Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[jargon buster]

No words required

 

[Cocana The Second]

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.

That one really gets me too (and apologies, as I realise that it's probably not for this thread). Once again a certain Yozhik leads the way in the stupidity stakes. He has a superlative ability to (sometimes) make his idiocy sound like intelligence. I didn't realise that there was a term for it until JB mentioned the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Yozhik - and Menard of course - are gold medal Dunning–Krugerists.

Rob, you can of course still produce the evidence to show that we're wrong. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Paul]

oops, too late.

 

[tsig]

Wow you guys sure love to claim victory without any evidence thereof. I told you I have better things to do, and will answer when I can. But you all jump around and act like me not spending every waking hour on this forum as evidence of my failure. I suggest the failure is those who post here daily. I mean sheesh... get a life! In any event there were some points raised by the one and only other poster here that were not ridiculous or insulting.

Hi JLord! Allow me to respond to your posts.

You said:


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.

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. Thus there are limits to what you as their representative can in fact do.

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. I did not consent to the process or the outcome, and as such you simply are not my representative. 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.


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.

So I imagine those who stated I have my tail between my legs or would not come back, or that they have somehow 'won' will now recant those statements, right?

If I'm a Democrat and a Republican gets elected I can just ignore his government?

 

[tsig]

Rob wrote
yadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayada

Any evidence for the forum Rob?

Before you runaway again

are you suggesting now people just don't turn up?

Apparently he's never heard of a bench warrant.

I wonder if the court that told him not to give out legal advice knows he's still selling legal advice?

 

[jargon buster]

Hes moved, it doesn't apply to where he lives now.

 

[theprestige]

Your rules dont apply to me but all my rules apply to you.

Thats 13 words, can we get it any smaller?

Some are more equal than others.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I would say that only the State can ensure equality before the law. Individuals are subject to fear, envy, self interest, vanity and self agrandisement. Any judgement they make on their own behalf will be tainted and unjust.

 

[JLord]

A freemans definition of "common law" differs from the universally accepted version unfortunatly.

This is true of a lot legal terms including the word "legal" itself. Basic things like "law," "lawful," "common law," "jugde," "court," etc. are all redifined. This type of semantic argument however is missing the point and I avoid these sort of debates by calling it "de facto common law" instead of just common law and most freemen are satisfied by this distinction. That allows the converstation to move forward with a common understanding.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

This is true of a lot legal terms including the word "legal" itself. Basic things like "law," "lawful," "common law," "jugde," "court," etc. are all redifined. This type of semantic argument however is missing the point and I avoid these sort of debates by calling it "de facto common law" instead of just common law and most freemen are satisfied by this distinction. That allows the converstation to move forward with a common understanding.

I certainly understand that approach but ultimately I think that it side steps the fundamental problem: freeman victims" don't accept that the law is what the government says it is (and indeed that law cannot exist without a government to enact and enforce it.) In Canada, this means that Parliament (or the Legislatures) enact the law, the executive (government) enforces the law, and the courts (judiciary) apply and interpret the law. Unless a person accepts that simple and observable fact, they will forever be waiting for some other magical law (whether that be "common law" or "God's law" or whatever other magical they believe exists) to ride in on a white horse to their rescue. That is a recipe for disaster because it will never, ever happen.

Of course, I'm not sure I've ever truly convinced a freeman to accept that fact, but I feel like if I ever did, the battle would be won. Once a person accepts that the only sources of law are legislation enacted by Parliament/the Legislature and the opinion of the courts as expressed in reported decisions, it will quickly become apparent that the law is not what Menard/other gurus says it is. That is my current theory anyway.

 

[jargon buster]

I avoid these sort of debates by calling it "de facto common law" instead of just common law and most freemen are satisfied by this distinction. That allows the converstation to move forward with a common understanding.

Its not that they are satisfied with the distinction its because they see you as "on their side" by using the term "de facto", its one of their "trigger words".

The conversation only moves forward as long as you play their game, as soon as you make them uncomfortable its insult time. (I have seen the responses you get on WFS by the way)
Theres no point debating with them anymore, its put up or shut up, its the only language they understand.

 

[hgus]

My impression off FMOTL is that it is based almost entirely on semantics. They redefine words and meanings to suit their needs.

The most important is consent. To the FMOTL this means that every citizen must give consent to be binded by laws, regulations and taxation. From this, it is my impression, everything else follows.

The Law. To them it seems common law (or sometimes Gods law) is the real law. But what the common law IS, I for one have asked but never got an explantion for. Statute (sp?) law dont apply to them if they have not personally consented to it. But this common law that remains undefined applies to everyone no consent needed.

Equality. I assume this comes from "all men are equal before the law". But the FMOTL take a fundamentalist view of this. They seems to believe that equality negates all positions of authority. I am equal to the trafic cop so how can he tell me how to drive?

And on a lighter note we have my favorite. "Im not driving I am traveling!"

And finally we have the conspiratory side of it. "Our belief is right and the government, the courts and the police is misusing their powers. BUT if you say the right words they will accept the FMOTL "truth"."

Well this is my take on this FMOTL anarchist stuff. And since they will not consent to the commonly used meanings of words, I dont think that a constructive discussion is possible.

 

[Cocana The Second]

My impression off FMOTL is that it is based almost entirely on semantics. They redefine words and meanings to suit their needs.

The most important is consent. To the FMOTL this means that every citizen must give consent to be binded by laws, regulations and taxation. From this, it is my impression, everything else follows.

The Law. To them it seems common law (or sometimes Gods law) is the real law. But what the common law IS, I for one have asked but never got an explantion for. Statute (sp?) law dont apply to them if they have not personally consented to it. But this common law that remains undefined applies to everyone no consent needed.

Equality. I assume this comes from "all men are equal before the law". But the FMOTL take a fundamentalist view of this. They seems to believe that equality negates all positions of authority. I am equal to the trafic cop so how can he tell me how to drive?

And on a lighter note we have my favorite. "Im not driving I am traveling!"

And finally we have the conspiratory side of it. "Our belief is right and the government, the courts and the police is misusing their powers. BUT if you say the right words they will accept the FMOTL "truth"."

Well this is my take on this FMOTL anarchist stuff. And since they will not consent to the commonly used meanings of words, I dont think that a constructive discussion is possible.

Nail. On. Head. Spot on.

FMOTL, as a general breed, are total nutjobs who are getting too much time and attention. Dealing with the likes of Menard, who take money for this rubbish, is one thing but people who choose to be stupid are not going to be reasoned with and should be left to it - save for occasional entertainment purposes! They won't harm anyone.

You can't fix stupid, as they say.

 

[Stacey Grove]

They won't harm anyone.

Apart from themselves

 

[D'rok]

Well this is my take on this FMOTL anarchist stuff. And since they will not consent to the commonly used meanings of words, I dont think that a constructive discussion is possible.

Exactly. The rest of your post is also exactly right.

 

[JLord]

Its not that they are satisfied with the distinction its because they see you as "on their side" by using the term "de facto", its one of their "trigger words".

This is true in the sense that it makes them feel as if you're one of them and therefore less hostile. But it also avoids the is/ought problem that the debate turns into if you are going to try to insist on usual the commonly accepted definitions of words. Saying "de facto" is almost like admitting that the commonly accepted definition of "common law" has been corrupted in some way and the freeman definition may well be the objectively correct definition. I am fine admitting this for the purposes of discussion because in the end it doesn't really matter. The de facto judges of the de facto court will enforce the de facto common law whether you like it or not. In my mind one of the most dangerous freeman tricks is the way they do not distinguish at all between what is and what ought to be. They move freely between the two concepts until eventually the mark is believing that because Rob Menard or whoever has made a convincing argument about how the law should be, then that's how it is. I think marking a clear line between what we are saying "is" the case and what we are saying "ought" to be the case is crucial to these discussions and using the term "de facto" seems to be an acceptable way of marking this divide.

 

[D'rok]

This is true in the sense that it makes them feel as if you're one of them and therefore less hostile. But it also avoids the is/ought problem that the debate turns into if you are going to try to insist on usual the commonly accepted definitions of words. Saying "de facto" is almost like admitting that the commonly accepted definition of "common law" has been corrupted in some way and the freeman definition may well be the objectively correct definition. I am fine admitting this for the purposes of discussion because in the end it doesn't really matter. The de facto judges of the de facto court will enforce the de facto common law whether you like it or not. In my mind one of the most dangerous freeman tricks is the way they do not distinguish at all between what is and what ought to be. They move freely between the two concepts until eventually the mark is believing that because Rob Menard or whoever has made a convincing argument about how the law should be, then that's how it is. I think marking a clear line between what we are saying "is" the case and what we are saying "ought" to be the case is crucial to these discussions and using the term "de facto" seems to be an acceptable way of marking this divide.

I understand what you are trying to do, but I'm not sure I agree with the approach. At the end of the day, if you are successful, the result will likely be a group of frustrated FOTLers who just know that they are right, but are also aware that the system will never recognize that they are right.

I'm not sure that is a good thing, because it could lead to violence rather than resignation. Who wouldn't want a revolution if the society you live in never recognizes your rights and never provides justice?

I think it's better if they come to understand that they are actually being sold lies by shady characters that really don't have their best interests at heart. That way, maybe there is a chance that they will re-adjust their thinking about the justness of the system.

 

[Mojo]

But it also avoids the is/ought problem that the debate turns into if you are going to try to insist on usual the commonly accepted definitions of words.

The "is/ought problem", though, is the crucial factor. If they were just going around saying that the legal system ought to work in a certain way, there wouldn't be any real problem. The problems arise because they claim it really does work like that.

 

[FreemanMenard]

My impression off FMOTL is that it is based almost entirely on semantics. They redefine words and meanings to suit their needs.

It is not us who when reading the words 'consent of the governed' claim it does not mean 'consent of the governed'. It is the people here who try to claim that it means 'consent of the people'. It is not us who claim 'equality' does not mean 'equality'. It is the people here who claim 'equality does not mean what you think it means'.
It is not us who label actual law as 'your rules', though it is you who claim your rules are the actual law.
It is not us who stretches the definition of society so that people are deemed to be members not due to their consent as the definition demands, but due only to their existence within a specific geographical area.
It is not us who constantly redefines words in Acts and statutes so they have no resemblance to the English language.
It is not us who claim that because something is happening, it must be ok, and the people doing it must have the lawful right to do it, for no other reason than they are.

How many people have driver's licenses and never read the Act under which they applied BEFORE submitting an application? And how many of them can find the Section of the Act which clearly, specifically and unequivocally removed the rights which clearly existed prior to that Act being deemed 'law' by them?

As for people being concerned about my income and if I report it to CRA: Why would I do that if I do not even have an account with them, and who is willing to claim I have a duty or obligation to have a SIN and thus an account with them?

You people claim to demand 'evidence' and 'proof', but that which you point to in order to support your continued allegations of criminal wrong doing on my part, well that does not qualify as evidence at all does it? But you accept it without question. You require no evidence to justify your hatred and anger and vilification, yet demand it in order to believe in equality and freedom.

See a problem with that?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Still no evidence, Rob?
Thought not.