Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
flabio said:
All I am saying is that it did in that instance. That, and a five minute chin wag with the crown.
Click to expand...

And you believe your success was due to you using the word "contest"?
Why, in your opinion, would using the word "contest" make the prosecution fold? Does that word have some sort of secret power, and the courts recognise that?
 
jargon buster said:
Yes, Rob has schooled you well.
Click to expand...

I guess you must have missed where I mentioned that I'm not choosing sides here. I like to think that Menard may have held the ball at one time, but decided to rest on his laurels as opposed to running with it. I've been familiar with his stuff for a few years now, see...
 
flabio said:
I guess you must have missed where I mentioned that I'm not choosing sides here.
Click to expand...
No, we saw that, we also saw the part where you started defending Rob and acting like him.


I like to think that Menard may have held the ball at one time,
Click to expand...
Any reason why you like to think that?


but decided to rest on his laurels as opposed to running with it. I've been familiar with his stuff for a few years now, see...
Click to expand...
Which particular part of his philosophy do you think is worth running with?
 
flabio said:
Everyone seems to be avoiding what a pile of crap the CBC segment was...
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, could you state clearly why you take this position.


ETA: In case you missed it,

deeper said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
deeper said:
That is your opinion, could you state clearly why you take this position.


ETA: In case you missed it,
Click to expand...

Nope, wouldn't have missed it for two-bits and a can of hominy grits.

I rolled my eye's when Rob just panned over the same old crap he's been saying for years already about the bond on the birth certificate, but nothing in comparison to the absurdity of the comparison between the freemen and the American sovereigns. Do feel free to post evidence of freemen terrorist activities if you tend to disagree...
 
flabio said:
I rolled my eye's when Rob just panned over the same old crap he's been saying for years already about the bond on the birth certificate, but nothing in comparison to the absurdity of the comparison between the freemen and the American sovereigns. Do feel free to post evidence of freemen terrorist activities if you tend to disagree...
Click to expand...

I don't really feel the need to as the programme made it quite clear that there were cultural differences between the two and it clearly stated that the opinions of police officers themselves were divided between those who thought Canadian Freeman had the same potential for violence as the Soveriegns in the U.S. and those who didn't.

Personally, I found the focus on the potential violence was a little overplayed and wish they'd had a quick look at the absurdity of Rob's "Consent" theory.

So of Rob's other claims, Birth Bond aside, which ones do you think have merit and why?
 
deeper said:
So of Rob's other claims, Birth Bond aside, which ones do you think have merit and why?
Click to expand...

Governance by consent would be a good start. I've refused consent to officers of the law in the past and it made them upset, but realize at the same time that there was nothing they could really do to infringe on my rights any further.
 
Last edited:
Governance by consent would be a good start. I've refused consent to officers of the law in the past and it made them upset, but realize at the same time that there was nothing they could really do to infringe on my rights any further.
Click to expand...

Really, so are you saying if you refuse to consent there is nothing they can do?
 
flabio said:
Governance by consent would be a good start. I've refused consent to officers of the law in the past and it made them upset, but realize at the same time that there was nothing they could really do to infringe on my rights any further.
Click to expand...

If that is the case why do you have reservations about Rob's claims regarding a Road Traffic Act? Surely if pulled over you could simply tell the cop you do not consent?
 
flabio
I sense you are here to simply deflect the conversation away from Menards idiocy and his exposure by CBC.
I recall a flabio appearing on Ickes and being accused of being me:D
 
It would tell the cop I do not consent. Once it got to the point he wanted to search my car,that is. I signed the contract at motor vehicles, If I'm speeding I'm getting the ticket and I'm not going to cry about it. They just have no right digging through my personal belongings unless they know darn well I've done something wrong. that's all...
 
flabio said:
Nope, wouldn't have missed it for two-bits and a can of hominy grits.

I rolled my eye's when Rob just panned over the same old crap he's been saying for years already about the bond on the birth certificate, but nothing in comparison to the absurdity of the comparison between the freemen and the American sovereigns. Do feel free to post evidence of freemen terrorist activities if you tend to disagree...
Click to expand...


American here, in case you couldn't tell from my location (and by looking closely at my avatar). Also a former accountant, so I'm more familiar than average with tax protestors. The fact is the two movements are reasonably similar in outlook and ideology. The vast majority of "Sovereign Citizens" are relatively non-violent, as you can tell if you do a Google search of recent news articles about them. The reason that Canadians might perceive them as more violent than Rob and his ilk is, first, you probably mostly only hear about the violent ones in Canada (except for Wesley Snipes), and second, the US has 10 times Canada's population, so we have 10 times as many kooks, and any violence by anti-government protestors is at least 10 times more likely to occur in the US as in Canada. I will grant that kooks in the US may have easier access to firearms.
 
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...

Do you have any record to prove this. A court date, what court was the hearing held in and who was the judge would all be important information considering this would be the first time and FOTL stuff actually worked.
 
flabio said:
Governance by consent would be a good start. I've refused consent to officers of the law in the past and it made them upset, but realize at the same time that there was nothing they could really do to infringe on my rights any further.
Click to expand...

Any proof of that statement?
 
flabio said:
I rolled my eye's when Rob just panned over the same old crap he's been saying for years already about the bond on the birth certificate, but nothing in comparison to the absurdity of the comparison between the freemen and the American sovereigns.
Click to expand...
The connection is clear. FOTL scams are carbon copies of older Sovereign/Redemption scams with only the terminology changed for a Canadian audience. "Security of the Person" and "96 is the fix" are crystal clear examples of this. FOTLers are simply following in the footsteps of the American movement. It's an open question whether or not they'll follow all the way to actual violence, but it is perfectly justified to suspect that they might.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom