Number two is probably correct, but the stories that Menard tells almost always involve the police/judge clearly and overtly acknowledging that he is a freeman and therefore free to disobey statutes. There's no way that they could be genuine misunderstandings born of ignorance; they're deliberate lies.
Menard has two versions of his drinking beer in public story, sometimes attributing the story with the exact same details to himself and sometimes to un-named freemen.
The fact that he tells the story one way for his self aggrandizement and another way when he wants to convince the audience there are freemen getting wins indicates to me that he’s making the whole thing up.
Menard has two versions of his drinking beer in public story, sometimes attributing the story with the exact same details to himself and sometimes to un-named freemen.
The fact that he tells the story one way for his self aggrandizement and another way when he wants to convince the audience there are freemen getting wins indicates to me that he’s making the whole thing up.
Tried to post a pic but can't until I make more posts... but I have a picture of my coworkers car next to another Freeman's and the other guy did contracting work for a cop and had it parked in his driveway for four days, and all the cop said is that he did not want trouble. Plus like I said, I was with him when he went right through an OPP check stop last holiday weekend.
Tried to post a pic but can't until I make more posts... but I have a picture of my coworkers car next to another Freeman's and the other guy did contracting work for a cop and had it parked in his driveway for four days, and all the cop said is that he did not want trouble. Plus like I said, I was with him when he went right through an OPP check stop last holiday weekend.
The I-can’t-quite-get-the-documentation virus is going around.
The contagion was, at one point, confined to the freeman cult, but now seems to have spread to people claiming to be on the edge of the subculture like johnbc over on Icke’s forum and now here to catweasel.
It sometimes called truth-by-anecdotal-tale......the most powerful woo evidence in the world
I just had a friend whisper in my ear that Menard has absquatulated to Tyre in Lebanon where he is taking classes to become a maker of pork pies in the shape of a Star of David - it cannot possibly fail!.
I have been a mechanic all my life, (My nick is ‘Cooter’) and been involved in a **** load of restoration and racing projects. When we design our machines and restoration we chew the **** out of each other. It can get heated. If I attack your argument it is because I know if I bring it to work it will be attacked, and I need good way to deal with it. I ain’t gonna defend their beliefs, but I know them well enough to know what they will say when I present these arguments.
I might have
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for Rule 10.
up saying Menard was a conman because I was losing the argument at work, was kinda desperate and figuring I could come here and get proof and there is none. My moods change during the day, and I am usually a lot more patient after work. I am short on patience in the morning with the kids demanding everything, and better after work when I am winding down.
So you know I am in the winding down phase now waiting for my ride at a marina. I didn’t even want to do this job.
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for off-topic and personal attacks.
I am in one ****** mood and reading some of these posts didn’t help. I C&P’d some of the earlier posts this morning, and answered them on my lunch break best as I could. So what follows is what I wrote this afternoon.
Demanding "Proof" is an avoidance tactic often used by those who don't want to look at the evidence.
But it seems to me that accusing someone publicly of criminal activities without sufficient proof is itself wrong. I’d hate for it to happen to me. I’m pretty sure it’s even illegal. Isn’t it slander? Would you want to be accused publicly of criminal activity with no proof to support the accusations and no way to face your accuser? This is where that argument is weak. I know what Jim will say. “They can’t defeat the claims so they attack the character.” That tactic actually strengthens their argument for it makes ours seem very weak.
But we can point to evidence that supports the conclusion that he's a conman. All evidence and all conclusions are open to challenge, and that is legitimate. But demanding one and only one type of evidence, while ignoring all others, isn't useful.
We do have lots of evidence that FOTL in general is fundamentally incorrect: Every time we can see that it has been tested in the venues where such tests really matter (police interactions and court cases), it has demonstrably failed.
Well, for one that is only one type of evidence, isn’t it? I don’t mean to be a wiseass, but you seem to have just contradicted yourself.
Besides I can’t use this argument. It won’t help at all, because the people at work think they have seen it work. Guys are driving around with their own plates and the cops aren’t doing squat. I have seen it. And he’s not the only one. One sent back his SIN and is still working and not paying any deductions. One guy who comes around the shop has a brother who is a cop and he says they had a meeting about FMOTL where they were told that the 3CPO thing is real and they are peace officers and that they have a right of access the highways without a license. If I try to argue that position he is just going to stick his pay stub in my face, point to his car and look at me like I am an idiot.
We know, despite all that, that Menard, and others of his ilk, continue to ply their wares, in full knowledge that they've failed as discussed above. That's evidence of their fraudulent intent.
This one won’t help either. Unless you have proof, I have no evidence that he is plying any wares for the guys. I have seen the link where the world freeman society is selling packages, but not that Menard is selling packages or receiving money from those sales. I imagine he is though. But I still have no proof. Here is the big problem I have. I also know that he makes his videos freely available. This is one of the main points I got beat on at work. He is not demanding money for the information, but putting it out freely. The guys like that. I said ‘You get what you pay for’, and got stumped with ‘he lets you try before you buy’. So the position that he is selling is not quite correct and I had no argument against it. They think it would be one thing if you could only get his information by buying it, but the fact that Menard just gives it away is hard to ignore, and that speaks against him being a money grubbing conman and for him having confidence in his own material. I can’t point to it not working because they think they have seen it work. I can’t point to Menard selling packages because the guys know he gives it away for free. None of them paid him for the information. So how can I point to Menard selling the information when none of them had to buy it?
The conclusion of fraudulent intent is challengeable. I can just hear one of my buds response. “I doubt that any court would reach the same conclusion, that selling packages which contain incorrect information is evidence of fraud. If they did then people who sell Bibles would be in a lot of trouble.” That last part would be a dig at my other bud, the christian. See, what if he actually believes it?
Now, Menard has claimed that he has lots of "evidence" that this works by "keeping people out of court in the first place". However, that evidence exists only in Menard's mind - it's pure hearsay, backed up literally by nothing more than his word. He actively refuses to provide anything more than that.
This won’t help me either. As I said, these guys think they have seen it work. Couple of guys driving with their own plates, one who is working with no SIN. They would consider that to be evidence. I can’t just ignore these when I try to argue against them. That’s what’s so frustrating.
So, we have clear cut positive evidence of FOTL's failures, clear cut positive evidence of Menard's continuing to sell his FOTL schemes, and only hearsay evidence from Menard himself as to FOTL's successes. The conclusion we reach, as reasonable people, is that Menard is a conman.
That’s no help to me at all either. They will say they have clear cut evidence of it working. He will wave his pay stub in my face and gloat. They will say that there is clear cut evidence of Menard giving it away, because none of them had to pay for it. They will say there is clearcut evidence of the anti-FMOTL crowd relying upon character assassination instead of addressing the FMOTL claims. They will say your conclusion is based on faulty premises.
So, were he willing to substantiate his claims to FOTL successes, we'd re-visit that conclusion. But at this point, the reasonable provisional conclusion is that he's a conman.
If that's not enough for your friend, well, that's his life; but if and when Menard walks away with his money, he'd better expect us to say we told him so, because we will.
See that’s the thing. They say they are doing it now, and have never paid Menard a penny. Menard hasn’t asked them for anything and one of the main premises of that conclusion is that he is selling packages and in it for the money. The other is that it doesn’t work and Menard knows it. And both look like faulty premises. Without them ‘that there car has no tires’ as they say at the shop.
How do I argue against their position when they claim to have seen it work for them and are doing it and how do I argue that Menard is selling packages when none of them paid and the only links for packages is with the world freeman society? Those are the two premises the conclusion is based on, and both will be shot right down by them and I have no idea how to defend them.
I have to ask... If (Big IF) both of your premises are wrong, would you feel the conclusion is as well? Or is there a way that the premises could be incorrect but the conclusion is not? Will you even entertain the idea that your premises are wrong? Am I going to be accused of JAQ’ing off for asking these questions?
The conman argument rests upon two obviously faulty premises, at least from their perspective. If I say it doesn’t work and Menard is selling the information, they will simply say it does and he is not. And I have no way to argue that it doesn’t and that he is. I think maybe I should change my tact, and instead of arguing that Menard is a conman, argue that FMOTL is just either wrong or dangerous to the country.
Let’s forget about Menard. How would you argue against FMOTL if you were in my position? Any suggestions? Any ideas on how it could hurt them or the country? Does it go against christian beliefs? I would love to find something that I could use along that lines. That would drive my bud NUTS. I bet his head would explode.
I do not believe this story. As a lawyer who works on behalf of various police agencies, and one who has a long professional history with police policies, protocols, and procedures, and one who has first hand experience with how the police deal with Freeloaders on the Land, and one who also knows the O.P.P. policies and procedures and their dealings with Freeloaders on the Land here in Ontario, I cannot credit this story at all. The police do not give FoTL idiots a pass in the manner that you have described.
Is that what they call an appeal to authority? How do I know you are all that you say? Even if you are, how does that translate to what happened not happening? Will you prove you are a lawyer with the qualifications you said? Even if you do, I know what happened. I WAS THERE.
Since you are a lawyer can you help me with something? My bud who is driving with his private plate (traveling as he puts it) says we have the right to access the highways, and that if a license or permission is required to do something, then it is not a right, but a privilege. He pointed out the definition of highway in the criminal code and it says: “highway” means a road to which the public has the right of access, and includes bridges over which or tunnels through which a road passes;
When he drives is he exercising his right to access the highway?
And if he does have a right to access the highway, do the cops have a right to stop him and demand he get a license to exercise his right? I had never seen that definition before, and it stumped me. How can we have the right of access, but then be told we have to get a license and permission to exercise that right? Is it a right to get a license? I almost said that.
Also, are the police bound by the criminal code when they are enforcing the HTA? Are they free to break the law? He says the way they do it now is breaking the criminal code.
Wow. Really? You try not to judge people you have never met?
You came here looking for assistance because you got involved in an argument where you made a judgement on somebody you have never met.
You judged him to be a conman. Without meeting him.
You are contradicting yourself.
like I said I was trying to argue in the lunch room with the guys, was not doing so well and got desperate, felt backed into a corner with no argument against their position, so I said Menard was a conman, having read it here so much and thinking I would come here and get the evidence of it. I thought you guys would have some proof that he was. Since you all say it so much, and insist on proof for everything, I figured you would have it. You have different standards of proof for things you believe already and things that others believe which you do not. I think we all do but no one wants to admit it. What if it is basic human weakness?
I sure am disappointed with this forum. Sorry if I sound pissed off, I had a hard day, and might lose my job, but I think some people here are worse than the conspiracy nuts and have turned skepticism into something not cool. How do I put it? When we design race cars the goal is to get one on the track and then win the race, not come up with reasons to never race.
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for rule 12
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for off-topic.
The guys at work are talking about FMOTL. We used to talk about racing and building cars and now they pass documents and stuff to each other and something about it I don't like.
If any one wants to help me send me a PM. I have a bunch of questions. If not no big deal. I don't have the time or energy to argue. I get enough of that at home, and enough smart comments at work.
Thanks for listening those who have replied. D'Rok can I PM you a question? My ride just arrived.
Bye.
I apologize to catweasel for destroying most of his post. I tried to leave in the topic-relevant and non-violating stuff, but there was a lot of stuff unrelated to the topic and attacking the members here.
I would say to catweasel, if you want to introduce yourself, go to the Forum Community subforum. (There's a more relaxed policy on cussing there too, but I still advise you to read the MA.)
And I would remind the other members that making sockpuppet allegations is considered a personal attack and it inhibits our ability to catch real sockpuppets. If you think someone is a sockpuppet, gather your evidence and send it to the mods, but do NOT make accusations in a thread.
Now let's all play nice.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Tricky
...and they of course ignored the easiest, fastest way to confirm it. Go with their friend to the police station and see if he can drive with those plates......
Won't even consider it. I see and hides from it.....hmmmmm why would you ask for answers when you can easily do it yourself?
hmmmmm
Wow three thousand words with quotes in twenty minutes - pretty good.......
Most was written over a one hour lunch earlier. Have you heard of copy and paste? You want me to go to the cops shop? For what reason? I won't consider it because I can't go to the cops to prove something. Did I not mention earlier who I *********** work for mostly?
How do I argue against their position when they claim to have seen it work for them and are doing it and how do I argue that Menard is selling packages when none of them paid and the only links for packages is with the world freeman society? Those are the two premises the conclusion is based on, and both will be shot right down by them and I have no idea how to defend them.
I have to ask... If (Big IF) both of your premises are wrong, would you feel the conclusion is as well? Or is there a way that the premises could be incorrect but the conclusion is not? Will you even entertain the idea that your premises are wrong? Am I going to be accused of JAQ’ing off for asking these questions?
The conman argument rests upon two obviously faulty premises, at least from their perspective. If I say it doesn’t work and Menard is selling the information, they will simply say it does and he is not. And I have no way to argue that it doesn’t and that he is. I think maybe I should change my tact, and instead of arguing that Menard is a conman, argue that FMOTL is just either wrong or dangerous to the country.
Let’s forget about Menard. How would you argue against FMOTL if you were in my position? Any suggestions? Any ideas on how it could hurt them or the country? Does it go against christian beliefs? I would love to find something that I could use along that lines. That would drive my bud NUTS. I bet his head would explode.
Cutting it down to these points, because this is really the heart of the matter.
As a fundamental assumption, reality is what it is. If you can demonstrate that reality is not as we think it is, most people here will change their minds. We've done it before on other issues, and we can do it again.
The problem is that "demonstrating reality" bit.
Frankly, if your claims are true, then you shouldn't be arguing against FOTL. If it's real, it works, and that's that. Were I in the position you claim, I'd believe the evidence of my senses over some argument on the Internet, and you probably should too.
But why should we accept what you're saying is true? We've never seen FOTL work, and in fact have seen it fail spectacularly on several occasions. It's completely at odds with every accepted legal principle, and would be fundamentally unworkable even if we tried to base a society on it. So why should we accept anything you say as being true?
If you want us to accept that you're telling the truth, then you need to provide evidence beyond your mere assertions.
If that sounds like I'm accusing you of lying, that's because I am. Sucks, but there you go. You've claimed things that are in fundamental opposition to my own experiences and evidence, and until you can show you're not lying, I have to assume you are. That, or reality has been screwing with me, which is frankly much less likely than you lying.
Now, you might not care that we think you're lying, and that's cool. But if you don't care, why are you here?
We make these exact same demands of any other type of nonsense you could name - UFOs, alternative medicine, free energy, conspiracy theories, Bigfoot, Nessie, Ancient Astronauts, Faces on Mars, Crystal Cities on the Moon, Amazon Women on the Moon, Actually Funny Adam Sandler Movies, Creationists, Hollow Earth Theories, Mayan 2012 Apocalypses, Holocaust Denial, and untold others.
If you want help figuring out what sort of evidence you'd need to convince us, we can tell you that. But just telling us stories won't work.
Most was written over a one hour lunch earlier. Have you heard of copy and paste? You want me to go to the cops shop? For what reason? I won't consider it because I can't go to the cops to prove something. Did I not mention earlier who I *********** work for mostly?
You did say you only had twenty minutes for the internet.
Nope I want you to go with your friend and film his not having real plates being accepted. Your excuse is complete nonsense and you are making it to avoid having to provide evidence.
However you could have someone ELSE go with your friend and do the same thing --- now what is your excuse to avoid doing that too? lol
Cutting it down to these points, because this is really the heart of the matter.
As a fundamental assumption, reality is what it is. If you can demonstrate that reality is not as we think it is, most people here will change their minds. We've done it before on other issues, and we can do it again.
The problem is that "demonstrating reality" bit.
Frankly, if your claims are true, then you shouldn't be arguing against FOTL. If it's real, it works, and that's that. Were I in the position you claim, I'd believe the evidence of my senses over some argument on the Internet, and you probably should too.
But why should we accept what you're saying is true? We've never seen FOTL work, and in fact have seen it fail spectacularly on several occasions. It's completely at odds with every accepted legal principle, and would be fundamentally unworkable even if we tried to base a society on it. So why should we accept anything you say as being true?
If you want us to accept that you're telling the truth, then you need to provide evidence beyond your mere assertions.
If that sounds like I'm accusing you of lying, that's because I am. Sucks, but there you go. You've claimed things that are in fundamental opposition to my own experiences and evidence, and until you can show you're not lying, I have to assume you are. That, or reality has been screwing with me, which is frankly much less likely than you lying.
Now, you might not care that we think you're lying, and that's cool. But if you don't care, why are you here?
We make these exact same demands of any other type of nonsense you could name - UFOs, alternative medicine, free energy, conspiracy theories, Bigfoot, Nessie, Ancient Astronauts, Faces on Mars, Crystal Cities on the Moon, Amazon Women on the Moon, Actually Funny Adam Sandler Movies, Creationists, Hollow Earth Theories, Mayan 2012 Apocalypses, Holocaust Denial, and untold others.
If you want help figuring out what sort of evidence you'd need to convince us, we can tell you that. But just telling us stories won't work.
hahaha at the Adam Sandler part! You just made me laugh, something I did not think I would do today
I can't think of any way to prove my experiences to strangers. They are in the past and I was not recording. But I had them. I do not want to convince you. Maybe we can talk like it don't matter if they happened?
What do you mean by this:
Frankly, if your claims are true, then you shouldn't be arguing against FOTL. If it's real, it works, and that's that. Were I in the position you claim, I'd believe the evidence of my senses over some argument on the Internet, and you probably should too.
What I witnessed I witnessed. But what it means is something else. When I listen to a car, I hear what I hear, right? I take it down the road and I can feel what I feel. Usually if I have heard or felt it before I know what caused it and can identify the problem and fix it. It's what I do. Did I mention I am a damn good mechanic? What if I hear a new sound? Feel a new feel and what if I don't know what's causing it but know I hear and feel it? If it's real and it works, thats not that's that. It's wtf is next?
If you want help figuring out what sort of evidence you'd need to convince us, we can tell you that. But just telling us stories won't work.
What do I need to convince you for? Convince you of what? That I had an experience? How does that experience being true or not have anything to do with arguing against the guys at work? Why do I have to jump through hoops to get some help?
Now, you might not care that we think you're lying, and that's cool. But if you don't care, why are you here?
That's a funny sentence. If I care that you think I am lying, I should not be here? That seems to be what you are saying. Is it?
What I think I see is that I am asking some questions and instead of answering and sharing you are calling me a liar and asking I tighten your tires before you have to answer.
Basically you demand verification of inconsequential minutiae before answering more important questions. It looks like avoidance.
Let's assume I do not care if you think I am lying.
Should I leave? My ability to post here is based upon whether or not others who post here 'feel' I am lying?
If yes, does that mean that people who come here have to prove they aren't to stay?
Know what else you said that shows your colors?
We make these exact same demands of any other type of nonsense you could name -
Way to examine a subject with an open and non-judgmental open mindset there bro! The two problems revealed with your words is the fact you are making demands, and you start with the belief that it is nonsense. Ego and judgment right off the bat. How can you build anything with someone bringing that to the table?
Anyway, the boy is done his bath and the young one done her timeout and its movie and popcorn time.
I can't think of any way to prove my experiences to strangers. They are in the past and I was not recording. But I had them. I do not want to convince you. Maybe we can talk like it don't matter if they happened?
So, you'll never drive with your buddy again? You'll never look at the paystubs again? Or do you expect they'll suddenly stop being FOTLers, even though they know it works?
See, it's this kind of nonsense that makes people react badly to you. You're continually coming up with excuses why you can't do something, instead of doing it, when doing it would be relatively trivial.
If I was to tell you that I have a friend who can fly, Superman-style, in defiance of all known physical laws, would you just accept that? Or would you ask me to show video of him flying? How would you react if I kept coming up with excuses for why I couldn't just video him flying? If I told you he was also teaching everyone at work how to fly, and they were all flying, but I still couldn't even post one video of one of them flying, wouldn't you suspect, even a bit, that I was just lying about it?
What I witnessed I witnessed. But what it means is something else. When I listen to a car, I hear what I hear, right? I take it down the road and I can feel what I feel. Usually if I have heard or felt it before I know what caused it and can identify the problem and fix it. It's what I do. Did I mention I am a damn good mechanic? What if I hear a new sound? Feel a new feel and what if I don't know what's causing it but know I hear and feel it? If it's real and it works, thats not that's that. It's wtf is next?
Having police officers ignore freemen while stopping all others is just slightly more obvious, and easier to document, than a random noise in a car.
What do I need to convince you for? Convince you of what? That I had an experience? How does that experience being true or not have anything to do with arguing against the guys at work? Why do I have to jump through hoops to get some help?
You don't have any need to convince us. But if you want our help, well, you do have to jump through some hoops. Would you try to diagnose my truck problems if I simply refused to explain what I think is wrong in any way that makes sense to you?
And did you miss the point where I said if your experiences were true, you shouldn't be arguing with the guys at work?
If I was arguing with a guy at work, wherein I was claiming that my truck has the controls on the right side, and came to you looking for advice on how to convince him of that, would you not consider it important whether or not I bought my truck in Canada or the UK?
That's a funny sentence. If I care that you think I am lying, I should not be here? That seems to be what you are saying. Is it?
What I think I see is that I am asking some questions and instead of answering and sharing you are calling me a liar and asking I tighten your tires before you have to answer.
I didn't say you shouldn't be here, I asked why you were. Why ask some guys on the internet for advice on how to argue with your FOTL Friends, when your FOTL Friends have demonstrated that this stuff works? Do you imagine we'll have some mystical argument that can convince people to ignore their own experiences?
Basically you demand verification of inconsequential minutiae before answering more important questions. It looks like avoidance.
But it's not "inconsequential minutiae". The efficacy (or lack thereof) of FOTL is the fundamental question at hand. And if we here are wrong, and FOTL actually does work as FOTLers claim it does, that's huge. That means that everything we think we know about law and how society works is not just wrong, but a deliberately engineered scam to make us slaves to banksters and politicians. If I've been so deceived, I want to know about it. But I'm not just going to accept stories, sorry. I want objective evidence.
Know what else you said that shows your colors?
Way to examine a subject with an open and non-judgmental open mindset there bro! The two problems revealed with your words is the fact you are making demands, and you start with the belief that it is nonsense. Ego and judgment right off the bat. How can you build anything with someone bringing that to the table?
See, this is the other thing that makes you look dishonest. Trying to play the "You're just as bad as them!" game. We're not. WE have shown all the evidence we have. WE do not insist that we are correct in opposition to all available evidence. WE do not bend over backwards finding excuses to not provide or create evidence we should have but don't. The FOTLers do all that, and more.
Think about it: The FOTLers, if they aren't a bunch of lying delusional douchebags, have proven that all of modern society is a scam, foisted on us by a cabal of evil manipulative people who seek to aggrandize and enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us. And yet, they go out of their way to avoid showing us that proof. They handwave us away with stupid cliches like we "need to wake up!", or "need to do our own research!", or that they "aren't going to hold our hands!"
Well, **** that. If I were in their position, I'd be doing everything I could to prove it to people, because that's what a stand-up guy does.
hahaha at the Adam Sandler part! You just made me laugh, something I did not think I would do today
I can't think of any way to prove my experiences to strangers. They are in the past and I was not recording. But I had them. I do not want to convince you. Maybe we can talk like it don't matter if they happened?
What do you mean by this:
What I witnessed I witnessed. But what it means is something else. When I listen to a car, I hear what I hear, right? I take it down the road and I can feel what I feel. Usually if I have heard or felt it before I know what caused it and can identify the problem and fix it. It's what I do. Did I mention I am a damn good mechanic? What if I hear a new sound? Feel a new feel and what if I don't know what's causing it but know I hear and feel it? If it's real and it works, thats not that's that. It's wtf is next?
What do I need to convince you for? Convince you of what? That I had an experience? How does that experience being true or not have anything to do with arguing against the guys at work? Why do I have to jump through hoops to get some help?
That's a funny sentence. If I care that you think I am lying, I should not be here? That seems to be what you are saying. Is it?
What I think I see is that I am asking some questions and instead of answering and sharing you are calling me a liar and asking I tighten your tires before you have to answer.
Basically you demand verification of inconsequential minutiae before answering more important questions. It looks like avoidance.
Let's assume I do not care if you think I am lying.
Should I leave? My ability to post here is based upon whether or not others who post here 'feel' I am lying?
If yes, does that mean that people who come here have to prove they aren't to stay?
Know what else you said that shows your colors?
Way to examine a subject with an open and non-judgmental open mindset there bro! The two problems revealed with your words is the fact you are making demands, and you start with the belief that it is nonsense. Ego and judgment right off the bat. How can you build anything with someone bringing that to the table?
Anyway, the boy is done his bath and the young one done her timeout and its movie and popcorn time.
Besides I can’t use this argument. It won’t help at all, because the people at work think they have seen it work. Guys are driving around with their own plates and the cops aren’t doing squat. I have seen it. And he’s not the only one. One sent back his SIN and is still working and not paying any deductions. One guy who comes around the shop has a brother who is a cop and he says they had a meeting about FMOTL where they were told that the 3CPO thing is real and they are peace officers and that they have a right of access the highways without a license. If I try to argue that position he is just going to stick his pay stub in my face, point to his car and look at me like I am an idiot.
I think you need to separate yourself from your personal connections to this and step back and look at the big picture and explain what you are asking us to do here. Without a specific request (which is what you see on David Icke and FMOTL boards - specific claims made by FMOTLers who fail to answer specific requests for proof) there is no way to prove the status quo is correct, because the status quo simply is. You are basically asking us to do the equivalent of proving the sun shines. What is the evidence that the status quo of legal reality is real and that FMOTL is garbage? The entirety of the common law system, every court system ever made, etc.
If you have a specific FMOTL claim that you would like us to prove, we are happy to do so. However, you first need to demonstrate that the claim actually is evidence in favor of FMOTL. Otherwise, its not really evidence of anything. What you have provided above, as in your original example (being waived through by the police), are personal stories and anecdotes. They are not evidence of anything because there are myriad normal, valid, and non-FMOTL reasons as to why they could have happened (assuming the stories are true).
From the top of my head, for example, I know in many police stops not every car is searched. They may be looking for certain suspects with characteristics which you/the driver did not possess. They may only be searching every X number of cars (random searches). I have been waived through numerous police stops here in the US over the years, none of them due to FMTOL legal magic but for these perfectly normal reasons. Also, police are not omniscient - assuming you don't drive around with a bullhorn announcing you have no registration or vehicle tags, it could take months or years before you get stopped for it, especially if the FMOTL fake tags you use look like the real thing.
Your coworkers who make these claims may be flat out dishonest - but if they are telling the truth, there are still any number of reasons why they think what they are claiming is evidence of FMOTL working but is not in reality. For example, government bureaucracies are slow moving machines, if you start making fraudulent tax claims in any country it could take months - and more likely - YEARS before it catches up with you. Want proof? See any number of tax denier cases in the US or Canada, people are just now being convicted for these sorts of things from 2005-2006 and earlier. Additionally, it is documented that tax agencies just don't have the resource to go after every tax denier - so some people may make fraudulent claims but the money amount involved is simply not large enough to spend the resources on court, even though they would be easily convicted. What they are doing is still illegal and has no basis in law, but it may give them the delusion of "getting away with it" for these reasons.
Lets be clear about Menard and the money thing - its flat out untrue that he puts out stuff for free that he charges for on his website. Menard's propaganda video are NOT what he is offering for sale. The propaganda videos are sort of like his "introduction level" to Freeman scamming. If you want the advanced level scam products, you have to pay and pay big bucks. Thats what he is hoping for - that people use his introduction level videos and go out and practice their own FMTOL mythology doesn't matter...because its all fake, after all. He only needs to get a few marks to make some good money from it.
So one of your FMOTL coworkers shoves their pay stub in your face. You explain to them its not proof of anything at this point - revenue agencies do not descend from black helicopters and put you in chains when you start to lie to them. The biggest evidence you can offer against FMOTL is that they have not one single case where a government has acknowledged that, due to their FMOTL status, they don't have to pay taxes/can ignore traffic law/etc. That is the proof that they need to prove FMOTL works, and the burden of proof is on them. Your evidence that it does not work is that every single time these shenanigans are addressed by the government, there is a 100% conviction rate of FMOTLers.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
The two problems revealed with your words is the fact you are making demands, and you start with the belief that it is nonsense. Ego and judgment right off the bat. How can you build anything with someone bringing that to the table?