Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[ComfySlippers]

If you were simply offering arguments or verifiable evidence in favor of FMOL, then it would be wrong to focus on you personally. But a good chunk of what you offer as evidence are just your own personal experiences, such as you supposedly going to court and forcing the judge to dismiss the case, or your many conversations with anonymous judges who agree with you fully. These claims hinge on your credibility, and as such, your credibility is then fair game to be questioned.

+1
This.

The obvious problem with Robert Arthur's comment is that the ideas in question are not even his. They are 'ideas' 'copied' from a three-decades-old scam. Nothing original is contained in Robert Arthur's 'ideas' whatsoever.

This leaves us the only option of discussing him, as his stolen 'ideas' have already, many moons ago, been thoroughly dismissed and proven to be BS and the original inventors of said 'ideas' been sent to prison for fraud etc.

As the only thought, therefore, is "what kind of person would regurgitate this ***** and even sell it for profit?", we are left to discuss this particular individual rather than his obviously incorrect claims and ideas.

 

[deeper]

"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds share ideas."

Cool, given that you feel like that you must have missed these posts over at Ickes,

Rob, instead of wallowing in the abstract why not put some effort into helping those who are interested in actualising their Freeman ideals. You claim to have put thousands of hours into researching the law but seem unwilling to share your findings.

So, instead of asking inane questions like that in the opening post why don't you just tell us how we can go about rejecting the punishment of judges. Tell us clearly how we would go about that, maybe using yourself as an example, what exactly did you do and say to reject that punishment. If you're unwilling to do so it would seem to imply that you think that all potential Freemen should duplicate your own research, excuse me for thinking that would be a massively inefficient method of effecting change.

and

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.

Rob, up until now you have completely failed to share your findings, why not take this opportunity to do so? The vagaries you have told us so far are of no help to anyone. If I break the law, get caught and end up in court, what you have told me so far isn't going to cut it with the judge.

JUDGE: Deeper, you have broken the law, do you have anything to say in your defence?

ME: Well, some guy on the internet said "one man couldn't govern another man without his consent" and anyway, as a servant, how can you punish me, your master?

JUDGE: Guilty, take him away.

ME: But....but..

 

[deeper]

They are 'ideas' 'copied' from a three-decades-old scam.

I've seen this mentioned before, possibly in this thread but I can't wade through it again. Could you post a link, ta.

 

[D'rok]

I've seen this mentioned before, possibly in this thread but I can't wade through it again. Could you post a link, ta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement

 

[jargon buster]

The big difference between Roger Elvick and Menard is that Elvick actually had the gonads to put his own neck on the line for his beliefs.

Menard has decided to use the mentally ill to swell his coffers.

 

[Stacey Grove]

The big difference between Roger Elvick and Menard is that Elvick actually had the gonads to put his own neck on the line for his beliefs.

Menard has decided to use the mentally ill to swell his coffers.

It always strikes me as amusing that those numpties over at the WFS who slavishly follow Menard's teachings never ask themselves why doesn't Menard ever do the things he tells them they can do with immunity
I suppose they must be too thick to realise they are being fooled.
Like lambs to the slaughter.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Menard has decided to use the mentally ill to swell his coffers.

That's certainly the case with Lance, and if ever there was proof of what a despicable creature Menard con Menard's 'teachings' are... then that would be it.

Apart from following "The Hollow Earth Society" and other silly people on Facebook Lance seems to be keeping quiet. The fact remains, however, that despite Menard's protests of "Lance is not a child and is free to make his own choices" [paraphrased] (then walking away with a nice $800 in his pocket) Robert Arthur is responsible for having Lance locked up in a mental facility and a prison cell. Honourable?

As stated by JB if Menard was to actually live by the rules he preaches he too would be locked up in a cell, just like all the past gurus who have preached the Sovereign/Redemption bollocks.

ETA:
Google is full to the brim with links to "Man dissasociates himself from Canada" BS.
Yet the ever so important document that, in Menard's mind, proves this is still 'in his library thousands of miles away'. The scan of it was also removed from WFS when it became apparent to Menard that the letter stated no such thing and that people recognised this fact and mocked him.

When it is made abundently clear to Menard that his latest 'proof' of FOTL-Waffle is ludicrously stupid, he will often back-track/delete/flail like a FOTL-Fish.

Just because he has now learned the meaning of the word "context", his FOTL-Waffle is still nonsense and always will be.

Oh, hi to pigpot btw.
pigpot you are absolutley correct in thinking that all members of JREF are 'paid government shills', 'disinfo agents' engaging in 'cointelpro' and all the other things you have been told about when listening to Alex Jones and watching YouTube videos. You are a very astute human being and obviously not one of the sheeple. Dick.

 

[Bishop]

It always strikes me as amusing that those numpties over at the WFS who slavishly follow Menard's teachings never ask themselves why doesn't Menard ever do the things he tells them they can do with immunity
I suppose they must be too thick to realise they are being fooled.
Like lambs to the slaughter.

He tells them he does, doesn't he? He just doesn't provide any evidence.

 

[Stacey Grove]

He tells them he does, doesn't he?

I'm not so sure he does.
He tells them he is a Freeman On The Land.
He tells them that he is not bound by statute law.
But that appears to be about as far as he goes.

 

[Toke]

I am not sure what he tells them, but found it quite telling to see the reaction when JB appeared in the guise of a freeman practising and being successful with all the woo.

(For those who did not follow, they were immediately suspicious of someone who actually got it to work. )

 

[Horatius]

So the JREF site is in on the conspiracy too?

Well, duh.

Is there no end to this?
We're doomed.
I tell you, we're doomed.

Just get yourself a black cat, then do everything he wants you to. You might make it out alive.

 

[Hans]

I am not sure what he tells them, but found it quite telling to see the reaction when JB appeared in the guise of a freeman practising and being successful with all the woo.

(For those who did not follow, they were immediately suspicious of someone who actually got it to work. )

Yes I followed that one. It was 'profound' they knew immediately that he was 'fake' - because he was claiming he was living as a freeman - successfully, if anyone has a link to that it might be good to revisit it.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

Let me try and explain the difference to you: Rob is right. The government is a con trick. A few people are making money off the suffering of others. If, to get that message to the gullible, Rob has to violate the rules of the Law Society, I consider that a price worth paying.

Rob can you address this nonsense that you have in your signature over on Ickes?

Can you just remind me when you last violated the rules of the law society since a court ruling told you not to?

Say, what authoritative person is he quoting, here, that is agreeing with him?

 

[jargon buster]

It was actually a comment added to the Kamloops newspaper article about Lance Thatcher when someone was backing Rob, technically it could have been Rob himself who wrote it, if not it was just a random numpty.

 

[jargon buster]

if anyone has a link to that it might be good to revisit it.

The one from WFS was deleted, this is from our old friend grndslms site
http://www.suijurisforum.com/i-am-a-freeman-on-the-land-its-official-t205.html

 

[ComfySlippers]

From DIF

A man hears voices in his head, imaginary voices.
They tell him to murder his neighbour, and declare himself Emperor of the UK.
He inflicts violence and commits murder and then declares himself Emperor.

Now since the violence he inflicted was real, does that mean the voice was too, and he is in fact the Emperor?
Or can the violence be real, yet the voice not?:

Similar Example

Someone else points to the bylaws of The Corporation of The City of Vancouver.
Those bylaws tell him to enforce the will of the imaginary corporation and inflict violence.
He does so.
Because the violence was real, does that mean the Corporation is not a legal fiction and that it is in fact real? Or is it just like the first case, merely the human and the violence which is real, with the justification being based on imagination?

The FOTL-Waffle Guru must have been smoking some very dodgy stuff when he wrote that piece of gibberish.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I think he deserves a refund for the stuff he's smoking at the moment.

Actually everyone does not know or agree with it. YOU do so very strongly however that you assume everyone else does. YOUR fear is so great, that you can't understand why others are not equally cowed by the threat of firearms

Here are some simple observations.
If you have a SIN, you will be subject to certain statutes you otherwise would not be. Does the government come at us with guns, and force us to have a number? OR do they rely upon people submitting application, thus having a choice? Why do they not just come by with their guns and say THIS IS YOUR NUMBER YOU MUST ASSOCIATE WITH IT! Why do they get us to ask for a number instead of just assigning it if their guns are so powerful? If they had anywhere near the power with their guns you think they do, we would have numbers assigned to us, instead of being given the opportunity to voluntarily submit and apply for one.

The fact is it is the people who allow them to have the guns, to protect our right to chose, and to claim we have no right to do so, cause they have the guns is to ignore WHY they have them to begin with.

They do not use guns to get you to vote, or submit application, or to agree, and it is those things, far more than the guns, which transfers authority from us to them. They do use guns ONCE YOU HAVE AGREED, to enforce the terms of the agreement, but they still use agreement, and we still have a choice.

When the people in the government are actually saying "WE HAVE THE GUNS DO WHAT WE TELL YOU" instead of "You submitted the application, now meet the obligations you agreed to." then maybe you would have a point. But they do not, and your fear of them doing so is unjustified and disempowering.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Doing a Menard / Flailing like a FOTL-Fish

Seriously, stop smoking that stuff Robert.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I am not sure what he tells them, but found it quite telling to see the reaction when JB appeared in the guise of a freeman practising and being successful with all the woo.

(For those who did not follow, they were immediately suspicious of someone who actually got it to work. )

Actually we were not suspicious of the win, as there has been many of those, but we knew it was him by the way he communicated. It was obviously him trolling, and we knew it immediately.

And comfy, Lance does not hold me responsible for putting him in jail. YOU DO. Lance holds the people who actually put him in jail, responsible for putting him in jail. Funny how that works...

 

[D'rok]

Actually we were not suspicious of the win, as there has been many of those

Evidence?

And comfy, Lance does not hold me responsible for putting him in jail. YOU DO. Lance holds the people who actually put him in jail, responsible for putting him in jail. Funny how that works...

Lance is seriously ill. That's why you were able to take advantage of him. If you don't have the decency to accept responsibility for your role in his downfall, perhaps you should at least apologize to his ex-wife for destroying her marriage:

Thatcher had his first run-in with the law in Kamloops in 2007, which cost him four days in jail, she said. After that, he had a conversation with well-known freeman Robert Menard, who sold him an $800 document that indicated how he could fight the law more effectively.
From then on, his conflicts intensified as he opposed every authority figure from the RCMP to Merritt bylaws officers and municipal tax officials.

...

By 2009, freeman ideology had so enveloped his thinking it destroyed the couple’s marriage, Sellinger said.

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2...s-says-ex-wife