Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
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?
Click to expand...

I do have a reason, and have chosen to keep it to myself.
 
Stacey Grove said:
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?
Click to expand...

They are not FMOTL 'methods' but knowledge of the law, and YES knowledge of the law can be used to avoid conflict and thus court. Would you claim it does not?

I see. When it supports your already held position, this you call 'experience', but when it does not, you reject it as 'anecdotal'.

The process for avoiding court is spoken of in the Bible.

Not always. Sometimes it is simply the people in the court being so used to being obeyed, that when they are not, they act unlawfully. Additionally, very few win the first time, as they are often tested to determine their level of dedication.

How many adults never ever fell even once learning to walk? According to the people here, the fact that babies fall means no one can walk, and they should give up since at first they do not succeed. If you do not hit a home run the first time at bat, and then hit home runs every time thereafter, you should give up the game entirely. That is the mindset here, is it not?
 
Translation: no wins in court.

Some other kind of evidence then? Anything at all?
 
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?
Click to expand...

Rob, why is consent not possible at age 10?

Surely not simply because statute law says so?

Careful with the typos and poor grammar when responding bearing in mind the subject matter ...and stop typing with one hand.
 
Last edited:
If you do not hit a home run the first time at bat, and then hit home runs every time thereafter, you should give up the game entirely. That is the mindset here, is it not?
Click to expand...
Rob swings, Rob misses, Rob swings, Rob misses..... ad infinitum.
 
tsig said:
I do have a reason, and have chosen to keep it to myself.
Click to expand...

Well it is easy enough to infer. Surrounding yourself with like minded people who share your belief system, and mocking those who are different, is something that happens in every high school, and for the same reasons.

I think what you meant is you have chosen to keep the reason FROM yourself, not TO yourself.

I already know the reason, just wanted to see if you could admit it to yourself. Guess not.
 
Surrounding yourself with like minded people who share your belief system, and mocking those who are different, is something that happens in every high school, and for the same reasons.
Click to expand...
Its a shame you can't do that anymore Rob, everyone can see through you now.
Oh those heady days of ego massaging and hero worship, how the mighty have fallen.
 
Boot2TheHead said:
Where's the cut-off point and who gets to determine it?
Click to expand...

Varies geographically.
Usually determined by custom and the community.
Generally 16 is the age at which historically folks could marry without consent of their parents.


But it seems to me this line of questioning is not meant to engage in discussion on its merits, but is you looking for a GOTCHA! moment, right?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Anyone who is capable of logic and reason, and understands just what consent actually is, and the ramifications of consenting.

You asking this question means NOT YOU.
Click to expand...

No, Rob, you stated a ten year old may not consent.
I simply asked you what prevents a ten year old from consenting. Obviously I am implying that it is the presence of statute that prevents this, a good thing IMO. But, you tell us statute does not apply.
So again, what prevents a ten year old from consenting if not statute?
 
Rob now you're online and will definitely see this...

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.
 
Stacey Grove said:
No, Rob, you stated a ten year old may not consent.
I simply asked you what prevents a ten year old from consenting. Obviously I am implying that it is the presence of statute that prevents this, a good thing IMO. But, you tell us statute does not apply.
So again, what prevents a ten year old from consenting if not statute?
Click to expand...

Their inability to use logic and reason, and understand the ramifications of consent. The logic and reason of adults. It has NOTHING to do with statute, as their inability to consent was recognized by statute, not established by it.

You would think, according to your love of statutes, and need for them, that without them you would be walking around naked, drooling and knifing people, all the while claiming, NO ONE SAID I COULDN'T!

Do YOU personally NEED statutes to KNOW right from wrong? If so , I pity you. And if not, what do you do when the statute tells you to do something you know to be wrong, or prohibits you from doing something you know is not wrong?

You know that is where you fail so often, a statute will merely RECOGNIZE a truth, and you claim that it ESTABLISHED it.
 
Here's something else that is "recognized" by statute:

Criminal Code s.150.1 said:
Mistake of age
(4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant was 16 years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.

Idem
(5) It is not a defence to a charge under section 153, 159, 170, 171 or 172 or subsection 212(2) or (4) that the accused believed that the complainant was eighteen years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.

Mistake of age
(6) An accused cannot raise a mistaken belief in the age of the complainant in order to invoke a defence under subsection (2) or (2.1) unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.
Click to expand...

Sexually interfered with a minor (i.e., statutory rape in Canada - s. 151 and s. 152 of the CC)? Good luck defending yourself by claiming mistake of age. I wonder if anyone we know has tried that?

I know this entire situation is far from the norm. I realize and accept that. The difference in ages is not what I wanted or looked for. I didn’t find out Megan’s actual age until seven months after agreeing to accept her child as my own.

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/elizabeth/
Click to expand...

Oops! I guess someone wasn't able to tell right from wrong despite the fact that it was "recognized" in a statute.
 
Their inability to use logic and reason, and understand the ramifications of consent. The logic and reason of adults. It has NOTHING to do with statute, as their inability to consent was recognized by statute, not established by it.
Click to expand...
You are living proof that the ability to use logic and reason has nothing to do with age.
You would think, according to your love of statutes, and need for them, that without them you would be walking around naked, drooling and knifing people, all the while claiming, NO ONE SAID I COULDN'T!
Click to expand...
Far more would be doing it without the fear of consequences, or would that pesky Karma get them?
Do YOU personally NEED statutes to KNOW right from wrong? If so , I pity you. And if not, what do you do when the statute tells you to do something you know to be wrong, or prohibits you from doing something you know is not wrong?
Click to expand...
Nope, some people think its OK to have sex with underage drug addled teenagers and deliberately impregnate them in some misguided attempt into creating a happy family.
You know that is where you fail so often, a statute will merely RECOGNIZE a truth, and you claim that it ESTABLISHED it.
Click to expand...
Unless men say its wrong and use force to maintain that rule then anything goes.
 
Boot2TheHead said:
But Rob, just being geographically somewhere does not mean you fall under anyone's jurisdiction!



So, mob rule?
Click to expand...

1- Kinda True, though one will still be bound by community standards. Being in a geographical area does not subject you to their equity jurisdiction. It will subject you to common law jurisdiction, in a common law geographical area. It is that which the FMOTL uses to avoid the equity jurisdiction.

2- No, not unless 'mob rule' is the custom and community standard. And generally it isn't, though too much time on this forum, and being conditioned to use peer pressure and derisiveness, may lead you to blur the distinction between the two.
 
Last edited:
Being in a geographical area does not subject you to their equity jurisdiction. It will subject you to common law jurisdiction, in a common law geographical area. It is that which the FMOTL uses to avoid the equity jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

and yet again he debunks his own argument.:rolleyes:
He claims being in a geographical area doesn't subject you to equity but it does to common law???
By who's authority Rob?
I claim you have no authority to hold me to your "common law" in your geographical area, so what now when I break your rules?

Rob , your ideas are an absurdity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom