Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Stacey Grove]

Menard wrote:

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?"

And with that comment Rob exposes how a FOTL court would have no jurisdiction.

 

[Border Reiver]

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.
__________________

I see the judge going, "Yes, what are you? Some sort of loon? Mr. Crown please present your case. Mr FMOTL, you'll get your chance to answer the particulars of the case against once they have been presented."

 

[jargon buster]

Menards posting garbage again over on Ickes hoping no one will notice.
I'm sure he is aware that people from here are members there.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060331295&postcount=1

Anyway, Im sure he wont post it here because the proof hes asking for has already been provided by JLord.

I will just address his misdirection agenda

It is held by Freemen that we are all equal before the law, and no man may LAWFULLY govern another without their consent.
We agree that there are those who unlawfully govern without consent, but that does not make it right.

See how he again fails to distinguish the difference between an individual and a government to hide his secretive agenda.
A government can govern an individual without his consent, its abundantly clear, its also blatently obvious that Rob is being governed without his consent due to the fact that he claims he doesnt consent yet still obeys all the rules.

Prove through a court case that you have the recognized power to govern, tax, regulate and control directly your fellow man without their consent.

This is exactly how the courts operate, a clear indication of Robs inability to link with reality.

Also pretty much every single civil action is a clear case of an individual governing another without his/her consent.
I'm pretty sure the loser doesnt consent to losing.

 

[ComfySlippers]

There does seem to be some back-peddling and straw(!)-clutching going on over there.

You are, apparently, misguided if you believe that FOTL-wafflers think that courts operate as profit making enterprises. (Collecting paltry fines is a big money maker don't you know)....

And yet I can find two quite recent posts on the DIF-FOTL-Waffle forum where Robert Arthur states just that very confused idea.

(Excuse the lack of Linkys, I'll add them later when the interwebs are cooperating)

ETA:

Rob on DIF

That should actually read:
"According to my ignorant and skewed view of what Freemen believe, the courts exist only to generate income by the issuing of fines for certain offences."

It should be followed with:
"Therefore according to my strawman argument, why yada yada yada...."

Rob's Very Cunning Blog...

Existing courts are open to the public but are owned and operated as a private for profit business by the Law Society. They have no claim to a monopoly on court operation or creation. Or do they?

From DIF:

Your assumption is that because we do not wish to bow to defacto corporate courts operated by private for profit entities we cannot use courts at all right? It is a false assumption. We would still have courts, they would be dejure and not defacto, and publicly owned and operated, and not private entities providing a for profit service to the public. BIG DIFFERENCE. Except to you, for since we do not wish to buy your shoes, surely we must wish to be barefoot, right?

From WFS:

If the court is itself operating as a corporation, and as some people believe is in effect a bank, there will never be justice there when going against another corporation.

 

[D'rok]

Menards posting garbage again over on Ickes hoping no one will notice.
I'm sure he is aware that people from here are members there.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060331295&postcount=1

Anyway, Im sure he wont post it here because the proof hes asking for has already been provided by JLord.

Dear me, he really has problems with the whole honesty thing doesn't he?

You have ignored all my previous posts (despite the fact I am one of the few answering your questions and not interested in insults) and likely will ignore this one as well.

Here are some court rulings where a person used your argument (that the government has no right to govern without their individual consent) and failed. Since you have asked so many times I assume you are unfamiliar with these rulings so I will link to hte case and post the relevant passages:


R. v. Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2007/2007abca45/2007abca45.html

6] The applicant submits that the jurisdiction of the Court or the applicability of statutes such as the Traffic Safety Act is based on individual consent, and that consequently the courts below lacked the ability to hear this matter or convict him. In my view, those arguments are without merit and fail to raise a question of law of public importance.

This decision alone owuld certainly give reason to conclude that individual consent to be governed by statutes is not required in Canada according to the de facto courts. This is sufficient and convincing, but there are lots of other cases where people have succesfully been "governed" by statute law through the courts without their consent:



Kanwar v. Kanwar, 2010 BCCA 407 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2010/2010bcca407/2010bcca407.html

33] Mr. Kanwar argued that the matter is one of settled law in India, and without his written consent to being governed by Canadian law; the parties remain governed by Hindu law and the issues raised by Ms. Sukhija can only be resolved under the provisions of the laws of India. Ms. Sukhija argued that there are no such legal restrictions.

...

[43] Although both parties and the child were born in India, all applied for and received landed immigrant status in Canada, and as such, are subject to Canadian law.

R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca767/2008onca767.html

[20] More important, the essence of his argument is that ‘the Act does not apply to me because I choose to have it not apply to me’. Contrary to what Mr. Christie says, this is a jurisdictional argument (and one which is void of merit) that leads to a mistake of law which does not afford a defence. This court has already said in Klundert No. 1 – this kind of mistake of law is irrelevant to the fault requirement of the charge of tax evasion.

If you are still interested I will post links to other such cases:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii9368/2009canlii9368.html

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2000/2000bcsc190/2000bcsc190.html

I don't want to go too far with this at this point, because you may not respond at all, and if you do there is already enough to respond to in the first case posted.

Ran away from that one and never came back. Shamelessly posted the same garbage somewhere else. Is this more of the honourable and mature behaviour of FOTLers that we keep hearing so much about?

 

[D'rok]

Interestingly, in his flailing about over on Icke's, he has explicitly stated that human beings are persons:

Whether it [person] refers to a human being, or a legal entity such as a corporation, is determined by its use or context in the particular Act.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060331244&postcount=50

Progress? Will he now cease selling that particular lie? Maybe it's time to discontinue that whole product line.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Interestingly, in his flailing about over on Icke's, he has explicitly stated that human beings are persons:

Rob does certainly appear to tailor his claims to suit any situation he finds himself in.

Progress?

I doubt it.

Will he now cease selling that particlar lie?

I think you already know the answer to that one.

Maybe it's time to discontinue that whole product line.

The lure of revenue imo is too much of a temptation to allow such a trivial admission to make Rob redesign his business plan.

 

[D'rok]

The lure of revenue imo is too much of a temptation to allow such a trivial admission to make Rob redesign his business plan.

I am forced to agree.

 

[jargon buster]

TBH I am really now wondering if he is actually sane at all.
The original title of this thread gave options as to what people believed to be the case in relation to Mr Menard.
After such blatant ignorance of evidence provided and then to simply go and ask for that very same evidence on another forum cant be the work of a conman, conmen have to have some degree of astuteness.
Did he really believe he wouldn't get found out?
I think the thought didn't enter his head because things simply don't compute at all.

I have visions that he will end up like Jack Nicholson at the end of the movie "The pledge"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MybLVHnGxHo

 

[Stacey Grove]

Did he really believe he wouldn't get found out?

Somebody who is knowingly selling a flawed business plan will waste no time worrying about the opinions of those who have rejected his presentation. He will just move on to his next mark.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Flailing like a FOTL-Fish

Interestingly, in his flailing about over on Icke's, he has explicitly stated that human beings are persons:

Originally Posted by Menard
Whether it [person] refers to a human being, or a legal entity such as a corporation, is determined by its use or context in the particular Act.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....4&postcount=50

Progress? Will he now cease selling that particular lie? Maybe it's time to discontinue that whole product line.

It's almost as if Robert Arthur has been told so many times "stop taking things out of context" that he has looked up the word 'Context' and given it a new meaning! (and probably taken the definition out of context too)

Will he drop the 'Person' rubbish? About as likely as him dropping the 'Agree' rubbish, the 'Undertstand' rubbish, the 'Birth-Bond' rubbish and the 'Corporation' rubbish.

(I think he believes in chemtrails as well)

Using the dying libraries, and the Internet, an online secure People's Congress could be created and just about any issue, form chemtrails, to the creation of our money could be addressed successfully.

ETA:
...and don't forget the 'creating money' rubbish...

Create our own money and seize our own security. Hold and administer them ourselves, or establish a trust yourself with a lawyer to hold it and administer it according to your directives. We can create the money we need for the purpose of building infrastructure, maintaining it, providing public services of all types, educating the populace, and meeting basic needs, empowering people to find and share their passion, and escape the rats race.

.....hmm, if only there was a very trustworthy non-scam type of bank run by a totally honest chap who isn't a conman which would do all this for us...

 

[Horatius]

Somebody who is knowingly selling a flawed business plan will waste no time worrying about the opinions of those who have rejected his presentation. He will just move on to his next mark.

I'm reminded of the finale of my comic series "Alex Jones: The Epic Fail Story" :

http://stripgenerator.com/booklet/3025/alex-jones-the-epic-fail-story/

Such inconsistencies, whether accidental or deliberate, simply act as a winnowing agent, distilling his target market down to the fringe who are stupid and/or insane enough to believe everything he says, even if it's self-contradictory.

 

[jargon buster]

Such inconsistencies, whether accidental or deliberate, simply act as a winnowing agent, distilling his target market down to the fringe who are stupid and/or insane enough to believe everything he says, even if it's self-contradictory.

Thats an interesting concept, however there is only so much dumbing down you can do before you are left with imbeciles.
Even girlgye, bones and Yozhik the resident pondlife over on Ickes dont believe his waffle anymore.

He will be standing with a placard waiting for the "special needs" bus going past at this rate.

 

[Toke]

That is an interesting idea, I just wonder how much money the selected audience have.
There is not much point in having a following of paupers?

 

[jargon buster]

Most scammers and conmen have flash lifestyles to show their success, in other words, look what my products/ideas offer.
You too can have what I have if you just put in the time and effort.
What does Menard have?
Nothing at all,he looks like a hobo and he bums around sleeping on other peoples floors and hitches rides everywhere???
How can anyone in their right mind* think this is something to aspire to?


* I know, I know

 

[deeper]

TBH I am really now wondering if he is actually sane at all.

Seriously, I was having the exact same thought whilst lying in bed last night. The nature of his argument reminds me of a broken clockwork toy.

Credit to him though, amongst the latest madness over at Ickes he did provide evidence and verifiable evidence at that. Here it is if anyone's interested,

So, you have evidence that you can stop taking orders from the servants and not be punished? I did not see any in the thread you started here.

If you're unable or not willing to provide verifiable evidence, can you at least share your knowledge and clearly lay out the exact method with which you can avoid punishment.

Sure. Are they servants?
YES or NO
If YES, can a servant order their master?
Just answer that.
When you have...

Verifiable evidence has just been provided to you. All YOU have to do is research the Master/Servant relationship at law.

 

[Toke]

Amazing, and he may even believe it himself, at some level at least.

 

[deeper]

Amazing, and he may even believe it himself, at some level at least.

As crazy as it sounds I also think that could be the case. I think we should change tack and instead of arguing with Rob we should all meet up with him for a big group hug.

 

[jargon buster]

Seriously, I was having the exact same thought whilst lying in bed last night.

Lying in bed thinking about Menard????
Heres one for your wallet

 

[Hans]

I asked my fmotl brother to define Dog

I thought he would give me the short answer of two words; Carnivore/ Mammal.
But of course I was given the long drawnout definition;

NOT A CAT.

From the linked to thread at Ickes.....