Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
cocana said:
no we haven't. My goodness, is that the best that you can muster rob?

Jb has given you a pointer on what we have demanded proof of, but that's only part of it. I tell you what i'll do since your memory has got a bit foggy, i'll copy and paste the post that you have consistently avoided answering. Given that you are (apparently) in the mood to provide proof, maybe this time you'll give us what we're asking for. Here goes and i'll embolden the really important bit...

got the evidence that you are immune from all statutory law, except those laws that you agree with? A verifiable court order or letter from the canadian government should do the trick.

no? Thought not


been telling people that this is what you have achieved? Yes
been receiving money on the back of it? Yes
been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? Yes

once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole.
Click to expand...

^spamming the forum^
 
cocana said:
no we haven't. My goodness, is that the best that you can muster rob?

Jb has given you a pointer on what we have demanded proof of, but that's only part of it. I tell you what i'll do since your memory has got a bit foggy, i'll copy and paste the post that you have consistently avoided answering. Given that you are (apparently) in the mood to provide proof, maybe this time you'll give us what we're asking for. Here goes and i'll embolden the really important bit...

got the evidence that you are immune from all statutory law, except those laws that you agree with? A verifiable court order or letter from the canadian government should do the trick.

no? Thought not


been telling people that this is what you have achieved? Yes
been receiving money on the back of it? Yes
been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? Yes

once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole.
Click to expand...

^spamming the forum^
 
Robert, this thread is provided for you to provide evidence, repeated requests for that evidence cannot be considered as SPAM.

Either produce the goods or go away.
 
Hey mods, would you please count HOW MANY TIME this guy has claimed (incorrectly) that these are my claims, or that I make money off the back of what he claims are my claims, and then compare them to your own Forum Spamming rules?
Click to expand...
Lance Thatcher
I have evidence from your own fingers that you took money from him for advice.
 
Just to set your mind at ease before you get blasted for CONSTANTLY SPAMMING THE FORUM.
The evidence is your inability to govern me directly without my consent, and the logical conclusion that you can't hire someone to do something you cannot do yourself.

got the evidence that you can directly govern me without my consent? A verifiable court order or letter from the canadian government should do the trick.

no? Thought not


been telling people that you can, but through a representative? Yes
been supporting a system with this claim? Yes
been ignoring reality in favour of your long defended paradigm? Yes

once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole.

Evidecen that you personally can govern me without my consent, or hire someone else to do so.

If you can't bring that, you lose and lost long ago, but keep repeating the same thing to avoid the truth.

YOU CAN"T DO IT SO NEITHER CAN YOUR AGENTS OR REPS.

So simple... why do you miss it when it is tailor made for someone as simple as you?

Ball is in your court. Prove you can govern me without my consent, or empower your agents to do so, OR I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE, AS YOUR INABILITY IS THE PROOF.
 
Rob a simple question:
Are you going to provide proof that you are immune to statute law?
Yes or No?
 
Rob, there is no one here who claims to be able to govern you without your consent, thats your strawman argument.
However the Canadian government made up of elected officials have been given permission to govern you without your consent by the people of Canada and by your actions of obeying the law you prove that is true.
If you thought they couldn't then you would be travelling in an unlicensed uninsured motorised conveyance.


By the way didn't you govern me without my consent when you successfully stopped me using your WFS logo?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Evidecen that you personally can govern me without my consent, or hire someone else to do so.
Click to expand...
That's easy.
Your fellow Canadians have elected a government and if you step out of line they will come down on you just like they do to all of those Canadian freemen we see losing in court every time. Those Canadian FOTL get governed straight into jail.
ETA if your reply is "They're not my fellow Canadians" that is even further proof that the FOTL are being governed without their consent.
 
Last edited:
By your silence I take we are now in agreement.
No one here can govern me without my consent.
Right?
No one here may empower another as their agent or representative to do that which they cannot do themselves.
Right?

Or is there someone here who wants to claim I personally have the right to govern THEM without their consent?

To argue AGAINST my position is to argue FOR me being able to govern YOU personally or by representation without YOUR consent.

Who here wishes to argue THAT?
 
Stacey Grove said:
That's easy.
Your fellow Canadians have elected a government and if you step out of line they will come down on you just like they do to all of those Canadian freemen we see losing in court every time. Those Canadian FOTL get governed straight into jail.
ETA if your reply is "They're not my fellow Canadians" that is even further proof that the FOTL are being governed without their consent.
Click to expand...


My fellow Canadians cannot hire or elect anyone to do that which they cannot do themselves.

And the ones who avoid court entirely and which you refuse to even examine because there is no 'court record'?

So you are arguing for my ability to govern YOU without YOUR consent. Right?
 
By your silence I take we are now in agreement.
No one here can govern me without my consent.
Right?
Click to expand...
Right
No one here may empower another as their agent or representative to do that which they cannot do themselves.
Right?
Click to expand...
Right, they can run for office in exactly the same way, and once in that office they can govern you without your consent.
Or is there someone here who wants to claim I personally have the right to govern THEM without their consent?
Click to expand...
You stopped me using tour logo, did you do it unlawfully?
To argue AGAINST my position is to argue FOR me being able to govern YOU personally or by representation without YOUR consent.
Click to expand...
Correct Rob, you, through the medium of another governed me without my consent.
Who here wishes to argue THAT?
Click to expand...
No one Rob, you are correct, I can also govern you without your consent through the courts if you impeded on me either civilly or criminally as well.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
By your silence I take we are now in agreement.
Click to expand...
No
No one here can govern me without my consent.
Right?
Click to expand...
Right.
No one here may empower another as their agent or representative to do that which they cannot do themselves.
Right?
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Or is there someone here who wants to claim I personally have the right to govern THEM without their consent?
Click to expand...
No, not you personally but you do have the right to vote in a government that will govern your neighbour without his consent.

To argue AGAINST my position is to argue FOR me being able to govern YOU personally or by representation without YOUR consent.
Click to expand...
Your representative, not you personally, can govern Canadians without their consent. You have to get out there and vote.

Who here wishes to argue THAT?
Click to expand...
I just did.
 
Last edited:
So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent?

Is that your claim?

Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself?

Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from.
AND
An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal.
AND
That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself.

Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me.

Please explain HOW.
 
Stacey Grove said:
So, Rob what about this proof that you are immune to statute law?
Click to expand...

I am waiting for your proof that you can govern me without my consent, either directly or by representative.

If you can't provide that, why do I have to prove anything?

Balls in your court.


Has been FOREVER...
 
I am waiting for your proof that you can govern me without my consent, either directly or by representative.

If you can't provide that, why do I have to prove anything?

Balls in your court.


Has been FOREVER...
Click to expand...

You were barred from giving legal advice in court, the document/judgement is in this thread.
You can cry all you want about it not being you, you have however not set foot in a court as an advisor since, maybe its just a coincidence. :)
 
Hey guys don't stress yourselves out.

I will check back in a week and see if ANYONE here has figured out how they can hire someone to do that which they cannot do directly, or more accurately, how I can hire someone to do what I cannot do directly.

In this case sell your property without your consent.

If you can't explain that, then we must be in agreement:
I cannot hire a representative to do something if I do not have the right to do it myself directly.

Simples right?
Get to it..

See you after Christmas...
 
If you can't provide that, why do I have to prove anything?
Click to expand...

Because you are the one persisting in making ludicrous claims and selling fake legal advice based on those claims.

Because you are the one who is either too blind or too stubborn to admit to falling for a decades old scam that only the most gullible of gullible would fall for.

Because you are the one who, after all these years, will not and can not provide proof of the idiotic claim that you are immune to statute law when it suits you.
 
Last edited:
I will check back in a week and see if ANYONE here has figured out how they can hire someone to do that which they cannot do directly, or more accurately, how I can hire someone to do what I cannot do directly.
Click to expand...

I can't repair a car but I can hire someone to do it, whats your point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom