Love Letter to WestJet Employees

[rigpiggy]

In some ways, I wish more people had this attitude. Think Goose in the barnyard.

However WJ, AC and anybody else in the cdn aviation industry knows which side it is buttered on, and will mollify big brother and his minions before worrying about Mr. Menard, and his cohorts.

you sound like a group of lazy, self-absorbed elitist hippies who are trying to fight I battle you know can never be won.

Should we not be grateful that there are some who do question our erosion of freedom? On the contrary, it's the rest of us Canadians who are the lazy ones, we bitch and moan about every new regulation or tax our govenment imposes yet never put a toe on the street to protest.

Just wish they didn't pick on WJ alone, all commercial airlines in Canada have to follow the same rules.

[Misha]

Freeman Menard
I'm a Westjet pilot, if I tried to board a flight without proper government ID I would not get on. Simple as that, been like that for years. We didn't make these rules; we just have to follow them.

I'll admit I haven’t read all your responses so maybe you've said this already, but why are you suing Westjet for simply following the rules? You've stated many times how friendly and courteous the staff were, but yet seem bent on revenge. And now we have more of your follower’s wishing our company ill by refusing to fly.

Doesn't sound all peace and flowers you seem to preach.

Now if you and your followers want to fight something real, why not tackle Income tax, it's misuse and it's legality?!

Actually we are fighting all sorts of unlawful actions and seeking lawful remedy. Income Tax is one of them. Income is for corporations, not men and women and tax on labour is also not lawful. You may find some interesting threads on our forums about how we're holding (or trying to) our public servants accountable to their oaths and the men and women who they're there to serve.

Thanks for asking the question.

Misha

[sarg]

Hello and good day! I am Robert-Arthur, a Sovereign Freeman-on-the-Land of the Menard Family, presently Interim Director of the World Freeman Society and founder of the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society. I realize you are a busy man yet we have a problem that needs be addressed. I was denied an opportunity to fly on your airline recently due to a memo from Transport Canada stating they knew who I was and I was to be denied my right to fly within Canada if I did not have government issued identification.

Been looking and can't find anywhere the "right to fly within Canada".

Must say your bond offers are a little on the weak side. When corporate fines for violations of the acts and regulations reach $25,000 per occurance a round trip flight would have Westjet out by $25,000. A $5,000 peace bond against the lifes of 100+ passengers and crew and the cost of a $40 million airframe is a joke, if you decide to no longer be peaceful in flight.

[Misha]

Hello and good day! I am Robert-Arthur, a Sovereign Freeman-on-the-Land of the Menard Family, presently Interim Director of the World Freeman Society and founder of the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society. I realize you are a busy man yet we have a problem that needs be addressed. I was denied an opportunity to fly on your airline recently due to a memo from Transport Canada stating they knew who I was and I was to be denied my right to fly within Canada if I did not have government issued identification.

Been looking and can't find anywhere the "right to fly within Canada".

Must say your bond offers are a little on the weak side. When corporate fines for violations of the acts and regulations reach $25,000 per occurance a round trip flight would have Westjet out by $25,000. A $5,000 peace bond against the lifes of 100+ passengers and crew and the cost of a $40 million airframe is a joke, if you decide to no longer be peaceful in flight.

I believe the offer of the peace bond was for identification purposes; Rob is a peaceful man. I think (if I may say so) that with Rob having 2 bonds (documents) in place plus his affidavit swearing who he is (not sure exactly what the document he carries is called) is plenty of paperwork for WJ and other airlines to confirm he is who he claims to be. With or without a peace bond in place, the question of peacefullness is not at issue (IMO).

Mish

[flystraightin]

I think the Durf would read that and say, "if you don't have government-issued ID, you're screwed brotha..."

[Widow]

I just don't see WestJet taking this on for you.

3. (1) An air carrier shall, before issuing a boarding pass to any person who appears to be 18 years of age or older, screen the person by comparing his or her name with the names of persons specified to the air carrier by the Minister under paragraph 4.81(1)(b) of the Act.

5. (1) An air carrier shall, at a boarding gate, screen any person who appears to be 18 years of age or older by asking the person for a restricted area identity card, for one piece of government-issued photo identification that shows his or her name or for two pieces of government-issued identification each of which shows his or her name.

They are required, by law, to screen your identity using government issued ID before issuing a boarding pass.

Your beef is not with WestJet, but with Transport Canada, and in all likelihood, the International Civil Aviation Organization.

[Amateur Turbines]

Thanks again Widow I spent 2 hours looking for those today. Dang websites......

To reiterate Widow, this fight is for Transport Canada not the airlines. We are just law abiding proffesionals trying to do our jobs in a very tightly regulated industry.

[Freeman Menard]

The specified-persons list includes the name, date of birth and gender of individuals who have been identified as people who may pose an immediate threat to aviation security should they board a flight.

The Government of Canada maintains the list, which is provided to airlines in secure form. Under the identity-screening regulations, airlines are required to screen each person’s name against the specified-persons list for any person who appears to be 12 years of age or older before issuing a boarding pass. The regulations take into account the various ways in which the boarding pass may be obtained, such as at an airport check-in counter or kiosk or via the Internet.

The airlines compare the names of individuals intending to board flights with the names on the specified-persons list. When there is a name match, the airline will use the individual’s government-issued identification information to verify whether it matches the name, date of birth and gender of someone on the list. This verification is done in person, at the airport check-in counter.

When there is a potential match, the airline is required to inform Transport Canada. Transport Canada will then verify the information with the airline to confirm whether the individual poses an immediate threat to aviation security. If necessary, Transport Canada will inform the airline that the individual is not permitted to board the flight.

As we can see the ability for Transport Canada to tell the airlines no deny a passenger is based on that passenger being a threat to safety. Not being a threat to safety, not being on the list yet being denied by bureaucrats due only to my political beliefs is an unlawful case of influence and an abuse of the so called passenger protect program. The only time government issued identification can be claimed to be required is when there is a match with the no-fly list. Since there was no match, and they stated they know who I am, then the only reason they are denying me is due to political beliefs. They know enough about me to put me on that list if it was justified. It is not and that is why I am not on the list. Additionally, since I did not apply for government issued identification, they have no power to tell West Jet if I am 'permitted' as I never abandoned my rights nor placed them in a position to be able to grant me permission. Believe it or not, their ability to deny is based upon me applying and since I have not they are angry with me and so they then unlawfully caused me to be denied and acted outside the legislative framework within which said regulations exist.

The airlines duty is to ask, not demand. If it said demand then there would be a corresponding duty to have it but it says 'asks'. PLEASE examine the legal ramifications of the difference in the terms ok? Do not assume they mean the same thing because they do not. And since they do not mean the same thing they simply do not create the same amount of liability. There is a reason it says ask and not demand. Secondly no where does it state that the airline will deny a boarding pass merely for not having government issued identification. Remember the standard to be met is it must state clearly, specifically and unequivocally that with no identification issued by the government, even if there is no match or near match, that people are to be denied merely for not having something issued by the government. Show me where it says that please. You can't and neither will Transport Canada in court.

I know my contest will be with Transport Canada and I intend to take it there without harm to West Jet. If I seek to fly again before this is settled, it will be for compassionate reasons and with sufficient protective instruments in place so that West Jet will be able to do so without discomfort to themselves.

Rob

[Widow]

The rules say “shall”. That means “must”.

The carrier must screen (compare) government issued ID against the name on the ticket (in order to ensure you are not on the “Specified Persons List”) before issuing a boarding pass. You cannot board a flight without a boarding pass. Ergo, you cannot fly without government issued ID.

[Rockie]

You know Freeman, you could always just go get a drivers license and save yourself the trouble. Since you are permitted to reside in this country you either have a Government of Canada residency document or are a Canadian citizen. If the latter is the case then your political beliefs don't extend as far as renouncing said citizenship and denying yourself all the rights that result from it which include living here.

In other words, you are a hypocrite.

[Freeman Menard]

I see your logic, but that does not meet the standard required. The fact you have to go 'ergo' and use such reasoning opens the door to equivocation, and that and that alone means you lose. It must say it clearly, specifically and unequivocally and not require someone to make leaps of logic like you did. The moment you start to argue about it you lose because it is that ability to argue about it that means the standard has not been met.

Do you not agree that there must be a way to meet the needs expressed in the regs without abandoning a very large body of rights and becoming either sn employee of the government or tricked into a ward/guardian relationship where they now have the power to restrict your travel by denying you permission? Are we all children? Do people who do travel realize they are doing so 'with permission' of the government and not exercising their rights at all?

If you need to assemble three points, and then assume, in order to argue that id is required, the judicial standard simply is not met. Sorry. You engaged in equivocation and deduction, and by so doing proved it is not clearly stated. You completely failed to meet the standards, and did in fact prove my point by trying using equivocation and deduction. Deduction has it's place but not when dealing with our rights and the ability of regulations to affect them. Honest that is how it works in court and I have seen it done.

Rob

[Freeman Menard]

You know Freeman, you could always just go get a drivers license and save yourself the trouble. Since you are permitted to reside in this country you either have a Government of Canada residency document or are a Canadian citizen. If the latter is the case then your political beliefs don't extend as far as renouncing said citizenship and denying yourself all the rights that result from it which include living here.

In other words, you are a hypocrite.

LMAO..
Who is 'permitting' me to 'reside' here? I am not a resident, nor a 'citizen'. I am a Freeman. A citizen is akin to a child and needs 'permission' from their ward. I would love to see any one try to force me to leave and if they can't force me to leave, I am here not because someone is 'permitting' it but because I was born here, I am not leaving and no one has the right to force me to leave merely because I refuse to abandon my rights that exist here and now.

Rights of citizenship can be renounced and it does not affect the right to live here at all if you were born here.

You know what you sound like to me? I have accepted the status of child and I let the government take care of me and tell me what is right and wrong and so should you. If I need permission, then so do you. And If I had to submit and application then so should you.

And that is what separates the adults from the children.
You submitted and applied and allowed yourself to be issued something and now exist as a ward of the state, seen as incompetent in the eyes of the law.

I know you do not like it and the idea of it will initially make you angry. There will be denial and then anger and then acceptance and shame and then you will get past that and start to see a truth you never even imagined. Or you will go back to sleep and continue to ridicule the people who defend your rights.

Rob

[Huge Hammer]

I would just like to point out that Freeman Menard is an anagram of am free nerd man. Does not really mean anything just noting it. Deaf men ram neer also works

I enjoy your posts as they are refreshing departure from the usual inter airline bashing that usually goes on here. Your nonsensical rantings are a nice break from the usual nonsensical rantings about WS not paying for training hotels, lowering the bar, cherry picking, etc.

You use your verbosity as a way to try to pound someone with words and then claim some sort of victory when you write out a circular arguemnet, draw a false conclusion and then say you are correct without ever "landing the plane" as it were.

I enjoy your writings and hope you will contine on here and more importantly I hope you will update the progress of your various fee schedules and meetings with ministers aid, etc.

You may have the convictions of your beliefs or you could be engaging in some bad performance art, either way I am entertained.

If you could in the future make several smaller postings instead of one large posting it would make it easier to read for those of us who are not as intellectually gifted as your self.

[Rockie]

You expend huge amounts of hot air avoiding a direct answer. Have you renounced your Canadian citizenship?

[Sulako]

Well, in one way I think good on you for giving it a shot, but in another way I think you really have to pick your battles and I wonder if this is all worth it. Like, do you have any energy left over at the end of a long day's defending your freeman sovereign right to be a sovereign freeman or whatever? I'd hate to think how you'd react to a parking ticket, or getting a library card, or getting id'd at the bar.

Ideally you'd direct the energy you so clearly have toward something more rewarding, like curing cancer or low-calorie bacon or whatnot, but I guess if you want to make your stand on the "show your id to get on the plane" issue I have no real problem with it, as long as you keep it polite. Let me know how your email is received, I'm morbidly curious.

Oh, btw you get +1 for your olde tyme manner of expression

[Freeman Menard]

Define Citizenship.

There are some who are children and some who are not. You likely associate 'citizenship' with 'guardianship'.
I am not a ward of the state or a child of the province.
I enjoy all my human rights because I am a responsible and self governing adult born in Canada, but not such benefits as welfare, or EI or the like because I have not submitted application for them or positioned myself legally as a ward of the state or child of a province, which is what the vast majority of people inadvertently do.

So I am not trying to avoid your question, just trying to answer it properly and clearly.

Rob

[Pratt X 3]

I think the Durf would read that and say, "if you don't have government-issued ID, you're screwed brotha..."

Watcha gonna do when WestJetmania runs wild on you, brotha!!!

[Misha]

Hello and good day! I am Robert-Arthur, a Sovereign Freeman-on-the-Land of the Menard Family, presently Interim Director of the World Freeman Society and founder of the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society. I realize you are a busy man yet we have a problem that needs be addressed. I was denied an opportunity to fly on your airline recently due to a memo from Transport Canada stating they knew who I was and I was to be denied my right to fly within Canada if I did not have government issued identification.

Been looking and can't find anywhere the "right to fly within Canada".

Must say your bond offers are a little on the weak side. When corporate fines for violations of the acts and regulations reach $25,000 per occurance a round trip flight would have Westjet out by $25,000. A $5,000 peace bond against the lifes of 100+ passengers and crew and the cost of a $40 million airframe is a joke, if you decide to no longer be peaceful in flight.

Hum, I responded to this earlier this morning and it wasn't posted. Anyway.

Perhaps some light reading of the following may give you some hints on 'flying', aka travelling, mobility... Magna Carta 1215, The BNA Act (a867), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act of 1982) , Canadian Bill of Rights, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I will be happy to send these to you in written form if you wish to PM me with an email address.

Cheers,
Michelle

[Misha]

Well, in one way I think good on you for giving it a shot, but in another way I think you really have to pick your battles and I wonder if this is all worth it. Like, do you have any energy left over at the end of a long day's defending your freeman sovereign right to be a sovereign freeman or whatever? I'd hate to think how you'd react to a parking ticket, .....

Did you say a parking ticket? A contract for which you have not consented or applied your autograph, for which there is no consideration or a meeting of the minds? We love parking tickets; so much so that we have an entire forum dedicated to exactly that.

If you want to see how we deal with these, feel free to browse. Your input would be appreciated; sometimes another set of fresh eyes on an issue helps!

cheers,
Micha

[Freeman Menard]

A parking ticket is merely a notice and can be dealt with administratively using standard acceptance and confirmation practices.
A library card is easy, as all that is required is some mail with your name on it, and a gentle manner that does not offend the cute librarian.
To clarify, I have no problem showing id and identifying myself and being a gentle little teddy bear when on the plane or in public areas such as an airport. My issue is with the term issue. There are other ways that the stated intent can be met without being required to be issued something. I would rather give money to WestJet and have them issue something to me, and have the terms of our contract fully detailed before hand, and when I am using that id to fly on WJ I am bound to that contract. I have no problem with that because I see no deception or abandonment of my rights, merely a contract to alleviate their concerns, not mine.

I don't like how the government bureaucrats are abusing the system to apparently punish me for my beliefs and outspoken activities, are telling the airlines I can't fly yet don't have the balls to put my name on the list and be liable for that, and if I was on the list then there would be remedy easily available and whoever put me there would be in deep trouble if they did so without just cause. And I promise no one can claim there is just cause to put me on that list. You should see my background check. Putting your life on the line a couple times for peace officers in dangerous situations does not hurt when they do a background check. They almost immediately like you.

And thank you for your concern about my energy, I am making a movie about this and expect to have something posted shortly and this is just fun for me anyway. Plus when one is called to their duty, and compelled by their love of freedom, energy does not really factor in. And I very much appreciate your +1. I feel like someone put a star on my forehead.

Peace eh?
Rob

[Rockie]

Define Citizenship.

There are some who are children and some who are not. You likely associate 'citizenship' with 'guardianship'.
I am not a ward of the state or a child of the province.
I enjoy all my human rights because I am a responsible and self governing adult born in Canada, but not such benefits as welfare, or EI or the like because I have not submitted application for them or positioned myself legally as a ward of the state or child of a province, which is what the vast majority of people inadvertently do.

So I am not trying to avoid your question, just trying to answer it properly and clearly.

Rob

http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R ... ement(txt)

A couple of quotes:

B. Natural-Born Citizens

Persons considered to be natural-born Canadian citizens can be born either in Canada (with exceptions for foreign diplomatic personnel), or outside Canada if, at the time of birth, one parent is a Canadian citizen. Such a parent cannot be an adoptive one.(5)

It is your parental lineage that determines your Canadian citizenship, not where you were born. The link goes further to talk about people born in Canada but not having any parental link to the country and states what Canada's policy is on that.

Here's what citizenship grants you:

A Canadian citizen is a person who possesses Canadian citizenship by birth or through the naturalization process under the Canadian Citizenship Act.

The Citizenship Act specifically provides that a naturalized citizen is entitled to all the rights, powers and privileges, and is subject to all the obligations, duties and liabilities, of a citizen who was born in Canada. The Act further states that a Canadian citizen by naturalization has the same status as a Canadian citizen by birth.(4) Thus, a naturalized citizen gains the right to vote in and run as a candidate for federal and provincial elections, the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada, the right to certain minority educational language rights, and the right to apply for a Canadian passport.

Your right to live here comes from your citizenship, which comes from your parentage or naturalization. Your right to live here does not come from the fact you were born here.

Now answer the question please. Have you renounced your citizenship?
(I already know the answer by the way, I just want you to admit it.)

[Widow]

Define Citizenship.

Citizenship Act (Canada)

[Misha]

Define Citizenship.

There are some who are children and some who are not. You likely associate 'citizenship' with 'guardianship'.
I am not a ward of the state or a child of the province.
I enjoy all my human rights because I am a responsible and self governing adult born in Canada, but not such benefits as welfare, or EI or the like because I have not submitted application for them or positioned myself legally as a ward of the state or child of a province, which is what the vast majority of people inadvertently do.

So I am not trying to avoid your question, just trying to answer it properly and clearly.

Rob

http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R ... ement(txt)

A couple of quotes:

B. Natural-Born Citizens

Persons considered to be natural-born Canadian citizens can be born either in Canada (with exceptions for foreign diplomatic personnel), or outside Canada if, at the time of birth, one parent is a Canadian citizen. Such a parent cannot be an adoptive one.(5)

It is your parental lineage that determines your Canadian citizenship, not where you were born. The link goes further to talk about people born in Canada but not having any parental link to the country and states what Canada's policy is on that.

Here's what citizenship grants you:

A Canadian citizen is a person who possesses Canadian citizenship by birth or through the naturalization process under the Canadian Citizenship Act.

The Citizenship Act specifically provides that a naturalized citizen is entitled to all the rights, powers and privileges, and is subject to all the obligations, duties and liabilities, of a citizen who was born in Canada. The Act further states that a Canadian citizen by naturalization has the same status as a Canadian citizen by birth.(4) Thus, a naturalized citizen gains the right to vote in and run as a candidate for federal and provincial elections, the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada, the right to certain minority educational language rights, and the right to apply for a Canadian passport.

Your right to live here comes from your citizenship, which comes from your parentage or naturalization. Your right to live here does not come from the fact you were born here.

Now answer the question please. Have you renounced your citizenship?
(I already know the answer by the way, I just want you to admit it.)

You've brought up something very interesting indeed in the act you cite. You might want to define 'PERSON' legally speaking. You're not a person, you have a person. You may also want to define citizen from the act itself and from Blacks, Bouvier's, Canadian or other Law dictionaries. You've just begun a path of breaking down what these acts and statutes really mean; no words are used by accident or misplaced by the BAR. You're on your way!

Miches

[Freeman Menard]

The thing you call a law is actually an 'Act' Says it right on the cover in the title. See it? The word "Act"? Means it is a statute and as such has nothing to do with me.
So you tell me if you think that means I have abandoned citizenship, or have I seized freedom?

I renounce ignorance and complacency and IF i say I am not bound by your Acts does that mean you can use them to justify trying to remove me?
You do realize neither you nor your representatives can govern me without my consent, and the words you point to are the words that govern those who do consent. But because you do consent, you think they are law for every one.
Tell you this, you and I are not members of the same society, and you are not taking the rules of your imaginary society and applying them to me without breaking the law.


Rob

[Rockie]

A man with an IQ as huge as yours should be able to answer a simple yes or no question with a yes or no. I pity your kids if they ever ask you for something to eat. They'll starve.

I'll just take your incredibly transparent and longwinded dodging of the question as a no.

Hypocrite.