The Freeman Movement and England

[TSR]

I would accept that, and I also appreciate what I see as a peace making spirit and thank you for your suggestion. Seriously.

.
So, you admit that your previous attempt to "interpret" the principle as being "prior to the existence of the law" was wrong.

You also acknowledge that "the eyes of the law" presupposes the existence of that law.
.

 

[TSR]

.
No, repeating *your* words.
.

.
I can file a document in which I declare myself Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands.

Doesn't mean the court finds that I am.
.

.
Funny that for all of your vaunted film making prowess you haven't been able to produce a single such encounter on video.

Go ahead: video yourself showing the documents to a cop, and explain in clear terms that you believe them to allow you to to use the public roads without plates, insurance or license and without edit show them agreeing to your interpretation.
.


.
Projection is an ugly thing.
.

.
BTW, you seem to have missed this post...
.

 

[drkitten]

.
Another way of phrasing the egalitarian principle is "all are equal in the eyes of the law."

Shall we use that instead?
.

It wouldn't help, I'm afraid.

The principle of "all are equal in the eyes of the law" is specifically contradicted under common law. For simple example, look at the common-law traditions of "benefit of clergy" (which existed for nearly 200 years before it was formalized under statute) or for the principle of "trial by a jury of one's peers" which gave special status to noblemen (who could only be tried by other noblemen) -- and again had existed for centuries before it was formalized in the Magna Charta.

If Menard is going to claim to find this principle in common law, he's going to have a long, hard, search for it.

 

[TSR]

It wouldn't help, I'm afraid.

The principle of "all are equal in the eyes of the law" is specifically contradicted under common law. For simple example, look at the common-law traditions of "benefit of clergy" (which existed for nearly 200 years before it was formalized under statute) or for the principle of "trial by a jury of one's peers" which gave special status to noblemen (who could only be tried by other noblemen) -- and again had existed for centuries before it was formalized in the Magna Charta.

If Menard is going to claim to find this principle in common law, he's going to have a long, hard, search for it.

.
That's right, jump your cue: we weren't supposed to bring *that* up for a few posts yet.
.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I am unaware of admitting any such thing. Can you show me the words you are reading to cause you to believe such silliness? In Canada the wording is 'Equal before and under the law." I was willing to accept 'in the eyes of the law' as with that I can easily show that in the eyes of the law, statutes require consent of both parties. But you wish to take that and make what out of it? I do not know... Guess I was wrong about the spirit of peace in you, since you use my acceptance as a chance to apparently pounce upon an idea I do not espouse, though you think I do.

You also acknowledge that "the eyes of the law" presupposes the existence of that law.

Since I have no idea what you are trying to say, I am not agreeing with it, nor acknowledging it. It doesnot presuppose the existence of the law anymore than the terms 'before the law' or 'under the law'. All three have the same level of presupposition. I do not see your point. I agree the law exist. I do not agree your words are my law without my consent.

Did I say your words? In that I meant also 'the words of those you elected to represent you'.

Cause we are equal in the eyes of the law, right?
So it can't see your words as having more weight or importance than mine.
Thus your statutes require my consent before you enforce them upon me.
Just as they required your consent before anyone enforced them upon you.

You may have been too ignorant to realize you were consenting.

 

[Toke]

I have never seen any backup for the idea of the feudal freeman not having any obligations. As I recall it, they were jumped up serfs with some quite serious obligations to their lord.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Lost track of who said what about what, didn't you. It's ok.

The text you quoted and bolded was mine...and it was not so much about grammar as it was about you lying to run away from an honest wager. I haven't addressed you on the subject of equality under the law.

Okay fair enough... too many people irrationally attacking from all sides I guess.

I guess that is what happens here in this forum when people do not toe the party line of blindly obeying the government eh? I will try to do better.

PS- If that is not your party line would you please share with me what it is? It sure seems like that is it though.

I do know that this group of so called critical thinkers refuses to think critically of the people in the government, and refuses to be skeptical of their claim to have the right to govern and tax and regulate. So your partyu line is 'Think critically, but not TOO critically." Am I close?

Can you explain why you are all so scared to apply your skepticism to those who tax you, but are willing to pull out all guns on those who question critically that taxation?

None of you see it do you?

 

[TSR]

I am unaware of admitting any such thing. Can you show me the words you are reading to cause you to believe such silliness? In Canada the wording is 'Equal before and under the law." I was willing to accept 'in the eyes of the law' as with that I can easily show that in the eyes of the law, statutes require consent of both parties.

.
No, actually you cannot. But I *do* invite you to try.
.

It doesnot presuppose the existence of the law anymore than the terms 'before the law' or 'under the law'. All three have the same level of presupposition. I do not see your point. I agree the law exist.

.
Actually, that *is* my point. You were arguing that "before the law" should be interpreted as "prior to the law's existence."

You were wrong.
.

I do not agree your words are my law without my consent.

Did I say your words? In that I meant also 'the words of those you elected to represent you'.

.
You can disagree all you want -- you will still be wrong.
.

So it can't see your words as having more weight or importance than mine.

.
Never claimed that my words as an individual did, so you can stop arguing that point.
.

Thus your statutes require my consent before you enforce them upon me.
Just as they required your consent before anyone enforced them upon you.

.
Wrong on both counts.
.

You may have been too ignorant to realize you were consenting.

.
*I'm* not the one trying to make the claim about "prior to the law's existence."
.

 

[FreemanMenard]

No, actually you cannot.

Oh, well thank you for clearing that up, with such authority and obvious righteousness. Hey wait, we are equal, right? Your random, baseless and unsupported proclamation is not the truth just because you say it, or is it? If so I get to say this and it will be equally true: Yes, Actually I can. There it is settled, and I am right.

Actually, that *is* my point. You were arguing that "before the law" should be interpreted as "prior to the law's existence."

Nope I was not, but I do not blame you for your confusion, you are obviously trying very hard. Before the law is interpreted as prior to the creation of statute, for if you are under it, it is man made.

If you are before it you are standing before God's law.
So let us clarify, since it is so hard for you.
Before the Law = standing before God. We stand before Gods law. We are equal there.

Under the Law = standing under some other man. You stand under the people in the government. You chose to do so. But I am still before God's law. How can you drag me under with you?

See how easy it is if you are not trying to avoid truth with diversions?

Before the law = answer to God.
Under the Law = Answer to Man.

We are equal when we stand in the former, and in the latter, but standing in the latter is a choice.

You made yours.
I made mine.
Because we are equal before the law, we each have free choice.
I tell people about this choice.
And many choose it.

Nothing any of you can do either.
What does that tell you about TRUTH?
You know, what with reality unfolding in a manner that supports my position, and rejects yours?

So many people starting to see this choice, and taking it.

 

[TSR]

Oh, well thank you for clearing that up, with such authority and obvious righteousness. Hey wait, we are equal, right? Your random, baseless and unsupported proclamation is not the truth just because you say it, or is it? If so I get to say this and it will be equally true: Yes, Actually I can. There it is settled, and I am right.

.
And what law are we before, under or in the eyes of for this to apply?


Oh, that's right. we're not, so that *legal* principle does not apply.

Are you really that ignorant of the principle involved, or just that determined to distract from your inability to do more than baldly assert your crap is actually strawberries?


And no, we are not equal in this case. Because I'm not trying to lie about my "status" and claiming special consideration because of it.
.

Nope I was not, but I do not blame you for your confusion, you are obviously trying very hard. Before the law is interpreted as prior to the creation of statute, for if you are under it, it is man made.

If you are before it you are standing before God's law.

.
Which God is that? Zeus? Allah? Yahweh? When did my country turn into a theocracy?
.

So let us clarify, since it is so hard for you.
Before the Law = standing before God. We stand before Gods law. We are equal there.

Under the Law = standing under some other man.

.
And where is this interpretation documented? Not the first time I have asked...
.

You know, what with reality unfolding in a manner that supports my position, and rejects yours?

.
But it doesn't -- while all the Freemen in jail right now indicates the exact opposite.
.

So many people starting to see this choice, and taking it.

.
And yet, not a one of them is successful at trying to implement that choice.

Sad, really...
.

 

[Hans]

So Menard back to your fraudent claim that you are 'not from North Vancouver'

So did you file with the court the location of your birth so they could refer to that? Do Canadian courts have to say you are 'from' the place of your birth or do they refer to the place you stated when they asked you where you lived and and you said

I'm from 'North Vancouver'

Or did it go down some other way?

Oh yes a comment to the board on the 'wager' perhaps Menard could use his magic words to get some imprisoned for life convicts out of prison....should be easy from what he claims and that would be a clear demonstration of the powers of this woo.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Rob's being debunked from so many angles that I can't keep track of them all.

Rob, we've been through this before. I will gladly put all $10,000 in escrow when you produce any document from any government authority stating that you are exempt from any statute law because of your freeman on the land status. No court documents needed. Upon me contacting the government agency that the letter is from and receiving confirmation of their findings (to prevent you from making a forgery), the money is yours.

As I've told you before - but which you always ignore - I am happy to put the funds in escrow, as long as you pay the fee. I looked around and the lowest I could find was 0.89%. I will accept the $89 in escrow from you as proof of your willingness to pay the fee.

The response from Rob will be "just deduct the $89 from the 10k" - no, because I know you don't have any proof and so while we hold funds in escrow watching you fumble around I will have lost the $89 when this whole charade is over. I know you have no proof, by the way, because Freeman on the land is a FAILURE.

This would be all so easy Rob, if you had proof. In fact, you should be willing to show us proof for free if you are truly here to help us all. But you have none, because freeman on the land is a scam that you are trying to profit from.

 

[LightinDarkness]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9668427/TO-BE-A-FREEMAN

Check that out Asky...
I trust the Minister of Finance choosing to not dispute is sufficient?

Oh no, not this again.

This is a standard form letter sent by clerks at any government agency you send your frivolous "notices" to. At no point does the letter do anything but CONFIRM RECEIPT of the letter, it does not agree that the woo who sent it is a freeman on the land or that he/she is granted any special rights by "serving" the department with the notice.

All the form letter does is insert (1) title of document recieved and (2) To include "I have noted <main point of whatever the document is>. At no point do any of the letters do anything but confirm receipt and quote the main point of the correspondence, which will happen no matter what nutty notice you send in. It likely wasn't even read by anyone but the clerk, who probably got quite a chuckle out of it.

 

[Hans]

Note: on the use of the standard response forms. Perhap we should send letters to the same agencies claiming to be a large purple slug from the planet GYFTYE@$% and demanding the tribute of 100,000 people per year for eating purposes ....and see if we get a standard reply letter back....

 

[tsig]

Wow how you can just ignore one sentence that clearly follows another and take it all out of context is astounding! Yes my friend, I was wrong and I was right. I have been right in the past, and I have been wrong in the past, and often at the same time.

I remember a time where it was right to date this particular woman, but wrong to take her to the restaurant I did. I was wrong AND I was right. WOW.. How does that work? Here is the tricky part. Watch while I show you the trick:

IT WAS TWO SEPARATE YET RELATED THINGS!

Isn't that just too tricky? Wow eh? Imagine that! You do not have to be right about all things, and being wrong about one does not mean you are wrong about all of things! And it works both ways! Wow... how does such magic work you wonder? It is called L O G I C.

But that is okay, you focus on avoiding the truth of the matter, and continue to try to bring nonsensical (and quite embarrassing for you) displays of logic to bear, and see how that works for you.

Here is what you are trying to avoid: Either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution acknowledges that all men are created equal and that this concept is so obvious that no sane or reasonable man could argue it. So do you all wish to now argue it?

What and be called not sane or reasonable?

 

[tsig]

So the Declaration of Independence has no historical significance or force in law. Okay.....


Here enjoy this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"[2] and "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[3] The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy,[4] and promoted the idea that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.


Hmmm.... so this is what is used to interpret the Constitution, which you claim does have force. Hmmm....

Hey isn't Independence Day the day this was adopted By your Congress? Hmmm... no force of law you say.... Is that not a legal holiday?

Are you claiming that we are not all equal before the law or not? Cause I do. What do you say. No dancing around or avoidance. Are we or are we not equal before the law. That is the starting point. You can seek argument all you want, or focus on trivialities, or what have you, but this question is the key you all wish to avoid. ARE WE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW OR NOT? Here is another question. Did the people who made and published the Declaration of Independence from the political power of the day have the right to do so? Or not? And if so, what makes you think we do not have the same right?


We will get back to that though. I want to see if any of you have the guts to ante up like you said you would.

You seem to think you're more equal than others.

 

[tsig]

No, it has historical significance. But no force in law.



Neither of which give the DoI force of law. "To be or not to be, that is the question" is also one of the best-known sentences in the English language, but has no force in law.



.... which doesn't give the DoI any force in law.



NICE AVOIDANCE ATTEMPT drkitten! Well done! You sure tried to shift the focus of the discussion away from equality to the legal importance of the Declaration, but let us now get back to what is important. (Oh I am sorry, did I ruin your attempt to avoid the subject?)

Here it is< do not drop it again:
We are all equal before the law.

Simple, easy to read, and only a fool would argue it, and only a deceiver will now try to point to ANYTHING else, as this is the foundation of the topic of discussion, not the legal relevance of one document over any other, as these truths would be true regardless of these other documents. RIGHT?

Means you have to get a license and insurance to to drive on my roads.

 

[jargon buster]

ROB Wrote

Nope cause then that would not be a fair wager would it? I am risking a lot more then any of you.

What exactly are you risking Rob?
You are breaking no laws are you?

Your whole argument is that you are within your rights to do what you do, what possible harm could you come to.

JB

 

[FreemanMenard]

Rob's being debunked from so many angles that I can't keep track of them all.

Rob, we've been through this before. I will gladly put all $10,000 in escrow when you produce any document from any government authority stating that you are exempt from any statute law because of your freeman on the land status. No court documents needed. Upon me contacting the government agency that the letter is from and receiving confirmation of their findings (to prevent you from making a forgery), the money is yours.

As I've told you before - but which you always ignore - I am happy to put the funds in escrow, as long as you pay the fee. I looked around and the lowest I could find was 0.89%. I will accept the $89 in escrow from you as proof of your willingness to pay the fee.

The response from Rob will be "just deduct the $89 from the 10k" - no, because I know you don't have any proof and so while we hold funds in escrow watching you fumble around I will have lost the $89 when this whole charade is over. I know you have no proof, by the way, because Freeman on the land is a FAILURE.

This would be all so easy Rob, if you had proof. In fact, you should be willing to show us proof for free if you are truly here to help us all. But you have none, because freeman on the land is a scam that you are trying to profit from.

The problem I see with this, although I know it sounds reasonable, and I have no reason to think you are extending it being aware of this problem, is that success is not a function of my actions, but of the people in the governments. It requires them to produce something, where as I proposed them not acting when they could as a measure of success.

What if I travel freely, all over, and they know, and are aware, and refuse to stop me, or produce such a document for me? Then there appears a stalemate and the situation is not resolved. That is the problem I see.

You are equating my success with their actions, not their refusal to act. It is fundamental.

Will you accept the terms suggested? I will agree to pay the fees, and further, will only draw from the $10K in escrow as much as the project costs me, plus my fees, and the rest I will donate to Covenant House in whatever name you wish. Likely I will draw 3-5K if not challenged. Costs increase with challenges however.

Whatever your challenge, tying success to the actions of another, is not an acceptable challenge, whereas tying it to their refusal to act, is. See, I do not want my success or failure to be predicated by the actions of another. I think that is fair, after all, if they are not my government, and we both know it, they can't give me the documents you would like to see can they?

Lack of action on their part when they can act and stop me is clear indication that they do not chose to do so.

Failure to provide the documents you wish to see is simply evidence that they do not wish to provide evidence of their potentially unlawful previous actions. They have no obligation to do so, and I do not need it to exercise my rights.

So is it about exercising rights without permission, or getting permission from someone to do so?

See your entire challenge sounds like this:
I say I do not need their permission.
You say Prove it, by getting it.

Your logic is faulty. If I do not need their permission, why would I prove it by securing it?

Where is the logic in saying that you will only accept a document from the people in the government, when the claim is I do not need them to produce such documents?

But I do see how by making such a circuitous demand for performance, and asking for the impossible, you avoid the duty of accepting obligations of your challenge, and now wish to back out. I thought video would suffice. Now you want permission slips or something from the government. Changing the terms of the original offer is what you are doing. Why? Are you scared now to honour your original offer? You know... make a video of me traveling..

I knew you would fold, and find a sleazy way to do it... changing the terms so that now documents from the government is what identifies success is a complete abandonment of the original offer, that being the absence of need for their documents...

I expect such from this forum though....

 

[FreemanMenard]

Your whole argument is that you are within your rights to do what you do, what possible harm could you come to.

Do I have to explain how betting works? It is my belief, it is however not yours or the one shared by the one who extended the offer. And it is this we wish to settle. Do you claim that my actions are lawful and will not bring harm, or not? You bet on one thing, I bet on another.

Party A believes one thing.
Party B believes another opposite thing.

They Bet.

One party can know they have a sure thing, and still bet.
So what?

I thought the offer was $10K to produce a video of me traveling in my auto, with the cops clearly being aware of it and doing nothing...

But I guess you all want to wimp out now, eh? Using all the tools at your disposal, even feigning ignorance as to how men wager...

Sad...