Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Cocana The Second]

and yet again he debunks his own argument.
He claims being in a geographical area doesn't subject you to equity but it does to common law???
By who's authority Rob?
I claim you have no authority to hold me to your "common law" in your geographical area, so what now when I break your rules?

Rob , your ideas are an absurdity.

Yep. He's totally chasing his own tail now.

...and still ignoring my questions I see. His silence is deafening.

 

[D'rok]

Isn't it fun covering the same stupid ground over and over and over? Instead of repeating the same ignorant falsehoods - such as asserting there are separate jurisdictions for equity and common law - wouldn't it be nice if certain FOTLers could provide evidence for their FOTL claims?

It would also be nice if certain FOTLers would stop attempting to use personal re-definitions of well-understood words such as "common law" and "equity".

 

[Cocana The Second]

Isn't it fun covering the same stupid ground over and over and over? Instead of repeating the same ignorant falsehoods - such as asserting there are separate jurisdictions for equity and common law - wouldn't it be nice if certain FOTLers could provide evidence for their FOTL claims?

It would also be nice if certain FOTLers would stop attempting to use personal re-definitions of well-understood words such as "common law" and "equity".

Totally agreed. I take it you've seen that Rob now wants to reverse the burden of proof altogether (http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=188547)? If that doesn't wake people up to the con then I honestly don't know what will.

 

[D'rok]

Totally agreed. I take it you've seen that Rob now wants to reverse the burden of proof altogether (http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=188547)? If that doesn't wake people up to the con then I honestly don't know what will.

Yup. Saw that. I interpret that as a tacit admission of what we all know - i.e., that he has no evidence. Reversing the burden of proof under those circumstances is a really transparent strategy.

However, I have no doubt that he will continue to find victims. The best we can hope for is that their numbers will be reduced.

 

[Cocana The Second]

Yup. Saw that. I interpret that as a tacit admission of what we all know - i.e., that he has no evidence. Reversing the burden of proof under those circumstances is a really transparent strategy.

However, I have no doubt that he will continue to find victims. The best we can hope for is that their numbers will be reduced.

Absolutely right. Which possibly also explains the increasing desperation in Menard's posts - he's seen his following (and thereby his revenue stream) tail off and he's desperate to capture a few more wallies if he can.

 

[Cocana The Second]

And look - Menard's logged off without answering those questions yet again.

 

[ComfySlippers]

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?

Lies.

Rob you are not talking to simpletons over here. Your scammy untruths simply do not have any effect. This isn't DIF or WFS.

Is it just all about the money? Or do you have to lie because you are ashamed to admit that your thousands of hours of research actually entailed you yourself falling for and believing a rather silly scam?

Or have you reached the point of no return and actually believe your own rubbish?

If it's the latter, congratulations. Only a handful of history's conmen manage to convince themselves that their own bs is true.

 

[Horatius]

Did you guys notice this in another thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7744895#post7744895


It would seem that enforcement of voluntary contracts isn't part of the Common Law recognized by Menard.

 

[Cocana The Second]

Could someone translate this?

Rob is correct in his assumption of the criminal code but it has to be used in conjunction with your trust in court.

Back in 2009 I was summoned to court in Ontario over an alleged debt. I explained to the judge that he was dealing with a registered trust that has first rights to all debt obligations including the court orders.
Debt obligations are classified as other income that was abandoned by the trust but is fully recoverable if reported back to the tax agency.

They will be reported back to the tax agency as a capitol loss and the amount will be refunded in full back to the beneficiary. The judge told me that no law in the country would allow that .I explain it was not my duty to inform him of tax laws; I was only there to warn him and the lawyer that they are dealing with a trust and the tax agency. He told me I was not allowed to do so.
I replied back to him “You do as you will but I will do as I am required to do. “

He turned beat red and kicked me out of the court room and ruled for the plaintiff.

Now 2 years later the tax agency approved my refund of $82000.00 owing back to the beneficiary of the trust and the Attorney General has to pay the taxes. Now it seems at this time the lawyer in question has to pay the tax agency as the Attorney General does not have to pay the judge and lawyer are responsible.

I get the refund.

Moral of the story all I did is to use the criminal code against them as now I can sue the lawyer for criminal breach of trust as I hold the refund.

I find that those who oppose the use of the rules are usually lawyers or just plain scumbags that don’t want the correct information getting out.

Can you imagine the courts in a few years if people just started reporting their losses back to the tax agency?

All I did was proved proof of claim back to the tax agency was that not the court order?

 

[Bishop]

I'm not sure what he's saying either, but it's almost certainly a lie.

 

[D'rok]

My best attempt. This will make no sense. That's because it makes no sense, period.

"I split myself in two. I made my flesh and blood self the beneficiary of an income trust where my "person" is the trustee. I write off personal debts as capitol losses to the trust. This means I can convert my personal debt into business losses and get a big refund from the tax man. I was hauled into tax court for doing this and was given a royal smack down. Despite the fact that I lost in court, the tax agency still has no choice but to give that refund. Ultimately, the judge and the lawyer in my case are liable for paying that money back to the tax agency."

In other words, lies and delusions from a mentally unstable victim of internet fraudsters.

 

[ComfySlippers]

In other words, lies and delusions from a mentally unstable victim of internet fraudsters

Commonly refered to as "Freeman success stories".

Robert Arthur Menard is a laughing stock.

I suspect other conmen, who have actually taken the time to invent their own scam rather than copying a thirty year old one, cringe with embarrassment when they see Rob's silly game.

 

[Border Reiver]

I think our resident Barbarian has the right of it, but in order for this to work the trust has to be set up IAW a statute. Now the Trustee of this trust is probably going to get audited at some point (damn that's a lot of weasel words) and then our hero will need to explain that his "legal person" is the Trustee, and that the Beneficiary is his flesh and blood person, and that the beneficiary had no clue that his Trustee was playing so fast and loose with the laws. And the judge will very likely go, "Guilty of Fraud - get thee to a peniteniary!"

 

[ComfySlippers]

I think our resident Barbarian has the right of it, but in order for this to work the trust has to be set up IAW a statute. Now the Trustee of this trust is probably going to get audited at some point (damn that's a lot of weasel words) and then our hero will need to explain that his "legal person" is the Trustee, and that the Beneficiary is his flesh and blood person, and that the beneficiary had no clue that his Trustee was playing so fast and loose with the laws. And the judge will very likely go, "Guilty of Fraud - get thee to a peniteniary!"

That would mean the FOTL-Waffler "didn't do it right". Get-out clause #746.

Real FOTL success stories are always hidden because they cunningly avoided going to Court. Get-out clause #416.

Some FOTL-Wafflers are even taken to secret areas in the Court building and are told "You have won, but must never tell anyone about this". Get-out clause #14.

The original inventors of this scam all got locked up for fraud etc.
But FOTL is not merely a carbon copy of Sovereign/Redemption scams.
Oh no. It is based on thousands of hours of research by Robert Arthur Menard.
It is merely a coincidence that they are so glaringly "similar".

....Or as our friend JackieG would say..."They are verbatim, just written differently"

A rather silly cult-like scam being regurgitated by a pretty awful conman.
So many Get-out clauses for something so "real".

 

[tsig]

Well it is easy enough to infer. Surrounding yourself with like minded people who share your belief system, and mocking those who are different, is something that happens in every high school, and for the same reasons.

I think what you meant is you have chosen to keep the reason FROM yourself, not TO yourself.

I already know the reason, just wanted to see if you could admit it to yourself. Guess not.

I think all that? I never knew. Thanks for your professional insight. Where shall I send the cheque? Give me your bank # and account # and I'll etransfer it to you.

(I have $2 million I need to hide from my wife, maybe for a fee we could work a deal?)

 

[Bishop]

I suspect other conmen, who have actually taken the time to invent their own scam rather than copying a thirty year old one, cringe with embarrassment when they see Rob's silly game.

I doubt if con artists have a lot professional pride to begin with. They're probably just thankful that he's the guy at the helm of their competition.

And on a related, albeit strange note, maybe we ought to be thankful for that too. We may never know precisely how many people Menard has relieved of their money, but I have a suspicion that if a smarter, more competent scammer had found FOTL first, he could have done a lot more damage with it.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Menard wrote:

Additionally, very few win the first time, as they are often tested to determine their level of dedication.

I've only just noticed this.
Rob is saying that the reason few people win in court running a FOTL defence the first time is because they are often tested to determine their level of dedication.
What is it?
Some kind of test?
Show the right level of determination and next time we'll let you through?
What total BS.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Anyone who is capable of logic and reason, and understands just what consent actually is, and the ramifications of consenting.

You asking this question means NOT YOU.

Interesting that you should make this point. If Stacey is not capable of consenting, why is she subject to the authority of the Canadian government?

Further, how can you say that consent requires logic and reason in one breath, and then, in the next breath, say that I can be tricked into consenting to the government's authority by applying for a SIN (when apparently the terms of that application are kept completely secret from me.) This is valid consent according to "THE LAW"? According to the same "LAW" which prohibits fraud in contracts?

 

[solzhenitsyn]

T
How many adults never ever fell even once learning to walk? According to the people here, the fact that babies fall means no one can walk, and they should give up since at first they do not succeed. If you do not hit a home run the first time at bat, and then hit home runs every time thereafter, you should give up the game entirely. That is the mindset here, is it not?

This is a great analogy except for the fact that we've all observed that people do indeed learn to walk one day. None of us have ever once observed anyone anywhere actually become a FMOTL. Therefore, your analogy would work better like this:

How many adults never ever fell even once learning to fly? According to the people here, the fact that babies don't soar through the skies means no one can fly, and they should give up since at first they do not succeed. If you do not fly the first time you flap your arms, and then fly every time you flap your arms thereafter, you should give up flapping your arms entirely. That is the mindset here, is it not?

Yes, that is the mindset here. In my experience, that mindset has saved me a tremendous amount of pointless arm flapping, as well as any jumping-out-of-tree-while-flapping-arms injuries.

 

[slowsmile]

How many adults never ever fell even once learning to walk? According to the people here, the fact that babies fall means no one can walk, and they should give up since at first they do not succeed. If you do not hit a home run the first time at bat, and then hit home runs every time thereafter, you should give up the game entirely. That is the mindset here, is it not?

No.

When our babies learned to walk they were in a safe environment with parents close to hand - protected from danger.

FOTL mindset would appear to let baby take its first steps on the road / in the forest, and blame someone else when baby gets run over / eaten by bears.