Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[FreemanMenard]

That's what cracks me up.
Does Rob really believe that if (after asking a series of leading questions) he can arrive at a conclusion that supports his beliefs, he can then claim that is how the law really is?
It's crazy.

Is it crazy to realize the government is composed of people who are bound by the law, or is it crazy to refuse to examine these truths which destroy your beliefs?

The government is composed of people. That is my belief. You call it crazy.
Those people are bound by the law.
You call that crazy too.

And you think you are 'winning'?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Did you wish to address these questions, and examine reality, or just run away crying and moaning, like you just did?

Your questions and their answers are (as JB mentioned) irrelevant.
You have claimed that you can withdraw consent to statute law.
Show us proof (not a theory) of that.

 

[jargon buster]

The government is composed of people.
Those people are bound by the law.
Those people use the law to lock up idiots who think they are above the law.

simples

 

[ComfySlippers]

"Onus" seems to be Robs new word.

You realise that it is in the "O" section of the dictionary not the "A" Rob?

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the words "Onus" and "Context". Unfortunately our sponsor has difficulty in English Comprehension, so he asks we say the following: Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by Trifle and Emperor Ming.

 

[Paul]

And everyone knows not to trifle with Ming...









sorry, I'll get my coat

 

[sadhatter]

So any evidence that I can lawfully govern you without your consent?
Any at all?

Find me walking alone unarmed one night and put a gun to my head rob. I guarantee you , i will take your word as law, and you can govern the **** out of me. The **** that is not running down my pant leg that is.

Law is nothing without enforcement.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Is it crazy to realize the government is composed of people who are bound by the law, or is it crazy to refuse to examine these truths which destroy your beliefs?

The government is composed of people. That is my belief. You call it crazy.
Those people are bound by the law.
You call that crazy too.

And you think you are 'winning'?

Do you really believe that anyone here is suddenly going to be convinced by this argument which we've all read and responded to many, many times before? It seems like madness to me. Let me break it down for you one more time:

Everyone here agrees that the government is composed of people.

Everyone here agrees that those people in the government are bound by the law.

However, like all other english speaking people, to us, the word "law" means the rules enacted and enforced by the state. They do not mean the rules imagined and not enforced by Rob Menard (i.e., "THE LAW"). Sorry.

So, to tranlsate into FMOTL language for you:

Everyone here agrees that the people in the government are bound by the wangdoodle. We also all agree that the people in the government are most certainly NOT bound by "THE LAW". Unless you provide us with just one verifiable example from the history of civilization where the government has been bound by "THE LAW" (rather than the wangdoodle), I imagine that you will continue to be the target of much ridicule and scorn.

 

[WhenDanSaysJump]

Rob, how does it feel knowing that the advice you dispense has led to people being incarcerated?

 

[Stacey Grove]

The government is composed of people.

Indeed.

That is my belief.

Mine too.

You call it crazy.

No I did not.
I said that it is crazy that you believe that a series of leading questions, set by yourself, which arrive at a conclusion that supports your beliefs is evidence of how the law really is.
You are twisting my words....again.

Those people are bound by the law.

Of course.

You call that crazy too.

No I did not.
Again, you are twisting my words.
You are in desperate need of a new trick, Rob.

And you think you are 'winning'?

I think you are lost.

 

[jargon buster]

Rob, how does it feel knowing that the advice you dispense has led to people being incarcerated?

This is what he has to say about that

Yes I would. I would love to see what they have to say, and if they do not wish to accept liability for their own actions, why blame me? They lose their house, and I am to blame, and I never met them before nor contracted with them? And it is my fault? Where is your logic in that? I share information and try to get people to learn to stand, if they cannot, that is not my fault.

I promise they did not follow my advice, not unless they are in contract with me to provide advice, which they are not. So many people want to blame others for their loses and problems.

The big difference between you and I is that I think people should act as adults, and not children. They should accept responsibility for their reality. You do not. Look at how you blame me for the reality that someone else created. Look at how you do not even consider these people may be responsible for their own reality. It is not them, the bankers, the lawyers, the bailiffs, nor the courts responsible for them losing their home. Nope it is ALL MY FAULT! SHEESH!

Nope, it is so much easier to blame others. That is what a child would do, and if they are blaming me, then maybe it is their own childish outlook and subsequent actions that harmed them.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1058947055&postcount=34

 

[ComfySlippers]

It is not them, the bankers, the lawyers, the bailiffs, nor the courts responsible for them losing their home. Nope it is ALL MY FAULT!

I think you just penned your own epitaph there Robert Menard

 

[jargon buster]

Yep, that post of Robs gives you a measure of his morals.

Rob spreads garbage all over the internet and if anyone is daft enough to actually try it more fool them.

Hey Rob, have you ever tried it, no of course you haven't.

 

[jargon buster]

I promise they did not follow my advice, not unless they are in contract with me to provide advice, which they are not.

Did Lance Thatcher have a contract with you Rob?
Im pretty sure your agreement had all thats required for it to be a contract.
Second thought maybe not, you didn't actually give him anything of value.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Do you really believe that anyone here is suddenly going to be convinced by this argument which we've all read and responded to many, many times before? It seems like madness to me. Let me break it down for you one more time:

Everyone here agrees that the government is composed of people.

Everyone here agrees that those people in the government are bound by the law.

However, like all other english speaking people, to us, the word "law" means the rules enacted and enforced by the state. They do not mean the rules imagined and not enforced by Rob Menard (i.e., "THE LAW"). Sorry.

So, to tranlsate into FMOTL language for you:

Everyone here agrees that the people in the government are bound by the wangdoodle. We also all agree that the people in the government are most certainly NOT bound by "THE LAW". Unless you provide us with just one verifiable example from the history of civilization where the government has been bound by "THE LAW" (rather than the wangdoodle), I imagine that you will continue to be the target of much ridicule and scorn.

That is not ‘FMOTL language at all. As a matter of fact, was it not someone who is clearly not a Freeman who introduced that term? Are there other terms you will make up and then claim are terms of the language of those whom you scorn? Only on this forum would someone make up a word, and then later use it and claim that it is part and parcel of their opponents language.

As for being subject to scorn, that only happens here. And when the party subjecting me to the ridicule, are so ridiculous themselves, their scorn make me laugh.

Also as for your claim that the people in the government are not bound by the law, on that you separate and distance yourself from the vast majority of the population, including the people operating the courts. Do you think if I made some calls, and asked people in the government if they were subject to or above the law, or if they were merely subject to ‘wangdoodle’, what do you think they would say? I bet the people say they are bound by the law, and have no idea what wangdoodle is. Would you then claim they are ridiculous?

In any event, you are one of the more sane and informed people on this particular forum, a lawyer apparently even, and one of the least likely I have seen to utilize ad hominem attacks. With that said, I would just like reaffirm what it is you have claimed.

The people in the government are not bound by the law, but they are bound by wangdoodle.

I will present these words to the public, on your behalf and claim it comes from one of the more level headed posters on this forum.
Let’s see what the public has to say about your position. We will see if they think that is worthy of ridicule, and subjects you to scorn.

The people in the government are not bound by the law, but they are bound by wangdoodle.

Your words.

 

[jargon buster]

As for being subject to scorn, that only happens here.

Nope David Ickes as well.

Also as for your claim that the people in the government are not bound by the law, on that you separate and distance yourself from the vast majority of the population, including the people operating the courts.

Right over your head at 200mph
He meant your version of "THE LAW" which we all know doesn't exist apart from in your head.

The people in the government are not bound by the law, but they are bound by wangdoodle.

I will present these words to the public, on your behalf and claim it comes from one of the more level headed posters on this forum.
Let’s see what the public has to say about your position. We will see if they think that is worthy of ridicule, and subjects you to scorn.

The people in the government are not bound by the law, but they are bound by wangdoodle.

Your words.

His words yes, and totally mis-interpreted by you, no surprise there though.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

That is not ‘FMOTL language at all. As a matter of fact, was it not someone who is clearly not a Freeman who introduced that term? Are there other terms you will make up and then claim are terms of the language of those whom you scorn? Only on this forum would someone make up a word, and then later use it and claim that it is part and parcel of their opponents language.

As for being subject to scorn, that only happens here. And when the party subjecting me to the ridicule, are so ridiculous themselves, their scorn make me laugh.

Also as for your claim that the people in the government are not bound by the law, on that you separate and distance yourself from the vast majority of the population, including the people operating the courts. Do you think if I made some calls, and asked people in the government if they were subject to or above the law, or if they were merely subject to ‘wangdoodle’, what do you think they would say? I bet the people say they are bound by the law, and have no idea what wangdoodle is. Would you then claim they are ridiculous?

In any event, you are one of the more sane and informed people on this particular forum, a lawyer apparently even, and one of the least likely I have seen to utilize ad hominem attacks. With that said, I would just like reaffirm what it is you have claimed.

The people in the government are not bound by the law, but they are bound by wangdoodle.

I will present these words to the public, on your behalf and claim it comes from one of the more level headed posters on this forum.
Let’s see what the public has to say about your position. We will see if they think that is worthy of ridicule, and subjects you to scorn.

The people in the government are not bound by the law, but they are bound by wangdoodle.

Your words.

My words indeed. And so long as you provide people with the definitions of "wangdoodle" (the rules enacted and enforced by the state) and "THE LAW" (rules created by Rob Menard and not enforced by anyone), I have no doubt that 99.9% of people will respond "of course." I make this prediction on the basis that 99.9% of people already know that the government is bound by the rules enacted and enforced by the state rather than the rules created by Rob Menard, and no one seems particularly upset by that fact.

 

[ComfySlippers]

As for being subject to scorn, that only happens here.[/QOUTE]

it happens everywhere. Are you simple?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Do you really believe that anyone here is suddenly going to be convinced by this argument which we've all read and responded to many, many times before? It seems like madness to me. Let me break it down for you one more time:

Everyone here agrees that the government is composed of people.

Everyone here agrees that those people in the government are bound by the law.

However, like all other english speaking people, to us, the word "law" means the rules enacted and enforced by the state. They do not mean the rules imagined and not enforced by Rob Menard (i.e., "THE LAW"). Sorry.

So, to tranlsate into FMOTL language for you:

Everyone here agrees that the people in the government are bound by the wangdoodle. We also all agree that the people in the government are most certainly NOT bound by "THE LAW". Unless you provide us with just one verifiable example from the history of civilization where the government has been bound by "THE LAW" (rather than the wangdoodle), I imagine that you will continue to be the target of much ridicule and scorn.

Almost forgot my second point.
You use the word government and state, are they the same? It lloks to me like you were trying to use some deceptive lawyer type tricks. You agree that the government is composed of people, and bound by the law, but then you introduce a new word, state, and claim they are bound by the rules of the state. But is not the state and the government the same thing?

Let us assume they are.
The government/state is composed of people.
They are bound by the law.
But now you say they are bound by the rules they make up, what with them being the state.
So you have a group of people who are bound by the rules they make up. Sounds fair, but you also claim that those rules also bind other people not members of that group. How is that so? We agreed they are bound by the law, before they ever start making up words, calling them rules and claiming to be the state or the government.

Since they are bound by the law, before they are 'the state' as you have agreed, then they are bound by the concept of equality, and thus they cannot simply make up rules, agree to be bound by them, and then impose them on everyone else. Because they are bound by the law, and are equal with others. If they have the power to do so, they are not bound by the law. If they are bound by the law, before they are 'the state' or 'the government' and start making up rules, then they simply cannot. For if they are bound by the law, and are equal with others, they lack the authority to do so.

I see you using the word state as a way of trying to avoid an examination of the source nature and limits of the state authority. Unless you wish to claim the people in the government are bound by the rules of the state, and are not the state, you are saying the people in the government are bound by the rules of the government. Unless 'the government' and 'the state' are two separate things, why would you introduce the term? I see only one reason. Let's see what happens when you replace 'the state' with 'the government' and what we end up with.

Everyone here agrees that those people in the government are bound by the law.

However, like all other english speaking people, to us, the word "law" means the rules enacted and enforced by the state.

People in the government are bound by the law, and the law is the rules the same people in the government make up, and they are the government because they make up those rules.

Say it like that and the idiocy of the statement is obvious. Add the distracting term 'the state' to replace the second use of the term 'people in the government' and you have a chance of your logical inconsistency being missed.

Nice try Sol, but 'the government' and 'the state' are the same thing, and they are composed of people bound by the law, and thus they are neither the state nor the government without the consent of those whom they govern, and it is this consent which empowers them to do so.

Source, nature and limits of 'the state's' authority. That is the gist of this discussion, and saying 'rules of the state' to avoid the fact that they are just people, and they are in fact 'the government' does not change the truth. Nice try though.

 

[jargon buster]

FREEMAN VALLEY is composed of people.
They are bound by the law.
But now you say they are bound by the rules YOU make up, what with them being the COMMUNITY.
So you have a group of people who are bound by the rules they make up. Sounds fair, but you also claim that those rules also bind other people not members of that group. How is that so? We agreed they are bound by the law, before they ever start making up words, calling them rules and claiming to be the OVERLORDS.

Since they are bound by the law, before they are FREEMAN COMMUNITY as you have agreed, then they are bound by the concept of equality, and thus they cannot simply make up rules, agree to be bound by them, and then impose them on everyone else. Because they are bound by the law, and are equal with others. If they have the power to do so, they are not bound by the law. If they are bound by the law, before they are the FREEMAN COMMUNITY and start making up rules, then they simply cannot. For if they are bound by the law, and are equal with others, they lack the authority to do so.

So how do you stop me coming to freeman valley and ignoring your law and rules?

 

[Loss Leader]

Since they are bound by the law, before they are 'the state' as you have agreed, then they are bound by the concept of equality, and thus they cannot simply make up rules, agree to be bound by them, and then impose them on everyone else. Because they are bound by the law, and are equal with others. If they have the power to do so, they are not bound by the law. If they are bound by the law, before they are 'the state' or 'the government' and start making up rules, then they simply cannot. For if they are bound by the law, and are equal with others, they lack the authority to do so.

Your argument would almost make sense if time were static. If everything happened at once and today was the day we first formed any social bonds whatsoever (and then tomorrow all bonds were disolved and formed anew, and then the next day, and the next), you might have some kind of point.

Unfortunately, the bonds of law were not formed today. They were formed slowly from several million years ago until just now. Under those conditions, your arguments fall apart. There is no "before the formation of the state." It's like asking what came before the Big Bang. It's just nonsense.