Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Hans]

Rob is freeman number 1

I beg to differ; more like .73, he cannot travel as he would like now can he?

 

[commandlinegamer]

Just a thought, but you might have to offer to pay Rob's 'travelling expenses' as we know he has a little problem getting on planes.

Oh dear. But there's an obvious solution to that problem.

Simply refuse to contract with the law of gravity.

No plane needed.

 

[jargon buster]

Actually had you been paying attention, you would know the primary legal theory, which you completely missed and which all others pretty mush rest upon, is that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse to disobey the people in the government and courts. That is the king daddy of the theories.

this is great news Rob, establish a lawful excuse which is a key principle of the Criminal Code of Canada which is a statute ......hang on a minute??

Rob, I hate to break it to you but this was dealt with here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6656955&postcount=499
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6657587&postcount=504


We need to up our game if we want to get the better of these guys.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Then please free to go to the forum in question and state your case there. The person who started that thread did so by positing both a strawman argument and a false dichotomy. I hardly believe it is a sign of insanity to point that out.
In fact I do not think laymen without the necessary training in psychiatry should be even attempting such a diagnosis. I have never called you insane - misguided perhaps, possibly even deliberately dishonest and certainly evasive. But I have not questioned your mental health as you have mine.
So let's leave the ad homs in the playground please.
The solutions I offer are well known - seek reliable legal help when you need it. If you want to understand law, study law. Just like in all those fmotl sites disclaimers in fact!

But why? When others post a link to the WFS, or DIF, or TPUC or any other forum, for the purpose of having a laugh at the idiocy they see, you never tell them to go post it on the forum from whence it came, do you?

I would like to leave the ad hominems out of a discussion. But just look at this thread, remove the ad hominems posted as a habit by most of the people here it would be a much shorter thread!

Plus I am just doing what everyone else here does... making fun of people who do not think as I do, for that reason. It is a waste of time and energy though, and I do not see the benefits so many here must.

 

[jargon buster]

But why? When others post a link to the WFS, or DIF, or TPUC or any other forum, for the purpose of having a laugh at the idiocy they see, you never tell them to go post it on the forum from whence it came, do you?

The problem in the past has been that those sites were always freeman friendly and banned many people with a different viewpoint so the people had no choice but to post links here.
That has now changed as the worlds number one freeman has been banned from the most popular freeman on the land forum.
Maybe the tide has turned away from the freeman controlled sites, what are we going to do without or freeman moderators to make us look good?

As for the ad hominems, this thread could have been much shorter if you could have posted some proof of your claims.

Plus I am just doing what everyone else here does... making fun of people who do not think as I do, for that reason. It is a waste of time and energy though, and I do not see the benefits so many here must.

Dont give up on this forum now Rob, its all you have left.

MAYBE WITH ME (FREEMAN NUMBER 2) IN YOUR CORNER WE CAN WRAP THIS BABY UP.

 

[Horatius]

Actually had you been paying attention, you would know the primary legal theory, which you completely missed and which all others pretty mush rest upon, is that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse to disobey the people in the government and courts. That is the king daddy of the theories.

Notice he asserts that "a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse", without any limiation on what that "claim of right" might entail, or what "lawful excuse" it purports to establish. This is an incredibly broad claim, which he uses to avoid any obligations under statute laws.

To support this, he cites one case, where one such claim of right was successful in avoiding prosecution under one statute:

All the rest flow from it. So is there any evidence that has worked? Well yes there is, it was presented here and discussion of that if I recall correctly was abandoned in favour of continually insulting the freemen, with that passing for 'debunking'.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/4561346/Dome-slasher-to-speak-at-spy-base-protest




Wow look at that! A claim if right defense was successful! In a court no less! In a common law jurisdiction!

That is what you wanted right?

However, no one here has ever disputed the existence of these provisions (indeed, as JB showed with his links above, D'Rok has posted on them quite extensively). What we dispute is Menard's claim that any assertion of a "claim of right", regardless of its contents, or its acceptance (or lack thereof) by the courts, establishes a "lawful excuse" to ignore any statute, without limitation. It is that claim which is extraordinary, and it is that claim which has never been supported by evidence.


This is like a murderer claiming he is not guilty by reason of self defense because someone else was once successful using that defense. It's not enough that the defense exists in law, for certain circumstances. You must be able to establish that it's also applicable to your circumstances.

 

[FreemanMenard]

He asked for one case where a freeman theory worked.
I gave it to him.
Now it will not be accepted with the claim being made that I have to establish MORE.

Standard practice here I see.
And now they will continue claiming that not one shred of evidence has been presented...

 

[Horatius]

He asked for one case where a freeman theory worked.

Yes, but the "Freeman Theory" isn't that "Claim of right" exists. That's just plain old law.

The Freeman Theory is that this existing aspect of law can be applied by anyone, to any law, merely by asserting a "claim of right", regardless of the merits of that claim.

And it's this "theory" which is questioned, and which has been clearly refuted by the courts, as D'Rok showed:

Originally Posted by R v. Sergeant Beregeron
The opinion in the case law is unanimous in saying that it is impossible to give a general definition of lawful excuse. If the law that creates the offence does not assign it a precise meaning, as is the case in prosecutions under section 87 of the Criminal Code, its meaning must be inferred from the purpose of the charge but also having regard to the context and circumstances of the case. It is clear, however, that determining whether an excuse is lawful is not a matter left to the accused to decide. Whether there is a lawful excuse will be determined based on an objective rather than a subjective standard.[emphasis added]

R. v. Sergeant J.J.G.M.L. Bergeron, 2006 CM 41

Thus, you merely asserting you have a "claim of right" or a "lawful excuse" is not sufficient. Those claims or excuses have to be accepted by the courts as a defense. A blanket assertion utterly worthless.

 

[Paul]

Wow look at that! A claim if right defense was successful! In a court no less! In a common law jurisdiction!

Wow, look at that a jury in New Zealand found in favour of 3 people who did something popular to an unpopular thing in 2008.

Perhaps you should check what happened afterwards, both to the claim of right defence and to the defendants.

That is what you wanted right?

Rob, you're not presuming to know what we think are you?

Big fat not guilty using the foundational freeman tenet. COR is lawful excuse.

You mean defence, and only where it is allowed.

But now you will reject it, maybe claim it had nothing to do with freemanery

I don't need to claim it had nothing to do with freemenardism, I can tell you what the defendants - a teacher, a farmer, and a Dominican friar - said:

"The three, acting under the umbrella of the Ploughshares movement, said they were saving lives in Iraq by disrupting satellite eavesdropping and were acting for the greater good."​

​

when it did.

Nope. Political/moral protest maybe, but no freeloadery.

Or say 'but that's only one, show us ten more!" or some such other silly stuff.

Given the circumstances, that would be a very sensible request. I don't suppose you have anything more cases?

And it works in and out of court to establish lawful excuse.

Excuse?

 

[arayder]

I would like to leave the ad hominems out of a discussion.

Bobby, as long as your claims of freeman success and validity rest almost solely on your recounting of events and your word, your veracity is fair game for discussion.

You can call the questioning of your honesty ad hominem attacks all you want, but that won’t change a thing.

If you don’t like that, I submit that you try to change the situation by being honest, rather than whining that you are being treated unfairly.

 

[D'rok]

He asked for one case where a freeman theory worked.
I gave it to him.
Now it will not be accepted with the claim being made that I have to establish MORE.

Standard practice here I see.
And now they will continue claiming that not one shred of evidence has been presented...

This was not FOTL theory and these were not FOTLers. You know this, therefore the inescapable conclusion is that you are lying again for your own purposes.

For the lurkers, let's go over the facts.
1. New Zealand is not Canada. The Claim of Right defence in NZ legislation is far broader than in Canada. But, just like in Canada, it is still limited to only the specific provisions in NZ's criminal law where it is explicitly mentioned as a defence.

Section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961 defines claim of right as:

in relation to any act, means a belief that the act is lawful, although that belief may be based on ignorance or mistake of fact or of any matter of law other than the enactment against which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

That defence is limited to those offences in the Crimes Act 1961 and Summary Offences Act 1981 which provide for it.

You can easily google those Acts yourself and read the provisions where the defence is available. It is not a general defence against all offences and does not create a mechanism for rejecting the rule of law.

2. The defendants successfully used the defence in their criminal trial. However, they were found civilly liable to the tune of 1.2 million dollars. And the judge in the civil case had this to say:

[142] In conclusion I note that aspects which emerge from the decisions in this area have generally regarded with deep suspicion any self-help remedies taken by protesting parties and the courts have specifically allowed those remedies to be resorted to only in very special circumstances.
[143] With this in mind, as I see it the defendants‟ arguments face a final and insurmountable hurdle in that they collide with fundamental principle. The defendants here, although I accept they were motivated by genuine beliefs, are effectively inviting the Court to authorise their general right of self-help in their activities at Waihopai. At one level this might be seen simply as a mask for anarchy. The notion that the Court might exonerate vigilante action is highly problematic. To take this approach as I see it would inevitably lead to unacceptable precedents being set in a range of areas

...

[145] In a free and democratic society governed by the rule of law, the existence of which the citizens of this country are justifiably proud, such vigilante justice actions cannot be countenanced. All citizens who live in this country, including the defendants, enjoy and have the privilege of its benefits on the basis that we all comply with its laws and the rule of law. Legitimate protest is always protected, but it must be carried out within the proper legal framework.
[146] With all these aspects in mind and for the reasons I have outlined above, I conclude that the plaintiff has clearly shown that the defendants have no arguable defence to the liability claim against them here. The essential facts at issue in this case and the questions of law raised by the defendants are clear cut. Those specific defences, for all the reasons outlined above, are not fairly arguable here.

http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZHC/2011/1053.html

So, once again Menard. You lie. You deceive. You fail.

 

[Border Reiver]

This is the same "claim of right" that was rejected in the matter of Szoo' v. RCMP?

or the one espoused by Mr. Kovacevic?

or the one that was denied in the Sponagle matter?

Or the one where Mr. Papadopoulos tried to claim that his "Claim of Right" and his own format court documents trumped an actual civil trial?

A Claim of Right is most certainly a valid legal defence - it is not something that allows you to ignore the law. The most common uses are:

a. Defence in an assault case where the defendant thoght he or she was protecting property they had a right to possess;
b. Defence in civil matters dealing with trespass, or real property issues; and
c. Defence in civil matters where a person is alleged to have violated the privacy of another.

Again, Claim of Right does not mean what you think it means.

 

[D'rok]

And here is what happened after the NZ criminal trial:

"Cabinet has agreed to amend the claim of right defence by adding a property right criterion. This means that the defence will be available only to defendants who believed they had a proprietary or possessory right in the property involved."

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/criminal-justice/claim-of-right-review/claim-of-right-review

Which brings it more or less in line with Canada.

 

[jargon buster]

We are all missing Robs point guys, (in Robs mind) what happens is that you write out a 'claim of right' and in that 'claim of right' you say that you can break the law and because you have written that in your 'claim of right' you have 'lawful excuse'.

It makes perfect sense when you look at it like that.

It doesn't matter what the courts or judiciary think because its "the law" and they have no say over what "the law" is.

 

[Horatius]

or the one espoused by Mr. Kovacevic?

While the spheres of the temporal and the spiritual have co-existed throughout our legal history, adherence to transcendent precepts does not relieve a person of temporal obligations. In this regard I observe that Mr. Kovacevic’s Claim-of-Right, which recited verses from the Bible, omitted the most significant scriptural reference upon which Christian political thought has rested over the centuries: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”: Matthew 22:21. The Mercedes Benz, and Mr. Kovacevic’s obligation to return it, belong to the realm of Caesar.

Oh, SNAP!


ETA:

[58] In conclusion, the Claim-of-Right, Commercial Security Agreement, Bonded Promissory Note, Acceptance (and attached documents), Peace Bonds and Bills of Exchange (Documentary Draft) created and signed by Mr. Kovacevic have no legal effect. None of those documents provides him with any legal excuse for failing to return the car or to disclose its whereabouts. Mr. Kovacevic’s debt to MBF remained outstanding, unaffected by that documentation, as does his obligation to comply with the Order.

 

[Mojo]

It doesn't matter what the courts or judiciary think because its "the law" and they have no say over what "the law" is.

Which puts you in a bit of a hole as far as the FOTL reverence for "common law" is concerned, because "what the courts or judiciary say the law is" is precisely what "common law" means.

 

[Horatius]

Thinking about it, this is a bit of an "Own Goal" by Menard here. In finding that NZ cite, he's established that, in fact, the Courts are not so corrupt as to deny that a "claim of right" exists as a defense to a criminal charge, and that, in fact, the courts will accept this claim of right, in circumstances in which it is legitimate.

Meanwhile, we have the cases linked by Border Reiver, in which Freemen attempted this "claim of right" strategy in other cases, and were firmly smacked down, being told that their claim of right has no weight. We know the courts would accept it if it were legitimate, because Menard has shown them doing just that. The only reasonable conclusion is that the Freeman "claim of right" is therefore not legitimate.

And we owe it all to Menard for showing us that!

 

[Border Reiver]

Which puts you in a bit of a hole as far as the FOTL reverence for "common law" is concerned, because "what the courts or judiciary say the law is" is precisely what "common law" means.

Stop that Mojo! Bringing facts into a Freeman debate!

Wait a minute, mea culpa, I did the same....

 

[Border Reiver]

There are at least 278 reported cases where one of the parties raised "Claim of right" in Canlii. The problem for the FMOTL and their concept of ops is that in those cases a claim of right is a statutory defence put forward to establish that you had the right to do something:

a. Stop someone from taking your property, so long as you don't get all excessive with your own force, and the other party has not right or duty to take it;
b. Continue to do what you have been allowed to do with your property or on other property, provided you can demonstrate that you've either been doing it for 20 years, or you have title to the property; or
c. Act as a defence to the tort of a breach of privacy.

If the claim of right is the source document for all FMOTL theory (and here it was that I thought it was this whole silly "consent" issue) then how can the FMOTL stand the logical contradiction of using a STATUORY defence as a source of all their legal standing while denying that statutes are not law?

 

[SpitfireIX]

A Claim of Right is most certainly a valid legal defence - it is not something that allows you to ignore the law. The most common uses are:

a. Defence in an assault case where the defendant thoght he or she was protecting property they had a right to possess;
b. Defence in civil matters dealing with trespass, or real property issues; and
c. Defence in civil matters where a person is alleged to have violated the privacy of another.

Again, Claim of Right does not mean what you think it means.

So, is a Claim of Right where the defendant only reasonably believed he had the right to act as he did, or where the defendant actually had the right to act as he did? How is it related to a Lawful Excuse?

To take an extreme example, suppose I'm visiting Toronto, walking down the street. Someone pulls an assault rifle out of a bag and shoots and incapacitates a police officer standing near me. The gunman then begins shooting bystanders. I pick up the police officer's weapon and fatally shoot the gunman; however, one of my shots misses, striking and injuring an innocent bystander.

Do I have a Claim of Right, or a Lawful Excuse, or both, or neither, for my actions?