Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
As you're back, Rob are you going to address this:

D'rok said:
No. You yourself provided us with a link to a definition many pages back. Have you forgotten already? Here it is:

An act of a legislature that declares, proscribes, or commands something; a specific law, expressed in writing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statute

Now provide evidence that you can opt out of the laws of Canada. Note: we are not asking for you to re-define words. We are asking you to demonstrate the truth of your claims by providing evidence.

Go.
Click to expand...
 
Stacey Grove said:
But if they are only an impartial witness why don't you use somebody plucked off the street?
Click to expand...

They are recognized by the operators of the courts as such, and they put their reputation and ability to witness on the table when they do so.

People off the street do not.

Though someone like an engineer, accountant, or any other professional could do the same, if they were willing to put their professional standing on the line too. Most of them are not. And not because they can't do it, but because it is not what their professional reputation relies upon. Not so with a notary eh?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Rob, the government of Canada, or of a province of Canada, is not hired by individual Canadians. It is empowered by the Constitution of Canada to pass legislation.
Click to expand...
You do realize these things you point to, are in fact legal fictions, and do not exist, right?
Click to expand...


Yesterday you posted:
First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.
Click to expand...


So which is it? Is the government composed of people, or is it a legal fiction?
 
FreemanMenard said:
As soon as YOU provide evidence that you can govern me without my consent, or have the power to hire or elect or empower someone to do that which you cannot do directly.

Ball is in your court....
Click to expand...

Well, you have made the claim for years that you are immune from statute law. I don't believe you, Rob, in fact I believe you are lying. If you had proof there would be no need for you to stipulate conditions before you provided proof.
I call BS Rob. We all know you obey statute law.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
As soon as YOU provide evidence that you can govern me without my consent, or have the power to hire or elect or empower someone to do that which you cannot do directly.

Ball is in your court....
Click to expand...


Once again: nobody here has claimed that they, as an individual, can govern you without your consent, or hire someone else to do so. You are arguing against a strawman.

If you want evidence that the people of Canada, as a whole, can elect a parliament that can pass legislation that applies to you without your individual consent, I suggest that you read up about the constitution of Canada.
 
arayder said:
I believe our subject’s denial of the supremacy of law is not about understanding the law.

I think the problem is that our subject’s grandiose sense of self-importance leads him to believe that he deserves automatic compliance with what he thinks the law should be. His fantasies of success and power include making up one’s own law and even having one’s own society.

Our subject needs to exaggerate his achievements to fit his fantasies. So when a Vancouver cop confronts him regarding his public drunkenness, which apparently is not an uncommon state for our boy, he develops a tale in which he educates the cop on freemanism and coaches him to find an electronic document that fulfills the subject’s fantasy that he can’t be touched without the approval of the highest law enforcement officials.

Since our subject needs excessive admiration he has no problem repeating his “I educated the cop” fantasy to an uncritical freeman audience and putting the whole tale on youtube. Since our manipulative subject sees the audience as being there solely to achieve his ends he has no problem taking advantage of their gullibility.

Posters here call this behavior pathological lying. But I believe there is much more to it than that!

Simply put since the law, the cops, and this forum don’t fit our fez wearing subject’s fairy-tale, they have to be dismissed by him as unworthy. It may sound mad, but to our subject it’s easier than dealing with the demons that led him to believe that he has to be world renowned or he is nothing.
Click to expand...

I say it again. . .
 
FreemanMenard said:
With cells, there comes a time where the group itself is visible.

With human beings and their rights, is there a time where although not a single one of them have a right, enough of them makes it so?

Imagine a woman and a group of men.
How many men are needed before they can impose themselves on the one woman without consent and it is no longer rape cause there are enough of them?

What is the number?
Or is there one?
Maybe it is always rape regardless of how many partake...

So tell us, according to the law, how many men does it take before them imposing their will on a woman is no longer an act of rape.

Tell us the number, or agree there is not one.
Click to expand...


False analogy, along with lame attempt at appeal to emotion.

Presumably rape is illegal in all Canadian jurisdictions, and it's been illegal under English Common Law since the Middle Ages.

The question isn't whether a large enough group of people can band together and simply choose to ignore the law or deprive others of basic human rights. The question is whether the citizens of Canada, collectively, can form a government that has the power to compel all citizens, residents, and visitors to obey the law.

Your claim, apparently, is that they cannot, and one of your arguments, which I was attempting to address, seems to be that because the nation is composed of citizens, none of whom individually has the right to govern you without your consent, that therefore the nation has no right to govern you without your consent. However, 200+ years of political theory and democracy in operation show that this is not the case. Fallacy of composition.
 
SpitfireIX said:
False analogy, along with lame attempt at appeal to emotion.

Presumably rape is illegal in all Canadian jurisdictions, and it's been illegal under English Common Law since the Middle Ages.

The question isn't whether a large enough group of people can band together and simply choose to ignore the law or deprive others of basic human rights. The question is whether the citizens of Canada, collectively, can form a government that has the power to compel all citizens, residents, and visitors to obey the law.

Your claim, apparently, is that they cannot, and one of your arguments, which I was attempting to address, seems to be that because the nation is composed of citizens, none of whom individually has the right to govern you without your consent, that therefore the nation has no right to govern you without your consent. However, 200+ years of political theory and democracy in operation show that this is not the case. Fallacy of composition.
Click to expand...

this^^^


....aside....
btw...for what it's worth, robert of the family menard, i wish you were correct.
the anarchist in me wishes it were so.
but, alas.....it ain't.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
You do realize these things you point to, are in fact legal fictions, and do not exist, right?
Click to expand...

You are right, up to a point. However, these legal fictions are effective as long as the vast majority of the populace believes in them, and supports (with tax dollars, votes, and passive acquiescence) the structures of the state which are not fictional, such as bureaucracies, statutes, regulations, police forces, armed forces, and so on. You can't opt out, because the state won't let you, and it's big enough to obtain compliance against your will.

Whether this is moral or not is beside the point; it's the way it is. If you don't like it, your option is to try to convince enough others that you have a better alternative and try to replace the structures of the state, either peacefully or otherwise. However, if you can't convince enough other people to join you, you will fail, and you will risk being punished by the state.

Unilaterally deciding that you won't obey the law comes with the risk of being thrown in jail. Unilaterally deciding that you don't have to comes with the risk of being thrown in the psych ward.

Remember, Rob, what Bob Dylan said: To live outside the law, you must be honest. I don't see much honesty in your evasions, half-truths, twisting of words, and myriad excuses.
 
You can't empower people with power that you don't personally have, and governments are imaginary and fictional, says the guy who thinks he's building his own police force based on laws that can only be found in one's heart.

Hypocrisy overwhelming.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Care to define a statute?

Is it: a legislated rule of a society given the force of law?

Then, are you willing to define a society?

Is it: A number of people, joined by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate determine and act for a common goal?

Then, can you show me ONE society, where consent is not required to be a member thereof?

If not, have a merry christmas.

Also, if not, consider that to be the proof you seek.

Peace eh?:D
Click to expand...

And again, Rob you only provide your reasoning why you believe you are not bound by statute law, but produce no proof. I want to see actual verifiable evidence, not just some theory of yours that explains why you believe you are correct. You see, there is plenty of evidence to show that a FOTL is bound to statute. We could (and have done so) produce numerous cases that show the courts have rejected the FOTL argument every time. The case numbers, court locations are provided; it's actual evidence like that we seek, not your beliefs. Your beliefs are irrelevant.

Take this recent case from England. A FOTL refusing to pay council tax. Actual evidence of a FOTL fail:

http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/Freeman-refused-pay-council/story-14114588-detail/story.html

The defendant received a thirty day sentence for going all FOTL.
In the past you stated that the reason a FOTL defendant failed was because he appeared. Well, this individual failed to turn up twice and was subsequently arrested and brought before the mags'. Evidence that failing to appear does not work.
He refused to accept the legal authority of the court ( which made no difference) and said he had no contractual obligation to pay CT under common law because he is a freeman.
That also did not work.
He also refused to identify himself to the mag's. He refused to give his name, age and address. That made absolutely no difference, more evidence that FOTL does not work.
The result was jailtime.

The only evidence I have ever seen is FOTL failing, just like in the case above. I have yet to see any evidence of a FOTL success. So, rather than keep giving us your opinion why you believe it should work, why don't you have a go at giving us some actual evidence of it working?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom