• 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.
Border Reiver said:
Hello all, first post for me.

I've been following this and some of the other Freeman threads gathering information on this "movement". I been seeing an increasing number of these individuals and their "legal documents" over the last few years, and it seemed prudent to look at them.

Still trying to wrap my head around how people can believe that by saying "I do not consent..." that society's rules don't apply, but that may just be me.

You may be interested to know what happens here after the ruling that says, "We, the court, do not agree that you are not bound by Canadian law simply because you don't like a particular law or rule." Well some of them are writing to the CF Provost Marshall (head of the military police) and demanding that he render military aid to protect their property against those corrupt government and court officials since they are "Allies" of HMTQ!

Since the meatheads aren't used to seeing that level of legal nonsense in what look like court documents they ship it over to me in the "claims and civil Litigation" section to deal with the nutbar.... But hey, its a living.
Click to expand...
Welcome!

I'm almost envious. FOTLers only exist on the Interwebs for me. I work in a niche area of law that is actually ripe for exploitation by FOTL scammers - I can only assume that they aren't clued in to it yet or just don't care about the issues. Although I don't want them damaging people and clogging up the particular venue where I work, there is a part of me that would enjoy encountering a real-life FOTLer.
 
D'rok said:
Welcome!

I'm almost envious. FOTLers only exist on the Interwebs for me. I work in a niche area of law that is actually ripe for exploitation by FOTL scammers - I can only assume that they aren't clued in to it yet or just don't care about the issues. Although I don't want them damaging people and clogging up the particular venue where I work, there is a part of me that would enjoy encountering a real-life FOTLer.
Click to expand...

I have, twice in fact. Certain duties preclude me from providing full details but suffice to state that the freemen failed. First time was years ago, freeman's defence was thrown out and then he went loopy, to the extent that he had to be removed from court by security guards.

Second time, more recently, we had virtually the whole shooting match from the freeman side - stylised name (you know, Freeman: of the Family Stupid) wet ink, trusts, strawmen, no consent, bla bla. Defence dismissed and judgment entered. So I am personally aware of 2 complete failures.

I hope that at some point it's possible to speak in more specific terms about these ones.
 
cocana said:
I have, twice in fact. Certain duties preclude me from providing full details but suffice to state that the freemen failed. First time was years ago, freeman's defence was thrown out and then he went loopy, to the extent that he had to be removed from court by security guards.

Second time, more recently, we had virtually the whole shooting match from the freeman side - stylised name (you know, Freeman: of the Family Stupid) wet ink, trusts, strawmen, no consent, bla bla. Defence dismissed and judgment entered. So I am personally aware of 2 complete failures.

I hope that at some point it's possible to speak in more specific terms about these ones.
Click to expand...
Excellent.

If I ever have an encounter, I will be able to disclose it, as my venue is fully public except in rare cases where there is a national security issue or some other exceptional circumstance. My main issue would be exposing my own identity.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
"Once they have been selected, all magistrates take the judicial oath – the same oath as that taken by judges."

Ooo, you could have fun with that.
Click to expand...



Just make sure to print out a copy of the oath every morning, so you can "stand on it" on demand!
 
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:


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

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




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




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

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




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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your intelligent, sincere and non-insulting post. I have not read those judgments and thank you for the links. I will read them in the next week if I get the chance and reply when I have time to do that. Often a defense which can and will work in one case will not in another. The fact that it doesn't in one, does not mean it won't in any. Take the defense of 'colour of right' for instance. It is not always applicable, and has failed sometimes, and succeeded in others.

In any event, thank you for those interesting links, I will try to read up on them later today at lunch, and tonight after my day is done. I am simply too busy to spend my day reading those at the moment. But I do thank you, and will read them carefully when I have the time.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Thank you for your intelligent, sincere and non-insulting post. I have not read those judgments and thank you for the links. I will read them in the next week if I get the chance and reply when I have time to do that. Often a defense which can and will work in one case will not in another. The fact that it doesn't in one, does not mean it won't in any. Take the defense of 'colour of right' for instance. It is not always applicable, and has failed sometimes, and succeeded in others.

In any event, thank you for those interesting links, I will try to read up on them later today at lunch, and tonight after my day is done. I am simply too busy to spend my day reading those at the moment. But I do thank you, and will read them carefully when I have the time.
Click to expand...
We're not interested in your interpretation of these cases. We're interested in evidence, not hermenuetics. Where are your cases? Where is your evidence of any kind whatsoever?

Absolutely every piece of available direct evidence wrt FOTLism refutes your claims. When will you provide some that supports your claims?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Often a defense which can and will work in one case will not in another. The fact that it doesn't in one, does not mean it won't in any. Take the defense of 'colour of right' for instance. It is not always applicable, and has failed sometimes, and succeeded in others.
Click to expand...

That's true, but the rule itself remains the same. You don't see de facto judges ignoring the rule in certain times and bringing it back in other times. The rule is the rule. Applying it to a specific situation is a different question.

So I am not suggesting that the situations in these cases are necessarily relevant. I am saying that these cases show that the de facto courts do not recognize the freeman principle that a person cannot be governed without their consent. The situations that these people found themselves in is irrelevant. They were all governed by the court despite asserting that they cannot be governed without consent.

For instance when the de facto judge says "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" it is clear that he is considering the general principle of individual consent. The judge is talking about "the jurisdiction of the court" generally and statutes generally "such as the Traffic Safety Act." So I conclude the judge is considering the idea of individual consent generally and concludes that "those arguments are without merit." So regardless of the situation I believe that a de facto judge would use the same reasoning and reach the same conclusion.

At the very least anyone attempting to employ the "individual consent" argument should be aware of this case and others. Yet on freeman forums this is generally never discussed, and in fact most people are highly suspicious and critical of someone who brings this information (which is undisputed and documented factual information) to the table.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Thank you for your intelligent, sincere and non-insulting post. I have not read those judgments and thank you for the links. I will read them in the next week if I get the chance and reply when I have time to do that. Often a defense which can and will work in one case will not in another. The fact that it doesn't in one, does not mean it won't in any. Take the defense of 'colour of right' for instance. It is not always applicable, and has failed sometimes, and succeeded in others.

In any event, thank you for those interesting links, I will try to read up on them later today at lunch, and tonight after my day is done. I am simply too busy to spend my day reading those at the moment. But I do thank you, and will read them carefully when I have the time.
Click to expand...


Yes, the "colour of right" defence only works where you have one.

The arguments that the self-designated freemen make fail on one major failing - there is no status recognized in Canadian law of "freeman" or "sovereign citizen".
 
Just to be clear:

Colour of right is the legal concept in the UK and other Commonwealth countries of an accused's permission to the usage or conversion of an asset in the possession of another. In New Zealand Crime's Act, colour of right "means an honest belief that an act is justifiable...". Using this as a defence does not automatically guarantee an acquittal; however, it does diminish the mens rea component needed for a conviction.
Click to expand...

Colour of Right

So now, when inevitably hauled in front of a Judge, FOTL-Waffle-Tactic #79462 is to say "I honestly thought my actions were justifiable" ?

Weazles.
 
ComfySlippers said:
Just to be clear:



Colour of Right

So now, when inevitably hauled in front of a Judge, FOTL-Waffle-Tactic #79462 is to say "I honestly thought my actions were justifiable" ?

Weazles.
Click to expand...



And of course, such a defence, even were it to succeed in any given case, would then subsequently fail in any similar case where it can be shown that the defendant had been made aware of the previous case, since having one person brought up on charges for a particular act should be sufficient evidence that there is no right to act in such a manner.

So, pretty much any of the FoTLers we talk to, having been told that they're full of it, and having had examples shown to them of just such failures, could not be said to have an "honest" belief that they are allowed to act like they do.
 
Thank you for your intelligent, sincere and non-insulting post. I have not read those judgments and thank you for the links. I will read them in the next week if I get the chance and reply when I have time to do that.
Click to expand...
Yes thats right Rob, read the cases and pick holes in where the defendants said the wrong thing, Rob, you have had the opportunity to state your method already in this thread and failed miserably, why criticise the bravery and methods of your fellow freemen when you don't have the balls to get in court and do it yourself.
Often a defense which can and will work in one case will not in another. The fact that it doesn't in one, does not mean it won't in any. Take the defense of 'colour of right' for instance. It is not always applicable, and has failed sometimes, and succeeded in others.
Click to expand...
Colour of right/lawful excuse has to be accepted by the court, its not your interpretation of colour of right that matters its the courts.
In any event, thank you for those interesting links, I will try to read up on them later today at lunch, and tonight after my day is done. I am simply too busy to spend my day reading those at the moment. But I do thank you, and will read them carefully when I have the time.
Click to expand...
No one gives a monkeys chuff about your opinion on the cases Rob, they are judgments blowing a massive hole in your argument.
All people want to see from you is evidence your methodology works.
 
I can see where Rob's "research" re Colour of Right is going....

The concept can also refer to a right, authority or power conferred on an official by way of a relationship between various statutory or regulatory instruments, where the official is granted a position's powers without having to actually occupy the position.
Click to expand...

Wiki

Still waiting for that ever so important letter where Rob is "officially" recognised as a freeman on the land and is, therefore, exempt from Canadian taxes.......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom