Thursday, March 6, 2014


Robert Menard Facebook, 6 March 2014
From a recent court judgment: "Instead, the appropriate test is that a litigant who claims judicial bias, influence, or conspiracy has an obligation to provide positive evidence of that alleged conspiracy: R v Sydel; see also Meads at paras 291-292. "
The conspiracy is positively evidenced by their shared beliefs. A shared belief in an imaginary construct called a 'State' or 'The Crown'. This construct does not exist in reality. It is not something which is corporeal. You cannot touch it. You cannot meet it or face it. It simply does not exist. Except within the minds of the conspirators, who use this construct as a form of deception and mass manipulation. They do it knowingly and willfully, and their stated reason is usually 'public safety'. THEIR CONTROL is what it is actually about.

There is a severe case of judicial bias and conspiracy. The judiciary, they who believe so strongly in the existence of this imaginary construct, and who point to it as justification of their power and prestige, will ALWAYS rule against anyone who does not share their delusion. They will always rule in favour of the party that supports the existence and continuation of these imaginary constructs, especially when the other party questions its existence or refuses to accept that fiction any longer. That is the bias. That is the conspiracy. It is a conspiracy of 'we don't need your consent cause we have our fictions and you must do what we tell you to do, or we initiate violence against you.”

That is what this whole Freedom movement is about. On one side you have those who believe in these constructs, have guns and courts and a willingness to use them to impose their will on their fellow man. They routinely initiate violence against the peaceful, to extract wealth, or achieve compliance. They claim the right to govern without consent, and to do things which would be clearly unlawful for anyone else to do. These people honestly believe they are not responsible or liable as human beings, because they were just doing their jobs, or following orders, or acting as an agent for the state. Imagine that for a moment. Imagine claiming the right to act as an agent for an imaginary and non existent entity, and then claiming that due to that agent status you are not responsible for your actions. These people use the cry of public safety to increase their power and erode public rights and freedoms. Their will which they seek to impose is first and foremost an exercise of power and domination, with the excuse of 'public safety' presented as camouflage. They are incapable of imagining a community which is not trodden and beheld by these legal fictions they serve so valiantly. In many respects, this group of individuals, with their shared belief in admittedly non-existent imaginary entities, look and act like a cult. They speak a weird language, they believe in imaginary entities, and they believe imaginary entities grant them magical powers.

On the other side you have those who refuse to believe in those imaginary things, and who have neither courts, nor prisons nor a willingness to employ violence to impose their will. They recognize the importance of personal responsibility and free will and do not want to deny either to anyone. They have no desire to rule or govern, and mostly just want to be left alone and get along. Left alone to live their own lives, and follow their own dreams and fulfill their own destinies. They also want to be members of thriving communities, and to share in the fruits of abundance this world offers. They are usually willing to pay their share and follow agreeable community standards, but they don't want them imposed without consent. They stand when called, but not for tyranny, and provide generously when charity knocks, but not when it kicks open the door.

Ask yourself this: How can something which does not exist be a source of lawful authority?

These fantasists have all these words, all these statutes Acts and regulations. If you question the average employee of the state, as to why they feel the need for all these words they call laws, they will admit it is to ensure that people do not harm each other, or damage each others property, or use fraud in their contracts. All things which attack tranquility and harmony. The claim is always for public safety, or for the kids. And yet the idea that all their words could be distilled to do not harm, do not damage and do not use fraud, is rejected. Here's why.

The extra words need to be created, and then enforced and contraventions then judged and then judgments recorded, and all of this creates an enormous amount of employment rife with prestige and power. And since the apparent source of the initial power to even change the law in the first place is the fictional imaginary entity which they have all conspired to believe exists, every time they exercise some power under it, their belief in it's existence is solidified and entrenched and their righteousness crystallized. It has to be. Otherwise, they are the very antithesis of their own highly polished self-image. The one who stands for public safety, becomes the biggest threat to public safety, by trying to impose public safety. And they can never see it, without also seeing the things they have done, in the name of public safety, which attacked tranquility and harmony.

To realize your friend is just imaginary, and the things he convinced you to do were nasty, is a tough realization to accept.

That's why so many refuse.

No comments:

Post a Comment