Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[FreemanMenard]

You said months ago that you were going to respond to the cases I had posted. You have not done so and have made no further indications of doing so. Initially you had assured me that you were interested in a serious discussion about the case law relating to your claims. I am left to believe that your initial assurance of a response was nothing more than a tall tale.

From what I recall I did. All about consent and specific instances where the judge ruled consent was not required, AFTER they had secured that consent by the fellow appearing, or applying, or what not eh?

Have to head out now, but if you repost, I will show you where I saw the consent. So you know however, this forum to me is a big waste of time, (I have never seen such absolute idiocy concentrated in one place) and I have far better things to do, but I do appreciate your discussions JLord and will try one more time to show you where AFTER securing consent, the need for it further is not required.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I have never seen such absolute idiocy concentrated in one place

You should check out The World Freeman Society someday. ...oh...

 

[Stacey Grove]

Well, Rob let us examine your claims about appearing.
I posted this a while ago. A case where the defendant failed to appear twice.
It made absolutely no difference. He went to jail.

And again, Rob you only provide your reasoning why you believe you are not bound by statute law, but produce no proof. I want to see actual verifiable evidence, not just some theory of yours that explains why you believe you are correct. You see, there is plenty of evidence to show that a FOTL is bound to statute. We could (and have done so) produce numerous cases that show the courts have rejected the FOTL argument every time. The case numbers, court locations are provided; it's actual evidence like that we seek, not your beliefs. Your beliefs are irrelevant.

Take this recent case from England. A FOTL refusing to pay council tax. Actual evidence of a FOTL fail:

http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/Freeman-refused-pay-council/story-14114588-detail/story.html

The defendant received a thirty day sentence for going all FOTL.
In the past you stated that the reason a FOTL defendant failed was because he appeared. Well, this individual failed to turn up twice and was subsequently arrested and brought before the mags'. Evidence that failing to appear does not work.
He refused to accept the legal authority of the court ( which made no difference) and said he had no contractual obligation to pay CT under common law because he is a freeman.
That also did not work.
He also refused to identify himself to the mag's. He refused to give his name, age and address. That made absolutely no difference, more evidence that FOTL does not work.
The result was jailtime.

The only evidence I have ever seen is FOTL failing, just like in the case above. I have yet to see any evidence of a FOTL success. So, rather than keep giving us your opinion why you believe it should work, why don't you have a go at giving us some actual evidence of it working?

 

[ComfySlippers]

The only evidence I have ever seen is FOTL failing, just like in the case above. I have yet to see any evidence of a FOTL success. So, rather than keep giving us your opinion why you believe it should work, why don't you have a go at giving us some actual evidence of it working?

Let me try...

The courts only publish the failures. They keep the successes secret.

If they failed it is because they did it wrong.

The successes have avoided ending up in Court.

His being sent to Jail proves that they are scared we know the truth

...unless you know otherwise and can share it Rob....

 

[Garrison]

Labeling a truth as a tall tale does not make it one. Did you not see the modifying word 'merely' in that sentence?

Yes and it's irrelevant, if you present a story and fail to offer any proof of it's veracity then it is 'merely' a tall tale

Maybe it is YOU who are a stranger to logic?

You know just repeating back other peoples charges against you might have worked when you were a playground bully, not going to get you anywhere here.

Certainly your reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking.

Well I've read your ideas and I've comprehended they are nonsense so I would say my skills are working just fine.

Seriously Mister Menard in the time you've spent whining about people making fun of you losing your laptop you could have provided that killer documentary evidence that the Canadian state recognizes you as a Freeman, why not do that and prove everyone who doubts you wrong? Why not just do that and have the last laugh? Of course I know full well why you won't and so do the other posters here, your bluster not withstanding.

 

[Garrison]

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill

Your ignorant malice does not change the truth.

Laptop stolen.
Laptop returned.

Now cloak yourself further in your malice and ignorance, and try and strive to ignore the truth.

Laptop left behind in drunken stupor
Laptop returned by friend next day.

Your lack of credibility makes that account as plausible as the one you offer.

And I suspect if Winston Churchill had been introduced to your brand of nonsense he would have said something rather more vulgar and Anglo-Saxon.

 

[Mojo]

...I've seen the affidavit stating such stamped by a certified beekeeper!

Was it an actual beekeeper or a notary performing the duties of a beekeeper?

 

[Hans]

To add a sinster CT note - perhaps the evil powers that be, took the laptop added a tracking device to it to allow monitoring of this monumental threat to their existence...dramatic music....with a creepy afterbeat......

 

[Stacey Grove]

. Homeowner felt dishonored, and agreed to not mete out punishment if the thief did this community service.

That cannot be right, Rob.
You require the consent of the thief to accept the authority of the homeowner and agree to punishment before your friend starts agreeing not to punish him.
Governing without consent I say.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Was it an actual beekeeper or a notary performing the duties of a beekeeper?

It was a streetsweeper performing the duties of a beekeeper. They can do that. Some bloke on YouTube said so.

 

[Hektor]

I just don't understand why the thief in question didn't just write accepted for value in a 45 degree angle in blue ink and take the laptop and skip the community service.

 

[Paul]

It was not my presence, but that of the guy who returned it and the homeowner. Both of whom are far tougher than you will ever be.

Ah, so they governed him by use of threats. How very honourable of them.

Why do you think we will be impressed by tales of tough, manly men intimidating people?

Do you find tough guys impressive, so much so that you have a sort of internal Norris scale of how tough you think people are based on how they type words on a computer?

I was not looking forward to making a police report, (not sure how they would take it)

I thought the police were in thrall to your mighty power.

I have 'PREY' installed on my computer, and was hoping to get a report, and settle it without the cops

It's good that you never miss an opportunity to demonstrate the constant state of honour you find yourself in.

All you can point to is things I have said, which you do not believe and then label as a tall tale.

All the things which have turned out to not be true.

Tell us please which it is that causes you to label it as 'fantastical'..

That would be you, specifically you claiming something and then trying to make money out of it. Actions which, in the past, has a less than impressive record of verisimilitude.

Then we can examine WHY such an occurrence is even a topic of discussion on this laughable 'skeptics' forum...

Well, the clue is in your sentence, perhaps a course in reading for comprehension would help.

 

[SpitfireIX]

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill.

"He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill

 

[Robrob]

Laptop stolen.
Laptop returned.

If it seems to run slower than before, don't worry about it. The tracking chip does that sometimes.

 

[arayder]

“Name one tall tale, which is not merely labelled by you as such. Name ONE. Can't do it can you? All you can point to is things I have said, which you do not believe and then label as a tall tale.” - Menard

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

Now don’t complain, Bobby boy. You asked for it.

Well, there are all the times you claimed to be Elizabeth Anne’s daddy forgetting that your original story was that when you met Megan you used your fantastic powers of intuition tell her she was pregnant before she knew it.

Are those the same super powers you use to get drunken crack heads to sober up and do community service?

The same powers you use to get tough cops on the beat to look up your "you can't touch this" status in the provincial data base?

Are going to wear a cape in your movie?

 

[JLord]

From what I recall I did.

Well you didn't. You said you were going to and the post has been reposted several times now with no response.

So you know however, this forum to me is a big waste of time, (I have never seen such absolute idiocy concentrated in one place) and I have far better things to do,

You seem to have plenty of time for childish name calling and debates about your laptop computer. I have to think that if you had better things to do you would not be spending your time with petty nonsense while leaving all serious questions about your legal theories unanswered.

 

[Cocana The Second]

Well said.

It's kind of amusing that all Menard has left in his locker are attempts at trolling this forum. For someone who believes that he has cracked the system that is comically absurd.

 

[BaaBaa]

Sure says a lot about the average mindset of you folks though. One guy makes something up, and then you latch on to it and accept it as truth with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. You are not skeptics, that is what you tell yourself to justify your inabilities to distinguish truth. For you lot, truth seems to be that which you are willing to accept, because it supports your previous mindsets. You do not think, you defend beliefs, regardless of how ludicrous they are.
<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for incivility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

 

[ComfySlippers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

First rule of FOTL Club:
One guy makes something up, and then you latch on to it and accept it as truth with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

 

[jargon buster]

Jlord wrote
** * You said months ago that you were going to respond to the cases I had posted. You have not done so and have made no further indications of doing so. Initially you had assured me that you were interested in a serious discussion about the case law relating to your claims. I am left to believe that your initial assurance of a response was nothing more than a tall tale.
** *
Now you know why he is only worthy of ridicule