Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Robrob]

I may set up a site offering Menards DVDs for $10 the lot as opposed to his $190.
I'm pretty sure he can't claim copyright as all the information is available freely on the web anyway.(So he says )

He's not bound by our laws so why would he be protected by them either?

 

[Horatius]

He's not bound by our laws so why would he be protected by them either?

Because he seems to think that laws are like a buffet - take what you want, and ignore the rest.


Too bad it's more like your mother - you'll eat what's put in front of you, or you'll be sent to your room hungry. And yes, that means the broccoli too.

 

[jargon buster]

"...but I consent to the broccoli mummy, theres no need for you to try and govern me without my consent."

"You always say you consent when I tell you to do something, funny that."

 

[ComfySlippers]

"...but I consent to the broccoli mummy, theres no need for you to try and govern me without my consent."

"You always say you consent when I tell you to do something, funny that."

"I'm gonna form my own Broccoli Police. For a small fee, and by swearing an oath in front of a public carrot, my Broccoli Officers will have the power to arrest all the unlawful mummys of the world"

 

[jargon buster]

Menard has been quiet over the festive season, lets hope it stays that way, maybe he has realised that his wthdrawal of consent is actually irrelevant.
He did once write

I am not governed because I do not engage in governable actions. If I engage in those actions I would accept lawful governance. Using the roads for commerce is one of those.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059835146&postcount=131

So by his own argument using the roads for commerce is a governable action which if he is engaging in commerce he has no choice but to consent to.

What Rob then fails to recognise is that any governable action that he engages in then he must consent to that action.
So as statutory legislation are simply rules that cover governable actions then he has to consent , he has no choice.

So whatever he does, if theres a statute to cover it then he consents.

Case closed.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Menard has been quiet over the festive season, lets hope it stays that way, maybe he has realised that his wthdrawal of consent is actually irrelevant.
He did once write

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059835146&postcount=131

So by his own argument using the roads for commerce is a governable action which if he is engaging in commerce he has no choice but to consent to.

What Rob then fails to recognise is that any governable action that he engages in then he must consent to that action.
So as statutory legislation are simply rules that cover governable actions then he has to consent , he has no choice.

So whatever he does, if theres a statute to cover it then he consents.

Case closed.

Yawn. I can use the roads for non-commercial purposes and not be governed by those rules which govern the commercial use thereof. If however, I am using them for private gain and commercial purposes, yes I would be covered, as I would submit application and consent first.

So whatever I do, if the statute which APPEARS to cover it does not do so clearly, I am free of the statute.

Your inability to distinguish is what you rely upon to claim case closed.

Same as always....

 

[Paul]

Don't you ever get tired of lying?

 

[Hektor]

So whatever I do, if the statute which APPEARS to cover it does not do so clearly, I am free of the statute.

And I'm sure this is part of "common law" or "the law" or at least "Rob's imagination." How many peace officers have you tried telling that a statue is unclear and thus you can't be governed Rob? I'm sure it's worked or at least you'll claim it to be so.

 

[SpitfireIX]

So whatever I do, if the statute which APPEARS to cover it does not do so clearly, I am free of the statute....

That's for the courts in the appropriate jurisdiction to decide, not you or any other individual.

 

[ComfySlippers]

So whatever I do, if the statute which APPEARS to cover it does not do so clearly, I am free of the statute.

Your inability to distinguish is what you rely upon to claim case closed.

It would be much easier, and less painful for people who read your idiotic nonsense, if you simply put on a pointy hat with a capital D on it and went to stand in the corner.

Your theory that admitting to being retarded when in court will get a person off scott free is rubbish.

As your super-ace courtroom tactic, (not that you yourself would ever use it), is based on saying "I believed what I did was lawful" or "the law is unclear", and will not nor ever will work one can only assume you are a conman promoting lies.

Ignorance of the Law doesnt work the way you tell your flock it does.

 

[jargon buster]

So whatever I do, if the statute which APPEARS to cover it does not do so clearly, I am free of the statute.

Nope, it means the individual is too thick to understand it.
Just because someones brain doesn't have the ability to process basic information as easily as the next man doesn't make him exempt from the law.

Or are you suggesting the insanity defence now?
Im pretty sure most freemen would get that once they start their ramblings in court.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Yawn. I can use the roads for non-commercial purposes and not be governed by those rules which govern the commercial use thereof.

By which authority is somebody who is using the roads for a commercial use forced to comply by those rules? Are you saying there is no choice in the matter and consent cannot be withdrawn? If so, why is there no choice but to consent?

If however, I am using them for private gain and commercial purposes, yes I would be covered, as I would submit application and consent first.

So, what about when you are using a road to get to one of your presentations that you are getting paid for? Would that not be considered as commercial use?

 

[Mojo]

I can use the roads for non-commercial purposes and not be governed by those rules which govern the commercial use thereof.

Can you cite any authority for the assertion that the laws relating to road traffic only apply to "commercial use"?

 

[jargon buster]

tut, tut mojo, that would equate to evidence provision from Rob, have you been at the vino?

 

[Hektor]

Why can't I engage in commerce on the road and just not consent to anything? If I travel in my conveyance must I be wary if my iPhone checks a stock ticker?

 

[ComfySlippers]

Can you cite any authority for the assertion that the laws relating to road traffic only apply to "commercial use"?

Lets not go there.

No, he can not.

He can, however, quote an outdated definition of the word "vehicle" from an outdated American Law dictionary which has no influence or bearing over Law whatsoever.

He can also quote an outdated definition of the word "driver" from an outdated American Law dictionary which has no influence or bearing over Law whatsoever.

Bobby explains it all on this lovely site he created.
(Goggles required)

To take another walk down memory lane Clicky HERE for the full site in all it's Glory Goriness.
(Change of Goggles required)

 

[jargon buster]

and to think that will be his only website left after WFS goes bye ,bye in a couple of days.

Why can't I engage in commerce on the road and just not consent to anything?

Because Rob has decided you can't, don't you know by now its all about Robs opinion, it has nothing to do with actual reality.

 

[Robrob]

Yawn. I can use the roads for non-commercial purposes and not be governed by those rules which govern the commercial use thereof. If however, I am using them for private gain and commercial purposes, yes I would be covered, as I would submit application and consent first.

Of course since the laws and taxes apply to non-commercial uses, you are governed by them, regardless of fantasy.

So whatever I do, if the statute which APPEARS to cover it does not do so clearly, I am free of the statute.

"Clearly" or not, you are legally bound by the statute. Ignorance (or willful blindness) is no excuse.

BTW, now that I've made pirate copies of all your DVD's where do you think is the best place to sell them, eBay or Amazon?

 

[jargon buster]

Careful, he will set the dreaded Copyright Act on you, you know, the one you can withdraw consent to if you follow his teachings.
Hang on though, the fact you have breached copyright means that you have consented to the act in the first place as you are engaging in a governable action.

Oh dear I don't know how Rob has managed to create a theory so self destructive, he couldn't have done a worse job of a legal argument if he had tried.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

I'm not sure how lawmakers would be supposed to make the law clear enough for people who think their own name is hearsay or redefine every single word in a sentence until the original meaning is mangled beyond recognition (Context and intention? What's that?).

Luckily, they don't have to. As SpitfireIX mentioned, they only have to make them clear enough for the people whose job it actually is to interpret and enforce these laws.

He can, however, quote an outdated definition of the word "vehicle" from an outdated American Law dictionary which has no influence or bearing over Law whatsoever.

He can also quote an outdated definition of the word "driver" from an outdated American Law dictionary which has no influence or bearing over Law whatsoever.

It's worse than that. Quoting a definition, even an outdated one, would involve a modicum of honesty. Menard has to lie about outdated definitions to make his point. He claims that "driver" is defined as "one who is engages in commerce on the highways". The actual definition was "one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car." It seems Rob doesn't understand that there is a difference between being employed to do something and being employed in doing something. His whole site is a monument to illiteracy.

The funniest part about Rob's shtick is that he essentially relies 100% on puns being a legal argument. In a country with two official languages, where both versions of a law have equal force as per its Constitution. So if a pun doesn't work in French, well, there goes that. All the retardedness regarding driving/driver, berths, benches, security, etc, are simply not present in French.