• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Specific claim: Security of the Person means a financial intstrument created by the government tied to each individual and represented by their birth certificate that can be accessed by the individual.

Aside from the obvious prima facie idiocy of this claim and its clear provenance in Elvick's redemption scam, here is evidence that the claim is false:

qPPBe.jpg


The ball is squarely in your court. Provide evidence for your con.
 
Is it just me or did I saw loads of nothing?
Or did I miss something in that TL?
Well there is this:

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

Which is an admission that he has been lying repeatedly for years. A little honesty at last.
 
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?

Every ruling by a court is evidence of their right to govern.
 
Well there is this:



Which is an admission that he has been lying repeatedly for years. A little honesty at last.

:eye-popping Are you insane? Or do you simply read into my words that which you choose? I have not been lying for years and certainly did not admit to it. I claimed I do not have documents with me. How is that admitting to lying?

You guys are absolutely unbelievable.

I take it by your lack of documentation, you admit to being wrong your entire life, and have never seen a court judgment allowing one party to govern another without consent. Thank you for YOUR admission.

Sheesh.. you guys are now resorting to outright making things up about what I say...
 
Sheesh.. you guys are now resorting to outright making things up about what I say...

Rob, its because you dont actually say anything (worthwhile)
By the way I just skim read your post, was there any proof/evidence in there?
 
:eye-popping Are you insane? Or do you simply read into my words that which you choose? I have not been lying for years and certainly did not admit to it. I claimed I do not have documents with me. How is that admitting to lying?

You guys are absolutely unbelievable.

I take it by your lack of documentation, you admit to being wrong your entire life, and have never seen a court judgment allowing one party to govern another without consent. Thank you for YOUR admission.

Sheesh.. you guys are now resorting to outright making things up about what I say...

Links are in this very thread.

Now address the substance here:

Specific claim: Security of the Person means a financial intstrument created by the government tied to each individual and represented by their birth certificate that can be accessed by the individual.

Aside from the obvious prima facie idiocy of this claim and its clear provenance in Elvick's redemption scam, here is evidence that the claim is false:

http://i.imgur.com/qPPBe.jpg

The ball is squarely in your court. Provide evidence for your con.
 
Specific claim: Security of the Person means a financial intstrument created by the government tied to each individual and represented by their birth certificate that can be accessed by the individual.

Aside from the obvious prima facie idiocy of this claim and its clear provenance in Elvick's redemption scam, here is evidence that the claim is false:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/qPPBe.jpg[/qimg]

The ball is squarely in your court. Provide evidence for your con.

So to do so I would have to accept it is a con, and by providng evidence you get to claim I admitted it was a con?
This is how your mind works:
I say I prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry.
You reply: He has admitted he has never eaten cake!


Was that paper a result of a court action? NO?

Then it does not meet the standard you all tried to place on me. And if you read it carefully, you find more ambiguity than anything else. I could chew it up and show you how they are avoiding answering completely, but you would be incapable of understanding.

So do you claim that was a result of a court action? Or not? If not does it meet the standard you all tried to impose on me or not?
 
So to do so I would have to accept it is a con, and by providng evidence you get to claim I admitted it was a con?
This is how your mind works:
I say I prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry.
You reply: He has admitted he has never eaten cake!


Was that paper a result of a court action? NO?

Then it does not meet the standard you all tried to place on me. And if you read it carefully, you find more ambiguity than anything else. I could chew it up and show you how they are avoiding answering completely, but you would be incapable of understanding.

So do you claim that was a result of a court action? Or not? If not does it meet the standard you all tried to impose on me or not?
You can read all about what the courts have to say about security of the person here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-7.html#_Toc68429135

None of it supports your con. All of it supports reality.

Provide evidence for your con.
 
Last edited:
Rob, its because you dont actually say anything (worthwhile)
By the way I just skim read your post, was there any proof/evidence in there?

And there is the evidence of a very lazy thinking process, and is likely the reason you have never been able to grasp these simple concepts so many others see as self evident truth.

You want proof, nay even demand it, and yet if presented, will not put any energy into weighing it.

I have never seen such trite and vapid banality.

Have fun guys. I have lots to do today, that does not involve trying to communicate with those who refuse to do so and then act proud for their inability.

I will check back in a couple of days to see how you have all made your teachers proud of your ability to denigrate and deride abandoning all logic and reasoning, and to see that you have not been able to find any court order giving the people in the government the right to govern without consent. I will also I imagine see more attacks upon me, as a means of trying to avoid the fact that you can't produce such a thing. Probably you will spend a lot of time congratulating each other on your sarcastic quips and comments, and a couple of posts about how me not being on this forum is clearly evidence of me simply not having anything to say, with no regard to having things to do away from the computer.

You guys are sad and I feel very sorry for you.
 
However there is a bunch of you and only one of me,
If you spoke the truth and provided evidence then what difference does the odds make.

I managed to hold my own on your WFS all on my little loansome (until you banned me that is ;))
 
And not a shred of evidence was provided in this latest visit. How disappointing.
 
And there is the evidence of a very lazy thinking process, and is likely the reason you have never been able to grasp these simple concepts so many others see as self evident truth.
Simple I grant you, many others seeing it as truth ,nah..its just you Rob
You want proof, nay even demand it, and yet if presented, will not put any energy into weighing it.
When you present some I will weigh it.
 
And not a shred of evidence was provided in this latest visit. How disappointing.

Its expectation that leads to disappointment, Im not disappointed because I didnt expect anything. :)
 
And if you read it carefully, you find more ambiguity than anything else. I could chew it up and show you how they are avoiding answering completely

"Canada is not a corporation with share capital and at no time has security ever been created by the Government of Canada in respect of individuals born in Canada. "

I guess we can add "ambiguity" to the list of words that Menard has redefined for his own purposes.
 
Last edited:
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.
One swing is all the truth needs

Surrounding yourself with people who believe the same idiocy as yourself does not mean you are all right.
:footinmou
You claim to not believe that I would not travel without my entire library, one that takes up an entire wall in my apartment,
I thought you had a cabin on 112 acres??
I also predict that me being away for the next two or three days
great, if you post before then I will make sure I point out that untruth
and none of you have anything better to do, thus allowing you to spend so much time here.
Maybe we have access to a PC and are sober for most of the day
 
Looks like our friend in Vancouver who is fighting a charge of Disorderly Conduct will be using Menard's advice in court:

I do appreciate the comments, I have no further interest in dialogue on the matter of how to approach the summons. I am fully confident I can challenge jurisdiction as they have no lawful claim in this matter, and I have invested over 100 hours into researching various strategies, I have decided to conditionally accept their offer to contract. I am aware the potential penalty in this matter will be a stay in the city jail. I plan to confound their efforts with a wide range of tools, and god willing capture video of my efforts- to be posted online for utilization by others who are learning to think of this tyrannical system in new terms.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=85259#p85259

Success is assured.
 
I see that you folks are still at it!
What we do with each other in the privacy of our own secret lairs is none of your business.


Having fun with your Weetabix?
Is that a euphemism or a particularly freeman philia?


Me not posting you assume is due to your amazing arguments and my inability to address them.
Well, every time we post arguments you fail 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.
Actually no, because if that were true you would actually ignore the forum completely.

The fact that you return regularly for hit-and-run juvenilia and ego massaging demonstrates a need.


No, it must be because your arguments sent me running.
It seems a reasonable assumption.


Of course none of you see the huge problem with this, as far as fairness and equality goes, do you?
You could always stop whining like a child and just produce the proof.


I also see your childish antics are still being used to hide a lack of wit
Really, you're complaining about a perceived lack of whit? Are you PG Wodehouse?


and you seem to think that endless sarcasm and insults are a suitable substitute for rational and reasonable argument.
Anytime you want to make rational and reasonable arguments they will be responded to in kind. In fact, in the same way many of your irrational, confused, unreasonable and ill conceived arguments have been responded to.


And you still apparently are thinking that the truth will be decided by the exchanges on this particular forum.
At one time there may have been a hope that the truth could have been established by the production of evidence to support claims, alas that time has long passed.


This forum is completely irrelevant to the truth, and seeks to avoid it with insulting and derisive comments.
He says and then proceeds to post the same.


Surrounding yourself with people who believe the same idiocy as yourself does not mean you are all right.
It would be like you having your own forums where dissent isn't allowed and free speech is answered with the ban hammer.


Here is a dissertation on what is happening with you folks.
Reading for comprehension doesn't seem to be big with you.


Like me having a life and far better things to do then to argue with those who eschew logic, reason and rational thought.
But not apparently better things to do than post content free diatribes here.


Only a court ruling will be acceptable,
Given your claims it is a reasonable request.


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
How many people consent to be sentenced by a court?


You bask in the belief that I am lying about having certain documents,
Regardless of you current whereabouts, you have had ample time to produce any documents and had failed to do so.


OF course I know none of you are mature enough to actually do so.
Wouldn't trying to hide that be recolouring it count as "childish antics... ...used to hide a lack of wit"?



I bet what you will do however is continue with your immature sarcastic comments,
Ooh, that sounds like a jolly good idea.


A forum that most people simply laugh at and consider to be populated by brain dead statists.
Care to provide any evidence of that?

Didn't think so.


that consent of the governed is not required to govern, here in this common law jurisdiction.
As said jurisdiction is in your head, you're going to be disappointed.
 
Looks like our friend in Vancouver who is fighting a charge of Disorderly Conduct will be using Menard's advice in court
What are the rules on recording proceedings in Canada/BC, because it looks like he just added another charge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom