The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
Hi! These are actually all very good questions, and ones I would be happy to answer. If you have more of this nature please share them with me, and I will do my best to answer them in my next video, which is in production now. (I am rendering on the other machine)

Short answers are :
NO not at first and never unless necessary.
Peaceful recording and witnessing.No you have no need to worry about that, that I can see.
Click to expand...

So all your peace officers will have is a badge and a camera?
 
Rolfe said:
Wouldn't the benefit to you be that people would see you could back up your position?

If that's not important to you, why post here at all?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

It is a far greater benefit to them if they learn this on their own. I am not concerned about people believing me.

So everything you post here is about something important to you? I come here for a specific purpose. The fact that the only suitable reason you can see being one of group acceptance highlights your weaknesses, not mine.

And for the one who wanted a court case research Law Society of British Columbia v Robert Arthur Menard and see how the court ruled when the Law Society tired to secure payment of court costs and a contempt of court charge against me as they were awarded in the court case Asky keeps harping about. They were awarded costs. Look at what happened when they tried to secure payment from me. Their number is easily found on the web too! Ask them about that case.

Peace out!
 
FreemanMenard said:
Let's start with this. What are the court case #s that demonstrate FMOTL success?
Click to expand...

I am sure we can agree court is a place for people with conflicts.

Your idea of success involves a conflict that was resokved, whereas true success is a conflict that is avoided.

If conflict is avoided, and there is no court, there is a success and no records thereof.

Your idea of what constitutes 'success', is to Freemen who know how to behave, constitutes failure.

I am not trying to be evasive, but merely sharing the honest truth as I see it.

The other problem is that the courts as the operate now, are a 'benefit', and even if you claim to be a Freeman, if they then start providing you with services, such as a court, you have by seeking those services, (if you have not done so properly,) will have abandoned your previous claim.

See the issue boils down to you saying "Show me court proof!" but the court then says "By seeking proof form us, you have secured a benefit, and abandoned your previous status. Welcome back to the fold. We are find you are not a Freeman any more. Please pay the cashier.

As a Freeman, I will not seek their benefits, as doing so means I abandon my status, yet the only thing apparently you will accept as proof is me accepting their benefits and keeping my status. Do you see the problem?

You raise an impossible task and it is evidence to me you do not understand what a Freeman is about nor how the courts operate at present.
Click to expand...

So not having any proof your system works is proof your system works?
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Plenty! Providing them however seems like a lot of work, with no benefit to me. Care to fix that? Or are you another super entitled one who can demand service without recompense?
Click to expand...

How much do you want for proof of one court case won? $10, $20, $200 name the price.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Not unless they wish to abandon their status as Freeman by agreeing to the services of the court, or they know how to act in there to maintain their status. Many do not and then mess up and walk into court as a Freeman, enter into contract unknowingly, and lose said status.
If you want to abandon your status then yes go to court and use their services. Respond to a summons (offer) like you have no choice. (When a shoe store sends you notice of a sale are you obliged to attend?)
Click to expand...

Freeman status seems easier to lose than virginity.
 
FreemanMenard said:
It is a far greater benefit to them if they learn this on their own. I am not concerned about people believing me.

So everything you post here is about something important to you? I come here for a specific purpose. The fact that the only suitable reason you can see being one of group acceptance highlights your weaknesses, not mine.

And for the one who wanted a court case research Law Society of British Columbia v Robert Arthur Menard and see how the court ruled when the Law Society tired to secure payment of court costs and a contempt of court charge against me as they were awarded in the court case Asky keeps harping about. They were awarded costs. Look at what happened when they tried to secure payment from me. Their number is easily found on the web too! Ask them about that case.

Peace out!
Click to expand...

Nice try Rob, but no cigar for you. A court can only order that you pay. To physically force you requires seeking another judgment after you fail to pay. You can choose to ignore demands to pay from a court judgment all you like but it does not mean you won anything. The Law Society probably knows you don't have the money. They have assessed the cost it would take to seek a judgment to force payment from you via garnishment and determined it to not be worth their time. Happens all the time. Simply means you aren't worth bothering with. The Law Society has bigger fish to go after now that you've been debunked - they were successful in proving that your methods fail, which is all they needed to do.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
It is a far greater benefit to them if they learn this on their own. I am not concerned about people believing me.

So everything you post here is about something important to you? I come here for a specific purpose. The fact that the only suitable reason you can see being one of group acceptance highlights your weaknesses, not mine.

And for the one who wanted a court case research Law Society of British Columbia v Robert Arthur Menard and see how the court ruled when the Law Society tired to secure payment of court costs and a contempt of court charge against me as they were awarded in the court case Asky keeps harping about. They were awarded costs. Look at what happened when they tried to secure payment from me. Their number is easily found on the web too! Ask them about that case.

Peace out!
Click to expand...


Here's what i got:


Re: Robert Menard

Postby fortinbras on Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:50 pm
Since this Robert Arthur Menard (and he writes it Robert-Arthur: Menard) is Canadian, I made a feeble effort to find if Canadian court cases mentioned him.

One case right on the money: United States of America v. [Marc Scott] Emery a/k/a "The Prince of Pot" (British Columbia Supreme Ct, Aug. 17, 2005) 2005 BCSC 1192.

The US govt sought the extradition -- and the Canadian govt clearly wanted to oblige -- of fugitive American marijuana entrepreneur Marc Scott Emery. "Robert-Arthur: Menard" showed up in court to be an intervenor either pro se or on behalf of "the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society" of which he was the director. He argued that extradition was applicable only to activities which are "against the law" and "to label a statute [- in this case the Canadian anti-marijuana statutes -] as a law without examining the need of consent is disingenuous." Also, "Robert-Arthur: Menard claims that ... the governments of this land have abandoned their posts as no one in the court is representing or acting on behalf of the Canadian people." -- because the Canadian prosecutor is taking the side of the US authorities. He further argued that sending Emery back to the US where he would go to prison meant sending him "into a system amounting to slavery" -- an exception to the extradition law. "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."

The extradition judge, Hon. Justice S. R. Romilly, very patiently analyzed Menard's pleadings as if he took them seriously -- Canadian courts are considerably more tolerant of nuts than US courts -- and determined after extensive citation of legal authorities that Menard did not fall into the very narrow criteria to be an intervenor in an extradition case, so his application to intervene was dismissed.
This was the only instance I could find of "Robert-Arthur: Menard". However, in Quebec, there had been several cases involving a Robert Menard (no middle name given, no funny punctuation) who had an active criminal career, especially in the field of fraud, but the decisions are all in French and the fellow in the video doesn't seem to be Quebecois.

fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia

Posts: 1095
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm



 
LightinDarkness said:
Nice try Rob, but no cigar for you. A court can only order that you pay. To physically force you requires seeking another judgment after you fail to pay. You can choose to ignore demands to pay from a court judgment all you like but it does not mean you won anything. The Law Society probably knows you don't have the money. They have assessed the cost it would take to seek a judgment to force payment from you via garnishment versus the value of the judgment and determined it to not be worth it. Happens all the time. Simply means you aren't worth bothering with. The Law Society has bigger fish to fry.
Click to expand...
Bingo. We have the evidence of the court order, but we don't have any evidence after that. It is entirely possible that the Law Society let the matter of costs drop. What they were after was an order prohibiting Menard to act as counsel. They got it. The costs award is likely not worth pursuing, as the case was decided without a hearing and probably didn't cost much anyways. I can't find any evidence of action taken after the case was decided.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Well,well I seem to have drawn out Mr Menard from his rock
Look at this ranting series of e-mails he sent me.
from rob m <mrmitee@hotmail.com>
reply-to mrmitee@hotmail.com
to jmbbwalton@gmail.com
date Sun, May 23, 2010 at 6:28 PM
subject RE: WFS forum
mailed-by hotmail.com

Thanks for posting my email addie on the forum. I repaid in kind. Oh boy did I repay in kind....
Click to expand...

rob m <mrmitee@hotmail.com>
reply-to mrmitee@hotmail.com
to jmbbwalton@gmail.com
date Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:03 PM
subject RE: WFS forum
mailed-by hotmail.com

Hey JimBob you promised a forum where anyone could post! You lied and made a cheap blog! You said anyone would be able to post, but alas you allow NO ONE TO POST!

Talk about ensuring a one sided presentation! As fair and balanced as FOX news I see!

LMAO!

Thank you for the homage and free publicity! I LOVE IT!

And I am glad your friends on the RANDI forum, who have never met me are so quick to judge saying I am off the deep end. LMAO! For pointing out a truth, one you all choose to ignore, by insulting me. LMAO!

You really do need a life! But please keep it up! You are helping to spread the Freeman Message, and many see what you are doing, while hiding and not identifying yourself you actually do us a lot of good!

Bye!
Click to expand...

from rob m <mrmitee@hotmail.com>
reply-to mrmitee@hotmail.com
to jmbbwalton@gmail.com
date Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:25 PM
subject RE: WFS forum
mailed-by hotmail.com


You know you complaining about being banned makes you sound like you think there is some big conspiracy to silence you.... woo woo woo woo....
Click to expand...

from rob m <mrmitee@hotmail.com>
reply-to mrmitee@hotmail.com
to jmbbwalton@gmail.com
date Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:28 AM
subject RE: WFS forum
mailed-by hotmail.com


If he thinks getting my site banned will stop me he doesnt know me at all

Stop you from doing what exactly? What is your hidden agenda and why do you not share that with people?

LMSO!

Hey I wonder how many complaints google looks at tomorrow... all that work too.... Hey why not start an actual forum like you said you would? Why are you refusing to do that? Why are you copping out poor Asky?

I do have some good news for you. My new movie will be ready soon! I may even mention you... Cause I know how much you must like me, to spend so much energy on me when you do not even believe in the things I espouse.

Why do you not post that comment I sent you?? Cause you afraid to do so right? Why not post that and show that to your RANDI pals? Guess youo have to be completely one sided for your arguments ot withstand any scrutiny, eh?

Well have a good day. Sorry your site will be banned, you must have put a lot of work in it. Of course you can blame that on others and avoid responsibility for your own actions, right?

Ciao!
Click to expand...

I didnt get chance to answer these mails But they will all be going on Robs home page on my site to show the world his true colours.

Oh he sent this as proof
from rob m <mrmitee@hotmail.com>
reply-to mrmitee@hotmail.com
to jmbbwalton@gmail.com
date Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:46 PM
subject POST THIS!
mailed-by hotmail.com

Images are not displayed.
Display images below - Always display images from mrmitee@hotmail.com

Marc Zurawell
Marc Zurawell
To whom ever doubts that Freeman-on-the-Land status exists, need only research Canadian history. It goes back to the feudal system and means not to owe oath or allegiance to anyone or anything. You must respect life, liberty, property, and the rights of all around you. The problem is that we have a private equity court and lawyers who will be out... See more of work and not able to feed off people anymore, so they do everything they can to stop people from standing their ground. This is forcing people to contract, and that is the fraud. I pitty any who do not accept or understand this truth. There are a few ways to claim freedom, but Freeman on the Land is legitimate and Robert is not a fraud.

Our society has done research for a year and a half in all areas of the truth movement. We have never found anything robert talked about to be untrue to this day.

I do not know Robert Menard personally, but I respect his work and how much he has done, and continues to do for this movement and to help all around him.

Peace.
Click to expand...

JB
 
Rob
What happened to the thread you started on David Ickes?
Did the moderators remove it or is it in the rant room?

I bet it stung a bit to have them turn against you when you attacked a banned member :D:D:D

Talk about poetic justice.

You are ranting like a maniac at the moment Rob, have I touched a nerve a little?

Your mate Spoonogsback over on TSNR radio did say I was the best troll he had ever known, but Im too modest to say.......oops no Im not am I?

JB
 
D'rok said:
So stick around and lead by example. You know exactly what we want. We want some evidence that your "ideas" have some basis in reality. We want some evidence that the "remedies" you sell actually work. We want you to show us that you are not the transparent fraud that you appear to be.

Get to it or go away.
Click to expand...

That part in bold is what we tell the people who think they can govern without consent, and they always go away! Hmmm....

Okay, well the foundation of my beliefs is that all men are created equal, and before the law, all are equal, and thus no one may lawfully govern another without consent. Let see if there is any basis in your reality you call lawful for that foundation. "We the people.... " yeap read the document that starts with that, and you will have a basis in reality you cannot deny which states we are all equal. And it is so obvious that it required no proof for your founding fathers. Is that not good enough for you? Is that not proof that my ideas, foundation of which is equality, is based in reality? ONE EMBRACED BY THE CONSTITUTION NO LESS! That clearly should be good enough right?

When you have embraced that I will lead you by the hand through the rest of the logical sequence which leads to being a Freeman and why it is a proper and lawfully existing status.

As for those who need confirmation from some court, all you are doing is saying "Prove to me that someone who I think is better than me, agrees with you." "Show me a court that agrees with you, so I do not have to think for myself." That is what you are asking for. Why not think for yourself? Is it so hard for a group of supreme thinkers and people who take such pride in their critical thinking ability?

As for proving claims, it is the one who makes the first claim that has the duty to prove it. Mine follows the one made by the people in the government who claim the right to govern. They have been completely incapable of providing evidence that consent is not required to govern.

So if you are all such critical and skeptical thinkers, why do you not apply these talents to the original claim, the one that claims the right to govern, yet then apply it to the second claim? The one that says govenance requires consent.

Hey I have proof for you! Come here and try to govern me without my consent and see what happens. IF you can do it, I was wrong and reality has decided the case. If you can't reality has decided again. Is there even one of you willing to claim the right to govern me directly without my consent? How about ALL of you? Can anyone of you, or even all of you find anyone in Canada willing to publicly claim they can govern another Canadian without their consent? EVEN ONE?

Wow that looks like proof to me. None of you can explain how any or all of you could govern me without my consent in my country of birth.

I think one reason so many here who pride themselves on being critical and skeptical realize how they were completely unquestioning when it came to governmental affairs and their ludicrous claims to govern and control, that now you are ashamed that us Freemen bested you so well, and continue to do so so completely.

Here is my proof: NO ONE CAN GOVERN ME WITHOUT MY CONSENT PROOF BEING NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU HAVE THE COURAGE TO TRY. Same is true here in Canada. Not a single elected official willing to claim the right to govern without consent. Not a single citizen. Not even a cop is willing to enforce statutory restraints against me without first seeing Government issued ID. Not a single one. Wow is that ever telling eh?

But I look forward to your findings concerning the Law Society and how they secured compliance from me concerning a certain court order. That story is very telling also.
 
Freedom Rebels site has a live one http://www.freedomrebels.co.uk/forum/topic/212
I wrote
Freeman on the land has no basis in reality.
It is a belief system developed by charlatens which when combined with economic instability (credit crunch) allows it to gather partial momentum.
There has NEVER been a documented case of any freeman on the land success story (feel free to contradict me)
My site simply lays down the FACTS about some of the conspiracies surrounding it.

You wrote
but thats my opinion
Thats all well and good but I think you will find that wont help you when you are standing in front of a judge or magistrate.

JB
Click to expand...

Jacobs Trouble wrote
Correct, only those who are Born Again from above are Free. Man is a slave to sin and can be nothing else until he is redeemed, saved or delivered from his captivity by the Godhead or by his Creator.

John 8:31-36 (KJV) Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

JB
 
FreemanMenard said:
That part in bold is what we tell the people who think they can govern without consent, and they always go away! Hmmm....
Click to expand...
Show some evidence of this. Like a traffic stop where you are sent on your merry way without license, registration or insurance.

Okay, well the foundation of my beliefs is that all men are created equal, and before the law, all are equal, and thus no one may lawfully govern another without consent. Let see if there is any basis in your reality you call lawful for that foundation. "We the people.... " yeap read the document that starts with that, and you will have a basis in reality you cannot deny which states we are all equal. And it is so obvious that it required no proof for your founding fathers. Is that not good enough for you? Is that not proof that my ideas, foundation of which is equality, is based in reality? ONE EMBRACED BY THE CONSTITUTION NO LESS! That clearly should be good enough right?
Click to expand...
I'm Canadian. Why are you shouting at me about the American constitution?

<snipped the usual idiotic and pointless ranting>
Click to expand...
Not even a cop is willing to enforce statutory restraints against me without first seeing Government issued ID. Not a single one. Wow is that ever telling eh?
Click to expand...
Sure would be. Document this happening. A traffic stop would be great. Especially given how badly Terry and Josh have fared in Ontario without ID.

But I look forward to your findings concerning the Law Society and how they secured compliance from me concerning a certain court order. That story is very telling also.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that you did not pay costs as ordered? I believe you. So what?
 
ROB
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,
Consent, Consent, Consent,

You need to stop this ridiculous "Consent argument.
Governments require consent which is given by the people through democratic elections (some countries just enforce the rule of law without regardless)
Individual consent is not a requirement and it is a ridiculous idea, just ask all your "guinea pigs" in jail.

JB
 
What they were after was an order prohibiting Menard to act as counsel
Click to expand...

What they were after was evidence of me being in their jurisdiction and bound by their orders. What they got was an order, (now pay attention here, it is critical) barring some party who goes by the name 'Respondent Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver' from doing those things. That is not me. I have told them so, and they refused to disagree with me, or claim otherwise. All they were willing to claim was the secured an order not against me, but against some person with a name similar to but not identical with mine. Neither the Law Society, mor the courts are willing to identify the affected party. And when I brought that to the attention of the RCMP, they checked it out, and that order, because the ones who gave it did not wish to make the claims you are making so ignorantly, considered the order NULL AND VOID. You will not find it published in the Public Notices section of the website like all the others, only in The Benchers Bulletin, which has no legal force or effect. Also if you read the top of that section, you will see they were forced to (thanks to me) add that the restrictions when in place is limited to acting for a fee, gain or reward, and does not include acts done for free, or to secure a payment on a previous debt.

As for dropping the costs, if there was anyway at all they could shut me up and stop what you claim is harming people would they not do so? Just to make a big fat example out of me? Why do they not do that? THEY CAN"T! Why not just demand payment, get refused run to court and get an order confining me to jail until I paid or agreed to do so?

THE ORDER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.
Want proof?
Law Society not willing to claim it affects me. They are the ones who secured it.
Chief Justice of the Supreme COurt does not wish to claim it affects me. He is the one who gave it.
POLICE do not wish to claim it affects me. They are the ones who enforce it.

That order is a complete joke, and when examined properly, you see that what is lacking is my consent. Just look on the Law Society website. The name above the one that looks like mine, they mention he consented. If consent was not important why mention it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom