Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[FreemanMenard]

So now you do consent to statute law?

I consent to some when it suits my purposes and does not offend my morals or conscience.
I reject others when they do not.

But you need to see the world in black and white, don't you?


Do you follow statutes even if they go directly against your morals?

(bear in mind I know you have no problem acting immorally and dishonorably, you have admitted that repeatedly.)

 

[FreemanMenard]

Sorry, that does not appear to be in the official language of the forum and is thus void, and nonsense.


If you're having trouble, I can explain it again.

It is a fact that you constantly claim, through statements made here, that you are above the laws of Canada.

It seems quite reasonable to ask a person claiming such a thing to offer some evidence in support, especially a person who claims he answers questions and is known among his friends for his honesty.

No. I have never claimed to be above the law.

That is your inability to understand, and your need to misrepresent my position, so you can try to force me to defend your straw man argument.

Do you claim the people in the government are above the law, or will you agree they are not?

 

[D'rok]

Thank you for agreeing that I am not automatically subject to your statutes, and that I, just like the people in the government, am bound by the law, statutes are not law, and and since we are equal, no one can LAWFULLY govern me without my consent, because statutes are not 'law'.


I'm glad that's settled.

Remember when I asked for a citation for your definition of statutes? Remember how badly that failed and how the source you linked to explicitly said statutes are law? That was good times.

So, you are not above the laws of Canada because the laws of Canada are not laws because you made up a definition of law that excludes the laws of Canada.

*********** awesome. Circle-jerk reasoning at its best.

Some evidence soon please?

 

[jargon buster]

I consent to some when it suits my purposes and does not offend my morals or conscience.

How can you consent to something that is sourced from something you do not acknowledge exists.

You say there is no responsible government then follow its rules????

Now Im confused

Oh hang on, its rules you agree with that are OK.

Right with you now.

 

[uk_dave]

Pretty wide open definition isn't it?

Not really, because the section you highlight includes police and bailiffs, which are precise descriptions of jobs fulfilled by people employed by those in authority(State, county, whatever...they are those empowered by the people to employ people to carry out those tasks. It describes those people and "... other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,".

Employed by the authorities, not you!! Learn to read for comprehension.

Do you see what you do? You cherry pick from a paragraph and then apply a completely distorted interpretation on your quote because you remove the context.

Do you know what context is?

 

[D'rok]

are you going to stundie him Drok or am I?

He's all yours.

 

[Paul]

I consent to some when it suits my purposes and does not offend my morals or conscience.

Well, that's disturbing, given the complete lack of responsibility, restriction and rectitude you usually argue for.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I consent to some when it suits my purposes and does not offend my morals or conscience.
I reject others when they do not.

What do your morals and conscience say about Lance or anyone else you've conned into parting with money for pretend legal advice?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Not really, because the section you highlight includes police and bailiffs, which are precise descriptions of jobs fulfilled by people employed by those in authority(State, county, whatever...they are those empowered by the people to employ people to carry out those tasks. It describes those people and "... other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,".

Employed by the authorities, not you!! Learn to read for comprehension.

Do you see what you do? You cherry pick from a paragraph and then apply a completely distorted interpretation on your quote because you remove the context.

Do you know what context is?

So you have to read words into it, which are not there, in order to make your point?

Where does it say that only certain people can be hired, or that only certain people can do the hiring?

Oh wait, it doesn't.

Glad we settled that!

 

[Cocana The Second]

Remember when I asked for a citation for your definition of statutes? Remember how badly that failed and how the source you linked to explicitly said statutes are law? That was good times.

So, you are not above the laws of Canada because the laws of Canada are not laws because you made up a definition of law that excludes the laws of Canada.

*********** awesome. Circle-jerk reasoning at its best.

Some evidence soon please?

Couldn't agree more.

He's stundied himself, shot himself, discredited himself, torn himself to pieces, however you wish to term it.

It all boils down to Rob saying that if he claims statutes aren't law, except when he wants them to be, then that's all there is to it and he's immune from statutes. Hilarious!

I hope his freeman followers (to the extent that there are any left) are tracking this thread.

To think that he charges for guidance like that. Criminal, truly criminal.

 

[Paul]

No. I have never claimed to be above the law.

Yes you have, repeatedly and several times today.

That is your inability to understand, and your need to misrepresent my position, so you can try to force me to defend your straw man argument.

It is not a straw man argument for several reasons: you repeatedly make statements which lead to the inevitable conclusion that you think you are above the laws of Canada and you are not being attacked for the position, merely asked to provide evidence of it's validity. Absent evidence for it's validity, your position is de facto false.

Do you claim the people in the government are above the law, or will you agree they are not?

No one is above the law, so the law applies to everyone. Your inability to understand what the law means and how it is applied is one of the problems.

 

[D'rok]

So you have to read words into it, which are not there, in order to make your point?

Where does it say that only certain people can be hired, or that only certain people can do the hiring?

Oh wait, it doesn't.

Glad we settled that!

Let's have a little lesson in statutory interpretation. This is the principle that the Supreme Court has ruled to apply to all statutes in Canada:

"Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament."

I'm interested to see how your pretend police force fits in with the scheme and object of the Criminal Code and the intention of Parliament. We already know you can't read for context, so let's give you a pass on that aspect. (BTW: uk_dave has demonstrated that he can read for context)

 

[D'rok]

Also...

See my next post for a better example. What does "includes" mean to you there? What does "means" mean to you there?

ETA:

“micro-organism” means a microscopic organism that is
(a) classified in the Bacteria, the Archaea, the Protista, which includes protozoa and algae, or the Fungi, which includes yeasts;
(b) a virus, virus-like particle or sub-viral particle;
(c) a cultured cell of an organism not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), other than a cell used to propagate the organism; or
(d) any culture other than a pure culture. (micro-organisme)

 

[D'rok]

Well, this has been fun, but I have a ton of work to complete today before the long weekend. Regretfully, I really have to go or I'll end up staying late at the office tonight.

Enjoy!

 

[JLord]

statutes are not law, and and since we are equal, no one can LAWFULLY govern me without my consent, because statutes are not 'law'.

I have explained how you can be governed without your consent here.

Someone accuses you of breaking some rule in a statute and reports this to police. Police lay a charge without your consent and you are given a court date. If you don't show up a warrant will go out for your arrest and when you next encounter the police they will take you away at gunpoint without your consent. They will hold you in jail against your will until you first court appearance where you will be asked to enter a plea. If you do not enter a plea then a plea of not guilty will be enter and a trial date scheduled. You will be forcibly held until your trial date and brought at gunpoint to your trial where the court will hear the evidence against you and if you are found guilty then you will be given a punishment. This punishment again will be forced upon you without your consent.

There are numerous examples of this happening to people who take substantially the same position you do. For example here is an example of someone who didn't consent to the original notice to appear, was arrested for failing to appear and brought to court at force without their consent. Then they refused to enter a plea and a plea of not guilty was entered for them without their consent. A trial was held without consent and despite making the same kind of objections that you do (that the court has no jurisdiction over people without consent). The person was found guilty and thrown in jail against their will and without consent. This was all done by force.

Whether this conflicts with you political ideals or your notion of equality is irrelevant. This is simply what happens when people take the position that you do. It is repeated and predictable and we know of no instance where these same sort of results did not occur. This is how the de facto government of Canada through their de facto court can and does govern people without their consent.

I await your response.

 

[Jaynbob42]

Sheesh round and round and round. Unbelievable how incapable you are at understanding and how incredibly desperate you folks are.
HE CONSENTED by agreeing with Google when he opened the account.

So the human being, jargon of the family buster consented did he?

I have just been reading the thread out of personal interest but is it true that you, freemanmenard, charge money for advice on this? If people still lose and get sent to prison after following your advice, do they get their money back or is it still a win in your eyes despite a negative outcome through a court?

I may just be a man on the street but enquiring minds wanna know.
It all seems to be a matter of playing on words and praying on people who are unable to understand it all.

 

[ComfySlippers]

If people still lose and get sent to prison after following your advice, do they get their money back or is it still a win in your eyes despite a negative outcome through a court?

Of course they don't get their money back.

When they inevitably lose Menard simply says things such as "I didn't make him listen to me", or "I didn't make him follow my advice", or "Can he not make his own decisions?", or "He didn't do it right" or "I can not remember receiving the $800"

ETA: And this is a man who, in this very thread, claims to be honest and to have morals and a conscience.

 

[Bishop]

I can't really take this thread seriously, because Menard isn't really a freeman at all. He knows damn well that none of this stuff works. He's only in it to fleece the poor and desperate out of the little money that they have. It would be better if there was a genuine freeman here.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I can't really take this thread seriously, because Menard isn't really a freeman at all. He knows damn well that none of this stuff works. He's only in it to fleece the poor and desperate out of the little money that they have. It would be better if there was a genuine freeman here.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as "a genuine freeman".

FOTL-Waffle is just that.... Waffle.

I suspect Menard actually does believe his own bs, (whilst gaining financially from it). He has wasted years of his life trying to convince himself that the ebil gubberment is out to get him.... a trait displayed by pretty much every follower of this nonsense as they try to blame others for their own mistakes.

It's a scam designed to attract people of low intelligence who are in financial / legal trouble. Pure and simple..... just like Menard, except for the pure bit.

ETA: Menard, during his "thousands of hours of research" after falling foul of the law, fell for the bs.
I'm convinced that, unlike other conmen, he does believe his own bs.

 

[Architect]

Okay let's assume it's true.
Then it is not understandable to the average untrained human, and thus should be void for that reason alone.

Thanks!

Carefully strip back rybats to opening complete, needle as required, and form new slapping complete with 3 no. Robeslee type c units tightly packed to soffit of adjacent material using feathers or pinnings. Repoint masonry faces as required using a St. Astier NHL 3.5 1:3 mix, tamping and filling hungry joints, taking care to ensure that any exposed cores are parged in a suitable mix. Slaister exposed faces. Prick-up wall faces as required and apply splatterdash coat in 1:3 St. Astier NHL2, scratch coat nom. 15mm thick, straightening coat nom 10mm, final coat nom. 3mm in a non hydraulic lime putty mix.

Not in everyday English and yet (a) still English, (b) perfectly intelligible to those who work in this sector of the construction industry. And yet, by your reasoning, it technical language should be avoided.

How peculiar.