Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[rumpelstilzchen]

Has Bobby done a U-turn on his definition of the word "includes" when it appears in law?

[Burnaby49]

Has Bobby done a U-turn on his definition of the word "includes" when it appears in law?

His definition, if I understand what he is saying, is a novel one. I have been to numerous court hearings where the idiot of the day argued that "includes" means only whatever is listed after the word includes. For example a big one for Canadian tax evaders is that the definition of "person" says that person, as defined in the Income Tax Act, includes corporations. So they say that only corporations are persons and since they are not corporations they are not persons and therefore not taxable. Menard defines includes differently and claimed in the video that the word is "illustrative", at least that is what I heard him saying. He meant it in this context;

il·lus·tra·tive \i-ˈləs-trə-tiv also ˈi-lə-ˌstrā-\. : used to illustrate or
explain something. : serving as an example of something.

So the words that are after "includes" are only there to illustrate what the Canadian parliament had in mind when it gave a definition of Peace Officers in the Criminal Code. Using that analysis Menard concluded that there are other unstated, undefined people who can also be Peace Officers and who they are can be determined by an analysis of the "examples" given after the word "includes". This is, I think, what he is saying with his nonsense about mayors. When the Criminal Code includes mayors as someone who is a peace officer it is to illustrate a type of person who can be a peace officer, specifically a non-government employee chosen by people to fill a role. Since it is an example he expands it past mayors to anyone chosen (not necessarily through an election) by someone else to fill a position. So if someone wants him to be a peace officer or if he chooses to make people peace officers then the "example" given of mayors supports his ability to do so.

[Philistine]

Well, I think that "includes" is not necessarily an exhaustive list, as in "includes but is not limited to" which can leave room for some form of legal government to create other positions since it would be tedious to have to amend the law each time an exception arose. It certainly doesn't say that Bobby and his gang can unilaterally create positions at will. If he can, then I declare myself "Sheriff of Haliburton", sworn to protect cottagers from evil whenever I deign to be in the area.

[Burnaby49]

Steve Bates steals from the best, me! He's having an argument with Menard about Menard's begging for money in his new video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkrifHQYzm8

Menard accuses him of being a DJ in a strip joint (apparently true) and Bates strikes back with this;

Wake Up! Productions (backup channel)
56 minutes ago

+mrmitee Robert Menard invented the Freemen-on-the-Land movement, marketed to low-income, left wing, anti-government communities in BC and then moving east. Freemanism promised global freedom from government action and free stuff on demand (Belanger - Give me my AISH!). Menard's theoretical basis was pretty weak at best - he grabbed concepts from the US Sovereign Citizens and Detaxers. This did not matter since his customer base was stupid beyond belief and 'goal oriented'.

Freemanism grew steadily in no small part due to its promises, but also because Menard did not do anything with his concepts except promote. Eventually, enough followers tried these concepts and failed, and the followers wondered when Menard would ever deliver. The Freemen began to break up and look for new gurus (Dean Clifford). Freemanism spread through personal social networks but those were then reinforced by effective Internet marketing/social media tools.

Where could he have obtained this inciseful analysis? Directly from Quatloos! It's a quote from my first posting in a discussion I just started.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10597

Where I said;

Separately Robert Menard invented the Freemen-on-the-Land movement, marketed to low-income, left wing, anti-government communities in BC and then moving east. Freemanism promised global freedom from government action and free stuff on demand (Belanger - Give me my AISH!). Menard's theoretical basis was pretty weak at best - he grabbed concepts from the US Sovereign Citizens and Detaxers. This did not matter since his customer base was stupid beyond belief and 'goal oriented'.

Freemanism grew steadily in no small part due to its promises, but also because Menard did not do anything with his concepts except promote. Eventually, enough followers tried these concepts and failed, and the followers wondered when Menard would ever deliver. The Freemen began to break up and look for new gurus. Freemanism spread through personal social networks but those were then reinforced by effective Internet marketing/social media tools.

Note a few points of similarity?

If you are using my comments to beat Rob over the head feel free to take what you want Steve!

[Jeffrey]

Menard accuses him of being a DJ in a strip joint (apparently true) and Bates strikes back with this;

The fact that Menard considers someone having a job, an insult, speaks volumes.

[Burnaby49]

Menard accuses him of being a DJ in a strip joint (apparently true) and Bates strikes back with this;

The fact that Menard considers someone having a job, an insult, speaks volumes.

If Rob is bitter who can blame him? He has sacrificed his most productive income earning years for us, the people of Canada, while Bates has whored after the almighty dollar by being gainfully employed.

Rob says so right here;

mrmitee 6 hours ago (edited)
+Steve Bates Yea big hole! But that was not my doing, and I was house sitting. NO I cannot say I have worked for someone else for the last 11 years. Is that something of which you are proud? Stagnation and complacency is your desire, not mine. I have spent the last 15 years working for the people of my country, for future generations, often without pay and at great expense to myself. And no, YOU do not want to be me in 10 years. It is not a path for the faint of heart, or the wimpy. It is not for punks. It is not for those who claim that working for others as a quasi pimp for 11 years is something to be proud of. You would not be capable of even shouldering for a moment the burden I have carried with a (grudging) smile for the last 15 years.

PS- Today I put in an honest days labor, and then I found time to work for my country, without pay.

He'd be happy to pass that burden on to another if only he could find someone to carry it!

mrmitee 7 hours ago
+Steve Bates I live in a nice 2 bedroom house, all by myself, I pay my rent without begging, and my bills, and am not couch surfing. That is just more lies you spread to make yourself feel better. Want to come visit me again Steve (remember coming to stay over night?) and see that I am not lying, and that you are a badly mistaken? As for hand outs, I am seeking support from those who see the same problems I do, and want to see a change. I am not begging, I am creating a team. If they want to step up and take the burden from me, and be the Captain, they are free to do so. I will give them the money I raise. As it is, the money being raised does not even flow through me! How is that asking for handouts? YOU are a middle aged man working as a DJ in a stripper bar. You are the last person who should be denigrating the efforts of others, seeing as how you make your money by pandering to the very basest of human wants, but without the balls to do so directly, you merely facilitate women who are economically forced to dance and show their bodies to live. You are less than a pimp, and you are a liar.

And all he asks for giving up his life for Canada is a paltry $100,000, small recompense indeed for the sacrifice of fifteen years. And what kind of gratitude has he received so far? $38. Come on people!

http://www.gofundme.com/vha25nc

[grixit]

Maybe he should try stripping.

[Burnaby49]

Maybe he should try stripping.

What kind of sick twisted degenerate are you? That image. THAT IMAGE! I'm going to have to rethink my participation in Quatloos after what grixit has inflicted on me.

[arayder]

I laughed at the comments Bobby made denying that his C3PO argument had already been dismissed by the courts. Like the Tom Crawford/goodfer loonies over in England, all Menard is trying to do is explain away an embarassing and total dismissal of his argument.

Let's see it again:

FOR THE REASONS provided by the defendant in her written representations dated January 30, 2015, the plaintiff’s statement of claim is hereby struck out pursuant to paragraph 221(1)(a) of the rules, without leave to amend, the whole with costs, since it is plain and obvious that the statement of claim contains no reasonable cause of action.

In essence Bobby wants $50,000 from freeman dupes so he can make the same losing argument twice.

Freemen being asked to contribute to Bobby's newest scam ought to ask what happened to the money that went to his last scam, the ACCP.

------------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 127 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Wow... where to even begin? Is this the promised grand revelation that he promised would happen this summer? If so I am really underwhelmed, but not at all surprised that it's just a regurgitation of an already failed scheme.

I'll post some initial thoughts now but much of this has already been discussed and rebutted to death already back when "Winteral" tried posting the exact same arguments on Icke's.

So first off, this nonsense about mayors. Mayors are government entities because the very office of mayor, its powers and responsibilities, and the elections by which he comes to power are all governed by statutes . They get their authority from statute. Mayors are not elected willy-nilly on the whims of the populace with whatever powers they feel like having. If that were the case, we could easily elect Burnaby49 to be our local mayor, with complete unbridled control to do whatever he likes (including not wearing pants to court). The fact that we elect such an entity, who is included as one type of peace officer, does not mean we can elect anyone we want to any office we want and call them a peace officer. That's just not logical.

Next, this bullshit about there being no statutes applicable to to sections (a) and (c) of the "peace officer" definition because they are not mentioned and therefore you can't claim that they must be appointed/elected under any specific act. You can bet your fez that there ARE applicable statutes for these positions, but they are provincial statutes (note that the other statutes in the definition are all federal). Each province legislates these positions differently, sometimes with multiple overlapping statutes (for example, there are multiple acts applicable to justices of the peace). So rather than listing every single piece of such legislation from every province, they just listed the positions, as it is plain and obvious that provincial statutes will apply. So contrary to the video, the power to elect/appoint these people very much DOES come from statute.

That's just for starters... there are some comments in his debate with Doazic in the youtube comments that are worth discussing when I have more time.

EDIT: Formatting & typo

[Jeffrey]

Menard might want to go on Netflix and rent a documentary on the dangers of private police forces by the title of Robocop.

[Burnaby49]

we could easily elect Burnaby49 to be our local mayor, with complete unbridled control to do whatever he likes (including not wearing pants to court).

That rule is the first to go when I'm mayor. I've dusted off my old campaign slogan;

Vote for Burnay49. He won't steal as much from you as he could!

[LordEd]

Vote for Burnay49. He won't steal as much from you as he could!

Vote for Burnay49. He drops characters at random so maybe your taxes will be lower by a factor of 10.

[Burnaby49]

Vote for Burnay49. He won't steal as much from you as he could!

Vote for Burnay49. He drops characters at random so maybe your taxes will be lower by a factor of 10.

That's cruel, mocking a pathetic old man because he can't spell his own name. That's it! I'll work on the geriatric vote! All we old codgers vote and all my contemporaries will sympathize at how harshly you young people treat a doddering old fool.

Vote for Buray49 before he forgets his own name entirely!

That's a winner!

[LordEd]

Vote for Buray49 before he forgets his own name entirely!

That's a winner!

The ONLY candidate who promises to keep those young whippersnappers off your lawn!



Vote for Burnaby49 so he can have legally recognized peace officer status.

[arayder]

Vote for Buray49 before he forgets his own name entirely!

That's a winner!

The ONLY candidate who promises to keep those young whippersnappers off your lawn!



Vote for Burnaby49 so he can have legally recognized peace officer status.

That's just as official as Bobby's process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bL7KeUQTfE

[Burnaby49]

The comments to Rob's begging video are getting a bit harsh;

Doazic 16 hours ago

It was the deputy AG, that's not merely some underling. It cited binding supreme court judgements, so you're wrong on that point. Your process server argument is ridiculous and doesn't merit a response. A plain reading of the Criminal Code shows that your Peace Officer claim is wrong. I have examined your argument, the AG examined your argument, the Supreme Court examined your argument, it does not hold water. You are not a peace officer, how many times does this have to be explained to you. Even if there is some ambiguity in the wording of the definition, the courts already clarified it, it only includes legislatively recognized law enforcement agencies. Even from a purely historical perspective, the fact that your interpretation has never been accepted in the 30 years the Criminal code has been around should indicate to you that the definition was never intended to include anyone who decides to wear a badge. As to your "court" thing. Well that's just further dishonesty on your part. They threw your case out, that's a loss. And the Nanaimo guys lost their cases and were convicted. Meanwhile, you had the chance to defend your interpretation in court, you instead chose not to show up. You don't even have the integrity to go to court to defend your claims.

Doazic 15 hours ago

You had the chance to make that argument in court in Ontario, you chose not to do so. As to plain reading, here's a hint Menard. Every single example given in the list is a government position, "legislatively recognized law enforcement agency". Let's go down the list. Police officer, legislatively recognized law enforcement. Police constable, same thing. Bailiff, same thing. Constable, same thing. Then here's where you completely fuck up. "other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process". Given that ALL the previous examples are members of legislatively recognized law enforcement agencies, why would they for absolutely no reason write in an expansion that includes everyone else. No, the plain english reading is that it ONLY refers to people employed by legislatively recognized law enforcement agencies, and has that second caveat to include other people employed by RCMP not specifically listed. IF, there was any ambiguity, it was already decided by the Supreme Court and explained to you in the motion by the Deputy Attorney General, that no, it does not expand the definition as you claim. And frankly it's a good thing, because nobody other than you thinks it's a good idea that anyone can put on a badge and gun and run around calling himself a peace officer. Which is why the code itself makes that a crime.

And Rob defends himself as ably as usual;

mrmitee 8 hours ago

+Doazic. Ah you and your statist defending views are so funny! I believe the term 'or other person' means 'or other person', and you believe it actually means 'or other persons who are employed by legislatively recognized law enforcement agencies'. You read more into those words then exist. You read five words into two simple words, and there is nothing there to support your position! Nothing! There is as much there to support your claim that the term 'other persons' means what you say as there is to support the claim that 'other persons' means other persons who have blue eyes, red hair and are left handed." It's all assumption on your part. As for the list that precedes it, you missed the key point. They used the conjunction 'or', not the conjunction 'and'. Your argument may have had merit if they had used 'and', but not with 'or'. Or is a conjunction which includes that which would otherwise be excluded. The previous things listed may all be members of of legislatively recognized law enforcement agencies, and had they used 'and' they would have limited it to that class of persons, but they didn't. Tell me this Doazic, in Section b, they mention an Act, in Section d they mention an Act, and then in all the others they do as well, but you wish to argue that they simply forgot to mention it in section c? If the legislators wanted that to be the case, well they could have mentioned it. Just like they do in the other sections. But this was what an oversight on their part, but you are here to correct that oversight? Have you heard of the clear statement rule? It states: "When a statute may be interpreted to abridge long-held rights of individuals or states, or make a large policy change, courts will not interpret the statute to make the change unless the legislature clearly stated it. This rule is based on the assumption that the legislature would not make major changes in a vague or unclear way, and to ensure that voters are able to hold the appropriate legislators responsible for the modification.

voters are able to hold the appropriate legislators responsible for the modification.

Your position Doazic results in a very large change to the common law, there is NOTHING there to support your position, and they use the conjunction 'or' and you are interpreting it as if it was the conjunction 'and'. You also seem to believe that there is some sort of underlying premise, which is not stated, and which completely contravenes centuries of basic common law. A jurist had this to say concerning the plain reading rule:

"When reviewing issues of statutory interpretation, we keep in mind that the first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory construction. A statute is ambiguous only where it is open to two or more constructions, or where it is of such obscure or doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might disagree or be uncertain as to its meaning. When a statute is clear, however, it is given its plain meaning, and this court will not search for legislative intent; rather, that intent must be gathered from the plain meaning of the language used. This court is very hesitant to interpret a legislative act in a manner contrary to its express language, unless it is clear that a drafting error or omission has circumvented legislative intent."

A plain reading does not show us the words "legislatively recognized law enforcement agencies". They simply are not there, and if the legislators had wanted them there, they would have put them there, and if they wanted the list they do provide to be an example and restrict the term 'other persons' to that class of persons, they would not have used the conjunction they did, which has the effect of including that which would otherwise be excluded. Can you not distinguish between the words 'or' and 'and'? Can you not see how they have two very separate effects? But your position requires us to abandon a plain reading, assume they meant what they have not said, and that they were mistaken when they used the conjunction they did. Oh and that they forgot to mention "legislatively recognized law enforcement agencies". Right?

Sheesh Doazic, your refusal to see what is right there in front of you, and choose instead to assume words not in use are applicable is laughable. A plain reading does not show us the term "legislatively recognized law enforcement agencies" and it does show us they use the conjunction 'or' before the term 'other persons'. Your position requires us to believe there is a concealed underlying premise. What did the Supreme Court have to say about that? Oh here it is: "I believe that the era of concealed underlying premises is now over. In my view, those premises must be brought to the surface in order to promote consistency in our law and the integrity of our judicial system."

I have no idea why Menard thinks this next one is relevant, he's too deep for me;

mrmitee 7 hours ago

+Doazic Oh and Doazic, care to address the plainly observable fact that these other persons can also be employed not just to preserve and maintain the public peace but also for the service and execution of civil process, and that the public regularly employs them for that purpose? Do you wish to claim that these process servers cannot be directly employed by members of the public, even though that happens every day? Do you wish to claim that only governmental agencies can employ a process server? Or will you simply gloss over that key and determining fact?

Doazic responded by getting personal about Menard's educational background;

Doazic 4 hours ago

Again, you had the chance to make this argument when you were criminally charged. You chose not to do so. So no, you can't now go online and act like the big man. If there was any ambiguity in the text, it was already clarified by R v. Nolan over a decade ago, as was explained to you by the deputy AG. And merely the historical fact that in the 30 years since that definition was written, it has never been interpreted to allow for the formation of private police agencies, should be sufficient for you. In fact, very basic balance of probabilities here, in the last 15 years none of your statutory interpretations have been accepted by any court. You have a 0% success rate. So should we believe you or should we believe the Canadian Supreme Court and the deputy attorney general. Oh and the AG the one thing you don't have, an actual education.

Doazic has a very valid point. If Rob has so much confidence in his interpretation that he can demand $100,000 to promote it why did he scurry away from his own trial rather than fight it out for the big win that would have attained his dream for him? I'm sure the Ontario court would have been fascinated by his analysis.

In the last twelve hours Rob's donations have increased by the overwhelming sum of nothing. He's still stuck at $38.

[arayder]

Doazic has a very valid point. If Rob has so much confidence in his interpretation that he can demand $100,000 to promote it why did he scurry away from his own trial rather than fight it out for the big win that would have attained his dream for him. I'm sure the Ontario court would have been fascinated by his analysis.

Why didn't Bobby fight it out in court? For the same reason he's never pulled the trigger on any of his "projects". The same reason he's begging funds for a legal argument he knows he's already lost.

He's a narcissist who manipulates others.

[Jeffrey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITCj2CY7b7A

Bates does good work with the video editing.

[Hanslune]

An aside:

In the comments section was a link to this

http://itnjcommittee.org/projects/contribute/

Which seems like an international version of Fotl like thinkers