Cocana The Second
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 449
No,he's the crusty old codger who tries to terrorise everyone and then moans at the end that "if it wasn't for you pesky kids....."
Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims
- Thread starter jargon buster
- Start date
- Status
No,he's the crusty old codger who tries to terrorise everyone and then moans at the end that "if it wasn't for you pesky kids....."
ComfySlippers
Banned
Although he did originally post a .pdf of his super-duper-officially-recognised-as-a-freeman letter from the then Canadian MP Carol Skelton on a forum in 2007 it has now mysteriously vanished.
mapleleafweb
(Link is to first page of thread. Rob enters after a few pages to spout his nonsense and, as usual, gets laughed at for his inability to comprehend English and Law)
It is very quickly pointed out to him that his letter means absolutely nothing.
The thread also contains the usual "Angry-Threatening-Rob-Mode" where he loses the plot and starts issuing threats. Anger issues?
Also included are the obligatory "you are a child" taunts he can not help but make.
So to save you travelling thousands of miles to your extensive library Rob, and unless for some strange reason you deemed it necessary to delete the .pdf from ThinkFree, post its new link please.
mapleleafweb
(Link is to first page of thread. Rob enters after a few pages to spout his nonsense and, as usual, gets laughed at for his inability to comprehend English and Law)
It is very quickly pointed out to him that his letter means absolutely nothing.
The thread also contains the usual "Angry-Threatening-Rob-Mode" where he loses the plot and starts issuing threats. Anger issues?
Also included are the obligatory "you are a child" taunts he can not help but make.
So to save you travelling thousands of miles to your extensive library Rob, and unless for some strange reason you deemed it necessary to delete the .pdf from ThinkFree, post its new link please.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Rob wrote in that thread
hidden in plain sight, he's always been the same, he even tells people he just makes it up to suit his own agenda and they still swallow it.
hidden in plain sight, he's always been the same, he even tells people he just makes it up to suit his own agenda and they still swallow it.
ComfySlippers
Banned
Although Rob's elusive letter of response from Canadian MP Carol Skelton is still not forthcoming, here is a scan from 2007 of one of her responses to FOTL-Waffle.....
LINK
As any sane person can see, and I assume Rob's letter is very similar, it in no way officially recognises that Freeman on The Land is a real status.
LINK
As any sane person can see, and I assume Rob's letter is very similar, it in no way officially recognises that Freeman on The Land is a real status.
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
That's actually the very letter that Menard posted on the mapleleafweb forum. You can get the pdf here:
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=22774#p22774
His sooper-sekrit letter that would prove us all wrong is a different letter.
Classic Menard lies and idiocy on that forum. For example, in his first post, he tries to take personal credit for a government student loan forgiveness program. Who actually buys this crap?
ComfySlippers
Banned
Whilst I can not locate the link atm, a thread on DIF has Rob stating that when people are sent to prison.... wait for it.... the person is traded on the stock market. Birth Bond was silly enough but the prisoner thing is laughable.
He proves this by linking to a Redemption site.
I quote someone else when I say "I weep when I realise that more than one person believes such nonsense".
i
I'm sure the Old Guard will be able to find linkage to the original post on DIF.
He proves this by linking to a Redemption site.
I quote someone else when I say "I weep when I realise that more than one person believes such nonsense".
i
I'm sure the Old Guard will be able to find linkage to the original post on DIF.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
solzhenitsyn
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
- Messages
- 187
Thanks for posting.
It is amazing (and depressing) how little has changed in the four years since that thread was started and now. No decision which could even remotely be characterized as supportive of the FMOTL argument has been produced. Menard's arguments are nearly identicial. The posts debunking them are also nearly identical. What a colossal waste of everyone's time.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
I think he will just slink away and sit tight for a few months and then come back again with the same waffle.
Just ask him for proof, thats his Achilles Heel.
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
Wow you guys sure love to claim victory without any evidence thereof. I told you I have better things to do, and will answer when I can. But you all jump around and act like me not spending every waking hour on this forum as evidence of my failure. I suggest the failure is those who post here daily. I mean sheesh... get a life! In any event there were some points raised by the one and only other poster here that were not ridiculous or insulting.
Hi JLord! Allow me to respond to your posts.
You said:
The problem with this position, is the concept of equality is actually abandoned. So what if your neighbour can also do the same thing. You are limiting his actions to that alone, and you having accepted the parliamentary system, made a choice which you now deny him, therefore no equality.
Also, getting elected means you are acting as representatives of others, and the law limits the power you can claim to that which your principal can claim and granted to you. I am sure you must agree that whatever power is vested in your by virtue of being elected, it cannot be greater than that enjoyed by those who elected you and gave you your power. Thus there are limits to what you as their representative can in fact do.
It is easy to prove too, by looking at the micro. What if there were only three people, you, me and one neighbour. You and he decide that an election to determine who will act as representative for all three will be held. I of course refuse to consent to anyone acting as my representative, or to be a part of your electing collective. So the TWO of you decide that one of you will be the representative for all three. In that situation, do you have authority to act on my behalf, or not? Clearly the answer is NO. I did not consent to the process or the outcome, and as such you simply are not my representative. As a function of law, representation requires mutual consent, and without it you are not my representative, and since the only form of government considered lawful in a common law jurisdiction is a representative one, (due to the concept of equality being paramount) without mutual consent you are not MY government, though others may have consented.
Your position rests upon the belief that you can be someone's representative without their consent because others have consented, and it rests on the position that once acting as a representative, you can do far more than those who gave you the power can do. Both a clearly faulty.
So I imagine those who stated I have my tail between my legs or would not come back, or that they have somehow 'won' will now recant those statements, right?
Hi JLord! Allow me to respond to your posts.
You said:
The problem with this position, is the concept of equality is actually abandoned. So what if your neighbour can also do the same thing. You are limiting his actions to that alone, and you having accepted the parliamentary system, made a choice which you now deny him, therefore no equality.
Also, getting elected means you are acting as representatives of others, and the law limits the power you can claim to that which your principal can claim and granted to you. I am sure you must agree that whatever power is vested in your by virtue of being elected, it cannot be greater than that enjoyed by those who elected you and gave you your power. Thus there are limits to what you as their representative can in fact do.
It is easy to prove too, by looking at the micro. What if there were only three people, you, me and one neighbour. You and he decide that an election to determine who will act as representative for all three will be held. I of course refuse to consent to anyone acting as my representative, or to be a part of your electing collective. So the TWO of you decide that one of you will be the representative for all three. In that situation, do you have authority to act on my behalf, or not? Clearly the answer is NO. I did not consent to the process or the outcome, and as such you simply are not my representative. As a function of law, representation requires mutual consent, and without it you are not my representative, and since the only form of government considered lawful in a common law jurisdiction is a representative one, (due to the concept of equality being paramount) without mutual consent you are not MY government, though others may have consented.
Your position rests upon the belief that you can be someone's representative without their consent because others have consented, and it rests on the position that once acting as a representative, you can do far more than those who gave you the power can do. Both a clearly faulty.
So I imagine those who stated I have my tail between my legs or would not come back, or that they have somehow 'won' will now recant those statements, right?
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
SAD HATTER said:
What a silly set of argumentation.
A small portion of the public actually read the Acts before submitting application for licenses. Most get DL’s without reading the MVA or HTA, but all somehow magically know you have to get one, and thus refuse to discuss it, and label those who do as anti-government. Few who do pay the Income Tax have read the ITA. This small percentage you speak of is the group that does read them, asks questions and forms their own opinions instead of following an ignorant herd.
The rest mostly operate in ignorance, and fail to read or comprehend, and seem to hate those who do. And some make their living off this system, at the expense of their fellow man, and will stand in defense of that very unfair situation, because it benefits them and that is what you mean when you say ‘acceptable extent’. YOU are not aware of the inequity, as you are benefiting from it.
Tell that to the bankers and lawyers and politicians! We want to be left alone to follow our conscience and develop and share our passions in a manner that brings peace and abundance. We do not claim the right to harm, damage or commit fraud, yet those you defend do all those things in the name of ‘good government’. If the vast majority do not even read those rules, let alone understand them, how can you claim they are following them, and not simply following the directives of those whom they believe do understand said rules? What we want is our fair share of the pie, not have to give it away to representatives so they can buy better office furniture, secure fat pensions, take regal trips on our dime, and then use what’s left to chip away at and erode what few rights we have remaining.
And we have law on our side. Not force masquerading as law, but actual law. And here we see you need to label all people who are merely questioning the government as the lowest rung of people and call us ‘zombies’, even though it is US who actually bother reading the growing body of rules and regulations that those who do want to control us are creating. And we are the zombies? Thankfully we have open minded people such as yourself to judge and rank us according to worth, eh?
Your numbers are dwindling, we are growing and you know it. Any idea how many people simply do not trust the government, police or courts? We also do not need a majority at all, merely critical mass. That is why you sound so fearful. People are awakening, questioning and standing. And the answers or more often lack thereof, confirms for them that someone is out to **** them, and they are usually in the government, courts and police. We do not need the guns, we have truth, love and law. Your claim to have the guns shows exactly how secure you are in your belief that you have the law on your side. It is us who point to the law, and the requirement for equality, and it is you who then has to point to your guns. Something incidentally which if we did, would have you claiming we are terrorists. Let us be clear here. You threaten us with violence for no other reason then us refusing to agree with you or associate with you, and do as you tell us to do. You do not have law on your side since that is the case.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead
What a silly set of argumentation.
A small portion of the public actually read the Acts before submitting application for licenses. Most get DL’s without reading the MVA or HTA, but all somehow magically know you have to get one, and thus refuse to discuss it, and label those who do as anti-government. Few who do pay the Income Tax have read the ITA. This small percentage you speak of is the group that does read them, asks questions and forms their own opinions instead of following an ignorant herd.
The rest mostly operate in ignorance, and fail to read or comprehend, and seem to hate those who do. And some make their living off this system, at the expense of their fellow man, and will stand in defense of that very unfair situation, because it benefits them and that is what you mean when you say ‘acceptable extent’. YOU are not aware of the inequity, as you are benefiting from it.
Tell that to the bankers and lawyers and politicians! We want to be left alone to follow our conscience and develop and share our passions in a manner that brings peace and abundance. We do not claim the right to harm, damage or commit fraud, yet those you defend do all those things in the name of ‘good government’. If the vast majority do not even read those rules, let alone understand them, how can you claim they are following them, and not simply following the directives of those whom they believe do understand said rules? What we want is our fair share of the pie, not have to give it away to representatives so they can buy better office furniture, secure fat pensions, take regal trips on our dime, and then use what’s left to chip away at and erode what few rights we have remaining.
More baseless hate filled judgment. I do not know any Freemen who do as you claim. They simply access an account you refuse to accept even exists to lawfully discharge those types of obligations. This for you is wrong?
And we have law on our side. Not force masquerading as law, but actual law. And here we see you need to label all people who are merely questioning the government as the lowest rung of people and call us ‘zombies’, even though it is US who actually bother reading the growing body of rules and regulations that those who do want to control us are creating. And we are the zombies? Thankfully we have open minded people such as yourself to judge and rank us according to worth, eh?
Your numbers are dwindling, we are growing and you know it. Any idea how many people simply do not trust the government, police or courts? We also do not need a majority at all, merely critical mass. That is why you sound so fearful. People are awakening, questioning and standing. And the answers or more often lack thereof, confirms for them that someone is out to **** them, and they are usually in the government, courts and police. We do not need the guns, we have truth, love and law. Your claim to have the guns shows exactly how secure you are in your belief that you have the law on your side. It is us who point to the law, and the requirement for equality, and it is you who then has to point to your guns. Something incidentally which if we did, would have you claiming we are terrorists. Let us be clear here. You threaten us with violence for no other reason then us refusing to agree with you or associate with you, and do as you tell us to do. You do not have law on your side since that is the case.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
Hey JLord,
Furthering our discussion, I would like to address the court case you brought up, specifically this one:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2007/2007abca45/2007abca45.html
I see how the Judge ruled that the argument is without merit, and I agree, in this case. If the case was about an assault, and the defendant tried using the defense of self-defense, but had previously stated that he consented to the fight, that argument would be without merit. Just like in this case.
That however does not mean that such a defense is always without merit, though does it?
I draw your attention to one sentence, at the beginning:
Oh oh! The man apparently appeared, and by so doing confirmed the jurisdiction, or even granted it! Once that is accomplished, arguing as he did will not work. It is like saying
The applicant 'stood before the Commissioner and argued and by doing so granted the Commissioner jurisdiction', before a Traffic Court Commissioner on August 10th, 2006 to contest the charges and argued the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Why would someone 'appear' if he did not think they had jurisdiction?
That is why IN THIS CASE the argument lacks merit, and just like the example of self-defense, it does not mean it is always without merit.
Have a great day, JLord.
Peace eh?
Furthering our discussion, I would like to address the court case you brought up, specifically this one:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2007/2007abca45/2007abca45.html
I see how the Judge ruled that the argument is without merit, and I agree, in this case. If the case was about an assault, and the defendant tried using the defense of self-defense, but had previously stated that he consented to the fight, that argument would be without merit. Just like in this case.
That however does not mean that such a defense is always without merit, though does it?
I draw your attention to one sentence, at the beginning:
Oh oh! The man apparently appeared, and by so doing confirmed the jurisdiction, or even granted it! Once that is accomplished, arguing as he did will not work. It is like saying
The applicant 'stood before the Commissioner and argued and by doing so granted the Commissioner jurisdiction', before a Traffic Court Commissioner on August 10th, 2006 to contest the charges and argued the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Why would someone 'appear' if he did not think they had jurisdiction?
That is why IN THIS CASE the argument lacks merit, and just like the example of self-defense, it does not mean it is always without merit.
Have a great day, JLord.
Peace eh?
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Rob wrote
yadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayada
Any evidence for the forum Rob?
Before you runaway again
yadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayada
Any evidence for the forum Rob?
Before you runaway again
are you suggesting now people just don't turn up?
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Rob, a question about this. If the judge is not allowed to decide whether he has jurisdiction, then who decides?
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
Pretty obvious you are the one who wrote
But true to your form, you try to assign to me YOUR WORDS.
Do you honestly think everyone is sooo stupid to believe you? I do not mean most of the people here, who allow hatred to determine their beliefs, but those who you said would come here form other places, due to you posting links? Should not you at least try? Of course you do at least demonstrate what the average method of discussion on this particular forum actually is.
I would call your actions childish, but others would cry about that, regardless of how well deserved the label is.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Its not about you or me Rob, its about evidence that your theories work in court
anything yet?
Rob no one wants to discuss anything with you, you are stupid.
We just want some evidence
anything yet?
Rob no one wants to discuss anything with you, you are stupid.
We just want some evidence
Last edited:
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
No one party to a conflict has the right to decide that conflict. Therefore the two parties would have to agree on another to act as judge and determine this issue, and justice would demand that the judge be drawn from a neutral group of people, not drawn from a group which one of the parties considers their peers, and plays golf with, and whom would be so clearly affected by the outcome
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Rob there is a link on this thread with you spouting the same idiocy from 3 years ago, nothings changed.
Whats the point of going around again, you claim you are right we have proved you wrong many times and yet here you are with the same argument.
It's boring Rob.
We need something new.
Whats the point of going around again, you claim you are right we have proved you wrong many times and yet here you are with the same argument.
It's boring Rob.
We need something new.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
So as long as one person keeps objecting to the choice then its never going to happen.
You really are silly.
If what you are saying is true then good luck with your case against me (hows it going by the way?) as I can just keep objecting to the judge.
Last edited:
- Status