Does fmotl work for people who own property?

[freedom1st]

I am very interested in the concept of fmotl and would dearly love to engage on principle. However, the work I do puts me in the position of knowing first hand that the state applies for charging orders on properties on a daily basis and applications for orders for sale are now becoming more common.
I therefore believe that if you own a property the fmotl concept of law will not work. Even if you can quote a law that specifically prevents the state from obtaining your property I think they will ignore such a law and grant an application for a charging order in any event. Anyone have any experience with this?

[karl j]

I am very interested in the concept of fmotl and would dearly love to engage on principle. However, the work I do puts me in the position of knowing first hand that the state applies for charging orders on properties on a daily basis and applications for orders for sale are now becoming more common.
I therefore believe that if you own a property the fmotl concept of law will not work. Even if you can quote a law that specifically prevents the state from obtaining your property I think they will ignore such a law and grant an application for a charging order in any event. Anyone have any experience with this?

I think you are mixing up FMOTL and banksters, seems to be a common problem. If you wish to challenge the validity of governments control then that's one thing, if you wish to challenge the validty of the loan on your house then that's another.... either way you need some education in both fields and suggests lots of reading and cross referencing. I don't believe everything but when you cross reference and get the same info... well makes you wonder... ;)

[hadabusa]

property tax says no.

try not paying that and tell fbi youre a freeman when they come along.

:)

[jimmi]

It's a lot more complicated than that, in the UK you don't actually own property, think of your car, the dvla ownit when you register it with them, your property is in the land registry so they own it and you have equitable title.

I would love it if someone could prove me wrong on this one.:(

[asky]

think of your car, the dvla ownit when you register it with them
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:
Its like the magic roundabout

asky

[rob menard]

It's a lot more complicated than that, in the UK you don't actually own property, think of your car, the dvla ownit when you register it with them, your property is in the land registry so they own it and you have equitable title.

I would love it if someone could prove me wrong on this one.:(

It is a bit more complicated than that.
The ownership is always with you. (assuming you are the owner to begin with)
However with registration, the powers of the owner are held and exercised by another on behalf of the owner.

They will seem to be the owner, but never are.

[yozhik]

However, the work I do puts me in the position of knowing first hand that the state applies for charging orders on properties on a daily basis and applications for orders for sale are now becoming more common.

Without compromising yourself or your position; are you able to elaborate on this with any more specifics?
i.e. what exactly is meant by 'charging order'? What are the requirements for application by the state? Who does it apply to? etc, etc

Thanks :)

[yozhik]

It is a bit more complicated than that.
The ownership is always with you. (assuming you are the owner to begin with)
However with registration, the powers of the owner are held and exercised by another on behalf of the owner.

They will seem to be the owner, but never are.

Rob ... are you describing a Trust structure of sorts?

[wakeupworld]

You own your property and have full rights of use etc when you get full allodial title.
How you do that, I will leave that to the experts:)

[lightindarkness]

Freeman on the land doesn't work for people who own property or don't own property, as its a concept based on people attempting to freeload their way through life. But I think if you were in a position to actually own property you would find it even more distressing, since the the property tax authorities will simply laugh at you as they take over your property or put a lien on it while you tell them you don't consent to their tax.

[rob menard]

Freeman on the land doesn't work for people who own property or don't own property, as its a concept based on people attempting to freeload their way through life.

Apparently feeling that you are equal to those who demand your homage and subservience is freeloading. Feeling entitled to live here without being extorted is freeloading. Not paying the politicians who demand much and give little is freeloading. Reading the law instead of remaining ignorant is freeloading. Holding the government and police to the same law they use to justify their claims is freeloading. Distinguishing between law and statute is freeloading. Wanting greater accountability from government and more compassion form peace officers is freeloading. Thinking for oneself instead of following the herd mentality defended by lightindarkness is freeloading.


But I think if you were in a position to actually own property you would find it even more distressing, since the the property tax authorities will simply laugh at you as they take over your property or put a lien on it while you tell them you don't consent to their tax.

Their tax is a function of their services. If you are using their services, water, hydro, etc, then yes you would have to pay. However they are only service providers, or more accurately agents for the providers, and act as middle men. It is possible to refuse to pay municipal tax, but if there is a fire, they either will not show up, or if your fire threatens others they will put it out and bill you.

I know people here who do hold their property under a claim of right. When it came time to assess their land they refused the services of the assessor. They extended an offer to the municipality to pay whatever bills they might wish to serve, but they would be doing so by accessing the security of their person and utilizing the remittance option on the invoices the municipality uses.

[asky]

Rob

Why does it always boil down to money?

of all the statutory legislations you could choose they are always based around self gratification of drinking smoking weed and not parting with any money.

why dont you read some statutes that will allow you to help your fellow man and not just yourself.

On another note I noticed in this case you represented the "person" was this why it didnt go your way?
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Robert+Arthur+Menard&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2005/2005bcsc1192/2005bcsc1192.html

asky

[rob menard]

What?
I don't help my fellow man?
Really?

The fact is there are very few statutes that will allow me to help my fellow man. They are designed to enslave and harness their energy and time. Not free them. I do deconstruct them as needed, but do not read them for fun. I hate the plot, and the dialogue is very choppy.

Why do you have to judge how others live their lives if they are not harming you or others? Do I fail to meet your standards? What do you do to help your fellow man? I am willing to learn, so show me, if you can.

As for the statutes I have deconstructed, they include the Children Family Services Act. It has nothing to do with money, or pot, or drinking or self gratification. Every thing to do with helping others get their children back when they are taken unlawfully, which sadly happens a lot. To a large degree because the people who provide 'services' think like you do, and think they are better than others, and can judge how they live, just like you do.

[asky]

Sorry Rob its just when you were asked what statutes you chose to ignore you listed the following
If I answer your questions, will you answer mine? You know the BIG elephant in the room?

Controlled Drugs Substance Act. I operate with complete disregard to it. I have walked right past police officers smoking a big fatty. This does not however mean I operate a meth lab, nor claim the right to do so nor claim it would be right to do so.

Income Tax Act. Having abandoned the SIN, I no longer have an account with CRA, and therefore have no obligations to them.

MVA. I have an automobile that I intend to put on the road and use as private conveyance. I have not yet done so, but that is a function of other things that first need be addressed.

Legal Profession Act. I engage in actions that really anger the Law Society and which they have successfully stopped others form doing and they tried to come after me. They failed.

Liquor Control and Licensing Act. Here apparently enjoying a brew in the park is illegal, though not unlawful for a Freeman-on-the-Land.
I must have missed the post about where you tried to help others

asky

[rob menard]

Again your reading comprehension is abysmal.

I was asked not for an exhaustive list, but of examples. I gave five.

I could have given a list right off of canlii.

Amongst them would have been the CFSA.

You are really sad in your defeat asky. I expected far more sportsman like behaviour form you, not the Dark Night Syndrome.

[asky]

Of course you gave five and it was the first five that came into your head.

Thats the point

asky

[rob menard]

Of course you gave five and it was the first five that came into your head.

Thats the point

asky

What exactly is 'the point'?

Don't beat around the bush, come out and tell us using easy words what your point is, and how you would have done better.

[yozhik]

I can demonstrate his 'point' ... he already posted his 'point' elsewhere;

Now of all the statutory regulations he could have avoided just look at the ones he prioritized

A drunken pot head who doesnt work and drives around uninsured and untaxed and gives out dodgy legal advice.

I think that sums up their glorious leader in a nutshell

asky is jargon buster ... as he has confirmed previously.

[rob menard]

I take offense at the doesn't work part.
:D :D :D

[rob menard]

I love his logic.

Because I am not subject to say the LCLA I am a drunkard. (like those who are subject aren't!)

Because I am not subject to the CDSA and I smoke marijuana, like the majority of people here in BC, I am a pot head.

Because I am not subject to the ITA, I don't work.

Because I am not subject to the MVA and I exercise my rights, I am a greater danger than those who are ignorant of their rights.

Because my knowledge of law is sufficient to halt the entire Law Society from stopping me from doing what I want, my advice is dodgy.

asky are you resorting to such name calling and ad hominem attacks?

[rob menard]

Of course you gave five and it was the first five that came into your head.

Thats the point

asky

That is because these are the biggest ones the government uses to govern and control and make money and interfere with our rights.

LCLA- they try to control what we put in our own bodies.
MVA- They try to control how we travel.
CDSA- They try to control what we grow in our gardens.
ITA- They try to control how we interact.
LPA- They try to control how we help others.


So me giving a good wide list of Acts covering a very diverse range of activities, and looking at some of the biggest tools they use to achieve control, now makes me in your very narrow and extraordinarily judgmental mind a drunken pot head who does not work and is a danger.

Pay attention Grasshoppers. See what he does?
Personal attacks like that and the way the truth is twisted to imply the other party should be disregarded. They ask a leading question, which when you respond to it honourably and with good intent, they will then use to attempt to denigrate you. But it would not matter which Act one listed. They all seek to control and they all make reference to some form of potentially harmful activity. So it would not matter which ones were pointed to, he would still be able to make an illogical connection and unreasonable claim.

He is very twisty, deceptive and sneaky, and maybe he is not a professional. Maybe he is merely a sociopathic bully. I would hate to be his kids, and I pity his wife, if she is still with him. What you see him do here, you can bet he does in life, and likely he hangs out with those he can bully and denigrate. It is how he has his fun. Or so he said.

[yozhik]

Don't go down to his level Rob ... you're better than that :)

To quote a wise man;
Peace, eh?

[rob menard]

Its just the drunken pot head in me....
:D

[max6674]

So getting back to the subject in hand. I own my house outright, never had a mortgage or a loan against the house and I have the title deeds in my possesion with my and only my name on them. Are you saying that the Land Registry actually owns my house and if so why?

[asky]

Gotcha Rob

Peace eh.
My arse you are just as capable of nasty comments as the next man especially when you are exposed.

You are the master of twisting words to suit your agenda.
And you have clearly picked the statutes that will allow you to get off your face on booze and weed whilst sponging off your fellow man.

Good on you

asky

[rob menard]

So getting back to the subject in hand. I own my house outright, never had a mortgage or a loan against the house and I have the title deeds in my possesion with my and only my name on them. Are you saying that the Land Registry actually owns my house and if so why?

They do not own it. You do. But they are holding the registration documents and your title may not be complete.

Imagine a boat. You own it but hire a Captain.
Now he takes your boat to a harbour and in order to dock they register the boat with the harbour master.

Who owns the boat?
Who has control over it?

These are two different questions with two different answers.

[rob menard]

Gotcha Rob

Peace eh.
My arse you are just as capable of nasty comments as the next man especially when you are exposed.

You are the master of twisting words to suit your agenda.
And you have clearly picked the statutes that will allow you to get off your face on booze and weed whilst sponging off your fellow man.

Good on you

asky

My words about you are supported by your words here, and are spoken here. To your face as it were.

Your words about me you speak behind my back like a coward, are not supported by anything but conjecture and supposition. They are baseless.

As for why I picked those statutes, you can believe what you want, as it is plainly clear that what you choose to believe has no basis in fact, is not supported by logic and is you grasping at straws.

Your insults merely support my plainly stated belief that you are a bully here, and are likely so in real life.

[max6674]

They do not own it. You do. But they are holding the registration documents and your title may not be complete.

Imagine a boat. You own it but hire a Captain.
Now he takes your boat to a harbour and in order to dock they register the boat with the harbour master.

Who owns the boat?
Who has control over it?

These are two different questions with two different answers.

I own the boat and I am ultimatly in control over the boat.
I hire a captain and he is paid to do as I ask him.
The harbour master gives me permission to enter the harbour, but he cant make me launch the boat if I dont want to, as I own the boat and I am in control.

Getting back to the Land Registry, I have the title deeds (registration) in my possesion, so I asume that the proerty is only registered/ recorded with them so that they know who owns the property? Kind of like an attendance register at school, they dont own me but they need to know if I am there or not?

[angelthecat]

Law maxim


a piratis et latronibus capta dominium non mutant.

[things captured by pirates or robbers do not change their ownership]
:cool:

[rob menard]

You own the boat and have control, until you give it over to the Captain, then he does. YOu can tell him go here and then there, but he decides HOW he does so.

When he registers, which he cannot do without your consent as owner, the ability to control now is passed to the Harbour Master and His Harbour Pilot and as long as it is registered, neither the Captain nor the Owner can remove it from the harbour nor load or unload it without permission.

However the Captain and the Owner can de-berth or unregister and leave the harbour, and once again enjoy full control.

Until then however, the one holding the registry enjoys control over the property, even over the owner and their agent.

[wakeupworld]

I own the boat and I am ultimatly in control over the boat.
I hire a captain and he is paid to do as I ask him.
The harbour master gives me permission to enter the harbour, but he cant make me launch the boat if I dont want to, as I own the boat and I am in control.

Getting back to the Land Registry, I have the title deeds (registration) in my possesion, so I asume that the proerty is only registered/ recorded with them so that they know who owns the property? Kind of like an attendance register at school, they dont own me but they need to know if I am there or not?


If you bought and sold property you will encounter the word covenants.
This is brought up by a solicitor dealing with the buying and/or selling of the property.
Covenants are restrictions if you like of what you generally can NOT do regarding your property even when you may own it. Examples are you cannot hang your washing out at a particular side of the property and your not allowed to park a caravan in your front driveway. So without allodial title you don`t have control.

[asky]

Rob wrote
Your words about me you speak behind my back like a coward,
Speak behind your back????????
This is an open forum
As for why I picked those statutes, you can believe what you want, as it is plainly clear that what you choose to believe has no basis in fact, is not supported by logic and is you grasping at straws.
Rob everyone can see why you picked those statutes and it matters not if you think its fact or not it shows exactly why you are doing what you are doing.
Your insults merely support my plainly stated belief that you are a bully here, and are likely so in real life.
And your insults when finally revealed show that you are indeed a clever con man who hides his true emotions very well.

asky

[max6674]

Interesting as there arent that many restrictions in place.. shame that doesnt mean that you can build without planning..

[rob menard]

Yes this is an open forum. And so is the one on which you chose to insult me, however as I am not a member there or at least do not go there anymore, and you knew that I would not be around to defend my actions, it was behind my back.

Everyone can see it would not matter which I choose. You would play your silly little "I am am better than you game; you are playing now,

A con man generally does not believe in what they profess and they seek to make money. I do not seek to ake money form deception, but seek to free people from it.

Just so we know,
You consider ANYONE who drinks beer to be a drunk, ANYONE who smokes pot to be a pothead, ANYONE who does not pay tax as not working and therefore spoonging off others, ANYONE who dares exercises their rights without permission are a danger for that very reason alone.

Is that your position? Because based upon your words, that is the only logical inference. That is why I am asking if it is the case, you are not commonly associated with logic now are you?

[asky]

Yes this is an open forum. And so is the one on which you chose to insult me, however as I am not a member there or at least do not go there anymore, and you knew that I would not be around to defend my actions, it was behind my back.

But you saw it anyway???????
Why dont you post on there and rebutt my comments?

Just so we know,
You consider ANYONE who drinks beer to be a drunk, ANYONE who smokes pot to be a pothead, ANYONE who does not pay tax as not working and therefore spoonging off others, ANYONE who dares exercises their rights without permission are a danger for that very reason alone.
No just you

asky

[girlgye]

I am very interested in the concept of fmotl and would dearly love to engage on principle. However, the work I do puts me in the position of knowing first hand that the state applies for charging orders on properties on a daily basis and applications for orders for sale are now becoming more common.
I therefore believe that if you own a property the fmotl concept of law will not work. Even if you can quote a law that specifically prevents the state from obtaining your property I think they will ignore such a law and grant an application for a charging order in any event. Anyone have any experience with this?

This is a good question and I'm not sure you know it but you are raising a number of really important issues!!!!

For me FMOL as it means in the bible and as it means in THE MOST STRICTEST CONFINES OF COMMON LAW, is allodial title. What does this mean. It means ITS MINE. IT BELONGS TO ME AND NO ONE ELSE TOUCHES IT OR CAN CLAIM IT.

[girlgye]

Yes this is an open forum. And so is the one on which you chose to insult me, however as I am not a member there or at least do not go there anymore, and you knew that I would not be around to defend my actions, it was behind my back.

Everyone can see it would not matter which I choose. You would play your silly little "I am am better than you game; you are playing now,

A con man generally does not believe in what they profess and they seek to make money. I do not seek to ake money form deception, but seek to free people from it.

Just so we know,
You consider ANYONE who drinks beer to be a drunk, ANYONE who smokes pot to be a pothead, ANYONE who does not pay tax as not working and therefore spoonging off others, ANYONE who dares exercises their rights without permission are a danger for that very reason alone.

Is that your position? Because based upon your words, that is the only logical inference. That is why I am asking if it is the case, you are not commonly associated with logic now are you?

I haven't read the argument. I've just quickly looked at a remark you've made here. Yet again you are being called on to defend yourself for the right to sell your intellectual property!

Hello?

Oh of course then whether that intellectual property is worthy of being sold or not. Well no one ever got on to Mills and Boon about the Shite they pump out and market did they?

So if I want to buy your property I will and NO effer is gonna guilt trip me or define me as a Zombie because I just happen to have a mind of my own.:mad: