Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
jargon buster said:
And once that happens dear old Robert Arthur Menard wil be clapped in irons without his consent faster than you can say "fee schedule".
Im pretty sure that whoever pulls the trigger will have something on their PC linking them to dear old Robbie.
Click to expand...

Nah, he'll be long gone.
He doesn't get his own hands dirty.
He preys on idiots to act out his fantasies.
 
They are public roads paid for in part by them, why should they as members of the public not be able to use their own property?
Click to expand...

But as a freeman you dont pay for the Roads Rob, remember you have withdrawn your consent to taxes.
 
arayder said:
Does anyone else sense that the freeman cult is not headed to a good end?

First our subject recruits a few members who can’t belong anywhere else and then dupes them into giving their money and allegiance to the freeman cult.

In exchange for this loss of independence the cult leader in evidence offers a sort of home for freemen, in his own happy valley, where everyone cares for each other and loves each other. When it turns out the cult can’t make its own Jamestown, the leader offers them a web world to live in, complete with internet censorship and endless youtubes!

Thus our subject gives this group of erstwhile losers a strong feeling of belonging.

Having lost almost all contact with the reason of the outside world, freeman minions are told they can make their own law and have their own police.

When pressed on this absurdity, the freeman cult members just become more angry and confrontational.

While we all may have a good laugh on them does not seem to have a occurred to us that the cult is a nut case plus a traffic stop or court summons away from a tragedy.
Click to expand...

You sure use the term cult loosely.
Tell me do you consider the police to be a cult?
What about the law society?
What about this forum and members?

If you do not consider them to be cults, but you do those Freemen who exercise their rights, I must ask if you ever looked at the definition of a cult, and compared that definition and list of attributes to those organizations mentioned?

Do you often refer to groups of people who share beliefs different from yours as a cult? And does that make it easier for you to justify ignoring their perspectives and maligning their opinions?
 
mmmm... yes members of the public

Over to you Rob, do you consider yourself to be a member of the public?

I know you claim to have me on ignore Rob, its easier to avoid my posts when you know I have your number.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Do you often refer to groups of people who share beliefs different from yours as a cult? And does that make it easier for you to justify ignoring their perspectives and maligning their opinions?
Click to expand...

Nah, it's better to get beyond labels and into the meat of it. At that point you consistently demonstrate to everyone that you're talking rubbish and have nothing to justify your claims to have effectively withdrawn your consent to be governed in Canada.

I therefore say that we should get beyond the cult stuff and look at your consent theory again. It's always nice to go through that and demonstrate that you're just engaging in specious debate.

Maybe that's why you prefer to focus on things like the meaning of the word "cult" of course, whilst ignoring the requests for proof that myself and others have repeatedly posted.
 
Maybe that's why you prefer to focus on things like the meaning of the word "cult" of course, whilst ignoring the requests for proof that myself and others have repeatedly posted.
Click to expand...
+1
He just pops in here to waste people time, he should be ignored until he comes back with something to back his ludicrous claims.
Hes a cult of the highest order.
 
cocana said:
...At that point you consistently demonstrate to everyone that you're talking rubbish and have nothing to justify your claims to have effectively withdrawn your consent to be governed in Canada.

I therefore say that we should get beyond the cult stuff and look at your consent theory again. ...
Click to expand...

Robert Arthur is fully aware that he is talking rubbish and that proof of any of his gibberish will never be forthcoming. He knows full well that the consent theory is garbage.

That's what, in his deluded mind, is the beauty of his little con game.

He knows perfectly well that his time in front of The Judge will come eventually and that he will, with his warped sense of reality, cunningly escape conviction and be hailed as the first victorious FOTL-Waffler.

Unfortunately Rob's battle plan is doomed to failure and his reward will be either:

a/ Jail
b/ Mental facility

Until that time he will continue to repeat his crap to any gullible half-wit who will listen. He will also sit back and relax, caring not when those dim-wits fail and end up in prison / mental ward / get bigger fines. And if they pay him along the way, all the better.

As long as you can convince people to keep sending silly made up documents, getting them 'notarised' and all such nonsense you will be okay when it's your turn in the dock... won't you Rob?!

A very silly cult indeed.
 
FreemanMenard said:
You sure use the term cult loosely.
Tell me do you consider the police to be a cult?
What about the law society?
What about this forum and members?

If you do not consider them to be cults, but you do those Freemen who exercise their rights, I must ask if you ever looked at the definition of a cult, and compared that definition and list of attributes to those organizations mentioned?

Do you often refer to groups of people who share beliefs different from yours as a cult? And does that make it easier for you to justify ignoring their perspectives and maligning their opinions?
Click to expand...

Let's start with the definition of "cult" so we're all singing from the same songsheet:

cult   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt]
noun
1.a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.the object of such devotion.
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.the members of such a religion or sect.
8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insightinto the natureof disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

adjective

9.of or pertaining to a cult.
10.of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie"

So, in answer to your questions:

a. Police - not a cult. The police are persons hired by the state to enforce the law, engage in crime prevention and where necessary locate and apprehend persons alleged to have committed a crime;

b. Law Society - Not a cult. The various provincial law societies in Canada are professional bodies engaged in the regulation of the practice of law. They set the professional qualifications necessary to practice, and discipline persons who violate the rules of practice;

c. This forum and members - A bit harder to give a hard and fast answer. Some display a cult like devotion to certain subjects or philosophies, others do not. The stated intent of the forum is to allow the critical analysis of various claims in an effort to allow discussion on a variety of topics.

I would say that in general many freemen exhibit the definition No. 4 above, being very devoted to their interpretations of the law, and are quite resistant to arguments that refute the "correctness" of their beliefs. They are definitely outside the mainstream.

If you object to the labelling of Freemen as a cult, fine. But can you explain how they do not fit the above definition?
 
Just to clarify on Rob's "How to win in Court" strategy, and to save his gullible followers $800. Also clarifying the fact that he doesn't actually believe the crap he preaches:

Full post from 2009
(Long quote, sorry. Bold is mine)


if you argue about what your rights are they will have you on the ropes.
If you argue about what you thought your rights were, you can dance around them.

The defence you must aim for is called 'colour of right'.
You will have to establish three things.
1- You honestly believed you had the right to do what you were doing.
2- This belief is not a result of negligence, but of diligence and positive action.
3- It is reasonable.

This is where the process will come in very handy. If you have done it properly, you will have a Courtesy Letter and the NUI and COR along with evidence of service and lack of response on their part.

These provide proof of your beliefs, that you expressed them, invited discussion and negotiation and was refused and then acted accordingly. This is all lawful and just. It also demonstrates action on your part, and not negligence. Thus the first two are established and it is the third that will send them running. Is it reasonable.

Now there are naysayers who will refuse to examine that aspect, and rely instead on a judges interpretation. However it will not be their opinion that matters, nor will you leave it up to the judge to decide if your beliefs are reasonable. You can bring witnesses to explain these beliefs, and if asked I would consider it a duty to stand and speak the truth.

You will rely on your community of Freemen and your fellow Canadians.

At this point you can ask they open the door they really want kept closed. Ask how many people have in fact made the same claims. On the record demand the government disclose just how many people out there feel as you do and have served NUI and CORs on the government. Hundreds? Thousands? How many is required for it to be deemed reasonable, and would that number grow if others knew of its existence?
Click to expand...


The NUI and COR rubbish etc are simply pre-written 'evidence' to be presented in Court after you have commited the crime so as to 'prove' that you actually believed this junk. And if you have convinced your followers to send in similar worthless pieces of paper.... win!

Rob thinks "Colour of Law" is the secret get out of jail free card.
 
Last edited:
ComfySlippers said:
The NUI and COR rubbish etc are simply pre-written 'evidence' to be presented in Court after you have commited the crime so as to 'prove' that you actually believed this junk. And if you have convinced your followers to send in similar worthless pieces of paper.... win!

Rob thinks "Colour of Law" is the secret get out of jail free card.
Click to expand...



It's the classic, "Yes, your honour, I really am that stupid" defence. It's worked in a few cases of criminal tax fraud, so as to avoid jail time.

Problem is, it can only ever work once for any one person, since the fact that you were dragged into court is presumed to have the effect of telling you that you were seriously wrong.

Also, if it could be shown that they were aware of the complete lack of legal merit in these arguments, it would probably also fail, which is why you'll never see Menard actually use this in a real court. There is so much evidence out there of him seeing the arguments against his notions that he could not possibly convince any judge that he didn't know it was all crap.
 
Robert Menard and the Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers.

http://c3po.ca/HomePage

Menard is now forming a corps of 'peace officers'.
not only is this antithetical to his concept of 'freemen on the land', but is doubtless going to get some people in serious trouble.
is this legal?
what say you on this matter?

(i did not post this under 'conspiracy theories', because this is a reality and certainly a 'social issue')
 
The problem with that definition of "colour of right" is that it ignores s. 19 which states that ignorance of the law by the person committing an offence is not an excuse. Also it should be pointed out that the colour of right defence is specific to certain charges. He seems to imply that it is a valid argument for any type of offence regardless of if it's even a Criminal Code offence.
 
C3PO? And they expect to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
Actually I think it started as 3CPO but someone made a mess of the website and they switched rather than re-naming the website.
They spare no expense at WFS
Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers
3Cs you see
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom