Thursday, July 17, 2014


Robert Menard

Do not let those who are not members of the government make claims which disempower you, and somehow magically empower the government. It is ignorant fear mongering, and is simply false information being spread.

It began with your parents giving you YOUR name. Before it ever existed on any piece of paper, it was given to you. It existed then, and you were the first owner, holder, and user.

The act of registration does not ''give it' (hand over) to the Crown. It is true the act of registration establishes an association, which the identifier points to. It is used as an identifier and establishes that there exists a person with certain rights and duties. This does not mean that its use will always identify that same person. An ‘arrow sign’ does not create a destination. It can point to it, if it already exists, but it does not create one if it doesn’t. A sign saying ‘Carson City 20 Miles’ planted in the middle of nowhere will not cause a city to magically pop up 20 miles distant. The city must exist first, then you can point to it.

The government has never claimed they own our names, and when asked will deny it. Why disempower yourself by claiming that what is clearly YOURS, belongs to someone else, when they have never made that claim? Nanny CAN’T FLY, and your name is not somehow their magical property.

Both the name and the human named, pre-existed the person created by registration.

When you were a child your name was one thing. Your parents used it, your schools and friends used it. The government used it. Now that you are an adult, those people who once had authority over you, can still use your name, but they can’t claim that because you are using the same name, they have the same level of authority over you. It is ludicrous to claim otherwise. Of course, if you went back to school as a student, AND MAINTAINED YOUR ASSOCIATIONS, they would have that same level of authority. The name itself does not create the association.

Saying “I am not that name!” to avoid duties and responsibilities when there is still an association, is very childish. One can keep their name, and change their associations, thus their duties and obligations.

My name is Robert Arthur Menard. That is what my name was when I was a child of the Province. It is what my name is now that I am a Freeman-on-the-Land. Using my name does not automatically make me one or the other. Although others have the same name as I do, I own mine, and no government agent or operator has ever tried to claim any ownership over it. I have heard others who claim the government owns our names, if they were used for registration, but they have never brought any proof. People in the government have clearly rejected the concept that they own everyone’s names, and do not act as owners of them. But still people ignorantly spread this concept.

The confusion arises because of a basic logical fallacy. The name is used to identify someone, and is one thing, and is used to point to their status or associations. Their person. Which is another thing. Which in most cases identifies a child of the Province. A ward. Use of the name does not establish the association, nor does denying the name break it if it already exists. Denying the name when there is still an association is very childish. It is akin to closing one’s eyes and saying “You can’t see me.”. The goal is to change our associations so that the name (the exact same name) no longer points to a bonded child of the Province, but to a Freeman. You do not accomplish that by abandoning the very thing you were given as an infant by your parents to facilitate that. Just because a name is needed to establish an association, does not mean use of that name establishes one.

If I wanted to disempower the people of the Freedom movement, I would share ideas that are untrue but are seemingly justified on the surface, and cause them to abandon those things which could actually empower them. I would try to get them to abandon their names and persons, as they would then be abandoning their wealth others are holding in trust. I would get them to believe the name itself creates the person and evidences an association, instead of just being an identifier thereof. I would present to them a wholly useless tactic, like denying being ‘the name’, which does not change their status as a child or ward, merely identifies them as a petulant, ignorant and belligerent one. I would not get them looking at the associations created, and how to change those, while keeping their name. No I would ask they abandon that first. Many would fail to distinguish between the person (the rights and duties created by association) and the name (the identifier of the person created with the association) and will try unsuccessfully to avoid the latter by abandoning the former. They will be like travellers on a road, who think they can avoid a distant city by simply taking down the sign which points to it.

If you believe that the government owns your name, and you have NO PROOF that the government has ever made that claim; if you believe you can avoid duties and obligations established by associations merely by abandoning the name but not changing your associations and status as a child of the province; if you do not distinguish between a person and its name, or a thing and its name; then you are not a force of empowerment for the people. The ideas you share are harmful, false and wrong.

When you were registered as an infant the government put you in diapers. Good thing for an infant, but not needed as an adult. You can remove them, but you need to learn to use the toilet and wipe your arse. You need to be able to prove you can do that, and Magical Nanny will stop trying to nanny you. However removing your diaper all by yourself, (abandoning your name and rejecting the person) without learning to use the toilet and wipe your arse, (establish a new person with greater rights and duties as a Free adult) means you will still be seen as a child, and Nanny can and will put you back in a diaper, lest you start smearing your faeces all over the common walls.

There are some absolutely ludicrous arguments floating around, the idea of government owning our names being near the top of the list. It would be so easy to prove. Simply make a public claim that you own your name, and see if ANYONE disputes it, and if they don’t, establish sole ownership as a function of law. You will find no one in the government will dispute that claim. They will not seek to claim ownership, for the simple reason that they do not own it, and they do not need to own it, nor have you accept it, in order to hold you accountable to the person identified by it.

Deny the name all you want. The association which identifies you as a child of the province will still be in existence, and your tactic identifies you as someone worthy of being treated as a child. You will be shooting yourself in your own foot.

Stop making claims that disempower yourself. If the people in the government want to claim they own your name, LET THEM DO IT! Do not do it for them like it is a fait accompli.

Sunday, June 29, 2014


Dean Of The Family Kory January 14, 2014

Apply these methods to either U.S., Canadian, Australian, English, New Zealand etc court systems or anywhere else the Romans may have roamed.

When confronted by police in any situation and they ask question respond to police, “I do not understand the nature and cause of your inquiry.” Keep repeating this to all their statements or questions.

If they threaten arrest state, “I do not understand the nature and cause of the charges; I object you lack jurisdiction.”

If in police station or car do not answer questions. Say, “I wish to speak to my counsel.” Do not delay in saying this. Do not say anything no matter how much they threaten or speak to you.

Never sign anything. You do not have to give them fingerprints or anything else. Never give name.

You are not the name on document. The document is commercial paper. They will try anything to get you into contract.

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the man who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in the flesh.”

“The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”
– United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 540 (District Court, M.D. PA. 1947)

Once one hires an Attornor, and tell (testifies to) the Attornor (the enemy’s spy and Officer of the Court) what has happened, the Attornor is required by law to share (Discovery) ALL evidence, which he obtains from his Client, with the Prosecutor. “You have the right to remain silent, everything that you say (to any of these devils), CAN and WILL be used against YOU.” Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436(1966). You would be wise to remain silent! “Open mouth, insert foot!” It is all a game, you are a pawn; and you have been prearranged to be the loser. Here is another good one, learn to answer a question with question. The master asks the question and the slave or servant answers.

Start of proceeding in court, after they call the name of defendant.

You say:

"My presence is special in regards to that matter.

"I am not the defendant, I am the Claimant.

"I do not understand the Nature and Cause of the Charges.

"I take exception, you lack jurisdiction."

The following is for after above statement in court to be used throughout rest of proceeding. This takes a little practice to remember without it written, which should be your goal. More than likely you won't have this written down on you.

I am not the defendant, I am the Claimant. (Whenever anyone calls defendant name or calls you defendant)

I do not understand the Nature and Cause of the Charges. (Remember to say this of all things. Never come into understanding with them unless using acceptance method, which this is not)

I do not wish counsel at this time. (Everytime judge asks if you want lawyer or attempt to assign one, then state #6 also)

My Mother calls me Son/Daughter. (If they ask your name, optional)

I make objection, you lack jurisdiction. (when DA makes motion or request against you)

I take exception, you lack jurisdiction. (when judge accepts motion or makes order against you)

Yes sir, you sure can hold me in contempt, asked and answered, no issue, Demand to move on. (If they threaten to hold you in contempt say this)

If they repeat any question, such as, "what is your name", state "Asked and answered, Demand to move on."

There are additional statements that can be made, but one must learn them. This here are the basics of standing your Square.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014


Emily Portelli Herald Sun June 19, 2014 
Malcolm McClure, 41, has been found guilty of engaging in legal practice without being qu
Malcolm McClure, 41, has been found guilty of engaging in legal practice without being qualified to do. Picture: Ellen Smith
TYRE king Bob Jane begged his friend - described by a Federal Court judge as an "incompetent, ignorant charlatan" - to assist him in a court battle despite the fact he was not a lawyer, a court has heard. 
Businessman Bob Jane was represented by his friend Malcolm McClure in his legal battle ag
Businessman Bob Jane was represented by his friend Malcolm McClure in his legal battle against his son Rodney Jane.
Malcolm McClure, 41, was today found guilty of engaging in legal practice without being qualified to do so and fined $10,000.

The self-represented McClure said Mr Jane knew he was not a lawyer, but appealed to his "good Samaritan duty", despite McClure's reluctance to become involved in the case in late 2011.

"He said, 'Malcolm, you've got to help me’," McClure told Melbourne Magistrates' Court.

McClure said he became a director of Mr Jane's company because he believed it entitled him to do certain acts on behalf of Mr Jane.

Magistrate Ann Collins said the substantial involvement of McClure, who legally advised and drafted legal documents and correspondence for Mr Jane, in a Federal Court action against Mr Jane's son, had huge consequences for the well-known businessmen.

She said McClure's advice that Mr Jane did not need to turn up to a court hearing lost him the right to trade in his own name and caused tens of thousands of dollars in extra costs.

The magistrate found that he engaged in legal practice, but said she could not find beyond reasonable doubt that two $3000 donations to the church he is associated with made by Mr Jane around the time of the court case were payments received by McClure for his services.

McClure said he was not aware of the existence of the offence he was charged with and was doing his best to comply with the laws he was aware of.

"It is not our intention to flagrantly disregard laws," he said. He said he was done acting so selflessly in helping others.

"Every time I help the community, I'm the one that is to blame," McClure said.

Rodney Jane leaving the Supreme Court at an earlier hearing. Picture: Jake Nowakowski
Rodney Jane leaving the Supreme Court at an earlier hearing. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

He indicated he would likely appeal the decision of the magistrate, who allowed into evidence an affidavit made by McClure that he claims was made under duress and did not allow him to admit further evidence today after submissions had finished.

Prosecutor Shaun Ginsbourg said McClure, who was part of a "freedom movement" that assisted people in the community in representing themselves, had an alleged testimonial on his website that said he had been "proclaimed a genius by many".

Ms Collins said she accepted McClure's assurances that he would not repeat this conduct and had removed all material on the internet offering assistance to the community that was within his control.

She said the law was not "harsh", as McClure described it, but necessary to protect the community from unqualified and uninsured bogus lawyers who did not owe a duty to their clients or the court.

McClaure said he was "a pauper" and earned only $12,000 a year from his church, but was glad that his prosecution would be an educational lesson to others.

The magistrate convicted him and gave him six months to pay his $10,000 fine, noting that deterring others from similar conduct was of utmost importance.

A decision on costs was deferred to a later date.