Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[jargon buster]

And here is a post from the resident freeman halfwit over on Ickes
It sums up exactly why freemanism will simply never take off.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061028634&postcount=30

but if you/me/them start delegating rights to some alternate government like you suggest (i assume your system would have some kind of power over its members), then those rights are no longer belong to the individual and belong to the collective 2.0 - that to me is anti-freedom, freedom is about exercising individual rights and saying screw the collective?

PS , I have no idea why he finished it with a question mark.

 

[jargon buster]

I will have to be careful what I post on WFS in future, it appears that they don't like links to this forum.
http://public.worldfreemansociety.o...eman-down-in-alberta?limit=20&start=60#108430

I have had my fill over there now, my time as "pigpot" may be coming to an end.

 

[jargon buster]

Wow, look at Menards switch of horses
http://public.worldfreemansociety.o...eneral-discussion/108468-thoughts-and-retorts

THEIR ARGUMENT: YOU are the one claiming you are somehow not subject to statutes. YOU are the one who has to substantiate that. Which you are failing signally to do.

REPLY: The claim that one is not subject to statutes does not stand alone and primary. It is always a response to someone making a preceding claim, that being that the statutes are applicable. There is simply no reason to claim the statutes are not applicable unless someone else is first claiming they are. It is that originating claimant upon which the onus rests, to prove their assertion, not upon the one who rejects their original and preceding claim.

THEIR ARGUMENT: Yes, it has force. Because the state can ultimately rely on force to compel individuals to comply with its laws (be they statute or common), it doesn't require the assent of the individual.

REPLY: This is where they are very wrong. Individual consent is completely required to empower the state. The state does not enforce its rules itself, it requires people to act in its name, and they are never compelled to do so, but always enticed with payment or power. They do in fact have a choice to either do what some person who claims to be representing a fiction tells them to do, or refuse to do so. If everyone refused to obey the dictates of those people, then their wishes would not be met or fulfilled. Since the people who are enforcing the orders have a choice as to whether or not they take that job, and it is a result of them consenting to it, the argument that consent is not required fails. The state in fact cannot ultimately rely upon force to compel performance, for it must first have those who consented to enforce the states laws. With absolutely no original consent, the state does not even exist. How exactly will the state rely upon force if there is no human being willing to consent to enforce its so called laws?

Bolded bit
Dont you just love him, he now wants to keep quiet about statutes not applying and wait for someone to say they do, then ask them to prove it.
He thinks by doing this he can shift the burden of proof.
I can just see the scenario with a cop
"Hey you with the fez, are you drunk and smoking weed?"
"Hic, I dont know ossifer is it a crime?"
Yes
"Prove it and show me that I am...hic... bound by statute law"
Whats your name?
"I am not obliged to do that, I know my rights"
"No problem, Im arresting you for being drunk and disorderly, come with me"
"Wait,..wait.. you first have to prove to me that I have to obey statute law."
"Shut it and get in the car, and can someone open a window ,I think this guys soiled himself"

 

[Bishop]

THEIR ARGUMENT: Yes, it has force. Because the state can ultimately rely on force to compel individuals to comply with its laws (be they statute or common), it doesn't require the assent of the individual.

REPLY: This is where they are very wrong. Individual consent is completely required to empower the state. The state does not enforce its rules itself, it requires people to act in its name, and they are never compelled to do so, but always enticed with payment or power. They do in fact have a choice to either do what some person who claims to be representing a fiction tells them to do, or refuse to do so. If everyone refused to obey the dictates of those people, then their wishes would not be met or fulfilled. Since the people who are enforcing the orders have a choice as to whether or not they take that job, and it is a result of them consenting to it, the argument that consent is not required fails. The state in fact cannot ultimately rely upon force to compel performance, for it must first have those who consented to enforce the states laws. With absolutely no original consent, the state does not even exist. How exactly will the state rely upon force if there is no human being willing to consent to enforce its so called laws?

Yes, Rob, if a cop chooses not to enforce the law in a given situation, then it won't be enforced. What an amazing deduction. That in no way supports the assertion that the person whom the cop is enforcing the law on can make a similar decision.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Here's a fresh one, from last week. I hope you all enjoy reading it as much as I did. The decision gives a good summary of events and it's clear that this guy threw out all the freeman arguments in the book:

Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537

He did succeed in delaying things several months, of course it would up costing him all the remaining equity in his house which will go towards the bank's legal fees, but maybe that was part of the plan. Freemen don't believe in the value of money all that much to begin with. In theory at least...

I really hope I am not reading this right. Because if I am, this is such a monument to stupidity that it belongs in the FOTL hall of fame for utter suspension of reason.

Page 2 of that decision says:
"Mr. McCance’s applications were dismissed by Justice Hunt McDonald on January 11, 2011 and she granted the application of the Bank for an Order Nisi/Order for Sale. A six month redemption period was granted and the mortgage was held to be valid and enforceable with a balance outstanding of $304,381.70 as of that date. After the expiration of the redemption period
the property was to be listed for sale at a list price of $450,00.00."

Doesn't this mean that the property is conservatively valued at $450k (because if the bank is foreclosing they want to sale to get their money out of it, so they have no interest in trying to sell it at a price where no one will buy) - and that their loan is $300k, so if they did this themselves they could sell the house and get $150,000 (and keep a good credit rating)? But they instead decided to do the FOTL legal rain dance and throw away all that money and destroy their credit in the process, costing them effectively $150,000 in equity?

If I am reading that correctly, then let us all pause to think about how incredibly dumb these people are. Usually in FOTL they've done something wrong and FOTL just makes it worse. But if I'm correct, if they just acted like sane people they would have gained $150k and could move somewhere else instead of being foreclosed on and getting $0. They just threw $150,000 down the drain because of FOTL myths! I hope I am reading it wrong, no one could be this stupid...

EDIT: But it GETS BETTER, as if that were possible. Page 4 says the FOTL crazy in this case had liens against property for 66k and 40k - so if the property sold, he could pay off his secured creditors AND STILL HAVE CASH LEFT OVER. And he STILL DIDN'T DO IT.

 

[JLord]

I really hope I am not reading this right. Because if I am, this is such a monument to stupidity that it belongs in the FOTL hall of fame for utter suspension of reason.

Yes, your reading is correct. That is exactly why I posted it here because I also think it belongs in the hall of fame. These people literally threw away some $150,000.

The $450,000 appraisal would have been done on a "forced sale" basis. They were given a 6 month redemption period and thus had 6 months to sell the house on their own terms. They didn't sell and then filed various appeals and other nonsense delaying things until the next appraisal was for $420,000. At some point there was a solid offer of $375,000. Now with all the legal fees incurred they are basically left with nothing.

Of course they also owe about $100,000 in taxes which they are "disputing" on various freeman grounds, but they could have walked away with money in their pockets.

The reason why they originally got behind in their mortgage payments is not stated and is irrelevant to these proceedings, but it would be even more sad if they in fact deliberately stopped paying because of some other freeman reasoning. I'm not sure if this was the case but it seems likely because why else would you let your home go into foreclosure when you have so much equity and could easily obtain a loan to get by if times were tough?

So this situation makes L. Thatcher's $800 seem like chump change. And you also have to feel for the guy's wife because who knows if she also believed in the fantasy, but she was dragged along for the ride either way.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Today's Scaminar

As Bobby has been rather quiet of late, (except for demonstrating his new found love of poetry), let us not forget that today is supposed to be another of his Scaminars:

Freeman-on-the-Land
Robert Menard Presents
EMPOWERMENTALITY
Saturday, September 15th,
All Saints by The Sea Church Hall

Saturday September 15th, 6PM doors, 7PM Show
Includes Roast Beef Sandwiches and other tasty goodies!
110 Park Drive across from Ganges' Harbour.
Saltspring, BC
Show time 7PM
$10.00 at the door, pay what you can....

Hope to see you there!
With special musical guest!

Hope to see you there!

Assuming it hasn't been cancelled due to lack of interest it is being held here:
All Saints by-the-sea
(A venue that doesn't accept bookings by commercial ventures)

 

[Robrob]

This is where they are very wrong. Individual consent is completely required to empower the state. The state does not enforce its rules itself, it requires people to act in its name, and they are never compelled to do so, but always enticed with payment or power. They do in fact have a choice to either do what some person who claims to be representing a fiction tells them to do, or refuse to do so. If everyone refused to obey the dictates of those people, then their wishes would not be met or fulfilled... How exactly will the state rely upon force if there is no human being willing to consent to enforce its so called laws?

So by their "logic" one could literally get away with murdering a FOTL, as long as you deny the state has a right to enforce the laws?

 

[jargon buster]

No, not at all, you have caused harm and as such there is this "law*" that compels the individual to surrender and accept the consequences.
Its something to do with Karman and whats in your heart?????



* never been fully explained by Robert.

 

[Robrob]

No, not at all, you have caused harm and as such there is this "law*" that compels the individual to surrender and accept the consequences.
Its something to do with Karman and whats in your heart?????

* never been fully explained by Robert.

Ahh, so physically hurting someone violates the Laws of Nature and must be enforced but stealing from someone (by not paying your electric bill) is not? Got it...

 

[jargon buster]

No, the law of nature doesn't have a rule of not hurting another, the "food chain" sort of takes care of that one.
They believe they have a right to free electricity,gas and water because their forefathers have done all the work in providing it, same with roads.

 

[Hans]

I thought the great man was constantly talking about common law (his version of it) and that 'covered' violence etc.

 

[Robrob]

No, the law of nature doesn't have a rule of not hurting another, the "food chain" sort of takes care of that one.
They believe they have a right to free electricity,gas and water because their forefathers have done all the work in providing it, same with roads.

Stop it, you're making my head hurt!

 

[Horatius]

So by their "logic" one could literally get away with murdering a FOTL, as long as you deny the state has a right to enforce the laws?

Actually, I think they're actually getting closer to reality here.

Let me explain.

This is where they are very wrong. Individual consent is completely required to empower the state. The state does not enforce its rules itself, it requires people to act in its name, and they are never compelled to do so, but always enticed with payment or power. They do in fact have a choice to either do what some person who claims to be representing a fiction tells them to do, or refuse to do so.

This is actually a fairly good summation of how democracy works, actually. They're right in that the "State" has no ability to act for itself, instead acting through its agents, such as the police, the courts, the military, the public service, and the consent of the public at large. Without that support structure, Parliament, Congress, the Prime Minister, and/or the President is just a bunch of guys talking to each other.

Where they fall down is this part:

If everyone refused to obey the dictates of those people, then their wishes would not be met or fulfilled... How exactly will the state rely upon force if there is no human being willing to consent to enforce its so called laws?

1. When ever would everyone simply decide not to listen to a democratically elected government?
2. These aren't "dictates" by "those people", they're laws passed by our elected representatives
3. "The State", in this case, is just the body of people who make up the electorate that elected the people who make laws, so they're "forcing" themselves

What the Fotlers dont't get is that, by not engaging in open rebellion against "The State" (or, more properly, "The Government"), we are all actually expressing our individual consent to that Government on a daily, and continuing, basis.

It's trivially obvious that the people of a country have an inalienable right to revolt against a government they find distasteful. What the Fotlers cant seen to grasp is that the vast majority of us don't find the current government distasteful, and actually prefer it to the alternatives we see being proposed by the likes of the Fotlers. They also miss the fact that we have an inalienable right to fight against anyone we think is revolting against that government.


So, like so many CTers, they almost saw the forest, but ended up being confused by all those trees.....

 

[Hans]

So, like so many CTers, they almost saw the forest, but ended up being confused by all those trees.....

Good analysis...but

I think they do see the trees but as they cannot make money off said trees they prefer to imagine they can see the money encrusted fairies amongst the trees

 

[Mojo]

Good analysis...but

I think they do see the trees but as they cannot make money off said trees...

They can once they have come to power and adopted the leaf as currency.

 

[fromdownunder]

They can once they have come to power and adopted the leaf as currency.

But then they would run into a small inflation problem because of the high level of leaf availability and, say for example, a peanut could cost as much as three deciduous forests. It would then become necessary to burn all the forests, which FOTLs would probably agree was a sensible move under the circumstances.

Norm

 

[drewid]

Just time for another bath

 

[jargon buster]

But then they would run into a small inflation problem because of the high level of leaf availability and, say for example, a peanut could cost as much as three deciduous forests. It would then become necessary to burn all the forests, which FOTLs would probably agree was a sensible move under the circumstances.

Norm

Ah you are not thinking it through, they would only choose the leaf of one deciduous tree, that way the total money in circulation could only reach a set figure, people couldnt make money out of thin air as with fractional reserve banking, and only green leaves have value, this way money couldnt be stashed away creating pockets of wealth.
Everyone spends like mad in the spring and again prior to the fall (autumn).
Businesses could stock up with goods accordingly.

I really dont know why Menard didnt think of this, (cue Menards cogs and gears grinding as he reads this)

 

[Mojo]

But then they would run into a small inflation problem because of the high level of leaf availability and, say for example, a peanut could cost as much as three deciduous forests.

But at least they would be able to pay out on everyone's birth bonds.