• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really quick answer: Don't know if recording without authorization is an actual offence, but it is definitely against policy:

- You can bring an audio recording device into the court room if you are an accredited journalist as per the process established by the Supreme Court of BC.
- You can record only for note taking purposes and cannot broadcast the recording.
- You cannot record in other areas of the courthouse.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/docs/newsroom/HandyHintsForLegalReporting.pdf
 
D'rok said:
Really quick answer: Don't know if recording without authorization is an actual offence, but it is definitely against policy:

- You can bring an audio recording device into the court room if you are an accredited journalist as per the process established by the Supreme Court of BC.
- You can record only for note taking purposes and cannot broadcast the recording.
- You cannot record in other areas of the courthouse.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/docs/newsroom/HandyHintsForLegalReporting.pdf
Click to expand...

Yeah but... that would be like one person trying to govern another without consent and we know that dog don't hunt.

So of course you can record and broadcast everything that happens within a court well.... quite frankly anywhere in the world.

I mean, you're not going to be doing harm to another. :D
 
uk_dave said:
Yeah but... that would be like one person trying to govern another without consent and we know that dog don't hunt.

So of course you can record and broadcast everything that happens within a court well.... quite frankly anywhere in the world.

I mean, you're not going to be doing harm to another. :D
Click to expand...
Exactly! Especially if you broadcast a recording during a trial that jurors see on the Internet back in their hotel rooms or on their smart phones, etc.

That wouldn't harm the administration of justice in the least.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Only a court ruling will be acceptable, but when it comes to the people in the government having power to govern, you simply accept it as true, without asking them for any court rulings supporting their right to govern without consent.
Click to expand...

none of you have a document proving that a court has ruled on this issue in your favour do you? And since yours is the originating claim, (the right to govern without consent) the onus is actually on you to prove that a court was asked this specific question, and ruled in favour of governing without consent.
Click to expand...

So now you all have to accept the same standards you tried to place upon me. OF course I know none of you are mature enough to actually do so.
Only a court ruling will suffice.
Click to expand...

And there are ALL of you and you are in your own homes, with your documents easily accessible. You should have no problem showing a court ruling where they state that consent of the governed is not required to govern.
Click to expand...

You have ignored all my previous posts (despite the fact I am one of the few answering your questions and not interested in insults) and likely will ignore this one as well.

Here are some court rulings where a person used your argument (that the government has no right to govern without their individual consent) and failed. Since you have asked so many times I assume you are unfamiliar with these rulings so I will link to hte case and post the relevant passages:


R. v. Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2007/2007abca45/2007abca45.html

[6] The applicant submits that the jurisdiction of the Court or the applicability of statutes such as the Traffic Safety Act is based on individual consent, and that consequently the courts below lacked the ability to hear this matter or convict him. In my view, those arguments are without merit and fail to raise a question of law of public importance.
Click to expand...


This decision alone owuld certainly give reason to conclude that individual consent to be governed by statutes is not required in Canada according to the de facto courts. This is sufficient and convincing, but there are lots of other cases where people have succesfully been "governed" by statute law through the courts without their consent:



Kanwar v. Kanwar, 2010 BCCA 407 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2010/2010bcca407/2010bcca407.html

[33] Mr. Kanwar argued that the matter is one of settled law in India, and without his written consent to being governed by Canadian law; the parties remain governed by Hindu law and the issues raised by Ms. Sukhija can only be resolved under the provisions of the laws of India. Ms. Sukhija argued that there are no such legal restrictions.

...

[43] Although both parties and the child were born in India, all applied for and received landed immigrant status in Canada, and as such, are subject to Canadian law.
Click to expand...


R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca767/2008onca767.html

[20] More important, the essence of his argument is that ‘the Act does not apply to me because I choose to have it not apply to me’. Contrary to what Mr. Christie says, this is a jurisdictional argument (and one which is void of merit) that leads to a mistake of law which does not afford a defence. This court has already said in Klundert No. 1 – this kind of mistake of law is irrelevant to the fault requirement of the charge of tax evasion.
Click to expand...


If you are still interested I will post links to other such cases:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii9368/2009canlii9368.html

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2000/2000bcsc190/2000bcsc190.html

I don't want to go too far with this at this point, because you may not respond at all, and if you do there is already enough to respond to in the first case posted.
 
- You can bring an audio recording device into the court room if you are an accredited journalist as per the process established by the Supreme Court of BC
Click to expand...
.

Cue Menards definition of accredited journalist as "someone with a pulse"
 
JLord said:
YHere are some court rulings where a person used your argument (that the government has no right to govern without their individual consent) and failed. Since you have asked so many times I assume you are unfamiliar with these rulings so I will link to hte case and post the relevant passages:
Click to expand...
Satisfied, Rob?

I know you've seen these cases many times before. Will you acknowledge them this time and start presenting your own evidence?
 
jlord
those cases simply display that the court abandoned the rule of law which states no man may govern another without his consent ,etc,etc,etc

:D
 
JLord said:
You have ignored all my previous posts (despite the fact I am one of the few answering your questions and not interested in insults) and likely will ignore this one as well.

Here are some court rulings where a person used your argument (that the government has no right to govern without their individual consent) and failed. Since you have asked so many times I assume you are unfamiliar with these rulings so I will link to hte case and post the relevant passages:
Click to expand...



Of course he's ignored this before, and he will continue to ignore it, because his purpose here isn't to have an honest discussion of reality, it's to promote his own nonsense, in hopes of finding more gullible suckers to pay his rent. Were he to acknowledge your post, he's be in the uncomfortable position of having to admit you've met the challenge he's posted.

By ignoring it, he can simply repeat his mantra that no one has proven that individual consent is not required. Sure, such mindless repetition won't convince anyone but an idiot, but you must realize: the idiots are his target audience.
 
Rob, when you have time could you find the very important letter that states you are officially recognised as a "freeman on the land" and are, therefore, not required to pay any Canadian taxes?

I can understand how such a trivial document would be hard to find in your extensive library, but as you have referenced it so many times I think it reasonable to ask to see it.

You have stated that you are the only person to have such document, (Letter to CRA where you threatened physical violence). Should be easy to find, scan and post.

Could you also update on how many 10's of thousands have joined 3CPO, and how many thousands of freemen followed through with your airline threat?

Not saying you're all mouth and no substance, just wanting to update your marks.

Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Slippers: of the Clan Comfy.

Ps. If you remove one of your shoes there will be, either on the sole or inside, a number. The number is a revenue receipt. By you wearing shoes the Government has created a secret bank account in your name. My secret bank account number is "8". I can look up "8" on the stock exchange and track the progress of "8" 's value. If Iknow the super secret wordz, tha guvamunt will have to repay me the funds in 8. The sheeple are blind to this, so guard this info well.
 
ComfySlippers said:
Ps. If you remove one of your shoes there will be, either on the sole or inside, a number. The number is a revenue receipt. By you wearing shoes the Government has created a secret bank account in your name. My secret bank account number is "8". I can look up "8" on the stock exchange and track the progress of "8" 's value. If Iknow the super secret wordz, tha guvamunt will have to repay me the funds in 8. The sheeple are blind to this, so guard this info well.
Click to expand...

You know, it all makes sense now. I always wondered why US, UK, and Europe shoe sizes were different....It is to account for the conversion rate between currencies. Brilliant!!
 
jlord wrote
You have ignored all my previous posts (despite the fact I am one of the few answering your questions and not interested in insults) and likely will ignore this one as well.
Click to expand...

He will ignore it, he's seen all this evidence in the past and more.
This information is invaluable to new people coming across Menards shenanigans, but as for Menard, its pointless, sozhenitzen put it best
There is no sense arguing about law with Rob Menard. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand what law is. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand that if there is no government, there is no law. Without that premise, discussing the law becomes a word-twisting, question-asking, money-charging nonsense.
Click to expand...

The best option with Menard is to simply ask him to provide proof of his claims and leave it at that.
Anything else is now pointless.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I also see you have placed upon me a challenge you refuse to accept yourselves. Only a court ruling will be acceptable
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked at all, I'm not interested in your court ruling. Let me remind you,

deeper said:
just tell us exactly and concisely how you do it, what you say and do to avoid being subject to statute law.
Click to expand...

Why on earth is that so difficult? You claim to be able do something that most people regard as impossible but you both refuse to show it in action and will not explain how it is done (this part should be very easy for you as you claim to have done it already). If you could at least do one of these then you would gain some credibility. So unless you show us evidence of you doing what you claim to be able to do or at least show us how you do it I can't see how this discussion can progress in a meaningful fashion.

Just to make this explicit, your failure to address this issue is where the ridicule stems from. If someone approached you and told you they had built a craft capable of space flight in their garden shed but refused to show you either the craft or the blueprints, would you believe them? And what if that person started taking money from people on the promise that they will show them how to build a working space craft from shop-bought materials, what would you think about them then? Personally, I would think anyone who was offering such a service would be either deluded or a liar and a conman.


FreemanMenard said:
You should have no problem showing a court ruling where they state that consent of the governed is not required to govern.
Click to expand...

It is implicate in the fact that it is a court ruling, we know that it is not necessary to make it explicate by the evidence that if you ignore court rulings people can come and take you away and lock you in a cell.

FreemanMenard said:
However there is a bunch of you and only one of me
Click to expand...

Well, that's what you get for posting on a public forum and not talking with someone by telephone. Why don't you go and get someone else who has achieved Freeman status (someone who can pick and choose which laws apply to them)? Only someone who is willing to show us either the craft or the blueprints (or ideally both) will do, anything else is pointless.

You blew it Rob, I set you up, the goal was open, it was yours for the taking and instead you gave us this,

 
Last edited:
Menards stance is exactly the same as someone claiming to be able to bake a special cake, when someone asks him how he does it rather than giving measurements and ingredients he tells them to go and find the information elsewhere (or sells a recipe to them with the main ingredient missing) and then accuses them of claiming he cant to bake it himself.

Can you imagine a website like that?
Who would stay?
WFS still has members and thats exactly how they treat you, it just shows "stupid lasts forever".
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
Menards stance is exactly the same as someone claiming to be able to bake a special cake, when someone asks him how he does it rather than giving measurements and ingredients he tells them to go and find the information elsewhere (or sells a recipe to them with the main ingredient missing) and then accuses them of claiming he cant to bake it himself.

Can you imagine a website like that?
Who would stay?
WFS still has members and thats exactly how they treat you, it just shows "stupid lasts forever".
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any sense at all. The Freeman Movement has been going a number of years now and no one has developed a website or written a book where the instructions on how to achieve Freeman status can be found in a simple, easy to digest format???? It's absence makes the whole movment appear both pathetic and a joke. If any Freeman lurkers here would like to step in and answer this I'd be grateful. (grndslm, you there?)

ETA: If this was at all possible, people bigger than Menard would have stepped in already, developed the product, marketed it effectively and made some real money out of it.
 
Last edited:
grndslms banned :rolleyes:

It would be so simple to just produce a flowchart to follow in court, just start off with "I don't consent to the courts authority" and then it could flow down like a family tree of responses to possible answers.

Simple really if the answers where out there :cool:
 
ETA: If this was at all possible, people bigger than Menard would have stepped in already, developed the product, marketed it effectively and made some real money out of it.
Click to expand...

Yes that is what normally happens - case no one is biting on this particular world changing idea, why?

Answer: Because it's fake and doesn't work - the market place has spoken
 
deeper said:
ETA: If this was at all possible, people bigger than Menard would have stepped in already, developed the product, marketed it effectively and made some real money out of it.
Click to expand...
Quick, someone call Kevin Trudeau!
 
Guide to becoming a freeman
1. Abandon your SIN
2. Write a letter to a random person in government calling yourself a FMOTL (you could just write FMOTL after your name) when they reply on government paper and write your name followed by your made up title you have proof that you are a freeman on the land.
3. Go on forums repeating the same thing over and over for 3 years and refusing to answer any questions or provide evidence.

thats it guys, thats all you need to do.
Save yourself $800
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom