Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Stacey Grove]

This arrest incident, Rob.
Please describe what happened exactly.
Where was the police officer detained?

 

[D'rok]

They are hired and make oath to preserve and maintain the public peace with the oath administered by a JJP, and recognized by the court BEFORE they do anything.

I think I see a flaw in your little plan.

Oh and incidentally, said Peace Officer status has already been recognized and accepted by a certain provincial police force, and the courts. Someone has already effected an arrest, and identified themselves as a peace officer to the police, they accepted it and the documents they gave to the court recognize that.

Ah, so you have concrete evidence then, eh? And on the public record no less.

That must mean that you will soon post these documents wherein the court and the police of said un-named province validate your little fantasy. Perhaps you will post a docket number and identify the court. Maybe you will shortly provide some substantive evidence of any kind whatsoever.

Or, maybe you will continue to spin tales on the internet and hope that no one will see through your pathetic lies.

 

[D'rok]

why?
how does this it the mold of the FOTL movement?

The whole stupid idea is a tacit admission that FOTL tactics don't work in court. Otherwise, why would an FOTL pretend-a-cop try to get someone charged with an offence and appear in court? Can't the accused just use the FOTL playbook with the judge? Obviously not.

 

[D'rok]

So, at the root of this idiocy, it appears we have citizens' arrests and private prosecutions (both legitimate in principle) dressed up with fantasy roleplaying elements including fake badges, fake titles and fake procedural rituals. And all so packaged as yet another attempt by Menard to squeeze some coin from the disenfranchised and the gullible.

What a stinking load of crap.

 

[Stacey Grove]

The whole stupid idea is a tacit admission that FOTL tactics don't work in court. Otherwise, why would an FOTL pretend-a-cop try to get someone charged with an offence and appear in court? Can't the accused just use the FOTL playbook with the judge? Obviously not.

From what I understand Menard's pretend plod's job is to arrest police officers that they consider are contravening statute. As the officer would have taken an oath to uphold statute law that officer in Menard's opinion cannot then subsequently say they do not consent to statute law.

Obviously this is all academic. It's just another example from the ever growing list of Menardian Fantasies.

 

[FreemanMenard]

why?
how does this it the mold of the FOTL movement?

Your idea of a mold of the FMOTL movement, and the belief that all things a Freeman do must fit into a mold which exists only in your head, which you have defined based upon your misperception of the ideals, renders your question meaningless. To answer it I would have to accept (although yet undefined by you) such a thing as a mold of the freeman movement. And that is your construct. Which you have not defined.

You have an attachment to what you think FMOTL actually means. And what you think it means, and what it actually means are not the same thing. If you knew that, you would likely not refer to a mold and a Freeman in the same sentence.

It is in fact a lawful way for the populace to control their police.

It is lawful, peaceful, uses the law and the courts, will be acceptable to the public, is arguable and defendable in court, and is simply us embracing peace, before we attempt to record the police and use the courts to correct them.
And those who would claim that us using the courts, or engaging in any of these actions does not fit the 'mold of the FMOTL Movement', I would suggest their mold is off, and their idea of what it is needs modification, for these actions are entirely in line with the tenets and precepts of FMOTL.
Have a great day!



Regardless of if they are FMOTL or WOTS. (Wards of the State)

 

[D'rok]

From what I understand Menard's pretend plod's job is to arrest police officers that they consider are contravening statute. As the officer would have taken an oath to uphold statute law that officer in Menard's opinion cannot then subsequently say they do not consent to statute law.

Obviously this is all academic. It's just another example from the ever growing list of Menardian Fantasies.

I suppose that makes things internally consistent at least.

Now, if Menard can just get over that little hurdle of getting his pretend status officially recognized...


ETA: And now we have confirmation that FOTL coppers get to arrest everyone.

 

[FreemanMenard]

This arrest incident, Rob.
Please describe what happened exactly.
Where was the police officer detained?

Re-read what I wrote very carefully, then decide if I ever stated a police officer was arrested. Or if that is merely YOUR interpretation, which may be a little off.

Oh and incidentally, said Peace Officer status has already been recognized and accepted by a certain provincial police force, and the courts. Someone has already effected an arrest, and identified themselves as a peace officer to the police, they accepted it and the documents they gave to the court recognize that.

Where did I state the arrest involved a police officer being arrested?

 

[D'rok]

Your idea of a mold of the FMOTL movement, and the belief that all things a Freeman do must fit into a mold which exists only in your head, which you have defined based upon your misperception of the ideals, renders your question meaningless. To answer it I would have to accept (although yet undefined by you) such a thing as a mold of the freeman movement. And that is your construct. Which you have not defined.

You have an attachment to what you think FMOTL actually means. And what you think it means, and what it actually means are not the same thing. If you knew that, you would likely not refer to a mold and a Freeman in the same sentence.

It is in fact a lawful way for the populace to control their police.

It is lawful, peaceful, uses the law and the courts, will be acceptable to the public, is arguable and defendable in court, and is simply us embracing peace, before we attempt to record the police and use the courts to correct them.
And those who would claim that us using the courts, or engaging in any of these actions does not fit the 'mold of the FMOTL Movement', I would suggest their mold is off, and their idea of what it is needs modification, for these actions are entirely in line with the tenets and precepts of FMOTL.
Have a great day!



Regardless of if they are FMOTL or WOTS. (Wards of the State)

You claimed that one of you has already arrested a police officer and that the police and the courts have recognized your claim to be a Peace Officer.

Prove it.

 

[D'rok]

Re-read what I wrote very carefully, then decide if I ever stated a police officer was arrested. Or if that is merely YOUR interpretation, which may be a little off.


Where did I state the arrest involved a police officer being arrested?

Ah, so the mandate has expanded, has it?

So, can the accused use the FOTL playbook in court?

 

[FreemanMenard]

No, Rob it doesn't make me happy as it is light on what might be considered supporting information:

JJP: What is this acronym stand for? Or did you just hit the J button once too many times?

Which provincial police force? Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland? The others use the Mounties.

Where did this alleged arrest take place? When?

Are these FPOs only concerned with alleged transgressions by other POs or are they dealing with other offences against public order?

JJP = Judicial Justice of the Peace
OPP
London.
Nope, and yes, but in the same limited fashion. Though if they need to arrest, they can.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Freeman Menard wrote:

Where did I state the arrest involved a police officer being arrested?

In post 3016 you described the process. You stated that it was police officers that you intend to arrest.
So who was arrested and by whom?

 

[D'rok]

I'm a freeman. I don't consent to statutory law. I've sent in all my Notices, Claims etc. to all the appropriate authorities. Statutes like the Criminal Code no longer apply to me. Can I still be arrested, charged and convicted?

 

[D'rok]

In post 3016 you described the process. You stated that it was police officers that you intend to arrest.
So who was arrested and by whom?

Whoa there! Don't go putting those words in my mouth!

 

[Hans]

Whoa there! Don't go putting those words in my mouth!

What Menard said in post 3016 (amended)

The process of arrest would be as follows.
- A couple of CCCPO Officers wearing suitable clothing identifying themselves as peace officers, are armed with recorder, video camera, pen and notebook.
- Witnessing a transgression by an offending police officer, they record it from a distance which does not obstruct the officer in doing what he thinks is his job.
-If the offending officer tries to seize the equipment, or stop the CCCPO Officer from doing their duty, they face further charges for that, with those actions recorded by the second CCCPO Officer.

- Additionally, as the police know they are dealing with someone who has sworn to preserve the peace, and is recognized by the courts as peace officers, they are less likely to employ violence fearfully or try to hinder or obstruct the recording process.
-The CCCPO officer takes the evidence forthwith to a Judge, and swears out an information, showing sufficient evidence to support the Judge endorsing an arrest warrant for the offending officer.
-The CCCPO Officer takes this to the offending officer’s CO and places the liability to arrest upon the CO.
-The CO calls the officer before him, and affects the arrest.
-The offending Officer goes through the prosecution process like any other would for the same crimes.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Whoa there! Don't go putting those words in my mouth!

Fixed it

 

[JLord]

It is in fact a lawful way for the populace to control their police.

Recording police encounters and swearing private informations regarding any crimes that are recorded is indeed a good method to try to hold the police accountable for breaking the law and also to gather evidence of other crimes generally. I'm not sure what benefit you hope to gain by calling the people doing the recording "peace officers" and having them wear special clothing, because the de facto courts already recognize the ability of anyone to swear a private information regarding any alleged offence that they have evidence of. But regardless that is certainly a commendable effort if people are willing to volunteer their time to this service.

Before it gets buried again I know a lot of people are responding to your posts but I remind you that I am still awaiting a reply to my last post which I had reposted a few pages back. I will link to it here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7648346#post7648346

And I also have a new question resulting from your efforts to police the police... I am wondering why it is that you would place any importance on the Criminal Code of Canada? This is statute law and I don't understand why anyone would be bound by it if they haven't consented to it applying to them. As I undrestood your theory statute law was supposed to be a matter of individual consent?

 

[Stacey Grove]

ETA: And now we have confirmation that FOTL coppers get to arrest everyone.

Menard did say that someone has "effected an arrest".
There is the possibility that translates as "snitched on someone to the rozzers".

 

[FreemanMenard]

Recording police encounters and swearing private informations regarding any crimes that are recorded is indeed a good method to try to hold the police accountable for breaking the law and also to gather evidence of other crimes generally. I'm not sure what benefit you hope to gain by calling the people doing the recording "peace officers" and having them wear special clothing, because the de facto courts already recognize the ability of anyone to swear a private information regarding any alleged offence that they have evidence of. But regardless that is certainly a commendable effort if people are willing to volunteer their time to this service.

Before it gets buried again I know a lot of people are responding to your posts but I remind you that I am still awaiting a reply to my last post which I had reposted a few pages back. I will link to it here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7648346#post7648346

And I also have a new question resulting from your efforts to police the police... I am wondering why it is that you would place any importance on the Criminal Code of Canada? This is statute law and I don't understand why anyone would be bound by it if they haven't consented to it applying to them. As I undrestood your theory statute law was supposed to be a matter of individual consent?

Hi J,
I am not calling them 'Peace Officers' so much as asking them to accept certain duties to peace before stepping forward. They are called peace officers, not just as a label, but because of the steps they have taken, and the promises they have made, to act peaceably.

The 'special clothing' is so they are identifiable and readily so.

The courts do recognize the ability of the citizenry to bring such charges. They also recognize the ability of peace officers to do so, and assign much higher value to their actions.

I will have to look at your previous question I have missed later. You may need to remind me again, though I will try to remember it. (I am waiting for folks, and I think they just pulled up and I do not have your question in front of me.)

The Criminal Code does not make the offense, it 'codifies' it. I am not placing the importance on 'it', but upon 'that which it holds'. IN the absence of it, I would still claim that the actions described within are wrong. They are not wrong merely because they are described within. They were wrong before the authors of the CCoC decided to codify them, and now having done so, they do not have the right to decide they are wrong merely by virtue of the fact the didi codify them. And they do not have the right to 'make them ok', by removing them.

Peace, J.

 

[D'rok]

Menard did say that someone has "effected an arrest".
There is the possibility that translates as "snitched on someone to the rozzers".

Seems like the long and short of it to me. Noble to the core, these freemen.

Maybe they finally got JB?