Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[FreemanMenard]

From the master of question evasion, I am honored. Nonetheless, your question remains a red herring. Care to answer to all the previous requests for evidence anything in this FMOTL con works, even a little bit, or do you fold and evade yet again?

You call it a con, with no evidence thereof.
I specifically stated my questions, and you avoid them. AGAIN.
You refer to "all the previous requests" without listing them and expect me to dig for and address them.
My questions are right in your face, and you claim you can avoid them because I must answer all the unlisted ones first.

It is not a red herring, but key to my position, and you simply cannot address it, for the truth will show you the FMOTL position is not a con, but you insist it is, so will refuse to look at anything that does not support that position.

Here are the questions again. Feel free to avoid them again by pointing to unexpressed issues I must dig for and then answer.

QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD:
1- Can a rapist avoid charges and liability by claiming that he did not consent to the woman’s denial of consent, and that since the denial of consent was not mutual, that mutual consent existed and he did not rape?

2- Can JB force you to sell him your car, under the terms of a contract you did not consent to, by claiming that he does not consent to contract law? Is there a contract if one party does not consent to the terms, and the other responds by refusing to consent to contract law? That is JB’s argument.

Just answer these questions. Or not, but if not, why expect me to answer those you don't even post?

HMMM?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Why are you so obsessed with JB, Menard? He doesn't necessarily speak for every single skeptic here. In fact, I actually do agree that his argument of "I do not consent to your lack of consent" is pretty flawed. So that's great, it isn't a valid argument against the freeman theory. Now instead of just repeating that every time you return to this forum, you address the other criticisms that people are making?

For myself (and I suspect that most people here will agree with me), I see no reason to quibble about the precise meanings of legal terms or play word games. The proof of freeman theory being junk is the simple fact that it provides no solid, tangible results. There has never once been a confirmed, recorded case of claiming to be a freeman being officially recognized by a court or the police. If you break a statute, armed men will physically drag you away and imprison you.

That's really all that matters in a legal discussion. No one is saying that the law is right or wrong, only that it is. And that distinction is important when you want to know how a court will rule. Not how it should rule, not how it ought to rule, but how it will rule. It does me no good to be told that a statute is wrong if the statute is still enforced on me. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with freeman "law": It is ultimately useless.

Seriously? Remember if you will, the original title of this thread. READ the first post. The man stalks me all over the net for two years, I respond, and I am obsessed? WOW...

The Freeman perspective is about avoiding contract with the people in the government. (in a nutshell. I know that some will try to latch onto this and when I try to expand it later, they will say "GOTCHA! You said THIS...." )

If the courts deal with breaches of contract, and with a Freeman there is no contract, does the court have a breach to address? YES OR NO.

Can you breach a contract that does not exist, and if not, what would the courts have to do with it? Do the courts keep records of actions that did not take place or not?

Our goal is to avoid the fight, and we consider that a win.

The only thing you accept as a win, is a fight with us winning.

Avoiding the fight is how we win, but with you, if there is no fight, we could not have won.

See the problem?

 

[Hans]

See the problem?

Yeah it doesn't work, which really is a problem - well for you it is, LOL

Of course you avoid a fight because you will lose. Hiding from the authorities or going back to nature is not what the FMOTL pretended to be at the start - since you have found it doesn't work is this the new plan? Hide and hope no one notices you? If so that WILL work a bit better than the first plan.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Yeah it doesn't work, which really is a problem - well for you it is, LOL

Of course you avoid a fight because you will lose. Hiding from the authorities or going back to nature is not what the FMOTL pretended to be at the start - since you have found it doesn't work is this the new plan? Hide and hope no one notices you? If so that WILL work a bit better than the first plan.

Avoiding contractual obligations is hardly hiding. It is choosing.


Care to answer the questions, or must you continue to insult?

 

[Hans]

Avoiding contractual obligations is hardly hiding. It is choosing.


Care to answer the questions, or must you continue to insult?

THEN confront the laws you say you don't want to follow in court -and use your magical phrases - oh wait you lose, you lose everytime. Best to hide and act like you are doing all your magical things.....

 

[jsfisher]

You call it a con, with no evidence thereof.

Not true. There are plenty of examples of the FMOTL methods failing miserably, just none of them ever being successful. As evidence of it being a complete con, that works pretty well.

I specifically stated my questions

Yes, you did, and you did it solely to district attention away from the fact your FMOTL nonsense doesn't work.

and you avoid them. AGAIN.

No, I AGAIN pointed out that your question was irrelevant. You get asked repeatedly for even the simplest example of the con working in real life, but since you can't you wave your hands and deploy smoke screens.

Come on, any evidence, any evidence at all of any substance that it isn't a con. You can do that, can't you?

No?

 

[grndslm]

For those of you who doubt me, the truth is out there, I'm just not going to spoonfeed you if you can't even Google this: "subject-matter jurisdiction".

This is not about me. Just read a few of the links.

Then you'll have to agree that the Mississippi BAR even admits to a separate language that's "similar to English", called LEGALESE...

https://www.msbar.org/guide_to_legalese.php

Of course, "citizen", "citizenship", "national", "subject-matter jurisdiction", "united states", "out of state", and a few other good ones aren't on there. Just have to KNOW your terms. If you don't know, you better ask whose dictionary is being used.

Repeat after me... WHAT DICTIONARY ARE YOU USING???!??!??!???

 

[jsfisher]

For those of you who doubt me, the truth is out there, I'm just not going to spoonfeed you if you can't even Google this: "subject-matter jurisdiction".

This is not about me. Just read a few of the links.

Then you'll have to agree that the Mississippi BAR even admits to a separate language that's "similar to English", called LEGALESE...

https://www.msbar.org/guide_to_legalese.php

Of course, "citizen", "citizenship", "national", "subject-matter jurisdiction", "united states", "out of state", and a few other good ones aren't on there. Just have to KNOW your terms. If you don't know, you better ask whose dictionary is being used.

Repeat after me... WHAT DICTIONARY ARE YOU USING???!??!??!???

The power of Google notwithstanding, if it really worked, it would work in the court room. It doesn't, so all your attempts to misinterpret things are as irrelevant as Rob's attempt to distract attention from the truth.

 

[Hans]

The power of Google notwithstanding, if it really worked, it would work in the court room. It doesn't, so all your attempts to misinterpret things are as irrelevant as Rob's attempt to distract attention from the truth.

Prove it in the court room or it's just word salad and mental masturbation

 

[uk_dave]

The problem appears to be the inability of some people to comprehend complicated language, and also their unwillingness to accept that it is their ignorance which is the obstacle rather than some conspiracy intended to hoodwink them.

So, they get themselves a copy of a legal dictionary and see words being defined in strictly legal terms and construct for themselves a fantasy about how those words are a secret code which governs how legal systems work.

Of course, the Dunning-Kruger effect explains how this happens, and the likes of grndslm would do well to read and comprehend this, though it's doubtful they would see themselves described there-in (for obvious reasons )

Add in a big old dose of religious belief (after all, reciting hymns and prayers, avoiding blasphemy etc are major tenets of the expression of faith; words have supernatural power!!) and the FMOTL convince themselves that they can use the secret words to achieve some kind of special dispensation from society's rules.

What I don't quite get with Menard though, is whether or not he is promoting a vision of how he would like society to be, or if he actually thinks society is already the way FMOTLs want it to be, it's just that there is a conspiracy by the legal system to hide this from the rest of us?

 

[jargon buster]

Rob
I would respond to your above posts but there isnt any point really as its all just silly word games and rhetoric.
My "theory" simply mirrors yours, its just you dont want to admit it.

In simple terms (again) you live in Canada, the laws of Canada covers all the people in Canada, (thats the de-fault position) now if you wish to be exempt from the laws of Canada you will need the agreement of Canada, its not rocket science Rob.
Have you got the consent of Canada to ignore its laws?

Now as for the "contract" issue, you claim you have no contract with Canada and as such can ignore the statutory legislation(law)of Canada.

Now (according to you) that non-consent allows you to drive an unlicenced untaxed uninsnured vehicle on a public highway.
I dont consent to you doing that because you are a liability to myself and others.
But you say I cant do that because we have no contract for me to not to consent to???

See how silly it is Rob?

I cant even believe you are trying to confuse the issue with the waffle you post.
And as for trying to make up arguments to get people on this forum on your side and argue against me..well thats just silly, I see you would think that its revenge for me making your arguments fail miserably on Freeman forums (thats why you left them all ) even freemen have the occasional moment of clarity (a stopped clock is right twice a day) and are now wise to you.
I have no agenda on this forum so it doesnt matter to me if people accept my theory or not, so fill your boots Rob, I suppose trying to upset me is easier than proving you have any credibility.

 

[Toke]

What I don't quite get with Menard though, is whether or not he is promoting a vision of how he would like society to be, or if he actually thinks society is already the way FMOTLs want it to be, it's just that there is a conspiracy by the legal system to hide this from the rest of us?

I don't think they have a clear answer to that. At least I have never heard it.

Anyway, It is quite telling of the con/movement that the closest they get to a success story is a youtube video, not any court documents.

 

[jargon buster]

att grndslm

Have you got your case number and some dates please, surely $200 would be a small price to pay to prove your point.

 

[uk_dave]

Avoiding the fight is how we win, but with you, if there is no fight, we could not have won.

See the problem?

Yeah I do. Most criminals would have a similar philosophy, after all a burglar isn't going to steal someone's possessions and then voluntarily turn up at court to try and win a legal argument about it. No, they avoid the law by trying to keep the crime a secret.

 

[jargon buster]

menard wrote

Avoiding the fight is how we win,

Yup, by obeying the law.
Its clear thats what you do Rob, if you didnt toe the line and follow the law you would be in court , and you know it.

 

[Tolls]

The problem appears to be the inability of some people to comprehend complicated language, and also their unwillingness to accept that it is their ignorance which is the obstacle rather than some conspiracy intended to hoodwink them.

This is the thing that leaps out at me as well.
I just think of my own field (IT) and how much trouble I see on various forums where people are asking questions while misusing terms, thus confusing whatever issue it is they are having. You then have to explain to them carefully that they are in a technical environment where words have specific meanings related to that environment, and misusing (or misinterpreting) those terms simply results in confusion.

The idea that law is any different to any other technical field is strange to me. Because if law is filled with magic words, then so are virtually any number of other fields, from engineering to literary criticism.

I am now a Wizard!

 

[FreemanMenard]

Funny how no one wants to or is willing to answer these simple questions, choosing instead to label them as silly word play and rhetoric. They are key questions, the answers of which could reveal a truth.

I guess here people would prefer to ignore the questions, and maintain their grip on their ignorance.


I avoid contractual obligations which others consent to. I do so by not submitting, applying and registering. Thus many statutes which others have consented to out of their own ignorance, and are applicable to them, are simply not applicable to me. They choose to enter into contracts I choose to not. How difficult is that to understand?

And guess what allows me to do that? THE LAW!

Oh well, this board is a big waste, you can't even answer simple questions, have to label them as word play and rhetoric, and if my questions are silly, all your questions are as well.

 

[FreemanMenard]

menard wrote

Yup, by obeying the law.
Its clear thats what you do Rob, if you didnt toe the line and follow the law you would be in court , and you know it.

I do embrace the law that is true. I use it to avoid statutory obligations others have blindly accepted. And that is why I do not end up in court, even when I act in a manner that may appear to be contrary to a specific Act or statute.

Because the law is on my side and it is clear, mutual consent is required for one party to govern another. Deal with it.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Prove it in the court room or it's just word salad and mental masturbation

Then prove in a court of law you can govern another without their consent, or as you say it is just word salad and mental masturbation. It does work both ways does it not?

I challenge you to govern me without my consent, and to prove in court YOU can do so, either directly or by proxy or agent. If you can't prove it in court, it is as you say, just word salad and mental masturbation.

Funny how when those who believe in FMOTL ask questions which highlight the strength of their argument, it is labelled as word play, rhetoric, and now masturbation with the questions simply avoided!

What is obvious though, is that you do not wish to answer the questions. None of you do. Says a lot about the strength of your arguments.

 

[Mojo]

Then prove in a court of law you can govern another without their consent...

Hans hasn't claimed that he can do this.

Your claim is that consent to individual pieces of legislation, or to the jurisdiction of courts, is necessary for them to be enforcable, and that that consent can be withheld. This is clearly not the case. Here, for example, is an attempt only last week to withold consent to a court's jurisdiction:

The basis of the claim brought by the Claimant appeared to be that he had not given his consent to the proceedings in the Magistrates' Court and that such consent was necessary. Further, he seemed to assert that his consent was necessary for a term of imprisonment to be imposed. His McKenzie friend sought to challenge the basis of my jurisdiction. He also sought to criticise the behaviour of police officers who had been involved in the incident giving rise to the arrest of the Claimant and his subsequent remand and appearance in court.

I have no doubt that this claim is entirely hopeless. I am satisfied, completely, that the Claimant was convicted by a competent court of a criminal offence and that the sentence imposed upon the Claimant was entirely lawful. In those circumstances there can be no basis for the grant of the writ of habeas corpus.