Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
Why do you assume that is my intent? Is it because if you were asking the questions that would be YOUR intent?
Click to expand...
No it would not be my intent at all. It is because I have observed you play that game a few times in the past.

I am not trying to get to a gotcha moment, this argument is merely now percolating, and needs refinement. I did come across something, which is very interesting, and I am examining it now. I apologize for being cryptic, but I simply do not have my argument properly formulated yet.
Click to expand...

Well maybe if you share your thoughts some members on here may try and help you out.
Don't be shy.
 
Sydorenko v. Her Majesty the Queen et al, 2012 MBQB 42 (CanLII)

[17] Notably, I am in agreement with the moving parties’ arguments that this action has no reasonable legal basis because it is based on a fundamentally flawed proposition of law: that an individual may opt out of being bound by statutes or legislation of general application, in this case, The Highway Traffic Act of Manitoba.
Click to expand...
 
Well, Rob. Keith and his compadres will be appearing in court one week from today. How's the defence going? After proclaiming all over the interwebs about how Keith was a freeman who "won big", you aren't going to abandon him now, are you? I am certain that, if you are not there already, you are on your way to Guelph to lend your legal expertise. Right?
 
FreemanMenard said:
How do they do that without even mentioning them? :D
Click to expand...

You are seriously asking how parliaments and legislatures can make law which modifies or runs counter to common law tradition without citing or repealing the specific common law!

I am stunned by the ignorance of the question. Especially since it comes from a guy who, for a price, will stand up in front of an audience and give legal advice.

Duh, ole son, every grade school civics student knows that in western law, constitutions, statutes and case law are superior to common law.

That you don’t grasp the supremacy clauses in the constitutions of every western democracy or understand that, while the root of most western law, common law may be modified or replaced pretty much precludes you from offering any sound advice.

A little less Menardian intuition and a little more study wouldn’t hurt you one little bit, Bobby.
 
Last edited:
Menard, the dead line has passed.

Your challenge to debate face to face is considered withdrawn.

It must be noted that the challenge to debate was yours and since that challenge was accepted two days ago you have studiously avoided making an honest, open, manly response.

Please do not kid yourself that I will shy away from letting the freeman community know that in this regard you are “all fez”.


arayder said:
I am game.

Anyone who wants to take on Rob can PM me, or reply openly regarding the arrangements for a recorded debate here in Louisville, Kentucky.

You game, Rob?

Just to make it easy for you, freeman Rob, I will reimburse you for your plane ticket down here and put you up for a couple of nights.

I will make arrangements for the recording.

We have great Bourbon down here, Bobby boy. You swill, I pay.

Now, sonny, if we don’t get a public response, here on this forum, to this acceptance of your challenge in 48 hours it will be taken as your rejection.

You have until Tuesday at noon eastern standard time.

Tick. . .tick. . .tick. . .
Click to expand...

arayder said:
Robert Menard has just been emailed this message. I also will send him a private message on this forum.

In order to assure the transparence of the effort to arrange the debate Mr. Menard has called for I have taken the liberty of posting this message publicly and will be sending copies of the email to members of the freeman community.

--------------

Mr. Menard,

Publicly, on the James Randi Forum I have recently offered to carry through on your challenge to debate a member of the Randi forum regarding the general subject of freemanary:

I am game.

Anyone who wants to take on Rob can PM me, or reply openly regarding the arrangements for a recorded debate here in Louisville, Kentucky.

You game, Rob?

Just to make it easy for you, freeman Rob, I will reimburse you for your plane ticket down here and put you up for a couple of nights.

I will make arrangements for the recording.

We have great Bourbon down here, Bobby boy. You swill, I pay.

Now, sonny, if we don’t get a public response, here on this forum, to this acceptance of your challenge in 48 hours it will be taken as your rejection.

You have until Tuesday at noon eastern standard time.

-----------------------

As you know my offer is to reimburse you for your flight to Louisville Kentucky, arrange suitable lodging for you, provide for the recording of the debate and buy you some of our fine Kentucky Bourbon.

In the spirit in which this challenge was offer you have until high noon Tuesday, March 13, 2012 to respond.

Failure on your part to respond to the offer by that time will be considered a refusal to debate and a withdrawal of your challenge.

Your response must be made publicly on the Randi forum.

Sincerely Yours,

Austin Rayder (arayder)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
arayder said:
Duh, ole son, every grade school civics student knows that in western law, constitutions, statutes and case law are superior to common law.
Click to expand...
Careful now. At the risk of oversimplifying, case law is common law.
 
am not trying to get to a gotcha moment, this argument is merely now percolating, and needs refinement. I did come across something, which is very interesting, and I am examining it now. I apologize for being cryptic, but I simply do not have my argument properly formulated yet.
Click to expand...

Is this in any way similar to the "Watch what happens when I show a Birth Certificate to The National", or the "I have something astounding to reveal at my semenard this weekend, stay tuned for the video" ?

If it is I sense we will all be very disappointed and you will earn another bullet hole in your foot.
 
Last edited:
Wondering if it will be a long statement on the things that should be covered in your "claim of right"? Offered of course with the caveat that this may not cover all circumstances and should in no way be considered legal advice - please consult someone who actually knows something about the law before you try it, or at least have the decency to let your cheque clear first....
 
Damn it, I missed the party again. You've been having fun though guys and I'm delighted to see that Rob's Menardisms have reached new levels of absurdity.

He's been banned from Ickes though. Such a shame. :rolleyes:

Still, at least it means that Rob can put all his energy into bringing his Menardisms to the table here. Come on, Rob, more please!

PS - Rob, I see you ran from another challenge. Tut tut.
 
D'rok said:
It's called "Rob's Very Cunning Plan" and you can read all about it here:

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=675

Be sure to check out Freeman Valley too:

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=44466#p44466
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?p=44567#p44567

It will come as absolutely no surprise to you, I'm sure, that these are grandiose plans with the terms dictated absolutely by one man - Menard - and the unidirectional transfer of cash is involved. (Hint: the cash flow direction is not away from Menard).
Click to expand...

Okay, change of plan then. I'm not going to start a thread asking Rob to set out his plans for creating a society based on Freeman principles, since he has apparently already done so. I will, however, need some time to digest his ideas and consider them. I intend, sometime over the next couple of weeks, to write a review and critique of the plan set out in "Rob's Very Cunning Plan" as linked by D'rok. I will post it in a new thread here.

Rob, if there are any updates or changes to your Cunning Plan that are not in the thread linked by D'rok, please either post them here or (better yet) PM me and I will take them into account in my review and critique.
 
FreemanMenard said:
LMAO! What ever gave you that idea, besides your own ignorance? I do not advocate a society without the rule of law, but with it. The key foundation being equality. That is something which does not apparently exist nowadays in our so called democracy...

The ability to govern another without individual consent is the height of abandonment of the rule of law.
Click to expand...

To Rob,

Bishop has already asked you whether you understand what govern means.

Let me see if I can tease a little more from you. I doubt it, but I'll try.

1. Could you point to a country in the world which operates on the basis that the government must be voted for by every voting member of that country's population, i.e. a unanimous vote?

2. Could you explain what the rule of law means to you?

3. Assume for the sake of argument that Freeman Valley took hold. Hey, let's say that the whole of Canada became Freeman Canada or something. Now, let's assume that everyone went to the polls to vote for their government (I am naturally assuming that you still believed they had that right) and let's assume that the entire population of Canada did not vote for the Canadian Freeman Party (or whatever name you gave yourselves by then) but the majority wanted another group in charge operating under different rules, e.g. the ones we have right now. Would you:

(a) step aside and allow this;
(b) ignore the will of the majority and carry on regardless; or
(c) something else (in which case please specify)?
 
Last edited:
Jon. said:
Okay, change of plan then. I'm not going to start a thread asking Rob to set out his plans for creating a society based on Freeman principles, since he has apparently already done so. I will, however, need some time to digest his ideas and consider them. I intend, sometime over the next couple of weeks, to write a review and critique of the plan set out in "Rob's Very Cunning Plan" as linked by D'rok. I will post it in a new thread here.

Rob, if there are any updates or changes to your Cunning Plan that are not in the thread linked by D'rok, please either post them here or (better yet) PM me and I will take them into account in my review and critique.
Click to expand...
You might want to take a look at this too.
 

Attachments

You might want to take a look at this too.
Attached Files rob's very cunning plan - freeman society canada.pdf (193.3 KB, 1 views)
Click to expand...

I've read that pile of nonsense so many times.
It isn't a "Cunning Plan", it is a massive wall of Cupid Stunt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom