Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although Rob would never admit it, his latest posts seem to show he has accepted defeat. He knows he can't ******** people on here and the more he tries the more it backfires on him.

I think although he didn't believe what he was saying, he held out some hope that in principle it could work, however, i think the people on here have made it clear to him, how utterly stupid his theories are.

He must also be aware that if freemen are growing in numbers as he claims, his status must be diminishing because hes sales and responses to his posts are down.

What hurts rob the most is that, aside the fact that hes losing money, the realisation that even people who believe in this rubbish don't want to listen to what he has to say.

I think for Rob this started as a way of being relevent and giving his life purpose, he wants to be thought of as some sort of authority figure, he semi had that when he kept to his own boards, but since his move here, hes been forced to make up more and more lies, which freemen can now see is absolute twaddle.

Hes done.
 
As I have noted before his last avenue to achieve what he seems to want is to become a FMOLT cult leader and take his 'ideas' into a semi-religious stance.

There are scores of kooky quasi-religious communes dotting the environment - one could be Menardabad in the near future
 
What hurts rob the most is that, aside the fact that hes losing money, the realisation that even people who believe in this rubbish don't want to listen to what he has to say.
Click to expand...
Banned from David Ickes FMOTL forums and hardly ever posts his nonsense on his own WFS site.
The fact he comes here for attention is laughable.
Yep, hes done all right, and he did it all himself, he just needed people to give him enough rope.

PS with all his claims of the movement growing and all his e-mails from well wishers you would think he could have convinced one or two of them to come on here and back him up.
I can just see him now rocking to and fro in his dilapidated bed-sit rambling to himself, "It is true, they are all wrong, it must be true, it has to be true" either that or "Cripes, that garbage didn't wash, whats next?"
 
Last edited:
I didn't see the thread that got him banned, did he get caught forging a letter for a solicitor? That would be interesting to read, got a link?
 
mushy said:
Although Rob would never admit it, his latest posts seem to show he has accepted defeat. He knows he can't ******** people on here and the more he tries the more it backfires on him.

I think although he didn't believe what he was saying, he held out some hope that in principle it could work, however, i think the people on here have made it clear to him, how utterly stupid his theories are.

He must also be aware that if freemen are growing in numbers as he claims, his status must be diminishing because hes sales and responses to his posts are down.

What hurts rob the most is that, aside the fact that hes losing money, the realisation that even people who believe in this rubbish don't want to listen to what he has to say.

I think for Rob this started as a way of being relevent and giving his life purpose, he wants to be thought of as some sort of authority figure, he semi had that when he kept to his own boards, but since his move here, hes been forced to make up more and more lies, which freemen can now see is absolute twaddle.

Hes done.
Click to expand...

Keep repeating that. Keep talking about me as opposed to the beliefs. Attack the arguer and not the argument. That is all the people here do. You sound like JB who every 3 weeks or so claims I am done. You like him mistake 'too busy to play with you' as 'done with the concept of individual responsibility and freedom'.

I will admit that trying to reason with you folks is generally a waste of time, and it now bores me. You may consider your inability to engage in discussion a 'win'.

If people do not want to listen to me, why do I have a dozen invitations to go speak to people all across Canada and even the World? Why do I have a cross country tour coming together?

You seem to think that the action happens here on this forum. That what happens here is a reflection of what is happening in real life. That a win here is necessary for a win in real life, and that by refusing discussion, you win.

Well, nice to see that once again the children are claiming I am done, and still have absolutely NO IDEA what they are talking about.
 
Horatius said:
It's a bit rough, but:

There once was a man named Menard
Who’s eyes were continually starred

He refused to recognize the Court,
Insisting it was really a Port,

And so got himself completely disbarred.
Click to expand...

Clever enough for this board at least. I give it a 6 out of 10. Keep trying.
 
Baldric said:
Thanks, that's the kind of "resource" I was looking for to explain their "logic".

So it's just spurious logic: Admiralty Law is derived from Statutes, ergo Statutes are Admiralty Law. Combined with word play along with a lack of understanding, specifically why D&B list government agencies as corporations, and why documents are capitalised, they're easier to read that way, which spuriously leads to the "fact" a BC is a document of incorporation.

I would guess the guy got discharged from the Army by putting underpants on his head, pencils up his nose & saying wibble.
Click to expand...

ComfySlippers would not know logic if it bit her in the face.

Asking these people for an explanation of what a Freeman is would be akin to asking a staunch anti-papist what Catholics believe. Listen to them, and you will come away thinking that Catholics are idol worshiping child killing satanists. Ask these people about Freemanery and they will tell you incorrectly that we are illogical, anti-government freeloaders. Problem with that is they are wrong, but since there are so many donkeys braying the same repeating lines you just may buy it.

Do you pay your taxes?
Have you read the Income Tax Act?
If the answer is yes and then no, you are an idiot. A non-questioning, do what you are told, idiot. Have fun with that. :cool:
 
Keep repeating that. Keep talking about me as opposed to the beliefs. Attack the arguer and not the argument. That is all the people here do. You sound like JB who every 3 weeks or so claims I am done. You like him mistake 'too busy to play with you' as 'done with the concept of individual responsibility and freedom'.

I will admit that trying to reason with you folks is generally a waste of time, and it now bores me. You may consider your inability to engage in discussion a 'win'.

If people do not want to listen to me, why do I have a dozen invitations to go speak to people all across Canada and even the World? Why do I have a cross country tour coming together?

You seem to think that the action happens here on this forum. That what happens here is a reflection of what is happening in real life. That a win here is necessary for a win in real life, and that by refusing discussion, you win.

Well, nice to see that once again the children are claiming I am done, and still have absolutely NO IDEA what they are talking about
Click to expand...

People here attack the argument every time, they tell you why its wrong, and ask you for proof your argument works, but you ignore them. If you wont accept when people prove you wrong and wont provide any evidence to prove you are right, then whats to talk about?

"One man cant govern another man, therefore how can a group of men govern another man, therefore i cant be governed without consent"

Well, one atom isnt capable of thought, so how can a lot of atoms together create a brain? Therefore, you don't have a brain.

But apparently you have been invited to talk all around the world, how do you plan on travelling to these countries rob?

Another cross country tour? Rob i will bet you right now, this cross country tour does not happen. I guarintee it. This is why nobody takes you seriously, you show up, make an announcement of another plan, nothing comes of it and you refuse to talk about it again. Whats the point?

Do you not think people are being fair with you, they have provided tons of examples of ftol failing in court and court rulings stating that fmotl waffle has no basis in law

all people are asking for in return is just 1 small piece of evidence that supports your view, we dont need numerous court documents, just one, thats all people have ever asked for, how is that not fair?
 
Stacey Grove said:
Got any proof of your stuff working, Rob?
No?
Thought not.
Click to expand...

Yeap I have plenty.
Of course it is not something YOU would accept, as it does not have your masters signature on it and it relies upon logic and reason, and a willingness to actually read the statutes and law.

But for those who do not have masters, and are not frightened of logic, reason and responsibility, the evidence is plainly visible.

You will likely never be able to see it, so why taunt you with it?

Got any proof you can govern me without my consent?
Got any proof you can hire, elect or appoint someone to do what you cannot?
No?
Thought not.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Yeap I have plenty.
Of course it is not something YOU would accept, as it does not have your masters signature on it and it relies upon logic and reason, and a willingness to actually read the statutes and law.

But for those who do not have masters, and are not frightened of logic, reason and responsibility, the evidence is plainly visible.

You will likely never be able to see it, so why taunt you with it?

Got any proof you can govern me without my consent?
Got any proof you can hire, elect or appoint someone to do what you cannot?
No?
Thought not.
Click to expand...

Because something appears logical to you, isnt proof of anything. You need to demonstrate that your interpretaion works in reality and is accepted by courts. Otherwise what you find logical has no merit.

Alot of people find the quran logical, does that mean that the quran is true?
 
Also rob if you have proof post it, even if you think its something people here would not accept, i have an open mind and if you have proof id be intrested in seeing it, what type of proof is it?
 
mushy said:
People here attack the argument every time, they tell you why its wrong, and ask you for proof your argument works, but you ignore them. If you wont accept when people prove you wrong and wont provide any evidence to prove you are right, then whats to talk about?

"One man cant govern another man, therefore how can a group of men govern another man, therefore i cant be governed without consent"

Well, one atom isnt capable of thought, so how can a lot of atoms together create a brain? Therefore, you don't have a brain.

But apparently you have been invited to talk all around the world, how do you plan on travelling to these countries rob?

Another cross country tour? Rob i will bet you right now, this cross country tour does not happen. I guarintee it. This is why nobody takes you seriously, you show up, make an announcement of another plan, nothing comes of it and you refuse to talk about it again. Whats the point?

Do you not think people are being fair with you, they have provided tons of examples of ftol failing in court and court rulings stating that fmotl waffle has no basis in law

all people are asking for in return is just 1 small piece of evidence that supports your view, we dont need numerous court documents, just one, thats all people have ever asked for, how is that not fair?
Click to expand...

I'll take that bet. How much you willing to put up?

You speak of nobody taking me seriously. Do you mean here on this board, or every where? Or do you think that this board is indicative of every where else? That is what I was referring to earlier. Because you surround yourself with the folks here, you may think incorrectly that nobody takes me seriously merely because the people here are incapable or unwilling.


You just want one court document? But what about the thousands of people who have avoided court completely and thus there would be no documents? That is what I am referring to in my signature. You want proof, but define that proof as a court document. Why do you limit proof to such a thing? What about using your own logic and reason, forming your own opinions? Why do you rely upon the opinion of a court and grant that more power then your own?

You want proof Santa (government) does not exist, (or exists lawfully only with consent) and you will accept ONLY a court document. (The Easter bunny) But wait, isn't court another branch of government? Would their document not be self defeating?

I have come to the conclusion that freedom requires a level of maturity and responsibility that most here are loath to accept. Even asking for a court document is rejecting your own ability to form your own opinions, and evidences a willingness to bow to the opinion of some other man, employed by the government. If you want freedom, you prove it to yourself. If you want to justify not being free, you ask for others to provide you with proof, while never seeking it yourself.

ME: Freedom is a buffet. Get up and get some.
YOU: Prove it. Bring me food.
ME: Sorry. I said it was a buffet. You must get up and serve yourself.
YOU: So if you can't bring me proof, it does not exist.
ME: Yes it does, look at this food I am eating.

Freedom requires a great deal of responsibility, and those who would ask others for proof, instead of doing their own due diligence, simply lack the ability to even find it responsibly. What makes you think they would have the ability to exercise it responsibly?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Yeap I have plenty.
Of course it is not something YOU would accept, as it does not have your masters signature on it and it relies upon logic and reason, and a willingness to actually read the statutes and law.
Click to expand...
That paragraph IMO actually illustrates your ignorance perfectly.
It is the courts themselves that must support your theories. To promote a legal argument whilst at the same time stating the court's opinion of your argument is irrelevant shows you have absolutely no understanding of law.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I'll take that bet. How much you willing to put up?

You speak of nobody taking me seriously. Do you mean here on this board, or every where? Or do you think that this board is indicative of every where else? That is what I was referring to earlier. Because you surround yourself with the folks here, you may think incorrectly that nobody takes me seriously merely because the people here are incapable or unwilling.


You just want one court document? But what about the thousands of people who have avoided court completely and thus there would be no documents? That is what I am referring to in my signature. You want proof, but define that proof as a court document. Why do you limit proof to such a thing? What about using your own logic and reason, forming your own opinions? Why do you rely upon the opinion of a court and grant that more power then your own?

You want proof Santa (government) does not exist, (or exists lawfully only with consent) and you will accept ONLY a court document. (The Easter bunny) But wait, isn't court another branch of government? Would their document not be self defeating?

I have come to the conclusion that freedom requires a level of maturity and responsibility that most here are loath to accept. Even asking for a court document is rejecting your own ability to form your own opinions, and evidences a willingness to bow to the opinion of some other man, employed by the government. If you want freedom, you prove it to yourself. If you want to justify not being free, you ask for others to provide you with proof, while never seeking it yourself.

ME: Freedom is a buffet. Get up and get some.
YOU: Prove it. Bring me food.
ME: Sorry. I said it was a buffet. You must get up and serve yourself.
YOU: So if you can't bring me proof, it does not exist.
ME: Yes it does, look at this food I am eating.

Freedom requires a great deal of responsibility, and those who would ask others for proof, instead of doing their own due diligence, simply lack the ability to even find it responsibly. What makes you think they would have the ability to exercise it responsibly?
Click to expand...


Ok, i see what you are saying, basicaly a win is avoiding court. Can i ask then, if a freeman ends up in court, its your opinion that they cant win, i.e that the freeman jargon does not work in court?

I mean if you only have evidence of people avoiding court and no evidnece of them winning in court, that would suggest that, if a freeman messes up and goes to court, then they cant win, the only way to win is to avoid court altogether?

ETA: I'll put up all the money in my birth bond and 20,000 in a4p - its the best i ca do, im backpacking at the minute and if i had money, id spend it on a proper meal for once as opposed to this.
 
Last edited:
ME: Freedom is a buffet. Get up and get some.
YOU: Prove it. Bring me food.
ME: Sorry. I said it was a buffet. You must get up and serve yourself.
YOU: So if you can't bring me proof, it does not exist.
ME: Yes it does, look at this food I am eating.
Click to expand...

Actually its more like

You: Guys there is this amazing buffet up there
Me: Really? I cant see it
You: Trust me its there, you can eat as much as you want, whenever you want, give me the money and ill tell you how you can eat from it
Me: I don't see any buffet
You: Trust me its there, i eat from it all the time
Me: can you go and get food from it now and let me see you eat it
You: I could, but i wont, you will just have to do your own research
Me: Ive heard about lots of other peope giving you money and not getting any food
You: Thats because they did it wrong
Me: So you have no evidence this food exists
You: I do, its just that when people eat from it, they get so full, they go home and sleep so there is no one here who can confirm what im saying.
 
mushy said:
Actually its more like

You: Guys there is this amazing buffet up there
Me: Really? I cant see it
You: Trust me its there, you can eat as much as you want, whenever you want, give me the money and ill tell you how you can eat from it
Me: I don't see any buffet
You: Trust me its there, i eat from it all the time
Me: can you go and get food from it now and let me see you eat it
You: I could, but i wont, you will just have to do your own research
Me: Ive heard about lots of other peope giving you money and not getting any food
You: Thats because they did it wrong
Me: So you have no evidence this food exists
You: I do, its just that when people eat from it, they get so full, they go home and sleep so there is no one here who can confirm what im saying.
Click to expand...

It's much simpler than that:

Me: Rob, I gave you $800, there ain't no food.
Rob: You're on your own, pal.
 
mushy said:
Because something appears logical to you, isnt proof of anything. You need to demonstrate that your interpretaion works in reality and is accepted by courts. Otherwise what you find logical has no merit.

Alot of people find the quran logical, does that mean that the quran is true?
Click to expand...

Good morning Mushy. I accept your offer of discussion, but alas can only offer a couple of responses, as the day is bright and shiny and I have much work to do, and what with it being masonry, I am a slave to the weather.

If however something appears logical to all willing to look though then it can be accepted as potentially logical. Refusing to even examine it, because you have convinced yourself the presenter is a con artist or a clown, is not refuting the logic, it is refusing it.

You speak of things being accepted by the courts. What I speak of is those things accepted by the people who drag you to court, and when accepted by them, there is nothing before the court for them to accept or reject, because you never get dragged there. So how can this acceptance be proven, if it is never sought by the ones who usually drag others before the courts? Courts are a place for the resolution of conflict. This is about avoiding that conflict. When successful, you do not go to court. So how can proof of success ONLY be a result of the resolution of the conflict in court? Conflict avoided means there is no conflict to be resolved. But if you only accept resolution as proof, you ignore totally the avoidance.

And the problem with this, is that it leaves very little evidence, and the only real and logical way for you personally to ever know, is if you experience it yourself. I can bring you a thousand accounts of people having success in avoiding court. But they would all be anecdotal even if sworn to under oath, and you would likely (or at least every one else here) reject them for not being from a court of record. The other issue people here seem to bring is they point to those who have not successfully avoided conflict and failed to resolve it to their satisfaction, and then seek to claim that it never works, and has absolutely no value.

The way I see it, if you want a life which gives you a greater degree of freedom and responsibility, you must go out and prove to yourself you can do so. No one can do that for you. The best they can do is demonstrate their ability. Asking for proof from others is rejecting both. Especially when the proof asked is the opinion of some other human being.
 
mushy said:
Actually its more like

You: Guys there is this amazing buffet up there
Me: Really? I cant see it
You: Trust me its there, you can eat as much as you want, whenever you want, give me the money and ill tell you how you can eat from it (I do not demand money. This is one of the lies spread by those who seek to misrepresent both me and these ideals. What I do say is "It's all freely available on the net, and if you wish to support our efforts, and have it all collected and printed for you, you may if you wish purchase this package. That is far different from what you present.)
Me: I don't see any buffet (Sad isn't it. I speak of freedom as a buffet, and you claim you cannot see it.)
You: Trust me its there, i eat from it all the time
Me: can you go and get food from it now and let me see you eat it (Will you change it for me from a buffet to a restaurant where you serve me?)
You: I could, but i wont, you will just have to do your own research. (The true answer is "NO I cannot. Did I not say it was a buffet? Since when am I your waiter and if I am, is it any longer a buffet?")
Me: Ive heard about lots of other peope giving you money and not getting any food (Yes, you have been listening to liars and people who grossly misrepresent the truth. Listen to them if you want. That does not mean you are listening to the truth.)
You: Thats because they did it wrong (I guess you did not hear of the thousands who have done it right? Look around. Do you think this 'movement' would have such a growth if in fact no one was finding their food?)
Me: So you have no evidence this food exists (I Have plenty. Look at me eat whats on my plate here and now!)
You: I do, its just that when people eat from it, they get so full, they go home and sleep so there is no one here who can confirm what im saying.
Click to expand...
(No, they go dancing, and have little time for those who choose to remain asleep, or seated, demanding service.)
 
Stacey Grove said:
It's much simpler than that:

Me: Rob, I gave you $800, there ain't no food.
Rob: You're on your own, pal.
Click to expand...

When did you ever give me $800?
Either you did or you didn't, and if you didn't the simple truth is you are here and now lying.

Mushy ask Stacey if he ever personally gave me any money, and if he says no, I would like to point to his words as an example of the lies they speak, and to which you have been listening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom