Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[TSR]

I also note that in the pic that was posted, at least to my untrained eye, a concerted effort was made to make the plates look the same as legit plates, so that if it was perhaps twilight or dark, the cop may not have seen that they were not. If FOTL worked in this context, why not make them look different, very different than the standard plates? Why be deciptive and try to make them look "normal"?

 

[Robrob]

I can't think of any way to prove my experiences to strangers. They are in the past and I was not recording. But I had them. I do not want to convince you. Maybe we can talk like it don't matter if they happened?

What do I need to convince you for? Convince you of what? That I had an experience? How does that experience being true or not have anything to do with arguing against the guys at work? Why do I have to jump through hoops to get some help?

That's a funny sentence. If I care that you think I am lying, I should not be here? That seems to be what you are saying. Is it?
What I think I see is that I am asking some questions and instead of answering and sharing you are calling me a liar and asking I tighten your tires before you have to answer.

Basically you demand verification of inconsequential minutiae before answering more important questions. It looks like avoidance.

Not for nothing but complaining about having to provide facts or evidence to support your wild claims is the sort of thing conspiracy nuts do all the time.

How do your comments above differ in any way from any other CT nut rambling on about UFOs, Bigfoot or ghosts?

 

[arayder]

This kind of funny, folks.

A guy shows up at the Ickes forum with a personal Menardian success story, which he says he has questions about. It seems he claimed he used a Menardian method he learned via YouTube on a NYC parking ticket but is afraid to a call the NYC authorities to see exactly why he beat the rap. The jive turkey spent days trying explain why he can’t post the un-redacted version of his highly questionable paper work and arguing about whether the case number can be traced back to him.

It seems the ole boy had a documentation and anonymity problem.

Now another guy shows up here with the same MO. This time there is a set of success stories, none his, which the guy implies he doesn’t really believe. . just like the Icke's posts. This story adds the twist that there are so many successes that it’s almost like there is a freeman community thriving under his nose.

But in this case the stories are based on stuff he swears he has only seen (no pesky paper work this time) but can’t begin to document because that would get him in bad with some rough ole dudes for whom he does mechanic work. The Icke's guy was a business man with endless time to post on forums, too?

So this ole boy has the very same documentation and anonymity problem!

Go figure, eh?

Like the Ickes boy this one shucks and jives and argues off the point details all the while maintaining an illusion. In this case the fantasy is not beating a parking ticket, but rather that there is real live little freeman Mayberry that he wants so badly to argue his co-worker out of being a part of.

Does this all sound familiar, folks?

 

[jargon buster]

Let's assume I do not care if you think I am lying.
Should I leave? My ability to post here is based upon whether or not others who post here 'feel' I am lying?

No your ability to post here is based on the fact that no one as yet has reported you for being a sockpuppet.
If you wish to stay then I suggest you start playing ball or I may govern you without your consent.

 

[Stacey Grove]

So, catweasel has seen fotl work with his own eyes and his reaction to that was to call Menard a conman

 

[Mojo]

Have you heard of copy and paste?

Where were you copying and pasting it from? If you provide links we can go there and maybe see your arguments in better context.

 

[jargon buster]

I think he's trying to make out that he wrote it on his pc on a word document then posted it onto the forum.
Some people are very selective at providing information and will twist and turn at every opportunity to make the words used fit the context.
He will say he has only got 20 minutes access to the internet but has all day to write up his posts beforehand.

Although that has already been demonstrated to be a lie as he took 30 minutes between his last two posts

 

[Mojo]

My bud who is driving with his private plate (traveling as he puts it) says we have the right to access the highways, and that if a license or permission is required to do something, then it is not a right, but a privilege. He pointed out the definition of highway in the criminal code and it says:
“highway” means a road to which the public has the right of access, and includes bridges over which or tunnels through which a road passes;

When he drives is he exercising his right to access the highway?
And if he does have a right to access the highway, do the cops have a right to stop him and demand he get a license to exercise his right? I had never seen that definition before, and it stumped me. How can we have the right of access, but then be told we have to get a license and permission to exercise that right? Is it a right to get a license? I almost said that.

A right of access to the highway is not the same as a right to drive. There are ways to gain access to a highway other than in an automobile, even if the average FOTLer appears too lazy to consider them. Even if they are incapable of walking, they can access the highway by having someone else drive them.

You have asked for court cases. Here's a case from Ontario which demolishes several FOTL claims: Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740

It may well be the defendant’s wish not to be governed by the HTA, or any other statute, for that matter. It may offend her personal beliefs, which she is obviously entitled to have. But, if she does not wish to be subject to the HTA, the solution is quite clear. She simply need not drive. The HTA, whether the defendant likes it or not, governs her conduct when she is the driver of a vehicle on a highway in the Province of Ontario. The HTA applies to the defendant, as it applies to every other individual person using the highway.

And what does the HTA say about whether there is a "right to drive"?

Driving a privilege

31. The purpose of this Part is to protect the public by ensuring that,

(a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely; and

(b) full driving privileges are granted to novice and probationary drivers only after they acquire experience and develop or improve safe driving skills in controlled conditions. 1993, c. 40, s. 1.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. In order to enjoy that privilege, they must comply with the relevant legislation, including getting a licence. Whether they like it or not, as the court said.

Incidentally, this case has been posted here before, when Menard was still able to post here. He failed to address any of the points made in the court's judgment.

 

[jargon buster]

And if he does have a right to access the highway, do the cops have a right to stop him and demand he get a license to exercise his right? I had never seen that definition before, and it stumped me. How can we have the right of access, but then be told we have to get a license and permission to exercise that right? Is it a right to get a license? I almost said that.

Almost?

 

[LightinDarkness]

Mojo - great post! One thing I have noticed over the years observing all this, and maybe you have made the same observation, is that they just simply don't understand what it means for something to be a "right." Its not completely an artifact of Sovereign Mythology either, a lot of people scream "I HAVE MY RIGHTS!" when they encounter some sort of limit/restriction on something for which they have a right to. For these people - including the FMTOL/Sovereign Citizen/US Patriot Movement/Legal Mythology world - if one has a right to something they think that means they have an absolute 100% entitlement to it on a completely unrestricted basis without exception. Of course, back here in reality that has never meant what having a right to something means. The reality as we all know is that when you have a right to something it means that you have a qualified entitlement to it, or that you use of said right may come with any and all reasonable restrictions.

The best examples I can think of that FMTOLers seem to always forget is that, for example, in the US you have a right to freedom of speech and assembly. Its such an important right its in the first right in the Bill of Rights. So I hope our newest FOTLer inquirer will read the following:

Rights have restrictions.

Example 1: People in the US do not have the right to unlimited free speech in any and all capacities, and never have (I can provide court citations for all this if you actually want them, but I'm guessing our FOTLer inquirer will not read these/take these to heart):

- Public speech cannot be used to incite violence (no giving speeches to kill the Jews in your local Nazi parade).
- Public speech cannot be used to intentionally cause chaos (no shouting fire in the public theater).
- People who work for the government have no right to freedom of speech about the government while working for them unless the concern is a "compelling public interest."
- The government cannot otherwise generally stop you from free speech, but private businesses/individuals can for any reason as long as its not on public property and such restriction does not discriminate. Its legal for the local bar to remove me from the premises or silence meif I use my freedom of speech to scream about the outrageous prices on gin, but its not legal for the local bar to only remove people who scream about their prices because they happen to be black.

Example 2: People in the US do not have the right to unfettered assembly for any reason at any time at any place, even though we have a right to freedom of assembly:

- Governments are free in the interest of public safety and public order to require permits for any sizable protest or gathering. As long as the permits do not discriminate upon the type of assembly required, and the fees/paperwork are reasonable, not having a permit means you don't have the right to assemble.
- Governments are free to prohibit protests at certain hours, days, whatever they feel like as long as such restrictions are not targeting at preventing certain groups from assembling and as long as the prohibition is reasonable. I can't as a town council vote to prohibit all meeting in a public park at 2PM on Sundays when no one else is using it and such a meeting would not interfere with anyone. I can vote to prohibit all meetings between say 11PM and 6AM at the park though, because I as a government has a public safety interest in doing so.
- Your right to assemble only applies to public spaces, and only then if it does not interfere with the essential operations of government. You may hate the Iraq war but you don't have the right to have a sit-in at the Pentagon's internal war offices.
- Your right to assemble is limited by the right of other people to ignore you. The Westboro Baptist Church, which loves to protest military funerals and generally do things to upset people, is free to protest all the like as long as there is a reasonable distance between them and the event and as long as their protesting does not interfere with other events (they can protest before/after military funerals, but not during, as the sound would interfere).

So what do you know...all these rights...including those two most enshrined and hallowed to Americans, don't mean that they have no restrictions. Similarly, your right to travel doesn't mean you get to use the roads for any reason at any time without limit. The government legally can - and has - placed reasonable limits on that right...which include the requirement for a license, insurance, registration, etc. And no legal ritual, song, or dance based on FMOTL will change this fact.

 

[Hans]

It does! It appears he's trying to resurrect the corpse of FMOLT by making up lies.


Whereas the easiest way would be to just provide evidence of success - of course he cannot do that so ....he lies

 

[Robrob]

And if he does have a right to access the highway, do the cops have a right to stop him and demand he get a license to exercise his right?

Dumbest question ever. You have a right to fly, the skies are free, you still must have a pilot's license to access them.

 

[abaddon]

Almost?

Generally, I find that "I almost said that" translates to "I said in the pub afterwards".

 

[ComfySlippers]

Dumbest question ever. You have a right to fly, the skies are free, you still must have a pilot's license to access them.

Unless you pay to have someone fly you. In which case you can, like Menard did, use your pretend ID to be allowed onboard. Oh..... that didn't quite work out did it!

 

[BritPunk]

Catweazle, would't it be much simpler to just tell your mates to login here and tell us their experiences first hand. They certainly seem very interested in the subject if they pass round documents and talk about it so much at work.
It would make things much clearer and avoid accusations of "foaf told me this, that etc".

And do you really depend on Hells Angels to stay in work as a mechanic? Every Angel I have ever met has been pretty proficient at maintaining their own bike!

 

[Mojo]

One thing I have noticed over the years observing all this, and maybe you have made the same observation, is that they just simply don't understand what it means for something to be a "right." Its not completely an artifact of Sovereign Mythology either, a lot of people scream "I HAVE MY RIGHTS!" when they encounter some sort of limit/restriction on something for which they have a right to. For these people - including the FMTOL/Sovereign Citizen/US Patriot Movement/Legal Mythology world - if one has a right to something they think that means they have an absolute 100% entitlement to it on a completely unrestricted basis without exception. Of course, back here in reality that has never meant what having a right to something means. The reality as we all know is that when you have a right to something it means that you have a qualified entitlement to it, or that you use of said right may come with any and all reasonable restrictions.

It isn't so much that as that they decide that the existence of a right to one thing means that there is a right to something else. In the current example, Catweasel is claiming that the right of access to a highway is the same as a right to drive. It isn't. The legislation in Ontario (which the common law judgment linked to above confirms has to be followed by anyone driving a car in Ontario) clearly states that driving is a privilege, not a right.

Another example is Menard's insistence that his "right to travel" means that he has a right to travel by whatever means he wants, and that this includes a right to drive a car or board an aeroplane without the legally required paperwork. These are not the same thing as a "right to travel".

They are claiming things as rights that are not rights.

 

[Stacey Grove]

And cue cat weasel saying: Ah but, my friend says he is not driving he is travelling. He has explained to me that Black's law dictionary defines a driver as somebody who is is employed in zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Hans]

The 'right to travel' came from a time when people were 'tied to the land' they couldn't leave a lord's lands without his permission. That right is associated with the right to travel, to go where and live where you like without permissions from anyone.

 

[Chaetognath]

Assistance request: meaning of FOTL, Sovereign Man, Moorish Law document motifs

Greetings Menard observers!

Just a brief interruption. I am currently engaged in a review and analysis of FOTL-ish documents and their contents. I keep running across oddities I cannot explain.

I would very much appreciate the expert observations of this forum's FOTL watchers. Rather than intrude on this discussion, I have started a new thread for my inquiries:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239748
​

Thank you!

Chaetognath

 

[Mojo]

And cue cat weasel saying: Ah but, my friend says he is not driving he is travelling. He has explained to me that Black's law dictionary defines a driver as somebody who is is employed in zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That's pretty much what Menard said in his feeble attempt at a response to the case:

Why you spamming the board with a same question you have already asked and had answered?

Taxi Driver --- commercial.
Bus Driver ---- commercial
Transport Driver --- commercial.

Driving by definition is being employed as a vehicle operator for pay.

That is not any sort of response to a judgment which, replying to arguments that "the HTA did not pertain to the defendant because she was not engaged in traffic", and "the HTA did not pertain to the defendant because she was not a driver" clearly says that a driver is "any person who is driving a vehicle", and (at paragraphs 35 to 38) dismisses the claim that the HTA is only concerned with commercial use of the highway.

It even quotes the same definition of "driver" from the out of date edition of Black's Law Dictionary cited by the freemen, but continues it to the part that says, "A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle", and points out that the current edition defines "driver" as "1. A person who steers and propels a vehicle. 2. A person who herds animals; a drover." It then goes on to point out that for the purposes of the Ontario HTA "there is really no need even to resort to dictionary definitions" because the term is unambiguously defined in the act itself, as "a person who drives a vehicle on a highway".