Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's tough to "prove" to Rob that he can be governed without his consent when he only seems to not consent to statutes that don't apply to him.
Click to expand...
He made his daftest statement when he wrote
I am not governed because I do not engage in governable actions. If I engage in those actions I would accept lawful governance.
Click to expand...

So when Rob sits at the bus stop with a "tinnie" he, by his own words he is agreeing to be governed as drinking alcohol in a public place is controlled by statute.
Yet he in the same breath says he withdraws consent to that as indicated in his ludicrous video claim?

it just doesnt make sense......wait...hang on......what on earth am I saying, he never makes sense. :rolleyes:
 
jargon buster said:
what on earth am I saying, he never makes sense. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What never? I find that hard to believe; certainly amongst the vast tracts of fail there must be a lonely nugget of truth somewhere in his large volume of spew?

We should find something he said that was true, probably something self-effacing ........
 
"The guy at the back has sausages"

...I think he was telling the truth there


Thats from the video where he is outside with his marks proving that all birth certificates have the secret bond number on the back. Except for the first one he his handed, because thats a standard one. Oh and it has to be issued in Ontario. And it has to be an older one. and...and...and....
 
It looks like some of Menard's posts have been deleted, but from the quotes, I see he kept up his tactic of ignoring the issues at hand and just attacking JB. Does he really think that that's a good debate strategy? None of it has anything to do with whether or not FOTL is true.
 
Bishop said:
It looks like some of Menard's posts have been deleted, but from the quotes, I see he kept up his tactic of ignoring the issues at hand and just attacking JB. Does he really think that that's a good debate strategy? None of it has anything to do with whether or not FOTL is true.
Click to expand...

True but he wants to stay as far away from the central issue as he can, providing proof that his ideas work - so he attacks JB. As is evident - he has no such proof while the contra-proof makes a rather high stack
 
jargon buster said:
Next time just tell them you dont consent to their non-consent.

It pretty much stumps them, they cant justify why you can ignore them without stepping on their own ideals.

A freemans authourity for his non-consent comes from him and as such lacks force.
Your ability to ignore his non-consent is the law and is enforced by men with sticks if need be.

PS Whatever you do dont mention the word "law" he will undoubtedly have a totally incorrect definition of what it is.
Just use the word "rules"
Click to expand...


We are hardly stumped by his argument, but stunned at the shear idiocy of it.

Imagine a man and woman on a date. The woman refuses to consent to sexual intercourse. Can the man say (as JB argues) "I do not consent to your ability to deny consent!" and then as JB's argument suggests force himself on the woman, and use as a defense against a charge of rape "I do not consent to her ability to deny consent."?

For the lurkers only, Imagine JB comes to you with a contract to buy your car for $1. You do not like the terms of his contract, so you refuse to consent to the contract. JB says "Well I do not consent to your ability to not consent to my contract! I do not consent to contract law!" Can he take you to court for breach of contract when you did not consent and there is no contract because he has abandoned contract law entirely? Would the judge order you to sell JB your car, because there is no contract and no contract law? HM?

See lurkers, his argument is absolutely ludicrous and the reasons for it explained for him endlessly. And the fact he thinks it stumps us is simply more evidence of his inability to understand certain very basic concepts. And the fact that no other poster here will call him on it just goes to show how deeply affected they are by their cognitive dissonance.
 
Very good Menard.
You have shown at least some ability to distinguish cases where consent is required/relevant according to real laws.

Now try apply that ability to the government debt collector with a warrant above.
 
Imagine a man and woman on a date. The woman refuses to consent to sexual intercourse. Can the man say (as JB argues) "I do not consent to your ability to deny consent!" and then as JB's argument suggests force himself on the woman, and use as a defense against a charge of rape "I do not consent to her ability to deny consent."?
Click to expand...

Sigh..., not the rape again Rob, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with rape as you always bring it up.

As for the rest of your post its just the same gibberish.

How can you make me toe the line when I visit freeman valley Rob?

I have already displayed an example of you governing me against my consent, do you want it again?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Imagine a man and woman on a date. .....
Click to expand...

That would be the endlessly regurgitated stock-answer no.72

The fact that you still think your endless pseudo-philosophies mean anything in real life, other than to your flock of Menard-Bots, simply makes you look foolish.

It has been explained time and time again how these silly thoughts of yours are meaningless drivel.

You seem to think that everyone is as stupid as your gullible flock.
They are not!
 
See lurkers, his argument is absolutely ludicrous and the reasons for it explained for him endlessly...
Click to expand...

It's true lurkers, Menard is a very wise guy.

Hey Rob, why don't you tell the lurkers your tale as to why FOTL-Waffle "fee schedules" have any basis in law? You know the one, where you compare it to being in a restaurant.

I always love that one. Makes me laugh so much. It's so wrong it's hilarious.

FMOTL-style Fee Schedule is the same as that used by restaurants.

Do you need evidence that restaurant fee schedules are enforceable?
Click to expand...

Go to any restaurant, look at their fee schedule, or menu, order from it, receive your order, and then try claiming that the Fee Schedule or menu, (because that’s all a menu is, a restaurants Fee Schedule,) has no basis in law. Watch yourself get charged with fraud. If a Fee Schedule has no basis in law, you will get your food for free and not face charges. If it does have a basis in law, and is enforceable, you will be charged. Now go test it. Tell us how it works out for you. It’s simple contract law, of which you are clearly ignorant.
Click to expand...

.....and then remind the lurkers how many of your ridiculous "fee schedules" that you have decided to give to authorities have ever been paid to you. (If you cant remember, Hint: ZERO)
 
Last edited:
Menardian legalism #273: Statutes are just like rape. NO MEANS NO!!!

Does anyone take this stuff seriously anymore?
 
D'rok said:
Does anyone take this stuff seriously anymore?
Click to expand...

Not since the early '90s.

It's really just something to point and laugh at now.

Unfortunately the world will always have a minor community of gullible idiots who will believe any old "Get out of Jail Free" claptrap. And as long as that community exists conmen will always have an audience.
 
ComfySlippers said:
Not since the early '90s.

It's really just something to point and laugh at now.

Unfortunately the world will always have a minor community of gullible idiots who will believe any old "Get out of Jail Free" claptrap. And as long as that community exists conmen will always have an audience.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I'm getting bored with laughing at FOTL antics. I want to point and laugh at Ninja Cat. That **** is hilarious.

 
Last edited:
What rob doesn't seem to understand is that if one's ideas cannot get the majority to agree in a democracy, or even a significant enough amount of people that their political lobby can hold sway, the only other option is rebellion. And i am not talking about writing names in all caps, and signing on a 45 degree angle on magic paper. I am talking about real, blood sweat and tears , rebellion.

Rob wants to try and convince his flock that this rebellion is possible by only writing magic words, and giving him money. Why? Because it keeps the coin coming in. Tell a bunch of folks that the only way their legal wackiness is going to be law , is if they arm themselves and storm the capital, is going to get you nothing more than some gun nuts with a death wish. ( thankfully in shortist supply in Canada.) Tell them that all they have to do is sit back and say the right magic words, and you get every lazy , freeloading, twit who wants something for nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom