Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[arayder]

I am thinking of Bobby as being easier to track as the number of couches available to him are reduced. Sort of like a buck who has lost one of his sleeping plots.

Bate's couch seems to be a lost habitat since he must have enough sense to realize harboring a wanted man ain't too smart.

Freemen-lites won't want Bobby on the couch since having him around means there's a possibility the RCMP will show up and scare the bejesus out of the girl friend and her kids when they cart fez boy off.

One wonders how Bobby's sisters are handling all this. By now they have probably caught on to the fact that little Bobby has gone too far this time. The Menard family reunion this summer could be interesting!

So that leaves the loony element of "the movement" as possible accessories to Bobby's flight. Like the man said, "Round up the usual suspects!"

[Jeffrey]

Bate's couch seems to be a lost habitat since he must have enough sense to realize harboring a wanted man ain't too smart.

Is this actually true though? Bit of a tangent here but I looked up the rules in Australia back when we heard Santos was on the run, there don't appear to be any actual laws prohibiting you from hiding a fugitive. Wasn't even able to find a definition of fugitive in the laws then again it was a quick search. I mean these are like petty crimes on the scheme of it, I doubt it would be considered a crime.

[arayder]

Bate's couch seems to be a lost habitat since he must have enough sense to realize harboring a wanted man ain't too smart.

Is this actually true though? Bit of a tangent here but I looked up the rules in Australia back when we heard Santos was on the run, there don't appear to be any actual laws prohibiting you from hiding a fugitive. Wasn't even able to find a definition of fugitive in the laws then again it was a quick search. I mean these are like petty crimes on the scheme of it, I doubt it would be considered a crime.

I know in the U.S. it's a crime to knowingly hide or help a fugitive. I believe there is a similar law in Canada.

Can our Canadian friends help here?

I would imagine that it might be hard to prove that a freeman stoner/harborer really knew that Menard was being sought. But Bates has posted showing he knows there is a warrant out on Menard.

[Hyrion]

I know in the U.S. it's a crime to knowingly hide or help a fugitive. I believe there is a similar law in Canada.

I love the fact that the Canadian Criminal Code is so readily available on line. Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html

It seems that in certain cases, it's clearly a crime. For example:

54. Every one who aids, assists, harbours or conceals a person who he knows is a deserter or absentee without leave from the Canadian Forces is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction, but no proceedings shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.

Harbouring shows up in several locations besides the above in the context of harbouring an individual - such as harbouring a terrorist.

But there does not appear to be a general "harbouring someone who has committed an indictable act under this code". And areas such as Theft which starts at section 322 does not contain an explicit such statement so it "appears" to be safe to harbour someone who has committed theft. As someone who has never worked in any section of the Legal industry, I'd suggest taking my understanding with a huge mountain of salt. It is definitely not legal advice in any sense.

If one is going to base one's decision on whether to harbour another person that one suspects might have committed a crime, I'd strongly suggest the individual look into other factors of Criminal Law as well. Such as what impact Provincial and/or Municipal Laws might have on the situation. Or the criminal Laws surrounding being an accessory to said crime, and so on.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that I don't want the individual to commit any such crimes against myself - so choosing not to harbour such an individual is the clear logical choice.

[arayder]

Yes, I found the subject of "harbouring" spread throughout the code. It seemed to me that it was a part of each section where added as if to say, "By the way, harbouring a ______ is a crime."

I could not find a reference specific to harbouring somebody on the run from a bench warrant. But, I can't imagine Canadian law would turn a blind eye to folks helping others escape the jurisdiction of a province by hiding or running off to another province.

In the old west (U.S. that is) it was a favorite trick of law breakers to "run off to the territories" and change their name figuring the warrant from back home would never catch up with them.

The telegraph and extradition agreements changed all that.

[Hyrion]

But, I can't imagine Canadian law would turn a blind eye to folks helping others escape the jurisdiction of a province by hiding or running off to another province.

Not necessarily a blind eye per se.

On a civilized, philosophical basis, I can understand why you wouldn't want to create a generic Law that says:

• Anyone who harbours someone who can be indicted for a crime under the Canada Criminal Code is guilty of a crime and faces up to a maximum 12 years in prison

Now.... imagine a 16 year old shop lifts, is facing a first crime suspended sentence 10 days community service. Meanwhile their parent - completely unaware their kid shoplifted - is facing up to 12 years in prison for "harboring someone who can be indicted".

If such a Law is to exist, I'd want it to be clearly identified with such factors as:

• The person doing the harbouring must know the other has committed a crime.

• Any sentence applied has a sentencing guideline and limits that - at most - matches the sentencing guidelines and limits of the original crime.

So... the authorities would have to prove:

• A: the person who was provided shelter has been convicted of a crime and is currently on the lam for said crime

• B: the person providing shelter knows all the factors in A

Anything less and the society runs too high a risk of convicting and sentencing someone for a crime which they haven't committed.

It appears I'm not alone in that, as indicated in the section on terrorist activity:

83.23 (1) Everyone who knowingly harbours or conceals any person whom they know to be a person who has carried out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of enabling the person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment

As I understand that, for the Authorities to convict someone of section 83.23 they would have to prove the elements:

• 1: The person knew the other person has carried out a terrorist activity

• 2: They are providing shelter so the individual can commit another terrorist act

If I understand that correctly, then it's not enough for a person to provide shelter to someone they know to be a terrorist. They must also do so in order to enable said individual to act again.

[arayder]

That sounds reasonable and wise to me, Hyrion.

In the case of Menard's hypothetical helper's I really can't see the use in throwing the book at them when Bobby might have managed to convince them that he had beat the rap in T.O. through the simple freemen magic of refusing to be "the person, Robert Menard".

As a law enforcement issue I wonder what Menard's arresting officers would do about the bong and weed in the house? The bruises on the kids?

I have always thought of the "look-what-I-found-in-plain-sight" thing done by the cops to often be their way of adding on some charges in an instance in which the accomplice would otherwise get off easy.

[Hyrion]

As a law enforcement issue I wonder what Menard's arresting officers would do about the bong and weed in the house?

What else the Cops might notice while they're there executing an arrest warrant is another matter

I have wondered what possesses some people to commit a crime right in front of the authorities though. I know jay-walking isn't a crime as defined by the Canadian Criminal Code. I think it's classed under the local municipal by-laws as a misdemeanor.

As a result, it's not a crime per se, but it sure can get you a quick citation/ticket you have to pay.

But I have seen when cops are sitting right there dealing with someone else and an individual will jay-walk not 20 feet from them. I guess they expect the cops to be too busy to call them over for a ticket.

[notorial dissent]

I would think that one of the things that all of the harboring statutes would have in common would be the "knowingly" part. If you don't know they are a fugitive then it is hard to hold them liable for a crime they didn't know they were committing.

The big problem with harboring Freddie Feepickle is that another common issue with many of the FOTL ilk is that they have warrants of their own to worry about or may have things about the house that they really wouldn't like the authorities to become aware of, that I would think would be the greater concern for his possible harborers.

[notorial dissent]

Like a feral hog whose habitat has being destroyed Bobby has fewer and fewer place to eat, sleep and use the bathroom.

I prefer the parasitoid - a parasite that eventually kills its host - as a metaphor. Picture the alien bursting from someone's chest and running off in, well, Alien.

Sounds like Bobby, he's left a trail of destruction behind him where ever he has taken up residence.

[arayder]

What else the Cops might notice while they're there executing an arrest warrant is another matter

The big problem with harboring Freddie Feepickle is that another common issue with many of the FOTL ilk is that they have warrants of their own to worry about or may have things about the house that they really wouldn't like the authorities to become aware of, that I would think would be the greater concern for his possible harborers.

Bobby's poison to those he promised abundance and freedom.

[Burnaby49]

We now have the first defection within the Menardian ranks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9KIbuDTnE

Bates used to be a fan of Menard, not so much anymore. Very candidly admits that when Menard first claimed that Canadian law allows individuals to simply become Peace Officers, people simply believed Menard without checking whether or not it was true.

Just back from a short trip to visit a 100 year old friend to find a bunch of Menard postings.

Firstly, about harbouring fugitive. No idea about Canadian law on this but I doubt Menard's offenses are enough to trigger any repercussions for anyone giving him a place to sleep. Having said that he's certainly not worth putting yourself on the police radar and, if they raided your place to pick him up, they might find some things the host might not want noticed. So he may be finding it more difficult to get B&B after our revelations.

As Jeffery said Steve Bates used to be a Menard acolyte but seems to have turned against him because of documents. That's why I post court documents in downloadable form. We can discuss how stupid the Freeman movement is ad infinitum but posting documents is what it takes to convince people about an issue. What I say can be easily disregarded as a biased opinion but criminal charges and an arrest warrant carry weight. The various Menard court documents I've linked to have been very extensively downloaded and it is these that are proving that Menard is a failure, even to his followers. Winteral can give pathetic, nonsensical interpretations of Menard's Federal Court decision but anyone with any sense can read the actual decision themselves and realize how badly Menard lost.

[LordEd]

Proof is only good to those actually willing to accept it. Take Mr. Ream as an example. Mowe provided documents to him during his visit. No amount of proof would have been enough to get him to change course.

That said, your documents are probably destroying the 'on the fence' freemen.

[littleFred]

That said, your documents are probably destroying the 'on the fence' freemen.

To me, that's the primary function of Quatloos. When their attention is drawn to the flaws and consistent failures of theories, fence-sitters might be dissuaded from ruining their lives.

[grixit]

Don't they realize that "harboring" puts you under Admiralty jurisdiction?

[Hyrion]

Don't they realize that "harboring" puts you under Admiralty jurisdiction?

Man.... I'd love to see one of those that are arguing about not being under the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts explain their way out of that logic.

[arayder]

That said, your documents are probably destroying the 'on the fence' freemen.

To me, that's the primary function of Quatloos. When their attention is drawn to the flaws and consistent failures of theories, fence-sitters might be dissuaded from ruining their lives.

Many freemen wannabes and freemen-lites are catching on.

But, unfortunately one string of freeman/sovcit logic holds that the failure of a whacky theory must have been due to some failure of "due diligence" and that with some slight alteration in theory and its associated paperwork the next, improved, freeman theory will win the day.

This accounts for the hopelessly arcane nature of present freeman/sovcit theory.

Since many freemen never really understood the history, law and custom of the western democracies and they confuse these labyrinthine theories with some sort of transcendent reality. Thus, to freemen dupes, the complicated nature of freeman theory seems "smarter".

This accounts for the phenomena of a judge shaking his/her head at freeman courtroom rants and filings. . .then dismissing them as unintelligible gibberish. Which is what it is.

[grixit]

Many freemen wannabes and freemen-lites are catching on.

But, unfortunately one string of freeman/sovcit logic holds that the failure of a whacky theory must have been due to some failure of "due diligence" and that with some slight alteration in theory and its associated paperwork the next, improved, freeman theory will win the day.

This accounts for the hopelessly arcane nature of present freeman/sovcit theory.

We just need to add one more epicycle, and it'll work for sure!

[wanglepin]

We now have the first defection within the Menardian ranks.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9KIbuDTnE

On the run and looking at a possible 20 years. I sincerely hope that would be the case as I always had dearly hoped it would be for that other narcissistic idiot John James Harris (TPUC) of the U.K. but he seems to have come to his senses before he made such a blunder as his hero Menard.

[Jeffrey]

On the run and looking at a possible 20 years.

I think we all know the sentence won't be anywhere near 20 years, but we should pretend it might just to spook Menard.