• 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.
Your boutique definitions of well-defined words and concepts are lies that you know to be lies. When you sell those lies to the gullible as truths that can be wielded as remedies in courts of law, you harm people and enrich yourself.

Provide evidence that your remedies based on your boutique definitions actually work.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
The problems arise because they claim it really does work like that.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the problem.
These so called "gurus" teach their followers that the law really is the way they say it is, only TPTB don't want them to find out about it.
It's blatant lies.
 
Not yet! I and many others are waiting for the people in the government to provide evidence that they can govern their fellow man in this common law jurisdiction without consent and without abandoning the rule of law and equality in particular. And there are far more FMOTL waiting for THAT then there are naysayers here waiting for me. And considering that I do not claim the right to govern you, yet the people in the government appear to claim that right, well the ball is in their court. After all, my actions will not cause you to change your minds, and yet the people in the governments inability to prove what we demand of them does inexorably erode their power, and causes more and more to lean to the FMOTL perspective. Blinded as you are to this particular forum and the mindset prevalent here, you are unaware of how fast we are growing.
Hey! Maybe you can help the people in the government!

Thought not. :D
 
Stacey Grove said:
That's exactly the problem.
These so called "gurus" teach their followers that the law really is the way they say it is, only TPTB don't want them to find out about it.
It's blatant lies.
Click to expand...

No we do not. YOU need to believe this to justify your hatred to your own ego. We teach them to form their own opinions, do their own research and ask their own questions, and develop their own path, instead of blindly doing what they are told by those who claim to be their government.

Do you have a problem with people thinking for themselves?
 
Just to be clear:

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

Prove it.
 
D'rok said:
I'm not sure that is a good thing, because it could lead to violence rather than resignation. Who wouldn't want a revolution if the society you live in never recognizes your rights and never provides justice?
Click to expand...

I don't think there are legal arguments against revolution if that's what people want. Not that I would want to incite revolution or violence, but the truth of the matter is that freeman would likely need to either stage a succesful revolt or become democratically elected leaders before freeman philosophy would ever become law. If a freeman is able to understand this then they are least dealing in the realm of factual information and I consider this a success in some way. I am fine with freemen as a political group trying to promote political change because this is everyone's right. If freemen were to focus on reality based options to enact political change rather than promoting blatently false interpretations of the current law then I don't think they would be doing anything wrong and couldn't be considered a con. I have tried to encourage many freemen I have met to channel their efforts towards the Libertarian party of Canada for example, as this would actually be something that could possibly get them to the point they are trying to reach. A more libertarian society in Canada is possible to achieve through political means so devote your efforts to that rather than trying to fool people into thinking such a society already exists and is being surpressed by government conspiracy or whatever.

I think it's better if they come to understand that they are actually being sold lies by shady characters that really don't have their best interests at heart. That way, maybe there is a chance that they will re-adjust their thinking about the justness of the system
Click to expand...

That would be good as well. But it is possible to realize you are being sold lies, while still believing that the underlying system is unjust. This is what I find happens with almost all of the people I have been able to "de-convert" from freeman ideology. They don't start believing that the system is fair and just, but they are able to come to the rational conclusion that there are no magic words that you can say that will make it fair and just. Once this point is reached then I am fine with a person channelling their efforts towards trying to change the system or protesting percieved unfairness, or even organizing their revolution or whatever.
 
JLord said:
I don't think there are legal arguments against revolution if that's what people want. Not that I would want to incite revolution or violence, but the truth of the matter is that freeman would likely need to either stage a succesful revolt or become democratically elected leaders before freeman philosophy would ever become law. If a freeman is able to understand this then they are least dealing in the realm of factual information and I consider this a success in some way. I am fine with freemen as a political group trying to promote political change because this is everyone's right. If freemen were to focus on reality based options to enact political change rather than promoting blatently false interpretations of the current law then I don't think they would be doing anything wrong and couldn't be considered a con. I have tried to encourage many freemen I have met to channel their efforts towards the Libertarian party of Canada for example, as this would actually be something that could possibly get them to the point they are trying to reach. A more libertarian society in Canada is possible to achieve through political means so devote your efforts to that rather than trying to fool people into thinking such a society already exists and is being surpressed by government conspiracy or whatever.
Click to expand...
I agree with these goals in principle, and I hope that is the result rather than total alienation and ultimately violence.



That would be good as well. But it is possible to realize you are being sold lies, while still believing that the underlying system is unjust. This is what I find happens with almost all of the people I have been able to "de-convert" from freeman ideology. They don't start believing that the system is fair and just, but they are able to come to the rational conclusion that there are no magic words that you can say that will make it fair and just. Once this point is reached then I am fine with a person channelling their efforts towards trying to change the system or protesting percieved unfairness, or even organizing their revolution or whatever.
Click to expand...
Point taken. Except for the revolution bit.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Just to be clear:

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

Prove it.
Click to expand...

Fancy a stab at it, Rob?
 
FreemanMenard said:
I and many others are waiting for the people in the government to provide evidence that they can govern their fellow man in this common law jurisdiction without consent and without abandoning the rule of law and equality in particular.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you will address this in your reponse to my previous post to you, now probably a few pages back, but your repetition of this claim got me thinking.

I have shown how I can govern you without your consent and there are numerous examples of this happening all the time. Why would it matter whether or not my way of doing so abandons equality? Especially if the de facto courts are supporting my position.

Surely the practical point is that you have in fact been governed without your consent and it would be dishonest to suggest to people that this is not possible.
 
jlord wrote
but the truth of the matter is that freeman would likely need to either stage a succesful revolt or become democratically elected leaders before freeman philosophy would ever become law.
Click to expand...
Even this scenario is impossible because a freeman system of law simply would be unable to maintain order as long as it stuck to its principles.
How could they control the criminals if the rule is "no man may govern another without his consent"?

Its ludicrous.
 
D'rok said:
Ah, but isn't it nice how he pops by every once and a while to brighten up one day in our dull, shabby lives?
Click to expand...

What, you mean his constant habit of making himself appear to be an imbecile makes us feel better about ourselves? :D
 
While we’re waiting breathlessly for Mr Guru’s return…

Slightly OT, but not really because it concerns the justness of the legal system (or at least the little Canadian corner of it that I inhabit), I propose that I have done more to ensure fairness and to protect the little guy just yesterday than any FOTL guru has, ever. This is going to come off as bragging, but believe me, I’m insignificant and I know it. Carrying on…

I appeared as Minister’s Counsel at two hearings yesterday (meaning my client was the big, bad, evil gubmint). In both cases, the appellant was unrepresented and totally unprepared – i.e., neither one had any clue about the law, about procedure including how to adduce evidence, or about how to effectively present their case at all. I was prepared. I know the law (in my area). I know the procedure and I know how to effectively present a case (in this particular setting). It would have been ridiculously easy for me to blow their appeals out of the water in short order. Victory, right? WRONG!

In both cases, I raised the issue of natural justice and asked for an adjournment so that the appellants could find counsel and/or get themselves prepared. I talked to both appellants afterwards and did my best to help them understand how to get competent counsel. I didn’t do this because I am noble and selfless. I did this because I, and every other legal professional, have been trained to do this and, in fact, the traditions and principles of our legal system demand that I do this.

FOTL scam artists are scum that damage the lives of their marks. The legal system is not the enemy.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
In both cases, I raised the issue of natural justice and asked for an adjournment so that the appellants could find counsel and/or get themselves prepared. I talked to both appellants afterwards and did my best to help them understand how to get competent counsel.
Click to expand...




Geeze, what kind of oppressive slave master are you, anyways?
 
JLord said:
I'm sure you will address this in your reponse to my previous post to you, now probably a few pages back, but your repetition of this claim got me thinking.

I have shown how I can govern you without your consent and there are numerous examples of this happening all the time. Why would it matter whether or not my way of doing so abandons equality? Especially if the de facto courts are supporting my position.

Surely the practical point is that you have in fact been governed without your consent and it would be dishonest to suggest to people that this is not possible.
Click to expand...

I do not think you have, JLord, as the situation you described requires you to claim more authority than that which would be granted to you if elected. The challenge was to do so LAWFULLY. Claiming that because you can beat someone up without their consent means you have a right to lawfully do so is similar to what you described.

Let's break it down; you do agree that if you were elected, the power granted to you would not be greater that which can be lawfully transfered to you by those who elected you, right? The applicable maxim is 'Power derived cannot be greater than the source it is derived from.' And "An agent cannot do that which their principal cannot lawfully do directly.' DO you agree with those, or would you claim I can hire you to act as my real estate agent, and then order you to sell my neighbours house without their consent, even though I could not do so personally?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom