Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, I've heard that myth before, 'no Libyan central bank', they have one like everyo ther country that hasn't collapsed into chaos. How do I know that? I use to teach banking and have taught Libyans - and they sure seemed to think they had a central bank!
 
What on earth is this idiotic reaction on Ickes to every question they find difficult to answer?
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060078420&postcount=154

the answer normally goes something like;
blah,blah,blah,blah..its JB.

Is it the fact they think that there could only be one person who disagrees with them, or do they think the mods will automatically ban anyone they suspect of being me.
Poor Kaisersozey got an instant ban never to be lifted, I was using a proxy so they had no IP to check against, I just wonder how many other people are getting banned when they try to sign up with a proxy (I have had two accounts under different names not even activated :confused:)
 
whilst Menard is off the radar another classic from Yozhik
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060078532&postcount=155
Regardless of multiple claims to the contrary; I'm not stupid.
Naive?
Unrealistic?
A dreamer?
Mentally ill with no grasp of reality?

... I've heard them all before, and others ... and expect to keep hearing them. Water off a duck's back.

Any post I make is never offered as advice.
How can it be?
Its an unproven ideology ... the only advice that is possible is "BEWARE!"
Click to expand...

Beware?
Why would you knowingly post your thoughts and ideas that people should beware of?
You could on the other hand post facts that others could read and learn from.
 
I spoke too soon, he's back with his daft "consent theory"
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060079182&postcount=175

So let's say we have TWO people.
One and only one makes some rules, and tries to claim they are the law, but will apply equally to all, even them. That rule maker says the other party CAN'T MAKE RULES ALSO, otherwise, the second guy could make rules that cancels out the first set, right?
Thus one and only one is making rules, imposing them on the other, and equality is dead.
Right from the start.

WHO IS MAKING THESE RULES YOU CLAIM ARE APPLICABLE TO ALL?
Can I make some as well, or is that reserved for a special group of people who are more equal to us all?

In any event, anyone can see it is obvious common sense, this endless forum debate is pointless and banal, and I have far better things to do.

But I will be back in two/three days, and see how you resolve this issue:
If the rules you speak of are applicable to ALL, and that is what equality means as you claim, then do you also claim that the ability to make the rules is also equally shared, or does one party have greater ability then the other in that regard, and thus there is no equality?


Good luck with that!

I have a big ass bonfire and party to go to!
Click to expand...

Great, so by the same argument we can all ignore Robs withdrawal of consent because without our agreement its just his words, there is no contract without our agreement.

I have a big ass bonfire cup of cocoa and party bed to go to!
Click to expand...
Fixed that for him
 
gtm said:
Me'thinks Yozhik will be needing his own thread before long. How about 'Yozhik legal genius or bigoted cretin?'
Click to expand...

Excellent idea.

While we're at it, could one of the lawyers please post a response this this one from aforesaid bigoted cretin -

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060077487&postcount=3

When he finally understands a bit about constitutional law he'll realise just how much of a supreme wally he really is.

He's beginning to cast himself, a la Menard, as some great sage handing down nuggets of wisdom from his (Ucadian) throne. I see him as more of an oddball, perhaps in the mould of that character from Bladerunner, entertaining a room full of dummies as they are the only friends he's got.

EDIT - Bladerunner guy must have had a good brain because he made his puppets to start with. Bad analogy therefore. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
I spoke too soon, he's back with his daft "consent theory"
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060079182&postcount=175



Great, so by the same argument we can all ignore Robs withdrawal of consent because without our agreement its just his words, there is no contract without our agreement.


Fixed that for him
Click to expand...

Menard's record is stuck these days. Such a Menard.

It's a two step approach with virtually every post now:-

1. "Look at me, I'm so cool and popular, bet you wish you were me." [Urrrrr, thanks but no]
2. "How can one person's rules bind another without their consent?" [How many more times, Menard - you're talking rubbish because it doesn't work like that, but if it did you'd shaft yourself with your freeman vision anyway]

Round and round and round and round we go. And round some more.

Con man
 
I hope Menard didn't sit still for too long around the bonfire, someone may have mistaken him for a "Guy" and thrown him on. :D

Your right cocana, Menards a one trick pony without a trick.
All he can do is trip out the same old cliche as a supposed test, its nonsense and even if it were true it would automatically debunk itself.
 
What, Robert Arthur: Menard the conman, the one that's barred from giving legal advice, is that the conman you mean?
 
Ooh, look who's penetrating legal intellect has been working overtime again

you know who said:
As for the trial, check their own rulings. You folks are celebrating like it has already begun and happened. The trial starts when the accused enters a plea, and not before. And although the paper stated he 'appeared' if the reporter is not a lawyer, and not making a legal determination, then it is only his untrained opinion, and that 'appearance' could easily be quashed for lack of consent. If he does not enter one, the judge will try to enter one on his behalf, and Lance can refuse that offer, and claim the judge must be the accused, for he entered the plea without consent to act as agent for him. It ain't over till it's over, and even then, the judge may be setting himself up for a complete reversal in the Court of Appeal.
Click to expand...

is this the conman you first thought of?
 
The trial starts when the accused enters a plea, and not before.
Click to expand...

....or gets one entered on his behalf and the trial proceeds.
This is a guy who claims to have read the law for 10 years :confused:
 
Last edited:
Looks like Menards had enough on Ickes
Is constantly insulting other posters without regard to their argument now the norm here? If so, the children have won. The mods have let it happen by not holding them to their agreement concerning the rules here. I refuse to play with these idiots anymore. All they can do is insult, and no one should have to take such ******** endlessly. Feel free to delete my account. The RANDIOTS have won.

Before I go I draw your attention to the fact that what a team of brilliant engineers requires years to build, can be easily destroyed by a moron with a cup of sugar.
Click to expand...
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060084478&postcount=476


So he's back to the WFS where he has the ban button, great stuff. :D
 
Odd behaviour. Almost like he's a conman..

Has anyone ever asked if Rob Menard is a conman?
Or would consenting to having the question answered require an $800 donation and a spell in the loony-bin....?

I can't stop wondering if Rob Menard is conman.

Surely Rob Menard can't be a conman.

Many people would be upset to learn that Rob Menard is a conman and that the WFS is a crock of bullplop and scammy conman rubbish.

I shall wage war against his pretend police force.
R2D2 (Really Rubbish Dodgy Dealer) is recruiting...
Only $800 for a pretend job...

These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.
 
Did someone mention that Menard is a conman?



JB - that getoutofdebtfree forum is a joke. How do you remain so patient? HerRoyalHighness has really swallowed the freeman brainwashing. Good grief.
 
cocana said:
Did someone mention that Menard is a conman?
Click to expand...
I believe the subject may have been mentioned in passing.

However, to keep on topic with the OP, I should say that I believe that Robert-Arthur: Menard is a conman so clownish that he gives a bad name to all three.
 
Im hoping he will take the bait and joint getoutofdebtfree.org.
I have posted a thread about his exploits and mentioned poor Lance Thatcher.
I think he may show his face , but then again he has nothing left, I have given them a run through of his idiotic consent theory and no one challenged me on it, I guess they see its idiotic as well.

Well heres hoping :D
 
Someone of our acquaintance, with a less than stellar reputation for veracity or perspicacity, is a prima facie example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom