Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[solzhenitsyn]

I'm late to the party (story of my life) but I'd like to pose a couple of questions for FreemanMenard:

I have none. I did not elect them, and did not empower them to act as my representative. Therefore by simple absolute logic, I do not have an elected representative, and if you attempt to claim I do, you must change the definition of both elected and representative.

OK, even accepting this point of yours (which I don't, but for the sake of argument will), if Parliament and the courts, with the power of the police and military at their disposal, decided to change those definitions, what can you do about it?

Aspects of law which are merely expressed by statute and existed prior, would certainly still apply.

Statutes which do not reflect law and rely upon agreement and application, would not in my view. Can you distinguish between the two?

Would you agree that when I, or any other person, is in a courthouse or being detained by the police, your own personal view on these matters is far less important than the views of the government and the police and the courts on these matters (almost to the point of irrelevance)? If not, why? Do you have a police force and military force which is more powerful than the government's?

So to sum up:
Consent is mentioned in the Acts. We are in agreement on that.
The consent is claimed to be given by those apparently acting as representatives. We are in agreement on that.
The question has now become can one man act as an agent or representative for another without mutual consent.

If the government, through Parliament or the courts, says that one man can act as an agent or representative for another without mutual consent, then the answer is clearly yes. This is because the government has an army and a police force, all armed with big nasty guns, and so I'm inclined to do as they say.

Perhaps if I had my own army and my own police force (made up of like-minded people perhaps) that outnumbered the government's army and police, I might be inclined to do things differently. I might even be inclined to declare a rule that no man can act as an agent or representative for another without mutual consent. Until then, I can only dream...

If not then the consent was not actual and merely the appearance of it. I know this is what you do not wish to examine, and instead would prefer to simply file it as "THATS HOW IT IS", but those with open minds will look and determine if it is actual, or merely appearing to be but not.

In fact the government quite happily and explicitly says something far more dastardly then "the consent was not actual and merely the appearance of it." The government explicitly says that an individual person's consent is irrelevant. The government explicitly says that they will enforce their laws against "non-consenters" with naked force.

Or would you rather just proclaim 'Thats how it is!"

Yeah, that's because that is how it is. Nothing I post on an internet forum is capable of changing that (well, unless my posting is so eloquent and persuasive that it inspires the masses to rise up against the tyranny of the Canadian government.)

 

[jargon buster]

Menards every post reeks of desperation, hes just like a small child arguing with its parent about tidying his room, the parent tries to reason with him but will eventually give him a clip around the ear and make him do it if he carries on asking questions and staling.

 

[Mojo]

Such as by your elected representatives.

I have none. I did not elect them, and did not empower them to act as my representative. Therefore by simple absolute logic, I do not have an elected representative, and if you attempt to claim I do, you must change the definition of both elected and representative.

If you couldn't be bothered to engage in the democratic process, that's your problem. You have exactly the same rights as any other citizen. You are not special.

It was not implicit at all. I did not mention anything except consent and I specifically did not mention personal consent.

You were replying to a point about the type of consent required for a valid contract, in the course of arguing that this type of consent is required for legislation to have effect. The context makes it abundantly clear either that you were talking about this type of consent or that you didn't understand the point that you were replying to.

This is a long thread, with many different points of discussion being raised, and to point to one in the past, and claim that because in a previous post I spoke of individual consent means I must now also be doing so and must always be speaking of individual consent is simply false.

I was relying of the specific context within which you raised the issue of the word "consent" in statutes, not any other part of the thread.

This examination is about looking at the power of the documents themselves, and if they require consent when dealing with two and only two people, affected by the document. But of course, instead of even allowing discussion on this, and answering a question, there is pages of dares, insults, avoidance and diversion.

And here you go again. You are talking about contracts here. This is not relevant to statutes.

My personal consent is not needed for you and someone else to agree to certain terms of a contract. You two can contract away your own power to each other to your hearts content, and my consent is not needed for you two to contract with each other, and create your own interpersonal law, which will bind you both. You do not need my consent. But nor can your agreement or contract bind me to payment or performance. Nor can you two claim that due to your agreement between you two, that myself and another are forbidden from engaging in the exact same actions.

This is true. But statutes are not the same as contracts. And, of course, contracts are only binding on the parties because they are backed up by the judicial system.

So in a discussion where we wish to determine if there is consent or merely the appearance thereof, it will not be allowed to be examined at all, and just declared 'that's how it is'. That's the support you have for your argument? "That's just how it is!"???

An ugly fact will always beat a beautiful theory.

Aspects of law which are merely expressed by statute and existed prior, would certainly still apply.

Statutes which do not reflect law and rely upon agreement and application, would not in my view. Can you distinguish between the two?

Unless you can demonstrate that they are unconstitutional, statutes are law.

So to sum up:
Consent is mentioned in the Acts. We are in agreement on that.
The consent is claimed to be given by those apparently acting as representatives. We are in agreement on that.
The question has now become can one man act as an agent or representative for another without mutual consent.

The question is irrelevant to the consent required for acts, unless you are once again arguing that the consent required for the application of statutes is individual consent (i.e. what you were denying arguing only a few hours ago).

If not then the consent was not actual and merely the appearance of it. I know this is what you do not wish to examine, and instead would prefer to simply file it as "THATS HOW IT IS", but those with open minds will look and determine if it is actual, or merely appearing to be but not.

Or would you rather just proclaim 'Thats how it is!"

That is how it is. If you don't like it, you have the same rights to change it as anybody else, via the democratic process. Or alternatively you have the right to leave the jurisdiction. There are still a few places where there is no effective system of government, although I wouldn't want to live in them myself.

 

[Mojo]

I have none. I did not elect them, and did not empower them to act as my representative. Therefore by simple absolute logic, I do not have an elected representative, and if you attempt to claim I do, you must change the definition of both elected and representative.

And note that the reason we are discussing a representative democracy, and the consent of your representatives, is that that you are under the juridiction of a representative democracy. The only consent that is needed for a statute to have effect is the consent of whatever entity is empowered to consent to legislation. If you were living in an absolute monarchy, the only consent required would be that of the monarch - the statutes would still apply (and it would probably be rather unwise to suggest that they didn't).

 

[jargon buster]

So after another of Menards flying visits are we any further forward with his production of anything valid to back up his claims?

Of course not, I also notice he has completly ignored jlords post which includes cases of people being governed without their consent yet again.

Sophistry , rhetotic and idiotic wordplay are the Menard signatures.
Self debunking at its very best.

 

[Cocana The Second]

For rob's return....

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.

 

[Stacey Grove]

So after another of Menards flying visits are we any further forward with his production of anything valid to back up his claims?

Of course not, I also notice he has completly ignored jlords post which includes cases of people being governed without their consent yet again.

Sophistry , rhetotic and idiotic wordplay are the Menard signatures.
Self debunking at its very best.

I think what it all boils down to is that Rob observes "the way it is" and his reaction is "It's not fair". Now, that may very well be true and some of us here may agree with him to a certain extent, but unfortunately for Rob those that control the police, the legal system and the army in his country have little concern for Rob's opinion of fairness and they are willing to exert the force required to bring the likes of Rob into line.
It would be of no consequence how many times Rob shouts "I do not consent", those that matter will still enforce their will.
For Rob to believe his sophistry will convince those that enforce the law that they are all wrong and he is right is quite naive in my opinion.
There may be some merit in claiming it is an unfair system, but that is the way it is. As has been mentioned before Rob will only get what he wants if the system is changed. But instead Rob sells lies to the gullible claiming that the remedy they seek lies in the system as it is at this moment.
But, we know it does not. Every attempt fails.

 

[jargon buster]

I think what it all boils down to is that Rob observes "the way it is" and his reaction is "It's not fair".

His recent posts simply confirm that, he simply tries to get people with a "gotcha" question and then bases that as evidence for his claims.
Its a bit like Marc Stevens "conflict of interest" nonsense, its all irrelevant though as courts and the police dont entertain stupid leading questions and will not play games at the side of the road or in court.

Just watch any of Robs videos where he engages public service employees in conversation, he simply tries to put words in their mouths and get them to agree with him which simply reinforces his incorrect beliefs.

I would be nice if the public employees simply said I am under no obligation to agree with your interpretations and if I cannot help you with a specific claim I withdraw my consent to engage with you.

 

[Border Reiver]

Rob, my earlier point about your arguments not working in court? You plaited that by going to court these people who use the twaddle you peddle are somehow doing it wrong and implied that that is why they fail, or alternately that a court ruling is not the best determinate of your arguments.

BS

You are positing a legal argument for which the only benchmark for validity is success in court.

By the way, your reduction of law to "2 people and a document - how can the document give power to one over the other?" is flawed. Society is a little more than two people - 32+ million of us if you only consider Canada alone.

Since society is bigger than a small village we use a slightly more practical way of doing the rules.

 

[jargon buster]

You are positing a legal argument for which the only benchmark for validity is success in court.

And he knows it.
Robs simply messing about trying to justify his ramblings by posting simplistic scenarios that have little bearing on reality.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

By the way, your reduction of law to "2 people and a document - how can the document give power to one over the other?" is flawed. Society is a little more than two people - 32+ million of us if you only consider Canada alone.

Since society is bigger than a small village we use a slightly more practical way of doing the rules.

It doesn't even matter that it is a hopelessly flawed analogy. It can still be easily explained. There are two people. One is much stronger than the other. The stronger one writes a document and tells the weaker person that this document sets out the rules around here and you must follow them or else. The stronger person may make some other arguments like "these rules are fair" or "my father was the chief and now I am the chief" or "these rules come from God". This may convince the weaker person to follow the rules in the document. If not, the stronger person simply forces the weaker person follow the rules using their greater strength.

Now, I accept that if the two people in this little scenario were of exactly equal strength, one could not rule over the other (until a third person arrives on the scene of course.) In any event, I am going to let Freeman Menard in on a little secret: YOU ARE NOT AS STRONG OR AS POWERFUL AS THE GOVERNMENT. That is why they get to tell you what to do.

Of course it is probably worth observing that in Canada, the government seldom has to resort to brute force. The vast majority of Canadians (as far as I can tell anyway) accept the government's arguments that our laws are mostly fair and just, and are the product of a legitimate democratic process, and therefore we follow them. However, and this is something one can observe everyday, for people who choose not to follow the rules in Canada's documents, those rules are imposed by force and punishment.

I'm sure this will all fall on deaf ears however. Somehow I feel like Menard, with these little drive-by interjections, is having the last laugh on all of us.

 

[jargon buster]

Somehow I feel like Menard, with these little drive-by interjections, is having the last laugh on all of us.

The fact is that he knows he's talking nonsense is obvious in the way he ignores posts that challenge him and continues with idiocy regardless.

Rob cant really believe it, because if he does he seems to be the only one on the internet at the moment, save a few basket cases on WFS and even they dont listen to Menards ramblings anymore.

 

[JLord]

You will have to forgive me, the 'useless noise' (insults) to 'useful signal' (discussion) ratio is so high on this forum I may have missed your question. I do not feel like digging through the vile bile here to find it, so if you wish to re-ask please do so. Thank you.

Sure, I will re-post:

In response to the following:

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard
Over $100MILLION is discharged student loans would suggest that it is in fact how it is, and not merely how it should be. That is not to say that everything is how I say, but much of it is....

I replied:

That doesn't address the point I made. If you are telling people of a way to discharge student loans that is accepted by the de facto law then that's a seperate matter. There are certainly ways to discharge student loans that are accepted by the de facto courts. Nobody would dispute that.

However, there is no known instance of a de facto court accepting the argument that individual consent is required in order for statutes to be applicable to them. So even if the many failed attempts have not adopted your logic, you surely must admit that at best you have an untested argument. Until it is accepted by the de facto courts it is irresponsible and misleadaing to say "this is how it is" rather than "here is what I believe to be a good argument."

For instance your example of me hiring a realtor to sell your home without your consent. I agree that I would not be able to do this according to the de facto courts. But the reason I agree is not because such an action offends my personal sense of morality, but because there is no known instance of the de facto court supporting such a position. If the law were to change in this regard then I would have to change my answer and admit that yes in fact I can hire a realtor to sell your house without your consent. This would become the de facto law, regardless of how good a philosophical argument you could make against it.

I also see that you have since been repeatedly asking the question: "How does a document physically force two people to do what neither of them wishes to do?" I will answer.

It is not the document that forces anyone to do anything. It is the threat of force if you don't comply that forces people to comply. So if we come accross some document neither of us consented to, we would still be forced to comply if we knew there was a credible threat of force that we knew would be carried out in a consistant way if we didn't comply. The document might detail the rules we have to follow and indicate what force we can expect if we don't follow it, but ultimately it is not the document itself that forces compliance, it is the threat of force.

This is why people in Canada have to follow the Criminal Code of Canada, but not the Magna Carta or Leviticus, or Hammurabi's code. One carries a legitimate and credible threat of force being imposed on anyone who doesn't follow it, the others do not.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Sophistry , rhetotic and idiotic wordplay are the Menard signatures.
Self debunking at its very best.

Whilst reading Robert Arthur's posts is a cringingly embarrassing ordeal, it is fun to analyse his silly behaviour and beliefs.

We've had The Dunning–Kruger Effect mentioned, which I think is very fitting, but something else springs to mind:

The Infinite Monkey Theorem

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

I feel this is of interest because, after "tens of thousands of hours of legal research and studying the Law", Robert-Arthur managed to come up with an exact copy of the works of conmen such as Roger Elvick, Winston Shrout et al. What are the chances of that?

 

[jargon buster]

First picture from Menards Friday gathering

 

[Toke]

It looked a bit odd for 10-15 sec until I realised where it was from and how appropriate it is.

 

[deeper]

First picture from Menards Friday gathering

The audience looks pretty excited, do you think that's the moment where Rob presented the evidence that his claims work?

 

[Stacey Grove]

The audience looks pretty excited,

Right up until the point Menard mentioned "donation".

 

[solzhenitsyn]

The audience looks pretty excited, do you think that's the moment where Rob presented the evidence that his claims work?

I believe that this scene has captured the early part of the legal seiminar/"comedy show for entertainment purposes only" [in fine print] where Menard/McMurphy has proposed that the institution residents need only not consent to nasty old Nurse Ratched's authority and they can just walk out of the institution. As Stacy points out, the apparent enthusiasm of the audience can be explained by the fact that they haven't yet learned that this secret knowledge will cost them 800 cigarettes each. This is also before Lance Thatcher, Cheswick and Martini et al receive some electric shock therapy for their trouble.

 

[Bishop]

I believe that this scene has captured the early part of the legal seiminar/"comedy show for entertainment purposes only" [in fine print] where Menard/McMurphy has proposed that the institution residents need only not consent to nasty old Nurse Ratched's authority and they can just walk out of the institution. As Stacy points out, the apparent enthusiasm of the audience can be explained by the fact that they haven't yet learned that this secret knowledge will cost them 800 cigarettes each. This is also before Lance Thatcher, Cheswick and Martini et al receive some electric shock therapy for their trouble.

You know, it's established later on in the story that most of the patients actually voluntarily committed themselves, so they really are free to leave whenever they want.