Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its for attention, like the kid at my old school. (cacky pants)

Its better to be humiliated and laughed at than for nothing to happen at all.
 
Narcissist
Narcissists typically display most, sometimes all, of the following traits:
An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships
A lack of psychological awareness (see insight in psychology and psychiatry, egosyntonic)
Difficulty with empathy
Problems distinguishing the self from others (see narcissism and boundaries)
Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
Haughty body language
Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
Using other people without considering the cost of doing so
Pretending to be more important than they really are
Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
Denial of remorse and gratitude
 
Paul said:
:o

damn you and you cosy avatar, it makes me want a cup of tea and a nice sit down..
Click to expand...

:)
You must refuse to give consent to the Indian tea-leaf pickers and to your armchair.

I did it and am now truly free.
I can sit down and drink tea now.
 
BaaBaa said:
I work at a kwikee-mart and I would LOVE for this to happen.
Click to expand...

Maybe for you, but I actually work as a dishwasher and showing them how everything works and where everything goes is tedious at best. I wouldn't even get the payoff of them now knowing how to do everything after I taught them because that will be the only time they're coming in.
 
I think any normal restaurant would just call the police if he refused to pay with actual money and had some other "species of currency" he was trying to pass of as money.
 
Last edited:
100 said:
Maybe for you, but I actually work as a dishwasher and showing them how everything works and where everything goes is tedious at best. I wouldn't even get the payoff of them now knowing how to do everything after I taught them because that will be the only time they're coming in.
Click to expand...


I see your point but I do so rarely get the opportunity to laugh in somebody's face...
 
BritPunk said:
That vid is just creepy. A middle aged man trying to chat up young girls who are (blonde girl esp) already pretty far gone just makes my hackles rise. Has Mr Menard no sense of social propriety?
Click to expand...
I think we all know the answer to that.
 
Horatius said:
Gee, who would have thought a marginalized group of people could come together and use the courts to fundamentally alter how the law treats their way of earning a living? And all it took were good arguments and hard work.

Maybe Menard could take lessons from them. PoTL, anyone?
Click to expand...


But...but...we all know that the courts are corrupt and are there to take away your rights, never to protect them! <FOTL head asplodes>
 
Last edited:
Perhaps he should consider wearing a cape and mask and calling himself, 'Consent man'
 
I understand Rob has opted out of following Canadian law and this is allowed because he does not accept any of the benefits provided to normal taxpaying members of Canada. I assume that getting all your basic needs paid for by the government is somehow compatible with the idea of not recieving benefits. It's hard to imagine anyone getting more government benefits than freemen if this scheme had any merit. Does this mean they would all now be opting back in and therefore subject to Canadian law again? I assume not, but the explanation is bound to be comical and nonsensical so I hope Menard will answer when he returns here.
Click to expand...
I suspect Menard will claim process is actually unavailable to him because he doesnt have a SIN, thats why he needs the $125.
It ensures that he doesnt have to prove it works himself.

Or maybe I have just given Menard his 'out' in writing this.
 
JLord said:
Even more comical would be if Menard actually tried to use this scheme at a restaurant or grocery store himself. In fact I would probably be willing to pay to see something like that. Maybe $100 to a registered charity of Rob's choosing if he is willing to videotape his attempts to use this method to pay for a meal at a restaurant, or at Walmart or something? I know Rob would never use this method himself because I'm pretty sure he knows it's nonsense, but it would be very interesting to see.
Click to expand...

jargon buster said:
I suspect Menard will claim process is actually unavailable to him because he doesnt have a SIN, thats why he needs the $125.
It ensures that he doesnt have to prove it works himself.

Or maybe I have just given Menard his 'out' in writing this.
Click to expand...


I think he alluded to his planned "out" for this in an earlier post, and in one of the videos someone posted earlier where he first described his Freeman Debit Card Plan.

Essentially, he's convinced himself that this "consumer purchase" scam is an established function under the relevant statutes. So, if any business or bank refuses to accept his "consumer note" as payment in full, it can only be because the business or bank has chosen to "opt out" of that statute.

Thus, his utter failure to get a free lunch will, in his mind, be the ultimate proof that we are allowed to opt out of statute laws.

Of course, this conveniently ignores the fact that disagreeing with his interpretation of the statute is in no way the same thing as opting out of the statute.
 
Horatius said:
Essentially, he's convinced himself that this "consumer purchase" scam is an established function under the relevant statutes. So, if any business or bank refuses to accept his "consumer note" as payment in full, it can only be because the business or bank has chosen to "opt out" of that statute.
Click to expand...

But can a corporation opt out under freeman logic? To be a corporation you are necessarily taking advantage of the Business Corporations Act of Canada or something similar on a provincial level. I was under the impression that you were either all in, or all out in terms of your acceptance of statute law. That is why I question whether Menard would be opting back in by taking advantage of his wacky interpretation of the BOE act and recieving unlimited free money from the government.

Oh well, it's hard to predict what the reasoning will be. I'm sure he will have some reason why he cannot ever use this scheme himself. But I'm also convinced that he will also have some reason why using the scheme would not render a freeman subject to other statutes. What explanation would satisfy both requirements?
 
JLord said:
But can a corporation opt out under freeman logic? To be a corporation you are necessarily taking advantage of the Business Corporations Act of Canada or something similar on a provincial level. I was under the impression that you were either all in, or all out in terms of your acceptance of statute law. That is why I question whether Menard would be opting back in by taking advantage of his wacky interpretation of the BOE act and recieving unlimited free money from the government.
Click to expand...


There's also the whole "because the definition says that persons includes corporations human beings aren't persons" thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom