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.


No comments: