Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
D'rok said:
What's more, he is admitting that the state does not need his consent to charge and convict him of the Criminal Code offence of impersonating a peace officer.

It's all completely irrelevant anyways, because he has recently recanted the silly belief that human beings aren't persons.

Self-debunking at its finest.
Click to expand...

now i'm really confused....i was all set to set upa grow-op, knowing that i was secure from the law if i told them so.
rob. is shattering my dreams...i thought i was free!
 
bikerdruid said:
now i'm really confused....i was all set to set upa grow-op, knowing that i was secure from the law if i told them so.
rob. is shattering my dreams...i thought i was free!
Click to expand...
A grow-op, eh? So that's why it's called "Peace" country.

Actually, pot laws are probably the one topic on which I would likely completely agree with Menard. Not that FOTL magic words let you ignore them, but that those laws are fundamentally wrong, unjust and counter-productive

We came so close to taking the first step towards legalization under the Martin govt...then Harper and his cronies arrived and the Country's been going backwards ever since.

Sadly, anti-government antics like Menard's work against what must ultimately be a policitcal solution to the pot question.
 
D'rok said:
Actually, pot laws are probably the one topic on which I would likely completely agree with Menard.
Click to expand...

Me too.
I have absolutely no desire to partake, but I couldn't care less if others wish to and they should be allowed to choose for themselves what they put inside their own body.
 
Last edited:
Yes we are in agreement with Menard. Now one thing I don't quite understand on the Mary Jane issue is it (in Canada) that the government doesn't want to legalize and the 'people' do or is it a minority of people that want to legalize?
 
Hans said:
Yes we are in agreement with Menard. Now one thing I don't quite understand on the Mary Jane issue is it (in Canada) that the government doesn't want to legalize and the 'people' do or is it a minority of people that want to legalize?
Click to expand...


i don't believe it is.
pot cultivation is the most important industry in B.C...larger than forestry, mining or the fishery.
that it not legal and taxed is bizarre.
 
Hans said:
Yes we are in agreement with Menard. Now one thing I don't quite understand on the Mary Jane issue is it (in Canada) that the government doesn't want to legalize and the 'people' do or is it a minority of people that want to legalize?
Click to expand...

bikerdruid said:
i don't believe it is.
pot cultivation is the most important industry in B.C...larger than forestry, mining or the fishery.
that it not legal and taxed is bizarre.
Click to expand...



I'm not aware of any polls on the issue, but based on people I know, I suspect it's a majority in favour, or at the very least, a large minority. The problem is, none of the people running for office really want to be the ones to come out and support legalization, for fear of the dreaded "soft on crime" label, and not enough voters consider this topic to be important enough to vote in a one-issue party on this basis.

It's a bit of a conundrum, it is.
 
Horatius said:
I'm not aware of any polls on the issue, but based on people I know, I suspect it's a majority in favour, or at the very least, a large minority. The problem is, none of the people running for office really want to be the ones to come out and support legalization, for fear of the dreaded "soft on crime" label, and not enough voters consider this topic to be important enough to vote in a one-issue party on this basis.

It's a bit of a conundrum, it is.
Click to expand...


i just think it is bizarre that pot smokers are criminals in this age.
 
bikerdruid said:
i just think it is bizarre that pot smokers are criminals in this age.
Click to expand...

Same here.
I brought a bit home from a trip to normandy a few years ago (going through Amsterdam) and do not consider myself a criminal.

Have there been any resulution on the "THE LAW" issue?
It was something I wondered about from the start when hearing about FMOTL, who is supposed to pass the laws?
 
Sadly, anti-government antics like Menard's work against what must ultimately be a policitcal solution to the pot question.
Click to expand...
+1
Loony tunes like Menard are exactly what the government needs to keep the lid on the legalisation of pot.
They use people like him to point at when others start asking about legalisation.
 
jargon buster said:
+1
Loony tunes like Menard are exactly what the government needs to keep the lid on the legalisation of pot.
They use people like him to point at when others start asking about legalisation.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And holy crap how did I miss that typo! :o What the heck is "policitcal"? Damn.
 
D'rok said:
Agreed. And holy crap how did I miss that typo! :o What the heck is "policitcal"? Damn.
Click to expand...



Well, clearly it involves Policing Political dissidents like Menard. You've gone and given yourself away!

Again.
 
Toke said:
Have there been any resulution on the "THE LAW" issue?
It was something I wondered about from the start when hearing about FMOTL, who is supposed to pass the laws?
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed to report that the question of where "THE LAW" came from and who/what enforces it, remain unanswered either here or on the Icke forum.

Is it possible that there is no answer to these questions because there is no such thing as "THE LAW" (in any sort of meaningful sense anyway)? :jaw-dropp
 
jargon buster said:
+1
Loony tunes like Menard are exactly what the government needs to keep the lid on the legalisation of pot.
They use people like him to point at when others start asking about legalisation.
Click to expand...
The people advocating legalization are their own worst enemy.
 
Is it possible that there is no answer to these questions because there is no such thing as "THE LAW"
Click to expand...
You havent been paying attention solz.
"The law" is simply "Robs rules", no more, no less.
 
D'rok said:
Dammit, there goes my NWO bonus right out the window!
Click to expand...

Don't worry I've organised a whip-round at NWO HQ. First indications suggest that with the generosity displayed we may even be able to stretch to a Christmas hamper.
 
Last edited:
Rob wrote
Do you agree that for one man to govern another consent is required?
Click to expand...
Now he also writes
Anyone can be arrested and charged without consent for breaching the peace, or committing acts contrary to the law, as expressed in the Criminal Code.

Acting contrary to a statute however is not a breach of the peace, nor contrary to the Criminal Code, and does in fact require one to first consent to the Act, before being enforced.

The criminal code refers to anyone who, and thus includes everyone, even Freemen. Acts and statues refer to 'any person who' and not 'anyone who' thus is limited to those who have consented to government services and burdens.
Click to expand...

So he has answered his own question, it would appear that he believes consent is not required for someone to enforce the Criminal code on them.

Next time he comes on with his usual "no man may govern another without his consent" routine, just remember guys he already believes they can.
 
The whole thing has torn itself to pieces. Rob's followers have largely scattered, I suspect in light of his failure to ever back up any of his teachings with evidence and also his masterful ability to debunk his own arguments. The zero in the freeman successes column compared with the hundreds in the freeman failures column must also weigh heavily in the minds of freeman wannabes too.

Let's also be honest - Rob's failure to adequately address any of the points that we and others have put to him must also mean that we have had a role to play as well.

For my part I would now just like Rob to answer a simple question - Rob, will you be refunding the money that you have taken off people in the pursuit of this scam?
 
Well, there has been thousands of wins, where people avoided court entirely, and no court record was created, but since you ONLY count wins in court, you ignore them.

Every day the movement grows, and I get emails of people who have had success in discharging student loans, refusing to go to court, having their right to travel recognized and are serving their Notices and Claims. As a matter of fact a guy just donated a couple of grand to me for the success he had. If it was a scam, why would he be so happy and donate money when I asked for nothing?

If JB is right, and the law is merely 'my rules' then 'The Law' did not exist prior to my birth. Since it is obvious the law existed prior to my birth, when I refer to it, I am not referring to 'my rules'. Of course that logic may be too difficult for those who can't use logic and reason to grasp.

As for those who are clamoring to know what THE LAW is, I suggest you do some research. I have answered it repeatedly, but your willful ignorance means you keep missing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom