Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[tsig]

just posted this on Freeman Ireland, Robs after some new idiots to try his nonsense.

Rob seems to have a messiah complex:

PS- There is nothing wrong with being the least, for the last will be first.

 

[jargon buster]

Kev the site owner at freeman Ireland has just suspended me from the chat room so Rob can peddle his con, it will backfire, some of them there are onto Robs nonsense.
http://tirnasaor.com/forum/topics/temporarily-suspended-from

 

[jargon buster]

Now banned permanently and all my posts criticizing Menard removed.

I did offer Menard the chance to come here and debate his points but something tells me he wont take me up on it.

 

[jargon buster]

Ive just been going over Menard's last few posts on Ickes and you know what, he would be better off if he had nothing at all.

The information he his posting is actually debunking his own arguments, he his posting the fact that a bloke has been stopped and had his car confiscated as "Freemanery is unstoppable"
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148649

Whatever next?

 

[jargon buster]

I just love this gem
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148648&page=2

SURE IS EASY TO RUFFLE THE FEATHERS OF THE SKEPTICS OVER THERE.. They all cry and moan about how I have realized they are incapable of debate or discussion and thus no longer waste time trying to use logic and reason with those who can only use ad hominem attacks.

Easy hey?
Cant be that easy or he may actually grow himself some gonads and come over here.

I love the "ad hominem" quote as well in a thread entitled Nazis and Rats

 

[jargon buster]

Hes started another thread about his favourite subject (himself) on Ickes
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148684

I love this bit

Unfortunately, I do not break the law, and any contravention of any Act by myself is not breaking the law, as I am a Freeman.

You see, he doesn't contravene any acts either, hes been challenged to in the past and refused.
he does however encourage others to contravene the acts at every available opportunity.

He then challenges me to a debate on skype
He is too scared to even post on here.

 

[Cocana The Second]

He's so totally discredited now that there's no point in having a further debate anyway. You know he'll just avoid the issues and shower you in metaphors. It's "logic and reason" don't you know.

The Nazi thread is a classic though.

 

[Vladd]

I notice everyone who disagrees with him is a child as well, it would appear instead of debating all he can do is name calling. I have noticed over on the DIf that if you disagree with the majority view, no matter how reasonable and even intelligently you do it, instead of producing a coherent argument they throw insults, threats, and suggest that as you don't agree with them you go else where. Is that place a forum* or just a self appreciation society?

*forum [ˈfɔːrəm]
n pl -rums, -ra [-rə]
1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
3. a public meeting place for open discussion
4. a court; tribunal
5. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in South Africa) a pressure group of leaders or representatives, esp Black leaders or representatives
6. (Historical Terms) (in ancient Italy) an open space, usually rectangular in shape, serving as a city's marketplace and centre of public business

 

[gtm]

I notice everyone who disagrees with him is a child as well, it would appear instead of debating all he can do is name calling. I have noticed over on the DIf that if you disagree with the majority view, no matter how reasonable and even intelligently you do it, instead of producing a coherent argument they throw insults, threats, and suggest that as you don't agree with them you go else where. Is that place a forum* or just a self appreciation society?

*forum [ˈfɔːrəm]
n pl -rums, -ra [-rə]
1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
3. a public meeting place for open discussion
4. a court; tribunal
5. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in South Africa) a pressure group of leaders or representatives, esp Black leaders or representatives
6. (Historical Terms) (in ancient Italy) an open space, usually rectangular in shape, serving as a city's marketplace and centre of public business

This is a function of the 'cultish' nature of FMOTL - outsiders / non believers who question the 'status quo' are to be given no quarter whatsoever & are to be derided / insulted whenever they reveal themselves. Menard calls them childish but other 'freemen' believe that they are 'slaves', undercover agents of the state paid to disrupt the smooth running of the various forums they participate in.

Menard has a greater interest than the usual FMOTL loons in squashing a measured, two sided discussion about his 'teachings'. He has World Freeman Society Memberships, DVD's & pitches in his 'freeman village' to sell & doesn't want that income stream threatened.

 

[jargon buster]

I believe Menard has just made the most telling statement about his mindset and beliefs in his own theories.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148684&page=3
He wrote

Well they do not take me to court. I engage in actions which would be contravening a statute all the time except I am a freeman and thus not subject to those, so it is not a contravention. See the problem? you want me to do the impossible, (contravene a statute) yet if I am not subject to the statue, I cannot contravene it.

Also, I have a plan, and it is unfolding nicely, and I am not going to sacrifice that on a dare from some stranger who is unknown to me and has absolutely no power over me. I like to exercise my power by pointing out you have none over me.

Did you want me to go and purposely antagonize the police, (like others have challenged)? Is that not CHILDISH?

In other words if Im caught breaking a statute its all over.

his last line should encourage his fellow freemen and moderators on WFS.
It reveals what he thinks about anyone that would deliberatly break a statute by lets say driving uninsured.

You go Rob, way to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

 

[Vladd]

Oh yes I forgot the other common put down, you don't agree with them you must be a shill and/or a troll

 

[jargon buster]

Rob has finally revealled all he has
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148648&page=8

It is a line of reasoning I use when it is justified by the childish actions of others. Do not blame me if they are continually so.

All I have?
What about pointing to the words in the criminal code which prove we can easily establish lawful excuse to disobey the people in the courts and government by way of a claim of right? Always been willing to discuss that, but when I do the children make their ad hominem attacks.

Or the court cases where the crown dropped charges because of a lack of consent?

Or the RULE OF LAW which states that equality is paramount and mandatory, thus the people in the courts and government and the police need our consent before governing, taxing or regulating those?

People of reasonable intelligence see those too, and know that saying an adult is acting childishly is not all I have.

Have you ever heard of the legal concept called 'Child of the State' or 'Ward of the Court'? If adult people are legally in the position of being a 'child of the state' due to their own ignorance, and they engage in actions which create that status, should I not refer to them as children? Should I not say they are acting childishly, especially when these actions are what the state uses to claim the legal power of being their 'parent'?

Let me ask you this:
Is it ok to you to refer to a child as a child?
Is it ok to you to refer to an adult as a child if his legal status is one of a 'child of the state' or 'child of the province'?

I always thought he didnt have any proof of the validity of FMOTL.
Thats us well and truly put in our places

 

[D'rok]

Rob has finally revealled all he has
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148648&page=8


I always thought he didnt have any proof of the validity of FMOTL.
Thats us well and truly put in our places

Work is busy for me this morning, but, in the interests of ending the circle-jerk, I will respond (again) to these "points" later today. I suppose it's about time to repeat the debunking just in case new lurkers are about.

 

[jargon buster]

What a coward Menard is turning out to be, yet again he responds to one of my posts on here over on Ickes.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148684&page=4

Tell you what Rob, have a word with the Admin on Ickes to re-instate my Asky log on, or better still Jargon Buster as a new log on and we can have it out in your own backyard, or better still on the World Freeman Society site.

If you lack the courage of your convictions here then at least have the guts to do it on your own friendly turf.

Put up or shut up

 

[jargon buster]

Rob Wrote on Ickes (WRITE IT HERE YOU IDIOT, YOU ARE AFTER ALL A MEMBER)

SO since i know you are reading this, I challenge you to a proper debate, a public one with proper moderation, on skype using video, so all can see your face and know who you are.

ROB I HAVE NO DESIRE TO HAVE MY FACE PLASTERED OVER THE INTERNET.

I unlike yourself am a nomal balanced member of society who sees these forums as a bit of light entertainment, it isnt a be all and end all way of life for me.
I do not crave publicity and there are even people on freeman forums who have threatened to do me harm, whilst I am not in fear of these halfwits myself, I have a family who I dont want put in danger by lunatics knocking on my door.

What would be the point of an open debate, you would just waffle on about how you believe the world should work whilst I ask you to verify your claims with evidence.
Since you clearly have none at all , what would be the point?

Just have a word with the admin on Ickes, we can discuss anything on there.
Better still WFS, Im sure you could getr me on there couldnt you?
It will certainly do wonders for your viewing figures, even if only for a short while.

 

[Sledge]

Why would a debate on Skype be better than a debate here, where people can take their time over replies, link to extra material relevant to the debate, etc?

 

[Horatius]

Why would a debate on Skype be better than a debate here, where people can take their time over replies, link to extra material relevant to the debate, etc?

It's easier to score points with pleasing soundbites.

 

[jargon buster]

Soundbites and anecdotes are all he has, its only deluded simpletons who are gullible enough to fall for them.
If we had an open debate his minions would just sit about bashing one off when he made any kind of inane attempt at humour.

on the other hand (pardon the pun) if we debated on a forum where we could both post links and evidence to back up our argument then he would come unstuck (he always has in the past)

 

[D'rok]

Rob has finally revealled all he has
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148648&page=8


I always thought he didnt have any proof of the validity of FMOTL.
Thats us well and truly put in our places

OK, I have a minute or two to partially address this nonsense. Let's start with this:

What about pointing to the words in the criminal code which prove we can easily establish lawful excuse to disobey the people in the courts and government by way of a claim of right?

Regarding "lawful excuse", Menard is referring to s. 126 and s. 127 of the Criminal Code (CC). Regarding "claim of right", he is referring to s. 39 of the CC.

(see here where he explicitly states this)

His very first error is conflating these sections. S. 126 and s. 127 offer a defence of "lawful excuse", but do not provide for making that defence by "claim of right". S. 39 offers a defence of "claim of right", but says nothing about "lawful excuse". The former is in regards to disobeying statutes and court orders, the latter is in regards to defence of property.

To further illustrate the error, we have to consider the context and scope of these provisions. I'll start with ss. 126 and 127. These provisions are found in Part IV of the CC - OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW AND JUSTICE - under the subtitle "Corruption and Disobedience". S. 126(1) is as follows:

Disobeying a statute​

126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. [emphasis added]

The first step when trying to determine the scope of a provision is to see what the courts have said about it. Like so:

This section of the Code is a default provision which is engaged when no penalty or punishment is expressly provided in an Act of Parliament. It provides punishment for contraventions of Acts of Parliament in the absence of other provisions.

R. v. Boyer, 2009 BCPC 278 (CanLII)

We can see quite clearly that the scope of s. 126 is limited to instances where any provision of any Act has been contravened and where no other punishment for that contravention has been enacted.

This limits the scope of the "lawful excuse" defence in that provision. It is not a blanket defence to disobeying all statutes. It applies only to instances where a provision of a statute has been contravened and where a punishment for that contravention has not otherwise been enacted.

The same is true for s. 127(1), which states:

Disobeying order of court​

127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. [emphasis added]

The Supreme Court of Canada has weighed on this as follows:

By this line of reasoning I would construe the subsection as being available as the basis for a charge for disobedience of a lawful Court order whenever statute law (including Regulation) does not expressly provide a punishment or penalty or other mode of proceeding, and not otherwise.

R. v. Clement, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 468

Just as with s. 126, the scope of s. 127 is limited to instances where no other punishment has been enacted. The difference being that s. 127 refers to disobeying court orders rather than statutes.

In sum, these two provisions are the default punishments for when a statue or court order is disobeyed and where no other punishment exists. They are limited in scope, and the defence of lawful excuse is also so limited.

Within that scope, the defence of "lawful excuse" has particular meaning. I'll address this specifically in my next post when I get some more time.

Final note for this post is simply a highlight of Menard's lies and hypocrisy:

Always been willing to discuss that [i.e., lawful excuse and claim of right], but when I do the children make their ad hominem attacks.

I asked Menard this question during his short stint here:

I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the Criminal Code gives you the right to disobey whatever statue your little FOTL heart desires. What is your law? What is your lawful excuse? Substantiate your answers with something besides muddled philosophy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5204455&postcount=1261

No response. In fact, instead of responding, he fled back to safe waters, never to be seen at JREF again.
​

 

[gtm]

OK, I have a minute or two to partially address this nonsense. Let's start with this:

Regarding "lawful excuse", Menard is referring to s. 126 and s. 127 of the Criminal Code (CC). Regarding "claim of right", he is referring to s. 39 of the CC.

(see here where he explicitly states this)

His very first error is conflating these sections. S. 126 and s. 127 offer a defence of "lawful excuse", but do not provide for making that defence by "claim of right". S. 39 offers a defence of "claim of right", but says nothing about "lawful excuse". The former is in regards to disobeying statutes and court orders, the latter is in regards to defence of property.

To further illustrate the error, we have to consider the context and scope of these provisions. I'll start with ss. 126 and 127. These provisions are found in Part IV of the CC - OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW AND JUSTICE - under the subtitle "Corruption and Disobedience". S. 126(1) is as follows:




The first step when trying to determine the scope of a provision is to see what the courts have said about it. Like so:



We can see quite clearly that the scope of s. 126 is limited to instances where any provision of any Act has been contravened and where no other punishment for that contravention has been enacted.

This limits the scope of the "lawful excuse" defence in that provision. It is not a blanket defence to disobeying all statutes. It applies only to instances where a provision of a statute has been contravened and where a punishment for that contravention has not otherwise been enacted.

The same is true for s. 127(1), which states:



The Supreme Court of Canada has weighed on this as follows:




Just as with s. 126, the scope of s. 127 is limited to instances where no other punishment has been enacted. The difference being that s. 127 refers to disobeying court orders rather than statutes.

In sum, these two provisions are the default punishments for when a statue or court order is disobeyed and where no other punishment exists. They are limited in scope, and the defence of lawful excuse is also so limited.

Within that scope, the defence of "lawful excuse" has particular meaning. I'll address this specifically in my next post when I get some more time.

Final note for this post is simply a highlight of Menard's lies and hypocrisy:

I asked Menard this question during his short stint here:


No response. In fact, instead of responding, he fled back to safe waters, never to be seen at JREF again.
​

Blah, blah, blah.

That's an ordinary, reasonable interpretation of the statute & related case law but we all know that Rob specialises in extraordinary interpretations. What about 'conseeeeeeent'? Have you taken into account Canon Law, the Unam Sanctam Papal Bull & the Cestui Qui Vie Act of 1666?