Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[tsig]

Sure. And then I will show her a Birth Certificate with the words [B]REVENUE RECEIPT - TREASURY USE ONLY[/B] on it, and she can decide for herself if her eyes are lying to her, or if someone in the government lied.

Do you think it will be a tough sell, to get her to realize that someone in the government either lied or is misinformed and that her own eyes are telling her the truth?? Bearing in mind she is a reporter, is used to the government trying to lie, and has learned to trust her own eyes?

And in fact, has strong evidence against its existence, which he has simply chosen to ignore.

Well actually he used a red herring. Why a receipt for revenue would give you the right to money is never explained.

 

[tsig]

I'm a lurker. I only come her for the lulz. Because you're worth it.

I'm afraid the act is going to have a seven day intermission.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7969374&postcount=1

 

[jargon buster]

After seeing the last video posted here of Rob in the park it made me wonder about all his other videos of him speaking publicly.
I wonder if he was actually at the back of at the rooms he was speaking in in all the videos.

You never see the audience and the direction they are facing.

 

[Horatius]

Well actually he used a red herring. Why a receipt for revenue would give you the right to money is never explained.

It's not as if any Government in Canada has ever charged a fee for supplying copies of your birth certificate, after all.

 

[arayder]

After seeing the last video posted here of Rob in the park it made me wonder about all his other videos of him speaking publicly.
I wonder if he was actually at the back of at the rooms he was speaking in in all the videos.

You never see the audience and the direction they are facing.

More Mendrantin': http://wn.com/Kelowna_Freedom_Fest_2009__Robert_Menard_speech_1of3

 

[jargon buster]

"Id like to thank (someone else) for spending $300 to set this up, we will be passing around the hat so that the WFS can be reimbursed, and so we can do it again next year."

 

[Bishop]

Menard's status and reputation really does seem to have gone downhill over the past year or so, especially among other freemen. Yes, even they are finally beginning to get suspicious about the total lack of evidence for his stories, as well as the fact that nobody else has ever managed to replicate his claimed level of success.

In fact, his grandiose claims are probably a big part of the reason for his decline. Think about it. There are plenty of freemen who tell stories about victories they think they've won, and most of them are simply events that have been misunderstood by their ignorance of law and wishful thinking. That is to say, the stories are told in good faith. With Menard's tales, on the other hand, there is no room for misunderstanding or ambiguity. He claims to have received clear and overt admissions from judges and police that freeman claims are entirely true. That is either true, or it is a deliberate lie.

 

[JLord]

I would say most of the time he doesn't need the outright lie. Certainly there have been some like when he said he had some court documents somewhere but not with him and promised to produce them. But for the most part he simply makes a philosophical argument to support what he thinks the law should be, but acts as though this is relevant to how the law actually is. He doesn't point out this distinction and people who don't see it may be fooled by this tactic. I wouldn't call this an outright lie, more like a lack of full information.

It is the equivalent of trying to determine the rules of Monopoly by looking at a textbook on real estate transactions. Or determining the rules of chess by reading a book on military tactics. The source of your argument has no bearing on what you are trying to explain. You are ignoring the actual rules and their source in favour of rules derived from a source you prefer. In Rob's case it is trying to determine the de facto law based on philosophical arguments personal freedom and the role of government.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

But for the most part he simply makes a philosophical argument to support what he thinks the law should be, but acts as though this is relevant to how the law actually is. He doesn't point out this distinction and people who don't see it may be fooled by this tactic. I wouldn't call this an outright lie, more like a lack of full information.

I disagree. This distinction has been pointed out to Mr Menard literally hundreds of times and yet he continues to purposefully misrepresent his philospical argument as legal advice to vulnerable people. It is an outright lie (in my view anyway.)

 

[ComfySlippers]

I share Sol's view.

If, after over ten years of being continually shown real world evidence and facts that the ideas you are promoting and selling are utter fantasy, you chose to continue promoting and selling said ideas:- You are either knowingly conning people/ addicted to being a z-list internet celebrity/ have some mental issues.

Stating my personal choice of the above options would probably be deemed AAH-Worthy by the mods, so I'll shut up

....and I would not like to upset all "the lurkers" here who Rob is convinced love him

 

[JLord]

Well I agree that it's no better morally than an outright lie, so I'm not trying to say it doesn't mislead people or that he isn't knowingly misleading people. But often his statements are crafted in such a way that you couldn't conclusively say "that statement is false" simply because it is a philosophical statement that is subjective in nature. He portrays it as though such statements have some legal relevance, but not by explicitly saying so. He just blurs the line between law and philosophy to the point that people think his philosophical argument is a legal argument.

So if "outright lie" means deliberately making an objectively false statement then I am saying he often doesn't have to resort that. He has done so of course on certain memorable occassions, and those would probably be his biggest errors in continuing the con. I bet he would admit to that if he were on truth serum or something.

If outright lie means being deliberately deceptive then certainly he meets the definition every time he opens his mouth on the subject.

 

[D'rok]

I disagree. This distinction has been pointed out to Mr Menard literally hundreds of times and yet he continues to purposefully misrepresent his philospical argument as legal advice to vulnerable people. It is an outright lie (in my view anyway.)

I completely agree. He nearly always makes actual descriptive claims rather than normative ones disguised as descriptive. He makes pinpoint references to provisions in various statutes and then makes a legal argument based on his laughably false interpretation of those provisions. It's false legal advice, plain and simple.

On the other hand, when he talks about principles rather than "remedies", he does attempt the normative/descriptive bait and switch.

Overall, I think his con game goes something like this:
1. Tell disenfranchised/vulnerable people what they want to hear at the superficial level of principles/philosophy by presenting that audience's "ought" as "is"
2. Give the specific (false) legal advice for various particular circumstances that the audience can use to actualize the principles/philosophy.

Deception at both stages. Bald-faced lies at the second.

 

[tsig]

Well I agree that it's no better morally than an outright lie, so I'm not trying to say it doesn't mislead people or that he isn't knowingly misleading people. But often his statements are crafted in such a way that you couldn't conclusively say "that statement is false" simply because it is a philosophical statement that is subjective in nature. He portrays it as though such statements have some legal relevance, but not by explicitly saying so. He just blurs the line between law and philosophy to the point that people think his philosophical argument is a legal argument.

So if "outright lie" means deliberately making an objectively false statement then I am saying he often doesn't have to resort that. He has done so of course on certain memorable occassions, and those would probably be his biggest errors in continuing the con. I bet he would admit to that if he were on truth serum or something.

If outright lie means being deliberately deceptive then certainly he meets the definition every time he opens his mouth on the subject.

His tag line "You can't govern me without my consent" is an outright lie.

 

[jargon buster]

Menard is an outright liar and conman (just my opinion of course) my reasons for this statement are very simple.
He doesn't practice what he preaches, hence he knows it to be false.

 

[Cocana The Second]

I must also agree with Sol on this one. Menard has lied so often about this stuff and its legal efficacy that it's difficult to keep up. Further, if any of his claims are legally correct he would have no need for the constant evasion and pseudo-philosophy; he would just give straight answers and produce the evidence.

...which of course he has never done.

 

[jargon buster]

I dont think Menard will be back here in a hurry and as of yet he is missing from the internet full stop.
I think he has finally taken my backhanded advice and gone underground to peddle his wares.
I always said the more publicity he got the harder his "sell" would get.
The more people that hear about you if you have something of value is a positive, when you have nothing of value its a massive drawback and I think he has just realised that.

 

[Cocana The Second]

I dont think Menard will be back here in a hurry and as of yet he is missing from the internet full stop.
I think he has finally taken my backhanded advice and gone underground to peddle his wares.
I always said the more publicity he got the harder his "sell" would get.
The more people that hear about you if you have something of value is a positive, when you have nothing of value its a massive drawback and I think he has just realised that.

He's just resurfaced.....

Here we go again, another round or two of rhetoric and sophistry from Menard again. How long before the old line about "prove to me that one man can govern another without his consent" appears...?

 

[jargon buster]

I'm sure he is stalking my posts

 

[Boot2TheHead]

Would it be inappropriate to make a post listing the most ridiculous things (and most easily citable) he says? Sort of like a wikiquote type thing or "**** wannabe philosophers say"? Considering the new name of the thread I would guess that'd be apt.

He's now on about how the fact that people can be stopped from using the highway is proof that people have a right to use the highway without being stopped. Incredible.

Another good one is his admission (finally) that his "de jure" court system would be just as "voluntary" as the actual one, but that the lawful alternative should people refuse consent would be to hunt them down to exact vigilante justice.

 

[Hektor]

He's now on about how the fact that people can be stopped from using the highway is proof that people have a right to use the highway without being stopped. Incredible.

But in his example of a noble freeman "closing" a highway, what happens if another freeman wants to travel in his personal conveyance on said highway and doesn't consent to the first freeman using it as a landing strip?

Another good one is his admission (finally) that his "de jure" court system would be just as "voluntary" as the actual one, but that the lawful alternative should people refuse consent would be to hunt them down to exact vigilante justice.

And I thought that the Freeman Valley Blues game was some sort of parody.