email from 'Think Free Be Free' , re : peace officers

"

This is an email from 'Think Free Be Free'

Message:
TO: Cnst Tupper and Sarah (AKA 'Peppermint Patty' and 'Marcie') North Vancouver RCMP Detachment
CC: All Peace Officers in British Columbia,
CC: TWIMC

Hello and good day! I am Robert-Arthur: Menard, a non-consenting and ungoverned Freeman-on-the-Land. I am the Director of the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society and the Director of ThinkFREE.ca We work together as organizations dedicated to creating a freer and more just society, where authority is gained without deception and exercised with restraint, understanding, accountability and compassion. We employ only lawful tools specifically but not limited to seminars, printed publications, advocacy, public activism and lawful claims. Recognizing the importance of peace, we employ words designed to create a greater abundance of that commodity for us all.

This does not mean we shy from our duty of speaking truth to power, only that we will try to do so in a manner that serves human dignity. Allow me to share a little about me. I love God, the child Elizabeth, this Country and the Law. I will not be abandoning any of them, nor will I be breaking my existing Oaths to them. I recognize and embrace a duty of compassion to my fellow man and a duty of respect to office holders. I do not harm without provocation and I will not accept subjugation or any form of governance without my consent. I follow My Soul and will not accept that some stranger using words alien to me can craft laws completely devoid of love, compassion and truth and claim they are law over me. They are deceivers, and I do not accept them or their words.

It is a mixed pleasure for me to be able to start this correspondence with appreciation for the way the officers I met exercised their authority. Although not perfect, they were at least moderately professional, somewhat courteous and by acting with some compassion, earned a little of my respect and gave me something precious. Their actions gave me hope and allows me to believe that the coming shift can in fact be a positive one, where change results not in destruction but positive growth. By responding with such professionalism, courtesy and restraint in the face of the frustration that I seem to naturally create merely by being me, these officers brought to your detachment, force and other officer holders some much needed public esteem, and for that I am thankful and appreciative.

However, on the day I was pulled over by two female officers, whom I call 'Peppermint Patty and Marcie', only because one looked just like Peppermint Patty and the other deferred to the Peppermint Patty looking one, I saw a complete lack of understanding concerning the source, nature and limits of authority, as they exited Equity to affect that which existed only at Law. It is akin to a security guard at a private party who leaves the party to cross the road, attack people in the park and kidnapping them, drags them into the house party and attempts to punish them for what they did outside the party, because doing so inside the party would be against the rules. This is what happens when those entrusted with security fail to acknowledge the limits of their authority, which in order to be lawful, must always exist.

I am not a person in the legal entity known as The Province of British Columbia and yet was treated like one by Peppermint Patty and Marcie even though no one saw evidence of an equity relationship between myself and that fiction. They saw no ID or anything else issued to me by that legal entity. They saw a human being in the geographical area known as British Columbia and then assumed I was also a 'person' in 'The Province of British Columbia.” The first is a geographical area; the second is a legal fiction, and people simply can't exist within it without doing so through an association with a fictional person. They did not know this and therefore are guilty of gross negligence which I am sure you must know is equal to FRAUD. Additionally, one gave me an order in a common law jurisdiction which I accepted under protest and duress. Perhaps you do not know what the legal significance of operating under protest is, but ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it and by ordering me, they became liable for a bill. Orders generate bills. Ask any waitress, lawyer or judge. They now owe me and I do intend to see payment. The reason they owe me is because I have a fee schedule filed as well as notices and claims allowing me to make these claims. Their principal was aware of this and if they failed to inform their underlings, that is not my fault. The reason I will see payment secured is because I am bound by My Faith to do so, although I am also bound to give you a great big fat out. We will discuss that later in this missive.

I claim you owe me $2000 per hour or portion thereof for anything I do as a result of an order accepted and fulfilled under protest. If you do not know what the commercial and legal significance of operating under protest is, I suggest you see a lawyer. Trust me on this though, you owe me $8000. Because you were marginally professional and courteous, I will immediately halve that. You now owe me $4000. Also, the RCMP as a whole owe me the same amount, for I am claiming punitive and exemplary damages. I will be collecting from them as well, and if necessary will do so completely lawfully by eventually seizing and auctioning off one of their vehicles. I believe it is not theft if you have a default judgement allowing you to seize and sell in order to recover on a lawful debt.

Perhaps you are wondering how I will do any of these things, as I am sure you are thinking “The courts won't allow that; they are on our side.” Here is where you really need some education. I will be if necessary convening a court and using a Notary Public to conduct the first part concerning the exchange of affidavits and establishment of facts. You will have to respond by way of a sworn affidavit submitted to the Notary Public holding court. If you fail a default judgement will be secured and collection proceedings initiated. If you do respond, you will have to do so under your full commercial liability and under oath. If you are found saying untrue things or expressing falsehoods under oath, you risk facing criminal charges of gross negligence and abduction under the colour of law. If you don't think I can do such a thing with a Notary, you need to read Section 18 of the Notary Act. They are the joker of the deck and can do anything, you, a judge or a sheriff can do. They are all powerful when they choose to serve justice. They are the lawful witnesses to process and standards. Notary Publics ROCK.

As you said when you were giving me a copy of a bill of exchange which you refused to present properly, breaking the law has consequences. However what you did not realize at the time you spoke is that it is you will meet the consequences, as it is you who broke the law, and I will be proving that to a very high degree. I will promise to attempt to do so mindful of your professionalism and with regard to the courtesy to which I was treated.

I am aware that you must have felt I was breaking the law and that you were responding lawfully to my perceived transgressions of the law. You feel you have colour of right, but this colour of right is due only to you failing to perform due diligence. Your perception must change. However what you then pointed to was an Act or statute, and they simply do not have to force of law over those who do not consent. You can evidence their consent by seeing government issued ID. If you don't see that however, how do you know I do consent? Will you bring your gun to bear and use that to generate consent and then claim you were acting lawfully?

At no point in time did I identify myself as a person in The Province of British Columbia; you claimed that and continued to do so even though you never saw evidence thereof and i told you I was a Freeman-on-the-Land. Did you find ID? Did you find ANYTHING issued to me by them resulting from an act of application on my part? No you did not. So what makes you think I am a person in the Province of British Columbia if not your own gross negligence? What exactly did I do that would make you think that the Motor Vehicle Act is my law? What evidence do you have I consented to such a thing? You have nothing and yet still you felt comfortable and justified in bringing an implied threat of violence against a Freeman-on-the-Land and claimed the right and power to do so under statutorily granted authority. You saw no breach of the peace nor were you informed of one; you stopped me merely to enforce a statute even though the statute you sought to enforce does not enjoy the force of law over me.

And you wanted to lecture me about 'consequences'?

Peppermint Patty, let us examine your beliefs and then using logic, reason and the law, my very mighty pen will destroy all those false assumptions. Before I do so, I would like to again commend you on your level of professionalism, restraint and compassion and I hope you realize my goal is to increase your understanding without attacking any of the good attributes you have already demonstrated as possessing.

1.You assumed Acts are laws.

2.You assumed all automobiles are motor vehicles and subject to the Motor Vehicle Act.

3.You assumed all people in British Columbia are also persons in the Province of British Columbia.

4.You assumed you could give orders and not be personally liable for a bill.

1 - An Act is not a law; it is a statute and defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law. A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. See the mutual consent part? If you have no evidence that I am a consenting member of a legally nameable society, why are you attempting to enforce statutes against me like they are my law?

2 - As for your mistaken belief that all automobiles are also motor vehicles, the facts of the matter are, if you read the Motor Vehicle Act carefully you will see that although they do define a motor vehicle, it simply is not a full and complete definition, and if you assume it is, you will not know the truth. Is it a full and complete definition? Is 'accident' fully and completely defined, because if not, then either none are or some are and some aren't and there is a mechanism in place for determining such things. I see no such mechanism. Plus when I look to Section 3.1 I see that the owner must apply for an receive insurance and registration and you likely interpret this as an obligation on me and empowering to you.

However, the word must is not always an imperative and can be used to describe situations which if voluntarily fulfilled will grant authority. If I say you must come to my party through the front door' does that create an obligation to attend or merely describe the conditions which if voluntarily fulfilled will grant me power over you, as you will be in my party? The word apply legally means to beg, and since no one is ever obliged to beg, no one is ever obliged to apply. Unregistered automobiles are not motor vehicles and thus not subject to the Motor Vehicle Act. You will likely not like that truth, as it negatively affects your ability to claim and exercise authority and like all people, you do not wish to interpret anything in a manner that dis-empowers you; it is against human nature.

3 – Although I will agree that generally speaking a person is a human being, when it comes to the law that is not the case, as the law uses legalese and as it is a complex and professional jargon. When you see the word person in a statute, it is referring to a legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes and which exists in an association with our bodies, provided we consent to it. See the thing is, The Province of British Columbia is not a geographical area, but a man-made legal fiction, and just as a human being cannot exist within a novel or other work of fiction, but characters representing human can, so too is the case here. As I human being I exist in British Columbia. IF I choose to be governed and regulated, ordered and controlled, then I will agree to having a person upon which you can act and which will effect my body as long as I maintain a free association with it. If however I disassociate from it, you can no longer claim to be acting on a 'person' in 'The Province of British Columbia'.

4 – You gave me an order, and you accepted my performance of service under protest and duress. Perhaps you have been giving such orders for so long and have achieved such compliance through intimidation that you are unfamiliar with the truth. Anyone in a common law jurisdiction who gives an order for performance is immediately liable for a bill. This goes for judges, police and government agents. You can't escape the law and the law says that bills follow orders and orders generate bills. If anyone else goes to a restaurant, places and order and receives service are they not then liable for a bill? Do you claim the right to go to a restaurant, place an order and not be liable for a bill? If not, under what function of law can you place an order on someone outside a restaurant and not still be liable for the bill your order generates? So you know, this process has been tried and tested in New Zealand, another common law jurisdiction, and payment was secured form the Judge for his order. If a Judge in a common law jurisdiction recognizes that orders from anyone to anyone generates a lawful bill, why can't you? You owe me for services rendered under protest and duress and upon a previously filed and served fee schedule.

Let us discuss your big fat out. All I want to see is you promise to serve the Law before you serve the courts or the government, and realize that your fundamental duty is in fact to do so. All you have to do is realize that a Claim of Right served and not disputed does in fact create lawful excuse to disobey court orders and disregard statutes, orders, regulations and bylaws. People who lawfully create and walk that path should not be hindered, harmed or hampered in any way, and if you do hinder, harm or hamper, the Law allows us remedy and we may bring it to bear against you. I sincerely hope we do not have to do so, and I see that all I have to do is get you to agree to serve the Law first and the courts and governments second, and you will been seen as heroes of this Nation, for holding them both to the Law and fulfilling your most fundamental duty of office. It is the people in power who are the most tempted and who can do the most harm, and as such they must bear the greatest watching.

I need you to agree that the courts and government are in fact merely man made organizations manned by men and women who are in fact burdened with basic human frailties. Agree that the Criminal Code does in fact allow for lawful excuse to disregard both courts and legislatures and their bureaucratic offshoots if we act upon a properly filed claim of right. Once we do so, stand ready and firm to refuse to enforce any statute or court order against those who have lawfully created lawful excuse. If you do so, there is no chance of a police state developing in Canada, as you will be good and proper peace officers, serving the Law first, and not the people who sit in higher offices at the expense of justice.

The future police force will not be about tougher, more intimidating and forceful cops, as you will not be dealing with those type of people. It will be about more intelligent, informed and compassionate peace officers, as you will be dealing with people who refuse to be subservient; they will present bills for accepting orders; they will question the meaning of every word; and they will ultimately hold you accountable. This is what is coming and I will tell you how I know. I am working my ass off to achieve it. And, when sacrificing ass, I tend to make my efforts count.

I tried to have caused to be published in The Gazette a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right, or as it is called in the Criminal Code of Canada, lawful excuse. As they refuse to print it, I shall be serving you that claim and your officers personally. And on camera. Unless someone in your organization is willing to claim otherwise, the rights I claimed are law and anyone attempting to enforce court orders or statutes against me without making claim first is committing an unprovoked assault and liable for damages and may be defended against.

There is another reason this is coming. We are Canadian. And pay VERY close attention to this part: WE OUT NUMBER YOU VERY BADLY. And as peaceful and well mannered as we can be, wake our ire and you will pay very dearly. We are not sheep; we are peaceful, patient and perhaps slumbering guards dogs, and it will be your greatest woe if we wake to you shearing our freedoms and rights, stealing our wealth or harming our families and country. You will be made to pay. When I say you will pay, I do mean very dearly indeed.

I did not like my sanity being questioned unprofessionally by someone who has no training in the health field and has demonstrated their own brand of questionable beliefs and sanity. Let us ask some very difficult questions, ok? Let us ask: Who is crazier?

Is it those who apply for permission to engage in completely lawful activities without ever even reading the Act under which they are applying?

Is it you for thinking I or any other adult can be governed without consent or for thinking that in a common law jurisdiction ANYONE can give an order to another while wearing a gun and implying the use of force without having to pay a bill? Is it you for thinking a body of words which you do not even understand nor authored grants you unlimited power over me even though to you those words are not understood?

Or is it me, a man with a rather high IQ, who has read and de-constructed these Acts and realized that without my consent they are not law?

I think I am in fact the sanest one of the group, and the one with the gun, pointing to words they do not understand to claim the power a gun provides over the unarmed, are the most dangerous and could easily and may even likely be, psychotic. Psychopaths want power without understanding or accountability. Do you understand section 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code? How about Section 337 and Section 39? Those are just some of the sections we can use to control YOU. If you don't understand those Sections, how can you possibly claim to serve the law?

There is coming a large and fundamental change in the relationship between the government and the people, and you will be playing a major role. Like all heroes in any great story, you will face a very difficult decision, and you will be expected to carry the consequences of your decision without moaning or bitching. If you make the wrong decision, you will be seen as the villains in this story, and dealt with as such.
You will serve the courts and the government or you will serve the law. I know you want to do all three, but unfortunately you will have to choose. I do not envy you your position, as you will have to choose who or what you will serve. Will you serve the government and the courts even when those people abandon law and are nothing more than frauds? Or will you serve the law, and hold the courts and the government accountable to it? (More accurately you will be holding the people who we trusted with the courts and the government accountable to the law) What will you do when the people of Canada wake to their fraud and start revoking consent to be represented and governed? Will you hold the people who are employed by the courts and the government accountable to the law, or will you claim law is whatever the fraudsters say it is, because they are the 'government' and the 'courts'? Who will you serve? Who is first? Is it the courts? The government? Or the Law?

I don't blame you alone; I realize that the lawyers have crafted such an incredibly ambiguous and convoluted set of words that it is very hard to determine what our rights and duties are. You people do your best to do your jobs as you see it, and yet what you see is a great big deception, thanks mostly to the lawyers who craft very deceptive rules using a language that only looks like English, but isn't really. The lawyers like this, as it generates conflict and that is where they make their money; by generating and continuing conflict. However, you do walk around with a gun, point to those words and use them to claim authority over your fellow man and you are willing to threaten violence to secure that power over them. Your willingness to blindly accept those words as law over everyone is actually evidence not of your desire to serve, but your desire to command, order and compel without accountability or responsibility. You like your power, eh?

So will you serve the Law when you are called to do so, even if it means your power and authority to command, compel and order is greatly diminished by doing so? Will you accept the role of humble hero? Or will you, like the Nazis of Germany, claim that your authority IS the Law and that all you need to determine the law and your level of authority are your guns?

Who do you serve? We need to know. If you say you serve the Law, we do not need to create and empower a brand new police force specifically equipped and trained to deal with peace officers who fail to serve the Law, which is what you will be doing by attempting to hold any Freeman-on-the-Land to a statutory obligation or order of the court.

There is a new crop of children coming and they are simply ungovernable without good reason. They are driving their parents nuts now and when they get to 18 years of age, they will simply laugh at anyone who tries to claim words they did not author or agree to are their law. The next generation is as different from this generation as we were from our parents. There is a very big shift coming, and you people can fight to contain it, which will result in your destruction, or be wise enough to work with it.
I know an 8 year old child, who will simply refuse any directives from her parents unless they can explain to her the justice of it. She has no fear and refuses to go against her spirit. There are millions of these children out there and you people will be dealing with them. Raised by people who have very good reason to not trust the courts or the government, this next batch of citizens will be holding you supposedly public servants to task.

Especially if I have any say in the matter.

When the next generation reaches maturity, they will know how to create lawful excuse by way of a claim of right published properly and will be completely free of the deception we have laboured under. That is my lawful and honourable goal.

In reviewing the ticket you gave me, I noticed that you put on there a certain number and claimed that I was associated with that number. As I did not show you any document with that number on it, nor did I associate myself with in in anyway, nor did I authorize you to do so, it is clear to me you committed a fraud. Under what authority did you associate me with a number which expired over 5 years ago? You were not acting as my agent, you had no authority to do so, and you did put false information on an official document. That is another crime you committed, either knowingly and willingly, or out of ignorance and negligence. A gross level of negligence.

You committed a fraud and as such you are a criminal. Do you agree, or are you one of those people who thinks that because you are a cop, you are the law and thus can do no wrong?

Here are some questions for you. I will be making a claim against you, swearing out an Affidvit and presenting you through a Notary with my bill. If you fail to respond or fail to respond by way of a sworn Affidavit, a default judgement will be secured allowing me to collect upon my bill. Breaking the law has consequences for you too, you know. And the fact is on the day you stopped me, it is you who broke the law Peppermint Patty, not I.

1.When did I either associate or empower you to associate me with a Drivers License number?
2.When did I claim to know my date of birth? If I did not claim it, then why did you put information on a commercial instrument when the only information you could have possibly used was all hearsay?
3.What would cause you to believe that all automobiles are motor vehicles if not your own gross negligence when Section 3.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act clearly states that an owner must apply for registration and insurance before you can consider it a motor vehicle?
4.When diod I identify myself as a 'person' in 'The Province of British Columbia'?
5.Do you distinguish between British Columbia the geographical area and The Province of British Columbia the legal entity?
6.If you do not distinguish how can you lawfully do your job without being grossly negligent?
7.Why is the fact that I accepted your orders under protest and duress recorded on my electronic recording device but not in your notes when you promised to ensure that you would do your duty and record said protest?
8.How is that not evidence of gross negligence, professional misconduct and fraud?
9.Do you distinguish between statute and Law and if not how can you do your job without being grossly negligent?
10.Are you aware that failure to record my protest and the fact that I was accepting orders under duress is obstruction of justice?
11.Do you acknowledge that Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada allows anyone to use whatever level of force is required to keep our property if it held under a claim of right even against someone who (because of their own gross negligence and lack of diligence) feels they have the legal right to that property? Are you aware this means that if you try taking someones unregistered automobile with your hand on your gun, and that automobile is held under a claim of right, that you can be lawfully shot and killed?
12.Do you acknowledge that Sections 126 and 127 allow for us to completely disregard court orders and statutes, bylaws and regulations if we have lawful excuse to do so, and that according to Section 39 a claim of right is a lawful excuse?
13.Do you accept that if someone like you, by this I mean armed and ignorant, attempts to enforce court orders or statutes or bylaws against someone who has lawful excuse or claim of right then you are committing an unprovoked assault?
14.Do you acknowledge that the people of Canada have the right to defend themselves against any unprovoked assaults, even if those doing the assaulting believe they have the legal right to do so?
15.Are you aware the people of Canada do in fact have the rtight to carry firearms if they do so under a claim of right?
16.Do you acknowledge that the people of Canada who have secured the right to carry a sidearm by way of a claim of right have the right to use that sidearm to defend themselves against unprovoked assaults, especially those initiated by people who are criminally negligent of the limits of their authority?
17.Are you aware that attempting to enforce a statute against a Freeman-on-the-Land is an unprovoked assault?
18.Do you acknowledge that attempting to associate me with an expired drivers licence number without my consent is an act of fraud and a perversion of justice?
19.Are you aware that under Section 18 of the Notary Act any Notary Public can convene a proper court for the determination of facts prior to the application of the Law?
20.Are you aware that they do have the power to create default judgements which the Sheriffs and their Deputies must accept as lawful under Section 6 of the Sheriffs Act?
21.Are you aware I am convenening just such a court, and therein you will either submit Affidavits which will highlight your fraud and ignorance, or you will do nothing and I will secure by default a court order empowering me or my agents or the Bailiff to seize and sell ANY RCMP VEHICLE in North Vancouver? You do realize the RCMP is a legally nameable and thus suable entity do you not?
22.Are you aware that the Violation Ticket you endorsed is in fact and by definition a bill of exchange?
23.Are you aware that by refusing to give me the original you committed fraud, as it was never properly presented and I am not a legal fiction?
24.Can you explain how a human being, a living breathing flesh and blood man can exist within the legal fiction known as The Province of British Columbia, or do you acknowledge your inability to do so is evidence of your own ignorance and gross negligence?
25.Are you aware gross negligence is equal to fraud?
26.Are you aware that Canada is a common law jurisdiction where the only form of government is a representative one and that representation requires mutual consent?
27.Do you acknowledge that people who deny consent to be represented cannot be lawfully governed, regulated or have statutes applied to them?
28.Are you aware that the peoples right to revoke consent is the greatest tool ever devised to peacefully ensure complete government accountability and compliance with the law?
29.Do you agree the only people who would not accept that we have a right to say no to their rules and governance must be motivated not by justice or law but by desire for control and power and thus are likely the least suitable to have power?
30.Are you aware that it is unlawful to exit Equity in order to latch onto and drag into Equity that which previously existed only at Law? Are you aware that is what you did when you pulled me over?
31.Are you aware that statutes are not laws but are in fact 'Acts' and they only enjoy the force of law with our consent?
32.Are you aware I have already constructively revoked consent and that by your actions you activated my fee schedule, which has also been previously served?
33.Do you agree that by acting with such a high level of gross negligence and ignorance you have brought the RCMP and the administration of justice into disrepute and created liability upon your principals?
34.Do you agree that the people of British Columbia have a right to justice and that when the people entrusted with providing us with that become so tainted by ignorance and corruption we have the right to create a new police force specifically designed not to enforce statutes against the populace, but to enforce the Law against presently existing peace officers?
35.Do you agree that you gave me an order and that in this common law jurisdiction you are now liable for a bill? If not can you explain the function of law which would allow you in this common law jurisdiction where equality is paramount to give an order, not be liable for a bill, and not offend the concept of equality?
36.If you are incapable of answering the above question do you agree you committed a fraud?


So to sum up. I feel I am owed by certain officers and your organization in general. I will foregoe making any demand for payment, recognizing these are difficult and changing times provided you publicly acknowledge by way of a widely published Notice, that you will serve the Law first and hold those in office and sitting in court accountable to it. It is really not mush to ask, and if you do so, you will be seen as heroes of this country. If you refuse to do so, you quickly become quite useless and dangerous to us. Our words gave you your power, our words can take it away.

Will you as peace officers in this common law jurisdiction serve the Law first and foremost and above all else?

1.You will be getting a bill. If you do not pay it I will take lawful measures to collect.
2.The RCMP will be getting a bill. If they do not pay I will take lawful steps to collect.
3.All my property including the 1991 Nissan is held by me under a claim of right as per Section 39 of the Criminal Code and thus I may use force to stop even people like you from taking my property.
4.You now know that attempting to seize my property or enforce statutes or court orders against me is an unprovoked assault.
5.You now know I have every right in the world to defend myself from unprovoked assaults even those committed by ignorant and negligent peace officers.
6.You now know this is not a threat or a challenge or an invitation to violence merely a statement that I have the right to use violence if you try to take my property.
7.You now know that because I have that right, there is no way for you to claim the same right, as to do so would run directly counter to the law, its very purpose and reason for existence, which is peace. Two cannot claim the right to use violence to protect property as that would guarantee conflict. The inclusion of one must exclude the other, and I have the right to use violence to stop you from taking my property thus you do not.
8.You now know I do not consent to governance and I do not exist as a person in The Province of British Columbia and thus I have activated the defences available to us all in Section 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
9.You now know that unless you can answer the questions I posed you are not suitable to be a peace officer in a common law jurisdiction, as you are too ignorant of the law and too attached to your authority, so attached you do not care about its limits, nature or source.
10.You know that a claim to create a new police force empowered only to arrest people like yourself is in the works, and when that day comes, you can and will be held accountable for your acts of negligence and fraud.
11.You know that a violation ticket matches the definition of a bill of exchange and that by not presenting the original you are completely and solely liable for that bill.
12.You know that failure to distinguish between statutes and law is in fact grossly negligent and that said level of negligence is equal to fraud.
13.You know I think you look just like Peppermint Patty.

There will be other things you will be learning, but I don't want your little head to explode!

This Notice will be published and widely distributed. I do so in the interest of justice and out of love for my country. Not the corporation that has hijacked it or the people who operate without liability through that corporation, but the people of the country who have been so badly deceived and who are held in place subject to that deception by people like yourself, who claim authority to enforce the law without ever even really learning to distinguish between law and statute. And you wonder why we look at you with distrust and apprehension? It is not that we don't like the law; it is that you have abandoned it out of your own fear and lust for power.

Accept that we actually have the right to refuse to be governed and that we have the power to disobey court orders and statutes if we do so properly and you will be serving the law. Fail to do so and we will all know that you are not peace officers at all. You are merely people wearing the uniforms of peace officers and you have hijacked our country. I have seen movies where bank robbers dress like security guards. I think that may be the case here. You wear the uniform, but you do not serve the law at all, you act like mindless unthinking automatons who merely accept blindly the orders of those who are above you and think that because you are accepting orders you must be acting lawfully. You fail to accept that the people above you are bound by the law also, and you allow them to subjugate and enslave us with deception, and you claim you are peace officers even though your actions clearly result in conflict and profit for the lawyers.

I am including a copy of my challenge which I have extended to all peace officers. As some of the things I wish to debate are highlighted by your actions, I think you will be homesteading in the land of dishonour if you do not personally accept my challenge. You wish to make claims against me, why don't you grow a pair and stand publicly to defend your beliefs? Why doesn't one of your principals? There is only one reason: YOU ALL KNOW YOU ARE WRONG AND INVOLVED IN UNLAWFUL DECEPTION AND FRAUD.

Or you are afraid to be proved wrong, which means there must be a part of your mind that has some doubt. Are you scared of the Law? Are you scared to debate it with me? Are you scared to make your claims anywhere except the presently existing apparently hijacked courts? You really do not want to take a close look at the source, nature or limits of your authority do you, because if you did you know you would find you have far less than you have been claiming and you have been actively engaged in fraud.

Well, I have much to do in order to lay a foundation allowing us to lawfully create our new police force so we can bring many big men with big guns to bear against people like you. As this process will involve making public claims, I will be sure to serve you a copy of it and allow you an opportunity to dispute the rights claimed within.

I am sorry that this is what must apparently happen, but the law provides us remedy when people like you commit fraud or are otherwise grossly negligent, and you people do not seem inclined to serve the law first and your political masters second. Sorry, but with your ignorance and arrogance you have made this a necessity.
Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,



Robert-Arthur: Menard
Freeman-on-the-Land
All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended by the Grace of God All Property including my body held under a claim of right as per Section 39 of the Criminal Code.
Lawful Excuse Established as per Sections 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada The Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society Justice is Truth in Action

"