Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
Thats just more mental masturbation and word salad and avoidance of discussion!

Have you established in a court of law that you can personally govern me without my consent, or not?

I thought not.

Have you ever explained how you can govern another without consent and not abandon the rule of law?

I thought not.

Well, this was fun, I see all you have is mockery and refusal to discuss, or explain how you can govern another without consent, and if you can't do it directly, you can't hire or elect someone to do it either. At least not lawfully.

The onus is on the one trying to claim the power to govern, not on those who subsequently claim consent is needed to do so.

Hey you should call the people in the government here and explain to them your argument, (you know how you explained it to me) cause they all seem to agree with me. They need consent to govern.

Incidentally, calling someone's argument silly repeatedly is not explaining why the argument is fallacious. And all you folks have ever done here is insult and besmirch and labe; me a conman, without ever addressing the points I raised.

YOU CAN"T PERSONALLY GOVERN ME WITHOUT MY CONSENT AND YOU CAN"T HIRE SOMEONE TO DO IT FOR YOU. care to argue that point, or just do more name calling.
Click to expand...

When you live in a country you give consent to be governed by it's laws, if you refuse to do so then you are in rebellion. If you travel to another country you will be governed by their laws. These are the facts on the ground, anything else is just blowing blue smoke.

It's really that simple.
 
Rob, while grndslms deciding if hes going to shell out $200 to prove freeman on the land theories work in court maybe you could save him the money , you know give something back to the community ;)

Heres a post you left unanswered on David Ickes
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060052729&postcount=41
Quasi= almost but NOT quite.

Quasi pregnant = NOT pregnant
Quasi right = WRONG
Quasi laid = NOT laid
Quasi criminal = NOT criminal.

I argued this successfully in court. Quasi-criminal is not a part of the criminal law AT ALL. It is ALL contract. It is in fact entirely CIVIL.

quasi = NOT
Quasi-criminal = NOT criminal.

It is simple substitution logic.

Argue about it all you want. You merely highlight your reluctance to learn ANYTHING new. Plus I was in a court when they sided with my position.
Click to expand...

You later let slip
When you read the transcripts, it says "Well... well ... well... " The ... is him laughing his head off.
Click to expand...
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060057555&postcount=93

Which clearly indicates you have the transcripts.

So do something for grndslm and the freeman community at large and lay it out for us Rob.

PS Kaisersozey would be proud of you. ;)
 
Thanks JB! I think that was the topic I was originally thinking of, much more pertinent and telling, although both are ok examples I suppose.

If you ever see that mysterious stranger, Davey Jones, tell him he did a good job!
 
FreemanMenard said:
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
Click to expand...

Police.
 
Menard wrote:

The challenge is how you govern me WITHOUT consent.
Click to expand...

Well, here's a very simple example: Consumption taxes.
Withdraw consent to them and come back and post your results.
 
jargon buster said:
Rob, while grndslms deciding if hes going to shell out $200 to prove freeman on the land theories work in court maybe you could save him the money , you know give something back to the community ;)

Heres a post you left unanswered on David Ickes
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060052729&postcount=41


You later let slip

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060057555&postcount=93

Which clearly indicates you have the transcripts.

So do something for grndslm and the freeman community at large and lay it out for us Rob.

PS Kaisersozey would be proud of you. ;)
Click to expand...

Well now we catch a glimpse into how your mind er, operates eh?

It is inconceivable to you, that I HAD them at one time, read them and remembered that part, right? Nope, the ONLY thing you can see (which happens to be false) is that I must now be in possession of them.

The only thing it clearly indicates is that I read them, and remember that part. It does not clearly indicate I have them. But for those who only operate on assumptions, and can't think properly, it will be 'clear' to them, that I must actually have them now.

I remember a passage from a book.
Does that mean I must have that book?

Clearly it must, at least to you, and those who er, 'think' like you do.

Sheesh guys is that all you have?

Incidentally JB, do you STILL hold that mutual non-consent is required to avoid contract? Or do you realize now how incredibly silly such a position is and was?

It is about as silly as claiming that because I remember a part of some transcripts, that clearly I must now also have them with me.


Keep trying. You are showing us all how you think, and how difficult and faulty that process is for you.

So who here can't remember what they read, and feels like JB, that if you quote a transcript you read five years ago, you clearly must still have them available? Anyone?

Is it still 'clear'' to you that I must have them, and it simply cannot be that I HAD them?


:D
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
When you live in a country you give consent to be governed by it's laws, if you refuse to do so then you are in rebellion. If you travel to another country you will be governed by their laws. These are the facts on the ground, anything else is just blowing blue smoke.

It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

Tell you how it works.
If the people in the government live in Canada they are bound by the law. Statutes they craft are restricted by the law.

Therefore they cannot govern me without my consent, nor claim thier statutes are law.

It's really that simple.

Unless you wish to claim the people in the government are not bound by the law. But if they are, then we are all equal, and they need our consent to govern us, INDIVIDUALLY.

Or do you claim I am bound to their rules, but they are not governed by the law, because they make the rules?

Is that your position?

:D
 
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

FreemanMenard said:
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 sufficient consent existed and he did not rape? YES OR NO please.
Click to expand...

Driving without a license is not equatable to murder but requiring a license to drive is totally equatable to rape.

Stay classy, Menard.
 
FreemanMenard said:
It is inconceivable to you, that I HAD them at one time, read them and remembered that part, right? Nope, the ONLY thing you can see (which happens to be false) is that I must now be in possession of them.

The only thing it clearly indicates is that I read them, and remember that part. It does not clearly indicate I have them. But for those who only operate on assumptions, and can't think properly, it will be 'clear' to them, that I must actually have them now.
Click to expand...

Let me guess.
You are quote mining and do not want others to see the whole?

And still no link to your successes in court?

BTW: would anyone be interested in this magic 1-crown here.
It is guaranteed to prevent you being sentenced in court as long as you don't show up.)
 
So who here can't remember what they read, and feels like JB, that if you quote a transcript you read five years ago, you clearly must still have them available? Anyone?

Is it still 'clear'' to you that I must have them, and it simply cannot be that I HAD them?
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know Rob, maybe, just maybe if I had some proof of me handing a judge his arse on a plate and proving my theory worked in a courtroom, I might have been tempted to actually keep a copy of that transcript scanned on my PC and ready to go at a moments notice to silence the naysayers and also ensure my DVDs (if I had any of course) kept flying off the shelves.

but thats just me and how my mind works

PS as you can remember every dot and dash about certain aspects of it, care to have a stab at the case number and date?
 
Boot2TheHead said:
Driving without a license is not equatable to murder but requiring a license to drive is totally equatable to rape.

Stay classy, Menard.
Click to expand...

More stuff taken out of context, eh?

The example was in order to look at the most basic of human interactions, that being sexual intercourse. If JB's claim was correct, and mutual non-consent was required, the example would hold. But you know that don't you? You are just trying to take it out of context to fit your beliefs.


Now that you read it, do you also claim, like JB, that mutual non-consent is required to avoid contract and that without mutual non-consent, you can impose your will on others claiming the agreed to it, because you did not consent to their removal of consent?

hahahah you guys are hilarious!

:D
 
FreemanMenard said:
Good thanks. Having a little lunch at the moment.

Cod and rice, if you care to know.

But now I have to get back to it. See ya later if I am bored and needing a laugh!
Click to expand...

I thought this guy was in western Canada? Having lunch at 9:00AM?

(On edit, it looks like he's in New Brunswick - my mistake)

Edit #2:

But that makes me wonder - is there a time zone for a Freeman on the Land? Does he consent to Daylight Savings Time? I would genuinely like to know this.
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
Oh I don't know Rob, maybe, just maybe if I had some proof of me handing a judge his arse on a plate and proving my theory worked in a courtroom, I might have been tempted to actually keep a copy of that transcript scanned on my PC and ready to go at a moments notice to silence the naysayers and also ensure my DVDs (if I had any of course) kept flying off the shelves.

but thats just me and how my mind works

PS as you can remember every dot and dash about certain aspects of it, care to have a stab at the case number and date?
Click to expand...

I remember that part due to him laughing, and I was curious as to how they would write it up in the transcripts. One word is not that hard to remember is it? Especially when it was the same word three times.

I do not recall the number. Sorry.

The JJP names was Z. Makhdoom, <sp?>
It was for Robert Scott Christy with The City of Vancouver the plaintiff.

It was back in 2005 or 2004 I think...

Look it up if you are interested...
 
Last edited:
Rob wrote
Unless you wish to claim the people in the government are not bound by the law.
But if they are, then we are all equal, and they need our consent to govern us, INDIVIDUALLY.
Click to expand...

Or do you claim I am bound to their rules, but they are not governed by the law, because they make the rules?

Is that your position?
Click to expand...

So in freemanland if one person withdraws consent then by default the government collapses and has no authority?

You clearly state they need individual consent of everyone dont you?
If thats the case then the government of Canada has no authority over anyone at all, just because you claim you dont consent.

Is that what youre suggesting?
 
It is inconceivable to you, that I HAD them at one time, read them and remembered that part, right? Nope, the ONLY thing you can see (which happens to be false) is that I must now be in possession of them.

The only thing it clearly indicates is that I read them, and remember that part. It does not clearly indicate I have them. But for those who only operate on assumptions, and can't think properly, it will be 'clear' to them, that I must actually have them now.
Click to expand...

Totally inconceivable. Your whole con is based on what those documents would prove, yet you have "lost" them. The irrefutable proof that FOTL-Waffle works is supposedly in these documents. If that were the case you'd be waving them from the rooftops and, most likely, selling them.

How is Lance?
 
Look it up if you are interested...
Click to expand...

Have done, it doesnt exist, and more qualified people than me have as well, you can be sure of that.

PS why is Robert not in your facebook friends list?
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
Have done, it doesnt exist, and more qualified people than me have as well, you can be sure of that.

PS why is Robert not in your facebook friends list?
Click to expand...

The big question is why are you. Oh right! You are stalking me cause you have nothing better to do with your life!

Ask him why he is not on FB at all.

You make me laugh with your endless idiotic assumptions!

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom