The Freeman Movement and England

[D'rok]

You are not claiming that body of words has ANYTHING to do with me are you? The Law Society tried and failed, so I don't see how you can.

Perhaps that is because you are currently beneath their notice? How about some documentation of any action taken by the Law Society? I'm sure it would be instructive for us all.

I do see how you are operating on the assumption that it does though. That is where you fail. That body of words to which you linked is not my law and does not affect me. Peace eh?

I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the Criminal Code gives you the right to disobey whatever statue your little FOTL heart desires. What is your law? What is your lawful excuse? Substantiate your answers with something besides muddled philosophy.


BTW, just so you know, I am taking your refusal to answer my question about the Sponagles as evidence that you did indeed provide them with FOTL legal defence advice.

 

[volatile]

Instead of repeating myself, I'll point you to the answer I gave your FOTL brother from across the pond:

By "pond" you mean "Lake Ontario", right?!

 

[D'rok]

Just so there's no confusion on Rob's credentials:

In 2008, the Law Society obtained court orders and consent orders from the Supreme Court of BC prohibiting the following individuals and businesses from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law or punishing them for contempt of orders that the Law Society had previously obtained to prevent them from engaging in unauthorized practice:

Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver has been prohibited by the Supreme Court from appearing as counsel, preparing documents for use in proceedings, and identifying himself in any way that suggests he is a lawyer. He was also ordered to pay costs.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/publications_forms/bulletin/2009/09-04-27_upl.html

Well done Rob. I wonder if the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society knows about the legal advice received by the Sponagles? Do you want to clear that up?

 

[D'rok]

By "pond" you mean "Lake Ontario", right?!

Awww...let's allow Especially his delusion of being English. It's the least we can do. He gets so flustered about everything else.

 

[Furcifer]

What? Who wants to govern you? Nobody. Pay your taxes and settle your debts like a Realman and there's no need.

Isn't there any honour among the Freeman? You talk of equality because you take advantage of it. It is a privlidge of being a member of this great country to freely declare my income and be taxed upon it. That's the equality isn't it? That's the freedom.
Same thing goes for debts You've been given an equal right to exchange your goods and services for promisary notes. That's the equality isn't it? Your word is supposed to be as good as any other. Otherwise I'm liable to say "For you, that's a $100 despite the sticker that say $10, you pay Freeman prices"
Oh you wouldn't like that would you? No, you want to play the system for your own benefit and take advantage of the rest of us. Incite people to Anarchy is what this amounts to. We are bound or contracted to society and its statutes as it citizens. It is a privledge that comes with certain obligations and certain benefits.

Well that's about all the ranting I can do until I learn more.

 

[volatile]

Well done Rob. I wonder if the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society knows about the legal advice received by the Sponagles? Do want to clear that up?

And did he pay costs?

 

[jimbob]

Sorry, can I ask again: do you mean you actually have the right to do this (as in, you could do this and avoid all sanction, with the right FMOTL form of words), or you believe you ought to have this right?

Silly me, I thought you meant sectioning.

 

[D'rok]

And did he pay costs?

I imagine that freeman Rob accepted the BC Supreme Court's kind offer to contract with the Law Society on the matter of costs owed. Much like Especially consents to pay his taxes.

Hilarious stuff.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Seminars

Has anyone been to a FOTL lecture/seminar? I note a lot of Freeman wannabes asking questions on how to go about it being told to do more research, attend seminars, etc?

What exactly goes on at these events? How much are people being asked to contribute financially?

Apart from the absurdity of the theories, are innocent persons being fleeced, a la good old-fashioned pyramid schemes?

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I think so. Some other posters have mentioned books being sold for eye-watering amounts of money.

Rolfe.

 

[D'rok]

Uh oh. It's the Cat of the Baskervilles! When did you turn evil, Rolfe?

 

[Rolfe]

Basement Cat is showing his true colours for Hallowe'en - courtesy of that thread in Community.

Rolfe.

 

[D'rok]

'Tis a nice touch.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Your assumption is that they could 'just get rid of the real system in the first place'. That is a false assumption. They are just people, and they have no power to obviate the law, merely operate within it. They operate as fictions and corporations and the law can give rise to a fiction, a fiction can not give rise to the law. I mean no offence or disrespect, but your belief, that any human being would have such power is a symptom of how badly you have been conditioned to believe they have a level of power which they do not. This belief is to your detriment and their gain and one which is not shared by Freemen. Let me ask you this? The same question can be reversed. If they had the power to get rid of the REAL system, then why would they need to create the obviously fake one now?

Wait...what?

If people don't have the power to make laws, then who does? God? Nature? Cuchulainn?

And, even if Law was handed down From On High, why are They obligated to follow it? These people set up this gigantic, elaborate ruse covering at least 3 continents. Do you honestly think that They are going to just accept that you don't give your consent to be governed? No, They are going to fool the ones They can, and force the ones They can't. So, if this "real" system of law did exist, it would be completely useless, ignored and unenforced, and not real at all.

The actual legal system that mattered would be exactly the one that everyone thinks is the real one anyway.

 

[linusrichard]

Rumpelstiltskin, eh? I was thinking of Swiper from Dora the Explorer. Which goes to show that I've been spending too much time with my youngest niece.

Oh, maaaaaaaan!!!

 

[drkitten]

I notice FreemanMenard has been asked directly for even one case where FOTL legal theory has been upheld in court. This shouldn't be hard to find if FOTL had any relationship to reality. But of course, no such cases could be offered. Which is less than I was expecting. There are some FOTL woo cases that have been "won" in the sense that the court, believing the FOTLer to be nuts/delusional, did not throw them in jail for a parking ticket like they could have when they started filing frivolous freeman forms and drawing on magical legal words. I thought you would at least cite those cases...but you didn't. Anyways, in those cases FOTL woos still failed to win based on legal merit, the judge just had mercy on them. There has been no case in any country where FOTL legal reasoning has been upheld on its merits..

And that's the real problem.

Every other legal issue has scads and oodles of case law supporting it, simply because cops and judges are human and make mistakes. There are well-defined rules about the use of search warrants, for example, and cops are specifically trained in how to follow them -- and there are still hundreds of cases filed each year alleging violation of these rules by local cops, and dozens of cases that are decided by a local judge and then examined in detail at the appellate level.

Maynard would have me believe that by invoking his magic words, he and his fellow Freemen can make cops miraculously go away.

What if they don't? I mean, these are the same cops that don't seem to understand "warrants," but they all without exception understand the difference between "natural person" and "juridical person." No Freeman has ever been falsely taken into custody for failure to pay his taxes? No Freeman has ever falsely been served a citation for driving without insurance? No Freeman has ever been arrested for violating a "statute" to which they do not consent?

Where are the cases where the judges have slapped down the dumb cops that didn't understand FOTL legal reasoning?

 

[linusrichard]

No, they all have consented and the proof is evidenced by virtue of the fact that they are in possession of things like government issued identification. Likely they did not realize when they were consenting, but they all did.

If you're consenting without realizing it, you're not consenting.

Your guesses are just that, guesses. They are not fact.

Wow, gee, that might be why I identified it as a "guess."

Well, I know you can't, and I know you can't speak for others here in Canada, and everytime they try to govern me, I make my stand, defend my claims and they retreat. The people in the government, courts, police departments, are just that, merely people, and they have no divine right or power to govern their fellow man without the consent of the one they seek to govern. You stating “Plainly False” does not make it so, and if true then try to govern me without my consent.

Obviously I can't govern you without your consent. I'm not the Canadian or BC or Vancouver government. But I see people governed without their consent literally every day, your false claim that they have actually consented notwithstanding.

Try to hire someone to do it. Try to find anyone in Canada willing to claim they have the right. You won't find one and I can show you what happened when the Supreme Court here tried doing that to me. They issued an order. I stood against it, pointed out certain truths rather publicly, and they had it withdrawn. This is verifiable by looking at the Website of The Law Society of British Columbia.

Here's what I found from the Website of The Law Society of British Columbia:

Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver has been prohibited by the Supreme Court from appearing as counsel, preparing documents for use in proceedings, and identifying himself in any way that suggests he is a lawyer. He was also ordered to pay costs.

I find nothing verifying that you responded by "point[ing] out certain truths rather publicly," or that "they had it withdrawn." That burden is still on you. You made an extraordinary claim; if you want it believed, you need extraordinary evidence.

Maybe you folks who know so much about the law could call them and offer them some help, cause I am kicking their ass and there is nothing they, their courts, or the government can do to govern me without my consent. But apparently it is so plainly false, that all you have to do is say it is plainly false. Why not call them and explain what makes it so plainly false. They really would love to have that argument to bring to court. But they can't and don't.

I don't know about you, but if I were right about something so astonishing, I would not be so vague when I bragged about it. I would say something specific, like the Supreme Court ordered me to do a, b, and c, and I pointed out to them d, e, and f, and since then they've tried to g and h, but they can't because of i and j. Instead, all we get is that they want to "govern" you, and you're "kicking their ass." If you're right, why are you so reluctant to provide specifics, or better, evidence!

 

[Elizabeth I]

My step at that point would be to re-examine my actions in steps 1 through ten as you defined them and realize which one lead me to the reality I was experiencing and what to do differently the next time. In this situation you have described, the change would take place sat step 5. Based on your scenario, the property in question is not held under a claim of right, as per Section 38 and 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada nor has the owner established lawful excuse to disobey by way of a Claim of Right as per Section 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Thus I would do those things. I would also under those Sections appoint a whole bunch of people to protect my property, amongst them being the Sheriff and his Deputies and sworn peace officers. So when they came they would find a lot more then mere discussion, and if arrested, they would be liable for a fee schedule and in court I would have a claim of right to justify my actions. Plus, because the property is held now under a claim of right, the same people you said would come and remove it, will now act to defend it.

BZZZT! Wrong. The question was, you are now in jail due to either (a) wicked and venal judges or (b) well-meaning but ignorant people who don't understand the true force and beauty behind your Freeman's philosophy: how do you get yourself out? To whom to do you appeal? Remember, so far no one has paid the least bit of attention to your arguments. Why would they suddenly start now?

And why the hell do you think citing sections blah blah blah of the Canadian Criminal Code would exempt you from paying your property tax?

Wait...what?

If people don't have the power to make laws, then who does? God? Nature? Cuchulainn?

I vote for Cuchulainn. It has such a nice ring to it.

 

[PB2007]

I would also under those Sections appoint a whole bunch of people to protect my property, amongst them being the Sheriff and his Deputies and sworn peace officers.

Well I'm confused again.

The law can't be used against you to make you pay taxes but you can use the law to protect yourself and your property? Even though you (allegedly) don't pay the taxes that pay for that service? If no-one paid taxes how would the Freemen fund services that are currently covered by taxes?


Also <bump> for the question regarding car insurance and if you were to knock down a child and cause serious injury. If the care for that child were to exceed $1 million then where does the extra funding come from? Would you be happy to pay extra for another Freeman that has caused such an injury?

 

[Brian-M]

No, they all have consented and the proof is evidenced by virtue of the fact that they are in possession of things like government issued identification. Likely they did not realize when they were consenting, but they all did.

So people are giving "consent" without realizing they are giving "consent"? In that case they haven't actually consented at all. You're just redefining the concept of consent to suit your argument.

Assuming (for the moment) you're correct, then to avoid giving "consent" you would have to exist without any form of government issued identification, such as a birth certificate (which, interestingly, is issued without the child's consent).

Not having any form of government identification would cause problems. You wouldn't be able to buy land, and would have great difficulty renting. You wouldn't be able to open a bank account, and would have great difficulty getting a job.

Wait a sec... it suddenly all makes sense...

"Freemen On The Land" is just a euphemism for "Unemployed Homeless Vagrant". Why didn't I see this before?

The fact remains not a single one of you is willing to claim that you may govern me without my consent. And I have never met anyone who does make that claim and is willing to defend it. Cowardly on keyboards sure, but not to my face. So until I meet someone who does try to govern me, I will act as I do and continue sharing my words and beliefs and I am setting up some pretty big shows coming up.

Until you were an adult, didn't your parents govern you without your consent? Do you dispute their right to have governed you throughout your childhood?

Your statement "not a single one of you is willing to claim that you may govern me without my consent" clearly shows you are missing the point. No single one of us is claiming the right to govern you without your consent. That's the government's job.

The people control the government, and the government governs the people. That's how things work in a democracy. In theory, the government represents the collective will of the people, and it is the collective will of the people that determines our rights and obligations.

It's very simple... you reap the benefits of a lawful, well-funded community, and are expected to obey the laws and pay your taxes in return. If people didn't obey the laws an pay their taxes, those benefits would cease to exist.

The way I see it, a Freeman On The Land is like a small child yelling at his parents, telling them that they have no right to tell him what to do. And they're just as immature, as well.