[Ed] Rob Menard's FOTL Claims - Page 109

jargon buster · 17th December 2011, 03:22 PM

But solz, it doesn't say they can't do the other things not listed, you are in the realms of menardian mentality here.

You need to abandon logic if you wish to see his point of view.

Mojo · 17th December 2011, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

I like the Duty to Disinfect in s. 20.

I'm a little disappointed that it is a duty to disinfect the "body and clothing" rather than the "person and clothing". That would have given Rob more opportunity to provide entertainment.

Stacey Grove · 17th December 2011, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

And can you explain why the Notaries agree with my interpretation?

Even if that is true it is irrelevant. It is the court's interpretation that is relevant.

D'rok · 17th December 2011, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

I'm a little disappointed that it is a duty to disinfect the "body and clothing" rather than the "person and clothing". That would have given Rob more opportunity to provide entertainment.

I wonder how one would disinfect the "person" anyway. Spray your birth certificate with Lysol?

jargon buster · 17th December 2011, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Even if that is true is irrelevant. It is the court's interpretation that is relevant.

A notary has the same power as the court (in Robland)

Stacey Grove · 17th December 2011, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

A notary has the same power as the court (in Robland)

Ah, I see. In the merry world of Menardisms a notary can overturn a judge's decision.

Mojo · 17th December 2011, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

I wonder how one would disinfect the "person" anyway. Spray your birth certificate with Lysol?

Sounds less uncomfortable than the "wire brush and dettol" approach that might be suggested by section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and Evans v Ewels.

D'rok · 17th December 2011, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Sounds less uncomfortable than the "wire brush and dettol" approach that might be suggested by section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and Evans v Ewels.

Oh dear. That's enough Internet for me today.

tsig · 17th December 2011, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

I claim the government is composed of people and they are bound by the law.

What EXACTLY about that did you want me to prove?

And that law gives the right to govern.

What EXACTLY about that did you want me to prove?

tsig · 18th December 2011, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

I claim the government is composed of people and they are bound by the law.

What EXACTLY about that did you want me to prove?

How are thy bound by the law but you are not?

jargon buster · 18th December 2011, 03:09 AM

tsig
Robs definition of law is his own, we used to call law wangdoodle in order to try and maintain some kind of meaningful discussion.

What Rob believes is law is uniquely Menardian, its simply his own made up word and trying to establish what it is is impossible, he won't tell you what he means by "law" even if you ask him.

sadhatter · 18th December 2011, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Rights and powers of members
18 A member enrolled and in good standing may do the following:

(a) draw instruments relating to property which are intended, permitted or required to be registered, recorded or filed in a registry or other public office, contracts, charter parties and other mercantile instruments in British Columbia;
(b) draw and supervise the execution of wills
(i) by which the testator directs the testator's estate to be distributed immediately on death,
(ii) that provide that if the beneficiaries named in the will predecease the testator, there is a gift over to alternative beneficiaries vesting immediately on the death of the testator, or
(iii) that provide for the assets of the deceased to vest in the beneficiary or beneficiaries as members of a class not later than the date when the beneficiary or beneficiaries or the youngest of the class attains majority;
(c) attest or protest all commercial or other instruments brought before the member for attestation or public protestation;
(d) draw affidavits, affirmations or statutory declarations that may or are required to be administered, sworn, affirmed or made by the law of British Columbia, another province of Canada, Canada or another country;
(e) administer oaths;
(e.1) draw instruments for the purposes of the Representation Agreement Act;
(e.2) draw instruments relating to health care for the purposes of making advance directives, as defined in the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act;
(e.3) draw instruments for the purposes of the Power of Attorney Act;
(f) perform the duties authorized by an Act.

What part of 'perform the duties authorized by an Act' do you not understand? Did you wish to add to it? You know, in order to try and limit their powers?

Hate to burst your bubble here, but for pharmacists, there is the same statement. The statement referring to any act pertaining to pharmacy, not any act ever.

This concept was explained in full to me in my first year of school, what is your excuse for not understanding it?

sadhatter · 18th December 2011, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

It must be remembered that Menard's as well as our own attempts at statutory interpretation are irrelevant. It is the court's interpretation that is important.

And that is what i find so eye rolling about rob. This all comes down to 2 things. The first is enforcement, if no one can enforce his "laws" they are not laws, and if people are enforcing the laws he thinks are not laws, it doesn't really matter he doesn't think they are laws, they are the ones enforced.

Sure this can lead to evil situations, look at nazi germany, but after your done doing that, look at Canada. I am willing to bet folks can see quite the difference.

Second, i can only truly explain using an RPG analogy ( i find so much of rob's stuff just reeks of rpg's, from magic spells with material, somantic and verbal components, to villians that can be taken down if one only knows the right strategy.).

The term is called " Rules Lawyering" , and it refers to when a player takes a non standard interpretation of the rules, and attempts to force the DM ( the gent running the game.) to use said interpretation.

Now there is a difference between this and just pointing out a mistake the dm may be making. A mistake, a real mistake will be corrected ( for example if the dm had someone roll the wrong kind of save for a mind effecting spell.), no harm no foul. But a rules lawyer, is always just trying to get the best thing for their character or character class.

The problem with the rules lawyer is that they do not realize they have no way of actually enforcing their interpretation of the rules, sure they can attempt to use them , but they hit the roadblock of simply not having the ability to make changes to the rules. This wouldn't be an issue if the rules lawyer was pointing out legitimate things that are having a negative effect on all, but that is never the case, just like rob they are always trying to get something for nothing , it shows, and they get shut down.

jargon buster · 18th December 2011, 08:33 AM

Quote:

just like rob they are always trying to get something for nothing

Just check out this forum to see the freedom fighters top topics
http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/forum/

slowsmile · 18th December 2011, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Just check out this forum to see the freedom fighters top topics
http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/forum/

The "Lawful Rebellion" site doesn't seem to get much traffic at all.

As far as I can tell the main 3 sites the FTOL'ers use in Britain are TPUC, FMOTL.com and, unsurprisingly, "Get Out Of Debt Free".

tsig · 18th December 2011, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

A notary has the same power as the court (in Robland)

Without the bailiffs.

jargon buster · 18th December 2011, 09:10 AM

Quote:

As far as I can tell the main 3 sites the FTOL'ers use in Britain are TPUC, FMOTL.com and, unsurprisingly, "Get Out Of Debt Free".

...and not unsurprisingly I am banned from all three.

jargon buster · 18th December 2011, 01:11 PM

Rob, hows this going

Quote:

Wow are you ever negative, and so bad at word comprehension! The four acres is the land I cleared and tilled for the garden. Likely less than 2 acres has been planted and (just to make you happy) I messed up on the first one, and likely over fertilized it. The plants are not faring well. The other side of the lane, not fertilized, I just finished planting. I have higher hopes for those.

the 17 acres is a woodlot 500M away. Is SWEET! So much wood, enough for all I want to build. It is edging crown land, and HUGE plot, so hunting is awesome. The land is not ready for gardening, but grows a lot of blueberries, and will be suitable once cleared and conditioned. I intend to try hugo culture, it involves burying logs, covering with manure and soil, and letting it mature for a year, then you plant in that. They use it for working forests. I did some clearing yesterday, will do some more tomorrow. I enjoy clearing the land, and seeing what is hidden by the brush when you look back. I find it rewarding. Ever done it?

Do you still have this land?

ComfySlippers · 18th December 2011, 01:38 PM

WhenDanSaysJump posted a link to this:

The Santa Claus Letters 3: I’m dreaming of a woo*Christmas

I thought it would be relevant to this thread as it highlights the sheer laughability of FOTL-Waffle claims in a Festive stylee.

Merry Christmas Rob.

jargon buster · 18th December 2011, 01:40 PM

I have a feeling Santa will be skipping a little house in Moncton this year, its resident has been a very naughty boy.

ComfySlippers · 18th December 2011, 04:46 PM

It has.

Luckily Santa was able to archive Robs wonderful thread over at WFS before it had to be deleted out of sheer embarrassment. A lesson in what can go wrong when Stupid-Club convenes.

I was reminded of this reply to his ludicrous nonsense back in 2007;

Quote:

It is sad and sorry that you're so convinced about this stuff to the point you can publicly make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself. You have a profoundly wrong grasp of legal principles, methods, and content. Maybe you are some kind of con man and you already know this, or maybe you're an honest guy diligently working for what you believe in, but Brother, believe me, you have no hope of such badly conceived ideas ever going anywhere. Don't waste your time -- find something else to put your considerable energies on. Found a foodbank, or rescue greyhounds or something worthwhile.

Mapleleafweb

Nothing changes.

Stacey Grove · 19th December 2011, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

Mapleleafweb

Nothing changes.

Yep, same old arguments: the Walmart analogy, identify yourself, etc etc.

Interestingly Menard states in post 212 of that thread that his sister is a lawyer and works for Immigration Canada. Oh, that post also contains the old "police running Menard's name through the police computer" story.

jargon buster · 19th December 2011, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Interestingly Menard states in post 212 of that thread that his sister is a lawyer and works for Immigration Canada.

I wonder if shes the family member they dont talk about at parties.

jargon buster · 19th December 2011, 04:00 AM

Rob is included in the book "The Dangerous Man"

Here is his profile
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H...epage&q&f=true

all his nonsense condensed

Hektor · 19th December 2011, 04:21 AM

So I learned from the book that all courts throughout history all have "had a Society; an actual society you could name and define who were members." (And that the current courts are in the possession of the Law Society).

Rob then created the World Freeman Society so he and his buddies "can create our own courts in and have them face charges if we need to."

So, what if I don't consent to be in the World Freeman Society? Doesn't that mean I'm above a "common law" court?

I don't consent! Therefore, can I steal from Freeman valley?

jargon buster · 19th December 2011, 05:08 AM

Quote:

So, what if I don't consent to be in the World Freeman Society? Doesn't that mean I'm above a "common law" court?

I don't consent! Therefore, can I steal from Freeman valley?

If Rob were true to his freeman principles he would have to say "yes you are free to ignore our laws because no man may govern another without his consent"

Unfortunatly Rob isnt true to his principles and he calims that no one is above "the law" (he doesnt know what "the law" is by the way) and says if you do not obey freeman laws you will be forced to leave his society.

Pretty ironic really as he always claims that he can stay in current society even though he wants to be able to ignore its laws.

His entire argument is totally self de-bunking.

ComfySlippers · 19th December 2011, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Interestingly Menard states in post 212 of that thread that his sister is a lawyer and works for Immigration Canada.

This is true. Her details are very easy to find. He lists her in the (very) long list of people in his pretend police-force letter, right at the end.

Despite knowing a lot about her, her husband and offspring I have never felt the urge to publically broadcast any of this information. Unlike Rob who is obsessed with "outing" people.

From the thread I linked to you will find that, as more proof that his gibberish is all true but being "hidden from us", when asked about it his sister tellingly replied "no comment"... Proof ala Menard.

Now, according to the post mortem being carried out by pigpot over at WFS, if you have placed your personal details online they are in the public domain and legally(!) you havent a leg to stand on if someone uses those details.

Which is what we have been saying about discussing Rob and his idiotic claims... he whores his scam at every opportunity and is therefore open to questioning.

However, for some strange reason, I have never thought about publishing photos or details of his sister and her family online. And to clarify that before Stupid-Club reconvenes, I never would.

...Maybe I have the thing which Rob shouts about but has none.... Honour!

bikerdruid · 19th December 2011, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Rob is included in the book "The Dangerous Man"

Here is his profile
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H...epage&q&f=true

all his nonsense condensed

the link cuts off at the beginning of the 'menard' stuff.

jargon buster · 19th December 2011, 10:29 AM

more buffoonery from WFS
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org...p?f=43&t=12218

Quote:

this 'daniel' character shouldnt have put his stuff on facebook. he has no legal rights whatsoever after that in regards to where his pictures or info ends up.
you put your mug out in the public domain, anyone can use it for non commercial purposes and you cant utter a peep

So according to pain101 you can take someones personal information and start throwing wild accusations around about them without a shred of proof.
yep, sounds the honourable thing to do.

As for the non-commercial purposes, Menard soon cried to the authorities when I used his WFS logo for a bit of fun.

FreemanMenard · 19th December 2011, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

It's just more diversionary tactics by Menard. He knows that while people are wasting time concentrating on "Who is Daniel?" they aren't demanding proof from Menard of his FOTL claims, which BTW he still has not provided.
Never has, never will.

First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....

Stacey Grove · 19th December 2011, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....

No, I want verifiable proof that a freeman is not bound by statue law. Not a theory, not a belief but proof. You have been asked repeatedly to provide proof but up till now you have failed to do so.

ComfySlippers · 19th December 2011, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....

This just in from one year ago:

Quote:

Also have some legal action lining up to settle a certain issue. I wonder how ole JB will feel with a court ruling that states flat out that individual consent is required, and his mantra this last two year has been wrong, and the things I espouse are proven true.

I wonder what happens when a deluded and obsessed narcissist has his bubble popped. We will know soon.

DIF 2010

bikerdruid · 19th December 2011, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

No, I want verifiable proof that a freeman is not bound by statue law. Not a theory, not a belief but proof. You have been asked repeatedly to provide proof but up till now you have failed to do so.

m.menard:
i would like to see your 'verifiable proof' that a 'freeman' cannot be governed without his consent.
is this not one of your claims?

Border Reiver · 19th December 2011, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....

Yes, and the people have given the people in government the power to carry out certain acts for the good of the people as a whole, but which may not be for the benefit of an indiviual or to which some people may not agree.

Robrob · 19th December 2011, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

m.menard:
i would like to see your 'verifiable proof' that a 'freeman' cannot be governed without his consent.
is this not one of your claims?

Funny how a freeman can be incarcerated by those same laws, without his consent.

bikerdruid · 19th December 2011, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Robrob

Funny how a freeman can be incarcerated by those same laws, without his consent.

no...really?

Cuddles · 20th December 2011, 03:32 AM

Continuing to ignore moderator warnings will result in suspensions and/or bans.

Posted By:Cuddles

jargon buster · 20th December 2011, 06:22 AM

Quote:

First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

Correct

Do those people need the consent of every single individual within the area of their jurisdiction for them to lawfully govern that jurisdiction?

For your theory to have any validity at all the answer to that question must be "yes", do you think it is Rob?

cocana · 20th December 2011, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

First Freeman Claim:
The government is composed of people.

And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....

No we haven't. My goodness, is that the best that you can muster Rob?

JB has given you a pointer on what we have demanded proof of, but that's only part of it. I tell you what I'll do since your memory has got a bit foggy, I'll copy and paste the post that you have consistently avoided answering. Given that you are (apparently) in the mood to provide proof, maybe this time you'll give us what we're asking for. Here goes and I'll embolden the really important bit...

Got the evidence that you are immune from all statutory law, except those laws that you agree with? A verifiable court order or letter from the Canadian government should do the trick.

No? Thought not

Been telling people that this is what you have achieved? Yes
Been receiving money on the back of it? Yes
Been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? Yes

Once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole.

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by cocana

No we haven't. My goodness, is that the best that you can muster Rob?

JB has given you a pointer on what we have demanded proof of, but that's only part of it. I tell you what I'll do since your memory has got a bit foggy, I'll copy and paste the post that you have consistently avoided answering. Given that you are (apparently) in the mood to provide proof, maybe this time you'll give us what we're asking for. Here goes and I'll embolden the really important bit...

Got the evidence that you are immune from all statutory law, except those laws that you agree with? A verifiable court order or letter from the Canadian government should do the trick.

No? Thought not

Been telling people that this is what you have achieved? Yes
Been receiving money on the back of it? Yes
Been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? Yes

Once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole.

Hey mods, would you please count HOW MANY TIME this guy has claimed (incorrectly) that these are my claims, or that I make money off the back of what he claims are my claims, and then compare them to your own Forum Spamming rules?

If I were to post the EXACT SAME THING REPEATEDLY, would I not receive a warning? Have I not already?

I have addressed it, he ignores what I post and keeps repeating the EXACT WORD FOR WORD BS.

Been telling people that this is what you have achieved? NOPE. Huge difference between what I tell people and what you claim I tell people, but even if I explain it repeatedly, you refuse to grasp it.
SPAMMING THE FORUM
Been receiving money on the back of it? NOPE.
SPAMMING THR FORUM^

Been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? NOPE
SPAMMING THE FORUM^

17th December 2011, 03:22 PM	#4321
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	But solz, it doesn't say they can't do the other things not listed, you are in the realms of menardian mentality here. You need to abandon logic if you wish to see his point of view.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

17th December 2011, 03:24 PM	#4322
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,097	Originally Posted by D'rok I like the Duty to Disinfect in s. 20. I'm a little disappointed that it is a duty to disinfect the "body and clothing" rather than the "person and clothing". That would have given Rob more opportunity to provide entertainment.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

17th December 2011, 03:28 PM	#4323
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 834	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard And can you explain why the Notaries agree with my interpretation? Even if that is true it is irrelevant. It is the court's interpretation that is relevant.
	Last edited by Stacey Grove; 17th December 2011 at 03:31 PM.

17th December 2011, 03:29 PM	#4324
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by Mojo I'm a little disappointed that it is a duty to disinfect the "body and clothing" rather than the "person and clothing". That would have given Rob more opportunity to provide entertainment. I wonder how one would disinfect the "person" anyway. Spray your birth certificate with Lysol?
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

17th December 2011, 03:31 PM	#4325
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	Quote: Even if that is true is irrelevant. It is the court's interpretation that is relevant. A notary has the same power as the court (in Robland)
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

17th December 2011, 03:42 PM	#4326
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 834	Originally Posted by jargon buster A notary has the same power as the court (in Robland) Ah, I see. In the merry world of Menardisms a notary can overturn a judge's decision.
	Last edited by Stacey Grove; 17th December 2011 at 03:44 PM.

17th December 2011, 03:52 PM	#4327
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,097	Originally Posted by D'rok I wonder how one would disinfect the "person" anyway. Spray your birth certificate with Lysol? Sounds less uncomfortable than the "wire brush and dettol" approach that might be suggested by section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and Evans v Ewels.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

17th December 2011, 04:01 PM	#4328
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by Mojo Sounds less uncomfortable than the "wire brush and dettol" approach that might be suggested by section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and Evans v Ewels. Oh dear. That's enough Internet for me today.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

17th December 2011, 05:41 PM	#4329
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard I claim the government is composed of people and they are bound by the law. What EXACTLY about that did you want me to prove? And that law gives the right to govern. What EXACTLY about that did you want me to prove?

18th December 2011, 03:04 AM	#4330
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard I claim the government is composed of people and they are bound by the law. What EXACTLY about that did you want me to prove? How are thy bound by the law but you are not?

18th December 2011, 03:09 AM	#4331
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	tsig Robs definition of law is his own, we used to call law wangdoodle in order to try and maintain some kind of meaningful discussion. What Rob believes is law is uniquely Menardian, its simply his own made up word and trying to establish what it is is impossible, he won't tell you what he means by "law" even if you ask him.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

18th December 2011, 08:14 AM	#4332
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard Rights and powers of members 18 A member enrolled and in good standing may do the following: (a) draw instruments relating to property which are intended, permitted or required to be registered, recorded or filed in a registry or other public office, contracts, charter parties and other mercantile instruments in British Columbia; (b) draw and supervise the execution of wills (i) by which the testator directs the testator's estate to be distributed immediately on death, (ii) that provide that if the beneficiaries named in the will predecease the testator, there is a gift over to alternative beneficiaries vesting immediately on the death of the testator, or (iii) that provide for the assets of the deceased to vest in the beneficiary or beneficiaries as members of a class not later than the date when the beneficiary or beneficiaries or the youngest of the class attains majority; *(c) attest or protest all commercial or other instruments brought before the member for attestation or public protestation;* (d) draw affidavits, affirmations or statutory declarations that may or are required to be administered, sworn, affirmed or made by the law of British Columbia, another province of Canada, Canada or another country; (e) administer oaths; (e.1) draw instruments for the purposes of the Representation Agreement Act; (e.2) draw instruments relating to health care for the purposes of making advance directives, as defined in the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act; (e.3) draw instruments for the purposes of the Power of Attorney Act; *(f) perform the duties authorized by an Act.* What part of 'perform the duties authorized by an Act' do you not understand? Did you wish to add to it? You know, in order to try and limit their powers? Hate to burst your bubble here, but for pharmacists, there is the same statement. The statement referring to any act pertaining to pharmacy, not any act ever. This concept was explained in full to me in my first year of school, what is your excuse for not understanding it?
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

18th December 2011, 08:29 AM	#4333
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove It must be remembered that Menard's as well as our own attempts at statutory interpretation are irrelevant. It is the court's interpretation that is important. And that is what i find so eye rolling about rob. This all comes down to 2 things. The first is enforcement, if no one can enforce his "laws" they are not laws, and if people are enforcing the laws he thinks are not laws, it doesn't really matter he doesn't think they are laws, they are the ones enforced. Sure this can lead to evil situations, look at nazi germany, but after your done doing that, look at Canada. I am willing to bet folks can see quite the difference. Second, i can only truly explain using an RPG analogy ( i find so much of rob's stuff just reeks of rpg's, from magic spells with material, somantic and verbal components, to villians that can be taken down if one only knows the right strategy.). The term is called " Rules Lawyering" , and it refers to when a player takes a non standard interpretation of the rules, and attempts to force the DM ( the gent running the game.) to use said interpretation. Now there is a difference between this and just pointing out a mistake the dm may be making. A mistake, a real mistake will be corrected ( for example if the dm had someone roll the wrong kind of save for a mind effecting spell.), no harm no foul. But a rules lawyer, is always just trying to get the best thing for their character or character class. The problem with the rules lawyer is that they do not realize they have no way of actually enforcing their interpretation of the rules, sure they can attempt to use them , but they hit the roadblock of simply not having the ability to make changes to the rules. This wouldn't be an issue if the rules lawyer was pointing out legitimate things that are having a negative effect on all, but that is never the case, just like rob they are always trying to get something for nothing , it shows, and they get shut down.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

18th December 2011, 08:33 AM	#4334
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	Quote: just like rob they are always trying to get something for nothing Just check out this forum to see the freedom fighters top topics http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/forum/
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

18th December 2011, 08:40 AM	#4335
slowsmile Thinker Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: NWO Bistro Posts: 214	Originally Posted by jargon buster Just check out this forum to see the freedom fighters top topics http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/forum/ The "Lawful Rebellion" site doesn't seem to get much traffic at all. As far as I can tell the main 3 sites the FTOL'ers use in Britain are TPUC, FMOTL.com and, unsurprisingly, "Get Out Of Debt Free".

18th December 2011, 08:57 AM	#4336
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by jargon buster A notary has the same power as the court (in Robland) Without the bailiffs.

18th December 2011, 09:10 AM	#4337
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	Quote: As far as I can tell the main 3 sites the FTOL'ers use in Britain are TPUC, FMOTL.com and, unsurprisingly, "Get Out Of Debt Free". ...and not unsurprisingly I am banned from all three.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

18th December 2011, 01:11 PM	#4338
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	Rob, hows this going Quote: Wow are you ever negative, and so bad at word comprehension! The four acres is the land I cleared and tilled for the garden. Likely less than 2 acres has been planted and (just to make you happy) I messed up on the first one, and likely over fertilized it. The plants are not faring well. The other side of the lane, not fertilized, I just finished planting. I have higher hopes for those. the 17 acres is a woodlot 500M away. Is SWEET! So much wood, enough for all I want to build. It is edging crown land, and HUGE plot, so hunting is awesome. The land is not ready for gardening, but grows a lot of blueberries, and will be suitable once cleared and conditioned. I intend to try hugo culture, it involves burying logs, covering with manure and soil, and letting it mature for a year, then you plant in that. They use it for working forests. I did some clearing yesterday, will do some more tomorrow. I enjoy clearing the land, and seeing what is hidden by the brush when you look back. I find it rewarding. Ever done it? Do you still have this land?
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

18th December 2011, 01:38 PM	#4339
ComfySlippers Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Posts: 1,080	WhenDanSaysJump posted a link to this: The Santa Claus Letters 3: I’m dreaming of a woo*Christmas I thought it would be relevant to this thread as it highlights the sheer laughability of FOTL-Waffle claims in a Festive stylee. Merry Christmas Rob.
	__________________ ___ Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Comfy: of the family Slippers Footwear-on-the-Loungefloor ___

18th December 2011, 01:40 PM	#4340
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	I have a feeling Santa will be skipping a little house in Moncton this year, its resident has been a very naughty boy.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

18th December 2011, 04:46 PM	#4341
ComfySlippers Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Posts: 1,080	It has. Luckily Santa was able to archive Robs wonderful thread over at WFS before it had to be deleted out of sheer embarrassment. A lesson in what can go wrong when Stupid-Club convenes. I was reminded of this reply to his ludicrous nonsense back in 2007; Quote: It is sad and sorry that you're so convinced about this stuff to the point you can publicly make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself. You have a profoundly wrong grasp of legal principles, methods, and content. Maybe you are some kind of con man and you already know this, or maybe you're an honest guy diligently working for what you believe in, but Brother, believe me, you have no hope of such badly conceived ideas ever going anywhere. Don't waste your time -- find something else to put your considerable energies on. Found a foodbank, or rescue greyhounds or something worthwhile. Mapleleafweb Nothing changes.
	__________________ ___ Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Comfy: of the family Slippers Footwear-on-the-Loungefloor ___ Last edited by ComfySlippers; 18th December 2011 at 04:51 PM.

19th December 2011, 03:22 AM	#4342
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 834	Originally Posted by ComfySlippers Mapleleafweb Nothing changes. Yep, same old arguments: the Walmart analogy, identify yourself, etc etc. Interestingly Menard states in post 212 of that thread that his sister is a lawyer and works for Immigration Canada. Oh, that post also contains the old "police running Menard's name through the police computer" story.
	Last edited by Stacey Grove; 19th December 2011 at 03:27 AM.

19th December 2011, 03:26 AM	#4343
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	Quote: Interestingly Menard states in post 212 of that thread that his sister is a lawyer and works for Immigration Canada. I wonder if shes the family member they dont talk about at parties.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799 Last edited by jargon buster; 19th December 2011 at 03:34 AM.

19th December 2011, 04:00 AM	#4344
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	Rob is included in the book "The Dangerous Man" Here is his profile http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H...epage&q&f=true all his nonsense condensed
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

19th December 2011, 04:21 AM	#4345
Hektor Scholar Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 55	So I learned from the book that all courts throughout history all have "had a Society; an actual society you could name and define who were members." (And that the current courts are in the possession of the Law Society). Rob then created the World Freeman Society so he and his buddies "can create our own courts in and have them face charges if we need to." So, what if I don't consent to be in the World Freeman Society? Doesn't that mean I'm above a "common law" court? I don't consent! Therefore, can I steal from Freeman valley?
Hektor Scholar Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 55	Last edited by Hektor; 19th December 2011 at 04:21 AM. Reason: spilling

19th December 2011, 05:08 AM	#4346
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	Quote: So, what if I don't consent to be in the World Freeman Society? Doesn't that mean I'm above a "common law" court? I don't consent! Therefore, can I steal from Freeman valley? If Rob were true to his freeman principles he would have to say "yes you are free to ignore our laws because no man may govern another without his consent" Unfortunatly Rob isnt true to his principles and he calims that no one is above "the law" (he doesnt know what "the law" is by the way) and says if you do not obey freeman laws you will be forced to leave his society. Pretty ironic really as he always claims that he can stay in current society even though he wants to be able to ignore its laws. His entire argument is totally self de-bunking.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

19th December 2011, 08:02 AM	#4347
ComfySlippers Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Posts: 1,080	Quote: Interestingly Menard states in post 212 of that thread that his sister is a lawyer and works for Immigration Canada. This is true. Her details are very easy to find. He lists her in the (very) long list of people in his pretend police-force letter, right at the end. Despite knowing a lot about her, her husband and offspring I have never felt the urge to publically broadcast any of this information. Unlike Rob who is obsessed with "outing" people. From the thread I linked to you will find that, as more proof that his gibberish is all true but being "hidden from us", when asked about it his sister tellingly replied "no comment"... Proof ala Menard. Now, according to the post mortem being carried out by pigpot over at WFS, if you have placed your personal details online they are in the public domain and legally(!) you havent a leg to stand on if someone uses those details. Which is what we have been saying about discussing Rob and his idiotic claims... he whores his scam at every opportunity and is therefore open to questioning. However, for some strange reason, I have never thought about publishing photos or details of his sister and her family online. And to clarify that before Stupid-Club reconvenes, I never would. ...Maybe I have the thing which Rob shouts about but has none.... Honour!
	__________________ ___ Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Comfy: of the family Slippers Footwear-on-the-Loungefloor ___ Last edited by ComfySlippers; 19th December 2011 at 08:07 AM.

19th December 2011, 09:42 AM	#4348
bikerdruid hermit hippy weirdo Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: green island autonomous zone Posts: 7,369	Originally Posted by jargon buster Rob is included in the book "The Dangerous Man" Here is his profile http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H...epage&q&f=true all his nonsense condensed the link cuts off at the beginning of the 'menard' stuff.
	__________________ Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!

19th December 2011, 10:29 AM	#4349
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,064	more buffoonery from WFS http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org...p?f=43&t=12218 Quote: this 'daniel' character shouldnt have put his stuff on facebook. he has no legal rights whatsoever after that in regards to where his pictures or info ends up. you put your mug out in the public domain, anyone can use it for non commercial purposes and you cant utter a peep So according to pain101 you can take someones personal information and start throwing wild accusations around about them without a shred of proof. yep, sounds the honourable thing to do. As for the non-commercial purposes, Menard soon cried to the authorities when I used his WFS logo for a bit of fun.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

19th December 2011, 03:22 PM	#4350
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove It's just more diversionary tactics by Menard. He knows that while people are wasting time concentrating on "Who is Daniel?" they aren't demanding proof from Menard of his FOTL claims, which BTW he still has not provided. Never has, never will. First Freeman Claim: The government is composed of people. And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long.....
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

19th December 2011, 03:31 PM	#4351
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 834	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard First Freeman Claim: The government is composed of people. And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long..... No, I want verifiable proof that a freeman is not bound by statue law. Not a theory, not a belief but proof. You have been asked repeatedly to provide proof but up till now you have failed to do so.

19th December 2011, 03:55 PM	#4352
ComfySlippers Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Posts: 1,080	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard First Freeman Claim: The government is composed of people. And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long..... This just in from one year ago: Quote: Also have some legal action lining up to settle a certain issue. I wonder how ole JB will feel with a court ruling that states flat out that individual consent is required, and his mantra this last two year has been wrong, and the things I espouse are proven true. I wonder what happens when a deluded and obsessed narcissist has his bubble popped. We will know soon. DIF 2010
	__________________ ___ Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Comfy: of the family Slippers Footwear-on-the-Loungefloor ___ Last edited by ComfySlippers; 19th December 2011 at 03:58 PM.

19th December 2011, 04:05 PM	#4353
bikerdruid hermit hippy weirdo Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: green island autonomous zone Posts: 7,369	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard First Freeman Claim: The government is composed of people. And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long..... Originally Posted by Stacey Grove No, *I want verifiable proof* that a freeman is not bound by statue law.** Not a theory, not a belief but proof. You have been asked repeatedly to provide proof but up till now you have failed to do so. m.menard: i would like to see your 'verifiable proof' that a 'freeman' cannot be governed without his consent. is this not one of your claims?
	__________________ Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!

19th December 2011, 04:12 PM	#4354
Border Reiver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,188	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard First Freeman Claim: The government is composed of people. And this is what you have been demanding proof of for oh so long..... Yes, and the people have given the people in government the power to carry out certain acts for the good of the people as a whole, but which may not be for the benefit of an indiviual or to which some people may not agree.
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

19th December 2011, 08:53 PM	#4355
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by bikerdruid m.menard: i would like to see your 'verifiable proof' that a 'freeman' cannot be governed without his consent. is this not one of your claims? Funny how a freeman can be incarcerated by those same laws, without his consent.
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660