• 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.
JLord said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is that a fancy way of saying Rob has no evidence to back up his claims?
 
Last edited:
On the subject of Menard's claim that appearing in court under any circumstances is akin to granting it jurisdiction, I'd like to point out that it is a direct contradiction of what many freeman gurus, including Menard himself, have taught in the past. There are plenty of YouTube videos of freemen in court that are paraded as victories (what usually happens in the video is that the judge declares a recess and the freeman shouts out, "He abandoned ship! I win!"). Menard has publicly endorsed some of them as "wins" on the forums he frequents. He also routinely made announcements about the victories he or other people had supposedly won in court (although he never gave any details of these cases, of course).
 
Last edited:
Bishop said:
And he also routinely made announcements about the victories he or other people had supposedly won in court (although he never gave any details of these cases, of course).
Click to expand...

Am I correct in thinking he has never presented any evidence to support those claims?
 
Bishop said:
On the subject of Menard's claim that appearing in court under any circumstances is akin to granting it jurisdiction, I'd like to point out that it is a direct contradiction of what many freeman gurus, including Menard himself, have taught in the past. There are plenty of YouTube videos of freemen in court that are paraded as victories (what usually happens in the video is that the judge declares a recess and the freeman shouts out, "He abandoned ship! I win!"). Menard has publicly endorsed some of them as "wins" on the forums he frequents. He also routinely made announcements about the victories he or other people had supposedly won in court (although he never gave any details of these cases, of course).
Click to expand...

And on the subject of Menard's claim that one can simply deface any summons or notice and refuse to attend court without repercussion, I'd like to point out (for what must be the 10th time) that it is demonstrably untrue.

As but one example (and I know I've posted this decision a number of times before but, thanks to the amazing patience of the evil corrupt reptillian judge, it is quite a thorough rejection of all arguments freeman):

Source: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2011/2011bcca99/2011bcca99.pdf

[2] The information that initiated these proceedings was sworn on November 26, 2003. A copy was delivered to Mr. Lindsay’s home along with a summons requiring him to appear to answer to the charges. However, Mr. Lindsay returned the summons and information to the justice of the peace after endorsing them “void, returned for fraud” and writing on them that he was not the “person” named in the information. He was subsequently arrested for failing to appear. Then, he petitioned the Supreme Court of British Columbia for orders in the nature of prohibition, to prevent the Provincial Court from proceeding with his trial, and certiorari, to have the charges quashed, alleging the Provincial Court lacked jurisdiction over him. His petition was dismissed by Mr. Justice Barrow, whose reasons are indexed as 2005 BCSC 484 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 484. His appeal to this Court was subsequently dismissed for reasons indexed at 2006 BCCA 150 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 150. The events to this point in the narrative are described in Mr. Justice Barrow’s reasons and are concisely summarized in the reasons of this Court at 2006 BCCA 150 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 150, paras. 2 to 6.

[3] When Mr. Lindsay appeared again in Provincial Court he purported to plead “in abatement”, that is, to plead that the court had no jurisdiction over him because he was not the party charged in the information. The presiding judge, the Honourable Judge Stansfield (as he then was), concluded, after considering evidence led by the Crown on the question, that the person before him and the person charged in the information were one and the same and, pursuant to s. 606(2) of the Code, directed the clerk of the court to enter a plea of not guilty.
Click to expand...


Just for fun:

[32] Mr. Lindsay’s points are so numerous and perplexing that to attempt to answer every point he makes would be to descend into judicial quicksand. Suffice it to say on a broader level that I think there is no possibility that Mr. Lindsay could persuade this Court that the laws of God as he understands them supersede the laws enacted by Parliament to govern the citizens of this country. Similarly, there is no chance he could succeed in his argument that the issues he identifies as arising out of the Coronation Oath are justiciable. In my view, the Court would conclude the resolution of these questions is political and is beyond the proper constitutional role of the courts in our system of government. As well, I think Mr. Lindsay has no chance of success on his argument that, as a private citizen, he has private rights under a contract made between the Crown and Parliament, to which he was not a party, and that he has the right to contract out of the operation of legislation upon him. Further, his argument that he has a constitutionally-protected right to property is bound to fail. Property rights were deliberately excluded from the constitutional protection afforded under s. 7 of the Charter: see P.W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada 5th ed. Supp., looseleaf (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2007) at 47-17 to 47-18.
Click to expand...


Of course I would invite Mr. Menard to provide some contrary authorities on these points.

EDIT: to add some adjectives for that nasty old judge.
 
Last edited:
solzhenitsyn said:
Fair enough. I suppose I'm talking more about myself. I started posting on freeman forums for that same reason. Its only lately, a year later, finding myself debating the same nonsensical statements, asking for the same evidence from the same person, that I've begun to question what my real motivation is.

For me, I must admit that there is a "train wreck" quality to most freeman discussion threads that I can't help but be curious about (in the same way that one turns their head to watch as they slowly pass an accident scene on the highway).
Click to expand...

I thought about this more today and I realized the real reason I like to participate in these freeman "debates":

I spend all day at the office having my arguments battered by more intelligent people. When I get home, my lawyer fiancée/female overlord crushes any dissent with her iron fist. But in a freeman debate, no matter how ineloquently or clumsily I argue, I simply cannot lose. I find that very refreshing.

It almost sounds pathetic when I type it out like that. :)

And just to be clear, I don't say that as a criticism of the eloquence or rhetoric of the people I might argue against. Rather, the facts are just so self-evidently on my side that even I can't bugger it up.
 
solzhenitsyn said:
Of course I would invite Mr. Menard to provide some contrary authorities on these points.
Click to expand...

So, you'd appreciate Rob presenting some evidence to back up his claims, is that what you're saying?


solzhenitsyn said:
I thought about this more today and I realized the real reason I like to participate in these freeman "debates":

I spend all day at the office having my arguments battered by more intelligent people. When I get home, my lawyer fiancée/female overlord crushes any dissent with her iron fist. But in a freeman debate, no matter how ineloquently or clumsily I argue, I simply cannot lose. I find that very refreshing.

It almost sounds pathetic when I type it out like that. :)

And just to be clear, I don't say that as a criticism of the eloquence or rhetoric of the people I might argue against. Rather, the facts are just so self-evidently on my side that even I can't bugger it up.
Click to expand...


Now, that is funny. :D
 
And just to be clear, I don't say that as a criticism of the eloquence or rhetoric of the people I might argue against. Rather, the facts are just so self-evidently on my side that even I can't bugger it up.
Click to expand...

Go and sign up on World Freeman Society and claim to be a freeman, use all the freeman rhetoric and jargon and they will start to try and debunk you, yes thats right, when they see someone who claims to be a freeman they dont actually believe it themselves, You could do it on Ickes but there are no potential freeman left on there now.
 
solzhenitsyn said:
As but one example (and I know I've posted this decision a number of times before but, thanks to the amazing patience of the evil corrupt reptillian judge, it is quite a thorough rejection of all arguments freeman):

Source: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2011/2011bcca99/2011bcca99.pdf
Click to expand...


Another splendid point from that:
Furthermore, he argues that the application of the modern principle in this case amounts to changing the definition of person in the statute and “making law from the bench”, something Mr. Lindsay contends Verhoeven J. was not permitted to do.
Click to expand...


So much for common law.
 
When I get home, my lawyer fiancée/female overlord crushes any dissent with her iron fist.
Click to expand...
Remember though, as she's a lawyer, any crushing she does will be directed towards your strawman. Don't take it personally:)
 
jargon buster said:
Go and sign up on World Freeman Society and claim to be a freeman, use all the freeman rhetoric and jargon and they will start to try and debunk you, yes thats right, when they see someone who claims to be a freeman they dont actually believe it themselves, You could do it on Ickes but there are no potential freeman left on there now.
Click to expand...
I see that the paranoiacs over on DIF are currently struggling with the idea that a lawyer is not permitted to break the law when representing his/her client. Wasn't it just last week when they couldn't figure out why procedural fairness is important? It truly is amazing how they can take aspects of the legal system that are designed to prevent abuse, particularly abuse against individuals by the system, and twist them into evil conspiracies.
 
I see that the paranoiacs over on DIF are currently struggling with the idea that a lawyer is not permitted to break the law when representing his/her client.
Click to expand...

"Have your (and someone elses) cakes and eat them, but dont pay for them" is the freeman motto.
 
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

One other point that I forgot to make earlier: Magellan provided indisputable evidence that the earth was round by circumnavigating it in the 16th century (although even prior to that there was compelling observable evidence like the existence of a horizon). So again I invite you Rob to circumnavigate the justice system, just like Magellan before you, and claim your rightful place alongside him as a visionary (rather than your current reputation as a you-know-what.) Provide us with just one piece of compelling observable evidence and make us all look as completely stupid as the flat-earthers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom