Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[FreemanMenard]

jargon buster
This message is hidden because jargon buster is on your ignore list.

Whatever you have posted I am sure is as intelligent as

yadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadaya dayadayadayadayadayadayadayada

and thus may be safely ignored, as you have never had any thing intelligent to add to any discussion.

Bye Bye JB!

 

[jargon buster]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Ignore

You saw it alright, hence the ignore

Rob you have nothing, you come to a forum where not one person shares your views and then put them on ignore.
Its not a freeman forum Rob, that has to be the stupidest thing you have ever done.

As long as we don't put you on ignore we can continue to ridicule your stupid posts.
This forum isn't going to end up your advertising board.
Really Rob, why are you even here?

 

[jargon buster]

Rob wrote

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.

Evidence please, you claimed earlier a freeman had to abandon his SIN, if that the case how can they access an account linked to the SIN?

And we have law on our side. Not force masquerading as law, but actual law.

Evidence please

Your numbers are dwindling, we are growing and you know it.

All the freeman forums are dead, care to show some evidence to back up that statement?

 

[FreemanMenard]

I take it no one has anything intelligent to say in response to my very intelligent post..... quel surpriz ici!

 

[Paul]

Wow you guys sure love to claim victory without any evidence thereof.

That's because we don't consent to your rules for victory.

I told you I have better things to do, and will answer when I can.

You say that and then you go away. Then you come back and say the same thing; it's as if you have just enough to do to stop you presenting evidence for anything, but not enough to stop you spouting crap and repeating the same old lies.

But you all jump around and act like me not spending every waking hour on this forum as evidence of my failure

No, we act like you never presenting any evidence to support your position is indicative of the fact that you have none.

I suggest the failure is those who post here daily. I mean sheesh... get a life!

I don't know what it's like in freeman paradise, but in the rest of the world it is quite easy to access teh interwebs and we can manage a few minutes out of our packed day of not being pretend free men to make the odd post.

If you find that so extraordinary as to be worthy of derisive comment I would suggest you look further to home for the problem.

In any event there were some points raised by the one and only other poster here that were not ridiculous or insulting.

I assume that wasn't me, otherwise I must try harder.

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.

The problem with your position is that it's nonsense.

According the same opportunity to all is hardly abandonning equality, rather it is a concise definition of equality.

Participating in parliamentary democracy is not limiting anyone unless they break the rules (Canada's house, Canada's rules) and certainly does not deny the opportunity to participate to anyone else.

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.

Then I am sure that you have absolutely no idea of how government, or even the concept of government, works.

The idea that those in a position of authority have no power over anyone is such obvious nonsense that I can only assume you being even more deliberately contradictory than usual.

Thus there are limits to what you as their representative can in fact do.

Well done, a correct statement. Of course you appear to have no idea what these limits are or how they can be changed.

As a function of law, representation requires mutual consent, and without it you are not my representative,

It's OK, Canada has your implied consent because you continue to live there and take advantage of all the facilities provide by the elected government and funded by the responsible members of society you constantly deride.

and since the only form of government considered lawful in a common law jurisdiction is a representative one,

You don't actually live in cloud cuckoo land though.

without mutual consent you are not MY government, though others may have consented.

Unfortunately for you, Canada does not see it that way.

Your position rests upon the belief that you can be someone's representative without their consent because others have consented

It's called democracy, you should try it sometime.

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.

Government, and in Canada's case, democracy again.

Both a clearly faulty.

If you ever come up with an actual argument for that I'm sure people would love to see it.

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?

I have no idea where you keep your tail, but I believe it was you who stated that you had better things to do than come to a forum that is inconsequential.

 

[Mojo]

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

But in order to make the decision, the second judge would have to determine whether they had jurisdiction to do so. What is to prevent whichever party he finds against from objecting that the second judge has no jurisdiction, and thus making the second judge also a party to the conflict, and therefore unable to make a decision?

The real law has a solution to this, of course: deciding whether he has juridiction does not make a judge a party to a case.

 

[jargon buster]

I take it no one has anything intelligent to say in response to my very intelligent post..... quel surpriz ici!

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[FreemanMenard]

But in order to make the decision, the second judge would have to determine whether they had jurisdiction to do so. What is to prevent whichever party he finds against from objecting that the second judge has no jurisdiction, and thus making the second judge also a party to the conflict, and therefore unable to make a decision?

The real law has a solution to this, of course: deciding whether he has juridiction does not make a judge a party to a case.

You agree to it before hand, just like they do now, however they now rely upon the appearance of consent, and often use deception to get others to apparently consent.

PAUL:
I essentially state "We are all equal." and you say "Prove it! Get someone who is my superior to agree with you!"

If lack of evidence is sufficient for you, then you must agree that when government officials come, and make demands upon a FMOTL, and they reply with "Prove you can govern me without my consent! Prove you are inherently better than me, and been empowered by God to govern me without my consent!" and THE OFFICIALS AND AGENTS ARE INCAPABLE of doing so, then that lack of proof establishes that their claim is baseless, right? And since THEY ARE THE ONES MAKING THE INITIAL CLAIM, the onus is on them to prove their position, right?

Why do I have to prove that they need consent to govern me, when they have been incapable of proving they can without it? The same standard you place upon me, you do not place upon the people in the government, yet if we place that standard upon them, you poo poo it.

You also realize those people in the government often poiint to 'The Crown in the Right of Canada' which is as fictional as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny right? If I came to you and claimed Santa Claus had empowered me to tax and regulate you, but I could not even prove he existed except by querying five year olds, all of whom would argue strenuously that HE did in fact exist, would you accept that? Have you personally ever met 'The Crown in the Right of Canada' and if not, why allow those who do believe in it, to govern you?

Fictions do not give rise to the law; the Law does give rise to fictions.

Have a great day!

 

[jargon buster]

Dear me.... will Rob ever move away from rhetoric and repetition.

Philosophical waffle and vebal diarrhoea are the mainstay of a Menard post.

 

[Toke]

And still no court case proving that freemanism works.

 

[Mojo]

You agree to it before hand, just like they do now, however they now rely upon the appearance of consent, and often use deception to get others to apparently consent.

I think you're confusing law with arbitration.

 

[jargon buster]

And still no court case proving that freemanism works.

Nope
I think he's going to go along the route of "once you get into court they have jurisdiction and you cant win"

So after 3 years of nonsense he's now going to tell people to ignore all summonses or keep sending in daft template letters designed to slow down the process.

Im sure the letters will be available for a small fee

 

[D'rok]

Tired con is tired. Get some new material already.

 

[Paul]

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.

Unfortunately, merely having an opinion is not sufficient to override the rule of law, especially if those opinions are ill informed, poorly researched, historically invalid pisces of pseudo legal gibberish.

The rest mostly operate in ignorance, and fail to read or comprehend,

In all those hundreds of hours you spent studying the law, how did you manage to not understand any of it?

and seem to hate those who do.

I don't hate you, but as you bring it up, I do think you are a despicable human being.

And some make their living off this system, at the expense of their fellow man,

Really, do they charge $800 for advice that can never work and then refuse to stand behind it when it inevitably fails?

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’.

For example defence lawyers. Scum of the earth, always getting innocent people freed and fighting the government on behalf of others; how very dare they.

YOU are not aware of the inequity, as you are benefiting from it.

$800

Just a donation

Not my fault

We want to be left alone to follow our conscience and develop and share our passions in a manner that brings peace and abundance.

You want to be left alone to drive an unregistered killing machine at any speed you like, without insurance while drunk and stoned.

What a magnificent example you aren't.

We do not claim the right to harm, damage or commit fraud

Only for your special definitions of those words.

More baseless hate filled judgment. I do not know any Freemen who do as you claim.

I imagine you would just try no true Scotsman with any evidence.

And we have law on our side. Not force masquerading as law, but actual law.

Again, only for your special definition of law.

And we are the zombies?

What, shuffling, unthinking, ravenous creatures who only take and destroy and have nothing to offer the world but misery?

Any idea how many people simply do not trust the government, police or courts?

Quite a few I should imagine. However, most of them are not stupid enough to assume that magic words and wilful misunderstanding will solve their perceived problems.

We also do not need a majority at all, merely critical mass.

You couldn't sustain fission if you were packed in a beryllium tamper and compressed by shaped charges.

That is why you sound so fearful.

Yes, Rob, you're sooo scary.

I mean, who wouldn't be scared of a man with a habit of shooting off his mouth on the internet, threatening people, organisations or governments and then running away and not doing anything.

People are awakening, questioning and standing.

Followed by being found guilty and fined or imprisoned.

And the answers or more often lack thereof, confirms for them that someone is out to **** them

Because it couldn't possibly be that they were wrong after all; all the freemen in prison are beyond reproach and shinning examples of humanity.

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

It seems Margaret doesn't agree with your selfish ideas:

I must admit that I personally measure success in terms of the contributions an individual makes to her or his fellow human beings.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

PAUL:
I essentially state "We are all equal." and you say "Prove it! Get someone who is my superior to agree with you!"

If lack of evidence is sufficient for you, then you must agree that when government officials come, and make demands upon a FMOTL, and they reply with "Prove you can govern me without my consent! Prove you are inherently better than me, and been empowered by God to govern me without my consent!" and THE OFFICIALS AND AGENTS ARE INCAPABLE of doing so, then that lack of proof establishes that their claim is baseless, right? And since THEY ARE THE ONES MAKING THE INITIAL CLAIM, the onus is on them to prove their position, right?

Why do I have to prove that they need consent to govern me, when they have been incapable of proving they can without it? The same standard you place upon me, you do not place upon the people in the government, yet if we place that standard upon them, you poo poo it.

You also realize those people in the government often poiint to 'The Crown in the Right of Canada' which is as fictional as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny right? If I came to you and claimed Santa Claus had empowered me to tax and regulate you, but I could not even prove he existed except by querying five year olds, all of whom would argue strenuously that HE did in fact exist, would you accept that? Have you personally ever met 'The Crown in the Right of Canada' and if not, why allow those who do believe in it, to govern you?

Fictions do not give rise to the law; the Law does give rise to fictions.

Have a great day!

Do you honestly not see the difference between the "the Crown" and "Santa Clause"? I'll try to state the difference concisely. "The Crown", i.e., the government of Canada/the Provinces, is (1) recognized by the vast, vast majority of Canadians as having a monopoly on ability to enact law and to enforce that law through the legitimate use of force; and (2) the means to actually enforce that law through the use of force (i.e., military and police forces). "Santa Clause" has neither of these characteristics. "Rob of the family Menard" also has neither of these characteristics.

Do you now finally understand why the opinion of Parliament (as expressed in duly enacted legislation) and the opinion of the courts (as expressed in judicial orders and decisions) constitute law and why the opinion of "Rob of the family Menard" constitutes absolutely nothing (legally speaking). I don't mean that as an insult. I assure you that my opinion has the exact same legal value as yours: nil. That is why when I, and the other posters on this forum, and lawyers in a courtroom, talk about law, we refer exclusively legislation and decisions issued by the relevant courts. These are the only two sources of law in Canada.

So there you have it. There is your evidence that the government can govern you without your consent. They have more guns than you do and they have far more of your neighbours on their side than you do on yours.

 

[jargon buster]

Its pointless solz, the guy is just trolling now, he cant be as stupid as he is making out.

You had it spot on earlier in the thread theres no point discussing with him anymore, he just refuses to accept reality, he thinks if he states his case enough times it will materialise as the truth.

 

[Paul]

PAUL:
I essentially state "We are all equal." and you say "Prove it! Get someone who is my superior to agree with you!"

No I don't, I say you are completely wrong and all the pretence of philosophical point scoring won't help one bit when you are eventually arrested.

If lack of evidence is sufficient for you, then you must agree that when government officials come...

I can't imagine why you think I'd agree to that nonsense.

Being arrested by government officials against your will, which, in case you haven't noticed, happens all the time, is proof that they don't care about your opinions on the validity of any such arrest.

Why do I have to prove that they need consent to govern me

Because it's a silly claim with no basis in reality.

when they have been incapable of proving they can without it?

It's easy when you refuse to practice what you preach.

The same standard you place upon me, you do not place upon the people in the government, yet if we place that standard upon them, you poo poo it.

Because it's crap.

You also realize those people in the government often poiint to 'The Crown in the Right of Canada' which is as fictional as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny right?

Wrong, it's simply Canada; the monarch being the personification of the state and and Canada being a commonwealth realm, the term differentiates the legally seperate entities from one another, eg Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Have you personally ever met 'The Crown in the Right of Canada' and if not, why allow those who do believe in it, to govern you?

Have you ever met anyone who remembers Magna Carta?

Fictions do not give rise to the law; the Law does give rise to fictions.

If only you were a fraction as smart as you think you are.

 

[Paul]

Oh look, he's run away again.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Its pointless solz, the guy is just trolling now, he cant be as stupid as he is making out.

You had it spot on earlier in the thread theres no point discussing with him anymore, he just refuses to accept reality, he thinks if he states his case enough times it will materialise as the truth.

I know, I know. In fact the most interesting aspect of this thread, and others like it, is why we, "the skeptics", bother to post in it. It probably exposes a kind of neurosis in us. How else to explain our willingness to spend our time arguing against nonsense?

I think your diagnosis of Menard is likely accurate (not that I am in any way qualified to make such a diagnosis):

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Now we just need someone to diagnose us. Any psychiatrists post on this forum?

 

[jargon buster]

In fact the most interesting aspect of this thread, and others like it, is why we, "the skeptics", bother to post in it. It probably exposes a kind of neurosis in us. How else to explain our willingness to spend our time arguing against nonsense?

I post in it to try and get a rational response from Menard, up to now its been in vain.