Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[sadhatter]

I also urge you to skeptical. Not just of me, but also skeptical of those whose previously stated purpose was the destruction of others. (I am referring to arayder, and his claim to only be on these forums to destroy me)

Notice how anecdotal reports can be to him any way, not truth not recorded, no they MUST be tall tales, and that is the best they can be. Be skeptical of HIS motives.

Also you will fid these so called skeptics are not in the least skeptical of the existing power structure and control mechanism, for that they already embrace. Do not let your skepticism stop at being skeptical of those who are skeptical of those who claim to be authorities. Keep being skeptical of the courts, the government, the police, and ask they prove their right to govern you without your consent. Be skeptical of their claim they need to remove our rights for our own protection. Be skeptical of their claim to a monopoly on the justice system. Be skeptical of the idea that the courts are unbiased and only interested in justice. Be just as skeptical of Freemen who do not want authority over you as you should be when dealing with those who do.

Be skeptical of their claim of being skeptical, when they refuse to do so against the government.

Do your own due diligence and learn to look in your own heart for your own conscience and develop the courage to follow that even though all the so called skeptics will then mock, insult and denigrate you for being skeptical of what they blindly and ignorantly embrace. As Freemen we invite you to be skeptical of us and the government. As naysayers they only want you skeptical of us, and never ever the goobermint or courts.

So who are the true skeptics?

The thing is Rob, your confusing being skeptical of the government, with being on your side, they are not the only two sides of the coin.

Look at the dearth of threads here criticizing the Canadian, American, and other governments, dozens of them as a conservative estimate.

The problem is Rob, yes there are plenty of things wrong with the government, but not the wacky crap your saying. And in fact, what you are doing is making those with legitimate complaints look that much worse, by trying ( and failing) to be the face of an anti government position.

The simple fact is that if we suddenly started applying your law, we would have a class based system. Those who pay and use and those who use, the infrastructure , and that is simply not something the majority of folks want. What is so hard to understand about that Rob? That the majority of folks think that if they use something they should have to pay for it, i know the concept is alien to you, but not to most of the rest of us.

 

[FreemanMenard]

How many different justifications and methods of doing this crap are we going to be subjected to?

You have to show up, but act like a wally.
You have to show up but ignore folks.
You have to make magic squiggles on paper.
and now
You just have to run.

Really, really? Seriously? Truely? Factually? Of course your not going to get hit up for something if you just avoid it, with the addendum of until you get caught.

Rob, you should just teach how to fly, same basic principle, just tell folks to not hit the ground after jumping and charge them 800 bucks for it.

Why are you quoting jb and his post yet trying to use that to put me on the spot? Please do not ask me to defend his insanity or the strawmen he erects. He stalks me every where on line, on the DI forum, the WFS forum, even FB for chris sakes, brags about it and admits it, and then seeks accolades for doing so.

ONe avoids court not merely by not showing up, as JB implies, but by employing the lawful tools of discussion and negotiation. By asking questions that destroy the assumptions they rely upon, and by being skeptical of their claim to authority. I guess folks here actually do not like others being skeptical of those things which they have decided to embrace eh?

 

[sadhatter]

Let's for a moment, say that rob is completely factual. What he says is what, by a reasonable interpretation the law really says.

I would still promote the current way the laws are enforced. And the reason is simple.

Even if rob was legit ( which, for the record his views are not.), it is no more than being the guy who tells everyone at work that the vending machine is broken and giving out free products. Sure it might be cool to get a dozen free bottles of soda, but doing so is going to have repercussions, but people like rob never think of that. They can't resist the lure of free ****, and want others to take part in it so they arn't the only person ripping off the system, and thereby, won't be the only people blamed when the inevitable repercussions happen.

In short, Rob, even if you were right, and the machine is giving free soda, i would rather pay for mine, because i can see further than my own thirst.

 

[sadhatter]

Why are you quoting jb and his post yet trying to use that to put me on the spot? Please do not ask me to defend his insanity or the strawmen he erects. He stalks me every where on line, on the DI forum, the WFS forum, even FB for chris sakes, brags about it and admits it, and then seeks accolades for doing so.

ONe avoids court not merely by not showing up, as JB implies, but by employing the lawful tools of discussion and negotiation. By asking questions that destroy the assumptions they rely upon, and by being skeptical of their claim to authority. I guess folks here actually do not like others being skeptical of those things which they have decided to embrace eh?

Because what he said, was what you said?

Man, stop with the rambles, it gets really old, really quickly. If you can defend your position do so, if you can counter my points , do so. But these failed filibusters are educing enough of an eye roll that i am going to give you a fee schedule for my medical bills due to strain of the optic nerve should you keep on busting them out.

 

[D'rok]

In short, Rob, even if you were right, and the machine is giving free soda, i would rather pay for mine, because i can see further than my own thirst.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The thing is Rob, your confusing being skeptical of the government, with being on your side, they are not the only two sides of the coin.

Look at the dearth of threads here criticizing the Canadian, American, and other governments, dozens of them as a conservative estimate.

The problem is Rob, yes there are plenty of things wrong with the government, but not the wacky crap your saying. And in fact, what you are doing is making those with legitimate complaints look that much worse, by trying ( and failing) to be the face of an anti government position.

The simple fact is that if we suddenly started applying your law, we would have a class based system. Those who pay and use and those who use, the infrastructure , and that is simply not something the majority of folks want. What is so hard to understand about that Rob? That the majority of folks think that if they use something they should have to pay for it, i know the concept is alien to you, but not to most of the rest of us.

So according to you everything I say is wacky. I would have to skeptical of that position, if I was a lurker.

Secondly, we are not anti-government. That is what those who are so skeptical of us and so accepting of the government that they need to label us call us. We are pro-good government. There is a big difference there.

If you think we do not have a class based system now you are sadly mistaken.

Essentially the Freeman perspective simply realizes that in that massive and growing body of rules and regulations, some are only applicable to those who seek certain benefits, and by rejecting those so called benefits we ease our regulatory burden, and those who refuse to see that, end up arguing that they can have benefits without the burdens, which means it is they who are the freeloaders. We do not want benefits without burdens, and see them as two sides of the same coin. Naysayers see benefits as magically existing with no burdens at all associated to them. They also see conveniences as 'benefits' and think that we must give those up if we do not wish to be agents or employees or wards of the state.

Many of the things you call laws, are actually only the rules of those who have accepted(often without realizing it) the status of employee, agent or ward of the state, and we escape those by abandoning that status. Mostly because we were skeptical of the claims made by those in the government, called them on it, and they failed to prove their claims of divine or magical ability to govern without consent.

We are the pro-good government skeptics. You are the ones who insult, denigrate and ridicule those who are more skeptical than you and who due to that greater level of skepticism, no longer accept what you blindly embrace.

 

[D'rok]

Many of the things you call laws, are actually only the rules of those who have accepted(often without realizing it) the status of employee, agent or ward of the state,

Prove it.

and we escape those by abandoning that status..

Prove it.

Less talk, more rock. Put up or shut up. Etc.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Because what he said, was what you said?

Man, stop with the rambles, it gets really old, really quickly. If you can defend your position do so, if you can counter my points , do so. But these failed filibusters are educing enough of an eye roll that i am going to give you a fee schedule for my medical bills due to strain of the optic nerve should you keep on busting them out.

So discussion and negotiation. Tools available for use to avoid civil court or quasi-criminal actions or not? I say they do work when employed properly. You did not raise any points with quoting JB did you?

As for your fee schedule, when I demand or order you read my posts, and threaten you with punishment for not doing so, then it would be applicable. But of course that distinction here is one never made, and is therefore used to justify dismissing the concept of fee schedules in their entirety, right?

As for free soda, well, I guess you will not like my next presentation at all. But do not worry, there is a simple remedy for you. When everyone else is paying for their soda in a manner that you think is them getting it for free, all you have to do is not engage in the method yourself. Just follow your conscience as you see fit, and allow others to do the same. Of course for people like you that won't be good enough will it? You will have to speak out against them doing so, try to stop them from following their own conscience because yours is better, and you are more oral, right?


Let me ask you this hypothetically: If others were paying for their meals say by merely signing the bill a certain way, and not giving cash for it, would you refuse to use that method yourself even though it was proven everyone had a right to do so? Also, if you were locked in a room, dying of thirst, and there was a broken vending machine there which could supply you with life saving beverage, but not take your soon to be useless coins, would you still refuse to take the free soda, you know, because you are so much more moral and can see past your own thirst? Or would you grab a soda and save your life? Just a hypothetical situation between life and death.

 

[BobHaulk]

So according to you everything I say is wacky. I would have to skeptical of that position, if I was a lurker.

Secondly, we are not anti-government. That is what those who are so skeptical of us and so accepting of the government that they need to label us call us. We are pro-good government. There is a big difference there.

If you think we do not have a class based system now you are sadly mistaken.

Essentially the Freeman perspective simply realizes that in that massive and growing body of rules and regulations, some are only applicable to those who seek certain benefits, and by rejecting those so called benefits we ease our regulatory burden, and those who refuse to see that, end up arguing that they can have benefits without the burdens, which means it is they who are the freeloaders. We do not want benefits without burdens, and see them as two sides of the same coin. Naysayers see benefits as magically existing with no burdens at all associated to them. They also see conveniences as 'benefits' and think that we must give those up if we do not wish to be agents or employees or wards of the state.

Many of the things you call laws, are actually only the rules of those who have accepted(often without realizing it) the status of employee, agent or ward of the state, and we escape those by abandoning that status. Mostly because we were skeptical of the claims made by those in the government, called them on it, and they failed to prove their claims of divine or magical ability to govern without consent.

We are the pro-good government skeptics. You are the ones who insult, denigrate and ridicule those who are more skeptical than you and who due to that greater level of skepticism, no longer accept what you blindly embrace.

The problem with the pretend counter culture is neatly illustrated in this post by the Captain. Note how he weaves the whole of everything into a single position and if you don't agree you are some kind of apologist for everything that happens that the captain don't like.
It's not smart nor is it clever but it is funny.

 

[D'rok]

As for free soda, well, I guess you will not like my next presentation at all...

Let me ask you this hypothetically: If others were paying for their meals say by merely signing the bill a certain way, and not giving cash for it, would you refuse to use that method yourself even though it was proven everyone had a right to do so?

Foreshadowing the next version of the "A4V/96 is the fix" con?

I wonder how much the DVD will cost?

 

[Mojo]

Well, clearly they used the wrong version of Black's. They had the audacity to use the most up-to-date version available at the time. Obviously, it would be much more appropriate to use a version from the late 19th century.

Rob wasn't using any edition of Black's. Follow the thread you linked to to see what he eventually cited.

 

[D'rok]

Rob wasn't using any edition of Black's. Follow the thread you linked to to see what he eventually cited.

Intarweb Legal scholarship at its finest. At least it was a small step up from Youtube.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Most of all, PhnomPenhPete
Be very skeptical of those who cowardly hide behind anonymity on the web.
Be skeptical of those who for whatever silly reason, will not identify themselves.

Those are the ones you should be most skeptical about.

 

[D'rok]

I'm pretty sure all those judges who constantly rule against FOTLers use their real names, in real life, in real courts.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Most of all, PhnomPenhPete
Be very skeptical of those who cowardly hide behind anonymity on the web.
Be skeptical of those who for whatever silly reason, will not identify themselves.

Those are the ones you should be most skeptical about.

You mean the likes of the antiterrorist? Those who hide behind a ski mask?
Should we be most sceptical about him?

 

[Border Reiver]

Most of all, PhnomPenhPete
Be very skeptical of those who cowardly hide behind anonymity on the web.
Be skeptical of those who for whatever silly reason, will not identify themselves.

Those are the ones you should be most skeptical about.

In addition to the ones who are unable to point to a single example of their legal arguments working, when there literally dozens of examples of the those same arguments not succeeding.

 

[D'rok]

You mean the likes of the antiterrorist? Those who hide behind a ski mask?
Should we be most sceptical about him?

Nah. He means anonymous posters on Internet forums who link to verifiable evidence of FOTL failures in the real world.

We should be sceptical of them. We definitely shouldn't look at any of the evidence they link to.

On the other hand, if we gave Rob our real names, he would surely then be bound to accept the results of the court cases we link to, right?

 

[Cocana The Second]

As for your fee schedule, when I demand or order you read my posts, and threaten you with punishment for not doing so, then it would be applicable. But of course that distinction here is one never made, and is therefore used to justify dismissing the concept of fee schedules in their entirety, right?

Hang on, can I just pause you there to double check your position? Are you now suggesting that fee schedules only apply when the other party is threatening you (i.e. the fee schedule server) with something?

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Most of all, PhnomPenhPete
Be very skeptical of those who cowardly hide behind anonymity on the web.
Be skeptical of those who for whatever silly reason, will not identify themselves.

Those are the ones you should be most skeptical about.

This seems like a very strange appeal to make to a person who is apparently "cowardly hiding behind" the username "PhnomPenhPete", don't you agree, Rob? I feel like you didn't really think this one through (as usual).

 

[JLord]

What good is a fee schedule if you have no way to enforce it?