Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rob, a simple question:
Have you ever personally tested your theory that you are not bound by statute law in a court?
 
I see Rob's been and gone again but he conveniently ignored my last post. I was looking forward to his thoughts on dietary advice too. Oh well maybe next time.....
 
I want to see his land for sale, I don't believe for a minute he ever had any.
Another pie in the sky pipe dream, nothing more nothing less.
 
FreemanMenard said:
LAST TIME> I do not claim to be above the law of Canada. Never have. I claim the p[eople in the Government are not above the law, and as such need our consent to govern. It is simple, and you ALWAYS misrepresent it as claiming I am above the law. Then you demand I prove what YOU ARE CLAIMING. And anyone reading this thread will see THAT.

I claim the people in the government have been incapable of providing evidence to the contrary.

So how about YOU PROVE YOU CAN GOVERN ME WITHOUT MY CONSENT.
Failure means you can't.

Get to it.

:D
Click to expand...


Rob, I've just checked your post above and, given that you again seem to have missed one of my earlier posts, I'm beginning to think that you have me on ignore. Wonder why.

To refresh once again - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7533235&postcount=2082:

Now, once again back to the core issue, on what basis do you claim that you are not bound by statutory law? What is your magic wand that allows you to sidestep any law you don't agree with? Given that you're making money out of this teaching, you must have the answer if you're acting honestly. What is it?

And please don't come out with the same old rhetoric about governing and consent. Remember the following:

1. Democracy does not require unanimity for the formation of a government, so that's your 'governing argument' dead in the water right there.
2. Statutes are not automatically repealed when governments change. They remain on the statute books as law until they are repealed. Statutes and government are separate. Whether you vote for a government or not, statutes remain right where they are. Again, consent to be governed is irrelevant.
3. Statutes are not contracts, so contract arguments are rubbish and pointless too.
4. Equality of men - yeah, so what? All are equal before the law. Guess what - statutes are part of the law.

So, once again, how have you cracked it? How is that that you claim to be free of all statutory law?

As I mentioned yesterday, credit to you for avoiding the question for years now. However, don't mistake that as suggesting that you make yourself look credible in the process. By evading all the time you are revealing your true colours and demonstrating that your theories are nothing more than hot and smelly air.

Lets see if you give a straight answer this time. I know you won't but it's always interesting to watch each attempt at dodging.
Click to expand...

Maybe I got it right in my last paragraph above.

I posted up another query for you today as well - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7540363&postcount=2223:

He's already told us his magical secret, JB: Rob isn't bound by statutes because he says they're not law! See his post 2115:


Quote:
Statutes are not law. They are statutes.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

There you go folks, save yourself $800 and remember that, according to Rob Menard, a freeman is freed of all statutory law simply by stating that it's not law.

My goodness, with 'advice' like that it's amazing that anyone has ever been taken in by the man.







PS - Rob, I was watching BBC Breakfast News this morning and looking at an initiative to include the calorific count on fast food menus. I was shocked at the calorific value of a Big Mac Meal, even though I don't eat that rubbish. However, would those that do benefit from equivalent advice in the dietary field? I'm wondering if you think that relabelling a Big Mac as, say, a Big Carrot, means that it loses its calorific value? Your thoughts please.

Might be an idea for you to pedal this one next as it looks like your freeman stuff is blown out of the water. Diets are big business as well of course.
Click to expand...


Again ignored.

Now, let me get this straight. Only a short time ago you confirmed that it all boils down to statutes not being law because Rob says so and therefore he isn't bound by them, now you're back to the "consent to be governed" point. Where exactly do you stand? Also - and let's not forget this important point - if you're selling honest, legitimate, correct, effective advice, where is your proof?

How hard can it be for you to deal with these points once and for all?
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
I claim the people in the Government are not above the law...
Click to expand...

Correct, with the possible exception of HM Queen Elisabeth, for different reasons.

and as such need our consent to govern.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They do not need your individual consent to govern. This is a fantasy on your part.

It is simple, and you ALWAYS misrepresent it as claiming I am above the law.
Click to expand...

You have said that you pick and choose which laws you obey, and tried to claim that Acts of Parliament are not the law. Doesn't seem to me like he's misrepresenting anything you say.

And anyone reading this thread will see THAT.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I think it's fairly obvious that your arguments lack substance.

So how about YOU PROVE YOU CAN GOVERN ME WITHOUT MY CONSENT.
Click to expand...

BC seems to have done a perfectly good job of governing you to the point of legally preventing you from purporting to be a lawyer or provide legal advice. Did you provide your consent for that?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Will logic and reason be sufficient? Or do you abandon your ability to use those in favour of someone else's opinion after they have employed the same tools and heard the argument?

You know, will you demand that some judge has heard this argument first, and agreed with it, because you are incapable of using your own faculties?
Click to expand...

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the difference between law and philosophy? We are not talking about the merits of your logic and reason. We are talking about whether a judge - someone with the actual power to make these kinds of changes - has ever agreed with it. That's it. Don't reply with more rhetoric about how great your logic and reason is.
 
It appears that Menard doesnt really have a rational argument at all as he seems to have talked himself up his own backside.

I am now done with his roundabout circular debates that actually deliver nothing.
The only thing I want now is:
1. Evidence of his ability to ignore statute law with a documented court case where the courts decision was that as a freeman on the land he was exempt.

Thats it Rob, nothing else will do.
 
Architect said:
BC seems to have done a perfectly good job of governing you to the point of legally preventing you from purporting to be a lawyer or provide legal advice. Did you provide your consent for that?
Click to expand...

That's a good point, does that ruling stand Rob and if so, why?

If that ruling does stand, the only way I would believe your assertion that you are exempt from any laws you wish is if you started openly providing legal advice and charging for it.

Another way I would believe you is if you made a number of videos where you flaunted your Freeman status in front of verifiable police officers, eg. you pull up next to some cops whilst driving your van, jumped out and said something like,

"Hi, I'm Rob Menard I haven't got a Driving Licence or any official paper work for this vehicle but I'm going to get in it and drive away and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because <insert Rob's magic words here, I've no idea what they are because Freemen don't seem to be big on sharing and I can't be bothered to 'do my own research'>".
 
Last edited:
That's a good point, does that ruling stand Rob and if so, why?
Click to expand...
We have been down that road, he denies its him. :rolleyes:

If he had anything at all he could simply prove it in court, get a judgement and then sell his remedy as legal advice.
A simple flow chart with the magic words and hey presto, no more obeying the law.
 
Last edited:
Original .pdf

He doesn't deny it's him. He just word-plays and denies being "the respondent".

ETA: I'm guessing "the respondent" is a "legal fiction" or some such nonsense ;P
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
We have been down that road, he denies its him. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Do you mean he denies the initial judgement was against him? So, he is able to offer legal advice openly and for money? Just doing so would put paid to that rumour, how about it Rob?

The more I think about it Rob, if what you claim is true you should be able to kill off this thread and remove all doubt about the validity of the Freeman theory in one post.

It's easy, you claim to be able to do something most people believe is impossible. Just show them how it's done. Forget philosophical musings such as 'How can one man govern another..yadda yadda yadda", just tell us exactly and concisely how you do it, what you say and do to avoid being subject to statute law. Then you could bask in our adoration, that must be better than people insinuating your a liar and a conman? Imagine JB's face when the penny drops and he realises you were right all along.

Rob, you have the power to do this and do it in one post. C'mon Rob, I'm rooting for you. :cheerleader2
 
Last edited:
You can smirk all you want but after Rob's next post your going to be laughing on the other side of your face.
Click to expand...
I will be laughing on this side of my face, I will withdraw my consent and live of everyone else....until everyone else does it of course.
 
deeper said:
Do you mean he denies the initial judgement was against him? So, he is able to offer legal advice openly and for money? Just doing so would put paid to that rumour, how about it Rob?

The more I think about it Rob, if what you claim is true you should be able to kill off this thread and remove all doubt about the validity of the Freeman theory in one post.

It's easy, you claim to be able to do something most people believe is impossible. Just show them how it's done. Forget philosophical musings such as 'How can one man govern another..yadda yadda yadda", just tell us exactly and concisely how you do it, what you say and do to avoid being subject to statute law. Then you could bask in our adoration, that must be better than people insinuating your a liar and a conman? Imagine JB's face when the penny drops and he realises you were right all along.

Rob, you have the power to do this and do it in one post. C'mon Rob, I'm rooting for you. :cheerleader2
Click to expand...

he won't do it or free.
for 800 bucks, menard will spill all.:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom