Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
I now think more clown than conman
I nicked his logo from the World Freeman society and put it on my blog and challenged him to have it removed under the Copyright Act.
And guess what, he did... which only goes to prove that he recognises statutory legislation :D
Heres the mail I recieved
Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to "draft" status. (If we did not do so, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The URL(s) of the allegedly infringing post(s) may be found at the end of this message.) This means your post - and any images, links or other content - is not gone. You may edit the post to remove the offending content and republish, at which point the post in question will be visible to your readers again.

A bit of background: the DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement. If you believe you have the rights to post the content at issue here, you can file a counter-claim. For more information on our DMCA policy, including how to file a counter-claim, please see http://www.google.com/dmca.html.

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling Effects at http://www.chillingeffects.org. We do this in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). You can search for the DMCA notice associated with the removal of your content by going to the Chilling Effects search page at http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi, and entering in the URL of the blog post that was removed. If it is brought to our attention that you have republished the post without removing the content/link in question, then we will delete your post and count it as a violation on your account. Repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in further remedial action taken against your Blogger account including deleting your blog and/or terminating your account. If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain your own legal counsel.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

Affected URLs:

http://freemantruthmovement.blogspot.com/2010/06/i-have-taken-this-logo-from-world.html
Click to expand...

I guess thats his goose cooked

JB/Asky
 
How can he do that?
Did you consent to the copyright act in this particular case? :D
 
Well, they always say that if they consent then they can use statute. Why do you think what he is doing is a contradiction?
 
Contradiction?
The point he makes is statutory legislation does not apply to a freeman on the land as they are not "real laws".
It would appear they are real when it is in his benefit.
So a barrack room lawyer is closer to the description of Rob Menard rather than a FMOTL.

JB

PS What would he have done if it had ended up in court and I had said "I dont consent"
He would have won his case but lost his argument that consent can be withdrawn.
 
Last edited:
They apply when the Freeman consents to them though, that's the whole point of it.
I know it doesn't make sense but I can see how he would justify it.
Would rights to your own property be Common law though?
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Would rights to your own property be Common law though?
Click to expand...


Perhaps, but the notion of "intellectual property" as embodied by copyright is entirely a creation of statute law. The notion that you can stop others form using ideas, as opposed to physical objects, is a fairly recent development in law.

And of course, Rob may argue that he has consented to copyright laws, but wouldn't JB also have to have consented? If single-sided consent is all that is needed, then the FOTL myth still falls.
 
Some of the advice about registering and obtaining passports for the child is just too good.

If you have the means and your wife will go along, bear the child in international waters and record the birth in your family bible.
Click to expand...

but you can serve notice of your claim, and provide photo identification of your child on an "International Travellers Permit" which you can make yourself
Click to expand...

I would like to be there when he turns up at the Customs desk with his home made 'permit' and family bible
 
Last edited:
So if JB doesn't consent to the copyright law then what happens?
 
So if JB doesn't consent to the copyright law then what happens?
Click to expand...
The court ignores me and awards the victory to Menard, which ironically destroys his argument about consent being required by the government.

Its win win for me.
I could have also put in a fee schedule of £1,000,000,000 to attend court.
Which Robs legal team would have had to agree to (according to his rules)

JB/Asky
 
Hans said:
So if JB doesn't consent to the copyright law then what happens?
Click to expand...

The con man waves his freeman magic wand and POOF! That unlawful statute law becomes law:

So, although we as Freemen are not bound by statutes, asky set up a blog under contract with Google, agreeing to be bound by the Copyright Act and they are bound by the Copyright Act. So I used it against them, while never being subject to it myself, and had them remove our logo from Asky's blog.


I bet this sticks in his gullet, or he will do the ASKY DANCE and claim he won, and that we are bound by the Act because we used it to stop his blatant vexatious and malicious theft.

See what he fails to see is I addressed GOOGLE and held them to the Act.
Click to expand...
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121795
 
According to Freeloader on the land rules, wouldn't Google have to have compensated you in some real way in order for a valid contract to be established? I thought this was a key point on why they don't have to pay credit card bills, mortgages, etc.
Google didn't send you any gold, did they?
 
Menard continues to show that FMOTL is hollow. He used a thirty party to enforce a contract via statute law, claiming that he is still intellectually pure in his woo because although he doesn't consent to it, Google does. Yet, as Menard being a freeman consents to no statute law, his images do not have copyright protections. Common law only protects material property rights, statute law protects intellectual property rights. By making a DMCA claim, he is telling Google that his images are under copyright. If he does not consent to statute authority, then he does not get to enforce statutory provisions through a third party provider.

By complaining to google about his intellectual property rights, Rob just de facto admitted that he falls under statute law. Now, don't get me wrong: the woos on his forum and DI won't be able to figure this out (just like they don't understand the law, whcih is why they subscribe to this nonsense), so he will undoubately receive praise from those sector.

However, back in reality its very clear that he just demonstrated freeman on the land is a legal mythology. Freemen on the land, making themselves look like the idiots they are since at least 2008.
 
Last edited:
It also seems Menard backed himself into the corner by even having a website. According to WHOIS:

Domain ID:D155086443-LROR
Domain Name:WORLDFREEMANSOCIETY.ORG
Created On:12-Jan-2009 19:33:01 UTC
Last Updated On:13-Nov-2009 16:29:01 UTC
Expiration Date:12-Jan-2011 19:33:01 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. (R1729-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:P-VLP138-ASCM
Registrant Name:Valentine Peterson
Registrant Organization:WDK1 Limited
Registrant Street1:PO BOX 1468
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Rotorua
Registrant State/Province:Bay of Plenty
Registrant Postal Code:3076
Registrant Country:NZ
Registrant Phone:+64.275622846
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant **************@mac.com

The terms and service of this domain name company include:
You agree that:
1. You have read and understand these Terms of Service and the relevant TLD Policies, and agree to be bound by them.

You warrant that:
1. You are an identifiable individual over the age of 18 years of age, or, a legally constituted organisation.
2. Any person or legal entity which uses the Domain Name complies with the obligations set out in clause above.
Click to expand...

It is essential in the FMOTL mythos that we are not persons, we are human beings. That is because the "person" is a legal fiction straw man bound to statute law, where as human beings are not (according to Menard). However, the company he uses DOES NOT ALLOW FOR HUMAN BEINGS TO REGISTER. It only allows for individuals who are PERSONS or LEGAL ENTITIES, but NOT human beings.

As such, Rob is admitting he is a person and bound by statute law. Otherwise, he could NOT register for this domain name service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom