Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would seem that some posts, including one from me, were deleted and moved to AAH almost immediately.

I'm sure there is a very good reason. I just cant see what it is
 
FreemanMenard said:
That's because you call yourself a skeptic, but use that to justify rejecting all ideas which you have not already accepted.
Click to expand...

No, that is not correct.
The reason I do not believe you is simply because you have produced absolutely no evidence that any action is being taken.
Perhaps you would post up the relevant information regarding this court case that will decide the issue of individual consent? Show us where it's at right now.
 
Stacey Grove said:
No, that is not correct.
The reason I do not believe you is simply because you have produced absolutely no evidence that any action is being taken.
Perhaps you would post up the relevant information regarding this court case that will decide the issue of individual consent? Show us where it's at right now.
Click to expand...

Um, when did I say 'court case"? Why do you assume that there is a court case? Do you operate on the belief the only way is through a court case? Do you not see that as a big fat incorrect assumption?

Did I say 'court case"
YES or NO?
Did you say 'court case'?
YES or NO?

:rolleyes:
 
FreemanMenard said:
Um, when did I say 'court case"? Why do you assume that there is a court case? Do you operate on the belief the only way is through a court case? Do you not see that as a big fat incorrect assumption?

Did I say 'court case"
YES or NO?
Did you say 'court case'?
YES or NO?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You wrote:

Also have some legal action lining up to settle a certain issue. I wonder how ole JB will feel with a court ruling that states flat out that individual consent is required, and his mantra this last two year has been wrong, and the things I espouse are proven true.
Click to expand...
Now, since you mention "legal action" and a "court ruling" I would imagine that refers to a court case.
So, what is this "court ruling" that you refer to if it is not the decision of a court case?
 
Last edited:
Stacey Grove said:
Now, since you mention "legal action" and a "court ruling" I would imagine that refers to a court case.
So, what is this "court ruling" that you refer to if not the decision of a court case?
Click to expand...

Since Rob has obvious difficulties in keeping up with his own lies I can offer just one hypothesis:

Rob will use his super-powers as a pretend policeman to arrest JB.
Rob will invent a make believe court in his little fantasy world, and find JB guilty of "making me waaaahhh". The pretend sentence will be 5 years in Rob's pretend prison.
A party will then be had, with all the bee-keepers of Canada, Rob's "Judge friend", Rob's "Lawyer friend", Rob's "Doctor friend" all making guest appearances.

ETA
How far back did you need to dig to come up with that?
Click to expand...
You said it fairly recently Rob. Can you not find that post or did you simply forget you said it?
Must be difficult when you can't keep track of your own lies!
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Um, this was spoken before I spoke with the Doc who identified JB as someone with serious mental issues. How far back did you need to dig to come up with that?
Click to expand...
I have already told you this has nothing to do with your threat of action against JB. You posted what I have quoted on Icke's over a year ago, long before you claimed to be taking any action against JB. Your post IMO refers to a case that you have ongoing. You talk about "legal action" and a "court ruling", that to me infers a court case. Obviously you forget posting that comment. Strange that, considering you promised a "court ruling". Now, don't tell me that you abandoned another case due to your concern for JB?

To be clear, so you know, this issue is being addressed without running to a court, though if step one does not bring remedy, court is still available.
Click to expand...
Ah right, so there will be no "court ruling" that states individual consent is required, even though you promised us one. :rolleyes:
As I wrote previously I do not believe you. So why don't you post up exactly what this matter is and exactly where it's at right now?
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
That's because you call yourself a skeptic, but use that to justify rejecting all ideas which you have not already accepted.
Click to expand...

Except I reject your views and arguments because your legal arguments have failed EVERY court case inCanada that it has ever been tried in. As FMOTL is a legal concept, failing in court is a sign that it is not a good one.

If your car design can't get started it ain't a good'un
 
FreemanMenard said:
You do not even know what those interpretations are, yet label them as outrageous. Welcome to the RANDI forum, lurkers.
Click to expand...
For a change, try reading for comprehension. What does the highlighted word in the following paragraph mean?

"Just hypothetically (because we know this could never, ever happen...right?) what if there are authoritative decisions from, say, the Supreme Court of Canada, or even from any level of court in Canada, that completely refute your outrageous attempts at statutory interpretation? Will you carry on selling your materials without any regard for the laws that you pretend they are based on?"

So answer the question. If you propose interpretations that are objectively false, will you cling to them or will you be honest?



Do you still beat your wife? (asked of someone who has never done so) To answer your very loaded question requires the acceptance that what was previously shared was crap.
Click to expand...
Your products have been proven to be objectively false. This is not merely my opinion. This is an objective fact as has been shown by the only opinion that matters when it comes to statutory interpretation - namely, that of the Canadian courts.

You did beat your wife. You show no signs of stopping. Why not?


To answer requires one to accept the last aspect, again, "Will you still beat your wife?" No way to answer this without agreeing that I was relying on patsies, which was never true, but that is how the people here try to make points, dear lurkers. Either answer (YES or NO) will seem to agree with your incorrect assertion that I rely upon patsies.) Again, welcome to the RANDI forum, Lurkers.
Click to expand...
Everyone who has acted on your advice has suffered the consequences up to and including imprisonment. In all the years you have been perpetuating your con, you have yet to provide evidence of a single success. All the verifiable evidence is of failures. And all of the evidence is of your customers acting on your advice while you watch from the sidelines.

You did beat your wife. You show no signs of stopping. Why not?



The Lurkers with a brain see you asking loaded questions which cannot be answer without accepting your misconceptions.
FAIL!
Click to expand...
Lurkers with a brain can see that you are a liar who will not accept responsibility for his actions.
 
Everyone who has acted on your advice has suffered the consequences up to and including imprisonment. In all the years you have been perpetuating your con, you have yet to provide evidence of a single success. All the verifiable evidence is of failures. And all of the evidence is of your customers acting on your advice while you watch from the sidelines.
Click to expand...

The most despicable part of Menards behaviour is that in all the years of spouting this nonsense and encouraging and goading others on he has not once had the courage to step up to the plate and put his neck on the line to try and validate his point.

That should tell all the "lurkers" all they need to know about the morals of the man.
 
Rob will use his super-powers as a pretend policeman to arrest JB.
Rob will invent a make believe court in his little fantasy world, and find JB guilty of "making me waaaahhh". The pretend sentence will be 5 years in Rob's pretend prison.
A party will then be had, with all the bee-keepers of Canada, Rob's "Judge friend", Rob's "Lawyer friend", Rob's "Doctor friend" all making guest appearances.
Click to expand...

err..I dont consent to Robs authority.
And by his own argument he has to simply accept that he has no authourity.

self debunking at its very best
 
jargon buster said:
He doesnt consent to your non-consent.
Click to expand...
.
Rob doesn't consent to his suspension.

But he is just the same.

"*You* don't consent? *I* don't consent! This whole court doesn't consent!"

signed, TS (with apologies to Al) R
.
 
jargon buster said:
The most despicable part of Menards behaviour is that in all the years of spouting this nonsense and encouraging and goading others on he has not once had the courage to step up to the plate and put his neck on the line to try and validate his point.
Click to expand...
Take that video posted by Comfy Slippers recently. We see Menard explaining to the crowd that they can use "their bond" to pay for lots of things but what he fails to tell them is that he has never done it himself, has no proof of anyone ever doing so, and has absolutely no proof of its existence.
 
Stacey Grove said:
We see Menard explaining to the crowd that they can use "their bond" to pay for lots of things but what he fails to tell them is that he has never done it himself...
Click to expand...


If it can be done, there is no good reason for Rob not to do it himself, and at least one good reason that he should do so as soon as possible.

If people were to start cashing in their bonds we would see major inflation in prices. If everyone had a few million dollars in hand, property prices would go through the roof. The biggest advantage would only be to those who cash theirs in early, before everyone else gets in on it.
 
Stacey Grove said:
Take that video posted by Comfy Slippers recently. We see Menard explaining to the crowd that they can use "their bond" to pay for lots of things but what he fails to tell them is that he has never done it himself, has no proof of anyone ever doing so, and has absolutely no proof of its existence.
Click to expand...


And in fact, has strong evidence against its existence, which he has simply chosen to ignore.
 
FreemanMenard said:
...I do care about the lurkers though, and them seeing how you all reflexively reject it highlights your weakness and inability to fairly weigh and decide.

[snipped drivel]
Click to expand...

I'm a lurker. I only come her for the lulz. Because you're worth it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom