The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh Rob, watching you flail about is precious.

You know as well as I do that governments provide letters of exemption (because there really are exempt classes form certain laws - just not freemen exemptions because its a myth) all the time. It would be absolutely nothing for them to provide it, and indeed, real exempt people can get letters directly from their tax authority (for example) stating that they are exempted from paying taxes and the reason for their exemption. They produce such documents routinely and without cost to you or effort.

I see no reason to assume that Rob knows that.

... even though it's true. I have such a letter myself; as an employee of a non-profit corporation, my (business) expenses are exempt from state and local sales tax. So I can go buy a case of pens or a laptop computer without paying the five percent or whatever it is. As a matter of fact, this particular exemption is so ingrained that my purchasing card (essentially, a Visa debit card that goes straight into my business account) even has the tax exemption embossed on it, along with the appropriate number.

It's quite routine.


But no, you can't do that. You can't provide court cases either. Both of which would be incredibly easy to do if FOTL woo were real.

Quoted for truth.


I realize you are trying desperately to find a way to get out of providing real proof. You did it with court cases, and then simple routine letters outlining your FOTL exemption. Both would be much easier than this. But I have thought of a way of letting you do this that you still could ONLY do if FOTL status was real: Perform an illegal act in front of a police officer. Tape yourself doing it, and then walk up to the police officer and tell them what you just did while informing them that you are a freeman on the land and as such, they cannot arrest you. Once they tell you "OK, as a freeman I will not arrest you because you are exempt" you can zoom in on their badge or ask them for their badge number (which they have to provide to everyone, even freemen). When you upload this video, I will contact the police department and verify that the badge number exists and is assigned to a police officer. Then, the money is yours.

But that is quite a lot of work - much more than a simple letter or court cite.

Well, there's a reasonable counterproposal. Just for the record, you're still putting up $10k if he can pull this off?
 
So to recap Rob Menard:

a) cannot produce any evidence (either reported cases or newspaper articles) to support his theories

b) May well be a convicted fraudster (which makes putting $10,000 into an 'eschrow' account a distinctly unattractive proposition)

Wow you guys get offended and think I gave up merely cause I went to bed! Sheesh... And you wonder why people laugh at what you call 'debunking'.

A) I have an affidavit signed by a Notary Public that I have used to identify myself, and which caused the police to bolt. It is a government officers Affidavit, and recognized by the courts and it states very clearly that he has Notarized the process which lead to my Freeman status. I also have documents from the Provincial Court, (which although I did not 'need' them, they are handy for establishing my status legally) whereby the agree I am a Freeman-on-the-Land and that is further confirmed by the Response of the Law Society of British Columbia.

B) May well be convicted fraudster? Really? You have no evidence of that, or of any criminal action, but you are putting it to there anyway? Gonna try claiming I may be a convicted murdered, or maybe I am a murderer who has not been convicted! Hey you can say **** like that about just about aby crime! Is that what you do? Imply criminal behaviour, but duck out of it by saying 'He may well be..."

This one is going in my video for sure!
 
I added the term charlatan to my description of you as a coward.

Really let us then determine who is and is not a coward. The coward will hide their identity and the courageous one will not. I go first to show you there is nothing to fear. I am Robert Arthur of the Menard Family, son of Eugene, from Windsor. Who are you?

Now we wait and see who is and is not a coward. The cowards here being the ones who refuse to identify.

Go head. Or are you scared? Are you the coward? Chicken? If you fail to accept this challenge are you not then the charlatan as well, for calling me a coward when clearly it is you who are scared to identify?

Man up!
 
Wow you guys get offended and think I gave up merely cause I went to bed! Sheesh... And you wonder why people laugh at what you call 'debunking'.

A) I have an affidavit signed by a Notary Public that I have used to identify myself, and which caused the police to bolt. It is a government officers Affidavit, and recognized by the courts and it states very clearly that he has Notarized the process which lead to my Freeman status.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5831452#post5831452

Try again. Also, for bonus lulz, scan that document and show it to us.
 
I realize you are trying desperately to find a way to get out of providing real proof. You did it with court cases, and then simple routine letters outlining your FOTL exemption. Both would be much easier than this. But I have thought of a way of letting you do this that you still could ONLY do if FOTL status was real: Perform an illegal act in front of a police officer. Tape yourself doing it, and then walk up to the police officer and tell them what you just did while informing them that you are a freeman on the land and as such, they cannot arrest you. Once they tell you "OK, as a freeman I will not arrest you because you are exempt" you can zoom in on their badge or ask them for their badge number (which they have to provide to everyone, even freemen). When you upload this video, I will contact the police department and verify that the badge number exists and is assigned to a police officer. Then, the money is yours.

But that is quite a lot of work - much more than a simple letter or court cite.

That is an immature way of doing it, as it is pokey and requires me to initiate intercourse with a peace officer, and my goal is to avoid such interactions. Why not leave it up to the police to initiate the interaction? See that is what I spoke of earlier. You want me to go poke them in one way or another, and if you think that is reasonable, well then you are demonstrating your immaturity and ignorance.

Have a good day! Got so many meetings happening, what with me setting up a new force of peace officers.

Ciao for now!
 
Again, this is not a payoff to me if you fail.
If that is the case, then it is not a harm to you if I succeed.

Actually there would be. If you succeed they would lose $10 000. Your failure would not be any payoff to them because they aren't getting anything.

Basically you are saying "put up the money" but you aren't offering any incentive for them to do so.

I do have a question though, if someone was to accept the challenge, would you accept their reasoning if they used FMOTL techniques to get out of paying you the $10 000?
 
Why not leave it up to the police to initiate the interaction?

Because getting away with a crime is not the same thing as being explicitly excused from the law.

I know a few drug dealers. The fact that they have not (yet) been caught does not mean they are legally allowed to deal drugs. That's a facile distinction, Menard.

Prove what you say is true. It's trivial.
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5831452#post5831452

Try again. Also, for bonus lulz, scan that document and show it to us.

The link you posted to has nothing to do with an Affidavit of a Notary Public. They did not attest my signature, they put their own.

You should read Section 18 of the Notary Act. Says they have the power to fulfill any duty under any Act.

That Affidavit I have of his is as strong as anything, and has been used repeatedly and successfully to file documents in courts, establish that I am not 'The Respondent Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver' and to fly across the country. It has also been used to identify my self to police officers who when they saw it immediately started acting far more respectfully then they had been moments before.

It clearly identifies me as a Freeman-on-the-Land. It is a court document. It is supported by others.

Have a great day! :D
 
The link you posted to has nothing to do with an Affidavit of a Notary Public. They did not attest my signature, they put their own.

You should read Section 18 of the Notary Act. Says they have the power to fulfill any duty under any Act.

Notarised Affidavits do not verify a document's contents. Someone recently sent me a notarised document claiming he hallucinated a prehistoric horse (true story).

That Affidavit I have of his is as strong as anything, and has been used repeatedly and successfully to file documents in courts,
Case references, media reports, etc. Please.

establish that I am not 'The Respondent Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver' and to fly across the country. It has also been used to identify my self to police officers who when they saw it immediately started acting far more respectfully then they had been moments before.
But not to let you off from your crimes, right?

It clearly identifies me as a Freeman-on-the-Land. It is a court document. It is supported by others.
And I have an invisible dragon in my garage. He grants wishes.

Scan it. Show us. Also, prove it exempts you from any law, tax or regulation otherwise applicable to you.
 
Last edited:
A) I have an affidavit signed by a Notary Public that I have used to identify myself, and which caused the police to bolt. It is a government officers Affidavit, and recognized by the courts and it states very clearly that he has Notarized the process which lead to my Freeman status. I also have documents from the Provincial Court, (which although I did not 'need' them, they are handy for establishing my status legally) whereby the agree I am a Freeman-on-the-Land and that is further confirmed by the Response of the Law Society of British Columbia.
Rob, you claim that the status of FOTL is recognised as a legal status, could you point me to a reference in Canadian law where such a status is indeed recognised and benefits attributed to the status of FOTL are described?
 
That is an immature way of doing it, as it is pokey and requires me to initiate intercourse with a peace officer, and my goal is to avoid such interactions. Why not leave it up to the police to initiate the interaction? See that is what I spoke of earlier. You want me to go poke them in one way or another, and if you think that is reasonable, well then you are demonstrating your immaturity and ignorance.

Have a good day! Got so many meetings happening, what with me setting up a new force of peace officers.

Ciao for now!

I've heard that 'Mounties' always get their man.

Cor Lumee. The mind boggles, the stomach churns :eek:
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by FreemanMenard
That is an immature way of doing it, as it is pokey and requires me to initiate intercourse with a peace officer, and my goal is to avoid such interactions. Why not leave it up to the police to initiate the interaction? See that is what I spoke of earlier. You want me to go poke them in one way or another, and if you think that is reasonable, well then you are demonstrating your immaturity and ignorance.

Have a good day! Got so many meetings happening, what with me setting up a new force of peace officers.

Ciao for now!
I've heard that 'Mounties' always get their man.

Cor Lumee. The mind boggles, the stomach churns :eek:

It's ok though if he consents to it, right?
 
Oh Rob, watching you flail about is precious.

You know as well as I do that governments provide letters of exemption (because there really are exempt classes form certain laws - just not freemen exemptions because its a myth) all the time. It would be absolutely nothing for them to provide it, and indeed, real exempt people can get letters directly from their tax authority (for example) stating that they are exempted from paying taxes and the reason for their exemption. They produce such documents routinely and without cost to you or effort.

Or simply lie to us - and given your extensive record of lies that one would not be unusual for you. You have to lie to keep this ruse afloat and the money flowing in from your gullible cult followers, of course.

NAME ONE.
Just One.
Do not ask me to act for you to prove I am not lying and then claim failure to do so is evidence. It is up to you to prove a willful and purposeful lie on my part, in regard to this information I present.

I realize you are trying desperately (LMAO!) to find a way to get out of providing real proof. You did it with court cases, and then simple routine letters outlining your FOTL exemption. Both would be much easier than this. But I have thought of a way of letting you do this that you still could ONLY do if FOTL status was real: Perform an illegal act in front of a police officer. Tape yourself doing it, and then walk up to the police officer and tell them what you just did while informing them that you are a freeman on the land and as such, they cannot arrest you. Once they tell you "OK, as a freeman I will not arrest you because you are exempt" you can zoom in on their badge or ask them for their badge number (which they have to provide to everyone, even freemen). When you upload this video, I will contact the police department and verify that the badge number exists and is assigned to a police officer. Then, the money is yours.

I would accept this under lawful two party contract, with stipulations. I will not engage in an illegal act. I will engage in an action that the ignorant consider to be illegal. There is a difference. Willing to identify yourself in order to make that happen, or put it in escrow and keep your identity secret, or are you full of hot air?

But that is quite a lot of work - much more than a simple letter or court cite.

As for the rest of your flailing around, its all been debunked previously. It would be nothing at all for you to ask, as a sovereign citizen, that the government provide you with its own records which note that you are a sovereign and thus exempt from whatever agency you get them from. You are not asking for permission. After all, the government has to keep a record of Freemen like yourself so that they don't try any policy enforcement on you like you were a sheeple.

Nothing has changed from the original offer - it still stands - it is you (as always) trying to weasel out of it because YOU HAVE NO PROOF.



Your concept here of 'debunking' is a matter of calling someone a name, and then you all pat each other on the back, and think you won.

But...

Gotcha! :D
You know as well as I do that governments provide letters of exemption (because there really are exempt classes form certain laws - just not freemen exemptions because its a myth) all the time.

I put what is merely your own personal opinion in italics, cause it is not a fact.

Well there we go! We have our common ground! You are now in agreement with me that it is in fact possible to be exempt from the statutes you call ‘law’. Now how did these people to whom you refer get these documents? Did some other human being give it to them, or was it created by a magical mystical being? If a human being gave them a piece of paper then it would seem I too can do so for myself. Which is what I have done.

Remember how we are all equal before the law, and how the government is composed of our representatives and they are just people with no inherent right to govern? No claim to Divine Will? Well then, that suggests I can make those documents all by myself, right?

How can some human being in the government grant exemption to anyone and not respect my claim that I am exempt as well? And if that is the case, why do I need to go to them for such a document? We are equal remember? If they can do it, and we are equal, I can do it.

You have acknowledged that some people are exempt from these statutes you call law.
Point for me.
You admit they hold documents which are crafted by other people with no special inherent powers.
Another point for me.
You do not claim we are not all equal in the eyes of the law.
Another point for me.
You are a coward who refuses to identify yourself, while claiming I am even though I am not the one fearful of being known.
Another Point for me.
You refuse to put the money you promise in escrow, and will not identify yourself. Did you learn that form your Nigerian friends?



Put it all together, and what have you got?
If we are to be equal, I must be able to exempt my self in the same fashion and to the same degree that those other two parties have done so together. After all, since we are all equal, I do not need their agreement that they do not have power over me, they need my agreement that they do. Cause we are all equal before the eyes of the law, right?

There is no way around it, without abandoning equality. Since that is the foundation of law, doing so is an abandonment of law itself, and means you all have failed in this exchange very badly.

Well, yesterday was fun, but it was a holiday, and I have work to do. I will come back when my video is done to share with all you super intelligent ones, you amazing critical thinkers a link so you can enjoy it.

I am glad I get to part ways knowing you all admit that it is possible to exist exempt from statutory obligations, and that since you all agree that we are equal, the ability to grant such exemption exists within us all. And we can grant it to ourselves. Which is what I teach people.

At least those with a mind for knowledge.


PS - Do you see any response as being hysterical or desperate? If I am not a super-cool hipster then I am desperate and hysterical? Is their a standard you can define that tells people when they are acting in a manner you deem in your perfection to be desperate? Or hysterical? Or are these merely labels you use to hide the fact that you have no facts to support your position, so you name call and claim emotional over reaction, right?
 
The link you posted to has nothing to do with an Affidavit of a Notary Public. They did not attest my signature, they put their own.

You should read Section 18 of the Notary Act. Says they have the power to fulfill any duty under any Act.



Which Notary Act would that be?


Are you referring here to the document linked in this post?

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? :D:rolleyes:


That Notary seems to be from Saskatchewan. In looking about a bit, I found this pdf:

The
Notaries Public
Act​
being
Chapter N-8 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978 (effective
February 26, 1979) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan,
1979-80, c.32 and 96; 1983, c.11; 1984-85-86, c.33; 1986-87-88,
c.50; 1989-90, c.54; and 1990-91, c.L-10.1.


http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/N8.pdf

..which doesn't even have 18 sections. It does, however, have a section 3, which lists the powers of a Notary Public:


Powers
3 Every notary public shall during pleasure have, use and exercise the power of drawing, passing, keeping and issuing all deeds and contracts, charter-parties and other mercantile documents in Saskatchewan, and also of attesting all commercial instruments that may be brought before him for public protestation and otherwise acting as usual in the office of notary, and may demand, receive and have all the rights, profits and emoluments rightfully appertaining and belonging to the calling of notary public.


...which unsurprisingly doesn't agree with what you've posted above.


The Government also has a website that discusses the powers of a Notary Public:

The Notaries Public Act authorizes notaries public to:

* prepare certain commercial documents;
* administer oaths;
* take or receive affidavits, declarations and affirmations; and
* perform all other tasks historically associated with notaries public.

http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/Notaries-Public-Act


So, that particular document does nothing for you, as the person who notarized it does not have the power under the Act that you claim they do.



Now, BC does have a section 18, that lists:


(ETA: Link

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96334_01 )

18 A member enrolled and in good standing may do the following:

(a) draw instruments relating to property which are intended, permitted or required to be registered, recorded or filed in a registry or other public office, contracts, charter parties and other mercantile instruments in British Columbia;

(b) draw and supervise the execution of wills

(i) by which the testator directs the testator's estate to be distributed immediately on death,

(ii) that provide that if the beneficiaries named in the will predecease the testator, there is a gift over to alternative beneficiaries vesting immediately on the death of the testator, or

(iii) that provide for the assets of the deceased to vest in the beneficiary or beneficiaries as members of a class not later than the date when the beneficiary or beneficiaries or the youngest of the class attains majority;

(c) attest or protest all commercial or other instruments brought before the member for attestation or public protestation;

(d) draw affidavits, affirmations or statutory declarations that may or are required to be administered, sworn, affirmed or made by the law of British Columbia, another province of Canada, Canada or another country;

(e) administer oaths;

(e.1) act as a consultant under sections 9 (2) (a) (ii), 12 (1) (c), 26 (1) (c) (ii) and 29 (1.1) (b) of the Representation Agreement Act if the member qualifies as a member of a class of persons prescribed under section 42 (2) (a) of that Act;

(f) perform the duties authorized by an Act
.


I'll assume that last bolded bit is the piece you misquoted as "Says they have the power to fulfill any duty under any Act", which is of course quite a different kettle of fish. The line that actually appears in the Act pertains to other actions that Notaries are specifically authorized to do by other Acts. It's not a blanket permission to "fulfill any duty under any Act".

There's a nice little website people can go to to search BC laws (unsurprisingly, called http://www.bclaws.ca/ ). There, we find things like:


Real Estate Development Marketing Act


Assurance of title

11 (1) A developer must not market a development unit unless the developer has made adequate arrangements to ensure that a purchaser of the development unit will have assurance of title or of the other interest for which the purchaser has contracted.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), a developer has made adequate arrangements to ensure that a purchaser of a development unit will have assurance of title or of the other interest for which the purchaser has contracted if

(a) arrangements have been made for title to the development unit to be held in trust by a lawyer, notary public or another person, or class of persons, specified by the superintendent until title or the other interest for which the purchaser has contracted is assured,


....which authorizes a notary public to hold things in trust for real estate developers.



and the Land Surveyors Act

(2) This Act does not affect or interfere with the right of

...

(b) a notary public to provide notary services under the authority of the Notaries Act,


...which further defines their powers.


Of course, this highlights exactly how stupid FreemanMenard thinks his marks are, in that he knows the ones paying his bills won't even do this trivial amount of fact checking. Sad thing is, he's probably right about that.
 
Last edited:
I had a guy in the army who got a statement notarized that said that an alien had told him he could take an a year off without applying for leave. He seemed to have had the same idea that Rob had.

Needless to say the courts-martial what not amused.

But we got him off after we sent him for a mental examination.....which he spectacularly failed
 
Last edited:
Well there we go! We have our common ground! You are now in agreement with me that it is in fact possible to be exempt from the statutes you call ‘law’. Now how did these people to whom you refer get these documents? Did some other human being give it to them, or was it created by a magical mystical being? If a human being gave them a piece of paper then it would seem I too can do so for myself. Which is what I have done.

:headdesk:

Are you serious?
 
Last edited:
I had a guy in the army who got a statement notarized that said that an alien had told him he could take an a year off without applying for leave. He seemed to have had the same idea that Rob had.

Needless to say the courts-martial what not amused.

But we got him off after we sent him for a mental examination.....which he spectacularly failed

Wot, the alien lied? :D :D
Damn those pesky aliens.
 
Well there we go! We have our common ground! You are now in agreement with me that it is in fact possible to be exempt from the statutes you call ‘law’. Now how did these people to whom you refer get these documents? Did some other human being give it to them, or was it created by a magical mystical being? If a human being gave them a piece of paper then it would seem I too can do so for myself. Which is what I have done.



The exemptions are written into the law. For example:




Persons who are exempt

2 Section 1 applies to the following persons:

(a) diplomatic agents of a diplomatic mission situated in Canada who are citizens of the country operating the diplomatic mission;

(b) senior officials of United Nations' agencies situated in Canada who have been accorded diplomatic privileges by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of the government of Canada;

(c) career consular officers of a consular post situated in British Columbia, or of a consular post situated elsewhere in Canada but accredited in British Columbia, who are citizens of the country operating the consular post;

(d) administrative and support staff of consular posts situated in British Columbia who are citizens of the country operating the consular post;

(e) spouses of the persons referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).


Honestly, are the people you deal with in real life actually stupid enough to fall for this ********?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom