Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone needs to call a Waaaambulance. There's a pouty Freeman on the Internet.
 
D'rok said:
Someone needs to call a Waaaambulance. There's a pouty Freeman on the Internet.
Click to expand...

TRANSLATION: I do not wish to shift my perspective of FMOTL, and I have nothing logical or mature to respond with, so instead, I will make a snide and what I think is a witty comment, and hope no one sees how I have no response.
 
Menard said:
Because we want to hold the security we own, they say we want something for nothing.
Click to expand...
What security is that? Would that be the so-called Security of the Person? One of the many Menardian claims that has been shown to be completely false in this thread and for which Menard has been unable to provide a single shred of evidence?

Not to worry. I'm sure there's an audience at Icke's that will purchase his lies.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
TRANSLATION: I do not wish to shift my perspective of FMOTL, and I have nothing logical or mature to respond with, so instead, I will make a snide and what I think is a witty comment, and hope no one sees how I have no response.
Click to expand...
Provide some substantive content and I'll give a substantive response.

This is the thread set up for you to do just that. Provide some evidence for your claims.

Waiting....
 
BTW: My Security of the Person case is scheduled to be heard tomorrow. Should I go in expecting to hear about financial instruments and birth bonds, do you think?

Or am I more likely to hear about actual law rather than FOTL fantasies?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Menard
Because we want to hold the security we own, they say we want something for nothing.
Click to expand...
Actually, if we accept Rob's version of "security" it would suggest that yes, they do want something for nothing.
 
Rob Wrote
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060329251&postcount=1
Because we claim the right to self-govern, they say we are anti-government, and anarchists.
self govern, you cant decide on what law is
Because we do not want a thug caste who think and act like they are above the law, and we are willing to accept the duty of preserving and maintaining the public peace, they say we are a violent militia.
yet you want your own militia armed and ready to arrest police officers
Because we say we want truth in our justice system, they say we reject law.
Again you cant clarify what "law" is
Because we want to hold the security we own, they say we want something for nothing.
in a freeman world there would be no "security" as a freeman believes (bond)
Because we do not wish to go to foreign bankers to borrow money they create out of thin air, and which we must pay back with interest, they say we do not understand economics.
Freeman have failed to distribute a box of apples properly when i last debated economics
Because we refuse to accept non-existent legal fictions and imaginary entities granted them power to govern and regulate us, they say we are looney, and need a psychological evaluation.
Refuse to accept them? They don't exist, so whats your problem?
If we claim that our ship has been hijacked, they say we think we can walk on water.
:jaw-dropp a freeman on the land with a ship??
Because we refuse to abandon equality and accept their orders and commands without question or regard for our own best interest, they say we are a threat to public safety.
No they dont, thats not the reason.
Because we see their actions as growing tyrannical, and a threat to us the public, they claim we are a threat to public safety and order.
Again not the reason at all, they see you as a minor irritation, nothing more.
Because we chose to govern ourselves maturely, they say we cannot govern those who do not.
Again, if you cant decide what law is you can never establish a government
Because we recognize the necessity of consent for contracts, they claim they can act without consent if there is no contract.
They can act without your individual consent Rob, its because you dont matter.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
They have banned your IP.
Just clear your "cookies" and access the site again via Google and you should be able to read no problem.
 
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060330222&postcount=7

This is where you are mistaken. They are not provided by Nanny. They are administered by Nanny.

Unless you wish to claim that roads did not exist 100 years ago, when government was not the Nanny.

They are PUBLIC roads, and the public has a right to use THEIR roads. If the member of the public is a ward, they need permission from their Nanny. If not, they don't, provided they are using it for private non-commercial purposes.

Nanny did not pay for or build the roads. The public did.

This mindset is what I was referring to. You mistakenly think that because they administer your property, they own it, or created it.
You think that because they administer how their wards use the public roads, they do not being to the public, and ONLY those who agree to be children and nannied have a right to them.

Take away the government.
Do the roads still exist, and would you have a right to use them to go to the market, or not?
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp
 
Its Menardian "top trumps"
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060330280&postcount=23
Nope.
Before the law is one thing.
Under the law is another.

In these cases 'the law' shifts in meaning. ( I KNOW! One idea, with the same words having two different meanings! Its almost like lawyers have been here or something!)

As you and I stand together, BEFORE THE LAW (previous to contract) we are equal.
As you and I stand together UNDER THE LAW (the terms of the contract) we are equal.

Before the law means I can reject your 'under the law'.
Equality before contract means the right to reject your contract, and not be under your contract, but if I accept it, then under that contract, we are still equally bound to its terms.

Simple eh?
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
 
cocana said:
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060330222&postcount=7



:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
That's some weapons-grade stupid right there.

Here's quite a long stretch of road not provided by, not paid for, and not built by the provincial and federal governments of Canada any time in the last 100 years...just like Rob says:

The Trans-Canada Highway (French: Route Transcanadienne) is a federal-provincial highway system that joins the ten provinces of Canada. It is, along with the Trans-Siberian Highway and Australia's Highway 1, one of the world's longest national highways, with the main route spanning 8,030 km (4,990 mi). The system was approved by the Trans-Canada Highway Act of 1948,[3] with construction commencing in 1950.[4] The highway officially opened in 1962, and was completed in 1971. The highway system is recognizable by its distinctive white-on-green maple leaf route markers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Canada_Highway
Click to expand...

Wait...the honourable freeman wasn't lying again, was he?

I'm so disillusioned.
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060328655&postcount=16

Here Rob, what advice do you have for Brian at his upcoming trial on the 2nd December.

Im sure you have something from your thousands of hours of law study.

Go on Rob, show the people how its done.
Click to expand...

He's on the case:

Originally Posted by undeadcreature View Post
I suppose the court could turn around and say "you are in the country aren't you?"


Rob:
And the guy could then ask: "Do you mean I am in the geographical area, or within the imaginary legal entity for whom you work?"

Imagine there is a city. We will call it "Ottawa". Its proper name when referring to it is "Ottawa City".
Now imagine a corporation providing services to that actual city. It's legal name is "The Corporation of the City of Ottawa", often referred to as 'The City of Ottawa".

Can a human being exist within 'Ottawa City', and not be in contract (or 'in') 'The Corporation of The City of Ottawa' or are they obliged to enter into a legal relationship with that corporation, merely because they are existing in the geographical area?


ETA: I can just see the judge recoiling in horror and the bailiffs throwing down their guns, stripping off their uniforms and running, gibbering out of the courtroom as they contemplate the profundity of the question.
__________________
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom