Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[bikerdruid]

He can't move on, he has no ideas of his own, he stole his current scam from Roger Elvik and a bit of nonsense from Jordan Maxwell.

Some of the other loons switched to Ucadia (really..dont even bother looking for it)

Trouble is there will always be a new flock of halfwits looking for a way to shirk their responsibilities and due to the fact they are desperate they will for a while ignore logic and reason, just long enough for Menard to get a few donations.

i can see someone in america, in the lower income bracket, begrudging their taxes.
but in canada, at least we get medical care for our tax dollar.
i wonder if menard has ever gone to an emergency ward in canada, or has ever seen a doctor here.

 

[Chaos]

i can see someone in america, in the lower income bracket, begrudging their taxes.
but in canada, at least we get medical care for our tax dollar.
i wonder if menard has ever gone to an emergency ward in canada, or has ever seen a doctor here.

Menard does not contract with medical problems, thus he never needs medical assistance.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Ninety seven pages in, and the best that Rob can do is to tell us why it is he believes the stuff that he promotes should work. But, one thing Rob finds impossible to do, is to show us verifiable proof of his stuff actually working.
The reason is perfectly simple: it does not work. We know that, he knows that.
If he had any proof we would have seen it by now.
He has absolutely no proof whatsoever.

 

[jargon buster]

Ninety seven pages in, and the best that Rob can do is to tell us why it is he believes the stuff that he promotes should work. But, one thing Rob finds impossible to do, is to show us verifiable proof of his stuff actually working.
The reason is perfectly simple: it does not work. We know that, he knows that.
If he had any proof we would have seen it by now.
He has absolutely no proof whatsoever.

Yep, it is my belief that if I think about it hard enough I can make cops and judges back away and I can do exactly as I please free from the confines of the states rules and regulations.

You just need to believe it guys, if it doesn't work for you then you are just not trying hard enough.

 

[tsig]

It was a West Vancouver cop. Yes it happened, but I did not record it. What would you suggest for proof? Do this: Pick out any conversation which happened between you and a stranger five years ago. One you did not record nor was witnessed by any other party. Now prove it, and I will use the same tools to prove my claims. But if there are no tools for you to use to prove that a certain conversation happened half a decade ago, why expect me to have such proof? Do you record each and every conversation you have with every stranger, so you can prove half a decade later to another stranger on the internet that it actually happened?

The guy who submitted the bill in court is not a friend of mine, and I was not there. It was recounted to me by someone who was there, in an email, many years ago. It was also then later confirmed by a second witness. Considering I have about 30,000 emails in just ONE of my addresses, and I have four, and since you will not even accept that email anyway, if I did spend the day looking for it, what would you suggest I bring as proof? All I could prove, if I was inclined to do so, is to show you the email.

I agree that is not 'proof', though it is sufficient to justify sharing with people the anecdotal story of how I received an email, and how that occurrence was recounted to me. That is what I did. If I recall correctly, what I said was "I got an email and this is what I was told". I did not say "this is what happened'.

Dancing and dodging, hiding and sliding these are a few of your favorite things.

When the truth hurts, when the facts sting you simply remember your favorite things

Then you don't feel so bad.

 

[Robrob]

It was a West Vancouver cop. Yes it happened, but I did not record it. What would you suggest for proof? Do this: Pick out any conversation which happened between you and a stranger five years ago. One you did not record nor was witnessed by any other party. Now prove it, and I will use the same tools to prove my claims. But if there are no tools for you to use to prove that a certain conversation happened half a decade ago, why expect me to have such proof? Do you record each and every conversation you have with every stranger, so you can prove half a decade later to another stranger on the internet that it actually happened?

So you made it up? You'd think that something validating your fantastical claims might have been worth memorializing. I've got some pictures of space aliens around here somewhere but I misplaced them, trust me.

The guy who submitted the bill in court is not a friend of mine, and I was not there. It was recounted to me by someone who was there, in an email, many years ago. It was also then later confirmed by a second witness. Considering I have about 30,000 emails in just ONE of my addresses, and I have four, and since you will not even accept that email anyway, if I did spend the day looking for it, what would you suggest I bring as proof? All I could prove, if I was inclined to do so, is to show you the email.

So he made it up and you believed him?

I agree that is not 'proof', though it is sufficient to justify sharing with people the anecdotal story of how I received an email, and how that occurrence was recounted to me. That is what I did. If I recall correctly, what I said was "I got an email and this is what I was told". I did not say "this is what happened'.

If you know it's not proof, why did you attempt to present it as such? And since when did unsubstantiated emails from people you don't even know = documentation?

 

[Hektor]

I am absolutely shocked, shocked I tell you, that Rob would not do his own research with due diligence like all Freeman-on-the-land to verify whether an email he received was truthful or not before repeating it ad nauseam on the interwebs. After all he is a grownup and not some sort of childlike ward of the state.

 

[FreemanMenard]

So you made it up? You'd think that something validating your fantastical claims might have been worth memorializing. I've got some pictures of space aliens around here somewhere but I misplaced them, trust me.



So he made it up and you believed him?



If you know it's not proof, why did you attempt to present it as such? And since when did unsubstantiated emails from people you don't even know = documentation?

So you have never had a discussion which you did not record. Wow. Either that or any discussion you did not record did not happen. Is that your position?

And yes I believed him, especially when I got the second one which corroborated it. Hey do you verify every email you get? Do you treat everything you read on the internet as if it was true? Because I think you are reading stuff now, and taking it as truth without ever verifying it, aren't you? For instance what evidence do you have to support the claim that I met with Lance which you did not get from the Internet. Anything? THOUGHT NOT!



I did not present it as proof. I presented it as an email I had received.

Incidentally, what evidence do you have, which would stand up in court, to establish that I am in fact Rob Menard, and not some bloke just taking the piss and using his name? You communicate with me, like I am Rob Menard, but have never verified that have you?

 

[BobHaulk]

Hey lad you've claimed that writing 96 is the fix on a utility bill will mean that my bond will pay for it, is this correct?

 

[BobHaulk]

Incidentally, what evidence do you have, which would stand up in court, to establish that I am in fact Rob Menard, and not some bloke just taking the piss and using his name? You communicate with me, like I am Rob Menard, but have never verified that have you?

I'd use the evidence of your words to prove it was you. Your writing style is pompous and ludicrous and full of stuff you think makes you look clever, just reading the stuff about your claims to be a stonemason makes me cringe for you.
Anyway this thread is to discuss your claims and i'd like to discuss the claim that writing 96 is the fix on your utility bills will pay them. Is this correct? I'm beginning to think you are ignoring me and want me to spend 250 bucks on one of your dvd's to find the answer.

 

[jargon buster]

For instance what evidence do you have to support the claim that I met with Lance which you did not get from the Internet. Anything? THOUGHT NOT!

I have an e-mail from you admitting it.

Incidentally, what evidence do you have, which would stand up in court, to establish that I am in fact Rob Menard, and not some bloke just taking the piss and using his name? You communicate with me, like I am Rob Menard, but have never verified that have you?

Is that going to be your next excuse?
Im not really me Im just some idiot pretending to be me.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Hey lad you've claimed that writing 96 is the fix on a utility bill will mean that my bond will pay for it, is this correct?

Nope.

 

[jargon buster]

And yes I believed him, especially when I got the second one which corroborated it.

I just looked up "proof" in my Menardian dictionary, it says

Proof
2 e-mails saying the same thing.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I'd use the evidence of your words to prove it was you. Your writing style is pompous and ludicrous and full of stuff you think makes you look clever, just reading the stuff about your claims to be a stonemason makes me cringe for you.
Anyway this thread is to discuss your claims and i'd like to discuss the claim that writing 96 is the fix on your utility bills will pay them. Is this correct? I'm beginning to think you are ignoring me and want me to spend 250 bucks on one of your dvd's to find the answer.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/71001938@N08/6417355307/in/photostream

I am a very good stone mason, actually. I specialize in river rock and field stone. I find brick and block boring.

I never claimed writing 96 is your fix will pay them. I would try to explain the process for you, and the logic behind it, but it would obviously be a waste of time. And you wouldn't believe me anyway. I mean, the videos are there for you to watch if you want, and no where in them do I say that you write '96 is the fix' and call it paid.

Do you accept that a 'remittance' is a specie of money? If not I am wasting my time with you.

 

[jargon buster]

If not I am wasting my time with you.

Rob, unless you come up with some proof of your claims thats exactly what you are doing to every member of this forum.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

 

[FreemanMenard]

Hey D'Rok Check this out:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/71001938@N08/6417452541/in/photostream

 

[jargon buster]

I hope thats evidence of your claims Rob(I cant see it)<SNIP>.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

 

[BobHaulk]

[qimg]http://www.flickr.com/photos/71001938@N08/6417355307/in/photostream[/qimg]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/71001938@N08/6417355307/in/photostream

I am a very good stone mason, actually. I specialize in river rock and field stone. I find brick and block boring.

I never claimed writing 96 is your fix will pay them. I would try to explain the process for you, and the logic behind it, but it would obviously be a waste of time. And you wouldn't believe me anyway. I mean, the videos are there for you to watch if you want, and no where in them do I say that you write '96 is the fix' and call it paid.

Do you accept that a 'remittance' is a specie of money? If not I am wasting my time with you.

A stone mason? Sure you are. You make piss poor dvd's where you claim that you can pay your utility bills by writing 96 is the fix on them. Don't claim you don't , cause you do. But just say for one minute that you don't say this but you are still claiming that you don't have to hand over your hard earned cash to pay them, is this your position? Sorry the phrase hard earned cash may not be familiar to you, let me explain, it's where you do a job of work where you get paid in money.
You're right about one thing when you say i wouldn't believe you, no i wouldn't but then i'm not a something for nothing type of bear.
Back to the subject, using your 96 is the fix idea do you pay, with money you've earned, your bills with it or can you write them off against whatever it is you claim pays them?

 

[Cocana The Second]

Rob, as you're online again, where's that proof?

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.

 

[D'rok]

Hey D'Rok Check this out:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/71001938@N08/6417452541/in/photostream

Check your sights. You keep hitting your foot no matter where you aim.

Yes indeed, consent can be implied when, for example, someone uses government services like health care, welfare, employment insurance, etc. and benefits from and uses the results of government investment in, for example, infrastructure (roads, highways, bridges, etc.), defence, transportation (buses, subways, trains, etc.), and so on no matter whether they are silent or protest loudly that they are above the law because they don't consent.

You consent to being governed. Implicitly.

Now, if you care to honestly address my post, you will show how silence is acceptance to one of your ridiculous little FOTL contracts which you attempt to foist onto whoever in authority displeases you by way of some sort of notarized affidavit. (There's that powerful Notary magic again). You could do this by showing a court case, a letter, or a settlement of some kind where you or one of your customers forced performance or collected damages or fees from the person you purportedly bound with your stupid notice. Just anything that could show that your particular brand of unilateral contracting is legitimate.

This would also have the added benefit of showing that contract law applies at all to violations of statutory or criminal law - a stupid notion that is at the core of your scam.

In other words, provide evidence for your claims.