Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
D'rok said:
BTW: My Security of the Person case is scheduled to be heard tomorrow. Should I go in expecting to hear about financial instruments and birth bonds, do you think?

Or am I more likely to hear about actual law rather than FOTL fantasies?
Click to expand...
Utterly unsurprising update:

No birth bonds were discussed. Nothing was mentioned about any financial instruments of any kind.

It seems that Mr. Menard is lying about the meaning of "Security of the Person". Not that we really needed any more confirmation of that.
 
D'rok said:
It seems that Mr. Menard is lying about the meaning of "Security of the Person". Not that we really needed any more confirmation of that.
Click to expand...

Under Menard's theory judges and lawyers know about this financial meaning of "security of the person" but are desperate to conceal it from the public for some reason. So desperate in fact that none of them will ever reveal this secret meaning or take any steps to collect this money themselves even though they know they are entitled to it. So under this theory it is not surprising that there would be no mention of birth bonds in your matter. No judge would mention it if they didn't have to and I am assuming that you didn't raise the subject.
 
ComfySlippers said:
nb. Bad language is that of pigpot on WFS

World Freeman Society
Click to expand...


Were those posts cut out of some other thread? Because even with the lowered bar of expecting them to be gibberish, they made absolutely no sense.


And some more...
Click to expand...


Is it just me, or is he just calling anyone who disagrees with the FoTL waffle a JREFer? Shades of the early days of 9/11 debunking, that.


As long as there people like pigpot in the world, Robert Arthur Menard is assured a market for his gibberish.
Click to expand...



That, and I suspect there's a steady stream of idiots who will buy a few things, then find out that it's all crap. Victims of scams quite often never tell anyone, for fear of being found out as idiots, so they just slink off into the night, short a few bucks and their dignity, but of no help to the next idiot in line with a bad mortgage and a hundred bucks cash money.
 
JLord said:
Under Menard's theory judges and lawyers know about this financial meaning of "security of the person" but are desperate to conceal it from the public for some reason. So desperate in fact that none of them will ever reveal this secret meaning or take any steps to collect this money themselves even though they know they are entitled to it. So under this theory it is not surprising that there would be no mention of birth bonds in your matter. No judge would mention it if they didn't have to and I am assuming that you didn't raise the subject.
Click to expand...
What Illuminati level of the legal profession do I have to reach before they let me in on the secret?
 
D'rok said:
What Illuminati level of the legal profession do I have to reach before they let me in on the secret?
Click to expand...
Yea, sure you are supposed to say that. ;)

I wonder how one can hold lawyers to be both lying scum, below even real estate agent, used car dealer, and puppy breeders, and still able to maintain such high internal loyalty?
 
ComfySlippers said:
If we told you we'd have to kill you :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'll be good!

Toke said:
Yea, sure you are supposed to say that. ;)

I wonder how one can hold lawyers to be both lying scum, below even real estate agent, used car dealer, and puppy breeders, and still able to maintain such high internal loyalty?
Click to expand...
What's even more ironic is that it is quite obvious that Mr. Menard has a pretty bad case of lawyer envy and fancies himself to be quite the jurist.
 
D'rok said:
What's even more ironic is that it is quite obvious that Mr. Menard has a pretty bad case of lawyer envy and fancies himself to be quite the jurist.
Click to expand...

He certainly has some 'issues'.
Being the only son surrounded by sisters, one of whom is a real lawyer, (apparently), might have made his brain break.

Six Sisters

Biography -- Robert Arthur

Born in Windsor Ontario in 1963, he grew up in a loving environment with six sisters. A father who disliked the Government, Unions and monopolies and a mother who successfully fought the Provincial Government for fifteen years shaped his personality into one that refuses to accept injustice.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
The first rule of law club is...
Click to expand...

Ahhh, how devilishly fiendish.
A bit like Rule 6 in Bruce's sketch?

ETA What happened there?
When I type Rule 6 it becomes highlighted.
I meant Rule 6 in Bruce's sketch.
:confused:
It's done it again
Aarrrghh.
 
Last edited:
JLord said:
Ah, well played brother, but you can't get me to slip up that easily.
Click to expand...
Dammit, I'm never going to earn my Moloch horns at this rate. Maybe I need to blood sacrifice a few more virgins.

When's the next Star Trek convention?
 
Stacey Grove said:
Ahhh, how devilishly fiendish.
A bit like Rule 6 in Bruce's sketch?

ETA What happened there?
When I type Rule 6 it becomes highlighted.
I meant Rule 6 in Bruce's sketch.
:confused:
It's done it again
Aarrrghh.
Click to expand...

Things like ' Rule 6 ' or ' Moderator ' will hilight red and provide a link to the relevant JREF notes.
And yet that didn't happen when I mentioned Rule 6 or Moderator. Odd.
ETA: Ah, now it has. Seems to be a delay before your mention of words such as Moderator or Rule 6 get red-ified and linkified by the JREF-inator.

ETA2: Theyre messing with my head now...
moderator
Moderator
Rule 6
Rule6
rule6

....ignore ETA2, I'm just fixing my brain. Too many Menardisms might have damaged it.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds share ideas."

Notice how much time is spent on this forum talking about people, and not their ideas?
Click to expand...

If you were simply offering arguments or verifiable evidence in favor of FMOL, then it would be wrong to focus on you personally. But a good chunk of what you offer as evidence are just your own personal experiences, such as you supposedly going to court and forcing the judge to dismiss the case, or your many conversations with anonymous judges who agree with you fully. These claims hinge on your credibility, and as such, your credibility is then fair game to be questioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom