Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking of Gandhi, he was a lawyer, so he must have been "in on" The Great Legal Conspiracy. Why didn't he just go the freeman route and pass around a bunch of fliers with the "Whereas it is my understanding" spiel on them?
 
If your entire point is "They can't do anything against you without your consent" and then they do something against you without your consent, yes that is a failure.
 
FreemanMenard said:
So Ghandi NEVER went to jail?
Or did he?

Would you be claiming (back when he was in jail) that his being jailed was evidence of him failing? That he was wrong at law?

Or was it merely one of the things he had to go through to eventually find success and prove it was the British who were wrong the whole time, even though they had the bigger sticks?

FREEMEN GOT NATIONAL EXPOSURE!
Care to deny THAT?

Thought not....
Click to expand...

Yes he as the leader knew he needed to lead

You don't lead you cower

Yes you got national exposure - as nuts, enjoy

So when can we expect you to act as Ghandi and force them to put you in jail or back down as you seem to think your magic will do?
 
I have been jailed over a dozen times for doing what I do...
Click to expand...

You consented to this?

You are, and always have been, an utter failure at being a conman.

Is there anything you have ever done right?
 
The freemen have the right to be bums if they want to be, and I gotta admit I admire Rob a bit for putting his balls on enough to take on this entire message board all by his lonesome.

That's kinda neat.
 
Last edited:
flabio said:
The freemen have the right to be bums if they want to be,
Click to expand...

No, legally speaking, they don't have the right to be "bums" at all (presuming that "bum" means someone who doesn't pay income tax, family maintenance, car insurance, fines, etc., etc.)

flabio said:
and I gotta admit I admire Rob a bit for putting his balls on enough to take on this entire message board all by his lonesome.

That's kinda neat.
Click to expand...

In my view, it doesn't take balls to troll a forum by recycling twenty year old nonsense cons. It doesn't take balls to make extraordinary, implausible, impossible claims with exactly zero evidence or sources. Simply put, it doesn't take balls to lie (at least in this context).
 
I asked Rob once if he was ever going to make an "at the wheel" vid on the Icke forums once and he just deflected, melted down, and cried to the mods to have me banned for being an alt. It was then his veil arose and I saw his juvenile troll tactics for what they were, and they were exactly that, troll tactics. But it's nice to see Rob here sticking up for himself, otherwise this thread would just be another typical self congratulatory circle-jerk. You know, the usual...
 
Last edited:
flabio said:
But it's nice to see Rob here sticking up for himself, otherwise this thread would just be another typical self congratulatory circle-jerk. You know, the usual...
Click to expand...
.
If, by "sticking up" you mean "repeating idiot claims and lies" and "self congratulatory ... " you mean "pointing and laughing sadly", I suppose...
.
 
I've learned some stuff off Rob that has helped me before. Mind you, I won't buy into a word of his pontification against the highway traffic act until I see him in a vid getting pulled over and then just drive away unabated. It's the stuff he insistently harps on about but fails to put into action that gets him in hot water. It seems he needs to relax on the trolling and just get out into the real world to preform some actions to back up all those five dollar words for a change.

I'm not choosing sides, Just noting that Rob is doing fairly well at holding his own considering on how badly he's getting dog piled.
 
Last edited:
flabio said:
I'm not choosing sides, Just noting that Rob is doing fairly well at holding his own considering on how badly he's getting dog piled.
Click to expand...

But, you do have to accept, don't you, that Menard, despite repeated requests, has never provided any evidence whatsoever of his stuff working.
 
Rob Wrote
Imagine you get mugged, and call the cops.
They ask "WHO MUGGED YOU? We need their names."
You say" I do not know their names."
Cops respond "Clearly they do not exists!"

Does that make sense or not?

I NEVER claimed she was an ally. The opposite was in fact the case. I claimed I had finally got the attention of 'them'. (do THEY not exist if I do not have their names?)
Click to expand...
Yet again Rob de-bunks his own theory, let me explain

Rob clearly states that for a "society" to exist it must have a name, he has been banging on about that for years, now he seems to be claiming even though these muggers do not have names they still exist????
Menardian logic, I never tire of its double standards.
 
flabio said:
I'm not choosing sides, Just noting that Rob is doing fairly well at holding his own considering on how badly he's getting dog piled.
Click to expand...

Hi, welcome to the forum. :)

Considering how many times Rob has been asked and subsequently failed to produce a shred of evidence to back up any of his claims, I find it hard to see how that could be seen as holding his own. If you know of any evidence to support his claims, if you could state it clearly or link to it that would be great.

I doubt I will be the only one ask this of you. Please don't take it personally, it's how things work here, people make wild claims (such as individual consent is required in order to be governed/ you are exempt from statute law if you follow some secret method, I call it secret because Rob has never stated what the procedure is) and are then asked to back up said claims with hard evidence.
 
Last edited:
When I went to court with my photo radar ticket and told them that I wanted to "contest" this ticket as opposed to saying that I wanted to plead "not guilty" they dropped it right there. And that was direct evidence to me that choosing the proper words work.
 
flabio said:
When I went to court with my photo radar ticket and told them that I wanted to "contest" this ticket as opposed to saying that I wanted to plead "not guilty" they dropped it right there. And that was direct evidence to me that choosing the proper words work.
Click to expand...

Let's get this straight.
Are you claiming that by entering a court and stating that you wish to contest a ticket the prosecution will cease?
 
I'm not choosing sides, Just noting that Rob is doing fairly well at holding his own considering on how badly he's getting dog piled.
Click to expand...
Really????
Have you been reading this thread?
Its been going for two years and Rob has been totally destroyed, most of it by his own words.
 
Stacey Grove said:
Let's get this straight.
Are you claiming that by entering a court and stating that you wish to contest a ticket the prosecution will cease?
Click to expand...

All I am saying is that it did in that instance. That, and a five minute chin wag with the crown.
 
flabio said:
When I went to court with my photo radar ticket and told them that I wanted to "contest" this ticket as opposed to saying that I wanted to plead "not guilty" they dropped it right there. And that was direct evidence to me that choosing the proper words work.
Click to expand...

I have to say, I'm not exactly sure what this has got to do with Freemanism. Is this exclusively a Freeman technique (just contest and they'll drop it) and does it apply to any other offences?

With regard to your personal case, out of curiosity, how fast were you going and on what grounds did you think you were not guilty of speeding? Also, do you now think you can speed with impunity because you know the technique of avoiding prosecution?
 
That, and a five minute chin wag with the crown.
Click to expand...

And what did this "chin wag" consist of?


You see you originally presented your "evidence" and when pressed seem to indicate a little more.

Yes, Rob has schooled you well.
 
jargon buster said:
Really????
Have you been reading this thread?
Its been going for two years and Rob has been totally destroyed, most of it by his own words.
Click to expand...

Can't says I've read the thread in it's entirety, no. but I've been lurking here since I signed up three weeks ago and have been following it fairly closely. It was the whole CBC thing that made me wanna to jump in, I guess. That segment was a total crock of b.s..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom