Love Letter to WestJet Employees

[Rockie]

The Freemen are blatant frauds because they will not renounce their Canadian citizenship. They are simple conmen adept at using the system for their own advantage while claiming to reject it. They have no political beliefs. Everything they say is a con so there is no point in debating citizenship issues with them. But they are entertaining.

[Widow]

1- I have spoke with the OOC people and they found it 'very strange' that I would be denied boarding and not be on the list merely for not having id issued by the government. Apparently someone on their end is not following the proper procedure at all.

My guess, you've encountered something many here have encountered over and over again. Try calling again later, you might get a different person - and a different answer.

Why do you think this is there?

The following are examples of valid government-issued identification documents that may be used to meet the requirements of the Identity Screening Regulations:

• passport
  citizenship card
  permanent-resident card
  driver’s licence
  provincial health card
  provincial or territorial government identification cards (GICs)
  birth certificate
  Record of Landing Form/Confirmation of Permanent Residence (IMM 5292)
  immigration documents issued to foreign nationals (e.g., Work Permit, Study Permit, Visitor Record, Temporary Resident Permit, Refugee Approved Status)
  Canadian military identification
  federal police identification
  federal, provincial or municipal government employee identification cards
  Old Age Security (OAS) identification card
  Certificate of Indian Status (Status card) issued by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)
  Canada Border Services Agency NEXUS card

http://www.passengerprotect.gc.ca/identity.html

Anyway, follow through on that. You never know, maybe they'll be willing to accommodate somehow.

[Huge Hammer]

I can't beleive I am wading back into this morass but here it goes.

A word of advice for Rob and the rest of the freeman cabal. I offer this in sincerity and hope it is received in the spirit in which it is given.

If you have a beef about something, which in your mind you do, you might want to try to engage those who are "not on yoru side" with some simple statements when introducing your ideas.

Your postings contained half truths, condesencion, circular arguments, etc. If one was to follow the evolution of your postings on here you went from some goofiness about serving a fee schedule to bonds with everything in between. You also dismiss points you don't agree with by using semantic games or applying your own definitions, for example, saying that sedition must include violence, no it does not.

You are entitled to ypur own opinion but not your own facts.

If you want to sway people over to your way of thinking may I suggest the following in your writing: ABC

Accuracy, Brevity, Clarity

I am open to most ideas and generally enjoy internet wankery so I checked out your website including RVCP. I am reasonably well read but I have to admit I had a hard time making sense of it.

ABC - it can be your friend.

Also you may want to consider that airlines ask for governmet issue ID to prove that you are who you say you are and avoid people fraudulently travelling under a different name.

Meander Nerf Ma

Anyhoo, carry on

[KAG]

Freeman Menard
I have to ask an off the topic question (again, I didn't read all 5 pages since my post to you so bare with me).
I assume you drive a car.
Lets say your driving your unregistered motor vehicle down a public road and hit someone, permanently injuring them, lets say you put them in a wheel chair. How will you respond? You have no insurance, and there fore the costs would be out of pocket. Would you not concern yourself with this individual as you feel you are not part of the "state" as they are, and that the state will take care of said person, or would you do the right thing?

I ask this because if you drive it's a real possibility your going to get into accident. If so you’re going to have some explaining to do in a court of law. And from what I gather your NOT permitted to act as a lawyer (from the first page), regardless of what your personal feelings are or moral character.

So that all being said, if you cannot act as a lawyer why would Westjet hire you? From what I can tell you’re an extremely intelligent individual who has a unique gift for passionately rambling on with proper spelling and grammar. Who is either extremely paranoid or has read too many Frank Herbert books (Dune - great series by the way), or both.

You do realize it’s the system your fighting so feverishly that allows and enables you to fight in the first place. A lot of other countries on this planet would have you shot out of hand. You want your own land to do as you see fit, go buy an island down south and have at er.

[double-j]

Something tells me you people are not going to like me much when I am done. Especially when my Fee Schedule kicks in and I start bleeding your company at a rate of $60K a day and a bunch of other people join in and do the same thing... We could easily cost you millions per day.

With all due respect Mr. Manard, what makes you think a court would honor a princely sum like $2500.00 per hour? Based on what? your own self worth? It is quite obvious that you have an elevated view of yourself however very few of the finest lawyers can command a fee like that, and it has been established that at least one court ruled that you could not act as counsel. Nevermind that sum being 'charged' by numerous, like-minded individuals.

Think I am joking? People who give orders to their fellow man are liable for a bill and when a man was in court and ordered to stand, he asked if that was an order. The bailiff agreed it was and the man then gave him an invoice for $1000. The Bailiff, full of arrogance laughed and showed it to the judge , who did not laugh and asked the Bailiff if he had ordered the man to stand. When the judge found out an order was given, accepted and performed, the bailiff became liable. The man walked out with a cheque from the Bailiff for $1000 and cashed it. This has been verified and recorded.

Could you direct me to the link of this verified and recorded occurrence? I find it difficult to believe it happened precisely this way.

Again, with all due respect sir.

[. ._]

Jeebus!

7 pages?!?!!?!?

-istp

[sarg]

1- I have spoke with the OOC people and they found it 'very strange' that I would be denied boarding and not be on the list merely for not having id issued by the government. Apparently someone on their end is not following the proper procedure at all.

2- Sedition requires one to advocate using violence to over throw a legitimate government. I do not do such things.

3 - You people keep talking about the rules, but don't seem to be able to read the ones you have. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO HAVE GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID TO FLY DOMESTICALLY! NONE! And any one who believes otherwise is beyond ignorant and simply can't read or interpret statutes properly.

4 - The greatest threat to Canada is not people such as myself who question authority, it is the ignorant complacency masquerading as a virtue such as I have seen here. Government is supposed to be our servants, and they use deceptive words to get us to identify ourselves as legally incompetent and therefore grant them power to administer all of our affairs and act as our nanny. I do not need a nanny nor do I need to exist with permission of another. Some of you seem to think it is the only way to be. You are in spirit, mind and legal capacity merely children. YOu need the government's 'permission' to fly. I do not. And my right to fly was interfered with by those who deceptively and criminally demand I submit to them and their only reason to stop me is my refusal to do so.

I have dealt with a great many willfully ignorant people and they all display the very same emotions at first. Rejection and ridicule and refusal to believe. Then you get angry and then you see how you allowed yourself to be deceived and how you embraced that deception and called it a virtue, like many of you here now do. Then you start to wake up.

Well have a great day!
Rob

Hi Rob,

You need to follow your own advise, and learn to read. Definitions supplied at the bottom, compliments of Encarta, just so we don't have to waste 6 pages arguing about the definitions.

IMPORTANT: The name on the identification that is provided must match the name on the boarding pass.

From the the link provided, by definition the identifcation must be compared to the boarding pass. The accepted forms of ID are stated. The failure to supply the accepted forms of ID bring the boarding pass into question, who is to say that another Rob ( perhaps the one that is not allowed to act as a lawyer) didn't loss the boarding pass. If the boarding pass is by definition required to be allowed on the aircraft and said document is in question, the prudent thing is not to permit its use.

You may not like seeing the definitions, but read and learn. Sedition is to incite rebellion, but the full definition of rebellion does not require violence.


Rebellion: opposition to or defiance of authority, accepted moral codes, or social conventions
Sedition: actions or words intended to provoke or incite rebellion against government authority, or actual rebellion against government authority
Boarding Pass: an additional ticket or document that a passenger must have in order to be allowed onto an aircraft or ship
http://www.passengerprotect.gc.ca/identity.html

Let the storm begin.

[tehmastermonk]

hello everyone, i must say this thread is quite interesting. one thing i have learned in my life is that before i criticize a matter, i must first establish a clear and thorough understanding of the other side, and untill then, i must reserve judgement and test the waters myself, in my own way, and some of you here may think rob and company are little more than "domestic extremists" or something similar.

i for one at first did not buy into some of his arguments concerning government and politics, so i did my own personal research and found more than just rob sharing the same position and findings. before you jump to the assumption that we are anarchists or anti law, we are not.

we actually realize the need for laws. real ones. not tax grabbing moneypits.

why do you people, with your education and intellect and responsibilities need the governments permission to do things that arent even crimes? perission to pain your fence?


those similar to robs point of view are not insane, uneducated, scatterbrains. many are well educated actually. we are not a group of paranoid conspiracy theoorists running around yelling at police and throwng tantrums. we deal with conflict in a much more civilized manor and of a higher calliber than simple name calling and stone throwing. that is how children act when frustrated. sound like a few people in uniforms you have encountered when you question thier authority or jurisdiction? go ahead, ask any security guard standin around half asleep and ask him if he knows or even understands the laws that empower him....

he will most likley shrug his shoulders and not have a clear answer but will get his back up defensivley.

[tehmastermonk]

Morning Rob.

Good to see you received some vindication.

Your fuzzy logic escapes me though. We are children because we accept what? Some rules? Freedoms do have to be protected, of course. But not at the expense of disorder, would be my choice. A choice.

I see why the Honorable Justice had some difficulty following your thought process. I believe you are guilty of reading your own press too much. It's one thing to have varying ideas and to be passionate about them. But I see evidence of sophistry at work here, and I think that it is something you should work harder at avoiding.

In any case, most of us haven't considered lofty ideals since college days when we were sitting at the Student Union Building rolling 20 sided dice sending our seventh level wizard into battle so forgive us if we pilot types are a little slow on the uptake.

Clarity and conciseness of thought are what pilot communications are focussed on, and hence abstract concepts come slow to us with advancing age.

And I'll have some more of that cheese.

John

actualy you are all assumed children under the child of the province act. go read the defenitions of child here..http://laws.justice.gc.ca

and you will find that age is not a necessary criteria of this legal status. im not sure what it is in B.C, but in Alberta its called Child of the Province act. there will be an equivelent in B.C if you look it up.

that is the assumption of everyone who does not express otherwise in regards to rights and duties on various things.

[Freeman Menard]

I will deal with sedition first. It is the criminal code definition that matters. Here it is:

59. (1) Seditious words are words that express a seditious intention.

Seditious libel

(2) A seditious libel is a libel that expresses a seditious intention.

Seditious conspiracy

(3) A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out a seditious intention.

Seditious intention

(4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression “seditious intention”, every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who

(a) teaches or advocates, or

(b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,

the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.

So that does not fit. In Canada charges of sedition require as a key aspect of the crime the advocating of force, which I never do. Can you read it there? I can.

Now for boarding pass thank you for showing me a section which does not clearly, specifically and unequivocally say I need ID. Is that the best you have? DO you even know what the standard means? You should not have to read two section and then require an assumption. It is not '1+2 = 3' It is 1 = 1 = 1 . Does the section you point to state clearly, specifically and unequivocally that those without Id are to be denied? Yes or no. It should stand all on its own, without having to add up or use deduction. All on it own, clear as day, not open to any interpretation at all. Where does it say it? You guys keep trying to use reaoning and deduction. Well this section says 'so and so' and this section says 'this' therefore I assume YOU NEED ID. Sheesh, just admit it does not say it anywhere and lets move on. Can you read it anywhere? I can't...

Peace eh?
Rob

[Freeman Menard]

Here is an example of what most people who learn about this stuff undergo. Hope you like...

My name is Mark and I'm from the Netherlands, and I stumbled upon the thinkfree.ca website about a week ago. Boy oh boy!

Since the law over here is originally based on French Civil Law, which is based on the Napoleonic code, I don't know what my options are (if any) to truly free myself from slavery as you Freemen have done in Common Law countries. My heart sank when I saw mention of the Napoleonic code in the Hijacking Humanity video (end of part 4 if memory serves), though I really should (and intend to) learn more about this. But anyway what I wanted to express here is something that I took away from Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Arthur :Menard's videos.

Maybe once or twice in my life before have I had a glimmer of this feeling I'm about to describe, but never as deep and mind altering as I had at some point after I started watching those videos. When I listen to Rob speak, I can't help but notice this incredible sense of confidence that he projects. I notice this because I felt a hint of that confidence just from the mere contemplation of setting myself free as he has. Confidence and love. Hate to sound all soggy, fellas, but that's the nearest I can come to describing it right now. And it's been a good while since I've used either of those words and knew what they meant.

I recognize this confidence as being what Bruce Lee called internal security, something that originates from within and which nobody can take away from you. Through Bruce Lee's teachings I've learned to distinguish this from external security, which is the confidence that originates from belonging to a group, and being accepted by that group by virtue of fitting in and doing as they do. This form of confidence can easily be taken from you and causes fear of being rejected, as well as the perceived need to regard other groups as unworthy, as adversaries, or worse. It divides people if they depend on it or lack internal security.

I've long been working to develop my internal security through reflection and introspection, and with some success. But it does not compare to what I found within myself this past week as I just described. And already I am noticing that people are responding to it, in any regular every-day interaction. Even (or perhaps especially) complete strangers. This glimpse of what it must feel like to be truly free has forced me to revisit the belief I've long held that the natural state of people is to be wound up, depressed, uptight, insecure and afraid to look each other in the eyes. Always looking for the advantage over others. Disconnected, apprehensive, apathic, and not knowing what to do with themselves. Let's call it rotten. Even if just a little bit for some, and a lot for others.

I've now been forced to ask myself if all people really are essentially born rotten, or only those who were born in oppression. Whether people are rotten from within, or become rotten by somehow sustaining damage through circumstance. After all, where else would our view of a child's innocence come from? If you squeeze a nice fresh apple, is where your fingers compromised the apple's integrity not where the rotting starts first? This confidence and love I've discovered within myself, and the way people have been responding to it, is a source of hope that I thought I had lost.

Now, I'm still a slave. But if I've learned anything from Rob, it's that being a Freeman is not only being free. It is also being moral, mature, confident, compassionate, responsible, honorable, and integer. So I may not be free at this time, but I believe none of those other things to be beyond my capability. In fact I believe they are very much in line with my character, if only I remember why I really want to keep to that and don't allow myself to be compromised.

The difficulty is probably in staying true to this idea. It is easy to see justification for doing things that would compromise ones character, in the mere fact that others are doing the same. Especially if one no longer sees any reason not to. Rob has shown me why staying true to yourself is not only a (perceived) burden, but also one you really want to carry, because ultimately it will be liberating. I only hope this feeling and insight will not be a fleeting thing for me, as so many things are. Also, it saddens my heart to see so many broken people around me.

I don't think we're in a very bad way in this country. Whether or not this life I was born into is one of slavery indeed (it's hard to tell when it's all you've known), I could have been far worse off. Yet I've always had this fundamental kind of feeling of somehow not belonging in this world, and according to my mother, a very strong sense of (in)justice. Something somehow feels wrong, and it has worn me down. That to which my eyes have finally been opened by Rob, somehow feels right.

Even if it turns out I might never truely be a free man under the law of this country, at least thinking like a Freeman may yet turn out to be the key to liberating my spirit and finding a way in life. Not only have I already seen it shape my world around me and my place in it, if only in minor ways as of yet, but also it could forever change the way I look at things and experience life. If that's not an upward spiral, I don't know what is.

I owe a great debt of gratitude to Freeman Rob, everyone whose work he hsa built on and who has helped him get to where he is, and everyone responsible for the dozens or hundreds of things I've been reading and viewing and thinking about in the past years, that have ultimately caused and helped me to wake up.

And of course, even as a slave in a Civil Law country, I can perform steps 1 and 5 of RVCP, and I shall endeavor to seize every opportunity to carry them out


Salute and three cheers to you all!

Namaste

[Topspin]

All of these things will get you on an airplane. Rob, you're forgetting that our industry got hit with huge blow on September 11, 2001 and we do not forget this. Every measure we take supports the safety of not only ourselves, but our guests.

We as an industry or we as a carrier?

If the former, I respectfully disagree.

[tehmastermonk]

those of you who think rob menards fee schedule is rediculous, i ask you this...

it is no more absurd than you paying the government to have you beg for permission to pay for the privellage to renovate your house, have a pet, gather in a public place for an organized event,(not the right, for you submitted that away when you filled out the form)?

you all have to pay fines for this, that, and the other thing and most things arent even crimes and you now live in a country where the full force of the law can come down upon you for failing to pay a fine! i know a man who was jailed for not paying a fine for his dog tag!

and i can take you to several places in written law that explicitly express that prison is to be reserved for only the most serious matters of law and as a last resort.

isnt that absurd? Rob does not need permits. He simply serves a public notice, and does as he wishes within common law. look up the defenition of extortion before you assume he is being hypocritical with his fee schedule, as he does not force anyone to enter contract with him, and he gives full disclosure of his terms before hand with no fancy obscure words.

as for a freeman in need of medical help, that is an unalienable right and is denied no one. not even criminals in prison. its under teh universal human rights act as cited in the laws of nations.

as for Rob's operating what you call a car, or vehicle,he is financially liable. he has insurance.
he is accountable to harm the same as you are, and in the event of an accident, if he is at fault, he would pay up honorbly, and not look for some silly excuse to wiggle out of it like your so-called insurance does.there is more than one way to skin a cat people!

you all ASSUME that you cant get insurance wihtout that liscence. wrong. but you gotta think like a free individual to find another way to skin the cat. the things you may assume a freeman has no acess to is not so. a freeman just approaches everything a different way as he lives on a different plane of existance. and its a whole new learning curve to live free.
you cant ever go on welfare, and bankrupcy is not an opion as a freeman. a freeman walks on a higher plain but has farther to fall if he messes up.

now if you understand the sightest thing about how economy works, how credit works, how money is made, $2500 fee schedule is not to be used for selfish frivolous things such as fancy houses and the like. we cant manipulate and use teh courts for personal gain and not benefit the greater good and our fellow man, that would be unjust enrichment. it is a non violent soolution to enforcing law without prison. your government calls it a fine.

so those that are thinking rob is trying a get rich quick scam, you misunderstand what that money is for and what it will be directed towards. once again its not pocket change for a high on the hog lifestyle. freemen have bills and obligations the same as you all. but one thing is sure, if a police officer moves against a freeman, he had better be in the right and not only that, but also prepared to give full acount for action done.

rob has in the past succesfult established ande obtained the rights to sieze property with this fee schedule. if he has managed this with the police, then surley your comany is subject to the same.

how many of you would like a more peaceful solution in dealing with trafic violations other than court? how many of you would like to learn how to deal with student loans more eficiently? and teach your kids a better way than using thier backs to pay for things that they have right to? did not your forefathers fight in wars to have what we have? is it not our persona responsibility and duty to the children to ensure tehy are preserved? are we not the salt of the earth as the saying goes?

i dont understand how you all ridicule rob and your mockings are based on assunptions and no real knowledge base other than the opinion of hte status quo.

to us, you people seem reasonable intellegent and i am amazed that people as smart as you all just turn in to childish mockings and name calling at the sight of something strange and outside your normal box style thinking,yet you live in a country that alows gays to get married,
shows pornography on public tv, and the diversity of recognized cultures yet along comes rob, and look at the reaction! do you now see why you are assumed by your government to be children untill you prove otherwise?

[Rockie]

Freeman

It has been pointed out in print that you need to show government ID to get a boarding pass. It's surprising that someone with an IQ as large as you claim doesn't seem capable of adding 1 + 1 to get 2, so why don't you try and get on board an aircraft without one? Maybe then you'll be able to link two things together.

By the way, what is a boarding pass anyway but a false piece of permission by a non-real corporate entity? Why should it apply to us? Why are we such sheep that we submit ourselves to corporation rules? We are Freemen who stand up and denounce enslavement to any rule but our own.

Good luck with that.

Oh yeah, have you renounced your Canadian citizenship yet?

[bmc]

This Avcanada user is squawking 7500

Anybody else?

[tehmastermonk]

its called ex-patriate your citizenship for yout informaion, and yes, i have. your claim that no freemen have done this is an assumption for one, and for two, expatriation is not necessary to be a freeman.

being free is not invested in paper documents. it starts inside, then if its real, it manifests into your life on paper later on.

how many of you have a piece of paper from your MP expresly staying you by name exist of ALL statutory obligations, restrictions and restraints?

and.. how many freemen have this paper? only a few but still more than you!

*edit* i remind you, that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and expatriation is not
what you may think it is. and we do not totaly destroy our capacity to engage in commerce with it, nor do we reliquish the servecis offered by society. we pay for them the same as you should we choose to use them. and there is the rub, we have the choice, and the power to negotiate any contract. you on the other hand agree to adhesive contract all the time and not even knowing the implications, you sign the line.

as for id, we have id. its just not in the forms your copreration is forced by the govt. to recognize. but with todays technology the way it is, there are far more reliable ways to identify oneself other than a card.

now as for boarding a plane wihtout id, we dont argue that. we have id, and we show it. weather you recognize it or not is another matter. and its that recognition criteria imposed upon you by government that excludes us. we dont have a problem with id. freemen have no problem with showin d under most circumstances. freemen make no bones about who we are.

and i do see the need for id being shown.the issue is Rob had id but your company did not accept it.

there is something in the law of nations called the right of self determination. basicaly it states "I am who I say I am" and adjoined to this are the rights to self preservation and self improvement.. etc...

my addition skills are fine. 1+1=2. i realize your position. you do not understand ours. fair enough, it will be settled in court.

[Huge Hammer]

Rob and the other Freeman.

I can appreciate some of your ideas bit the fact is you play word games and use circular arguements to try and justify and make your points.

A really small example:

Freeman Menard initially said this about sedition

2- Sedition requires one to advocate using violence to over throw a legitimate government. I do not do such things.

Yet in his posted definition about sedition there is no menion of violence and there are several ways of defining sedition.

I have been on your forums. I especially enjoyed the healthy discussion about ways to avoid debt collectors. No mention of just paying the bills, just lots of mentions of starting a bureaucratic rigamarole avoid culpability.

You guys are frauds. Your ideas are a fiction that could never happen in the real world. You use word games and obfuscation as way of absolving yourself of personal responsibilty.

That being said I find it to be interesting entertainment, like bad performance art.

[Huge Hammer]

its called ex-patriate your citizenship for yout informaion, and yes, i have. your claim that no freemen have done this is an assumption for one, and for two, expatriation is not necessary to be a freeman.

being free is not invested in paper documents. it starts inside, then if its real, it manifests into your life on paper later on.

how many of you have a piece of paper from your MP expresly staying you by name exist of ALL statutory obligations, restrictions and restraints?

and.. how many freemen have this paper? only a few but still more than you!

I call Bullshit on this. How about scanning the document and blacking out the relevent info to maintain your anonymity?

[tehmastermonk]

Rob and the other Freeman.

I can appreciate some of your ideas bit the fact is you play word games and use circular arguements to try and justify and make your points.

A really small example:

Freeman Menard initially said this about sedition

2- Sedition requires one to advocate using violence to over throw a legitimate government. I do not do such things.

Yet in his posted definition about sedition there is no menion of violence and there are several ways of defining sedition.

I have been on your forums. I especially enjoyed the healthy discussion about ways to avoid debt collectors. No mention of just paying the bills, just lots of mentions of starting a bureaucratic rigamarole avoid culpability.

You guys are frauds. Your ideas are a fiction that could never happen in the real world. You use word games and obfuscation as way of absolving yourself of personal responsibilty.

That being said I find it to be interesting entertainment, like bad performance art.

a fiction tha cant happen in the real world? what? what about your government? CANADA?

anyhow as you clearly would realize if you ever met one of us in person, you would know then that it actually does happen in real life.

how is our reasoning circular? etablish that. if my reasoning is flawed i would like to straighten it out. but so far it has worked for me in real life and i have enjoyed a higher quality of life since then by this reasoning.

and as for the other guy calling bullshit and wanting proof, sure i could proivide it. yet i could also scan the internet and create a document and blank out the attourney generals name,(as he also expatriates his citizenship) and that proof would not be proof. photoshop is amazing.

[sarg]

Now for boarding pass thank you for showing me a section which does not clearly, specifically and unequivocally say I need ID. Is that the best you have? DO you even know what the standard means? You should not have to read two section and then require an assumption. It is not '1+2 = 3' It is 1 = 1 = 1 . Does the section you point to state clearly, specifically and unequivocally that those without Id are to be denied? Yes or no. It should stand all on its own, without having to add up or use deduction. All on it own, clear as day, not open to any interpretation at all. Where does it say it? You guys keep trying to use reaoning and deduction. Well this section says 'so and so' and this section says 'this' therefore I assume YOU NEED ID. Sheesh, just admit it does not say it anywhere and lets move on. Can you read it anywhere? I can't...

Peace eh?
Rob

Rob,

Did you read the definition of a boarding pass?
Do you agree with the definition?
Do you agree that the supplied ID must match the information on the boarding pass (exact name, sex)?

Valid boarding pass=getting on aircraft
Invalid boarding pass=not getting on the aircraft.

The real flaw in this entire thread is you assumed your choosen type of ID would be accepted. If you had thought that no ID was required being a freeman of the land you would not have summitted to the order to supply ID.

Verified Identifcation=Government issued ID

[Huge Hammer]

and as for the other guy calling bullshit and wanting proof, sure i could proivide it. yet i could also scan the internet and create a document and blank out the attourney generals name,(as he also expatriates his citizenship) and that proof would not be proof. photoshop is amazing.

Always a dodge, always an excuse, just like many of the postings on the freeman website. Life in the hypothetical has to fun. You guys are slaves to the "if" and the "I could"

[sarg]

and i do see the need for id being shown.the issue is Rob had id but your company did not accept it.

There we have it ID required, accepted forms of ID stated and not suppied/provided.

I will deal with sedition first. It is the criminal code definition that matters. Here it is:

59. (1) Seditious words are words that express a seditious intention.

Seditious libel

(2) A seditious libel is a libel that expresses a seditious intention.

Seditious conspiracy

(3) A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out a seditious intention.

Seditious intention

(4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression “seditious intention”, every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who

(a) teaches or advocates, or

(b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,

the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.

So that does not fit. In Canada charges of sedition require as a key aspect of the crime the advocating of force, which I never do. Can you read it there? I can.

Rob

Rob,

I see your mistake you're going 1+2=3 not 1=1!

You're going the word + the criminal code = the definition of the word;

not the definition of the word = the definition of the word

Criminal code definition = criminal charges

As you can see they are mutually exclusive.

[Rotten Apple #1]

The arguments presented by Freemen seem to be less valid, less legitimate than Xeno's (classical Greece) paradox seemingly proving that all motion was in fact only apparent and not real. Of course its not true, but the Sophistry employed made one pause.

That's what Rob and his ilk do. They make one pause. Not the worst thing, but it's unfortunate they weren't just a tad more rigorous in the reasoning. If that were so, their arguments might actually pass muster when thrown at a wall to see what sticks.

I'll pull the rest of Rob's civil cases in BC and report back.

[Widow]

A lot of talk of the "strawman" in their forums ... I wonder why?

[Freeman Menard]

Now for boarding pass thank you for showing me a section which does not clearly, specifically and unequivocally say I need ID. Is that the best you have? DO you even know what the standard means? You should not have to read two section and then require an assumption. It is not '1+2 = 3' It is 1 = 1 = 1 . Does the section you point to state clearly, specifically and unequivocally that those without Id are to be denied? Yes or no. It should stand all on its own, without having to add up or use deduction. All on it own, clear as day, not open to any interpretation at all. Where does it say it? You guys keep trying to use reaoning and deduction. Well this section says 'so and so' and this section says 'this' therefore I assume YOU NEED ID. Sheesh, just admit it does not say it anywhere and lets move on. Can you read it anywhere? I can't...

Peace eh?
Rob

Rob,

Did you read the definition of a boarding pass?
Do you agree with the definition?
Do you agree that the supplied ID must match the information on the boarding pass (exact name, sex)?

Valid boarding pass=getting on aircraft
Invalid boarding pass=not getting on the aircraft.

The real flaw in this entire thread is you assumed your choosen type of ID would be accepted. If you had thought that no ID was required being a freeman of the land you would not have summitted to the order to supply ID.

Verified Identifcation=Government issued ID

According to the People in transport Canada,
Step 1 - Look at name on ticket and compare to specified persons list. STEP ONE IS NOT "SEE GOVERNMENT ID"
Step 2 - IF the name on the ticket matches or appears to match name on the ticket then the government issued ID is to be used to confirm the DOB and other information to see if the passenger is on the specified persons list.
Step 3 - If the name on the list and the identification match they are to speak with Transport Canada and determine if Transport Canada has revoked their permission to fly.

There is no need to see ID according to the regulations if there is no name apparently matching the specified persons list.
I am not on the list, there is no name similar, so why did WestJet not follow the regulations and why can't you folks even read them. Five simple steps. Why is it you are trying to justify doing the third one first, when that one is conditional on what happens in the second step? Just look at them. Incidentally the boarding passes do not have the gender or age, so there is no reason to check ID at door of the aircraft.

Also check out youtube for my new movie where I address much of the points you try to raise here. It is called ANDDENSUM
Here is link to the first part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMImRZqR ... re=channel