The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth I said:
I am the public relations manager for our public library, and I have set autocorrect on my work computer to substitute "public" for "pubic." I figure if I ever actually need to type "pubic" I can go back and override.
Click to expand...

I totally missed that was what you were getting at. The problem is your response was valid even if he spelled public correctly.
 
Elizabeth I said:
I am the public relations manager for our public library, and I have set autocorrect on my work computer to substitute "public" for "pubic." I figure if I ever actually need to type "pubic" I can go back and override.
Click to expand...

Annoying to admit, but I did not notice the spelling error. :o
I am just bothered by these "Freemen" shamelessly admitting to using public resources, something paid for by taxes, through a government they refuse to acknowledge.
 
jargon buster said:
That one makes me cringe everytime they use it:covereyes

They also write "Without Prejudice" on all the documents they expect to rely on in court
Priceless
JB
Click to expand...

Thats one of their favorite made up legal doctrines, isn't it? If I remember correctly, the idea is that the Freeman can send out "legal" documents to anyone and put a time line of any amount of days on it, and if that person doesn't respond within those days then they automatically agree to whatever is sent. Regardless of the fact that maybe the company they sent the "legal" documents to hasn't read them, or maybe the correspodence person was on a holiday...

Whats hilarious is they don't get how sad it is that they believe this sort of stuff works.

They LOVE to take the names of real legal concepts (like estoppel) and just come up with their own meaning, much the way they think "common law" is actually some great and vast theory of natural rights when it really just means a system of precedent.
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
So, he has a document he's had notarized, and then "Authenticated" by the Ministry of Government Services. Interesting. What does it actually mean to have such a document "Authenticated"?




http://www.mgs.gov.on.ca/en/OffDoc/STEL02_046905.html


Let's Emphasize one important paragraph:




Heck, let's emphasize one important line:




Colour me impressed. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is another core FOTL concept. They ascribe much more power to notary publics than really exist. Like much of their legal concepts, its fantasy. They THINK that a notary public notarizing something ascribes it the force of law that would be recognized by government. Even though, as you point out, all it means is that someone is acting as a witness to you signing a document.

The document could certify you think you are a chicken, and they could still notarize it...and they'd still claim it was a victory. They don't seem to get that a notary will notarize anything, no matter what the document actually says.
 
Last edited:
BobHaulk said:
the hippie dude in the video says "let the paper work", well at least something is working, cause as far as i can tell most freeman are living on state benefits.
Click to expand...



I also like how he uses the Lord's Prayer as proof of how bankers want to control us....
 
LightinDarkness said:
Thats one of their favorite made up legal doctrines, isn't it? If I remember correctly, the idea is that the Freeman can send out "legal" documents to anyone and put a time line of any amount of days on it, and if that person doesn't respond within those days then they automatically agree to whatever is sent. Regardless of the fact that maybe the company they sent the "legal" documents to hasn't read them, or maybe the correspodence person was on a holiday...

Whats hilarious is they don't get how sad it is that they believe this sort of stuff works.
Click to expand...

It's like the old Columbia House negative option billing scam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_option_billing
 
LightinDarkness said:
This is another core FOTL concept. They ascribe much more power to notary publics than really exist. Like much of their legal concepts, its fantasy. They THINK that a notary public notarizing something ascribes it the force of law that would be recognized by government.
Click to expand...

Since in Australia at least, and I imagine most countries whose statutes have evolved from the Common Law (the British Common Law - the "real one" ), a Notary Public is prescribed by Statute, and they do not accept Statute Law, I cannot see that getting something signed by somebody approved by Statute can make the document binding for somebody who refuses to contract with them. After all, they do not acknowledge Statute law

I see your Notary Public and raise it a Justice of the Peace.

Norm
 
LightinDarkness said:
They don't seem to get that a notary will notarize anything, no matter what the document actually says.
Click to expand...

A while ago I looked at what it would take to become a Justice of the Peace (JP) in Victoria, and was surprised to find not much. JP's act as a notary in Australia, and can sign documents to confirm they are who they say they are and Not much else. Still might do it, then I can be Akama1 JP .

the fact they think this makes everything they write legal is hilarious .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_peace

Thou being a JP in Queensland could be fun, holding my own courts, issuing search warrants. Doh, I may of given FOLTers an idea
 
Last edited:
Rob Menard wrote on Ickes regarding this paragraph
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110682&page=20

To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle and also a motor vehicle (like a car) requires motor vehicle documents (license, reg, insurance, etc). To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle but not also a motor vehicle (like a bicycle) does not require motor vehicle documents. Same goes for commercial vehicles (like a rickshaw vs. a taxi - although there's probably some regulation somewhere that covers things like rickshaws).
Click to expand...

He sure is making a lot of assumptions here, none of which are supported by anything in the Act.

It refers clearly to vehicles, and motor vehicles and private passenger vehicles.
It states very clearly that all documentation of the type he refers to is applicable only to motor vehicles. The contention that a private passenger vehicle does not mean a vehicle, or that it requires documentation of the type ONLY available for private passenger vehicles is also not supported.

I would go to the RANDI forum if I thought there was anyone there not completely closed minded and proud of their ignorance. Ask them if they wish to accept my offer to treat a challenge.

And D'rok will get all sorts of chances to see me in action. And his calim that I am conning someone implies that he is incapable of deciding for himself a course of action suitable for himself.

Why is it when people take a course of action the PAY & OBEY crowd refuse to examine, they need to label the one who takes it as a schumck, and me a con man? Is it so difficult to accept that others can make up their own minds?


mmm......spoiling for a fight but wont turn up to have one

I recall his 6 posts on this thread which didnt hold water

JB
 
jargon buster said:
He sure is making a lot of assumptions here, none of which are supported by anything in the Act.



mmm......spoiling for a fight but wont turn up to have one

I recall his 6 posts on this thread which didnt hold water

JB
Click to expand...



So - he just ignored the part about the regulations then? About what I expected.
 
jargon buster said:
It refers clearly to vehicles, and motor vehicles and private passenger vehicles.
It states very clearly that all documentation of the type he refers to is applicable only to motor vehicles. The contention that a private passenger vehicle does not mean a vehicle, or that it requires documentation of the type ONLY available for private passenger vehicles is also not supported.JB
Click to expand...
Clueless. He isn't even capable of parsing a simple paragraph. My first sentence begins like this:

"To operate a vehicle that is a private passenger vehicle and also a motor vehicle "

And he responds with this:

"The contention that a private passenger vehicle does not mean a vehicle"

There's either some sort of learning disability going on here, or just a clumsy attempt at dissembling. Probably both.
 
Menard reveals his con again:

"The travel issue I can act as agent for others in court, while being a Freeman-on-the-Land who has revoked consent, and never be bound by the court."

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058809381&postcount=257

Let others take the fall, eh jackass?

This kind of thing needs to stop. He can't do this in BC because the Law Society there and the BC Supreme Court have stopped him. That's why he's trying this new con out in Alberta. I'm mulling over the idea of compiling some information and sending a letter to the Alberta Law Society. It probably won't stop this particular attempt, but they need to have him clearly on their radar, if they don't already.
 
Supplementary to my above post:

Menard is trying to get around the Law Society by acting as an agent. Here are the rules governing agency in Alberta courts:

http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/criminal_pros/crown_prosecutor/Pages/court_agents.aspx

In particular:

Every agent must apply to the court for the right of audience. This does not mean, however, that a trial judge is obligated to conduct a detailed inquiry into the competence and background of every agent in every case. In some situations, the agent will be known or the basis for the agent’s appearance will be obvious (e.g., he or she is working within a program referred to in Order in Council 334/2003), and an inquiry is unnecessary or very brief.

In other situations, and in particular those situations in which the proposed agent intends to seek an audience on the basis of s. 106(2)(l) of the Legal Profession Act, a detailed inquiry will be necessary in order to determined whether the agent should be granted an audience.

To best protect the proper administration of justice, including protecting the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial, Crown prosecutors must be proactive in assessing the propriety of an agent representing an accused. This does not mean that Crown prosecutors should routinely apply to disqualify agents; rather, Crown prosecutors must satisfy themselves that the use of an agent will not be contrary to the proper administration of justice and, in particular that the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial will be protected.
Click to expand...
It might be more productive if I sent the letter to the Crown Prosecutor's office instead of the Law Society. I think that if I actually do this, I'll send it to both.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Supplementary to my above post:

Menard is trying to get around the Law Society by acting as an agent. Here are the rules governing agency in Alberta courts:

http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/criminal_pros/crown_prosecutor/Pages/court_agents.aspx

In particular:

It might be more productive if I sent the letter to the Crown Prosecutor's office instead of the Law Society. I think that if I actually do this, I'll send it to both.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly the Law Society in Canada is well aware of Menard, and hes made it sort of a personal mission in life to trash them. Not that hes had any success beyond his personal circle of groupies. But I think keeping them "updating" of his shenanigans is most appropriate!
 
D'rok a number of people did the same thing in regards to the 'Sovereign citizen' fraud in the 1990s. It was from their efforts information packets about the tactics of that 'cult' were distributed to law enforcement and legal community.
 
LightinDarkness said:
If I remember correctly the Law Society in Canada is well aware of Menard, and hes made it sort of a personal mission in life to trash them. Not that hes had any success beyond his personal circle of groupies. But I think keeping them "updating" of his shenanigans is most appropriate!
Click to expand...

There is no Canadian Law Society. Each province has its own. (The joys of federalism). So when he crosses the line and gets sanctioned in British Columbia, he just moves next door to Alberta and starts again. I don't know how much information sharing they do, if any - so Alberta needs to be warned.
 
D'rok said:
There is no Canadian Law Society. Each province has its own. (The joys of federalism). So when he crosses the line and gets sanctioned in British Columbia, he just moves next door to Alberta and starts again. I don't know how much information sharing they do, if any - so Alberta needs to be warned.
Click to expand...

Hrm, I did not know this. I thought there was just one big overarching law society like the US has the American Bar Association. I went to the website and it didn't seem province specific, trying to find which one hes come into conflict with previously then...
 
Hans said:
D'rok a number of people did the same thing in regards to the 'Sovereign citizen' fraud in the 1990s. It was from their efforts information packets about the tactics of that 'cult' were distributed to law enforcement and legal community.
Click to expand...

Good to know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom