• 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.
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's your arguments that are holed below the watermark sunshine.

Consent has nothing to do with whether the law applies to you, statutory or otherwise, and your failure to address that point leaps out of your posts. Instead of looking at that issue you argue instead about consent to be governed, a different point, or resort to your boundless rhetoric. Of course there is an element of consent to government, in a democracy at least. And in a totalitarian state, whilst consent is notionally irrelevant there, it only remains that way so long as the majority of the populace are prepared to accept their servitude. The law only requires consent so long as people respect the rule of law, which most do. You choose not to, but your little voice piping up "I don't consent to statutes" from a Canadian backwater won't change the fact that they apply to you whether you like it or not.

Lets try apples and apples, then maybe we can have a sensible discussion. Alternatively you can continue with apples with turnips and we'll continue smirking at your silliness.
 
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
Click to expand...

Your obsession with answering a question with a question is tiresome. Very tiresome when the answer to your question, in your mind, is supposed to reveal hidden secrets about the law.

FOTL-Waffle is a con invented in the seventies. Pure and simple.

When you found yourself in trouble with the law you took a trip down paranoia avenue and have devoted your life to trying to prove the government is out to get you.

Your thousands of hours of research involved reading about the Sovereign/Redemption cons.

You SELL people pseudo-legal advice but are not allowed to or to appear in court as someone's advisor/representative. How is Lance by the way?

When are you going to cash in your "Birth Bond"?.....
 
Mojo said:
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:
Click to expand...


He hasn't? Good. Does he also accept then that he can't?

hahaha so the judge who had his jurisdiction questioned, was the one to determine the validity of his jurisdiction, and then denied habeus corpus due to his decision?

And this is what you point to?:rolleyes:

Answer me this, (oh wait it will just be dismissed as word play!) can a party to a conflict be the adjudicator of that conflict? Can a judge preside in a case the outcome of which affects him directly??

Your position seems to be that anything a judge does is lawful, merely cause he did it. Tell me this, are judges human, and do they ever make mistakes?
A simple yes or no please.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Your position seems to be that anything a judge does is lawful, merely cause he did it. Tell me this, are judges human, and do they ever make mistakes?
A simple yes or no please.
Click to expand...

Yes judges can make mistakes. That is why there is normally an appeal process, adjudicated on by other judges.


What's your point?
 
cocana said:
It's your arguments that are holed below the watermark sunshine.

Consent has nothing to do with whether the law applies to you, statutory or otherwise, and your failure to address that point leaps out of your posts. Instead of looking at that issue you argue instead about consent to be governed, a different point, or resort to your boundless rhetoric. Of course there is an element of consent to government, in a democracy at least. And in a totalitarian state, whilst consent is notionally irrelevant there, it only remains that way so long as the majority of the populace are prepared to accept their servitude. The law only requires consent so long as people respect the rule of law, which most do. You choose not to, but your little voice piping up "I don't consent to statutes" from a Canadian backwater won't change the fact that they apply to you whether you like it or not.

Lets try apples and apples, then maybe we can have a sensible discussion. Alternatively you can continue with apples with turnips and we'll continue smirking at your silliness.
Click to expand...

I respect very much the rule of law, especially that part that says we are all equal, and thus no one can govern another without mutual consent. That is a key part of the rule of law. No one here has ever explained how one party can govern another without consent and without abandoning the rule of law and the fact that equality is paramount and mandatory. Care to try, or did you wish to discuss your shopping list again?

Apples and turnips you say, then claim I am silly? WOW.... and I am accused of silly word games!

Yes all you like to do is smirk and besmirch. Makes you feel superior I guess. What I do not see is any attempt by you to actually discuss or under stand my perspective. Nor have you been able to explain how consent is not required when the rule of law says it is.

Let's try this: Is consent required for a contract to lawfully apply to you? Is that too hard? Or will you now use silly word games and more avoidance while trying to imply I am the silly one?
 
uk_dave's link pretty much sums up the FOTL-Wafflers and their gurus.

Dunning–Kruger effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
Yes judges can make mistakes. That is why there is normally an appeal process, adjudicated on by other judges.


What's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is they are human beings in a common law jurisdiction, and since we are all equal, they can't impose services for which they get paid without consent, otherwise they disregard the rule of law and equality.

So unless they are not human, or are more equal than everyone else, they need consent to provide their services. And if they provide it without that consent, they are breaking the law, and since they are human, it is not a stretch to accept that they can break the law.

Can you explain how one man can impose any service upon you without your consent, if we are all equal?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Can you explain how one man can impose any service upon you without your consent, if we are all equal?
Click to expand...

So, if I kill someone and am apprehended by the police and go to trial and am found guilty by my peers, a judge cannot impose 'service' upon me?
 
FreemanMenard said:
He hasn't? Good. Does he also accept then that he can't?
Click to expand...


While I can't speak for him, I suspect that he would claim that he is subject to the law in the same way that everyone else is. you are the one claiming some sort of special status here.

hahaha so the judge who had his jurisdiction questioned, was the one to determine the validity of his jurisdiction, and then denied habeus corpus due to his decision?
Click to expand...


Nope.

And this is what you point to?:rolleyes:

Answer me this, (oh wait it will just be dismissed as word play!) can a party to a conflict be the adjudicator of that conflict? Can a judge preside in a case the outcome of which affects him directly??
Click to expand...


If you bother to read it you will find that it was a ruling by a judge of the Administrative Court, and the dusputed jurisdiction was that of the Wirral Magistrates' Court. In case you don't realise that Wirral magistrates do not sit in the Administrative Court in London, let me inform you that it was not the same judge.
 
uk_dave said:
So, if I kill someone and am apprehended by the police and go to trial and am found guilty by my peers, a judge cannot impose 'service' upon me?
Click to expand...

If you go to trial and enter a plea, you have consented, by entering the plea, have you not?

Once in contract you are bound by the terms.
But you can choose to avoid the contract.
As for killing someone, theoretically you could refuse the courts services, but then you would be subject to the justice of the victims family and friends.

Funny how people always have to run to 'murder' when the position I am supposing has no victims, such as traveling without permission, or growing herbs.

Not securing someone else's permission to engage in a lawful action, such as traveling without a license or insurance, is not equatable with murder. But to avoid the issues, you like so many others pull out that old and tired red herring.
 
Mojo said:
While I can't speak for him, I suspect that he would claim that he is subject to the law in the same way that everyone else is. you are the one claiming some sort of special status here.




Nope.




If you bother to read it you will find that it was a ruling by a judge of the Administrative Court, and the dusputed jurisdiction was that of the Wirral Magistrates' Court. In case you don't realise that Wirral magistrates do not sit in the Administrative Court in London, let me inform you that it was not the same judge.
Click to expand...

Okay well that is good at least.

Administrative courts eh?
So it was not a court of law.
Interesting.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Once in contract you are bound by the terms.
But you can choose to avoid the contract.
Click to expand...

Freemen and honour eh?! What a joke!

As for your previous post-

Let's try this: Is consent required for a contract to lawfully apply to you? Is that too hard? Or will you now use silly word games and more avoidance while trying to imply I am the silly one?
Click to expand...

Yes.

That's got nothing to do with statutes though. Statutes aren't contracts fella. Surely you established that much in your legal research?
 
Aren't they super men according to you and your chums here?

Nice avoidance though. I like how you insinuated a reason to mock. Well played if your goal is to avoid discussion. Which I know it is.

Mockery is all you have now eh? I know here mockery counts as 'winning the argument'. It reminds me very much of high school in that regard. Bullying, mockery and refusal to think outside the cliques generally accepted standards.

So keep mocking. All you do is destroy any semblance that might exist of you being capable of discussion.
 
FreemanMenard said:
And this best describes your position:

Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Click to expand...

The fact that you think I have captors further demonstrates your delusional paranoia.
 
cocana said:
Freemen and honour eh?! What a joke!

As for your previous post-



Yes.

That's got nothing to do with statutes though. Statutes aren't contracts fella. Surely you established that much in your legal research?
Click to expand...

Statutes are closer to contracts then you imagine. They have been described as 'the terms of a societal contract' by those you would call experts in the law.
And just like contracts, they even require consent to be enacted. Read the enabling clause in the statutes here in Canada. Why do you find the word 'consent' right in it, if consent is not required for them to be deemed as having the force of law? Hmmm?:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom