The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
TSR said:
.
And what law are we before, under or in the eyes of for this to apply?


Oh, that's right. we're not, so that *legal* principle does not apply.

Are you really that ignorant of the principle involved, or just that determined to distract from your inability to do more than baldly assert your crap is actually strawberries?


And no, we are not equal in this case. Because I'm not trying to lie about my "status" and claiming special consideration because of it.
.

.
Which God is that? Zeus? Allah? Yahweh? When did my country turn into a theocracy?
.

.
And where is this interpretation documented? Not the first time I have asked...
.

.
But it doesn't -- while all the Freemen in jail right now indicates the exact opposite.
.

.
And yet, not a one of them is successful at trying to implement that choice.

Sad, really...
.
Click to expand...

.
Seems you missed another post...
.
 
tsig said:
FreemanMenard said:
Means you have to get a license and insurance to to drive on my roads.
Click to expand...

Are we not equal? If so it means they are mine too, and since they are my property, I do not have to ask you or pay you to use my property. I did not demand payment from you to use my roads for your own private purposes did I? See how nice I was.

So since we are equal, and I have not agreed with you that they are your roads solely, and I claim they are mine just as equally as they are yours, how can you lawfully stop me from using them? Can't can you?

You would have to resort to unlawful actions, begining with trying to claim that we do not own the roads equally.

You loose again then for abandoning equality and the law.

So sorry, they are my roads, and I am telling you I can use my property without asking you for permission.


OR..... Do you claim I can't use my own property without getting permission from you first? Is that your claim? LMAO!
Click to expand...
 
FreemanMenard said:
Are we not equal? If so it means they are mine too, and since they are my property, I do not have to ask you or pay you to use my property. I did not demand payment from you to use my roads for your own private purposes did I? See how nice I was.
Click to expand...
.
When did you construct these roads or pay to have them constructed?

If you have no obligation to the government to, say, register your car then you have no right to travel on the roads those fees built and maintain.

You really *aren't* clear on what "equal in the eyes of the law" means, are you?
.
FreemanMenard said:
So since we are equal, and I have not agreed with you that they are your roads solely, and I claim they are mine just as equally as they are yours, how can you lawfully stop me from using them? Can't can you?

You would have to resort to unlawful actions, begining with trying to claim that we do not own the roads equally.
Click to expand...
.
If you don't pay the required fees, you don't.
.
FreemanMenard said:
You loose again then for abandoning equality and the law.
Click to expand...
.
The law also says you will pay the appropriate fees.

You can't have one without the other.
.
FreemanMenard said:
So sorry, they are my roads, and I am telling you I can use my property without asking you for permission.

OR..... Do you claim I can't use my own property without getting permission from you first? Is that your claim? LMAO!
Click to expand...
.
No, I claim that the public roads are not your personal property.
.
 
FreemanMenard said:
The problem I see with this, although I know it sounds reasonable, and I have no reason to think you are extending it being aware of this problem, is that success is not a function of my actions, but of the people in the governments. It requires them to produce something, where as I proposed them not acting when they could as a measure of success.

What if I travel freely, all over, and they know, and are aware, and refuse to stop me, or produce such a document for me? Then there appears a stalemate and the situation is not resolved. That is the problem I see.

You are equating my success with their actions, not their refusal to act. It is fundamental.

Will you accept the terms suggested? I will agree to pay the fees, and further, will only draw from the $10K in escrow as much as the project costs me, plus my fees, and the rest I will donate to Covenant House in whatever name you wish. Likely I will draw 3-5K if not challenged. Costs increase with challenges however.

Whatever your challenge, tying success to the actions of another, is not an acceptable challenge, whereas tying it to their refusal to act, is. See, I do not want my success or failure to be predicated by the actions of another. I think that is fair, after all, if they are not my government, and we both know it, they can't give me the documents you would like to see can they?

Lack of action on their part when they can act and stop me is clear indication that they do not chose to do so.

Failure to provide the documents you wish to see is simply evidence that they do not wish to provide evidence of their potentially unlawful previous actions. They have no obligation to do so, and I do not need it to exercise my rights.

So is it about exercising rights without permission, or getting permission from someone to do so?

See your entire challenge sounds like this:
I say I do not need their permission.
You say Prove it, by getting it.

Your logic is faulty. If I do not need their permission, why would I prove it by securing it?

Where is the logic in saying that you will only accept a document from the people in the government, when the claim is I do not need them to produce such documents?

But I do see how by making such a circuitous demand for performance, and asking for the impossible, you avoid the duty of accepting obligations of your challenge, and now wish to back out. I thought video would suffice. Now you want permission slips or something from the government. Changing the terms of the original offer is what you are doing. Why? Are you scared now to honour your original offer? You know... make a video of me traveling..

I knew you would fold, and find a sleazy way to do it... changing the terms so that now documents from the government is what identifies success is a complete abandonment of the original offer, that being the absence of need for their documents...

I expect such from this forum though....
Click to expand...

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.

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. Instead, you propose to me that we let you run around doing illegal things and take the fact that your not in jail as "proof" of FOTL success. Rob, I know your cult followers will fall for this sort of stuff, but no one else is - ANYONE could do this. All you have to is either on purpose or by accident do something where no police or present. Or conceal what you are doing. 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.

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.

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

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

Why would you need court documents if you are a freeman?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Do I have to explain how betting works? It is my belief, it is however not yours or the one shared by the one who extended the offer. And it is this we wish to settle. Do you claim that my actions are lawful and will not bring harm, or not? You bet on one thing, I bet on another.

Party A believes one thing.
Party B believes another opposite thing.

They Bet.

One party can know they have a sure thing, and still bet.
So what?

I thought the offer was $10K to produce a video of me traveling in my auto, with the cops clearly being aware of it and doing nothing...

But I guess you all want to wimp out now, eh? Using all the tools at your disposal, even feigning ignorance as to how men wager...

Sad...
Click to expand...

Since the odds are universally large that you would cheat and misrepresent I would say a 'video' of you doing so would be invalid. Both sides of a wager must be present to insure you do what you say you can do. I mean you lie repeatedly so why would you become honest in this one instance?

Why not get someone out of a long sentence in prison with your magic words?
 
Rob
You have no intention of driving a car in any challenge.
If you were going to do it you would have done it by now.
Its like someone coming up with a cure for cancer and then not telling anyone until they "bet" him if it were valid.

Every person in history who has done anything to make a point has done it "to make a point" not for financial gain.

JB
 
I don't think anyone has paid rab any money for his freeman routine, firstly it's rubbish and you'd have to be very stupid to think otherwise, secondly the unemployed losers who would use this as a guise to hide their lazy non working lives have no money, kinda like rab himself. It's not even his original scam, he's copied it straight from Jordan maxwell.
So in short he's using someone else's con and failing. He's useless.
He's dirt poor yet could claim on his bond and get 8 million dollars. You've got to wonder at the mentality of anyone believing a word that comes out of his acne ridden face.
He's getting his tatties over at the icke site by some lord of the realm, he's been offered a contract of employment for a consultation but so far is refusing to respond, maybe he's just to busy and can't find the time, i don't know,maybe it's cause he's a liar and it doesn't work, na surely not,surely he's not just a grubby little thief, he's getting the chance to prove otherwise but seems to not wish to contract with that.
It is funny watching him trying to save his scam
 
Menard claims that being a freeman is a recognised status and as such it is accepted that he is not bound by statute law. But, to exercise those accepted rights strangely he considers he is taking a risk:
I am risking my property being seized unlawfully, and if they decide to bring action, I will have to engage and expend a whole lot of energy to fight them in court. All of this is worth far more then $10K, and is sufficient to cover my end of the wager.
Click to expand...

Where is the risk if FOTL is a recognised status?
No need for a court battle at all. He can just inform the police he is a FOTL can't he, and they will just shrug their shoulders and let him be.
Better still, now that Menard has promoted himself to the prestigious rank of a Peace Officer he could simply arrest any policeman that attempts to prevent him from traveling.
 
One of the most important actions a con artist must take is to make sure, at all costs, and at all times, that his con doesn't attract the attention of the authorities.

Doing an 'action' to prove his odd contentions MIGHT attract the attentions of people he'd rather not contract with, LOL

'Proving' FOTL is easy, contact the media and tell them you are going to deliberately break, repeatedly and in public at a stated time a number of important statues and laws and you challenge the government and police to stop you.

He hasn't done that nor try to organize marches of people on governmental agencies to demand their status be 'regularized'. Instead he is attempting to keep it as quiet as possible.

Thought on the following......the penalty for cost that was not collected against him. Could that debt be purchased by an investor/collection agency? Or is it in a different catagory?

Stacy you have noted that he both says its proven and accepted but in the next breath says that it isn't accepted or proven, either he's a fruitcake with a short term memory problem or he is smart enough to realize that his idea is as viable as a four day old beached fish.
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
Stacy you have noted that he both says its proven and accepted but in the next breath says that it isn't accepted or proven, either he's a fruitcake with a short term memory problem or he is smart enough to realize that his idea is as viable as a four day old beached fish.
Click to expand...

I believe Menard's smart.
He has found a method of selling hocus pocus to fruitcakes.
 
Stacey Grove said:
I believe Menard's smart.
He has found a method of selling hocus pocus to fruitcakes.
Click to expand...

He's one of the more articulate FMOTL Chieftians but basically he's the Canadian Raymond St Clair - a grubby conman in the guise of a man of principle.
 
gtm said:
He's one of the more articulate FMOTL Chieftians but basically he's the Canadian Raymond St Clair - a grubby conman in the guise of a man of principle.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I don't for one minute believe Menard practices what he preaches.
Every one of his anecdotes appears to concern somebody else, never himself.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Do I have to explain how betting works? It is my belief, it is however not yours or the one shared by the one who extended the offer. And it is this we wish to settle. Do you claim that my actions are lawful and will not bring harm, or not? You bet on one thing, I bet on another.

Party A believes one thing.
Party B believes another opposite thing.

They Bet.

One party can know they have a sure thing, and still bet.
So what?

I thought the offer was $10K to produce a video of me traveling in my auto, with the cops clearly being aware of it and doing nothing...

But I guess you all want to wimp out now, eh? Using all the tools at your disposal, even feigning ignorance as to how men wager...

Sad...
Click to expand...

This is not a wager. This is asking people to pay you to go for a drive. You're not betting anything of value to me.
 
Mashuna said:
This is not a wager. This is asking people to pay you to go for a drive.
Click to expand...

And, of course driving unlicensed, uninsured with no registration plates is normal day to day behaviour for a FOTL isn't it? You're not offering anything unusual are you, Rob?
 
FreemanMenard said:
A pen and a paper is considered legal recording material and is used extensively by police to make records, thus it is a recording medium. How is that distinction being made evidence of me being the laughable one?
Click to expand...
All of which has nothing to do with anything I said. But please, witter away. It's almost cute the way you think you can talk like your betters.
As for my analogy that was all it was, and was mostly established by the amount of excrement is thrown on this forum.
Click to expand...
This sentence has no meaning. It is almost the definition of "word salad."
The other party though,
Click to expand...
Uh, dude? "The other party" was me. The guy you're talking to. It's generally seen as a bit weird to refer to the person you're talking to as "the other party." You don't have Asperger's by any chance?
actually called me a chicken, then changed it to a charlatan, and did not even bother with an analogy. Let me explain it this way.... Oh wait... forget it, analogies are lost on you. Don't want to be 'casting my pearls before swine'. ZING! :D;):p
Click to expand...
Bloody hell, you're illiterate. I didn't change my description of you to charlatan, I added the term charlatan to my description of you as a coward. Maybe English isn't your first language and you're not aware of the common use of the word "chicken" as a synonym for "coward," but my money's on you desperately playing with words in an attempt to look clever.
 
jsfisher said:
You are forgetting the power of the notary public. They can make any document an official document.
Click to expand...

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


Let's go back a bit and remember another FoTL who claims to have some "official" documents, and what that really means:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5831452#post5831452
 
LightinDarkness said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Well, there's a reasonable counterproposal. Just for the record, you're still putting up $10k if he can pull this off?
 
gtm said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
FreemanMenard said:
Again, this is not a payoff to me if you fail.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, then it is not a harm to you if I succeed.
Click to expand...

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?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Why not leave it up to the police to initiate the interaction?
Click to expand...

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

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

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
 
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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:
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
FreemanMenard said:
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!
Click to expand...

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!
Click to expand...
gtm said:
I've heard that 'Mounties' always get their man.

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

It's ok though if he consents to it, right?
 
LightinDarkness said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...



Which Notary Act would that be?


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

FreemanMenard said:
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:
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


...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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


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,
Click to expand...


....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,
Click to expand...


...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:
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

:headdesk:

Are you serious?
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
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
Click to expand...

Wot, the alien lied? :D :D
Damn those pesky aliens.
 
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...



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).
Click to expand...


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