Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
ComfySlippers said:
Just to clarify on Rob's "How to win in Court" strategy, and to save his gullible followers $800. Also clarifying the fact that he doesn't actually believe the crap he preaches:

Full post from 2009
(Long quote, sorry. Bold is mine)





The NUI and COR rubbish etc are simply pre-written 'evidence' to be presented in Court after you have commited the crime so as to 'prove' that you actually believed this junk. And if you have convinced your followers to send in similar worthless pieces of paper.... win!

Rob thinks "Colour of Law" is the secret get out of jail free card.
Click to expand...

Except every time someone plays it they wind up in jail.
 
You honestly believed you had the right to do what you were doing.
2- This belief is not a result of negligence, but of diligence and positive action.
3- It is reasonable.
Click to expand...
As stated above, this defense may help in matters relating to "intent" - tax fraud, etc... come to mind. If you underpay your taxes, you generally get a bill and a fine. If you can convince the IRS it was a clerical error or some other misunderstanding, then they may waive the fine - you still owe them the money (plus interest).

No matter how much you "believed" you had the right to drive without a license, no matter how much "diligence" you put into researching your belief, no matter how "reasonable" it may seem to you - it's not.
 
Border Reiver said:
Let's start with the definition of "cult" so we're all singing from the same songsheet:

cult   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt]
noun
1.a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.the object of such devotion.
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.the members of such a religion or sect.
8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insightinto the natureof disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

adjective

9.of or pertaining to a cult.
10.of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie"

So, in answer to your questions:

a. Police - not a cult. The police are persons hired by the state to enforce the law, engage in crime prevention and where necessary locate and apprehend persons alleged to have committed a crime;

b. Law Society - Not a cult. The various provincial law societies in Canada are professional bodies engaged in the regulation of the practice of law. They set the professional qualifications necessary to practice, and discipline persons who violate the rules of practice;

c. This forum and members - A bit harder to give a hard and fast answer. Some display a cult like devotion to certain subjects or philosophies, others do not. The stated intent of the forum is to allow the critical analysis of various claims in an effort to allow discussion on a variety of topics.

I would say that in general many freemen exhibit the definition No. 4 above, being very devoted to their interpretations of the law, and are quite resistant to arguments that refute the "correctness" of their beliefs. They are definitely outside the mainstream.

If you object to the labelling of Freemen as a cult, fine. But can you explain how they do not fit the above definition?
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
FreemanMenard said:
You sure use the term cult loosely.
Tell me do you consider the police to be a cult?
What about the law society?
What about this forum and members?

If you do not consider them to be cults, but you do those Freemen who exercise their rights, I must ask if you ever looked at the definition of a cult, and compared that definition and list of attributes to those organizations mentioned?

Do you often refer to groups of people who share beliefs different from yours as a cult? And does that make it easier for you to justify ignoring their perspectives and maligning their opinions?
Click to expand...

Menard, I am not interested in playing word games with you or trying to convince you that your little "society" really is a cult.

My practical concern is that one of your dogmatic followers will go too far in acting out the beliefs of the freeman cult.

Lest you opine that I am making a mountain out of a mole hill let me remind you that you have helped more than a few Menardians down the road to cultish behavior as they cut their ties to society by losing their livelihoods, their homes and estranging their friends and families. I fear it’s only a matter of time before one of these lost boys with nothing more than a broken down van, some of your CDs and an irrational belief in freemanism decides he is not going to take it anymore when a cop asks him for I.D.

A little mature behavior on your part might stop or at least mitigate the impending tragedy, but your track record leads me to believe that for now you will collect the money. . .then, if and when one of the mindless Menardian minions flips out you will run from the truth the same as iyou did when called to account for helping send poor old Lance Thatcher to ruin.
 
. . .as serious as somebody who says you can use your birth certificate to pay your power and light bill.
Click to expand...
a birth certificate that has nothing to do with the human being and as such has nothing to do with the human beings fingers switching on the power and the human being absorbing all the heat coming from the radiators.
How can a piece of paper be responsible for the usage of power?
 
Apart from the odd cursory glance I've been away from the forums for quite some time.

Can I safely assume that with regard to FMOTL there has still been no unequivocal demonstration in a law court of any FMOTL founding principle (other than wasting time or getting off on a technicality &/or diminished responsibility) and the essence of any argument from the FMOTL side is that others just need to open their eyes to the obvious Truth and escape their prisoner/victim mentality?
 
Can I safely assume that with regard to FMOTL there has still been no unequivocal demonstration in a law court of any FMOTL founding principle (other than wasting time or getting off on a technicality &/or diminished responsibility) and the essence of any argument from the FMOTL side is that others just need to open their eyes to the obvious Truth and escape their prisoner/victim mentality?
Click to expand...
Correct.
We have had the usual arm waving, rhetoric and shophistry from Menard but he has ignored all the overwhelming evidence as usual and wants to try and argue that no man may govern another without his consent.
(Even though WESTJET, did an excellent job of governing him without his consent by refusing to let him get on a plane) :rolleyes:
 
Menardian charm offensive in full flow over on Ickes.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060364839&postcount=118
Yes, however someone seriously challenged would of course create duties and obligations of care for them, upon the community members. Many hands make light work, and I think we would be able to support some, or help them fit in to the community and find their passions. Certainly a community of 25 adults should be able to support one or two with difficulties. Most of the severely mentally handicapped people I have met also happened to be the kindest and most humbling of souls. The burden of care they may produce on the community I think would be easily offset by the gentleness of their spirits and important lessons they help teach us in return.

We are also thinking of building a sorta hospice cabin, with final care facilities for the terminally ill, and a couple of assisted living cabins for those who would like to spend their golden years in a cabin in a forest, with good and helpful neighbours who mind their own business, but are there when needed, and help with basic tasks.
Click to expand...

"Sorta", what a pathetic attempt at forced intimacy.
Just look at that post its simply him trying to make himself out to be this caring sharing good all around egg.

When you look past the words its just Rob wanting to make the rules and tell his cult members what to do.
 
Rob wrote on Ickes
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060364865&postcount=122
The state is composed of people, and they can't do it not because I do not consent, but because it is unlawful for one party to impose its will on another on public property without consent.
Click to expand...

I think he has now managed to create a reason (in his own mind) why Westjet could stop him flying, its now lawful for one party to govern another without their consent on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Sophistry saves the day again.
 
Last edited:
Course, if he wants that level of nonsense, Robert can certainly try to enter the training area at CRPTC Meaford (or any restricted area on any Canadian Forces Base - they are public property, but the public does not have unrestricted access). The Defence Controlled Access Area Regulations may be governing him without his consent.
 
We long suggested to Menard that he take the high road and publically confront the government and prove in court that his magic words work - obviously he was TO smart to do that!
 
I believe our subject’s denial of the supremacy of law is not about understanding the law.

I think the problem is that our subject’s grandiose sense of self-importance leads him to believe that he deserves automatic compliance with what he thinks the law should be. His fantasies of success and power include making up one’s own law and even having one’s own society.

Our subject needs to exaggerate his achievements to fit his fantasies. So when a Vancouver cop confronts him regarding his public drunkenness, which apparently is not an uncommon state for our boy, he develops a tale in which he educates the cop on freemanism and coaches him to find an electronic document that fulfills the subject’s fantasy that he can’t be touched without the approval of the highest law enforcement officials.

Since our subject needs excessive admiration he has no problem repeating his “I educated the cop” fantasy to an uncritical freeman audience and putting the whole tale on youtube. Since our manipulative subject sees the audience as being there solely to achieve his ends he has no problem taking advantage of their gullibility.

Posters here call this behavior pathological lying. But I believe there is much more to it than that!

Simply put since the law, the cops and this forum don’t fit our fez wearing subject’s fairy-tale, they have to be dismissed by him as unworthy. It may sound mad, but to our subject it’s easier than dealing with the demons that led him to believe that he has to be world renowned or he is nothing.
 
The amazing pigpot over at WFS speaks his mind, again, about JREF and stands up for his hero Robert Arthur Menard.


Why "this poster" would never go back to JREF forum...

(Long 'sentence', long quote)


Rob seems to have to debate constantly over at JREF and to his credit he does so pretty much alone (due not to moderation but to plain and simple banning of others that have logged on there, quickly to find they have been banned), which points to him being the point of focus which is unfair because they have never slung mud at Dean to my knowledge because Rob was pretty much the originator of these ideals and it seems that they think that if they can sink the originator they can sink the ideal.
Click to expand...


Rob was the originator? :D
 
Posters here call this behavior pathological lying. But I believe there is much more to it than that!
Click to expand...

I think its just got to the point that he just wants attention no matter what.
Even ridicule is better than nothing.
He doesnt get anyone backing him anymore even WFS loons give him a wide berth (maritime reference there ;)) (pigpot excepted it seems)
Its sad that he would want to come here and Ickes and get his argument destroyed time after time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom