Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
Okay, my claim is that 'the government' is composed of people, and those people are bound by the law, and therefore they require consent before they govern another, or else they are not operating lawfully.

What do did you wish me to prove?
That they are people?
Or that they are bound by the law?
:D

How's your weekend going so far JB? Having fun? Meeting lots of new people? Sharing the love and joy?
Click to expand...
Rob
The land definitely exists.. And I own it. And I am buying more too.


Rob how can you own the land when you deny the legitimacy of the very entity that gives you title to the land?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Okay, my claim is that 'the government' is composed of people, and those people are bound by the law, and therefore they require consent before they govern another, or else they are not operating lawfully.

What do did you wish me to prove?
That they are people?
Or that they are bound by the law?
:D
Click to expand...

Whoops! You accidentally left out the important bit. We want you to prove that the law (you know, the rules enacted and enforced by the government) requires consent before the people in the government can govern another. In terms of proof, a relevant decision from a Canadian court or a provision of the Constitution or some duly-enacted piece of legislation will do the trick. Thanks in advance!
 
FreemanMenard said:
Okay, my claim is that 'the government' is composed of people, and those people are bound by the law, and therefore they require consent before they govern another, or else they are not operating lawfully.

What do did you wish me to prove?
That they are people?
Or that they are bound by the law?
:D

How's your weekend going so far JB? Having fun? Meeting lots of new people? Sharing the love and joy?
Click to expand...



How about proving the thing we've actually asked you to prove, rather than the strawman versions you suggest?

That is, prove that the "consent" they require to govern is individual consent, rather than the collective consent as expressed by the electoral process.

You know, the consent that everyone other than FoTLs means when they discuss this issue.
 
Okay, my claim is that 'the government' is composed of people, and those people are bound by the law, and therefore they require consent before they govern another, or else they are not operating lawfully.
Click to expand...

They have consent Rob, just not yours, but it has been repeated ad infinitum on this forum, you don't matter.

How's your weekend going so far JB? Having fun? Meeting lots of new people? Sharing the love and joy?
Click to expand...
Yes, Im going out with my friends to a disco,I have to be home by 10, my mum told me to keep away from strangers in silly hats, she had an awful experience with one a few years ago.

By the way, congratulations on the busiest thread on WFS for a long time, whats it about?
jargon buster:jaw-dropp, really Rob, thats a little embarrassing .
 
Last edited:
Lawful Rebellion

Don't know if anyone has seen this:

http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2009/12/22/lawful-rebellion-chilling-robert-menard/

It has a piece "Lawful Rebellion Chilling With Robert-Arthur:Menard"

I always love the inclusion of the colon, in fact it is rather apt if you confuse your words Menard style)

It includes the following

"We delved deeper into the workings of Rob’s life philosophy and found out that he loves SAS Army Camouflage jackets, enjoyed making explosives in his youth and how he ironically saw the light in creating the Freeman Society whilst somebody blocked his own Sunlight. He gives incredibly insightful knowledge of how to be a peaceful man to everyone around him by telling a story of how he managed to completely turn the intentions of Police arrest into making the Police laugh. We know we all don’t have a silver tongue like Rob or so much experience, but he explained it doesn’t matter, just as long as you know who you are."

It has an up to date forum link on it which includes someone apparently trying to avoid buying a TV license and an 18 year old asking advice about being stopped by the police and signing a form saying he would produce his insurance but now wants to get out of it - I wonder why!

Funnily enough there appears to have been no response from the Lawful Rebelion/Freeman 'legal team'.
 
As far as I know, at least in England, Councils are authorised to produce summonses by the courts in certain council matters. If true in this case. yet more great freeman advice to get someone deeper in the legal mire instead of facing up to their problems and sorting things out at an earlier stage.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Okay, my claim is that 'the government' is composed of people, and those people are bound by the law, and therefore they require consent before they govern another, or else they are not operating lawfully.
Click to expand...


I take it that you haven't figured out what your constitution means yet.
 
Mojo

I think as far as I can see, what FreeMenard is saying from what I read into it is that if a party wins by getting for instance 40% of the vote who have consented to that party, then no matter what the turnout is (and different voting systems are a completely different argument) then the 60% can refuse to be ruled and therefore not pay taxes or abide by rules such as car tax/insurance etc. A caveat to this seems to be that they should be allowed to use the services paid for by the rest.
 
I think as far as I can see, what FreeMenard is saying from what I read into it is that if a party wins by getting for instance 40% of the vote who have consented to that party, then no matter what the turnout is (and different voting systems are a completely different argument) then the 60% can refuse to be ruled and therefore not pay taxes or abide by rules such as car tax/insurance etc.
Click to expand...

Nope, what Menard claims is that if 99.99999999% of the population vote a government in he can simply ignore all that governments laws because he doesn't consent to them.

Its all about what he thinks, you can forget everyone else.
 
Call Me Crazy But said:
Mojo

I think as far as I can see, what FreeMenard is saying from what I read into it is that if a party wins by getting for instance 40% of the vote who have consented to that party, then no matter what the turnout is (and different voting systems are a completely different argument) then the 60% can refuse to be ruled and therefore not pay taxes or abide by rules such as car tax/insurance etc. A caveat to this seems to be that they should be allowed to use the services paid for by the rest.
Click to expand...



As JB said, this really has nothing to do with what Menard and his ilk are discussing. The problems inherent in the electoral process such as we have in Canada are well-known, but the possible solutions are less obvious, and subject to much debate among the stakeholders.

Much like every other CTist out there, who fight against imaginary enemies like the NWO, actually trying to fix the real problems we have in government requires far to much real work. They'd rather just kick over the board and pretend they've already won the game.
 
jargon buster said:
Nope, what Menard claims is that if 99.99999999% of the population vote a government in he can simply ignore all that governments laws because he doesn't consent to them.

Its all about what he thinks, you can forget everyone else.
Click to expand...

Depressingly, I do in fact see this. I was trying to credit him with at least a vestige of an argument however misguided, maybe I was feeling too generous when I posted. As someone said elsewhere on this site - can't recall where but it seems apt, it was a possible 'beer moment', it is christmas after all.
 
If Menard practiced what he preached then it wouldn't be as much of an issue, the simple fact is that he doesn't yet will encourage others to act out his own fantasies at their expense.
Even the misguided minions over at WFS must see that for themselves yet they still pat him on the back, theres blind faith for you.
Also if he gave his opinions and stated they were simply his opinions and acting them out would very likely get you in trouble it would be acceptable.

The simple fact remains he sells his garbage as truth and when people try it out they end up in a far worse situation than they were at the onset, and what does the salesman say, "oh you contracted by doing blah, blah, blah..you shouldn't have done that you should have said X,Y,Z"

Im pretty sure some of the people over at WFS who were not aware of this thread now are and if it makes one of them question Menard (it has already ;)) then its been a worthwhile venture.
 
jargon buster said:
Also if he gave his opinions and stated they were simply his opinions and acting them out would very likely get you in trouble it would be acceptable.

The simple fact remains he sells his garbage as truth and when people try it out they end up in a far worse situation than they were at the onset, and what does the salesman say, "oh you contracted by doing blah, blah, blah..you shouldn't have done that you should have said X,Y,Z"
Click to expand...
Not only that, but Rob's refrain has always been "due diligence" and "do your own research." Yet that process seems to not involve examining the postings on his very own website detailing many epic Freeman fails (and no real successes). Instead it seems to involve taking Rob's word that the Freeman shouldn't have done that and they accidentally contracted/accepted the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, etc. It also seems to involve believing every anecdote Rob makes up receives as a email. Instead if you question Rob's anecdotes or ask him to prove his claims you are either some sort of government agent or you are interfering in a personal matter or something.
 
One has nothing to do with the other. I am busy with a life that does not involve being deceptive to all those I call friends.

Now you are threatening that I will need a lawyer?
But why? :D
 
Several bickering posts split to AAH. Do not use personal insults, and do not import squabbles from other places.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
FreemanMenard said:
Who likes my new avatar?
Click to expand...
Quit the childish games and focus on your absurd claims - i.e., the topic of this thread. Here is a selection:

- Your birth certificate is really a stock certificate that you can redeem for cash and/or services
- Security of the Person means a financial instrument that the government secretly holds based on your value as a slave
- Human beings are not persons
- Statutes can be ignored if you send notices to the authorities indicating that you don't consent
- Courts have no jurisdiction if you don't consent
- Silence is acceptance
- Notaries have all the powers of police, lawyers, and judges including the ability to convene a court
- All of the above is legal - i.e., it is the way the law really is.

Obvious ******** which you sell to vulnerable people, harming them in every case.

Provide some evidence.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I know they are truth, and next to impossible to get you to accept it, for you are too attached to your paradigm.

Do you agree the people in the government are people bound by the law or not?
Click to expand...
We've answered that question over and over. Time for you to provide evidence for your claims. If they are true, it should be a simple request.
 
D'rok said:
Grow the **** up.

Get busy justifying this list of lies that you use to defraud your victims:

- Your birth certificate is really a stock certificate that you can redeem for cash and/or services
- Security of the Person means a financial instrument that the government secretly holds based on your value as a slave
- Human beings are not persons
- Statutes can be ignored if you send notices to the authorities indicating that you don't consent
- Courts have no jurisdiction if you don't consent
- Silence is acceptance
- Notaries have all the powers of police, lawyers, and judges including the ability to convene a court
- All of the above is legal - i.e., it is the way the law really is.
Click to expand...

FreemanMenard said:
I know they are truth, and next to impossible to get you to accept it, for you are too attached to your paradigm.

Do you agree the people in the government are people bound by the law or not?

Oh wait, you do not wish to engage in discussion, just interrogation, right?

So you do not wish to answer about how YOU feel about JB saying one thing here and another IRL, eh? You do realized he played all of you right? The one who called me a conman, is revealed as one himself...
Click to expand...

m. menard:
everyone here has been waiting for evidence that your claims are true.
none has been provided.
...ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom