Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims
- Thread starter jargon buster
- Start date
- Status
ComfySlippers
Banned
Why, by cashing in your "Birth Bond" of course!
When the con was invented it was worth US$600,000.
It's now worth $8million!
And to hide the secret funds The Government hides a super secret number on
Cash in your "Birth Bond" Rob.......
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Why, by cashing in your "Birth Bond" of course!
When the con was invented it was worth US$600,000.
It's now worth $8million!
And to hide the secret funds The Government hides a super secret number oneveryone's...some people's... a few birth certificates,all over the world... in some towns. Using cunning and guile they hide this secret number on the back of the bc, and only internet warriors know about this.
Cash in your "Birth Bond" Rob.......
Tell us all Rob,I want my money.
ComfySlippers
Banned
But you can't owe money, as debt is created out of nothing by the evil government, the evil banks, the corrupt police, Dixons, Janice Joplin and Tesco.
Did you and the RBS sign a contract?
Take a look at the thousands of people who have followed Redemption/Sovereign/Freeman philosophies who have all had their debts iliminated in Courts of Law over the last 40 years!
I just turned on the USA - Belgium game and some kids were holding a USA flag that had gold fringe. I didn't expect this game to be played under the Maritime Laws of the Game.
I think that means that you have to have both the second-to-last pirate AND his parrot between you and the goal to prevent being ruled offside.
I think that means that you have to have both the second-to-last pirate AND his parrot between you and the goal to prevent being ruled offside.
Last edited:
ComfySlippers
Banned
Would that be the super secret letter reffered to in his many postings of his letter to CRA?
The letter he claims gives him recognition as a freeman on the land and, therefore, not liable to pay taxes?
The letter mentioned in this thread where, yet again, he threatens people with violence?
The letter he has now lost and refuses to show?
The letter which would, again, offer proof of his ridiculous claims?
Last edited:
ComfySlippers
Banned
Also, in July 2010 Menard "estimated" that he would have another 20,000 more members of his pretend police force within several months.
Update please Rob, especially since that would net you $1 out of the estimated $3 per cost of each officer, ie $20,000 into your pocket. How's that silly scam going?
....Rhetorical btw.
Update please Rob, especially since that would net you $1 out of the estimated $3 per cost of each officer, ie $20,000 into your pocket. How's that silly scam going?
....Rhetorical btw.
Last edited:
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Holy crap, did he really say that? Did he really say he'd have a police force that would be comparable to the RCMP in size?
And note, that number includes
ComfySlippers
Banned
A deluded paranoid person's dream / scam
ETA: That wasn't the exact thread I was looking for, but is entertaining none the less.
ETA: That wasn't the exact thread I was looking for, but is entertaining none the less.
Last edited:
Stacey Grove
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,041
Rob, you posted this on Icke's last December.
It might shut all of us up.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059473158&postcount=15
Have you got that court ruling?
It might shut all of us up.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059473158&postcount=15
Last edited:
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
I think he's gone for good guys, it was the last buzz of a dying fly, he has long since disappeared from the freeman forums, he just came here to try and get one last ego boost before he gives it up for good, he has nothing left now.
He could still make money on the comedy circuit by doing his stuff with a straight face though.
He is the best example of a case of "Dunning Kruger" you will ever come across or he's deliberately misleading people,or both, the choice is yours.
PS Comfy Slippers, thanks for the thread, I have fond memories of Steven1
He could still make money on the comedy circuit by doing his stuff with a straight face though.
He is the best example of a case of "Dunning Kruger" you will ever come across or he's deliberately misleading people,or both, the choice is yours.
PS Comfy Slippers, thanks for the thread, I have fond memories of Steven1
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Holy crap, did he really say that? Did he really say he'd have a police force that would be comparable to the RCMP in sizehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police#Personnel?
And note, that number includes
Yep:
Thanks! I just found out last night that a fair amount of financing has been pledged which will allow us to hire 20,000 peace officers in the next few months. Of course, I only pay them ONE DOLLAR and there are other expenses, so I figure I can hire two peace officers for $3.
ComfySlippers
Banned
If we all chip in I'm sure we could raise $800 to get a response. 
Lance is excused from "making a donation" of course.
Lance is excused from "making a donation" of course.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
I see that you folks are still at it! Having fun with your Weetabix?
Me not posting you assume is due to your amazing arguments and my inability to address them. It simply could not be due to me having a life and far better things to do, and not caring about a vapid and banal forum. No, it must be because your arguments sent me running.
I also see you are now trying to change the rules on me alone, while not embracing them yourself. If this was baseball, you would be saying I get one swing, and it has to be a home run, or I lose, while you all get to swing and miss all day. Of course none of you see the huge problem with this, as far as fairness and equality goes, do you?
I also see your childish antics are still being used to hide a lack of wit, and you seem to think that endless sarcasm and insults are a suitable substitute for rational and reasonable argument. There are what, over 50 posts of you guys patting each other on the back, for trying to change the rules, and for thinking that I was frustrated instead of simply too busy. And you still apparently are thinking that the truth will be decided by the exchanges on this particular forum.
This forum is completely irrelevant to the truth, and seeks to avoid it with insulting and derisive comments. But you folks seem to think that what happens on this forum, will decide what happens elsewhere. So you know, most people laugh at this forum, and consider it to be populated by the least intelligent of people, who by acting like a herd and blinded by a clique mindset, can confidently defend their stupidity. Surrounding yourself with people who believe the same idiocy as yourself does not mean you are all right. Here is a dissertation on what is happening with you folks.
http://www.enformy.com/$politic.html
Crickets, and tumble weeds does not mean you have won anything. But it does show your mindset, and inability to imagine any other reason. Like me having a life and far better things to do then to argue with those who eschew logic, reason and rational thought.
I also see you have placed upon me a challenge you refuse to accept yourselves. Only a court ruling will be acceptable, but when it comes to the people in the government having power to govern, you simply accept it as true, without asking them for any court rulings supporting their right to govern without consent. That you accept blindly, and do not ask for proof. But is not their claim the larger one and the originating one? Should they not be faced with the obligation to provide the same level of proof? Have you ever asked any of them to do so, or do you simply ignorantly accept their claims without question?
You bask in the belief that I am lying about having certain documents, and try claiming I said I lost them which I never claimed. If you go traveling, do you bring ALL your papers, books, and documents with you? This is your logic at work: I say I do not have a document with me, cause I have been traveling and did not bring everything I own with me. You claim to not believe that I would not travel without my entire library, one that takes up an entire wall in my apartment, or without all the boxes of documents in my storage area. And now you claim that because I did not, it does not exist. See how idiotic that is?
So to answer no I do not have a document with me that establishes my beliefs are supported by a court, and that consent is required to govern another.
However there is a bunch of you and only one of me, and unlike you all I am not at my own home, with all my stuff, and none of you have a document proving that a court has ruled on this issue in your favour do you? And since yours is the originating claim, (the right to govern without consent) the onus is actually on you to prove that a court was asked this specific question, and ruled in favour of governing without consent.
So now you all have to accept the same standards you tried to place upon me. OF course I know none of you are mature enough to actually do so.
Only a court ruling will suffice.
It must be specific to this issue, not just some judge looking at another issue and doing so without consent to adjudicate as evidence that it can be done, for that is a big assumption on your part, and the judge may be acting on the belief that he has consent and is not the standard you have attempted to place upon me.
And there are ALL of you and you are in your own homes, with your documents easily accessible. You should have no problem showing a court ruling where they state that consent of the governed is not required to govern.
Now hop to it.
I bet what you will do however is continue with your immature sarcastic comments, or will celebrate that I did not meet your standard, yet will not try to meet it yourself. I also predict that me being away for the next two or three days will be used to imply that I am scared, or you have won, or there will be more cricket and tumbleweed posts, seeking to imply that I have bailed, instead of simply being to busy to worry about the beliefs of the members of this forum. A forum that most people simply laugh at and consider to be populated by brain dead statists.
Have fun kids. Continue patting yourself on the back and claiming victory. According to some, FMOTL was ‘dead in the water’ a year ago. But still you are trying to disrespect and insult those who hold these beliefs, for you cannot logically or reasonably discuss them, have never been able to defeat them, and you have in the last two days proved that quite obviously. Your posts do far more to undermine any respect others may have for you and this forum than anything I could post.
Keep throwing your poo, little monkeys, it’s only getting all over you.
I will be back in two days or so, and look forward to seeing evidence that a court has ruled in favour of your beliefs, that consent of the governed is not required to govern, here in this common law jurisdiction.
Please do not say this is not fair, as it is the standard you tried to place on me, you outnumber me, and none of you have anything better to do, thus allowing you to spend so much time here.
Me not posting you assume is due to your amazing arguments and my inability to address them. It simply could not be due to me having a life and far better things to do, and not caring about a vapid and banal forum. No, it must be because your arguments sent me running.
I also see you are now trying to change the rules on me alone, while not embracing them yourself. If this was baseball, you would be saying I get one swing, and it has to be a home run, or I lose, while you all get to swing and miss all day. Of course none of you see the huge problem with this, as far as fairness and equality goes, do you?
I also see your childish antics are still being used to hide a lack of wit, and you seem to think that endless sarcasm and insults are a suitable substitute for rational and reasonable argument. There are what, over 50 posts of you guys patting each other on the back, for trying to change the rules, and for thinking that I was frustrated instead of simply too busy. And you still apparently are thinking that the truth will be decided by the exchanges on this particular forum.
This forum is completely irrelevant to the truth, and seeks to avoid it with insulting and derisive comments. But you folks seem to think that what happens on this forum, will decide what happens elsewhere. So you know, most people laugh at this forum, and consider it to be populated by the least intelligent of people, who by acting like a herd and blinded by a clique mindset, can confidently defend their stupidity. Surrounding yourself with people who believe the same idiocy as yourself does not mean you are all right. Here is a dissertation on what is happening with you folks.
http://www.enformy.com/$politic.html
Crickets, and tumble weeds does not mean you have won anything. But it does show your mindset, and inability to imagine any other reason. Like me having a life and far better things to do then to argue with those who eschew logic, reason and rational thought.
I also see you have placed upon me a challenge you refuse to accept yourselves. Only a court ruling will be acceptable, but when it comes to the people in the government having power to govern, you simply accept it as true, without asking them for any court rulings supporting their right to govern without consent. That you accept blindly, and do not ask for proof. But is not their claim the larger one and the originating one? Should they not be faced with the obligation to provide the same level of proof? Have you ever asked any of them to do so, or do you simply ignorantly accept their claims without question?
You bask in the belief that I am lying about having certain documents, and try claiming I said I lost them which I never claimed. If you go traveling, do you bring ALL your papers, books, and documents with you? This is your logic at work: I say I do not have a document with me, cause I have been traveling and did not bring everything I own with me. You claim to not believe that I would not travel without my entire library, one that takes up an entire wall in my apartment, or without all the boxes of documents in my storage area. And now you claim that because I did not, it does not exist. See how idiotic that is?
So to answer no I do not have a document with me that establishes my beliefs are supported by a court, and that consent is required to govern another.
However there is a bunch of you and only one of me, and unlike you all I am not at my own home, with all my stuff, and none of you have a document proving that a court has ruled on this issue in your favour do you? And since yours is the originating claim, (the right to govern without consent) the onus is actually on you to prove that a court was asked this specific question, and ruled in favour of governing without consent.
So now you all have to accept the same standards you tried to place upon me. OF course I know none of you are mature enough to actually do so.
Only a court ruling will suffice.
It must be specific to this issue, not just some judge looking at another issue and doing so without consent to adjudicate as evidence that it can be done, for that is a big assumption on your part, and the judge may be acting on the belief that he has consent and is not the standard you have attempted to place upon me.
And there are ALL of you and you are in your own homes, with your documents easily accessible. You should have no problem showing a court ruling where they state that consent of the governed is not required to govern.
Now hop to it.
I bet what you will do however is continue with your immature sarcastic comments, or will celebrate that I did not meet your standard, yet will not try to meet it yourself. I also predict that me being away for the next two or three days will be used to imply that I am scared, or you have won, or there will be more cricket and tumbleweed posts, seeking to imply that I have bailed, instead of simply being to busy to worry about the beliefs of the members of this forum. A forum that most people simply laugh at and consider to be populated by brain dead statists.
Have fun kids. Continue patting yourself on the back and claiming victory. According to some, FMOTL was ‘dead in the water’ a year ago. But still you are trying to disrespect and insult those who hold these beliefs, for you cannot logically or reasonably discuss them, have never been able to defeat them, and you have in the last two days proved that quite obviously. Your posts do far more to undermine any respect others may have for you and this forum than anything I could post.
Keep throwing your poo, little monkeys, it’s only getting all over you.
I will be back in two days or so, and look forward to seeing evidence that a court has ruled in favour of your beliefs, that consent of the governed is not required to govern, here in this common law jurisdiction.
Please do not say this is not fair, as it is the standard you tried to place on me, you outnumber me, and none of you have anything better to do, thus allowing you to spend so much time here.
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
Is it just me or did I saw loads of nothing?
Or did I miss something in that TL?
Or did I miss something in that TL?
- Status