• 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.
Yeah...nuts. That website is pretty hilarious though. Lots of bible quotes filled with editorializing such as:

Don't open that door for anyone, except for a fellow brother or sister in Christ. Let's read what our Lord said:

Luke 13:25, "When once the master of the house [you] is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye [the ungodly] begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; ["Hey you! The master of this house...open up the door to us...to the police, salesman, etc!"] and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:"

Notice the master of that house did not open the door to those who were not of Christ. Even though, in this parable, the master inside the house responded to those outside, it is better if we do not reply to those of Caesar outside the door, because, as was shown above, that may give them permission to break down the door if you refuse to open it. But if there is nobody to "refuse" to open up the door for them, if there is only silence inside, they have no excuse to break it down.
Click to expand...
 
D'rok said:
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.
Click to expand...


FOTLers, eh?
 
FreemanMenard said:
I challenge you to govern me without my consent. Been doing that for a while now...
Click to expand...


How long you have been repeating this nonsense is irrelevant. Nobody has claimed that one individual can govern another without their consent. What people have argued is that individual consent to individual statutes is not necessary. Repeating this nonsensical challenge just makes you look like an idiot.

While we're on the subject of consent, here's another question that you don't seem to have answered:
FreemanMenard said:
Read the enabling clause in the statutes here in Canada. Why do you find the word 'consent' right in it, if consent is not required for them to be deemed as having the force of law? Hmmm?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Whose consent does it mention?
 
I challenge you to govern me without my consent. Been doing that for a while now...
Click to expand...

I think this is just a cry for help and just goes back to the days when people used to take his lunch money away from him at school.
 
Mojo said:
How long you have been repeating this nonsense is irrelevant. Nobody has claimed that one individual can govern another without their consent.
Click to expand...
Rob always returns to this default setting because all of his arguments have been proved to be incorrect.
Of course he is governed without his consent.
He cannot avoid consumption taxes. He is forced to pay them.
He cannot go to Ireland like he promised he would.
I could go on, but you get my drift.
He's being governed every day of the week.
 
Last edited:
I think I'm going to start copying and pasting the same post periodically to keep reminding him (and everyone else who reads this thread) that he has never proved a thing, which should be of concern to anyone who is researching Menard and his teachings.

So here goes...
 
Rob,

Got the evidence that you are immune from all statutory law, except those laws that you agree with? A verifiable court order or letter from the Canadian government should do the trick.

No? Thought not

Been telling people that this is what you have achieved? Yes
Been receiving money on the back of it? Yes
Been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? Yes


Once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole.

Probably best for you that you put up or shut up, but watching you dig is fun.
 
jargon buster said:
Transport Canada and Westjet certainly governed him without his consent ;)


http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=55543&sid=419443866634e810809d90457aac758b
Click to expand...

Always good to be reminded of that one!

Which also reminds me - Rob, what about your judicial review as well?!

Has anyone ever paused to focus on this sentence from Rob's Westjet ramble:

Many of you may think I am an anti-government nut-job, but in my view I am a pro-good-government unique and often comical individual with a good heart and a powerful brain and I am not shy of using either, although I often could use them both a little better.
Click to expand...

It says so much about Rob on so many different levels.
 
Many of you may think I am an anti-government nut-job, but in my view I am a pro-good-government unique and often comical individual with a good heart and a powerful brain and I am not shy of using either, although I often could use them both a little better.
Click to expand...

Roughly translated,
"you are all wrong and I am right, I think Im funny but Im not, I am corrupt and a bit thick, and the edges of each often get blurred and I never know when to shut up"
 
FreemanMenard said:
I have plenty of evidence and have presented it many times. You however refuse to accept it, and then demand 'proof' usually in the form of some other person expressing an opinion on its validity, and refuse to use logic, reason or law.
Click to expand...

Ummmm, we are using law, and providing citations that back up our positions. We are doing what is referred to as "debating" or "arguing". We have provided solid, independently verifiable evidence, reason and logic to back up the premise that the "Freeman-on-the-land" concept has no judicial basis, and that it is a rather untenable position to take in dealing with practical matters in the real world.

You keep falling back to a rather pendantic and philosophical argument that has been demonstrated to be without merit. My nine year old would preface similar statements with "In the Pokemon world...."

FreemanMenard said:
Speaking of no evidence, know who has NONE? The people in the government AND YOU! None to show that you can personally govern me without my consent and not break the law. And know who else has none? Your representatives.
Click to expand...

Actually, you provided the evidence that proves that HMTQ does in fact govern you and applies her rules to you, regardless of your unwillingness to be bound - I present this. Same user name as you you here, and the same writing style. Unless of course this is your evil twin "Skippy."

FreemanMenard said:
Well this has been fun! I have to go now, and prepare for my meeting later with a man who agrees with me. And oh, he is a judge. :D
Click to expand...


So how'd that meeting go?
 
Border Reiver said:
Actually, you provided the evidence that proves that HMTQ does in fact govern you and applies her rules to you, regardless of your unwillingness to be bound - I present this. Same user name as you you here, and the same writing style. Unless of course this is your evil twin "Skippy."
Click to expand...

Yup, that's our Robbie with another one of his failures.
He's right about one thing though, the bit where he describes himself as "On The Land".:D
 
Last edited:
The true beauty of the AVCanada pantomime has always been this bit of nonsense:

Went to court today and got some documents, spoke with a lawyer and called the RCMP with whom I have an appointment and will be swearing out an information and taking it to court. I will be serving my fee schedule on both West Jet and The Minister of Transportation and that starts at $2500 per hour. As for the John Baird and your CEO, there is a thing called the Criminal Code of Canada and it is against the law to engage in extortion. They according to my lawyer friend, are liable for accessory to extortion after the fact.
Click to expand...

These imaginary "lawyer friends" and "judges" who all agree with FOTL-Waffle together with Menard's inability to see that his "legal research" amounts to nothing more than him believing a very old and silly scam, make me laugh... a lot.

Endlessly regurgitating the same old rubbish doesn't make it true Rob.
 
So if Menard had such a valid case against WestJet, as agreed by lawyers and judges and whatnot, why didn't he press the case? It's been two years, and nothing has happened.
 
That westjet thread is just Menardite logic topped with comedy gold.....of course it was a complete failure for him.

I wonder how he explains that? Hey CRA experts is 'fee schedule' money taxable?
 
So we can set a subtle trap for him, muhahahahahaha

Jargon Buster has he claimed to have collected on a fee schedule?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom