The Freeman Movement and England

[quixotecoyote]

Put down the shovel, FreemanMenard. The hole is deep enough.


(Verb, seriously? You really said that? Wow.)

I saw that.

 

[Hans]

Hmmmmm our 'freeman' seems to be confused. He stated

And they have no evidence that I am 'from North Vancouver'.

He then states

I will have to travel from North Vancouver to Victoria through four or five different police jurisdictions, and on a ferry operated by the provincial government to collect it.

Then his own ad for his swag says

For those who are interested and like what they see, you can begin by sending a cheque for $100 payable to Robert Menard to the following address.
ThinkFREE
P.O. Box 315
Unit 158 – 123 Carrie Cates Court
North Vancouver, BC

Does the term liar apply?

 

[jsfisher]

I saw that.

You saw the whole thing, didn't you?

 

[FreemanMenard]

ROB WROTE


Just one would swing it for me Rob.

JB

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9668427/TO-BE-A-FREEMAN

Check that out Asky...
I trust the Minister of Finance choosing to not dispute is sufficient?

 

[FreemanMenard]

I have evidence that suggest I am 'from' not North Vancouver but another city in which I was born. I may live here. That is true. I am not 'of here'. That is also true.

I stand by my wager.

Is the word wager a noun or a verb?
Fact is it can be either, and only the speaker can decide what he was saying. That is the nature of personal empowerment.

But now that I stand ready to accept your previous challenge, you are all backing out, while trying to insult me. Such a surprise!

 

[TSR]

There is equality before the law and there is equality under the law, and before you can be under the law (statutes), when you are before the law (Equality), you must choose to go under the law (Consent to statutes).

.
I must? Where is this need documented?
.

Equality means the right to choose whether we stand before or under the law.

.
And this right?
.

You have chosen the latter

.
No, I very clearly said "before."
.

and are under some other man and their words which you call law. You are UNDER. I have chosen the former, and stand BEFORE the law.

.
We are equal *before* the law, and you claim special privileges on the basis of a status which does not exist anywhere outside your imagination.
.

Same laws you say...

Who made them?

.
In my country, people elected to the task.
.

Did they just naturally appear? Or did some human being make them, and if so, and we are both equal before the law, can't I make my own that are contrary to theirs or that render theirs void?

.
Sure you could: you could elect people to make what laws please you.

You don't however (according to that very Constitution you were touting earlier) get to individually do so, nor do I
.

Are we all equal or not when we stand before the law? Cause if you say we are, but I have to agree to and abide by words that some other man made, some other man who is only equal to me, then I have the right to reject them, do I not? Cause we are equal BEFORE the law, as in BEFORE these things you call law have even come into being.

.
Ah, I see: you are misunderstanding the term "before the law." It does not mean "prior to the existence of the law."
.

Yeap if we are all equal, before the law, then your words or those of your reps can only have force over me with my consent. Unless you want the things I make up and call law to have power over you.

.
Wrong.
.

 

[Hans]

Yep liar

 

[drkitten]

I trust the Minister of Finance choosing to not dispute is sufficient?

"Silence gives assent"? Qui tacet, consentire videtur? Hardly.

Not at all sufficient.

 

[FreemanMenard]

We are equal *before* the law, and you claim special privileges on the basis of a status which does not exist anywhere outside your imagination.

Um actually this status has been confirmed by the courts here as well as the Law Society. I have court documents crafted by the Law Society, addressed to me, recognizing me as a Freeman-on-the-Land. IN THEIR WORDS. I also have documents which have been filed in court which acknowledge my status. You should see cops when I show them these documents. They know what you are saying is simply wrong.

Sorry FAIL again for you. Don't you get tired of failing so consistently?

 

[jsfisher]

Is the word wager a noun or a verb?

More spin attempts, I see. The issue was with how the word had been used (that being as a noun) versus which definition you chose (that of a transitive verb).

You made a mistake while telling us how much you loved teaching us the simple things. Humorous and ironic, yes. A big deal, no. But then you lied about it and you continue to try to spin it into something else.

So, as appears to be the FOTL way, a simple transgression gets exploded into a barrage of self-delusion, lies, deceit, and blunders.

...
But now that I stand ready to accept your previous challenge, you are all backing out, while trying to insult me. Such a surprise!

I have made no challenge, and you have offered no wager. Such a surprise! Any insults cast your way, though, are fully deserved.

 

[drkitten]

Um actually this status has been confirmed by the courts here as well as the Law Society. I have court documents crafted by the Law Society, addressed to me, recognizing me as a Freeman-on-the-Land. IN THEIR WORDS.

Funny how these documents only exist in the privacy of his own skull. Since if he could actually produce these documents, and they said what he claims they did, he could simply collect the $10,000 on offer without having to ninja around on back roads avoiding cops in an unlicenced uninsured vehicle.

I also have documents which have been filed in court which acknowledge my status. You should see cops when I show them these documents.

We should. That is, in fact, what you've been asked several times to produce -- video of the documents and the cops reactions might well get you the $10k.

Except I suspect you left both the documents and the videos on your other unicorn, huh?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard View Post
Yeap if we are all equal, before the law, then your words or those of your reps can only have force over me with my consent. Unless you want the things I make up and call law to have power over you.
.
Wrong.

Oh. I see. Thank you for clearing that up, with such a powerful and logical argument! Supported so well with reason and footnotes! You have made it all so much clearer now! I see now how I was mistaken. All I needed was you to make a proclamation! Sweet!

Would you please make more sweeping baseless and unsupported proclamations, so I can figure out the meaning of the words the lawyers claim is my law, and then claim I can't understand it, unless I join their club? Thanks!


Wow I am just blown away by your logical analysis and reasoning abilities! I did not know you could achieve so much with just one word. I can't wait to use it as well, and since we are all equal, I get to make such proclamations too, right?

SWEET!

 

[TSR]

Um actually this status has been confirmed by the courts here as well as the Law Society. I have court documents crafted by the Law Society, addressed to me, recognizing me as a Freeman-on-the-Land. IN THEIR WORDS.

.
No, repeating *your* words.
.

I also have documents which have been filed in court which acknowledge my status.

.
I can file a document in which I declare myself Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands.

Doesn't mean the court finds that I am.
.

You should see cops when I show them these documents.

.
Funny that for all of your vaunted film making prowess you haven't been able to produce a single such encounter on video.

Go ahead: video yourself showing the documents to a cop, and explain in clear terms that you believe them to allow you to to use the public roads without plates, insurance or license and without edit show them agreeing to your interpretation.
.

They know what you are saying is simply wrong.

Sorry FAIL again for you. Don't you get tired of failing so consistently?

.
Projection is an ugly thing.
.

 

[jsfisher]

Funny how these documents only exist in the privacy of his own skull. Since if he could actually produce these documents, and they said what he claims they did, he could simply collect the $10,000 on offer without having to ninja around on back roads avoiding cops in an unlicenced uninsured vehicle.



We should. That is, in fact, what you've been asked several times to produce -- video of the documents and the cops reactions might well get you the $10k.

Except I suspect you left both the documents and the videos on your other unicorn, huh?

You are forgetting the power of the notary public. They can make any document an official document.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The issue was with how the word had been used

No, that was the avoidance issue used to avoid the real issue.

Are we all equal before the law. That is the issue. Not how some word was used, and if it was used correctly.

Your argument is what is used to avoid the truth. It is a diversion. Not working. Lets talk EQUALITY, not grammar, okay? Or do you wish to change the focus of these 80 pages to grammar?

LMAO!

 

[TSR]

< snip transparent attempt to run away from his idiocy that "before the law" means "prior to the law's existence." >

.
Another way of phrasing the egalitarian principle is "all are equal in the eyes of the law."

Shall we use that instead?
.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Funny how these documents only exist in the privacy of his own skull. Since if he could actually produce these documents, and they said what he claims they did, he could simply collect the $10,000 on offer without having to ninja around on back roads avoiding cops in an unlicenced uninsured vehicle.



We should. That is, in fact, what you've been asked several times to produce -- video of the documents and the cops reactions might well get you the $10k.

Except I suspect you left both the documents and the videos on your other unicorn, huh?

Put it in escrow Baby! You risk nothing, and your 'might get it' does nit cut it!

Ante up, put it in escrow and lets talk about the terms. Or not. Back out like I expect you to do.

 

[drkitten]

You are forgetting the power of the notary public. They can make any document an official document.

I'm sure they can, for sufficiently limited values of "official." And I'm sure in Menard's mind that's good enough.

Unfortunately for him, we can read what he's kind enough to post. And he promised us

court documents crafted by the Law Society, addressed to me, recognizing me as a Freeman-on-the-Land. IN THEIR WORDS.

A notary public can certainly official-ize a document, but she can't turn it into a court document or retroactively make the Law Society the author.....

 

[FreemanMenard]

.
Another way of phrasing the egalitarian principle is "all are equal in the eyes of the law."

Shall we use that instead?
.

I would accept that, and I also appreciate what I see as a peace making spirit and thank you for your suggestion. Seriously.

 

[jsfisher]

The issue was with how the word had been used

No, that was the avoidance issue used to avoid the real issue.

Are we all equal before the law. That is the issue. Not how some word was used, and if it was used correctly.

Your argument is what is used to avoid the truth. It is a diversion. Not working. Lets talk EQUALITY, not grammar, okay? Or do you wish to change the focus of these 80 pages to grammar?

LMAO!

Lost track of who said what about what, didn't you. It's ok.

The text you quoted and bolded was mine...and it was not so much about grammar as it was about you lying to run away from an honest wager. I haven't addressed you on the subject of equality under the law.