Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
Again, the onus would be on the other side to prove they can govern without consent. Something none of you have been able to do without claiming a bigger stick makes you right.
Click to expand...

You are wrong again, Menard. The governments of western democracies did not gain their authority by your permission.

That is a simple fact of law and history.
 
Bishop said:
Unfortunately for this claim, there is not a shred of evidence supporting it, and ample evidence that it is a lie.
Click to expand...

Really? I claim I did it. Served my NUI and COR many years ago.

So what evidence do you bring that my testimony is false? Do you have knowledge of my actions in this regard? Please show your evidence which contradicts my testimony. Can't do it can you?
 
FreemanMenard said:
You know, since you have no power and your opinion means nothing to me, why should I provide the evidence?
Click to expand...

If the opinion of members of this forum is of no interest to you why do you keep returning here and reiterating your claims to those same members?
 
FreemanMenard said:
We would not have to convince a jury of that, the other side would have to prove the common law right to travel no longer exists in Canada. Nice try in shifting the onus though.
Click to expand...

Oh, you have the common-law right to travel all right. You can ride a horse, a bicycle, or Shanks' Pony. You can buy a ticket to get on a Greyhound bus, or a VIA Rail train. You can even be a passenger in a private vehicle. None of those require any documentation or proof of ability to do so safely. However, if you want to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, you do have to have proof of your ability to do so safely (i.e. a driver's license), among other things.

FreemanMenard said:
So the idea that the people who claim the right to govern you require consent is to you 'silly'? WOW....
If they do not require consent, why do they try so hard to secure it while hiding the fact that they do?
Click to expand...

You keep going on about this, but people are governed without their consent every day. Just ask someone in Matsqui Institution, or someone who's had assets seized by a bailiff. It is necessary for the smooth functioning of society that people who behave anti-socially be "governed" in various ways, with or without their consent. You might not like this, but then, nobody asked you to like it.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Really? I claim I did it. Served my NUI and COR many years ago.
Click to expand...

Was that before, or after, the BC Courts ordered you to stop playing lawyer, the airlines cited federal law to reject your freeman ID and the cops towed that car right out from under you while you ranted freeman theory?
 
Last edited:
Oh, you have the common-law right to travel all right. You can ride a horse, a bicycle, or Shanks' Pony. You can buy a ticket to get on a Greyhound bus, or a VIA Rail train. You can even be a passenger in a private vehicle. None of those require any documentation or proof of ability to do so safely. However, if you want to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, you do have to have proof of your ability to do so safely (i.e. a driver's license), among other things.
Click to expand...

Repeating your mantra does not make it true. When was the right clearly, specifically and unequivocally removed? When you started repeating your mantra?


You keep going on about this, but people are governed without their consent every day. Just ask someone in Matsqui Institution, or someone who's had assets seized by a bailiff. It is necessary for the smooth functioning of society that people who behave anti-socially be "governed" in various ways, with or without their consent. You might not like this, but then, nobody asked you to like it.
Click to expand...

What makes you think they did not consent without realizing it? What makes you think that because it happens, it is automatically right?

Anti-socially can easily be defined as questioning the people who give the orders and commands when everyone else obeys without question.. Should questioning the people in government be construed in that manner, and result in imprisonment?

What I find funny is the idea that consent is not required is espoused by many here, but no elected official will make that same claim! Why not? ever wonder about that??
 
abaddon said:
Because without evidence, it is yet another unfounded claim.

I don't believe you have ever done such a thing.

Convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

LMAO!

IN a court of law, if you were the prosecuting attorney, that would be your argument? I testify, and you simply state, "I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. Make him prove it to me your Honour!" without you having to bring any evidence to that contradicts my testimony?

LMAO!

:boggled:
:boggled:
 
FreemanMenard said:
So the idea that the people who claim the right to govern you require consent is to you 'silly'? WOW....
Click to expand...

Yes, incredibly silly. There is no reason why they would hold themselves to such a standard, especially if they're as corrupt as you claim they are.

If they do not require consent, why do they try so hard to secure it while hiding the fact that they do?
Click to expand...

They don't. That's your story, nobody else's. And once again, it's another sign of your contradictory conspiracy theory. Oh, the government will lie, threaten, send government agents online to trick you, and use pretty much every fraudulent method they can to trick you into consenting. But use force? No, they couldn't possibly do that. Why, it would be against The Law! :rolleyes:
 
FreemanMenard said:
What I find funny is the idea that consent is not required is espoused by many here, but no elected official will make that same claim! Why not? ever wonder about that??
Click to expand...

Well, that’s just not true. Canadian case law has thoroughly addressed the false notion that individual consent is required.
 
abaddon said:
Because without evidence, it is yet another unfounded claim.

I don't believe you have ever done such a thing.

Convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Which is something we all know can never happen due to the fact that FOTL-Waffle is utter nonsense.

He would be shouting it from the rooftops if he had any proof that FOTL-Waffle has ever worked.
WFS would actually get some members and posts, membership fees would pour in, (think of all that booze and weed money!), people would join his pretend police force, he would no longer be a laughing stock and this thread would finally die with Rob winning in a blaze of glory.

But he can not offer any evidence of FOTL-Waffle ever having worked, because it never once has. That he claims otherwise simply enforces the idea that he is a teller of tall tales. Or a conman, take your pick.
 
Last edited:
How about that? We ask for proof and get an immature response.
Who would have thought a FOTL would do such a thing?
 
]Yes, incredibly silly. There is no reason why they would hold themselves to such a standard, especially if they're as corrupt as you claim they are.
Click to expand...

Wow you line in a clear tyranny, and you defend it! So much for your 'free society' eh?

They don't. That's your story, nobody else's. And once again, it's another sign of your contradictory conspiracy theory. Oh, the government will lie, threaten, send government agents online to trick you, and use pretty much every fraudulent method they can to trick you into consenting. But use force? No, they couldn't possibly do that. Why, it would be against The Law! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Signatures on applications which are then submitted to you is not consent? And they are not hiding it? What if it was proven that it is in fact evidence of consent, and then the fact that they secured that signature without informing you that you are consenting?

Why not look up the word consent, application, submit? Scared you will see that those actions constitute consent?
 
FreemanMenard said:
LMAO!

IN a court of law, if you were the prosecuting attorney, that would be your argument? I testify, and you simply state, "I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. Make him prove it to me your Honour!" without you having to bring any evidence to that contradicts my testimony?

LMAO!

:boggled:
:boggled:
Click to expand...
Non sequitur

You claimed you had personal success.

I asked for evidence of such.

You are dodging.

Where or what is your evidence that you have had any success?
 
JimBenArm said:
How about that? We ask for proof and get an immature response.
Who would have thought a FOTL would do such a thing?
Click to expand...

Proof was given and you responded immaturely to it. Why should I keep trying to show you proof when it is clear your goal is not to be convinced or open your mind to a different perspective, but to attack it and denigrate it?

Claim of Right establishes a lawful excuse to disobey. Proof has been provided. Now how did you all respond? By saying, "Oh I see it now!"? Nope, you squirm and try to claim that it is not applicable.

Want true actual proof that it is so? Come try to govern me personally without my consent and see what happens. There really is no other way is there?
 
Bishop said:
Yes, incredibly silly. There is no reason why they would hold themselves to such a standard, especially if they're as corrupt as you claim they are.



They don't. That's your story, nobody else's. And once again, it's another sign of your contradictory conspiracy theory. Oh, the government will lie, threaten, send government agents online to trick you, and use pretty much every fraudulent method they can to trick you into consenting. But use force? No, they couldn't possibly do that. Why, it would be against The Law! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yup, the nefarious, ebil gubbmint is unable to stop RM posts on teh interwebs.

I wonder why?

Maybe they are scared of him?

Or, maybe, he is so trivial as to be beneath notice.
 
abaddon said:
Non sequitur

You claimed you had personal success.

I asked for evidence of such.

You are dodging.

Where or what is your evidence that you have had any success?
Click to expand...

What would you accept as evidence of me successfully avoiding court and charges?

Court records which do not exist because I avoided court? :boggled:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom