With lawful excuse
-Taking back authority from
government.
A presentation of thoughts and activities of
Freeman-on-the-Land Robert Menard, Canada.
www.thinkfree.ca
Every society must have its protectors
and its critics. If protectors have to much
power abuse and stagnation will
inevitably result.
If the critics have too much power the
stability required for a flourishing society
is lost. Only when both work together
does a societal structure thrive.
(From Henry David Thoreau)
How can a group of people or
individuals taking the role as critics in
society empower themselves in relation
to government and legal authorities by
knowing and using the law and the
judicial system?
From a Master-Subordinate to Equals!
How do authorities gain legitimate power?
How do authorities gain legitimate power?
Words and Discourses!
How do authorities gain legitimate power?
Words and Discourses!
How can we create a more equal relation?
How do authorities gain legitimate power?
Words and Discourses!
How can we create a more equal relation?
Questioning Words
and deconstructing Discourses!
Some fundamentals:
• Don’t be deceived by words!
• Ask for clarification
(if they can´t clarify they lose power)
• Question/deconstruct words revealing
their ambiguous meaning
Example:
Criminal code of Canada, section 127 (1):
“Everyone who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful
order made by court or justice or by a person or body or
persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order,
other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a
punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly
provided bu law, guilty of:
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Example:
Criminal code of Canada, section 127 (1):
without lawful excuse
“Everyone who,
,
disobeys a lawful order made by court or justice or by a
person or body or persons authorized by any Act to make
or give the order, other than an order for the payment of
money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of
proceeding is expressly provided bu law, guilty of:
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
What is “Lawful excuse”?
E.g. Killing an animal out of mercy
Defending children, animals or lawful property
Honest belief (mistake of fact)
Necessity (saving or protecting life)
Entrapment, provocation, duress
Defence with claim of right
What is “Lawful excuse”?
E.g. Killing an animal out of mercy
Defending children, animals or lawful property
Honest belief (mistake of fact)
Necessity (saving or protecting life)
Entrapment, provocation, duress
Defence with claim of right
What is “Lawful excuse”?
E.g. Killing an animal out of mercy
Defending children, animals or lawful property
Honest belief (mistake of fact)
Necessity (saving or protecting life)
Entrapment, provocation, duress
Defence with claim of right
What is “Defence with claim of right”?
39 (1) Everyone who in peacable posession of
personal property under a claim of right, and
every one acting under his authority, is protected
from criminal responsibility for defending that
posession, even against a person entitled by law to
posession of it, if he uses no more force than is
necessary.
Notary Public and Claim of Right
Create a letter of understanding and intent.
Create a Claim of Right.
If not protested the notary signs a certificate forever
barring the other party or their agents from the rights
just claimed and established.
Winning the game by not entering
What are the options in a conflict?
1) Ignoring the Other
2) Rejecting the others position/claim
3) Accepting the others position/claim
4) Engaging in a dialogue
a) Asking questions
b) Conditional acceptance
Winning the game by not entering
What are the options in a conflict?
1) Ignoring the Other
Winning the game by not entering
What are the options in a conflict?
1) Ignoring the Other
2) Rejecting the others position/claim
Winning the game by not entering
What are the options in a conflict?
1) Ignoring the Other
2) Rejecting the others position/claim
3) Accepting the others position/claim
Winning the game by not entering
What are the options in a conflict?
1) Ignoring the Other
2) Rejecting the others position/claim
3) Accepting the others position/claim
4) Engaging in a dialogue
a) Asking questions
b) Conditional acceptance
Example one: Plougshare action
Creating a letter of understanding and intent
Creating a claim of right.
(Use a Notary or at least witnesses)
The other party is compelled to respond, if not,
your position is much stronger when doing the
action
Example two: IPRED
Deconstructing the law by identifying ambiguities.
If information about traffic is stored, there is an obligation
according to IPRED to give it out after a court order.
However, according to the law concerning electronic
communication there is no obligation for the operator to
store information about traffic. (E.g. Bahnhof Broadband)
There is also no law against providing a service
anonymizing the IP-adresses used in communication.
Finally there is no law prohibiting PIRATE BAY and other
providers of torrets and trackers to provide this service to
Swedish citizens if the service is legal in the country of
origin.
Comparing Sweden and Canada
• Basic ideas apply, but needs to be
contextualised.
• No strong legal Rights tradition (but
Sweden have ratified all charters on
human rights)