Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Jeffrey]

Menard is truly in rare form tonight:

+pseudolaw.com 'of general application' you say? Nice how you try to slip that past.... If you wish to engage in traffic on the highway (commerce) you cannot opt out of it. Makes sense to me. However that does not mean that we do not have the right to use the highways, for private NON TRAFFIC purposes or that doing so means we have opted out of the Act. Does that Act mean that the Criminal Code no longer applies? Because if not, then the definition of 'highway' in the CCoC means I have a right to access it without a license. And the definition of mischief means if anyone tries stopping me, they not I, are breaking the law. That of course, is providing I am not using it for the purpose of engaging in traffic as defined by law dictionaries. You do see where it says in the title of that Act 'Traffic' do you not? Just because one is on the highway and using it, does not mean they are using the highway for the purpose of 'traffic'. It says Highway Traffic Act, not Highway Use Act. One can use a highway for travelling, and not be using it for traffic, and therefore one can use the highway and not be subject to the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT without 'opting out'. Simples. Now try to put your little head around it.

Incidentally, my proposition of law is based upon the belief that said HTA does not empower anyone to disregard the Criminal Code and engage in mischief. Do you consider THAT proposition flawed?

This is deranged even by Menardian standards. Word salad of this quality usually requires the use of alcohol or harder drugs.

[LordEd]

I think i'll opt out of the criminal code. You see at the top where it says "criminal"? I'm not one of those, so I'll opt out. Note that opting out of the criminal code doesn't mean I'm not subject to the Highway Traffic act.

By the way, its not the mischief code either, so mischief is perfectly ok.

[Burnaby49]

I would note that while Menard's grand at windbagging his certainties all over the internet he's too chickenshit to face the music in Toronto and defeat the enemy on its own battlefield. A man with his rock-solid convictions about the correctness of his legal arguments shouldn't have any problems in a court of law.

I don't see why he hesitates. He's already defeated the government once, and on their own battlefield, the Federal Court of Canada, over his application to have the Federal Court confirm him as a Peace Officer. The cowardly Crown slunk away after getting Rob's Statement of Claim struck without leave to amend rather than fighting him man to man in an actual court hearing. Menard, through his sockpuppet winteral, trumpeted this as a victory for Rob over at David Icke's bastion of truth and light.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.p ... 68&page=19

Originally Posted by edofquatloos
Welcome back dif. In the last week, Mr. Menard's counter lawsuit against the federal government to have his police force recognised was dismissed as obviously having no chance of success.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/yyct95xbk ... -43-15.pdf

Interestingly enough, the ghost town posting at quatloos resulted in hundreds of downloads of it in a few hours. Somebody was watching and distributing it.

So winteral, what do you think of Me. Menard's chances of success in light of the same arguments being dismissed so easily?

I do not see it as an argument dismissed, and Menard having lost.
What I see, as a member of the public, with no dog in the fight, is this:

1- He presented his interpretation and invited the Federal government to meet him in court if they disagreed with him.
2 - They chose to seek a motion to dismiss, and did not want to disagree with his interpretation in court, essentially stating they have no disagreement with his interpretation.
3 - His interpretation now stands as one accepted by both parties.

How do you consider that a loss on his part?
The only way the government could have won, is if they met him in court and won the argument there. Refusing to meet someone on the field of dispute does not mean you won that dispute. It means you forfeited.

There are many ways to skin a cat, and it is possible, maybe just possible, that your own bias against Menard causes you to view things in the light which supports your bias.

From the perspective of the public, Menard challenged, the Federal government refused the contest.

But in your mind this means the government won and Menard lost?

So if losing is actually winning Rob should have no trouble trouncing the Crown over those impersonating a peace officer charges. Off to Toronto Rob!

[Jeffrey]

Federal claim was thrown out in March, we're now halfway through September. That's six months Menard has had to appeal the decision. Take a break from arguing online and type up that appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal will no doubt be swayed by Menard's logic and we'll have to eat humble pie and apologize to Menard for our ignorance.

At this rate we'll be long dead before Menard gets around to it.

[Burnaby49]

I, for one, am all set to go when Rob has his big win at the Federal Court of Appeal!

[LordEd]

It has been 0 days that Burnaby49 has waited to eat pie. It is 3 days from its best-before date, but he doesn't consent to that.

[pigpot]

It has been 0 days that Burnaby49 has waited to eat pie. It is 3 days from its best-before date, but he doesn't consent to that.

And the point of your post is what?

[schismatrix]

And the point of your post is what?

No, it's when.

[arayder]

And the point of your post is what?

No, it's when.

Who?

[schismatrix]

Who?

Isn't he on first?

[LordEd]

The point of my post was general sarcasm.

And now its further degraded to who's on first.

[Burnaby49]

The point of my post was general sarcasm.

And now its further degraded to who's on first.

And I got tired of waiting and ate the pie.

[arayder]

Menard is truly in rare form tonight:

+pseudolaw.com 'of general application' you say? Nice how you try to slip that past.... If you wish to engage in traffic on the highway (commerce) you cannot opt out of it. Makes sense to me. However that does not mean that we do not have the right to use the highways, for private NON TRAFFIC purposes or that doing so means we have opted out of the Act. Does that Act mean that the Criminal Code no longer applies? Because if not, then the definition of 'highway' in the CCoC means I have a right to access it without a license. And the definition of mischief means if anyone tries stopping me, they not I, are breaking the law. That of course, is providing I am not using it for the purpose of engaging in traffic as defined by law dictionaries. You do see where it says in the title of that Act 'Traffic' do you not? Just because one is on the highway and using it, does not mean they are using the highway for the purpose of 'traffic'. It says Highway Traffic Act, not Highway Use Act. One can use a highway for travelling, and not be using it for traffic, and therefore one can use the highway and not be subject to the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT without 'opting out'. Simples. Now try to put your little head around it.

Incidentally, my proposition of law is based upon the belief that said HTA does not empower anyone to disregard the Criminal Code and engage in mischief. Do you consider THAT proposition flawed?

This is deranged even by Menardian standards. Word salad of this quality usually requires the use of alcohol or harder drugs.

It seems the megalomaniacal Menard believes all law springs from his forehead.

The sad reality is that he is a strutting fool. . .a sodded clown who can't keep track of his lies or his failures.


---------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 240 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.

[pigpot]

Meditate on this for a while.

(Yesterday 03:44 PM)Andy Wrote:
If man were incapable of self-governing, how is it that man could be capable of governing others?

[Jeffrey]

Classic equivocation.

Man in "self governance" is plural, Canadians can govern themselves collectively through their system of parliament, Americans can govern themselves through their system of congress.

[Hanslune]

Classic equivocation.

Man in "self governance" is plural, Canadians can govern themselves collectively through their system of parliament, Americans can govern themselves through their system of congress.

5% rule: depending on the culture 1-5% of people are criminals and they hurt or annoy others. The problem with self government is that gangs arise of the above sorts which is why collective defense was created thousands of years ago. While some people could 'self-govern', some would try to take advantage.

Pigpot can you point to somewhere where say 30,000,000 people have successfully 'self-governed'?

But isn't this off topic?

[Burnaby49]

Classic equivocation.

Man in "self governance" is plural, Canadians can govern themselves collectively through their system of parliament, Americans can govern themselves through their system of congress.

5% rule: depending on the culture 1-5% of people are criminals and they hurt or annoy others. The problem with self government is that gangs arise of the above sorts which is why collective defense was created thousands of years ago. While some people could 'self-govern', some would try to take advantage.

Pigpot can you point to somewhere where say 30,000,000 people have successfully 'self-governed'?

But isn't this off topic?

And you are the guy taking it off-topic. Don't encourage pigpot in off-topic discussions and don't ask him questions. That gives him a legitimate reason to babble. Posters complain about pigpot's off-topic gibberish while acting as straight men for him.

[arayder]

Classic equivocation.

Man in "self governance" is plural, Canadians can govern themselves collectively through their system of parliament, Americans can govern themselves through their system of congress.

5% rule: depending on the culture 1-5% of people are criminals and they hurt or annoy others. The problem with self government is that gangs arise of the above sorts which is why collective defense was created thousands of years ago. While some people could 'self-govern', some would try to take advantage. . .

Freeman philosophy is fraught with contradictions.

Freeman gurus would have us believe that individuals can opt out of, or withhold consent to, the law. Then Menard turns around and creates the C3PO to keep the peace in communities filled with individuals who never consented to the freeman philosophy or the phony authority of the C3PO.

Of course we know the explanation is that Bobby didn't dream up the C3PO to keep the peace. It was conjured up in the crazy belief that being a C3PO would make it easier to talk one's way out of traffic stops and other encounters with the law.

We see that didn't work too well for J. Edgar Menard himself.

[LordEd]

We are self governing here right now. If you want to self govern go do it somewhere else.

[Wake Up! Productions]

"I ended a movement, which started the whole Freeman community fighting."





(Refference: The Bee Gees, "I started a joke, which started the whole world crying.")