Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
You do not consent to the law?
You claim you can not consent to the law, by calling them "your rules"?

Order is maintained by way of consensus. We use discussion and negotiation, not deception, threats and force.

In short we use the law. But we use it properly.

I would explain it to you, but you can't seem to distinguish between actual law, and 'my rules', so it would be a waste of time.
Click to expand...

and yet you still dont get it, or if you do you avoid it, there is no law, its only rules, laws are simply rules enforced.
In freeman land if I dont consent, you simply ignore me and make me do what you want or make me leave, thats the ONLY way you can maintain order.

So Rob what are you offering thats any different than we have today?

The only way you can claim to have immunity from statute law is to provide proof of such in the way of AGREEMENT by the Canadian government, you cant really believe that you can just say you dont consent and thats acceptable, really is that what your saying, because if thats the case then....here goes "I dont consent to any Statutes in the UK"..................anything happened yet?...........there its done, I am now a freeman on the land and am EXACTLY the same as Rob (shudder!)
 
From that case I posted above:

[25] Mr. Boyer said he did not agree to be governed. Specifically, in relation to a 2004 charge, Mr. Boyer said he had denied consent to be governed other than under the supremacy of God. Mr. Boyer said that a psychiatric evaluation was ordered at the time. He was found to be eccentric but fit for trial.
Click to expand...

And he lost even though he had withdrawn consent to be governed.

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2009/02/p09_0278.htm
 
Last edited:
Stacey Grove said:
Here's one where Menard's claims were used by the defendant.
Oh, and he lost.

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2009/02/p09_0278.htm
Click to expand...

HAHAHA! Those were not my claims at all, and I know Marc and strongly suggested he not take that course of action. I told him they would fail, as he did consent by virtue of his actions. He was holding government issued ID, and was using it too! He was not operating as a Freeman at all, but as a child of the province, and thus was subject to that Act.

Nope, not my claims at all.

Hey let's test it. Do you find my name in that ruling at all? If not, why claim they are my claims? Are you that desperate?:D
 
Menard Wrote
Can you explain, without abandoning the rule of law and equality, how you personally can govern me without consent, either directly or through a representative? If not, why do I have to prove anything, when your claim is the initial one, and the onus is on your to prove it?
Click to expand...
yep I can
Menard wrote
You do not consent to the law?
You claim you can not consent to the law, by calling them "your rules"?

Order is maintained by way of consensus. We use discussion and negotiation, not deception, threats and force.

In short we use the law. But we use it properly.

I would explain it to you, but you can't seem to distinguish between actual law, and 'my rules', so it would be a waste of time.
Click to expand...
 
FreemanMenard said:
HAHAHA! Those were not my claims at all, and I know Marc and strongly suggested he not take that course of action. I told him they would fail, as he did consent by virtue of his actions. He was holding government issued ID, and was using it too! He was not operating as a Freeman at all, but as a child of the province, and thus was subject to that Act.

Nope, not my claims at all.

Hey let's test it. Do you find my name in that ruling at all? If not, why claim they are my claims? Are you that desperate?:D
Click to expand...

I never said you had anything to do with his trial.
Boyer claimed he was not a person.
He also claimed that he had withdrawn consent to be governed.
The same stuff that you spout.

Now, if you are saying that no ID is the answer, are you saying that an illegal immigrant is immune to law?
 
jargon buster said:
Menard Wrote

yep I can
Menard wrote
Click to expand...

Okay then I am waiting.
Plus you still have yet to answer my questions.

Not surprising though really.

What I referred to and what you quoted involves people consenting. The challenge is how you govern me WITHOUT consent.


Go ahead, explain it. But do not abandon equality or the rule of law.

Thanks!
:D
 
FreemanMenard said:
So you too equate 'mutual consent' with 'mutual non consent', and claim that you can impose your will through contract upon another without consent by refusing to accept their non-consent.

WOW.... I just have to share that with my friends! It is beyond stupid!

Where is your proof that I can be governed without consent? It is you making the claim that I can be governed without it. The onus is on you to prove your claim, as it is not I trying to govern you without consent, nor is it me claiming that others can govern you without consent. You are doing that.

So where is your proof?

Can you explain, without abandoning the rule of law and equality, how you personally can govern me without consent, either directly or through a representative? If not, why do I have to prove anything, when your claim is the initial one, and the onus is on your to prove it?

HMMM?:D
Click to expand...

Ah brilliant, you're really losing it now. I don't know how many times I need to repeat that there is no link between consenting to government and whether an individual is bound by a statute or not. Tell you what, here's a link to my post again - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7526204&postcount=1791

So you too equate 'mutual consent' with 'mutual non consent', and claim that you can impose your will through contract upon another without consent by refusing to accept their non-consent.
Click to expand...

You'll need to explain that one further because you're not making any sense to to me. Your remark certainly doesn't reflect my opinion though, which for present purposes can be summarised as:

1. there is no link between consenting to government and whether an individual is bound by a statute or not;
2. you claim to not be bound by statutes because you don't consent to them, yet you are unwilling and unable to prove it;
3. your claim that individuals are no longer bound by statutes if they claim that they don't consent to them is untrue;
4. you make money from this claim;
5. by reason of 3 and 4 above anyone would rightly conclude that you are a conman ("if the cap fits....")

This thread stretches to 45 pages, there are hundreds of others on this forum, thousands elsewhere, and you still cannot get beyond first base.

Like Stacey, I don't believe that you practice what you preach. You do display the hallmarks of a person with questionable business practices who also has a strong narcissistic streak though.

Are you going to provide the proof to support your claim about not being bound by statutes because you don't consent to them? "Yes or no" as you say.
 
Last edited:
What I referred to and what you quoted involves people consenting. The challenge is how you govern me WITHOUT consent.


Go ahead, explain it. But do not abandon equality or the rule of law.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The fact is you cant, and nether could a freeman community, thats my point.
Thats why your whole theory of "We are all equal and no man may govern another without his consent" is nonsense.

Finally its dawned on you, or has it?
 
Stacey Grove said:
I never said you had anything to do with his trial.
Boyer claimed he was not a person.
He also claimed that he had withdrawn consent to be governed.
The same stuff that you spout.

Now, if you are saying that no ID is the answer, are you saying that an illegal immigrant is immune to law?
Click to expand...

He said one thing, but acted in another manner.
He did in fact consent, it was evidenced by him seeking benefits. His person was active and claiming benefits.

I am not saying that anyone is immune to the law. Nor have I ever said any such thing.

There is law which governs us all, regardless of our status.
There is statutes which governs those who are legally speaking holding the status of 'child of the province'.

I escape those by acting like an adult, and claiming my right to do so.

Those who cannot distinguish, are still 'children of the province', and likely will always be, and thus will always be bound by those rules. Sad for them.
 
jargon buster said:
The fact is you cant, and nether could a freeman community, thats my point.
Thats why your whole theory of "We are all equal and no man may govern another without his consent" is nonsense.

Finally its dawned on you, or has it?
Click to expand...


Nonsense?
In our Freeman community, we all consent to a process of consensus building.

Is this another of your incredibly stupid circular arguments?

We consent to being members of our community, we do so clearly and specifically, we agree to our consensus process, and you now claim that we do not have consent?

WOW

So care to answer my questions? Do you still equate mutual consent, as required by contract law, with mutual non-consent, as you so proudly previously stated, or not?

:D
 
Toke said:
Did you notice how simple it is to provide a link to a court ruling?
Click to expand...
And of course there's plenty more failures we could link to
Why don't freemen link to their victories? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I would hazard a guess....not one exists.:D

A challenge, Rob: Give us a link to a fotl success in court. Any country, it doesn't matter.

(cue the "sealed records" rubbish or the "they never reach the court" fairytale etc etc.)
 
Last edited:
Toke said:
Even if we assume he lost due to errors in the magic words, the post illuminates a serious problem for FMOTL proponents.

Did you notice how simple it is to provide a link to a court ruling?
Why don't freemen link to their victories? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Because our victories mean we do not go to court, and there is no trial.
Do you claim that there are transcripts for court cases that do not take place?

:D

No one has yet to explain how they personally can govern me without consent and not break the law or abandon equality.

I wonder why that is....


:D
 
There is law which governs us all, regardless of our status.
There is statutes which governs those who are legally speaking holding the status of 'child of the province'.

I escape those by acting like an adult, and claiming my right to do so.

Those who cannot distinguish, are still 'children of the province', and likely will always be, and thus will always be bound by those rules. Sad for them.
Click to expand...

Do you have this written on a prompt card?
Its the same old garbage you have been spouting for years.

Im in danger of going off topic again but what is this mysterious law which we are all bound by and have no choice in ignoring?
Please dont say Gods law or Karma.
 
So care to answer my questions? Do you still equate mutual consent, as required by contract law, with mutual non-consent, as you so proudly previously stated, or not?
Click to expand...

Let me put it simply for you Rob
The government doesnt need a contract to make you obey a statute.
You on the other hand would need a contract with the government in order to be exempt from them.

That OK for you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom