Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do we have any example of Menard failing at math? After law, philosophy, logic, philosophy, economics, geography, history and language, that's pretty much the only thing he's got left to cover by now.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
As I have mentioned before, this sort of despotism is a typical result of the sort of society you advocate.
Click to expand...

I advocate a society of equals, where authority to govern rest clearly upon consent, and those who do govern are fully accountable.

You must have me confused with someone else, or you have no idea what sort of society I actually advocate. That is the result of cloaking yourself in pride and arrogance. Apparently YOU know what I advocate better than I! :rolleyes:
 
FreemanMenard said:
....That is exactly what a Freeman says to government agents who wish to claim authority to govern without consent. And since they can never do it, they are left wide eyed and frustrated.
...
Click to expand...

Lovely. Except it's untrue! A blatant lie!

No authority has ever been left wide eyed and frustrated over what you claim.
(Feel free to provide evidence if I am wrong)
Wide eyed and frustrated at the levels of some people's stupidity maybe though.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
That is exactly what a Freeman says to government agents who wish to claim authority to govern without consent. And since they can never do it, they are left wide eyed and frustrated.
Click to expand...
What you mean freemen like Lance Thatcher and Keith Thompson?
Both found out what a prison cell looks like.
Is that the kind of wide eyed frustrated look you are talking about?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Now you are learning Grasshopper! That is exactly what a Freeman says to government agents who wish to claim authority to govern without consent. And since they can never do it, they are left wide eyed and frustrated.
Click to expand...

Pure fantasy. Since you have never been able to provide evidence of this happening, we can only conclude that it has not.
 
Stacey Grove said:
What you mean freemen like Lance Thatcher and Keith Thompson?
Both found out what a prison cell looks like.
Is that the kind of wide eyed frustrated look you are talking about?
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between asking the to prove they can, and stating they can't. One is an interrogatory. The other is a declarative statement. The latter tends to land people in trouble. The former does not.
 
BIN12345 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...

Actually BIN12345, all the prosecutor would have to do is convince that licensing, vehicle registration and insurance were reasonable restrictions on the right to travel in a free and democratic society.

That will probably 3 to 5 minutes.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I advocate a society of equals, where authority to govern rest clearly upon consent, and those who do govern are fully accountable.
Click to expand...


You advocate a society without the enforceable rule of law. The results of this sort of society are never pleasant.
 
Mojo said:
You advocate a society without the enforceable rule of law. The results of this sort of society are never pleasant.
Click to expand...

"Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" is one apt description of life in such a society.

But you'd be able to smoke pot at least...
 
You advocate a society without the enforceable rule of law. The results of this sort of society are never pleasant.
Click to expand...

They are pleasant for him, as Ruler of FOTL-Waffle Valley, with his camouflage clothes and guns.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Thats right, cause travel does not involve commerce, but driving is a commercial activity and is using the public roads for private profit.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
No, it isn't, and you have been shown judicial authority for this.
Click to expand...


Here it is again, Rob: Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley

Argument #2 – The defendant was not a driver

[39] The defendant provides a definition of "driver" that reads "one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle". This is from the Fourth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary. However, the full definition of this term, from the revised Fourth Edition, is as follows: "One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle or motor car, through not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle." This is taken from Wallace v. Woods, 340 M. 452, 102 S.W. 2d 91 @ 97, a 1936 case from Missouri.

...

[42] To return to the definition of "driver", it is worth noting that the abridged Fifth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, published in 1983, does not even contain a definition of "driver". The Seventh Edition, published in 1999, contains a much more simplified definition of "driver". It reads, in its entirety, as follows: "1. A person who steers and propels a vehicle. 2. A person who herds animals; a drover."

[43] The definition of "driver" in the Dictionary of Canadian Law, Third Edition, published in 2004 by Thomson Carswell, reads as follows: "1. A person who drives or is in actual physical control or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed or pushed by another vehicle. 2. Includes a person who has the care or control of a motor vehicle whether it is in motion or not. 3. Includes a street car operator. 4. Includes the rider of a bicycle. 5. The occupant of a vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system."

[44] At any rate, there is really no need even to resort to dictionary definitions. There is a clear definition of "driver" contained within the HTA itself. In section 1, the definition reads, simply: "driver" means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway.
Click to expand...


"Commercial use" or "private profit" are clearly not necessary for someone to be a driver.

Why do you hate common law?
 
Mojo said:
You advocate a society without the enforceable rule of law. The results of this sort of society are never pleasant.
Click to expand...

LMAO! What ever gave you that idea, besides your own ignorance? I do not advocate a society without the rule of law, but with it. The key foundation being equality. That is something which does not apparently exist nowadays in our so called democracy...

The ability to govern another without individual consent is the height of abandonment of the rule of law.
 
FreemanMenard said:
LMAO! What ever gave you that idea, besides your own ignorance? I do not advocate a society without the rule of law, but with it. The key foundation being equality. That is something which does not apparently exist nowadays in our so called democracy...

The ability to govern another without individual consent is the height of abandonment of the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what the word "govern" means?
 
FreemanMenard said:
LMAO! What ever gave you that idea, besides your own ignorance? I do not advocate a society without the rule of law, but with it.
Click to expand...


You claim that people can opt out of the rule of law if they don't consent to it. That makes the rule of law unenforceable.
 
FreemanMenard said:
LMAO! What ever gave you that idea, besides your own ignorance? I do not advocate a society without the rule of law, but with it. The key foundation being equality. That is something which does not apparently exist nowadays in our so called democracy...

The ability to govern another without individual consent is the height of abandonment of the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Alright then, let's drop all the niggling about roads and vehicles and look at the big picture. How exactly would your Freeman society be organized? How would laws be made, and enforced? How would it pay its public officials, and undertake public works? How would it protect its citizens from threats, both external and internal?
 
Mojo said:
Here it is again, Rob: Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley




"Commercial use" or "private profit" are clearly not necessary for someone to be a driver.

Why do you hate common law?
Click to expand...
Why you spamming the board with a same question you have already asked and had answered?

Taxi Driver --- commercial.
Bus Driver ---- commercial
Transport Driver --- commercial.

Driving by definition is being employed as a vehicle operator for pay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom