Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Border Reiver said:
The Senate and House have the authority granted them by the British North America Act (1867), and the Constitution Act (1982) to pass laws for the governance of Canada - Civics 101.

The laws they pass have jurisdiction throughout Canada - and yes, they even govern you. Look how the federal regulations caused you to have to forgo travelling by air a few years ago. Your consent wasn't required then, and still isn't today.

Could jimmy punch me in the face if you gave your consent for him to punch you? Yes he could. The question is does he have the ability to do so without retaliation?

We've already answered you about this consent to be governed nonsense of yours, and provided a concrete example from your own life experience.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, just so I understand your mindset. A document which is 144 years old, and is an inanimate object, which no one alive agreed to, gives some people power over others, and neither the governed nor the governing can change it, and their consent is not required, BECAUSE A DOCUMENT GIVES ONE PARTY POWER OVER ANOTHER, AND CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED BY EITHER PARTY TO BE BOUND BY THOSE WORDS NEITHER OF THEM WROTE OR AGREED TO. Is THAT your position? :rolleyes:
Looks mighty stupid when examined in such a light does it not?
 
Mojo said:
You give your consent for him to do something and he then does something that you haven't consented for him to do? I would say that your consent doesn't empower him to do that.

That's one of the worst attempts at a strawman argument I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Well then I would agree and say that the consent the Senate and House of Commons gives to The Queen is not consent for me. Exactly like your argument above. The Senate and HOC consented to the Queen enacting something. Now if they do not rep[resent me, does their consent empower the Queen over me? If in doubt, just read your own position above, and try to explain why it would work in one situation, when the Senate and HOC is the one doing the consenting, and not in the other?

Can't have it both ways. Either one party or group can affect others with their consent alone, or they cannot, as a function of law.

Me consenting to someone doing something to me does not empower them to do it to someone else who has not consented directly or consented to me entering agreements on their behalf.

The Senate and HOC consenting to someone doing something to them, does not empower that someone to do that something to someone else who has not consented, nor consented to being represented by them.

EXACT SAME THING. Unless, the people in the government are above the law.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Let me get this straight, just so I understand your mindset. A document which is 144 years old, and is an inanimate object, which no one alive agreed to, gives some people power over others, and neither the governed nor the governing can change it, and their consent is not required, BECAUSE A DOCUMENT GIVES ONE PARTY POWER OVER ANOTHER, AND CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED BY EITHER PARTY TO BE BOUND BY THOSE WORDS NEITHER OF THEM WROTE OR AGREED TO. Is THAT your position? :rolleyes:
Looks mighty stupid when examined in such a light does it not?
Click to expand...

So the Magna Carta's out then.
 
Stacey Grove said:
So the Magna Carta's out then.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Do you consent to it? And if so, are you dealing with someone who does as well? If so then it does. If not, then it does not. As for me, I have my Claim of Right which was never disputed, nor denied. It is my Magna Carta.

You folks just can't accept the responsibility that comes with having power of consent, so you claim it does not exist.
 
Stacey Grove said:
So the Magna Carta's out then.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, you seem to have ignored this: BECAUSE A DOCUMENT GIVES ONE PARTY POWER OVER ANOTHER, AND CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED BY EITHER PARTY TO BE BOUND BY THOSE WORDS NEITHER OF THEM WROTE OR AGREED TO.

Do YOU stacey feel that a document you never wrote or agreed to which may be hundreds of years old can bind you to obey someone else even if neither of you consent to it?

A simple yes or no please...
 
Stacey Grove said:
From that case:



Now, that is funny.
Click to expand...
Hey Stacey are you just going to laugh at others to avoid the question posed to you?
Do YOU stacey feel that a document you never wrote or agreed to which may be hundreds of years old can bind you to obey someone else even if neither of you consent to it?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Do YOU stacey feel that a document you never wrote or agreed to which may be hundreds of years old can bind you to obey someone else even if neither of you consent to it?

A simple yes or no please...
Click to expand...

Whether I consent or not makes absolutely no difference. TPTB are willing to use as much force as is necessary. If you actually did any of this stuff that you preach you would find that out for yourself. But rather than do that you encourage the proles to enact your fantasies for you.
 
drewid said:
What if the judge refuses to consent to your invoice?
Click to expand...

Go to a restaurant, of your own freewill, order a meal, eat it, and when the bill is presented, refuse to consent to it. See what happens.

Now imagine a restaurant that leaves their place of business, drags you off the street, forces you to eat, and then issues you a bill.

Can you refuse to pay that or would refusing to do so see you punished in the same way and manner as the first example?
 
Stacey Grove said:
Whether I consent or not makes absolutely no difference. TPTB are willing to use as much force as is necessary. If you actually did any of this stuff that you preach you would find that out for yourself. But rather than do that you encourage the proles to enact your fantasies for you.
Click to expand...

So, in your word there are 'proles' (likely anyone who does not share your belief in being irresponsible by discounting the importance of consent.)

How do you know it makes no difference, if you have never tried? You give consent, thinking it does not matter if you do or not, and they act upon you having given them consent. But you do not know what happens if you do not, for you have never taken that path, yet even though you have never walked it yourself, you claim it is of no value.

And you clearly have NO IDEA about what I have been doing. But just like you, you claim to be an expert on stuff you have no idea about.

And lets not forget the completely beaten mindset you must have to think the way you do. "Nothing we do matters, tptb will do what they want. Why resist?" Admit it, you are too much of a coward to try the path yourself, so you denigrate and vilify those who do, while claiming the path is useless and of no value.

Have you ever denied consent to determine if it works or not? And if not, how can you possibly present yourself as an expert?
 
Interlude:

I'm sitting here sipping on a double espresso sweetened with a shot of pure maple syrup. Heavenly.

I'm so Canadian I crap hockey pucks.
 
Go to a restaurant, of your own freewill, order a meal, eat it, and when the bill is presented, refuse to consent to it. See what happens.
Click to expand...

Go to Canada, of your own freewill, use all its amenities and when you are asked to contribute to those amenities, refuse to consent to it. See what happens.

;)
 
rob wrote:

But you do not know what happens if you do not, for you have never taken that path, yet even though you have never walked it yourself, you claim it is of no value.

And you clearly have NO IDEA about what I have been doing. But just like you, you claim to be an expert on stuff you have no idea about.
Click to expand...

Just read those two paragraphs and see how Menard works.
The first paragraph he claims to know my actions in the past, how I have no idea, and yet in the second paragraph he states that I am unable to have any idea about what he does.
Cranky.
 
Stacey Grove said:
rob wrote:



Just read those two paragraphs and see how Menard works.
The first paragraph he claims to know my actions in the past, how I have no idea, and yet in the second paragraph he states that I am unable to have any idea about what he does.
Cranky.
Click to expand...

Just read this to see how Stacey works.

Is the question answered or avoided? Avoided right? Now he will not answer, but claim the right to laugh at others, and denigrate them.

But why does he simply not answer?

Do YOU stacey feel that a document you never wrote or agreed to which may be hundreds of years old can bind you to obey someone else even if neither of you consent to it?

yes or no please stacey, do not try to avoid it by saying your answer does not matter to TPTB. Or by adding to it that which is not asked. IT matters to us. So just answer. Or continue avoiding and trying to make it seem like it is I being duplicitous.

And answer this one while you are at it, you know instead of trying to derail the issue by talking about me.
Have you ever denied consent to determine if it works or not? And if not, how can you possibly present yourself as an expert?
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Do YOU stacey feel that a document you never wrote or agreed to which may be hundreds of years old can bind you to obey someone else even if neither of you consent to it?
Click to expand...
If I wish to continue to reside in the area that the document applies to then as I have said I have no choice but to accept the terms of the document. However, I do have the choice to leave should I wish.

Have you ever denied consent to determine if it works or not? And if not, how can you possibly present yourself as an expert?
Click to expand...
Tried it many many years ago.
Didn't work.
ETA: Well I suppose it did work in fotl terms, a night in a cell is a success is it not?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom