Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
It has.

Luckily Santa was able to archive Robs wonderful thread over at WFS before it had to be deleted out of sheer embarrassment. A lesson in what can go wrong when Stupid-Club convenes.

I was reminded of this reply to his ludicrous nonsense back in 2007;

It is sad and sorry that you're so convinced about this stuff to the point you can publicly make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself. You have a profoundly wrong grasp of legal principles, methods, and content. Maybe you are some kind of con man and you already know this, or maybe you're an honest guy diligently working for what you believe in, but Brother, believe me, you have no hope of such badly conceived ideas ever going anywhere. Don't waste your time -- find something else to put your considerable energies on. Found a foodbank, or rescue greyhounds or something worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Mapleleafweb

Nothing changes.
 
Last edited:
ComfySlippers said:
Mapleleafweb

Nothing changes.
Click to expand...

Yep, same old arguments: the Walmart analogy, identify yourself, etc etc.

Interestingly Menard states in post 212 of that thread that his sister is a lawyer and works for Immigration Canada. Oh, that post also contains the old "police running Menard's name through the police computer" story.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly Menard states in post 212 of that thread that his sister is a lawyer and works for Immigration Canada.
Click to expand...
I wonder if shes the family member they dont talk about at parties. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
So I learned from the book that all courts throughout history all have "had a Society; an actual society you could name and define who were members." (And that the current courts are in the possession of the Law Society).

Rob then created the World Freeman Society so he and his buddies "can create our own courts in and have them face charges if we need to."

So, what if I don't consent to be in the World Freeman Society? Doesn't that mean I'm above a "common law" court?

I don't consent! Therefore, can I steal from Freeman valley?
 
Last edited:
So, what if I don't consent to be in the World Freeman Society? Doesn't that mean I'm above a "common law" court?

I don't consent! Therefore, can I steal from Freeman valley?
Click to expand...

If Rob were true to his freeman principles he would have to say "yes you are free to ignore our laws because no man may govern another without his consent"

Unfortunatly Rob isnt true to his principles and he calims that no one is above "the law" (he doesnt know what "the law" is by the way) and says if you do not obey freeman laws you will be forced to leave his society.

Pretty ironic really as he always claims that he can stay in current society even though he wants to be able to ignore its laws.

His entire argument is totally self de-bunking.
 
Interestingly Menard states in post 212 of that thread that his sister is a lawyer and works for Immigration Canada.
Click to expand...

This is true. Her details are very easy to find. He lists her in the (very) long list of people in his pretend police-force letter, right at the end.

Despite knowing a lot about her, her husband and offspring I have never felt the urge to publically broadcast any of this information. Unlike Rob who is obsessed with "outing" people.

From the thread I linked to you will find that, as more proof that his gibberish is all true but being "hidden from us", when asked about it his sister tellingly replied "no comment"... Proof ala Menard.

Now, according to the post mortem being carried out by pigpot over at WFS, if you have placed your personal details online they are in the public domain and legally(!) you havent a leg to stand on if someone uses those details.

Which is what we have been saying about discussing Rob and his idiotic claims... he whores his scam at every opportunity and is therefore open to questioning.

However, for some strange reason, I have never thought about publishing photos or details of his sister and her family online. And to clarify that before Stupid-Club reconvenes, I never would.

...Maybe I have the thing which Rob shouts about but has none.... Honour!
 
Last edited:
more buffoonery from WFS
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=12218
this 'daniel' character shouldnt have put his stuff on facebook. he has no legal rights whatsoever after that in regards to where his pictures or info ends up.
you put your mug out in the public domain, anyone can use it for non commercial purposes and you cant utter a peep
Click to expand...
So according to pain101 you can take someones personal information and start throwing wild accusations around about them without a shred of proof.
yep, sounds the honourable thing to do.

As for the non-commercial purposes, Menard soon cried to the authorities when I used his WFS logo for a bit of fun.
 
Stacey Grove said:
It's just more diversionary tactics by Menard. He knows that while people are wasting time concentrating on "Who is Daniel?" they aren't demanding proof from Menard of his FOTL claims, which BTW he still has not provided.
Never has, never will.
Click to expand...

First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....
 
FreemanMenard said:
First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....
Click to expand...

No, I want verifiable proof that a freeman is not bound by statue law. Not a theory, not a belief but proof. You have been asked repeatedly to provide proof but up till now you have failed to do so.
 
FreemanMenard said:
First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....
Click to expand...


This just in from one year ago:

Also have some legal action lining up to settle a certain issue. I wonder how ole JB will feel with a court ruling that states flat out that individual consent is required, and his mantra this last two year has been wrong, and the things I espouse are proven true.

I wonder what happens when a deluded and obsessed narcissist has his bubble popped. We will know soon.
Click to expand...

DIF 2010
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....
Click to expand...

Stacey Grove said:
No, I want verifiable proof that a freeman is not bound by statue law. Not a theory, not a belief but proof. You have been asked repeatedly to provide proof but up till now you have failed to do so.
Click to expand...

m.menard:
i would like to see your 'verifiable proof' that a 'freeman' cannot be governed without his consent.
is this not one of your claims?
 
FreemanMenard said:
First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....
Click to expand...

Yes, and the people have given the people in government the power to carry out certain acts for the good of the people as a whole, but which may not be for the benefit of an indiviual or to which some people may not agree.
 
bikerdruid said:
m.menard:
i would like to see your 'verifiable proof' that a 'freeman' cannot be governed without his consent.
is this not one of your claims?
Click to expand...

Funny how a freeman can be incarcerated by those same laws, without his consent.
:rolleyes:
 
Continuing to ignore moderator warnings will result in suspensions and/or bans.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.
Click to expand...
Correct

Do those people need the consent of every single individual within the area of their jurisdiction for them to lawfully govern that jurisdiction?

For your theory to have any validity at all the answer to that question must be "yes", do you think it is Rob?
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....
Click to expand...

No we haven't. My goodness, is that the best that you can muster Rob?

JB has given you a pointer on what we have demanded proof of, but that's only part of it. I tell you what I'll do since your memory has got a bit foggy, I'll copy and paste the post that you have consistently avoided answering. Given that you are (apparently) in the mood to provide proof, maybe this time you'll give us what we're asking for. Here goes and I'll embolden the really important bit...

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.
 
Last edited:
cocana said:
No we haven't. My goodness, is that the best that you can muster Rob?

JB has given you a pointer on what we have demanded proof of, but that's only part of it. I tell you what I'll do since your memory has got a bit foggy, I'll copy and paste the post that you have consistently avoided answering. Given that you are (apparently) in the mood to provide proof, maybe this time you'll give us what we're asking for. Here goes and I'll embolden the really important bit...

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.
Click to expand...


Hey mods, would you please count HOW MANY TIME this guy has claimed (incorrectly) that these are my claims, or that I make money off the back of what he claims are my claims, and then compare them to your own Forum Spamming rules?

If I were to post the EXACT SAME THING REPEATEDLY, would I not receive a warning? Have I not already?

I have addressed it, he ignores what I post and keeps repeating the EXACT WORD FOR WORD BS.

Been telling people that this is what you have achieved? NOPE. Huge difference between what I tell people and what you claim I tell people, but even if I explain it repeatedly, you refuse to grasp it.
SPAMMING THE FORUM
Been receiving money on the back of it? NOPE.
SPAMMING THR FORUM^

Been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? NOPE
SPAMMING THE FORUM^
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom