Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
As may have been mentioned up-thread, this comes from a misunderstanding of a formerly common usage of the word "employed" that has now fallen into disuse, namely, to mean "engaged in an activity".
 
SpitfireIX said:
As may have been mentioned up-thread, this comes from a misunderstanding of a formerly common usage of the word "employed" that has now fallen into disuse, namely, to mean "engaged in an activity".
Click to expand...



And of course, "activity" comes from the base, "To Act", that is, to pretend on stage to be something you're not. So Freemen who "act" like they have jobs are actually "employed" as they engage in traveling.

HA!
 
catweasel said:
Guys are driving around with their own plates and the cops aren’t doing squat. I have seen it.
Click to expand...


As I already mentioned, I do not believe this. It is up to you to provide evidence of your claims and it would be so trivially easy to do so that the fact you have not suggests that your story is false.


catweasel said:
One sent back his SIN and is still working and not paying any deductions.
Click to expand...


As I already mentioned, there are no FoTL exemptions in the Income Tax Act and your employer is required to make statutory deductions unless your 'friend' is an aboriginal working on a reserve or is an independent contractor. Once again, it is up to you to provide evidence of your claims and it would be so trivially easy to do so that the fact you have not suggests that your story is false.


catweasel said:
One guy who comes around the shop has a brother who is a cop and he says they had a meeting about FMOTL where they were told that the 3CPO thing is real and they are peace officers and that they have a right of access the highways without a license.
Click to expand...


Uh huh, "one guy's brother says..." It's nonsense. Every single police department in the province that has had any dealings with FoTL loons knows that their nonsense is just that - nonsense. There is not a police department in the country that would say what you claim your "one guy's brother" says. And again, it is up to you to provide evidence of your claims and it would trivially easy to do so on this one as well - provide the name of the police department that your "one guy's brother" claims to work for and the date of the alleged meeting at which "they were told that the 3CPO thing is real and they are peace officers and that they have a right of access the highways without a license" - and the fact that you have not done so suggests that your story is false.

catweasel said:
Is that what they call an appeal to authority?
Click to expand...


An appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy when the authority is a legitimate authority.

catweasel said:
Will you prove you are a lawyer with the qualifications you said?
Click to expand...


There are numerous people here who know that I am exactly who and what I say I am. The JREF itself knows that I am exactly who and what I say I am. That aside, you are not required to believe that I am who and what I say I am, and you are entitled to disbelieve me if you wish. But then there's still the rest of the real lawyers in the country with similar experience to me representing police departments who will tell you the same thing if you ask them.

catweasel said:
Even if you do, I know what happened. I WAS THERE.
Click to expand...


See above. If what you claim is true, it should be trivially easy for you to provide evidence of your claims and those of your 'friends' and 'buds' and the 'guy who stops by'.

catweasel said:
Since you are a lawyer can you help me with something?
Click to expand...


Sure.

catweasel said:
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;

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.
Click to expand...


Your 'bud' is wrong. Defined terms in statutes are just that - defined terms for that specific statute. You will find (if you look) that each statute has its own "defined terms" and what is a defined term in one statute may differ from the "defined term" for the same word in another statute. This is because a defined term (by definition) is applicable within the statute in which it is written, but not necessarily in any other statute.

For instance, you've quoted above the definition of 'highway' as it set out as a defined term in the C.C.C. which is applicable for purposes of the C.C.C. (and any other statutes that may explicitly adopt it or any case law that explicitly adopts it in other types of proceedings outside of the C.C.C.). But the word 'highway' is also a defined term in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act for purposes of the H.T.A. (and any other statutes that may explicitly adopt it or any case law that explicitly adopts it in other types of proceedings outside of the H.T.A.), and the defined term there is: " 'highway' includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof". Meanwhile, 'highway' is also a defined term in the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001, for purposes of the M.A. (and any other statutes that may explicitly adopt it or any case law that explicitly adopts it) and the defined term there is " 'highway' means a common and public highway and includes any bridge, trestle, viaduct or other structure forming part of the highway and, except as otherwise provided, includes a portion of a highway" and a very long history of case law has established that the definition of 'highway' under the M.A. includes municipal sidewalks, which is very different than how the term would be interpreted for purposes of the H.T.A. or the C.C.C., for instance.

The point is that a lack of understanding of statutes and a complete lack of knowledge of statutory interpretation does not even remotely make the silly things that FoTL conmen say magically become true. They try to confuse the vulnerable and the gullible by giving them only little cherry picked bits of information without ever spending the time or energy to try to gain knowldge or even understand the very statutes that they cherrypick from. But as much as FoTL conmen just cherrypick a defined term from one statute and pretend that it means what they want it to mean for all purposes in all situations in which it suits their ill-conceived purposes, it does not work that way in the real world. This is why the poor misguided folks who buy into their crap inevitably end up losing their licences, their vehicles, their apartments or houses, their livelihoods, and their freedom. And it's a real damned shame that some people still get roped in by these conmen.

And, no, a public right of access to a highway under the defined term in the C.C.C. does not mean that one does not require a valid driver's licence, valid licence plates, and valid auto insurance in order to drive a motor vehicle on public roads in Ontario. Driving a motor vehicle on a public highway in Ontario is not a "right" but a privilege, and the privilege is only granted to those who, inter alia, (a) hold a valid driver's licence applicable to the type/class of vehicle and the circumstances in which they are driving; (b) are driving a vehicle with valid licence plates; and (c) have valid insurance coverage in place that meets or exceeds the mandatory minimums for the type/class of vehicle being driven.


catweasel said:
When he drives is he exercising his right to access the highway?
Click to expand...


No. See above.

catweasel said:
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?
Click to expand...


See above. Your 'friend' has no right whatsoever to be driving a motor vehicle on a public highway without a valid driver's licence, valid registration and plates, and valid insurance. The police have every right to stop him if he is driving a vehicle that does not have a valid licence plate (and for myriad other reasons as well, quite unrelated to bogus licence plates).


catweasel said:
Also, are the police bound by the criminal code when they are enforcing the HTA? Are they free to break the law? He says the way they do it now is breaking the criminal code.
Click to expand...


Your 'friend' is wrong. See above.
 
Last edited:
Wait, you're telling me I can't even go joyriding on viaducts?


Bloody Fascists!



:boxedin:
 
catweasel said:
Guys are driving around with their own plates and the cops aren’t doing squat. I have seen it.
Click to expand...
Speaking as someone who has been in law enforcement 16+ years, your claim is absolute rubbish. A situation like that would be a "twofer" - two charges, driving an unlicensed vehicle as well as possession of a counterfeit vehicle tag.

One guy who comes around the shop has a brother who is a cop and he says they had a meeting about FMOTL where they were told that the 3CPO thing is real and they are peace officers and that they have a right of access the highways without a license.
Click to expand...

Friend of a friend (FoaF) story is the classic hallmark of urban myths. I can assure you 100% there was no such "meeting." Bottom line is when you drive on the public roads without a valid State issued license and/or tag - you are eligible for a ticket. Not to mention "Peace Officers" are required to have valid State issued drivers licenses and tags on their vehicles. Next time you see a patrol car, take a look.

Even if you do, I know what happened. I WAS THERE.
Click to expand...

No, you weren't.
 
Last edited:
Guys are driving around with their own plates and the cops aren’t doing squat. I have seen it. And he’s not the only one. One sent back his SIN and is still working and not paying any deductions. One guy who comes around the shop has a brother who is a cop and he says they had a meeting about FMOTL where they were told that the 3CPO thing is real and they are peace officers and that they have a right of access the highways without a license.
Click to expand...

Utter rubbish.
 
Now who in the world would come up with a string of undocumented, improbable, un-provable freeman success stories, all aimed at proving the usefulness of Menardian theory and then feign insult when proof is demanded?

Who in the world would get suspended doing so?
 
Last edited:
mushy said:
Came to mock you guys for not realising that was menard from the second post.
Click to expand...

Oooh, gooooo oooooon!

No kidding?

Wow, that would mean that the Great Freeman Pumpkin is reduced to sockpuppeting!

I am shocked!
 
Last edited:
A note of potential interest.

There was an incident near Killam, Alberta back in February where an exchange of gunfire occurred between the occupants of a rural residence and RCMP officers. The details of that are not public at this point, but two RCMP officers were injured, and one resident, a Brad Clarke, was killed.

Sawyer Clarke Robison, another person in the residence, fled. He later surrendered to police. The vehicle in which he fled was later located, and found to contain a 50 cal. Barrett sniper rifle.

Robison has been charged with attempted murder and firearms offenses. On June 28 was released on $100,000.00 bail. One of his bail conditions is that he not have any contact with any person belonging to the "Freemen on the Land" group.

Chaetognath
 
Chaetognath said:
A note of potential interest.

There was an incident near Killam, Alberta back in February where an exchange of gunfire occurred between the occupants of a rural residence and RCMP officers. The details of that are not public at this point, but two RCMP officers were injured, and one resident, a Brad Clarke, was killed.

Sawyer Clarke Robison, another person in the residence, fled. He later surrendered to police. The vehicle in which he fled was later located, and found to contain a 50 cal. Barrett sniper rifle.

Robison has been charged with attempted murder and firearms offenses. On June 28 was released on $100,000.00 bail. One of his bail conditions is that he not have any contact with any person belonging to the "Freemen on the Land" group.

Chaetognath
Click to expand...

arayder said:
I have a growing concern about the self-delusion, dysfunction and denial of the freeman cult. I can’t look at that [Hayes] video without cringing at the insane lengths freemen have gone to.

Nothing good will come of it and I fear there is another tragedy awaiting us. I pray I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I fear the boys have turned the corner.

I am sorry that the freemen in my country, the U.S.A., have provided a sort of road map to insanity apparently adopted by the Killam Crew.
 
mushy said:
Came to mock you guys for not realising that was menard from the second post.
Click to expand...


What was that again?


jargon buster said:
Welcome back Rob.
Click to expand...



Just because most of us weren't publicly accusing him of being a sock puppet (which is frowned upon by the mods and admins here, btw), doesn't mean we didn't realize that was almost certainly the case.

What you need to realize is that there are good reasons to not just dismiss his nonsense out of hand, and actually address his claims as if he were legitimately a new poster. For instance, his JAQing off about "proof" that he's a con man. Had no one here addressed that question, he could have slipped off to some other forum, and claimed victory, saying, "None of those JREFers could prove I'm a con man! They're all just making it up!", and point to the lack of response to those posts as his evidence.

Now, however, if he tries to claim that, anyone actually looking at the thread will see that in fact, I did directly respond to his challenge, and explained why he was being disingenuous. Anyone not already inclined towards believing his nonsense will note my response, and note how he did everything he could to ignore it, then hand wave it away when forced to acknowledge it. They'll also note he then fell back on his usual schtick of just making up stories, and pathetic excuses as to why he couldn't provide any evidence to verify his stories. Which, at the end of the day, is all he's ever had.
 
fitzgibbon said:
And did he consent to be suspended? :)

Fitz
Click to expand...



Well, his consent wasn't needed since he never claimed to be a FOTL. Despite everyone he knows apparently not only being FOTLs, but actually being successful at being FOTLs, and having the police confirm that they're totally allowed to be FOTLs. But, oh, no, Catweasel couldn't possibly do the same. For some reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom