Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Cocana The Second]

Your idea of me being 'beaten' is to insult my headdress while refusing to accept the fact that the government is composed of people, who due to being bound by the law, and the concept of equality, require the consent of those they govern.

Show me one post where anyone here has said that.

The principal differences between us and you in relation to your consent theory are that:-

1. You gloss over the fact that no government requires unanimous support, which in turn means that your individual consent is pretty much irrelevant;
2. You don't understand what equality before the law means or, if you do, you constantly misrepresent the "everyone is equal" issue by omitting the words "before the law";
3. You ignore the fact that there are numerous examples of totalitarian states, where the wishes of the people are stamped on by those in power (ultimately the 'who holds the guns' point is extremely relevant);
4. You ignore the fact that changing a government does not of itself change the law;
5. You seem to think that relabelling statutes as "rules" somehow magics them away.

There are other reasons as well.

Then of course we come to the elephant in the room: you have never provided any proof to support your theories either.

 

[FreemanMenard]

No, Rob, you had to ensure that the thread was diverted away from your wordplay with "security". You were being made to look foolish , so you diverted the thread. It's all there for anybody to read.

Really? And it was just a coincidink that it was at the 4000 posts and 101 page mark eh? Just happenstance, right?

So back to security then. Do you claim that saying we have a right to the security of the person means we have a right to physical integrity and safety? And if so does that mean the people in the government have a duty to provide it?

And are you aware that your contention my goal was to avoid it is shot to hell by my question? That your claim that I did not want to discuss it is completely debunked?

 

[Cocana The Second]

PS - echoing Stacey's comments above, Rob you are so obviously trying to divert attention from your latest foot shooting (re security). I would try to steer the discussion back in that direction but your diversion attempt is so striking that readers will immediately notice anyway.

 

[Mojo]

So , I believe the government is composed of people and they are bound by the law, and you think that due to that belief, I am the one who has lost my mind.

No, it's due to your claim that you are not bound by the law.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Writing 96 is the fix is part of what you need do, i've seen it on one of your piss poor video's. Maybe there are other things too but part of what you claim requires you write this.

Nope. Never said that. Not even close.
Maybe your comprehension skills are so shot by being so conditioned to obey, that your cognitive dissonance kicked in and you simply could not understand what was being said.


Hey who here is being interviewed today and invited to share their beliefs nationally?
That would be me.
And who made it possible?
That would be YOU all!
Thank you!
Well I have to prepare for my interview later today.

 

[Cocana The Second]

Nope. Never said that. Not even close.
Maybe your comprehension skills are so shot by being so conditioned to obey, that your cognitive dissonance kicked in and you simply could not understand what was being said.


Hey who here is being interviewed today and invited to share their beliefs nationally?
That would be me.
And who made it possible?
That would be YOU all!
Thank you!
Well I have to prepare for my interview later today.

Good luck!

I SO hope that it gets aired!

 

[Stacey Grove]

So back to security then. Do you claim that saying we have a right to the security of the person means we have a right to physical integrity and safety? And if so does that mean the people in the government have a duty to provide it?

If you have evidence that proves there is a bond then go ahead and show us.
Up till now all you have done is used your own choice of definition for the word "security".
Show us proof of this bond, Rob.
You appear to believe that we don't want it to be true.

 

[Paul]

Do you claim that saying we have a right to the security of the person means we have a right to physical integrity and safety?

It seems reasonable to me.

And if so does that mean the people in the government have a duty to provide it?

The government, not the people in the government.

 

[FreemanMenard]

No, it's due to your claim that you are not bound by the law.

Can you show me that claim?
No? thought not.

But thanks for your support!

As inadvertent and unintentional as it was.

 

[FreemanMenard]

If you have evidence that proves there is a bond then go ahead and show us.
Up till now all you have done is used your own choice of definition for the word "security".
Show us proof of this bond, Rob.
You appear to believe that we don't want it to be true.

TRANSLATION: Serve me like I am a child, incapable of logic or reason.

 

[Stacey Grove]

TRANSLATION: Serve me like I am a child, incapable of logic or reason.

TRANSLATION: I have no proof.

 

[mikeyman]

Originally Posted by BobHaulk
Writing 96 is the fix is part of what you need do, i've seen it on one of your piss poor video's. Maybe there are other things too but part of what you claim requires you write this.
Nope. Never said that. Not even close.
Maybe your comprehension skills are so shot by being so conditioned to obey, that your cognitive dissonance kicked in and you simply could not understand what was being said.


Hey who here is being interviewed today and invited to share their beliefs nationally?
That would be me.
And who made it possible?
That would be YOU all!
Thank you!
Well I have to prepare for my interview later today

Mr Menard`s seems to be playing with words. Quote from the video: Circle No 96. write accepted next to it and sign your name unquote

mikeyman

 

[Mojo]

Can you show me that claim?

Do you accept that you are bound by the law, just as anyone else is, without having to have given your personal consent?

 

[tsig]

I have many. Just didn't bring them here.
Cause I was playing you.

When they ask me on FB or elsewhere, they get them.

Ah, the old "I really meant to do that" gambit.

That trick never works.

 

[tsig]

Nope. Never said that. Not even close.
Maybe your comprehension skills are so shot by being so conditioned to obey, that your cognitive dissonance kicked in and you simply could not understand what was being said.


Hey who here is being interviewed today and invited to share their beliefs nationally?
That would be me.
And who made it possible?
That would be YOU all!
Thank you!
Well I have to prepare for my interview later today.

Links or it didn't happen.

 

[Hektor]

You know, there's no better way to prove to the world you've won by proclaiming victory for 5+ pages in a forum you claim doesn't matter.

Got proof your "security of person" argument can pay my bills Rob? Most of us would probably like free money after all. Just you know, when we do our own research on your own website, like all good freemen are supposed to do, we find out that your followers end up being hounded by creditors, their power gets turned off, or they end up in jail over a traffic stop. You know, I love free money as much as everyone, but hmmm, when I read such things I tend to wonder about the veracity of your claims.

 

[jargon buster]

Hey who here is being interviewed today and invited to share their beliefs nationally?

And that Mr Menard will be your undoing.
Its the culmination of two years of me chasing you around the web.
I always said mainstream attention would be your death knell.
Fill your boots Rob.

By the way Rob, dont go breathing booze breath all over Lysanne, Im pretty sure she wouldnt appreciate it.

 

[Mojo]

I was just going to copy that here. Notice the change of meaning of 'security'?


We as individuals have the right to the security of our person. A security is a financial instrument, and is similar to a stock certificate, just like those issued by publicly traded companies.


I thought you were supposed to use a little misdirection when you palmed the pea.

What makes you think there was any change in definitions?

The fact that you are conflating the meaning of the word "security" in the term "security of the person" (or as you had it, "security of our person") and the meaning of the term "security" in the sense of financial securities.

I know FOTLers are very keen on dictionary definitions, so here's what Dukelow's The Dictionary of Canadian Law says under "security of the person", quoting from R v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30:

[T]he right to "security of the person" under s. 7 of the Charter protects both the physical and psychological integrity of the individual.

It goes on to quote another couple of passages from R v. Morgentaler, a passage from a journal article (Anthony Amsterdam, 'Speedy Criminal Trial: Rights and Remedies', 27 Stan L Rev 525), R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 SCR 588, and Fleming v. Reid, 1991 CanLII 2728 (ON CA). None of these says anything about financial instruments. They are all about the physical or psychological security of the person.

 

[Mojo]

Well, I was in court when a judge specifically stated that the term security did not refer to safety or protection.

Well, in light of R v. Morgentaler, either the judge was wrong, or they were taking about some usage of the word "security" other than as part of the term "security of the person".

I guess that the term security, when used in every other Act refers to a document, but here it does not, though there is NOTHING to support that right?

See R v. Morgentaler, or the other authorities cited by Dukelow's Dictionary of Canadian Law.

hahaha

Have you met yrreg? It doesn't look good when he does this either.

 

[D'rok]

So back to security then. Do you claim that saying we have a right to the security of the person means we have a right to physical integrity and safety?

That's not a claim. It's a fact. It's a right recognized in Canada by section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And if so does that mean the people in the government have a duty to provide it?

No. They have a duty to not to limit it or take it away except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and they must do so in a manner prescribed by law and that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Learn the basics of Canadian civics before you pretend to be an expert.