Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I were a Citizen of the Republic of Ireland, I would be screming how the GOverhment needs to tighten up it rules for who they let take up residence in Ireland.......
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
It would appear that another Rob is out in the open.
http://robmenardfreemanoftheland.blogspot.com/
Its Rob Menerd, it looks remarkably similar to Menard but there is a disclaimer on the site saying it isn't Rob Menard, so I think that should satisfy Google if it gets reported :D

Feel free to join up and ask "Menerd" any questions on freemanism, I'm sure he will give you some entertaining replies :)
Click to expand...

Rob Menerd, con man or clone?
 
In the thread about the Irish Freeman where Rob was getting all mad over the "identity theft" over a forum nickname, he asked if everything thinks its ok that someone lies and deceives, and I asked him 3 or 4 times if it was ok for him to lie about his "daughter" Elizabeth and how he got sympathy all over the internet for it and still tells the story to this day even though its a LIE and it wasn't his daughter, just some young crackheads he fell for, he never answered. He would quote mine other parts of my replies and neglected to touch that question 3 or 4 times, must have cried to the mods because I lost 3 special Icke Lizard Demerit Points, then 4, then 10, then I got 10 permanent special will stay with me forever points, and now I'm on warning and can't post anything.
 
LizardLover said:
In the thread about the Irish Freeman where Rob was getting all mad over the "identity theft" over a forum nickname, he asked if everything thinks its ok that someone lies and deceives, and I asked him 3 or 4 times if it was ok for him to lie about his "daughter" Elizabeth and how he got sympathy all over the internet for it and still tells the story to this day even though its a LIE and it wasn't his daughter, just some young crackheads he fell for, he never answered. He would quote mine other parts of my replies and neglected to touch that question 3 or 4 times, must have cried to the mods because I lost 3 special Icke Lizard Demerit Points, then 4, then 10, then I got 10 permanent special will stay with me forever points, and now I'm on warning and can't post anything.
Click to expand...

The moderation on Ickes is a total joke. It was bad enough when Merlincove was moderating the freeman forum, not exactly the most objective person for that role. Now it's got worse.

Menard never fails to get special treatment there. I can't for the life of me understand why. The way he presents himself and his life story are lies, as you've described, the whole bloody thing is insane rubbish and he's been unable to answer a straight question or come forward with any evidence in the entire time he's been around. Ridiculous!

Oh, and don't forget the irony of him repeatedly claiming that he uses "logic and reason" when putting his ideas forward.
 
Well, pull up a chair and get some popcorn.

the whole reason Rob says he got into the FMOTL stuff is because he says the government stole his baby (Elizabeth) you can read all about it here
http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/elizabeth/

Now I and others have tried to draw Rob on the truth behind all this nonsense and he always runs away.
My guess it is either the child was not Robs in the first place because Megan(the mother) was actually only 14 or 15 at the time and he was trying to help her keep the child against the social services wishes.

Now if his statement is true that he was the father of the child, bearing in mind he was 35 at the time, then its a little worrying.
If its not true that he was the father, then his whole basis for getting involved in the freeman nonsense is a lie.

Hopefully he will come on here and address the issue
 
jargon buster said:
Well, pull up a chair and get some popcorn.

the whole reason Rob says he got into the FMOTL stuff is because he says the government stole his baby (Elizabeth) you can read all about it here
http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/elizabeth/

Now I and others have tried to draw Rob on the truth behind all this nonsense and he always runs away.
My guess it is either the child was not Robs in the first place because Megan(the mother) was actually only 14 or 15 at the time and he was trying to help her keep the child against the social services wishes.

Now if his statement is true that he was the father of the child, bearing in mind he was 35 at the time, then its a little worrying.
If its not true that he was the father, then his whole basis for getting involved in the freeman nonsense is a lie.

Hopefully he will come on here and address the issue
Click to expand...

A sample:

I intend to leave society. I am not moving physically, either. As a human being born in this country, I have the Common Law right to travel anywhere within it. I also have the right to join or not join societies as I see fit. I cannot be forced to consent. If I refuse to consent, none of the statutes everyone else calls laws will have the force of law with me
Click to expand...

The basis for his actions seem obvious. Narcissism.
 
It looks like Menard's after another sucker to dupe into losing their car
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148275&page=2
To understand what your rights are one must ask the proper questions. Do not ask "where does it say I can" ask instead "Where does it say clearly and specifically and unequivocally that I cannot?"

The HTA in Ontario and the MVA in BC share very similar structures. Neither of them remove the previously existing right to travel without license or permit, as said right is not even mentioned. One can prove said right does exist, for in the absence of either Act, the police would have NOTHING to point to in order to stop you from doing it. Thus the right clearly exists in the absence of the Act. Since it is not mentioned, it is not affected.

Simple.
Click to expand...

He quotes all this nonsense and yet walks everywhere or travels on buses.
This guy is the lowest of the low.
 
It would appear that Menard is now "traveling"
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148275&page=2
Just for the record, I do travel, not walk or take a bus everywhere, and I am initiating legal action very shortly to seek a judicial determination of these and other key points.

Rob 'Lowest of the Low' Menard

PS- There is nothing wrong with being the least, for the last will be first.
Click to expand...

the spineless goon has answered a post on here over on Ickes rather than debate.
And all his minions are watching too :D
 
Menard said:
I am initiating legal action very shortly to seek a judicial determination of these and other key points.
Click to expand...
Translation: I've conned another poor sod into testing my theories for me in traffic court. Youtube "victory" video to follow.
 
Spot on D'rok, here's Rob with the story, or should I say someone else has done the work but Rob is claiming the credit.
it does just appear to be another wonderful anecdote though
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95168&page=30
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org...hp?f=85&t=8091


I was recently in traffic court on Wednesday morning.
The story goes like this:

On or about Feb. 26, 2010
Prior to court, I had received an "OFFENCE NOTICE",
indication for a ticket. It was issued by a "SHERRIFF".

Upon presentment of his ticket, I asked; "Is it alright
if I recognize this as a bill of exchange?"

Officer Grumpy then replied, "You can recognize it however
you want!!!"

I said, "Great! Thank you!"
I knew what to do with that!

He looked at me funny, kinda like how your dog does when
you ask him how his trip to outer space with the chimpanze
was.

So, upon receipt of the notice, I ended up sending a few notices
off; one being a "Notice of Conditional Acceptance", followed by
a "Notice of Non-Response", and my "Notice of Understanding
and Intent and Claim of Right".

I did however, hear back from the Crown Prosecutor's Office in
Drumheller. They had acknowledged my correspondence and
said they would foward my Notice of Understanding and Intent
and Claim of Right to the Calgary Crown Prosecutor's Office
because Drumheller Crown Prosecutor's Office only deals with
criminal prosecutions.

Nothing back from Calgary....

Until...

I received a "Notice of Trial" stating that they adjourned the
court date to December 8, 2010 @ 10 o'clock in the forenoon.

Immediately, I sent a letter stating that I did not consent to
any adjudication services or a transaction of any security
interest without my express written and notarized consent.

Nothing back from Calgary...

The Day arrived,

I was in the courtroom watching some interesting things. Prior
to this court date, I had been removed from court in Brooks
where I presented my first "Notice of Intent to Bill Under Protest"
to the Clerk for the Commissioner!
This wasn't my first rodeo. I was prepared to clip the wings of
the dirty, rotten scoundrelling gargoyles that have claimed the
justice system for their own selfish and perverted pleasure.

When court was adjourned temporarily, I had seen a lineup to the
Crown Prosecutor envious of an ice cream stand in +34C weather!

What were these people doing? Fraternizing with the enemy?

Court was in session again. The Crown iniated the action
when they began to say that so and so is acting as agent
on behalf of so and so and they wish to plead guilty to such
and such of charge for a lesser amount.

The Commissioner now speaking to the poor and unsuspecting
victims, "Is that your wish, Mister so and so?"

"um, Yes!?!?!"

I'm sitting their thinking and watching with amazement about
ready to slap my head when somebody does something unbel-
ievable! Really? That's your wish? Oh no, there's no way that
somebody's wishes are to obey and pay, if only they knew what
benefit the 'movement' has in-store for them upon their due
diligence!

The commissioner then carried out the conviction as they had
consented to it. Wow, I wished I could have helped those that
did not stand a chance, but "For he who would be deceived, let
him."

One fellow made a charter call and claimed it was for the lack of
disclosure on part of the Crown!

The commissioner claimed, "You've hit it dead on the head and the
charge shall be withdrawn with prejudice!"

Nice going buddy! I looked at the prosecutor with a ****-eatin' grin
like, 'see! he's with me! Na, na, nana!'

The house of cards began to fall as the onlookers caught wind of
remedy.

Eventually they called the name of the corporation I was waiting
for. I then stand up and go foward with a binder full of articles,
the Ten Commercial Maxims as exhibits to my NOUICOR, notices
served with receipts & affidavits of service, and 3 different Acts;
two Provincial (PPSA & Securities Transfer Act), and one Federal
(Bills of Exchange).

Not to mention, the letter from the Crown, which was addressed
to "Freeman-on-the-Land David-Burrell: Sawyer", proof-positive
that I had these actors with the cane that drags them off the
stage for a curtain call!

The Crown Prosecutor proceeded with a constipated look on her
face to the tune of colossal fear upon looking at my prepardness,
"Your Majesty, the Crown would like to withdraw the charge."

Now, I could have evidenced everything and their incompetence,
which I had claimed in my NOUICOR prior to court, my fee schedule,
unauthorized consent to adjudication, lack of a proper bill, a court
of competent jurisdiction, or the costs I had incurred to travel an
hour and twenty minutes to get to court, or the costs to notarize
and serve documents. However, as a ward to myself and not to
the court, I remembered compassion and what it's all about.

The commissioner looked at me like that was good enough, and
I simply said, "God's Peace" and turned around and walked out of
the courtroom. I didn't even acknowledge the Crown Prosecutor
because I had better things to do that day, like think about how
I'm travelling down the road in my private and unregistered truck
with nothing but confidence and control over my own affairs.

Cheers,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
jargon buster said:
Spot on D'rok, here's Rob with the story, or should I say someone else has done the work but Rob is claiming the credit.
it does just appear to be another wonderful anecdote though
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95168&page=30
Click to expand...
Happened just like that, no doubt. The court was obviously helpless in the face of FOTL justice!

I love bits like this:

Not to mention, the letter from the Crown, which was addressed
to "Freeman-on-the-Land David-Burrell: Sawyer", proof-positive
that I had these actors with the cane that drags them off the
stage for a curtain call!
Click to expand...

Proof positive, indeed. :rolleyes:

He should have called himself something cooler, like, maybe Boba Fett. Then, when he gets a reply that begins "Dear Mr. Fett", that's proof-positive that he is a bad-ass galactic bounty hunter!
 
jargon buster said:
the spineless goon has answered a post on here over on Ickes rather than debate.
Click to expand...

He's done that several times just lately.
It's safer for him to take his grievances over to Icke's where he knows the morons he's conned will back him to the hilt.
 
Sledge said:
I'm sure he'll soon be posting the full transcript so we can all see it went down exactly like that.
Click to expand...

How much you want to bet that they simply issued a continuance when they saw they were dealing with a FMOTL loony and the woo completely forgot to mention that :D
 
Heh, I can see that. I'd probably try and reschedule something like that for a clear day so I can get to it first thing after a good breakfast.
 
just posted this on Freeman Ireland, Robs after some new idiots to try his nonsense.

Rob, you wrote on David Ickes

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148275&page=2

To understand what your rights are one must ask the proper questions. Do not ask "where does it say I can" ask instead "Where does it say clearly and specifically and unequivocally that I cannot?"

The HTA in Ontario and the MVA in BC share very similar structures. Neither of them remove the previously existing right to travel without license or permit, as said right is not even mentioned. One can prove said right does exist, for in the absence of either Act, the police would have NOTHING to point to in order to stop you from doing it. Thus the right clearly exists in the absence of the Act. Since it is not mentioned, it is not affected.

Simple.



Rob, if its so simple could you please make a video (i know you like making videos) of you traveling in a private conveyance that is not registered,taxed or insured and explaining to a police officer your reasoning and subsequent lawful excuse.



You did say it was simple didnt you?



Oh and a quick note to moderators and admin, let Mr Menard put his money where his mouth is and stop protecting him
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom