Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would appear that lesactive and Menard have been a double act since 2007.
Heres an old thread I found(they are getting their backsides handed to them , but thats no surprise) its interesting that they are using exactly the same tired old arguments today.
I did notice that Menards DVDs cost $145 in 2007 ($250 now????)
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8612&st=90

I liked his final post
So this is what I am doing.

I found an investor for my concept which I am calling Shepherd's Haven. I will be opening a little cafe and therein I will sell beer, wine and pot to those who have secured Freeman status.

I will operate in British Columbia but not in The Province of British Columbia. I will operate in Vancouver City but NOT in the Corporation of the City of Vancouver. Because I won't be operating in the Corporation their bylaws will not be applicable to me. Because I will not be operating in the Province of British Columbia their statutes will not be applicable to me. Since I will be operating as a Freeman-on-the-Land statutes such as the Income Tax Act and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act will not be applicable to me.

And you will see that what you have been led to believe by the government is a lie.

If they don't come and try to bust me you will have a chance to see the truth.
Of course some will still refuse to see.

That's why the entire process is going to be turned into a movie.

And I will be operating under a claim of right and fee schedule and will be fully prepared to bring legal action against anyone that interferes with my lawful actions.

If the so called authorities do not come down on me will you then accep[t that I am acting lawfully and that statutes are not laws and persons are not people?

In any event, I wish you all well and if I am wrong it will soon be apparent.
If I am right, that to will be apparent.

If you would like to verify these words call the Licensing official for The Corporation of the City of Vancouver and ask him about me. He is a very nice man named Paul Teichrob. Ask him if he has any intent of trying to stop me from acting in Vancouver City but not in TCOTCOV.

Ask him if anyone in his organization wishes to claim my path is unlawful.

Have a good one my children. Let your Nanny state take care of all your needs and desires. Don't bother even trying to learn the words that they use to restrict you.

But don't cry to me when they are putting you to bed early and making you do your homework.

I am now an adult and will not be nannied by service providers.
You could also call the VPD and ask them what their response would be. Their answer will surprise you.
Click to expand...

A bit like his peace officers and his hobbit coloney, that turned out to be pipe dream as well.
PS I think he got Bud the Oracle do do it first though, just to test the water.
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=83345
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
It would appear that lesactive and Menard have been a double act since 2007.
Heres an old thread I found(they are getting their backsides handed to them , but thats no surprise) its interesting that they are using exactly the same tired old arguments today.
I did notice that Menards DVDs cost $145 in 2007 ($250 now????)
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8612&st=90

I liked his final post


A bit like his peace officers and his hobbit coloney, that turned out to be pipe dream as well.
PS I think he got Bud the Oracle do do it first though, just to test the water.
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=83345
Click to expand...

Menard getting a patsy to test one of his bad ideas? What a shock.

He's all hat, no cowboy. And it's a pretty crappy hat, too.
 
jargon buster said:
It would appear that lesactive and Menard have been a double act since 2007.
Heres an old thread I found(they are getting their backsides handed to them , but thats no surprise) its interesting that they are using exactly the same tired old arguments today.
I did notice that Menards DVDs cost $145 in 2007 ($250 now????)
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8612&st=90
Click to expand...
That's a good find, JB. Yeah, he used the same analogies then as he does now. As you know I have had a few spats with Menard but even I am surprised how he suddenly completely loses it in post 174.
To me it appears that lesactive was a newcomer then because he does ask questions regarding law and doesn't come across nowhere near as assertive and arrogant as he does these days, now that he is brainwashed by this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Latest from our favourite clownish con-man.

Over on Icke's, he is comparing himself to Gandhi:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142670

But what's really amusing is his reaction over on the WFS forums to the National Post article that pretty much carves Canadian FOTLers (mentioning Menard by name) a new one. He's rallying the troops to sue the National Post for "defamatory libel" using...the Criminal Code of Canada. Yes. They're going to base their civil action on a section of the Criminal Code. God, I hope they try.

Even better, the WFS numpties are falling all over themselves trying to figure out how to apply a statute (the Criminal Code) from which they have "withdrawn consent" as FOTLers. Of course, the distinction between Torts and Criminal Law completely escapes them. That's probably because Torts are Common Law - actual Common Law. And we know just how well FOTLers understand that.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=7673
 
D'rok said:
Latest from our favourite clownish con-man.

Over on Icke's, he is comparing himself to Gandhi:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142670

But what's really amusing is his reaction over on the WFS forums to the National Post article that pretty much carves Canadian FOTLers (mentioning Menard by name) a new one. He's rallying the troops to sue the National Post for "defamatory libel" using...the Criminal Code of Canada. Yes. They're going to base their civil action on a section of the Criminal Code. God, I hope they try.

Even better, the WFS numpties are falling all over themselves trying to figure out how to apply a statute (the Criminal Code) from which they have "withdrawn consent" as FOTLers. Of course, the distinction between Torts and Criminal Law completely escapes them. That's probably because Torts are Common Law - actual Common Law. And we know just how well FOTLers understand that.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=7673
Click to expand...

Liberty_01 goes off the rails:

The Hamilton Po-po's might even be guilty of treason or possibly high treason if they have been working with the Southern Poverty Law Centre or other governmental agencies from outside of Canada. If we could somehow find that out and have proof of claim, then this rabbit hole goes deeper into the realization that "shadow government" does in fact of fact exist within Canada! :shock:



Is this what he really wants?

Since High Treason was, and arguably remains, the most serious capital crime, testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act was required to convict, and the punishment in the Eighteenth century was severe. Blackstone states that "the punishment of high treason in general is very solemn and terrible":

1. That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk: though usually (by connivance length ripened by humanity into law) a sledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement

2. That he be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive

3. That his entrails be taken out and burned, while he is yet alive

4. That his head be cut off

5. That his body be divided in four parts

6. That his head and quarters be at the king's disposal [6].

The punishment did not end with the personal suffering of the offender; the punishment extended to his or her family. The law states that a person who is found guilty of treason must also undergo "forfeiture" and "corruption of blood." In forfeiture, the person is forced to give all their lands and property to the state. Corruption of blood prevents the person's immediate family and hereditary heirs from owning property or conducting business-- in effect ruining the offender's family forever.
 
tsig said:
Liberty_01 goes off the rails:

The Hamilton Po-po's might even be guilty of treason or possibly high treason if they have been working with the Southern Poverty Law Centre or other governmental agencies from outside of Canada. If we could somehow find that out and have proof of claim, then this rabbit hole goes deeper into the realization that "shadow government" does in fact of fact exist within Canada! :shock:



Is this what he really wants?

Since High Treason was, and arguably remains, the most serious capital crime, testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act was required to convict, and the punishment in the Eighteenth century was severe. Blackstone states that "the punishment of high treason in general is very solemn and terrible":

1. That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk: though usually (by connivance length ripened by humanity into law) a sledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement

2. That he be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive

3. That his entrails be taken out and burned, while he is yet alive

4. That his head be cut off

5. That his body be divided in four parts

6. That his head and quarters be at the king's disposal [6].

The punishment did not end with the personal suffering of the offender; the punishment extended to his or her family. The law states that a person who is found guilty of treason must also undergo "forfeiture" and "corruption of blood." In forfeiture, the person is forced to give all their lands and property to the state. Corruption of blood prevents the person's immediate family and hereditary heirs from owning property or conducting business-- in effect ruining the offender's family forever.
Click to expand...
Interesting response to an article that portrays FOTLers as potentially violent nutcases, eh? Especially as part of a "brainstorming" session about how to refute that very accusation.
 
I rather like the convulted reasoning behind their ability to use the criminal code to sue people while at the same time not being part of it.......strange. I guess they haven't heard of the freedom of the press either!
 
Hans said:
I rather like the convulted reasoning behind their ability to use the criminal code to sue people while at the same time not being part of it.......strange. I guess they haven't heard of the freedom of the press either!
Click to expand...



I'd also love to see their listing of what in that article constitutes a "libel" in any case. It seems there are some key elements to libel and "spreading false news" that they have just assumed the article contravenes.


181. Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Click to expand...


Can they show that the NP "knows" the information in the article is "false"? That's two aspects that need to be independently proven. Also, what "public interest" is being damaged here, and is that damage "likely"?


1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Click to expand...


Did they have a "lawful justification" for what they printed? The vast majority of that article appears to be direct quotes from the principals involved, and merely factually reports what those people actually said. Is it libel to honestly report that "Joe said X about topic Y"?


And of course they completely ignore sections 309-316 entirely, which provide several exceptions that don't constitute libel, like:

309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit.
Click to expand...


Considering that the vast majority of people in our society honestly believe that the police, courts and government do have legitimate authority, I think it's perfectly reasonable to publish something, even if it "likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published", as it would be a public benefit to expose those who we believe to be fraudsters who are themselves injuring people by misleading them.


Then there's this:

314. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes to another person defamatory matter for the purpose of giving information to that person with respect to a subject-matter in which the person to whom the information is given has, or is believed on reasonable grounds by the person who gives it to have, an interest in knowing the truth with respect to that subject-matter if
(a) the conduct of the person who gives the information is reasonable in the circumstances;
(b) the defamatory matter is relevant to the subject-matter; and
(c) the defamatory matter is true, or if it is not true, is made without ill-will toward the person who is defamed and is made in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is true.
Click to expand...


Everything they said in that article is clearly relevant to the subject matter, and again,they have completely failed to show that the NP knows it to be false.

So, on exactly what basis are they asserting that they've been libeled under these laws?
 
Also , just as an aside, to be libeled, dont they have to acknowledge the "person"?
Which will dent their credibility a touch.
 
D'rok said:
Interesting response to an article that portrays FOTLers as potentially violent nutcases, eh? Especially as part of a "brainstorming" session about how to refute that very accusation.
Click to expand...

Obviously the best way to disprove the accusation that you're violent is to fantasize over having your accusers drawn and quartered.
 
Horatius said:
Wow.

Does this guy really think that newspapers in Canada need a "licence"?
Click to expand...

D'rok said:
God only knows. Those folks are operating on a different plane of reality.
Click to expand...

People's ideas about what government does or does not do are a hoot. I once worked for [a major theme park, not Teh Mouse], and about two years after we opened we raised ticket prices. I fielded a phone call from a local resident:

Resident: This is an outrage! How can you raise ticket prices?
Me: Ma'am, we need to cover our costs.
Resident: I'm reporting this to the mayor!
Me: You are certainly within your rights to do that; however, we are a corporation, not a city department, and the mayor has no jurisdiction over our ticket prices.
Resident: I'll call my councilman!
Me: You are certainly within your rights...etc.
Resident: I'll call the county judge.
Me: You are certainly within your rights to do that; however, we are a corporation, not a county department, and the county judge has no jurisdiction over our ticket prices.
Resident: [silence] Well, I'm calling the mayor. [click]
 
As the Freeman on the Land mythology continues to collapse all around them, we have another attack from one woo segment against another. A woo web show called the "Iconoclast Report" has begun an extensive investigation into the World Freeman Society!

Woo's fighting woo's: who will be the craziest in the end?

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=389229&cmd=apop

Whats most fascinating is that the woos never demand evidence..except when attacking other woos.
 
LightinDarkness said:
As the Freeman on the Land mythology continues to collapse all around them, we have another attack from one woo segment against another. A woo web show called the "Iconoclast Report" has begun an extensive investigation into the World Freeman Society!

Woo's fighting woo's: who will be the craziest in the end?

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=389229&cmd=apop

Whats most fascinating is that the woos never demand evidence..except when attacking other woos.
Click to expand...



Wow. First twenty seconds or so...He got a traffic ticket dismissed - because the cop didn't show up in court.





Oh, yeah - great win there!
 
Horatius said:
Wow. First twenty seconds or so...He got a traffic ticket dismissed - because the cop didn't show up in court.





Oh, yeah - great win there!
Click to expand...

It gets better! This woo radio show host thinks that Menard is a Mossad agent trying to stir up anti-Semitic sentiment in the patriot movement.

:eek:

I guess it couldn't just be that Menard is just a average, run of the mill con-artist who happens to hate jews?
 
Hans said:
When did Menard start showing that pleasant side?
Click to expand...

Apparently Rob gets involved in any number of skpye chats that have quite an audience - in these chats, the host and others claim multiple phrases like "shooting up the jews" and "dealing with the jews" are thrown around. In the Freeman mythos, apparently the Jews now play some role in the Vast Global Conspiracy To Suppress Freedom (TM).

Now, I don't find this all that strange personally - people who tend to be ignorant enough to believe in Freeman mythology would also tend to be stupid enough to think the Jews are responsible for their problems. But to other woos, it is of course a Mossad operation in this case.
 
I wonder how many of them would believe that the sinking of the Titanic were part of a Mossad plot. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom