Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is the question answered or avoided? Avoided right? Now he will not answer
Click to expand...

Rob , that should be your opening line in your comedy act.

Your punters certainly get value at your talks, they laugh all the way through and then again on the way home when it dawns on them that you were in fact serious.
 
Rob wrote
Have you ever denied consent to determine if it works or not? And if not, how can you possibly present yourself as an expert?
Click to expand...

Have you?
Because if you did you haven't posted any evidence of it.
 
Stacey Grove said:
If I wish to continue to reside in the area that the document applies to then as I have said I have no choice but to accept the terms of the document. However, I do have the choice to leave should I wish.


Tried it many many years ago.
Didn't work.
ETA: Well I suppose it did work in fotl terms, a night in a cell is a success is it not?
Click to expand...

1- So a document has force over two people, neither of whom wrote it nor consent to it? WOW. I just have to shake my head that ANYONE would think like that. Tell me, how does this inanimate document enforce its terms on both parties, if neither consent to it? And if there is no way for it to do so, why act like you have no choice in the matter?

2- Thank you for answering. Did you only try once? When you learned to walk, and you fell down, did you stop trying then, or do you walk now?
 
Stacey Grove said:
That's an excellent point.
Menard preaches the power of "non consent" and yet has never provided proof of himself doing it.
So, rob in your own words:
Click to expand...

I do not present myself as an expert and when you try to claim I do, I deny it. You however, when it was claimed that you were presenting yourself as an expert, did not deny it.
 
FreemanMenard said:
1- So a document has force over two people, neither of whom wrote it nor consent to it? WOW. I just have to shake my head that ANYONE would think like that. Tell me, how does this inanimate document enforce its terms on both parties, if neither consent to it? And if there is no way for it to do so, why act like you have no choice in the matter?
Click to expand...
I tell you what, rob, prove me wrong.
Show us how you contravene statute law. Give us videos of you breaking the law in full view of the police. Show us court transcripts where the court has upheld your beliefs.
But you don't.
You are too scared to actually do it yourself. The laws that you claim you don't consent to have as much power over you as they do everybody else. You're scared of them. You're too chicken to put your words into action.
 
Stacey Grove said:
I tell you what, rob, prove me wrong.
Show us how you contravene statute law. Give us videos of you breaking the law in full view of the police. Show us court transcripts where the court has upheld your beliefs.
But you don't.
You are too scared to actually do it yourself. The laws that you claim you don't consent to have as much power over you as they do everybody else. You're scared of them. You're too chicken to put your words into action.
Click to expand...

So now this is your old stand by tactic of avoidance of the question, by extending a challenge righty? Anyone else notice how he is ducking the question? Here is it again. Do not let his childish challenge stop you from seeing how he avoids the question:

Tell me, how does this inanimate document enforce its terms on both parties, if neither consent to it? And if there is no way for it to do so, why act like you have no choice in the matter?

So, Stacey, tell us HOW an inanimate document can enforce the terms upon it governing two parties if neither consent or agree to it.. And if you can agree there is no way for it to do so, (common sense really, and easy to answer if you are honest) why act like you have no choice?

Gonna answer or extend more childish challenges in the hopes no one notices you failing to answer?
 
1- So a document has force over two people, neither of whom wrote it nor consent to it? WOW. I just have to shake my head that ANYONE would think like that. Tell me, how does this inanimate document enforce its terms on both parties, if neither consent to it? And if there is no way for it to do so, why act like you have no choice in the matter?
Click to expand...

Rob, you act exactly like you have no choice in the matter, you just pretend that you dont.

You have no examples at all of you ignoring statute law and claiming non-consent when you get caught.
Rational people don't really fall for your stuff Rob, you just have to hope you fall on another Lance Thatcher(Have you contacted lance since his release?)
 
FreemanMenard said:
Tell me, how does this inanimate document enforce its terms on both parties, if neither consent to it? And if there is no way for it to do so, why act like you have no choice in the matter?
Click to expand...

I have already answered. I have no choice. TPTB have an army if they need it. I have watched your followers perform your dribble, bleating they do not consent whilst they are being led down to the cells. So unless there is a revolution TPTB will continue to wield their force.

You mention a challenge.
Yes I challenge you.
 
Last edited:
Stacey Grove said:
I tell you what, rob, prove me wrong.
Show us how you contravene statute law. Give us videos of you breaking the law in full view of the police. Show us court transcripts where the court has upheld your beliefs.
But you don't.
You are too scared to actually do it yourself. The laws that you claim you don't consent to have as much power over you as they do everybody else. You're scared of them. You're too chicken to put your words into action.
Click to expand...

Stacey Grove said:
Are you going to answer this, rob?
Click to expand...

No idea what you are talking about Stacey, as I can't even see jargins posts...

So you gonna worry about the questions posed by me to you, or about those posed by someone else to me which do not even include you?

How can an inanimate object such as a document enforce its terms on two parties who did not write it nor consent to it? Are those two bound by it, even though neither authored, consented or agreed? And if they are, how is the document going to force them to comply? Remember, we are talking two living breathing people and one inanimate document. According to you, the document has power over the people. So HOW is that possible? Or will you agree it is not possible?
 
FreemanMenard said:
According to you, the document has power over the people. So HOW is that possible? Or will you agree it is not possible?
Click to expand...

Of course it's possible when the person holding the document is backed by his army.
Try it yourself.
Oh I forgot, that's a job for the proles.
 
Stacey Grove said:
I have already answered. I have no choice. TPTB have an army if they need it. I have watched your followers perform your dribble, bleating they do not consent whilst they are being led down to the cells. So unless there is a revolution TPTB will continue to wield their force.

You mention a challenge.
Yes I challenge you.
Click to expand...

I have not mentioned any other party, JUST TWO people neither of whom are TPTB. Just two people. One document. Neither authored it, neither has agreed to it. No one else was mentioned, so why include them?

Can this document enforce its terms on these two people, or does it require OTHER PEOPLE to do so? (You seem to think that TPTB will enforce this document, but in this example I never mentioned them. Is TPTB your own boogieman who is every where and all powerful?)

Challenges require the challenging party to risk something. What are you putting up? Or is it just a 'dare' and you simply do not know the difference between the two? (THAT would not surprise me at all.) Let's see if you do know the difference. Show me what you mentioned in this challenge of yours and explain what your cost is if I am successful. Something you previously mentioned, because if you have to add now, that is evidence you risked nothing prior, and thus do not know the difference between a dare and a challenge.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Challenges require the challenging party to risk something. What are you putting up? Or is it just a 'dare' and you simply do not know the difference between the two? (THAT would not surprise me at all.) Let's see if you do know the difference.
Click to expand...
Forget everything else.
How much are you thinking?
 
I have seen several court cases linked here, but none of them support the freeman cause.
How come, Rob?
 
Stacey Grove said:
Of course it's possible when the person holding the document is backed by his army.
Try it yourself.
Oh I forgot, that's a job for the proles.
Click to expand...

I see so now you have to add in one parties 'army' which was not mentioned and not part of the argument at all. What about the other parties unicorns and zombie slaves? OH WAIT THOSE WERE NOT MENTIONED EITHER!

One Document.
Two parties.
Neither has an army.
Neither consent to the terms.
Neither authored it.
No one but those two even know about it.
Both say NO.


Now according to you, they do not have that right, and must be bound by that document.

So how does the document force its will on both these parties? I am not talking about ONE party consenting, and having an army, and the other not consenting and not having an army. That is the BS you added to the hypothetical example to support your position of cowardice.

I am talking about two parties, in agreement that they do not consent to a particular document, and that document somehow according to you binding them both, even though neither agree.
HOW DOES THAT DOCUMENT DO THAT?
 
Stacey Grove said:
Forget everything else.
How much are you thinking?
Click to expand...

Wow you sure are desperate to avoid the question aren't you? Answer my questions and I will answer yours. DO not ask me to forget everything else, ok?

How does an inanimate object have a will and enforce it on two living breathing people who do not agree with the terms of the document, when there are no armies involved, and no other people involved?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom