Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
Quel Surpriz! A judge who would have lost the power he loves, rules in his own favour, in a matter that he should not have been deciding. If the FMOTL decided in his own favour, you would not accept it, yet when a judge rules in his own favour, you do.

And you call that evidence of a justice system operating properly?

Hey did the appeal happen already Oh wait, there are no appeals, as all judges are right all of the time.

Hey have you figured out how one man can rule another without mutual consent and not abandon the rule of law and the requirment for equality yet?
THOUGHT NOT!

hahahahaha

:D

But don't worry, according to JB, I am finished.

:D
Click to expand...
Wait, are you saying that you don't have any evidence of FOTL tactics succeeding in court?

Well, we already knew that. But maybe you should stop selling lies then?

How about any other kind of evidence for anything at all? Still waiting on Security of the Person.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Quel Surpriz! A judge who would have lost the power he loves, rules in his own favour, in a matter that he should not have been deciding.
Click to expand...
No, a judge who is making decisions using a system of law that has developed over a long period of time rather than the pseudo-legal rubbish invented by the likes of yourself.

But don't worry, according to JB, I am finished.
Click to expand...
Somebody who makes a living by conning people should always be aware that the size of their target audience is constantly reducing.
 
Last edited:
Robs problem has been his inability to quell his ego.
In going on forums making a fool of himself he has left behind a trail of idiocy that will now come up on Google searches for "Rob Menard" and make people steer clear of him.
He should have stuck to videos and DVDs :D
 
One thing that intrigues me is that when Menard threw his hissy fit on Icke's and left that forum he wrote on there:

People from the RANDI FROUM (who make fun of people for believing in conspiracies), are here conspiring to destroy this forum, hinder discussion, insult continually in a tag team manner, and refuse to follow the rules they agreed to. Is there not something about not continually and without justification insulting other members here or not?

Is constantly insulting other posters without regard to their argument now the norm here? If so, the children have won. The mods have let it happen by not holding them to their agreement concerning the rules here. I refuse to play with these idiots anymore. All they can do is insult, and no one should have to take such ******** endlessly. Feel free to delete my account. The RANDIOTS have won.
Click to expand...

"Fair enough" you might say, but where of all places did he resurface?
On the blinking Randi forum.
How does that work then?
 
Last edited:
I could have sworn Rob breezed in and breezed back out again with still no proof. "Quel surpriz" eh Rob?!

Stacey, how very perceptive. He hated the "Randiots" so much that he joined them. That, Rob me old mucker, is truly priceless!

:D
 
cocana said:
I could have sworn Rob breezed in and breezed back out again with still no proof. "Quel surpriz" eh Rob?!

Stacey, how very perceptive. He hated the "Randiots" so much that he joined them. That, Rob me old mucker, is truly priceless!

:D
Click to expand...

Shhhh. You'll give away Rob's role as an NWO shill to the Icke forum.
 
D'rok said:
It's turtles judges all the way down!
Click to expand...



And of course, Menard will never quite understand that the comic highlights exactly where the judges get their authority to act as Judges: it is derived from the power of the people as expressed through their election of the current government. Doing it this way means we don't have to have 50%+1 of the population show up in court every time someone gets a ticket for speeding.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Quel Surpriz! A judge who would have lost the power he loves, rules in his own favour, in a matter that he should not have been deciding. If the FMOTL decided in his own favour, you would not accept it, yet when a judge rules in his own favour, you do.

And you call that evidence of a justice system operating properly?

Hey did the appeal happen already Oh wait, there are no appeals, as all judges are right all of the time.

Hey have you figured out how one man can rule another without mutual consent and not abandon the rule of law and the requirment for equality yet?
THOUGHT NOT!

hahahahaha

:D

But don't worry, according to JB, I am finished.

:D
Click to expand...

Whether or not the judge is corrupt is not the issue. The issue is whether or not FMOTL works. You have many times promised that the information you sell will get people out of paying fines and obeying statutes. And that is why people buy your information. It's not because they want to be the guinea pig in demonstrating that every single judge is corrupt, it's because they want to not have to pay fines and obey statutes, like you promise.
 
Rob wrote
JLORD, as you are the only one posting anything resembling actual discussion, and not sophomoric drivel, I have been working on a proper response for you. I do have a life however, and this forum, and the cries and taunts and jibes of the regulars, are simply not my priority, and this forum is about as important to myself and the freeman movement as a butterfly fart in a tornado. Thank you for your patience though. I will post it on another better forum, one not populated by RANDIOTS or children, where proper discussion and not childish insults are the norm. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Dont forget your promise Rob ;)
 
FreemanMenard said:
Hey have you figured out how one man can rule another without mutual consent and not abandon the rule of law and the requirment for equality yet?
Click to expand...

Ah well, I suppose I'll never get your explanation as to how BC stopped you providing "legal advice" without your consent, eh?
 
but dont you see architect, according to Rob they abandoned the "rule of law" by banning him without his consent.
If the "rule of law" is that no man may rule another without his consent is true then how can any type of order be maintained in any society or community?

It simply cant, you will have people walking around doing whatever they like shouting "You cant tell me what to do"
Its totally idiotic.

PS Rob abandoned his own "rule of law" when he banned me from WFS
 
Last edited:
That's because you didn't call yourself "Jargon, of the family Buster", you fool!
 
SO according to Rob if I go to court and say the Judge has no Jurisdiction over me then he isn't allowed to say he has?
So what happens?
maybe a third party is appointed to say the Judge has Jurisdiction and I say I don't recognise his Jurisdiction to decide on the Jurisdiction. What then a party of the fourht part?
 
SO according to Rob if I go to court and say the Judge has no Jurisdiction over me then he isn't allowed to say he has?
Click to expand...
Thats Menards philosophy in a nutshell, "your rules dont apply to me but my rules apply to you"
 
Captain_Swoop said:
SO according to Rob if I go to court and say the Judge has no Jurisdiction over me then he isn't allowed to say he has?
So what happens?
maybe a third party is appointed to say the Judge has Jurisdiction and I say I don't recognise his Jurisdiction to decide on the Jurisdiction. What then a party of the fourht part?
Click to expand...



Yup, pretty much. It seems he's created an impervious defence to any trial, anywhere, on any charge. Simply disagree with the Judge on any issue, and you can force him to recuse himself, and bring in a new Judge. Wash, rinse, repeat, and pretty soon you've got every Judge in the world barred from saying anything, since they're all "in a conflict" with you.

And note, this would even work against the Holy Common Law he's so fond of. It's nothing more than a recipe for anarchy.
 
Menard seems to be trying to steal Marc Stevens "conflict of interest" nonsense
So imagine this character, bold as brass, strolls into the Court, pleads guilty and asks the Judge three questions. The first is,
‘Whether his client is allowed a fair trial?’
The Judge obviously says,
‘Yep.’
Then generally the final question to the Judge is,
‘Who do you represent?’
The Judges go into various meltdowns and the cases are normally thrown out or adjourned until they are let off, as they don’t want to give the game away.
Click to expand...
ie if the judge says he represents the Crown then you have a conflict of interest.

http://marcstevens.net/?s=conflict+of+interest
Its all in there somewhere
PS dont waste too much time on it though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom