Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[JLord]

I can't wait to see how he keeps digging this time. Maybe he'll surprise us all and admit his error.

In fact he did admit that he was wrong regarding having to enter legal arguments into evidence for them to be effective. After admitting his error he determined a different reason why this person lost the case, that being the fact she had a licence. Of course the judge never mentioned this as being a relevant point, but according to Menard this was because the judge would not want to "let the cat out of the bag" regarding the significance of having a licence.

 

[D'rok]

In fact he did admit that he was wrong regarding having to enter legal arguments into evidence for them to be effective. After admitting his error he determined a different reason why this person lost the case, that being the fact she had a licence. Of course the judge never mentioned this as being a relevant point, but according to Menard this was because the judge would not want to "let the cat out of the bag" regarding the significance of having a licence.

Unfortunately, he still doesn't understand the difference between evidence and argument and is still trying to claim that lack of evidence, rather than having no basis in law, is why the FOTL legal arguments were rejected. See here:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060583069&postcount=423

 

[PhnomPenhPete]

I do care about the lurkers though, and them seeing how you all reflexively reject it highlights your weakness and inability to fairly weigh and decide.

Rob, I have been lurking for quite some time and following this thread with considerable interest. A long time ago I had a fairly open mind on your teachings, but your conduct and evasiveness on this forum (and D.I) leads me to conclude that you have no solid facts to back up your claims. This is a genuine observation and not a direct criticism. It just seems a real shame that you claim to know many success stories regarding FMOL tactics but are either unwilling or unable to give definitive proof to those who are genuinely interested.

 

[jargon buster]

A long time ago I had a fairly open mind on your teachings, but your conduct and evasiveness on this forum (and D.I) leads me to conclude that you have no solid facts to back up your claims.

He doesn't have anything near a solid fact, actually even his personal opinions are wrong.

 

[BobHaulk]

includes or including that is the question. I could include include but should i be including including or should i include including with include or be including include with including? It's such a dilemma or is it dilemmas? Is my dilemma a dilemma or should my dilemmas include my dilemma as well as including my dilemma?
If the Captain would like to enlighten me on this dilemma or dilemmas i sure would be grateful

 

[FreemanMenard]

Rob, I have been lurking for quite some time and following this thread with considerable interest. A long time ago I had a fairly open mind on your teachings, but your conduct and evasiveness on this forum (and D.I) leads me to conclude that you have no solid facts to back up your claims. This is a genuine observation and not a direct criticism. It just seems a real shame that you claim to know many success stories regarding FMOL tactics but are either unwilling or unable to give definitive proof to those who are genuinely interested.

I have not found anyone like that here. Check out the world freeman society if you wish to find people who have done it. Of course, if you will not accept their words, and reject them as anecdotal as the folks here do, you likely will not be too happy no matter where you go.

Solid facts here are easy to point to, but then they are quickly discarded or rejected merely cause they do not support previously held and defended beliefs.

For instance, the need for consent, is obvious, but is rejected here. Or the fact that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse. These are facts which folks here just ignore. Recently on DI forum a case of a licensed driver with a DL was raised, and they all chose to ignore that most key point.

These are solid facts. But if you do not even want to look at them they do you no good. See they claim that ONLY a court record can be proof, but the tactic most employ is to simply avoid court. So they reject the large amount of proof because it was not the result of a conflict, but of avoiding one.

Oh well...

 

[D'rok]

For instance, the need for consent, is obvious, but is rejected here.

Wrong. You claim individual consent is required. You have been shown in no uncertain terms that individual consent is not required.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7547672&postcount=2325

Or the fact that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse.

Wrong. You have been shown in no uncertain terms that this is false

Part 1:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6656955&postcount=499
Part 2:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6657587&postcount=504

These are facts which folks here just ignore.

Wrong. These are lies which we have proven to be lies.

Recently on DI forum a case of a licensed driver with a DL was raised, and they all chose to ignore that most key point.

Wrong. You have ignored the the fact that FOTL legal arguments were rejected because they have no basis in law. You have made up a ridiculous and unsupported claim that those legal arguments were rejected because of a driver's license. You did this after initially claiming that those legal arguments were rejected because they weren't entered as evidence, thus making it plain to all that you have no clue about court procedure despite your endless bravado.

These are solid facts.

These are shameless lies.

But if you do not even want to look at them they do you no good.

They've been looked at. You lied. You continue to lie. At least one lurker hasn't been suckered in by your lies. Good.

 

[BobHaulk]

I have not found anyone like that here. Check out the world freeman society if you wish to find people who have done it. Of course, if you will not accept their words, and reject them as anecdotal as the folks here do, you likely will not be too happy no matter where you go.

Solid facts here are easy to point to, but then they are quickly discarded or rejected merely cause they do not support previously held and defended beliefs.

For instance, the need for consent, is obvious, but is rejected here. Or the fact that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse. These are facts which folks here just ignore. Recently on DI forum a case of a licensed driver with a DL was raised, and they all chose to ignore that most key point.

These are solid facts. But if you do not even want to look at them they do you no good. See they claim that ONLY a court record can be proof, but the tactic most employ is to simply avoid court. So they reject the large amount of proof because it was not the result of a conflict, but of avoiding one.

Oh well...

i can just about see the proof there captain, not quite mind. Maybe the next time you could include some

 

[jargon buster]

Check out the world freeman society if you wish to find people who have done it. Of course, if you will not accept their words, and reject them as anecdotal as the folks here do, you likely will not be too happy no matter where you go.

Rob dont insult him immediately, you may have a live one here.
PS Rob, why don't you post on the WFS yourself?

Solid facts here are easy to point to, but then they are quickly discarded or rejected merely cause they do not support previously held and defended beliefs.

hahaha not one solid fact ever, in over two years I might add.

For instance, the need for consent, is obvious, but is rejected here. Or the fact that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse. These are facts which folks here just ignore. Recently on DI forum a case of a licensed driver with a DL was raised, and they all chose to ignore that most key point.

Rob we have been laughing at your attempts to justify your point over on Ickes, read the thread here.

These are solid facts. But if you do not even want to look at them they do you no good. See they claim that ONLY a court record can be proof, but the tactic most employ is to simply avoid court. So they reject the large amount of proof because it was not the result of a conflict, but of avoiding one.

Avoiding court?
Is that now your new stance?

Hey everyone I can tell you how to ignore statute law, just don't turn up in court, that will be $800 each.

Oh well...

Oh well indeed.

 

[JimBenArm]

Dammit! After all this time, I find out I was supposed to rotate the chicken leg clockwise! No wonder it didn't work!

 

[JLord]

For instance, the need for consent, is obvious, but is rejected here.

The only way to prove that something is "obvious" within the de facto court system is to show a decision supporting your view. If there is no case dealing with the subject, then it is open to speculation based on legal reasoning until the court gives an answer. However in this case, we have decisions saying individual consent is not required. So when you say it is obvious you are not expressing a fact about the de facto court, you are expressing your personal wishes about how you think the law should operate.

 

[PhnomPenhPete]

See they claim that ONLY a court record can be proof, but the tactic most employ is to simply avoid court.

Most avoid court? What about those who don't avoid court?

 

[jargon buster]

Rob has a foolproof way of avoiding court, its staring everyone in the face.
He behaves himself and doesn't break any statutes that he may get arrested and charged for.
Oh he smokes the odd spliff now and again but so do thousands of people in Canada, he swigs the odd can of beer in the park and so do lots of other people.
Are they all freemen on the land as well?
As far as I can see they have as much of a claim as Menard.

He has spent thousands of hours :roll eyes: studying law and now claims the way to beat the system is to avoid court????

so Robbie boy, its time for that evidence again, no need for court case references because there clearly are none or you would have given us one by now.
What I would like to see is how you avoid court when you get caught breaking a statute and you are charged.
Or are you going to claim you outsmart the cops at the roadside, if so what magic words do you use?

The floor is yours again.

 

[Mojo]

Unfortunately, he still doesn't understand the difference between evidence and argument and is still trying to claim that lack of evidence, rather than having no basis in law, is why the FOTL legal arguments were rejected. See here:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060583069&postcount=423

It doesn't look as if Rob's interpretation of the words "includes" and "including" is well supported either. Here, for example, are the Black's Law Dictionary definitions being discussed in Allen v. Grenier, 1997 CanLII 14628 (ON SC):

[19] Although I agree with counsel that the duties of the police set out in the Act do not specify enforcement of civil court orders, I make two observations. First, section 42 introduces the specific duties of a police officer with the term "include". "Include", as defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. (West Publishing: St. Paul, Minn., 1990), is a "[t]erm [which] may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition, or merely specify a particular thing already included with general words theretofore used. 'Including' within a statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation." Second, section 141 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, as amended, which was also referred to me by Police counsel, reads as follows:

141. Civil orders directed to sheriffs.—(1) Unless an Act provides otherwise, orders of a court arising out of a civil proceeding and enforceable in Ontario shall be directed to a sheriff for enforcement.​

[20] I find, therefore, that section 42 of the Police Services Act is to be read in conjunction with section 141 of the Courts of Justice Act. The term "include" under the former Act must be interpreted as "in addition to" so as to provide for duties allocated to police officers under specific statutes such as the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Clearly both terms can be used in the "enlargement" or "illustrative" senses as well as in the restrictive sense on which Rob relies.

Note also that Black's deals with both "include" and "including" in the same definition. It's as if they think they have the same basic meaning, isn't it?

 

[arayder]

Rob, I have been lurking for quite some time and following this thread with considerable interest. A long time ago I had a fairly open mind on your teachings, but your conduct and evasiveness on this forum (and D.I) leads me to conclude that you have no solid facts to back up your claims. This is a genuine observation and not a direct criticism. It just seems a real shame that you claim to know many success stories regarding FMOL tactics but are either unwilling or unable to give definitive proof to those who are genuinely interested.

I have not found anyone like that here. Check out the world freeman society if you wish to find people who have done it. Of course, if you will not accept their words, and reject them as anecdotal as the folks here do, you likely will not be too happy no matter where you go.

Solid facts here are easy to point to, but then they are quickly discarded or rejected merely cause they do not support previously held and defended beliefs.

For instance, the need for consent, is obvious, but is rejected here. Or the fact that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse. These are facts which folks here just ignore. Recently on DI forum a case of a licensed driver with a DL was raised, and they all chose to ignore that most key point.

These are solid facts. But if you do not even want to look at them they do you no good. See they claim that ONLY a court record can be proof, but the tactic most employ is to simply avoid court. So they reject the large amount of proof because it was not the result of a conflict, but of avoiding one.

Oh well...

PhnomPenhPete,

The anecdotal reports of out of court successes, represented as “solid facts” by Menard are at best undocumented tall tales.

Some, like Keith Thompson’s infamous courtroom video, are purposeful deceptions.

Some stories are, IMMHO, Menard’s attempts at self aggrandizement.

I urge you to be skeptical.

 

[D'rok]

It doesn't look as if Rob's interpretation of the words "includes" and "including" is well supported either. Here, for example, are the Black's Law Dictionary definitions being discussed in Allen v. Grenier, 1997 CanLII 14628 (ON SC):


Clearly both terms can be used in the "enlargement" or "illustrative" senses as well as in the restrictive sense on which Rob relies.

Note also that Black's deals with both "include" and "including" in the same definition. It's as if they think they have the same basic meaning, isn't it?

Well, clearly they used the wrong version of Black's. They had the audacity to use the most up-to-date version available at the time. Obviously, it would be much more appropriate to use a version from the late 19th century.

 

[FreemanMenard]

PhnomPenhPete,

The anecdotal reports of out of court successes, represented as “solid facts” by Menard are at best undocumented tall tales.

Some, like Keith Thompson’s infamous courtroom video, are purposeful deceptions.

Some stories are, IMMHO, Menard’s attempts at self aggrandizement.

I urge you to be skeptical.

I also urge you to skeptical. Not just of me, but also skeptical of those whose previously stated purpose was the destruction of others. (I am referring to arayder, and his claim to only be on these forums to destroy me)

Notice how anecdotal reports can be to him any way, not truth not recorded, no they MUST be tall tales, and that is the best they can be. Be skeptical of HIS motives.

Also you will fid these so called skeptics are not in the least skeptical of the existing power structure and control mechanism, for that they already embrace. Do not let your skepticism stop at being skeptical of those who are skeptical of those who claim to be authorities. Keep being skeptical of the courts, the government, the police, and ask they prove their right to govern you without your consent. Be skeptical of their claim they need to remove our rights for our own protection. Be skeptical of their claim to a monopoly on the justice system. Be skeptical of the idea that the courts are unbiased and only interested in justice. Be just as skeptical of Freemen who do not want authority over you as you should be when dealing with those who do.

Be skeptical of their claim of being skeptical, when they refuse to do so against the government.

Do your own due diligence and learn to look in your own heart for your own conscience and develop the courage to follow that even though all the so called skeptics will then mock, insult and denigrate you for being skeptical of what they blindly and ignorantly embrace. As Freemen we invite you to be skeptical of us and the government. As naysayers they only want you skeptical of us, and never ever the goobermint or courts.

So who are the true skeptics?

 

[sadhatter]

Rob dont insult him immediately, you may have a live one here.
PS Rob, why don't you post on the WFS yourself?

hahaha not one solid fact ever, in over two years I might add.

Rob we have been laughing at your attempts to justify your point over on Ickes, read the thread here.

Avoiding court?
Is that now your new stance?

Hey everyone I can tell you how to ignore statute law, just don't turn up in court, that will be $800 each.

Oh well indeed.

How many different justifications and methods of doing this crap are we going to be subjected to?

You have to show up, but act like a wally.
You have to show up but ignore folks.
You have to make magic squiggles on paper.
and now
You just have to run.

Really, really? Seriously? Truely? Factually? Of course your not going to get hit up for something if you just avoid it, with the addendum of until you get caught.

Rob, you should just teach how to fly, same basic principle, just tell folks to not hit the ground after jumping and charge them 800 bucks for it.

 

[sadhatter]

Rob has a foolproof way of avoiding court, its staring everyone in the face.
He behaves himself and doesn't break any statutes that he may get arrested and charged for.
Oh he smokes the odd spliff now and again but so do thousands of people in Canada, he swigs the odd can of beer in the park and so do lots of other people.
Are they all freemen on the land as well?
As far as I can see they have as much of a claim as Menard.

He has spent thousands of hours :roll eyes: studying law and now claims the way to beat the system is to avoid court????

so Robbie boy, its time for that evidence again, no need for court case references because there clearly are none or you would have given us one by now.
What I would like to see is how you avoid court when you get caught breaking a statute and you are charged.
Or are you going to claim you outsmart the cops at the roadside, if so what magic words do you use?

The floor is yours again.

Freemen on the land seem very much like the trailer park boys. Smoke some dope, drink in public, rely on the fact that cops can't be bothered, then claim some kind of off the wall legal defense when caught and hope someone else gets blamed.

Seriously, replace Rob menard with Rob Wells, and you have a classic canadian comedy.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Some, like Keith Thompson’s infamous courtroom video, are purposeful deceptions.

Indeed. Menard described Thompson's court appearance as "Canadian Freeman Wins Big" knowing that Thompson held a driving licence but Menard states that holding a driving licence destroys a fotl defence regarding motoring offences.