• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
D'rok said:
I look forward to the next bit of ironclad youtube evidence that actually completely refutes the point he is trying to make.
Click to expand...

hahahaha so when a YouTube video supports Freeman position, it is useless cause it's just YouTube, but when not, it completely refutes it!

hahahhaha

:rolleyes:
priceless!

Thanks D'rok!

No double standards there eh?

I see you still evade, avoid and insult.

Just like I predicted....
Gawd you guys are so funny!
 
Stacey Grove said:
D'rok asked for evidence of a freeman collecting a fee schedule and Menard replied as above.
What a plonker.
Click to expand...

So if the guy in the video, says he does not agree with FMOTL anymore, you celebrate that, and accept it as absolute truth that FMOTL is useless, but the part where he states he did use a Fee Schedule and got paid, you gloss over and ignore.

wow....
You guys must have to work very hard to be this obtuse and ignorant.


An anti-freeman is saying he used a fee schedule successfully, and even then you can't accept it.

Now you want proof. What is better than someone who does not believe in FMOTL saying the Fee Schedule works? Why not just ask him directly?

hahahaha
 
So, come on then, Rob give us one case where a court's decision was that a FOTL is not bound by statute law.
Just one.
 
FreemanMenard said:
So if the guy in the video, says he does not agree with FMOTL anymore, you celebrate that, and accept it as absolute truth that FMOTL is useless, but the part where he states he did use a Fee Schedule and got paid, you gloss over and ignore.

wow....
You guys must have to work very hard to be this obtuse and ignorant.


An anti-freeman is saying he used a fee schedule successfully, and even then you can't accept it.

Now you want proof. What is better than someone who does not believe in FMOTL saying the Fee Schedule works? Why not just ask him directly?

hahahaha
Click to expand...
Rob, I was referring to post 1661.
You quoted D'rok asking for evidence of a fee schedule being enforced and you replied with:
So are you going to answer my question or continue dodging and insulting?

JB says that if you refuse to consent to the terms of a contract he presents, (and thus do not consent to his rules) he can then refuse to consent to contract law, (he calls it 'Freeman Philosophy) and have the terms of the contract enforced.

IS he right or wrong?

Of course, now you will dodge and evade and insult.
Funny how much energy you all put in just to avoid addressing that simple issue. Have you been believing him so long now, you can't see the fallacy he relies upon?
Click to expand...
Get a grip.
 
So Freedom Menard where is the direct link to JB saying what you claim?
 
D'rok said:
Show evidence that your scam is something other than the scam that it plainly is. If your scam is effective at something other than feeding your ego or putting a few dollars in your pocket, it would be trivially easy for you to prove it.

Get busy.
Click to expand...

*Ahem*


Let me guess...you don't take orders from me, right?

Well of course you don't. But gosh. It would be ever so nice if you could back up your claims with evidence. Give it a try!
 
Well, its been fun, but I have to go now. Have to travel back to my land, in my truck. Maybe I will drop by again, but to be honest, I can only take so much unbridled stupidity and logical fallacies.

Thanks for the laughs!
 
Thanks for posting a video where a guy says your movement is crap!

As evidence for support!
 
Promise to come back when a fee schedule is successful for the first time? It would be fun to rub our faces in it wouldn't it?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Read his signature!

And find it here:
http://www.suijurisforum.com/withdrawal-of-consent-debunked-t127.html
Click to expand...

This is what Menard linked too. I'll let others read this to see if they can find what FM claims is there at the link
Withdrawal of consent debunked???

by jargon buster » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:35 pm

For a policy to have validity it requires the consent of both parties, right?
Your withdrawal of consent is simply your policy, and for it to be valid it requires the consent/agreement of government, and as yet you don't have it, right?

So you can shout "I don't consent" from the roof tops all you like but until you get the agreement of the government it is simply "noise".

As the freeman claim statutes require the consent of the governed, the government has the right to say "your withdrawal of consent requires the consent of the government"

OR doesnt it work both ways?
Click to expand...

Signature???

Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreemanMenard said:
Read his signature!

And find it here:
http://www.suijurisforum.com/withdrawal-of-consent-debunked-t127.html
Click to expand...

Hans said:
This is what Menard the conman linked too. I'll let others read this to see if they can find what FM claims is there at the link


Signature???
Click to expand...



7 pages, and not once does JB use the term "contract".

I don't suppose Menard would like to identify exactly which post he was discussing, and prove me wrong?


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Horatius said:
7 pages, and not once does JB use the term "contract".

I don't suppose conman Menard would like to identify exactly which post he was discussing, and prove me wrong?
Click to expand...

As I suspected he created a strawman argument unless Jargon Buster wants to correct us!
 
FreemanMenard said:
Go to a restaurant, order from their fee schedule, (or menu) and then when a bill is presented, use your murderers argument to successfully claim that the restaurant can't use one either.
Click to expand...


I can see how an uneducated person might be fooled by the superficial similarity between a menu and freeman's fee schedule, but if you think about there are numerous flaws in making this connection.

The key here is that you have ordered something and thereby freely agreed to pay money in exchange for some food. A commercial transaction where both parties are providing something of benefit to the other. A freeman style "fee schedule" typically tries to impose fees against someone for doing something that they are entitled to do under de facto law.

However, even if you give a fee schedule to someone alleging fees for blatently illegal acts and then say the cops do in fact do something blatently illegal, the fee schedule is worthless. You would be entitled to compensation for your damages according to the de facto common law, but you cannot arbitrarily increase your damages by sending someone a notice in advance of their illegal act. It should be obvious why this is substantially different from a menu and why this could not be permitted under any reasonable legal system. But if not, I will attempt to explain why even this "best case scenario" of freeman fee schedules is illogical and contrary to law.

A menu is an offer to exhange something of value for something of value. A normal commercial contract. A freeman style fee schedule (even one alleging fees for illegal acts) is a unilateral assertion as to the amount of damages you would be owed if someone commits some civil or criminal harm against you. It is not an exchange of value or an offer of any exchange of value. It would be like if on the menu it said "and also if you beat up the chef you owe us one million dollars." That isn't something you can order off the menu because even if I wanted to beat up the chef it is not dependant on any exchange where the restaurant is providing something (as they are ina normal food order). It is simply an attempt to subvert the normal de facto common law process for assessing damages in a civil claim.

So even if this "best case scenario" of freeman fee schdules were to occur and the freeman tried to enforce payment through the courts (which is the only way to enforce payment), the freeman's claim would be doomed to fail. So for this reason it is safe to say the freeman style fee schedule is totally worthless. In the more ridiculous scenario where you are imposing fees for something that is legal according to de facto law but illegal according to freeman lore, it should be even more obvious why the de facto courts (the only way to force payment) are never going to enforce that.
 
D'rok said:
More effort than it was worth. But thanks, nonetheless.
Click to expand...

At the time I didn't realize Menard had already left. But even so I would agree that just about any posts relating to freeman claims have less "worth" than the effort it took to post them.
 
JLord said:
At the time I didn't realize Menard had already left. But even so I would agree that just about any posts relating to freeman claims have less "worth" than the effort it took to post them.
Click to expand...
True enough, but the "it" and the "worth" were supposed to refer to Menard's post and the FOTL fee schedule thing overall, not your post.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom