Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[FreemanMenard]

Yes thanks.

Once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

Once again, you claim that I claim that, and then ask I prove YOUR CLAIM.

Silly silly straw man argument.

 

[tsig]

And how did that work out for you?
Seems in that case I knew the law better than you, eh?

So you governed jb without his consent? How can that be since you're both equal?

 

[ComfySlippers]

I would like to be there when you actualy try to play at being a Cop.

Would be highly amusing watching "The Wolverine" pretend to be a Cop.

Not going to happen though. Not in the real world anyway.

 

[D'rok]

Once again, you claim that I claim that, and then ask I prove YOUR CLAIM.

Silly silly straw man argument.

Already done. You claimed to be above the Copyright Act on this very page. Right here:

I am not surprised you would see it ass backwards.

You had consented to it, when you entered the agreement. And it was used by me, even though not applicable to me, against you, because you had consented to it, and then breached agreement you had entered into.

Simple law.

So, once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.


Also, let's see your statutory interpretation chops here:

See my next post for a better example. What does "includes" mean to you there? What does "means" mean to you there?

ETA:

“micro-organism” means a microscopic organism that is
(a) classified in the Bacteria, the Archaea, the Protista, which includes protozoa and algae, or the Fungi, which includes yeasts;
(b) a virus, virus-like particle or sub-viral particle;
(c) a cultured cell of an organism not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), other than a cell used to propagate the organism; or
(d) any culture other than a pure culture. (micro-organisme)

 

[Cocana The Second]

Once again, you claim that I claim that, and then ask I prove YOUR CLAIM.

Silly silly straw man argument.

DING DONG!

Note everybody - ROB DOESN'T CLAIM TO BE FREE OF ALL STATUTORY LAW AFTER ALL.

This now begs a further question: if he doesn't claim this, why is he making money selling 'advice' that suggests this is possible if one becomes a freeman like him?

Has Rob not just admitted that he's been deceiving people?

 

[jargon buster]

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

Great, so now you admit to being a person, now who employs you and your 3CPOs?

 

[FreemanMenard]

So you governed jb without his consent? How can that be since you're both equal?

Sheesh round and round and round. Unbelievable how incapable you are at understanding and how incredibly desperate you folks are.
HE CONSENTED by agreeing with Google when he opened the account.

 

[Paul]

Once again, you claim that I claim that

It's not so much a claim as a statement of fact followed by a request for evidence.

That's something I think that someone who answers question and is known to be honest should have no problem with.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Great, so now you admit to being a person, now who employs you and your 3CPOs?

No I didn't. I do admit that when I am acting in the role of peace officer, I am operating through a person, that exists only then.

These concepts are too difficult for you aren't they?

 

[jargon buster]

HE CONSENTED by agreeing with Google when he opened the account.

And so did you when you set up WFS website and when you set up your youtube channel

 

[FreemanMenard]

It's not so much a claim as a statement of fact followed by a request for evidence.

That's something I think that someone who answers question and is known to be honest should have no problem with.

Evidence supporting your statement, which is not a fact?
That's a straw man argument.

Prove your own statement. Do not assign it to me and then demand I prove it for you.

 

[FreemanMenard]

And so did you when you set up WFS website and when you set up your youtube channel

Sure did, and I honour those agreements.

What's your point? That you are far less honourable?

WE know THAT already!

 

[jargon buster]

Sure did, and I honour those agreements.

So now you do consent to statute law?

 

[D'rok]

OK, I accept Mr. Menard's protestations.

Despite claiming for years all over the Internet and all over the country that statutory law doesn't apply to him, he does not actually have the ability to pick and choose which laws he consents to and he is not in fact above the laws of Canada.

I''m glad that's been settled.

 

[FreemanMenard]

DING DONG!

Note everybody - ROB DOESN'T CLAIM TO BE FREE OF ALL STATUTORY LAW AFTER ALL.

This now begs a further question: if he doesn't claim this, why is he making money selling 'advice' that suggests this is possible if one becomes a freeman like him?

Has Rob not just admitted that he's been deceiving people?

Dude there is no way you can be a lawyer with such idiocy and inability to understand basic English.

Wait maybe you are. You sure like to twist the words of others away from their meaning to fit your agenda.


PS- Statutes are not law. They are statutes.

Oh wait.... 'consent of the governed' means 'consent of the people' to you and by the law of transference, governed = people and people = governed.

 

[FreemanMenard]

OK, I accept Mr. Menard's protestations.

Despite claiming for years all over the Internet and all over the country that statutory law doesn't apply to him, he does not actually have the ability to pick and choose which laws he consents to and he is not in fact above the laws of Canada.

I''m glad that's been settled.

Thank you for agreeing that I am not automatically subject to your statutes, and that I, just like the people in the government, am bound by the law, statutes are not law, and and since we are equal, no one can LAWFULLY govern me without my consent, because statutes are not 'law'.


I'm glad that's settled.

 

[ComfySlippers]

No I didn't. I do admit that when I am acting in the role of peace officer, I am operating through a person, that exists only then.

These concepts are too difficult for you aren't they?

It's not so much that they are difficult, more that they are insanely stupid and hopelessly wrong.
Do you never wonder why your followers all belong to the stupid-club?

First rule of stupid-club: Fall for Menard's Scam
Second rule of stupid-club: Go to Jail. Do not cash in your Birth-Bond. Do not Consent.
Third rule of stupid-club: Get thrown in a loony bin.

 

[jargon buster]

a wise man once wrote

There is no sense arguing about law with Rob Menard. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand what law is. He doesn't (or pretends not to) understand that if there is no government, there is no law. Without that premise, discussing the law becomes a word-twisting, question-asking, money-charging nonsense.

Hes right, there really is no point

 

[Paul]

Evidence supporting your statement, which is not a fact?

Sorry, that does not appear to be in the official language of the forum and is thus void, and nonsense.

Prove your own statement. Do not assign it to me and then demand I prove it for you.

If you're having trouble, I can explain it again.

It is a fact that you constantly claim, through statements made here, that you are above the laws of Canada.

It seems quite reasonable to ask a person claiming such a thing to offer some evidence in support, especially a person who claims he answers questions and is known among his friends for his honesty.

 

[jargon buster]

are you going to stundie him Drok or am I?