[Ed] Rob Menard's FOTL Claims - Page 110

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 01:30 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.

^spamming the forum^

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 01:31 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.

^spamming the forum^

jargon buster · 20th December 2011, 01:36 PM

Robert, this thread is provided for you to provide evidence, repeated requests for that evidence cannot be considered as SPAM.

Either produce the goods or go away.

jargon buster · 20th December 2011, 01:38 PM

Quote:

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?

Lance Thatcher
I have evidence from your own fingers that you took money from him for advice.

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 01:39 PM

Just to set your mind at ease before you get blasted for CONSTANTLY SPAMMING THE FORUM.
The evidence is your inability to govern me directly without my consent, and the logical conclusion that you can't hire someone to do something you cannot do yourself.

got the evidence that you can directly govern me without my consent? A verifiable court order or letter from the canadian government should do the trick.

no? Thought not

been telling people that you can, but through a representative? Yes
been supporting a system with this claim? Yes
been ignoring reality in favour of your long defended paradigm? Yes

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

Evidecen that you personally can govern me without my consent, or hire someone else to do so.

If you can't bring that, you lose and lost long ago, but keep repeating the same thing to avoid the truth.

YOU CAN"T DO IT SO NEITHER CAN YOUR AGENTS OR REPS.

So simple... why do you miss it when it is tailor made for someone as simple as you?

Ball is in your court. Prove you can govern me without my consent, or empower your agents to do so, OR I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE, AS YOUR INABILITY IS THE PROOF.

Stacey Grove · 20th December 2011, 01:43 PM

Rob a simple question:
Are you going to provide proof that you are immune to statute law?
Yes or No?

jargon buster · 20th December 2011, 01:44 PM

Rob, there is no one here who claims to be able to govern you without your consent, thats your strawman argument.
However the Canadian government made up of elected officials have been given permission to govern you without your consent by the people of Canada and by your actions of obeying the law you prove that is true.
If you thought they couldn't then you would be travelling in an unlicensed uninsured motorised conveyance.

By the way didn't you govern me without my consent when you successfully stopped me using your WFS logo?

Stacey Grove · 20th December 2011, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Evidecen that you personally can govern me without my consent, or hire someone else to do so.

That's easy.
Your fellow Canadians have elected a government and if you step out of line they will come down on you just like they do to all of those Canadian freemen we see losing in court every time. Those Canadian FOTL get governed straight into jail.
ETA if your reply is "They're not my fellow Canadians" that is even further proof that the FOTL are being governed without their consent.

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 01:51 PM

By your silence I take we are now in agreement.
No one here can govern me without my consent.
Right?
No one here may empower another as their agent or representative to do that which they cannot do themselves.
Right?

Or is there someone here who wants to claim I personally have the right to govern THEM without their consent?

To argue AGAINST my position is to argue FOR me being able to govern YOU personally or by representation without YOUR consent.

Who here wishes to argue THAT?

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

That's easy.
Your fellow Canadians have elected a government and if you step out of line they will come down on you just like they do to all of those Canadian freemen we see losing in court every time. Those Canadian FOTL get governed straight into jail.
ETA if your reply is "They're not my fellow Canadians" that is even further proof that the FOTL are being governed without their consent.

My fellow Canadians cannot hire or elect anyone to do that which they cannot do themselves.

And the ones who avoid court entirely and which you refuse to even examine because there is no 'court record'?

So you are arguing for my ability to govern YOU without YOUR consent. Right?

jargon buster · 20th December 2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

By your silence I take we are now in agreement.
No one here can govern me without my consent.
Right?

Right

Quote:

No one here may empower another as their agent or representative to do that which they cannot do themselves.
Right?

Right, they can run for office in exactly the same way, and once in that office they can govern you without your consent.

Quote:

Or is there someone here who wants to claim I personally have the right to govern THEM without their consent?

You stopped me using tour logo, did you do it unlawfully?

Quote:

To argue AGAINST my position is to argue FOR me being able to govern YOU personally or by representation without YOUR consent.

Correct Rob, you, through the medium of another governed me without my consent.

Quote:

Who here wishes to argue THAT?

No one Rob, you are correct, I can also govern you without your consent through the courts if you impeded on me either civilly or criminally as well.

Stacey Grove · 20th December 2011, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

By your silence I take we are now in agreement.

No

Quote:

No one here can govern me without my consent.
Right?

Right.

Quote:

No one here may empower another as their agent or representative to do that which they cannot do themselves.
Right?

Wrong.

Quote:

Or is there someone here who wants to claim I personally have the right to govern THEM without their consent?

No, not you personally but you do have the right to vote in a government that will govern your neighbour without his consent.

Quote:

To argue AGAINST my position is to argue FOR me being able to govern YOU personally or by representation without YOUR consent.

Your representative, not you personally, can govern Canadians without their consent. You have to get out there and vote.

Quote:

Who here wishes to argue THAT?

I just did.

Stacey Grove · 20th December 2011, 02:02 PM

So, Rob what about this proof that you are immune to statute law?

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 02:05 PM

So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent?

Is that your claim?

Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself?

Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from.
AND
An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal.
AND
That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself.

Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me.

Please explain HOW.

jargon buster · 20th December 2011, 02:07 PM

I notice you seem to be avoiding me again Rob, never mind everyone else can read them

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

So, Rob what about this proof that you are immune to statute law?

I am waiting for your proof that you can govern me without my consent, either directly or by representative.

If you can't provide that, why do I have to prove anything?

Balls in your court.

Has been FOREVER...

jargon buster · 20th December 2011, 02:09 PM

Quote:

I am waiting for your proof that you can govern me without my consent, either directly or by representative.

If you can't provide that, why do I have to prove anything?

Balls in your court.

Has been FOREVER...

You were barred from giving legal advice in court, the document/judgement is in this thread.
You can cry all you want about it not being you, you have however not set foot in a court as an advisor since, maybe its just a coincidence.

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 02:12 PM

Hey guys don't stress yourselves out.

I will check back in a week and see if ANYONE here has figured out how they can hire someone to do that which they cannot do directly, or more accurately, how I can hire someone to do what I cannot do directly.

In this case sell your property without your consent.

If you can't explain that, then we must be in agreement:
I cannot hire a representative to do something if I do not have the right to do it myself directly.

Simples right?
Get to it..

See you after Christmas...

ComfySlippers · 20th December 2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

If you can't provide that, why do I have to prove anything?

Because you are the one persisting in making ludicrous claims and selling fake legal advice based on those claims.

Because you are the one who is either too blind or too stubborn to admit to falling for a decades old scam that only the most gullible of gullible would fall for.

Because you are the one who, after all these years, will not and can not provide proof of the idiotic claim that you are immune to statute law when it suits you.

jargon buster · 20th December 2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

I will check back in a week and see if ANYONE here has figured out how they can hire someone to do that which they cannot do directly, or more accurately, how I can hire someone to do what I cannot do directly.

I can't repair a car but I can hire someone to do it, whats your point?

Stacey Grove · 20th December 2011, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent?

Is that your claim?

No I never said that.
However if parliament were to pass a law that allowed you to do so, then yes you could.

Quote:

Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself?

Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from.
AND
An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal.
AND
That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself.

Rob you appear to be denying that there is a Canadian government that is governing your arse each and every day of your life. But there is one and they do. To argue otherwise is stupid.

Stacey Grove · 20th December 2011, 02:18 PM

Rob will you please provide proof that you are immune to statute law?

SpitfireIX · 20th December 2011, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

My fellow Canadians cannot hire or elect anyone to do that which they cannot do themselves.

<snip>

Fallacy of composition^WP.

Quote:

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). . . .

[Example]:

1.Human cells are invisible to the naked eye.
2.Humans are made up of human cells.
3.Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye. [note omitted]

jargon buster · 20th December 2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from.
AND
An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal.
AND
That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

Did you make those up yourself?

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

Rob will you please provide proof that you are immune to statute law?

Care to define a statute?

Is it: a legislated rule of a society given the force of law?

Then, are you willing to define a society?

Is it: A number of people, joined by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate determine and act for a common goal?

Then, can you show me ONE society, where consent is not required to be a member thereof?

If not, have a merry christmas.

Also, if not, consider that to be the proof you seek.

Peace eh?

DGM · 20th December 2011, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself?

.

I'm not sure how you got from "empower" to "hire" but, If a court finds you incompetent a family member or guardian can be named to make decisions for you.

Stacey Grove · 20th December 2011, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Then, are you willing to define a society?

Is it: A number of people, joined by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate determine and act for a common goal?

No, that would be a Society such as the RSPCA or the RSPB
I suggest you look to Black's as that is the FOTL's favourite.
Read the bit you chopped off from your definition.

Quote:

Then, can you show me ONE society, where consent is not required to be a member thereof?

Check out Black's it's all there.

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Fallacy of composition^WP.

With cells, there comes a time where the group itself is visible.

With human beings and their rights, is there a time where although not a single one of them have a right, enough of them makes it so?

Imagine a woman and a group of men.
How many men are needed before they can impose themselves on the one woman without consent and it is no longer rape cause there are enough of them?

What is the number?
Or is there one?
Maybe it is always rape regardless of how many partake...

So tell us, according to the law, how many men does it take before them imposing their will on a woman is no longer an act of rape.

Tell us the number, or agree there is not one.

Stacey Grove · 20th December 2011, 02:31 PM

Rob wrote:

Quote:

That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

So why do you pay a notary?

jargon buster · 20th December 2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

With cells, there comes a time where the group itself is visible.

With human beings and their rights, is there a time where although not a single one of them have a right, enough of them makes it so?

Imagine a woman and a group of men.
How many men are needed before they can impose themselves on the one woman without consent and it is no longer rape cause there are enough of them?

What is the number?
Or is there one?
Maybe it is always rape regardless of how many partake...

So tell us, according to the law, how many men does it take before them imposing their will on a woman is no longer an act of rape.

Edit, can you please stop it with the rape references, they are not necessary to make a point.

Tell us the number, or agree there is not one.

You are debunking yourself again Rob, you give a perfect example of why your individual consent is irrelevant, but I bet you can't see it.

D'rok · 20th December 2011, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

got the evidence that you can directly govern me without my consent? A verifiable court order or letter from the canadian government should do the trick.

No prob. Got a court order right here.

D'rok · 20th December 2011, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Care to define a statute?

Is it: a legislated rule of a society given the force of law?

No. You yourself provided us with a link to a definition many pages back. Have you forgotten already? Here it is:

An act of a legislature that declares, proscribes, or commands something; a specific law, expressed in writing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statute

Now provide evidence that you can opt out of the laws of Canada. Note: we are not asking for you to re-define words. We are asking you to demonstrate the truth of your claims by providing evidence.

Go.

Bosozoku · 20th December 2011, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent?

Is that your claim?

Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself?

I don't understand the distinction you are drawing here. You can't hire someone to do something illegal, obviously. I can't hire someone to sell a house that I don't own for the same reason that I can't hire someone to kill another person - it's illegal. Electing a representative to pass laws, however, is not a crime (nor is it a "hiring," for that matter). So, yes, I can't hire someone to sell your house without your consent, but I can vote for someone who may in the future govern you without your consent.

Quote:

Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from.

Most elected officials need to be voted in by either a majority or a plurality of voters, so the "source" is that majority or plurality, not each individual voter.

Quote:

AND
An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal.

As far as I know, an elected official is not considered an "agent." That just makes sense - otherwise they could never pass laws with which other people disagree.

Quote:

AND
That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

This appears to be your own legal maxim, as obviously there are situations where an agents or representatives can do what you cannot. Elected officials spring to mind, as they can enact binding legislation whereas you (the citizens) cannot. As for agency agreements, things like durable powers of attorney may last through the incapacity of the agent and entitle the holder to do what the agent obviously can't (because he or she is incapacitated).

Quote:

Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself.

Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me.

Please explain HOW.

Again, these are really two different scenarios. You cannot hire someone to do something that is illegal, such as selling someone's house they do not have title to. You can, however, elect a representative to do something you cannot, and have been able to do so in the United States for over 200 years.

D'rok · 20th December 2011, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent?

Is that your claim?

Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself?

Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from.
AND
An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal.
AND
That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative.

Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself.

Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me.

Please explain HOW.

Sure. Through the magic of common law. Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

Under the right circumstances, I can squat on your land, obtain title, and then hire a real estate agent to sell it. All without your consent.

Now, you've heard these answers many, many times. We've been patient and given them to you again. Your turn.

Provide evidence that you can opt out of the laws of Canada. Alternatively, provide evidence for any of your ridiculous FOTL claims.

Hektor · 20th December 2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me.

Uh, that's not how the government works Rob. It doesn't reduce to two people, because if it was just two people, there probably wouldn't be any need for government. However, when there are thousands or even millions of people, you can't all get together and work everything out by consensus. In fact, in the olden days, he who had the army and muscle got to make all the rules. They were usually called kings. And they had few checks on their power. Gradually over the centuries kings became less important and legislatures became more. Some places even killed their king or rebelled against them. Some places turned into very nasty places like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Other places like Canada and the United States empowered the citizens to run the show through their representatives. We (collectively) the people of such countries empower our representatives to work out rules so we can function as a society. We won't all agree how to best run a country. A rule that everyone has to agree or else doesn't make for effective governance, not least because there bad people out there. Should a murderer be allowed to say "well I don't consent to murder being a crime?"

Mojo · 20th December 2011, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

I will check back in a week and see if ANYONE here has figured out how they can hire someone to do that which they cannot do directly, or more accurately, how I can hire someone to do what I cannot do directly.

In this case sell your property without your consent.

If you can't explain that, then we must be in agreement:
I cannot hire a representative to do something if I do not have the right to do it myself directly.

Rob, the government of Canada, or of a province of Canada, is not hired by individual Canadians. It is empowered by the Constitution of Canada to pass legislation.

Mojo · 20th December 2011, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

No, that would be a Society such as the RSPCA or the RSPB
I suggest you look to Black's as that is the FOTL's favourite.
Read the bit you chopped off from your definition.

Check out Black's it's all there.

Rob seems to be running into the same problem as when he tried to base an argument on using the wrong definition of the word "security" in the expression "security of the person".

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

Rob wrote:

So why do you pay a notary?

I can do what the notary does.

But they can do something I cannot, and that is act as impartial witness to process.

That is why we use notaries.

Stacey Grove · 20th December 2011, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

I can do what the notary does.

But they can do something I cannot, and that is act as impartial witness to process.

That is why we use notaries.

But if they are only an impartial witness why don't you use somebody plucked off the street?

FreemanMenard · 20th December 2011, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Rob, the government of Canada, or of a province of Canada, is not hired by individual Canadians. It is empowered by the Constitution of Canada to pass legislation.

You do realize these things you point to, are in fact legal fictions, and do not exist, right?

You may as well point to Santa Claus, and then a group of people who point to Santa Claus, to justify their unlawful actions.

What you point to exist only in imagination and through mutual consent.

Can either of them testify in a court of law without use of an agent?

No? Thought not...

But you like so many others are addicted and attached to these fictions, you will not even admit they are not real...

You will fight someone who is real instead....

20th December 2011, 01:30 PM	#4361
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	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. ^spamming the forum^
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

20th December 2011, 01:31 PM	#4362
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	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. ^spamming the forum^
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

20th December 2011, 01:36 PM	#4363
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	Robert, this thread is provided for you to provide evidence, repeated requests for that evidence cannot be considered as SPAM. Either produce the goods or go away.
	__________________ ^{^{“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

20th December 2011, 01:38 PM	#4364
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	Quote: 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? Lance Thatcher I have evidence from your own fingers that you took money from him for advice.
	__________________ ^{^{“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

20th December 2011, 01:39 PM	#4365
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Just to set your mind at ease before you get blasted for CONSTANTLY SPAMMING THE FORUM. The evidence is your inability to govern me directly without my consent, and the logical conclusion that you can't hire someone to do something you cannot do yourself. got the evidence that you can directly govern me without my consent? A verifiable court order or letter from the canadian government should do the trick. no? Thought not been telling people that you can, but through a representative? Yes been supporting a system with this claim? Yes been ignoring reality in favour of your long defended paradigm? Yes once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole. Evidecen that you personally can govern me without my consent, or hire someone else to do so. If you can't bring that, you lose and lost long ago, but keep repeating the same thing to avoid the truth. YOU CAN"T DO IT SO NEITHER CAN YOUR AGENTS OR REPS. So simple... why do you miss it when it is tailor made for someone as simple as you? Ball is in your court. Prove you can govern me without my consent, or empower your agents to do so, OR I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE, AS YOUR INABILITY IS THE PROOF.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

20th December 2011, 01:43 PM	#4366
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 830	Rob a simple question: Are you going to provide proof that you are immune to statute law? Yes or No?

20th December 2011, 01:44 PM	#4367
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	Rob, there is no one here who claims to be able to govern you without your consent, thats your strawman argument. However the Canadian government made up of elected officials have been given permission to govern you without your consent by the people of Canada and by your actions of obeying the law you prove that is true. If you thought they couldn't then you would be travelling in an unlicensed uninsured motorised conveyance. By the way didn't you govern me without my consent when you successfully stopped me using your WFS logo?
	__________________ ^{^{“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

20th December 2011, 01:48 PM	#4368
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 830	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard Evidecen that you personally can govern me without my consent, or hire someone else to do so. That's easy. Your fellow Canadians have elected a government and if you step out of line they will come down on you just like they do to all of those Canadian freemen we see losing in court every time. Those Canadian FOTL get governed straight into jail. ETA if your reply is "They're not my fellow Canadians" that is even further proof that the FOTL are being governed without their consent.
	Last edited by Stacey Grove; 20th December 2011 at 01:51 PM.

20th December 2011, 01:51 PM	#4369
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	By your silence I take we are now in agreement. No one here can govern me without my consent. Right? No one here may empower another as their agent or representative to do that which they cannot do themselves. Right? Or is there someone here who wants to claim I personally have the right to govern THEM without their consent? To argue AGAINST my position is to argue FOR me being able to govern YOU personally or by representation without YOUR consent. Who here wishes to argue THAT?
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

20th December 2011, 01:53 PM	#4370
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove That's easy. Your fellow Canadians have elected a government and if you step out of line they will come down on you just like they do to all of those Canadian freemen we see losing in court every time. Those Canadian FOTL get governed straight into jail. ETA if your reply is "They're not my fellow Canadians" that is even further proof that the FOTL are being governed without their consent. My fellow Canadians cannot hire or elect anyone to do that which they cannot do themselves. And the ones who avoid court entirely and which you refuse to even examine because there is no 'court record'? So you are arguing for my ability to govern YOU without YOUR consent. Right?
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

20th December 2011, 01:55 PM	#4371
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	Quote: By your silence I take we are now in agreement. No one here can govern me without my consent. Right? Right Quote: No one here may empower another as their agent or representative to do that which they cannot do themselves. Right? Right, they can run for office in exactly the same way, and once in that office they can govern you without your consent. Quote: Or is there someone here who wants to claim I personally have the right to govern THEM without their consent? You stopped me using tour logo, did you do it unlawfully? Quote: To argue AGAINST my position is to argue FOR me being able to govern YOU personally or by representation without YOUR consent. Correct Rob, you, through the medium of another governed me without my consent. Quote: Who here wishes to argue THAT? No one Rob, you are correct, I can also govern you without your consent through the courts if you impeded on me either civilly or criminally as well.
	__________________ ^{^{“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; 20th December 2011 at 01:57 PM.

20th December 2011, 01:56 PM	#4372
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 830	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard By your silence I take we are now in agreement. No Quote: No one here can govern me without my consent. Right? Right. Quote: No one here may empower another as their agent or representative to do that which they cannot do themselves. Right? Wrong. Quote: Or is there someone here who wants to claim I personally have the right to govern THEM without their consent? No, not you personally but you do have the right to vote in a government that will govern your neighbour without his consent. Quote: To argue AGAINST my position is to argue FOR me being able to govern YOU personally or by representation without YOUR consent. Your representative, not you personally, can govern Canadians without their consent. You have to get out there and vote. Quote: Who here wishes to argue THAT? I just did.
	Last edited by Stacey Grove; 20th December 2011 at 01:58 PM.

20th December 2011, 02:02 PM	#4373
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 830	So, Rob what about this proof that you are immune to statute law?

20th December 2011, 02:05 PM	#4374
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent? Is that your claim? Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself? Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from. AND An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal. AND That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative. Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself. Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me. Please explain HOW.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

20th December 2011, 02:07 PM	#4375
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	I notice you seem to be avoiding me again Rob, never mind everyone else can read them
	__________________ ^{^{“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

20th December 2011, 02:07 PM	#4376
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove So, Rob what about this proof that you are immune to statute law? I am waiting for your proof that you can govern me without my consent, either directly or by representative. If you can't provide that, why do I have to prove anything? Balls in your court. Has been FOREVER...
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

20th December 2011, 02:09 PM	#4377
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	Quote: I am waiting for your proof that you can govern me without my consent, either directly or by representative. If you can't provide that, why do I have to prove anything? Balls in your court. Has been FOREVER... You were barred from giving legal advice in court, the document/judgement is in this thread. You can cry all you want about it not being you, you have however not set foot in a court as an advisor since, maybe its just a coincidence.
	__________________ ^{^{“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

20th December 2011, 02:12 PM	#4378
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Hey guys don't stress yourselves out. I will check back in a week and see if ANYONE here has figured out how they can hire someone to do that which they cannot do directly, or more accurately, how I can hire someone to do what I cannot do directly. In this case sell your property without your consent. If you can't explain that, then we must be in agreement: I cannot hire a representative to do something if I do not have the right to do it myself directly. Simples right? Get to it.. See you after Christmas...
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

20th December 2011, 02:14 PM	#4379
ComfySlippers Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Posts: 1,081	Quote: If you can't provide that, why do I have to prove anything? Because you are the one persisting in making ludicrous claims and selling fake legal advice based on those claims. Because you are the one who is either too blind or too stubborn to admit to falling for a decades old scam that only the most gullible of gullible would fall for. Because you are the one who, after all these years, will not and can not provide proof of the idiotic claim that you are immune to statute law when it suits you.
	__________________ ___ Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Comfy: of the family Slippers Footwear-on-the-Loungefloor ___ Last edited by ComfySlippers; 20th December 2011 at 02:16 PM.

20th December 2011, 02:15 PM	#4380
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	Quote: I will check back in a week and see if ANYONE here has figured out how they can hire someone to do that which they cannot do directly, or more accurately, how I can hire someone to do what I cannot do directly. I can't repair a car but I can hire someone to do it, whats your point?
	__________________ ^{^{“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

20th December 2011, 02:17 PM	#4381
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 830	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent? Is that your claim? No I never said that. However if parliament were to pass a law that allowed you to do so, then yes you could. Quote: Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself? Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from. AND An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal. AND That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative. Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself. Rob you appear to be denying that there is a Canadian government that is governing your arse each and every day of your life. But there is one and they do. To argue otherwise is stupid.
	Last edited by Stacey Grove; 20th December 2011 at 02:19 PM.

20th December 2011, 02:18 PM	#4382
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 830	Rob will you please provide proof that you are immune to statute law?

20th December 2011, 02:20 PM	#4383
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,830	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard My fellow Canadians cannot hire or elect anyone to do that which they cannot do themselves. <snip> Fallacy of composition^WP. Quote: The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). . . . [Example]: 1.Human cells are invisible to the naked eye. 2.Humans are made up of human cells. 3.Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye. [note omitted]
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya Last edited by SpitfireIX; 20th December 2011 at 02:28 PM. Reason: <snipped> non-relevant portion of quotation

20th December 2011, 02:22 PM	#4384
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	Quote: Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from. AND An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal. AND That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative. Did you make those up yourself?
	__________________ ^{^{“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

20th December 2011, 02:26 PM	#4385
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by Stacey Grove Rob will you please provide proof that you are immune to statute law? Care to define a statute? Is it: a legislated rule of a society given the force of law? Then, are you willing to define a society? Is it: A number of people, joined by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate determine and act for a common goal? Then, can you show me ONE society, where consent is not required to be a member thereof? If not, have a merry christmas. Also, if not, consider that to be the proof you seek. Peace eh?
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

20th December 2011, 02:26 PM	#4386
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,341	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself? . I'm not sure how you got from "empower" to "hire" but, If a court finds you incompetent a family member or guardian can be named to make decisions for you.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

20th December 2011, 02:29 PM	#4387
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 830	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard Then, are you willing to define a society? Is it: A number of people, joined by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate determine and act for a common goal? No, that would be a Society such as the RSPCA or the RSPB I suggest you look to Black's as that is the FOTL's favourite. Read the bit you chopped off from your definition. Quote: Then, can you show me ONE society, where consent is not required to be a member thereof? Check out Black's it's all there.

20th December 2011, 02:31 PM	#4388
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX Fallacy of composition^WP. With cells, there comes a time where the group itself is visible. With human beings and their rights, is there a time where although not a single one of them have a right, enough of them makes it so? Imagine a woman and a group of men. How many men are needed before they can impose themselves on the one woman without consent and it is no longer rape cause there are enough of them? What is the number? Or is there one? Maybe it is always rape regardless of how many partake... So tell us, according to the law, how many men does it take before them imposing their will on a woman is no longer an act of rape. Tell us the number, or agree there is not one.
FreemanMenard Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 837

20th December 2011, 02:31 PM	#4389
Stacey Grove Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: W1 Posts: 830	Rob wrote: Quote: That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative. So why do you pay a notary?

20th December 2011, 02:35 PM	#4390
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	Quote: With cells, there comes a time where the group itself is visible. With human beings and their rights, is there a time where although not a single one of them have a right, enough of them makes it so? Imagine a woman and a group of men. How many men are needed before they can impose themselves on the one woman without consent and it is no longer rape cause there are enough of them? What is the number? Or is there one? Maybe it is always rape regardless of how many partake... So tell us, according to the law, how many men does it take before them imposing their will on a woman is no longer an act of rape. Edit, can you please stop it with the rape references, they are not necessary to make a point. Tell us the number, or agree there is not one. You are debunking yourself again Rob, you give a perfect example of why your individual consent is irrelevant, but I bet you can't see it.
	__________________ ^{^{“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; 20th December 2011 at 02:36 PM.

20th December 2011, 02:47 PM	#4392
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard Care to define a statute? Is it: a legislated rule of a society given the force of law? No. You yourself provided us with a link to a definition many pages back. Have you forgotten already? Here it is: An act of a legislature that declares, proscribes, or commands something; a specific law, expressed in writing. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statute Now provide evidence that you can opt out of the laws of Canada. Note: we are not asking for you to re-define words. We are asking you to demonstrate the truth of your claims by providing evidence. Go.
	__________________ "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

20th December 2011, 02:53 PM	#4393
Bosozoku Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 156	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent? Is that your claim? Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself? I don't understand the distinction you are drawing here. You can't hire someone to do something illegal, obviously. I can't hire someone to sell a house that I don't own for the same reason that I can't hire someone to kill another person - it's illegal. Electing a representative to pass laws, however, is not a crime (nor is it a "hiring," for that matter). So, yes, I can't hire someone to sell your house without your consent, but I can vote for someone who may in the future govern you without your consent. Quote: Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from. Most elected officials need to be voted in by either a majority or a plurality of voters, so the "source" is that majority or plurality, not each individual voter. Quote: AND An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal. As far as I know, an elected official is not considered an "agent." That just makes sense - otherwise they could never pass laws with which other people disagree. Quote: AND That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative. This appears to be your own legal maxim, as obviously there are situations where an agents or representatives can do what you cannot. Elected officials spring to mind, as they can enact binding legislation whereas you (the citizens) cannot. As for agency agreements, things like durable powers of attorney may last through the incapacity of the agent and entitle the holder to do what the agent obviously can't (because he or she is incapacitated). Quote: Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself. Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me. Please explain HOW. Again, these are really two different scenarios. You cannot hire someone to do something that is illegal, such as selling someone's house they do not have title to. You can, however, elect a representative to do something you cannot, and have been able to do so in the United States for over 200 years.
Bosozoku Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 156

20th December 2011, 03:06 PM	#4394
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard So stacey, though I may not sell your house to my friend without your consent, if I hire someone else to do so, THEY can sell your house to my friend without your consent? Is that your claim? Can you explain HOW you can hire someone to do that which you do not have the power to do yourself? Remember the maxims of law: Power derived is never greater than the source it was derived from. AND An agent can only exercise the power given them by the principal. AND That which I cannot do directly I cannot do by agent, proxy or representative. Explain HOW you can empower someone to do something, if you do not even have the right to do it yourself. Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me. Please explain HOW. Sure. Through the magic of common law. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession Under the right circumstances, I can squat on your land, obtain title, and then hire a real estate agent to sell it. All without your consent. Now, you've heard these answers many, many times. We've been patient and given them to you again. Your turn. Provide evidence that you can opt out of the laws of Canada. Alternatively, provide evidence for any of your ridiculous FOTL claims.
	__________________ "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 Last edited by D'rok; 20th December 2011 at 03:14 PM.

20th December 2011, 03:12 PM	#4395
Hektor Scholar Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 55	Quote: Use the example of You being a house owner, and me wanting to sell your house without your consent, but not being able to because it is not my house, yet I can still do so according to you, if I hire an agent to do it for me. Uh, that's not how the government works Rob. It doesn't reduce to two people, because if it was just two people, there probably wouldn't be any need for government. However, when there are thousands or even millions of people, you can't all get together and work everything out by consensus. In fact, in the olden days, he who had the army and muscle got to make all the rules. They were usually called kings. And they had few checks on their power. Gradually over the centuries kings became less important and legislatures became more. Some places even killed their king or rebelled against them. Some places turned into very nasty places like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Other places like Canada and the United States empowered the citizens to run the show through their representatives. We (collectively) the people of such countries empower our representatives to work out rules so we can function as a society. We won't all agree how to best run a country. A rule that everyone has to agree or else doesn't make for effective governance, not least because there bad people out there. Should a murderer be allowed to say "well I don't consent to murder being a crime?"
Hektor Scholar Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 55

20th December 2011, 03:12 PM	#4396
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,092	Originally Posted by FreemanMenard I will check back in a week and see if ANYONE here has figured out how they can hire someone to do that which they cannot do directly, or more accurately, how I can hire someone to do what I cannot do directly. In this case sell your property without your consent. If you can't explain that, then we must be in agreement: I cannot hire a representative to do something if I do not have the right to do it myself directly. Rob, the government of Canada, or of a province of Canada, is not hired by individual Canadians. It is empowered by the Constitution of Canada to pass legislation.
	__________________ "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