|
|
Post by lesactive on Apr 26, 2007 20:37:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lesactive on Apr 26, 2007 20:45:37 GMT -5
sorry 'bout the crappy choice of forum. I just figured I'd get a bite from the attorneys that post there regularly.
143 pages!!! sheesh
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 26, 2007 20:58:00 GMT -5
I'm clueless. What does this mean?
"Also note that your browser will show 'Company Name'."
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by lesactive on Apr 26, 2007 21:02:41 GMT -5
On the firefox page tab it will say "Company Name (eg.) Canada". I imagine IE would display that at the top of the browser itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 26, 2007 21:10:46 GMT -5
It's such a trap, isn't it? You start having a read and soon you are thinking about this law and that law.....and it's easy to forget (and apparently some people are obviously not equipped to ever find out) that it's all 100% nonsense.  It's really very obvious that any and all challenges to "legal" authority are doomed to failure at the moment they become a danger to the political process they are really invented to protect. |
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Apr 26, 2007 21:45:27 GMT -5
This Is So Amazing To Have opened up for Me/Us...All of this conversation!
This is so beautiful: "We must take this self governance away.
The fact that the legal system is based in corruption is proven by the fact that our monetary system is based in corruption. We can't get monetary reform from the courts because they are in kahoots with the bankers and empowered by them to maintain an illusion that they ultimately control. Those who print the money make the rules and direct society, not our dog and pony show "go along to get along" politicians that sign bills written by corporations into law with out even reading the legislation."
By PolyNewbie
@http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8612&st=45
|
|
|
|
Post by lesactive on Apr 26, 2007 21:46:28 GMT -5
Very frustrating indeed, but not impossible. I do believe that one can protect oneself to a certain extent if you're willing to give up benefits and fend for yourself. The more i look at this stuff the less I think it's about law precisely because it is all fictional colour of law. It's only about siphoning wealth and that includes ALL corporations for profit. Corporations should benefit those who are willing members at the cost of the labour they put into it. Profit and interest only come from the sweat of your brow on top of subsistence and leisure and is a perpetual bane from which there can be no relief, ever. The concentrated accumulation of wealth creates poverty. I'm not this dour in real life  |
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Apr 26, 2007 23:31:13 GMT -5
I had to add this quote!
Menard responding back to a statist defender:
"I answered your question now answer mine.
Do you distinguish between 'statutes' or 'Acts' and Law? Because if not, WE have nothing more to discuss, as you simply lack the intelligence to properly distinguish between one and the other and we will simply be speaking different languages using the same sounds."
priceless.
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 27, 2007 0:10:25 GMT -5
PS,
What is a fee schedule and how does it work when applied to..... ?? I'm assuming this is a serious inquiry...? My understanding is that a fee schedule is simply a self-created hourly rate sheet of charges for one's time. Like a dentist might have, listing his charges for certain procedures ie cleaning, root canal, partials, etc. Or like a machine shop or automotive garage; the latter having a "standard shop rate" for things like oil changes & wiper blade replacement, but with additional charges for specialty services like engine overhaul and overtime/emergencies. Mr. Menard then is simply giving a policey officer his "going rates" for time expended if said officer wishes to proceed in taking it up ie arresting/taking to jail/etc. It might be compared to the expression "punching the clock" or "starting the meter" (taxi). Whether it works or not, or how it works out? I have no idea. It is my understanding from reading some of Mr. Menard's posts elsewhere, that he's never gotten to actually try to collect, as the understanding he's laid out in prior notices stops it from getting to that stage. (that coupled with his choosing to exercise "love" proportionate to ignorance in the cases where he was arrested; particularly in acknowledging his own prior ignorance in such matters of business) Hope that helps~ |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 27, 2007 0:20:39 GMT -5
Greetings lesactive, and welcome to the forum!
Thanks for the post links as well.
I wanted to ask you if you might be familiar with a group called RightWay Law*, and if so, how Mr. Menard's tact(s) might parallel or differ from that group's approach? In one of Mr. Menard's forum posts I noticed a mention of Winston Shrout (sp?) and wondered about parallels between these two as well, if you might know? (also, if you might have any current info on Winston if you are familiar with him?)
Thanks for any consideration here, and again, welcome to the forum!
*I do not know much about the status of RWL now, but was a member there back several years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 27, 2007 0:30:24 GMT -5
It's such a trap, isn't it?
You start having a read and soon you are thinking about this law and that law.....and it's easy to forget (and apparently some people are obviously not equipped to ever find out) that it's all 100% nonsense.
It's really very obvious that any and all challenges to "legal" authority are doomed to failure at the moment they become a danger to the political process they are really invented to protect. ---- what he said...  ("nonsense" = "siren's song") |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 27, 2007 9:15:29 GMT -5
Interesting. Too bad the discussion is on MapleLeafWeb -- their software is lame (no way of seeing all-on-one-page, idiots...) and also it seems nobody really wants to discuss the facts behind a lot of political opinions (such as the whole concept of "politics"  ) Maybe I'll skim it at home tonight... Wonder if there's some way of seeing all 15 freakin' pages at once tho. :-\ I read the first 21 pages (i.e. 1/7 of the conversation) and I was overall pretty impressed with a couple of the pro-liberty posters, and quite shocked that a couple of lawyers (apparently) were willing to continue the conversation. Of course, claiming the source material was flawed cuz it was trying to be "outside" of a system but relying on that very system to prove its hoax-ness -- well that's pretty disingenuous isn't it? I mean, if "they" are "supposed to" follow their own "rules", and you prove BY those rules that they are not followig them... how is that flawed? Sounds a lot like what Marc has done in courtroom after courtroom -- he's not saying he "believes" the "statues" and "Acts" etc. he's just saying that THEY supposedly believe they are legit, etc. Very frustrating indeed, but not impossible. I do believe that one can protect oneself to a certain extent if you're willing to give up benefits and fend for yourself. The problem is, of course, that the statists (especially the "lawyers") will claim that either (A) you did not "legitimately" remove yourself from the collection of benefits (e.g. ROADS  ) or (B) well then that means you can't enjoy any products or services since those that provide them to you are directly supported by those same benefits that you claimed to have given up (e.g. subsidies, tariffs, ROADS...) and of course, since you aren't "paying your fair share", you're making hard on the other victimsrest of society... -- a garbage claim which is blindly accepted by everyone else, especially those who are "good citizens" and/or have the uniform and shiny badge to justify pointing firearms at you for littering, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Apr 27, 2007 10:00:58 GMT -5
That's Right, Darren!
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 27, 2007 10:19:32 GMT -5
OMG, how sad... I was reading the next 20 pages or so this morning. One of the posters, I think FTAlawyer or somebody, was putting down the video-maker saying he not only used "public" benefits such as education ("and not much of it" ) but also somehow he included the VIDEO CAMERA as part of those benefits. WUH?  |
|
|
|
Post by lesactive on Apr 27, 2007 15:34:45 GMT -5
eye2ihear: I'm only marginally familiar with RWL, they're more of the paytriot line from what I understand and tend to put themselves in harms way by some of their tactics. This is only hearsay though as I tend to focus on the Canadian aspects and use American notions only for reflective positions and general philosophies. Our 'Constitution' is a bit of a joke up here and really doesn't protect anyone except those that work for the gov't (section 32 of the Charter). I have heard very good things about PAC, however: www.pacinlaw.org/ that gets into the 14th amendment. Again, this is only hearsay as I don't involve myself too deeply in things that have limited application to my situation. As far as a comparative analysis between Menard and those groups, they're probably on the same side of the coin, just using different methods in regard to specific statutes. It's all about realizing that the 'person' they're speaking to has no voice until you speak for it. The legal society up here seems a little more labyrinthine due only to the hangover of aristocratic atmosphere from colonial days. Darren: I think part of FTA's problem was that he believes that gov't has enabled people to succeed by allowing us a safe environment to develop these gadgets and conveniently forgets that it was people who built the stuff in the first place. So, the camera, being an 'benefit' of 'society' is to be eschewed by those that don't want to belong to a political society and still wish to remain on the land because we're taking. Makes no mention that we might contribute to society on our own terms through a means which he couldn't understand. He expects people like me to live in a commune in the woods, the thing is, I didn't set up this game, I didn't decide what money was and I have no recourse but to live in a social environment. F*** him. short note, i'm at work... |
|
??
("nonsense" = "siren's song")
)
)