Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Greedo]

Crickets...

 

[Mojo]

Yeah, you're right.
I've had a change of mind and now believe locking the thread is the right move.

No. Just stop posting in it and it'll soon fade into obscurity.

 

[FreemanMenard]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If all men are created equal, then logic and reason dictates that one man may not govern another without the consent of the governed.

I know most posters here though will not accept logic or reason, and prefer to abandon equality in favour of the official opinion of one they hold are better than they. But those with eyes will see, and those with ears will hear, and others will insult, ridicule, and denigrate. That is how it has always been. Once people honestly thought the world was flat, and treated the visionaries much as you treat those who embrace FMOTL.

PREAMBLE


We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.


ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

There it is. Now go ahead and spin it and try claiming it does not mean exactly what it says. Try claiming that it actually means that governance comes first, and the consent is implied by staying in one area. Try claiming that 'the governed' actually means 'the people we group together like they are cattle and then govern'.

Now for the coup de grace: None of you have been able to govern me either directly or by agent or proxy without consent.

Evidence is available all over the place, but many here do not accept evidence and weigh it themselves, they demand instead 'proof' in the form of others opinions. I have repeatedly presented sufficient evidence to constitute proof. But some people here say, "Do not ask me to think for myself! Prove some judge has agreed with you! " And they do so while liberally insulting, deriding and denigrating those who are simply trying to share opinions and beliefs. You claim this thread will serve to show others, and promise to maintain your internet stalking, and direct them here to see for themselves. Fine. Let them see.

All I ask if for people to think for themselves, and do their own due diligence. They will see by coming here you ask they think not, but do as they are told, and accept the ruling of judges without ever examining the source nature and limits of their authority, or suffer the arrows of derision you folks use to hinder discussion.

Let them see.
Then let them go look and form their own decisions based on their own research and conscience.
There is a reason this information is not laid right out, in a paint by numbers kinda way.
And there is a reason some can't see it.
And a reason why some of them chose to scoff and ridicule those willing to think for themselves.



"governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Pretty simple

 

[jargon buster]

Nope, still nothing mis-interpretation and spin yet again.
People are not here to debate the whys and wherefores with you any more Rob, thats why this thread has been created.
Rob please stick to the rules of the thread.
Evidence in the form of a court case where the result was that the individual was found not guilty as a result of them being able to ignore statutory legislation.

Any verifiable evidence that freeman on the land is recognised within the current legal system.

you could post your letter that acknowledges your freeman on the land status for starters.

Again thats all we want Rob, thanks anyway.

 

[gtm]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If all men are created equal, then logic and reason dictates that one man may not govern another without the consent of the governed.

I know most posters here though will not accept logic or reason, and prefer to abandon equality in favour of the official opinion of one they hold are better than they. But those with eyes will see, and those with ears will hear, and others will insult, ridicule, and denigrate. That is how it has always been. Once people honestly thought the world was flat, and treated the visionaries much as you treat those who embrace FMOTL.


There it is. Now go ahead and spin it and try claiming it does not mean exactly what it says. Try claiming that it actually means that governance comes first, and the consent is implied by staying in one area. Try claiming that 'the governed' actually means 'the people we group together like they are cattle and then govern'.

Now for the coup de grace: None of you have been able to govern me either directly or by agent or proxy without consent.

Evidence is available all over the place, but many here do not accept evidence and weigh it themselves, they demand instead 'proof' in the form of others opinions. I have repeatedly presented sufficient evidence to constitute proof. But some people here say, "Do not ask me to think for myself! Prove some judge has agreed with you! " And they do so while liberally insulting, deriding and denigrating those who are simply trying to share opinions and beliefs. You claim this thread will serve to show others, and promise to maintain your internet stalking, and direct them here to see for themselves. Fine. Let them see.

All I ask if for people to think for themselves, and do their own due diligence. They will see by coming here you ask they think not, but do as they are told, and accept the ruling of judges without ever examining the source nature and limits of their authority, or suffer the arrows of derision you folks use to hinder discussion.

Let them see.
Then let them go look and form their own decisions based on their own research and conscience.
There is a reason this information is not laid right out, in a paint by numbers kinda way.
And there is a reason some can't see it.
And a reason why some of them chose to scoff and ridicule those willing to think for themselves.



"governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Pretty simple

Not good enough. We want case law (as well you know) rather than a recitation of Washington States' Constitution. It's well established 'consent' is inferred via democratic elections. You've produced no evidence to butress your' weird & misguided theories on 'consent'.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Rob wrote:

I know most posters here though will not accept logic or reason

We don't want your theories, we want evidence.
Come back when you have some.

 

[Paul]

I don't know if you've noticed, Rob, but you're Canadian.

What you quoted was the preamble and article 1 of the state constitution of the State of Washington; not only is it not in Canada, it is not the United States of America.

However, as you bizarrely seem to regard the US as the arbiter of Canadian freedoms, the preamble to the US constitution is:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Article 1, Section 2 of the Washington State constitution:

SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

​

Article III of the US Consttitution:

SECTION. 1. The judicial Power of the United States,shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SECTION. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects....
​

Well, that seems simple enough, the US Constitution is supreme and that says that the courts' power extends to all US laws. If you break a law the courts have power over you, no consent required.

 

[Horatius]

PREAMBLE


We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.


ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Quoting the Washington State Constitution. Okay, ignoring that this only applies to that one state, and not at all in Canada, I'll just note that you've chosen to ignore pretty much everything else that this document lays down....

SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

SECTION 10 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.

SECTION 22 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person, or by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a copy thereof, to testify in his own behalf, to meet the witnesses against him face to face, to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his own behalf, to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is charged to have been committed and the right to appeal in all cases: Provided, The route traversed by any railway coach, train or public conveyance, and the water traversed by any boat shall be criminal districts; and the jurisdiction of all public offenses committed on any such railway car, coach, train, boat or other public conveyance, or at any station or depot upon such route, shall be in any county through which the said car, coach, train, boat or other public conveyance may pass during the trip or voyage, or in which the trip or voyage may begin or terminate. In no instance shall any accused person before final judgment be compelled to advance money or fees to secure the rights herein guaranteed.

SECTION 1 LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED. The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.

SECTION 18 STYLE OF LAWS. The style of the laws of the state shall be: "Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington." And no laws shall be enacted except by bill.

SECTION 20 ORIGIN AND AMENDMENT OF BILLS. Any bill may originate in either house of the legislature, and a bill passed by one house may be amended in the other.

SECTION 21 YEAS AND NAYS. The yeas and nays of the members of either house shall be entered on the journal, on the demand of one-sixth of the members present.

SECTION 22 PASSAGE OF BILLS. No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

So, why should we accept the one passage you cited as being sufficient evidence that anyone can opt out of any law passed by the legislature, while at the same time, ignoring all these other passages from the exact same document, which clearly lay out the authority to elect representatives, and have those representatives enact laws, which are applied to all via "due process"?

 

[Horatius]

Oh, and:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=cBJ...wers from the consent of the governed&f=false

 

[jargon buster]

paul wrote

Well, that seems simple enough, the US Constitution is supreme and that says that the courts' power extends to all US laws. If you break a law the courts have power over you, no consent required.

Horatius wrote

So, why should we accept the one passage you cited as being sufficient evidence that anyone can opt out of any law passed by the legislature, while at the same time, ignoring all these other passages from the exact same document, which clearly lay out the authority to elect representatives, and have those representatives enact laws, which are applied to all via "due process"?

With all due respect guys he knows all this, you are just giving him a platform to respond to your posts with more gibberish and nonsense and take the thread off topic which is the provision of evidence.

Rob, this is a thread for evidence, please post some or don't bother posting at all.

 

[D'rok]

I look forward to the evidence of success that will surely be forthcoming later this week:

The 'trial' is scheduled this September 21st at 2PM. The corporate fiction referenced by the city is RONALD WOODRUFF. You will need that information to determine the court we will be playing the game in. Now with that security interest on the table as a show of good faith, I ask anyone who is able, to offer their help by simply attending as witnesses to the effort to assert my birth rights. If you can't help, thanks for looking. This is my first effort to assert my rights, and I hope to learn so that I can prepare myself for a lifetime of asserting my rights, whenever challenged, god bless.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=86125#p86125

 

[Horatius]

With all due respect guys he knows all this, you are just giving him a platform to respond to your posts with more gibberish and nonsense and take the thread off topic which is the provision of evidence.

With all due respect, "gibberish and nonsense" is all you'll ever get out of him. As you say, he knows all this, and he never posts anything new. It's just repeating the same baseless assertions over and over again. It gets boring after a while.

So, to stave off boredom, and prevent this thread from becoming nothing more than "yes it is, no it isn't", we might as well cite the passages of the very same document he cited to support his position, that refute his position.

This way, the only people who will fall for it are the people who are so stupid, they fall for everything. We'll never get Rob to acknowledge that his position is untenable, as that would require him to stop being a con man, and stop making money off the stupid people. The best we can hope for is to limit the number of stupid people he has as potential victims.

 

[JLord]

The problem with this position, is the concept of equality is actually abandoned. So what if your neighbour can also do the same thing. You are limiting his actions to that alone, and you having accepted the parliamentary system, made a choice which you now deny him, therefore no equality.

This is a philosophical problem that you and many others may have regarding whether these actions violate your sense of equality or not. However you have not addressed the fact that regardless of your sense of equality, the actions I describe are possible and supported by the de facto courts. So I have answered how I can govern you without your consent. The only objection you raise is that this would violate your sense of equality, which is a philosophical debate.

This is why I believe it is incorrect to say that you can't be governed without your consent. It would be more accurate to be telling people that they can be governed without their consent by force but that this power is wrong and freemen should take steps politically to change the rules regarding what the government can and can't do.

Also, getting elected means you are acting as representatives of others, and the law limits the power you can claim to that which your principal can claim and granted to you. I am sure you must agree that whatever power is vested in your by virtue of being elected, it cannot be greater than that enjoyed by those who elected you and gave you your power.

Getting elected grants you powers beyond that of any individual person who elected you. There are limits to what each branch of government can do but having been elected gives a person more power than other individual voters.

It is easy to prove too, by looking at the micro. What if there were only three people, you, me and one neighbour. You and he decide that an election to determine who will act as representative for all three will be held. I of course refuse to consent to anyone acting as my representative, or to be a part of your electing collective. So the TWO of you decide that one of you will be the representative for all three. In that situation, do you have authority to act on my behalf, or not? Clearly the answer is NO.

Not necessarily. Suppose that there is an effective mechanism to enforce me representing you in this situation. One that you are effectively unable to resist. And within this system a law was passed allowing me to represent you without your consent. You would disagree philosophically with what was going on, but you would be "de facto" represented by me despite your objections.

As a function of law, representation requires mutual consent, and without it you are not my representative, and since the only form of government considered lawful in a common law jurisdiction is a representative one, (due to the concept of equality being paramount) without mutual consent you are not MY government, though others may have consented.

This I believe to simply be an incorrect statement about the law. But since the answer to "what is the law" is determined by looking at previous decisions, I will not judge until I see the case you are relying on. I have never seen a judge decide that representative democracy is dependant on individual consent or that representative democracy is unlawful.

Your position rests upon the belief that you can be someone's representative without their consent because others have consented, and it rests on the position that once acting as a representative, you can do far more than those who gave you the power can do. Both a clearly faulty.

They are philosophically faulty perhaps, but the de facto court does not accept this argument so in fact, people in Canada are represented by government without their consent. And are subject to Canada's laws regardless of their consent. You might be able to make a good argument that this is morally wrong or philosophically incorrect, but I'm not interested in that sort of debate. I'm only trying to get at what the actual current de facto law of Canada says about these issues.

 

[jargon buster]

And now Menard has a post to respond to with his usual brand of pointless waffle and rhetoric.

Fill your boots guys, enjoy reading his gibberish, I for one have had enough of it.

 

[Horatius]

And now Menard has a post to respond to with his usual brand of pointless waffle and rhetoric.

Why do you think he'll need a post to respond to? He's been going about the internet trolling for idiots using the same stock phrases for years now. At least now, anyone who Googles his nonsense will see our posts refuting it in clear language, with sources.

Promotion of woo will happen no matter what we do. What matters to us is having responses to the woo be available for those who will listen.

 

[jargon buster]

The point is that he has now been going around in circles for years, he needs pinning down and by answering his posts you just end up with a circular debate, its pointless and simply gives his ego a boost which is the only reason he's here.
I can give you hundreds of examples of his foolish nonsense if thats what you want (PM me and will send you some links)
I did try and start a thread just for evidence but it has been merged with this one, so be it but I'm not playing his daft games anymore but feel free to waste your time with him.

 

[D'rok]

Ah, well...this is a discussion forum after all. Menard is free to post whatever he wants here within the rules, and everyone else is free to respond as they see fit (also within the rules).

I would be willing to talk political philosophy if there was the slightest bit of intellectual honesty from the FOTL side - i.e., if they wanted to talk about how things should be, that would be fine; instead, we get the conmen who sell a fake narrative about how, through great effort, they have uncovered how things really are, complete with "remedies" that can be applied in court.

It's a sham. No debate is really possible.

 

[jargon buster]

Im not playing his game anymore, he's wrong about the law and he knows it, so whats the point?

TBH hes only posting here to make himself feel better, he cannot think he's going to turn anyones heads, even he's not that daft.

 

[D'rok]

I agree, but there's not much we can do about it.

 

[JLord]

I see how the Judge ruled that the argument is without merit, and I agree, in this case. If the case was about an assault, and the defendant tried using the defense of self-defense, but had previously stated that he consented to the fight, that argument would be without merit. Just like in this case.

That however does not mean that such a defense is always without merit, though does it?

That's true, and we know that this is true because there are numerous cases where self-defence has been recognized as a valid argument and numerous cases have analyzed the merits and requirements of a succesful self defence argument. How do you know that the situation here is similar without any case law where such a defence has been succesful. Surely at best you could only claim to have a potential speculative defence that remains untested.

Oh oh! The man apparently appeared, and by so doing confirmed the jurisdiction, or even granted it!

No he didn't. He appeared for the specific purpose of contesting jurisdiction. For obvious reasons a person does not attorn to the jurisdiction of the court by appearing for the specific purpose of contesting jurisdiction. There are numerous cases dealing with this if you are interested. I think your statement is incorrect.

Why would someone 'appear' if he did not think they had jurisdiction?

Because if they don't appear nobody is going to contest jurisdiction for them and they will be found guilty in absence, which is actually what happened in this case. The Defendant, presumably following freeman methodology, refused to discuss procedural issues until the judge eventually decided that he had effectively chosen not to appear because he wasn't answering questions.

This casts further doubt on your argument because in this case the decision was that the person was convicted in their absence for not appearing. So in addition to the fact that you do not consent to jurisdiction by appearing solely to contest jurisdiction, the person in this case was actually found not to have appeared.

That is why IN THIS CASE the argument lacks merit, and just like the example of self-defense, it does not mean it is always without merit.

The self defence analogy is invalid unless you can point to other cases where the argument was found to have merit. Self defence is well established and there are lots of cases where the argument was found to have merit. It seems that for contesting jurisdiction based on individual consent to be governed we have only failures, with no suggestion that there is any possible valid argument there regardless of the circumstances.

The bigger issue here is that you seem to believe that this individual consent defence is being kept secret by all judges. If you believe it is actually a defence you must also beleive that all judges have always kept secret about it. Otherwise judges would explain the defence and why it doesn't have merit in a particular situation. In a failed self defence argument, the judge is still going to be discussing the principles of self defence, not just saying that self defence arguments are without merit because they didn't apply to this particular case.

The point is that if individual consent was required under the de facto law, this would be a known concept that would be discussed in case law even if nobody had ever succesfully used the argument. The discussion of its merits would exist. Why do we not see this if you still believe this is a valid argument in the de facto courts?

And furthermore, even if judges believed it was valid but were secretly avoiding saying so for some reason, the fact they aren't saying it would effectively make the argument invalid in the de facto court even if judges secretly believed it was valid. The de facto common law is based on precedent and if you have no decisions to back up what you are saying, then you can't say you have a valid argument. So whatever the reason for judges not wanting to issue these decisions, the fact remains that without the decision it isn't the law. At best you have an untested speculative argument.