Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you this thread. As the 9/11 forum has just about dried up and died in terms of "Point and Laugh", I find that FOTL nestles comfortably into the space previously occupied.

Also - Jargonbuster and LightInDarkness - two people you do *not* want to be your less-than-buddies.
 
Just sent Menard this e-mail
Well, well Rob I knew you would take the bait.
Have you put this victory of yours on the WFS site?
Using Statute laws hey...

How many times have you said they are not really laws and the statutes require consent to be law.
So by your own definition, for the copyright act to have power for you, you must consent to it. (mutual consent creates the agreement doesnt it)

Not even your loyal followers on Ickes are backing you up,
You have a website and the terms and conditions of that site are to abide by statute law, if you didnt then they would have not allowed the site to go ahead.

Good luck Rob, youre going to need it from now on.

hee, hee, hee

Jargon Buster Asky

PS
A quote from Rob
"Never underestimate the power of dance"

Rob also wrote
"Just look at asky dance"

Maybe you should have been dancing too Rob
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
Comsat Angel said:
Also - Jargonbuster and LightInDarkness - two people you do *not* want to be your less-than-buddies.
Click to expand...

:D

I am pretty relentless on the FMOTL woo - and honestly its because its a perfect example of how woo ruins lives. People have been thrown in jail and will carry around permanent criminal records due to following the advice of Menard et. al. In many cases, they would have been let go or never even been charged with more serious offenses if they had not begun harassing police/judges/lawyers from step 1.

Its different from other woo. Beleiving in aliens is woo, but its not going to materially impact your personal freedoms. It may make you paranoid, it may have negative psychosocial impact, but thats it. Freeman on the land ruins lives. Lives of gullible people - yes - but they are still people.

By the way, courtesy of the DI forum. A Canadian who uses the exact same "I am a human being not a person" mythology has been found guilty by Canadian courts:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100618/bc_legal_person_case_100618/20100618
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122080

My favorite part of the CTVBC story:
David Kevin Lindsay, who also goes by the name David-Kevin: Lindsay, had appealed his 2008 conviction and sentencing on five counts of failing to file income tax returns. He argued the appeal on the grounds that he is not a "person" as defined by the Income Tax Act.

According to Thursday's ruling from Judge Frits Verhoeven, Lindsay filed a notice with the minister of national revenue in 2002 denying that he is a "person," and explaining that he ceased to be a "person" in 1996.

Instead, Lindsay argued that he is, "David-Kevin: Lindsay, a full liability free will flesh and blood living man."

In his judgment, Verhoeven rejected the idea that a Canadian citizen can simply opt out of personhood.

"The ordinary sense of the word ‘person' in the (Income Tax Act) is without ambiguity. It is clear that Parliament intended the word in its broadest sense," the judge wrote.
Click to expand...

Rejected!
 
I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it must be for the loons who genuinely believe this crud. They've spent all that time learning the magic words, and a judge just says "No." Then the police drag them off, and all the magic words do nothing. Wow.
 
LightinDarkness said:
By the way, courtesy of the DI forum. A Canadian who uses the exact same "I am a human being not a person" mythology has been found guilty by Canadian courts:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100618/bc_legal_person_case_100618/20100618
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122080

My favorite part of the CTVBC story:


Rejected!
Click to expand...


Indeed. I'm also pleased to see that Lindsay has been designated a vexatious litigant. Idiots who bring all manner of frivolous lawsuits are a real drain on the system and cost honest taxpayers (i.e., non-FreeloadersOnTheLand) a lot of money. It's a very good thing when they are precluded from continuing to do so.
 
I agree, LashL - by the way, since you are the Resident Legal Goddess (TM) :D, would you agree that using the Freeman logo would indeed be exempted under DMCA fair use, as long as they are given attribution? (see below)

JB, I've been thinking about this and although Menard's actions showed that he is under statute law because his images are, I think its time to turn the tables around on them. You have a right under the DMCA to use images explicitly for parody purposes, it falls under the fair use provision. Since that is exactly what you are doing, you should repost it.

Google took it down because its an automated type thing for them. Put it up again and put:

"Copyright: The above image is the original work of Rob Menard and the World Freeman Society and is protected under statute law. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it is displayed here legally under fair use provisions in a non-profit capacity for educational purposes (17 U.S.C. 107)."

If he reports it again, Google will have to take a look at it and actually contact you instead of removing it automatically (which is what they do for DMCA reports). Just tell them you are not claiming ownership and understand that it is protected by statute law, you are just using it under the fair use exemptions of the DMCA.

He basically slapped himself in the face by reporting this to google, now hes going to have to slap himself again - the image is only protected by the DMCA, which is statute law, if he does not consent to it he cannot report it to be removed.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but I couldn't resist

LightinDarkness said:
<snip>
Google took it down because its an automated type thing for them. Put it up again and put:

"Copyright: The above image is the original work of Rob Menard and the World Freeman Society and is protected under statute law. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it is displayed here legally under fair use provisions in a non-profit capacity for educational purposes (17 U.S.C. 107)."

<snip>
Click to expand...

Are these "magic words" to avoid the juristiction of the Admiralty Courts?

Dave
 
Sledge said:
I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it must be for the loons who genuinely believe this crud. They've spent all that time learning the magic words, and a judge just says "No." Then the police drag them off, and all the magic words do nothing. Wow.
Click to expand...


Their hearts and souls are free and they're doing it in the name of a great cause. :rolleyes:

At some point they're too committed to admit they're wrong. It's easier to sit in prison than undergoing the ego shattering experience of admitting you were conned.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Their hearts and souls are free and they're doing it in the name of a great cause. :rolleyes:

At some point they're too committed to admit they're wrong. It's easier to sit in prison than undergoing the ego shattering experience of admitting you were conned.
Click to expand...
That's very true. The longer you believe in something, the more committed you become to continuing to believe in it.
 
I joined the Icke forums the other day and I will have to be careful. It's not the specious reasoning or the poorly thought out legal opinions that irk me. It's the rampant spelling errors and horrible sentence structure. FFS, how can I take you seriously if you can't be arsed to form a simple declarative sentence or to spellcheck properly. Surely, that must fall under this 'due diligence' they prate about, yeah?
 
BaaBaa said:
I joined the Icke forums the other day and I will have to be careful. It's not the specious reasoning or the poorly thought out legal opinions that irk me. It's the rampant spelling errors and horrible sentence structure. FFS, how can I take you seriously if you can't be arsed to form a simple declarative sentence or to spellcheck properly. Surely, that must fall under this 'due diligence' they prate about, yeah?
Click to expand...

You also have to be careful in the FMOTL forum. The moderator there has actively declared her intention to ban anyone who doesn't agree with FMOTL woo. She starts going through your posts and giivng you "warnings" for things you didn't actually do until its enough to get the higher up moderators to ban you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom