Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Bishop]

With respect to JB, I don't feel that his arguments about consenting are the right way to go. Some of you may have noticed that Menard kept posting his response to it, even when talking to completely different people who didn't necessarily agree with it. The reason he did that was because it's the only argument that he has an answer to.

So there's no need to give him an argument he can answer to. And there's no need to even play his silly word games with him. To me, the best counter-point that we can make against freemen is that it doesn't work. It doesn't matter if it should work, or if it ought to work. The fact is that anyone who tries this will be crushed in court, and that's the most important thing that we should be trying to communicate to freemen.

 

[Horatius]

So there's no need to give him an argument he can answer to. And there's no need to even play his silly word games with him. To me, the best counter-point that we can make against freemen is that it doesn't work. It doesn't matter if it should work, or if it ought to work. The fact is that anyone who tries this will be crushed in court, and that's the most important thing that we should be trying to communicate to freemen.

Of course, when you point that out, is when he pulls his whole, "If it works right, you never end up in court!" claims. Thus, any alleged "freemen" we may point to in court transcripts either aren't Real(tm) Freemen, or they "did it wrong".

So, essentially, this philosophy boils down to, "It's only illegal if you get caught!"

Which was a cool excuse when I used it when I was 15, but even then, I knew it was just an excuse.

 

[ComfySlippers]

"It's only illegal if you get caught!"

FOTL-Waffle summed up very nicely.

 

[Horatius]

FOTL-Waffle summed up very nicely.

It's similar to another one of these schemes we've discussed here, the "Detax Canada" website.


When you finally figure out what their "great plan" is, it just boils down to lying on your taxes.


ETA:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6478351#post6478351

Direct link to my post on lying about his income.

 

[ComfySlippers]

It's similar to another one of these schemes we've discussed here, the "Detax Canada" website.

Indeed. Scams aimed at enticing people of low intelligence are vile. FOTL-Waffle is just that. Unfortunately it's main guru is also lacking in the brain-cell department, which is why it is so much more dangerous. The fact that he mocks his victims after they have been jailed / got themselves into even more trouble after following his quackery is sickening.

The question in my mind is always: When Menard is finally locked in a cell, which he will be, how will he "not give consent" to his cell-mate using his bumhole as a toilet?

 

[jargon buster]

With respect to JB, I don't feel that his arguments about consenting are the right way to go. Some of you may have noticed that Menard kept posting his response to it, even when talking to completely different people who didn't necessarily agree with it. The reason he did that was because it's the only argument that he has an answer to.

So there's no need to give him an argument he can answer to. And there's no need to even play his silly word games with him. To me, the best counter-point that we can make against freemen is that it doesn't work. It doesn't matter if it should work, or if it ought to work. The fact is that anyone who tries this will be crushed in court, and that's the most important thing that we should be trying to communicate to freemen.

The reason I post the way I do is simply to get Menard to expose his own argument as stupid, which he does on a regular basis.
He has no argument, his whole theory is self debunking and its good for others watching him muck it up.
I couldn't really care less about Menard, its the people he damages that I have concerns for, if exposing him as a man with no method to his minions watching then its job done.
Whats the point of allowing him to post his sales pitch and just saying "it dosent work" and leaving it at that?
Others then may be tempted to follow his nonsense if its not challenged.

 

[jargon buster]

The question in my mind is always: When Menard is finally locked in a cell, which he will be, how will he "not give consent" to his cell-mate using his bumhole as a toilet?

Common law is binding to all, even feisty cellmates, he will have no choice but to consent to the freeman rules, it's the law

 

[Bishop]

Of course, when you point that out, is when he pulls his whole, "If it works right, you never end up in court!" claims. Thus, any alleged "freemen" we may point to in court transcripts either aren't Real(tm) Freemen, or they "did it wrong".

He said that just now, but it isn't actually his position. On other websites, he posts (almost certainly fake) anecdotes of himself or other freemen going into court and supposedly winning. He also claims as proof those stupid YouTube videos of people walking into court, shouting nonsense, and leaving. I guess that's just another one of his many contradictions.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The reason I post the way I do is simply to get Menard to expose his own argument as stupid, which he does on a regular basis.
He has no argument, his whole theory is self debunking and its good for others watching him muck it up.
I couldn't really care less about Menard, its the people he damages that I have concerns for, if exposing him as a man with no method to his minions watching then its job done.
Whats the point of allowing him to post his sales pitch and just saying "it dosent work" and leaving it at that?
Others then may be tempted to follow his nonsense if its not challenged.

hahahaha I was waiting for you to say something like that. Thanks.

This is what you tell the board, when you are conning them.... but I know it is NOT the truth. Here let's compare your words here, which you speak publicly to claim moral high ground, with the words you sent me. The truth you whisper to me when you think they are not around,,,

no worries Rob, I can see when a man is beaten.

Enjoy your time on your allotment hope the winters are not too harsh.
My only goal was to destroy your reputation within the FMOTL loon community and thats done now, you have no credibility left and even loons dont want you around anymore.

I hope you enjoyed our sparring sessions as much as I did, it was just a bit of light hearted relief for me, hope it was for you too.
By the way, I dont know why you would feel I was angry, that would mean that it actually meant anything to me.

If you hadnt been an arse when i first asked questions you may be still riding high on the freeman forums with Yozhik,lesactive, merlincove and all your boys, maybe you will be nicer to people in future, you never know who you're talking too.

sleep well Rob
hehehe

So which is iit JB? is it your ego that drove you because you did not get a question answered?

Or to help people, and if the latter, why not mention it in the email?
One day the members of this forum may awaken to the fact you are conning them....

Go ahead and explain it away....
Don't worry though, most of the board members here are apparently so full of hate and anger they will simply refuse to see how you are conning THEM! Even when it is RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES!

Once again compare folks:

no worries Rob, I can see when a man is beaten.

Enjoy your time on your allotment hope the winters are not too harsh.
My only goal was to destroy your reputation within the FMOTL loon community and thats done now, you have no credibility left and even loons dont want you around anymore.

I hope you enjoyed our sparring sessions as much as I did, it was just a bit of light hearted relief for me, hope it was for you too.
By the way, I dont know why you would feel I was angry, that would mean that it actually meant anything to me.

If you hadnt been an arse when i first asked questions you may be still riding high on the freeman forums with Yozhik,lesactive, merlincove and all your boys, maybe you will be nicer to people in future, you never know who you're talking too.

sleep well Rob
hehehe

The reason I post the way I do is simply to get Menard to expose his own argument as stupid, which he does on a regular basis.
He has no argument, his whole theory is self debunking and its good for others watching him muck it up.
I couldn't really care less about Menard, its the people he damages that I have concerns for, if exposing him as a man with no method to his minions watching then its job done.
Whats the point of allowing him to post his sales pitch and just saying "it dosent work" and leaving it at that?
Others then may be tempted to follow his nonsense if its not challenged.

Which is it? Ego driven light hearted relief cause I did not answer your question, or to save the world from me?

Face it board, you are being conned by JB. And you simply refuse to see it even when right in front of your face. Likely you will even defend him now...

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Paul]

hahahaha I was waiting for you to say something like that. Thanks.

Of course you were, it means that you can make the same tired, silly claims again.

It also means that you can demonstrate your obsession with JB too; why else would you spend so much time on a board that doesn't matter saying things that aren't important to people you don't care about?

This is what you tell the board, when you are conning them....

How's Lance?

So which is iit JB? is it your ego that drove you because you did not get a question answered?

Curious that you should mention ego, we all know what JB said to you and you know we do. That means your ego is he only reason you refer to the same thing repeatedly.

Or to help people, and if the latter, why not mention it in the email?
One day the members of this forum may awaken to the fact you are conning them....

I don't recall JB asking for $800 for legal edvice that he's not allowed to give.

Don't worry though, most of the board members here are apparently so full of hate and anger they will simply refuse to see how you are conning THEM! Even when it is RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES!

That's right Rob, we hate you so much that we all go to the WFS board and shout juvenile taunts at you ad nauseam.

Once again compare folks:

Obsess much?

Thanks for the laughs.

Keep pretending that's the reason, why else would you repeatedly return to a place you insist hates and vilifies you only to eschew honest debate in favour of badgering one person?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Of course you were, it means that you can make the same tired, silly claims again.

It also means that you can demonstrate your obsession with JB too; why else would you spend so much time on a board that doesn't matter saying things that aren't important to people you don't care about?


How's Lance?


Curious that you should mention ego, we all know what JB said to you and you know we do. That means your ego is he only reason you refer to the same thing repeatedly.


I don't recall JB asking for $800 for legal edvice that he's not allowed to give.


That's right Rob, we hate you so much that we all go to the WFS board and shout juvenile taunts at you ad nauseam.


Obsess much?


Keep pretending that's the reason, why else would you repeatedly return to a place you insist hates and vilifies you only to eschew honest debate in favour of badgering one person?

Right on cue Paul, thanks!

I love how you claim a I am obsessed with a guy who has been cyber stalking me for two years. Yes, label me as the obsessed one... par for the course around here eh? Hey you mention Lance alot, over and over. Are YOU obsessed with him?

Hey if my words are responsible for Lances situation, why is it none of you are falling under my spell? Why is it you can't understand or accept personal responsibility? After all, if I am responsible for the actions of Lance, and the court, or anyone else merely cause I spoke to them two years ago, am I now responsible for your actions two years from now? Will you go do something and claim that you did it cause of the words I spoke to you? Do you know exactly what I said to Lance or have any proof that he followed my advice? Or that I even gave any? Thought not...


Why not ask JB if he obsesses over me due to me not answering his question, as he stated, or to save the world from me, as he stated? Oh wait, he is not obsessed right?

You a funny guy Paul, too bad you do not realize it.

 

[Paul]

Right on cue Paul, thanks!

Well, I'd hate to disappoint someone who obviously has so little to look forward to.

I love how you claim a I am obsessed with a guy who has been cyber stalking me for two years.

I think it's mainly because you keep returning to the JREF, goading JB, trying to claim he's stalking you, mostly ignoring other posters (perhaps you're infatuated with me too), doing the internet equivalent of pulling his pigtails and running away, refusing to engage in genuine debate, and generally living in you own tiny imaginary world.

Yes, label me as the obsessed one...

I most certainly do.

par for the course around here eh?

Given your obsession, I believe it is the consensus.

Hey you mention Lance alot, over and over.

Yes, how is Lance by the way?

Are YOU obsessed with him?

Merely concerned that some conman took his money for entirely faulty legal advise and now isn't even man enough to acknowledge the fact.

Hey if my words are responsible for Lances situation, why is it none of you are falling under my spell?

Because you pray on desperate or gullible people who may need real help but instead find lies, financial ruin and imprisonment.

Why is it you can't understand or accept personal responsibility?

Says the man who denies responsibility for Lance's predicament and won't even answer straight questions.

Do you know exactly what I said to Lance or have any proof that he followed my advice? Or that I even gave any? Thought not...

I see, if you don't get caught it's not illegal.

Oh wait, he is not obsessed right?

Well done.

You a funny guy Paul, too bad you do not realize it.

And you're not funny, clever, honest, honourable or responsible. Too bad for other people you do not realise it.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Well, good thing you only speak for yourself, eh?
Incidentally many consider me to be very funny, clever and witty. And those who know me know I am honest. You have never met me have you? Do you claim to know many people whom you have never met well enough to judge them? Nice trick that...

Also, I did not put Lance in jail. Why not speak to the people who did? If you feel he is in there unlawfully, talk to them.

And I do answer questions, unlike the people here. Let's try with you. Do you feel that mutual non-consent is required to avoid contract, as JB states? Or do you think that mutual consent is required to make a contract? I believe it is the latter, JB says that if I do not consent to his contract (his rules) he can ignore contract law (my rules).

Simple question, that no one here wishes to answer. I wonder why....

 

[Cocana The Second]

And I do answer questions, unlike the people here. Let's try with you. Do you feel that mutual non-consent is required to avoid contract, as JB states? Or do you think that mutual consent is required to make a contract? I believe it is the latter, JB says that if I do not consent to his contract (his rules) he can ignore contract law (my rules).

Simple question, that no one here wishes to answer. I wonder why....

Probably because it's a daft question that has nothing to do with what people here have tried to get to the bottom of.

Once again, statutes aren't contracts.

Now, back to Lance, do you deny selling him your freeman materials? Do you deny that he employed the guidance that you espouse?

And following up my previous questions, 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.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Probably because it's a daft question that has nothing to do with what people here have tried to get to the bottom of.

Once again, statutes aren't contracts.

Now, back to Lance, do you deny selling him your freeman materials? Do you deny that he employed the guidance that you espouse?

Daft? Nothing to do with it? Why do you once again try to avoid it? Someone claimed that the Freeman perspective was self-debunking, and claimed they could ignore contract law, if we choose to not consent to their contract. How is it not on point? Oh wait! You need to avoid it, so you now simply call it daft, and ignore it.

Okay since you are obsessed with Lance I will do my best to answer your daft question.
But then you will answer my non-daft question right?

I do not deny selling him a package, as I do not remember as it was two years ago. I may have.

I do deny that he employed the guidance I espouse.

Now one for you: IS HE AN ADULT AND RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS? OR AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS HE TOOK AS AN ADULT DUE TO WORDS I SPOKE TO HIM TWO YEARS BEFORE HE WENT TO COURT?

Seriously, do you claim I am responsible for his actions? Am I the one who put him in jail? Am I responsible for yours too? Do you feel he is there unlawfully or not? And if not, and I did not put him there, why blame me? And if he is there lawfully, then why blame me?


Here's one, do statutes require consent or not? Or will you label that as daft and simply ignore it?
Finally, is mutual non-consent required to avoid a contract, as JB states?

 

[ComfySlippers]

OR AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS HE TOOK AS AN ADULT DUE TO WORDS I SPOKE TO HIM TWO YEARS BEFORE HE WENT TO COURT?

Yes you are.

Thatcher had his first run-in with the law in Kamloops in 2007, which cost him four days in jail, she said. After that, he had a conversation with well-known freeman Robert Menard, who sold him an $800 document that indicated how he could fight the law more effectively.

Linky

 

[Paul]

Well, good thing you only speak for yourself, eh?

Are you implying my imputations are false?

Incidentally many consider me to be very funny, clever and witty.

Aww, was diddums hurt by the nasty man's response?

Incidentally, any chance you will be displaying any of your urbane comedy stylings here anytime soon?

And those who know me know I am honest.

Then why have you constantly displayed a staggeringly disingenuous nature for you entire time on the forums?

You have never met me have you?

Thankfully not.

Do you claim to know many people whom you have never met well enough to judge them? Nice trick that...

It depends on if they are bared from giving legal advice, preparing papers or acting as if they are a lawyer, if they sell lies to vulnerable people, deny responsibility for their actions and make false statements about their own behaviour.

Also, I did not put Lance in jail. Why not speak to the people who did? If you feel he is in there unlawfully, talk to them.

So it is your opinion that Lance is lawfully jailed after following your $800 legal advice?

And I do answer questions, unlike the people here

Excellent, from now on we will expect direct answer to genuine questions.

Let's try with you. Do you feel that mutual non-consent is required to avoid contract

Let's try not deliberately misrepresenting someone's position in order to avoid answering the question shall we, Mr honesty.

Simple question, that no one here wishes to answer. I wonder why....

Not a simple question, a dishonest misrepresentation and an attempt at deflecting attention from you refusal to honestly discuss the issue of consent.

 

[FreemanMenard]

AND (DRUM ROLLLLL) NOTHING BUT MORE AVOIDANCE!

I answered yours, you avoid mine, and expect me to continue answering.

Answer my questions, or do not expect me to answer yours, ok? That is fair I think...

 

[Cocana The Second]

Daft? Nothing to do with it? Why do you once again try to avoid it? Someone claimed that the Freeman perspective was self-debunking, and claimed they could ignore contract law, if we choose to not consent to their contract. How is it not on point? Oh wait! You need to avoid it, so you now simply call it daft, and ignore it.

I didn't avoid; I answered -

Once again, statutes aren't contracts.

Your question is daft and/or intended to avoid the issue, highlighted once again by you avoiding what I put to you -

And following up my previous questions, 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.

Now, to the rest of your post

I do not deny selling him a package, as I do not remember as it was two years ago. I may have.

Now we're getting somewhere. You don't deny it. Sources elsewhere suggest you did sell him the package.

I do deny that he employed the guidance I espouse.

On what basis? Everything suggests that he followed your advice to the letter.

Now one for you: IS HE AN ADULT AND RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS? OR AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS HE TOOK AS AN ADULT DUE TO WORDS I SPOKE TO HIM TWO YEARS BEFORE HE WENT TO COURT?

Seriously, do you claim I am responsible for his actions? Am I the one who put him in jail? Am I responsible for yours too? Do you feel he is there unlawfully or not? And if not, and I did not put him there, why blame me? And if he is there lawfully, then why blame me?

Because people who, like you, hold themselves out as being in a position of being able to give legal advice owe duties in the process. If a lawyer gives bad advice which is relied upon he is liable for the consequences. Whether the recipient should have known better or not is immaterial.

Yes, you are responsible.

Here's one, do statutes require consent or not? Or will you label that as daft and simply ignore it?

Already answered, repeatedly. No, statutes do not require your consent. They are not contracts.

Finally, is mutual non-consent required to avoid a contract, as JB states?

If neither party agrees to a contract, there is no contract. Arguably this is one means of "avoiding" a contract. There isn't one in the first place. It isn't daft at all but it has nothing to do with statutes, which are your baby. JB isn't daft, but your constant repeating of this question is, as described.

Once again - 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.

Looks to me like the answer is "no". For someone who sells advice claiming that you have the means to avoid all statutory liabilities, your inability to address this point is positively criminal.

I'll check in later to look at your latest efforts to avoid. One thing's for sure, you won't answer my question because you can't. You can't answer my question because you don't have the answers. By selling advice claiming that you do, you are acting dishonestly. Very well done JB for hounding you on this. I wish more people did.

PS - thank you ComfySlippers.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Yes you are.



Linky

Lots of hearsay there.

Was she even there or not? Do you believe everything you read in the papers, like a good citizen?

So if I am responsible for the actions others take, does that mean he is not competent to choose his own course of action?

Personal responsibility is a concept you are not familiar with I see. I accept responsibility for my actions, you seem to think I am responsible for his, and likely yours too.