Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
arayder said:
He’s already moved on to his latest rant in which social intercourse is the same as sexual intercourse, meaning being summoned to court is being raped.

I think our boy is going ‘round the bend.
Click to expand...

ALL intercourse be it sexual, commercial or social, requires mutual consent, if we are equal.

I think you went around the bend ages ago, and now are (according to you) seeking to destroy some other human being whom you have never met, do not know, and you justify your hate filled heart.

Remove the beam from you own eye before you point out the mote in others.
 
While intercourse may require consent - the courts, and society in general do not require your consent for the imposition of the rules we call "the law."

In case you've ever wondered why we keep asking for that one case Bob, it is because you have made a legal argument - namely that you can withdraw your consent to be governed by statute law.

The test for anything is to see if it does as claimed. Doesn't matter if the claim is that water boils at 100^C at sea level, or if you can withdraw consent to be bound by statute law. In the case of water we apply heat to water while at the correct elevation and use a thermometer and in the case of FMOTL we see what the courts say. So far, freeman arguments have failed the critical test at every turn. You claim they haven't but can't clearly identify a court or case where they have been accepted. At this point having examined evidence we conclude that your legal argument holds no weight and that FMOTL/Freemanism or what ever your wish to call it is at best a wish for how things ought to be, and at worst, a scam whereby a conartist convinces the ignorant or desperate that they can do this - just send money to find out how...
 
Border Reiver said:
While intercourse may require consent - the courts, and society in general do not require your consent for the imposition of the rules we call "the law."

In case you've ever wondered why we keep asking for that one case Bob, it is because you have made a legal argument - namely that you can withdraw your consent to be governed by statute law.

The test for anything is to see if it does as claimed. Doesn't matter if the claim is that water boils at 100^C at sea level, or if you can withdraw consent to be bound by statute law. In the case of water we apply heat to water while at the correct elevation and use a thermometer and in the case of FMOTL we see what the courts say. So far, freeman arguments have failed the critical test at every turn. You claim they haven't but can't clearly identify a court or case where they have been accepted. At this point having examined evidence we conclude that your legal argument holds no weight and that FMOTL/Freemanism or what ever your wish to call it is at best a wish for how things ought to be, and at worst, a scam whereby a conartist convinces the ignorant or desperate that they can do this - just send money to find out how...
Click to expand...


Really? Then explain WHY the Income Tax Act, and so many others require one to 'submit' an 'application' to receive benefits, which are clearly voluntary actions before the Act comes into force over them? Since I have no SIN, I cannot collect certain benefits as expressed in various Acts. Since I can't collect those benefits, I have no obligation to pay for them. This was my choice to make.

Do you agree that having a SIN is a choice?
Do you agree without it one cannot collect benefits such as CPP, Welfare and EI?
Do you agree that those benefits and how they are disbursed are covered by an Act?
Do you agree that if we do not apply (ask, beg, plead, petition) for a SIN, we are not subject to the Acts which govern those who do have a SIN?

As for proof, there is plenty out there, for those who chose to seek it out. Maybe those who are not capable of self-governing simply lack the ability to see it, and if that is the case, why should I show them? Is see no wisdom in freeing from statutory controls those who lack the ability to understand freedom, self-governance and responsibility, and those who demand proof instead of seeking it out themselves simply lack that required level of personal responsibility.
 
D'rok said:
Lest we forget, a few weeks ago Menard promised The Big Reveal. Where is it? What happened to the new material that we were promised? Such a tease.
Click to expand...

He did give a one word clue "consumption". Maybe he's found a way of getting consumer goods but without having to cough up for them:)

Thank you I'll be here all week.
Try the veal.
 
FreemanMenard said:
As for proof, there is plenty out there, for those who chose to seek it out. Maybe those who are not capable of self-governing simply lack the ability to see it, and if that is the case, why should I show them? Is see no wisdom in freeing from statutory controls those who lack the ability to understand freedom, self-governance and responsibility, and those who demand proof instead of seeking it out themselves simply lack that required level of personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Either that, or you're just completely full of ****. Which, I wonder, is more likely?
 
FreemanMenard said:
ALL intercourse be it sexual, commercial or social, requires mutual consent, if we are equal.

I think you went around the bend ages ago, and now are (according to you) seeking to destroy some other human being whom you have never met, do not know, and you justify your hate filled heart.

Remove the beam from you own eye before you point out the mote in others.
Click to expand...

How about this: YOU stop destroying innocent people with your fraudulent "advice" before you accuse others of seeking to destroy you by pointing out the nature of what you do. You know, beams and motes and all that.
 
Horatius said:
....
I suspect a lot of this comes down to these guys just not being very bright, and not understanding exactly what having a mortgage or a car loan really means. How often have we seen them say things like, "Gee, over the course of the mortgage, you'll pay X times what the house was really worth!", as if no one had ever heard of compound interest, or amortization before. Or even as if online mortgage calculators weren't available. Heck, even the banks themselves will tell you exactly what you're paying back.
Click to expand...

Partially right, not all lenders want people to realise what they are doing.
When getting my mortgage I read the contract carefully and got the banker to explain the long words. ;)

In the book "Deer hunting with Jesus" there is a description of a somewhat different mortgage practice. The idea were basically to con people into getting as big loans as possible whether they could pay them or not.
The loans were then sold on.

Another nasty example is all the quick-loans being peddled everywhere.
 
Rob, you have a social insurance number - you needed it when you enrolled in the CF. That number is yours for life as SINs are not reused or reissued.

As for proof, there is plenty out there, for those who chose to seek it out. Maybe those who are not capable of self-governing simply lack the ability to see it, and if that is the case, why should I show them? Is see no wisdom in freeing from statutory controls those who lack the ability to understand freedom, self-governance and responsibility, and those who demand proof instead of seeking it out themselves simply lack that required level of personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Nice rhetoric, but to quote Robb Stark: "Words are wind."

You go on and on about how the evidence is out there, but oddly no one else seems to find anything but evidence that you cannot opt out of statutes. If you're the only one who sees this evidence maybe this is a sign that this is some sort of delusion on your part.
 
FreemanMenard said:
As for proof, there is plenty out there, for those who chose to seek it out. Maybe those who are not capable of self-governing simply lack the ability to see it, and if that is the case, why should I show them? Is see no wisdom in freeing from statutory controls those who lack the ability to understand freedom, self-governance and responsibility, and those who demand proof instead of seeking it out themselves simply lack that required level of personal responsibility.
Click to expand...


The "why should I show you my evidence" approach is a pretty good marker for people who are aware that they have no evidence that will stand up to scrutiny.
 
ALL intercourse be it sexual, commercial or social, requires mutual consent, if we are equal.
Click to expand...

Putting litterally any thought at all into this, trying to apply this to any real life, real world situation, would show how ridiculous and inapplicable that statement is.

It's really a testament to how much effort is put into actively avoiding to put any thought whatsoever into all this.
 
Border Reiver said:
Rob, you have a social insurance number - you needed it when you enrolled in the CF. That number is yours for life as SINs are not reused or reissued.



Nice rhetoric, but to quote Robb Stark: "Words are wind."

You go on and on about how the evidence is out there, but oddly no one else seems to find anything but evidence that you cannot opt out of statutes. If you're the only one who sees this evidence maybe this is a sign that this is some sort of delusion on your part.
Click to expand...

I needed that number to be an employee of Canada. I am no longer such an employee and therefore no longer have that number. I decide if I am in association with it, not you or anyone else. Just because numbers are not reused does not mean I am bound to agree to associate with it for life. At least the CRA agreed that they had no way to force me to be associated with any number, and as such no longer have an account with them, and thus no obligation to pay them a damn thing. Which I do not. Sorry nice try though.

I am SINless.
 
Boot2TheHead said:
Putting litterally any thought at all into this, trying to apply this to any real life, real world situation, would show how ridiculous and inapplicable that statement is.

It's really a testament to how much effort is put into actively avoiding to put any thought whatsoever into all this.
Click to expand...

Really? Tell it to a woman you want to have sex with who does not want to have sex with you.
Tell it to someone you wish to contract with who does not wish to contract with you.
Tell it to someone you wish to speak to who does not wish to speak to you.

It is clearly and obviously the case that intercourse, for it to be lawful, requires mutual consent. It is the nature of 'inter course' regardless of what type it is.

Maybe it is you not putting any thought into it.

I await your proof that you can have any type of the aforementioned intercourse without mutual consent without breaking the law.

If the tables were turned you folks would challenge me to go rape a woman and then prove I am not liable for the fact that I did not consent to the requirement for mutual consent. I will of course not extend that challenge, as it is offensive, but will challenge you to go out create a contract with someone else for anything without mutual consent, and then get a court to enforce it, cause you do not consent to the requirement for mutual consent.

Have fun.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I will of course not extend that challenge, as it is offensive, but will challenge you to go out create a contract with someone else for anything without mutual consent, and then get a court to enforce it, cause you do not consent to the requirement for mutual consent.
Click to expand...


As is pretty much always the case whenever you extend one of your "challenges", nobody has claimed that they can do this.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Do you agree that having a SIN is a choice?
Click to expand...


Nope.


Social Insurance Number

237. (1) Every individual (other than a trust) who was resident or employed in Canada at any time in a taxation year and who files a return of income under Part I for the year, or in respect of whom an information return is to be made by a person pursuant to a regulation made under paragraph 221(1)(d), shall,

(a) on or before the first day of February of the year immediately following the year for which the return of income is filed, or

(b) within 15 days after the individual is requested by the person to provide his Social Insurance Number,

apply to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission in prescribed form and manner for the assignment to the individual of a Social Insurance Number unless the individual has previously been assigned, or made application to be assigned, a Social Insurance Number.
Click to expand...


"Shall" = not a choice.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I await your proof that you can have any type of the aforementioned intercourse without mutual consent without breaking the law.
Click to expand...
I find this quite funny to tell you the truth.
Rob is using the example of rape to prove his point that consent is essential for sexual intercourse to be lawful but at the same time he is also proving the point that withdrawal of consent from the laws regarding rape is not possible.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I needed that number to be an employee of Canada. I am no longer such an employee and therefore no longer have that number. I decide if I am in association with it, not you or anyone else. Just because numbers are not reused does not mean I am bound to agree to associate with it for life. At least the CRA agreed that they had no way to force me to be associated with any number, and as such no longer have an account with them, and thus no obligation to pay them a damn thing. Which I do not. Sorry nice try though.

I am SINless.
Click to expand...


So you'll share this letter or other document from CRA? A scan will work - just block out your address.

The regulations dealing with SINs indicate that only the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development has the authority to issue SINs, and based on the plain wording of the regs - no one has the authority to rescind it. That number is yours for life, and will continue to be associated with you regardless of whether you want to or not. Much like the Service number that you were issued when the CF changed over from using SINs as identifiers and switched to SN in 1992. Again, an example of your being governed without consent.

And by the way Rob, as a CF member you were never an "employee" of Canada. You were a SERVANT of the Crown. Use the correct terminiology
 
Stacey Grove said:
I find this quite funny to tell you the truth.
Rob is using the example of rape to prove his point that consent is essential for sexual intercourse to be lawful but at the same time he is also proving the point that withdrawal of consent from the laws regarding rape is not possible.
Click to expand...

I never claimed the ability to withdraw consent from laws which deal with causing harm to others. Your laughter is a result of your own inability to see what my position ACTUALLY is.

Look at it like this: I embrace contract law, while using it to reject your offer to contract because I do not like the terms of the contract you offer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom