Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Mojo]

Of course, the Canadian government continues to govern him without his consent, but that doesn't stop our intrepid freeman! Like when he wasn't allowed to board a domestic flight because he didn't have government-issued id:

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=55543&sid=2478910145d3d991be8508630edded8f

So much for consent. Foiled by those dirty statutes again. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

I see he's on about the "right to travel" again there. Does he not understand the distinction between a right to travel and a right to travel in a particular manner?

Not allowing someone to board a plane without identification, or to drive a car without a licence and insurance, does not prevent them travelling.

 

[jargon buster]

I say Clown again

Rumplestiltskin wrote

One thing that does puzzle me, rob is the issue of taxes on purchases.
When you buy something and the gross purchase price includes an element of tax, how do you remove consent to the payment of those taxes?
Now, I do understand that you could argue that you could (if you wish) choose not to purchase anything that does contain tax within the gross price. But, by the same token it could be argued that consent is essential and cannot be removed. What if you do wish to purchase such an item whilst not consenting to the statute that concerns these taxes?
Are you forced to consent to these statutes or do you purchase such items, not consent to the statute and the retailer deducts the tax at the point of sale?

Rob Menard actually wrote

There are a number of options

I know some folks who refuse to pay it, spent loads of time and energy. They have a PST/GST exempt card, and show it to the retailers to avoid paying. They received this due to being a status Native, or by way of claim. They had to disavow any 'services' paid for by said 'taxes' however.

There are also retailers here who know I am a Freeman and do not charge me, though I do not know that they ony do it for me.

My path was one of less controversy and much less resistance. It was a result of thinking and studying, not emotional reaction defending a previously held belief. You can see what I mean here in rumps post and how he makes a declarative statement about what we can and cannot do. He says this without even trying any other options, yet is so sure his is the only one. THat is the childishness I constantly refer to.


I told them that me paying the tax was not an indication of consent, and that if they did not want to ensure that I could easily avoid paying it, by giving me a card I could flash, then they would have a duty to use the money they collect for what I deem. In my case, I claimed that the sales taxes I pay must go to health care and that the fact that I pay the sales tax, for it is next to impossible to avoid even if you do not consent, means my health care costs are covered and if they did not wish to do that, we would need a forensic accountant to examine this whole security of the person thing.

So I pay sales taxes, and I get health care covered, and I am still a Freeman-on-the-Land. That is the agreement I established with the people in the Provincial government here, by way of a Claim of Right.

Easy Peasy eh? When you do not start off with your mind shut down, and your position already claimed and ready to be defended.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134726&page=7
His idiocy is mindboggling
I wonder if he would be willing to give the details of one of these retailers?

 

[D'rok]

Rumplestiltskin wrote


Rob Menard actually wrote

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134726&page=7
His idiocy is mindboggling
I wonder if he would be willing to give the details of one of these retailers?

It's a marvelous strategy, isn't it? If there is something that he plainly cannot remove consent from, he simply says he consents. Easy peasy!

I wonder if he consents to show government-issued ID to board a plane these days?

When you get down to the nitty gritty, this is typical of FOTLers. They talk big, but actually conform to society's rules much the same as the rest of us.

Menard's biggest act of rebellion is openly smoking pot. In Canada, and particularly in Vancouver, that barely registers. Personal use is de facto acceptable already. Trafficking isn't. He knows this, so he uses and doesn't traffic and will resist challenges that he traffic as an example of his "immunity".

Just like he will resist any challenge that isn't something he can get away with. For example, he may accept a challenge to drive without a license on a short trip, but he would refuse a challenge to do so while trying to encounter police.

He's a rebel with a cause but without a rebellion.


ETA: Just in case there was any doubt - no, contrary to Menard's claim, one cannot get a personal exemption to sales tax with an FOTL claim of right. No evidence of that particular claim will ever be forthcoming. Business as usual.

 

[D'rok]

I see he's on about the "right to travel" again there. Does he not understand the distinction between a right to travel and a right to travel in a particular manner?

Not allowing someone to board a plane without identification, or to drive a car without a licence and insurance, does not prevent them travelling.

Yup. And he exercises his right to travel every time takes the bus or bums a ride. Which he has to do every time he travels.

 

[D'rok]

Some cognitive dissonance from the outpatients at WFS, in which they wonder how they're going to continue to receive govt benefits after becoming freemen:

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=6830

The answer? Just as we've always derided them for - they "consent" to receiving benefits, but remove consent from duties, responsibilities or burdens.

Keith sent me this NUI Fragment, to be inserted into a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right (NUI/COR), pertaining to using certain necessary "benefits" of the System and stepping out of the System at the same time. From what I can gather, within a year of study is this. You can make all the contracts you want, one with SSI, one with SSD and then you can void your contracts with any other Agency like the Drivers License Agency, etc.....it's all contracts and you order your life, keep some, get rid of others.

Freeloaders on the land, indeed.

 

[tsig]

It's a marvelous strategy, isn't it? If there is something that he plainly cannot remove consent from, he simply says he consents. Easy peasy!

I wonder if he consents to show government-issued ID to board a plane these days?

When you get down to the nitty gritty, this is typical of FOTLers. They talk big, but actually conform to society's rules much the same as the rest of us.

Menard's biggest act of rebellion is openly smoking pot. In Canada, and particularly in Vancouver, that barely registers. Personal use is de facto acceptable already. Trafficking isn't. He knows this, so he uses and doesn't traffic and will resist challenges that he traffic as an example of his "immunity".

Just like he will resist any challenge that isn't something he can get away with. For example, he may accept a challenge to drive without a license on a short trip, but he would refuse a challenge to do so while trying to encounter police.

He's a rebel with a cause but without a rebellion.


ETA: Just in case there was any doubt - no, contrary to Menard's claim, one cannot get a personal exemption to sales tax with an FOTL claim of right. No evidence of that particular claim will ever be forthcoming. Business as usual.

His FOTL stuff actually restricts his freedom. He can only do those things that will keep him under the radar so he can't travel wherever he wishes or do any type of normal business transaction like buy a house or car on credit.

He exists in a prison of his own devising and he always has to keep an eye out lest his prison get smaller.

 

[D'rok]

His FOTL stuff actually restricts his freedom. He can only do those things that will keep him under the radar so he can't travel wherever he wishes or do any type of normal business transaction like buy a house or car on credit.

He exists in a prison of his own devising and he always has to keep an eye out lest his prison get smaller.

Exactly!

 

[Horatius]

You can make all the contracts you want, one with SSI, one with SSD and then you can void your contracts with any other Agency like the Drivers License Agency, etc.....it's all contracts and you order your life, keep some, get rid of others.

Freeloaders on the land, indeed.

And they think these agencies will accept these contracts, why exactly?

If you accept that this "contracts" version of government is reality, must you not also accept that a contact requires agreement from both sides? I mean, isn't that what they're always on about?

So what to stop the government from refusing to agree to their preferred contracts if the FOTLs refuse to accept all the contracts?

As is typical for CT nutters, their beliefs aren't even internally consistent.

 

[D'rok]

And they think these agencies will accept these contracts, why exactly?

If you accept that this "contracts" version of government is reality, must you not also accept that a contact requires agreement from both sides? I mean, isn't that what they're always on about?

So what to stop the government from refusing to agree to their preferred contracts if the FOTLs refuse to accept all the contracts?

As is typical for CT nutters, their beliefs aren't even internally consistent.

Naturally, only FOTLers get to benefit from consent theory. Governments just have to go along with whatever FOTLers consent to.

Makes about as much sense as everything else in Freedonia.

 

[Stacey Grove]

If you accept that this "contracts" version of government is reality, must you not also accept that a contact requires agreement from both sides? I mean, isn't that what they're always on about?

Yes but you are forgetting that if the government does not respond within the three days time limit the FOTL has given them, according to the FOTLers the government has accepted the terms.

 

[D'rok]

Yes but you are forgetting that if the government does not respond within the three days time limit the FOTL has given them, according to the FOTLers the government has accepted the terms.

Right. A unilateral offer in which silence constitutes acceptance thus creating an enforceable contract.

Perfectly sound legal theory.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Right. A unilateral offer in which silence constitutes acceptance thus creating an enforceable contract.

Perfectly sound legal theory.

To them it is

All of their notices have a (very short) time frame withiin which the other party must respond or it is deemed the contents of the notice have been accepted by the other party.
And, they really do believe it works.

 

[D'rok]

To them it is

All of their notices have a (very short) time frame withiin which the other party must respond or it is deemed the contents of the notice have been accepted by the other party.
And, they really do believe it works.

Unless they didn't get it notarized. Or sent by registered mail. Or written in red ink at a 45 degree angle. Or mailed while facing east, jumping up and down on one leg, and reciting the Magna Carta backwards in latin. Then it doesn't work. Or something.

I just can't keep up with all the permutations.

 

[Stacey Grove]

I just can't keep up with all the permutations.

The 45 degree angle is used when you write "Accepted for Value" over that invoice, then sit back and watch that debt vanish.

It does however sometimes return at a later date and kicks you up the backside, but obviously it is still a victory.

 

[D'rok]

The 45 degree angle is used when you write "Accepted for Value" over that invoice, then sit back and watch that debt vanish.

It does however sometimes return at a later date and kicks you up the backside, but obviously it is still a victory.

But then you can just go to court, refuse to identify yourself, get the judge pissed off enough to call a recess, declare yourself the highest authority and dismiss the case.

It's foolproof.

 

[Stacey Grove]

But then you can just go to court, refuse to identify yourself, get the judge pissed off enough to call a recess, declare yourself the highest authority and dismiss the case.

It's foolproof.

Foolproof indeed.
However, the part I still cannot find the answer to is when the crime involves harm or loss suddenly everything changes and the sovereign finds himself powerless, he is forced to consent and is unable to dismiss the case.
Where did all that power go?
And.... who took it?
He is a sovereign.

 

[D'rok]

Foolproof indeed.
However, the part I still cannot find the answer to is when the crime involves harm or loss suddenly everything changes and the sovereign finds himself powerless, he is forced to consent and is unable to dismiss the case.
Where did all that power go?
And.... who took it?
He is a sovereign.

Ah, but then the FOTLer has done something that other FOTLers actually recognize as unlawful (as opposed to merely illegal). Consent doesn't apply when a real law is broken. Statutes must be consented to; laws are instinctively known and must be obeyed.

Of course, it gets a little confusing, because these "real" laws are often written down in Criminal Codes, which are statutes and therefore require consent.

All of this flows from the FOTL conflation of common law with natural law.

I'm ashamed that I know these things. I need a better hobby. Maybe soapstone carving or something.

 

[Sledge]

His FOTL stuff actually restricts his freedom. He can only do those things that will keep him under the radar so he can't travel wherever he wishes or do any type of normal business transaction like buy a house or car on credit.

He exists in a prison of his own devising and he always has to keep an eye out lest his prison get smaller.

Bounded in a nutshell, he counts himself king of infinite space. And it's a nutshell in more ways than one.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Ah, but then the FOTLer has done something that other FOTLers actually recognize as unlawful (as opposed to merely illegal). Consent doesn't apply when a real law is broken. Statutes must be consented to; laws are instinctively known and must be obeyed.

Yes, yes, I understand that and realise that is their position. But I find it strange that suddenly the ability to withdraw consent is removed, considering that FOTLers are always bleating on about consent and how it is their fundamental right to consent or not or indeed be governed by another.
I have yet to find out by which authority they are compelled to consent to (their version of) common law.

 

[D'rok]

Yes, yes, I understand that and realise that is their position. But I find it strange that suddenly the ability to withdraw consent is removed, considering that FOTLers are always bleating on about consent and how it is their fundamental right to consent or not or indeed be governed by another.
I have yet to find out by which authority they are compelled to consent to (their version of) common law.

God? Most of them seem to be believers of some stripe or another.