Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Lisa Simpson]

I should have clicked the link in the email before I asked. http://www.allcreatorsgifts.org/

It's...religion and FOTL? Two, two, two things in one?

 

[nomuse]

This is pretty much the basic FOTL strategy: siezing on a particular definition of a word which suits their purpose and resolutely ignoring any other definition, however obvious it is that that other definition is more appropriate. See, for example, the discussion of the term "security of the person" in this thread, in which it was argued that the word "security" must mean a financial instrument.

Incidentally:


How can a financial instrument stop someone and ask them for a receipt?

I love these. Is there a Freeman Dictionary around somewhere that collects this nonsense in one handy place?

 

[Mojo]

Perhaps a slight derail, but what is a "bondservant"?

I think Baldrick was one of those:

Baldrick: So, how much blood will you actually be requiring, my lord?
Blackadder: Oh, nothing much, just a small puddle.
Baldrick: Will you want me to cut anything off? An arm or a leg, for instance?
Blackadder: Oh, good lord, no. A little prick should do.
Baldrick: Very well, my lord. I am your bondsman, and must obey.

 

[Paul]

It's...religion and FOTL? Two, two, two things in one?

Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger, Minister of Christ appears to be indisposed at the moment; unsurprisingly he seems to have lost a fotlish argument with the corrupt courts over some marijuana issues.

 

[Toke]

That "bond servant to jesus" sounds like a pretty nifty trick.

You get to claim a really tough master, but without any of the downsides as you get to define his will yourself.

Reminds me of story from a biker fair a decade ago where some member of a infamous biker gang were acting up. They called the "head office" and asked if such behaviour were endorsed by that that gang.
When confronted with the NO the guy suddenly deflated.

 

[sadhatter]

Don't you just love this bit:

It's the old "they did not perform the moves exactly right, if they had done they would have won" excuse.

Menard obviously doesn't realise what a fool he has made of himself by displaying his ignorance about legal arguments and evidence whilst he claims to have spent over twenty thousand hours studying law.

Seriously, D and D novels rely less on spells failing for drama than Menard.

 

[TjW]

Seriously, D and D novels rely less on spells failing for drama than Menard.

I'm sure most D & D novelists are better at spelling.

 

[jargon buster]

If anyone here was in any doubt as to the idiocy of Menard read this post
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060579104&postcount=365
Its in response to this case.
http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2010/2010oncj740/2010oncj740.html

Thanks for your opinion. Tell me do you think it is in any way affected by your own bias?

I see so many holes in that case it looks like swiss cheese on a soda cracker.

Just to start, did she have a Driver's License? YES or NO?
Was she in a registered vehicle? YES or NO?
Was she charged with traveling without a license? YES or NO?
I see so much sleight of word on behalf of the JP he looks like Houdini doing word tricks.
In Paragraph [50] he is asked to look at the definition of one word. How many letters are in that word? Now look at the word he did give a definition for. How many letters in that word? Did he even look at the same word or not? YES or NO.

To point at this case and claim that it affects our argument is ludicrous. No mention is made of the right to travel. No evidence to support the right to travel was presented. The case was about speeding, by a licensed driver, not about an unlicensed traveler exercising their rights. That JP is free to share his beliefs all he wants, whether those are on the Freeman perspective or the benefits of butter over margarine, or anything else. But that was not the case before him.

You simply cannot escape the FACT that she had a license. And that is key and germane.

I do thank you for bringing it to my attention, and have written much more on it, and will be including it in my next publication. I have found however that if I post the entire deconstruction here, it is merely rejected as a wall of text, or otherwise dismissed not for the content, but the amount or number of words. Additionally, I imagine that I may soon face people who try to bring me to court and may want to point to this case. I do not want to show my hand here, knowing it will simply be rejected anyway.

But do not forget this SHE HAD A LICENSE, and was charged with speeding. It is not a case of a Freeman traveling without one. At all.

Sorry for those of you who figured this destroyed our argument, or that this meant I was done. Must be frustrating for you all, to constantly claim this or that destroys our argument or stops me and then be proven wrong so many times.

I think its Robs belief that if she didn't have a driving licence she couldn't have been convicted.

 

[Toke]

It looks pretty clear to me.
She made the mistakes of having not only licence plates on her car but also a driving licence, that clearly put her under Canadian jurisdiction.
[/]

 

[Stacey Grove]

Actually, I was expecting him to just say "she had a driver's license and registration which she gave to the police so obviously she consents...blah blah blah", which would be his usual way of avoiding addressing the substance of the case.

You were right.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060579104&postcount=365

I see so many holes in that case it looks like swiss cheese on a soda cracker.

Just to start, did she have a Driver's License? YES or NO?
Was she in a registered vehicle? YES or NO?
Was she charged with traveling without a license? YES or NO?
I see so much sleight of word on behalf of the JP he looks like Houdini doing word tricks.
In Paragraph [50] he is asked to look at the definition of one word. How many letters are in that word? Now look at the word he did give a definition for. How many letters in that word? Did he even look at the same word or not? YES or NO.

To point at this case and claim that it affects our argument is ludicrous. No mention is made of the right to travel. No evidence to support the right to travel was presented. The case was about speeding, by a licensed driver, not about an unlicensed traveler exercising their rights. That JP is free to share his beliefs all he wants, whether those are on the Freeman perspective or the benefits of butter over margarine, or anything else. But that was not the case before him.

You simply cannot escape the FACT that she had a license. And that is key and germane.

I do thank you for bringing it to my attention, and have written much more on it, and will be including it in my next publication. I have found however that if I post the entire deconstruction here, it is merely rejected as a wall of text, or otherwise dismissed not for the content, but the amount or number of words. Additionally, I imagine that I may soon face people who try to bring me to court and may want to point to this case. I do not want to show my hand here, knowing it will simply be rejected anyway.

But do not forget this SHE HAD A LICENSE, and was charged with speeding. It is not a case of a Freeman traveling without one. At all.

Sorry for those of you who figured this destroyed our argument, or that this meant I was done. Must be frustrating for you all, to constantly claim this or that destroys our argument or stops me and then be proven wrong so many times.

 

[D'rok]

You were right.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060579104&postcount=365

I wish he'd learn some new tricks. His act is getting really boring and predictable.

 

[D'rok]

This little episode is quite instructive on how Menard operates. Just yesterday, he was complaining that the defendant lost because her FOTL arguments weren't presented correctly (making a fool of himself in the process). He was sure the outcome would have been different if she had just followed the "correct" procedure.

Today, after cleaning and dressing his self-inflicted foot wound, the case is an obvious FOTL win because the key issue was not whether or not the FOTL arguments were presented correctly or whether or not they had any merit, but whether or not the defendant had a driver's license. In fact, he says he agrees with the decision.

And the reason why the JP never mentioned that he rejected the FOTL arguments because the defendant was licensed? The reason why, instead, the JP rejected the FOTL arguments on merit? Answer: because it's a conspiracy of silence.

Pure farce.

 

[jargon buster]

Pure farce.Menard

 

[BobHaulk]

It all goes round and round like the wheels on the bus the Captain uses to travel on. He doesn't drive the bus, that's the driver or the bus driver and he gets paid, he must be engaged in commerce. I've just driven to the shop for rolls, i engaged in commerce with the wee wifey in the shop but the private chariot i used to get there didn't make any money, in fact it cost me fiat currency but i reckoned it a fair exchange for my rolls.
Tiger Woods drives off the tee he doesn't travel the ball, when his wife was chasing him with a golf club he was driving away probably speeding to escape her ire, he wasn't travelling away yet he wasn't engaged in commence either.
When the captain keeps repeating his theory he is driving his point, a point he hopes will make him money so he's engaged in commerce. He also shows a remarkable amount of drive when you consider he can't do a three point turn without someone saying you've hit the curb.
I'm sure if you turn up to feeman valley (see what i did there, feeman,i'm driving myself mad here) and play the song "who's gonna drive you home" by The Cars over and over i'm sure the peasants there would want to drive me out of my private dwellings. You don't have a home in feeman valley cause the word home really means you agree to pay council tax and allow the postman to deliver mail, probably from the back of a van he has driven to your home so it's a private dwelling, the word dwelling meaning to sit around and think sceptically, private means a solider for god but that's driving away from the central point. Which is, you need a hammer to drive a nail into a bit of wood but if i had a hammer i'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this feeman on the land
i rest my case,
case, now what does that mean?
Do you keep your clothes in it when you go on holiday? Holiday now you think that means going away on holiday but no it means holly day, therefore when i go away for the summer, summer? i bet you think summer means a season of the year,year i bet you think year means the time it takes the earth to go round the sun, sun what does that mean? it's a nightmare, nightmare? what does that mean? Night horse, does it? so you can ride horse at night without a licence bringing us neatly back to the difference between driving,travelling riding a horse with a saddle,saddle bet you don't know what a saddle is .......tbc

 

[Mojo]

Actually, I was expecting him to just say "she had a driver's license and registration which she gave to the police so obviously she consents...blah blah blah", which would be his usual way of avoiding addressing the substance of the case.

If anyone here was in any doubt as to the idiocy of Menard read this post
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060579104&postcount=365
Its in response to this case.
http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2010/2010oncj740/2010oncj740.html


I think its Robs belief that if she didn't have a driving licence she couldn't have been convicted.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#s32s16

(16) Every person who contravenes subsection (1), (2), (3), (10), (10.1), (11) or (11.1) is guilty of an offence...

Subsection (2)?

(2) No person shall drive a street car on a highway unless he or she holds a driver’s licence.

See also the authority cited in paragraph 52 of the judgment:

[52] Professor Sullivan addresses this situation in her Fifth Edition of Construction of Statutes at page 223: "It is presumed that the provisions of legislation are meant to work together, both logically and teleologically, as parts of a functioning whole. The parts are presumed to fit together logically to form a rational, internally consistent framework; and because the framework has a purpose, the parts are also presumed to work together dynamically, each contributing something toward accomplishing the intended goal. This presumption is the basis for analyzing legislative schemes, which is often the most persuasive form of analysis. The presumption of coherence is also expressed as a presumption against internal conflict. It is presumed that the body of legislation enacted by a legislature does not contain contradictions or inconsistencies, that each provision is capable of operating without coming into conflict with any other."

Rob's argument is effectively demolished by the very judgment he is trying to use it against. It's almost as if the court anticipated it just as D'rok did.

 

[Paul]

Answer: because it's a conspiracy of silence.

Ah, but it can't be a conspiracy unless mc logicmaster actually uses the word conspiracy in his freeform failfest.

 

[jargon buster]

Menard has started an idiotic thread over on Ickes to draw an analogy to his point.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=199757

Martial Arts does not work in a fight!

I know cause a small out of shape friend of mine watched one Bruce Lee movie, then tried to fight someone much bigger and better trained, using the martial arts he had learned watching that movie, and he lost the fight. That PROVES martial arts will not help anyone ever in a fight. Ever. It also proves the guy who beat him up, can take anyone who has ever studied any amount of any martial arts. Right?

Or does it?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc be damned!

So Menards link is that anyone who tries his garbage without firstly becoming proficient is an idiot and doomed to fail.

I wonder how he can explain that after thousands of hours of practice and study at his chosen field he has not once been confident enough to stand up to a bully yet???

Just a thought.

 

[TjW]

For some reason, Menard's posturing reminds me of this:


Menard, of course, being a chi master of the law.

 

[jargon buster]

Yep, thats Menard all right, the master of his minions yet when he finds someone who doesn't believe in him he's totally exposed.

Perfect example.

 

[Bosozoku]

I know martial arts works in a fight because I have seen it demonstrated effectively.

Rob, would you mind personally using FOTL to get yourself out of trouble? It won't take much. You could publicly announce a time and location that you plan to drive without a license. I'll gladly pass that information along to the police. Please record the stop and post the results. I'll be looking forward to the video!