Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
arayder said:
I don't know what Menard knew, but I doubt he would have cared.
Click to expand...

It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of sanity that Lance has issues. Reading his comments on Facebook indicates this.

Menard couldn't give a flying dog turd about having conned a vulnerable individual out of $800. He took the money and ran.

Lance used Menard's phony legal advice and it got him into deeper problems.
Menard insists he is not to blame for Lance getting locked up. In typically childish Menardisms Rob merely asks "Who is to blame, me or the Judge?".

I don't know if Rob had made/posted his latest "ideas", (for entertainment purposes only of course), but I highly suspect it will be another case of...

Rob reads some crap on the internet. Rob believes that crap. Rob "researches" the crap by popping in to The University of YouTube.
Rob misinterprets some very basic concepts about law and the English language. Rob makes a video where he regurgitates other people's nonsense.

It's always the same with these scamsters.
Wether it be Ben Lowry, Robert Menard, Dean Clifford...... they all follow the same idiotic lines of thought.
They are blind to the fact that inventors of this decades-old crap all ended up getting locked up for being fraudsters.
They are blind to the fact that 99% of the planet's population view them as a complete laughing stock.


I eagerly await his latest concotion of gibberish, rubbish, nonsense and bs.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone seen the presentation that Menard gave on Sunday? Any news about this or videos or anything?
 
JLord said:
Has anyone seen the presentation that Menard gave on Sunday? Any news about this or videos or anything?
Click to expand...

I figured it was next Sunday. I could be wrong but on past form I'm not getting my hopes up that he will lay out a definate method that we can see. More than likely there will just be a degree of vagueness with some accompanying words.
 
arayder said:
That's laughable, Menard. Your methods, if you ever grew the stones to use them, would cheat restaurant owners out of the check. . . .then you parse words and play debate games to make it sound like I just don't understand your "brilliance".

I know thievery when I see, it ole son.
Click to expand...

You know when rob brought that one up, it reminded me of something, but it took till now for me to remember.

When i was very young, around 5-7 a friend and myself thought we found the perfect way to cheat the system and get free candy without stealing it ( we were not **** disturbers in any way, and the stealing of candy is not something we would have done. ).

In a local grocery store ( actually pretty much all of them at the time.) they had a tin for getting samples of the candy. The premise was to put in 5 cents, and take one candy, to see if it was worth buying in bulk.

Well, obviously sitting around just eating them was stealing, but we realized that if we were to put in pennies instead of nickles, we could seem as if we are paying, get the candy, and not pay that much at all. And to us, as we were giving something to the place, we were not stealing, merely working a flaw in the system.

And it worked, people who saw us, assumed we were paying in the appropriate fashion, and even once, a store worker came over , not to stop us, but to tell us we would be getting more value by just buying the candy in bulk.

After we pulled a FOTL, we went to the park and spread out our candy to engage in a feast. We got about 5 or six pieces in when we realized something.

We just stole about 10 dollars worth of candy.

It came crashing in on us that even though we got away with it, and even though we did not "steal" in the very technical sense of the term, that we had removed something from a place, and that place was not going to receive the value of what we took. And that even if this worked every time we did it, it was wrong.

We literally ran from the place, leaving the candy, and felt incredibly ashamed over the next couple of weeks, going so far as to sneak in 10 dollars to the tin, as even at age 5 or so, our morality wouldn't let us get away with doing what we did.

And that is what FOTL is, in a nutshell , finding a way to beat the system , and damn anyone who has to suffer, whether that be the tax man ( your fellow canadians.) , the electric company, or your landlord. Even if you convince them to accept the wacky signature, they are not going to be able to get anything from it, and they are losing profit. If myself at age 5 could understand this is wrong, even if it is effective ( which it is not.) , how can Rob and his ilk not?
 
sadhatter said:
If myself at age 5 could understand this is wrong, even if it is effective ( which it is not.) , how can Rob and his ilk not?
Click to expand...

One answer would be that they do know but just don't care. :(

Good job it doesn't work. :)
 
Last edited:
deeper said:
One answer would be that they do know but just don't care. :(

Good job it doesn't work. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, i would say that is the most reasonable explanation. They don't care that their magic spell gets the person in question funds, just that it gets rid of their debt if accepted.

when a 5 year old wanting candy is outmoraling you, your philosophy has some serious problems.
 
Menards at it again (self debunking)
He wrote

For instance in the first bolded part, you state according to freeman law a person cannot lawfully govern another without consent.. That is not entirely true, and is a gross misrepresentation of our beliefs Yet you continue to do it over and over and over. Where is the aspect about 'if they are not harming another'? Why do you always leave THAT out? People who cannot govern themselves responsibly can be governed without their consent. But that aspect if you mention it undermines your core position, so you continue to ignore it.
Click to expand...
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060606779&postcount=116

So if you don't follow Robs rules you can be lawfully governed without your consent???
Im confused now, what if a beer sodden rambling fool gate crashed a private meeting in the park when he clearly isn't wanted there as the people ignore him and his verbal diarrhoea is polluting the airways and causing harm.
Surely that individual isn't acting responsibly and as such can be governed without his consent.
But Rob would surely say, that person has a right to be there, he isn't harming anyone.

Fortunately in this instance the hobo was governed without his consent by a balloon.
 
After 128 pages

Summary:

JREF: Rob do you have any proof that your ideas work in the real world?

Rob: Well no.......

End of mission

The other 128 pages of 'stuff' has been humorous but unnecessary.....
 
Has anyone seen the presentation that Menard gave on Sunday? Any news about this or videos or anything?
Click to expand...
http://worldfreemansociety.org/Welcome+Page

its taking place on the 19th Feb

He has announced it on the 9th Feb on WFS forums 71 views and no responses as yet, I'm sure it will be a sell out though :roll eyes:
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=12661

PS I have sent him a mail asking for 50 tickets and that I would be happy to pay for them by the 'accepted for value' method just to show that his theory is valid. :D
 
jargon buster said:
Menards at it again (self debunking)
Click to expand...

He's gone one better since then. Take a look at this one: http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060610873&postcount=161.

Having realised, it seems, that individuals vote and from this the majority view is established, he then tries to turn this on its head to suggest that the individual is sovereign!

It's a shame that he didn't manage to reduce it to one or two sentences. I'd have stundied him in a shot if he had.

What a nutbar. Leave him in a locked room with the key to the door and, rather than put it in the lock, he'll swallow the key, sit down and proclaim that he's a master locksmith.
 
Hektor said:
I noticed that tickets are $20 at the door. You'd think Rob would be using the new method he will be preaching as his preferred method of payment.
Click to expand...

Empowermentality Show: 50% discount for retirees, students, and serving police officers!
Click to expand...
:D

Will they need some form of government-issued I.D. to prove that they are any of those things in order to claim their discount for buying pretend legal advice from a failed comedian who tells people they can get out of paying for things simply by writing and uttering gibberish?
 
Empowermentality Show: 50% discount for retirees, students, and serving police officers!
Click to expand...

What if someone claims to be a retired police officer now working part time in the police admin section whilst studying at college?
Mind you $2.50 is still too steep.
 
It would be interesting to see if he would accept a "bill of exchange." I bet he would if you had some kind of elaborate theory behind. It would fit right in with his theories so I'm sure someone could get in free this way.
 
Turns up at venue
Hi Rob, can i have 5 tickets please?
Sure that will be $100
I have accessed my Birth Bond and the reference number is SN0989876686, if you send the bill for the tickets to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will use my bond to settle the debt.
Do you have proof of the birth bond?
Of course Rob, I have a letter in my cupboard drawer at my old address.
Don't you think you should have brought that with you?
Nah, I don't carry every letter around with me, that would be unrealistic wouldn't it?
(Remembers past forum posts) errrr........I guess so.
So can I have the tickets please?
errrr...the management has the right to refuse admission.
Really? By who's authority?
Mine, I make the rules , its my show.
I dont consent to your rules Rob.
Well i have two guys here who will throw you out
Really? Without my consent?


etc,etc,etc
 
As Rob has pointed out, you can't use the majik birth bond to pay for luxuries.
It can only be used to pay for the basics of life; food, water, court fines, pesky loans etc.

So paying for "entertainment" would not be an acceptable useage by the secret powers who hide these monies.

Of slight interest though, in his funny "Malcolm's Travels" videos he does, from recollection, suggest to his audience that one could buy a boat with it.

Hopefully his latest comedic masterpieece will be available for us all to wet ourselves with laughter at see soon.
 
Last edited:
Eating out in restaurants and stiffing the owner on the bill isn't a luxury when you have nowhere to live, it's a necessity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom