Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-12-2013, 07:18 PM   #21
edelweiss pirate
Senior Member
 
edelweiss pirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Africa.
Posts: 18,112
Default

I'm so glad we can put this to bed now.
__________________
The meaning of existence is to preserve unspoiled, undisturbed and undistorted the image of eternity with which each person is born. Like a silver moon in a calm, still pond.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn


Visit the Truthatron

Visit the Truthspoon

From the man they couldn't recruit. Illuminati analysis, and a bit of messing about on the side.
edelweiss pirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2013, 09:29 PM   #22
reverendjim
Senior Member
 
reverendjim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,413
Default

actually, it seems he is quite active in social media...

http://robertmenard.org/response-to-...oster-boy-rob/

Hello and good day! I am Robert Menard, a Freeman-on-the-Land, part-time comedian, and happy go lucky social activist. Some call me a shit disturber. Some leave out the last word.

Recently an article in Lawyers Weekly which can be found here, written by Jeremy Hainsworth and published on March 29th, 2013 made reference to the Freeman-on-the-Land movement, referred to myself as the poster boy and ideological leader of that movement, and extended a challenge to take us on.

Specifically it was stated:
“Now, the Law Society of B.C. wants to take on the would-be lawyers who have represented litigants in those legal challenges.”

Later it states:
“Perhaps the poster boy of Freeman ‘lawyers’ is Robert Menard, the group’s ideological leader in Canada. “

That sounds like a challenge to me, and as the apparent poster boy of Freeman ‘lawyers’ and according to that article the group’s ideological leader in Canada, I hereby accept that challenge. I am deeply appreciative of this opportunity.

In the article, The Legal Profession Act was mentioned, and it stated that

“Examples of conduct that threatens the public include providing harmfully poor legal advice, clogging of the court system with inept or vexatious representation, taking advantage of vulnerable groups in society, and attempting to gain a false advantage over other litigants by posing as lawyers,” the memo said.

“Section 85 of B.C.’s Legal Profession Act makes it an offence to practise law when not a lawyer. The practice of law is defined as providing a variety of legal services “for a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect.”

“The memo said the committee would enforce the prohibitions in the act against those whose actions threaten the administration of justice. That includes disbarred or suspended lawyers, vexatious litigants, those who falsely hold themselves out as lawyers, Freeman-on-the-Land, and other such movements.”

Wait a minute…other such movements? What exactly is this movement if not a bunch of average Canadians standing up for their rights and claiming to not be wards of the Law Society?

Furthermore, since Section 85 of the Legal Profession Act was mentioned, we must first look at the applicability of that Act. The assumption that the Act is generally applicable, and not restrictively applicable to members of the Legal Profession, is where the entire Law Society fails. It is after all called ‘The Legal Profession Act.’ To believe that it is strictly applicable to them alone is not that difficult is it? If it was called ‘Professional Hockey Players Act’ it would make sense to believe that it was only applicable to professional hockey players, and not high school varsity teams, right?

What they call clogging the court system we see as refusing to be fed to it. If their intent is truly to protect the public, then this question becomes paramount. If they claim that the public needs to be protected presumably from either those who are incapable of properly understanding the law, or those who would purposely deceive, and it is then found they have been misinterpreting the very applicability of this foundational Act the entire time, then they must admit to either incompetence or deception.

APPLICATION
1.1 This Act does not apply to a person who is both a lawyer and a part time judicial justice, as that term is defined in section 1 of the Provincial Court Act, in the person’s capacity as a part time judicial justice under that Act.

The first thing to notice here is that although the section is titled ‘Application’, it does not come out and state in the positive who it does apply to, and attempts to obfuscate and cloud the issue of its application. The belief that the Act is generally applicable is not supported by this statement at all. There is nothing there to suggest nor support the argument that this Act is generally applicable to the public.

If we take that statement, and by moving the word ‘not’ in such a manner that the positive is expressed without the core meaning being lost, we will see why the phrasing was chosen by the lawyers who drafted that Act. We will see what they were trying to hide.
1.1 This Act does apply to a person who is both a lawyer and not a part time judicial justice, as that term is defined in section 1 of the Provincial Court Act, in the person’s capacity as a part time judicial justice under that Act.

Well looky there will you? When the word ‘not’ is moved so that the application of the Act is positively and unequivocally expressed, we see very plainly it is applicable only against lawyers, unless they are operating as a JJP, and fulfilling the duties of a JJP. We see it is not generally applicable at all.

Of course now we need to test it, right?
We do know it must always be applicable to lawyers, the question remains if it is applicable to members of the public who are not lawyers. If it is applicable to members of the public who are not lawyers, then that group would include those members who are acting as judicial justices of the peace and thus it would be applicable to them. Here is where the problem with that comes in: If it is applicable to those judicial justices drawn from the public yet not those drawn from the pool of lawyers, then there is no longer a claim of independence and impartiality as these justices are being treated differently. However as it was never applicable to the public to begin with, and only applicable to lawyers, then there is no need to mention the judicial justices drawn from the public, as they, being outside the application of the Act to begin with, did not need to be expressly excluded. It is the only interpretation which maintains equality between the judicial justices while still being applicable to members of the Legal Profession.

The interpretation of that Act as generally applicable creates an imbalance within the judiciary which renders their claim of independence and impartiality meaningless.

So I accept this challenge, and feel that in order for it to be settled properly it must be done publicly. I propose a debate in public at the University of British Columbia. Myself, one simple and uneducated Freeman-on-the-Land, versus whoever they wish to send. Send the entire committee. We will debate the applicability of that Act, and let the audience decide what it means when properly expressed in the positive. Let them hear the arguments, and decide for themselves if that Act is generally applicable.

I will bring a witness or two, one an expert in language who can attest that the proper positive expression of that section results in an Act that is not generally applicable, and the other a judicial justice not drawn from the law society who will argue most strenuously that they are not bound by that Act, and enjoy all the same powers as other judicial justices drawn from the Law Society. I will then argue that the ramifications of the Law Society misinterpreting and misrepresenting the applicability of the Act is strong evidence of deception and fraud. I will argue they have used this situation to secure court orders and have harmed the very administration of justice by attempting to monopolize the courts.

They want to call me a poster boy, identify me as the the ideological leader, and by virtue of the transitive property state the desire to ‘take on’, presumably me. Let them bring it on, and accept my offer to meet and debate publicly, before running to court and further abusing the court system, which they claim to hold under a monopoly. The rule of law states we should employ discussion and negotiation prior to seeking adjudication. I am offering a chance to publicly debate this one simple point. Everything in that article, all the proposed steps, is based upon the assumption that the Legal Profession Act is generally applicable to the public. I claim it is not. If I am right, the entire legal profession gets a big spank on their fat arses. If I am wrong, they get to deal with the Freeman-on-the-Land issue by spanking me publicly, the so called poster boy. Wise money is on this poster boy.

So step up members of the Law Society of British Columbia. Lee Ongman, the Chair of the Unauthorized Practice Committee, Tony Wilson, Lynal Doerksen, and Miriam Kresivo, and all other Benchers and Members. You extended a clear challenge. I am accepting.

They can’t even properly interpret that one section of the Legal Profession Act, what makes them think they should hold a monopoly over who may or may not interpret Acts, in order to protect the public from those who can’t?
Sincerely,

Robert Menard
Poster Boy

I must say, I'd like to see this happen. I am willing to bet the law society of bc would never show up for a public debate concerning these things.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2013, 12:24 AM   #23
edelweiss pirate
Senior Member
 
edelweiss pirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Africa.
Posts: 18,112
Default

He was another one who didn't like discussing freemasons by the way.

Total plant.
__________________
The meaning of existence is to preserve unspoiled, undisturbed and undistorted the image of eternity with which each person is born. Like a silver moon in a calm, still pond.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn


Visit the Truthatron

Visit the Truthspoon

From the man they couldn't recruit. Illuminati analysis, and a bit of messing about on the side.

Last edited by edelweiss pirate; 24-12-2013 at 12:26 AM.
edelweiss pirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2013, 12:53 AM   #24
mamnoon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
menard is, as like as not, in jail.
the man is a con artist.
I believe it's John Menard that is the con artist.
mamnoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2013, 10:29 AM   #25
reverendjim
Senior Member
 
reverendjim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edelweiss pirate View Post
He was another one who didn't like discussing freemasons by the way.

Total plant.
he reminds me of certain fbi agents sitting on the sidelines of certain militia groups....but maybe csis does it better. on the other hand, maybe he is exactly what he says he is....or what others say he is...who knows.

but you can bet law societies want no part of a debate about their place in society that involves any "out side the box" thought. but I also have to think of his heavily edited cbc appearance...and one very damaging remark he made that he had to know wouldn't die on cbc's editing floor.

Last edited by reverendjim; 24-12-2013 at 10:32 AM.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2013, 11:33 AM   #26
reverendjim
Senior Member
 
reverendjim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamnoon View Post
I believe it's John Menard that is the con artist.
is there a billionaire who isn't?
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2013, 05:24 PM   #27
msbpunk
Senior Member
 
msbpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 1,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
actually, it seems he is quite active in social media...

[

I must say, I'd like to see this happen. I am willing to bet the law society of bc would never show up for a public debate concerning these things.
Maybe they don't respond to this for the same reason Richard Dawkins et al refuse to debate creation "scientists" - it only gives credence to their bs, and will end up heavily edited and quote mined on the web. And it looks better on their CV than it than it does on his!
__________________
[671] William S. Burroughs in Naked Lunch (New York: Grove Press, 1962, p. 11) wrote:
“Hustlers of the world, there is one Mark you cannot beat: The Mark Inside.” I believe that is
true for you. At some basic level, you understand that you are selling lies, or at the very most
generous, wildly dubious concepts.
[
msbpunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2013, 06:54 PM   #28
reverendjim
Senior Member
 
reverendjim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msbpunk View Post
Maybe they don't respond to this for the same reason Richard Dawkins et al refuse to debate creation "scientists" - it only gives credence to their bs, and will end up heavily edited and quote mined on the web. And it looks better on their CV than it than it does on his!
since when has debate ever discredited the credible? just what is wrong with the idea of all ideas being laid out in the open for all to see. surely this could only benefit them. the law society owes it to themselves and the to good people of the nation to back up all they claim and so does menard....they have nothing to lose. I assumed you of all people would agree with that.

Last edited by reverendjim; 24-12-2013 at 06:59 PM.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2013, 07:19 PM   #29
dontpushme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
I assumed you of all people would agree with that.
assumptions, the mother of all fuck ups
__________________
only an eye with a speck of dust in it, an abscessed finger, an infected tooth feel themselves, are aware of their individuality; a healthy eye, finger, tooth are not felt - they seem nonexistent. Is it not clear that individual consciousness is merely a sickness?

'if everybody was involved in truth and justice there would be no need for secret agents

“Ants are good citizens, they place group interests first
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 07:47 AM   #30
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,179
Default

Has marnard actually had his day in court?....says it all, gets others to take the risk....if he was so sure of his method and was telling the truth he would have brought the system to its knees a long time ago....or at least made a stand trying..compare him say to snowden...the truth is free.
__________________
To be clear I don't care if you believe fmotl theory. I don't particularly care if you manage to convince anyone of it either. What I do care about is when people are confronted by such nonsense [fmotl theory] they should at least have access to the alternative, in order to make an informed decision.

Last edited by jon galt; 26-12-2013 at 07:47 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 04:39 PM   #31
dontpushme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
if he was so sure of his method and was telling the truth he would have brought the system to its knees a long time ago....or at least made a stand trying..compare him say to snowden...the truth is free.
i doubt that is true, 1) a selection of the population has a vested interest in keeping society going at the cost of their natural rights for example, government workers, businesses, unemployed, single mothers, etc and 2) having the world descend into chaos is bad for individual freedom lovers, most people need to be governed as they lack the ability to differentiate between right and wrong
__________________
only an eye with a speck of dust in it, an abscessed finger, an infected tooth feel themselves, are aware of their individuality; a healthy eye, finger, tooth are not felt - they seem nonexistent. Is it not clear that individual consciousness is merely a sickness?

'if everybody was involved in truth and justice there would be no need for secret agents

“Ants are good citizens, they place group interests first
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 04:58 PM   #32
felixk
Senior Member
 
felixk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
a selection of the population has a vested interest in keeping society going at the cost of their natural rights
There is no such thing as "natural rights". Of course you are welcome to attempt to prove they do exist.
felixk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 05:11 PM   #33
dontpushme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by felixk View Post
There is no such thing as "natural rights". Of course you are welcome to attempt to prove they do exist.
obviously there are or else you wouldn't know what i was talking about LOL
__________________
only an eye with a speck of dust in it, an abscessed finger, an infected tooth feel themselves, are aware of their individuality; a healthy eye, finger, tooth are not felt - they seem nonexistent. Is it not clear that individual consciousness is merely a sickness?

'if everybody was involved in truth and justice there would be no need for secret agents

“Ants are good citizens, they place group interests first
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 05:50 PM   #34
felixk
Senior Member
 
felixk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
obviously there are or else you wouldn't know what i was talking about LOL
Incorrect. I know what a unicorn is supposed to be but that is not proof that unicorns exist. Same for fairies and elves.
You have failed to provide proof that natural rights exist.
felixk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 06:03 PM   #35
dontpushme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by felixk View Post
Incorrect. I know what a unicorn is supposed to be but that is not proof that unicorns exist. Same for fairies and elves.
You have failed to provide proof that natural rights exist.
what, would constitute proof for you mr felixk?
__________________
only an eye with a speck of dust in it, an abscessed finger, an infected tooth feel themselves, are aware of their individuality; a healthy eye, finger, tooth are not felt - they seem nonexistent. Is it not clear that individual consciousness is merely a sickness?

'if everybody was involved in truth and justice there would be no need for secret agents

“Ants are good citizens, they place group interests first
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 06:08 PM   #36
felixk
Senior Member
 
felixk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
what, would constitute proof for you mr felixk?
Evidence that proves without doubt that natural rights exist.
How you do that is up to you. It is your claim that they do exist. Show me what you have.
felixk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 06:16 PM   #37
dontpushme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by felixk View Post
Evidence that proves without doubt that natural rights exist.
How you do that is up to you. It is your claim that they do exist. Show me what you have.
i feel as your challenging my claim, you should set the standard as to what constitutes valid evidence, else i could go away find some references and you could move the goal posts so to speak
__________________
only an eye with a speck of dust in it, an abscessed finger, an infected tooth feel themselves, are aware of their individuality; a healthy eye, finger, tooth are not felt - they seem nonexistent. Is it not clear that individual consciousness is merely a sickness?

'if everybody was involved in truth and justice there would be no need for secret agents

“Ants are good citizens, they place group interests first
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 06:28 PM   #38
felixk
Senior Member
 
felixk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
i feel as your challenging my claim, you should set the standard as to what constitutes valid evidence, else i could go away find some references and you could move the goal posts so to speak
Yes, this is a ploy I see often utilised by those that have no evidence to back up their claims. Rather than attempting to prove their claims they demand their opponent defines what would constitute proof. This is classic diversionary tactics. To me it proves that you have no case. If you believe you could provide proof of the existence of natural rights you would present your evidence irrespective of what I believe constitutes proof.
I know you will not attempt to prove the existence of natural rights.
Case closed.

Last edited by felixk; 26-12-2013 at 06:30 PM.
felixk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 06:48 PM   #39
dontpushme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by felixk View Post
Yes, this is a ploy I see often utilised by those that have no evidence to back up their claims. Rather than attempting to prove their claims they demand their opponent defines what would constitute proof. This is classic diversionary tactics. To me it proves that you have no case. If you believe you could provide proof of the existence of natural rights you would present your evidence irrespective of what I believe constitutes proof.
I know you will not attempt to prove the existence of natural rights.
Case closed.
are you walking away from my invitation to you to provide some guidelines on what you would consider to be incontrovertible evidence of the existence of natural rights?
__________________
only an eye with a speck of dust in it, an abscessed finger, an infected tooth feel themselves, are aware of their individuality; a healthy eye, finger, tooth are not felt - they seem nonexistent. Is it not clear that individual consciousness is merely a sickness?

'if everybody was involved in truth and justice there would be no need for secret agents

“Ants are good citizens, they place group interests first
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2013, 06:55 PM   #40
felixk
Senior Member
 
felixk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
are you walking away from my invitation to you to provide some guidelines on what you would consider to be incontrovertible evidence of the existence of natural rights?
Well, try this.
We are told that we all have a right to life. But we all die. If we really did all have a right to life none of us would die. I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever that us dying does not contravene our (alleged) right to life.
I guarantee you will fail.

Present your case and I will pick it apart.

Last edited by felixk; 26-12-2013 at 06:58 PM.
felixk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 AM.