Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
We all know that every attempt in court has failed.

How about a video of a traffic stop (no license/registration/insurance) where the cops let you go without a ticket b/c of your "freeman" status?

Funny how all the traffic stop videos also show only failures.
 
D'rok said:
We all know that every attempt in court has failed.

How about a video of a traffic stop (no license/registration/insurance) where the cops let you go without a ticket b/c of your "freeman" status?

Funny how all the traffic stop videos also show only failures.
Click to expand...

Does that not require them to first act? How can I do that if they are not pulling me over?

Just explain how I get a video pf a traffic stop, when they do not stop e to begin with....

Just explain THAT...
Or admit there is a HUGE flaw in your challenge... that being it requires them to act first, and I can't force them to do so, not tempt them to do so without losing honour....

More challenges where the only proof accepted is not available without conflict FIRST.
 
Does that not require them to first act? How can I do that if they are not pulling me over?
Click to expand...
Pull you over????????
Rob you are to frightened to get in a car.

Rob, enjoy your time in the limelight mate, your days are numbered.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Does that not require them to first act? How can I do that if they are not pulling me over?

Just explain how I get a video pf a traffic stop, when they do not stop e to begin with....

Just explain THAT...
Or admit there is a HUGE flaw in your challenge... that being it requires them to act first, and I can't force them to do so, not tempt them to do so without losing honour....

More challenges where the only proof accepted is not available without conflict FIRST.
Click to expand...
As I recall, and as Adrienne pointed out to you, the last time you were pulled over (that we know of) you got a ticket and had your car towed. You then threatend to shoot and kill any RCMP who got in your way. You also said you were "convening a court" and were going to get a default judgment and then repossess an RCMP car. Among other things.

How did that work out?

Also, we see an endless stream of videos of FOTLers getting stopped. So, obviously, it happens all the time.

Why, like you, do your brothers fail every single time it happens?
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Are we even looking at the same playbook and reality?
Click to expand...

... aaaaand there it is! The key to the whole FMOTL thing. Rob, you're just not looking at the same reality as the vast majority of people. Except there is only one reality.

See, most of us here are looking at the real reality. You're looking instead at your wishful thinking reality where magic words erase debt and everyone is born with millions of dollars to their names and there's a secret to getting around anything you don't like. Take the magic lenses off, Rob, and you'll see the real world.

Oh, and all that stuff about "avoiding court?" Most people do that, too. It's called obeying the law. Yes, Rob, that law you say you don't consent to, and the government you say can't govern you without your consent - well, guess what? You're obeying them! Maybe you don't "consent" because somewhere in the recesses of your mind you think you're not consenting, but it doesn't look all that different to the law. Chew that one over for a while.
 
FreemanMenard said:
You are clearly not qualified to speak about my point of view.
Disaster?

Are we even looking at the same playbook and reality?

Their first round served to illuminate their fears, highlight their weaknesses, and garnered SO much attention. They MUST have realized the effect such a blatant hit piece would have. Even folks who previously rejected FMOTL question why it was so biased.

Those who have never heard of Freeman now have, and some who have trusted CBC their whole lives question why this one story was presented with such obvious (and for the CBC unexpected) bias.

What you saw was the first swing in the first round. And you claim they are now victorious?

Have any of you ever even been in an actual fight?
Click to expand...

So you admit that you took a punch?
 
And ...there he goes again.
I used to write "drive by" smattering of nonsense from Rob, but thats not totally true, Rob doesnt drive.
Yes, Rob, that law you say you don't consent to, and the government you say can't govern you without your consent - well, guess what? You're obeying them!
Click to expand...
Yep, spot on, Rob claims to have withdrawn consent and yet still obeys the laws.
Mind you he did once say that if he engages in governable actions then he consents to the law covering that action.
So by definition every action he engages in that is covered by statute he automatically consents to.

I really don't know what he doesn't consent to, there isn't much else left.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Does that not require them to first act? How can I do that if they are not pulling me over?

Just explain how I get a video pf a traffic stop, when they do not stop e to begin with....

Just explain THAT...
Or admit there is a HUGE flaw in your challenge... that being it requires them to act first, and I can't force them to do so, not tempt them to do so without losing honour....

More challenges where the only proof accepted is not available without conflict FIRST.
Click to expand...

I agree, that is a flaw in this challenge. You cannot attract the attention of the police unless you are blatently disobeying the law. And doing something blatent might be against freeman law as well. Perhaps a more fair challenge would be for you to produce the document you mentioned months ago that you said was at another residence or in storage or something. The one that shows us that the de facto legal system recognizes freeman philosophy as part of the law. Is that a fair challenge in your opinion?
 
JLord said:
I agree, that is a flaw in this challenge. You cannot attract the attention of the police unless you are blatently disobeying the law.
Click to expand...
Such as driving with fake FOTL plates? The very thing that gets FOTLers pulled over all the time?

C'mon. He doesn't get a free pass on this one. He even repeated the claim (don't need registration, license or insurance) on The National.

So go ahead. Drive around without plates. Film the results.

It's a perfectly fair challenge.
 
Even folks who previously rejected FMOTL question why it was so biased.
Click to expand...

No they don't.

It wasn't biased. It showed some nutters presenting their idiotic views and compared it to real people who have been affected by them.

But as always... you see this as some part of your masterplan and pretend it is a FOTL-Waffle "Win".
You have serious problems. A lot of your fellow Canadians have now seen this, people who would never usually have encountered your insane gibberish.

Post it as a "success story". Noone reads or posts in your daft WFS forums anyway.

You are so silly it's unbelievable.

ETA: Just a reminder, "I fought the law and the law won" was a cool song.
But remember also "Rob crashed a party and the balloon won"
 
Last edited:
Menard, the wide-eyed look of surprise on your face when Arsenault caught you dead to rights in a pack of lies was a classic. One has to think that the look on your face was exactly the one you produced in childhood when adults caught you in your Mini-Menard tall tales.

Consistent with the manipulations of a narcissist the claimed success of your methods and the assertion of a tremendous reception of freemanism based on the CBC piece rely solely on your word.

The only problem is your word is no good.

Your awkward plagiary of Larken Rose, your falsification of a McCann Fitzgerald memo, your vacillating stories about Lance Thatcher and a raft of stories to numerous to mention belie your credibility.

Hells bells, son, you even wear a little fez/beanie to hide your balding head and over sized tunics to hide your big ole beer belly.

You are as phony as a three dollar bill.

The only thing keeping you going is the sad fact that there is a wannabe freeman sucker born every minute.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
So only a court case is accepted as evidence, yet if the purpose is to avoid court, there will be no case, and therefore no evidence. But hey keep trying to claim that only a court case is applicable.

You do not even know what the goal is!
Click to expand...

The goal is to make as much money from the unknowing as you can.

You mean your plan is to tell everyone to become a drifter, well yeah, that should work really well, lol
 
D'rok said:
Such as driving with fake FOTL plates? The very thing that gets FOTLers pulled over all the time?

C'mon. He doesn't get a free pass on this one. He even repeated the claim (don't need registration, license or insurance) on The National.

So go ahead. Drive around without plates. Film the results.

It's a perfectly fair challenge.
Click to expand...

Ah but a guy like Menard would drive around a rural area at 4 am for fifteen minutes and then declare, 'see they didn't stop me'!!!!

A true truthseeker would, write a letter the to police, post a challenge in the newspaper with all the details, put that online also and at the time designated show up at a police station with film crew in hand to show how they cannot touch him......now do you really think he'd do that? lol
 
FreemanMenard said:
You are clearly not qualified to speak about my point of view.
Disaster?

Are we even looking at the same playbook and reality?

Their first round served to illuminate their fears, highlight their weaknesses, and garnered SO much attention. They MUST have realized the effect such a blatant hit piece would have. Even folks who previously rejected FMOTL question why it was so biased.

WHICH FOLKS?

Those who have never heard of Freeman now have, and some who have trusted CBC their whole lives question why this one story was presented with such obvious (and for the CBC unexpected) bias.

WHO ARE "THOSE?"

What you saw was the first swing in the first round. And you claim they are now victorious?

Have any of you ever even been in an actual fight?
Click to expand...

And weren't you claiming Ms Arsenault as an ally in putting forward your beliefs just a few weeks ago?

Well your fights seem to have resulted in an order to stay off the field of battle until you have been properly trained.

Whatever would your newfound mentor Sun Tzu have to say to that :D
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
Ah but a guy like Menard would drive around a rural area at 4 am for fifteen minutes and then declare, 'see they didn't stop me'!!!!

A true truthseeker would, write a letter the to police, post a challenge in the newspaper with all the details, put that online also and at the time designated show up at a police station with film crew in hand to show how they cannot touch him......now do you really think he'd do that? lol
Click to expand...

Check out this guy
Ben lowry (loads of stuff on youtube, still begging for success stories).


Long story short, told the local police he would be "travelling" on an unregistered, uninsured motorbike with no helmet. Bike confiscated, fined and bike crushed. Then he sued the police and lost.
 
BritPunk said:
Check out this guy
Ben lowry (loads of stuff on youtube, still begging for success stories).


Long story short, told the local police he would be "travelling" on an unregistered, uninsured motorbike with no helmet. Bike confiscated, fined and bike crushed. Then he sued the police and lost.
Click to expand...

not quite civil disobeyance with success or Ghandi leading the masses to defy the British salt tax.
 
BritPunk said:
And weren't you claiming Ms Arsenault as an ally in putting forward your beliefs just a few weeks ago?

Well your fights seem to have resulted in an order to stay off the field of battle until you have been properly trained.

Whatever would your newfound mentor Sun Tzu have to say to that :D
Click to expand...

WHICH FOLKS?

Imagine you get mugged, and call the cops.
They ask "WHO MUGGED YOU? We need their names."
You say" I do not know their names."
Cops respond "Clearly they do not exists!"

Does that make sense or not?

I NEVER claimed she was an ally. The opposite was in fact the case. I claimed I had finally got the attention of 'them'. (do THEY not exist if I do not have their names?)

It unfolded pretty much exactly as I expected with a coupe of benefits I did not.

Wanna see a fact NONE can dispute?
The Freeman 'movement' got national exposure on CBC's The National.

Spin it all you want.

We still got the exposure.

Care to deny the fact that CBC spoke of us? Or not?
If not, we won this round.

:D
 
Sure, they spoke of The Movement but it was hardly a glowing endorsement. Sometimes, there *is* such a thing as bad publicity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom