Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Further Instructions to the 12 Apostles called by the Clerk of the Marijuana Guild

For those of you to whom Marc Emery's plight comes to mind, please feel free to pressure Rob Nickleson to not sign the extradition order, using my example of blatant disregard for the CDSA and the inaction of the government, as to the farcical nature of Canadian Drug laws.

The ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES seem to only be there for the purpose of another country's persecution of CANADIANS.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

News of the Tsunami from my friends the Samoans

Check the title out for the link to my friends website in Samoa. The tsunami went through their land. you might wish to pray for them.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Jack Herer TV

Friday, September 25, 2009

An offer from the Clerk of the Marijuana Guild, Bud the Oracle

I, Bud the Oracle, welcome the first twelve people to comply with these parameters as the founding members of the Marijuana Guild.

Through registered mail you contact the Attorney General of British Columbia and inform him to these matters IN A COMMUNICATION SIMILAR TO THIS. YOU MAY WISH TO HAVE YOUR LEGAL ADVISER HELP YOU DRAW IT UP. The lawful valid time period may be less than 30 days to give notice (first 12 to have a valid claim of right confirmation under the marijuana guild). Anyone from anywhere can offer to invest money into a lawful business in British Columbia as long as they meet the trade/immigration requirements, all you have to do is inquire as to the status of this valid lawful Claim of Right. Here is an example of what I have in mind.

"This fellow Bud the Oracle is claiming that you are leaving him alone even though he is openly selling pot from his place and on Youtube, due to his claim of right. Is this true?

It appears that he is correct in his assertions to me, as you are apparently leaving him alone. As I am a pot smoker/activist and would also like to benefit my community by selling to people 18 or over, I am thinking of becoming a lawful seller of marijuana under a claim of right and the protection of the Marijuana Guild as he does.

Here I would put up as many links to me selling pot as possible in public---that's why I put them there: as proof that I can do this

As I do not wish to be incarcerated, I need to be told in writing that I would not be afforded the same protection from the drugs and substances act as Bud the Oracle, and why, or else consider this your notice of intent which becomes my Claim of Right in 30 days.

He claims that he can not be arrested under his Claim of Right as Bud the Oracle and that the warrant out on KLAUS KACZOR is invalid and can not be served. If this is not true can you tell me why you do not proceed with an arrest as required by law, so that we are all clear as to the law.

I write to you in trust that you will clarify the matter for me in law, in order that I and others who are considering this, do not put ourselves at unnecessary risk.

Yours sincerely

I am saying that I believe I have this Claim of Right intact and all you have to do is for the price of a registered letter, check it out. Membership in the Marijuana Guild is Free and Members make all future rules except the founding rules.

The opportunity could be momentous.

Live TV Program on this extraordinary offer

Watch live video from Bud the Oracle's Cyber Temple on

Watch live video from Bud the Oracle's Cyber Temple on

Watch live video from Bud the Oracle's Cyber Temple on

Watch live video from Bud the Oracle's Cyber Temple on

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The truth about the war on drugs: a fraud of huge dimensions

Damn right this is fair game! He was blithely making me a depraved criminal for smoking marijuana for the CONservative "law and Order" agenda, all the while a coke addict. This is what the CDSA allows: corruption of the laws and Justice system by criminal fraud artists.

1. The Cocaine Conservative

It’s rare that we Canucks get a truly juicy political scandal, so let’s thank Rahim Jaffer – and presumably, the drug cartels of some South American nation – for this one. Jaffer, who became Canada’s first Muslim MP when he won the Edmonton-Strathcona riding for the Conservatives in 1997, was booked last night for drunk driving and possession of cocaine.

Jaffer is out of politics now, but his wife, Helena Guergis, is one of Harper’s star MPs, and she’s the federal minister on the status of women. Jaffer himself has publicly contemplated a political comeback – though we’re willing to wager that it’s not really in the cards for him anymore.

Read about the scandal in the Toronto Star.

This is what some people get from psychedelics. Beats a fifth of scotch in my books any day. And these wonders belong to me through birth into creation!

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Government agents like Adrien Swittzer Crown Attorney, break the law every day

Part 2/4 of my daily TV program

Watch live video from Bud the Oracle's Cyber Temple on

Who are the criminals? The agents of the government who harm harmless people, who steal your property and never have to answer to the law. Section 337 criminal code,

Public servant refusing to deliver property

337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 297000.

My personal Claim of Right/lawful excuse

On Wolves and Crack addicted Crows

Watch live video from Bud the Oracle's Cyber Temple on

A Message from the omnipresent office of the Altered State

If there is another election, please consider this alternative to the present political conundrum that you find yourselves in.

This former Seattle Police Chief and Bud the Oracle think exactly the same on this subject

Monday, September 21, 2009

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Vancouver police harass Bud the Oracle

Today while proceeding peacefully from Trout Lake I was accosted by the same police officers who arrested me on the 11th (see link in the title of this post). It was under false pretense that I was chased down to "test the buds" in my hat to see if they were real. They never mentioned a warrant against my former person KK and they knew full well from having confiscated my other crown on the 11th that these buds were not real. This incident was witnessed by a friend on his property.

I think I will charge them with harassment on Monday.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

I have a right to disregard an illegal warrant

Why would anyone submit to a blatantly violent criminal organization?

Public servant refusing to deliver property

337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 297.

There is no valid lawful reason for the federal crown to withhold the camcorder from Robin! He had demanded it and the Federal Crown in conjunction with the VPD have committed a criminal offense. This evidence of the willingness of the government agents top subvert the rule of law gives me the right to keep myself safe via lawful excuse from these violent criminals as a matter of survival.

I am willing to swear before my God that I believe the evidence shows that the government of Canada is out to harm me, therefor I have the duty to my life to keep myself safe and am confident that any Judge before which I might come will agree with me.

Thoughts on Marc Emery's last rally before he begins to serve his American Jail sentence

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Cocaine buds of Rahim Jaffer? Conservatives tough on you doing drugs, not their buddies.

Below is a CBC Radio interview about the success of Portugal's drug policy

From CBC News article in Title Link

Rahim Jaffer, the former Edmonton MP and National Caucus Chair for the Conservative Party, faces impaired driving and drug charges after an incident early last Friday.

Jaffer was elected as a Reform MP in 1997, in the riding of Edmonton-Strathcona. He lost his seat in the last federal election to NDP MP Linda Duncan. Jaffer is married to Helena Guergis, the Minister of State for the Status of Women.

The Ontario Provincial Police in Caledon, Ontario confirmed the news today in a release, excerpted below:

On Friday September 11, 2009 at 12:45am a Caledon OPP officer on general patrol on Regional Road 50 observed a grey Ford Escape travelling northbound at a high rate of speed through the village of Palgrave.

The officer conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle and after detecting the odour of alcohol on the drivers breath an investigation was conducted.

Thirty-seven year old Rahim JAFFER of Angus was charged with Drive Motor Vehicle Over 80 milligrams of alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(b) Criminal Code of Canada and Possession of a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) contrary to section 4(1) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

JAFFER will be making his first appearance in Orangeville Criminal Court on October 19, 2009. His licence was suspended for a period of 90 days under the Administrative Drivers Licence Suspension (ADLS) program.

Why don't these guys get drug tests at work? Including alcohol. If these people are impaired how would Canadians hope to get good policies which spend their taxes wisely? how do we know that he doesn't share his cocaine at home? Why do these people support drug pushers yet pretend that they are so hard on crime? Do they have friends in the crime business for whom they will do political favors for drugs.?

Would the drug cartels not want the prohibition policies to be hard so that their product remains lucrative? Why does Harper surround himself with criminals? Brian Mulroney, Rahim Jaffer. Such losers as Maxime Bernier? Is he such a poor judge of character? Should all politicians who make important laws not be drug tested to understand who might be co opted by their addictions to promote a policy beneficial to their suppliers?

Watch live video from Bud the Oracle's Cyber Temple on

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

An interesting little talk on creativity after my LSD trip today

Recorded on Youtube before I heard this wonderful speaker above

Monday, September 14, 2009

Crown Attorney Jessica Lawn, another criminal?

My day started off with another liar calling me. Sgt Jeff Rice, of the Professional Standards Gang, a fixer for crooked cops, complained about receiving so many emails about my Camcorder. When he went away he assured me that there should be a release by the Crown Attorney as he saw no need to hold the camera. That was nearly 3 weeks ago. Still no camera. WTF is the problem?

I then phoned the Crown Attorney's office, and got in touch with Jessica Lawn (I kid you not) She may have law in her name but there isn't a glimmer of honest justice to her. I was assure she would review the files and get in touch with me. I called again in the afternoon and was assured that I would be hearing from her today. Still nothing at 6 PM.

This is another blatant example of there being no Rule of Law in Canada.

There is absolutely not one single reason to legally withhold my camcorder. It was not used in the commission of any crime except as a recording of the assault on myself and the camera operator. It was in the possession of that operator when the police arrested him on false allegations and later released him without charges.

The police copied the video and should have left the original video on the camera as it is evidence of an assault on us. Why is that camera still not in my friends possession? Under what pretext are they keeping his lawful property?

Watch Sharon Presley - Dealing with Authority Figures in Educational  |  View More Free Videos Online at

Why is crime by the Crown/government and police never a crime in Canada?

BC is the only province without civilian oversight of internal criminal investigations. The VPD has deservedly earned itself a reputation of being a criminal organization with several murders under its belt. How could I even hope for a fair investigation into the assault perpetrated upon me by the jailers?

Jeff Rice is already trying to shift the blame of the assault onto me. He hasn't even seen the video footage and he wants to interview me? What a joke this process is. A pile of criminal bullshit masquerading as law and order.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Internet input into Bud the Oracle's situation

by Robert Menard » Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:26 pm Reposted here by Bud the Oracle who appreciates any and all constructive input and will evaluate it and use whatever i can in my situation.

Hi all, Don't know if you know who Bud Oracle is, but he claims Freeman status and is charged with selling herb. I have looked at what he is facing, and although I would not have done the same things, and would have prepared myself much better, I do applaud his courage and drive and think he deserves our support and assistance. Tio that end I have developed the following, and will be posting it on various forums he is known to visit, and if he takes the suggestions he may come out of this well on top.

Buds Defence

They will try to get you to argue about what your rights are and are not. Do not go there. It is not up for debate and can get you tied up endlessly. The argument you can win and which they do not want to fight is the one concerning the colour of right.

Did you honestly believe you had the right and was it a result not of negligence but of due diligence? Was that belief reasonable to an average man, with the same information?

You must realize that this fight is about perception and control, and the perception of control of the control of perception. You will win by fighting their control of the perception of control, if that makes any sense. By changing the publics perception of governmental control, you win. The good news is you can do things those in the government cannot, such as your WebTV and blogs and public actions.

You must find the door they do not want opened and then demand it be opened for your defense. There is something they are fearful of, and it is easy to see if you look at what they use to try and make you feel fear, anger or shame. They will try to get you to agree to argue about what your rights are and you will lose if you allow any man that power. It should not be up to debate in that court, as if the judge rules on what your rights are, and you did not grant him that power, you have lost your power to determine your own rights. It will be very tempting to argue about what your rights are and are not, but only ego will speak there and you will lose. You can't go through them, you need to deek them out, and be wise and gentle, not loud and pokey.

If you argue about what your rights are they will have you on the ropes.
If you argue about what you thought your rights were, you can dance around them.

The defence you must aim for is called 'colour of right'.
You will have to establish three things.
1- You honestly believed you had the right to do what you were doing.
2- This belief is not a result of negligence, but of diligence and positive action.
3- It is reasonable.

This is where the process will come in very handy. If you have done it properly, you will have a Courtesy Letter and the NUI and COR along with evidence of service and lack of response on their part.

These provide proof of your beliefs, that you expressed them, invited discussion and negotiation and was refused and then acted accordingly. This is all lawful and just. It also demonstrates action on your part, and not negligence. Thus the first two are established and it is the third that will send them running. Is it reasonable.

Now there are naysayers who will refuse to examine that aspect, and rely instead on a judges interpretation. However it will not be their opinion that matters, nor will you leave it up to the judge to decide if your beliefs are reasonable. You can bring witnesses to explain these beliefs, and if asked I would consider it a duty to stand and speak the truth.

You will rely on your community of Freemen and your fellow Canadians.

At this point you can ask they open the door they really want kept closed. Ask how many people have in fact made the same claims. On the record demand the government disclose just how many people out there feel as you do and have served NUI and CORs on the government. Hundreds? Thousands? How many is required for it to be deemed reasonable, and would that number grow if others knew of its existence?

Open that door and the public becomes aware of its existence, and the flood begins. They do not want that information disclosed. Their action against you is in part to silence you and discredit the movement, not only to enforce what they see as just law. If you argue your rights, you will end up in endless and unprofitable conflict and you may end up granting the power to decide your rights to another. Do not do that. Arguing about what you honestly thought your rights are, without arguing what your rights are, will bring you to the place where you can claim colour of right, if you establish that you acted diligently and your beliefs are reasonable to others in your community. This is where you can open that door they so dearly want kept closed and ignored. Force them to reveal just how many have made similar claims, and your actions and beliefs become reasonable and righteous and defended by colour of right.

This however will not alone ensure your success. You will also have to show spiritual and emotional growth. Imagine this was a computer game. Remember how when you met the Judge you felt they had acted with honour and respect? Imagine they gave you a small seed. If when you return you do not have that you will lose. What you should do is plant it, grow it, get more and when you return, you should have grown a field, collected a bushel and made a cake for them. What he did was simply grant you dignity as one human being to another. Felt good eh? Now do that with all the cops you meet, the people you talk to, even your detractors, bring that energy to bear in your interactions, and correspondence.

Also, you cannot never ever corner your opponent. And that is just what you have done. You must leave them an out, and allow them to save face. Your goal should not be their destruction, but their agreement, with their destruction assured if they fail to agree. You will have to find a path that allows all that, and it may seem like you are backing down, but all you are doing is demonstrating reasonableness and a desire for peaceful coexistence. You could agree for instance to not sell publicly anymore, and to do so only from the privacy of an office or cafe established for that purpose. I am willing to bet, that if you win the court battle by establishing you acted with colour of right, you would have little difficulty finding investors for your cafe. take careful steps, freeman bernard: clan mcmahon
god is my judge

Saturday, September 12, 2009

An interesting post in the same thread on CC Forums: Freeman discussions

Bud's free, on the land, living his life as he sees fit. It would have been interesting to see how they would've treated Bud had he not been beaten and threatened with indefinite imprisonment if he refused to sign an undertaking to appear for his former person---by the way, on these forms, the name of the person is listed as follows:

"Re/Objet Surname." That thing is not Bud the Oracle, not in my view.

As for "unsubstantiated claims", well, I could give an argument as to how "to substantiate" is "to understand", but I'll just assert it. Thus, the claims are "not understood"---tell us something we don't know =]

"...and Fred, you are misleading people, selling a product which clearly has never had a successful test drive but is none the less touted as working."

Presuming Fred were selling membership within the WFS, which he doesn't seem to me to be doing, that would not be a product so much as a service; the argument is, roughly, that the governmental (steering) services of Canada are not to the liking of many, and, therefore, they ought to have the option of being listed with a different governmental (steering) service provider. No one is suggesting that there is not a duty to have some sort of governmental service provider---merely that there is some degree of choice.

The argument may be drawn thusly:

(0) Immutable/Natural/Divine Rules:
(I) Thou shalt not murder.
(II) Thou shalt not steal.
(III) Thou shalt not covet.
(IV) Thou shalt not bear false witness of the law.
Whether grounded in Holy Writ or in one's own emotional acceptance of these precepts or otherwise, these are not disagreed upon by any reasonable person.

(1) Jus/Lex Gentium (Right/Law of Man):
"It was by virtue of this jus gentium that wars were introduced (that is, when declared by the prince for the defence of his country or to repel an attack) and nations separated, kingdoms established and rights of ownership distinguished. Individual ownership was not effected de novo by the jus gentium but existed of old, for in the Old Testament things were already mine and thine, theft was prohibited and it was decreed that one not retain his servant's wages. By the jus gentium boundaries were set to holdings, buildings erected next to one another, from which cities, boroughs and vills were formed. And generally, the jus gentium is the source of all contracts and of many other things." (Bracton)

"Manumission is the giving of liberty, that is, the revelation of liberty, according to some, for liberty, which proceeds from the law of nature, cannot be taken away by the jus gentium but only obscured by it, for natural rights are immutable." (Bracton)

Thus, many buildings, both on land and on paper do obscure our liberty and immutable natural rights. Further, these rights are not contained in any charter, as "all jura are incorporeal and cannot be seen" (Bracton). As rights cannot be seen, then, where do we find them? The Judge Henry of Bracton reports that "virtues and jura exist in the soul." Thus, by implication, souls exist and insofar as men have jura, or rights, they must have souls, as rights exist in the soul---no soul = no rights.

This brings us to a curious predicament, however, regarding corporations, for, as Edward Coke observes, "a corporation...has no soul." (10 Rep. 32). Thus, if a corporation has no soul, it has not the thing in which jura reside.

Then how does one come to be member of a corporation? As a corporation is soulless, it has no jura; and, therefore, any right it suggests that it has over an individual must be given it by that individual. I take this to be what "denial of consent" is all about---one refuses to give his own jura to a soulless artificial person.

(2) Exopolitics

"The best way to predict the future is to invent it." --Alan Kay

"Roundhousekick, you are a simpleton that is being misled." --chrisbennett.

Ah, so anyone who believes in immediate exopolitical change is either a simpleton being misled or a huckster selling snake oil to the simpletons. It is misleading to suggest that change may happen overnight; the only change possible is incrementally enacted through a loaded process of dialogue between the oppressors, who hold all/most of the cards, and the oppressed, whose last, best hope for peace is to shame the oppressors into giving up some of their cards---for example, the lovely piece of card paper upon which The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is drafted.

"A true intellectual doesn’t preach the religion of gradual change but instead steps out of the mental framework of privilege to defend those on the other side. A true intellectual helps the other side develop the tools it needs and does not participate in neutralizing defiance." --Prof. Denis Rancourt,
"My contention is, all kids have tremendous talents. And we squander them, pretty ruthlessly. So I want to talk about education and I want to talk about creativity. My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status. (Applause) Thank you. That was it, by the way. Thank you very much. (Laughter) So, 15 minutes left. Well, I was born -- no. (Laughter)

I heard a great story recently -- I love telling it -- of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson. She was six and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this little girl hardly ever paid attention, and in this drawing lesson she did. The teacher was fascinated and she went over to her and she said, "What are you drawing?" And the girl said, "I'm drawing a picture of God." And the teacher said, "But nobody knows what God looks like." And the girl said, "They will in a minute.""

Thus, the literary status quo after the introduction of Wars is quite possibly of some importance, but it is certainly inappropriate to use the literary status quo as ground for neutralization of creative defiance thereof.

The problem goes deep---the simpleton is being misled; misled? Is he an animal, being pulled by a cord down some path, or is he making his own decisions? Again, the language used to critique this stuff speaks quite a bit of the set of the critics of creative defiance.

A post by huskavarna on CC forums

Howdy folks, (apologies for multiple posting)

I've worked with Rob Menard for several years now, helped him produce his first couple of documentaries (Bursting Bubbles, Magnificent Deception), and i run the website.

So i feel qualified to add my thoughts to this discourse.

Learn or Don't. That appears to be your choice, right? We all know the police & court system is corrupt. We all know the banks are corrupt. We all know the government is mostly corrupt. We know the system is seriously messed up.

Rob Menard (and MANY others before him), have simply removed their emotions from their research, and realized how the Courts, Banks and Government work TOGETHER to put us literally into a Matrix of Control. They've deconstructed how it works. I've gotten confirmation of SO very much of this information, simply by reading different Acts and Statutes, the Uniform Commercial Code, Bills of Exchange Act, as well as experienced BEING TO COURT and seeing charges dismissed because someone stood on their Sovereignty.

Being a Freeman-On-The-Land is not the ONLY choice. There are many solutions IN and OUT of Commerce, but they require you to file correct paperwork, in a correct fashion.

Rob Menard doesn't want to lead anyone. He was wronged by the system, so he decided to learn how the system works so he wouldn't be wronged again. He works independent of if people like him or his work or not. If people want to join him in his pursuits, and stand beside him and others, in actually TAKING ACTION to declare our Rights and our Sovereignty, then that's awesome...

It's WAYYY easier to sit at home, sit at a computer, or watch TV and call people crazy or call us whackos, or take the position, "Show me the proof what you're saying works for sure 100%", or "I'm going to sit here and twiddle my thumbs until someone explains this whole Freeman thing to me", without having done any meaningful research.

However, i can agree if someone says, "It appears there might be some risks involved in blindly executing some of this Law Technology, so i will reserve judgment, learn what i can, and apply it where appropriate in my life, if i deem it appropriate at all. In the mean time, i can ask questions of my fellow man, including other people in this movement, "real" lawyers, politicians, and other officials in authority."

Most of the time, Questions don't cost anything, and carry very low risk in asking (unless you ask Questions like a smug asshole - that won't win you any friends). The biggest thing i learned from Rob Menard is that in asking questions, be respectful, communicate human-to-human, calm, even appreciative of the persons time, even if they try and intimidate you. Show no fear or anger, which takes THEIR emotional power away. This disarms the usual authoritative triggered response of Fight or Flight, where they club and arrest you, or run away from you.

Rob also taught me that when your Questions, Notices, Claims and Declarations are sent Respectfully & Correctly via paperwork, and are Notarized, and sent via Registered Mail, they have enormous Lawful and Legal weight. (you may want to learn the HUGE difference between Legal and Lawful, by the way)

How about you do your due diligence, and LEARN some of this stuff for your self? Lawyers (and Doctors) have to go to school for 7 years or more - why? Not because learning Law is so hard. Just take some sample LSAT exams and you'll see its all about logic, reason, and recognizing details and deception. It won't take anywhere near 7 years. Try 7 months of solid learning... 7 years is so that a certain mentality of conditioning can be set in. People knew all this stuff back in the late 1800's, before Lawyers held so much power. I wonder why?

Now Lawyers are taught that Law is essentially "black word magic" used by the "enlightened" (The Law Society) to control the ignorant who are considered "functionally illiterate" at best. If we try to fight them with their words, they say we don't belong to their Law Society, so we can't use their words, but they still try and use their words against us.

It's like a bully comes up to you with a knife threatening you, and so you pull out a larger knife in defense, so he says, "No Fair! You don't know how to use that knife!" and tries to order you not to use it in the fight, but of course, he insists on keeping his own knife, and using it to intimidate you. How is this even remotely fair? Then why go to court under their terms?

If we don't know what words mean (in Legalese especially), then how can we communicate effectively? The people who write Acts & Statutes (and their associate Word Definitions) KNOW that 99% of us will never read the Acts or Statutes (hell, most of the politicians don't even read them), which gives them ENORMOUS control, simply because they can assert it, and WE CAPITULATE. But why do we? Is it just that we don't understand? Are we conditioned to not understand? What if we break that conditioning, and undo their ever encroaching Police State Matrix?

If we look for someone to blame, we can only blame ourselves for becoming lazy and allowing this rise up around us, and we can only look to ourselves, to each of our individual selves, to find remedy. To find solutions...

Not in Menard, not in any leader, but in our own hearts and minds. Freedom is not something you apply for, or ask permission to have. That's Plantation/Slave mentality. Please Realize - You are Born Free. You only have to CLAIM it. You did not choose or consent to having your parents sign your body over to the state, and create a Corporate Legal Entity called a Person with the same NAME as you. So abolish that Implied Contract. They only have authority and ownership of you, because you Tacitly Accepted (by your silence) by not SAYING NO. By Claiming your Rights, you are EFFECTIVELY SAYING NO.

This Freeman movement is about Personal Responsibility. Period. The Revolution starts within you. It starts when you lose the fear, and realize your power to do something by learning, growing and sharing your positive ideas with others, and earning mutual trust.

Lawyers are the gatekeepers of the Elite, and we've lost our trust in the whole lot of them. We are figuring out their corrupt game, and we are storming the gates. I know so many lawyers who use & support Cannabis, and yet the other lawyers who yearn for its continued prohibition, end up being the "lawmakers". The Elite know an end to Prohibition means an end to their huge poisonous profits.

Using Cannabis is our own choice, its usage doesn't harm another, and doesn't harm the user. Cannabis users should be FREE to do as they want without harming another living soul. That is the essence of the Freeman/woman movement. A large segment of the Freeman movement seem to be Cannabis users/supporters, and we're all collectively waking up to the Tyranny of our ever growing police state, and want to do something constructive.

Menard advocates filing paperwork Declaring your Rights. What is wrong with that? You do realize that if you don't declare your rights, then you HAVE NONE! You realize that a cop arresting you gives you your LIMITED rights as a LEGAL PERSON. It's a shell game, and if you can't distinguish between your Human self, and the Legal Person (Identity) you carry, then you are only playing into their game. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT (from experience and multiple times witnessing).

If you want to read success stories, then check out the Forums of World Freeman Society, or the Think Free Forums (

A good starting point for those new to this information might also be my first documentary film, "Hijacking Humanity" ( which deals with the Media, Banks, Law and Commerce, and False Flag Terrorism, and has interviews with Rob Menard and others discussing these subjects.

My second documentary film, "Believers Beware" comes out next month, and deals with The War on Drugs, Cannabis and Hemp, the FDA and Pharmaceuticals, Alternative Health and Remedies, Food, Nutrition and Codex Alimentarius, Astrotheology, Shamanism, and the origins of Religions, as well as Spirituality and Quantum Physics...

All this stuff is tied together, and although it requires some actual homework and study to understand, and fully understanding is an evolutionary process, it's definitely not IMPOSSIBLE to figure this all out.

Rob Menard and my self put out our educational films FREE OF CHARGE to share this empowering knowledge, not so we can profit financially, but socially and intellectually. If people want to buy DVD's and then make copies to hand out to people, we both appreciate and endorse that. This is about more than making money, but we are not businessmen like Marc Emery.

Much like Canada's Rick Simpson (who cured cancer with 80% THC Hemp Oil), i believe that Cannabis should cost the same as Corn (by the lb.), and that all forms of it (oil, hash, etc.) should be completely Lawful and Legal, so that the Profit Motive is removed from the Plant itself, anyone can grow it cheaply, and Marc Emery can still get rich selling awesome 6' bongs till he's green in the face.

The more people who are awake, aware, educated and empowered, and on our side, taking on not only the Unlawful Cannabis War, but the Unlawful Extraction of our Wealth, Invasion of Sovereign Countries with no evidence, and continued injustices at home (Police State/Judicial Corruption), then the more positive change we will see.

Cannabis use and tolerance is on the rise, only because more people are smoking, seeing the benefits, and losing the fear. As we continue to wake up, and see the Hemp plant's benefits, things will get better, but we have to be educated in ALL areas, not just Cannabis, or we will continue to be enslaved, financially, physically, and even spiritually..

It's a deep rabbit hole, and i'm not here to judge people who haven't come out the other side yet. But consider this scenerio:

You are living in a big box. Inside that box you are told that a Soulless entity will take care of you from cradle to grave, but you have to sign over your kids, give 1/4 to 1/2 of your energy in Work, pay taxes upon demand, get permission for perfectly lawful activities like driving, voting, marriage, business, with more and more things, not less and less being regulated, controlled, and forced upon you - and you tolerate it all, for a few potential "benefits".

Now imagine someone opens the top of the box, and blows a huge billow of cannabis smoke into your box, and says, you're free! So you leave the box you were in, and now, your mind is opened a little, and you realize the system is not all it's cracked up to be, but the system has decided your cannabis plant is not profitable to the system, and too empowering to the individual, so it uses your usage of the plant against you, and now you are out of the first box, but stuck in an even bigger box.

And this box may have nice blue sky and clouds painted on the inside, and it seems so real, and well, you're already out of that other box, so might as well make due with this box!

That's were most of our counter-culture is at. The 2nd box. It's bigger, it's more beautiful, but its still a box of slavery.

NOW, imagine you grow tired of the indentured servitude of the 2nd box. You feel something is still missing, even though you like that Obama is president, and you work for cash under the table to minimize tax, and can grow a small 8 light setup to make ends meet. You still feel the pressure of a Police State, forced Vaccines, Currency manipulations (inflation/devaluation), a flawed Medical System, and increased Checkpoints and Cameras with Behaviour Interpretation software. Thumbscans and Retina scans, and a Passport or Drivers license with an RFID in it. More Acts and Statutes (not Laws) go on the books to control you more and more.

Suddenly a concept falls into your lap.. Sovereignty.. People - they used to be Sovereign. You owned your own body, and had unalienable rights which NO ONE could violate, without the lawful response of violence. Everything is a contract between yourself and your fellow man/woman. Acts and Statutes apply only to PERSONS (Legal Persons) who have SIGNED AWAY THEIR RIGHTS via a Social Insurance (or Security) Number or Drivers License (Contract to Submit to Authority of Police Officers).

Suddenly you see the 2nd box for what it is, a larger box, and BAM - You see the Matrix as it really is. You've cracked the code. You're Neo. You've broken through that deeper level of understanding, and see things from a higher perspective. It takes some work to get there, but once you're there, there's no looking back.

The bottom line is, if you are happy and comfortable in your existence, don't learn about Sovereignty, your Human Rights, Legal Notices, Claims of Rights, Freemen or Persons or any of that stuff. Just keep smoking your joints until the United States and Canada are merged, and all your "progress" evaporates at the stroke of Stephen Harper's satanic pen.


REALIZE Acts and Statutes are Consentual - YOU NEED TO AGREE TO WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS (your Drivers License/S.I.N. are PROOF (your signature) that you have WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS as a Human Being, and WILLFULLY allow the State to become your Master, in exchange for the "Benefit" of Driving/Paying Income Taxes) BEFORE ANYONE HAS ANY AUTHORITY OVER YOU.

They say that the best kind of Slave to keep is the one who foolishly thinks he's free. We are all Debt Slaves of the Banksters System, and Acts and Statutes are their Invisible Chains.

Declare your Sovereignty if you can, but don't dump all over the people who are trying to do this themselves.. We are acting as the Guinea Pigs to see what works and what doesn't...

I believe if Marc Emery really wanted to put his nuts on the line, he would declare his Sovereignty, but in my opinion, he has too many business interests that require him to keep using his Legal Person, so he'd rather be rich and in jail, than re-organize his life, and not go to jail. He is entirely free to make whatever choice he wants, but casting insults towards a group of educated and well-meaning individuals without explaining his position clearly seems needlessly confrontational at best, and willfully ignorant at worst.

I'm sure if there was a cookie-cutter way to become "Free" and Sovereign, via a form you just fill out and send to the Government, people would probably line up like damned lemmings..

Why? Because they want justice, solutions and remedy in a Pill form, easy to take, no side effects, no research or hard work required. Do you think then you have earned your Freedom? This is the lazy approach... Freedom in a Pill - gimme a break. You were born Free, yes, but that Freedom has been taken away, and we have to earn it back through our journey of life. All of your experiences have added up to being who you are, reading this sentence. Are you YOU? Or are you a NAME that someone CALLS you? Does that question offend you? If so, then WHY?

It's far easier to pooh-pooh us as we work to find REAL solutions and remedies by testing this Law Technology in Courts, via Registered Mail, with Notary Publics, and via making videos to educate people of our findings, mistakes, failures and successes.

Dismiss this all if you wish, based on your emotions, or a few zealous people who failed because they didn't know what they were doing, but that is only your ego letting you off the hook from actually taking personal responsibility by creating a Rationalization for your Cynicism.

Some people would rather be Correct 100% of the time, than be happy. I prefer to learn from my mistakes, grow from that learning experience, and move on, appreciating i'm stronger and smarter for having learned.

Marc Emery can call people anything he wants. That doesn't change the fact that if he had Declared his Rights, become a Sovereign, and fought this Unlawful Extradition on Jurisdictional grounds, he WOULD HAVE WON.

My good friend James-Crawford of the Craig family, used Menard's and others Law Technology (including Winston Shrout), and we documented ON VIDEO, his entire process, including when the Charges were DISMISSED, and he WON.

Check out our videos at

There's lots of great videos on my Channel to give you an introductory idea of how all this Law stuff works...

The rest, is up to you figure out. But the answers, and the Truth, are out there, you just have to be tenacious enough to find them.

You can watch my first film, "Hijacking Humanity" for FREE at

The trailer for my second film, "Believers Beware" is here:

Some resources for further empowerment:

And remember, there's more than just Menard talking an teaching about this!

Check out John Harris, Winston Shrout, and many others with Videos on-line for FREE!

I sincerely hope everything works out positively for Marc Emery and his co-accused, and that they beat this thing, but i would also hope that he would see the pointlessness in berating and alienating a growing movement of conscious and concerned people who are on his side, trying to help, and want almost the exact same things he appears to want from society, except we're taking the power back from the De Facto Courts, and putting it back in our Lawful hands. Lawful hands open to those willing to take the journey, and the responsibility.

Truth is First Ignored and Insulted, and Second, it is Violently Opposed, but then Third, it is Accepted as Self-Evident. Such are the inevitable 3 Stages all truth must pass.

Thanks for your time in reading this long-ass letter, but thank you even more for your open mind, non-judgment & understanding.

Peace and Respect;

-Paul Verge
Writer/Director, "Hijacking Humanity", "Believers Beware" (at)

PS. For those who learn about this stuff, and learn about the Birth Certificate, and its attached Bond # - Please realize that the Account linked to your Birth Certificate Bond is there to OFFSET Debts in your NAME, not be some kind of unlimited bank account for you to get a house, car and boat with little to no work. The books have to be balanced, so get any greedy ideas out of your head. Redemption Schemes may exist, but usually they are just Schemes asking for money up front! Beware of those people who get into this movement or Teach other people in this movement that they can use this Law Technology to access unlimited money or credit, and have "all their dreams come true", are doing it for ALL THE WRONG REASONS.

In the end, Like Trey Parker sings, "Freedom Isn't Free." It costs your time and energy to Claim and Maintain. It's a mutual energy exchange. You can't get something for nothing.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Promo for Bud's TV show

A shameless self promo video inviting people to join me at 10 am daily. By chance potential co host Crystal drops by and introduces herself.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

The Criminal Code and Lawful Excuse

Robert Menard asks you read section 38 and 39 of the Criminal Code and then read Sections 126 and 127. The first deals with operating with a claim of right and how it establishes lawful excuse. The second set deals with how we have the power to disobey courts and governments if we have a lawful excuse, such as a claim of right.

Defence of personal property

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or

(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,

if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

Assault by trespasser

(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 38.
Is this not what the VPD are guilty of when they took my rightful possessions?

Defence with claim of right

39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Defence without claim of right

(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.

This is my personal Lawful Excuse, My claim of right.

Disobeying a statute

126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Attorney General of Canada may act

(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).

Disobeying order of court

127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Attorney General of Canada may act

(2) Where the order referred to in subsection (1) was made in proceedings instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government, any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene that order may be instituted and conducted in like manner.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 127; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F); 2005, c. 32, s. 1.

The involvement in the aftermath of the murder of 4 RCMP near Mayerthorpe Alberta in March 2005. I caught the government of Canada perpetrating a hate crime breaking the rule of law

14 years after doing the mounties a favor and turning in a double murderer who bragged of his deed to me, the RCMP used that good deed against me to dissuade me from holding another off duty cop, who ran into the night to after her Rottweiler mauled my dog and myself leaving me calling for help, to account

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Robert Menard speaks out on Cannabis Culture forums

Three Brothers all of whom are greatest at their individual arts are on their way to competitions, to prove their worth, make their Father happy and bring honour and abundance to their village. One is a pianist, one is chess master and one is a professional athlete. The pianist argues that music makes him better because without music there is no joy. The chess master argues that logic is the greatest of all tools, and those who do not know it cannot make music. The athlete claims that force and physical prowess is the most important, as without that lions would eat the pianist and chess master and thus there would be no joy. On the way to the tournaments, their bickering distracted them all, and failing to treat each other as brothers, none of them made it to where they could have all brought honour to their Father and blessings to their village. They all returned as fools, instead of Three Masters. And there was no joy.

Imagine a buffet and on that buffet there are many dishes. One may dislike some of the dishes, but that is no reason to destroy the buffet, as they can merely choose to not eat of a particular dish, and leave it for those who have a taste for it. But to spit on someone else plate, or deny them a chance to taste something themselves, or deny the whole of the buffet because some dishes make you gassy, is to go against the nature of abundance and peace. To argue for one dish, while demanding another be removed or restricted is to go against your own mind, and will result in a restriction to the whole buffet. The buffet of which I whisper is Freedom and there is limitless dishes upon it. There are salads and soups. People who argue for the salads yet demand the soup be removed are silly, and as a Freeman, I stand for the entire buffet, not any one dish.

I am wading in here with the intent of trying to better explain the Freeman perspective and maybe help bring some peace and dignity to my fellow man. I realize what I advocate is very contentious and as such I see an obligation to try and mitigate that through my efforts. I have read the entire thread which has prompted this correspondence and will do my best to answer the questions I saw raised there that deserve a response.

I do not wish to assign, accept or defend labels such as racist, rat, idiot, welfare bum or the like. I simply see no remedy there and such exchanges make my heart heavy and bring me no joy. I think every one does the best they can with the information they have available and their ability to process that information. I am hopeful that my words do not come off as disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, or deny dignity to those whom I may address or speak of.

That said I will tell you what I thought I saw. I believe that the 7-welfare check guy is in fact being facetious and likely does not collect any welly at all. He was labelled as a welfare recipient and then expanded what he saw as ludicrous and ran with it. I would not be surprised if he was a comedy writer or performer, as it is one of the tools taught in those trades. Personally I think to be able to pull that off is almost as amazing as the nine I cash monthly, and I like how he negotiated. That must have saved on body disposal costs. He is pulling your leg, as am I. As for the racist part, I have no idea what is being referred to and may have missed it. Same is true with the rat part. All of it in my book, is rather childish on all sides and brings no proper communication or willingness to see someone else's perspective. Thus remedy is never sought. The truth is a multifaceted gem, and no one can see all of those facets at once. All we can do is constantly change our perspective and not lose our memory of those truths that are not readily apparent, and accept there may be many more we have not even thought of.

As for Mark throwing a book at me and almost taking out my left eye, he did do so and I would testify to it if necessary, although I am over it and was it long ago. He can say it never happened, but I know otherwise. I do not believe he did it intentionally and would not be surprised if he is completely ignorant to how his actions affected me. His back was turned when he threw it and had I not been following him I would have been about ten feet away and not four and if that had been the case it would have hit me in the chest. I will accept he was completely oblivious to the harm he did and that he did so without intent. I will however swear it did happen as I say. My affidavit would attest to the fact that the book was called “Thirteen things the government does not want you to know”. I had gone to his store the day before and waited for him, he did not show up and was on a tour apparently. He came in the next day. I was at about the lowest point in my life and barely holding on. When he walked in I approached, showed him my book and asked if he would carry it in his store. He leafed through it while walking away, took about five steps, me trailing behind and then he said “It's Choppy.” and without looking back threw it back at me. The hard bottom corner hit me about an inch under my left eye. It left a red mark and would have taken out my eye if it was an inch higher. I came so close to attacking him, but was so emotionally and spiritually depressed I just picked up my book and walked out went down to gas town and sat in the alley by the train tracks and I cried and bawled like a baby for about half an hour. What a kick in the balls that was. Just another betrayal I thought. It was a good lesson and I came away thinking I would have to publish myself and was being invited to accept responsibility for publishing and distributing my own words.

As for his opinion that I am an idiot, well I fully support his right to opine without basis, logic or reason any thing he wishes. I have learned that vexatious words reflect far more about the speaker than the target, and those who meet me know I am far from an idiot. I admit to having been generously described as intermittently tolerable. But never an idiot.

Now let us get on to those things that matter and that is the basic Freeman perspective and how it is achieved and what one can and cannot do with it.

Freeman Marc Boyer just got 6 months in the can. More proof that this Freeman stuff does not work. Bud's head is next up on the chopping block...

This is not proof it does not work at all. It does suggest that it was not applied correctly. If it fails one out of ten times, does that mean it does not work? I can point to many things that when incorrectly applied will not work, but when correctly applied will. From screwdrivers, hammers, legal reasoning to martial arts and cooking. Your logic there seems to take a giant leap. It is akin to saying “He fought using martial arts, and lost, so martial arts are worthless as a fighting tool. So we should not fight at all.” Look how many people are in jail who did not use the knowledge of being a Freeman. That to me suggests that not using it is far more harmful then using it, if you simply count the people who are in jail and what efforts they took to avoid it. I know many who have kicked the asses of the people who tried to bring charges against them. Let me ask you this. If there was a way to very easily achieve a lawful excuse to disobey the people in the government and courts, do you think they would advertize it or even readily acknowledge it as you wish them to do? Or would they do all they could to see it dismissed, and maybe even generate more fear with it? If it did exist, would you want to know about it? Or would you BEFORE even reading the words referred to, start saying that one mans failure is proof of the failure of the technology or knowledge they tried to employ?

If it exists would you want to know about it?
If yes, would you look at the evidence without the prejudice that you are clearly demonstrating now with your post above?
I cannot teach anyone anything if they begin from the outset with the idea that the information is worthless and thus not even worth looking at. I can show you some amazing stuff, but you have to be willing to look, and read, and engage in logical analysis and reasoning. You have to at least accept it can exist before you will ever see it.

I will if you like send you a notice and claim along with the courts, the police, the people in the government and the public. You will have three and only three choices. You will either agree with the claims, dispute the claims, or do nothing, but by never even stepping up, lose the right to later dispute the exercise of the rights claimed. This will be the same standard applied to all recipients. You will be able to join forces with the government agents, law society and police officers in order to limit the freedom and rights claimed, you can say hey I want those too and join the fight on this side, or go sit in the stands and watch, but lose all ability to later act on the field of play. That is how the law works, and I will use the exact same system of fact determination that the existing courts use, but since they are now a party to the action, they cannot provide the adjudication services, so for this part a Notary Public sworn to the same standards as a court clerk will do that job. I trust you find that acceptable, especially if the police, government agents and court operators have no dispute.

All this case has done is show yet again that the Freeman approach does not work in the courts, and that is what we at CC have been saying all along.

When I spoke with you on the phone you admitted you had never read the key sections of the Criminal Code that is the foundation of the Freeman approach. Respectfully I say you can't define it, decide if it was used nor even judge it's veracity. I would be willing to bet that the Freeman approach was not even used by Marc, although he tired to fly the Freeman flag, so to speak. I simply cannot see how you can say “We have been saying this all along!” and then say “I have no idea what the Freeman approach is.” which is what you implied when we spoke on the phone. Marc is no example of a Freeman and I roomed with him for a bit. To use him as a standard for ANY concept is not proper and anyone who knows him would likely agree. He has a good heart, but is often angry and can be easily go over board for little reason. People like that can be easily duped into abandoning their rights and granting jurisdiction merely by engaging in the conflict in court.

If you do not know what the Freeman approach actually is, how can you logically say it was used and does not work? If you do know what the approach and process is could you please demonstrate that in a short paragraph or two? Mostly so I can see where you are at, so I know what areas to address in trying to share my perspective.

You speak of sacred plants, then treat your fellow man, something far more sacred, with contempt when you refuse to examine their beliefs instead rejecting them outright. Your use of the word sacred is hypocritical in this case.

Why do you think the Freeman arguement failed for Marc Boyer?
I can tell you why, because it is not merely an argument but a way of being and treating your fellow man. He claims to be a Freeman-on-the-Land but then does not use the teachings or tools and now you claim he failed. You do realize that the record for failure of 'pot activists' who have not claimed to be Freemen is far greater then the rate of failure of Freemen who are not pot activists? He was not charged with being a Freeman or using those as a defence. Plus Marc is so easily led into conflict that he could make a claim one moment and then of his own will abandon it moments later by being drawn into an ego driven conflict. I lived with him for a bit, and IMO he is a gentle souled big hearted wing nut with emotional control issues. Simply calling yourself a Freeman and then acting like a child abandons your claim. A Freeman does not throw tantrums, and I know Marc is inclined to emotional outbursts without warning or seeming provocation. A Freeman is gentle like a dove and wise like a serpent. Not loud like a goose and pokey like a scorpion. And I have noticed that the standard many have demanded in the past was akin to saying “Well, if you can do that, go do it outside a police station and sell pot while smoking a joint!” These actions are neither reasonable, prudent nor courteous and the path demands you be all three at all times. It is by this way that the arguments about waving a gun around in a bar fail due to not knowing what is demanded of a Freeman and looking only at the potential benefits without realizing the associated responsibilities. It is the mindset of a child to look only at the benefits and not even ask what the burdens would be.

The movement is rife with contradictions.

So is life.

I see it as a choice between adopting two educational projects:
a) the principles of fundamental justice such as liberty, equality, dignity, privacy, autonomy, tastes and pursuits, medical necessity, avoiding national genocide and other such principles.


b) the "all caps" jurisdictional loophole
Choice a) looks a lot harder from a "workload" perspective.
Choice b) looks a lot harder from a "getting a judge on your side" perspective.

I think I will go with the homework laid out for me by thousands of years of history (choice a), rather than make up the whole thing out of my head and hope that it will be adopted as the new way of thinking (choice b). Choice a) requires more reading and more humility, but I think it has a better chance of working for precisely those reasons.

First of all there is no all caps loop hole. Because you have not studied this without prejudice you look at one concept and think it has something to do with something else entirely. The Freeman path is about achieving lawful excuse to disobey the defacto courts and people in government by way of an undisputed claim of right. People claim it because of all the nice things of which you spoke. It is about recognizing that since we are all equal no one can govern you without your consent or appearance thereof. It is about using compassion and dignity to avoid conflict and using the rule of law to achieve equity and equality. That is the very absolute fundamental concept of all the things you spoke of above. The law can give rise to a fiction like a governmental body; that fiction cannot give rise to the law. There is simply no closing a foundational principle just because someone feels it is a 'loophole' to be closed. Referring to it like that is evidence that you have not looked at the concepts espoused.

What I have seen written by Menard and a few declared freemen here in Saskatchewan, it always seemed to hinge on 'principles' or some code of honour.

The legalese that seems to catch everyone's attention as a method of escaping prosecution, lacks common sense when the Freeman goes up against the many. Watch what I do then. I will take on the many. Every police officer. Every Lawyer. Every Judge. Every Politician. Every Marc Emery supporter. You and all your friends, and I will win and stand ready to kick all your asses. And no one will want to step up, though some may be compelled. Watch it happen.

No matter what a freeman might argue, selling cannabis is a breach of current Canadian law.
(You will have a chance to argue that in a better place then a internet forum)
It breaches the peace and trespasses on us.
(How does me smoking pot in my home infringe on anyone?)
The only thing a senseable freeman should do is grow their own. They might want to shove a few potatoes, carrots, etc ... in the ground, too.

Live free, be free.

The truth does not care what you think of it nor how it affects your life. It does not care if you like it, and the only arguments I see here is that “If that is true it could harm me, so I don't want it to be true, so it is not true.” You say selling cannabis is a breach of a law. Prove it. I can see how it is a breach of a statute, but I do not see how you can claim a statute is law. But you will have a chance to prove it lawfully instead of arguing endlessly without any hope for remedy. It is a breach of The Controlled Drugs and Substances ACT and an ACT is not the law. But if you want to argue, you can do so. However you will need to act publicly and upon full commercial liability, use logic and reason and not merely a declarative statement not backed by anything but your own wishes and beliefs. If you do not wish to engage in this you can merely forfeit and be defeated by default. In the end, all members of the public will know a claim was served and you could not defeat that claim.

1)The "bill of rights" is American law. We're up in Canada.
Canada also has a Bill of Rights.

2) Chris is arguing that the pot laws violate the Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion. I argued that the pot laws violated the Constitutional rights of liberty and equality. Which "moron prohibitionists" are you speaking of? Who in this forum is arguing that the pot laws are "valid laws"?

You must have read the Constitution but did you specifically deconstruct Section 32? It states very clearly the rights within are applicable only to government employees and agents. What if you are not one of those? I argue about the human right to exist without being governed without consent. Human rights existed before the Constitutional ones and therefore trump them. Only government agents, employees and wards of the state use the constitution to argue about their rights. Men have rights outside of that legislated framework. It transcends the pot issue and addresses travel, income tax, child apprehensions, property ownership, personal defence, and many other actions of government agents that so many simply assume are law and thus do not require the consent of the affected party. It is the table upon which the buffet rests and which without there is no place for ANY dishes. You are welcome to choose to exist within a framework where your rights are defined by the Constitution and determined by another. That is your choice. (Buffet analogy: You can demand to be served from the buffet and be happy with oatmeal and arguing about how many raisins should be in the next pot.) There is however another option, and we are free to choose that option. (Buffet analogy: You can start to peacefully serve yourself and enjoy a far greater abundance and choice.) That option involves using certain documents to trump the Constitution under which you claim your rights exist. We in essence create our own claim of right, or Constitution and when not disputed, it becomes the only law applicable to us. The Constitution becomes completely irrelevant at that point, and the rights that may or may not exist under it are for those employed by or associated with the people in the government, not those who have disassociated from them.

So there is a longing for Freeman militia in this Freeman movment?

Guys like Bud and Roundhouse with Guns is the last thing we need.

How do Fred and Freedaddy Menard feel about arming Freemen and secret Freeman courts?

I do not believe remedy will be found with more guns. I prefer using 'whispers in the wind' to 'bullets in the air' to achieve change. I do not believe most people want to have to carry a gun. I know when I almost became a police officer many years ago, it was the fear of maybe having to use one that was one reason I could not do it. The other was the idea of incarcerating someone for marijuana was anathema to my spirit. As for courts, I do see the need for a judicial determination concerning many of the things I espouse and speak about. Unfortunately these issues affect existing courts and thus they are not suitable for the adjudication and new ones need be convened in order to settle these issues. You know the process of convening a court is not monopolized by the Law Society and used to be standard knowledge. In any event the challenge will be convening a proper court, one acceptable to all concerned. This of course rules out farmer Bob and Dave the trucker and Joe the plumber gathering in someone's basement and holding court like the Freeman of Montana tried to do. It has to be one that will be acceptable to an existing Sheriff. This means it cannot be secret at all and must be as open and just and impartial as the existing ones are supposed to be. I do have a very cunning plan for how to do that, and will not be revealing my strategy publicly just yet. I am however confident, that even the biggest skeptics here will find them acceptable and neither the people in the governments, law societies, police forces, nor the courts will be able to say boo about this court I envision. And if the Sheriff agrees he is bound by his oath to a new court, all his deputies fall in line, then quickly will follow the police.

As for a Militia, I do not envision anything like that at all. That to me is the mindset of the '80's. The 1880's. I do see a need for greater peace, responsibility, compassion, acceptance of perspectives alien perhaps to our own, tolerance for non harmful activities, and greater awareness of our own power to craft our realities. This however does not discount the need to empower people to act as peace officers and by reading the Criminal Code, studying the law and custom I see how we can easily hire each other to be peace officers. I would like to see them armed with notebooks, cameras, cell phones, courage and knowledge of the law. If they however are doing their jobs and monitoring the police as they engage in their activities, and they are assaulted, obstructed or harmed in anyway, then under the law, the offending party is obstructing peace officer, and can be found liable. Now bear in mind, the status of peace officer, when claimed by oath and contract, brings with it many responsibilities and burdens. I personally think every adult man and woman should develop the tool set and abilities to preserve, maintain, keep and bring the peace.

Having shared my vision with existing police officers and some justice minded lawyers, I can tell you they liked it, saw the need and the amazing potential. Let's look at what happens if you become a peace officer and you get embroiled in a controversy with your neighbour say, or even a stranger on the street. As a sworn PO you will be far less likely to try and inflame the situation and maybe help bring about peace instead of having it escalate. If it does, and cops are called, as peace officers, they are now dealing with another sworn PO and a citizen. This will likely work in your benefit as the police officer will respect that you have made similar oath or promise to the peace as they have. If from there it goes to court, when you get there you will be on equal footing with a police officer, and instead of seeing only one party sworn to uphold the peace, he sees two, and he sees that only one of them initiated the conflict, then the benefit flows quickly to you and the tables are turned, provided they initiated the intercourse that lead to the conflict. Now before I go further allow me to share some of the details before you start raising your objections. This Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers is going to be open to any and all peace officers, including existing ones, like police, mayors, JP's, and those who through contract, oath and bond become one, be they Freemen or Citizens or First Nation or Permanent Resident. Sworn or affirmed to preserve and maintain the public peace, they will enjoy all of the benefits and powers now enjoyed by the police by virtue of their oath as peace officers. They will not however be empowered or bound to enforce statutes out side the legislative framework. C3PO will also have an investigation division, within which you will find citizens, civilians, Freemen and police officers. This body will be available to those with complaints or claims about the police and will conduct lawful independent investigations into the actions of armed policy enforcement officers.

As for who will be chief of this organization, I feel that should be a result of the votes of the members, and if you want a vote, man up and say yes to peace. To start however I would like to find a newly retired police chief with a good rep and who is unhappy with the way Canada is developing into a police state. If one cannot be found I believe the duty of that office would necessarily fall to a Sheriff. I will be revealing more about it when I am ready, and that will likely be next week or the one after.

As to your statement concerning Bud and guns, I would like to speak a little about the truth. Remember your argument against it is that you would hate to see it be the truth. Imagine you are driving a truck down the road and come to an over pass and it is only 2M high and your truck is 2.25 M high. Wishing the over pass was higher or you truck lower does not change the truth of the height of the two. BEING UNHAPPY WITH THE OUTCOME DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH. The truth simply does not care one little bit about what you hate or love, like or dislike, the effect it has on your life, existence, beliefs, or anything. Your positions seem to be mostly that you do not like the potential outcome, so you refuse to look at the facts, because your desire is the greatest fact to you. It is a fallacious and I think immature argument, if you accept the truth is not determined by what we may or may not like it to be. It simply is.

As for Bud, I have never had the honour of meeting him, and see how he is entering the ring tarnished and brassy, but I bet he comes out golden. If this was a boxing match, it would be 13 rounds, with Bud the underdog, and if I was a betting man, instead of a calculating one, I would bet that he would go all 13 rounds; get his ass handed to him first three rounds because he will bring too much ego, as we all do, becoming meeker in the next three he will be a bit better as he learns to defend, stand and breathe better, (keeping with the boxing analogy), start really learning how to attack from rounds 7-9, and then start to bring real action incorporating both in rounds 10, 11, 12. I would bet those rounds would go to Bud. Then I would bet that he wins by KO in the final round. I appreciate the effort he has brought and know what it is to be commanded by conscience to act. I also know how easy it is to bring anger and frustration into the equation and how detrimental those are. He is learning a lot I bet, and we should never judge another on where or how they plant the seeds they feel will bring good to others.

As for us being a cult, look at the World Freeman Society and the Law Societies. Now look at the 25 attributes generally associated with a cult. We actually have a couple I think, but so do most organizations. The Law Societies however have like 23 out of 25! They go to court (Temple) to 'pray' for relief from a man they call 'Your Worship'. They use a language others are ignorant to, have all sorts of secrets, look askance at outsiders, and all the other major attributes of a cult. And they are the ones who craft the words they claim are our laws, and yet in the next breath say we can't understand them because they are written in NOT ENGLISH and they and only they are empowered to interpret them. But we must all bow to those words, and presumably to those who know what they mean, lest we run afoul them or their words, and be denied our property, liberty or even our life. This is simply unacceptable to me, and due to my duty born of oath, I must stand against it.

Well all I am getting is some mumbo jumbo about `persons` vs `human beings` and `Acts`are not `Laws`, what i would like to get is a real concrete documentable example of this working in regards to cannabis legalization.

Every intelligent person i know in the local pot community, Marc Emery, DML, Kirk Tousaw, Jacob Hunter, Jeremiah Vandermeer, thinks its a bunch of bunk, and the only ones around here living this route are folks like Marc Boyer who is in jail, and Bud Oracle (KK) who I suspect is going to jail and in my view preaching a `guns against cops` philospophy on his way there.... and this route has panned out with more than one shoot out in the US

According to you, you have been speaking against this since the beginning, as have they. And since they know it is bunk, there is no need to examine it t all. They have IMHO prejudiced their own opinion by forming it before looking at the facts available. As for Marc and Bud, Marc is not living it although he likely is trying his best, and Bud is in self discovery and examination mode. Going to jail is not the be all end all failure you make it out to be. It can be a guided tour through the opponents camp and a great chance to learn how it operates, test your own fortitude and develop new and less aggressive strategies and get to what the whole goal is about, and that is self actualization. Marc Emery, DML, Kirk Tousaw and the other illuminates can receive a notice and claim, and will be welcome to dispute the claims made therein. One of them being that every one in Canada has the ability to become instantly immune from extradition by way of a claim, provided they are not war criminals, and that is by way of a claim simple, not an undisputed claim or successfully defended one.

Of course, if they want to claim that they and all others cannot claim immunity to extradition, and keep their own head in a noose while demanding all others do so as well, they can do so publicly and against me and the thousands of people who have taken the time and trouble to examine these concepts, ideas and beliefs without prejudice and prejudgements.

If you wish to defend a dish on the buffet of freedom, you must be willing to stand for the entire buffet.

I wish you all well and thank you for the opportunity to address these issues.

Originally Posted By: chrisbennett
Originally Posted By: Robert Menard
Hi Chris, They will already be included. Along with RCMP, City Police and the Association Of Chiefs of Police. You can join forces with them while you argue in favour of continued prohibition by trying to claim an exemption due to religious reasons. You do realize that legally speaking to argue for an exemption to a rule is to support the rule generally, right? Otherwise why seek an exemption instead of a complete destruction of the rule? You think prohibition is a good thing generally, except when it interferes with your religious activities is the implication. Ask any lawyer or trained logician. To argue the exemption is to argue implicitly for the rule to which the exception is argued.

Also you have not answered a simple question:
If it was possible to establish lawful excuse to disobey the people in the courts and the government, thus no longer needing an exemption to their rules, would you want to know about it personally or not?


On the first bit, the legalization of industrial hemp and medical marijuana were victories for the cannabis law reform movement, I hope for a similiar victory for sacramental cannabis users. But I also believe humanity has a natural indigenous right to all plants that is far greater than any sort of religious freedom issue, and I will continue to fight towards that end regardless of any personal victories.

Do I want to see prohibitions gone to the extent that armed and unlicensed Freemen are speeding down the highway in uninsured vehicles drinking untaxed grain alcohol.... not so much.

In answer to the second question (which I missed in your 5600 word post), Yes. But i have wholehearted and growing doubts that you hold that key.

1- I accept that as reasonable and thank you for sharing your perspective.

2- Nobody wants to see such a thing and if people act with reasonableness, prudence and courtesy that won't be a problem.

3- I ask you read section 38 and 39 of the Criminal Code and then read Sections 126 and 127. The first deals with operating with a claim of right and how it establishes lawful excuse. The second set deals with how we have the power to disobey courts and governments if we have a lawful excuse, such as a claim of right.



Anyone can achieve immunity from extradition by way of claim unless they are a war criminal. I have deconstructed that Act and asked some lawyers about my interpretation and they agreed.


Originally Posted By: davidmalmolevine

"I think since Robert Menard is making these claims regarding cannabis,then he should be the one to run a test cannabis case using this method...."

Exactly. He's Jim Jones ... telling everybody else the cool-aid is fine but never drinking from it himself - meanwhile the evidence that the cool-aid sucks is lying all around us.

You put up the funds, and allow me to operate it a I see fit, and I will put my freedom on the line. I would have done it previously, but the funding fell through, and as we all know time does fly.

PS - I live freedom daily, and not having money to fund a movie venture is not indication of a lack of willingness to stand. You calling it kool aid and referring to me as Jim Jones shows your fear, not my deception.

Edited by Robert Menard (09/05/09 08:22 PM)

Originally Posted By: Canadian Psycho
Well I (as you are) am quite curious what Rob has to say regarding his cannabis cafe that he seemed so bullish on opening yeas ago. Rob does indeed claim to be a free man and now I am led to think of one other thing.

Rob has made mention that selling cannabis in front of a police station may be disreputable some how? He mentioned (if I am remembering this properly from his lengthy post) that freemen should act in a civil manner and accept some social responsibilities or some such thing. I wonder then how he reconciles that with drinking alcohol in public as he mentions in a story of his.

I remember Rob in one of his videos describe how a police officer walked up to him when he had open alcohol and was drinking in public. The end was essentially that the police officer wished him a curt good night and sped I'm not sure how drinking in public is ok but smoking or selling pot in front of the cop shop inviting the interest of peace officers inside is not.


In the instance where I was enjoying a beer I was in a bus stop, not in front of a police station. It is discourteous to sell in front of a police station because you are cutting their grass and they do not like competition. (Kidding)

THERE ARE THINGS CALLED COMMUNITY STANDARDS. Oops caps lock. An action in one neighbourhood could be within community standards and outside said standards in a different community. Out side a police station is pokey and disrespectful to their standards and belief. You can't force feed even the hungry without them choking. Even if they would be operating outside their legislative framework, they would still act because they would feel insulted and they are human beings. In the bus stop I was minding my own business. Selling outside a police station to make a point is insulting to them, and as people they would act, because they would feel dishounoured.

Don't you get it? You challenge me to do things to prove I can, and yet you ask I do so in a manner that is discourteous and then you complain that if people had more freedom, they would be as discourteous as you challenge me to be. And if you read the story about Marc Boyer, you see he never even tried to use the Freeman concepts at all.

You have a lot of fear, and I wish you luck with it. Maybe some professional help or guidance to help you deal with it? It is quite baseless and you should deal with it. I was not asking Marc for money. I was challenging you, not him. Is he your banker/daddy?

You label it a failed argument, but provide no proof of its failure. I point out Marc Boyer DID NOT BRING A FREEMAN POSITION.

Plus he was identified not as a freeman, but as a member of your camp, the Pot Activist one. Seems it is the pot activists who are not freemen who get jailed. I would like to point out that Marc Emery is arguably the most prominent pot activist in the country and he is on his way, by his own choice, to jail in another country. I am arguably the most prominent Freeman-on-the-Land and as much as they would love to and how hard they have tried, they are not touching me at all. They would love to, but can't and it is not like they have never had me in their control with a big bag of herb they had removed from my pocket. That happened twice, and after I replied to their questions properly, they dropped all charges, even though they were so very hungry for my blood.

What does that tell you about who is and who is not an idiot or a misleading fool?


Too bad the idea of actually reading some Acts and the Criminal Code causes him such stress eh? If he is so fearless why does he fear so much the idea of his fellow man being self governing? If he is so articulate why does he not use it here and prefer instead ad hominem attacks and liken me to a suicide cult leader? Is that what you consider proper discussion tactics that at least nod to human dignity?

And finally the fact that he gave so much energy to these courts does that not give him motive to not accept that we actually have the power to simply disregard their rulings? if we do have that power would he not look like a silly bugger?

That said, I do have enormous respect for Dave, and having spoken with him at length many years ago, and remembering the kindness shown me during my tough times by him and his roomies who let me sleep in their garage, I do not wish to denigrate his beliefs or efforts. What he speaks about resonates with my spirit and I believe in them as well. I simply do not see the need to secure permission from another human being to do things I am compelled by my Faith to do anyway and which I will do regardless of the permission. Nor do I see why I should let another judge me when I have done no harm.


I am glad to remind you of happy memories. Carnivals were always so much fun eh? I do not care if anyone accepts what I see as truth. Many (and I mean VERY MANY) see it and are acting on it. Rick Simpson (Run From The Cure) recently perfected his claim, along with his son, and when stopped by the police for speeding and no plate, his son told him he was a Freeman and the cop wished him happy travels and walked away. Why do you not call him and ask?

Additionally, as far as these concept go, one of us has been adopted into a Whanui by the Maori. That would be me. I can retire there anytime and they have land for me and everything. I am Maori because of the knowledge I shared. Down there they have used the claim of right process to reclaim thousands of acres of land, free their families from statutory regulation and tell the court and government to take a hike. One young man with a family was facing nine months in jail had a judge reverse his order, kept his house he had built on crown land, and then thousands of Maori served their claims and are now living free of all government control.

Know what? Regardless of what you naysayers say, I have the benefit of knowing that literally tens of thousands of people have used the things I teach to create better realities for themselves, and they know it too, and I will retire to NZ as a brother of many, because of that.

Peace eh?

At least I make my way without welfare, unemployment, begging, theft or anything else that does not earn my keep. ( I am not implying you do, ok? I know you are a motivated and industrious individual.)

I work hard, and share much without expectations or considerations. I enjoy seemingly blessings and awesome friendships and more respect than I deserve and a chance to learn and change and grow. I am fully blessed and I am very thankful. I am rich beyond anything I had ever expected, and what I consider riches, cannot be taxed away, taken, regulated or devalued, except by myself.

Allow me to ask: did Jesus have a wallet and bank account? And if not should his teachings be discounted because he didn't?

Peace eh?

Sorry keep forgetting to address that one. Battery dying here may not be able to finish.

I don't have all the money yet to open one. I am looking at a smaller venue now.


Sorry keep forgetting to address that one. Battery dying here may not be able to finish.

I don't have all the money yet to open one. I am looking at a smaller venue now.