The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacey Grove said:
Hi.
Don't you have ANPR in Canada?
Click to expand...
Nope. The joys of federalism. Each province is its own little independent principality, jealously guarding its powers.

ETA: Yikes. I just looked up ANPR. Creepy.
 
Last edited:
No ANPR???????

And Menard thinks he lives in a police state :D

He should come to Britain and try his nonsense, it looks like Canada is indeed the land of the free.

JB
 
... wow. Just read through the entire thread, and i have to say , still laughing at the ol fotl.

Menard specifically is making me giggle the most. He uses the same tactics used by psychics, ghost hunters, and the like. No proof, and setting up beliefs in which no proof is actually proof.

Keep it up menard, you will attract sheep , and eventually when you send enough of them to slaughter, the government will take you seriously and start leveling jail time instead of fines. And i, for one, cannot wait to see you attempt to ignore police removing your front door with force and tossing you in ( hopefully) the worst prison in canada.

Real life doesn't have cheat codes menard, and your personal beliefs mean nothing when the people enforcing the laws can use real physical force to enforce these laws, that the vast majority of us have no problem with.

And that is the difference between real law and your law. Your law is a lot of shouting and trying to tap left right left right abab in a court room. Backed by nothing other than the individuals ability to avoid police officers. Ours, the flawed but generally good system is given an arm to put people the likes of you in a chokehold. Once you start harming society enough and sending the gullible to jail for following your crap, this arm is going to knock at your door.

The fundamental principal you miss menard, is that our law ( again, the real law) is

1. Backed by force.

2. Governed by logic , not simply a slavish adherence to words on paper, as you suggest.

The first keeps us safer ( than we would be without it) from people who wish to do us harm. Whether that is a gang member, or someone like yourself. As well as allows the rules we set to have consequences if broken. ( something you fail to grasp. )

The second allows us to use common sense and look at the situation involved in a case. It is why a man that kills someone who is trying to kill his child is not treated the same as a man who kills a child because he was curious as to what it would be like. And it is the same thing that allows a judge to laugh at your claims and your attempts at non standard legal interpretation.

Paper does not make one do anything, an organized application of force does. The paper requests you do something, the policeman is there to make sure you listen to the paper. And untill you find a way to change the policeman into a check and send him back , i think our current system of law is in no danger.
 
I don't know if Canadian law resembles the English version - gtm might know - but a couple of weeks ago I came across a fascinating website called "Courtserve". This lists all the cases being heard in Crown Courts, across the whole of England. It lists the defendants, the reason they are in court, the court they are being seen in, the name of the presiding Judge, what date the case is being heard, what time it is being heard - everything except the sentence (boo!).

So. Somebody like myself, with no legal knowledge whatsoever, could cobble together a fake case with names and dates and times. I might be a FOTLer or a 9/11er or a David-Icke_For_World_Presidenter, but I could come up with a convincing outline of a case where *I* had saved the world. Or at least the defendant.

And what has Mr Menard posted to support his position? Nothing. Not even a convincing fake. As one who peruses the Snopes "Urban Legend" website on a regular basis, his "Look at me I won! I won! I won!" anecdotes sound like prototypical urban legends - no names, no dates, no times, no places, no court names.
 
D'rok said:
Nope. The joys of federalism. Each province is its own little independent principality, jealously guarding its powers.

ETA: Yikes. I just looked up ANPR. Creepy.
Click to expand...

For our overseas cousins not familiar with Big Brother: ANPR = Automatic Number Plate Recognition. Used in supermarket carparks so that people don't just use them for free day-long parking whilst at work (hello Sainsbury!); used by the police to apprehend bad guys before said bad guys realise they're in trouble.

ANPR + FOTL = BMIJ
 
D'rok said:
I'm a bad procrastinator. Once I drove around for about 6 months with expired tags. Didn't get caught. This can mean only one thing...LIGHTINDARKNESS OWES ME $10,000!!!!!!! STATUTES DON'T APPLY TO ME!!!!!!! Okay, that's two things.
Click to expand...

California law requires anyone who has a drivers license from another state to obtain a CA license within 10 days of becoming a California resident if they want to drive in CA legally. The definition of becoming a resident includes taking a job in California.

10 years ago I moved to CA specifically to take up a job for which I had been hired while still living in Pennsylvania. I didn't get around to giving up my PA license and obtaining a CA one for over 5 months.

In addition, when I'm on my way home from work I routinely complete my right turn from Valley Spring Lane onto Lankershim Boulevard into the left-hand travel lane, which is also not kosher under CA traffic laws.

Please inform LightinDarkness that I want my $10,000 in gold. None of this statutory fiat "legal tender" money for me!
 
.
I'm still waiting for rob to tell us the name of the god he claims gave him these "rights," and explain how he knows this not to be a false god and the rights not complete crap.
.
 
California law requires anyone who has a drivers license from another state to obtain a CA license within 10 days of becoming a California resident if they want to drive in CA legally. The definition of becoming a resident includes taking a job in California.
Click to expand...

Britney Spears‘ driving-without-a-valid-license case has been declared a mistrial after the jury became deadlocked.
WOO HOO
Britney is a freeman on the land
http://gossip.commongate.com/post/Britney_Spears_driving_licence_case_declared_a_mistrial

JB
 
D'rok said:
I'm ashamed to admit that I'm even worse at staying on top of these sorts of details than this. :o But it's relevant, so...

Mrs. D'rok and I moved to Ontario from Alberta about six years ago. Alberta only requires one plate on the back of the car. Ontario requires front and back plates. Our car, purchased in Alberta, doesn't even have a mounting bracket on the front. Consequently, I have been driving around with a single plate without being stopped for six years!!!...until last week.
Click to expand...


To be fair, you probably benefited from being in Ottawa, where the police are used to seeing Quebec cars with only one plate. Which of course makes the point even better - the cop would have to notice both that you have a single plate, and that it is an Ontario plate, which means you'd need two plates. Any situation in which he sees only the front or rear of the car would let you get away without being stopped.



Stacey Grove said:
Only creepy to us mere mortals. Obviously the FOTL have nothing to fear, they are exempt, 'cos some bloke on the internet told me.
Click to expand...


Well, they can't very well recognize your plate number if you don't have one, can they? :D


TSR said:
.
I'm still waiting for rob to tell us the name of the god he claims gave him these "rights," and explain how he knows this not to be a false god and the rights not complete crap.
.
Click to expand...


On this issue, here's something I thought of while mowing the lawn: How is Menard's claim to God-given common law rights morally or legally different from the "Divine Right of Kings"*? Both claim a priori authority derived from a Creator. Why is one sacrosanct to Menard, and the other a sham?

And something else I thought of while working on my Giant Cat Run: The FoTLs accept the authority of the Common Law because it is derived from God. If that is true, then what law would an atheist who had delivered one of their notices to remove consent be subject to? If I reject the authority of both Parliament and God, then by what right would anyone be able to make me do anything?



*Which is, of course, the ultimate source of the legal authority in Canada - that is, the power derived from being Her Majesty's Parliament.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Okay fair enough... too many people irrationally attacking from all sides I guess.
Click to expand...

You would be guessing wrong, then. You seem to have difficulty maintaining focus. The "attacking from all sides" is deserved because you keep bouncing off all walls. You also rely heavily on cheap rhetoric tricks that may sound great when you rehearsed them in your head, but fall flat in the real world.

At this forum, we prefer substance to word games.

I guess that is what happens here in this forum when people do not toe the party line of blindly obeying the government eh? I will try to do better.
Click to expand...

For your reference, this is known as a straw man, and a rather obvious one at that.

PS- If that is not your party line would you please share with me what it is? It sure seems like that is it though.
Click to expand...

And here you are trying to change the subject. Remember that wager thing...you backing out...and all that?

...<additional equivocation and spin-doctoring mercifully snipped>...
Click to expand...
 
D'rok said:
Menard wants to toodle around Vancouver Island, one of the least populous regions of Canada, for a day or so in his FOTL-mobile and thinks that if he isn't noticed, he proves that FOTL works.
Click to expand...

He would have to stay to the backroads on Vancouver Island. The population centres are relatively dense. There are further mitigating factors:

  1. The capital of BC is located on Vancouver Island. Most of the streets in the vicinity of provincial buildings are heavily monitored by CCTV.
  2. There is really only one main road on the Island and it is regularly patrolled. Even if Menard is planning to FOTL-shuttle the Pacific Rim Hwy he is bound to encounter law enforcement at some point.
  3. Vancouver Island is...an island. It's a little tougher to run from the government stooges cops when you have to wait at the ferry terminal for the next sailing.
Back to your regularly scheduled mockery of FOTL-Man.
 
Horatius, I was just about to draw up a post debunking Rob of his propaganda talking points again, only to find that you have done quite the extensive job! Whats sad is that Rob really didn't know that yes, there are real legal exemptions to laws and he can't process the difference between legal exemptions written in a law and declaring oneself free of whatever law one chooses. I also note the childish tone he uses like "point for me" when all hes doing is demonstrating his lack of knowledge about the law. That entire exercise just let you debunk yourself, Rob.

The offer still stands to Rob or any other Freeman on the Land. But the offer requires you to provide proof, which they will never do - because Freeman on the Land is a myth used to milk money from the few (but devoted) cult followers that Rob has.

Again, the offer is simple. Upon provision of either:
(1) Any court case of any jurisdiction in any common law country whereupon any judge has written an opinion stating that the defendant's status as a freeman on the land means that he is exempt from whatever the charge is and is thus found innocent.
(2) Any document from any government agency in any common law country that notes someone is exempt from any statutory regulation of any kind because of their status as a freeman on the land.

After verifying that either (1) or (2) are not forgeries by finding the court cite independently or verifying your freeman status with the government agency the letter is from, the money is your Rob. And since this does appear to be all about the money, it should be easy for you to come up with. Why is this so hard? Why is Rob spending so much time trying to avoid this or change such easy conditions?

This so easy to do if FOTL is real. It doesn't even require Rob be involved or named in (1) or (2). Just 1 court case will do, after all, and Rob has told us his followers are serving governments with volumes of frivolous legal documents every day.
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
To be fair, you probably benefited from being in Ottawa, where the police are used to seeing Quebec cars with only one plate. Which of course makes the point even better - the cop would have to notice both that you have a single plate, and that it is an Ontario plate, which means you'd need two plates. Any situation in which he sees only the front or rear of the car would let you get away without being stopped.
Click to expand...
Yup. But I also didn't get stopped in the GTA, Hamilton, Niagara, Kingston, etc. and all points between.
 
Last edited:
LightinDarkness said:
Horatius, I was just about to draw up a post debunking Rob of his propaganda talking points again, only to find that you have done quite the extensive job! Whats sad is that Rob really didn't know that yes, there are real legal exemptions to laws and he can't process the difference between legal exemptions written in a law and declaring oneself free of whatever law one chooses.
Click to expand...



Actually, I suspect he does know that such exemptions exist, and he uses them to convince poor schlubs that their existence proves that his crap is true, too.

I suspect that one of the most common such exemptions that regular people would be likely to encounter would be Status Indian tax exemptions. That sounds just like something these guys would love to get for themselves: "How is it the Indians managed to get this special status? How can I get it for myself?", all the while ignoring the entire history behind such exemptions - to them, it's just the magic card that saves the guy some money.
 
stilicho said:
He would have to stay to the backroads on Vancouver Island. The population centres are relatively dense. There are further mitigating factors:

  1. The capital of BC is located on Vancouver Island. Most of the streets in the vicinity of provincial buildings are heavily monitored by CCTV.
  2. There is really only one main road on the Island and it is regularly patrolled. Even if Menard is planning to FOTL-shuttle the Pacific Rim Hwy he is bound to encounter law enforcement at some point.
  3. Vancouver Island is...an island. It's a little tougher to run from the government stooges cops when you have to wait at the ferry terminal for the next sailing.
Back to your regularly scheduled mockery of FOTL-Man.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that no matter where you choose to go, its quite easy to do something "illegal" if the police aren't around. Heck, you can even do something illegal of the police ARE around if it isn't obvious and they aren't looking for you. Its not a standard of proof that FOTL works, even if you drive around Times Square hitting a joint. In fact, I know people who have done just that - they know they weren't caught because of some fake FOTL status, they just got lucky and the cops were looking out for other things at the time.
 
LightinDarkness said:
I think the point is that no matter where you choose to go, its quite easy to do something "illegal" if the police aren't around. Heck, you can even do something illegal of the police ARE around if it isn't obvious and they aren't looking for you. Its not a standard of proof that FOTL works, even if you drive around Times Square hitting a joint. In fact, I know people who have done just that - they know they weren't caught because of some fake FOTL status, they just got lucky and the cops were looking out for other things at the time.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that. I keep wondering how one remains a FOTL in North Vancouver. Most of the ones I know hole up on islands or in compounds in the Interior.

I'd guess the police know exactly who this nut is and treat him with extreme caution when they encounter him.
 
Its all about responsibility.
We all from time to time go around breaking laws, laws which are in place to set boundries for people to use as a guideline on how far they can go.
UK maximim speed limit is 70mph and the vast majority of people break this everytime they go on the motorway.
The police dont stop every driver going 75mph but you can rest assured they will stop someone going 140.

The freemen simply dont want the responsibility that goes with the risk you take when breaking the law.
Zapped by a speed camera at 35, so what, you know the speed limit, fair cop £30 3 points.
You tell me that you dont watch your speed for a while after.
Then you start taking a risk again until zap.

Freeman Zap = I am not a person it was my strawman you sent the fine to not me etc,etc,etc......

JB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom