Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[solzhenitsyn]

Again, you are simply wrong. I do not claim the right to enforce 'my rules' on others at all. What we seek to ensure is that THE LAW is followed by those who seek to enforce their rules. The Law is not 'my rules' at all.

Hope that helps, but something tells me you do not wish to understand our perspective at all, and are simply actively seeking reasons to reject it without ever having looked at it.

So can you distinguish between THE LAW that binds us all, and the rules which are ONLY applicable to those who operate as a ward of the state?

Just to add to the long list of fundamental questions that this post raises:

Who do you call when the government is breaking "THE LAW" (whatever that may be)? When someone breaks the wangdoodle, I can call the police. Who do I call when the government breaks "THE LAW"?

 

[Sledge]

You certainly do not need my permission to embrace your own ignorance, and cloak yourself in pride for your lack of knowledge.

And what is it that I'm ignorant of?

 

[jargon buster]

The Law is not 'my rules' at all.

Dont waste your time guys, he doesnt/pretends not to have a clue what law is.

he's just trolling the forum.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Is this law that binds us all written down somewhere so I can see what it is?

On a Ring?

 

[jargon buster]

Robs opinion is that his rules apply to everyone else regardless of their consent whilst everyone else's rules don't apply to him unless he consents.

Simples.

 

[deeper]

On a Ring?

Yeah, though the words only reveal themselves when exposed to the flame of the sacred bong.

 

[jargon buster]

or the shimmer of the amber nectar.

 

[tsig]

On a Ring?

So you put the ring on and become invisible to the police.

This FOTL stuff is starting to make sense.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I love it when Menard regurgitates his Peace Officer rubbish. It's so wrong it's incredibly funny.

Listen to this gem from last year...

What is funny about these 'new' peace officers, is the cars they drive are black and white, not blue and white, and they do not have a blue flashing light, only a red one. There is speculation the BLUE light is for Admiralty emergency, and the red is the one used for emergencies of any nature.

Admiralty emergency........

That's from This 2010 Thread where Rob just.... does Menard after Menard and fails to comprehend how the Wangdoodle works.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In the UK only certain vehicles are allowed to show a blue light. Police, Fire, Ambulance and Coastguard.
Anyone else showing one will be prosecuted and the vehicle siezed. Doctors on call are allowed a Green flashing light. Everyone else can show a flashing amber to warn.

If it's the same in Canada the reason he won't want to show a blue light is he will get pulled by the real Cops.

 

[jargon buster]

Peace officer out on the road

 

[jargon buster]

From this thread
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059070950&postcount=3
Rob wrote

Anyone can be arrested and charged without consent for breaching the peace, or committing acts contrary to the law, as expressed in the Criminal Code.

Acting contrary to a statute however is not a breach of the peace, nor contrary to the Criminal Code, and does in fact require one to first consent to the Act, before being enforced.

The criminal code refers to anyone who, and thus includes everyone, even Freemen. Acts and statues refer to 'any person who' and not 'anyone who' thus is limited to those who have consented to government services and burdens.

Your inability and refusal to even look at the most basic of things, and refusal to distinguish between concepts is your loss. Your belief that you have won due only to your continued ignorance is laughable.

The end result will be me enforcing the Criminal Code on existing police officers. Or do you think I am going to back down due to your lack of logic?

What if I don't accept that I'm an "anyone"?
If I see myself as a goolygook and as the criminal code doesn't specifically mention goolygooks then it doesn't apply to me.

This is easy when you use fluent Menardian.

 

[Mojo]

From this thread
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059070950&postcount=3
Rob wrote

The criminal code refers to anyone who, and thus includes everyone, even Freemen. Acts and statues refer to 'any person who' and not 'anyone who' thus is limited to those who have consented to government services and burdens.

You don't have to read very far through it to discover that the Criminal Code actually is an act:

Criminal Code

R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46​

An Act respecting the Criminal Law

Although I don't think it could be considered to be a statue.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Did Rob ever apologise to Lance Thatcher and return the $800?

 

[jargon buster]

On the contrary, he believes it was Lances fault that he was locked up.

Its all about personal responsibility this freeman stuff, except when its Robs personal responsibility thats questioned, I suppose he refuses to consent to that.

 

[Cocana The Second]

From this thread
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059070950&postcount=3
Rob wrote


What if I don't accept that I'm an "anyone"?
If I see myself as a goolygook and as the criminal code doesn't specifically mention goolygooks then it doesn't apply to me.

This is easy when you use fluent Menardian.

That's interesting. So Rob consents to the Criminal Code then? I wonder what his criteria for accepting and rejecting laws is?

Mr PicknMIx it seems.

 

[Cocana The Second]

Rob, you missed my questions AGAIN!!!

Rob,

Got the evidence that you are immune from all statutory law, except those laws that you agree with? A verifiable court order or letter from the Canadian government should do the trick.

No? Thought not

Been telling people that this is what you have achieved? Yes
Been receiving money on the back of it? Yes
Been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? Yes


Once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole.

 

[jargon buster]

That's interesting. So Rob consents to the Criminal Code then? I wonder what his criteria for accepting and rejecting laws is?

Yes he does because he feels he has no choice, and why is that, simply because the people who wrote it chose to use the term "anyone" as opposed to "person"

Now if only those silly legislators had written "anyone" in the statutes then he would have had to consent to those as well.

Doesnt his entire argument look totally ridiculous when you look at it like that?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Rob wrote:

Anyone can be arrested and charged without consent for breaching the peace, or committing acts contrary to the law, as expressed in the Criminal Code.



The criminal code refers to anyone who, and thus includes everyone, even Freemen.

Hang on a minute.
Is Rob saying that it is impossible to withdraw consent from the Criminal Code? If he is saying that, then surely it must mean that he is supporting the notion of individuals governing other individuals without their consent?

 

[D'rok]

Rob wrote:



Hang on a minute.
Is Rob saying that it is impossible to withdraw consent from the Criminal Code? If he is saying that, then surely it must mean that he is supporting the notion of individuals governing other individuals without their consent?

What's more, he is admitting that the state does not need his consent to charge and convict him of the Criminal Code offence of impersonating a peace officer.

It's all completely irrelevant anyways, because he has recently recanted the silly belief that human beings aren't persons.

Self-debunking at its finest.