One person at CC seems to be deleting and moving the threads. You know who it is, so why make sweeping statements which are patently untrue? A lot of people at CC are very interested in your strategy and in your success or failures. Stick to what you know, and do it. Why waste your time addressing those who are your detractors?

We want to see your plan in action. Simple enough.

"After these "leaders" have ruled the scene for 2 decades we have Bill-15 to be thankful for, don't we."

Yes, and the right to sell pot literature and pipes, legal hemp, legal medical marijuana and the greatest amount public of support the issue has ever had.

What has the freeman done for weed? What can the freeman do for Bill C-15? What will your court case for trafficking do about Bill C-15?

So far all that I can see is Bud's clear record of failure after failure, after making all sorts of grandiose claims to the otherwise. "I will not be arrested... I will not go to jail.... blah,blah, blah"

slow down, I never had the intention of this to blow up over the freeman and a bill c-15 ... I was just asking for intelligent discussion on freeman's activism for the freeman on the land society... the only relation to cannabis and freeman on the land is, that he can engage in growing, selling and smoking it. Lets not overlook the subject I put forth please and keep the comments respectful without starting flame wars.

THC

namaste.

"Do I want more Robert Menards driving in unlicensed and uninsured vehicles on Canadian roads?..... No. That is both dangerous and irresponsible."

And so there we have it---freedom is dangerous and irresponsible.

I don't see how a licence or insurance makes anyone a safer driver, so the "dangerous" aspect is hyperbolic garbage.

As for it being irresponsible to exercise one's right without insurance---insurance from the point of view of the insurer is equivalent to gambling, and there are many great arguments as to how gambling is unethical; thus, insurance is unethical on the same grounds.

For those interested in reading some historical legal materials, here are a few. If I have one criticism of Menard it's that he doesn't cite so well---but there are all sorts of citations for most anything if one cares to dig well enough.

(In quasichronological order)
Glanvill, http://books.google.ca/books?id=pxNWW1Vr4nsC

Bracton, De Legibus Et Consuetudinibus Angliæ
(Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England) http://hlsl5.law.harvard.edu/bracton/

Horn, Speculum Justitiaorum (The Mirror of Justices), http://www.archive.org/details/mirrorofjustices00hornrich

Blackstone's Analysis of the Laws of England,
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Q8sDAAAAQAAJ

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blackstone.asp

Fleta is also available online, but it's in a subscription-only Selden Society publication database---c'est la vie. The UBC Law Library's supposed to have a copy, but, for whatever reason, it's AWOL.

I believe when "unlicensed and uninsured driver" is brought up it is with the RESPONSIBLE POV. If an unlicensed and uninsured driver kills, maims or otherwise damages property. One would be forced to resort to the court system for recompense, another place the freeman claim no jurisdiction.

So, if an unlicensed, uninsured , freeman on the land, driver were to harm others, and or others' property, to whom would the aggrieved person apply for succor?

"I believe when "unlicensed and uninsured driver" is brought up it is with the RESPONSIBLE POV."

Well, this is really more by definition than argument; there are good arguments to be made that having insurance is responsible, but there are equally good arguments to be made that it is irresponsible insofar as one disapproves of gambling.

"If an unlicensed and uninsured driver kills, maims or otherwise damages property. One would be forced to resort to the court system for recompense, another place the freeman claim no jurisdiction."

As I understand the argument, it is not so much that one is unamenable to any court; rather, it is that one is not amenable to a statutory (that is, constituted by an act, or, if you prefer, fact) court absent consent. Let's say WalMart wanted to get into the Court business, so they open The Provincial Court of WalMart. WalMart could certainly include a clause in its employment agreement rendering all of its employees subject thereto; it could also perhaps make it a condition of purchase at WalMart that all contracts will be adjudicated within their own court; however, let's say I drive over a WalMart WageSlave. Can he then compel me to attend WalMart's court? Clearly he could not. Presuming one understands how WalMart lacks the power to compel, then, it becomes a matter of determining whether or not contemporary states have more in common with WalMart or with whatever body might have the power of compulsion, it any such body exists at all.

In favor of the idea that contemporary de facto courts have more in common with the courts WalMart might create than the courts of old, I was once watching traffic tickets. It was me, the Justice and a bunch of officers in the room; the officer was doing a routine they do "Mr. X didn't appear, so please treat this matter as undisputed." The Justice made a joke about his best customers being those who didn't bother him with attendance. So, there's an anecdotal interlude.

So back on topic, the issue isn't that every court lacks jurisidction, merely that de facto courts lack jurisdiction except by consent of the parties to an action or thing. That the voting public has allowed all of the proper courts to be closed down (perhaps this happened rather historically) and replaced by purely de facto courts is hardly any reason that people shall be subject to them. Your desire to compel people to pay for your misfortunes is, unfortunately, or, perhaps very fortunately, an insufficient reason for granting jurisdiction to a corporation.

"So, if an unlicensed, uninsured , freeman on the land, driver were to harm others, and or others' property, to whom would the aggrieved person apply for succor?"

Well, there would always be the man himself; indeed, it would be grossly improper to go to a Court before having sought discussion with the party from whom one wishes recompense, as courts are for those who have intractable disputes, not merely machines for extracting succor, as you put it.

And it may be that there are no proper courts left; just as there are no doctors left outside of the de facto medical college, there may be no judges, justices, etc. left outside of the de facto legal system. However, as Horn says, anyone may be a Judge who is under no legal disability. Now, all Canadians are under legal disability, as they are not allowed to offer or accept duels, at least, that is my view. So there is a good argument to be made that being Canadian in and of itself implies that one is legally disabled. Luckily, Canada is a state of mind...but I digress...

If your argumentative tack is "these people must be made responsible for my misfortune, and by hook or by crook I will not accept anything bad that happens to me! Someone got to pay!" then I think you may miss the point of a legal system, which is not only to punish wrong but to promote right; and, indeed, to suppress the undoubted right of every free man to travel in order to provide "succor" for the relatively small number of people involved in traffic accidents is not in my estimation worthwhile. In my view, driving is dangerous. The surest way to avoid being damaged by an uninsured, unlicensed driver is to become a pedestrian. Insurance doesn't make anyone safer; it simply anaesthetizes one to the true inherent danger of moving more quickly than a walking pace---after all, in the case that this inherently dangerous activity causes me damage, at least I am insured!

To state the point succinctly, as a lifelong pedestrian, my view is that _driving in and of itself_ is dangerous and irresponsible, whether one is insured or not. However, children will be children! Shiny and it goes really fast??? Wow!!!!

natures law would prevail the freeman would be in debt to the other if not he places himself in harm..

The point is, If you are legally responsible, one can compel you to pay damages for your actions. It isn't dependent upon personality disorders like "fearing shiny vehicles which go fast"

"...there are all sorts of citations for most anything if one cares to dig well enough."

A successful court case? Just one?

"The point is, If you are legally responsible, one can compel you to pay damages for your actions."

Well, someone may be able to compel, but not anyone; the whole issue here is that the party injured has no ability to compel of his own and must therefore have recourse to some superior body with the power of compelling others to satisfy the claims of the injured party. If he had his own ability to compel, why would he need to beg a court to compel in his behalf?

Using the above imaginative exercise, imagine that circa 1900 there were still proper courts. Imagine that a bunch of newspaper barons decided they didn't like those courts and wanted courts more in line with their views. So, they invested in the construction of buildings and the publication of official-sounding proclamations suggesting that these were in fact courts, not mere private corporations. And perhaps they worked very well for a time; perhaps the relief delivered by those corporations, with the consent of the parties, was much better than the justice issued by coercion in the old court. So, the people allowed the old courts to fall into disrepair, and, indeed, in Vancouver the old Court was torn down to make way for the Cenotaph. A hundred years later, they no longer exist; all that is left is the de facto court constituted by and for the Newspaper Barons of old.

So now, for the sake of allowing drivers their pleasant anaesthesia (driving isn't dangerous! Uninsured drivers are dangerous!) everyone must be subject to these courts as though they were courts proper?

Automobiles are inherently dangerous; there are the environmental impacts, such as noise, particulate matter and greenhouse gasses, and there are the predictable consequences of human fallibility. Will every driver have an accident? No. Some drivers, however, will, given the fallible nature of human motor control, and, indeed, the fallible nature of every mechanical system (thinking toward the day when driving by individuals is impossible due to the task being computerized). As the number of objects increases, the paths of some of those objects will intersect; thus, accidents. This is unavoidable.

Thus the danger is inherent to automobiles; the danger is not lack of insurance or licensing, but, rather, the danger is that moving objects will eventually intersect. People bump into eachother on the street, and cars bump into eachother on the roads. Of course, people walking rarely have sufficient velocity to cause all that much trouble.

Further, the ends-oriented view of things "in the end I must be able to recover against another driver" is a rather silly way to argue; presume that the legal system is deficient and that anyone could get out of a de facto court process by saying "Man on the bench, I don't consent to trial in this de facto court." What, then, would you do? Accept that the world is different from how you thought it was or hire someone to shake down the one from whom you believe you have a right to "succor"?

Living is dangerous business; going outside of one's home is very dangerous business. There are many views on this, but I think that occluding the dangers of life by way of compulsory insurance policies is not such a great solution. The inherent danger discussed within your example is driving, not lack of courts. Presuming one lost an arm due to one's careless (and selfish) desire to drive an automobile, how much money buys a new arm? Everyone wants to be paid off, and their desire to be paid off leads their politics and ethics. It is really quite pathetic.