Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
arayder said:
Oh, Menard went further than that. Not happy with the once popular FMOTL story that “the cop let me go after I talked freeman theory to him“ Bobbo had to develop an even bigger tall tale.

In this tale a cop catching Menard drinking in public looked him up in the police data base and found him noted as a freeman untouchable who can’t be prosecuted without the province’s highest approval.

After being asked to produce the document Menard realized that unable to do so he had worked himself into a corner like the O.J. Simpson prosecution when it lost control of the evidence in the “. . .if the glove wouldn’t fit. . .” episode.

So now the story is that an unnamed buddy who, about to be busted for public drinking, told the cops he was a freeman on the land and the cops promptly apologized and drove off with their tails between their legs.

Our subject realized that stories with unnamed freemen and no references to documents and data searches are harder to check out.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that story about the cop who pulled over a freeman and wrote him a check on the spot.
 
Chaetognath said:
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.
Click to expand...

I also like the analogy in terms of not being able to figure hte causes for certain results. The cargo cults saw the result (the cargo) but were not able to figure out what caused it. So they went to their closest approximation of what they thought must have cuased the cargo to drop fromt he sky.

The freemen will often see the result of a court case but not understand or accept the reasons for that result. Like a case gets adjourned and they think it was because they bowed a certain way. I think this is evident whenever you see freemen discussing their positive results in court.
 
CBC Copyright

Oh dear, it seems CBC have removed the video from Mr Menard's WFS site on copyright grounds.
I wonder if he consented to that?
 
Don't forget that story about the cop who pulled over a freeman and wrote him a check on the spot.
Click to expand...

But let us also not forget the "Order" story, as stated as fact in Rob's videos. (Malcolm's Travels)

....Man in court is asked to remove his hat. Man asks, "is that an order?", the reply being "Yes".
Man writes a bill for $1000. Bill is shown to Judge, who quakes in fear and demands that Man be given $1000. Man is given a cheque for $1000 and walks out of Court.
 
Oh dear, it seems CBC have removed the video from Mr Menard's WFS site on copyright grounds.
I wonder if he consented to that?
Click to expand...

Yep, he will have that one covered with the "if i engage in governable actions then I consent to be governed"

Silly I know, I couldn't believe he actually wrote that once upon a time, it totally destroyed all his previous ideals.
 
D'rok said:
Hey Menard.

You were in the army, right? When your superior officer gave you an order, did you send him a bill?

You are making a complete fool of yourself, as usual. I urge you to continue. For the lulz.
Click to expand...

When I was in the forces, I had enrolled under a contract, and was in fact paid to follow lawful orders. Now that I am not, I am not obliged to obey their orders, to say shine my boots and stand at attention, am I? Now compare to a court. If I am not an officer of the court, nor paid by it, am I obliged to follow their orders without recompense? The clerks get paid for following the judges orders, and cannot be compelled to be a clerk without payment. So why should anyone else be so compelled?
 
SpitfireIX said:
I don't consent to your withdrawal of consent.
Click to expand...

Tell that to a woman who does not consent to intercourse with you. If your claim to be able to not consent to the concept of mutual consent meant you could lawfully impose your will, there would be no crime of rape.
 
Bishop said:
Don't forget that story about the cop who pulled over a freeman and wrote him a check on the spot.
Click to expand...

Wow some of you can't even count. That was two different stories, one did happen to me, the other was recounted to me a few years later.

Wow...
 
Rob,

Still waiting to hear your explanation for the hobo chic for your centre piece on the national broadcaster. Why not a suit to show of your fabulous FMOTL wealth? Hot medium; you squandered a golden opportunity. Surely you must've had your rationale; what was it?

Fitz
 
FreemanMenard said:
When I was in the forces, I had enrolled under a contract, and was in fact paid to follow lawful orders. Now that I am not, I am not obliged to obey their orders, to say shine my boots and stand at attention, am I? Now compare to a court. If I am not an officer of the court, nor paid by it, am I obliged to follow their orders without recompense? The clerks get paid for following the judges orders, and cannot be compelled to be a clerk without payment. So why should anyone else be so compelled?
Click to expand...
What Paul said.

Also, you are part of the social contract just like everyone else who chooses to call Canada home. Don't like being told what to do by the justice system and law enforcent when you break the terms of the contract? Leave. Please. And soon. Canada isn't a prison.

Before you come back with your usual screed of entitlement about how you are owed all the benefits of the good life in Canada without having to shoulder any of the responsibilities or burdens, you can take that garbage with you when you depart.

I hear Eritrea is nice this time of year.
 
Tell that to a woman who does not consent to intercourse with you. If your claim to be able to not consent to the concept of mutual consent meant you could lawfully impose your will, there would be no crime of rape.
Click to expand...


Rob, to take the analogy even further if you are claiming you don't consent to the law of the land (statutes, they are by the way, its just you that thinks they are not law) and then staying on that land then it's the equivalent of you raping a woman that doesn't consent to you doing it.

By your very actions you are ignoring what the government wants and sticking around to reap the benefits.

Surely you must've had your rationale; what was it?
Click to expand...
This
Why would the courts want to be chasing a down-and-out with no visible means of income or assets?
Click to expand...
Maybe he's hoping that will get him off the hook, he could also smear himself in his own excrement so that the cops wont go near him, although he cant have that much excrement left, most of it is smeared in this thread.
 
ComfySlippers said:
But let us also not forget the "Order" story, as stated as fact in Rob's videos. (Malcolm's Travels)

....Man in court is asked to remove his hat. Man asks, "is that an order?", the reply being "Yes".
Man writes a bill for $1000. Bill is shown to Judge, who quakes in fear and demands that Man be given $1000. Man is given a cheque for $1000 and walks out of Court.
Click to expand...
Nothing has ever not happened more than this has not happened.
 
FreemanMenard said:
What is your jurisdiction? For the purposes of these questions I will assume until corrected that it is Ontario.

Are you a woman? For the purposes of these questions I will assume that you are, unless you correct me.

Is a corporation a person? Is a corporation a human being? As a woman, are you a person? Was there ever a time in Canada’s history where women did not enjoy the status of person? At that time were they still human beings?

Do the courts require consent?
Do you get paid for your services? Do the judges, clerks and lawyers?

Is your court a person? A legal entity? A corporation? A commercial enterprise operated for profit or gain? Is it listed on Dunn and Bradstreet as a business, or commercial enterprise? Does it generate money or provide payment to its operators? Does it engage at all in contracts, say for the purchase of equipment? Can it sue and be sued? Are they bound by contract law when they provide their services? Or are they corporations which are not bound by the law?

Do judges require the consent of the parties to the adjudication?

If I wanted to sue your court, would that same court be qualified to provide the adjudication services? Bearing in mind that if I win, the outcome would be the judge losing money, maybe going to jail? Can a party to an action also be the adjudicator of that action, or does that offend basic law?

Do you agree the only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representative one, and that representation requires mutual consent?

Are the courts a branch of the government? If so, can they provide proper adjudication for a party who wishes to bring action against all branches of the government?

How old is our system of government? Has technology increased since its inception and if so, is the present system perhaps obsolete?

Does the requirement for mutual consent mean that both parties must agree to the requirement? Or is it as JB here believes, that he can ask a woman for sexual intercourse, and if she declines to consent, he can just claim that he does not consent to her non-consent, force her to have sex with him, and avoid liability, because he did not consent to her not consenting? Does the requirement for mutual consent mean both parties must agree to that requirement?

Can I be your representative without your consent, and do things on your behalf which binds you or affects you such as sell your property? Does representation between two adults of sound mind require mutual consent?

Have you ever heard of the term ‘child of the province’ or ‘ward of the state’?

How can someone who claims to be a public Servant place demands on a member of the public, if that member of the public is the Master in a Master/Servant relationship? Do servants have the power to command their Masters, if that Master is not a ward or child?

Are judges liable for a bill when they place an order in a restaurant? Are they liable for a bill when they place an order for home repair services? Are they liable for a bill when they place an order on someone in court? If not, are they operating lawfully? Bear in mind, if they are listed on Dunn and Bradstreet and exist as a legal entity capable of engaging in contracts, then they are either liable for a bill, or are committing fraud. Is fraud lawful if the court employees do it?

Have you ever heard of a fee schedule?

Do notices and claims have any significance at law? Is the lawful use of Notices and Claims restricted to those in the government?

Is equality before the law mandatory and paramount in this common law jurisdiction?
Are judges bound by the law of equality or not? If not why not, and if so, how can they provide their commercial and very profitable services without the consent of both parties to the adjudication?

Have you ever met ‘The Crown in the Right of the Province of ____________’? Is it an entity which is alive and existing in the same way you and I do, or is it a legal fiction, closer in nature and existence to Santa Claus? If you have never met such a creature, but only have met other people who claim to work for it, how do you know it even exists?

Does the court you work for claim to have a monopoly on convening courts and administrating justice? What if we wish to sue THEM?

Have you ever heard of the term ‘defacto’? Is your court defacto?

As an employee of the courts, are you in any way biased in your opinions?

Do the courts make money for the people employed therein? Does this not mean that a lower court has a vested interest in finding against someone in order that they might make an appeal, and put even more money in the systems coffers?

Police officers who bring someone to court get paid to do so, and paid extra to show up and testify. They are also officers of the court. If the one charged is found not guilty, do the police, clerks and judges still get paid? And if so, is it not then in the officers best interest to drag the innocent into that machine so all might be paid? If they make money settling conflicts, do they not have a vested interest in generating that conflict?

Have you ever heard of the court of public opinion?

Do you agree that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done?

Is court a place for people to settle their conflicts? And if so, is it in the best interest of justice for officers of the court to manufacture and generate conflict, knowing that by doing so, they and all the court employees still get paid?

If a group such as the Hells Angels convened a court, would you accept their ruling if they stated their members had a right to steal from you? Is the existing court operated and paid for by the government or not? And if so, how can anyone expect justice therein if they are taking action against the government or courts?

Do you agree with David Sherman, a preeminent tax attorney who stated that the Acts and statutes are not written in English but in the language of law, and that they are not understandable to the average untrained Canadian?

Have you ever heard of the term ‘legalese”?

Is ‘legalese’ one of the two official languages of Canada?

Does Section 32 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms state that the Charter is only applicable to governments?

Are all Acts and Statutes subject to the Charter or not? If so, and the Charter is ONLY applicable to the governments, then how can statutes bound by that Charter be applicable outside of the Charter to those who are not part of the government?

Am I party to a contract without my consent merely because a majority of my neighbours agreed to that contract?

Do you agree that people have a right to association? If you do, do you agree that we have a right to not associate as we see fit? Does this right of association or non-association mean we can choose to not associate or contract with the existing defacto courts? Or are we obliged to accept their commands to associate with them? If so, does that mean those operators have abandoned the rule of law?

Have you ever heard the term ‘power corrupts’? Do you agree that the courts have power, are operated by people, and thus are not above corruption?

Have you ever known any elected representative to claim the right to govern their fellow man without the consent of the governed?

Do you think it is merely a coincidence that most judges are drawn from the law society, most Acts are crafted by members of the law society, and they claim a monopoly on understanding and interpreting those Acts and statutes, and demand an insane amount of money to do so?

Do you believe that the people of Canada have a right to deny consent to be governed by a system if they feel it is corrupt?

Have you ever heard of a claim of right? What about lawful excuse?

Do you agree that if an Act has as its intent or purpose the removal of a right, it must do so clearly, specifically and unequivocally? Or do you claim that rights are removed by an Act merely by not mentioning that right?


Do you claim our human rights come from the ‘The Crown in Right of Canada’? Have you ever met that entity?

Do you believe people such as judges and police should not be held accountable for their actions which harm their fellow man, because they were following the orders of a non-existent legal entity or legal fiction such as “The Crown in Right of The Province of Ontario”?

Do you agree the people of Canada have a right to convene new courts to bring criminal charges against the operators of the existing ones if those operators act unlawfully? Do you believe that whether or not their actions are unlawful should be determined by them?

Do you know of any judge willing to publicly claim under oath, and upon full commercial and criminal liability that they have the right to govern their fellow man without the consent of their fellow man?

Do you agree the people of Canada have a right to change their system of government if they feel it is obsolete or corrupt? Or are we all forever bound by the lawyers and their courts?

Do you agree that truth is required for justice, and that fictions are not truth? Do you agree that corporations are legal fictions? Do you work for a legal fiction?

Do you agree that those who seek power, either in political office or on the bench, should undergo psychiatric evaluations merely for even wanting such power?

Are you aware of anyone who was sent for a psych evaluation by a judge merely because they questioned the jurisdiction and authority of that judge? Are you aware of the case back in 2002 or so, of a man sent for a 30 psych evaluation in BC, who was released that same day by the Doctor, and which resulted in a strongly worded letter from the Doctor to the Chief Judge demanding that they stop abusing the healthcare system and sending perfectly normal and sane people to hospital for 30 days as a means of judicial intimidation? Do you believe that merely questioning the jurisdiction or motive of a judge is sufficient reason to incarcerate someone for 30 days and calling it a psychological evaluation?

NOTE:
You said:
It still baffles me that anyone would pay for products that are so wretched, incoherent, and poorly presented.
Many people who are not lawyers and do not therefore benefit from the very confusing jargon in Acts such as The Income Tax Act wonder why we have Acts created by the lawyers which are themselves so wretched, confusing and purposely deceptive. Many have come to the reasonable conclusion that it is a purposeful deception crafted by the lawyers to ensure THEY ALONE find great benefit form governing their fellow man. Wanna know what it looks like to a growing number of Canadians? “Here are your rules. You have no choice. Your consent is not needed. And oh, incidentally, ONLY we have the ability to understand them, and if you want our opinion on them, if you want to know what they say, you have to pay us more per hour than you make in a week.” Many see that as the biggest scam EVER.


In any event, welcome to the forum. Sorry to blast you with so many questions, please feel free to take your time, and I ask you realize my intent is to in fact uncover truth, and not harass you in any way. Peace, eh?

:)
Click to expand...
Troll lvl: 99
 
FreemanMenard said:
When I was in the forces, I had enrolled under a contract, and was in fact paid to follow lawful orders. Now that I am not, I am not obliged to obey their orders, to say shine my boots and stand at attention, am I? Now compare to a court. If I am not an officer of the court, nor paid by it, am I obliged to follow their orders without recompense? The clerks get paid for following the judges orders, and cannot be compelled to be a clerk without payment. So why should anyone else be so compelled?
Click to expand...

No Rob, when you were in the CF you were not under a contract, you were in law serving under "Terms of Service".

Service in the Canadian Forces is a unilateral service agreement where the obligations flow only from the servant to the Crown. The pay and allowances you received during that time are in law a gift from Her Majesty to you. However you had voluntarily undertaken to be subject to the Code of Service Discipline while lawfully engaged.

There is no obligation for persons not subject to the Code of Service Discipline to follow the orders that are issued pursuant to the National Defence Act and its attendant regulations. However, you are obliged to follow the orders of a court, as they have been granted the authority to impose such orders by the Constitution.
 
Border Reiver said:
No Rob, when you were in the CF you were not under a contract, you were in law serving under "Terms of Service".

Service in the Canadian Forces is a unilateral service agreement where the obligations flow only from the servant to the Crown. The pay and allowances you received during that time are in law a gift from Her Majesty to you. However you had voluntarily undertaken to be subject to the Code of Service Discipline while lawfully engaged.

There is no obligation for persons not subject to the Code of Service Discipline to follow the orders that are issued pursuant to the National Defence Act and its attendant regulations. However, you are obliged to follow the orders of a court, as they have been granted the authority to impose such orders by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Oops. You are intruding on Menard's fantasy with nasty reality-based facts.
 
Yeah, but life has a way of doing that.

Never would have believed that Bobby boy had served though. Usually military service tends to force a recognition that, even if you don't like wants happening, it's still gonna happen.
 
FreemanMenard said:
When I was in the forces, I had enrolled under a contract, and was in fact paid to follow lawful orders. Now that I am not, I am not obliged to obey their orders, to say shine my boots and stand at attention, am I? Now compare to a court. If I am not an officer of the court, nor paid by it, am I obliged to follow their orders without recompense? The clerks get paid for following the judges orders, and cannot be compelled to be a clerk without payment. So why should anyone else be so compelled?
Click to expand...

Well, Rob, the point of the question, one repeated by others, is to address the fact that you are misapplying the usage of the word “order” to make it seem that a judgment tendered by a judge is the same as an order placed for goods or services.

Your word bending, and your disingenuous avoidance of questions about it, have become a sad, comic characteristic of your presence here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom