Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Stacey Grove]

So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent?

Is that your claim?

No I never said that.
However if parliament were to pass a law that allowed you to do so, then yes you could.

Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself?

Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from.
AND
An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal.
AND
That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself.

Rob you appear to be denying that there is a Canadian government that is governing your arse each and every day of your life. But there is one and they do. To argue otherwise is stupid.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Rob will you please provide proof that you are immune to statute law?

 

[SpitfireIX]

My fellow Canadians cannot hire or elect anyone to do that which they cannot do themselves.

<snip>

Fallacy of composition^WP.

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). . . .

[Example]:

1.Human cells are invisible to the naked eye.
2.Humans are made up of human cells.
3.Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye. [note omitted]

 

[jargon buster]

Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from.
AND
An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal.
AND
That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

Did you make those up yourself?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Rob will you please provide proof that you are immune to statute law?

Care to define a statute?

Is it: a legislated rule of a society given the force of law?

Then, are you willing to define a society?

Is it: A number of people, joined by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate determine and act for a common goal?

Then, can you show me ONE society, where consent is not required to be a member thereof?

If not, have a merry christmas.

Also, if not, consider that to be the proof you seek.

Peace eh?

 

[DGM]

Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself?

.

I'm not sure how you got from "empower" to "hire" but, If a court finds you incompetent a family member or guardian can be named to make decisions for you.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Then, are you willing to define a society?

Is it: A number of people, joined by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate determine and act for a common goal?

No, that would be a Society such as the RSPCA or the RSPB
I suggest you look to Black's as that is the FOTL's favourite.
Read the bit you chopped off from your definition.

Then, can you show me ONE society, where consent is not required to be a member thereof?

Check out Black's it's all there.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Fallacy of composition^WP.

With cells, there comes a time where the group itself is visible.

With human beings and their rights, is there a time where although not a single one of them have a right, enough of them makes it so?

Imagine a woman and a group of men.
How many men are needed before they can impose themselves on the one woman without consent and it is no longer rape cause there are enough of them?

What is the number?
Or is there one?
Maybe it is always rape regardless of how many partake...

So tell us, according to the law, how many men does it take before them imposing their will on a woman is no longer an act of rape.

Tell us the number, or agree there is not one.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Rob wrote:

That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

So why do you pay a notary?

 

[jargon buster]

With cells, there comes a time where the group itself is visible.

With human beings and their rights, is there a time where although not a single one of them have a right, enough of them makes it so?

Imagine a woman and a group of men.
How many men are needed before they can impose themselves on the one woman without consent and it is no longer rape cause there are enough of them?

What is the number?
Or is there one?
Maybe it is always rape regardless of how many partake...

So tell us, according to the law, how many men does it take before them imposing their will on a woman is no longer an act of rape.

Edit, can you please stop it with the rape references, they are not necessary to make a point.

Tell us the number, or agree there is not one.

You are debunking yourself again Rob, you give a perfect example of why your individual consent is irrelevant, but I bet you can't see it.

 

[D'rok]

got the evidence that you can directly govern me without my consent? A verifiable court order or letter from the canadian government should do the trick.

No prob. Got a court order right here.

 

[D'rok]

Care to define a statute?

Is it: a legislated rule of a society given the force of law?

No. You yourself provided us with a link to a definition many pages back. Have you forgotten already? Here it is:

An act of a legislature that declares, proscribes, or commands something; a specific law, expressed in writing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statute

Now provide evidence that you can opt out of the laws of Canada. Note: we are not asking for you to re-define words. We are asking you to demonstrate the truth of your claims by providing evidence.

Go.

 

[Bosozoku]

So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent?

Is that your claim?

Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself?

I don't understand the distinction you are drawing here. You can't hire someone to do something illegal, obviously. I can't hire someone to sell a house that I don't own for the same reason that I can't hire someone to kill another person - it's illegal. Electing a representative to pass laws, however, is not a crime (nor is it a "hiring," for that matter). So, yes, I can't hire someone to sell your house without your consent, but I can vote for someone who may in the future govern you without your consent.

Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from.

Most elected officials need to be voted in by either a majority or a plurality of voters, so the "source" is that majority or plurality, not each individual voter.

AND
An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal.

As far as I know, an elected official is not considered an "agent." That just makes sense - otherwise they could never pass laws with which other people disagree.

AND
That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

This appears to be your own legal maxim, as obviously there are situations where an agents or representatives can do what you cannot. Elected officials spring to mind, as they can enact binding legislation whereas you (the citizens) cannot. As for agency agreements, things like durable powers of attorney may last through the incapacity of the agent and entitle the holder to do what the agent obviously can't (because he or she is incapacitated).

Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself.

Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me.

Please explain HOW.

Again, these are really two different scenarios. You cannot hire someone to do something that is illegal, such as selling someone's house they do not have title to. You can, however, elect a representative to do something you cannot, and have been able to do so in the United States for over 200 years.

 

[D'rok]

So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent?

Is that your claim?

Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself?

Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from.
AND
An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal.
AND
That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself.

Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me.

Please explain HOW.

Sure. Through the magic of common law. Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

Under the right circumstances, I can squat on your land, obtain title, and then hire a real estate agent to sell it. All without your consent.

Now, you've heard these answers many, many times. We've been patient and given them to you again. Your turn.

Provide evidence that you can opt out of the laws of Canada. Alternatively, provide evidence for any of your ridiculous FOTL claims.

 

[Hektor]

Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me.

Uh, that's not how the government works Rob. It doesn't reduce to two people, because if it was just two people, there probably wouldn't be any need for government. However, when there are thousands or even millions of people, you can't all get together and work everything out by consensus. In fact, in the olden days, he who had the army and muscle got to make all the rules. They were usually called kings. And they had few checks on their power. Gradually over the centuries kings became less important and legislatures became more. Some places even killed their king or rebelled against them. Some places turned into very nasty places like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Other places like Canada and the United States empowered the citizens to run the show through their representatives. We (collectively) the people of such countries empower our representatives to work out rules so we can function as a society. We won't all agree how to best run a country. A rule that everyone has to agree or else doesn't make for effective governance, not least because there bad people out there. Should a murderer be allowed to say "well I don't consent to murder being a crime?"

 

[Mojo]

I will check back in a week and see if ANYONE here has figured out how they can hire someone to do that which they cannot do directly, or more accurately, how I can hire someone to do what I cannot do directly.

In this case sell your property without your consent.

If you can't explain that, then we must be in agreement:
I cannot hire a representative to do something if I do not have the right to do it myself directly.

Rob, the government of Canada, or of a province of Canada, is not hired by individual Canadians. It is empowered by the Constitution of Canada to pass legislation.

 

[Mojo]

No, that would be a Society such as the RSPCA or the RSPB
I suggest you look to Black's as that is the FOTL's favourite.
Read the bit you chopped off from your definition.

Check out Black's it's all there.

Rob seems to be running into the same problem as when he tried to base an argument on using the wrong definition of the word "security" in the expression "security of the person".

 

[FreemanMenard]

Rob wrote:


So why do you pay a notary?

I can do what the notary does.

But they can do something I cannot, and that is act as impartial witness to process.

That is why we use notaries.

 

[Stacey Grove]

I can do what the notary does.

But they can do something I cannot, and that is act as impartial witness to process.

That is why we use notaries.

But if they are only an impartial witness why don't you use somebody plucked off the street?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Rob, the government of Canada, or of a province of Canada, is not hired by individual Canadians. It is empowered by the Constitution of Canada to pass legislation.

You do realize these things you point to, are in fact legal fictions, and do not exist, right?

You may as well point to Santa Claus, and then a group of people who point to Santa Claus, to justify their unlawful actions.

What you point to exist only in imagination and through mutual consent.

Can either of them testify in a court of law without use of an agent?

No? Thought not...

But you like so many others are addicted and attached to these fictions, you will not even admit they are not real...

You will fight someone who is real instead....