Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry Seinfeld had a funny bit about what the legal system would be like if it was imagined by children. He specifically mentionned how "calling shotgun" would be a legal defense.

That was funny when it was an aburd joke made by a comedian on stage.

When it's being brought up entirely unironically as a serious argument, it's just sad.
 
Border Reiver said:
If the claim of right is the source document for all FMOTL theory (and here it was that I thought it was this whole silly "consent" issue) then how can the FMOTL stand the logical contradiction of using a STATUORY defence as a source of all their legal standing while denying that statutes are not law?
Click to expand...


Perhaps they consent to that particular statute (they seem to consent to legislation under which they receive benefits, but not to legislation under which they have responsibilities).
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
So, is a Claim of Right where the defendant only reasonably believed he had the right to act as he did, or where the defendant actually had the right to act as he did? How is it related to a Lawful Excuse?

To take an extreme example, suppose I'm visiting Toronto, walking down the street. Someone pulls an assault rifle out of a bag and shoots and incapacitates a police officer standing near me. The gunman then begins shooting bystanders. I pick up the police officer's weapon and fatally shoot the gunman; however, one of my shots misses, striking and injuring an innocent bystander.

Do I have a Claim of Right, or a Lawful Excuse, or both, or neither, for my actions?
Click to expand...


You have the legal defence of "Self Defence" to the charge of homicide wrt the shooter, as you had a reasonable apprehension that your life and the life of others was threatened.

Concerning the injured bystander, for the criminal side the Crown would likely use its discretion to not lay charges and if they did Self defence would again allow you to avoid a finding of guilty (unless you had a very unsympathetic jury). For the any civil action brough by the injured bystander - you have the defence of the reasonable man - provided you were using reasonable care, control and skill with the pistol.

I would also caution you to stay away from that Toronto neighbourhood in future, although the odds of that happening are only slightly greater than Rob providing a sustantive response.
 
The freeman claim of right is a totally different concept from the de facto law claim of right. The de facto law says that a claim of right arises from a specific set of circumstances. The freeman claim of right is a piece of paper that says "claim of right" on it. Totally different concepts.

Using the same logic as the freeman claim of right, you could imagine all sorts of absurd possibilities. Does this accused have a valid defence to the charge? Why yes your honour, I have one right here, it's a document titled "valid defence" with a bunch of claims written on it. Ok, then I guess you've got a valid defence and you're free to go.

This is literally the same logic being used as the freeman claim of right. This is something that wouldn't fool anyone of normal intelligence for a second. You can easily see through the nonsense (if you are of average intelligence) and see that the freeman has just made up a ridiculous new meaning for the words "claim of right." To expect this to fool a judge, who typically is going to be highly educated and above average intelligence, is pretty desperate wishful thinking in my opinion.
 
The NZ case in my opinion is an example of jury nullification, as opposed to an example of a claim of right defence being succesful. And I think jury nullification is the really the only possible chance of success for freeman arguments as any of them that have ever been tried have all failed to convince to convince a judge. But if you happened to get a pro freeman jury then you could hope for a jury nullification verdict.

I think public education about the powers of juries and jury nullification would be a possible way for freemen to get some wins. If a freeman could get a jury to buy in to certain key elements of freeman philosophy and the jury was aware and open to the possibility of a jury nullification then I think you could get a legitimate freeman win. Of course this course of action for some reason doesn't seem very appealing to the freemen I have suggested it to.
 
JLord said:
To expect this to fool a judge, who typically is going to be highly educated and above average intelligence, is pretty desperate wishful thinking in my opinion.
Click to expand...


I suspect that the intention is not to get anywhere near a judge, but to use the various documents to threaten and bamboozle law enforcement officers into not bothering with them. For example several of the cases cited in this thread seem to involve FOTLers making claims for huge amounts of money via "fee schedules" or whatever.
 
JLord said:
I think public education about the powers of juries and jury nullification would be a possible way for freemen to get some wins. If a freeman could get a jury to buy in to certain key elements of freeman philosophy and the jury was aware and open to the possibility of a jury nullification then I think you could get a legitimate freeman win. Of course this course of action for some reason doesn't seem very appealing to the freemen I have suggested it to.
Click to expand...


Probably because even they see the hopelessness of trying to convince 12 people at once to buy their nonsense?
 
Horatius said:
Probably because even they see the hopelessness of trying to convince 12 people at once to buy their nonsense?
Click to expand...

But they wouldn't necessarily have to use any nonsense legal arguments to be succesful. They would only have to convince the jury to philosophically agree with them about the unfairness of governing without consent or whatever it may be. They wouldn't have to argue that the government legally can't govern them without consent, only that they shouldn't be able to or that doing so is unfair. This is a legitimate philosophical position to take and people can and do believe this without also inventing nonsense legal arguments. So it still is going to be very difficult I agree, but not as difficult as convincing people of the merits of their nonsense legal arguments.
 
Mojo said:
I suspect that the intention is not to get anywhere near a judge, but to use the various documents to threaten and bamboozle law enforcement officers into not bothering with them. For example several of the cases cited in this thread seem to involve FOTLers making claims for huge amounts of money via "fee schedules" or whatever.
Click to expand...

Close; I don't think RM and the others at the top of the FOTL pyramid have any intent to use the documents and theories they sell (viz. Rob's earlier pronouncements about avoiding court by, basically, obeying the laws he says he does not consent to). Rather, they are just preying on the gullible to make enough money to keep them in booze and weed.
 
JLord said:
But they wouldn't necessarily have to use any nonsense legal arguments to be succesful. They would only have to convince the jury to philosophically agree with them about the unfairness of governing without consent or whatever it may be. They wouldn't have to argue that the government legally can't govern them without consent, only that they shouldn't be able to or that doing so is unfair. This is a legitimate philosophical position to take and people can and do believe this without also inventing nonsense legal arguments. So it still is going to be very difficult I agree, but not as difficult as convincing people of the merits of their nonsense legal arguments.
Click to expand...


Most of them would only need to convince a judge.

The majority of these individuals are up in front of a judge alone as they are being tried by way of summary conviction or for provincial offenses such as driving without license, registration, or insurance, and thus appear before judge alone.

Indictable offenses are the ones that get jury trials, and most FMOTLs aren't going up for those (serious assault, homicide, etc.) they're going up for the run-of the mill minor stuff that would get them a stern talking too for being bad, a small fine and off you go if they were dealing with this like rational adults. But no, they get up and start going on about admiralty courts, and the other shenanigans that youtube has made famous and the next thing they know they're "guests of Her Majesty" for an extended period.
 
JLord said:
But they wouldn't necessarily have to use any nonsense legal arguments to be succesful. They would only have to convince the jury to philosophically agree with them about the unfairness of governing without consent or whatever it may be. They wouldn't have to argue that the government legally can't govern them without consent, only that they shouldn't be able to or that doing so is unfair. This is a legitimate philosophical position to take and people can and do believe this without also inventing nonsense legal arguments. So it still is going to be very difficult I agree, but not as difficult as convincing people of the merits of their nonsense legal arguments.
Click to expand...


That might be true with certain laws that are becoming more out of favour with the general electorate, like laws against marijuana, but for a lot of these things that they latch onto, even that is a long shot. Can you imagine them trying to convince a jury that driver's licenses are an unfair imposition on our freedoms?

"There's already too many idiot drivers on the roads, and he wants to make it easier for them to drive? **** that!"
 
Jon. said:
Close; I don't think RM and the others at the top of the FOTL pyramid have any intent to use the documents and theories they sell (viz. Rob's earlier pronouncements about avoiding court by, basically, obeying the laws he says he does not consent to). Rather, they are just preying on the gullible to make enough money to keep them in booze and weed.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for your belief, I have already used them. Successfully too.
 
Horatius said:
That might be true with certain laws that are becoming more out of favour with the general electorate, like laws against marijuana, but for a lot of these things that they latch onto, even that is a long shot. Can you imagine them trying to convince a jury that driver's licenses are an unfair imposition on our freedoms?

"There's already too many idiot drivers on the roads, and he wants to make it easier for them to drive? **** that!"
Click to expand...

We would not have to convince a jury of that, the other side would have to prove the common law right to travel no longer exists in Canada. Nice try in shifting the onus though.
 
JLord said:
But they wouldn't necessarily have to use any nonsense legal arguments to be succesful. They would only have to convince the jury to philosophically agree with them about the unfairness of governing without consent or whatever it may be. They wouldn't have to argue that the government legally can't govern them without consent, only that they shouldn't be able to or that doing so is unfair. This is a legitimate philosophical position to take and people can and do believe this without also inventing nonsense legal arguments. So it still is going to be very difficult I agree, but not as difficult as convincing people of the merits of their nonsense legal arguments.
Click to expand...

Again, the onus would be on the other side to prove they can govern without consent. Something none of you have been able to do without claiming a bigger stick makes you right.
 
JLord said:
The freeman claim of right is a totally different concept from the de facto law claim of right. The de facto law says that a claim of right arises from a specific set of circumstances. The freeman claim of right is a piece of paper that says "claim of right" on it. Totally different concepts.

Using the same logic as the freeman claim of right, you could imagine all sorts of absurd possibilities. Does this accused have a valid defence to the charge? Why yes your honour, I have one right here, it's a document titled "valid defence" with a bunch of claims written on it. Ok, then I guess you've got a valid defence and you're free to go.

This is literally the same logic being used as the freeman claim of right. This is something that wouldn't fool anyone of normal intelligence for a second. You can easily see through the nonsense (if you are of average intelligence) and see that the freeman has just made up a ridiculous new meaning for the words "claim of right." To expect this to fool a judge, who typically is going to be highly educated and above average intelligence, is pretty desperate wishful thinking in my opinion.
Click to expand...

A claim of right ala Freeman does in fact rely upon a specific set of circumstances.

Those being that a notice understanding and intent was shared with the people who think they are above the law, and a claim of right served. These are specific sets of circumstances are they not?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Unfortunately for your belief, I have already used them. Successfully too.
Click to expand...

Sure. . .

All your “cases” in which there is a court record or paper trail you lost. . .and all the instances in which you say you were successful there is no written, or video documentation.

All we have is your word, Menard.
 
Border Reiver said:
There are at least 278 reported cases where one of the parties raised "Claim of right" in Canlii. The problem for the FMOTL and their concept of ops is that in those cases a claim of right is a statutory defence put forward to establish that you had the right to do something:

a. Stop someone from taking your property, so long as you don't get all excessive with your own force, and the other party has not right or duty to take it;
b. Continue to do what you have been allowed to do with your property or on other property, provided you can demonstrate that you've either been doing it for 20 years, or you have title to the property; or
c. Act as a defence to the tort of a breach of privacy.

If the claim of right is the source document for all FMOTL theory (and here it was that I thought it was this whole silly "consent" issue) then how can the FMOTL stand the logical contradiction of using a STATUORY defence as a source of all their legal standing while denying that statutes are not law?
Click to expand...

So the idea that the people who claim the right to govern you require consent is to you 'silly'? WOW....
If they do not require consent, why do they try so hard to secure it while hiding the fact that they do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom