Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
ComfySlippers said:
The fact that you think I have captors further demonstrates your delusional paranoia.
Click to expand...

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...;)
 
FreemanMenard said:
Statutes are closer to contracts then you imagine. They have been described as 'the terms of a societal contract' by those you would call experts in the law.
And just like contracts, they even require consent to be enacted. Read the enabling clause in the statutes here in Canada. Why do you find the word 'consent' right in it, if consent is not required for them to be deemed as having the force of law? Hmmm?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You might want to re-read my earlier post. "Societal contract" doesn't mean it's a contract in the normal sense of the word.

Those sorts of references reflect the function of government, which in case you haven't noticed is appointed by the people and given certain powers in the process, subject to certain checks and balances. And funnily enough government and ministers are subject to the rule of law too. And governments are put there by the people; it's a function of the democratic process. Yes, governments require consent. This has no relevance to your primary contention.

Now, before you try another diversion, let's ask you again - where's your proof that you are not bound by statutes? Got a letter from the Canadian government to that effect? Got an order of a Canadian court to that effect? Or is it just a case of "I'm growing weed and haven't sorted out my vehicle registration but I haven't been prosecuted yet, ergo I'm not bound by statutes"?
 
cocana said:
You might want to re-read my earlier post. "Societal contract" doesn't mean it's a contract in the normal sense of the word.

Those sorts of references reflect the function of government, which in case you haven't noticed is appointed by the people and given certain powers in the process, subject to certain checks and balances. And funnily enough government and ministers are subject to the rule of law too. And governments are put there by the people; it's a function of the democratic process. Yes, governments require consent. This has no relevance to your primary contention.

Now, before you try another diversion, let's ask you again - where's your proof that you are not bound by statutes? Got a letter from the Canadian government to that effect? Got an order of a Canadian court to that effect? Or is it just a case of "I'm growing weed and haven't sorted out my vehicle registration but I haven't been prosecuted yet, ergo I'm not bound by statutes"?
Click to expand...


Prove a not? It is not upon me to prove a negative. It is up to the cops and prosecutor to prove I am. Funny how they do not even try.

The onus is on those who claim I am bound, not upon me to prove I am not. Why can't you do that?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Prove a not? It is not upon me to prove a negative. It is up to the cops and prosecutor to prove I am. Funny how they do not even try.

The onus is on those who claim I am bound, not upon me to prove I am not. Why can't you do that?
Click to expand...

Because you're the person who is making money out of falsely claiming that you have a magic wand ("I don't consent") which makes you free of all statutes. We have all explained many times why your argument is fallacious, downright silly in fact, and the onus is on you to prove your claims, that is of course if you are not a conman, which I believe is also an issue relating to another (false) claim of yours, one which had apparently resulted in your "legal team" taking action against a certain forum member.
 
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why not murder? Who decides what constitutes a crime? Who decides if it is victimless or not? You? The individual?

Driving without a licence may mean that you have never been properly trained to drive a motor vehicle. That makes you a potential threat to other road users. Why should we have to wait for you to kill someone before forcing you to learn to drive properly?

If you have been trained but choose to not apply for a licence you will (at least in the uk) find it impossible to tax and insure your car. Why should someone else risk having you damage their property or injure them and be unable to compensate them because you're too selfish to apply for a licence and insure your vehicle?

Are you really so ignorant that you cannot see why laws exist? Do you honestly believe that you can just do whatever you please regardless of the risk to others simply because you have not the intelligence to appreciate those risks?

All I can see is a selfish person who wants to live 'off the grid' but at the same time will use and benefit from the services society provides.

You want to be able to break the law (or at least talk about breaking the law) but keep you head down and hope you don't get caught. Just like a criminal.

And when one of your crimes does result in a victim, what then? You gonna refuse to contract with the court?

Oh and one last thing: You claim that someone cannot force you to contract with them. And yet you're not allowed to represent anyone in a court in Canada. And, unless you can prove otherwise, you haven't represented anyone or even tried to.

I find it difficult to believe that you decided to willingly contract with them on this. :D
 
cocana said:
Because you're the person who is making money out of falsely claiming that you have a magic wand ("I don't consent") which makes you free of all statutes. We have all explained many times why your argument is fallacious, downright silly in fact, and the onus is on you to prove your claims, that is of course if you are not a conman, which I believe is also an issue relating to another (false) claim of yours, one which had apparently resulted in your "legal team" taking action against a certain forum member.
Click to expand...

Thats just more mental masturbation and word salad and avoidance of discussion!

Have you established in a court of law that you can personally govern me without my consent, or not?

I thought not.

Have you ever explained how you can govern another without consent and not abandon the rule of law?

I thought not.

Well, this was fun, I see all you have is mockery and refusal to discuss, or explain how you can govern another without consent, and if you can't do it directly, you can't hire or elect someone to do it either. At least not lawfully.

The onus is on the one trying to claim the power to govern, not on those who subsequently claim consent is needed to do so.

Hey you should call the people in the government here and explain to them your argument, (you know how you explained it to me) cause they all seem to agree with me. They need consent to govern.

Incidentally, calling someone's argument silly repeatedly is not explaining why the argument is fallacious. And all you folks have ever done here is insult and besmirch and labe; me a conman, without ever addressing the points I raised.

YOU CAN"T PERSONALLY GOVERN ME WITHOUT MY CONSENT AND YOU CAN"T HIRE SOMEONE TO DO IT FOR YOU. care to argue that point, or just do more name calling.
 
uk_dave said:
Why not murder? Who decides what constitutes a crime? Who decides if it is victimless or not? You? The individual?

Driving without a licence may mean that you have never been properly trained to drive a motor vehicle. That makes you a potential threat to other road users. Why should we have to wait for you to kill someone before forcing you to learn to drive properly?

If you have been trained but choose to not apply for a licence you will (at least in the uk) find it impossible to tax and insure your car. Why should someone else risk having you damage their property or injure them and be unable to compensate them because you're too selfish to apply for a licence and insure your vehicle?

Are you really so ignorant that you cannot see why laws exist? Do you honestly believe that you can just do whatever you please regardless of the risk to others simply because you have not the intelligence to appreciate those risks?

All I can see is a selfish person who wants to live 'off the grid' but at the same time will use and benefit from the services society provides.

You want to be able to break the law (or at least talk about breaking the law) but keep you head down and hope you don't get caught. Just like a criminal.

And when one of your crimes does result in a victim, what then? You gonna refuse to contract with the court?

Oh and one last thing: You claim that someone cannot force you to contract with them. And yet you're not allowed to represent anyone in a court in Canada. And, unless you can prove otherwise, you haven't represented anyone or even tried to.

I find it difficult to believe that you decided to willingly contract with them on this. :D
Click to expand...

Really? What an assumption on your part! And I bet it is one you can't prove either, (for I know no member of the law society can do it) though I have no doubt you firmly believe it. So, says who? Who is disallowing me? No one that I know of. Are you saying that you are not allowing me, and you have the power to do so? And if not, who do you claim has the power to disallow me? Remember now, we are all equal, and if someone claims to have that power we are not equal according to theml, and they have abandoned the rule of law.

Got any proof of what you say? Cause if so, the law society would absolutely love to speak with you....:D
 
FreemanMenard said:
YOU CAN"T PERSONALLY GOVERN ME WITHOUT MY CONSENT AND YOU CAN"T HIRE SOMEONE TO DO IT FOR YOU. care to argue that point, or just do more name calling.
Click to expand...

No, I don't care to argue that point because it's not that one that you're selling. I say again - governments require the consent of the people, yes of course.

The point which you sell is that statutes no longer apply to you if you don't consent to them, which is a lie. You are making money from a lie. There is a word for that.

FreemanMenard said:
me a conman
Click to expand...

Ah yes.
 
cocana said:
No, I don't care to argue that point because it's not that one that you're selling. I say again - governments require the consent of the people, yes of course.

The point which you sell is that statutes no longer apply to you if you don't consent to them, which is a lie. You are making money from a lie. There is a word for that.



Ah yes.
Click to expand...

Funny how you have to take my words well out of context to try and prove a point, and yet you still fail.

So which is it? Do the people in government need the consent of those they govern, or do statutes apply without consent? It can be only one.:D
 
FreemanMenard said:
Prove a not? It is not upon me to prove a negative. It is up to the cops and prosecutor to prove I am. Funny how they do not even try.
Click to expand...
Well, I believe the reason you do not get prosecuted is because you do not actually do any of the stuff you preach yourself.
I do not believe you drive, or travel, or whatever you wish to call it, in a vehicle, automobile etc. which is unlicensed and uninsured. I simply don't believe you. Now, you could prove your theory very simply and make all of us appear as idiots. Video yourself in such circumstances, inform the police of what you are doing and show us how a fotl really is immune to statute law when you spank the courts. You offered to do this on Icke's, but demanded a fee. When it became apparent that some on Icke's were willing to put some money up to see it through you made your excuses and declined.
As I said I don't believe you do this stuff. But, what we do know is that everybody who has followed what you preach and has tried it for themself if caught, has been prosecuted, and has lost every time.
There are countless videos of so called fotl contravening statute law on the internet, but I have yet to see one video of you doing any fotl stuff. All I have ever seen from you is preaching.
 
And all you folks have ever done here is insult and besmirch and label me a conman, without ever addressing the points I raised.
Click to expand...

Just for late comers, here is the entire sentence he took those words from. See how he deceives by taking it out of context, not telling you about the key parts, and then tries claiming I am the conman?

Who is conning who here, when he takes such words out of context?
 
menard wrote
No one here has ever explained how one party can govern another without consent and without abandoning the rule of law and the fact that equality is paramount and mandatory. Care to try, or did you wish to discuss your shopping list again?
Click to expand...
Great, I was waiting for that one.
I agree with you Rob, you are 100% correct, now answer me this, how can you maintain order within a freeman community when I say I dont consent to your rules?

Good luck ;)
 
FreemanMenard said:
Funny how you have to take my words well out of context to try and prove a point, and yet you still fail.

So which is it? Do the people in government need the consent of those they govern, or do statutes apply without consent? It can be only one.:D
Click to expand...

Deary me Rob, you quoted my last post and yet you don't seem to have understood it. I'll link you back to it so you can have another go - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7526204&postcount=1791

To recap, there is no link between not consenting to a particular government and whether a statute applies to you or not. Statutes apply regardless of consent. You claim that they don't and you make money out of it, causing untold harm in the process to people who fall for your claptrap.

Once again, where is your proof of immunity from statutes? That would shut us all up in an instant, yet you can't provide it can you?

Incidentally, I agree 100% with Stacey's comments above.

EDIT - and JB's as well...!
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
menard wrote

Great, I was waiting for that one.
I agree with you Rob, you are 100% correct, now answer me this, how can you maintain order within a freeman community when I say I dont consent to your rules?

Good luck ;)
Click to expand...

Almost said 'GIOTCHA!' didn't you? :rolleyes:

You do not consent to the law?
You claim you can not consent to the law, by calling them "your rules"?

Order is maintained by way of consensus. We use discussion and negotiation, not deception, threats and force.

In short we use the law. But we use it properly.

I would explain it to you, but you can't seem to distinguish between actual law, and 'my rules', so it would be a waste of time.

Care to answer the two questions I posed to you, you know the ones which if answered will completely destroy your 'FMOTL is self-debunking' position which you were so proud of, and which you previously refused to answer labeling them as word play and rhetoric? Or not?

Are you still equating 'mutual consent' with 'mutual non-consent'? :D

I know that the idea of settling disputes lawfully with discussion is alien to you, as you are of the mind that people need to be told what to do, as that is how you live your life, and you can't imagine anything else can you? Sad for you.

So I answered your question.
Now answer mine.
Do you still think that mutual consent implies mutual non-consent, as you previously stated, or not?
 
Last edited:
cocana said:
Deary me Rob, you quoted my last post and yet you don't seem to have understood it. I'll link you back to it so you can have another go - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7526204&postcount=1791

To recap, there is no link between not consenting to a particular government and whether a statute applies to you or not. Statutes apply regardless of consent. You claim that they don't and you make money out of it, causing untold harm in the process to people who fall for your claptrap.

Once again, where is your proof of immunity from statutes? That would shut us all up in an instant, yet you can't provide it can you?

Incidentally, I agree 100% with Stacey's comments above.

EDIT - and JB's as well...!
Click to expand...

So you too equate 'mutual consent' with 'mutual non consent', and claim that you can impose your will through contract upon another without consent by refusing to accept their non-consent.

WOW.... I just have to share that with my friends! It is beyond stupid!

Where is your proof that I can be governed without consent? It is you making the claim that I can be governed without it. The onus is on you to prove your claim, as it is not I trying to govern you without consent, nor is it me claiming that others can govern you without consent. You are doing that.

So where is your proof?

Can you explain, without abandoning the rule of law and equality, how you personally can govern me without consent, either directly or through a representative? If not, why do I have to prove anything, when your claim is the initial one, and the onus is on your to prove it?

HMMM?:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom