(Ed) Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Paul

What are the rules on recording proceedings in Canada/BC, because it looks like he just added another charge.

Not sure. Lemme check...

[D'rok]

Really quick answer: Don't know if recording without authorization is an actual offence, but it is definitely against policy:

- You can bring an audio recording device into the court room if you are an accredited journalist as per the process established by the Supreme Court of BC.
- You can record only for note taking purposes and cannot broadcast the recording.
- You cannot record in other areas of the courthouse.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/docs/new...lReporting.pdf

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Really quick answer: Don't know if recording without authorization is an actual offence, but it is definitely against policy:

- You can bring an audio recording device into the court room if you are an accredited journalist as per the process established by the Supreme Court of BC.
- You can record only for note taking purposes and cannot broadcast the recording.
- You cannot record in other areas of the courthouse.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/docs/new...lReporting.pdf

Yeah but... that would be like one person trying to govern another without consent and we know that dog don't hunt.

So of course you can record and broadcast everything that happens within a court well.... quite frankly anywhere in the world.

I mean, you're not going to be doing harm to another.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Yeah but... that would be like one person trying to govern another without consent and we know that dog don't hunt.

So of course you can record and broadcast everything that happens within a court well.... quite frankly anywhere in the world.

I mean, you're not going to be doing harm to another.

Exactly! Especially if you broadcast a recording during a trial that jurors see on the Internet back in their hotel rooms or on their smart phones, etc.

That wouldn't harm the administration of justice in the least.

[JLord]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Only a court ruling will be acceptable, but when it comes to the people in the government having power to govern, you simply accept it as true, without asking them for any court rulings supporting their right to govern without consent.

Quote:

none of you have a document proving that a court has ruled on this issue in your favour do you? And since yours is the originating claim, (the right to govern without consent) the onus is actually on you to prove that a court was asked this specific question, and ruled in favour of governing without consent.

Quote:

So now you all have to accept the same standards you tried to place upon me. OF course I know none of you are mature enough to actually do so.
Only a court ruling will suffice.

Quote:

And there are ALL of you and you are in your own homes, with your documents easily accessible. You should have no problem showing a court ruling where they state that consent of the governed is not required to govern.

You have ignored all my previous posts (despite the fact I am one of the few answering your questions and not interested in insults) and likely will ignore this one as well.

Here are some court rulings where a person used your argument (that the government has no right to govern without their individual consent) and failed. Since you have asked so many times I assume you are unfamiliar with these rulings so I will link to hte case and post the relevant passages:


R. v. Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc...007abca45.html

Quote:

[6] The applicant submits that the jurisdiction of the Court or the applicability of statutes such as the Traffic Safety Act is based on individual consent, and that consequently the courts below lacked the ability to hear this matter or convict him. In my view, those arguments are without merit and fail to raise a question of law of public importance.

This decision alone owuld certainly give reason to conclude that individual consent to be governed by statutes is not required in Canada according to the de facto courts. This is sufficient and convincing, but there are lots of other cases where people have succesfully been "governed" by statute law through the courts without their consent:



Kanwar v. Kanwar, 2010 BCCA 407 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc...10bcca407.html

Quote:

[33] Mr. Kanwar argued that the matter is one of settled law in India, and without his written consent to being governed by Canadian law; the parties remain governed by Hindu law and the issues raised by Ms. Sukhija can only be resolved under the provisions of the laws of India. Ms. Sukhija argued that there are no such legal restrictions.

...

[43] Although both parties and the child were born in India, all applied for and received landed immigrant status in Canada, and as such, are subject to Canadian law.

R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc...08onca767.html

Quote:

[20] More important, the essence of his argument is that ‘the Act does not apply to me because I choose to have it not apply to me’. Contrary to what Mr. Christie says, this is a jurisdictional argument (and one which is void of merit) that leads to a mistake of law which does not afford a defence. This court has already said in Klundert No. 1 – this kind of mistake of law is irrelevant to the fault requirement of the charge of tax evasion.

If you are still interested I will post links to other such cases:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...anlii9368.html

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc...00bcsc190.html

I don't want to go too far with this at this point, because you may not respond at all, and if you do there is already enough to respond to in the first case posted.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

- You can bring an audio recording device into the court room if you are an accredited journalist as per the process established by the Supreme Court of BC

.

Cue Menards definition of accredited journalist as "someone with a pulse"

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by JLord

YHere are some court rulings where a person used your argument (that the government has no right to govern without their individual consent) and failed. Since you have asked so many times I assume you are unfamiliar with these rulings so I will link to hte case and post the relevant passages:

Satisfied, Rob?

I know you've seen these cases many times before. Will you acknowledge them this time and start presenting your own evidence?

[jargon buster]

jlord
those cases simply display that the court abandoned the rule of law which states no man may govern another without his consent ,etc,etc,etc

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by JLord

You have ignored all my previous posts (despite the fact I am one of the few answering your questions and not interested in insults) and likely will ignore this one as well.

Here are some court rulings where a person used your argument (that the government has no right to govern without their individual consent) and failed. Since you have asked so many times I assume you are unfamiliar with these rulings so I will link to hte case and post the relevant passages:

Of course he's ignored this before, and he will continue to ignore it, because his purpose here isn't to have an honest discussion of reality, it's to promote his own nonsense, in hopes of finding more gullible suckers to pay his rent. Were he to acknowledge your post, he's be in the uncomfortable position of having to admit you've met the challenge he's posted.

By ignoring it, he can simply repeat his mantra that no one has proven that individual consent is not required. Sure, such mindless repetition won't convince anyone but an idiot, but you must realize: the idiots are his target audience.

[ComfySlippers]

Rob, when you have time could you find the very important letter that states you are officially recognised as a "freeman on the land" and are, therefore, not required to pay any Canadian taxes?

I can understand how such a trivial document would be hard to find in your extensive library, but as you have referenced it so many times I think it reasonable to ask to see it.

You have stated that you are the only person to have such document, (Letter to CRA where you threatened physical violence). Should be easy to find, scan and post.

Could you also update on how many 10's of thousands have joined 3CPO, and how many thousands of freemen followed through with your airline threat?

Not saying you're all mouth and no substance, just wanting to update your marks.

Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Slippers: of the Clan Comfy.

Ps. If you remove one of your shoes there will be, either on the sole or inside, a number. The number is a revenue receipt. By you wearing shoes the Government has created a secret bank account in your name. My secret bank account number is "8". I can look up "8" on the stock exchange and track the progress of "8" 's value. If Iknow the super secret wordz, tha guvamunt will have to repay me the funds in 8. The sheeple are blind to this, so guard this info well.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

Ps. If you remove one of your shoes there will be, either on the sole or inside, a number. The number is a revenue receipt. By you wearing shoes the Government has created a secret bank account in your name. My secret bank account number is "8". I can look up "8" on the stock exchange and track the progress of "8" 's value. If Iknow the super secret wordz, tha guvamunt will have to repay me the funds in 8. The sheeple are blind to this, so guard this info well.

You know, it all makes sense now. I always wondered why US, UK, and Europe shoe sizes were different....It is to account for the conversion rate between currencies. Brilliant!!

[jargon buster]

jlord wrote

Quote:

You have ignored all my previous posts (despite the fact I am one of the few answering your questions and not interested in insults) and likely will ignore this one as well.

He will ignore it, he's seen all this evidence in the past and more.
This information is invaluable to new people coming across Menards shenanigans, but as for Menard, its pointless, sozhenitzen put it best

Quote:

There is no sense arguing about law with Rob Menard. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand what law is. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand that if there is no government, there is no law. Without that premise, discussing the law becomes a word-twisting, question-asking, money-charging nonsense.

The best option with Menard is to simply ask him to provide proof of his claims and leave it at that.
Anything else is now pointless.

[deeper]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

I also see you have placed upon me a challenge you refuse to accept yourselves. Only a court ruling will be acceptable

That's not what I asked at all, I'm not interested in your court ruling. Let me remind you,

Originally Posted by deeper

just tell us exactly and concisely how you do it, what you say and do to avoid being subject to statute law.

Why on earth is that so difficult? You claim to be able do something that most people regard as impossible but you both refuse to show it in action and will not explain how it is done (this part should be very easy for you as you claim to have done it already). If you could at least do one of these then you would gain some credibility. So unless you show us evidence of you doing what you claim to be able to do or at least show us how you do it I can't see how this discussion can progress in a meaningful fashion.

Just to make this explicit, your failure to address this issue is where the ridicule stems from. If someone approached you and told you they had built a craft capable of space flight in their garden shed but refused to show you either the craft or the blueprints, would you believe them? And what if that person started taking money from people on the promise that they will show them how to build a working space craft from shop-bought materials, what would you think about them then? Personally, I would think anyone who was offering such a service would be either deluded or a liar and a conman.

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

You should have no problem showing a court ruling where they state that consent of the governed is not required to govern.

It is implicate in the fact that it is a court ruling, we know that it is not necessary to make it explicate by the evidence that if you ignore court rulings people can come and take you away and lock you in a cell.

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

However there is a bunch of you and only one of me

Well, that's what you get for posting on a public forum and not talking with someone by telephone. Why don't you go and get someone else who has achieved Freeman status (someone who can pick and choose which laws apply to them)? Only someone who is willing to show us either the craft or the blueprints (or ideally both) will do, anything else is pointless.

You blew it Rob, I set you up, the goal was open, it was yours for the taking and instead you gave us this,

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[jargon buster]

Menards stance is exactly the same as someone claiming to be able to bake a special cake, when someone asks him how he does it rather than giving measurements and ingredients he tells them to go and find the information elsewhere (or sells a recipe to them with the main ingredient missing) and then accuses them of claiming he cant to bake it himself.

Can you imagine a website like that?
Who would stay?
WFS still has members and thats exactly how they treat you, it just shows "stupid lasts forever".

[deeper]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Menards stance is exactly the same as someone claiming to be able to bake a special cake, when someone asks him how he does it rather than giving measurements and ingredients he tells them to go and find the information elsewhere (or sells a recipe to them with the main ingredient missing) and then accuses them of claiming he cant to bake it himself.

Can you imagine a website like that?
Who would stay?
WFS still has members and thats exactly how they treat you, it just shows "stupid lasts forever".

It doesn't make any sense at all. The Freeman Movement has been going a number of years now and no one has developed a website or written a book where the instructions on how to achieve Freeman status can be found in a simple, easy to digest format???? It's absence makes the whole movment appear both pathetic and a joke. If any Freeman lurkers here would like to step in and answer this I'd be grateful. (grndslm, you there?)

ETA: If this was at all possible, people bigger than Menard would have stepped in already, developed the product, marketed it effectively and made some real money out of it.

[jargon buster]

grndslms banned

It would be so simple to just produce a flowchart to follow in court, just start off with "I don't consent to the courts authority" and then it could flow down like a family tree of responses to possible answers.

Simple really if the answers where out there

[Hans]

Quote:

ETA: If this was at all possible, people bigger than Menard would have stepped in already, developed the product, marketed it effectively and made some real money out of it.

Yes that is what normally happens - case no one is biting on this particular world changing idea, why?

Answer: Because it's fake and doesn't work - the market place has spoken

[deeper]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

It would be so simple to just produce a flowchart to follow in court, just start off with "I don't consent to the courts authority" and then it could flow down like a family tree of responses to possible answers.

Simple really if the answers where out there

Precisely.

Originally Posted by jargon buster

grndslms banned

Why can you never get a Freeman when you need one?

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by deeper

ETA: If this was at all possible, people bigger than Menard would have stepped in already, developed the product, marketed it effectively and made some real money out of it.

Quick, someone call Kevin Trudeau!

[jargon buster]

Guide to becoming a freeman
1. Abandon your SIN
2. Write a letter to a random person in government calling yourself a FMOTL (you could just write FMOTL after your name) when they reply on government paper and write your name followed by your made up title you have proof that you are a freeman on the land.
3. Go on forums repeating the same thing over and over for 3 years and refusing to answer any questions or provide evidence.

thats it guys, thats all you need to do.
Save yourself $800

[Robrob]

Quote:

By ignoring it, he can simply repeat his mantra that no one has proven that individual consent is not required. Sure, such mindless repetition won't convince anyone but an idiot, but you must realize: the idiots are his target audience.

FMOTL seem to be unique in the CT world. Most CT nuts are simply fearful people trying to create a sense of order out of a chaotic world. They would rather live in a world of mysterious invisible conspiracies than on a world where "stuff happens" on a random basis.

FMOTL seem sociopathic and selfish. Pretending their claims were true, why is it they continue to make use of the public things we (taxpayers) provide them? For a belief system that thinks taxes are voluntary, and demands everyone pay their individual way, how do they rationalize driving their (unregistered and uninsured) cars on the highway?

[jargon buster]

FMOTL offers the solution to all life's problems, birth bonds, endless supplies of money and free stuff, the ability to do as you please in regard to the law, sit back while others do the work and freeload.
The people it attracts are scroungers, the lazy but also the desperate , the ones who are in so much debt they will try anything.
Its real trick is that anyone who doesn't twig onto the fact its nonsense pretty quick are not very bright, which is the perfect people to try and extract money from, its total idiocy weeds out anyone with a shred of intelligence.
Unfortunately FMOTLs one major drawback is it isn't real.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

ETA: If this was at all possible, people bigger than Menard would have stepped in already, developed the product, marketed it effectively and made some real money out of it.

A disbarred lawyer for example, surely they would have nothing to lose and could simply set up a practice offering advice on how to beat the system, and according to FMOTLers this remedy is actually acepted in law so they could sell it as legitimate legal advice.
I cant actually understand why Menard puts "for entertainment purposes only" on his DVDs and then claims his advice can be used in court????

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

I also see you have placed upon me a challenge you refuse to accept yourselves. Only a court ruling will be acceptable, but when it comes to the people in the government having power to govern, you simply accept it as true, without asking them for any court rulings supporting their right to govern without consent.

There are plenty of court rulings contradicting your claim. See for example post #2325.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

There are plenty of court rulings contradicting your claim. See for example post #2325.

I predict Menard may respond with, "I dont see my name on any of those court cases, so you still have not proven that I can be governed without MY consent"

[cocana]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

I see that you folks are still at it! Having fun with your Weetabix?

Me not posting you assume is due to your amazing arguments and my inability to address them. It simply could not be due to me having a life and far better things to do, and not caring about a vapid and banal forum. No, it must be because your arguments sent me running.

I also see you are now trying to change the rules on me alone, while not embracing them yourself. If this was baseball, you would be saying I get one swing, and it has to be a home run, or I lose, while you all get to swing and miss all day. Of course none of you see the huge problem with this, as far as fairness and equality goes, do you?

I also see your childish antics are still being used to hide a lack of wit, and you seem to think that endless sarcasm and insults are a suitable substitute for rational and reasonable argument. There are what, over 50 posts of you guys patting each other on the back, for trying to change the rules, and for thinking that I was frustrated instead of simply too busy. And you still apparently are thinking that the truth will be decided by the exchanges on this particular forum.

This forum is completely irrelevant to the truth, and seeks to avoid it with insulting and derisive comments. But you folks seem to think that what happens on this forum, will decide what happens elsewhere. So you know, most people laugh at this forum, and consider it to be populated by the least intelligent of people, who by acting like a herd and blinded by a clique mindset, can confidently defend their stupidity. Surrounding yourself with people who believe the same idiocy as yourself does not mean you are all right. Here is a dissertation on what is happening with you folks.

http://www.enformy.com/$politic.html


Crickets, and tumble weeds does not mean you have won anything. But it does show your mindset, and inability to imagine any other reason. Like me having a life and far better things to do then to argue with those who eschew logic, reason and rational thought.

I also see you have placed upon me a challenge you refuse to accept yourselves. Only a court ruling will be acceptable, but when it comes to the people in the government having power to govern, you simply accept it as true, without asking them for any court rulings supporting their right to govern without consent. That you accept blindly, and do not ask for proof. But is not their claim the larger one and the originating one? Should they not be faced with the obligation to provide the same level of proof? Have you ever asked any of them to do so, or do you simply ignorantly accept their claims without question?

You bask in the belief that I am lying about having certain documents, and try claiming I said I lost them which I never claimed. If you go traveling, do you bring ALL your papers, books, and documents with you? This is your logic at work: I say I do not have a document with me, cause I have been traveling and did not bring everything I own with me. You claim to not believe that I would not travel without my entire library, one that takes up an entire wall in my apartment, or without all the boxes of documents in my storage area. And now you claim that because I did not, it does not exist. See how idiotic that is?

So to answer no I do not have a document with me that establishes my beliefs are supported by a court, and that consent is required to govern another.

However there is a bunch of you and only one of me, and unlike you all I am not at my own home, with all my stuff, and none of you have a document proving that a court has ruled on this issue in your favour do you? And since yours is the originating claim, (the right to govern without consent) the onus is actually on you to prove that a court was asked this specific question, and ruled in favour of governing without consent.

So now you all have to accept the same standards you tried to place upon me. OF course I know none of you are mature enough to actually do so.
Only a court ruling will suffice.
It must be specific to this issue, not just some judge looking at another issue and doing so without consent to adjudicate as evidence that it can be done, for that is a big assumption on your part, and the judge may be acting on the belief that he has consent and is not the standard you have attempted to place upon me.

And there are ALL of you and you are in your own homes, with your documents easily accessible. You should have no problem showing a court ruling where they state that consent of the governed is not required to govern.

Now hop to it.

I bet what you will do however is continue with your immature sarcastic comments, or will celebrate that I did not meet your standard, yet will not try to meet it yourself. I also predict that me being away for the next two or three days will be used to imply that I am scared, or you have won, or there will be more cricket and tumbleweed posts, seeking to imply that I have bailed, instead of simply being to busy to worry about the beliefs of the members of this forum. A forum that most people simply laugh at and consider to be populated by brain dead statists.

Have fun kids. Continue patting yourself on the back and claiming victory. According to some, FMOTL was ‘dead in the water’ a year ago. But still you are trying to disrespect and insult those who hold these beliefs, for you cannot logically or reasonably discuss them, have never been able to defeat them, and you have in the last two days proved that quite obviously. Your posts do far more to undermine any respect others may have for you and this forum than anything I could post.

Keep throwing your poo, little monkeys, it’s only getting all over you.

I will be back in two days or so, and look forward to seeing evidence that a court has ruled in favour of your beliefs, that consent of the governed is not required to govern, here in this common law jurisdiction.

Please do not say this is not fair, as it is the standard you tried to place on me, you outnumber me, and none of you have anything better to do, thus allowing you to spend so much time here.

Congrats Rob. That must be one of your longest ever posts and still you managed you avoid the issue.

We don't want a philosophical discussion, we don't want anything except proof of your claims. You can therefore save your fingers next time, just post up the proof and own us in the process. Or continue with your usual avoidance par excellence (like above) and discredit yourself without any need for our assistance.

Oh, and don't moan about us having a giggle all the while you go on with your Operation Self-Debunk. It's hardly surprising that we laugh really, it's free entertainment. You've put yourself in this guru position and dished out advice, YouTube videos, DVDs, thousands of forum posts and other materials (for a charge too) asserting that you've cracked it, yet it's patently obvious that you've got nothing in your freeman locker at all. That, me old mucker, is a failure of collossal proportions and it's bound to attract comment and mirth, get over it.

Alternatively, show us to be wrong and make the joke on us. Proof please, nothing else is necessary.


[JB: get your tumbleweed ready again]

[cocana]

Originally Posted by deeper

ETA: If this was at all possible, people bigger than Menard would have stepped in already, developed the product, marketed it effectively and made some real money out of it.

Obvious example being lawyers. If it had any application in the real world, the lawyers would have been all over it.

[jargon buster]

unfortunatly (according to FMOTLers) all lawyers are the scum of the earth and dishonest liars, so the honourable avenue of FMOTL wouldnt appeal to their nature.

[cocana]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

unfortunatly (according to FMOTLers) all lawyers are the scum of the earth and dishonest liars, so the honourable avenue of FMOTL wouldnt appeal to their nature.

FMOTLers also tend to believe that lawyers are money grabbers, so surely it follows that lawyers would have jumped at this because, if true, it would have been an opportunity to make more money?

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by cocana

FMOTLers also tend to believe that lawyers are money grabbers, so surely it follows that lawyers would have jumped at this because, if true, it would have been an opportunity to make more money?

But the lawyers are in on it all...so they won't want to tell people...because otherwise they'd...um...they'd...well...BECAUSE!

[Paul]

Yet Rob has a whole team of selachian statists ready to do his freemany biding.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

I predict Menard may respond with, "I dont see my name on any of those court cases, so you still have not proven that I can be governed without MY consent"

Rob has repeatedly stated in this thread that all are equal under the law.

But perhaps Rob is more equal than others.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Paul

Yet Rob has a whole team of selachian statists ready to do his freemany biding.

hehe

[jargon buster]

Quote:

But perhaps Rob is more equal than others.

That has always been Robs stance.
In Robworld he can ignore everyone elses rules but everyone else must obey his.

[cocana]

Originally Posted by Tolls

But the lawyers are in on it all...so they won't want to tell people...because otherwise they'd...um...they'd...well...BECAUSE!

Yep, lawyers, they're so in on the conspiracy that they, urrr, ummm, don't want to benefit from it. Damn those evil lawyers!


Also, Paul - quality post sir!

[jargon buster]

Hang on though...if a lawyer did it once and a court transcript was made available then anyone else doing it wouldnt need to employ a lawyer.
The transcript would be Robs flowchart realised.

Thats why they keep it under wraps...they dont tell anyone about it to protect their (and Robs) gravy train.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Hang on though...if a lawyer did it once and a court transcript was made available then anyone else doing it wouldnt need to employ a lawyer.
The transcript would be Robs flowchart realised.

Thats why they keep it under wraps...they dont tell anyone about it to protect their (and Robs) gravy train.

[FreeManHoratius] Of course! That makes perfect sense, and I'm glad to see you're finally recognizing the Reality of the Freeman Filosophy.

Originally Posted by jargon buster

disbarred

Has anyone see my rug? I might need it. [/FreemanHoratius]

[tsig]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

FMOTL offers the solution to all life's problems, birth bonds, endless supplies of money and free stuff, the ability to do as you please in regard to the law, sit back while others do the work and freeload.
The people it attracts are scroungers, the lazy but also the desperate , the ones who are in so much debt they will try anything.
Its real trick is that anyone who doesn't twig onto the fact its nonsense pretty quick are not very bright, which is the perfect people to try and extract money from, its total idiocy weeds out anyone with a shred of intelligence.
Unfortunately FMOTLs one major drawback is it isn't real.

Plus anyone who tries it gets sent to jail where they cannot earn any money to send to the con men.

It's a lose-lose-lose proposition.

Personally I'd stick to the Birth certificate scam, that way you can always be filing papers in their behalf for a fee and the money can be always be just around the corner.

[Border Reiver]

Hello all, first post for me.

I've been following this and some of the other Freeman threads gathering information on this "movement". I been seeing an increasing number of these individuals and their "legal documents" over the last few years, and it seemed prudent to look at them.

Still trying to wrap my head around how people can believe that by saying "I do not consent..." that society's rules don't apply, but that may just be me.

You may be interested to know what happens here after the ruling that says, "We, the court, do not agree that you are not bound by Canadian law simply because you don't like a particular law or rule." Well some of them are writing to the CF Provost Marshall (head of the military police) and demanding that he render military aid to protect their property against those corrupt government and court officials since they are "Allies" of HMTQ!

Since the meatheads aren't used to seeing that level of legal nonsense in what look like court documents they ship it over to me in the "claims and civil Litigation" section to deal with the nutbar.... But hey, its a living.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

Personally I'd stick to the Birth certificate scam

Robs blown that one by abandoning his SIN he now has no access to any government benefits (his theory) and as such any bond belongs to the "PERSON" and not the human being

Rob was just greedy with his DVDs, who in their right mind (stop it..) is going to pay $250 for a few DVDs?
He should just knock them out at $10, he would have made far more money.
Look at Charles Atlas, worked out with weights at a gym but told everyone they could look like him by performing "dynamic tension" exercises and sold a booklet with some exercises in it for a couple of dollars.
Made far more than selling sets of weights ever would.

Dont get any ideas Rob,