Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Boot2TheHead]

Since it is obvious the law existed prior to my birth

It is obvious that you didn't invent the concept that it isn't nice to hurt, steal or lie.

You did however invent the concept that it was a law, nay, The LAW, to the exclusion of all others.

So yes, it is your rules.

 

[FreemanMenard]

It is obvious that you didn't invent the concept that it isn't nice to hurt, steal or lie.

You did however invent the concept that it was a law, nay, The LAW, to the exclusion of all others.

So yes, it is your rules.

Actually a guy known as Jesus of Nazareth (amongst others) spoke of it LONG before I.

So no, The Law is NOT 'my rules'.

I hold there are only three ways to break The Law. (That is not saying these three ways ARE the Law as you suggest), and every instance of breaking the law involves one of these things. In a sense, these three can also be grouped, in that every crime is a type of betrayal.

Point to any criminal activity, and I will be able to point out how one of the three things happened, and a betrayal committed.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

Statutory rape.

Good luck!

 

[FreemanMenard]

Statutory rape.

Good luck!

Very tricky! To argue it I have to hold the position that statutes are law!

However, one charged with statutory rape, is under the statutes, a form of contract, and apparently agreed to the terms, which they then breached.
Contravenes #3 due to not keeping your agreements.
And that is a form of betrayal.

Next?

 

[Paul]

Well, there has been thousands of wins, where people avoided court entirely, and no court record was created

Where there is, conveniently for you, no evidence of any kind to support your assertions.

Every day the movement grows, and I get emails of people who have had success in discharging student loans, refusing to go to court, having their right to travel recognized and are serving their Notices and Claims.

Do you have any evidence that any of these people have done anything we would think is illegal, been discovered by the relevant authorities, and used Menardian freemanry to avoid sanction?

As a matter of fact a guy just donated a couple of grand to me for the success he had. If it was a scam, why would he be so happy and donate money when I asked for nothing?

Because it would really be a(n even more) pathetic scam if he didn't.

Of course that logic may be too difficult for those who can't use logic and reason to grasp.

Does that include people who make glaring logical errors in statements they use to demonstrate their mastery of logic and reason?

As for those who are clamoring to know what THE LAW is, I suggest you do some research.

Typical avoidance, why do you expect anyone to engage with you if you can't even demonstrate a basic knowledge of your own ideas?

I have answered it repeatedly, but your willful ignorance means you keep missing it.

Then point us to where you have done so.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

Very tricky! To argue it I have to hold the position that statutes are law!

However, one charged with statutory rape, is under the statutes, a form of contract, and apparently agreed to the terms, which they then breached.
Contravenes #3 due to not keeping your agreements.
And that is a form of betrayal.

Next?

Great. So, just to confirm, it is totally lawful for a Freeman to have sex with a 10 year old if s/he consents? The difference between ok and not ok is having a SIN number?

 

[D'rok]

Very tricky! To argue it I have to hold the position that statutes are law!

Which you do. The Criminal Code is a statute. You say the Criminal Code is law.

However, one charged with statutory rape, is under the statutes, a form of contract, and apparently agreed to the terms, which they then breached.

As you know, statutes are not contracts.

Contravenes #3 due to not keeping your agreements.
And that is a form of betrayal.

Next?

No. It contravenes criminal law and is therefore a crime.

However, I do find it interesting, given your personal history in this area, that you would argue that statutory rape is not a crime. Typical self-serving ******** from you.

Now, instead of repeating the same idiotic nonsense, will you stay on topic and provide some evidence for your claims?

Security of the Person. How about that one. Been waiting some time now....

 

[FreemanMenard]

Where there is, conveniently for you, no evidence of any kind to support your assertions.

Sworn affidavits are in fact considered evidence.

Do you have any evidence that any of these people have done anything we would think is illegal, been discovered by the relevant authorities, and used Menardian freemanry to avoid sanction?

Not that you would accept, as it is not in the form of your Nanny admitting they are just humans bound by the law.

Because it would really be a(n even more) pathetic scam if he didn't.

huh?

Does that include people who make glaring logical errors in statements they use to demonstrate their mastery of logic and reason?

Such as?

Typical avoidance, why do you expect anyone to engage with you if you can't even demonstrate a basic knowledge of your own ideas?

I have a great grasp of my own ideas, however when I speak of something like 'Law' others then claim that I mean 'my rules' and muddy the discussion. I think what you are asking me to do is to allow my beliefs to be determined by the interpretation of those who embrace ignorance, and when I refuse to accept the strawman arguments they repeatedly present, you claim I am not defending my own ideas, so do not have a grasp on them. I have a great grasp on my ideas, I have no understanding of what many claim my ideas actually are. For instance in this thread we see D'Rok claiming I recanted my belief, when I never did. But now if I do not act like I did, I am accused by people like you of not having a grasp.

Then point us to where you have done so.

Don't realy feel like spending half a day going through the threads here. Sorry.... But hey! Feel free TO DO IT YOURSELF!

 

[FreemanMenard]

Great. So, just to confirm, it is totally lawful for a Freeman to have sex with a 10 year old if s/he consents? The difference between ok and not ok is having a SIN number?

Nope, never said that at all did I? Never implied it, never suggested it.

But that is the standard JREF tactic isn't it?

NICE STRAWMAN YOU HAVE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE!

 

[Boot2TheHead]

What did you think statutory rape was?

But fine.

How is a Freeman having sex with a consenting 10 year unlawful?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Rob, it appears to me that recently you have been returning to this thread for no other reason than for you to say you are right and we are wrong.
You bring no evidence whatsoever to support your claims, you just keep telling us you are right.
I have no idea why you feel the need to convince us that we are wrong.
Perhaps you could explain?

 

[Paul]

Sworn affidavits are in fact considered evidence.

Sworn by whom, in the presence of whom, concerning what?

Not that you would accept,

As I asked if you had any evidence, I will take that as a firm no.

huh?

I don't believe for a minute that you are that stupid.

Such as?

Try using you mastery of logic and reason to parse the 62 words required to arrive at an answer.

when I speak of something like 'Law' others then claim that I mean 'my rules' and muddy the discussion.

That's because of the way you speak of the law as if it were merely a set of your personal rules.

I think what you are asking me to do is to allow my beliefs to be determined by the interpretation of those who embrace ignorance

Whereas we think the phrase 'tell us what you mean by the law' is a perfectly clear request for information.

I have a great grasp on my ideas,

Yet you are remarkably incompetent at maintaining logical consistency.

I have no understanding of what many claim my ideas actually are.

It's pretty simple, perhaps you should read posts properly before you claim to answer them.

For instance in this thread we see D'Rok claiming I recanted my belief, when I never did.

Yes you did, the fact that you cannot, or will not, see that is your problem.

Don't realy feel like spending half a day going through the threads here. Sorry.... But hey! Feel free TO DO IT YOURSELF!

More avoidance.

 

[FreemanMenard]

What did you think statutory rape was?

But fine.

How is a Freeman having sex with a consenting 10 year unlawful?

Consent is not possible at that age.
I suggest you study what is and is not consent, and if you did you would know a 10 year old cannot consent to such a thing.

Why you so hung up on having sex with 10 year olds?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Rob, it appears to me that recently you have been returning to this thread for no other reason than for you to say you are right and we are wrong.
You bring no evidence whatsoever to support your claims, you just keep telling us you are right.
I have no idea why you feel the need to convince us that we are wrong.
Perhaps you could explain?

What appears to you, as the only reason, is what YOU see.

I have no need to convince you I am right or you are wrong. None whatsoever. I have no idea why you feel that I have such a need.

Perhaps YOU could explain?

 

[Bishop]

Lol, so Menard didn't even know what statutory rape was, beyond the obvious point of it having something to do with statutes. So much for him and his many hours of supposedly studying law.

 

[Stacey Grove]

What appears to you, as the only reason, is what YOU see.

I have no need to convince you I am right or you are wrong. None whatsoever. I have no idea why you feel that I have such a need.

Perhaps YOU could explain?

It certainly does appear that way to me, and that is exactly why I said "It appears to me..."
So, if that is not the reason, please tell us what your reason is for repeatedly returning to this forum to regurgitate exactly the same arguments to people who have studied your material and have rejected it as nonsense.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Lol, so Menard didn't even know what statutory rape was, beyond the obvious point of it having something to do with statutes. So much for him and his many hours of supposedly studying law.

An adult having sex with a ten year old is not statutory rape; it is regular rape, as the ten year old is not deemed as even capable of consent. Sex without consent is RAPE, not statutory rape.

I think it is you who is operating in ignorance.

 

[FreemanMenard]

It certainly does appear that way to me, and that is exactly why I said "It appears to me..."
So, if that is not the reason, please tell us what your reason is for repeatedly returning to this forum to regurgitate exactly the same arguments to people who have studied your material and have rejected it as nonsense.

You want me to tell you why I use a forum? I was unaware one needed an excuse.

But I do have a reason, and have chosen to keep it to myself.

What is your reason for coming here and mocking, deriding and insulting those who have ideas and beliefs different from your own?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Well, there has been thousands of wins, where people avoided court entirely, and no court record was created, but since you ONLY count wins in court, you ignore them.

So you are saying that FOTL methods can avoid having to go to court?
We know by experience that FOTL lose when in court, so what is the process for avoiding court?
Would it be correct to say that those FOTL who do end up in court have somehow made a mistake in the process?

 

[Stacey Grove]

You want me to tell you why I use a forum? I was unaware one needed an excuse.

But I do have a reason, and have chosen to keep it to myself.

What is your reason for coming here and mocking, deriding and insulting those who have ideas and beliefs different from your own?

LOL
How funny.
It is you who in the past constantly asked those who do not believe in the validity of FOTL why they posted on Ickes. But when the tables are turned you prefer to keep the reason why you post here to yourself.
Do you realise how silly that makes you appear?