Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[fitzgibbon]

Faith? No. Entertainment. Pure entertainment.

Agreed. I'm still agog that RM hasn't admitted that he blew his golden opportunity with the exposure on the Mother Corp by dressing as he did as opposed to dressing like someone positively oozing the sort of easy money supposedly lying in wait courtesy of FMOTLism.

Maybe this is a poor comment on me but all other things being equal, at first glance I'll cut more slack to the well-dressed woo-spouter than the woo-spouter sporting this year's flavour of hobo chic.

Fitz

 

[BritPunk]

Is it listed on Dunn and Bradstreet as a business, or commercial enterprise?

I've seen this reference to Dunn and Bradstreet before, but I don't understand how it proves fmotl claims? I thought D & B is just a credit reference agency, and being listed on it simply means that you can be checked if you want to buy products and services on credit. I'm sure most Gov departments use credit for supplies, so what?

 

[Stacey Grove]

I've seen this reference to Dunn and Bradstreet before, but I don't understand how it proves fmotl claims?

It doesn't. However the FOTL believe it does because, unlike you, they do not understand what D&B is or what its purpose is.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The point is, when they place an order for supplies, are they liable for a bill, or can they claim "I am a court, and you must fulfill my orders and never present a bill!" Do they use the tools of corporations, are they listed as a corporation? ARE THEY A CORPORATION? (At least freemen LOOK at these things, and then examine the ramifications. You folks do not examine ANYTHING which may offend your previously held beliefs.) If so, are they bound by the law just like every other, cause if so, their orders create a liability for a bill.

What if you found they were in fact a corporate entity. Would you agree they are bound by the rules and laws of commerce, and have no right providing their services without a contract, and are liable for a bill for EVERY order they place, or not?

Or is this the kind of thing that will cause you to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!"

 

[SpitfireIX]

The point is, when they place an order for supplies, are they liable for a bill, or can they claim "I am a court, and you must fulfill my orders and never present a bill!" Do they use the tools of corporations, are they listed as a corporation? ARE THEY A CORPORATION? (At least freemen LOOK at these things, and then examine the ramifications. You folks do not examine ANYTHING which may offend your previously held beliefs.) If so, are they bound by the law just like every other, cause if so, their orders create a liability for a bill.

What if you found they were in fact a corporate entity. Would you agree they are bound by the rules and laws of commerce, and have no right providing their services without a contract, and are liable for a bill for EVERY order they place, or not?

Or is this the kind of thing that will cause you to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!"

This is a particularly blatant and silly example of the logical fallacy of equivocation. An "order" for office supplies, placed by a judge's secretary or an assistant clerk (or even by a judge), for use by the court, is very different from an "order" of the court, signed by a judge, with the full force of law.

A bright middle school student could easily figure this out; what does that say about you?

 

[azzthom]

The point is, when they place an order for supplies, are they liable for a bill, or can they claim "I am a court, and you must fulfill my orders and never present a bill!" Do they use the tools of corporations, are they listed as a corporation? ARE THEY A CORPORATION? (At least freemen LOOK at these things, and then examine the ramifications. You folks do not examine ANYTHING which may offend your previously held beliefs.) If so, are they bound by the law just like every other, cause if so, their orders create a liability for a bill.

What if you found they were in fact a corporate entity. Would you agree they are bound by the rules and laws of commerce, and have no right providing their services without a contract, and are liable for a bill for EVERY order they place, or not?

Or is this the kind of thing that will cause you to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!"

The bills of a court are paid by it's parent department. In the UK, that is The Ministry of Justice, in the US it's the Justice Department. A budget exists for payment of such bills. A court is not a corporation because it is not incorporated and has no articles of incorporation. No court has ever tried to avoid paying bills.

Are you familiar with the expression 'Magical Thinking'? It comes from Psychology and is rather applicable to FOTLers.

 

[FreemanMenard]

This is a particularly blatant and silly example of the logical fallacy of equivocation. An "order" for office supplies, placed by a judge's secretary or an assistant clerk (or even by a judge), for use by the court, is very different from an "order" of the court, signed by a judge, with the full force of law.

A bright middle school student could easily figure this out; what does that say about you?

If they are a corporate entity, placing an order for performance or service, they are liable for a bill, and require contracts to engage. Simple. Of course, YOUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY ARE NOT, AND TO DEFEND THAT POSITION, YOU WILL SIMPLY REFUSE TO EXAMINE THE TRUTH. oops.. sorry caps lock on tiny keyboard....

 

[Bosozoku]

The point is, when they place an order for supplies, are they liable for a bill, or can they claim "I am a court, and you must fulfill my orders and never present a bill!" Do they use the tools of corporations, are they listed as a corporation? ARE THEY A CORPORATION? (At least freemen LOOK at these things, and then examine the ramifications. You folks do not examine ANYTHING which may offend your previously held beliefs.) If so, are they bound by the law just like every other, cause if so, their orders create a liability for a bill.

What if you found they were in fact a corporate entity. Would you agree they are bound by the rules and laws of commerce, and have no right providing their services without a contract, and are liable for a bill for EVERY order they place, or not?

Or is this the kind of thing that will cause you to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!"

The judiciary is a branch of either the state or federal government in the United States, and presumably Canada as well. I believe the government, rather than the court itself, is liable for the orders they place. The "rules of commerce" do apply differently due to the concept of sovereign immunity, which in some instances includes immunity from collection proceedings. The courts are not corporations - they're a part of the judiciary branch of the government. They're bound by the law, and to the best of my knowledge nobody here has ever claimed otherwise.

 

[Stacey Grove]

What if you found they were in fact a corporate entity. Would you agree they are bound by the rules and laws of commerce, and have no right providing their services without a contract, and are liable for a bill for EVERY order they place, or not?

And once again you are choosing to use the incorrect definition of a word.

order
noun
1.
an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate.
2.
a command of a court or judge.
3.
a command or notice issued by a military organization*or a military commander to troops, sailors, etc.
4.
the disposition*of things following one after another, as in space or time; succession or sequence: The names were listed in alphabetical order.
5.
a condition in which*each thing is properly disposed with reference to other things and to its purpose; methodical or harmonious arrangement: You must try to give order to your life.

verb (used with object)
37.
to give an order, direction, or command to: The infantry divisions were ordered to advance.
38.
to direct or command to go or come as specified: to order a person out of one's house.
39.
to prescribe: The doctor ordered rest for the patient.
40.
to direct to be made, supplied, or furnished: to order a copy of a book.
41.
to regulate, conduct, or manage: to order one's life for greater leisure.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The bills of a court are paid by it's parent department. In the UK, that is The Ministry of Justice, in the US it's the Justice Department. A budget exists for payment of such bills. A court is not a corporation because it is not incorporated and has no articles of incorporation. No court has ever tried to avoid paying bills.

Are you familiar with the expression 'Magical Thinking'? It comes from Psychology and is rather applicable to FOTLers.

It seems to me that you thinking that one person can place an order on another and NOT be liable for a bill as everyone else would be, merely due to them holding a position YOU exalt, is a form of magical thinking itself.

There is significant evidence that they are operating as a person. A corporation. A legal entity. They engage in commerce. Are they not bound by the rules of commerce that everyone else is? If they are not a legal entity, or a person, they can be ignored right?

Don't worry, I know you can't examine these things you hold as truths, so will instead seek to insult those who do not believe as YOU DO.

 

[FreemanMenard]

And once again you are choosing to use the incorrect definition of a word.

So if we are both human beings in a common law jurisdiction and are equal before the law, am I compelled to obey your commands, because you call yourself a judge?

 

[arayder]

So if we are both human beings in a common law jurisdiction and are equal before the law, am I compelled to obey your commands, because you call yourself a judge?

No. You are wrong again! We are both natural persons subject to the rule of law.

 

[Bosozoku]

I'll accept your argument that courts are corporations when you produce the Articles of Incorporation for a court, clearly labelled as such. Any court will do.

As for your question, yes, a judge can compel you to do something against your will, whether you think you are his equal or not.

 

[arayder]

It doesn't. However the FOTL believe it does because, unlike you, they do not understand what D&B is or what its purpose is.

Eldon Warman, Jack Fuselier, Russell Porisky, Rob Menard, Dean Clifford, Roger Hayes . . .the list is nearly endless of gurus who, whether they really believe this woo or not, end up praying on the gullibility and nonexistent critical thinking skills of desperate folks hoping to find a simple answer to their problems.

Can’t pay the mortgage? Credit card bills mounting up? Student loans left unpaid? Car tag fees due again? Rent due? Cable and internet fees too much for connectivityboy?

The snake oil sale goes this way. . .

The gurus have the answer. . .say the magic words and it all goes away!

It’s a lot easier than declaring bankruptcy, or getting a roommate, or moving in with mom and dad! There’s no need to have a pay as you go cell phone plan. No need to do without cable and internet. Hells bells, son, you don’t even need to pay the restaurant tab.

Go get a car on credit and then A4V the car dealership.

You don’t even have to work!

And when the car dealership, the college, the credit card company, the power and light company, the cell phone provider and the landlord catch up with you all you need to do is cut and paste a few official letters from the guru’s website, send them into the folks hounding you and hope it will all go away.

Of course you are going to want to post your trials and tribulations on a couple of the available freeman/sovereign citizen/detax/God’s warriors forums so you can get the validation you have been lacking since your girl threw you over for the old boy friend with a job.

You know, the one that shaves.

And when your internet provider cuts you off you can go to the library or steal WiFi from the local coffee shop. That way you can keep up the internet barrage against the evil government banksters.

If you learn all the freeman lingo, get a couple of traffic stops or courtroom rants under your video belt, neglect your grooming enough and learn to swill beer without busting into tears about your sad existence one of the gurus might let you be a forum moderator!

You might even get good enough at the game that you can find a rent free meeting hall and sponsor a lecture/rant. . .which of course you will put on YouTube.

Man, when the the bitch googles you (you know she still wants you) and sees you, all freemaned up in your jaunty cap and “We Are The 99%” sweat shirt she’s gonna’ wonder why she ever left you for that Ward Cleaver clone!

Yeah, it’s gonna’ be sweet!

 

[azzthom]

It seems to me that you thinking that one person can place an order on another and NOT be liable for a bill as everyone else would be, merely due to them holding a position YOU exalt, is a form of magical thinking itself.

There is significant evidence that they are operating as a person. A corporation. A legal entity. They engage in commerce. Are they not bound by the rules of commerce that everyone else is? If they are not a legal entity, or a person, they can be ignored right?

Don't worry, I know you can't examine these things you hold as truths, so will instead seek to insult those who do not believe as YOU DO.

In my post I made it perfectly clear that courts ARE liable for bills, and explained who pays those bills. How did you arrive at your opening statement? Where is the 'significant evidence' that a court is a corporation? Do you know what a corporation is? Why is your response so unrelated to what I actually said?

It is not the first time you've made such a post, and that is why I brought up 'Magical Thinking'. It's not an insult, it's an observation. It explains why the only evidence you have ever provided is a single FORGED solicitor's letter. You have not provided any evidence to support your claims because there isn't any evidence to support your claims.

How many questions have you been asked in this thread? Hundreds? How many have you answered? None. Not one. All we are asking for is evidence. Imagine how many converts you would get if you provided some! But that's not going to happen, is it?

 

[arayder]

In my post I made it perfectly clear that courts ARE liable for bills, and explained who pays those bills. How did you arrive at your opening statement? Where is the 'significant evidence' that a court is a corporation? Do you know what a corporation is? Why is your response so unrelated to what I actually said?

It is not the first time you've made such a post, and that is why I brought up 'Magical Thinking'. It's not an insult, it's an observation. It explains why the only evidence you have ever provided is a single FORGED solicitor's letter. You have not provided any evidence to support your claims because there isn't any evidence to support your claims.

How many questions have you been asked in this thread? Hundreds? How many have you answered? None. Not one. All we are asking for is evidence. Imagine how many converts you would get if you provided some! But that's not going to happen, is it?

Bobby boy had his chance to lay it all out for the CBC.

You are no more going to see the proof then he's gonna’ start growing new hair on his head.

 

[Stacey Grove]

So if we are both human beings in a common law jurisdiction and are equal before the law, am I compelled to obey your commands, because you call yourself a judge?

You are. And what is more because we are all equal before the law, if that very same judge was prosecuted and presented with a court order he too would be bound by that order.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

The point is, when they place an order for supplies, are they liable for a bill, or can they claim "I am a court, and you must fulfill my orders and never present a bill!" Do they use the tools of corporations, are they listed as a corporation? ARE THEY A CORPORATION? (At least freemen LOOK at these things, and then examine the ramifications. You folks do not examine ANYTHING which may offend your previously held beliefs.) If so, are they bound by the law just like every other, cause if so, their orders create a liability for a bill.

What if you found they were in fact a corporate entity. Would you agree they are bound by the rules and laws of commerce, and have no right providing their services without a contract, and are liable for a bill for EVERY order they place, or not?

Or is this the kind of thing that will cause you to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!"

Who needs evidence when you have puns?

 

[SpitfireIX]

If they are a corporate entity, placing an order for performance or service, they are liable for a bill, and require contracts to engage. Simple. Of course, YOUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY ARE NOT, AND TO DEFEND THAT POSITION, YOU WILL SIMPLY REFUSE TO EXAMINE THE TRUTH. oops.. sorry caps lock on tiny keyboard....

First, you are still equivocating over the word "order". Second, neither the government of Canada, nor the Canadian judicial system, is a corporation. Courts and governments long predate the creation of corporations, and corporations are in fact a creation of governments. See, for example, the Canada Corporations Act. The fact that governments and corporations may share certain characteristics does not magically make a government a corporation, despite your insinuation that it does.

This is all beside the the point, however, because even if you were correct, and the court were a corporation, that would not magically destroy the court's authority to issue lawful court orders requiring or enjoining certain actions by persons under the court's authority.

 

[Hans]

Man Menard is really slipping, a misinterpretation of 'orders' is the best magic he can come up with? lol, however

Okay Menard since you seem to believe it

Do it

Please, oh please film it......