Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
Hmmm... Seems they plan on issuing identification cards.sarg wrote:Don't want to paste any copyright material, so here's the link. Looks like he's not happy with the current state of affairs and would like to put the power back in the hands of a few, the first 1,000 to be precise.
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/WFS/ ... _Plan.html
At your peril...[4] Robert-Arthur: Menard applies for leave to intervene in the extradition proceedings either on his own behalf or on behalf of the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society.
[5] Counsel for the Applicant in the extradition proceedings, United States of America, submits that this application should be dismissed on the basis that an extradition judge does not have jurisdiction to appoint an intervenor in extradition proceedings. In the alternative, if this Court were to find that jurisdiction does exist, counsel submits that the Applicant has not satisfied the test for intervenor status.
[6] Counsel for the Persons Sought has indicated on the record that he takes no position in this Application.
Position of the Applicant for Intervenor Status
[7] I mean no disrespect when I say that the position of the applicant for intervenor status is not altogether clear. I can do no better than to quote from a portion of his application:
The concerns of the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society are or will be set out in the Affidavit of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Director of the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society, to be filed in support of the motion or application. Robert-Arthur: Menard argues that there is here a question of public law to which the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society could bring a perspective different from that of the parties and the application for intervener status should be allowed.
Robert-Arthur: Menard claims that The Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society is concerned with the way in which these proceedings were instigated and are being conducted and has worries that the requirement of clear and informed consent is not being properly procured. He is very concerned that the compassionate judicial system of this land, one which this Nation has struggled to create and maintain, is under assault by a power which is blind to the societal worth of compassion, and is in fact in the corporate business of securing workers for their prison factories. He is further concerned with the fact that the provincial and federal governments of this land are not fulfilling their duty of defending their citizens and do in fact seem to be in collusion with a threatening foreign party. A further concern is the fact that the people of Canada and of British Columbia are not being represented by any party before the court, and thus the court may completely lack authority in this matter. He will further present an argument advancing the belief that the actions of the accused are not unlawful as required by the applicable Treaty but merely illegal and thus not covered by the Treaty.
…
Robert Arthur- Menard claims that he has a direct interest in this case, since it is apparent at least to him that the governments of this land have abandoned their posts as no one in the court is representing or acting on behalf of the Canadian people. This is not normally the case, as the prosecutor normally acts upon their behalf. In this case, the prosecutor is on record stating she was “speaking on behalf of the DEA”. It is thus clear she is not and cannot be considered to be representing Canada or its people. Mr. John Conroy is on record as speaking on behalf of his clients and they certainly do not form the whole of nor represent the Canadian population. It is a deep and fundamental assault on the Canadian psyche to know concerns which have been voiced across this land in every major newspaper will not be shared in any manner in a proceeding which may set a precedent which the majority clearly fears.
…
The Treaty allows for the Extradition of those activities which are ‘against the law’ in the host Country. However, the actions of the accused were not ‘against the law’ at all, they contravened a statute and to label a statute as a law without examining the need of consent is disingenuous. Laws do not require consent in order for the contravention of them to be unlawful. Rape, murder and the like do not require any ones consent in order to be against the law. Actions of the type the accused are charged with do require at the very least a foundation of consent in order for the actions to be ‘illegal’.
…
It is the APPLICANTS belief that there is a direct interest as what is happening will directly effect how the government operates in respect of acting as a representative for the people of this country when in court. All Canadians have a direct interest in the outcome of this case as it will determine the level of future co-operation between the RCMP and the United States government. Even if it could be argued that there is no direct interest, there is public law issue to which the APPLICANT can bring a different focus or perspective.
The American Prison System and SLAVERY:
Robert-Arthur: Menard will argue that the American prison system has in fact turned into a system amounting to slavery, where prisoners are economically forced to provide labour for corporate entities. Stock in private prisons can even be purchased on the open market and the Prison Industrial System now operating is one very hungry Beast with a growing appetite. It a clear they will always need MORE employees/prisoners/slaves. Furthermore, these corporate enterprises are primarily concerned with profit and not-rehabilitation or re-integration and using punishment as a means of corporate enrichment is cruel and unusual. Speaking of societies, none of the accused are members of the society governed by and under the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury which handed down the Indictment.
…
The right of the people in this Country to be represented in Court actions.
Normally this position is filled by the prosecutor as they normally speak on behalf of “The Crown”. According to the words of the prosecutor, she is speaking for the DEA. No one is speaking for the people in this country who are expressing outrage and serious concern about this apparent intrusion on Canadian sovereignty. The learned Judge is not allowed to speak on behalf of or represent the Canadian people as doing so would itself bring into question their ability to justly adjudicate. No one is representing the Canadian interest nor bringing to this court the Canadian perspective which must be heard.
For those reasons the Motion/Application for Intervener status must be granted.
By My hand and compelled by My Faith and in the interest of justice, this Affidavit is humbly served by Robert-Arthur: Menard, a Freeman-on-the-Land, as a Friend to the Court, in defence of Canada’s Sovereignty, for the purpose of protecting the fundamentals of justice, in the defence of Freedom and in the hopes of finding a peaceful resolution.
Created by My Self without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity.
Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver has been prohibited by the Supreme Court from appearing as counsel, preparing documents for use in proceedings, and identifying himself in any way that suggests he is a lawyer. He was also ordered to pay costs.
Menard.pdf
I take it the Ponoka remark is what you consider clever and witty, right?hoghead wrote:When did Westjet start flying to Ponoka?
Hey FM,
If you do ever get on a flight somewhere just remember when that door closes, the Captain is the final authority to ensure the guests, crew and airplane are safe (especially from disruptive pax).
Can you accept that or would that make the Captain a tyrant?
Rules are rules, try to follow them. It what makes things kind of civil, you should be happy you live in a place where people line up for things.
And when given every opportunity to identify my self as the affected party subject to the order, neither the Law Society who sought the order, nor the people in the court who gave it, are willing to point to me and say that I am the one affected by the order. And wanna know why? He who gives an order is liable for a bill, and that includes the courts. Think I am joking? People who give orders to their fellow man are liable for a bill and when a man was in court and ordered to stand, he asked if that was an order. The bailiff agreed it was and the man then gave him an invoice for $1000. The Bailiff, full of arrogance laughed and showed it to the judge , who did not laugh and asked the Bailiff if he had ordered the man to stand. When the judge found out an order was given, accepted and performed, the bailiff became liable. The man walked out with a cheque from the Bailiff for $1000 and cashed it. This has been verified and recorded.jonny dangerous wrote:And the Philistines persist:
http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/publication ... h=+"Robert Arthur Menard"
Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver has been prohibited by the Supreme Court from appearing as counsel, preparing documents for use in proceedings, and identifying himself in any way that suggests he is a lawyer. He was also ordered to pay costs.
Sure. The founding members felt that if we started and tried to act democratically to start up, that doing so would become a great burden and make us an easy target for infiltrators who might wish to derail us, yet we want to operate as democratically as possible So the 1000 members figure is what we set as a goal and when we meet that, we will have elections to determine who sits in positions of responsibility. I may have expressed it incorrectly and as the Interim Director, I can't wait till we get there so someone else can step up and do what I am trying to do, although if someone wants the role before then, it would be theirs without struggle or conflict. I have asked others to step up, but none seem keen to do so and I find it a struggle as it is not really my forte. Those thousand members do not control the society, it is at that point we relinquish control to them, and from that point they share it with all members regardless of when they joined.sarg wrote:Hey Rob,
Do you care to comment on the bit about the first 1,000 members of your society controlling life in your new paridise?
That’s actually quite all right. I have no issue with that point. I actually believe that it is your right to want or desire to have nothing to do with the ruling party. That’s the joy of living in a democracy – comes with a price mind you, but one does get to choose. Lord knows those very same members of parliament that you so despise have driven me crazy from time to time too, and I remain a frustrated Canadian citizen like many of us here. I just express it differently than you, but that’s OK. We’re allowed to be different in this great country. I certainly don’t hold that against you.Freeman Menard wrote: ...... I told them to just leave me alone but they can't seem to get it in their mind that I no longer wish to associate with them, and as such refuse to submit or abandon, or to apply or beg.....
Freeman Menard wrote: ....... Went to court today and got some documents, spoke with a lawyer and called the RCMP with whom I have an appointment and will be swearing out an information and taking it to court.......
Surely, if you wish to be “left alone” and you feel that government issued ID has no more authority than a notarized piece of paper, then it doesn’t serve your argument well to then turn around and begin using that very same federal body you so vociferously decry.Freeman Menard wrote: .... I will be bringing action against Transport Canada and the Minister of Transport in Federal court …..
Is it just the legal and law enforcement branches of the government that are the only two parts that DO hold legitimacy for you in your opinion? Or do you just selectively associate with the parts that only serve your interests when it best fits you?Freeman Menard wrote: I could go get a police background check done which would include my whole life story and clearly identify me
Health care can not be refused to any one in Canada; with or without a card. Without a card the presentment of a bill will do nicely.Mustard wrote:I bet if you came down with a life threatening disease(God forbid) you would sign up for a Health card awefully quick.
|
|
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
