FREE TAPATALK APP

D'rok · 2nd September 2011, 08:34 AM

Here's an even better example, chosen at random:

“micro-organism” means a microscopic organism that is
(a) classified in the Bacteria, the Archaea, the Protista, which includes protozoa and algae, or the Fungi, which includes yeasts;
(b) a virus, virus-like particle or sub-viral particle;
(c) a cultured cell of an organism not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), other than a cell used to propagate the organism; or
(d) any culture other than a pure culture. (micro-organisme)

What do you think "includes" means here?

cocana · 2nd September 2011, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Looks to me (and the lawyers and judges I spoke with), that the word 'includes' limits the definition of peace officer to only those things specifically mentioned, and excludes anything not specifically mentioned.

But you need to laugh as a way of avoiding the truth, right?

O crikey that one is hysterical! Lawyers and judges told you that, yes?! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Which lawyers and judges?

If it was a restictive definition there would be no need for the word "includes" unless perhaps the statute said something to the effect of "includes and is limited to only...."

Priceless. Nice one, you've given me a good laugh with that crackpot explanation!

ComfySlippers · 2nd September 2011, 08:51 AM

Quote:

So they provide a service and when you secure that service it is through a transaction.

Your getting obsessed over the meanings of words again.

You yourself have participated in a transaction by communicating, in your own silly way, with other posters on this and every other forum where you have repeated your nonsense.

Quote:

Transaction:

1. The act of transacting or the fact of being transacted.
2. Something transacted, especially a business agreement or exchange.
3. Communication involving two or more people that affects all those involved; personal interaction: "a rich sense of the transaction between writer and reader" (William Zinsser).
4. transactions A record of business conducted at a meeting; proceedings.T

Linkage

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

No it simply blew your consent theory out of the water.
Firstly you had to consent to the copyright act and secondly me ignoring the copyright act and doing exactly as i pleased didn't help me one bit.
It proved you consent to the acts and my non consent was totally ignored.

Yup, you came out of that looking great.

I am not surprised you would see it ass backwards.

You had consented to it, when you entered the agreement. And it was used by me, even though not applicable to me, against you, because you had consented to it, and then breached agreement you had entered into.

Simple law.

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

Your getting obsessed over the meanings of words again.

You yourself have participated in a transaction by communicating, in your own silly way, with other posters on this and every other forum where you have repeated your nonsense.

Linkage

Obsessed with the meanings of words?

Let's use words then without any meanings. Or use them without knowing what they mean. Choose ignorance and be happy, right Comfy?

Discussions are not transactions. But ignorant people who do not know what a transaction is, may label them as one.

tsig · 2nd September 2011, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Wow, a lot of legal sounding terms there Rob, it would appear that it was all done legally then via statutory legislation passed by a responsible government.

Thanks for that.

This is like shooting fish in a kitchen sink.

More like dynamiting fish in a barrel.

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

So much for C3PO then, eh?

Actually, you're not far wrong on this one, so I'll retract my laughing dog. It's true that you can't claim to be a peace officer if you aren't on that list. But that list is an open one and does not foreclose on the possibility of other persons being added to the list. If it was a truly exclusive list it would say "peace officer" means.

In other statutory contexts, "includes" or similar words are really wide open and is used to illustrate examples of a category rather than limits of a category.

ETA: Here's a really important example. I hope you will agree with me on this:

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Do you agree the word 'includes' is simply not the word 'including'? Do you see two separate words or are the exactly identical?

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

So much for C3PO then, eh?

Actually, you're not far wrong on this one, so I'll retract my laughing dog. It's true that you can't claim to be a peace officer if you aren't on that list. But that list is an open one and does not foreclose on the possibility of other persons being added to the list. If it was a truly exclusive list it would say "peace officer" means.

In other statutory contexts, "includes" or similar words are really wide open and is used to illustrate examples of a category rather than limits of a category.

ETA: Here's a really important example. I hope you will agree with me on this:

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

C3PO is composed of people hired to preserve and maintain the public peace.
We are on that list.

D'rok · 2nd September 2011, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

I am not surprised you would see it ass backwards.

You had consented to it, when you entered the agreement. And it was used by me, even though not applicable to me, against you, because you had consented to it, and then breached agreement you had entered into.

Simple law.

Well that's a pretty clear and unambiguous admission (again) that you claim the laws of Canada don't apply to you. Or one law at any rate.

So, once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by cocana

O crikey that one is hysterical! Lawyers and judges told you that, yes?! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Which lawyers and judges?

If it was a restictive definition there would be no need for the word "includes" unless perhaps the statute said something to the effect of "includes and is limited to only...."

Priceless. Nice one, you've given me a good laugh with that crackpot explanation!

So tell me O Laughing Expert in the Law, what is not on that list, which will also be deemed to be a peace officer?

D'rok · 2nd September 2011, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Do you agree the word 'includes' is simply not the word 'including'? Do you see two separate words or are the exactly identical?

See my next post for a better example. What does "includes" mean to you there? What does "means" mean to you there?

ETA:

“micro-organism” means a microscopic organism that is
(a) classified in the Bacteria, the Archaea, the Protista, which includes protozoa and algae, or the Fungi, which includes yeasts;
(b) a virus, virus-like particle or sub-viral particle;
(c) a cultured cell of an organism not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), other than a cell used to propagate the organism; or
(d) any culture other than a pure culture. (micro-organisme)

D'rok · 2nd September 2011, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

C3PO is composed of people hired to preserve and maintain the public peace.
We are on that list.

No. You are not.

cocana · 2nd September 2011, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

So tell me O Laughing Expert in the Law, what is not on that list, which will also be deemed to be a peace officer?

My sides are hurting now, stop it!

You said -

Quote:

Looks to me (and the lawyers and judges I spoke with), that the word 'includes' limits the definition of peace officer to only those things specifically mentioned, and excludes anything not specifically mentioned.

YOU claimed that "includes" limits a definition, not me.

Congratulations, you're sitting in the barrel shooting yourself!

Once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

A gentle reminder of my earlier post to help you - http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2082

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

No. You are not.

“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

You sure? Looks to me like we are. We hire each other to preserve and maintain the public peace. And it is all completely lawful.

Pretty wide open definition isn't it?

But thats okay, you are someone who thinks that the term 'consent of the governed' actually says 'consent of the people'.

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by cocana

My sides are hurting now, stop it!

You said -

YOU claimed that "includes" limits a definition, not me.

Congratulations, you're sitting in the barrel shooting yourself!

Once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

A gentle reminder of my earlier post to help you - http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2082

No once again that is YOUR straw man argument.

Can you not read a simple paragraph?

D'rok · 2nd September 2011, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

You sure? Looks to me like we are. We hire each other to preserve and maintain the public peace. And it is all completely lawful.

Pretty wide open definition isn't it?

But thats okay, you are someone who thinks that the term 'consent of the governed' actually says 'consent of the people'.

I thought you weren't a person?

I suggest you prove this claim by attempting to arrest someone. Arresting a police officer would be excellent evidence that you really are a peace officer.

Now, back to reality, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

ComfySlippers · 2nd September 2011, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Obsessed with the meanings of words?

Let's use words then without any meanings. Or use them without knowing what they mean. Choose ignorance and be happy, right Comfy?

OK. I'll rephrase. Stop pretending you have scuppered the evil government's plans by proclaiming that you know the "true" meanings of words. You do not. You simply misinterpret everything you read, take everything out of context and apply silly "Rob-World" definitions to easily understandable words and phrases.

You are the person who makes false claims about "Birth Bonds".... "Revenue Received" etc.

You are the person who, despite claiming to be more intelligent than the majority of people, is incapable of understanding very simple words and concepts.

Quote:

C3PO is composed of people hired to preserve and maintain the public peace.
We are on that list.

No. It's your pretend police force that polices Rob-World.
As Rob-World exists nowhere other than in your head it is irrelevant, (yet still quite amusing).

cocana · 2nd September 2011, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

No once again that is YOUR straw man argument.

Can you not read a simple paragraph?

Yes thanks.

Once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

Captain_Swoop · 2nd September 2011, 09:15 AM

I would like to be there when you actualy try to play at being a Cop.

cocana · 2nd September 2011, 09:17 AM

PS - Rob, you haven't come out with the "why should I have to dance to your tune" line yet.

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by cocana

Yes thanks.

Once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

Once again, you claim that I claim that, and then ask I prove YOUR CLAIM.

Silly silly straw man argument.

tsig · 2nd September 2011, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

And how did that work out for you?
Seems in that case I knew the law better than you, eh?

So you governed jb without his consent? How can that be since you're both equal?

ComfySlippers · 2nd September 2011, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

I would like to be there when you actualy try to play at being a Cop.

Would be highly amusing watching "The Wolverine" pretend to be a Cop.

Not going to happen though. Not in the real world anyway.

D'rok · 2nd September 2011, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Once again, you claim that I claim that, and then ask I prove YOUR CLAIM.

Silly silly straw man argument.

Already done. You claimed to be above the Copyright Act on this very page. Right here:

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

I am not surprised you would see it ass backwards.

You had consented to it, when you entered the agreement. And it was used by me, even though not applicable to me, against you, because you had consented to it, and then breached agreement you had entered into.

Simple law.

So, once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

Also, let's see your statutory interpretation chops here:

Originally Posted by D'rok

See my next post for a better example. What does "includes" mean to you there? What does "means" mean to you there?

ETA:

“micro-organism” means a microscopic organism that is
(a) classified in the Bacteria, the Archaea, the Protista, which includes protozoa and algae, or the Fungi, which includes yeasts;
(b) a virus, virus-like particle or sub-viral particle;
(c) a cultured cell of an organism not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), other than a cell used to propagate the organism; or
(d) any culture other than a pure culture. (micro-organisme)

cocana · 2nd September 2011, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Once again, you claim that I claim that, and then ask I prove YOUR CLAIM.

Silly silly straw man argument.

DING DONG!

Note everybody - ROB DOESN'T CLAIM TO BE FREE OF ALL STATUTORY LAW AFTER ALL.

This now begs a further question: if he doesn't claim this, why is he making money selling 'advice' that suggests this is possible if one becomes a freeman like him?

Has Rob not just admitted that he's been deceiving people?

jargon buster · 2nd September 2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

Great, so now you admit to being a person, now who employs you and your 3CPOs?

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

So you governed jb without his consent? How can that be since you're both equal?

Sheesh round and round and round. Unbelievable how incapable you are at understanding and how incredibly desperate you folks are.
HE CONSENTED by agreeing with Google when he opened the account.

Paul · 2nd September 2011, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Once again, you claim that I claim that

It's not so much a claim as a statement of fact followed by a request for evidence.

That's something I think that someone who answers question and is known to be honest should have no problem with.

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Great, so now you admit to being a person, now who employs you and your 3CPOs?

No I didn't. I do admit that when I am acting in the role of peace officer, I am operating through a person, that exists only then.

These concepts are too difficult for you aren't they?

jargon buster · 2nd September 2011, 09:24 AM

Quote:

HE CONSENTED by agreeing with Google when he opened the account.

And so did you when you set up WFS website and when you set up your youtube channel

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Paul

It's not so much a claim as a statement of fact followed by a request for evidence.

That's something I think that someone who answers question and is known to be honest should have no problem with.

Evidence supporting your statement, which is not a fact?
That's a straw man argument.

Prove your own statement. Do not assign it to me and then demand I prove it for you.

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

And so did you when you set up WFS website and when you set up your youtube channel

Sure did, and I honour those agreements.

What's your point? That you are far less honourable?

WE know THAT already!

jargon buster · 2nd September 2011, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Sure did, and I honour those agreements.

So now you do consent to statute law?

D'rok · 2nd September 2011, 09:30 AM

OK, I accept Mr. Menard's protestations.

Despite claiming for years all over the Internet and all over the country that statutory law doesn't apply to him, he does not actually have the ability to pick and choose which laws he consents to and he is not in fact above the laws of Canada.

I''m glad that's been settled.

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by cocana

DING DONG!

Note everybody - ROB DOESN'T CLAIM TO BE FREE OF ALL STATUTORY LAW AFTER ALL.

This now begs a further question: if he doesn't claim this, why is he making money selling 'advice' that suggests this is possible if one becomes a freeman like him?

Has Rob not just admitted that he's been deceiving people?

Dude there is no way you can be a lawyer with such idiocy and inability to understand basic English.

Wait maybe you are. You sure like to twist the words of others away from their meaning to fit your agenda.

PS- Statutes are not law. They are statutes.

Oh wait.... 'consent of the governed' means 'consent of the people' to you and by the law of transference, governed = people and people = governed.

FreemanMenard · 2nd September 2011, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

OK, I accept Mr. Menard's protestations.

Despite claiming for years all over the Internet and all over the country that statutory law doesn't apply to him, he does not actually have the ability to pick and choose which laws he consents to and he is not in fact above the laws of Canada.

I''m glad that's been settled.

Thank you for agreeing that I am not automatically subject to your statutes, and that I, just like the people in the government, am bound by the law, statutes are not law, and and since we are equal, no one can LAWFULLY govern me without my consent, because statutes are not 'law'.

I'm glad that's settled.

ComfySlippers · 2nd September 2011, 09:34 AM

Quote:

No I didn't. I do admit that when I am acting in the role of peace officer, I am operating through a person, that exists only then.

These concepts are too difficult for you aren't they?

It's not so much that they are difficult, more that they are insanely stupid and hopelessly wrong.
Do you never wonder why your followers all belong to the stupid-club?

First rule of stupid-club: Fall for Menard's Scam
Second rule of stupid-club: Go to Jail. Do not cash in your Birth-Bond. Do not Consent.
Third rule of stupid-club: Get thrown in a loony bin.

jargon buster · 2nd September 2011, 09:34 AM

a wise man once wrote

Quote:

There is no sense arguing about law with Rob Menard. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand what law is. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand that if there is no government, there is no law. Without that premise, discussing the law becomes a word-twisting, question-asking, money-charging nonsense.

Hes right, there really is no point

Paul · 2nd September 2011, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Evidence supporting your statement, which is not a fact?

Sorry, that does not appear to be in the official language of the forum and is thus void, and nonsense.

Quote:

Prove your own statement. Do not assign it to me and then demand I prove it for you.

If you're having trouble, I can explain it again.

It is a fact that you constantly claim, through statements made here, that you are above the laws of Canada.

It seems quite reasonable to ask a person claiming such a thing to offer some evidence in support, especially a person who claims he answers questions and is known among his friends for his honesty.

jargon buster · 2nd September 2011, 09:35 AM

are you going to stundie him Drok or am I?

2nd September 2011, 08:34 AM	#2081
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,250	Here's an even better example, chosen at random: “micro-organism” means a microscopic organism that is (a) classified in the Bacteria, the Archaea, the Protista, which includes protozoa and algae, or the Fungi, which includes yeasts; (b) a virus, virus-like particle or sub-viral particle; (c) a cultured cell of an organism not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), other than a cell used to propagate the organism; or (d) any culture other than a pure culture. (micro-organisme) What do you think "includes" means here?
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

2nd September 2011, 08:51 AM	#2083
ComfySlippers Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Posts: 1,122	Quote: So they provide a service and when you secure that service it is through a transaction. Your getting obsessed over the meanings of words again. You yourself have participated in a transaction by communicating, in your own silly way, with other posters on this and every other forum where you have repeated your nonsense. Quote: Transaction: 1. The act of transacting or the fact of being transacted. 2. Something transacted, especially a business agreement or exchange. 3. Communication involving two or more people that affects all those involved; personal interaction: "a rich sense of the transaction between writer and reader" (William Zinsser). 4. transactions A record of business conducted at a meeting; proceedings.T Linkage
	__________________ ___ Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Comfy: of the family Slippers Footwear-on-the-Loungefloor ___

2nd September 2011, 08:59 AM	#2084
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by jargon buster No it simply blew your consent theory out of the water. Firstly you had to consent to the copyright act and secondly me ignoring the copyright act and doing exactly as i pleased didn't help me one bit. It proved you consent to the acts and my non consent was totally ignored. Yup, you came out of that looking great. I am not surprised you would see it ass backwards. You had consented to it, when you entered the agreement. And it was used by me, even though not applicable to me, against you, because you had consented to it, and then breached agreement you had entered into. Simple law.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 09:00 AM	#2085
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by ComfySlippers Your getting obsessed over the meanings of words again. You yourself have participated in a transaction by communicating, in your own silly way, with other posters on this and every other forum where you have repeated your nonsense. Linkage Obsessed with the meanings of words? Let's use words then without any meanings. Or use them without knowing what they mean. Choose ignorance and be happy, right Comfy? Discussions are not transactions. But ignorant people who do not know what a transaction is, may label them as one.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Last edited by FreemanMenard; 2nd September 2011 at 09:06 AM.

2nd September 2011, 09:01 AM	#2087
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by D'rok So much for C3PO then, eh? Actually, you're not far wrong on this one, so I'll retract my laughing dog. It's true that you can't claim to be a peace officer if you aren't on that list. But that list is an open one and does not foreclose on the possibility of other persons being added to the list. If it was a truly exclusive list it would say "peace officer" means. In other statutory contexts, "includes" or similar words are really wide open and is used to illustrate examples of a category rather than limits of a category. ETA: Here's a really important example. I hope you will agree with me on this: Fundamental Freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. Do you agree the word 'includes' is simply not the word 'including'? Do you see two separate words or are the exactly identical?
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 08:41 AM	#2082
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 446	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard Looks to me (and the lawyers and judges I spoke with), that the word 'includes' limits the definition of peace officer to only those things specifically mentioned, and excludes anything not specifically mentioned. But you need to laugh as a way of avoiding the truth, right? O crikey that one is hysterical! Lawyers and judges told you that, yes?! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Which lawyers and judges? If it was a restictive definition there would be no need for the word "includes" unless perhaps the statute said something to the effect of "includes and is limited to only...." Priceless. Nice one, you've given me a good laugh with that crackpot explanation!

2nd September 2011, 09:00 AM	#2086
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,257	Originally Posted by jargon buster Wow, a lot of legal sounding terms there Rob, it would appear that it was all done legally then via statutory legislation passed by a responsible government. Thanks for that. This is like shooting fish in a kitchen sink. More like dynamiting fish in a barrel.

2nd September 2011, 09:03 AM	#2088
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by D'rok So much for C3PO then, eh? Actually, you're not far wrong on this one, so I'll retract my laughing dog. It's true that you can't claim to be a peace officer if you aren't on that list. But that list is an open one and does not foreclose on the possibility of other persons being added to the list. If it was a truly exclusive list it would say "peace officer" means. In other statutory contexts, "includes" or similar words are really wide open and is used to illustrate examples of a category rather than limits of a category. ETA: Here's a really important example. I hope you will agree with me on this: Fundamental Freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. C3PO is composed of people hired to preserve and maintain the public peace. We are on that list.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 09:03 AM	#2089
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,250	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard I am not surprised you would see it ass backwards. You had consented to it, when you entered the agreement. And it was used by me, even though not applicable to me, against you, because you had consented to it, and then breached agreement you had entered into. Simple law. Well that's a pretty clear and unambiguous admission (again) that you claim the laws of Canada don't apply to you. Or one law at any rate. So, once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

2nd September 2011, 09:04 AM	#2090
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by cocana O crikey that one is hysterical! Lawyers and judges told you that, yes?! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Which lawyers and judges? If it was a restictive definition there would be no need for the word "includes" unless perhaps the statute said something to the effect of "includes and is limited to only...." Priceless. Nice one, you've given me a good laugh with that crackpot explanation! So tell me O Laughing Expert in the Law, what is not on that list, which will also be deemed to be a peace officer?
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 09:05 AM	#2091
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,250	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard Do you agree the word 'includes' is simply not the word 'including'? Do you see two separate words or are the exactly identical? See my next post for a better example. What does "includes" mean to you there? What does "means" mean to you there? ETA: “micro-organism” means a microscopic organism that is (a) classified in the Bacteria, the Archaea, the Protista, which includes protozoa and algae, or the Fungi, which includes yeasts; (b) a virus, virus-like particle or sub-viral particle; (c) a cultured cell of an organism not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), other than a cell used to propagate the organism; or (d) any culture other than a pure culture. (micro-organisme)
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC Last edited by D'rok; 2nd September 2011 at 09:08 AM.

2nd September 2011, 09:07 AM	#2092
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,250	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard C3PO is composed of people hired to preserve and maintain the public peace. We are on that list. No. You are not.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

2nd September 2011, 09:08 AM	#2093
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 446	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard So tell me O Laughing Expert in the Law, what is not on that list, which will also be deemed to be a peace officer? My sides are hurting now, stop it! You said - Quote: Looks to me (and the lawyers and judges I spoke with), that the word 'includes' limits the definition of peace officer to only those things specifically mentioned, and excludes anything not specifically mentioned. YOU claimed that "includes" limits a definition, not me. Congratulations, you're sitting in the barrel shooting yourself! Once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it. A gentle reminder of my earlier post to help you - http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2082
	Last edited by cocana; 2nd September 2011 at 09:10 AM.

2nd September 2011, 09:11 AM	#2094
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by D'rok No. You are not. “peace officer” includes (a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace, (b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, (c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process, You sure? Looks to me like we are. We hire each other to preserve and maintain the public peace. And it is all completely lawful. Pretty wide open definition isn't it? But thats okay, you are someone who thinks that the term 'consent of the governed' actually says 'consent of the people'.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 09:12 AM	#2095
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by cocana My sides are hurting now, stop it! You said - YOU claimed that "includes" limits a definition, not me. Congratulations, you're sitting in the barrel shooting yourself! Once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it. A gentle reminder of my earlier post to help you - http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2082 No once again that is YOUR straw man argument. Can you not read a simple paragraph?
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 09:13 AM	#2096
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,250	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard “peace officer” includes (a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace, (b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, (c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process, You sure? Looks to me like we are. We hire each other to preserve and maintain the public peace. And it is all completely lawful. Pretty wide open definition isn't it? But thats okay, you are someone who thinks that the term 'consent of the governed' actually says 'consent of the people'. I thought you weren't a person? I suggest you prove this claim by attempting to arrest someone. Arresting a police officer would be excellent evidence that you really are a peace officer. Now, back to reality, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

2nd September 2011, 09:14 AM	#2097
ComfySlippers Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Posts: 1,122	Quote: Obsessed with the meanings of words? Let's use words then without any meanings. Or use them without knowing what they mean. Choose ignorance and be happy, right Comfy? OK. I'll rephrase. Stop pretending you have scuppered the evil government's plans by proclaiming that you know the "true" meanings of words. You do not. You simply misinterpret everything you read, take everything out of context and apply silly "Rob-World" definitions to easily understandable words and phrases. You are the person who makes false claims about "Birth Bonds".... "Revenue Received" etc. You are the person who, despite claiming to be more intelligent than the majority of people, is incapable of understanding very simple words and concepts. Quote: C3PO is composed of people hired to preserve and maintain the public peace. We are on that list. No. It's your pretend police force that polices Rob-World. As Rob-World exists nowhere other than in your head it is irrelevant, (yet still quite amusing).
	__________________ ___ Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Comfy: of the family Slippers Footwear-on-the-Loungefloor ___

2nd September 2011, 09:14 AM	#2098
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 446	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard No once again that is YOUR straw man argument. Can you not read a simple paragraph? Yes thanks. Once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

2nd September 2011, 09:15 AM	#2099
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,980	I would like to be there when you actualy try to play at being a Cop.

2nd September 2011, 09:17 AM	#2100
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 446	PS - Rob, you haven't come out with the "why should I have to dance to your tune" line yet.

2nd September 2011, 09:17 AM	#2101
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by cocana Yes thanks. Once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it. Once again, you claim that I claim that, and then ask I prove YOUR CLAIM. Silly silly straw man argument.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 09:19 AM	#2102
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,257	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard And how did that work out for you? Seems in that case I knew the law better than you, eh? So you governed jb without his consent? How can that be since you're both equal?

2nd September 2011, 09:20 AM	#2103
ComfySlippers Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Posts: 1,122	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop I would like to be there when you actualy try to play at being a Cop. Would be highly amusing watching "The Wolverine" pretend to be a Cop. Not going to happen though. Not in the real world anyway.
	__________________ ___ Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Comfy: of the family Slippers Footwear-on-the-Loungefloor ___

2nd September 2011, 09:21 AM	#2104
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,250	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard Once again, you claim that I claim that, and then ask I prove YOUR CLAIM. Silly silly straw man argument. Already done. You claimed to be above the Copyright Act on this very page. Right here: Originally Posted by FreemanMenard I am not surprised you would see it ass backwards. You had consented to it, when you entered the agreement. And it was used by me, even though not applicable to me, against you, because you had consented to it, and then breached agreement you had entered into. Simple law. So, once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it. Also, let's see your statutory interpretation chops here: Originally Posted by D'rok See my next post for a better example. What does "includes" mean to you there? What does "means" mean to you there? ETA: “micro-organism” means a microscopic organism that is (a) classified in the Bacteria, the Archaea, the Protista, which includes protozoa and algae, or the Fungi, which includes yeasts; (b) a virus, virus-like particle or sub-viral particle; (c) a cultured cell of an organism not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), other than a cell used to propagate the organism; or (d) any culture other than a pure culture. (micro-organisme)
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

2nd September 2011, 09:21 AM	#2105
cocana Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: 10 Acre Field Posts: 446	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard Once again, you claim that I claim that, and then ask I prove YOUR CLAIM. Silly silly straw man argument. DING DONG! Note everybody - ROB DOESN'T CLAIM TO BE FREE OF ALL STATUTORY LAW AFTER ALL. This now begs a further question: if he doesn't claim this, why is he making money selling 'advice' that suggests this is possible if one becomes a freeman like him? Has Rob not just admitted that he's been deceiving people?
	Last edited by cocana; 2nd September 2011 at 09:23 AM.

2nd September 2011, 09:22 AM	#2106
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,261	Quote: (c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process, Great, so now you admit to being a person, now who employs you and your 3CPOs?
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

2nd September 2011, 09:23 AM	#2107
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by tsig So you governed jb without his consent? How can that be since you're both equal? Sheesh round and round and round. Unbelievable how incapable you are at understanding and how incredibly desperate you folks are. HE CONSENTED by agreeing with Google when he opened the account.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 09:23 AM	#2108
Paul Master Poster Join Date: May 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,977	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard Once again, you claim that I claim that It's not so much a claim as a statement of fact followed by a request for evidence. That's something I think that someone who answers question and is known to be honest should have no problem with.
	__________________ operationclambake badastronomy thebugle

2nd September 2011, 09:24 AM	#2109
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by jargon buster Great, so now you admit to being a person, now who employs you and your 3CPOs? No I didn't. I do admit that when I am acting in the role of peace officer, I am operating through a person, that exists only then. These concepts are too difficult for you aren't they?
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 09:24 AM	#2110
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,261	Quote: HE CONSENTED by agreeing with Google when he opened the account. And so did you when you set up WFS website and when you set up your youtube channel
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

2nd September 2011, 09:26 AM	#2111
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by Paul It's not so much a claim as a statement of fact followed by a request for evidence. That's something I think that someone who answers question and is known to be honest should have no problem with. Evidence supporting your statement, which is not a fact? That's a straw man argument. Prove your own statement. Do not assign it to me and then demand I prove it for you.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 09:27 AM	#2112
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by jargon buster And so did you when you set up WFS website and when you set up your youtube channel Sure did, and I honour those agreements. What's your point? That you are far less honourable? WE know THAT already!
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

2nd September 2011, 09:29 AM	#2113
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,261	Quote: Sure did, and I honour those agreements. So now you do consent to statute law?
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

2nd September 2011, 09:30 AM	#2114
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,250	OK, I accept Mr. Menard's protestations. Despite claiming for years all over the Internet and all over the country that statutory law doesn't apply to him, he does not actually have the ability to pick and choose which laws he consents to and he is not in fact above the laws of Canada. I''m glad that's been settled.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

2nd September 2011, 09:30 AM	#2115
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by cocana DING DONG! Note everybody - ROB DOESN'T CLAIM TO BE FREE OF ALL STATUTORY LAW AFTER ALL. This now begs a further question: if he doesn't claim this, why is he making money selling 'advice' that suggests this is possible if one becomes a freeman like him? Has Rob not just admitted that he's been deceiving people? Dude there is no way you can be a lawyer with such idiocy and inability to understand basic English. Wait maybe you are. You sure like to twist the words of others away from their meaning to fit your agenda. PS- Statutes are not law. They are statutes. Oh wait.... 'consent of the governed' means 'consent of the people' to you and by the law of transference, governed = people and people = governed.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837