Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[FreemanMenard]

I mean restrictions like not being able to have a normal job, having to get paid under the table, not having RRSPs, being looked upon as a deadbeat freeloader, etc. Now you obviously have chosen to live this way so you obviously aren't bothered by these restrictions. I just point out that they are the same restrictions faced by non-freemen who need to live under the radar for a variety of other reasons.

I have a normal job. I do masonry by way of lawful two party contracts. It is not paid 'under the table' at al as I do not try to hide my actions. No RRSP is true, but I never wanted one.

People avoiding child support or avoiding a big tax bill do not literally need to hide. It isn't as if CRA sends people out to track down anyone who isn't paying taxes. If you are willing to live that sort of lifestyle and fly under the radar you can go your whole life without paying any taxes. There's a chance that for some reason CRA comes after you I guess, but it normally doesn't happen and it has nothing to do with people hiding.

Um, they did already try to come after me, and they failed to defend or support their claim that I have an account with them. You know, the NO SIN thing....

 

[D'rok]

But if you have it, and did not buy it, you can't claim I am selling it..

I claim you are selling it. I back up this claim with the fact that you are selling it. That makes it a simple statement of fact rather than a claim.

http://shop.worldfreemansociety.org..._id=15&zenid=a72729570af9da4d7094070630c6e212

It even looks like you have raised your prices by $10.00.

Do you really have the gall to claim that you don't sell your garbage at the same time as you openly advertise it for sale? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Stacey Grove]

I have never claimed my words were anything but my opinion. One which many happen to share after doing their own due diligence.

And that is exactly what I have said countless times.
You cannot offer proof of your claims, only your opinion why you believe your claims have validity. But we do know from experience when people in court have attempted to use the stuff you teach they have failed every single time.
It would appear the courts do not agree with your opinion, and it is the court's opinion that counts.

 

[Border Reiver]

I have never claimed my words were anything but my opinion. One which many happen to share after doing their own due diligence.

As for providing proof, many here hate on me for 'getting people in trouble'. (like they are not responsible for their own actions or something). Most of this comes when they act without being able to prove it themselves. For this to work, they must be able to prove their position when dealing with government agents. If I provide proof and convince them, they act without the ability to defend their own position, and that is when they get in trouble. That is why I have always told people to do their own due diligence and develop their own arguments and proofs.

Well Rob, you see that your friends who do try it have failed every time this legal argument is tried in court, I have my proof - FMOTL is a bust. As the only proof is that FMOTL does NOT work, due diligence proves the theory bogus.

We do rather dislike your attitude for being an instigator or enabler for the rather serious consequences, and the way that you back pedal away from any actual risk - you may remember this from years ago "Run, Chicken, Run!"

 

[Paul]

So now you claim to be psychic? I wonder what old Randi would think about that claim on this forum! LOL

I realise I used words with more than 1 syllable, but do try to keep up with the conversation.

In the limited scope of your FOTLarian pronouncements, either you say what you think or you lie, which is it?

 

[Mojo]

Ok. but why are you trying to change the subject?

I'm not. Your point to which I was replying was about whether we can assess your legal "theories" (for want of a better word) without having seen them or used them ourselves, and introduced a flawed analogy to "critiquing" a theatre show. I (elliptically, perhaps) illustrated the flaw in the analogy.

While it may be necessary to see a play before reviewing it, in the case of your "theories" we can assess their worth by looking at the results when others have used them. We do not have to examine them ourselves. We can read the court transcripts and judgments. We can even watch videos of people being hauled away shouting words along the lines of "I do not consent".

to go back to your theatrical analogy, I can arrive at a pretty reliable assessment of a particular production by reading the reviews published in the newspapers. I don't have to waste my money by paying to see every clunker that comes along.

You tried to change the subject by alleging corruption in the court and law enforcement systems, and collusion between them.

 

[D'rok]

I mean restrictions like not being able to have a normal job, having to get paid under the table, not having RRSPs, being looked upon as a deadbeat freeloader, etc. Now you obviously have chosen to live this way so you obviously aren't bothered by these restrictions. I just point out that they are the same restrictions faced by non-freemen who need to live under the radar for a variety of other reasons.



People avoiding child support or avoiding a big tax bill do not literally need to hide. It isn't as if CRA sends people out to track down anyone who isn't paying taxes. If you are willing to live that sort of lifestyle and fly under the radar you can go your whole life without paying any taxes. There's a chance that for some reason CRA comes after you I guess, but it normally doesn't happen and it has nothing to do with people hiding.

I agree with all of this based on personal experience. I've mentioned it before on this thread somewhere, but I spent 10 years as a working musician getting paid almost exclusively in cash. I never filed a tax return for that entire time. The CRA didn't care then and they don't care now. I am now joe regular with a normal job with all the usual trappings.

 

[BobHaulk]

i don't have a problem with Rob selling his "information", a fool and his money springs to mind. He is right, he puts up his stuff on youtube and you can watch for free. What's funny is after watching his stuff, looking into it a bit on line and then deciding he's right, i honestly can't see how anyone could. All along all i ever wanted to see was some proof. It's not much to ask. He doesn't seem to realise that every word he says is suspect when he is not offering up any evidence. If he had the evidence you can be sure he'd have shown it. He has to fight back with all the prevarication, pretend doubters are stupid or children in a vain attempt to confuse the debate but, it all comes down to evidence. Now maybe my google doesn't work well but it doesn't show me anywhere whatsoever where i can find the evidence that it would take to convince me. Sorry rob pal. To me you look less of a con man and more of a deluded soul, i actually think you believe what you are saying. People are odd, look how many believe in religion so it isn't much of a leap to think you've found the secret to freedom in the modern world. Delusion seems to be a major problem with humans.

 

[jargon buster]

Thats his scam in a nutshell bob, he has created copied something so stupid that it would take someone that was either mentally challenged or terminally desperate to believe it.
Its the perfect idiot filter, once he has the victims in his web he can manipulate their money away quite easily.

Edited for accuracy

 

[BobHaulk]

Rob is just one of many in the "alternative community" that bother me. These people sit there with their delusions, be it 9/11, aliens, NWO and all the rest of it and actually think they are doing something to help humanity, meanwhile lots of normal people put their lives on the line all over the world helping others in war zones etc. There are folk like Greenpeace and others trying to save the environment, there are millions of carers helping people for minimum wage live in their homes. The list is endless. Alternative people on the other hand are such a cop out. We all know some truther who is really quite thick yet because the are a truther they think they are the smartest people around. Rob thinks he's helping cause he's delusional, i feel sorry for him really.

 

[JLord]

I have a normal job. I do masonry by way of lawful two party contracts.

I should have specified that the restriction is on being employed by an employer at a normal job. Like deadbeat parents, you can be self employed and make money as a contractor.

It is not paid 'under the table' at al as I do not try to hide my actions.

Under the table normally means you are paid in a way that is not reported to CRA. So if you are paid in cash and don't report any income I think most people would consider this working under the table. That's what I meant anyways and this is what people have to do to avoid a big tax bill or child support or whatever.

Um, they did already try to come after me, and they failed to defend or support their claim that I have an account with them. You know, the NO SIN thing.

No, they didn't try to come after you. And even if they did they would not fail because you've decided not to have a SIN. We know this because of all the cases where people are convicted of tax evasion and the issue of them having a SIN is not raised. If this were a requirement for people to have to pay taxes in the first place then it would have to be proven in every case that the person had a SIN. It would be an essential element of the charge.

 

[fitzgibbon]

WTF is wrong with you?

I'm not sure there's enough time left in the year to parse that to any depth.

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

So if you are paid in cash and don't report any income I think most people would consider this working under the table.

You see, THAT's your short-coming. You are bound by convention and conventional use of words and phrases; not so BM (at least not according to him).

He's our very own Soviet Canuckistan version of Humpty-Dumpty with words meaning precisely what HE means them to, neither more nor less.

HTH
Fitz

 

[Cocana The Second]

As for providing proof, many here hate on me for 'getting people in trouble'. (like they are not responsible for their own actions or something). Most of this comes when they act without being able to prove it themselves. For this to work, they must be able to prove their position when dealing with government agents. If I provide proof and convince them, they act without the ability to defend their own position, and that is when they get in trouble.

Does that actually make any sense at all? Is Rob saying that it's necessary for him not to provide proof in order for his clients to succeed (read the final sentence)?

Rob seems to have reached new levels of absurdity with this. According to Rob, absence of proof is now necessary for success, which is daft in itself. However, what does Rob say about everyone who has proceeded with these freeman theories - and no proof - and failed? That means that not only is he wrong about the 'utility' of having no proof but allowing people to fail in the full knowledge (to Rob) that he has armed them with nothing in the first place.

I'm going to give Rob the benefit of the doubt for one moment and see if he wishes to clarify his position, but it seems to me that if he stands by his apparent remark that no proof is good then he has made himself all the more contemptible now. He seems to be treating the sale of snake oil (actually, it's worse than that because he's selling nothing at except his opinion that he has some magical snake oil) as if it's a badge of honour.

 

[fitzgibbon]

As for providing proof, many here hate on me for 'getting people in trouble'. (like they are not responsible for their own actions or something). Most of this comes when they act without being able to prove it themselves. For this to work, they must be able to prove their position when dealing with government agents. If I provide proof and convince them, they act without the ability to defend their own position, and that is when they get in trouble. That is why I have always told people to do their own due diligence and develop their own arguments and proofs.

Does that actually make any sense at all? Is Rob saying that it's necessary for him not to provide proof in order for his clients to succeed (read the final sentence)?

I think Bob styles himself along imagery out of National Geographic© TV programs. For instance, he's the leatherback turtle, depositing eggs hither and nigh in the sandpit, burying them and leaving them to fate. He sees himself as providing the necessary wherewithal for them to interpret and, when the time comes, to scramble madly to the sea (financial independence a la FMOTLism) ducking predators (lawyers, police and upholders of the law) of all kinds. The majority fall victim but enough get through to continue the population (at least if there were any successful FMOTL cases he could cite).

Or perhaps he sees himself as a brook trout, waiting for the female (the law) to loose the roe (the marks) over which he can spread his seed (his 'information'), then carry along on his merry way. Of course, again this presupposes enough successful roe completing the cycle of life to return and repeat the process.

So far as I've seen, both Bob as turtle or Bob as trout leads to a genetic dead-end as all progeny have succumbed in one manner or another.

Fitz

 

[D'rok]

I think Bob styles himself along imagery out of National Geographic© TV programs. For instance, he's the leatherback turtle, depositing eggs hither and nigh in the sandpit, burying them and leaving them to fate. He sees himself as providing the necessary wherewithal for them to interpret and, when the time comes, to scramble madly to the sea (financial independence a la FMOTLism) ducking predators (lawyers, police and upholders of the law) of all kinds. The majority fall victim but enough get through to continue the population (at least if there were any successful FMOTL cases he could cite).

Or perhaps he sees himself as a brook trout, waiting for the female (the law) to loose the roe (the marks) over which he can spread his seed (his 'information'), then carry along on his merry way. Of course, again this presupposes enough successful roe completing the cycle of life to return and repeat the process.

So far as I've seen, both Bob as turtle or Bob as trout leads to a genetic dead-end as all progeny have succumbed in one manner or another.

Fitz

Colourful. I like it.

 

[azzthom]

Does that actually make any sense at all? Is Rob saying that it's necessary for him not to provide proof in order for his clients to succeed (read the final sentence)?

Rob seems to have reached new levels of absurdity with this. According to Rob, absence of proof is now necessary for success, which is daft in itself. However, what does Rob say about everyone who has proceeded with these freeman theories - and no proof - and failed? That means that not only is he wrong about the 'utility' of having no proof but allowing people to fail in the full knowledge (to Rob) that he has armed them with nothing in the first place.

I'm going to give Rob the benefit of the doubt for one moment and see if he wishes to clarify his position, but it seems to me that if he stands by his apparent remark that no proof is good then he has made himself all the more contemptible now. He seems to be treating the sale of snake oil (actually, it's worse than that because he's selling nothing at except his opinion that he has some magical snake oil) as if it's a badge of honour.

I think you may have discovered a new fallacy. The 'Menardism'. Many possible definitions exist, so I'll just offer one- Cause and effect are linked, but it's all effect's fault.

 

[Cocana The Second]

I think you may have discovered a new fallacy. The 'Menardism'. Many possible definitions exist, so I'll just offer one- Cause and effect are linked, but it's all effect's fault.

Very well put. I've previously called this sort of thing "doing a Menard," which was often also conveyed as "what a Menard".

Menardism is a very neat alternative. Thank you.

 

[Cocana The Second]

I think Bob styles himself along imagery out of National Geographic© TV programs. For instance, he's the leatherback turtle, depositing eggs hither and nigh in the sandpit, burying them and leaving them to fate. He sees himself as providing the necessary wherewithal for them to interpret and, when the time comes, to scramble madly to the sea (financial independence a la FMOTLism) ducking predators (lawyers, police and upholders of the law) of all kinds. The majority fall victim but enough get through to continue the population (at least if there were any successful FMOTL cases he could cite).

Or perhaps he sees himself as a brook trout, waiting for the female (the law) to loose the roe (the marks) over which he can spread his seed (his 'information'), then carry along on his merry way. Of course, again this presupposes enough successful roe completing the cycle of life to return and repeat the process.

So far as I've seen, both Bob as turtle or Bob as trout leads to a genetic dead-end as all progeny have succumbed in one manner or another.

Fitz

I like that too. Spot on.

 

[Stacey Grove]

. According to Rob, absence of proof is now necessary for success,

It's the old "success will only come to those who are ready for it" line used by many who sell self improvement programmes.