Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims
- Thread starter jargon buster
- Start date
- Status
Chaetognath
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 90
Thank you for the kind comments and greetings. A number of thoughts and observations:
BritPunk:
Thank you for posting the UK Justices Clerks of the Court procedures to respond to FOTL litigants. It is nice to see that their courts are taking a common-sense approach to their FOTLish litigants and focusing on respect for the rights of all those who come before their courts.
A comment in response to your observation that:
“I believe you will find it is by design. Many of the tactics of fmotlism come from the Roger Elvick school of "paper terrorism" - flooding the courts with as much paperwork as possible, whether it has any basis in law or possibility of success or not, simply as a way of "gumming up the system".”
During the period in which I have observed FOTLish documentation submitted by Canadian litigants I have noted a number of interesting trends. Initially the courts received materials that I believe were derived purely from American FOTLish sources, so for example they would make no mention of Canadian legal principles, caselaw, or history. In the years that followed more ‘domestic’ focused products began to appear, but the ‘Canadian’ elements were simply inserted or appended onto existing American documents and schemes. For example, a FOTL meme relating to the gold standard would substitute in the relevant Canadian legislation and events. Or more likely point to both.
Also, courts in my jurisdiction receive many of what I would call ‘hybrid’ documents, materials that are obviously pieced together from many different sources. The result can be very strange, for example with sudden changes in document font and format, paragraph numbering, language, and tone. In one amusing case the text alternated between references to the “honourable court”, then highly derogatory descriptions of judges. My presumption has been that these hybrid documents are produced when FOTLish individuals simply assemble fragments they like from different sources. I don’t think that the chaotic result was so much planned to disrupt, but rather capture what sounds, to the litigant, to be ‘powerful’ or ‘dramatic’ language. That may misapprehend the intention of the authors, but my belief has been these documents have more of a ‘spell’ or ‘totem’ character than anything else. If they look impressive, then presumably they will do the trick. Of course, the critical audience is the customer of the guru rather than the courts.
More lately I have encountered a few purely ‘domestic’ arguments and concepts. An example of that would be David-Kevin: Lindsay’s argument that Queen Elizabeth’s coronation oath was, in some manner, defective, and that has general consequences throughout the Canadian government structure and legal system: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99. These purely domestic schemes however remain the minority.
jargon buster:
“That has always been a bugbear of mine as well, why do all the guys spouting this nonsense look like hobos?
Each one to a man resembles catweazle or stig of the dump.”
My only observation is that in my experience the persons who attach themselves to FOTLish movements are poorly equipped to note that incongruous aspect of the typical guru, or highly motivated to ignore it. Both can have tragic consequences.
solzhenitsyn:
“There must be some psychological explanation as to why certain people are drawn to this stuff as a hobby.”
I think I can comment on my own perspective. I take enormous delight in the creativity capacity of our species. While I very much enjoy the products of the arts and sciences, I do not limit myself to only ‘great art' or ‘great thought’. I believe it may have been Joe Bob Briggs who observed that one of the best aspects of ‘badfilm’ is that kind of entertainment offers nearly total freedom and the ongoing potential of surprise. Badfilm is worth watching because it is never boring and predictable. I think that extends to practically any human (anti-)intellectual venture.
Of course, modestly incompetent thought and creativity is by its very character ordinary and boring. But, once in awhile, a truly great incompetent comes to the public’s eye and the result can be astonishing. My mind turns to “Manos The Hands of Fate” and that most unique fertilizer salesman, Harold P. Warren
I see FOTLish materials and arguments in that light. Anything can happen; anything can be said. They are the antithesis of, for example, the dry procedural and formulaic characteristics of a judicial review (a kind of appeals process from administrative tribunals). Who could, for example, ever imagine that a person would claim that no American lawyer or judge has authority as all American lawyers and judges are British nobles, and that they are as a consequence stripped of their American citizenship via a forgotten and suppressed constitutional amendment?
But there are those who believe it! I won’t say that I experienced great insight from learning that fact, but at a minimum I was amused.
And that’s worth something.
Chaetognath.
BritPunk:
Thank you for posting the UK Justices Clerks of the Court procedures to respond to FOTL litigants. It is nice to see that their courts are taking a common-sense approach to their FOTLish litigants and focusing on respect for the rights of all those who come before their courts.
A comment in response to your observation that:
“I believe you will find it is by design. Many of the tactics of fmotlism come from the Roger Elvick school of "paper terrorism" - flooding the courts with as much paperwork as possible, whether it has any basis in law or possibility of success or not, simply as a way of "gumming up the system".”
During the period in which I have observed FOTLish documentation submitted by Canadian litigants I have noted a number of interesting trends. Initially the courts received materials that I believe were derived purely from American FOTLish sources, so for example they would make no mention of Canadian legal principles, caselaw, or history. In the years that followed more ‘domestic’ focused products began to appear, but the ‘Canadian’ elements were simply inserted or appended onto existing American documents and schemes. For example, a FOTL meme relating to the gold standard would substitute in the relevant Canadian legislation and events. Or more likely point to both.
Also, courts in my jurisdiction receive many of what I would call ‘hybrid’ documents, materials that are obviously pieced together from many different sources. The result can be very strange, for example with sudden changes in document font and format, paragraph numbering, language, and tone. In one amusing case the text alternated between references to the “honourable court”, then highly derogatory descriptions of judges. My presumption has been that these hybrid documents are produced when FOTLish individuals simply assemble fragments they like from different sources. I don’t think that the chaotic result was so much planned to disrupt, but rather capture what sounds, to the litigant, to be ‘powerful’ or ‘dramatic’ language. That may misapprehend the intention of the authors, but my belief has been these documents have more of a ‘spell’ or ‘totem’ character than anything else. If they look impressive, then presumably they will do the trick. Of course, the critical audience is the customer of the guru rather than the courts.
More lately I have encountered a few purely ‘domestic’ arguments and concepts. An example of that would be David-Kevin: Lindsay’s argument that Queen Elizabeth’s coronation oath was, in some manner, defective, and that has general consequences throughout the Canadian government structure and legal system: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99. These purely domestic schemes however remain the minority.
jargon buster:
“That has always been a bugbear of mine as well, why do all the guys spouting this nonsense look like hobos?
Each one to a man resembles catweazle or stig of the dump.”
My only observation is that in my experience the persons who attach themselves to FOTLish movements are poorly equipped to note that incongruous aspect of the typical guru, or highly motivated to ignore it. Both can have tragic consequences.
solzhenitsyn:
“There must be some psychological explanation as to why certain people are drawn to this stuff as a hobby.”
I think I can comment on my own perspective. I take enormous delight in the creativity capacity of our species. While I very much enjoy the products of the arts and sciences, I do not limit myself to only ‘great art' or ‘great thought’. I believe it may have been Joe Bob Briggs who observed that one of the best aspects of ‘badfilm’ is that kind of entertainment offers nearly total freedom and the ongoing potential of surprise. Badfilm is worth watching because it is never boring and predictable. I think that extends to practically any human (anti-)intellectual venture.
Of course, modestly incompetent thought and creativity is by its very character ordinary and boring. But, once in awhile, a truly great incompetent comes to the public’s eye and the result can be astonishing. My mind turns to “Manos The Hands of Fate” and that most unique fertilizer salesman, Harold P. Warren
I see FOTLish materials and arguments in that light. Anything can happen; anything can be said. They are the antithesis of, for example, the dry procedural and formulaic characteristics of a judicial review (a kind of appeals process from administrative tribunals). Who could, for example, ever imagine that a person would claim that no American lawyer or judge has authority as all American lawyers and judges are British nobles, and that they are as a consequence stripped of their American citizenship via a forgotten and suppressed constitutional amendment?
But there are those who believe it! I won’t say that I experienced great insight from learning that fact, but at a minimum I was amused.
And that’s worth something.
Chaetognath.
Chaetognath
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 90
Mr. Menard:
In relation to your enquiries, I believe that a number of your questions are less than genuine and rather are attempts to posture or be provocative. I see no point in responding to those. Others involve legal opinion, to which I am unable to respond as a consequence of my contractual and professional obligations.
You may wish to consult with a lawyer to help you with those enquiries that involve legal meaning, interpretation, and opinion. Alternatively, if you live in the vicinity of a law school you may wish to investigate whether that school’s students operate a not-for-profit legal clinic or information service. I suspect that the students involved with any such service would find your thoughts and perspectives interesting. Another public source for legal information are the law libraries operated in many courthouses by Canadian law societies. These libraries are open to the public, and in my experience the librarians who work at these institutions are an excellent source for useful texts and information references.
That said, I hope I can assist you in certain issues. I note from your inquiries that you are very interested in the meanings of certain terms and phrases. My understanding is that persons such as yourself often consider Black’s Law Dictionary as an authoritative source for the legal meaning of certain terms. If you have a copy of that reference, you may be interested to note that text is actually published in the United States, and is intended principally to comment on language use in that jurisdiction.
I understand you reside in Canada. Canadian courts most certainly do make reference to Black’s Law Dictionary, however due to the long historic divergence between American and Commonwealth law, Commonwealth reference sources are generally considered more authoritative by Canadian courts. I can suggest two alternatives that may be helpful to you. One is a multivolume set entitled “The Canadian Abridgment: Words & Phrases Judicially Defined in Canadian Courts and Tribunals”, published by Carswell Toronto. This text is very expensive, but I believe you will find it available at any legal academic library, or at the public court libraries that I have mentioned above.
A second alternative you may find useful is a recent text, “Words That Bind: Words and Phrases Judicially Considered by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to 1949”, authored by Justice Jean E. Côté
of the Alberta Court of Appeal. This reference collects how legal terms have been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. As you may be aware, all Canadian courts are required to conform to law as set by the Supreme Court of Canada, and so the definitions in Words That Bind will have very great relevance in Canadian litigation. Words That Bind was only published last year so I expect it will be quite current. Again, a legal or court library is probably a good place to find this text.
You ask if I am aware of a person detained for psychiatric examination as a consequence of that person’s rejections of court authority. I believe I can point you to documentation for that. I have reviewed reported caselaw that involves a :Chief :Nanya-Shaabu:El, the Indigenous/Autochthonous Chief of the At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors, in proceedings at Edmonton, Alberta courts: Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312; Henry v. Starwood Hotels, 2010 ABCA 367; Henry Estate v. Alberta Health Services, 2011 ABQB 113. Though not explicit in those decisions, you will note that :Chief :El has sued various Alberta mental health and hospital authorities, see in particular the style of cause of Henry Estate v. Alberta Health Services, 2011 ABQB 113.
I have also visited what I believe is :Chief :El’s “Facebook” webpage, to which I unfortunately cannot post a link, though I believe you should be able to locate that webpage with minimal effort using the Google internet web search engine. :Chief :El’s Facebook page has links to a wealth of documents, including many transcripts of his proceedings in Alberta courts, and copies of the documents he has filed in court. My memory is that certain of these documents make explicit that :Chief :El was detained for psychiatric examination following his appearance in an Alberta court where he, among other things, denied that court’s authority. My recollection is that incident has led to at least some of :Chief :El’s subsequent litigation against health authorities.
Also, :Chief :El has posted recordings of telephone calls he made while in detention, or what he characterizes as his “unlawful kidnapping”. If you search “Youtube” with :Chief :El’s name you may be able to locate some of these recordings.
I think I should offer two caveats to my conclusion that :Chief :El’s detention is an example of the type in which you are interested. I must confess that I may have misunderstood the nature of :Chief :El’s litigation and claims. Many of the documents posted online by :Chief :El are unusual, and for example use what appear to be hieroglyphic figures or other unfamiliar character sets. I also admit I may not have a full understanding of the conceptual basis for :Chief :El’s claims, though it is my understanding that as a member of the Moorish Law movement :Chief :El says that state actors have no authority over him and his fellow Moors. That immunity is a consequence of their innate rights that flow from their Moor status. I think that may have parallels to your own “Freeman On The Land” concept, though I claim no expertise in either.
The second caveat is that it is entirely possible that the decision to order :Chief :El undergo psychiatric examination may relate to some other aspect of his statements in document and in court. Some of the documents posted online indicate :Chief :El has identified his uncle as a CSIS spy and assassin. Reported caselaw says :Chief :El’s in-court conduct and arguments involve “meaningless phrases”, inapplicable foreign law such as the American Uniform Commercial Code, and unilateral unsubstantiated demands foisted on third parties: Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 at para. 3. Another judge and master have characterized :Chief :El’s submissions as “absolute gibberish”: Henry Estate v. Alberta Health Services, 2011 ABQB 113 at para. 2.
Beyond that, my probably incomplete understanding of :Chief :El’s documents seems to indicate that he claims to have received, on behalf of his Nation, total ownership of North America, which he now says is legally named “Atlan, Amexen, and Turtle Island Land of Frogs”. That ownership alleged derives from a treaty that :Chief :El signed with the Olmec people, and which is posted online with links from his Facebook page. The treaty is a remarkable document that I would suggest may be of interest to many readers. I particularly like the Olmec stone head motif that is part the page footer.
Mr. Menard, it seems to me that :Chief :El’s litigation, information, and personal experiences may be very valuable to you. Both of you assert that the state has no authority over yourselves and associated persons. Perhaps you would like to contact :Chief :El and compare notes, though I hope his ownership of Canada does not in some manner trump your alleged independence, and lead to conflict.
Chaetognath.
In relation to your enquiries, I believe that a number of your questions are less than genuine and rather are attempts to posture or be provocative. I see no point in responding to those. Others involve legal opinion, to which I am unable to respond as a consequence of my contractual and professional obligations.
You may wish to consult with a lawyer to help you with those enquiries that involve legal meaning, interpretation, and opinion. Alternatively, if you live in the vicinity of a law school you may wish to investigate whether that school’s students operate a not-for-profit legal clinic or information service. I suspect that the students involved with any such service would find your thoughts and perspectives interesting. Another public source for legal information are the law libraries operated in many courthouses by Canadian law societies. These libraries are open to the public, and in my experience the librarians who work at these institutions are an excellent source for useful texts and information references.
That said, I hope I can assist you in certain issues. I note from your inquiries that you are very interested in the meanings of certain terms and phrases. My understanding is that persons such as yourself often consider Black’s Law Dictionary as an authoritative source for the legal meaning of certain terms. If you have a copy of that reference, you may be interested to note that text is actually published in the United States, and is intended principally to comment on language use in that jurisdiction.
I understand you reside in Canada. Canadian courts most certainly do make reference to Black’s Law Dictionary, however due to the long historic divergence between American and Commonwealth law, Commonwealth reference sources are generally considered more authoritative by Canadian courts. I can suggest two alternatives that may be helpful to you. One is a multivolume set entitled “The Canadian Abridgment: Words & Phrases Judicially Defined in Canadian Courts and Tribunals”, published by Carswell Toronto. This text is very expensive, but I believe you will find it available at any legal academic library, or at the public court libraries that I have mentioned above.
A second alternative you may find useful is a recent text, “Words That Bind: Words and Phrases Judicially Considered by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to 1949”, authored by Justice Jean E. Côté
of the Alberta Court of Appeal. This reference collects how legal terms have been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. As you may be aware, all Canadian courts are required to conform to law as set by the Supreme Court of Canada, and so the definitions in Words That Bind will have very great relevance in Canadian litigation. Words That Bind was only published last year so I expect it will be quite current. Again, a legal or court library is probably a good place to find this text.
You ask if I am aware of a person detained for psychiatric examination as a consequence of that person’s rejections of court authority. I believe I can point you to documentation for that. I have reviewed reported caselaw that involves a :Chief :Nanya-Shaabu:El, the Indigenous/Autochthonous Chief of the At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors, in proceedings at Edmonton, Alberta courts: Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312; Henry v. Starwood Hotels, 2010 ABCA 367; Henry Estate v. Alberta Health Services, 2011 ABQB 113. Though not explicit in those decisions, you will note that :Chief :El has sued various Alberta mental health and hospital authorities, see in particular the style of cause of Henry Estate v. Alberta Health Services, 2011 ABQB 113.
I have also visited what I believe is :Chief :El’s “Facebook” webpage, to which I unfortunately cannot post a link, though I believe you should be able to locate that webpage with minimal effort using the Google internet web search engine. :Chief :El’s Facebook page has links to a wealth of documents, including many transcripts of his proceedings in Alberta courts, and copies of the documents he has filed in court. My memory is that certain of these documents make explicit that :Chief :El was detained for psychiatric examination following his appearance in an Alberta court where he, among other things, denied that court’s authority. My recollection is that incident has led to at least some of :Chief :El’s subsequent litigation against health authorities.
Also, :Chief :El has posted recordings of telephone calls he made while in detention, or what he characterizes as his “unlawful kidnapping”. If you search “Youtube” with :Chief :El’s name you may be able to locate some of these recordings.
I think I should offer two caveats to my conclusion that :Chief :El’s detention is an example of the type in which you are interested. I must confess that I may have misunderstood the nature of :Chief :El’s litigation and claims. Many of the documents posted online by :Chief :El are unusual, and for example use what appear to be hieroglyphic figures or other unfamiliar character sets. I also admit I may not have a full understanding of the conceptual basis for :Chief :El’s claims, though it is my understanding that as a member of the Moorish Law movement :Chief :El says that state actors have no authority over him and his fellow Moors. That immunity is a consequence of their innate rights that flow from their Moor status. I think that may have parallels to your own “Freeman On The Land” concept, though I claim no expertise in either.
The second caveat is that it is entirely possible that the decision to order :Chief :El undergo psychiatric examination may relate to some other aspect of his statements in document and in court. Some of the documents posted online indicate :Chief :El has identified his uncle as a CSIS spy and assassin. Reported caselaw says :Chief :El’s in-court conduct and arguments involve “meaningless phrases”, inapplicable foreign law such as the American Uniform Commercial Code, and unilateral unsubstantiated demands foisted on third parties: Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 at para. 3. Another judge and master have characterized :Chief :El’s submissions as “absolute gibberish”: Henry Estate v. Alberta Health Services, 2011 ABQB 113 at para. 2.
Beyond that, my probably incomplete understanding of :Chief :El’s documents seems to indicate that he claims to have received, on behalf of his Nation, total ownership of North America, which he now says is legally named “Atlan, Amexen, and Turtle Island Land of Frogs”. That ownership alleged derives from a treaty that :Chief :El signed with the Olmec people, and which is posted online with links from his Facebook page. The treaty is a remarkable document that I would suggest may be of interest to many readers. I particularly like the Olmec stone head motif that is part the page footer.
Mr. Menard, it seems to me that :Chief :El’s litigation, information, and personal experiences may be very valuable to you. Both of you assert that the state has no authority over yourselves and associated persons. Perhaps you would like to contact :Chief :El and compare notes, though I hope his ownership of Canada does not in some manner trump your alleged independence, and lead to conflict.
Chaetognath.
BritPunk
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 85
No of course not, they pay the bill just like any other customer.
Do they use the tools of corporations, are they listed as a corporation? ARE THEY A CORPORATION? So do they have the requisite articles of corporation (or the Canadian equivalent)? If not, no they are not a corporation.
(At least freemen LOOK at these things, and then examine the ramifications. You folks do not examine ANYTHING which may offend your previously held beliefs.)
Please do not generalise me with anyone who disagrees or even questions you as "you folks" who "do not examine..". I for one firmly believe that the only way to investigate a matter to determine the facts is to consider arguments presented from all sides.
If so, are they bound by the law just like every other, cause if so, their orders create a liability for a bill.
What if you found they were in fact a corporate entity. Would you agree they are bound by the rules and laws of commerce, and have no right providing their services without a contract, and are liable for a bill for EVERY order they place, or not?
But I have not found that they are in fact a corporate entity, at least not based on your arguments here, which seem to be based on playing word games with the term "orders".
Or is this the kind of thing that will cause you to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!"
No not at all, I am always willing to listen first and make my judgement later, as I said above.
And no, my use of Navy blue to highlight my replies is NOT proof I am working for the Admiralty Courts
Last edited:
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Excellent analysis.
You may be interested to know that some Cdn FOTLs are now claiming to be "allies" of the Queen and are using their self proclaimed status as "allies" to request the intervention of the Canadian Forces (often the CF Provost Marshall or in one instance the CF Chief Warrant Officer) to defend them and their lands from "rogue elements in HM's government" (generally the tax court).
Just a "heads's up."
You may be interested to know that some Cdn FOTLs are now claiming to be "allies" of the Queen and are using their self proclaimed status as "allies" to request the intervention of the Canadian Forces (often the CF Provost Marshall or in one instance the CF Chief Warrant Officer) to defend them and their lands from "rogue elements in HM's government" (generally the tax court).
Just a "heads's up."
BritPunk
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 85
Similar situation here in UK with fmotl like groups referring back to Magna Carta and making various claims of treason against HM Government or in some cases, even ole Liz herself!
God Save The Queen (We mean it, maaaaan!)
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
I was going to say that I'm astounded that you've even heard of the Titles of Nobility AmendmentWP, but then I remembered that you'd mentioned that you'd seen documents that had apparently been cut and pasted from materials provided by American SC/FOTL types.
If anyone's interested, here is an outstanding article on the TONA.
slowsmile
Critical Thinker
Assume this is the same Chief El who shrank Canada and moved it a thousand miles east.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8045253&postcount=26
So from what I gather from Rob's latest fun, the word "order" used in the context of a Judge issuing a binding legal decision exactly is just like ordering something at a restaurant. So when Rob submits his bill can the Judge just pay him the same magic way that Rob proposes Freeman do by signing something rather than paying?
Oh what am I thinking? Judges ignore the fee schedules and Rob has no evidence of them ever working.
Oh what am I thinking? Judges ignore the fee schedules and Rob has no evidence of them ever working.
Chaetognath,
Quite interesting insight.
For you information and hopefully amusement, freemanism have occationally been refered to as cargo cult law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
Quite interesting insight.
For you information and hopefully amusement, freemanism have occationally been refered to as cargo cult law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
I wonder how many freemen fee schedules it would take to use up a judge’s birth certificate bond?
If Rob knew and could get enough freemen before a judge, he could drive that judge to the poor house. . .that is if Rob could drive.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
This thread is now just here for comedic value now.
Menard has nothing to offer, thats patently obvious he's just fishing the thread in the mistaken belief that he might actually catch himself a halfwit.
Just look at the two images of Menard here, when he first came along he dressed in a suit and looked like someone you could possibly listen to, just look how far he has fallen.
Beer and weed and living on other peoples floors sure takes it out of you.
Menard has nothing to offer, thats patently obvious he's just fishing the thread in the mistaken belief that he might actually catch himself a halfwit.
Just look at the two images of Menard here, when he first came along he dressed in a suit and looked like someone you could possibly listen to, just look how far he has fallen.
Beer and weed and living on other peoples floors sure takes it out of you.
Last edited:
Chaetognath
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 90
Border Reiver:
I have yet to encounter the ‘rogue elements’ argument, but that should prove particularly amusing.
One reason the court at which I work receives a disproportionate number of FOTLish materials is because our level is the ‘non-statutory’ court which has intrinsic common-law authority. I’m always a little surprised that the FOTLish folk manage to identify that detail when they begin various broad-based approaches. Perhaps they ask for the "common-law court", which is indeed us.
I do not know a great deal about how Canada’s military is formally authorized, vs. say, peace officers. I should take some time to investigate that at some point.
SpitfireIX:
I have never encountered a Titles of Nobility Amendment argument in the flesh, and I cannot off the top of my head recall any hint of that meme in the FOTLish materials our court has received to date.
Instead what happened is that I did a general survey of American counter-state/court authority memes when I began my investigation into the FOTLish movement. The Tax Protestor FAQ was one of my primary sources and remains a standby – I recommend that to any person interested in the scope of American schemes and arguments.
I have read Ms. Silversmith’s article, which I agree is simply excellent. While I may never have to explain the Titles of Nobility Amendment in an operational sense, at a minimum it makes another fine illustration of just how peculiar FOTLish arguments can be. Phrased differently, a punch line.
slowsmile:
You are correct. :Chief :El is unique in my experience: Canada’s first Moorish Law advocate. His Facebook ‘links’ page is a goldmine of peculiar documents, and from what I can tell he does actually post online copies of the majority of his court files. I think he believes that annotating those documents and posting them online has some legal effect, though I have no idea what.
The net effect is very special. I cannot estimate the number of hours I have likely misspent reviewing his materials – it’s the nuances that sneak in which make the exploration worthwhile. One of our articling students who is familiar with the Alberta Legislature complex made an observation that so effectively indicates the bizarro world in which :Chief :El operates. If you look through his documents there are a number which include a photo of :Chief :El seated on a ornate chair, wearing a robe and fez, and holding some kind of scepter. It’s kind of grand.
What the student provided was the context. That ‘throne’ and ‘scepter’ are, in fact, crude duplicates of the Alberta Legislature’s speaker’s chair and the legislative mace. The duplicates are located in the Legislature’s gift shop, and provided so that children can take souvenir photographs posed with these ersatz symbols of authority.
Sure enough, looking to the left of that photo one can see a part of a sign which indicates ‘legislature this way’.
:Chief :El’s material is very helpful in explaining to judges that certain FOTLish materials are ‘highly ceremonial’, in more ways than one.
Toke:
I like the idea of “cargo cult law” very much. That is certainly an excellent way to express the triumph of ceremony and drama over substance. I usually explain the in-court conduct of FOTLish litigants as a kind of ‘magic spell’ ritual, with various ceremonial components and incantations. That meshes very well with the cargo cult concept of attempting to simulate things that possess substance and function, and expecting the same or an analogous result.
As an anecdote, we a few months ago had a FOTLish litigant appear in chambers wearing lawyer’s robes. No idea where he scrounged them. The fellow seemed very certain that appropriate attire was the critical ingredient that he had previously omitted. He was disappointed.
Chaetognath.
I have yet to encounter the ‘rogue elements’ argument, but that should prove particularly amusing.
One reason the court at which I work receives a disproportionate number of FOTLish materials is because our level is the ‘non-statutory’ court which has intrinsic common-law authority. I’m always a little surprised that the FOTLish folk manage to identify that detail when they begin various broad-based approaches. Perhaps they ask for the "common-law court", which is indeed us.
I do not know a great deal about how Canada’s military is formally authorized, vs. say, peace officers. I should take some time to investigate that at some point.
SpitfireIX:
I have never encountered a Titles of Nobility Amendment argument in the flesh, and I cannot off the top of my head recall any hint of that meme in the FOTLish materials our court has received to date.
Instead what happened is that I did a general survey of American counter-state/court authority memes when I began my investigation into the FOTLish movement. The Tax Protestor FAQ was one of my primary sources and remains a standby – I recommend that to any person interested in the scope of American schemes and arguments.
I have read Ms. Silversmith’s article, which I agree is simply excellent. While I may never have to explain the Titles of Nobility Amendment in an operational sense, at a minimum it makes another fine illustration of just how peculiar FOTLish arguments can be. Phrased differently, a punch line.
slowsmile:
You are correct. :Chief :El is unique in my experience: Canada’s first Moorish Law advocate. His Facebook ‘links’ page is a goldmine of peculiar documents, and from what I can tell he does actually post online copies of the majority of his court files. I think he believes that annotating those documents and posting them online has some legal effect, though I have no idea what.
The net effect is very special. I cannot estimate the number of hours I have likely misspent reviewing his materials – it’s the nuances that sneak in which make the exploration worthwhile. One of our articling students who is familiar with the Alberta Legislature complex made an observation that so effectively indicates the bizarro world in which :Chief :El operates. If you look through his documents there are a number which include a photo of :Chief :El seated on a ornate chair, wearing a robe and fez, and holding some kind of scepter. It’s kind of grand.
What the student provided was the context. That ‘throne’ and ‘scepter’ are, in fact, crude duplicates of the Alberta Legislature’s speaker’s chair and the legislative mace. The duplicates are located in the Legislature’s gift shop, and provided so that children can take souvenir photographs posed with these ersatz symbols of authority.
Sure enough, looking to the left of that photo one can see a part of a sign which indicates ‘legislature this way’.
:Chief :El’s material is very helpful in explaining to judges that certain FOTLish materials are ‘highly ceremonial’, in more ways than one.
Toke:
I like the idea of “cargo cult law” very much. That is certainly an excellent way to express the triumph of ceremony and drama over substance. I usually explain the in-court conduct of FOTLish litigants as a kind of ‘magic spell’ ritual, with various ceremonial components and incantations. That meshes very well with the cargo cult concept of attempting to simulate things that possess substance and function, and expecting the same or an analogous result.
As an anecdote, we a few months ago had a FOTLish litigant appear in chambers wearing lawyer’s robes. No idea where he scrounged them. The fellow seemed very certain that appropriate attire was the critical ingredient that he had previously omitted. He was disappointed.
Chaetognath.
Chaetognath
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 90
On a tangent - I have never discovered who invented the ubiquitous [Firstname]-[Middlename]:[Lastname] naming motif that is so commonly used by FOTLish litigants. I have suspected it was David-Wynn: Miller, but I have never seen that confirmed.
Does anyone happen to know? I would very much like to ensure the correct person receives credit for that innovation.
Chaetognath.
Does anyone happen to know? I would very much like to ensure the correct person receives credit for that innovation.
Chaetognath.
solzhenitsyn
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
- Messages
- 187
I wonder if he felt slightly embarrassed when he looked around and realized that he was the only one who had gowned for chambers? Probably not.
I noticed the same thing.
The physical manifestation of an insincere, untruthful life is painfully obvious.
You can’t spent a decade telling people they can break the law, lie, cheat and steal without poisoning your body and soul.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Yes, the "magical thinking" mindset is pretty much the core of most FoTLer beliefs. The idea is that with the correct words (filings/incantations), you can make a powerful entity (The courts/a demon) act in such a way as to benefit yourself (erase your debts or criminal acts/give you otherworldly powers). It literally rests on a complete misunderstanding of how the world works, preferring outwardly superficial similarities to actual substance.
You see this in a lot of other "woo" topics, where they think if you throw in a lot of "sciencey" words, like "Quantum", "Vibrations", "Resonance" or "Synergy", those words alone will grant you power, ignoring the fact that actual scientists use those words for very specific reasons, in very specific contexts. FoTLers are simply applying the same mindset to the legal world.
Yes, as far as I can tell Miller is the guy who came up with this version of the magic spelling of one's name thing.
"According to Miller's teaching, the addition of hyphens and colons to one's name turns one from an ordinary, taxable human into a non-taxable “prepositional phrase.” They are distinguished from the names listed at birth in all capital letters (as on a birth certificate), which he claims turns one into a taxable Person (Corporation). (e.g., DAVID WYNN MILLER as opposed to
avid-Wynn: Miller.).”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wynn_Miller#cite_note-DJ-14
As you can see it is really a variation of the idea that the name on one's birth certificate creates a sort of “fictional” person.
It is not uncommon for freemen and sovereign citizens to borrow the name spelling idea for incorporation into their own belief systems and theories.
Developing one’s own legal theory is a way of gaining cache in the freeman subculture. Hence the practice of borrowing and adding on to existing concepts ensure an ever evolving pot of woo (http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html).
This allows freeman theorists to bring new theories into court and pretend that the cult is moving forward.
However, this means that you folks in the real courts will be subjected to new woo on a regular basis.
Last edited:
- Status