The Freeman Movement and England

[TSR]

.
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.
.

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

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

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

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

Sad, really...
.

.
Seems you missed another post...
.

 

[FreemanMenard]

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

Are we not equal? If so it means they are mine too, and since they are my property, I do not have to ask you or pay you to use my property. I did not demand payment from you to use my roads for your own private purposes did I? See how nice I was.

So since we are equal, and I have not agreed with you that they are your roads solely, and I claim they are mine just as equally as they are yours, how can you lawfully stop me from using them? Can't can you?

You would have to resort to unlawful actions, begining with trying to claim that we do not own the roads equally.

You loose again then for abandoning equality and the law.

So sorry, they are my roads, and I am telling you I can use my property without asking you for permission.


OR..... Do you claim I can't use my own property without getting permission from you first? Is that your claim? LMAO!

 

[TSR]

Are we not equal? If so it means they are mine too, and since they are my property, I do not have to ask you or pay you to use my property. I did not demand payment from you to use my roads for your own private purposes did I? See how nice I was.

.
When did you construct these roads or pay to have them constructed?

If you have no obligation to the government to, say, register your car then you have no right to travel on the roads those fees built and maintain.

You really *aren't* clear on what "equal in the eyes of the law" means, are you?
.

So since we are equal, and I have not agreed with you that they are your roads solely, and I claim they are mine just as equally as they are yours, how can you lawfully stop me from using them? Can't can you?

You would have to resort to unlawful actions, begining with trying to claim that we do not own the roads equally.

.
If you don't pay the required fees, you don't.
.

You loose again then for abandoning equality and the law.

.
The law also says you will pay the appropriate fees.

You can't have one without the other.
.

So sorry, they are my roads, and I am telling you I can use my property without asking you for permission.

OR..... Do you claim I can't use my own property without getting permission from you first? Is that your claim? LMAO!

.
No, I claim that the public roads are not your personal property.
.

 

[LightinDarkness]

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....

Oh Rob, watching you flail about is precious.

You know as well as I do that governments provide letters of exemption (because there really are exempt classes form certain laws - just not freemen exemptions because its a myth) all the time. It would be absolutely nothing for them to provide it, and indeed, real exempt people can get letters directly from their tax authority (for example) stating that they are exempted from paying taxes and the reason for their exemption. They produce such documents routinely and without cost to you or effort.

But no, you can't do that. You can't provide court cases either. Both of which would be incredibly easy to do if FOTL woo were real. Instead, you propose to me that we let you run around doing illegal things and take the fact that your not in jail as "proof" of FOTL success. Rob, I know your cult followers will fall for this sort of stuff, but no one else is - ANYONE could do this. All you have to is either on purpose or by accident do something where no police or present. Or conceal what you are doing. Or simply lie to us - and given your extensive record of lies that one would not be unusual for you. You have to lie to keep this ruse afloat and the money flowing in from your gullible cult followers, of course.

I realize you are trying desperately to find a way to get out of providing real proof. You did it with court cases, and then simple routine letters outlining your FOTL exemption. Both would be much easier than this. But I have thought of a way of letting you do this that you still could ONLY do if FOTL status was real: Perform an illegal act in front of a police officer. Tape yourself doing it, and then walk up to the police officer and tell them what you just did while informing them that you are a freeman on the land and as such, they cannot arrest you. Once they tell you "OK, as a freeman I will not arrest you because you are exempt" you can zoom in on their badge or ask them for their badge number (which they have to provide to everyone, even freemen). When you upload this video, I will contact the police department and verify that the badge number exists and is assigned to a police officer. Then, the money is yours.

But that is quite a lot of work - much more than a simple letter or court cite.

As for the rest of your flailing around, its all been debunked previously. It would be nothing at all for you to ask, as a sovereign citizen, that the government provide you with its own records which note that you are a sovereign and thus exempt from whatever agency you get them from. You are not asking for permission. After all, the government has to keep a record of Freemen like yourself so that they don't try any policy enforcement on you like you were a sheeple.

Nothing has changed from the original offer - it still stands - it is you (as always) trying to weasel out of it because YOU HAVE NO PROOF.

 

[gtm]

So to recap Rob Menard:

a) cannot produce any evidence (either reported cases or newspaper articles) to support his theories

b) May well be a convicted fraudster (which makes putting $10,000 into an 'eschrow' account a distinctly unattractive proposition)

 

[tsig]

Um actually this status has been confirmed by the courts here as well as the Law Society. I have court documents crafted by the Law Society, addressed to me, recognizing me as a Freeman-on-the-Land. IN THEIR WORDS. I also have documents which have been filed in court which acknowledge my status. You should see cops when I show them these documents. They know what you are saying is simply wrong.

Sorry FAIL again for you. Don't you get tired of failing so consistently?

Why would you need court documents if you are a freeman?

 

[Hans]

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...

Since the odds are universally large that you would cheat and misrepresent I would say a 'video' of you doing so would be invalid. Both sides of a wager must be present to insure you do what you say you can do. I mean you lie repeatedly so why would you become honest in this one instance?

Why not get someone out of a long sentence in prison with your magic words?

 

[Mojo]

What ever you do DO NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS OR THEIR CONSEQUENCES!

Do you mean actions like taking out a loan and consequences like having to pay it back?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo's question is apropos.

I wasn't really expecting it to be answered though. And it wasn't.

 

[jargon buster]

Rob
You have no intention of driving a car in any challenge.
If you were going to do it you would have done it by now.
Its like someone coming up with a cure for cancer and then not telling anyone until they "bet" him if it were valid.

Every person in history who has done anything to make a point has done it "to make a point" not for financial gain.

JB

 

[BobHaulk]

I don't think anyone has paid rab any money for his freeman routine, firstly it's rubbish and you'd have to be very stupid to think otherwise, secondly the unemployed losers who would use this as a guise to hide their lazy non working lives have no money, kinda like rab himself. It's not even his original scam, he's copied it straight from Jordan maxwell.
So in short he's using someone else's con and failing. He's useless.
He's dirt poor yet could claim on his bond and get 8 million dollars. You've got to wonder at the mentality of anyone believing a word that comes out of his acne ridden face.
He's getting his tatties over at the icke site by some lord of the realm, he's been offered a contract of employment for a consultation but so far is refusing to respond, maybe he's just to busy and can't find the time, i don't know,maybe it's cause he's a liar and it doesn't work, na surely not,surely he's not just a grubby little thief, he's getting the chance to prove otherwise but seems to not wish to contract with that.
It is funny watching him trying to save his scam

 

[Stacey Grove]

Menard claims that being a freeman is a recognised status and as such it is accepted that he is not bound by statute law. But, to exercise those accepted rights strangely he considers he is taking a risk:

I am risking my property being seized unlawfully, and if they decide to bring action, I will have to engage and expend a whole lot of energy to fight them in court. All of this is worth far more then $10K, and is sufficient to cover my end of the wager.

Where is the risk if FOTL is a recognised status?
No need for a court battle at all. He can just inform the police he is a FOTL can't he, and they will just shrug their shoulders and let him be.
Better still, now that Menard has promoted himself to the prestigious rank of a Peace Officer he could simply arrest any policeman that attempts to prevent him from traveling.

 

[Hans]

One of the most important actions a con artist must take is to make sure, at all costs, and at all times, that his con doesn't attract the attention of the authorities.

Doing an 'action' to prove his odd contentions MIGHT attract the attentions of people he'd rather not contract with, LOL

'Proving' FOTL is easy, contact the media and tell them you are going to deliberately break, repeatedly and in public at a stated time a number of important statues and laws and you challenge the government and police to stop you.

He hasn't done that nor try to organize marches of people on governmental agencies to demand their status be 'regularized'. Instead he is attempting to keep it as quiet as possible.

Thought on the following......the penalty for cost that was not collected against him. Could that debt be purchased by an investor/collection agency? Or is it in a different catagory?

Stacy you have noted that he both says its proven and accepted but in the next breath says that it isn't accepted or proven, either he's a fruitcake with a short term memory problem or he is smart enough to realize that his idea is as viable as a four day old beached fish.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Stacy you have noted that he both says its proven and accepted but in the next breath says that it isn't accepted or proven, either he's a fruitcake with a short term memory problem or he is smart enough to realize that his idea is as viable as a four day old beached fish.

I believe Menard's smart.
He has found a method of selling hocus pocus to fruitcakes.

 

[gtm]

I believe Menard's smart.
He has found a method of selling hocus pocus to fruitcakes.

He's one of the more articulate FMOTL Chieftians but basically he's the Canadian Raymond St Clair - a grubby conman in the guise of a man of principle.

 

[Stacey Grove]

He's one of the more articulate FMOTL Chieftians but basically he's the Canadian Raymond St Clair - a grubby conman in the guise of a man of principle.

Agreed.
I don't for one minute believe Menard practices what he preaches.
Every one of his anecdotes appears to concern somebody else, never himself.

 

[Mashuna]

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...

This is not a wager. This is asking people to pay you to go for a drive. You're not betting anything of value to me.

 

[Stacey Grove]

This is not a wager. This is asking people to pay you to go for a drive.

And, of course driving unlicensed, uninsured with no registration plates is normal day to day behaviour for a FOTL isn't it? You're not offering anything unusual are you, Rob?

 

[Sledge]

A pen and a paper is considered legal recording material and is used extensively by police to make records, thus it is a recording medium. How is that distinction being made evidence of me being the laughable one?

All of which has nothing to do with anything I said. But please, witter away. It's almost cute the way you think you can talk like your betters.

As for my analogy that was all it was, and was mostly established by the amount of excrement is thrown on this forum.

This sentence has no meaning. It is almost the definition of "word salad."

The other party though,

Uh, dude? "The other party" was me. The guy you're talking to. It's generally seen as a bit weird to refer to the person you're talking to as "the other party." You don't have Asperger's by any chance?

actually called me a chicken, then changed it to a charlatan, and did not even bother with an analogy. Let me explain it this way.... Oh wait... forget it, analogies are lost on you. Don't want to be 'casting my pearls before swine'. ZING!

Bloody hell, you're illiterate. I didn't change my description of you to charlatan, I added the term charlatan to my description of you as a coward. Maybe English isn't your first language and you're not aware of the common use of the word "chicken" as a synonym for "coward," but my money's on you desperately playing with words in an attempt to look clever.

 

[Horatius]

You are forgetting the power of the notary public. They can make any document an official document.

A notary public can certainly official-ize a document, but she can't turn it into a court document or retroactively make the Law Society the author.....

Let's go back a bit and remember another FoTL who claims to have some "official" documents, and what that really means:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5831452#post5831452