• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
D'rok said:
Our learned friend is trying to practice criminal law.
Click to expand...

Ah. I am sorry. I did not realise that. In this country that is not legal and I do not imagine it is legal where you are either.

Inosfar as he is doing that I would expect there to be consequences: and I see you have shown there are. So like everyone else I now await the evidence that something about the FOTL stance has removed those, since I think that that is the poster's claim.

Insofar as he is doing what I addressed then I see nothing illegal about it: but given that anyone can do it if they take the time and trouble to educate themselves, there is a whiff of scam about using the FOTL rhetoric.

As I said, there are people who do that sort of thing for free in this country. Citizens Advice bureaus and claimants' unions come to mind. There are also people who are employed to do it: for example the welfare rights services run by the local authority. I imagine that may be true in Canada too.

There are also people who do it for money: my experience was with some individuals who offered to represent at social security appeal tribunals, and we called them 10 percenters because that is how they got paid: they took 10 percent of any award. That is not illegal, but since they were no better than those who did it for nothing it was a rather distasteful scam.

When the welfare rights service started in my city it was very successful because departments make mistakes and before that they had seldom been systematically challenged. There were many cases which went up through appeal and counter appeal and established that some things which had been thought to be correct were actually not

What followed was like an arms race: in face of this success the government changed the law in many instances. We have social security bills every five minutes and that is at least part of the reason. So if such services are not well developed in Canada I would expect the same pattern of success at the outset.

This means that the poster will be able to claim some genuine success if he is involved in that kind of work (though I also am puzzled by his reticence). And that in turn will lead some people to believe there is merit in the philosophy which he says underpins it. Indeed, to the extent that this is what is being done, I can see no reason for including that rhetoric if it is not to mystify. Far from liberating people it misleads and suggests there is some special knowledge beyond knowledge of the law: and that special knowledge can be sold, rather than the rep's time being sold, as should be the case if the thing is to be done at all.

So insofar as he is using the law to benefit his "clients" he is not doing anything FOTL based: and insofar as he is claiming FOTL is the reason for any success it is a scam, methinks

I may be very wrong: this person may well believe that rhetoric he puts forward. I am convinced that Especially did. But for me, as I have understood at least the post I addressed, parsimony leads me to suspect a scam riding on the back of FOTL rhetoric

*wanders off to take her anti-cynic pills*
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

This falls over before it begins. As a 15 year old you fall under all the same laws as a 19-21 year old, and face the same punishments even though majority of 15 year olds do not have any form of Government issued ID. (Too young to drive, vote, and only some may have a passport). Going by your logic, They are free of any government consent and should be immune to statutes, yet these 15 year olds still face the same Penalties if they break the same statutes they supposedly did not consent too.

What FOTL is is a big Thought experiment which has no basis in reality.
 
It's not even a thought experiment, it's just wrong.

For example, the idea that somehow people, corrupt or evil or not, are obliged to follow the law. That's just stupid. Ask my Cherokee ancestors about that. A good many of them were US citizens who had asked for, and had actually been granted, what the Freeman wish they could do. They were given the ability to no longer be governed by the United States of America. How well did that work out for them?

And I'm not even gonna get into Louisiana, where there isn't even a common law to appeal to, at least on a state or local level.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
FreemanMenard,

Any documentation anywhere for a Canadian claiming and getting his/her $10 million?

I'd really like to know because a friend of mine said his brother-in-law heard from his dentist that this was not possible. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Just to highlight how bizarre Canadian FOTL woo is, Gord's question refers to the FOTL delusion that the "corporation" (i.e. Canada) issues a bond on your behalf when you are born (it doesn't). This bond entitles you to claim your portion of the "corporation's" profits/wealth, whatever (nope). The "corporation" tries to hide this information from you so it can use your rightful share for its own nefarious purposes (insert evil bureaucratic cackle here). The bond number is on your birth certificate (it isn't). Menard sells various fraudulent legal remedies for you (if you are Canadian) to claim your bond and to do certain other FOTL bits of nonsense.

But it gets even better. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person. There are two magic legal woo-words in there: "Security" and "Person". Menard tries to con people into believing that "Security" actually refers to a financial instrument, i.e. the bond described above. "Person", of course, refers to your legal strawman. In other words, "Security of the Person" means the bond issued to you at birth by the corporation you are an employee of by virtue of your birth certificate.

Menard sells this crap and other crap like it (and I mean sells literally - $150 for his study package), and some people are foolish enough to buy it. Obviously, everyone who has ever tried to use this crap has been smacked down by the courts. To date, there has been no evidence as to the efficacy of the legal instruments Rob sells or evidence of the truth of his legal "reasoning". None will ever be forthcoming.

Hopefully, the lives and credit ratings that are destroyed by Menard's con are minimal.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Hopefully, the lives and credit ratings that are destroyed by Menard's con are minimal.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the outcome of such thinking does not only affect those taken in by it. The Posse Comitatus movement in the U.S. is a broad umbrella used to describe the kind of ideas espoused by our "learned friends." Though it started in the 1970s, it crystallized in the '80s and really began to spiral out of control in the '90s. With tragic results. See this link for a brief history: http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/SCM...ubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=sov

What happens is, people (or persons) believe this tripe, and then go ahead and try it. When it invariably doesn't work, they don't say "hey, maybe it's not true..." they decide (with help from the leaders of these movements) that they are being denied their "Common Law Rights" in contravention of "Natural Law" and that they are justified in taking action to "defend themselves." We've seen this attitude in this very thread in the form of veiled threats regarding anyone trying to "govern" Mr. Menard.

The upshot is that they file "liens" against various and sundy people that, while bogus, take time and money to dispute and get removed. They also hold illegitimate "common law" trials and threaten to kidnap and kill others. Sometimes these tactics work, and then they can claim "see, the govt. backed off because they know I'm right."

While it seems an eccentric bit of legal nonsense, on the whole, the phenomenon can be quite dangerous.

I got interested in it when I encountered one such "defense" as a young lawyer about 10 years ago, in the course of enforcing child support orders. If anyone out there is on the fence about any of this, I guarantee you that none of their "magic words" or tricks works in court in the United States (and, I would guess, anywhere else.)
 
Ricomise said:
The problem is, the outcome of such thinking does not only affect those taken in by it. The Posse Comitatus movement in the U.S. is a broad umbrella used to describe the kind of ideas espoused by our "learned friends." Though it started in the 1970s, it crystallized in the '80s and really began to spiral out of control in the '90s. With tragic results. See this link for a brief history: http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/SCM...ubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=sov
Click to expand...

Great article! It's amazing how closely our Canadian wackos are following in the footsteps of the American "sovereign citizen" movement. The "redemption" scam is remarkably similar to the Canadian "Security of the Person" scam, and Menard is actively advocating for vigilante "common law courts".

thinkfree.ca said:
The Plan is very simple and involves the creation of an actual society with the associated lawful courts and supporting peace officer force. Using fundamentals of law and existing and established rights, we will create a society called The Freeman Society Canada, establish The Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers, and convene new lawful de jure courts which will be accessible to all and not owned and operated by the law society.

http://www.thinkfree.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=97
Click to expand...

I hope our FOTL'ers don't get violent. They've restricted themselves to "paper terrorism" so far.

What happens is, people (or persons) believe this tripe, and then go ahead and try it. When it invariably doesn't work, they don't say "hey, maybe it's not true..." they decide (with help from the leaders of these movements) that they are being denied their "Common Law Rights" in contravention of "Natural Law" and that they are justified in taking action to "defend themselves." We've seen this attitude in this very thread in the form of veiled threats regarding anyone trying to "govern" Mr. Menard.

The upshot is that they file "liens" against various and sundy people that, while bogus, take time and money to dispute and get removed. They also hold illegitimate "common law" trials and threaten to kidnap and kill others. Sometimes these tactics work, and then they can claim "see, the govt. backed off because they know I'm right."

While it seems an eccentric bit of legal nonsense, on the whole, the phenomenon can be quite dangerous.

I got interested in it when I encountered one such "defense" as a young lawyer about 10 years ago, in the course of enforcing child support orders. If anyone out there is on the fence about any of this, I guarantee you that none of their "magic words" or tricks works in court in the United States (and, I would guess, anywhere else.)
Click to expand...
It's instructive that the peddlers of this "information" rarely are the ones relying on it. They leave that to their customers, who test the woo out in the real world and pay the price for doing so.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Great article! It's amazing how closely our Canadian wackos are following in the footsteps of the American "sovereign citizen" movement. The "redemption" scam is remarkably similar to the Canadian "Security of the Person" scam, and Menard is actively advocating for vigilante "common law courts".

I hope our FOTL'ers don't get violent. They've restricted themselves to "paper terrorism" so far.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you know us 'Mericans, we do the same stuff as everyone else, only more violently. ;)

D'rok said:
It's instructive that the peddlers of this "information" rarely are the ones relying on it. They leave that to their customers, who test the woo out in the real world and pay the price for doing so.
Click to expand...

This is the hallmark of extremist movements throughout history. With apologies to Godwin, how many Jews did Hitler beat up himself? The leaders yell and scream then (in the U.S.) hide behind the 1st Amendment, while the (usually young, disenfranchised, male) followers act out, thereby taking the consequences.

I believe, though I don't have cites handy, that several states have successfully prosected those selling "sovereign citizen legal packages" for fraud, the idea being that there have now been enough courts ruling these actions frivolous, that selling them with the implication that they will work exhibits, at the least, reckless disregard for the truth.

I join you in the hope that your Canadian version of these geniuses remain on a non-violent path, although it's probably too much to hope that they will come to their senses.
 
You want hubris? Read the words of one David E. Sherman, one of the premier tax lawyers of Canada. He is on record as stating that detaxers read the Income Tax Act and think they understand it because they think they are reading English but are not. It is law and they can't understand it without the training he has. And yet he will argue those same words are laws that we are all bound to obey. “These are your laws. You can't understand them, but we can. You must do what we say without question, for those reasons.” That is the position they present.
Click to expand...

There are two things here:

1 - Can anyone who can read understand the law? This is no different from asking if anyone who can read can understand medicine. If they have the intelligence to grasp general medical concepts and specific information about conditions, diagnosis, treatment etc, then yes, they can. Do you have to go to medical school to understand medicine? Possibly not, but those who have gone to medical school will undoubtedly have an advantage over the auto-didact: they will have been taught the discipline by learned, experienced individuals; they will have been taught not only how to research matters but also - importantly - how to understand, interpret and apply that research. Being around experts also means you get corrected if you pick up any misunderstandings along the way.

2 - Should the law be so diffcult to understand? Given that these are the rules which apply to everyone, regardless of whether or not they understand them, no - they should be as comprehensible as possible. Personally, I think that we have far too many badly-drafted and unnecessary laws. However, I also know that it can be hard to draft something that is both readable and unambiguous.

I am not saying that you (or other laypersons) are incapable of understanding the law. Nor would I insist that anyone take my word as law (pun intended) and not do their own research. What I am saying is that, from what you've said so far, it's clear that there's a lot about the law that you have misunderstood. If you maintain your stance of believing that you know best and that the professionals are all wrong, your understanding will never improve.

I'd also add this: understanding the law is not like reading a Dan Brown novel. It's known as an intellectually challenging subject. If anyone tells me they do find it as easy as a Dan Brown novel, I'll wager all my earthly goods that they're missing something. (In the case of FOTLers, it's usually context that's missing, and context is vital for legal uderstanding.) I'll happily confess that when it comes to reading tax law (which - alas - is something I sometimes have to grapple with), I often end up sitting with a wet tea towel wrapped round my head, drawing Venn diagrams. It can be bloody hard!

Mine is that we can all read and know what those words mean and not merely assume they mean what the great masses have been led to believe they do. I believe that one does not have to be a member of a specific profession to know the law. According to you, only lawyers can make that claim, and everyone else must follow them. You speak about the experts in the law and imply that it is due to my ego that I refuse to bow to their interpretations. I simply do not see that as ego. I see it as freewill and exercising the right to make my own choices. Do you consider that to be hubris?
Click to expand...

I reiterate that it's not just a matter of being able to read English. It's also a matter of understanding underlying legal concepts and knowing how all the bits and pieces of law fit together. FOTLers I have encountered are perfectly capable of picking out tiny legal details, but because they don't unerstand how it fits into the larger picture, they misunderstand it and misapply it.

I have no problem with you wanting to understand the law for yourself. On the contrary, I find it commendable. As I said in my earlier post, what I consider to be hubris is your belief that you know better than the professionals. You haven't yet told me how you explain to yourself the fact that legal professionals disagree with you. Really - how is it that we've all missed what you've picked up?
 
Sunray Breaker said:
What'd you guys think of the article I wrote about the freeman movement? Looking for as much feedback as possible.

http://www.examiner.com/x-23787-Denver-Skepticism-
Examiner~y2009m10d7-The-Freeman-on-the-Land-myth-Debunked
Click to expand...

I read through it the other night, quite good, but I found the last paragraph a little brief, and kind of ended the article a little quickly, left me feeling "where is the rest?" . maybe expand that last paragraph a little, otherwise not bad.
 
patchbunny said:
Do we know if he paid, or is the legaltainment continuing?
Click to expand...

I don't know if he paid or if he is still trying to fight. For his sake, I hope he paid. For our entertainment, I hope he fights on!
 
Oh my, this thread was revived recently, I see. Good work, folks, (and especially D'rok on the Canadian stuff - very nicely done, indeed).

Everything has been covered quite nicely. I have just a few comments to add, for what they are worth.

Menard said:
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.
Click to expand...


I call BS, and reiterate the requests by others for Menard to provide documentation of his claim that "everytime [sic] they try to govern me, I make my stand, defend my claims and they retreat." I do not believe this.

And it is patent nonsense to claim that governments, police departments and courts have no right or power to govern those who purport not to consent. Here is a just a single, simple example: a fellow who tested positive for a certain class of communicable disease refused to provide the Public Health department with the names of his sexual partners, as he was required to do by statute. I went to court and got an order requiring him to disclose the names. He refused to comply. I went back to court and got an order compelling the police to arrest him and deliver him to jail. At no time did he "consent" to be governed by the statutes; at no time did he show up in court; he insisted all along that he would not comply, that he didn't mind going to jail, and that he did not have to abide by the statutes. And yet, the day after I obtained the order, he was lawfully arrested at his home, and subsequently jailed. (For the sake of completeness, once he complied with the statutory requirement that he disclose the names so that his sexual partners could be notified and treated so as to prevent them from unwittingly spreading the disease - and he held out for about a week - I assisted in getting him out of jail in a timely manner. I'm not vindictive. I just wanted him to do the right thing.)


Menard said:
In Canada all are bound by the Criminal Code sections which deal with harming another human being, damaging their property, or using fraud.
Click to expand...


In Canada, all are bound by all sections of the Criminal Code. And, um, you do realize that the Criminal Code is a statute, don't you?

Accusing someone without evidence in print is libelous and thus unlawful in itself.
Click to expand...


Yes, according to yet another statute. Imagine that. Do you consent to be governed by that statute? And D'rok has not libeled you, in any event.


Menard said:
Thus all those things mentioned could be argued as successfully entered on the record as facts, accepted as such, but did not lead to intervenor status.
Click to expand...


Except, of course, that the court did not, in fact, accept them as fact. The court said that you could not even articulate a coherent theory, and that everything you were attempting to argue so incoherently was utterly irrelevant to the question to be answered by the court.

In other words, it was a complete and utter failure on your part.


Rogue1stclass said:
Wait...what?

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


From the judge's decision in that case in which Menard sought intervenor status via his incoherent (and legally invalid) arguments, it appears that Menard thinks that God did it:

Court said:
The applicant maintains that if I have no jurisdiction in law to grant him intervenor status, then there is precedent in the Holy Bible for me to recognize his intervenor status in these proceedings.
Click to expand...


And from Menard's website (bolding and capitalization in the original):

Menard said:
PAY ATTENTION : Make cheques or Postal Money Orders payable to Robert Menard.
Click to expand...


Wait, what? So Mr. FOTL is selling gullible people a load of FOTL bollocks, but he insists that the cheques or money orders be made payable to his NON FOTL "self"? His alternate "self"?

Why?

So that he can say that his FOTL "self" did not consent to contract with the very people that his non FOTL "self" is inviting to contract with him, once they are disappointed with the crap he sends them? Or so that he can actually cash the cheques and money orders as he knows that his bogus FOTL "self" does not actually exist? Or other?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom