Bursting Bubbles of Gov't Deception

[FTA Lawyer]

So, FTA lawyer... wanna really play?

Care to post publicly your contact information and invite me to bring actiuon to bear? Happy to do so.

I have posted my information and invite you to act against me any time, if you are willing and capable of establishing I engage in unlawful activities.

Saying NO to de facto governments is not unlawful.

Up your name. Identify yourself. Show yourself and accept liability for your actions.

Or are you a COWARD????

I am Robert-Arthur: Menard.

Anyone wants a say in this discussion of true people they will have no problem identifying themselves. Those who choose not to identify themselves are hiding in the shadows and should be laughed at and then ignored.

What is your name FTA LAWYER?

If you can't share that, everything ewlse you shared is SHIT.

Identify yourself or accept you are a punk.

You know my name. Why do we not know yours? Is it because you are scared to identify yourself because you know you are a deceiver? Those who serve TRUTH are not scared to speak their name. I spoke mine, now speak yours or be seen as a liar, deceiver and manipulator who is in fact bound by our future and coming courts.

Whats your name?

You okay?

What made you fly off the handle? What happened to Mr. Honourable no conflict guy...or have you changed what it means to demand someone identify themselves and then to call them a coward and a punk...have you in fact just told me how much you enjoy my on-line company?

See, if I didn't know better ('cause I already wathced your video) I'd think you were a police officer the way you are ranting and attempting to intimidate me.

I've been engaging in what I consider respectful dialogue...its why I'm on a discussion board. I'm not even sure what it is you are challenging me to but I have no intentions of engaging you in some kind of battle of the claim of right.

I really am surprised by your outburst...

Anyway, the issue of anonymity came up in a post well before your time on this board, so I won't hold it against you that you didn't just click on my screen name to find out who I am.

Who am I?

Not sure where this leaves us...I guess I wait and see.

FTA

[M.Dancer]

Freeman Updates....(well, old news really, sort of like ponzi schemes and pyramid scams.....)

December 2, New York: One hundred current and former New York City employees are charged with evading state and city income taxes. Approximately half of the suspects used "sovereign citizen" ruses, claiming they were not "United States" citizens. The suspects charged include 69 corrections officers, four corrections captains, three Sanitation police officers and three NYPD traffic enforcement agents. Among the groups to which various suspects had ties were the Moorish Nation, the Lions of Freedom and the Financial Empowerment Group. Three other people are accused of selling kits to city employees to avoid taxes. The Lions of Freedom sell an $89.95 home-study course called the "Organic Sovereign American Freeman Compendium." One year ago, eleven New York City police officers were arrested in a similar scheme. Forty more city employees were suspended from work but not charged

http://www.adl.org/mwd/cocv1n4.asp

Defendants will go to any lengths to get this forbidden topic of discussion before the jury. In one recent case involving minor charges in traffic court, a pro se defendant offered the State of Pennsylvania a bargain of almost Faustian proportions. He asserted a right to execute a release of his property rights under state law and all of his privileges and immunities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, subject to the condition that he would revert to the status of an "American Freeman" with all of the "common law rights thereof, including the right to a jury possessing the power of jury nullification." Phelps v. Pennsylvania, 59 U.S.L.W. 3522 (1991) (petition for certiorari). The Supreme Court passed up this chance to decide the issue, perhaps preferring to wait until it percolates a bit more in the lower courts. 498 U.S. 1088 (1991).

http://www.caught.net/juror.htm

[FTA Lawyer]

Did the Freemen take their ball and go home? Not that I want to really revive this thread, it's probably played out it's usefulness days ago, but such an abrupt end left me feeling a bit unfulfilled...

FTA

[PolyNewbie]

The legal profession is hard to peg in absolute terms so as soon as you start argueing legalities you will lose to a lawyer. There is something legally wrong with any arguement I'm sure - which is what is really wrong.

We need common law and to throw all them law books and half the lawyers into a bottomless pit. The other half of lawyers should be shot if they go anywhere near a common law proceeding. Lawyer Client priviledge is to protect wealthy clients and it all slips downhill from there.

[LesActive]

Did the Freemen take their ball and go home? Not that I want to really revive this thread, it's probably played out it's usefulness days ago, but such an abrupt end left me feeling a bit unfulfilled...

FTA

I suspect Rob is waiting for an answer to his question, if he's still even watching this thread, and just became frustrated by your tactics.

By ball do you mean our delusion of being of being free, not above law but sanguine alongside it? The statutes are yours if you want them. Enjoy!

"Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty"

You're either willing to go along with ever increasing restraints on your liberty or you're not. I see many deceptive practices where you don't. I see advantages to political/spiritual separation from the state where you see benefits to sticking with the system. Now what?

Were you looking to be fulfilled by a happy ending?

[BZBee]

Did the Freemen take their ball and go home? Not that I want to really revive this thread, it's probably played out it's usefulness days ago, but such an abrupt end left me feeling a bit unfulfilled...

FTA

After that uncalled for outburst, he probably got on the "banned" list....that's what I call overkill.

ben•e•fit (bĕn'ə-fĭt)

n.

1.

a. Something that promotes or enhances well-being; an advantage: The field trip was of great benefit to the students. The students gave up their time in a classroom for a first-hand experience.

b. Help; aid. You give up being needy.

2. A payment made or an entitlement available in accordance with a wage agreement, an insurance policy, or a public assistance program. You worked for it or paid into it.

A benefit is a good thing...is it not? Most people don't question why they receive a benefit....they may just be grateful that it's there for them.

[Figleaf]

The legal profession is hard to peg in absolute terms so as soon as you start argueing legalities you will lose to a lawyer.

I would bloody well hope so. If not what's all that training and education in aid of?

D'jever watch "Pros vs. Joes" on Spike TV? Sometimes a Joe gives a good account of himself, but generally there's no denying the Pros are dominant. Naturally. That's the nature of professionalism (ANY professionalism)-- the Pros are Pros and that means something. You'd never expect some shmoe to pick up a scalpel and save lives, but guys like the Freemen can't make that connection about professions they don't properly understand. Menard would probably never think, as an amateur, of bidding for a bridgebuilding contract, but because he can't understand law he doesn't realize he can't do it.

[FTA Lawyer]

Did the Freemen take their ball and go home? Not that I want to really revive this thread, it's probably played out it's usefulness days ago, but such an abrupt end left me feeling a bit unfulfilled...

FTA

I suspect Rob is waiting for an answer to his question, if he's still even watching this thread, and just became frustrated by your tactics.

By ball do you mean our delusion of being of being free, not above law but sanguine alongside it? The statutes are yours if you want them. Enjoy!

"Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty"

You're either willing to go along with ever increasing restraints on your liberty or you're not. I see many deceptive practices where you don't. I see advantages to political/spiritual separation from the state where you see benefits to sticking with the system. Now what?

Were you looking to be fulfilled by a happy ending?

Nope, just was a weird way for 12 pages of discourse to end that's all. I don't buy into what you are preaching, but by all means pursue it to your collective hearts' content. I'm not looking to stop you.

FTA

[FreemanMenard]

Did the Freemen take their ball and go home? Not that I want to really revive this thread, it's probably played out it's usefulness days ago, but such an abrupt end left me feeling a bit unfulfilled...

FTA

I suspect Rob is waiting for an answer to his question, if he's still even watching this thread, and just became frustrated by your tactics.

By ball do you mean our delusion of being of being free, not above law but sanguine alongside it? The statutes are yours if you want them. Enjoy!

"Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty"

You're either willing to go along with ever increasing restraints on your liberty or you're not. I see many deceptive practices where you don't. I see advantages to political/spiritual separation from the state where you see benefits to sticking with the system. Now what?

Were you looking to be fulfilled by a happy ending?

Nope, just was a weird way for 12 pages of discourse to end that's all. I don't buy into what you are preaching, but by all means pursue it to your collective hearts' content. I'm not looking to stop you.

FTA

Hi I'm back and will end my discussion here with these words.

My outburst was a result of my growing frustration with my fellow man and although I am aware of and speak about the importance of compassion, I never claimed to be a perfect example of it and if my words lacked compassion I humbly apologize.

This discussion will not solve anything, as it has no legal weight and creates no agreement or binding contract. It is in fact a big waste of my time and creates only frustration. (Not so much with you FTA, but your cheering section. I don't mind them cheering you, but shooting spitballs is rude)

So this is what I am doing.

I found an investor for my concept which I am calling Shepherd's Haven. I will be opening a little cafe and therein I will sell beer, wine and pot to those who have secured Freeman status.

I will operate in British Columbia but not in The Province of British Columbia. I will operate in Vancouver City but NOT in the Corporation of the City of Vancouver. Because I won't be operating in the Corporation their bylaws will not be applicable to me. Because I will not be operating in the Province of British Columbia their statutes will not be applicable to me. Since I will be operating as a Freeman-on-the-Land statutes such as the Income Tax Act and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act will not be applicable to me.

And you will see that what you have been led to believe by the government is a lie.

If they don't come and try to bust me you will have a chance to see the truth.

Of course some will still refuse to see.

That's why the entire process is going to be turned into a movie.

And I will be operating under a claim of right and fee schedule and will be fully prepared to bring legal action against anyone that interferes with my lawful actions.

If the so called authorities do not come down on me will you then accep[t that I am acting lawfully and that statutes are not laws and persons are not people?

In any event, I wish you all well and if I am wrong it will soon be apparent.

If I am right, that to will be apparent.

If you would like to verify these words call the Licensing official for The Corporation of the City of Vancouver and ask him about me. He is a very nice man named Paul Teichrob. Ask him if he has any intent of trying to stop me from acting in Vancouver City but not in TCOTCOV.

Ask him if anyone in his organization wishes to claim my path is unlawful.

Have a good one my children. Let your Nanny state take care of all your needs and desires. Don't bother even trying to learn the words that they use to restrict you.

But don't cry to me when they are putting you to bed early and making you do your homework.

I am now an adult and will not be nannied by service providers.

You could also call the VPD and ask them what their response would be. Their answer will surprise you.

[PolyNewbie]

I would bloody well hope so. If not what's all that training and education in aid of?

D'jever watch "Pros vs. Joes" on Spike TV? Sometimes a Joe gives a good account of himself, but generally there's no denying the Pros are dominant. Naturally. That's the nature of professionalism (ANY professionalism)-- the Pros are Pros and that means something. You'd never expect some shmoe to pick up a scalpel and save lives, but guys like the Freemen can't make that connection about professions they don't properly understand. Menard would probably never think, as an amateur, of bidding for a bridgebuilding contract, but because he can't understand law he doesn't realize he can't do it.

Lawyering isn't doctoring. Doctors work irregular hours, expose themselves to danger (viruses, crazy people) and write stuff down for you to take with you after a visit (perscriptions). The level of responsibility in doctoring is very high, the level of professional responsibility with lawyering is almost non existent. Lawyers always have time, doctors sometimes have to act immediately. In some places lawyering is the lowest of the professions - much less regarded than engineering or medecine. I would never trust a Canadian Lawyer to represent me.

Training and education of the argueing sides should be irrelevant. Only the truth in the context of the law matters. The Canadian legal profession perverts the truth and prevents it from getting into court - this is how you get paid the big bucks. Lawyer Client priviledge is the center of this perversion and is there to protect criminals that can afford regular legal advise regarding their illegal activities.

Lawyers allow their colleagues to openly & publically commit crimes that would put any of us in jail for many years. You only have to read about the money laundering in mainstream to understand this. Its almost impossible to prosecute a lawyer for committing a crimes even if those crimes are admitted to in front of reliable witnesses and in public. The profession is a cesspool of corruption and rot.

We don't need lawyers. Jury's need to hear two sides with a mediator that manages the debate. The jury should be king, the judge should be nothing more than a mediator there to stop sides from throwing things at each other.

Any reasonably well educated or intelligent person could be hired by either defendant when emotions run high or they do not have the analytical ability to present their case in a relevant context.

Itellectual property law is a scam and its laws are there to protect the drug companies and super rich tech firms. Its beyond the price point that regular entrepeneurs can afford. A patent is only worth while if you can afford to defend it. Intellectual property laws are how Montesanto is destroying private farms and how MS destroyed small software companies.

[geoffrey]

Any reasonably well educated or intelligent person could be hired by either defendant when emotions run high or they do not have the analytical ability to present their case in a relevant context.

You've got to be kidding me.

Do you actually believe you could represent yourself as well as a lawyer could? Why do you think you can instantly grasp a concept that you really have no clue about.

We saw this with Mr. Menard too. Claiming that the government used Maritime Salvage to kidnap his daughter. Apparently he now realises that is not what happened, but bringing that argument in front of anyone that understands the law would get a huge laugh, as it did with me and I'm sure with the lawyers on this board too.

But people like you actually believed that.

If you believe all the crap this guy is feeding you, then you obviously don't have the knowledge to fully understand the law.

[Figleaf]

I would bloody well hope so. If not what's all that training and education in aid of?

D'jever watch "Pros vs. Joes" on Spike TV? Sometimes a Joe gives a good account of himself, but generally there's no denying the Pros are dominant. Naturally. That's the nature of professionalism (ANY professionalism)-- the Pros are Pros and that means something. You'd never expect some shmoe to pick up a scalpel and save lives, but guys like the Freemen can't make that connection about professions they don't properly understand. Menard would probably never think, as an amateur, of bidding for a bridgebuilding contract, but because he can't understand law he doesn't realize he can't do it.

Lawyering isn't doctoring. Doctors work irregular hours, expose themselves to danger (viruses, crazy people) and write stuff down for you to take with you after a visit (perscriptions).

The irrelevance of this portion of our response makes me think you're not grasping my point.

The level of responsibility in doctoring is very high, the level of professional responsibility with lawyering is almost non existent.

Your prejudices are neither informative nor interesting.

I would never trust a Canadian Lawyer to represent me.

And you'll probably blame lawyers when you lose your case(s).

Training and education of the argueing sides should be irrelevant. Only the truth in the context of the law matters.

It's not a perfect world, and we don't have a perfect legal system.

The Canadian legal profession perverts the truth and prevents it from getting into court ...

Blah blah blah.

Lawyers allow their colleagues to openly & publically commit crimes ...

Instead of all this blither, why don't you give us some hard facts?

We don't need lawyers.

Sure. The existence of lawyers is a mere fluke.

Any reasonably well educated or intelligent person could be hired by either defendant when emotions run high or they do not have the analytical ability to present their case in a relevant context.

Crap. Why not hire anyold person to carve out your busted appendix then?

Itellectual property law is a scam...

Why should anyone care about your opinion on this point?

[Charles Anthony]

So this is what I am doing.

I found an investor for my concept which I am calling Shepherd's Haven. I will be opening a little cafe and therein I will sell beer, wine and pot to those who have secured Freeman status.

Call it what you want. To make a long story short: you will refuse to pay taxes.

Now, do not get me wrong. Trust me, I believe you are in the right and I will not fault you for refusing to pay taxes.

However, your "business plan" is unoriginal. I am sure there are many people who do the same. My suspicion is that their success is a function of how private their highly original plans are kept.

I have one question for you: Why the fanfare?

While I am at it. This:

See, if I didn't know better ('cause I already wathced your video) I'd think you were a police officer the way you are ranting and attempting to intimidate me.

is a peculiar statement.

Do you know something about how police officers operate that we do not know?

[Figleaf]

So this is what I am doing.

I found an investor for my concept which I am calling Shepherd's Haven. I will be opening a little cafe and therein I will sell beer, wine and pot to those who have secured Freeman status.

Does Menard think selling exclusively to his committee of rubes will prevent him from getting charged with bootlegging? Go ahead :Menard, see what you get!

See, if I didn't know better ('cause I already wathced your video) I'd think you were a police officer the way you are ranting and attempting to intimidate me.

is a peculiar statement.

Do you know something about how police officers operate that we do not know?

FTA is a criminal defence lawyer, so I'll bet Yes.

[PolyNewbie]

The irrelevance of this portion of our response makes me think you're not grasping my point.

I fully grasp your point. You compared doctors to lawyers and seem to worship professionals. Professionals are people that have a monopoly on service and are governed by secret societies. Even Platos Republic says secret societies exist to take something away from everyone else. Professionals are there to serve themselves, not you.

[PolyNewbie]

You've got to be kidding me.

Do you actually believe you could represent yourself as well as a lawyer could? Why do you think you can instantly grasp a concept that you really have no clue about.

Almost half the people in Canadian court end up representing themselves. I have been able to hold my own and then some with any lawyer I get in an arguement with. I pick arguements with them to expose the perversion of their profession.

The English brought over lawyers with their bankers and corrupted the USA shortly after it was formed. Too many laws and a complex legal system only work to serve the elite and the law profession. You have training as an accountant. Don't mistake that for an education. Common law is the law for the people.

Geoffery, you regularly have no clue about what you are talking about. You are an accountant and you didn't even know how money was created until you got on this group and read my posts and argued against me on that too. My above arguement is not strange, its a common arguement against the legal profession. The problem we have today is that the population is largely dumbed down due to lack of a formal education or any education at all for that matter in professional training.

[geoffrey]

Geoffery, you regularly have no clue about what you are talking about. You are an accountant and you didn't even know how money was created until you got on this group and read my posts and argued against me on that too.

No, PolyNewb, you have no idea what your talking about. You live in your own little dillusional universe, where whatever you dream up is true, and rational argument is false by default. You have no academic or even reasonable evidence of your position on money in particular beyond some wild out of context Galbraith quotes. This is exactly my point. Your little bit of knowledge gives you the impression you know something, when in fact, your clueless.

Your flat out absolutely wrong on the banking thing. You have absolutely no clue. When questioned about your knowledge of interest rates by numerous posters, for example (the key aspect of your theory), you didn't know the difference between nominal and real.

People like you are dangerous. They lead others astray, just like Mr. Menard does. Is it enjoyment you get out of spreading your word, like that of a cult leader?

So go on, spread your little theories throughout the world, but never, ever, expect to be taken seriously until you can start providing some reputable proof.

Your paranoia, your assertion that every professional, every banker, every government person... is out to get you, is seriously affecting your judgement.

The fact that you watch a few uncited videos on YouTube and GoogleVideo by some random hacks off the street, and then make comments that professionals are inferior to your infinite wisdom, is ridiculous.

My above arguement is not strange, its a common arguement against the legal profession. The problem we have today is that the population is largely dumbed down due to lack of a formal education or any education at all for that matter in professional training.

Your the one telling us all not to get educated because it's all a big UNESCO conspiracy to brainwash us from the international banker conspiracy. And now your saying that we are all not educated enough.

All from a few videos and books that you happened to stumble across.

Lots of people dislike lawyers, it doesn't mean they are unnecessary. People still pay for their services, they must figure they need them.

I can't believe I'm even responding to this. It will be the last time.

[Riverwind]

-

[FreemanMenard]

So this is what I am doing.

I found an investor for my concept which I am calling Shepherd's Haven. I will be opening a little cafe and therein I will sell beer, wine and pot to those who have secured Freeman status.

Does Menard think selling exclusively to his committee of rubes will prevent him from getting charged with bootlegging? Go ahead :Menard, see what you get!

See, if I didn't know better ('cause I already wathced your video) I'd think you were a police officer the way you are ranting and attempting to intimidate me.

is a peculiar statement.

Do you know something about how police officers operate that we do not know?

FTA is a criminal defence lawyer, so I'll bet Yes.

Man I don't want to be drawn into this...

But....

I do know something about how they operate and because of that I will share with you what I think I know.

Please understand I could very well be wrong.

However, I have tested my theories and they seem to hold water.

Police Officers wear two hats. One is the hat of "Peace Officer" and their duty is to keep the peace and to do so lawfully.

The other is the hat of Law Enforcement Officer and before they can ever accept that role, they must fisrt see ID issued by the people in the government.

Issued as a result of you applying. (Apply means to beg)

You can argue with me, shoot spit balls or otherwise reject.

If you want the truth, you will call these people, and very simply ASK THEM.

Now I close off... but I do intend to extend an honorable offer in the next few days to FTA Lawyer.

I will do so by sending a private email, as there are too many children on this site who do frustrate me and add NOTHING to this discussion. (Nice spit balls)

Rob

You know where to find me.

So do the cops.

I am not fearful of either of you.

I would very much appreciate a lawful and binding discussion however.

Peace eh?

[geoffrey]

-

Thanks. I read that before you editted.

[PolyNewbie]

geoffery:Your flat out absolutely wrong on the banking thing. You have absolutely no clue. When questioned about your knowledge of interest rates by numerous posters, for example (the key aspect of your theory), you didn't know the difference between nominal and real.

So all those presidents and exonomists were wrong in that video Money As Debt ? The Galbraith quote that says a handful of men run the USA was taken out of context and you would know because.....you read the book ?

When I produce structural engineering stuff statements on 911 they too are somehow taken out of context where before I had them I was wrong because "no structural engineer agreed with your theories".

You are just guessing on your ideas about money creation. Do you still think the government creates all the money ?

Where do you get your knowledge about banking ? ... the same place Riverwind gets his knowledge about engineering ?

The world works very differently than you imnaginations and I have posted the books and references to prove that over and over again. Still you both use your imaginations as the ultimate reference source.

[PolyNewbie]

Your the one telling us all not to get educated because it's all a big UNESCO conspiracy to brainwash us from the international banker conspiracy. And now your saying that we are all not educated enough.

There is a naval base in San Diego. If you look at it from the air you see the buildings shaped exactly like a swastika. I'll be getting the co ordinates today for Google map. The base was built in the 60's. The bankers fought both sides of world war 2 and continued to fund Hitler even after the war started.

I know you are not educated because you don't know how money is created but somehow thing your imagination must be correct because you went to school to be an accountant and you have it all figured out even though you haven't read anything anywhere that tells you the private banks work like credit unions you seem to think that must be the case. That is exactly the opposite of being educated. Riverwinds scientific statements are exactly the opposite of those that would come from an educated person. So, yes, I think you are fools because you pretend to know something.

[Riverwind]

The world works very differently than you imnaginations and I have posted the books and references to prove that over and over again.

ROTFL. Your 'references' contradicted your own claims. The only thing you 'proved' is that your reading comprehension skills are non-existent.

[Figleaf]

You compared doctors to lawyers and seem to worship professionals.

No, I understand the nature and content of professionalism, whilst you apparently do not.

Professionals are people that have a monopoly on service and are governed by secret societies.

Crapola. Professional bodies in Canada almost universally include lay-people on their governing councils.

Professionals are there to serve themselves, not you.

Compared to or unlike who?

In fact, professions hold their members to higher standards of conduct than you would typically find in unregulated occupations.

[Peter F]

There is a naval base in San Diego. If you look at it from the air you see the buildings shaped exactly like a swastika. I'll be getting the co ordinates today for Google map.

...and why would they lay out buildings to be exactly like swastikas?