Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[jargon buster]

we merely use the law that binds all

doesn't bind me i don't consent to it


Rob I dont consent to trespass, I have a common law right to travel anywhere i like.

Your land?
What makes it your land?

Rob?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Signing out now. Looking forward to JB clarifying whether he still thinks that he can impose either type of intercourse on someone who does not consent by claiming he does not consent to them not consenting....

Care to answer JB? Do you still hold that someone else needs your consent to deny consent?

 

[Paul]

And with one classy hit-and-run he's off - to lurk in case we talk about him

 

[jargon buster]

Bye Rob, its been as enlightening as ever.

Looking forward to JB clarifying whether he still thinks that he can impose either type of intercourse on someone who does not consent by claiming he does not consent to them not consenting....

looking forward to see if Rob can get his apple back without forcing me against my consent.

PS Was the shower a cold one due to your obsession with talking intercourse?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Signing out now. Looking forward to JB clarifying whether he still thinks that he can impose either type of intercourse on someone who does not consent by claiming he does not consent to them not consenting....

Care to answer JB? Do you still hold that someone else needs your consent to deny consent?

Rob, your analogy fails.
The argument being put forward is that withdrawal of consent to statute law is not possible. No one is suggesting that in any private interaction between individuals consent is mandatory and consent cannot be withdrawn. Although in your scenario obviously consent cannot be withdrawn to any statutes that prohibit rape and it must be also be remembered that until relatively recently under common law withdrawal of consent to sexual intercourse in marriage was not possible and rape within marriage was considered to be an impossibility.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Won't be able to play for a while.
Dad is in hospital, found slumped over the wheel. Needed CPR to resuscitate and then again at hospital... no idea how long he was out or if his heart or brain suffered damage. He is in ICC and is sedated and intubated. He is getting a pacemaker tomorrow.

Prayers are appreciated.

So if I am not around for a bit you know why.

 

[bikerdruid]

Won't be able to play for a while.
Dad is in hospital, found slumped over the wheel. Needed CPR to resuscitate and then again at hospital... no idea how long he was out or if his heart or brain suffered damage. He is in ICC and is sedated and intubated. He is getting a pacemaker tomorrow.

Prayers are appreciated.

So if I am not around for a bit you know why.

it's a good thing your dad is able to access canadian healthcare.
he must not be a FOTL.

seriously, i do hope you dad is okay.

 

[Robrob]

What he has identified is the circular logic which is not of the Freeman, but is assigned to us by people such as yourself. We do not pick and choose which laws we will be bound by, we merely use the law that binds all to avoid the terms and regulations others try to impose under color of law.

Like paying your electric bill?

Won't be able to play for a while.
Dad is in hospital, found slumped over the wheel. Needed CPR to resuscitate and then again at hospital... no idea how long he was out or if his heart or brain suffered damage. He is in ICC and is sedated and intubated. He is getting a pacemaker tomorrow.

Prayers are appreciated.

So if I am not around for a bit you know why.

As the CT loons say, "convenient" timing.

Hope you don't drive over any public roads you haven't paid for on the way to the public hospital you haven't paid for. Do let us know how much the ambulance attendants bill you or if the occupants of the other vehicles impeded by the ambulance issue you fee lists for the delay.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

What he has identified is the circular logic which is not of the Freeman, but is assigned to us by people such as yourself. We do not pick and choose which laws we will be bound by, we merely use the law that binds all to avoid the terms and regulations others try to impose under color of law.

That gibberish doesn't work.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Won't be able to play for a while.
Dad is in hospital, found slumped over the wheel. Needed CPR to resuscitate and then again at hospital... no idea how long he was out or if his heart or brain suffered damage. He is in ICC and is sedated and intubated. He is getting a pacemaker tomorrow

Proof, Rob of just how dependent on society and its benefits you really are.
You need society more than society needs you.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Bye Rob, its been as enlightening as ever.


looking forward to see if Rob can get his apple back without forcing me against my consent.

PS Was the shower a cold one due to your obsession with talking intercourse?

The Freeman perspective is quite simple. If we are not harming another, damaging property, or using fraud in our contracts, then we cannot be governed without our consent. This means we are not engaging in things like trespassing or theft. Now JB, due to his lack of understanding of our position, comes with an example where he is clearly trespassing and committing theft, and causing harm, purposely. He then challenges us to deal with his law breaking without governing him without his consent. He thinks that since he can’t govern me on public property when I am harming no one, I can’t govern him on private land when he is committing theft. It is a prime example of his idiotic way of thinking.

He fails to distinguish between private property and pubic, and he fails to distinguish between acting in a manner that does not harm, and acting in a manner that does. Now of course he will try to avoid this distinction, or misdirect the casual observer by arguing that trespassing does not cause harm. Yet it is clearly an act of theft, according to him.

See a Freeman does not claim the right to do what JB is claiming the right to do, and therefore his example is simply not applicable. Notice also he has yet to address the questions asked of him, nor will he answer. I have mentioned sexual and commercial intercourse an equal amount of times. He will simply call my use of one type of intercourse as an example unhealthy, and completely ignore the second one.

Here is a simple question, let’s see if he will answer:
Do you JB claim the right to impose a contract on others by rejecting contract law?

Simple eh?
If he calls this gibberish, he is trying to avoid the question.
If he refuses to answer he is trying to avoid the truth.

If he speaks about one type of intercourse to misdirect (which he always does) he is trying to avoid the other type. Each however are equally suitable for highlighting the idiocy of his argument. There are certain things which require mutual consent. Intercourse of any kind being a major one. It is a prime example. JB claims he can avoid the need for mutual consent in any type of intercourse, commercial or sexual, by refusing to consent to the other parties non-consent.

Will he address this question, or ONCE AGAIN try an ad hominem attack on me to avoid the question by claiming my examples are questionable?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Proof, Rob of just how dependent on society and its benefits you really are.
You need society more than society needs you.

Never said I do not like living in a community. Nor however do I see how exercising a right to access healthcare brings with it a corresponding duty to abandon other rights. I do not see how accessing healthcare means I also must have a SIN, and then agree to a whole slew of Acts being applicable to me due only to holding that number.

Healthcare is available to those who have chosen to not be government employees just as it is for those who have. Those who have chosen to not be government employees are not bound by the exact same rules which others have agreed to by virtue of their employee status. This does not mean there are not laws which bind all regardless of their employee/Freeman status.

 

[D'rok]

The title of this thread is "Examples of Freeman Success Stories", not "Examples of Freeman Sophistry".

Try your tired con somewhere else. Better yet, go actually establish Waco Freeman Valley and then see just how above the law you really are.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Never said I do not like living in a community. Nor however do I see how exercising a right to access healthcare brings with it a corresponding duty to abandon other rights. I do not see how accessing healthcare means I also must have a SIN, and then agree to a whole slew of Acts being applicable to me due only to holding that number.

Who pays for the healthcare, Rob? Who funds the hospitals, the doctors, the nurses? You constantly display a desire to sponge off others.

Healthcare is available to those who have chosen to not be government employees just as it is for those who have. Those who have chosen to not be government employees are not bound by the exact same rules which others have agreed to by virtue of their employee status. This does not mean there are not laws which bind all regardless of their employee/Freeman status.

Oh dear. Your gibberish about being a government employee is not only pathetic itis nonsensical.
You just want to sponge sponge sponge.
But that is what fotl ia all about, getting somebody else to pay for you.

 

[DGM]

The Freeman perspective is quite simple. If we are not harming another, damaging property, or using fraud in our contracts, then we cannot be governed without our consent.

How does driving without a licence and registration fit with this? By driving you are actually "damaging" the roads. These fees pay for the repairs.

 

[jargon buster]

The Freeman perspective is quite simple. If we are not harming another, damaging property, or using fraud in our contracts, then we cannot be governed without our consent.

Finally, after all this time you see exactly what it is, it is simply your perspective, nothing more.

Do you JB claim the right to impose a contract on others by rejecting contract law?

Yes Rob I do, because I like you can claim whatever I like and no man may govern me without my consent.
Can I enforce the contract, yes if Im bigger and stronger than him.
Can I lawfully do it, yes if I can get a court to agree with me.
Now, can you reject statute law,yes, can you break it with impunity,yes, if you have a big enough army to help you.
Can you do it lawfully , yes if you can overthrow the government and make your own laws.

Reality is Rob, you can claim anything you like, its the ability to enforce the claim that is the issue.

 

[jargon buster]

Prayers are appreciated.

do you want any donations as well?

 

[tsig]

Won't be able to play for a while.
Dad is in hospital, found slumped over the wheel. Needed CPR to resuscitate and then again at hospital... no idea how long he was out or if his heart or brain suffered damage. He is in ICC and is sedated and intubated. He is getting a pacemaker tomorrow.

Prayers are appreciated.

So if I am not around for a bit you know why.

Never said I do not like living in a community. Nor however do I see how exercising a right to access healthcare brings with it a corresponding duty to abandon other rights. I do not see how accessing healthcare means I also must have a SIN, and then agree to a whole slew of Acts being applicable to me due only to holding that number.

Healthcare is available to those who have chosen to not be government employees just as it is for those who have. Those who have chosen to not be government employees are not bound by the exact same rules which others have agreed to by virtue of their employee status. This does not mean there are not laws which bind all regardless of their employee/Freeman status.

Glad to see your dad has recovered.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

The Freeman perspective is quite simple. If we are not harming another, damaging property, or using fraud in our contracts, then we cannot be governed without our consent. This means we are not engaging in things like trespassing or theft. Now JB, due to his lack of understanding of our position, comes with an example where he is clearly trespassing and committing theft, and causing harm, purposely. He then challenges us to deal with his law breaking without governing him without his consent. He thinks that since he can’t govern me on public property when I am harming no one, I can’t govern him on private land when he is committing theft. It is a prime example of his idiotic way of thinking.

He fails to distinguish between private property and pubic, and he fails to distinguish between acting in a manner that does not harm, and acting in a manner that does. Now of course he will try to avoid this distinction, or misdirect the casual observer by arguing that trespassing does not cause harm. Yet it is clearly an act of theft, according to him.

You have absolutely missed the entire point again. Who says that your land is private land? Who says it belongs to you? What if JB is a First Nations person (just for example) who believes that the land you claim as your private land belongs to his people? What if JB believes that your very presence on the traditional lands of his people is causing harm to him, his culture, and his entire community? What if he regards you as the trespasser? And remember, according to you, you can't govern JB without his consent. So what happens now in your imaginary FMOTL-land?

See a Freeman does not claim the right to do what JB is claiming the right to do, and therefore his example is simply not applicable. Notice also he has yet to address the questions asked of him, nor will he answer. I have mentioned sexual and commercial intercourse an equal amount of times. He will simply call my use of one type of intercourse as an example unhealthy, and completely ignore the second one.

Here is a simple question, let’s see if he will answer:
Do you JB claim the right to impose a contract on others by rejecting contract law?

Simple eh?
If he calls this gibberish, he is trying to avoid the question.
If he refuses to answer he is trying to avoid the truth.

If he speaks about one type of intercourse to misdirect (which he always does) he is trying to avoid the other type. Each however are equally suitable for highlighting the idiocy of his argument. There are certain things which require mutual consent. Intercourse of any kind being a major one. It is a prime example. JB claims he can avoid the need for mutual consent in any type of intercourse, commercial or sexual, by refusing to consent to the other parties non-consent.

Will he address this question, or ONCE AGAIN try an ad hominem attack on me to avoid the question by claiming my examples are questionable?

Yes Rob I do, because I like you can claim whatever I like and no man may govern me without my consent.
Can I enforce the contract, yes if Im bigger and stronger than him.
Can I lawfully do it, yes if I can get a court to agree with me.
Now, can you reject statute law,yes, can you break it with impunity,yes, if you have a big enough army to help you.
Can you do it lawfully , yes if you can overthrow the government and make your own laws.

Reality is Rob, you can claim anything you like, its the ability to enforce the claim that is the issue.

Question answered (with the obvious, self-evident answer.) Now what?

 

[jargon buster]

Won't be able to play for a while.
Dad is in hospital, found slumped over the wheel. Needed CPR to resuscitate and then again at hospital... no idea how long he was out or if his heart or brain suffered damage. He is in ICC and is sedated and intubated. He is getting a pacemaker tomorrow.

Prayers are appreciated.

So if I am not around for a bit you know why.

Announced here where you see the people here as enemies yet unannounced on WFS where you see those people as friends?