Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[jargon buster]

I will contact him and find out

Are you sure what you say is true, i will befriend him and get him to tell all, I can be quite persuasive you know, I can fool the best of them hey Rob?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Totally inconceivable. Your whole con is based on what those documents would prove, yet you have "lost" them. The irrefutable proof that FOTL-Waffle works is supposedly in these documents. If that were the case you'd be waving them from the rooftops and, most likely, selling them.

How is Lance?

Lost them? When did I say I lost them?

Oh right. NEVER. It is just more assumptions on the part of those who need to attack the arguer and not the position.


Any evidence it is a con?

No?

Thought not.


So you agree with JB, that mutual non-consent is required to avoid contract, and without mutual non-consent he can impose his will on you, cause he has to consent to your denial of consent. Right? Or did you wish to avoid that questions again in favor of insulting me?



As for Lance, why not ask the people responsible for putting him in jail?

You guys are funny! I love how much you make me laugh with your thought processes, and attempts to insult. Too bad you rely so heavily on assumptions eh?

 

[FreemanMenard]

I will contact him and find out

Are you sure what you say is true, i will befriend him and get him to tell all, I can be quite persuasive you know, I can fool the best of them hey Rob?

You never fooled me, but I know you need to think otherwise.

What a fulfilling life you must have!
What a winner you must be, to be willing to spend your free time doing all that!
And to do it for so many years, cause you felt slighted I did not answer your question.

Nope that is not insane at all, is it!

Your mom must be so very proud!
PS- How's her basement working for you?

 

[jargon buster]

rob wrote

You guys are funny! I love how much you make me laugh with your thought processes, and attempts to insult.

next post

Your mom must be so very proud!
PS- How's her basement working for you?

Classy Rob, real classy

You could address the numerous points raised, oh yes thats right, you dont do that do you..ever.
hehehe

You never fooled me, but I know you need to think otherwise.

Friend request?
Nah didnt fool you at all.
hehehe

 

[FreemanMenard]

You never fooled me, but I know you need to think otherwise.

What a fulfilling life you must have!
What a winner you must be, to be willing to spend your free time doing all that!
And to do it for so many years, cause you felt slighted I did not answer your question.

Nope that is not insane at all, is it!

Your mom must be so very proud!
PS- How's her basement working for you?

I have addressed many. I am waiting for you to address mine. It is your turn.

Do you still feel mutual non-consent is required to avoid contract and that without it, you can claim there is a contract? Simple question. Why not answer it?



As for class, dude, you have been stalking me for two years! You asked to be my friend on FB for that reason alone! You are one to talk about class eh?

 

[FreemanMenard]

rob wrote


next post


Classy Rob, real classy

You could address the numerous points raised, oh yes thats right, you dont do that do you..ever.
hehehe


Friend request?
Nah didnt fool you at all.
hehehe

I accepted all friend requests, just like I do on FB.

Way to fool me, winner!
YOu must be so proud, sending a friend request to a stranger and them accepting it based on trust, which you have now admitted, was not extended in good faith.

Yeap, you are one classy winner JB.

 

[Toke]

Lost them? When did I say I lost them?

Oh right. NEVER. It is just more assumptions on the part of those who need to attack the arguer and not the position.

So you have not lost the documents that could prove your case, you just happen to not feel like sharing them?

Any evidence it is a con?
No?
Thought not.

All the freemen in jail looks like proof of con to me.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Any evidence it is a con?

There are thousands of court cases proving this.
There are none proving otherwise.

As for Lance, why not ask the people responsible for putting him in jail?

We have asked you.

You sold him pretend legal advice. He acted on it. He got sent to prison and put in a loony bin.

 

[FreemanMenard]

So you have not lost the documents that could prove your case, you just happen to not feel like sharing them?


All the freemen in jail looks like proof of con to me.

hahahaha More assumptions!
Well, if I had them with me, I might share them. But I do not, so I can't. I have been traveling for months, and did not bring all my papers or documents or stuff with me.

I guess that means they do not exist, right?

You guys kill me!

 

[FreemanMenard]

There are thousands of court cases proving this.
There are none proving otherwise.



We have asked you.

You sold him pretend legal advice. He acted on it. He got sent to prison and put in a loony bin.

So then you can show me ONE court case, just one, where I was convicted of acting fraudulently, and being a conman right?

Come on just one out of thousands is all we need to see. Just one.

 

[Toke]

hahahaha More assumptions!
Well, if I had them with me, I might share them. But I do not, so I can't. I have been traveling for months, and did not bring all my papers or documents or stuff with me.

I guess that means they do not exist, right?

You guys kill me!

How convenient.

So then you can show me ONE court case, just one, where I was convicted of acting fraudulently, and being a conman right?
Come on just one out of thousands is all we need to see. Just one.

How about you being banned from representing anyone in court?

 

[Cocana The Second]

Ah brilliant, you're really losing it now. I don't know how many times I need to repeat that there is no link between consenting to government and whether an individual is bound by a statute or not. Tell you what, here's a link to my post again - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7526204&postcount=1791



You'll need to explain that one further because you're not making any sense to to me. Your remark certainly doesn't reflect my opinion though, which for present purposes can be summarised as:

1. there is no link between consenting to government and whether an individual is bound by a statute or not;
2. you claim to not be bound by statutes because you don't consent to them, yet you are unwilling and unable to prove it;
3. your claim that individuals are no longer bound by statutes if they claim that they don't consent to them is untrue;
4. you make money from this claim;
5. by reason of 3 and 4 above anyone would rightly conclude that you are a conman ("if the cap fits....")

This thread stretches to 45 pages, there are hundreds of others on this forum, thousands elsewhere, and you still cannot get beyond first base.

Like Stacey, I don't believe that you practice what you preach. You do display the hallmarks of a person with questionable business practices who also has a strong narcissistic streak though.

Are you going to provide the proof to support your claim about not being bound by statutes because you don't consent to them? "Yes or no" as you say.

Rob, you didn't answer....

 

[ComfySlippers]

Well, if I had them with me, I might share them

I somehow doubt that.

Evidence and proof is always not forthcoming when we are talking about FOTL-Waffle "Victories" are they?

"How is Lance?" we ask.... your reply is "ask the people who put him in prison"...
You neglect to include the bit about him being where he is because he acted on the pretend "legal advice" you charged him $800 for listening to.

Of course, as per usual, this will be Lance's fault. As you step into the distance and claim idiotic things like "I only gave him advice, he didn't have to follow it", "I am not responsible for his actions"...etc.

As we are not allowed to call you out for what you are I say this:

Rob Menard preys on the gullible, deluded paranoid people of the world.
/Disclaimer: The above statement is for entertainment purposes only.

 

[ComfySlippers]

So then you can show me ONE court case, just one, where I was convicted of acting fraudulently, and being a conman right?

Come on just one out of thousands is all we need to see. Just one.

FOTL-Waffle has been laughed out of every court in every country for the past four decades. There are thousands of examples of this. Verifiable, by means other than hearsay and The University of YouTube.

I fail to see why asking me to prove, via court records, that you are a conman is relevant, because you've never been in court for being a conman. You've been legally disallowed to offer quack legal advice in court, you are not allowed to represent or advise people in court but as far as I know you have never been asked by a Judge "Do you plead guilty to being a conman". So that's a silly argument.

Just because someone doesn't appear in court under the charge of "being a conman" doesn't mean they are not one.

Same as your silly driving rubbish. Just because you haven't been caught breaking the Law doesn't mean you haven't broken the law.

But why are you asking for proof from a system you believe you are not accountable to and......
Is based on "Maritime Law"
Hides super secret "Birth Bonds" (but leaves clues on some birth certificates)
Can't do anything unless Rob "Consents" to it.

You are a laughing stock.

 

[JLord]

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?

Well if you're not caught there would be no transcripts, but that would be like saying bank robbery is legal because I robbed a bank and was never caught and therefore never punished. But if a freeman was charged with an offence, didn't appear, and the case was dismissed because the judge found that they could not proceed because the accused was a freeman and has not consented, then transcripts would be readily available. It isn't only trials that the court keeps transcripts for. Even on a first appearance you could get the transcripts of what was said when that person's name was called and nobody was there. This would be a very small cost, less than one page probably and would indicate what the judge decided to do.

If you know of any instance where someone used freeman reasoning to succesfully avoid a charge it would be trivially easy to obtain certified proof from the court and post it here to prove all these skeptics wrong. I am not aware of such a case but all you would need would be the name of the person, and the date and place that they were supposed to appear. It would be a minimal cost and in my opinion would be money well spent for the freeman movement.

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

I do not claim that I can personally govern you, but I can explain how I could in theory.

First, assuming you are living in Canada I would get elected to power as a member of parliament in Canada. Then I would introduce a proposed law that applied to everyone living in Canada regardless of their consent. Then I would get enough support from other MPs such that the proposed bill would become law by royal assent. The law would have to at least be reasonable enough to most people such that the people did not revolt and ovrethrow the government. It would also have to be reasonable enough that hired agents of the state were willing to forcibly enforce your compliance with the law. Then if you didn't follow it you would be arrested by force and punished by force, against your will, according to the law I had made. Thus I would have governed you, by force, without your consent.

If you are going to say that the above is "breaking the law" or "abandoning equality" according to your interpretation of these terms, then so be it. You have just been governed against your will in an unjust manner. Whether you consider that law to be unjust or unequal is a political issue that won't change the fact of what just happened to you.

 

[D'rok]

So then you can show me ONE court case, just one, where I was convicted of acting fraudulently, and being a conman right?

Come on just one out of thousands is all we need to see. Just one.

No problem. See attached.

So then you can show me ONE court case, just one, where an FOTL defence succeeded right?

Come on just one out of thousands is all we need to see. Just one.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Menard's standard response to that bit of evidence expected in 3...2..1...

"But I am not 'The Defendant' "

Word-Salad covered in Con-Sauce with a sprinkling of scam-nuts.

 

[Architect]

I do not claim that I can personally govern you, but I can explain how I could in theory.

First, assuming you are living in Canada I would get elected to power as a member of parliament in Canada. Then I would introduce a proposed law that applied to everyone living in Canada regardless of their consent. Then I would get enough support from other MPs such that the proposed bill would become law by royal assent. The law would have to at least be reasonable enough to most people such that the people did not revolt and ovrethrow the government. It would also have to be reasonable enough that hired agents of the state were willing to forcibly enforce your compliance with the law. Then if you didn't follow it you would be arrested by force and punished by force, against your will, according to the law I had made. Thus I would have governed you, by force, without your consent.

If you are going to say that the above is "breaking the law" or "abandoning equality" according to your interpretation of these terms, then so be it. You have just been governed against your will in an unjust manner. Whether you consider that law to be unjust or unequal is a political issue that won't change the fact of what just happened to you.

I was thinking much along these lines, saving for the fact that it would have been generations previously that came to this decision and hence the reason laws are binding whether you like it or not.

However I suspect our resident FoTL expert will claim that Parliament's ability to pass such laws is ultra viries or somesuch.

 

[Architect]

No problem. See attached.

So then you can show me ONE court case, just one, where an FOTL defence succeeded right?

Come on just one out of thousands is all we need to see. Just one.

Aha, but he's going to claim that an interdict (or injunction, or whatever you call them in Canada) isn't the same as a criminal conviction for fraud. Remember, we're dealing with someone who believes in magic words.....

 

[Toke]

Thanks D'rok,
I knew it were somewhere.

As for the fmotl successes, I think he will have a problem procuring one.