Love Letter to WestJet Employees

[Rotten Apple #1]

Well, this isn't a civil case but it does mention a Robert Arthur Menard charged with the following:

135998-1 1 18-Sep-2003 TCR - 4(2) Failed to retain & produce proof of payment Commit MENARD, ROBERT Arthur Surrey, BC, CAN

It appears the production of documents is an issue for you Rob. Was this Traffic Court?

[Rotten Apple #1]

And I'm not sure if this is you Rob:

AE9925621-1 1 17-Jan-1998 MVA - 146(3) Speeding contrary to highway sign Commit MENARD, ROBERT
AE9925621-1 2 17-Jan-1998 MVA - 24(1) Driving without driver's licence Commit MENARD, ROBERT

[sarg]

Rob,

What is with you and your ilk that make you pathologically opposed to answering simply questions? I asked some simply questions that you failed to answer or even acknowledge. You say you want discussion, yet you repeatedly have failed to answer questions asked of you so that some understanding can be reached. You just say I'm right, you're wrong, talk about an emotionally stunted stance, despite your previous claims


[

quote="Freeman Menard

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

[/quote]
Here is your problem you list three step then say there is five steps. Which is it? Or did you forget to list two steps because they don't support your arguement?

The first 3 steps are those to make sure a person is not on the Specified Persons List, which you passed or the police would have meet you at the gate to confirm identity after some further questioning in their custody.

The 2 steps you omitted are the Identity Screening part of Passenger Protect, which clearly and simply state government ID must match the boarding pass. Whether you like it or not sometimes 1+1=2 or if you perfer 1=.5+.5

edited for formatting

[Rotten Apple #1]

And I don't know if this is you Rob, perhaps you could let us know. Do you live on Denman Street?

Date File Opened: 24Jun2009

Style of Cause: MENARD, Robert v INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Location: Vancouver Law Courts

Level of Court: Supreme

Class of Court: Supreme Civil (General)

Initiating Document(s): Writ of Summons

[Rotten Apple #1]

And another Robert Menard:

Date File Opened: 31May1994

Style of Cause: MENARD, ROBERT v LONDON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Location: Vancouver Law Courts

Level of Court: Supreme

Class of Court: Supreme Civil (General)

Initiating Document(s): Writ of Summons

Details for Document: 1 - Writ of Summons
Initiating Document: Yes

Date Filed: 31May1994

Filing Parties

Plaintiff: MENARD, ROBERT

Hearings For Document

Details for Document: 3 - Order
Date Filed: 20Nov1995

Filing Parties

Terms of Order

Order
CONSENT DISMISSAL ORDER


Hearings For Document

[Huge Hammer]

He's got all kinds of dealings with the courts judging by a simple search on the BC Courst website.

This could explain some of the pathology of his freeman thing. Between all the civil actions and criminal actions I guess he does not have time for a job, beats working I guess.

[Rotten Apple #1]

And this is the Statement of Claim and Writ of Summons for the case filed Wednesday:

[Huge Hammer]

Guess Freeman Menard did not want to exceed 2 years before filing his claim. However despite all of his claims of injury it is not keeping him from doing a road trip across half of Canada. Him and some of the other Freeloaders, er Freeman are looking for places to camp as they go from west to east.

Perhaps if you have a yard and a bathroom for them to use yiou can meet them in person. You might want to have a garden hose handy as they may be a while without showering. You better not have a valley or the Freeman may claim it!

http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/foru ... =38&t=2145

So I am traveling across Canada this week and would be interested in meeting up with folks along the way. Our caravan starts in Calgary leaving there fore Regina on Sunday, then through Winnipeg to Thunderbay, to Kirkland Lake or Sudbury and then to Bancroft. If you would like to offer some hospitality along the way, and would not mind some Freemen camping in your yard and using your washroom let me know.

[Rotten Apple #1]

Rob I just came upon your spirited explanation of the removal of the child by Family Services. Nasty affair. For the others who may not understand what sent Rob down this path of understanding the Law, here it is:

1/2/02

Hello,

My name is Robert Arthur and I am writing you concerning the actions of one of your Agents. The name of the Agent in question is Robert Gordon and he works for the Ministry of Children and Family Services. As you know, I have very strong paternal feelings for the child baptized Elizabeth Anne Elaine ******. In my heart, I am her daddy and I always will be. I may not have legal rights, but I am willing to bet I have as many legal rights concerning Elizabeth as you had on Dec 05, 2000, the day you unlawfully effected what you called a ‘legal removal’ and which I call ‘Kidnapping under color of Law’. I am assuming by your silence that you have yet to find a document proving Elizabeth existed legally in ‘The Province of British Columbia’ on that fateful day.

Back in October of this year, Megan *******, mother to Elizabeth, stated that she wanted me to be a permanent part of Elizabeth’s life and towards that ends, she wished for me to visit Elizabeth daily if possible and weekly on Sundays for mass. She knows how much I love Elizabeth. She knows I am a decent man and that I would have a positive influence on Elizabeth. Robert Gordon was informed of this and the result was a visit for Elizabeth and me every two weeks. Seeing as how I was looking forward to seeing Elizabeth on a daily basis and weekly for mass, I was a little angry and asked whether a baptismal certificate was a legal document evidencing a family in act and intent. (I know now it is). His reaction was to phone Megan and using coercion, convince her to cancel my visits. He told her that allowing me access to Elizabeth would be viewed by The Ministry as a sign of poor decision-making skills and would likely result in her not getting Elizabeth back. Once he had unlawfully secured new instructions from Megan, he then left a message on my machine informing me HE had cancelled the visit. He left no reason why, nor did he mention it was at Megan’s request. It was not until after many days that he informed me Megan had requested the cancellation. It was not until I saw Megan at court that I found out about Robert Gordon’s coercion, duplicitous actions and words spoken in bad faith.

I have been Megan’s friend since we met and I have never done anything intentional to hurt her. Robert Gordon’s actions had a very negative effect on Megan and our friendship. I have been a source of support for her and now I can no longer do so. I worry a lot about Megan and used to be able to call her and find out how she is doing and offer moral and spiritual support. Due to Robert Gordon’s lies, I can no longer do so. Elizabeth, Megan and I suffered harm because of his actions. Those actions were made in bad faith and his words were lies. Megan is his client. Because of your Ministry, she is in a fragile and weakened state and he worsened that situation with an unlawful and bad faith act. She needs emotional and spiritual support and he purposely and willfully removed that support from her. I wish to know how your Ministry expects Megan to recover when you are constantly removing from her the emotional and spiritual support she needs. It appears that Megan’s failure is actually your goal. If Megan’s failure is not the Ministry’s goal, please explain how removing emotional support systems benefit her.

Many experts agree that unconditional love during the formative years is vital to a developing child. I love Elizabeth unconditionally and have sworn oath to God over her. I am dedicated to her. I was the first person to know of her existence and I became her daddy before she was born and long before your Ministry even knew of her existence. I have strong paternal instincts and endless love for her and I cannot just turn them off. No one in your Ministry is dedicated to her. The harm you have all allowed to happen to her and her mother is Prima Facie evidence of this. I do what I do without pay. Who in your mercenary Ministry can say the same?

I have to acknowledge that I believe not only does a prenatal baby’s life begin at conception, but that there begins fatherhood also. It is at conception that the father and mother are conjoined to produce new life. It is at conception that the most beautiful thing on the planet, the God-blessed spark of innocent human life, begins its journey through existence.

From that moment, every good father loves his baby, and is moved by a need to protect, defend, and care for her from that moment, through all the days of her life. This empathy, this compassion and emotional investment, is a society builder. It is what gives fathers the motivation to work, to build homes, and to try and make the world a safer place.

I have loved Elizabeth since before her mother knew and accepted she was pregnant.

In examining Robert Gordon’s actions, I have come to these logical conclusions.

Either,

A- The Ministry does not believe love is important to Elizabeth, or,

B- The Ministry does not believe I love Elizabeth, or,

C- The Ministry thinks that my love is not relevant because I am likely to harm Elizabeth, or,

D- The Ministry knows how important love is, knows I am a great source of love for Elizabeth, and is using access to her to punish me for mentioning facts of law. If this is the case, it means the Ministry is acting in spite and against what is clearly best for Elizabeth.

As you can see, I have very good reason to be concerned. If the case is A, then you are actively harming Elizabeth through ignorance. If it is B, then the Ministry is again blind to reality and unable to distinguish what is best for Elizabeth and is harming her by depriving her the unconditional love I feel for her. If it is C, then this means anytime I have a child in my life, the Ministry will come in and remove that child, likely without investigation, as they did with Elizabeth. (If anyone believes that I would harm a child, let alone Elizabeth, they need to have their head examined.) Finally, if it is D, then again I am in danger when I have another child. If you people acted spitefully once, what’s to stop you from doing it again? And again and again…

I seek a full, rational, logical, reasonable and completely honest explanation for my visits being cancelled. Saying Megan requested it will not suffice, as Robert Gordon subjected her to coercion. So which is it? Why exactly did Robert Gordon unlawfully coerce Megan into doing what is clearly not in Elizabeth’s best interest? Is coercion standard operating procedure for your Ministry? Were his words to Megan indicative of his Principle’s position? If so justify them. If not, please be aware that Robert Gordon is guilty of professional misconduct. If you believe for any reason, that I would harm Elizabeth or any child, I wish to know immediately. If you do not think love is important, tell me in writing. If you were acting spitefully knowing full well that your actions would harm Elizabeth, silence on your part at this time will indicate that just fine.

Also, I have uncovered information which will one day be presented in a court of competent jurisdiction proving one of your Agents said that if my age was 21, they would have acknowledged my status of standing lawfully in place of the father. Because of the difference however, they felt justified in denying me the same rights they would have acknowledged existed for a younger man. This is clearly an unlawful act and against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was denied my lawful status as father for no other reason then age. Are your Agents the determiners of morality now? Do these people who act so capriciously now determine on the fly whether a family is a family based upon their own narrow mindedness, skewed morals and ignorance of the law? God help us all, if this is the case. In my opinion, and based on what I have seen of your Agents, a Ministry worker determining morals is like a blind man determining color or a deaf man determining tone.

I know this entire situation is far from the norm. I realize and accept that. The difference in ages is not what I wanted or looked for. I didn’t find out Megan’s actual age until seven months after agreeing to accept her child as my own. At that time, I was torn on what the proper course of action should be. I took me very little time however, to realize that Megan’s age had nothing to do with my duty to Elizabeth. At this point in time, I reaffirmed my previous oath and was accepted by Megan’s parents as daddy to Elizabeth. My entire goal since meeting Megan was to see her reach a point where she would be confident in her decisions, competent in her actions and ready to venture forth with love and conquest aforethought. My primary duty as Elizabeth’s daddy is to protect the mother and child bond. I do not seek access to Elizabeth against the wishes of Megan. I know however, that if successful in being a daddy, she would want me to be a part of Elizabeth’s life. I strongly believe that Elizabeth misses me and her not being able to see me must be hurting her as much as it does myself. I spent many hours on a daily basis speaking to her in the womb. She really responds to me. She loves me. Megan knows how good I would be for Elizabeth and you put her in a horrible position. Please justify using an unlawful act of coercion to deny Elizabeth the love I have for her, which she needs.

One of my greatest fears is that Megan will not recover from her present situation. The reason she will not is because she is unjustly burdened with feelings of fear, anger and shame. These feelings rightfully belong to your Ministry and certain Agents in it. Everyday you refuse to apologize to her is a day she suffers. Everyday she suffers puts Elizabeth one step closer to growing up not knowing her Natural Mother at her potential. If that happens, I promise, you will never know peace.

Every morning I wake up and worry about those two. Not being able to check on them is worse than torture. Is there even anyone in your organization who is a ‘daddy’ and can understand what I am going through? Does anyone care? Do you people love your children only because you have legal documentation?

I have been doing some research on the effects of fathers on families and the importance of fathers to developing children. I feel your Ministry either knows or should know these following statistics. If you do not know these statistics, you are negligent in your duties. If you do, then you disregarded them and are therefore fully responsible and liable if any of these things befall Elizabeth:

Daughters of single parents are:

53% more likely to marry as teenagers,
111% more likely to have children as teenagers,
164% more likely to be a single parent
92% more likely to divorce if they even marry.
Children from Fatherless households are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape: This applies to boys of course.
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more likely to end up in prison.
You unlawfully took Elizabeth out of a family where she had two parents and put her in a situation where she had only one. You then stressed that single caregiver to the point of breaking. These were not rational acts and in light of these statistics, they clearly and obviously posed an enormous potential for danger to the infant, Elizabeth. Read those statistics again and know the potential for harm you have visited upon Elizabeth.

This is what I believe you know:

You know I love Elizabeth as much as any good ‘daddy’ could
You know Megan wanted me to be a permanent part of Elizabeth’s life before your Agents acted unlawfully.
You know we were a family in act and intent.
You know your Ministry and your Agents knew we were a family in act and intent and they unlawfully disregarded that fact.
You know I swore Oath to God over Elizabeth.
You know I take that Oath extraordinarily seriously.
You know I would never harm Elizabeth, or any other child
You know my love shared with Elizabeth, would benefit her.
You know the lawful fight I will bring upon you for your unlawful acts will surpass anything you can even begin to imagine.
You know that I will never give up. No ‘daddy’ could.
You know that at some point in the future, Elizabeth will read this correspondence and know what you have unlawfully denied her.
You know you and your Agents will then be personally liable for the tort you are committing against her.
You know I feel I have an obligation to Elizabeth which existed prior to yours and is much more lawful.
You know that if you continue to deny Elizabeth a chance to know me, you are harming her.
You know that any animosity, which presently exists, between myself and Elizabeth’s Grand Parents is a direct result of your Ministry’s unlawful actions and lies.
You know that any animosity which presently exists between Megan and I is a direct result of unlawful and bad faith actions committed by your Agent, Robert Gordon.
You know the Ministry broke the Law on Dec 5, 2000 because Elizabeth did not exist legally in ‘The Province of British Columbia’. You had no duty of care.
You know you harmed Elizabeth, Megan and Myself.
You know that you owe significant damages to all three of us.
You know your Ministry did not effect a legal removal for you cannot ‘legally remove’ that which does not ‘legally exist’.
You know you KIDNAPPED an infant, under the color of Law.
You know your Agents, Celia Huber and Charles Hodgson, committed a Fraud upon a Court.
You know your Agent, Celia Huber, threatened Elizabeth with FIVE YEARS OF FOSTER CARE IN THREE SEPARATE HOMES in order to deny us recourse to the Law.
You know how harmful the above situation would be to an infant.
You know your agent, Celia Huber committed an act of EXTORTION to create an Agreement
You know your Ministry and your Agents broke the law by disregarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by discriminating against me solely on the basis of my age.
You know that the unlawful actions of your Ministry cost me my family.
You know I am writing a book that will lead to thousands of parents refusing to register their children.
You know that you will then be incapable of lawfully providing ‘services’ to those children.
You know that in the eyes of the Law, silence is acceptance.
If there are any points here, which you do not accept as truth, and you wish to dispute or deny them, you must do so within fourteen (14) days. Failure to do so means you accept and agree with all of the above claims.

I have been very patient with your Ministry throughout this situation. Like all good daddy’s, I have sacrificed a great deal here. I am willing to sacrifice much more, up to and including my very life. Is patience and sacrifice not the hallmark of a good daddy? You continue to ignore me. Doing so harms Elizabeth. I wish for us to sit down and discuss this situation. Before we go to Court, we truly should seek mediation and I am hereby officially inviting you to do so. This situation can be resolved if we all act in good faith and identify what is best for Elizabeth. Your organization and it’s Agents are clearly unfit to decide what is best for her. You have been deciding what is best for her for the last year, and look at what you have wrought. Look at those statistics and realize what you have done to her, an innocent, voiceless infant. I urge you to immediately take the proper steps necessary to resolve this situation, to my complete satisfaction.

If the single man plant himself indomitably on his instincts, and there abide, the huge world will come round to him.

Emerson (1803-1882)

There is no cruder tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of Law and in the name of justice.

Montesquieu (1689-1755)

Sincerely, Lawfully and, unlike Robert Gordon, Truthfully fighting

For a positive outcome and a just society,

All in the name of

Elizabeth Anne Elaine

Robert Arthur



P.S. I don’t know if you realize this yet, but I am NOT going away.

[Freeman Menard]

And I don't know if this is you Rob, perhaps you could let us know. Do you live on Denman Street?

Date File Opened: 24Jun2009

Style of Cause: MENARD, Robert v INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Location: Vancouver Law Courts

Level of Court: Supreme

Class of Court: Supreme Civil (General)

Initiating Document(s): Writ of Summons

That is not me, I did not file those documents.

[tehmastermonk]

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.

you critique our reasoning yet i see none of yours, so far all i seen is a bunch of insults and dishonourable mocking and other child like behaviours. dont forget some on the freeman forums are just begining thier journey, and Rob personaly does not neccessarily agree with every post or point of view there. and as for that silly dirt digging on rob, do you comprehend even half of what the words in those documents mean? let alone use them in a proper sentance to a judge? i see signs of insecurity! observig teh social dynamic of ridicule getting more and more brave and crue even to the point of establishing assumptions that all freemen are homelss or something. i mean really if your all so correct in your position and reason, why mock? why go digging up dirt?

because like it or not, Rob has a valid case, and your only defnense is, what? ridicule? one little document? thats it? and you call our reasoning incomplete?

have you only isolated a few posts fronm a few newcomers to out site and portray them as "experts" of the freemen?

alas..the fish can not see the birds as they fly free in the air while you swim around in the water that limits you. anyhow no resentments or hard feelings from us, as for myself i still extend a hand of peace to you and bid you good day.

[Rotten Apple #1]

Whoa there big fella (BTW, what's with the 'teh' vice 'the'), we're not the ones setting up a new world order. Rob sets himself up to the scrutiny. As a free man, I choose what I research and what I reveal. Would you now shackle me and prevent me from discovery?

Do not act like a child caught with hand in cookie jar. Stand up and be counted!

[Freeman Menard]

Sarg:
I agree I messed up by not breaking it down further. Good catch, thank you for the correction. Let us look at the relevant words as found in the Gazette an online at the Transport Canada website, ok? Here it is:
http://www.passengerprotect.gc.ca/identity.html
The Identity Screening Regulations require air carriers to ask passengers who appear to be 18 years or older for identification. ( No mention of who issued it is there? No mention that the term ask suddenly and magically creates an obligation to provide.)
and here:
http://www.passengerprotect.gc.ca/specified.html
we find this:
The specified-persons list includes the name, date of birth and gender of individuals who have been identified as people who may pose an immediate threat to aviation security (Here we see the stated reason and purpose of the whole Act) should they board a flight.

The Government of Canada maintains the list, which is provided to airlines in secure form. Under the identity-screening regulations, airlines are required to screen each person’s name against the specified-persons list for any person who appears to be 12 years of age or older before issuing a boarding pass. The regulations take into account the various ways in which the boarding pass may be obtained, such as at an airport check-in counter or kiosk or via the Internet.

The airlines compare the names of individuals intending to board flights with the names on the specified-persons list. NOTE 1When there is a name match, the airline will use the individual’s government-issued identification information to verify whether it matches the name, date of birth and gender of someone on the list. This verification is done in person, at the airport check-in counter.

When there is a potential match, the airline is required to inform Transport Canada. Transport Canada will then verify the information with the airline to confirm whether the individual poses an immediate threat to aviation security. If necessary, Transport Canada will inform the airline that the individual is not permitted to board the flight.


The bold is mine and will be later referenced.
Now to look at the whole of the regulations. I am not yet even examining the Act to see if those regs are keeping with the spirit and intent and reserve the right to do so later, though I do not think it will be needed.

Here is the regulation from the Gazette website:
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2008/ ... 2-eng.html

1. Subsection 3(1) of the Identity Screening Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:

3. (1) An air carrier shall, before issuing a boarding pass to any person who appears to be 18 years of age or older, screen the person by comparing his or her name with the names of persons specified to the air carrier by the Minister under paragraph 4.81(1)(b) of the Act.



2. Section 5 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

BOARDING GATE

5. (1) An air carrier shall, at a boarding gate, screen any person who appears to be 18 years of age or older by asking the person for a restricted area identity card, for one piece of government-issued photo identification that shows his or her name or for two pieces of government-issued identification each of which shows his or her name.

(2) If (NOTE 2) the name on the restricted area identity card or the identification is not the same as the name on the person’s boarding pass, (THEN) the air carrier shall compare the name on the restricted area identity card or the identification with those of persons specified to the air carrier by the Minister under paragraph 4.81(1)(b) of the Act.

(3) If (NOTE 2)the name on the restricted area identity card or the identification is the same as that of a person specified to the air carrier, (THEN)the air carrier shall ask the person for one piece of government-issued photo identification that, in addition to showing his or her name, shows his or her date of birth and gender or for two pieces of government-issued identification, at least one of which shows his or her name, date of birth and gender.

(4) If (NOTE 2) the name, date of birth and gender on the identification[/b] are the same as those of a person specified to the air carrier, (THEN) the air carrier shall immediately so inform the Minister.

The (THEN) were added by me for the purposes of highlighting that anytime a section begins with an 'if' there is always a condition which needs be met before the actuation of the empowering clause, ok?


Let us instead of arguing see where our common ground is and what that might bring us.

Do we agree that it states that the duty is to 'ask' and not demand? (See NOTE 1)
That is my first question. Will you please answer it?

Do you agree that the word ask is different from the word demand?
That is my second question. Will you please answer it?

Do you agree that the other sections begin with the word 'If' and thus there are conditions that must be met prior to them being enforced?
This is my third straight forward question and is clearly not an attack of your opinion or beliefs, merely an attempt to find common ground. Do you see the word 'If' at the beginning of those sections? (See NOTES 2)

Do you agree that it states clearly that the airlines will screen their names against the specified persons list and in that sentence there is no mention of government issued identification?

Do you agree that there is nothing there which states that someone may be denied a boarding pass even though their names are not on the specified persons list?
That is my final question for this round, for as I do wish to find common ground, it is now up to you to answer and then ask yours.

I have many but will wait to see if you answer my questions. If you do I will follow your example and do my best to answer yours, even though you seem very angry and on the attack and all I want to do is find our common ground by seeing if we see the same words. We will discuss what they mean after we agree we see the same words.

Thank you for your time! I appreciate the chance to see the arguments that others would have to rely upon, and the chance to find a perspective that destroys their assumptions.

I wish I had more time for you to format better but I am very busy and have little time for this, but I do appreciate your time and will try to answer those questions which do not seem filled with rancor, or accusations of fraudulent or criminal or irresponsible behaviour.

Peace eh?
Rob

[Rotten Apple #1]

Yeah I wasn't sure that was you Rob. No 'Arthur' as part of the name.

So at what age does Elizabeth Anne have to be before you may contact her again? Is it when she becomes (or has) a person (according to the relevant statute)?

And might I respectfully ask whether you filed an action against the Ministry or this Robert Gordon?

[Rotten Apple #1]

And amusingly enough, the pub I am eating at right now had a sign on the door that says they may ask to 'see' ID. As they did not ask me, I will not be pursuing the matter further. Tragic.

[Freeman Menard]

Well, this isn't a civil case but it does mention a Robert Arthur Menard charged with the following:

135998-1 1 18-Sep-2003 TCR - 4(2) Failed to retain & produce proof of payment Commit MENARD, ROBERT Arthur Surrey, BC, CAN

It appears the production of documents is an issue for you Rob. Was this Traffic Court?

I believe it was Provincial Court.
Was an interesting story.
Saw some SkyTrain security kicking a young girl about 17 -18 off the train at about 11PM, her crying wanting to get over to Surrey and them kicking her off and laughing and mocking her, while she was terrified of being alone out there and begging them to let her ride. Her ticket had expired by about 15 minutes. It was disgusting to me. Their actions really pissed me off, so I deconstructed the Act and regulations. You would not like what I found but suffice it to say they had no right to do such a thing. So I started standing against what I saw as a deception and was told by one officer that he would kick the shit out of me and then arrest me. Not arrest me and if I resisted he would use force, no the force would come first, and the arrest second. That pissed me off too. He ended up going through a psych evaluation and then ordered to under go anger management training. I think he failed and they let him go.

Show me where it says the owners of Sky Train have a duty to pay, because I can easily show where in law the owners and passengers are different, but an owner can if they wish, buy a ticket, be a passenger, but then be bound just as any other passenger. But they do not have to do so.

The problem with this information is some people are very comfortable with their presumptions and think that letting them go is an attack on their ego.

Rob

[snoopy]

This might seem a bit off topic, but I feel I have to ask the following questions of the Freemen - only because of a few hints made in the various posts in this thread. Your answers will help me better understand your society:

1. Do the Freemen agree or disagree as a society in a woman's right to choose whether to keep or terminate her unborn child; or do individual Freemen have the complete freedom to decide for themselves on this topic - free from recrimination from their fellow Freemen?

2. Do the Freemen agree or disagree as a society in the rights of same-sex couples to marry; or do individual Freemen have the complete freedom to decide for themselves on this topic - free from recrimination from their fellow Freemen?

3. Do the Freemen agree or disagree as a society in the rights of an individual to choose any religion, or none at all; or do individual Freemen have the complete freedom to decide for themselves on this topic - free from recrimination from their fellow Freemen?

4. Do the Freemen agree or disagree as a society that all people are created equal, regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, religion or physical ability; or do individual Freemen have the complete freedom to decide for themselves on this topic - free from recrimination from their fellow Freemen.

Thank you for your time in answering these questions.

Best Regards,
Kirsten B.

[Freeman Menard]

Yeah I wasn't sure that was you Rob. No 'Arthur' as part of the name.

So at what age does Elizabeth Anne have to be before you may contact her again? Is it when she becomes (or has) a person (according to the relevant statute)?

And might I respectfully ask whether you filed an action against the Ministry or this Robert Gordon?

I do not know that I will ever try to contact her, but will certainly be available for her if she wants to look me up. Do you consider her being made aware of me as me trying to contact her? Cause that is what I was looking at doing, though that is still ten years off.

I never brought action, as doing so without harming Elizabeth was a path I did not see, no matter how desperately I looked. I learned some things are best to let go, and I was not going to play tug-of war with her as the rope. I saw she was in a very good place and loved and cared for by others and they had far greater economic abilities than I did.

As for Robert and the other people in the Ministry, I have since learned we all do the best we can with the information we have and our ability to process it, and I have no doubt this is applicable to them. And I have found far greater remedy and ability to carry on, in forgiving and releasing. I did not want to lose those aspects of my personality which would have made me a great Dad to begin with. Many may not like my views and beliefs, but I am a patient, kind and gentle soul who loves to laugh and play with kids and puppies and provide for those I love.

Have a great day!
Rob

[JakeYYZ]

The sort of laws that official ID papers help enforce are typically those that should not exist in the first place ......... those that regulate what people do on their own property (e.g. tobacco police looking for offenders in private restaurants or bars) or with their own body (e.g. riding bicycles without helmets), those that impose permits and licences (e.g. personal licensing for gun owners), and so forth. Just think of what the state is unable to do when it cannot rapidly and reliably identify peaceful individuals. Like a (diminishing) host of procedural and substantive restraints on the state, the absence of official ID papers increases the cost of enforcing laws that delve into people’s private affairs and invade private property. Without official ID papers, such laws are less likely to be adopted. We should know because we lived in a free society a few decades ago. I DO remember.
Totalitarian states like China impose compulsory ID cards. Many other examples could be cited.
The battle against official ID papers has, I think, been lost. A formal ID card is being introduced in the U.K. In the U.S., the federal government is standardizing state drivers’ licences and transforming them into a de facto national ID card. The Canadian government is imitating this.
The argument for official ID papers is that they facilitate law enforcement. Any realistic appraisal of the world around us shows that this argument is exactly upside down: it actually runs against ID papers. For which law enforcement are we talking about? Laws against murder and theft were enforced long before official ID papers appeared. And after the state had introduced them, sophisticated criminals and terrorists obtained or falsified them. As far as I am aware, all the 9/11 terrorists had proper ID.

[Freeman Menard]

Dear Kirsten
The latter, on all.

Rob

[snoopy]

Interesting. Thank you.
Kirsten B.

[Widow]

It does not matter if it says ask or demand.

The person shall be screened by comparing the name on government issued ID to the name on the ticket/boarding pass AND to the specified persons list. As they shall (must) compare, in order to complete the screening process, you cannot be screened without government issued ID. If you cannot be screened, you cannot be approved boarding.

[tehmastermonk]

says who? who demands that the screening must be approved? West Jet? or CANADA?

whos policy is that?

[Sulako]

I guess I have no real problem with your "I am my own nation" ideals or values except when it comes to paying taxes. We all should pitch in to pay for things like streetlights and garbage pickup and public parks etc, and I think that includes anyone who is able to work.

Now I haven't read all the posts, and I'm sure you have figured out some way to tell yourself that you aren't legally bound to pay taxes, but what about morally? When I made a thousand bucks a month I still paid some tax on it. Why not you?

Oh, I watched the first part of your latest youtube video. In the titles, you call yourselves the sons and daughters of god. Is there a religious component to this? Do you believe in dinosaurs? Sorry if these are stupid questions, I'm curious.

[Widow]

The Government of Canada maintains the list, which is provided to airlines in secure form. Under the identity-screening regulations, airlines are required to screen each person’s name against the specified-persons list for any person who appears to be 12 years of age or older before issuing a boarding pass.