Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[ComfySlippers]

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

To be fair to Rob he recently said that JREF members were retards, not enemies.

Nope, but I will comment that this forum is like the Special Olympics of Logic and Reason. We all respect your efforts, and see how important it is for you, you try so hard, but in the end, in a real contest, you would have no chance of winning.

And WFS is as dead as a strawman anyway, in both it's private and public forums.

Rob, be careful when you take a shower- we wouldnt want your laptop to get stolen again!

 

[therival58]

I spent months looking for legal evidence to support the freeman concept and could not find squat.

The only "proof" FOTLers seem to provide are definitions from an outdated law dictionary. It's getting really tiresome.

 

[FreemanMenard]

You could not find evidence that the government is composed of people who are bound by the law?
You could not find evidence that a SIN is voluntary and not compulsory? You could not find evidence that without the SIN certain benefits are not available? You could not find evidence that if you collect benefits there are associated burdens and that those obligations are not applicable to those who do not collect benefits? You could not find evidence that a SIN is referred to as a 'federal employee identification number' and is needed to collect a Canada Pension? You could not find evidence that the term 'any one' is used when referring to actual crimes in the criminal code yet the term 'any person' is used in statutes? You could not find evidence that corporations are given the status of 'person' yet are not individuals?

Wow, how hard did you look?

 

[Paul]

You could not find evidence that...

I could find evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. I achieved this herculean task by reading your posts.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

You could not find evidence that a SIN is referred to as a 'federal employee identification number' ...

I can't find this evidence anywhere. I looked here but found absolutely nothing.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/sc/sin/

Would you kindly please provide said evidence? Thanks in advance.

You could not find evidence that the term 'any one' is used when referring to actual crimes in the criminal code yet the term 'any person' is used in statutes?

In ten minutes of research (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html), I found the following evidence that this is completely incorrect:

Offences involving nuclear material

(3.2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, where

(a) a person, outside Canada, receives, has in his possession, uses, transfers the possession of, sends or delivers to any person, transports, alters, disposes of, disperses or abandons nuclear material and thereby

(i) causes or is likely to cause the death of, or serious bodily harm to, any person, or

(ii) causes or is likely to cause serious damage to, or destruction of, property, and

(b) the act or omission described in paragraph (a) would, if committed in Canada, be an offence against this Act,

that person shall be deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if paragraph (3.5)(a), (b) or (c) applies in respect of the act or omission.

Parties to offence

21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who

(a) actually commits it;

(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or

(c) abets any person in committing it.

Assertion of right to house or real property

42. ...

Assault in case of lawful entry

(2) Where a person

(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or

(b) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,

assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.

Trespasser provoking assault

(3) Where a person

(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or

(b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,

assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

Instructing to carry out activity for terrorist group

83.21 (1) Every person who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to carry out any activity for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

Forcible entry

72. (1) A person commits forcible entry when that person enters real property that is in the actual and peaceable possession of another in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace.

Matters not material

(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is immaterial whether or not a person is entitled to enter the real property or whether or not that person has any intention of taking possession of the real property.

Forcible detainer

(2) A person commits forcible detainer when, being in actual possession of real property without colour of right, he detains it in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace, against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.

Questions of law

(3) The questions whether a person is in actual and peaceable possession or is in actual possession without colour of right are questions of law.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 72; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 10; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
Punishment

73. Every person who commits forcible entry or forcible detainer is guilty of

(a) an offence punishable on summary conviction; or

(b) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

I could keep going of course, but I trust the point (that you are too lazy to even spend ten minutes researching your own con) has been made.

 

[jargon buster]

You could not find evidence that the government is composed of people who are bound by the law?
You could not find evidence that a SIN is voluntary and not compulsory? You could not find evidence that without the SIN certain benefits are not available? You could not find evidence that if you collect benefits there are associated burdens and that those obligations are not applicable to those who do not collect benefits? You could not find evidence that a SIN is referred to as a 'federal employee identification number' and is needed to collect a Canada Pension? You could not find evidence that the term 'any one' is used when referring to actual crimes in the criminal code yet the term 'any person' is used in statutes? You could not find evidence that corporations are given the status of 'person' yet are not individuals?

Wow, how hard did you look?

Did you forget about your dad in hospital Rob?

You could not find evidence that a SIN is referred to as a 'federal employee identification number' and is needed to collect a Canada Pension?

Solz he's mixed this up before, its employer, not employee, his marks normally miss that, either because they are thick or that they want his garbage to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employer_Identification_Number

Also known as the Tax Identification Number (TIN), Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) or the Federal Tax Identification Number, the EIN is a unique nine-digit number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to business entities operating in the United States for the purposes of identification. When the number is used for identification rather than employment tax reporting, it is usually referred to as a TIN, and when used for the purposes of reporting employment taxes, it is usually referred to as an EIN.[citation needed] This article will use the latter term.
[edit]

 

[Mojo]

You could not find evidence that the government is composed of people who are bound by the law?

Remember that everybody accepts that this is true, but everyone except Rob has realised that the law, in the form of the Canadian constitution, gives the government powers that are not available to individuals.

 

[Hektor]

Remember that everybody accepts that this is true, but everyone except Rob has realised that the law, in the form of the Canadian constitution, gives the government powers that are not available to individuals.

And I always wanted to appoint my own ambassador to Fiji.

 

[bikerdruid]

Remember that everybody accepts that this is true, but everyone except Rob has realised that the law, in the form of the Canadian constitution, gives the government powers that are not available to individuals.

....including punishment for breaking laws, whether just, or not.

 

[arayder]

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.

Well, maybe you’ll get one last chance to tell him some stories that will finally gain his approval.

That is what the whole “I am the great Rob Menard” thing is about, right?

 

[SpitfireIX]

If we are not harming another, damaging property, or using fraud in our contracts, then we cannot be governed without our consent.

You are harming every other citizen of Canada by attempting to avoid paying your fair share of taxes, and by encouraging others to avoid paying their fair shares. You are using fraud in your contracts by attempting to pay bills by drawing against your illusory "birth bond," even though you have been repeatedly informed that no such thing exists.

 

[arayder]

"You could not find evidence that the government is composed of people who are bound by the law" --- FreemanMenard

You conveniently ignore the eons old concept of the supremacy of law, Bobby. We have covered this ground already.

The fact that you don’t accept the concept due to your self-absorbed personality doesn’t mean it isn’t a real and tangible function of human society.

The trail of arrested, dismissed, fined, jailed, and institutionalized freemen left in your wake is testament to the practical absurdity of your theories.

Let’s see the known role so far. . . .David Kannler, Keith Thompson, Brian Armstrong, Lance Thatcher and of course you.

Do you have any fails to add, Bobby?

 

[Bishop]

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.

Oh yeah, we totally believe you. Just like we believe the rest of your stories. Don't forget to hustle some more donations from your marks!

 

[jargon buster]

Dad is in hospital, found slumped over the wheel.

Hosepipe from the exhaust through the window after reading this thread?

 

[tsig]

"You could not find evidence that the government is composed of people who are bound by the law" --- FreemanMenard

You conveniently ignore the eons old concept of the supremacy of law, Bobby. We have covered this ground already.

The fact that you don’t accept the concept due to your self-absorbed personality doesn’t mean it isn’t a real and tangible function of human society.

The trail of arrested, dismissed, fined, jailed, and institutionalized freemen left in your wake is testament to the practical absurdity of your theories.

Let’s see the known role so far. . . .David Kannler, Keith Thompson, Brian Armstrong, Lance Thatcher and of course you.

Do you have any fails to add, Bobby?

Girlguy?

 

[Bishop]

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.

Answer at least this question, Rob. Where did this come from? How do you know that the prohibition of harm, damage, and fraud is the only "real" law, and everything else is just part of a set of optional rules?

 

[Boot2TheHead]

You could not find evidence that the government is composed of people who are bound by the law?

Duh.

You could not find evidence that a SIN is voluntary and not compulsory?

Only if you don't want to work legally.

You could not find evidence that without the SIN certain benefits are not available?

Duh.

You could not find evidence that if you collect benefits there are associated burdens and that those obligations are not applicable to those who do not collect benefits?

Yes, for example, if you want the benefit of being able to drive a motorized vehicle on public roads, you have the related obligation to have a driver's license and insurances.

Oh wait you were talking about being part of a pension plan somehow creating totally unrelated and unstipulated obligations. That's just stupid.

You could not find evidence that a SIN is referred to as a 'federal employee identification number' and is needed to collect a Canada Pension?

Comprehension skills fail. It's a federal identification number for employers, not an identification number for federal employees.

You could not find evidence that the term 'any one' is used when referring to actual crimes in the criminal code yet the term 'any person' is used in statutes?

Addressed already. Let's see how long it is before you bring this up yet again.

You could not find evidence that corporations are given the status of 'person' yet are not individuals?

Duh. No one disputed this. That was never a FotL claim either, though.

I realize you're trying to imply that because some persons are not individuals, somehow that means individuals are not persons. Menard logic at work, folks.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Comprehension skills fail

... The thing which all FOTL-Wafflers have in common, and which Menard excels at.

 

[JLord]

If we are not harming another, damaging property, or using fraud in our contracts, then we cannot be governed without our consent.

Is this according to you or according to the de facto courts?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Answer at least this question, Rob. Where did this come from? How do you know that the prohibition of harm, damage, and fraud is the only "real" law, and everything else is just part of a set of optional rules?

Sure but since I have answered so many and you refuse to maybe you can answer mine first.

If you do not personally have the right or power to govern me without my consent, how can you hire or appoint or elect someone to do so for you?

Thanks!