Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[jargon buster]

He stalks me every where on line, on the DI forum, the WFS forum, even FB for chris sakes, brags about it and admits it, and then seeks accolades for doing so.

Rob, I don't go on Ickes, WFS or Facebook.

Theres no need you see, everyone knows you now, only a halfwit would believe anything you say and frankly halfwits can't be helped.

Psst... when I said I was your friend on Facebook, I lied
It was only a little white lie after all although it did cause you to panic and create an elaborate master plan to discover my identity.

 

[arayder]

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?

Most of all, PhnomPenhPete
Be very skeptical of those who cowardly hide behind anonymity on the web.
Be skeptical of those who for whatever silly reason, will not identify themselves.

Those are the ones you should be most skeptical about.

You know exactly who I am, Bobby. You had me banded from the WFS forum based on my identity and IP address which you said you knew and had your monitor/minions confirm.

So don’t insult the reader’s intelligence by claiming otherwise.

The difference between me and you is that I don’t sell imbalanced wannabes like Lance Thatcher $800 worth of useless documents on the promise they can beat the rap using them and then run from the bad deed when it’s time for an accounting.

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/...t-fuelled-freeman-8217-s-beliefs-says-ex-wife

 

[jargon buster]

Hello Rob, hows business?

Yep, thought so...would you like us to have a whip round for you and get you a pot to pee in?

 

[jargon buster]

And the fact is you do care and you are only going to care more as time goes on, ole son.

Oh he cares all right, and I bet he regrets coming on this thread and debating on other forums now.
He should have kept it to youtube where people who question him can be edited out.
His ego simply got out of control and he believed his own hype for a while.

He has nothing in the tank now, its pitiful to watch him, he could have his face on a balloon for his next video, after all a balloon upstaged him last time.

 

[tsig]

So according to you everything I say is wacky. I would have to skeptical of that position, if I was a lurker.

Secondly, we are not anti-government. That is what those who are so skeptical of us and so accepting of the government that they need to label us call us. We are pro-good government. There is a big difference there.

If you think we do not have a class based system now you are sadly mistaken.

Essentially the Freeman perspective simply realizes that in that massive and growing body of rules and regulations, some are only applicable to those who seek certain benefits, and by rejecting those so called benefits we ease our regulatory burden, and those who refuse to see that, end up arguing that they can have benefits without the burdens, which means it is they who are the freeloaders. We do not want benefits without burdens, and see them as two sides of the same coin. Naysayers see benefits as magically existing with no burdens at all associated to them. They also see conveniences as 'benefits' and think that we must give those up if we do not wish to be agents or employees or wards of the state.

Many of the things you call laws, are actually only the rules of those who have accepted(often without realizing it) the status of employee, agent or ward of the state, and we escape those by abandoning that status. Mostly because we were skeptical of the claims made by those in the government, called them on it, and they failed to prove their claims of divine or magical ability to govern without consent.

We are the pro-good government skeptics. You are the ones who insult, denigrate and ridicule those who are more skeptical than you and who due to that greater level of skepticism, no longer accept what you blindly embrace.

So you just change your mind and file some papers and you're free?

You get to use the roads others built and the electricity that others made and use the water from the tap that others purified? I think the wagon will stop if everyone is riding and no one is pulling.

 

[Paul]

Be very skeptical of those who cowardly hide behind anonymity on the web.
Be skeptical of those who for whatever silly reason, will not identify themselves.

I would think, Rob, that your idiotic avatar and the phrase criminal harassment would serve to remind you why people would be wise to remain anonymous in your presence.

 

[jargon buster]

They are the sheep and you are the cagy wolf. wolverine.

hehehe

 

[sadhatter]

So discussion and negotiation. Tools available for use to avoid civil court or quasi-criminal actions or not? I say they do work when employed properly. You did not raise any points with quoting JB did you?

As for your fee schedule, when I demand or order you read my posts, and threaten you with punishment for not doing so, then it would be applicable. But of course that distinction here is one never made, and is therefore used to justify dismissing the concept of fee schedules in their entirety, right?

As for free soda, well, I guess you will not like my next presentation at all. But do not worry, there is a simple remedy for you. When everyone else is paying for their soda in a manner that you think is them getting it for free, all you have to do is not engage in the method yourself. Just follow your conscience as you see fit, and allow others to do the same. Of course for people like you that won't be good enough will it? You will have to speak out against them doing so, try to stop them from following their own conscience because yours is better, and you are more oral, right?


Let me ask you this hypothetically: If others were paying for their meals say by merely signing the bill a certain way, and not giving cash for it, would you refuse to use that method yourself even though it was proven everyone had a right to do so? Also, if you were locked in a room, dying of thirst, and there was a broken vending machine there which could supply you with life saving beverage, but not take your soon to be useless coins, would you still refuse to take the free soda, you know, because you are so much more moral and can see past your own thirst? Or would you grab a soda and save your life? Just a hypothetical situation between life and death.

First off, if folks were paying with non money to a restaurant, yes i would still pay. Because the restaurant needs money to operate, not signatures written in a funny manner. Even if they found some kind of loophole that allows them to get away with that, it is still effecting the person actually supplying the food.

Your second analogy is just silly, and has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Unless you can show me that every freeman example you have given ( none of which have actually shown to be any kind of victory.) was people doing what they were doing do to being in a life threatening situation.

Your analogy is so flawed its silly, the second one that is. The first is just good evidence of how you think you should be able to get away with not paying for things because of legal magic.

To provide an example of how silly your second analogy is. It is like saying it is okay to go around stealing from folks when you need money for beer, because it is morally acceptable to steal from folks to save your own life.

But even that synchs up with the view you have. It is like the opposite of the slippery slope argument, " Why can't i not ever pay , if it is socially acceptable to not pay if i am dying?". And it just is not a point of view, that i nor many others would associate with maturity and understanding of the real world.

 

[sadhatter]

So you just change your mind and file some papers and you're free?

You get to use the roads others built and the electricity that others made and use the water from the tap that others purified? I think the wagon will stop if everyone is riding and no one is pulling.

But that is the beauty of it, because people that actually have a conscionce will still pay, allowing rob and his ilk to reap the benefits of the roads and the electricity and the water.

But no, that isn't creating a class based system.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Rob's views are nothing more than the guy who always "Forgets his wallet" on the nights everyone orders pizza. He knows he will still get pizza, and he knows no one is going to hound him about his non contribution. Sure it may work, but it is a sketchy, amoral thing to do, even in this small respect. Extend that to society at large, and it is downright stealing.

 

[D'rok]

I think we should dispense with the personal attacks however justified and focus on his bogus FOTL claims.

 

[Hektor]

". . .the statist looks at his fellow man and thinks, “I do
not trust you to be my neighbor, but I do trust you to be my master"

Well, if my neighbour wanted to drive on roads funded by taxes that she or he didn't pay while not being licensed or insured I know I wouldn't trust them to be my neighbour let alone make their made-up rules bind me.

 

[arayder]

I think we should dispense with the personal attacks however justified and focus on his bogus FOTL claims.

My bad.

I agree.

 

[FreemanMenard]

First off, if folks were paying with non money to a restaurant, yes i would still pay. Because the restaurant needs money to operate, not signatures written in a funny manner. Even if they found some kind of loophole that allows them to get away with that, it is still effecting the person actually supplying the food.

Your second analogy is just silly, and has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Unless you can show me that every freeman example you have given ( none of which have actually shown to be any kind of victory.) was people doing what they were doing do to being in a life threatening situation.

Your analogy is so flawed its silly, the second one that is. The first is just good evidence of how you think you should be able to get away with not paying for things because of legal magic.

To provide an example of how silly your second analogy is. It is like saying it is okay to go around stealing from folks when you need money for beer, because it is morally acceptable to steal from folks to save your own life.

But even that synchs up with the view you have. It is like the opposite of the slippery slope argument, " Why can't i not ever pay , if it is socially acceptable to not pay if i am dying?". And it just is not a point of view, that i nor many others would associate with maturity and understanding of the real world.

I guess you missed the part where I said they were paying. That means the restauranteur is made perfectly happy and ends up with a negotiable valuable instrument.

Guess you missed that eh? Ever wonder how much more you may have missed?

 

[Bosozoku]

I guess you missed the part where I said they were paying. That means the restauranteur is made perfectly happy and ends up with a negotiable valuable instrument.

Guess you missed that eh? Ever wonder how much more you may have missed?

But you did say this in your hypo:

If others were paying for their meals say by merely signing the bill a certain way, and not giving cash for it, would you refuse to use that method yourself even though it was proven everyone had a right to do so?

How does a restauranteur end up with a negotiable instrument when someone signs a bill a certain way? In other words, what are they writing, in what circumstances, and how does that writing convert the bill into a negotiable instrument?

 

[jargon buster]

How does a restauranteur end up with a negotiable instrument when someone signs a bill a certain way? In other words, what are they writing, in what circumstances, and how does that writing convert the bill into a negotiable instrument?

Nooooo........dont encourage him or we will have the Menardian merry go around

 

[D'rok]

Actually, I think that's a perfectly good question for this thread. It's an FOTL claim with no evidence to back it up. So let's have the evidence!

 

[jargon buster]

Lets have the evidence???
Did you really write that again?
This thread was started on the 29th May 2010 and we haven't had a shred of evidence from Rob, why waste time asking him?

All you will get is a mishmash of pointless waffle, he's done it all before its in the rest of this thread, surely we don't need it all again.

 

[D'rok]

Yeah, but he's apparently working on a new mishmash of pointless waffle. Should be good times.

 

[BobHaulk]

I'm looking forward to the new version of 96 is the fix Rob, i can hardly wait. Will there be a hat? eh oh la la tinky winky dipsy

 

[jargon buster]

I'm all for debunking his new stuff D'rok, its just the old stuff I'm tired of, the negotiable instrument is old hat now, its been done to death elsewhere.