Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Hans]

I know.
But RB's claim is that he has successfully FOTL'd his way out of things. Those things remain unidentified, and had it happened, there would be official records.

We have suggested a number of ways how he could prove it - but he ignores it for the proven method of shouting the same stuff over and over again....for some reason that doesn't seem to work, lol

What do you think; deliberating challenging the government in court on say, car use on the road?

You don't do this for what reason again Menard?

 

[abaddon]

To keep it clear perhaps we should call the Freeman Claim of right a CORN, Claim of right (NOT!)

Does that mean he is "CORNy"?

 

[ComfySlippers]

To keep it clear perhaps we should call the Freeman Claim of right a CORN, Claim of right (NOT!)

Seems fitting

 

[Paul]

And I am not talking about the ought, but the is. What they actually do is get people to sign and submit applications. Or do you claim they do not do that?

I thought everything you said was merely an opinion?

 

[FreemanMenard]

What could you present? Anything?

Tell you what...lets see if one man can govern another without consent, and see if yuy are willing to put your money where your mouth is.

I claim the right to govern YOU without your consent.
I as your new government, demand you send me $100. Call it a tax.

If you do it, you support your claim that you can be governed without your consent by someone else with whom you have no contract. It costs you $100, but you prove your point.
If you fail to do so, you agree that I cannot govern you without your consent. And neither can anyone else.

Simple litmus test, right?

I look forward to you sending me $100, cause one man can govern another without their consent, and I am doing so to you without yours.

Unless you refuse to send me the money, in which case you now agree with me.



PS- As your government, I demand you identify your self here and now. Address, name, phone number, email, etc. If you fail to do so, you reject my consent-less governance. And my argument is accepted by you.

 

[JLord]

We would not have to convince a jury of that, the other side would have to prove the common law right to travel no longer exists in Canada.

That right still exists but it obviously restricted by the various highway traffic acts of the provinces. These acts place restrictions on the right to travel. So clearly that right no longer exists to the same extent as it did before the highway traffic act was passed.

Also, the de facto courts have convicted people countless times without anyone having to prove that the common law right to travel without a licence no longer exists. Furthermore, the de facto courts have rejected the argument that you can travel without a licence or opt out the highway traffic act.

So I think you should amend your claims to state that you believe we should have the common law right to travel without a licence, not that we actually do have that right. Because if people are getting punished for doing it, then it isn't a right anymore. Be realistic about your claims.

 

[Paul]

I would like to point out that I have just been crowned King of Denmark, and you have all been made my Princes and Princesses.

Yay, I'm a princess

 

[FreemanMenard]

That right still exists but it obviously restricted by the various highway traffic acts of the provinces. These acts place restrictions on the right to travel. So clearly that right no longer exists to the same extent as it did before the highway traffic act was passed.

Also, the de facto courts have convicted people countless times without anyone having to prove that the common law right to travel without a licence no longer exists. Furthermore, the de facto courts have rejected the argument that you can travel without a licence or opt out the highway traffic act.

So I think you should amend your claims to state that you believe we should have the common law right to travel without a licence, not that we actually do have that right. Because if people are getting punished for doing it, then it isn't a right anymore. Be realistic about your claims.

How do they do that without even mentioning them?

See there is a small problem you have. There is information I have which you do not. Things I know about myself you do not. Things I know about my reality you do not. I DO IT. And they recognize it. How can you tell me I do not have a right to do something which I do with impunity?

 

[azzthom]

Tell you what...lets see if one man can govern another without consent, and see if yuy are willing to put your money where your mouth is.

I claim the right to govern YOU without your consent.
I as your new government, demand you send me $100. Call it a tax.

If you do it, you support your claim that you can be governed without your consent by someone else with whom you have no contract. It costs you $100, but you prove your point.
If you fail to do so, you agree that I cannot govern you without your consent. And neither can anyone else.
Simple litmus test, right?

I look forward to you sending me $100, cause one man can govern another without their consent, and I am doing so to you without yours.

Unless you refuse to send me the money, in which case you now agree with me.

Surely, this must rank as the single most extraordinary leap of Menardian logic in the history of the world. And that's up against some stiff competition in this very thread. Truly outstanding.

 

[ComfySlippers]

See there is a small problem you have. There is information I have which you do not.

And there we have FOTL-Waffle in a nutshell.

Can we have it if we pay you $800 like Lance did?

 

[JLord]

How do they do that without even mentioning them?

If you're talking about the de facto court deciding that people can't opt out of the highway traffic act, it's been specifically mentioned many times. Perhaps most recently in this case. You may not have seen this one yet, but I'd say the decision is pretty clear:

Sydorenko v. Her Majesty the Queen et al, 2012 MBQB 42 (CanLII)



Notably, I am in agreement with the moving parties’ arguments that this action has no reasonable legal basis because it is based on a fundamentally flawed proposition of law: that an individual may opt out of being bound by statutes or legislation of general application, in this case, The Highway Traffic Act of Manitoba.

Fundamentally flawed.



In light of this decision you surely must amend your claims about the de facto law. They are simply not accurate. You can still promote the same sorts of ideological goals without being deceptive about the de facto law. Why not change your claims to match reality?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Surely, this must rank as the single most extraordinary leap of Menardian logic in the history of the world. And that's up against some stiff competition in this very thread. Truly outstanding.

Better watch out! I may claim the right to govern you without your consent, at which point you too will be obliged to give me money, merely cause I said you must!

 

[ComfySlippers]

Better watch out! I may claim the right to govern you without your consent, at which point you too will be obliged to give me money, merely cause I said you must!

The thought of your pretend police force enforcing that has us quaking in fear.

 

[Jon.]

Repeating your mantra does not make it true. When was the right clearly, specifically and unequivocally removed? When you started repeating your mantra?

No, when the Motor Vehicle Act (or the equivalent in various jurisdictions) was passed.

Registration, licence and insurance

3 (1) Except as otherwise provided under this Act, the owner of a motor vehicle or trailer must, before it is used or operated on a highway,
(a) register the motor vehicle or trailer with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,
(b) obtain a licence for its operation under this section, and
(c) obtain for it an owner's certificate under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

 

[abaddon]

Tell you what...lets see if one man can govern another without consent, and see if yuy are willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Unlike you, you mean?

I claim the right to govern YOU without your consent.
I as your new government, demand you send me $100. Call it a tax.

I do not consent to your demand. Why? You are half a planet away and have no jurisdiction.

If you do it, you support your claim that you can be governed without your consent by someone else with whom you have no contract. It costs you $100, but you prove your point.
If you fail to do so, you agree that I cannot govern you without your consent. And neither can anyone else.

You want me to hand you $100, or else you are right? Really Rob, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Why should I? Because you say so?

Simple litmus test, right?

Yup. Which shows you to be out of your bikkie.

I look forward to you sending me $100, cause one man can govern another without their consent, and I am doing so to you without yours.

I guess jurisdiction is another concept which evades you.

Unless you refuse to send me the money, in which case you now agree with me.

No, you just made stuff up.

PS- As your government, I demand you identify your self here and now. Address, name, phone number, email, etc. If you fail to do so, you reject my consent-less governance. And my argument is accepted by you.

I have identified myself in person on this very forum. I have identified my credentials. I do not need to hide like you. Go look it up. Then go and hide again.

 

[abaddon]

Oh, and by the way Rob, the very first thing you do to become a member of the Institute of Engineers is sign up to a Code of Ethics.

I realise this is an alien concept for you, but that is what happens in the real world.

 

[Hans]

Repeating his consent argument - again.........

 

[jargon buster]

Tell you what...lets see if one man can govern another without consent, and see if yuy are willing to put your money where your mouth is.

I claim the right to govern YOU without your consent.
I as your new government, demand you send me $100. Call it a tax.

If you do it, you support your claim that you can be governed without your consent by someone else with whom you have no contract. It costs you $100, but you prove your point.
If you fail to do so, you agree that I cannot govern you without your consent. And neither can anyone else.

Simple litmus test, right?

I look forward to you sending me $100, cause one man can govern another without their consent, and I am doing so to you without yours.

Unless you refuse to send me the money, in which case you now agree with me.

Wow Rob thats brilliant, not only are you going to get loads of $100 cheques the brilliance of it is that you dont even need to send any legal advice or DVDs in return.

You are getting much better at this every day, I doff my fezz to you sir.

 

[BritPunk]

But why? When others post a link to the WFS, or DIF, or TPUC or any other forum, for the purpose of having a laugh at the idiocy they see, you never tell them to go post it on the forum from whence it came, do you?

I would like to leave the ad hominems out of a discussion. But just look at this thread, remove the ad hominems posted as a habit by most of the people here it would be a much shorter thread!

Plus I am just doing what everyone else here does... making fun of people who do not think as I do, for that reason. It is a waste of time and energy though, and I do not see the benefits so many here must.

It seems yet again that you have chosen to give a selective answer, ignoring the points raised. As someone who has studied the law as extensively as you have claimed, on what criteria do you base your judgement of my "insanity"? Surely you know that is a forensic term, only used by those so qualified?
Have I personally ever engaged in the tactics you describe? Or do you simply tar anyone who questions your claims with the same brush?
And as I said earlier, you are perfectly free to answer the points I raised in the DIF. Unless of course, you have consented to their banning you.
Just as you have consented to CBC / youtube using statutory copyright law to remove their file from your WFS homepage.

 

[Garrison]

Unlike you, you mean?


I do not consent to your demand. Why? You are half a planet away and have no jurisdiction.


You want me to hand you $100, or else you are right? Really Rob, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Why should I? Because you say so?


Yup. Which shows you to be out of your bikkie.



I guess jurisdiction is another concept which evades you.


No, you just made stuff up.



I have identified myself in person on this very forum. I have identified my credentials. I do not need to hide like you. Go look it up. Then go and hide again.

I think Mr Menard is missing the important part of governing without individual consent; the bit where those doing the governing add the 'or else'. The 'or else' being the unfortunate consequences of failing to obey the laws of the nation you live in.