Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Garrison said:
So if I read the posts at the link correctly this individual managed to turn a minor traffic stop into his car being impounded and and spending time in jail? And is proud of the time and money, his own and that of the taxpayers/criminal justice system, he wasted with his idiocy? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...
Yup. It's a classic FOTL success story.
 
Particularly enjoyed:
i wish there was something i could do or say to help
Click to expand...
Well, I guess you could tell him to stop playing stupid word games, act like a man and take what's coming to him. But footles aren't big on that.
 
Well, you could but as
a man with a rather high IQ, who has read and de-constructed [] Acts and realized that without [] consent they are not law
Click to expand...
dear Robert-Arthur: will just
embrace a duty of compassion to [his] fellow man and a duty of respect to office holders
Click to expand...
and constantly insult you.
 
Well, in defense of the subject of that little story, his Freeman nonsense did confuse the cops enough to buy him another couple of days driving around without a license. Many people would have had the car impounded on the first stop. Not the best trade-off, though; a couple more days with a car in exchange for several days in jail.....
 
ComfySlippers said:
...Bad news on that one.
The mighty Waffler truly showed RCMP who was boss in 2009....

Robert-Arthur: Menard's Letter to the RCMP Officers Who Gave Him a Ticket

(Read the whole thing if you can, it is hilarious)
Click to expand...

Somebody needs to do a dramatic reading of that whole thing.

1. You will be getting a bill. If you do not pay it I will take lawful measures
to collect. (note: He initially set the bill at $8000 but ever so generously halved it to $4000)
2. The RCMP will be getting a bill. If they do not pay I will take lawful steps
to collect.
3. All my property including the 1991 Nissan is held by me under a claim of
right as per Section 39 of the Criminal Code and thus I may use force to
stop even people like you from taking my property.
Click to expand...

Whatever happened with that, Rob?
 
Last edited:
ComfySlippers said:
...Bad news on that one.
The mighty Waffler truly showed RCMP who was boss in 2009....

Robert-Arthur: Menard's Letter to the RCMP Officers Who Gave Him a Ticket

(Read the whole thing if you can, it is hilarious)
Click to expand...

I read it and you're right, it's hilarious. I particularly like the bit where our hero tells us how he has a large I.Q. There he goes blowing his own trumpet again. Hey Fraudman Menard have you got a copy of the I.Q test you did to show us how high a mark you got?
He also makes a rather strange claim, this,"I know an 8 year old child, who will simply refuse any directives from her
parents unless they can explain to her the justice of it. She has no fear and
refuses to go against her spirit. There are millions of these children out there". Note the use of the word "directives", in our hero's mind he thinks this is a word that conveys a superior grasp of the english language but in reality who has issued a 'directive' to their children? Honestly, the way Fraudman Menard thinks his writing implies intelligence cracks me up. I suppose he thinks it looks good to his victims, after all a man with a rather high I.Q would find it surprisingly easy to get money from the kind people who are actually dim enough to believe his con.
Thanks Fraudman Menard for the laughs. I'm choked with the cold and feel terrible but this has put a smile on my corrugating coupon.
 
I suppose he thinks it looks good to his victims, after all a man with a rather high I.Q would find it surprisingly easy to get money from the kind people who are actually dim enough to believe his con.
Click to expand...

Yep, create a con so mind numbingly stupid which automatically creates a unbelievably thick client base to extract money from.
Its a great trick really, silly hats off to him.
PS I wonder if the 8 year old child has had any "schooling" from Menard.
 
Last edited:
http://www.emtvonline.co.uk/home.php

Edge Media TV, currently labelled as "Controversial TV" on Sky channel 200;

They recently had an 'interview' with Jon Witterick, the fraud who owns the getoutofdebtfree.org scam.

They are now going to show a similarly honest and truthful 'interview' with the one and only Roger "I do not accept that I am bankrupt" Hayes about his new toy, "The Lawful Bank".

These two fellows basically preach Menard's Gibberish to the gullible / stoned, but make more money than him in the process.

It's a cheapo channel that noone watches. They even showed one of Menard's DVDs recently. For entertainment value only, of course.

I'm quite sure the authorities would be interested in seeing Roger "I have not been declared bankrupt " Hayes discuss his "Bank" on TV.

ETA: The Bizzle : Comment is free, but woo is*sacred is a blog from a real legalese person ;)

Follow some of the links there to see why normal people are annoyed that woo-mongers have been given a voice to air their woobalisms in media such as The Guardian .

ETA2: If someone can trawl through the woo from the above suggestion and find the linked to document from the recent Court Case concerning the woman who coached her child to frame her father for... things... please do as I'm having Broadbeans issues atm.... it is in there if you can be bothered. Suffice to say the lady concerned used FOTL-Waffle tactics and is now in prison.
 
Last edited:
ComfySlippers said:
http://www.emtvonline.co.uk/home.php

Edge Media TV, currently labelled as "Controversial TV" on Sky channel 200;

They recently had an 'interview' with Jon Witterick, the fraud who owns the getoutofdebtfree.org scam.

They are now going to show a similarly honest and truthful 'interview' with the one and only Roger "I do not accept that I am bankrupt" Hayes about his new toy, "The Lawful Bank".

These two fellows basically preach Menard's Gibberish to the gullible / stoned, but make more money than him in the process.

It's a cheapo channel that noone watches. They even showed one of Menard's DVDs recently. For entertainment value only, of course.

I'm quite sure the authorities would be interested in seeing Roger "I have not been declared bankrupt " Hayes discuss his "Bank" on TV.

ETA: The Bizzle : Comment is free, but woo is*sacred is a blog from a real legalese person ;)

Follow some of the links there to see why normal people are annoyed that woo-mongers have been given a voice to air their woobalisms in media such as The Guardian.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Roger Hayes' trustee in bankruptcy would appreciate the heads up.
 
Last edited:
ComfySlippers said:
http://www.emtvonline.co.uk/home.php

Edge Media TV, currently labelled as "Controversial TV" on Sky channel 200;

They recently had an 'interview' with Jon Witterick, the fraud who owns the getoutofdebtfree.org scam.
Click to expand...

And interesting to see the sort of people pushing "get out of debt free" on the Edge Media Forum.

http://www.edgemediatv.com/FORUM/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4060

I do believe this is the same jackchit who was making threats to Gravy some years ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78545
 
jargon buster said:
Had a bit of a joust with the Anti terrorist on one of his youtube videos.

He's now banned me rather than post any evidence.
Now theres a surprise, he is after all in cahoots with Menard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c49q3PGof2w&feature=email&email=comment_reply_received
Click to expand...
"What tends to happen is that lazy,ineffectual people who desire swift passage without having to pay the ferryman usually end up sunk due to the weight of their ignorance.They then invariably band with other like minded fools to exact misdirected revenge."

The irony is staggering. Am I missing the context and he actually is talking about (some) Freemen?
 
So this is Menard's new argument?

"It's none of your business if I'm conning people. Go away!"
 
Bishop said:
So this is Menard's new argument?

"It's none of your business if I'm conning people. Go away!"
Click to expand...



Pretty much. It's a common attitude among criminal types, expecting others to just look the other way and not getting involved. They often get quite annoyed when people don't do this, as if it's the non-criminals who are somehow in the wrong.
 
Bishop said:
So this is Menard's new argument?

"It's none of your business if I'm conning people. Go away!"
Click to expand...

No actually. My position is that my personal information and details are none of anyone's business and refusing to provide them is not evidence of criminal activity.

If you refuse to give me your home address, does that then logically imply that you are living under a bridge and do not have an address? Let's test it. It is afterall YOUR logic. Post your RL home address. If you refuse to do so, you admit you have no address and are living under a bridge.

No wonder logic and reason carry no weight here.
 
FreemanMenard said:
My position is that my personal information and details are none of anyone's business and refusing to provide them is not evidence of criminal activity.
Click to expand...


Your position is that the legislation of the country you are living in does not apply to you without your personal consent. Do you have any evidence for this?

No wonder logic and reason carry no weight here.
Click to expand...


They carry some weight, but not as much weight as evidence does. If the evidence contradicts "logic and reason" then most likely that "logic and reason" is faulty in some way. So far all the evidence presented here has shown that people cannot opt out of legislation.
 
Last edited:
Boot2TheHead said:
"What tends to happen is that lazy,ineffectual people who desire swift passage without having to pay the ferryman usually end up sunk due to the weight of their ignorance.They then invariably band with other like minded fools to exact misdirected revenge."

The irony is staggering. Am I missing the context and he actually is talking about (some) Freemen?
Click to expand...

Yes he is. The FMOTL perspective is a powerful truth, and like many things powerful has the capacity to be abused. It is unfortunate that many try to embrace it for self-serving or clearly criminal purposes. But without those who attempt to abuse these truths, who would the naysayers point to as evidence of it not working?

When I first uncovered this perspective, hidden by layers of legalese, I questioned the wisdom of sharing it so widely. But I could not figure out a way to vet people, nor did I feel comfortable judging others. Maybe that is why I do not fit in on this forum, eh? :D
 
Your position is that the legislation of the country you are living in does not apply to you without your personal consent. Do you have any evidence for this?
Click to expand...
That is not an accurate expression of my beliefs at all. It is simplistic to say the least. Hey how about you stick to expressing your beliefs instead of trying to load me with those YOU think are mine?



They carry some weight, but not as much weight as evidence does. If the evidence contradicts "logic and reason" then most likely that "logic and reason" is faulty in some way. So far all the evidence presented here has shown that people cannot opt out of legislation.
Click to expand...

So do you consider logic and reason to be 'evidence' or not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom