• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rob Menard's FOTL Claims II

tsig said:
It's poor form to blame others for your mistakes.
Click to expand...

This whole thing got started because our simian friend wouldn't accept the reality that the freeman cult has voiced its sickening anti-semitism on the WFS Facebook page.

Having ignored the simple facts his excuse was that he thinks the forum is full of liars.

Asked to back that insult up our simian friend merely posted his pointless sophistic exchanges with forum members about what he thinks was said about his old tired posts, not anything said about Menard, or the WFS.

All our friend had to do was read a couple of the links to WFS Facebook page, or failing that read some of the direct quotes of freeman prejudice posted here.

Instead, he choose to excuse his willful ignorance with an insult.

Now our simian friend expects us to go round and round about this tempest in a teapot, rather than his apologetic denial of freemanary's hateful philosophy.
 
Nessie said:
It appears Scotland has a growing FOTL movement.

The beginings of a website

http://www.freemanscotland.co.uk/

An attempt to serve "documents" on the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NuIItSH_4oM
Click to expand...

OK, now I am irked. The guy served the papers several months ago. I went looking for his other videos to find out how well the I-gave-a-letter-to-the-police strategy worked.

I found this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCqMbbLCIg0
In which Peter House of Gallagher gets pulled over by the police. The police quickly confirm that there is insurance associated with the car's registration number. Peter won't produce a drivers license. The police office carefully, clearly, and patiently explains that under common law he has the right to detain or arrest a person and take him to a police station in order to determine his identity. The officer asks Peter for his date of birth, explaining that he will type it into the computer and if the computer says the guy has a valid drivers license then he can be on his way. Peter, of course, tries his Sovereign double-talk routine and refuses to give his date of birth.

Eleven minutes into the video, the cop says, this is you last opportunity to provide the date of birth. Then the video cuts to Peter reading definitions from Black's Dictionary. WTF? I want to know how the police confrontation ended. Did Peter give in? Did the cops drag him from his locked vehicle and take him to the station? Is this the elusive Sovereign/Freeman victory for which we have been waiting for years?

.....................
A quick question on the confrontation. Why did the Sovereign refuse to give his date of birth? Obviously, he fears getting confused with the corporate fiction that was created on that day, but he is a living person who was actually born on a specific day. Can't he give his date of birth and insist that he not be linked or bound to the fictional version of him? What do Sovereigns believe is gained by hiding one's date of birth from the authorities?
 
Ladewig said:
.....................
A quick question on the confrontation. Why did the Sovereign refuse to give his date of birth? Obviously, he fears getting confused with the corporate fiction that was created on that day, but he is a living person who was actually born on a specific day. Can't he give his date of birth and insist that he not be linked or bound to the fictional version of him? What do Sovereigns believe is gained by hiding one's date of birth from the authorities?[/color]
Click to expand...

Many of them say they cannot give their dob because it is only hearsay. Although they were present at their own birth they would have had no way of knowing the date because they were only minutes old. How can they be sure that the information given to them by their parents is correct? The information is inadmissable.
 
Ladewig said:
........
A quick question on the confrontation. Why did the Sovereign refuse to give his date of birth? Obviously, he fears getting confused with the corporate fiction that was created on that day, but he is a living person who was actually born on a specific day. Can't he give his date of birth and insist that he not be linked or bound to the fictional version of him? What do Sovereigns believe is gained by hiding one's date of birth from the authorities?[/color]
Click to expand...

It does show the FOTLs true intent when they also refuse to comply with common law.
 
Stacey Grove said:
Many of them say they cannot give their dob because it is only hearsay. Although they were present at their own birth they would have had no way of knowing the date because they were only minutes old. How can they be sure that the information given to them by their parents is correct? The information is inadmissable.
Click to expand...

Bet you FOTLs still expect a birthday present from their parents. Ask them what day that comes on.
 
Nessie said:
Bet you FOTLs still expect a birthday present from their parents. Ask them what day that comes on.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
It's the same if a footle won the lottery and the cheque for five mill was made out to his name in all caps:

Footle: That'll be me.
 
Stacey Grove said:
Many of them say they cannot give their dob because it is only hearsay. Although they were present at their own birth they would have had no way of knowing the date because they were only minutes old. How can they be sure that the information given to them by their parents is correct? The information is inadmissible.
Click to expand...

So I am guessing that if the cop were patient enough to say "look. I don't need your actual date of birth. When you filled out the forms to get a drivers license, you wrote down a date in the box marked DOB. Don't think of it as a date that is going to be used as evidence, think of it as a PIN that allows us to see if you really are the person you claim to be, I just need to know what numbers you wrote in that box" then little or no progress would be made.

OK, that was a silly question because pretty much every hypothetical about what can be done when dealing with Freemen/Sovereigns ends with "little or no progress will be made."

..............

I am sure it is covered somewhere in this thread. And I hope I will be forgiven for simply asking the question rather than combing the thread.Why do these folks consider Black's second edition (1910) to supersede Black's ninth edition (2009)?
Is it because the second edition is the only one in the public domain?
 
Ladewig said:
So I am guessing that if the cop were patient enough to say "look. I don't need your actual date of birth. When you filled out the forms to get a drivers license, you wrote down a date in the box marked DOB. Don't think of it as a date that is going to be used as evidence, think of it as a PIN that allows us to see if you really are the person you claim to be...
Click to expand...


;)
 
Ladewig said:
I am sure it is covered somewhere in this thread. And I hope I will be forgiven for simply asking the question rather than combing the thread.Why do these folks consider Black's second edition (1910) to supersede Black's ninth edition (2009)?
Is it because the second edition is the only one in the public domain?
Click to expand...

Because the second edition uses the "original definitions" that haven't been altered by the establishment to suit their purposes. I'm sure that would be their excuse if pressed, but I don't know if the question has ever been properly posed to them.
 
Ladewig said:
I am sure it is covered somewhere in this thread. And I hope I will be forgiven for simply asking the question rather than combing the thread.Why do these folks consider Black's second edition (1910) to supersede Black's ninth edition (2009)?
Is it because the second edition is the only one in the public domain?
Click to expand...

Because they like the definitions better? Do I gain from it? Is after all the freeman litmus test.
 
thedopefishlives said:
Because the second edition uses the "original definitions" that haven't been altered by the establishment to suit their purposes. I'm sure that would be their excuse if pressed, but I don't know if the question has ever been properly posed to them.
Click to expand...



I think they have said something like this at one point or another.

Most of the flavors of Freemanism identify some specific date in history as the day we went from having a "real" government "of the people", to having a "corporate" government run by THEM. The dates vary, but one often cited is 1933, when the US went off the Gold Standard. Since the old version of Black's Law Dictionary predates this, it can be trusted to tell us the "real meanings" of these words.

Clearly, any version of Black's from after this point will be tainted by THEM for their own nefarious purposes.

Other dates I've seen include the creation of Income Tax in Canada, during WWI, and the establishment of the District of Columbia as distinct from the United States. I'm sure you could find similar dates for the UK.
 
thedopefishlives said:
Because the second edition uses the "original definitions" that haven't been altered by the establishment to suit their purposes. I'm sure that would be their excuse if pressed, but I don't know if the question has ever been properly posed to them.
Click to expand...


What's really bizarre about their reliance on Black's, or any other legal dictionary, as an absolute authority is the order of authority it implies, with a publishing company being assumed to have greater authority than the courts or the elected government.
 
Could one counter their arguments by quoting the first edition (1891)?
 
thedopefishlives said:
Because the second edition uses the "original definitions" that haven't been altered by the establishment to suit their purposes. I'm sure that would be their excuse if pressed, but I don't know if the question has ever been properly posed to them.
Click to expand...


See also Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 at paragraph 40, referring to the use of the 4th edition:
The defendant, in closing submissions, indicates that one of the reasons she chooses to rely on this definition is because of its proximity in time to the initial enactment of the modern HTA. The defendant feels that the language of law ought not change over time as this would change the law.
Click to expand...


And, of course, the judge's response to this at paragraph 41.
 
Mojo said:
What's really bizarre about their reliance on Black's, or any other legal dictionary, as an absolute authority is the order of authority it implies, with a publishing company being assumed to have greater authority than the courts or the elected government.
Click to expand...
^ This.
 
Having had a look at Blacks website

http://www.blackslawdictionary.com/Home/Default.aspx

it is nothing more than one of a number of legal dictionaries available. Of note for the likes of myself in Scotland is its American origins and editorship.

"Edited by the world’s foremost legal lexicographer, Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary is known for its clear and precise legal definitions, substantive accuracy, and stylistic clarity — making it the most cited legal dictionary in print."

It is owned by Thomson Reuters, a news and information company that is listed on various stock exchanges.

Has a FOTL from Canada or the UK ever explained why Blacks is their accepted source of law?
 
Nessie said:
Bet you FOTLs still expect a birthday present from their parents. Ask them what day that comes on.
Click to expand...

And you can bet their date of birth will be correct when they collect their dole and eventually their old age pension, assuming that they have enough brain cells to enable them to survive until old age.
 
Nessie said:
Having had a look at Blacks website

http://www.blackslawdictionary.com/Home/Default.aspx

it is nothing more than one of a number of legal dictionaries available. Of note for the likes of myself in Scotland is its American origins and editorship.

"Edited by the world’s foremost legal lexicographer, Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary is known for its clear and precise legal definitions, substantive accuracy, and stylistic clarity — making it the most cited legal dictionary in print."

It is owned by Thomson Reuters, a news and information company that is listed on various stock exchanges.
Click to expand...

but ... but ... it's a CORPORATION !
...............................

With the ninth edition, Black's added about 2500 new terms related to the legal field. That means the 10th edition stands a good chance of updating the words Freeman and Sovereign. I cannot wait to read Black's new definitions. I suspect they will be quite different from the definitions that appear in the 2nd edition.
.
.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom