Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[jargon buster]

Its the last two minutes that you should have watched

Its good old boy Menard with his upstanding pillars of the community ripping the urine out of a mentally ill man.

 

[tsig]

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?

Rob, that hilited sentence does not follow from the ones that went before it.

 

[tsig]

In the words of former member Bob haulk

The world works like this,
You can do whatever you like, but if other people don't like what you're doing they will stop you.

Perfect.

How about

You can do whatever you want and so can I.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

How about

You can do whatever you want and so can I. Oh and by the way, I, the government, have the police, the military and the support and acquiescence of 99.99% of the ~35 million people in Canada in my gang. Who is in your gang?

Fixed your post (are the kids still saying that? Probably not.)

I challenge Rob Menard to address that one simple truth which is observable to any sane person living in a modern society.

There is no sense arguing about law with Rob Menard. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand what law is. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand that if there is no government, there is no law. Without that premise, discussing the law becomes a word-twisting, question-asking, money-charging nonsense.

 

[jargon buster]

He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand what law is. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand that if there is no government, there is no law.

Laws = rules that are enforceable.

I have been pointing the fact out to him for over a year, that his rules are simply that, his rules, and that without the power of enforcement they are pointless.

 

[D'rok]

There is no sense arguing about law with Rob Menard. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand what law is. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand that if there is no government, there is no law. Without that premise, discussing the law becomes a word-twisting, question-asking, money-charging nonsense.

Nailed it.

The core move he makes in his con is to convince his marks that ought = is. He will never engage in discussion about actual law because that would be tantamount to admitting he's made it all up (or, more accurately, copied it all from older American cons and re-packaged it for Canadians).

 

[jargon buster]

There is no sense arguing about law with Rob Menard. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand what law is. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand that if there is no government, there is no law. Without that premise, discussing the law becomes a word-twisting, question-asking, money-charging nonsense.

again absolutly spot on.
You are always going to be arguing from opposite baselines, Robs is his own fictional world and interpretation of words.
I have even found myself using the word "travel" as opposed to "drive" to try and keep the discussion going rather than wait until the next post when he starts waffling on about the motor vehicle acts definition of "vehicle" and "drive", he gets you as daft as he is because you start using his terms rather than the norm.
Im done now, its clear he has nothing and hes just here trolling, the fact is he now only posts here, he doesnt even post on freeman sites anymore because they all know hes wrong.
He just comes here because getting beaten down is better than not getting beaten at all.

 

[carlitos]

SEC?

Reminded of the plight of poor Lance Thatcher, I was pondering Menards video here.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=436798682226252164

Dont waste your time watching all of it, it's the same nonsense,just skip to 1hr 32 and 30 seconds.
Its Rob taking the urine out of a schizophrenic man on the street, hell it makes great video and shows exactly what lengths Rob will go to using exploitation in the name of entertainment .

God, that was dumb. I made it a few minutes in. Someone go find the guy on the street and tell him that it would be the OSC or the BCSC, and not the SEC in Canada. Is the whole title of the video (Security of the Person) based on a US agency that he forgot to change for Canada?

 

[D'rok]

God, that was dumb. I made it a few minutes in. Someone go find the guy on the street and tell him that it would be the OSC or the BCSC, and not the SEC in Canada. Is the whole title of the video (Security of the Person) based on a US agency that he forgot to change for Canada?

Security of the Person is a constitutional right in Canada. It flows originally from the UNDHR. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_person

In a completely asinine re-packaging of Roger Elvick's (also asinine) redemption scam (see below), Menard sells the idiotically false idea that "security of the person" refers to a financial instrument (literally a "security") created by the govt tied to each individual at birth that you can redeem for cash by claiming it from the govt. It's a level of stupid that is really hard to grasp. It takes effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement

 

[jargon buster]

Menard sells the idiotically false idea that "security of the person" refers to a financial instrument (literally a "security") created by the govt tied to each individual at birth that you can redeem for cash by claiming it from the govt.

A "security" which as yet Rob has "chosen" not to cash in as he would rather have the stock option.
A stock option I would point out that is provided by a government that he has withdrawn consent from and also abandoned is SIN and as such according to him now has no ties whatsoever with.

Option 1
Access $8 million dollars through your SIN by claiming your "security" and live happily ever after.
Option 2
Abandon your SIN become a freeman on the land and sell DVDs to other people on how to do it whilst eking out a living in a bedsit.

mmm....let me think...

 

[D'rok]

A "security" which as yet Rob has "chosen" not to cash in as he would rather have the stock option.
A stock option I would point out that is provided by a government that he has withdrawn consent from and also abandoned is SIN and as such according to him now has no ties whatsoever with.

Option 1
Access $8 million dollars through your SIN by claiming your "security" and live happily ever after.
Option 2
Abandon your SIN become a freeman on the land and sell DVDs to other people on how to do it whilst eking out a living in a bedsit.

mmm....let me think...

Well, as a noble, self-effacing truth-seeker who has no thought for money, Menard obviously is simply being true to his principles by choosing option 2.


Excuse me while I rinse the vomit off of my keyboard.

 

[JLord]

So did I read correctly that Menard is saying that he at one point had transcripts in his possession that would prove his claims, but he never posted them on the internet and now for some reason no longer has them in his possession?

 

[ComfySlippers]

Vomit-inducing it certainly is.

As I've said before, if "Wolverine" had the intelligence to invent a new scam I would give him some credit. Unfortunately all he can do is repackage and regurgitate a decades old con, of which all its creators got jailed.

It's such a laughable scam though. You need to be severely lacking grey matter to fall for such nonsense.

"Birth Bonds", "Maritme Law".... etc. It's hilarious.

 

[ComfySlippers]

So did I read correctly that Menard is saying that he at one point had transcripts in his possession that would prove his claims, but he never posted them on the internet and now for some reason no longer has them in his possession?

I think you have understood the situation correctly.

Either he has lost them, never had them or will charge you $800 to see them.

 

[D'rok]

I think you have understood the situation correctly.

Either he has lost them, never had them or will charge you $800 to see them.

And, assuming he ever had them, chances are they say something like this:

R: So, we’ve also asked for the copies of the Case Fee Management paperwork, to my understanding Sir and belief that there should be three signatures upon it which is a consideration or consent for the trial to go ahead. Obviously Malcolm has not consented, so we would like to see who has signed or fraudulently signed the paperwork to give consent?

Malcolm has always withdrawn that, stated on the record that he did contract with the legal fiction, title, Mr, person or corporation, known as Mr Malcolm Massie and it is a fact that he is a man who stands under common law, which is the law of the realm. Again, all these facts have been agreed so how can a man be sentenced when the facts have already been agreed by the defendants and stand unrebutted?

Also I would like to know who signed the warrant for the detention of the defendant as well Sir, by my understanding there should be 3 signatures on that as well.

J: Well I can tell you that the warrant for sending Malcolm Massie to prison after conviction and sentence was signed by the Clerk of the Court

R: Was he asked?

J: Malcolm was not asked because his consent is not necessary

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=84856#p84856

FOTL Consent theory chalks up another victory.

In other words, Menard has probably belatedly realised that they won't support his claims.

I would also love to see the transcripts to this upcoming farce:

The summons was issued In January of 2010. I had entered a local club looking for a DJ who was scheduled to work, before i could enter the club the security told me I would have to surrender my cannabis. I made a verbal contract with one of the security to hold my cannabis in return for money to be paid upon its safe return when I left. When I entered I found the DJ not to be there so I left the club after about 10 minutes inside the building. the security personal holding my cannabis refused to return it claiming he had thrown it in the trash, I demanded payment for my property, in keeping with our lawful contract. I furthermore refused to leave the property until I was compensated, or my property was returned. Security then assaulted me, about 2 minutes into the assault they were joined by VPD who also assaulted me. I was then unlawfully detained, and VPD refused to take a sworn criminal complaint for my theft of property by the club security. I was then released after 16 hours of unlawful detainment with out any one filing any charges. At that time I was given a summons to appear for Disorderly Conduct.

I have no intention of arguing this complaint as stated above. I instead intend to challenge the courts jurisdiction. No criminal complaint was ever filed by any member of the club security staff, or the two peace officers who assaulted me. as there is no criminal complaint there is no lawful basis for the court to claim legal jurisdiction. furthermore I will then offer evidence to the court showing a very real criminal complaint sworn by myself and notarized, and then I will offer them remedy by offering to withdraw the complaint in exchange for their dismissal of proceedings.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=84914#p84914

 

[Tolls]

I think you have understood the situation correctly.

Either he has lost them, never had them or will charge you $800 to see them.

I had a document that proved that I was Emperor of the World...but I lost it.

Still...Bow Down Before Me!

(please)

 

[tsig]

I think you have understood the situation correctly.

Either he has lost them, never had them or will charge you $800 to see them.

Nah, it's $800 to look at them, if you want him to open the cover that's more.

 

[D'rok]

I had a document that proved that I was Emperor of the World...but I lost it.

Still...Bow Down Before Me!

(please)

First you must make a youtube video.

 

[tsig]

And, assuming he ever had them, chances are they say something like this:


FOTL Consent theory chalks up another victory.

In other words, Menard has probably belatedly realised that they won't support his claims.

I would also love to see the transcripts to this upcoming farce:

That post is full of fail:

Hello all. I intend to stand in court this month regarding a CITY OF VANCOUVER summons. I have studied the process for the better half of a year now and feel confident I can stand as a Man of God.

I suspect he'll sit down a Prisoner of the State.

and this;

I have several contingency plans as i anticipate the city judge will attempt to try to spar with me and I expect the judge will try leaving the courtroom several times to reestablish honor and attempt to use this distraction to gain jurisdiction.


I wonder, if you announce your intention to disrupt the court beforehand is it automatically contempt if you do? (bows three times to Toronto).


finally

I am calling on you all to come support my efforts...I am not posting the day and time here to prevent the city from catching wind of my plans

 

[ComfySlippers]

I have several contingency plans as i anticipate the city judge will attempt to try to spar with me and I expect the judge will try leaving the courtroom several times to reestablish honor and attempt to use this distraction to gain jurisdiction.

Like I said... hilariously stupid.