situation they had found. Maybe you the reader are as well. To those who are I must ask: Would Elizabeth being born with FAS or cognitive dysfunction caused by crack cocaine be more or less offensive? Me loving and caring was not immoral, unlawful or wrong. Them threatening an infant was. I found out about the true age of the mother seven months into the pregancy. I realized that although our relationship had to change, the one between myself and Elizabeth could not.

I was still fully dediocated to her and she didn’t care one bit about our ages. I did not see her mother and I being together for ever. I saw myself hel;ping her get her GED and into college where I hoped she would meet a decent guy closer to her age and Elizabeth would have two loving dads. I saw nothing wrong with that. Any one who is offended by my actions during those months need only to look at Elizabeth. She’s here healthy and well.

Wow.

I had previously suggested that the Freepickle has spent the past decade and a half submerged in a crisis of cognitive dissonance. I had some idea of the depth of that abyss, but had no idea of the baroque false reality he would adopt to avoid responsibility. This narrative not only demonizes the state, but makes Freddie’s participation near Biblical in character; brought into Megan’s life via divine (drunken native) intervention, a custodian to a child not his own, benevolent, the self-sacrificing caregiver deprived of his chance to show us all. He did not even want to be Megan’s life-long companion, just a conduit to her finding a better companion and mate.

I will leave to the reader their assessment of this tale. Suffice to say I find this narrative somewhat dubious.

What follows at first appears to be the usual early Menardian screed – a birth certificate creates a legal person linked to the child, the proverbial Strawman, and that state actors can only engage with a child via that link. Don’t register your child? You’re ok.

1- A legal entity is created by getting you to register. You created it, you did so voluntarily and you did so knowingly and willingly. As a matter of fact, you begged them to let you register.

2-You failed to maintain ownership and control of the person you created and associated with your offspring. and the government seizes it under salvage laws. It becomes their chattel property.

3- When government agents ‘legaly remove a child’ (Hi Beverly, Celia and Charles!) they are removing that which is defined as a child in the Children and Family Services Act. The Act defines a ‘child’ as a ‘person’.

4- They are removing the legal entity you created. Since it exists in association with your offspring, and you are maintaining that association, actions upon the legal entity affect the natural entity.

You may have noticed that grammar and spelling aren’t exactly exceptional. Well, at page 15 something odd happens – suddenly everything cleans up. And there’s something else really weird: Menard begins referencing Massachusetts legislation and U.S. authority figures. This goes on for most of the remaining text, until page 34. This is a lengthy litany of “Dirty Tricks” used by child welfare authorities.

A little research identified what was going on. Rob had plagiarized another source of American origin, and then simply swapped out a few words here and there to make the content vaguely suitable for his narrative. I suspect the original source was this website: http://massoutrage.com/ma/cps-resources ... ty-tricks/

Comparing the two texts illustrates the plagiarism could scarcely be more blatant:

Original text:

They Want Your Kids

The first DCF dirty trick is making you think they would NEVER use dirty tricks to take your children. Beneath the nice exterior of your friendly DCF agent is a person whose job is to take children - your children. DCF takes children from about 25% of the families for which they provide services, and that percentage is on the increase.

Your Child Or Her Life!, p. 15:

They Want Your Kids

The first MCFD dirty trick is making you think they would NEVER use dirty tricks to take your children. Beneath the nice exterior of your friendly MCFD agent is a person whose job is to take children - your children. MCFD takes children from about 25% of the families for which they provide services, and that percentage is on the increase.

Original text:

Play by the Rules - Lose Your Children. Can This Be Happening in America?

If you foolishly think that DCF will play by the rules, then they will exploit your weakness, and take your children. If you play by the rules, they will exploit that, and take your children. But if you know how the game is played, you may have a chance to keep your children, or get them back after they are taken. The secret police can be outsmarted.

You will likely ask yourself, "How can this be happening in America?" It IS happening, and it is because politicians have been willing to compromise liberty and family rights for support from radical Marxists and feminists who demanded these laws. While no one was watching, these people stole our American System of law and due process, and family rights, and liberty, and quietly substituted this new nightmare of a secret police system that you are now dealing with.

People assume that they will get justice in our courts. No longer. It's gone. The old America that respected family privacy is gone. A new Soviet-style system has taken its place. The sooner you acknowledge that horrible reality, the sooner you stop believing that the old system just HAS to give you justice, the sooner you can start fighting back in an effective manner.

Your Child Or Her Life!, p. 16:

Play by the Rules - Lose Your Children. Can This Be Happening in Canada?

If you foolishly think that MCFD will play by the rules, then they will exploit your weakness, and take your children. If you play by the rules, they will exploit that, and take your children. But if you know how the game is played, you may have a chance to keep your children, or get them back after they are taken. The secret police can be outsmarted.

You will likely ask yourself, “How can this be happening in America?” It is happening, and it is because politicians have been willing to compromise liberty and family rights for support from radical Marxists and feminists who demanded these laws. While no one was watching, these people stole our American System of law and due process, and family rights, and liberty, and quietly substituted this new nightmare of a secret police system that you are now dealing with.

People assume that they will get justice in our courts. No longer. It’s gone. The old Canada that respected family privacy is gone. A new Soviet-style system has taken its place. The sooner you acknowledge that horrible reality, the sooner you stop believing that the old system just HAS to give you justice, the sooner you can start fighting back in an effective manner.

As is obvious from the second passage, Menard isn’t even a good plagiarist! And certainly is inconsistent with his own left-of-centre general social stance. Interestingly, the plagiarized passages include a statement that it is legal to use lethal force to resist child welfare efforts to take control of a child:

You have the right to use potentially lethal force against anyone who attempts to abduct your offspring, even if they are government agents and operating under the color of Law.

However, Menard makes the same claim that a parent has that authority in his own, original text on pages 13 and 15:

The legal mechanism they employ however gives you a great deal of power, but you have to know of it’s existence. It is possible for government agents to remove a ‘child’ and not remove your offspring. You can break the associations you have created. If agentscome for your child, you can hand them the Birth Certificate and a document evidencing that you are immediately disassociating our offspring from the legal person they seek. They now have that which is defined as a child in the Act, what they do not have is a human being Nor do they have any right to try to take a human being. If they try to take your offspring after that, they are abducting your child andf acting under the color of Law.

You have the right to use potentially lethal force against anyone who attempts to abduct your offspring, even if they are government agents and operating under the color of Law.

…

Remember, if you disassociate your offspring from that which is defined as a ‘child’ in the CFCSA, the workers have no rights over your kids at all. You can lawfully use potentially lethal force against MCFD workers if they try to touch your children at that point.

[Emphasis in original quoted passages.]

The remainder of the text is a set of legal maxims, and a list of questions to ask the “Ministry of Vital Statistics”, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and some ‘do you know?’ factoids. These are derived from Menard’s earlier Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society website.

An interesting excursion into the Mind of a Pickle. I am quite fascinated at the combination of self-serving characteristics, laziness, and self-deception. My suspicion is that "Your Child Or Her Life!" is not well known in Freeman circles. I have found only one mention of this document in Freeman or Sovereign Internet forums (TPUC.org, incidentally).

I suspect its content raises many questions about Menard’s character and history. The explicit claims of a right to use lethal force are alarming, and of course entirely contrary to Menard’s subsequent characterization of the Freeman movement and its intent.

One last curiosity: in the last year someone has scavenged this text, and posted the majority of it on a website titled “Legal Help Today”. "Your Child Or Her Life!" is not attributed to Menard (and the text has been edited to remove his name), instead the document is entitled “True story from our reader from Canada” (http://legal-help-today.com/true-story- ... om-canada/), and divided into 10 parts.

Plagiarism upon plagiarism. It’s the Internet, alright.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Oh my goodness – something has at long last jarred Mr. Menard from his long slumber of Facebook Freemanish copypasta and the like. What could do such, you ask? Social crisis?!? Apocalypse in the Middle East?!? A judiciary sinister and powerful?!?

Oh, don’t be silly. It’s money. Rob’s all itchy because he wants his share of life insurance benefits from a policy purchased by his somewhat recently deceased father but the insurer, Knights of Columbus Insurance, won’t release those funds unless …

… he discloses his Social Insurance Number.

Why? ‘Cause they need that number to declare his interest income to the CRA for tax reporting purposes (https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard. ... 9049005178):

Knights of Columbus are committing FRAUD. Knights of Columbus Insurance refuse to release my Father's life insurance benefits to me, unless I have a SIN. The benefits are not taxable, the interest is. I told them I do not want the interest, just the non-taxable portion. That way I do not need a SIN. They refuse to release the non-taxable principal unless I accept the taxable interest. Thus they refuse to release the non-taxable unless I have a SIN. That is FRAUD. If you do not like their policy feel free to call them at 203 752 4000 and let them know. If you have insurance with them I suggest cancelling it. If you are looking for life insurance do not use them. They will screw you over, and do not know the law. Video of a phone call coming. I am pissed. They owe me a significant amount, and more importantly, they are poisoning the very last gift I was to receive from my father.

… there has been a series of emails, originally the guy I was dealing with, Marc Madore, a very decent agent, agreed to release the principal and give the interest to the other beneficiaries. I was happy with that. Their lawyer said I cannot avoid tax obligations by not receiving income! (I know eh?) So they then changed their story saying that if I did not want to give a SIN and accept the interest, that I would have to reject it all, and they would give it all to the other beneficiaries. They could not give the interest alone to the other beneficiaries, but they could give it all.

… be sure to be nice and compassionate to whoever answers... you do me no favours if you bring them insults, anger and bad energy. Be firm, ask hard questions,but do it with compassion for the human being you are speaking to. They likely were not responsible for this policy. I think it is a lawyer here in Canada who knew who I was,and thought they would get in some jabs against a Freeman.

Whatta doofus. The thing is, Rob does have a SIN, since he would have had one during his military service. He’s claimed to have ‘revoked’ or ‘rejected’ his SIN over the years, but that actually doesn’t work.

This surge of spunkiness has even generated a few comments from Rob’s increasingly thin-on-the-ground sycophants. Sue ‘em criminally! Sue ‘em civilly! And soon, one of my favorite dunces appears to talk all about that law stuff [all posts Jan. 18, 2014]:

Brian Alexander
trouble is all church and church affiliates have been converted to government establishments...thus they have to follow gov rules. insurance is like a bank..and all banks now require sin numbers and picture id.

Robert Menard
Problemis Brian, They are not following the gov rules at all. You cannot attach taxable income without my consent to my nontaxable benefits and then claim the right to withhold the non-taxable portion unless I accept the taxable, and force me to change my associations to do so. Wanna talk about gov rules? EXTORTION, BREACH OF TRUST, FRAUD. All these things are against the gov rules.

Brian Alexander
I'm sure your father is the one who signed the contract....it is his consent they are working off aren't they? ask to see the contract...send them legal notice

Robert Menard
The contract is the will. I have read it. There is nothing there authorizing them to do this. Interest on the principal generated after his passing is not mentioned. Having a SIN is not mentioned. We had also previously spoke about this,(my Father and I) he knew I did not have a SIN, and was apparently assured I would not need one, as the inheritance is not taxable.

… It was an arbitrary decision made by a member of the law society. The agent had agreed to give me the principal and disperse the interest with other beneficiaries. Then the lawyer finds out it is Robert 'Freeman' Menard and claims that unless I abandon my Freeman status and get a SIN, they would withhold the non-taxable portion along with the taxable portion.

Brian Alexander
take em to court then...teach the bastards a lesson.

The insurance contract is the father's will!? Uhmmm… no. It was a contract between the Knights of Columbus and Menard Senior. Rob clearly needs some basic lessons in contract law. Perhaps Chief Rock could assist?

Further, in most jurisdictions in Canada (insurance is a provincial domain) the majority of insurance policy terms are dictated by the relevant provincial insurance act. Oh wait – silly me, I forget, Rob hasn’t consented to legislation.

But doesn’t that mean he hasn’t consented to the concept of life insurance?

And then should not be a beneficiary?

I sometimes get confused on how all this complex of consent and authority and Strawmen etc intermesh.

Well, at least he’s getting good advice from some of his sycophants:

J Conrad Steele
Hi rob, tell them that section 32 And 52 of the charter state their rules do not apply to you. And the tell them to release your funds.

Steven Spiers
Rob, have you sent them any Claim of Right, and started any Commercial Process on them. You can do this from the private.

It must hurt a little inside when people repeat back to you arguments and techniques that you yourself have flogged – and which you are painfully aware simply do not work.

In other news, Rob’s mouth hurts:

Robert Menard
I don't even want the interest. I agree that is taxable income, and would need a SIN to have that. The principal however is not taxable, and they will not release that unless I accept interest as well, (nice benefit/gift eh?) and therefore I need a SIN to access the principal. I am in dire need of dental surgery, and am getting concerned about a potential infection...

Isn’t it a little strange that Rob needs The Money to pay a dentist? Why not use A4V from his birth bond? 96 is your fix it? Or simply write “Consumer Purchase” on the dental bill?

These things puzzle me.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

The insurance contract is the father's will!? Uhmmm… no. It was a contract between the Knights of Columbus and Menard Senior. Rob clearly needs some basic lessons in contract law. Perhaps Chief Rock could assist?

That's just cruel.

[Jeffrey]

If the JREF thread is accurate, Menard is chronically unemployed and currently homeless. So why not give the insurance company his SIN, take the whole lump sum and pay taxes on the taxable portion? None of his followers would find out about the SIN situation since I doubt anyone would publicize it.

Only way this makes sense is if he sets up a legal defense fund to ask for donations.

[grixit]

What he should do is say to the insurance company "i never asked for a Social Insurance Number, but here is the one belonging to the government that its agents used when referring to me among themselves".

[Burnaby49]

If the JREF thread is accurate, Menard is chronically unemployed and currently homeless. So why not give the insurance company his SIN, take the whole lump sum and pay taxes on the taxable portion? None of his followers would find out about the SIN situation since I doubt anyone would publicize it.

Only way this makes sense is if he sets up a legal defense fund to ask for donations.

I can't see him not giving his SIN either. He probably wouldn't pay any tax given his apparent current income and, if he doesn't broadcast it himself, there is no way his, cough, cough, "followers" would ever find out. The CRA wouldn't tell anyone; just another tax return to them.

If he doesn't have a SIN number he'd have no problem getting one but, as Mowe said, he probably already has one and regardless of any BS about him revoking it it will still be valid. Maybe he is setting up a scenario where he quietly gives the SIN to the insurer but trumpets to the world that he actually didn't and forced them to give him the money through some Freeman magic. Not a stretch for him to be a bit free and easy with the truth; let's remember he's the guy that got kicked off David Icke.com. for (if I remember correctly) faking a letter from an Irish legal firm saying his theories were correct.

[LordEd]

It doesn't matter anyway, because Menard can't be a beneficiary:

From the Insurance Act:

"person" includes corporation, unincorporated society or association, partnership, any group of underwriters and a Lloyd's association;

Freeman theory says that "includes" means only the items listed. Since "human" is not listed, and Menard is not any of those items, he is not a person.

"beneficiary" means a person, other than the insured or the insured's personal representative, to whom or for whose benefit insurance money is made payable in a contract or by a declaration;

Menard is addressing somebody here on facebook. Is he banned here, or just too lazy to get an account?

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... Menard is addressing somebody here on facebook. Is he banned here, or just too lazy to get an account?

I don't believe he has visited before.

And I appear to be the "Quatlooser" in question.

Either we have the right of association, or we do not. If we do, that extends to being associated with a number or account, or not. I HAD a SIN, when I was an employee of the government; I no longer am such an employee.

Also, according to CRA, they cannot impose an association between myself and that SIN, and they recognize our right to abandon it; not associate with it; and without it. The idea that I am permanently associated with a number I applied for without full disclosure when I was 16 is ludicrous and unreasonable.

I presume Mr. Menard's reference to "right of association" indicates Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 2(d), one of the four "fundamental freedoms" recognized in that section:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
...
(d) freedom of association.

So what does that provision mean?

Freedom of association has been interpreted to mean a right of an individual to belong to a group of individuals. Much of the case law therefore involves the right to participate in a labour union. The s. 2(d) "freedom of association" is strictly defensive - it prohibits the state from interfering in the right of two or more individuals to gather in a group. In Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 94, [2001] 3 SCR 1016 the right was explained in this manner:

The purpose of s. 2(d) commands a single inquiry: has the state precluded activity because of its associational nature, thereby discouraging the collective pursuit of common goals?

That judgment goes on to explain s. 2(d) therefore protects the right of individuals to organize together.

The objects of an association of individuals is not what is protected: Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157. The freedoms of assembly and association are necessarily collective and so mostly public: Re Catholic Children's Aid Society, (1989), 60 D.L.R. (4th) 397 (Ont. C.A.).

So, we see that Mr. Menard cannot invoke Charter, s. 2(d) to deny the state has a right to "associate" him with an administrative identifier. What that Charter right would protect is state interference in, for example, his right to organize a group of individuals called "Freemen-on-the-Land" into an association called "The World Freeman Society".

Sadly, this is another instance of Mr. Menard reading legislation and ascribing meanings to words which are incorrect. As such, this parallels his conclusion that the Charter, s. 7 mention of "security of the person" means some kind of financial document or interest, what he sometimes called the "Birth Bond", rather than a right to live a life secure from threat.

As always, all rights protected in the Charter are subject to the s. 1 override:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Going back to the right of Mr. Menard to organize himself and other individuals in the World Freeman Society, Parliament or the legislatures could theoretically pass valid legislation to prohibit and penalize membership in that group, or seize property belonging to individuals in that group. What would be necessary is that legislation preventing or penalizing that association be "demonstrably justified", for example if that organization had a criminal, fraudulent, or other illegal purpose.

Like promoting people not paying taxes on an illegal basis. I think I recall a number of individuals have recently faced criminal penalty on that very basis, including a chap named Russell Porisky.

Merely legal meanderings.

On Mr. Menard's claim to not be a Federal government employee, that is irrelevant:
Turnnir v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 49 at para. 8:

The Appellant’s argument that he is a “sovereign person” and cannot be taxed unless there is a contract between him and the government is without merit. The Income Tax Act (the “Act”) does not distinguish between “person”, “natural person” and “sovereign person”. The definition of “person” in section 248 of the Act includes a “flesh and blood living man” such as the Appellant. As stated by Gauthier J. in M.N.R. v Stanchfield , 2009 FC 99 (CanLII), 2009 FC 99 at paragraph 17:

…The whole notion of their being a second capacity distinct from the one of a natural person or human being is a pure fiction, one which is not sanctioned by law. One can describe nothing in any terms one wishes; it still remains nothing.

See also Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at para 314 where this concept is identified as yet another legally incorrect "Magic Hat".

And to Mr. Menard - if you are reading - best of luck in obtaining dental services. Mouth-related discomfort is indeed a very unpleasant sensation. Infection in that area can have very serious consequences, particularly given the close association of teeth to the cranial nerves and central nervous system.

SMS Möwe

[LordEd]

http://consumerpurchasers.ca/?page_id=35

Q: What purchases are covered?
A: Things you consume. These include:
• Food—groceries and restaurant meals
• Utility Bills—for private residences
• Communication Costs—for private residences
• Municipal Property Taxes—for private residences
• Medical and Dental <--
• Chiropractic
• Massage Therapy
• Physical Therapy
• Gym memberships
• Haircuts
• Tires/chains
• Car -Gas, oil and maintenance
• Body work and Detailing
• Transportation
• Student fees and tuition
• Basic Clothing—will be limited
• Building supplies
• House Upgrades (windows, insulation, and needed improvements)

Build a big enough story and it collapses on itself with inconsistencies.

[notorial dissent]

In answer to LordEd's question, the linguistically and ethically challenged one has not, at least to my knowledge or recollection, posted here before, at least not under his own name at any rate.

It would certainly seem that Menard is at the very least a definition shopper, but to me he is just linguistically challenged. At any rate, he doesn't seem to comprehend the meanings of Includes, and associate, one I must admit I hadn't come across before, and apparently has problems with other simple words and phrases to all appearances.

[wserra]

... Menard is addressing somebody here on facebook. Is he banned here, or just too lazy to get an account?

I don't believe he has visited before.

Menard has definitely never posted here, at least not under his own name. In all likelihood, not under a falsie either. Had he done so, the electrons would have all have been ROFLing - thus rendering the board unusable - for a least a couple of days.

Trust me, I know. I wrote an article about the various ramifications of "excited electrons" for the Journal of Irreproducible Results, a long, long time ago. They didn't publish it, however, claiming that they could in fact reproduce my results.

Oh, the humanity.

[notorial dissent]

Seriously, I thought Webhick had installed the patch for that, as well as the filter for linguistically delusioned and reality challenged Canadians just for such a case. Makes them show up in funny colors when they log in, as if we'd need any real advance warning in his case, called the Menard Filter in his honor. We have so many linguistically delusioned TP's down here we wouldn't want him to get lost in our excess of dross.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A dialogue, it seems! (https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard. ... 5022242914)

Robert Menard
[Jan. 19, 2014]
So over at quatloosers someone has claimed that the right to associate or not associate does not extend to a SIN. This raises a question, they can't answer.

What lawful mechanism exists which allows them to force that association?

If it does not exist, then the association must be voluntary. Also if it is not voluntary, why does it require the submission of an application? Why not just assign it to people against their will without application?

The authority to require a social insurance number [“SIN”] comes from valid Canadian legislation. The Canada Pension Plan, RSC 1985, c C-8 is one example of legislation that requires “association” between an individual and a SIN:

98. (2) Every individual who reaches eighteen years of age and is or becomes employed in pensionable employment on or after reaching that age shall, within thirty days after he reaches eighteen years of age or becomes employed in pensionable employment, as the case may be, if he has not earlier been assigned a Social Insurance Number, file an application with the Minister, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, for the assignment to him of a Social Insurance Number.

(3) Every individual who is required by section 30 to file a return of his self-employed earnings for a year, other than an individual to whom subsection (1) or (2) applies, shall on or before the first day on or before which he is required by section 33 to pay any amount as or on account of the contribution required to be made by him for that year in respect of those earnings, if he has not earlier been assigned a Social Insurance Number, apply to the Minister, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, for the assignment to him of a Social Insurance Number. …

In fact, it is not even necessary for a person to apply for a social insurance number. Legislation authorizes state actors to assign a SIN, for example, Canada Pension Plan (Social Insurance Numbers) Regulations, CRC, c 386:

7. The Minister or the Minister of National Revenue may cause a Social Insurance Number to be assigned to an individual who has not been assigned a Social Insurance Number.

8. The Minister or the Minister of National Revenue may cause a Card to be issued to an individual to whom a Social Insurance Number was caused to be assigned under section 7

Intriguingly – and I did not know this prior to having engaged in this little research project – there is a legislative provision in the Social Insurance Number Regulations, SOR/2013-82 to force persons who have religious or other objections to be associated with a SIN:

4. If a person who is required by law to have a Social Insurance Number is unwilling or unable to apply for registration because of religious beliefs or for other reasons, the Commission may register the person and assign a Social Insurance Number to that person if it has sufficient information about the person to establish their identity and status.

As far as I am aware there has not been an effective constitutional challenge to any of this legislation. In particular, it does not look to me like section 4 of the Social Insurance Number Regulations has been commented upon by the courts.

The argument that a SIN is optional, or can be abandoned has been considered and rejected by Canadian courts: Jabez Financial Services Inc. v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112; Szoo’ v. RCMP, 2011 BCSC 696. Interestingly, the language of relevant components of the “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right” documents that were addressed in Jabez Financial Services Inc. v. Sponagle and Szoo’ v. RCMP are either very closely related to or identical to language used in Mr. Menard’s own “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right” documents, such as:

• http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 512768/pg1
  
  http://robertmenard.org/notice-of-under ... -of-right/
  
  https://worldfreemansociety.org/notice- ... -of-right/

I know that his next argument will naturally be that an individual nevertheless is not bound by legislation unless they consent to that. Rather than go through the voluminous reported case law that addresses and rejects that postulate I will simply cite Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 since I know Mr. Menard is familiar with the review of that issue in Associate Chief Justice Rooke's now broadly cited and endorsed judgment.

But enough of that fun.

Since we know you are reading this message thread Mr. Menard (greetings!) I would like to invite you to participate on Quatloos in a specific context. In the summer of 2013 you travelled to Alberta with a chap named minister Edward Robin Jay Belanger and you spent a period of time in that province. During this period you became acquainted with an individual who went by the name “Andreas Pirelli”, though his actual name turned out to be “Mario Antonacci”. You, for example, attended this meeting held by Antonacci’s group (https://www.facebook.com/events/273555742786982/). You have also publically acknowledged having met this individual.

Antonacci has subsequently become rather notorious when as the Senior Chief Justice of the Tacit Supreme In Law Courts he unilaterally seized the rental property he occupied as his ‘embassy’. We all know the tale that followed, and I certainly acknowledge that you from the start rejected this as an immoral and illegal activity.

So my point of inquiry is related to that. Investigation here on Quatloos into Antonacci has linked him to individuals involved in illegal squatting activity in northern Alberta, in the Grande Prairie area. Discussion of these two related subjects may be found here:

• Tacit Supreme In Law Court & United Sovran Nations: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9463
  
  Grande Prairie squat: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9579

You will note that I suspect that beyond the Mr. Piotrsson you met at the identified “Serenity Valley Calm-unity” meeting and Antonacci, that you may have encountered a third key participant in this scheme, a Larry Zachow, an evangelical preacher probably best known for beating his teenaged daughter in response to her sexual activity. Zachow appears to head an affiliate group of Antonacci’s called the North Watchman People’s Embassy.

Now, my guess, supported by another Quatloos poster who appears to have insider information, is that Antonacci / Zachow / Piotrsson’s scheme was that they hooked up with some disgruntled members of one or more aboriginal communities, claimed to have purchased Band land from those aboriginal individuals, then ‘resold’ that land to an assortment of Sovereign Citizen / Freeman-on-the-Land / OPCA type folk.

I see no evidence you were in any way involved in this arrangement. However, I strongly suspect you were exposed to this scheme and its ringleaders. So my invitation (yes I finally got to it) is that you share what you know of the apparent fraudulent sale of Crown land.

I hope this invitation is not too intrusive. My interest is to better understand what these individuals planned and did. You appear to be a potentially informed but uninvolved witness. I have an academic curiosity, if you will, in matters such as this. Since you have publically stated your disapproval of Antonacci’s activities I hope you might be able to shed more light on this unpleasant scenario and its perpetrators.

All the best!

SMS Möwe

[LordEd]

"Non-Violent" Menard has just issued death threats:
https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard. ... eam_ref=10

Posted on D'Rok's Facebook Page: Hi D'Rok! How the hell ya been? I think you have been engaging in unlawful activities and want to meet YOU in a court of law! Are you willing to do so? Or are you a lying, cowardly, disingenuous, deceitful coward? It is possible I am wrong and you have not been posting as D'Rok of the RANDI Forum, nor sending libellous emails. If so I will apologize. But I know it is you..... In any event I will engage in a course of action which will show you as the coward you are. It will require you to bring in the RCMP. THEY will have to investigate, and that will reveal YOU as D'Rok. A man who has been avoiding service and perverting the path of justice. Want to avoid it? Simply sign an affidavit attesting that you have never posted on the RANDI forum as D'Rok. If I then prove you are a liar and you have posted as D'Rok, (I KNOW ITS YOU!) then you lose your lawyer and notary license. And you face civil actions... If you have ANY balls, ANY faith in the courts, ANY love for the law, you will meet me in court. You can refuse to do so, but I then claim the right to secure justice without the courts. That is my right, is it not? The courts claim to exist BECAUSE of our right to justice. If you do not wish to meet me there, then I clearly have the right to secure justice outside of the courts using whatever means I feel are necessary. Right? I will also be bringing in ALL your bosses... the RCMP, The Notary Society, The Law Society, The AG... all of them.. just admit you are D'Rok, and meet me in court. Or face the consequences... If you are not D'Rok, call the RCMP and tell them a Freeman is threatening you with violence. They will have to investigate YOU and you will be revealed. I will see you in a court, or in a scope. Your choice.. Call the cops because if I can't fight you in court, I will fight you outside of court. You won't even know it is happening until it is over. Fighting is my greatest right. Step up punk.

He thinks this is "lawful"

Robert Menard And we all have the right to justice. One of the key reasons the courts give for their existence and proper administration of justice is that if they don't gie it to us, we have the right to secure it for ourselves. I am tired of this guy. Either he calls the cops, or he doesn't. If he does they have to investigate HIM. If he doesn't I have my proof. I need to threaten him with extreme though lawful actions so he responds.

[notorial dissent]

So Bobby's got a mad on, oh my!!!!! I is distraught and consumed with concern.

What in particular has got Bobby's thong all in a twist this time? Someone call him out of something? Some one dared to disagree with him? His reading comprehension is bad enough that he didn't understand what they wrote? He certainly is exorcised over whatever this great slight was, almost enough to make me care, almost but not quite.

The thought though of Menard actually threatening to take someone to court is however, a hoot and a half, considering all the time he has spent trying to avoid various courts.

He thinks this is "lawful"

He's got it at least part right, "this is "lawful".

[Jeffrey]

Did Menard just buy himself a ticket to jail?

[LordEd]

This is a carry-over from JREF. Menard has/had a filed lawsuit against D'Rok for allegedly sending a letter to one of the places that was to host one of his comedy tour/lecture "events".

A copy of the filing was posted here: http://legaltainment.files.wordpress.co ... nard-1.pdf

He claimed he was going to do various things to get a name. Not sure what, if anything, he tried. There appears to have been an update last year according to CSO, but I don't know the content.

[notorial dissent]

So, I was right. Someone called him out and told the truth about him, I can see where that would set him off. Although I have a hard time seeing libel or defamation in any of it, and the fact that he doesn't know who he is suing, but he is by damn suing someone fer shure!!!! Sounds like Bobby to a tee. What a waste!!!!