Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
mushy said:
They can use a packet sniffer to view traffic going though your network. If someone was to leech your wifi and used it to buy something online for example. It could be possible to get CC info.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like it would only work if you are owning the network. It is not something that can be done by anyone just connecting to it?
 
Horatius said:
Our brains are just broken, somehow.
Click to expand...

Agreed. :)

ComfySlippers said:
Woo-Type3: FMOTL-Woo.
A special Woo which, for some unfathomable reason, only attracts followers who fall into one of the following...
1/ Has broken the Law and been found out
2/ Has bought things they can not afford
3/ Wants the benefits of society but not to have to pay for them
4/ Wants to live on a Ranch and have a big cannon
Click to expand...

:D


jargon buster said:
They will always be looking for ways to get something for nothing and there will always be Menards ready to prey on the vulnerable.
Click to expand...

What I can't get my head around is that without the ability to withdraw consent I can't see where they think their movment is going. Or maybe they think withdrawl of consent is somehow still achieveable, just not how Menard was claiming.
 
deeper said:
Agreed. :)

What I can't get my head around is that without the ability to withdraw consent I can't see where they think their movment is going. Or maybe they think withdrawl of consent is somehow still achieveable, just not how Menard was claiming.
Click to expand...

Actually you CAN withdraw consent from the Government. You can leave the country and for Americans you can get rid of that association by

Your citizenship is lost automatically if you :

•Formally renounce your citizenship•Become a naturalized citizen in another country after you turn 18 years old
•Take some jobs with a foreign government after you turn 18
•Serve in the armed forces of a foreign country, under certain circumstances
•Commit treason against the US

You are now stateless - good luck
 
Hans said:
Actually you CAN withdraw consent from the Government. You can leave the country and for Americans you can get rid of that association by

Your citizenship is lost automatically if you :

•Formally renounce your citizenship•Become a naturalized citizen in another country after you turn 18 years old
•Take some jobs with a foreign government after you turn 18
•Serve in the armed forces of a foreign country, under certain circumstances
•Commit treason against the US

You are now stateless - good luck
Click to expand...

From what I've seen of the average freeman, all of those options look like too much hard work. Got anything which doesn't require any effort or sacrifice? :)
 
thats why Robs option was so popular (not any more though)

You just say "I don't consent", thats it, nothing more to it. (psst..it doesn't work)
Unfortunately for Rob he's now been exposed and has disappeared off the face of the earth.
 
True stateless persons, like I've worked with in some Arab countries, Bedu and others, although they are stateless are still held accountable to all laws of the country they are in - and receive none of the privileges.

Also here is the form to 'withdraw consent' someone who has membership with some of those odd sites might want to post it there.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/81606.pdf

"oath of renunication' has a nice freeman ring doesn't it?

A renunciation of United States nationality/citizenship is effective only upon approval by the U.S. Department
of State but, when approved, the loss of nationality/citizenship occurs as of the date the above Oath/Affirmation
was taken.
Click to expand...

I suspect that they only make sure that you are not wanted for any crimes before approving it.

Sorry folks just following a thread of information for my own interest in the matter

In making all these points clear to potentially stateless renunciants, the
Department of State will, nevertheless, afford them their right to
expatriate. We will accept and approve renunciations of persons who do
not already possess another nationality. It should be noted, however,
that if a foreign state deports such individuals, he or she may find
themselves deported to the United States, the country of their former
nationality.
Click to expand...

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/109065.pdf


....how about just to avoid taxes

Visa excludability for persons found by the Attorney General to have
renounced U.S. citizenship for the purposes of avoiding taxation: The
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRAIRA) (Public Law 104-208) added 212(a)(10)(E) to the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182 (a)(10)(E)). INA 212(a)(10)(E) made
inadmissible “any alien who is a former citizen of the United States who
officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by
the Attorney General to have renounced United States citizenship for the
purpose of avoiding taxation.” This amendment applies only to
individuals who renounced U.S. citizenship on or after the effective date
of the Act, September 30, 1996. (See 9 FAM 40.105 N1 Applicability of
INA 212(a)(10)(E).) The Attorney General’s authority transferred to the
Secretary of Homeland Security under the Homeland Security Act of
2002. The Department of Homeland Security has not published
implementing regulations on INA 212(a)(10)(E) (8 U.S.C. 1182), so no
procedures implementing this law are currently in effect.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
True stateless persons, like I've worked with in some Arab countries, Bedu and others, although they are stateless are still held accountable to all laws of the country they are in - and receive none of the privileges.
Click to expand...
Odd, so e.g. illegal immigrants in the US are not better off legally than the citizens? ;)

I suspect that they only make sure that you are not wanted for any crimes before approving it.
Click to expand...
Or wanted by the draft board.
 
..and when he does come back, lets hope he has a new approach, because quite frankly his withdrawal of consent theory is now useless.
 
Robs arrival on the WFS site at 14.09 coincided with my ban at !4.11
He does have a new approach now
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=193&t=9758

he had this all worked out once , now he doesn't have a clue

I especially like his approach on Ickes regarding car insurance

I will share my opinion.
I think it is prudent to have insurance, though not mandatory.
You ask about a collision but make no mention of liability.
I will assume for what ever reason the 'freeman' is liable.
Then he has to pay, and he pays as much as he can if he does not have enough to cover it, and then continues paying. That is why insurance is prudent.
However what about people who are facing insurance of $1000+ a month in order to use the public roads? They have one little bang up due to ice or something innocuous and are expected to pay higher premiums for a long time.

However, all that is merely philosophical about how things should be and not how they actually are.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059869362&postcount=8
Insurance is a gambling scheme, and it is not mandatory in order to use public roads.
When one reads the Acts, without regard for what they want them to say or hope they say beforehand, one sees that someone's fear of 'what might happen if' is simply not important when reading them, and there is no requirement for insurance in order to travel on the highways, though as I said it is in my view prudent.
Click to expand...
the law says you dont need it but its prudent?
In other words follow my principle and dont insure but if you get in trouble its not my fault, I told you it was prudent to get it.
Cover all bases Rob

By the way, I was noconsentforme on WFS :D
 
jargon buster said:
Robs arrival on the WFS site at 14.09 coincided with my ban at !4.11
He does have a new approach now
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=193&t=9758

he had this all worked out once , now he doesn't have a clue

I especially like his approach on Ickes regarding car insurance


the law says you dont need it but its prudent?
In other words follow my principle and dont insure but if you get in trouble its not my fault, I told you it was prudent to get it.
Cover all bases Rob

By the way, I was noconsentforme on WFS :D
Click to expand...

Menard:

I am looking for suggestions and discussion on how a group of people would share acreage and resolve issues and conflicts and share resources and abundance from shared endeavors.

Imagine say 100 acres. How many would be able to live on that while supporting themselves? If you look at at about 5 acres per family, and reserve 25 acres for gardens and common area, you could have 15 families.

Legally it is a minefield of potential problems.
How do we ensure that those who join are comfortable their investment is secured and they will not be removed without just cause once they helped develop the land? What would be just cause? How do we determine shared actions and restrict individual ones that affect us all?

Constructive thoughts and ideas please!

Well Rob you might get all the people together in an assembly then decide what rules (laws) you all want then provide a means of enforcing them (police?) and some form of oversight (government).
 
He wont get a single response
He never does, they can see through him on there.
He posts all his shows they get hundreds of views and no responses. :rolleyes:
 
Has anyone picked up on Rob's new venture (aside from the eternally moribund 'Freeman Valley')? He & his new chums at the British Constitution Group are going into 'banking'

http://www.lawfulbank.com/

The mind boggles :) Needless to say the 'idea' is ludicrous. As soon as they attempt to operate as a 'bank' they'll get torn to pieces by any number of regulators.
 
gtm said:
Has anyone picked up on Rob's new venture (aside from the eternally moribund 'Freeman Valley')? He & his new chums at the British Constitution Group are going into 'banking'

http://www.lawfulbank.com/

The mind boggles :) Needless to say the 'idea' is ludicrous. As soon as they attempt to operate as a 'bank' they'll get torn to pieces by any number of regulators.
Click to expand...

I just had a read of their charter. Certain aspects of it sound like a Ponzi Scheme - a 1 unit deposit creates a 10 unit credit?? Perhaps I read it incorrectly...
 
Im a member :D
I have already recieved my e-mail to encourage me to get people to sign up MLM style
paul rogers to paulrogers
show details May 1 (1 day ago)
Hi Everyone

not the usual email you will receive mail from regarding the Lawful Bank and i apologise as there is a technical hitch at my end

After a wonderful update from Roger, please log in and take another look at the Lawfulbank.com homepage as it has recently been updated with a new explanation and overview

I have to stress , the quicker we build numbers , the quicker we can make progress , help me if you will by trying to encourage 5 to 10 friends each to come and join in with us , as you introduce each friend encourage them to do the same

we cannot move this on without you guys helping us out , encourage your local businesses too remember that small corner shop is being squeezed out by the big corporate supermarkets , anything that helps them win back their custom can only be good for the local community


if anyone needs questions answered just email me at the address shown on the Lawful Bank Page , i can receive your mails but you are likely to receive a response from this mail address until at least the 6th , when my problem will be resolved ,

PLEASE DO NOT SEND EMAIL QUESTIONS TO THIS EMAIL THEY WILL NOT BE ANSWERED , I DO NOT USE THIS MAIL BOX FOR RECEIVING MAIL

Thanks Everyone and lets get these numbers built up

best wishes
Paul Rogers
WFS ADMIN
Click to expand...
and if their 5 get five and then all their 5 get 5 by the end of the week we will have the entire population of the world as members
 
Last edited:
Magical banking sounds like fun: you get £10 in play money for every real pound you put in, they pay interest on deposits but don't charge it on loans, they're going to offer £100 fixed price car insurance as long as you give them £500 first, and they plan to give away, sorry loan, thousands of pounds of real money which they expect to get back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom