Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Stacey Grove]

Rob, why are you wasting peoples time with such an idiotic question?

Because he is idiotic?

Its clear you have simply jumped from the previous question that wasnt answered to your liking.

And told no one in the process that the question had changed.

 

[jargon buster]

Rob Menard doesn't have the final say.

In Robs world there could never be a "final say" if he applied his rules equally to all.

 

[FreemanMenard]

That question is stupid.
To suggest to enforce statute no third parties are involved is frankly ignorant.
Because clearly they are.

Again, in this hypothetical example, I DID NOT MENTION a statute at all. That is you adding that. All I said was 'document'.
So you call this 'changing the goal post' I call it 'showing you where they are'.

One document.
Two parties.
No others.
Neither consent to the terms.
Neither authored it.
Can 'The Document' force them to abide by its terms?
Or not?

 

[jargon buster]

All I said was 'document'.

144 year old document

 

[Stacey Grove]

Again, in this hypothetical example, I DID NOT MENTION a statute at all. That is you adding that. All I said was 'document'.
So you call this 'changing the goal post' I call it 'showing you where they are'.

We were talking about the Acts that Border Reiver mentioned.
As JB says:

144 year old document thicko

So I have no idea what document you are now referring to.
You'll have to give me full details.

 

[Cocana The Second]

Again, in this hypothetical example, I DID NOT MENTION a statute at all. That is you adding that. All I said was 'document'.
So you call this 'changing the goal post' I call it 'showing you where they are'.

One document.
Two parties.
No others.
Neither consent to the terms.
Neither authored it.
Can 'The Document' force them to abide by its terms?
Or not?

Totally tangental irrelevance.

One banana
Two cuddly toys
A monkey and a skipping rope
How does that force the banana to eat the monkey?

*********** hell Rob, at least do us the decency of attempting to run a line of argument which even remotely joins up.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

 

[jargon buster]

Totally tangental irrelevance.

One banana
Two cuddly toys
A monkey and a skipping rope
How does that force the banana to eat the monkey?

One drug addled teenager
One dirty old man
How on earth did that get us here?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Obviously when Menard was talking about a 144 year old document he was talking about....what on earth was he talking about?

 

[jargon buster]

British North America Act (1867)

Lets see, if we add 144 to that it comes to.....2011

Surely thats not a coincidence?

 

[Mojo]

Actually if you check you will see I did not ask about 'my' consent at all, but of consent generally. That was my point as a matter of fact. Consent either directly or by proxy is required.

Such as by your elected representatives.

You may wish to increase your reading comprehension skills, as you read into it that I was arguing about 'my consent' personally, when all I was arguing was 'consent' generally.

It appeared to be implicit that your personal consent was what you had in mind here because you posted this...

Statutes are closer to contracts then you imagine. They have been described as 'the terms of a societal contract' by those you would call experts in the law.
And just like contracts, they even require consent to be enacted. Read the enabling clause in the statutes here in Canada. Why do you find the word 'consent' right in it, if consent is not required for them to be deemed as having the force of law? Hmmm?

...in response to a post pointing out that your question "Is consent required for a contract to lawfully apply to you?" is not relevant to statutes. If you were not talking about individual consent (as required for a contract) then your question was irrelevant to the post it was replying to. Someone may be having a problem with their reading comprehension skills here, but it doesn't seem to be me.

But, fine. If you are agreeing that your personal consent is not needed for a statute to become law, then we have nothing to argue about on this point.

But now we are in agreement, that consent is mentioned, and is needed.
And that is what I wanted to establish.
The consent of the people is needed, and is apparently being secured through proxy, or representative.

Would you agree with THAT?

Yes, apart from the word "apparently": that's just how it is.

This kind of puts a hole in your claim that legislation doesn't apply to you if you don't consent to it, though.

 

[Stacey Grove]

British North America Act (1867)

Lets see, if we add 144 to that it comes to.....2011

Surely thats not a coincidence?

It must be a coincidence.
Yes, that is what I thought Menard was referring to, especially as he quoted it in his post, but apparently not according to him.
Do you know what?
If I didn't know that Menard is an upright individual who never lies nor twists and turns everything out of all proportion and is a completely trustworthy person I might just be starting to think that he has just acted in a slippery manner.

 

[Architect]

British North America Act (1867)

Lets see, if we add 144 to that it comes to.....2011

Surely thats not a coincidence?

Ah, yes, but you see they've capitalised the first letter in each word which means it's not a real document but rather governemd by the Laws of Grammar or something he hasn't consented to and who can force him anyway are you silly he never said that NOW FOR SOME UPPER CASE.

 

[Architect]

It seems to me that Rob has a fundamental problem with the nature of sovereign parliament and similar issues.

Essentially, Rob's forebearers decided to vest in Parliament the power to govern, based upon a representative democracy. Said decision did not require individual consent and was not time limited.

Rob is trying to argue that the British North America Act does not apply to him because he, one of the parties to the contract, has not consented. This overlooks the fact that the decision was made 144 years ago.

Now in a democracy, if Rob doesn't like this then the proper way forward is to convince the electorate, get into power, then chance the system.

Rob, however, seems to think that "magic words" and some mysterious common law are sufficient.

"Sophistry" does not come close to the word I am thinking of.

 

[Bishop]

And...............he's gone again!

He'll return in a week's time or so to ask us again how someone can lawfully govern another without consent.

 

[Hans]

Well dang, I missed the messiah of magic words and the discount house of getting out of jail free.

 

[bikerdruid]

just checking in, as i do every few weeks.
any real FOTL success stories yet?

 

[Hans]

just checking in, as i do every few weeks.
any real FOTL success stories yet?

Yes the messiah had checked in and comfirmed that IT DOES work. He is also in line to be pronounced the Raja of Consent.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Such as by your elected representatives.

I have none. I did not elect them, and did not empower them to act as my representative. Therefore by simple absolute logic, I do not have an elected representative, and if you attempt to claim I do, you must change the definition of both elected and representative.

It appeared to be implicit that your personal consent was what you had in mind here because you posted this...

​

...in response to

It was not implicit at all. I did not mention anything except consent and I specifically did not mention personal consent.

postid=7526123#post7526123]a post

pointing out that your question "Is consent required for a contract to lawfully apply to you?" is not relevant to statutes. If you were not talking about individual consent (as required for a contract) then your question was irrelevant to the post it was replying to. Someone may be having a problem with their reading comprehension skills here, but it doesn't seem to be me.

This is a long thread, with many different points of discussion being raised, and to point to one in the past, and claim that because in a previous post I spoke of individual consent means I must now also be doing so and must always be speaking of individual consent is simply false. This examination is about looking at the power of the documents themselves, and if they require consent when dealing with two and only two people, affected by the document. But of course, instead of even allowing discussion on this, and answering a question, there is pages of dares, insults, avoidance and diversion.

But, fine. If you are agreeing that your personal consent is not needed for a statute to become law, then we have nothing to argue about on this point.

My personal consent is not needed for you and someone else to agree to certain terms of a contract. You two can contract away your own power to each other to your hearts content, and my consent is not needed for you two to contract with each other, and create your own interpersonal law, which will bind you both. You do not need my consent. But nor can your agreement or contract bind me to payment or performance. Nor can you two claim that due to your agreement between you two, that myself and another are forbidden from engaging in the exact same actions.

Yes, apart from the word "apparently": that's just how it is.

So in a discussion where we wish to determine if there is consent or merely the appearance thereof, it will not be allowed to be examined at all, and just declared 'that's how it is'. That's the support you have for your argument? "That's just how it is!"???

This kind of puts a hole in your claim that legislation doesn't apply to you if you don't consent to it, though.

Aspects of law which are merely expressed by statute and existed prior, would certainly still apply.

Statutes which do not reflect law and rely upon agreement and application, would not in my view. Can you distinguish between the two?

So to sum up:
Consent is mentioned in the Acts. We are in agreement on that.
The consent is claimed to be given by those apparently acting as representatives. We are in agreement on that.
The question has now become can one man act as an agent or representative for another without mutual consent. If not then the consent was not actual and merely the appearance of it. I know this is what you do not wish to examine, and instead would prefer to simply file it as "THATS HOW IT IS", but those with open minds will look and determine if it is actual, or merely appearing to be but not.

Or would you rather just proclaim 'Thats how it is!"

 

[bikerdruid]

Yes the messiah had checked in and comfirmed that IT DOES work. He is also in line to be pronounced the Raja of Consent.

that's kinda what i figured.
so, no one has freed themselves from the system, are exempt from taxes, can travel the roads freely in a vehicle without registration, insurance and drivers license and are wealthy beyond their dreams of avarice by cashing in their birth certtificate bond?

i'm shocked......
i'll check back in a few more weeks to see if there is any change.

 

[D'rok]

Consent is mentioned in the Acts. We are in agreement on that.
The consent is claimed to be given by those apparently acting as representatives. We are in agreement on that.

Finally! Will you now cease selling the lie that individual consent is required? At your upcoming sales meeting, will you tell your customers "Oops! I know I've been saying for years that statutes require your individual consent. Turns out it's Parliament that consents, not you or me as individuals. Sorry! My bad! Here's a refund for all of you."

Or will you repeat your lies and sell your marks the fable that Notices of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right can free them of legal obligations?

I know which way I'm betting.