(Ed) Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Garrison

So if I read the posts at the link correctly this individual managed to turn a minor traffic stop into his car being impounded and and spending time in jail? And is proud of the time and money, his own and that of the taxpayers/criminal justice system, he wasted with his idiocy?

Yup. It's a classic FOTL success story.

[Sledge]

Particularly enjoyed:

Quote:

i wish there was something i could do or say to help

Well, I guess you could tell him to stop playing stupid word games, act like a man and take what's coming to him. But footles aren't big on that.

[Paul]

Well, you could but as

Quote:

a man with a rather high IQ, who has read and de-constructed [] Acts and realized that without [] consent they are not law

dear Robert-Arthur: will just

Quote:

embrace a duty of compassion to [his] fellow man and a duty of respect to office holders

and constantly insult you.

[nomuse]

Well, in defense of the subject of that little story, his Freeman nonsense did confuse the cops enough to buy him another couple of days driving around without a license. Many people would have had the car impounded on the first stop. Not the best trade-off, though; a couple more days with a car in exchange for several days in jail.....

[Boot2TheHead]

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

...Bad news on that one.
The mighty Waffler truly showed RCMP who was boss in 2009....

Robert-Arthur: Menard's Letter to the RCMP Officers Who Gave Him a Ticket

(Read the whole thing if you can, it is hilarious)

Somebody needs to do a dramatic reading of that whole thing.

Quote:

1. You will be getting a bill. If you do not pay it I will take lawful measures
to collect. (note: He initially set the bill at $8000 but ever so generously halved it to $4000)
2. The RCMP will be getting a bill. If they do not pay I will take lawful steps
to collect.
3. All my property including the 1991 Nissan is held by me under a claim of
right as per Section 39 of the Criminal Code and thus I may use force to
stop even people like you from taking my property.

Whatever happened with that, Rob?

[BobHaulk]

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

...Bad news on that one.
The mighty Waffler truly showed RCMP who was boss in 2009....

Robert-Arthur: Menard's Letter to the RCMP Officers Who Gave Him a Ticket

(Read the whole thing if you can, it is hilarious)

I read it and you're right, it's hilarious. I particularly like the bit where our hero tells us how he has a large I.Q. There he goes blowing his own trumpet again. Hey Fraudman Menard have you got a copy of the I.Q test you did to show us how high a mark you got?
He also makes a rather strange claim, this,"I know an 8 year old child, who will simply refuse any directives from her
parents unless they can explain to her the justice of it. She has no fear and
refuses to go against her spirit. There are millions of these children out there". Note the use of the word "directives", in our hero's mind he thinks this is a word that conveys a superior grasp of the english language but in reality who has issued a 'directive' to their children? Honestly, the way Fraudman Menard thinks his writing implies intelligence cracks me up. I suppose he thinks it looks good to his victims, after all a man with a rather high I.Q would find it surprisingly easy to get money from the kind people who are actually dim enough to believe his con.
Thanks Fraudman Menard for the laughs. I'm choked with the cold and feel terrible but this has put a smile on my corrugating coupon.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

I suppose he thinks it looks good to his victims, after all a man with a rather high I.Q would find it surprisingly easy to get money from the kind people who are actually dim enough to believe his con.

Yep, create a con so mind numbingly stupid which automatically creates a unbelievably thick client base to extract money from.
Its a great trick really, silly hats off to him.
PS I wonder if the 8 year old child has had any "schooling" from Menard.

[WhenDanSaysJump]

Rob, how does it feel knowing that the advice you dispense has led to people being incarcerated?

[ComfySlippers]

http://www.emtvonline.co.uk/home.php

Edge Media TV, currently labelled as "Controversial TV" on Sky channel 200;

They recently had an 'interview' with Jon Witterick, the fraud who owns the getoutofdebtfree.org scam.

They are now going to show a similarly honest and truthful 'interview' with the one and only Roger "I do not accept that I am bankrupt" Hayes about his new toy, "The Lawful Bank".

These two fellows basically preach Menard's Gibberish to the gullible / stoned, but make more money than him in the process.

It's a cheapo channel that noone watches. They even showed one of Menard's DVDs recently. For entertainment value only, of course.

I'm quite sure the authorities would be interested in seeing Roger "I have not been declared bankrupt " Hayes discuss his "Bank" on TV.

ETA: The Bizzle : Comment is free, but woo is*sacred is a blog from a real legalese person

Follow some of the links there to see why normal people are annoyed that woo-mongers have been given a voice to air their woobalisms in media such as The Guardian .

ETA2: If someone can trawl through the woo from the above suggestion and find the linked to document from the recent Court Case concerning the woman who coached her child to frame her father for... things... please do as I'm having Broadbeans issues atm.... it is in there if you can be bothered. Suffice to say the lady concerned used FOTL-Waffle tactics and is now in prison.

[cocana]

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

http://www.emtvonline.co.uk/home.php

Edge Media TV, currently labelled as "Controversial TV" on Sky channel 200;

They recently had an 'interview' with Jon Witterick, the fraud who owns the getoutofdebtfree.org scam.

They are now going to show a similarly honest and truthful 'interview' with the one and only Roger "I do not accept that I am bankrupt" Hayes about his new toy, "The Lawful Bank".

These two fellows basically preach Menard's Gibberish to the gullible / stoned, but make more money than him in the process.

It's a cheapo channel that noone watches. They even showed one of Menard's DVDs recently. For entertainment value only, of course.

I'm quite sure the authorities would be interested in seeing Roger "I have not been declared bankrupt " Hayes discuss his "Bank" on TV.

ETA: The Bizzle : Comment is free, but woo is*sacred is a blog from a real legalese person

Follow some of the links there to see why normal people are annoyed that woo-mongers have been given a voice to air their woobalisms in media such as The Guardian.

I'm sure Roger Hayes' trustee in bankruptcy would appreciate the heads up.

[jargon buster]

Sorted

[jargon buster]

Had a bit of a joust with the Anti terrorist on one of his youtube videos.

He's now banned me rather than post any evidence.
Now theres a surprise, he is after all in cahoots with Menard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c49q3...reply_received

[slowsmile]

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

http://www.emtvonline.co.uk/home.php

Edge Media TV, currently labelled as "Controversial TV" on Sky channel 200;

They recently had an 'interview' with Jon Witterick, the fraud who owns the getoutofdebtfree.org scam.

And interesting to see the sort of people pushing "get out of debt free" on the Edge Media Forum.

http://www.edgemediatv.com/FORUM/top...?TOPIC_ID=4060

I do believe this is the same jackchit who was making threats to Gravy some years ago.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78545

[Boot2TheHead]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Had a bit of a joust with the Anti terrorist on one of his youtube videos.

He's now banned me rather than post any evidence.
Now theres a surprise, he is after all in cahoots with Menard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c49q3...reply_received

"What tends to happen is that lazy,ineffectual people who desire swift passage without having to pay the ferryman usually end up sunk due to the weight of their ignorance.They then invariably band with other like minded fools to exact misdirected revenge."

The irony is staggering. Am I missing the context and he actually is talking about (some) Freemen?

[Bishop]

So this is Menard's new argument?

"It's none of your business if I'm conning people. Go away!"

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Bishop

So this is Menard's new argument?

"It's none of your business if I'm conning people. Go away!"

Pretty much. It's a common attitude among criminal types, expecting others to just look the other way and not getting involved. They often get quite annoyed when people don't do this, as if it's the non-criminals who are somehow in the wrong.

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by Bishop

So this is Menard's new argument?

"It's none of your business if I'm conning people. Go away!"

No actually. My position is that my personal information and details are none of anyone's business and refusing to provide them is not evidence of criminal activity.

If you refuse to give me your home address, does that then logically imply that you are living under a bridge and do not have an address? Let's test it. It is afterall YOUR logic. Post your RL home address. If you refuse to do so, you admit you have no address and are living under a bridge.

No wonder logic and reason carry no weight here.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

My position is that my personal information and details are none of anyone's business and refusing to provide them is not evidence of criminal activity.

Your position is that the legislation of the country you are living in does not apply to you without your personal consent. Do you have any evidence for this?

Quote:

No wonder logic and reason carry no weight here.

They carry some weight, but not as much weight as evidence does. If the evidence contradicts "logic and reason" then most likely that "logic and reason" is faulty in some way. So far all the evidence presented here has shown that people cannot opt out of legislation.

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by Boot2TheHead

"What tends to happen is that lazy,ineffectual people who desire swift passage without having to pay the ferryman usually end up sunk due to the weight of their ignorance.They then invariably band with other like minded fools to exact misdirected revenge."

The irony is staggering. Am I missing the context and he actually is talking about (some) Freemen?

Yes he is. The FMOTL perspective is a powerful truth, and like many things powerful has the capacity to be abused. It is unfortunate that many try to embrace it for self-serving or clearly criminal purposes. But without those who attempt to abuse these truths, who would the naysayers point to as evidence of it not working?

When I first uncovered this perspective, hidden by layers of legalese, I questioned the wisdom of sharing it so widely. But I could not figure out a way to vet people, nor did I feel comfortable judging others. Maybe that is why I do not fit in on this forum, eh?

[FreemanMenard]

Quote:

Your position is that the legislation of the country you are living in does not apply to you without your personal consent. Do you have any evidence for this?

That is not an accurate expression of my beliefs at all. It is simplistic to say the least. Hey how about you stick to expressing your beliefs instead of trying to load me with those YOU think are mine?

Quote:

They carry some weight, but not as much weight as evidence does. If the evidence contradicts "logic and reason" then most likely that "logic and reason" is faulty in some way. So far all the evidence presented here has shown that people cannot opt out of legislation.

So do you consider logic and reason to be 'evidence' or not?

[jargon buster]

Quote:

That is not an accurate expression of my beliefs at all.

Have you changed your mind again?

Quote:

So do you consider logic and reason to be 'evidence' or not?

oh the irony.

Quote:

The FMOTL perspective is a powerful truth, and like many things powerful has the capacity to be abused.

You would know Rob

Quote:

No actually. My position is that my personal information and details are none of anyone's business and refusing to provide them is not evidence of criminal activity.

Strawman alert!! who cares or has asked for your personal details?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

That is not an accurate expression of my beliefs at all.

Do you accept that legislation can apply to you without your personal consent?

Quote:

So do you consider logic and reason to be 'evidence' or not?

Not.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

So do you consider logic and reason to be 'evidence' or not?

And as far as using "logic and reason" to extrapolate a legal proposition from documents that don't explicitly support that proposition is concerned, here's a comment from a common law judgment:

Quote:

A case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to logically follow from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all.

Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathen [1901] A.C. 495 (H.L.) at 506.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

So do you consider logic and reason to be 'evidence' or not?

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Garbage in, garbage out"? Logic and reason are tools, not evidence. You can have a perfectly logically sound argument, but if the premises on which the argument is built are faulty, the conclusions will be faulty as well.

It doesn't matter how good your tools are, if you're working with shoddy materials, you get shoddy results. And shoddy results are all we've ever seen from your freeman waffle.

[D'rok]

Mojo says this:

Originally Posted by Mojo

Your position is that the legislation of the country you are living in does not apply to you without your personal consent.

Rob responds with this:

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

That is not an accurate expression of my beliefs at all.

And, of course, that response is a shameless, outrageous, self-serving and bald-faced lie as is evidenced by a link a few posts back on this very page:

Originally Posted by Menard the liar

However what you then pointed to was an Act or statute, and they simply do not have to force of law over those who do not consent.

http://www.free-conversant.com/realtruth/2922

Needless to say, there are countless other examples on this forum and all over the Internet where Menard says precisely the same thing. For example here:

Originally Posted by Menard

If I refuse to consent, none of the statutes everyone else calls laws will have the force of law with me.

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/elizabeth/

Why does the chief Canadian FOTL guru insist on defending his failed ideas with obvious lies? Are liars honourable people? Why should we take anything a liar says at face value, ever?

[Captain_Swoop]

From the letter to the Cops

Quote:

Are you aware this means that if you try taking someones
unregistered automobile with your hand on your gun, and that automobile is
held under a claim of right, that you can be lawfully shot and killed?

Quote:

Do you acknowledge that the people of Canada who have secured the right
to carry a sidearm by way of a claim of right have the right to use that
sidearm to defend themselves against unprovoked assaults, especially
those initiated by people who are criminally negligent of the limits of
their authority?

Quote:

Iseize and sell ANY RCMP VEHICLE in North
Vancouver?

Quote:

I may use force to
stop even people like you from taking my property.

Quote:

I
have the right to use violence to stop you from taking my property thus
you do not.

One day someone is going to take this seriously.

Someone is going to get killed.

[Stacey Grove]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Mojo says this:



Rob responds with this:

Perhaps Rob would be so kind as to point out exactly why Mojo's post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo
Your position is that the legislation of the country you are living in does not apply to you without your personal consent.

is an inaccurate description of Rob's beliefs?

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

That is not an accurate expression of my beliefs at all.

wow...in the several years that i have been following this stuff, i have heard you say just that many times.
wow.....thanks for affirming that you are a liar.

[WhenDanSaysJump]

Rob, how does it feel knowing that the advice you dispense has led to people being incarcerated?

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by WhenDanSaysJump

Rob, how does it feel knowing that the advice you dispense has led to people being incarcerated?

and the first time an FOTLer shoots a cop that pulls him over, it becomes a sport.....right, rob?

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

From the letter to the Cop....

hey cap'n.....did menard write that letter?

[JLord]

I was going over the BC Supreme Court's mammoth 300+ page decision on polygamy and came accross an interesting quote cited in that case. It was from a Supreme Court of Canada decision called Malmo-Levine: LINK

Quote:

Indeed, it would be inconsistent with the rule of law to allow compliance with a criminal prohibition to be determined by each individual’s personal discretion and taste.

[Stacko]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

and the first time an FOTLer shoots a cop that pulls him over, it becomes a sport.....right, rob?

Hasn't that already happened? I could swear I read about it happening but my google fu is weak.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Stacko

Hasn't that already happened? I could swear I read about it happening but my google fu is weak.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...n-citizen-kane

[Stacko]

Originally Posted by Mojo

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...n-citizen-kane

Thanks. Sometimes it sucks to be right.

[ComfySlippers]

http://www.edgemediatv.com/forum/top...?TOPIC_ID=4059

The programme is Live and started at 8pm UK.
Watch the bankrupt Hayes talk about his con bank.

AlexG, who writes in the forum above, is the presenter.

[JLord]

I actually consider efforts to start a "lawful bank" to be much more rational than a lot of typical freeman claims. It is something that could theoritically be done. Better to try to create something that operates according to freeman philosophy as opposed to simply asserting that everything already does operate that way if you only know the magic words.

Like for example just write UCC 96 or whatever on your bill and then the bank has to cut up your mortgage or forgive our debt. This type of claim requires a very high level of cognitive dissonance because it is easily confirmed that it won't work. Someone who simply wants to start up a bank where these rules would be followed is at least talking about something that isn't factually untrue. They may have a very ill concieved plan for running a bank, but at least they aren't believing nonsense about actual banks. (well they probably are the same people who believe nonsense, but theoritically you could be just in favour of this banking system without believing nonsense about current banks)

[Stacey Grove]

Originally Posted by JLord

I actually consider efforts to start a "lawful bank" to be much more rational than a lot of typical freeman claims. It is something that could theoritically be done. Better to try to create something that operates according to freeman philosophy as opposed to simply asserting that everything already does operate that way if you only know the magic words.

Like for example just write UCC 96 or whatever on your bill and then the bank has to cut up your mortgage or forgive our debt. This type of claim requires a very high level of cognitive dissonance because it is easily confirmed that it won't work. Someone who simply wants to start up a bank where these rules would be followed is at least talking about something that isn't factually untrue. They may have a very ill concieved plan for running a bank, but at least they aren't believing nonsense about actual banks. (well they probably are the same people who believe nonsense, but theoritically you could be just in favour of this banking system without believing nonsense about current banks)

Well, Roger Hayes (who is promoting this bank) recently in court when being persued for Council Tax told the court that he is only the representative of the legal fiction known as Roger Hayes then did the old birth certificate nonsense and claimed the court acknowledged the strawman.
He is now bankrupt but claims the legal fiction is bankrupt, not him.
His lawful bank is a scam.

ETA: At another of Hayes' court appearances he turned up with (IIRC) about a hundred or so supporters including members of the BNP. They filmed the proceedings and claim they arrested the judge. One of those who was with Hayes was arrested and has since been sent to prison for sixteen months.

[JLord]

Yes, I'm not saying the Lawful bank is a good idea, or that the person promoting it does not hold unreasonable positions on other issues. But if someone came to me and said "I don't believe in any freeman legal claims, but I would love to do my banking at a bank governed by freeman philosophy, so I'll try to start one," I would have to admit that there are is no fantasy element to this plan. It is a possible thing that could be done. Trying to gain support for this idea would not be deceptive in the way that typical freeman legal claims are.

This is also why I often try to encourage freemen to join the Libertarian Party and focus their efforts on something that could possibly be productive. It is possible that with enough hard work the Libertarian Party could gain support to the point that they are able to influence laws in Canada. I agree it seems very unlikely at this point, but look at all the misguided effort that people put into freeman research and documents and so on. If that were focused on a legitimate effort maybe the Libertarian Party (or even some new Freeman Party or something) might grow in grass roots popularity. Much of the libertarian platform aligns with what freemen want (not with their legal claims, but with their desires), such as less government interference, more individual freedom, and so on.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

Well, Roger Hayes (who is promoting this bank) recently in court when being persued for Council Tax told the court that he is only the representative of the legal fiction known as Roger Hayes then did the old birth certificate nonsense and claimed the court acknowledged the strawman.
He is now bankrupt but claims the legal fiction is bankrupt, not him.
His lawful bank is a scam.

ETA: At another of Hayes' court appearances he turned up with (IIRC) about a hundred or so supporters including members of the BNP. They filmed the proceedings and claim they arrested the judge. One of those who was with Hayes was arrested and has since been sent to prison for sixteen months.

Total FOTL win! It's odd how when they arrest the body the FOTL persona seems to follow.