Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
The raw amateurishness blindsided us. It still baffles me that anyone would pay for products that are so wretched, incoherent, and poorly presented. It says so much about the seductive appeal of getting something for nothing, and the desperation of the typical FOTLish person, that they could ever imagine adopting such ridiculous schemes, advanced by gurus who are not exactly wellsprings of coherence or charisma. Or who display ANY obvious signs of the affluence that they claim to have at their fingertips!
Click to expand...

That has always been a bugbear of mine as well, why do all the guys spouting this nonsense look like hobos?
Each one to a man resembles catweazle or stig of the dump.
"Access your birth bond its worth millions, ...me, no I dont want to access mine just yet, I like living in a run down hovel making youtube videos"
 
Chaetognath said:
Hi folks!

...
And now the reason I decided to comment in this forum. Speaking simply for myself, I very much appreciate the efforts of the persons who have and continue to call FOTLish fuddleduddle when they see it. For obvious reasons, the courts cannot venture into the ‘heart of dumbness’ and directly confront and challenge the persons who advance the legally, logically, and historically incorrect bases for the FOTLish movement. The courts can only react – and frankly by that time it is often too late. We cannot generally prevent ill-considered choices, but only respond to those.

But you can and do act in that manner. So thank you for fighting the rational fight. Your watchfulness is also very helpful. I pop into a number of online sources every so often to see the latest developments, personalities, websites, and caselaw. You folks are wonderful scouts, direct or collateral. Certainly, I would have never found David Icke by any other means…

So again, thank you.

I would be pleased to answer questions if you have any, though I should note that the nature of my work and the courts means I cannot comment in certain directions. Beyond that, I would be very happy to offer my thoughts and observations.

Chaetognath.
Click to expand...

Great post. Thanks for your insight.

My client runs into its fair share of fmotl as well, but they are still very few and far between (and its primarily just nuisance correspondence.) Nonetheless, like you, that is how I was introduced to the wonderful, wacky world of fmotl. From there, its grown into a fairly shameful (and yet hilarious and fun-filled) hobby. I keep thinking (hoping even) that I will grow bored of posting over at the Icke forum (i.e., the "heart of dumbness"), but it hasn't happened yet. There must be some psychological explanation as to why certain people are drawn to this stuff as a hobby.
 
Chaetognath said:
Hi folks!

I’m a long time skulker in the Randi FOTL threads, and thought I would uncloak for a bit and offer what I hope is perhaps a different and interesting perspective on the FOTL community and generally associated groups of anti-government quasi-legal commentators – I’ll call that pool the “FOTLish persons”. And offer some very appreciative thanks. But I’ll get to that a little later.

I am a lawyer employed by one of the Canadian provincial superior courts and work directly with the judiciary in a number of roles. A couple years ago I became interested in the FOTLish persons we encounter, and since have become the in-house contact on the topic. That is more of a hobby than anything else and certainly isn’t the core of my work. I thought you might be interested in just how the FOTLish persons are viewed and understood by the judiciary, and our court infrastructure.

Before going further, the opinions here are simply and only my own, and certainly do not represent those of the judges with whom I work, my employer, general statements of policy, yadda yadda.

As a starting point, it is only very recently that courts in our jurisdiction have even perceived there was some kind of structure behind the FOTLish persons appearing in our courtrooms. To put things into perspective, a judge in a typical week will encounter quite a mix of litigants, some represented and some not, and among the latter category it is not unusual that a little digging is required to try to understand what that person is attempting to achieve. We also see a significant number of individuals with addictions, psychological issues, and those that are simply excruciatingly ‘inarticulate’. To this point, in our jurisdiction, FOTLish litigants are relatively uncommon. As a rough estimate, our judges seem to each encounter less than one a year.

That means the typical judge does not automatically develop any expertise in identifying FOTLish persons or an understanding of their schemes. Instead, FOTLish persons are submerged in a pool of people who say somewhat to exceptionally strange things in court, and for whom we do our best to help. And that IS our obligation. The person who argues their aboriginal rights are infringed in a landlord/tenancy dispute may have a very genuine complaint of another kind – but the court has to tease that out of them first so that a fair solution can be achieved.

The comparative rarity of FOTLish persons has had some interesting consequences. One thing that became apparent when I shared my research is that a significant number of these individuals were identified as having some kind of psychiatric issue and then sent of for assessment in the local mental care hospitals. The judges just didn’t know better – here was a person speaking in some pseudo-legal gibberish, presenting documents that could easily have been produced using Burroughesque ‘cut up’ techniques, asserting wild conspiracy theories – and who could not even begin to explain what they were saying/doing. The judges never imagined these individuals were using commercial products and trying to implement instructions given by paid gurus.

My discovery of this hidden world began when I was working on our complaint letters. It is not unusual that an unhappy litigant will write to our administrative judges and complain that some judge had made an error, there had been an administrative glitch in their file, or other institutional misstep. Among those letters I noticed a pattern. We were receiving these extremely odd bundles of documents from persons in the United States in response, typically, to traffic tickets they received in our province. These were classic sovereign citizens, for example members of the Republic of Texas. I was fascinated by these documents and their ideas, and noticed that even though these slap-dash cut and paste photocopies at times seemed to take entirely different approaches to (alleged) legal rights, there nevertheless were patterns in language, terminology, naming structures, for example the magic [firstname] - [middlename] : [lastname] motif. Or “Pete of the House of Blerb”.

I started researching these oddities and soon was spiraling down the rabbit hole. It was then, looking at our complaints, that I realized these ideas and motifs were appearing with some frequency. To my continued incredulity, a significant fraction of our complaints were not isolated eccentrics, but these documents were instead the product of an unrecognized subterranean industry. The judges had not picked up this pattern because they rarely see FOTLish persons and much FOTLish material is, on its surface, quite variable.

Our new appreciation of this movement has been helpful in a number of ways. In my experience judges go to great lengths to try to be fair. One of their long-standing concerns has been that an apparently nonsensical claim by a self-represented litigant may, in fact, represent an attempt to assert a real legal right by a person who simply has great difficulty in articulating their issue and what they want. We encounter that all the time – if anything the persons who are less educated, have limited language skills, addictions, or a troubled history are the ones who end up victimized, and the last thing the courts want to do is deny those persons their rights.

The consequence of that sensitivity is that judges would scrutinize FOTLish materials and argument with enormous care, trying to dissect out real issues from amongst the rubbish heap. With all these legal(ish) elements, surely there is something real hidden in there! One of the revelations for the judiciary was the discovery that not only were there no genuine legal issues in those FOTLish submissions, but that those submissions are either by design or evolution intended to be confusing gibberish.

The other shock was that the documents and ‘scripts’ followed by FOTLish persons were a commercial product. None of us could initially believe that was possible. It was only when we began to visit the sources for these materials and viewed the ubiquitous YouTube training videos (particularly those recorded in seminars), that the court staff and judges were convinced that the awful, incoherent idiocy we receive was something which movement gurus had sold to their customers. I show the Erwin Rommel School of Law, Winston Shrout’s material, and so on as examples when I do presentations on FOTLish persons and their community. I could probably turn those materials into a kind of stand-up comedy routine for judicial audiences – the audience just roars every time I pull up a poster I found for a number of David-Kevin: Lindsay seminars – particularly at the claim that styling one’s name in bold, italics, or even a different font will create a new person. And you can just imagine how the judges respond to A4V…

The raw amateurishness blindsided us. It still baffles me that anyone would pay for products that are so wretched, incoherent, and poorly presented. It says so much about the seductive appeal of getting something for nothing, and the desperation of the typical FOTLish person, that they could ever imagine adopting such ridiculous schemes, advanced by gurus who are not exactly wellsprings of coherence or charisma. Or who display ANY obvious signs of the affluence that they claim to have at their fingertips!

If has been a huge help to identify the spurious themes that drive FOTLish arguments, so that the courts can look past the irrelevant gibberish and try to find out if, in fact, the FOTLish person really does have some issue with which the court can help.

On a purely legal front, one of the curious issues in Canada is that while we have a substantial number of reported FOTLish cases, there is practically no coordination between those decisions. For example, the tax court has its collection of caselaw that addresses their frequent arguments, while B.C. has its lines of David-Kevin: Lindsay judgments. Judges rarely understood that the litigants they encountered were anything other than a one-off kook, and so it is only lately that we see a more integrated theoretical response to FOTLish concepts.

One piece of advice I give judges is that a written decision on a FOTLish argument is a powerful tool – that is something tangible that challenges the authority of and beliefs espoused by FOTLish gurus. We know they do a kind of legal research, particularly thanks to canlii, and a detailed judgment that identifies an argument as spurious is pretty hard to ignore. That same argument is almost certainly going to be encountered by another judge in the not too distant future. Locally, I am hoping for a suitable FOTLish litigant and scenario that could lead to a decision which is something of an omnibus response and explanation of the FOTLish movement and its ideas.

And now the reason I decided to comment in this forum. Speaking simply for myself, I very much appreciate the efforts of the persons who have and continue to call FOTLish fuddleduddle when they see it. For obvious reasons, the courts cannot venture into the ‘heart of dumbness’ and directly confront and challenge the persons who advance the legally, logically, and historically incorrect bases for the FOTLish movement. The courts can only react – and frankly by that time it is often too late. We cannot generally prevent ill-considered choices, but only respond to those.

But you can and do act in that manner. So thank you for fighting the rational fight. Your watchfulness is also very helpful. I pop into a number of online sources every so often to see the latest developments, personalities, websites, and caselaw. You folks are wonderful scouts, direct or collateral. Certainly, I would have never found David Icke by any other means…

So again, thank you.

I would be pleased to answer questions if you have any, though I should note that the nature of my work and the courts means I cannot comment in certain directions. Beyond that, I would be very happy to offer my thoughts and observations.

Chaetognath.
Click to expand...

What is your jurisdiction? For the purposes of these questions I will assume until corrected that it is Ontario.

Are you a woman? For the purposes of these questions I will assume that you are, unless you correct me.

Is a corporation a person? Is a corporation a human being? As a woman, are you a person? Was there ever a time in Canada’s history where women did not enjoy the status of person? At that time were they still human beings?

Do the courts require consent?
Do you get paid for your services? Do the judges, clerks and lawyers?

Is your court a person? A legal entity? A corporation? A commercial enterprise operated for profit or gain? Is it listed on Dunn and Bradstreet as a business, or commercial enterprise? Does it generate money or provide payment to its operators? Does it engage at all in contracts, say for the purchase of equipment? Can it sue and be sued? Are they bound by contract law when they provide their services? Or are they corporations which are not bound by the law?

Do judges require the consent of the parties to the adjudication?

If I wanted to sue your court, would that same court be qualified to provide the adjudication services? Bearing in mind that if I win, the outcome would be the judge losing money, maybe going to jail? Can a party to an action also be the adjudicator of that action, or does that offend basic law?

Do you agree the only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representative one, and that representation requires mutual consent?

Are the courts a branch of the government? If so, can they provide proper adjudication for a party who wishes to bring action against all branches of the government?

How old is our system of government? Has technology increased since its inception and if so, is the present system perhaps obsolete?

Does the requirement for mutual consent mean that both parties must agree to the requirement? Or is it as JB here believes, that he can ask a woman for sexual intercourse, and if she declines to consent, he can just claim that he does not consent to her non-consent, force her to have sex with him, and avoid liability, because he did not consent to her not consenting? Does the requirement for mutual consent mean both parties must agree to that requirement?

Can I be your representative without your consent, and do things on your behalf which binds you or affects you such as sell your property? Does representation between two adults of sound mind require mutual consent?

Have you ever heard of the term ‘child of the province’ or ‘ward of the state’?

How can someone who claims to be a public Servant place demands on a member of the public, if that member of the public is the Master in a Master/Servant relationship? Do servants have the power to command their Masters, if that Master is not a ward or child?

Are judges liable for a bill when they place an order in a restaurant? Are they liable for a bill when they place an order for home repair services? Are they liable for a bill when they place an order on someone in court? If not, are they operating lawfully? Bear in mind, if they are listed on Dunn and Bradstreet and exist as a legal entity capable of engaging in contracts, then they are either liable for a bill, or are committing fraud. Is fraud lawful if the court employees do it?

Have you ever heard of a fee schedule?

Do notices and claims have any significance at law? Is the lawful use of Notices and Claims restricted to those in the government?

Is equality before the law mandatory and paramount in this common law jurisdiction?
Are judges bound by the law of equality or not? If not why not, and if so, how can they provide their commercial and very profitable services without the consent of both parties to the adjudication?

Have you ever met ‘The Crown in the Right of the Province of ____________’? Is it an entity which is alive and existing in the same way you and I do, or is it a legal fiction, closer in nature and existence to Santa Claus? If you have never met such a creature, but only have met other people who claim to work for it, how do you know it even exists?

Does the court you work for claim to have a monopoly on convening courts and administrating justice? What if we wish to sue THEM?

Have you ever heard of the term ‘defacto’? Is your court defacto?

As an employee of the courts, are you in any way biased in your opinions?

Do the courts make money for the people employed therein? Does this not mean that a lower court has a vested interest in finding against someone in order that they might make an appeal, and put even more money in the systems coffers?

Police officers who bring someone to court get paid to do so, and paid extra to show up and testify. They are also officers of the court. If the one charged is found not guilty, do the police, clerks and judges still get paid? And if so, is it not then in the officers best interest to drag the innocent into that machine so all might be paid? If they make money settling conflicts, do they not have a vested interest in generating that conflict?

Have you ever heard of the court of public opinion?

Do you agree that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done?

Is court a place for people to settle their conflicts? And if so, is it in the best interest of justice for officers of the court to manufacture and generate conflict, knowing that by doing so, they and all the court employees still get paid?

If a group such as the Hells Angels convened a court, would you accept their ruling if they stated their members had a right to steal from you? Is the existing court operated and paid for by the government or not? And if so, how can anyone expect justice therein if they are taking action against the government or courts?

Do you agree with David Sherman, a preeminent tax attorney who stated that the Acts and statutes are not written in English but in the language of law, and that they are not understandable to the average untrained Canadian?

Have you ever heard of the term ‘legalese”?

Is ‘legalese’ one of the two official languages of Canada?

Does Section 32 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms state that the Charter is only applicable to governments?

Are all Acts and Statutes subject to the Charter or not? If so, and the Charter is ONLY applicable to the governments, then how can statutes bound by that Charter be applicable outside of the Charter to those who are not part of the government?

Am I party to a contract without my consent merely because a majority of my neighbours agreed to that contract?

Do you agree that people have a right to association? If you do, do you agree that we have a right to not associate as we see fit? Does this right of association or non-association mean we can choose to not associate or contract with the existing defacto courts? Or are we obliged to accept their commands to associate with them? If so, does that mean those operators have abandoned the rule of law?

Have you ever heard the term ‘power corrupts’? Do you agree that the courts have power, are operated by people, and thus are not above corruption?

Have you ever known any elected representative to claim the right to govern their fellow man without the consent of the governed?

Do you think it is merely a coincidence that most judges are drawn from the law society, most Acts are crafted by members of the law society, and they claim a monopoly on understanding and interpreting those Acts and statutes, and demand an insane amount of money to do so?

Do you believe that the people of Canada have a right to deny consent to be governed by a system if they feel it is corrupt?

Have you ever heard of a claim of right? What about lawful excuse?

Do you agree that if an Act has as its intent or purpose the removal of a right, it must do so clearly, specifically and unequivocally? Or do you claim that rights are removed by an Act merely by not mentioning that right?


Do you claim our human rights come from the ‘The Crown in Right of Canada’? Have you ever met that entity?

Do you believe people such as judges and police should not be held accountable for their actions which harm their fellow man, because they were following the orders of a non-existent legal entity or legal fiction such as “The Crown in Right of The Province of Ontario”?

Do you agree the people of Canada have a right to convene new courts to bring criminal charges against the operators of the existing ones if those operators act unlawfully? Do you believe that whether or not their actions are unlawful should be determined by them?

Do you know of any judge willing to publicly claim under oath, and upon full commercial and criminal liability that they have the right to govern their fellow man without the consent of their fellow man?

Do you agree the people of Canada have a right to change their system of government if they feel it is obsolete or corrupt? Or are we all forever bound by the lawyers and their courts?

Do you agree that truth is required for justice, and that fictions are not truth? Do you agree that corporations are legal fictions? Do you work for a legal fiction?

Do you agree that those who seek power, either in political office or on the bench, should undergo psychiatric evaluations merely for even wanting such power?

Are you aware of anyone who was sent for a psych evaluation by a judge merely because they questioned the jurisdiction and authority of that judge? Are you aware of the case back in 2002 or so, of a man sent for a 30 psych evaluation in BC, who was released that same day by the Doctor, and which resulted in a strongly worded letter from the Doctor to the Chief Judge demanding that they stop abusing the healthcare system and sending perfectly normal and sane people to hospital for 30 days as a means of judicial intimidation? Do you believe that merely questioning the jurisdiction or motive of a judge is sufficient reason to incarcerate someone for 30 days and calling it a psychological evaluation?

NOTE:
You said:
It still baffles me that anyone would pay for products that are so wretched, incoherent, and poorly presented.
Many people who are not lawyers and do not therefore benefit from the very confusing jargon in Acts such as The Income Tax Act wonder why we have Acts created by the lawyers which are themselves so wretched, confusing and purposely deceptive. Many have come to the reasonable conclusion that it is a purposeful deception crafted by the lawyers to ensure THEY ALONE find great benefit form governing their fellow man. Wanna know what it looks like to a growing number of Canadians? “Here are your rules. You have no choice. Your consent is not needed. And oh, incidentally, ONLY we have the ability to understand them, and if you want our opinion on them, if you want to know what they say, you have to pay us more per hour than you make in a week.” Many see that as the biggest scam EVER.


In any event, welcome to the forum. Sorry to blast you with so many questions, please feel free to take your time, and I ask you realize my intent is to in fact uncover truth, and not harass you in any way. Peace, eh?

:)
 
Wow, a lot of questions there Rob

And you still haven't answered anyones questions here yet.
Im pretty sure this new guy is going to tear you a new one.
Rob you really don't know anything about 'picking your weight' do you?
Popcorn time....
 
Are you aware of the case back in 2002 or so, of a man sent for a 30 psych evaluation in BC, who was released that same day by the Doctor, and which resulted in a strongly worded letter from the Doctor to the Chief Judge demanding that they stop abusing the healthcare system and sending perfectly normal and sane people to hospital for 30 days as a means of judicial intimidation?
Click to expand...


Yawn, is that another story you heard from a friend of a friend via facebook?
 
FreemanMenard said:
In any event, welcome to the forum. Sorry to blast you with so many questions, please feel free to take your time, and I ask you realize my intent is to in fact uncover truth, and not harass you in any way. Peace, eh?

:)
Click to expand...

I find that difficult to believe considering most of these questions have already been answered for you countless times.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Are you aware of the case back in 2002 or so, of a man sent for a 30 psych evaluation in BC, who was released that same day by the Doctor, and which resulted in a strongly worded letter from the Doctor to the Chief Judge demanding that they stop abusing the healthcare system and sending perfectly normal and sane people to hospital for 30 days as a means of judicial intimidation? Do you believe that merely questioning the jurisdiction or motive of a judge is sufficient reason to incarcerate someone for 30 days and calling it a psychological evaluation?

:)
Click to expand...

While the question was not directed to me, I would like to say no, I am not aware of such a case. Perhaps you would be good enough to post a link to a newspaper report of the case, or any other verifiable source so we can all see it for ourselves?

Oh, and a question. If the Government has no authority or jurisdiction over you, because you have 'withdrawn your consent', where does that leave Legal Tender issued by that government? What does that mean for 'Birth Bonds'?
 
I sincerely hope that Chaetognath doesn't waste his/her time answering Rob's daft list of questions.

Rob's sister who worked in the Justice Department can answer him.

What an embarrasment he must be to her and his family.
 
Last edited:
Rob, those questions have all been answered in the last 6 months.

You are engaging in what we call "shopping for an answer". You didn't like the answer we gave you and you are hoping that another person will give you an answer more to your liking. Reminds me of what my kids try to pull with me and my wife.

So is the childlike faith that "this time it 'll work, then we'll show you" and the persistent undertone of entitlement and the belief that if you get just the right set of words that the legal system and society will turn on centuries of practice and do what you want them to.
 
arayder said:
Menard, the wide-eyed look of surprise on your face when Arsenault caught you dead to rights in a pack of lies was a classic. One has to think that the look on your face was exactly the one you produced in childhood when adults caught you in your Mini-Menard tall tales.

Consistent with the manipulations of a narcissist the claimed success of your methods and the assertion of a tremendous reception of freemanism based on the CBC piece rely solely on your word.

The only problem is your word is no good.

Your awkward plagiary of Larken Rose, your falsification of a McCann Fitzgerald memo, your vacillating stories about Lance Thatcher and a raft of stories to numerous to mention belie your credibility.

Hells bells, son, you even wear a little fez/beanie to hide your balding head and over sized tunics to hide your big ole beer belly.

You are as phony as a three dollar bill.

The only thing keeping you going is the sad fact that there is a wannabe freeman sucker born every minute.
Click to expand...

FreemanMenard said:
So a picture of me without my hat, with a fair head of hair, that pretty much undermines ALL your assumptions, eh?

So how goes your battle to destroy me? Still struggling are you?

Hows your friend you abandoned and failed to help doing?
Click to expand...

Your “costume” is a physical manifestation of your propensity for hiding the truth.

Anybody with a lick of sense can see right through your disguise, Menard.

The stories, the lies, the fez. . . it’s all a sham.
 
Last edited:
ComfySlippers said:
I sincerely hope that Chaetognath doesn't waste his/her time answering Rob's daft list of questions.

Rob's sister who worked in the Justice Department can answer him.

What an embarrasment he must be to her and his family.
Click to expand...

Bobby boy believes that asking questions presumes a superior position and therefore he councils his minions to endlessly chatter questions at traffic stops. This little bit of childish gamesmanship explains why he avoids answering any questions.

Faced with the superior training, experience and intelligence of Chaetognath, all our boy can do is deploy his own debate trick and make each sentence of his screed a question.

It’s really quite sad.
 
FreemanMenard said:
What is your jurisdiction? For the purposes of these questions I will assume until corrected that it is Ontario.
Click to expand...
What difference does it make? You are still wrong.

FreemanMenard said:
Are you a woman? For the purposes of these questions I will assume that you are, unless you correct me.
Click to expand...
Add misogyny to your list of sins.

FreemanMenard said:
Is a corporation a person? Is a corporation a human being? As a woman, are you a person? Was there ever a time in Canada’s history where women did not enjoy the status of person? At that time were they still human beings?
Click to expand...
Ongoing misogyny.

FreemanMenard said:
Do the courts require consent?
Click to expand...
Nope.

FreemanMenard said:
Do you get paid for your services? Do the judges, clerks and lawyers?
Click to expand...
Duh, of course they get paid a salary, you should try it.

FreemanMenard said:
Is your court a person? A legal entity? A corporation? A commercial enterprise operated for profit or gain?
Click to expand...
No.
FreemanMenard said:
Is it listed on Dunn and Bradstreet as a business, or commercial enterprise?
Click to expand...
You realise that D&B is a voluntary listing, right? No one is required to get a D&B listing unless they choose to do so.


FreemanMenard said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
After the first few paragraphs of wrong, I gave up. It is such a load of bovine fecal matter. Once I hit the D&B stuff, I laughed and knew the rest was not worth the effort.
 
flabio said:
Apparently Chaetognath is too afraid to poast now.
Click to expand...


What makes you think that? Chaetognath has made a single post, just over 12 hours before you posted this, after being a member for five months. Not posting is entirely consistent with Chaetognath's previous behaviour.
 
Silly, silly, flabio.

You really should try holding out for more than a few days before letting the cheap disguise slip.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom