Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[arayder]

So are we in agreement that nothing that happens here has any effect in the real world?

. . . .this forum is for ***** and giggles and nothing that happens here has any effect or bearing on the real world. I also feel that if you do not post here for a couple of days, it may actually be due to you having better things to do, and not due to you being passed out in your own vomit. . .
Gotta love their 'logic' eh?

Yes, this is just the internet, the place you make your claims of success. Anyone can claim just about anything they want on the internet. That’s why I asked you for substantiation of your claims:

----------------

What I and others ask for is some sort of documentation or reasonable testimonial of the out of court successes you have claimed over the last few years.

You are on record in your YouTube lectures as claiming:

- That you backed down a Vancouver cop who found you drinking in public. You say he entered his computer and found a notice from Canadian authorities stating that you weren’t to be charged with crime without the highest government approval.

- That an individual you know, following your advice in court, submitted a $1,000 fee schedule/ bill to a bailiff and was promptly paid by personal check.

I ask that you document these claims.

Substance please.

-----------------

Do you not have proof of your claims, Rob?

 

[FreemanMenard]

It looks to me as if you don't know what this means.

It might look like that to you. It does not mean that is what it is. I am familiar with all of the terms used. It seems very straightforward to me, and according to the folks here, it must be plainly interpreted.


How about you share what it means TO YOU. ANd we will see if we are in agreement. Unless of course your goal is only to generate an argument of course.

What do those words mean to you?

What does attestation mean, to you?
What about protestation?
What about 'may'?

All very easy to understand and comprehend. At least for me.
And what about the Notary who after reading that specific section, agreed and protested and attested other documents for me? Did you wish to argue what those words mean, with a Notary?

 

[D'rok]

I ended up having a meeting with them, and using discussion and negotiation, established a mutually suitable resolution, which earned me big points with them, and resulted in my traveling around in an unregistered automobile with no license.

Utter ********. Given your track record of lies, lies and more lies, and given the track record of all your victims who have actually tried this based on your lies (fines, arrests, jail, loss of vehicles, etc.), do you really expect anyone not just emerging from a coma to fall for this?

Yeah Menard, the RCMP have given you a personal exemption from BC's Traffic Laws because of this letter and your personal reasonableness and charm. We should just take your word for it.

What a *********** joke.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Yes, this is just the internet, the place you make your claims of success. Anyone can claim just about anything they want on the internet. That’s why I asked you for substantiation of your claims:

----------------

What I and others ask for is some sort of documentation or reasonable testimonial of the out of court successes you have claimed over the last few years.

You are on record in your YouTube lectures as claiming:

- That you backed down a Vancouver cop who found you drinking in public. You say he entered his computer and found a notice from Canadian authorities stating that you weren’t to be charged with crime without the highest government approval.

- That an individual you know, following your advice in court, submitted a $1,000 fee schedule/ bill to a bailiff and was promptly paid by personal check.

I ask that you document these claims.

Substance please.

-----------------

Do you not have proof of your claims, Rob?

It was a West Vancouver cop. Yes it happened, but I did not record it. What would you suggest for proof? Do this: Pick out any conversation which happened between you and a stranger five years ago. One you did not record nor was witnessed by any other party. Now prove it, and I will use the same tools to prove my claims. But if there are no tools for you to use to prove that a certain conversation happened half a decade ago, why expect me to have such proof? Do you record each and every conversation you have with every stranger, so you can prove half a decade later to another stranger on the internet that it actually happened?

The guy who submitted the bill in court is not a friend of mine, and I was not there. It was recounted to me by someone who was there, in an email, many years ago. It was also then later confirmed by a second witness. Considering I have about 30,000 emails in just ONE of my addresses, and I have four, and since you will not even accept that email anyway, if I did spend the day looking for it, what would you suggest I bring as proof? All I could prove, if I was inclined to do so, is to show you the email.

I agree that is not 'proof', though it is sufficient to justify sharing with people the anecdotal story of how I received an email, and how that occurrence was recounted to me. That is what I did. If I recall correctly, what I said was "I got an email and this is what I was told". I did not say "this is what happened'.

 

[D'rok]

Always dodging. Never substantiating. What a bore.

Why you don't you go "convene a court" with a Notary and get a "default judgment" against WestJet? If Notaries have all the powers of both law enforcement and judiciary as you claim, should be easy-peasy, right?

I can't believe that people actually fall for this garbage.

 

[jargon buster]

And what about the Notary who after reading that specific section, agreed and protested and attested other documents for me?

A notary will sign anything if you pay him/her, they are not agreeing that what is in the paperwork is true.

One misconception about a notary license is that his or her official signature and/or embossing stamp automatically makes a document 'true and legal'. Documents certified by notaries public are sealed with the notary's seal and are recorded by the notary public in a register maintained by him/her.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/146324

By the way Rob, how did you prove your identity to this notary?

A notary must ensure that the person signing a document to be notarized is who s/he says s/he is. Because identities are critical, a notary public may also spend some time verifying the names of the parties involved in the signing.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/146324

 

[Paul]

It might look like that to you. It does not mean that is what it is.

Perhaps you should be more careful to make your writing comprehesible.

I am familiar with all of the terms used. It seems very straightforward to me, and according to the folks here, it must be plainly interpreted.

It must be interpreted in context.

So, if you're familiar with the terms and it's all straightforward, it must be the context you don't understand.

All very easy to understand and comprehend. At least for me.

Apparently not.

What part of their ability to affirm the truth or genuineness of or to advance a claim concerning an instrument do you believe give notaries their magic powers?

 

[arayder]

It was a West Vancouver cop. Yes it happened, but I did not record it. What would you suggest for proof? Do this: Pick out any conversation which happened between you and a stranger five years ago. One you did not record nor was witnessed by any other party. Now prove it, and I will use the same tools to prove my claims. But if there are no tools for you to use to prove that a certain conversation happened half a decade ago, why expect me to have such proof? Do you record each and every conversation you have with every stranger, so you can prove half a decade later to another stranger on the internet that it actually happened?

That is a disingenuous response at best.

You have never claimed this to have been just a passing conversation which you can hardly recall. . .until now. You claimed to have a slam dunk object lesson of the effectiveness your theory. A “case” you are so happy with that you posted it all over the internet. . .but now you don’t even have the cop’s name, the time of the incident, a witness or any tips for us on getting a copy of the mysterious government document giving you a private free pass at public drunkenness.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and try to recall some of these facts.

The guy who submitted the bill in court is not a friend of mine, and I was not there. It was recounted to me by someone who was there, in an email, many years ago. It was also then later confirmed by a second witness. Considering I have about 30,000 emails in just ONE of my addresses, and I have four, and since you will not even accept that email anyway, if I did spend the day looking for it, what would you suggest I bring as proof? All I could prove, if I was inclined to do so, is to show you the email.

I agree that is not 'proof', though it is sufficient to justify sharing with people the anecdotal story of how I received an email, and how that occurrence was recounted to me. That is what I did. If I recall correctly, what I said was "I got an email and this is what I was told". I did not say "this is what happened'.

So you didn’t verify the claim of success! You just passed it on! You repeated it as fact in one of your YouTube lectures, but you never asked the person who send you the email give you any details?

Now you say you have slam dunk case that proves your theory. . . but say you didn't even keep the email in a file?

Dang, ole son, that's just sad!

What do I suggest? That you find the email and give me, via the private email function here, a contact I can use to start tracking down the facts.

Furthermore, I would suggest that you stop using these and any other accounts you can’t verify, and will hardly lift a finger give information on, as proof of your theories.

 

[jargon buster]

Yep, Rob claims to have a letter from the government acknowledging he is a FMOTL and free from the restrictions of statutory legislation, yet he has NEVER posted this letter on any forum and does not even have a copy of it in his pocket in case he gets stopped by a cop.

Apparently it is with his things hundreds of miles away from his present location.
Yes that sounds believable.

 

[Stacey Grove]

The guy who submitted the bill in court is not a friend of mine, and I was not there. It was recounted to me by someone who was there, in an email, many years ago.

So, what about this other story you described:

A guy in Ontario was stopped by a cop. Cop asked if he was the guy with the COR and doing that reminded the stopped guy of his fee schedule. He thanked the cop and served him a bill for $1000. Cop returned with a cheque for that amount and whole different attitude.

Same thing?
You weren't there?
An email you received?
An email amongst the other 29,999 emails?

Did you check the story out thoroughly or did you just repeat it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Neither, he invented it.

 

[jargon buster]

Hey Rob, I once went to visit the man in the moon and rode all the way there on the back of a golden unicorn.

Would you like me to e-mail that story to you to add to your library of success stories?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Yeah Menard, the RCMP have given you a personal exemption from BC's Traffic Laws because of this letter and your personal reasonableness and charm. We should just take your word for it.

Of course you shouldn't just take Menard's word.
It's in the police database, no less.

daxo (a cop) wrote:

Originally Posted by daxo
Is this true, Rob? Do you really claim that the police computer says statutory regulations don't apply to you? Is this CPIC or the Provincial database? Have you physically seen it yourself or were you just told this?

Menard replied:

I saw a glimpse of it once when in the back of a car. There were about four or five instances of ASSISTED POLICE that came up first. (I put my life on the line a couple of times for cops in dangerous situations, holding back an angry crowd until help arrived. Also helped them with an out of control guy they were trying to arrest, and calmed him down. Another time at a protest I placed myself between them and an angry yelly man, and cracked jokes until he left.)
At the bottom there were big red letters, said Freeman-on-the-Land. Under that were more, but he saw me reading the screen, and shifted it. Pretty sure it said something about 'no valid person, Attorney General, and something else.. I did not catch the end of it.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059195515&postcount=133

There you go: Proof

 

[Bishop]

...and then the alarm went off and it was time to get up and go begging on the internet again.

Rob, stop telling fairy stories and start providing evidence

I lol'd.

What a ridiculous story.

 

[jargon buster]

I saw a glimpse of it once when in the back of a car. There were about four or five instances of ASSISTED POLICE that came up first. (I put my life on the line a couple of times for cops in dangerous situations, holding back an angry crowd until help arrived. Also helped them with an out of control guy they were trying to arrest, and calmed him down. Another time at a protest I placed myself between them and an angry yelly man, and cracked jokes until he left.)
At the bottom there were big red letters, said Freeman-on-the-Land. Under that were more, but he saw me reading the screen, and shifted it. Pretty sure it said something about 'no valid person, Attorney General, and something else.. I did not catch the end of it.

...and this one time, at band camp, I stuck a flute in my pussy.

 

[Stacey Grove]

...and this one time, at band camp, I stuck a flute in my pussy.

And the ultimate rendition of Annie's Song was heard by all.

 

[FreemanMenard]

As has been pointed out to you before, nobody here has claimed that they can govern you without your consent. The claim that people are objecting to is your claim that the government cannot govern you without your personal consent. Do you not understand that these are not the same situations?

Either ‘the government’ is composed of individual people or not.
In order to be a part of this group, THEY need to either consent or they do not.

If they are, they are either bound by the law, before they become the government, or they are not.

If they are, then they are bound by the idea of equality before the law, and therefore need the consent of those they govern. If they do not need consent, then they are not equal to those they are governing, and thus have abandoned the rule of law.

If they are bound by the law and we are all equal before the law, their authority over you, can only come from YOU, by you consenting to their governance. Simply put, I have no right to govern you without your consent, not directly or by proxy or representative. The same is true in reverse.

Since YOU are the source of their authority, they can only have as much power and authority as YOU transfer to them.

If you personally do not have the authority to govern me directly, you cannot empower someone else to do so on your behalf. The nature of their authority is limited by the source. Since you are the source of their power, and you have no natural and inherent authority to govern another without consent, then neither do your representatives.

You do have the right and power to consent to someone else governing you and acting as your representative or agent, neither of us however have the right or power to do so on behalf of the other. I cannot hire someone to be your agent or representative without your consent, and neither can you for me.

Do YOU understand the government is in fact composed of people, all of whom are bound by the law, and as such, their ability to even call themselves ‘the government’ requires the consent of those they govern? Or do you claim that the government is not composed of people, or if so those people are not bound by the law, and as such can act as someone’s representative without their consent?

If you like so many here refuse to even examine using logic and reason the source, nature and limits of the authority the people in the government have, then to you, ‘the government’ might seem to be some magical creature with unlimited powers. You may see them as the source of law, instead of people using law to act as your representatives, and establish agreements, compacts and contracts which then become quasi-law to you, in the exact same fashion as if you had agreed yourself. If you enter into a contract with someone else, and I do not, am I bound by the terms of that contract? What if you and another do so? Will I then be bound? What about if everyone in a town decides to enter into a contract. Can they claim that the terms of the contract affect those who are not a party to it? When you answer, if you do, do not abandon contract law, ok?

Some may argue that its all about numbers, and if a sufficient number of people agree to be represented, then so too does everyone else in a specific geographical area. This however runs contrary to the law. And it can be tested and proven. Let us look at 3 people, where one is a woman. The two guys claim that said woman is a part of their group, even though she does not consent, merely because she lives in the same building. None of them own the building, and all are merely temporary tenants. Just like the earth. She wants nothing to do with them, yet they insist she is a part of their group, for no other reason then where she lives. They hold a vote, which she could take part in if she wants, but she chooses not to. They decide all members of their group will meet for an orgy, and force the woman to partake. They impose themselves upon her. Was it a lawful action, because they voted, and the majority agreed, and she had no say in whether she was a part of their group? Or are they two rapists who broke the law? You can’t have it both ways. If it is unlawful for two to impose upon one in this example, even when they have a clear majority, then it would be just as unlawful for 200 to do so. Or 2000. Or two million. And it would be equally unlawful if instead of physically imposing their will, they were instead taxing her, or telling her how to live. If she didn’t consent to being part of their group, their votes have no effect upon her, and they have no right to claim she is a part of their group because of where she lives. Unless of course you would like to tell me how many men have to vote before their rape of one woman becomes lawful. Will 12 do it? Ask your mom how many men would have to rape her before their actions became lawful.

So to determine if an infinite number of people can lawfully impose their will upon even ONE individual without consent, look at a situation with only three people. The position of some here is that if enough decide they want to do something, then it is lawful.

When you use the term ‘the government’ you disempower yourself, by closing your eyes to the fact that it is composed of people, all of whom are bound by the law, and that means they can’t represent you without your consent, and without that representation, they are not your government.

Here is a final test. Either I can be your representative without your consent, and sell your property for you without your agreement, keeping half of the value for my representative services, or I cannot. If I cannot, then the people in the government simply are not your representative or ‘the government’ without your consent either.

Why would anyone take the position you have, and claim that someone else can be your representative and thus your government, without your consent? Why would anyone claim that they are a part of some group regardless of their consent? I see only one answer: FEAR.

Also if someone can act as agent or representative without consent and do so lawfully, why is in in court, proof of consent to act as agent is so vital? According to the court, there is no agency or representation without the consent of both parties. So if you think you can act as agent, or representative without consent, or that those you hire can do so, take it up with a court of law, and prove that you can. Yours is the initial and affirmative claim, mine is the one disputing or denying that ability. So prove it, or accept that your claim of ability to do so has failed. If however you succeed, you are empowering me to act as your agent or representative without your consent. Is that what you would like to accomplish?

Many here point to the actions of the people in the government, and having imbued them with unlimited power claim that they can do no wrong, as they make the law and can change it at will. However all they can change is the terms of a contract, they cannot change contract law. And when I claim that I do not consent to the terms of their contract (their rules) the most ignorant here claim that if I do not want to accept their rules (the terms of their contract) they can refuse ‘my rules’ which is actually contract law. They fail to distinguish between contract law and the terms of a contract. So they end up claiming they can impose the terms of their contract, by rejecting contract law. However you cannot have a contract, nor impose the terms thereof without contract law. It is idiocy to me to suggest otherwise. Do you agree, or do you claim I can impose the terms of a contract which you do not consent to, by rejecting contract law? (Here is a contract and if you accept it you agree to sell me your car for $1. If you refuse it, I can reject contract law entirely, because you did not agree to my terms, and then you still must sell me your car for $1.) That is the position advocated by one and defended here by so many. Do you agree with it or do you also see it as idiocy?

Is it your position that I can impose the terms of a contract upon you, even though you are not a party to that contract, by rejecting contract law? A simple yes or no will suffice.


Your argument and the one presented here so often seems to be:
They are the government because they have power and they have power because they are the government. Do you not see that as circular logic? Let us not examine the source, nature or limits of their power, lets just assume they can do anything, and we must do whatever they tell us, mostly because they have a well armed group of thugs willing to unquestioningly do what they say. This to some is ‘the law’. This is what the majority of the people here seem to think. “It is not unlawful, because they are doing it, though if anyone else did so, it would be.” I see it as an abandonment of the law, by those we entrusted to protect and serve it. And even though history is rife with examples of this, and human nature seems to enable and demand it, and famous books written with this as the main theme, when we point out it seems to be happening in the here and now, we are labelled and dismissed as conspiracy theorists, and freeloaders. Yet it has happened repeatedly through out history, and in fact seems to be a fundamental aspect of human nature. Not only is it not hard to believe that such a situation could develop, a basic examination of our global situation shows it is happening. People in Canada and the U.S.A. are going hungry, struggling to make ends meet, dealing with unjust and inequitable financial burdens, all the while their governments can find plenty of money to give to those who make high tech bombs in order to drop them on those who dress differently on the other side of the planet. And so few of the hungry and struggling people agree or consent to these actions. Give them a choice between taking that money and using it for the betterment of their own lives and communities, or using it to destroy those of others, and see what they say.


In any event, nice sharing divergent perspectives with you. Feel free to share yours in return...

 

[jargon buster]

Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada

Etc,etc,etc


Any proof of claims?
No thought not.

PS in the time you took to write all that waffle you could have found that e-mail that was requested.

 

[bikerdruid]

Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada,
Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada, Yada, yada, yada

and still no evidence...i think menard has a future in politics.

 

[FreemanMenard]

and still no evidence...i think menard has a future in politics.

Does anyone wonder why I have JB on ignore?

Yes, still no evidence that THE PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT have the right to govern those who do not consent. And you will never be able to bring it, and regardless of how often you try to put the onus upon me to prove my claims, I will never have the obligation to do so first. I am not the one making the affirmative claim of having the power to govern. I am the one denying their claim, and until they prove it, they do not have it.