Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[FreemanMenard]

Well, time to get to work. Been fun proving none of you can govern me without consent without breaking the law! I look forward to you folks answering my simple questions.

Does a requirement for mutual consent mean there is a corresponding requirement for mutual non-consent, as JB has stated? Or not?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Been fun proving none of you can govern me without consent without breaking the law!

You're missing the point.
I have already said that no one on here can govern you. But, your government can. They have an army if they need it.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Let me put it simply for you Rob
The government doesnt need a contract to make you obey a statute.
You on the other hand would need a contract with the government in order to be exempt from them.

That OK for you?

HAHAHAH!
So I need a contract to not be in a contract?

hahahaha!

You kill me with how ignorant of the law you are JB!

What about the Liquor Licensing Act? They tried to use that on me once, and I pointed out it was only applicable to those who held a license or had applied for one. You know, had entered into a contract with the licensing board. They stopped trying to use it.

If the people in government did not need contract, why do they use them so much, and ask we sign documents with words which demonstrate a contract exist?

Gawd you are sooo funny JB!

 

[Architect]

You appear to misunderstand the meaning of the word "proof".

 

[FreemanMenard]

You're missing the point.
I have already said that no one on here can govern you. But, your government can. They have an army if they need it.

My government? Who is that? Show me. Or is that merely another assumption on your part?

 

[Cocana The Second]

You have to give him credit for refusing to answer a simple question over a period of years.

In making the above observation, I do not wish for the word "credit" to be equated with "credibility" in relation to his theories, as they have no credibility at all, highlighted by the fact that he won't answer the question!

Stacey, maybe we should try a different approach. Since Rob likes to be transparent about his idenity perhaps he should confirm his address as well? We could then get the Canadian police to him and see whether they are scared off by the fact that he doesn't consent to statutes?

Perhaps we can take this up with Rob later when he's finished work?



Hang on, Rob's fired off a few more posts after he said he was off to work. In that case, Rob, what's your current address and could you post up proof of it to ensure we send the police to the right place?

 

[Stacey Grove]

My government? Who is that? Show me. Or is that merely another assumption on your part?

OK, the Canadian government.
If you wish to claim that the Canadian government is not yours, so be it.
But, that won't make any difference to them.

 

[ComfySlippers]

You have rulers, who will incarcerate you if you do not do as they say. You need their permission to travel, and you hold ID issued by them, allowing you to engage with their permission in completely lawful activities.

And you defend them.


Try living like they do not exist, and see if they start acting like your captors.

You are so blind, that you no longer even see them as captors.

Yes, you have it bad...

I will only be incarcerated if I break the law. If I don't commit crimes they leave me alone. FOTL-Waffle, summed up, is "How to break the law and get away with it".... except it doesn't work and FOTL-Wafflers don't get away with it because it's a load of donkey-turd.

You sell this donkey-turd to people as "legal advice". You know full well it doesn't work. Now that makes you a ??????

As stated many times, by many others, FOTL-Waffle is derived from the Sovereign/Redemption scams started in the 70's and 80's. You are merely copying a very old scam and labelling it as "research".

So, as suggested by others, why not post some actual proof instead of silly you-tube videos and while you're at it cash in your "Birth Bond"!

 

[jargon buster]

What about the Liquor Licensing Act? They tried to use that on me once

just once?
Now that is unbelieveable

HAHAHAH!
So I need a contract to not be in a contract?

hahahaha!

You kill me with how ignorant of the law you are JB!

Nope you need an exemption from Statutes, if not they apply.
You keep claiming knowledge of law yet have failed to show any evidence apart from the fact you keep saying, "they dont apply to me because I say so".

 

[Stacey Grove]

Try living like they do not exist, and see if they start acting like your captors.

You posted on the Irish freeman board some time ago that you expected to travel to Ireland this year.
No trouble with that is there?

 

[Cocana The Second]

Hang on, Rob's fired off a few more posts after he said he was off to work. In that case, Rob, what's your current address and could you post up proof of it to ensure we send the police to the right place?

Oh, he's gone now. Rob?????

 

[jargon buster]

yes Rob, you could pop over to Ireland when you are here attending my trial for defamation, dont forget your £10 million for my fee schedule though or all that messing about at customs without a passport wont be worth it.

 

[Paul]

If you would be so kind, Rob, I would really, really like you to video the part where you try to get on an international flight with homemade ID.

 

[Mojo]

Your position seems to be that anything a judge does is lawful, merely cause he did it. Tell me this, are judges human, and do they ever make mistakes?

Aren't they super men according to you and your chums here?

This is a very odd argument to see coming from someone who considers the Common Law to be inviolable.

 

[Toke]

Because our victories mean we do not go to court, and there is no trial.
Do you claim that there are transcripts for court cases that do not take place?

So what about the more or less central claim for your "business" that you can help people when they go to court.
Or are you now running from the reality of freemen going to court and loosing badly, every time.

No one has yet to explain how they personally can govern me without consent and not break the law or abandon equality.

I wonder why that is....

Because it is the legal system that can sentence you with or without your consent.

 

[carlitos]

ComfySlippers denigrates those who claim the statutes are not in plain English.
So I post a link showing that a supposed expert agrees the Income Tax Act is not written in English, but is in a language none by the initiated and trained can understand.
He states clearly and specifically it is not in English.
The only official languages in Canada is English and French.
According to that tax expert, the ITA is not written in either.
If that is the case, and the Act is not written in English, but in a language that resembles it but is not ( as the professionally trained expert is quoted as saying) is it written in one of the official languages? And if not ( again as he states) is it legal to enforce it?

Bear in mind, for an Act to be enforceable, it must be in one of the official languages, at the very least.
According to that expert, the ITA is not. So is it enforceable or not?

Remember according to him, it is not in English, but in a language the average person cannot understand.

Enforceable or not?

Apparently enforcable. You missed the last line I quoted:

They read something that looks like it is written in English, but it's not, it's actually law and they think they understand it." One detaxer, Tom Kennedy, a retired Ottawa schoolteacher, tested his theory by going to court to challenge the right of the CCRA to collect income tax from him. He argued income tax is voluntary and the "person" referred to in the Income Tax Act is not a "natural" person. Justice Sedgwick of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected his arguments.

I'm sure that you aren't arguing that a throwaway phrase from some guy in an article carries more weight than actual court decisions.

What about the Liquor Licensing Act? They tried to use that on me once, and I pointed out it was only applicable to those who held a license or had applied for one. You know, had entered into a contract with the licensing board. They stopped trying to use it.

I don't believe you for one second. Unless you provide evidence for this, I think you're just telling tall tales.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

In our Freeman community, we all consent to a process of consensus building.

Here is Freeman "consensus building" at work: http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=193&t=8718

A handful of people couldn't come to a consensus about law. A handful of people couldn't even come to a consensus about how a consensus would be reached. Even with their idiosyncrasies it took them less than a day to get to the snag of unanimity vs majority, and realize how unworkable the concept of individual consent to law is.

Freeman principles don't even work in theory, and here we have Menard telling people to put them in practice.

 

[tsig]

If you go to trial and enter a plea, you have consented, by entering the plea, have you not?

Once in contract you are bound by the terms.
But you can choose to avoid the contract.
As for killing someone, theoretically you could refuse the courts services, but then you would be subject to the justice of the victims family and friends.
Funny how people always have to run to 'murder' when the position I am supposing has no victims, such as traveling without permission, or growing herbs.

Not securing someone else's permission to engage in a lawful action, such as traveling without a license or insurance, is not equatable with murder. But to avoid the issues, you like so many others pull out that old and tired red herring.

Families engaging in blood feuds, sounds like paradise to me!

 

[ComfySlippers]

What about the Liquor Licensing Act? They tried to use that on me once, and I pointed out it was only applicable to those who held a license or had applied for one. You know, had entered into a contract with the licensing board. They stopped trying to use it.

Is that when you were caught getting drunk in a park?

Chav Ideals

If I answer your questions, will you answer mine? You know the BIG elephant in the room?

Controlled Drugs Substance Act. I operate with complete disregard to it. I have walked right past police officers smoking a big fatty. This does not however mean I operate a meth lab, nor claim the right to do so nor claim it would be right to do so.

Income Tax Act. Having abandoned the SIN, I no longer have an account with CRA, and therefore have no obligations to them.

MVA. I have an automobile that I intend to put on the road and use as private conveyance. I have not yet done so, but that is a function of other things that first need be addressed.

Legal Profession Act. I engage in actions that really anger the Law Society and which they have successfully stopped others form doing and they tried to come after me. They failed.

Liquor Control and Licensing Act. Here apparently enjoying a brew in the park is illegal, though not unlawful for a Freeman-on-the-Land.

 

[jargon buster]

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=193&t=9758

Theres another one bootothehead, some rascal named Davey Jones put a spanner in the works of that one.