(Ed) Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by grndslm

I'm sure this isn't enough proof for you guys, since I scrubbed it... but I am not OFFERING anymore than this...

http://i.imgur.com/ZbNkX.jpg


Now.... if you'd like to get down to some real terms, let's start with some of these....



~ Rights -vs- Privileges
~ What rights do you possess? Right to not be forced into involuntary servitude, correct? Or do you not possess it, because you choose voluntary servitude?
~ Constitution -vs- Statute
~ Law -vs- Rule -vs- Regulation
~ Honor -vs- Dishonor
~ Contract
~ Consent
~ Acquiescence
~ Fraud
~ Presumption
~ Due Process
~ Notice
~ Opportunity
~ Record
~ Third-Party Record
~ Status
~ State
~ Body Politic
~ Jurisdiction (Personal & Subject-Matter)
~ Citizen
~ Citizenship
~ Nationality
~ Allegiance
~ Authority
~ Society
~ Mutual
~ Corporation
~ Person
~ Agent
~ Representative

Serious challenge, rebutted with humor... GO!!!

'Tis a load of words. It doesn't actually mean anything.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by TSR

.
What's the over / under on the sock?
.

Whatever it is I am not in.

[ComfySlippers]

Originally Posted by Toke

Whatever it is I am not in.

This sock-talk worries me.

Is it legalese?

i changed my socks 10 minutes ago. Have I consented to be governed?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Smack goes the ban hammer:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...89&postcount=1

I think this is the first time someone has been banned because of something they said in a direct reply to me.....I should commemorate this somehow......


Any suggestions?

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I think this is the first time someone has been banned because of something they said in a direct reply to me.....I should commemorate this somehow......


Any suggestions?

Maybe a NWO Kitty trophy case?

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I think this is the first time someone has been banned because of something they said in a direct reply to me.....I should commemorate this somehow......


Any suggestions?

Something in comic form for sure. How, exactly, would a judge with a ban hammer apply it to someone named grandslam (of the family Scammer)?

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by TSR

.
What's the over / under on the sock?
.

I'm with ComfySlippers...I don't "stand-under" this sock business. You can't fool me, Agent Smith!

[Horatius]

I decided to just go for a simple badge of honour:

[Robrob]

Is it just me or do these FMOTL nuts seem to think if they hold up an 8.5" x 11" piece of notebook paper with Latin phrases written on it, the police will shield their eyes and stumble away like vampires with the cross or something??

[jargon buster]

Quote:

8.5" x 11" piece of notebook paper with Latin phrases written on it

Now that would be silly and would never work...but as for a robin eggshell blue piece of paper, well thats a whole new ballgame.

[Captain_Swoop]

American or European Robin though?

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Robrob

Is it just me or do these FMOTL nuts seem to think if they hold up an 8.5" x 11" piece of notebook paper with Latin phrases written on it, the police will shield their eyes and stumble away like vampires with the cross or something??

It's not just you, but it's A4 they use.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Architect

It's not just you, but it's A4 they use.

A4 is a british thing....in north america, the standard is 8.5 x 11 inches.

[jargon buster]

Robs latest video, its only 1m15 secs so dont panic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGpZmK9Kqlo

It would appear Menard has taken over a new leaf, he sees the police officers as peace officers, and after his initial stupid outburst he wound his neck in once they said they knew who he was.

New Brunswick, new approach, well done Rob

[Architect]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

A4 is a british thing....in north america, the standard is 8.5 x 11 inches.

I think you'll find that the Europeans and the Antipodeans might wish to correct you there.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Architect

I think you'll find that the Europeans and the Antipodeans might wish to correct you there.

in any case, A4 is not a standard size in north america.

[Architect]

[derail]

Well you've got the company of Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, and the Philippines. Good luck with that. The rest of us will march bravely on.

[/derail]

Now let's get back on topic.

[Stacey Grove]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Here try this on for size.
A statute is defined not as 'a law' but 'a legislated rule of a society given the force of law'

Defined by who exactly?
Citation please.

Quote:

and a society is defined as 'a number of people joined by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal'

But that definition refers to societies such as the RSPCA etc etc., not society in general.
If we turn to the FOTL bible (Black's 2nd ed.) and check the definition of "society" it does say:

Quote:

An association or company of persons (generally not incorporated) united together for any mutual or common purpose

which will be referring to societies as I mention above.
But, the definition continues. Black's then goes on to say about "society":

Quote:

In a wider sense, the community or public, the people in general

So, even Black's recognises that "society" can mean "the public".

However, until you provide the source for your defintion of "statute", your examination of the word "society" is irrelevant.

[jargon buster]

Hello Stacey, you have missed him, hes done himself proud.

[Stacey Grove]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

hes done himself proud.

Once again he's offered lots of words but no proof.
He has not given one court case where the court's decision was that a freeman on the land is not bound by statute law.
But then, we all know why he hasn't.

[Bishop]

It's amazing how often freemen will "cite" Black's for a definition that doesn't actually appear there. Common law, statute, society, driving, etc.

[Toke]

Sometimes the freemen reminds me of this movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlock:_The_Armageddon

All those ancient spells, and in particular the scene where the druid warrior boy tell his druid warrior girlfriend how it is an ancient tradition for druid warriors to have intercource the night before an important battle.
(Yes, she fall for it, not unwillingly.)

[cocana]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

While your on Rob, cocana asked you


care to have a stab?

edit....whooops there he goes again>>>>>>>

He's already told us his magical secret, JB: Rob isn't bound by statutes because he says they're not law! See his post 2115:

Quote:

Statutes are not law. They are statutes.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

There you go folks, save yourself $800 and remember that, according to Rob Menard, a freeman is freed of all statutory law simply by stating that it's not law.

My goodness, with 'advice' like that it's amazing that anyone has ever been taken in by the man.







PS - Rob, I was watching BBC Breakfast News this morning and looking at an initiative to include the calorific count on fast food menus. I was shocked at the calorific value of a Big Mac Meal, even though I don't eat that rubbish. However, would those that do benefit from equivalent advice in the dietary field? I'm wondering if you think that relabelling a Big Mac as, say, a Big Carrot, means that it loses its calorific value? Your thoughts please.

Might be an idea for you to pedal this one next as it looks like your freeman stuff is blown out of the water. Diets are big business as well of course.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

It's amazing how often freemen will "cite" Black's for a definition that doesn't actually appear there. Common law, statute, society, driving, etc.

Its because they are "repeaters" they just stumble from freeman site to freeman site reading the same nonsense and then posting it as fact without actually checking the info.
I had a loon over on freeman rebles site banging on about "freemen" in the Magna Charta, it took him an hour of posting links where it states "free man" as opposed to freeman, once he realised the difference and that the term freeman in the Magna Charta refered to the barons themselves he disappeared.
I would imagine he had been quoting the same nonsense for months.

Cocana
Dont give Rob any ideas about the diet market, I have a scam going regarding broken biscuits and the fact that all the calories fall out when they break so I charge double for them.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

JB: Rob isn't bound by statutes because he says they're not law!

However if he engages in governable actions covered by statutes then he is bound by them?????

So in a nutshell every action Rob engages in that is covered by a statute he is bound by that statute.

Which pretty much covers every concieveable action.
So he is bound by the law exactly the same as everyone else, I reall dont know what his point is anymore.

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

However if he engages in governable actions covered by statutes then he is bound by them?????

So in a nutshell every action Rob engages in that is covered by a statute he is bound by that statute.

Which pretty much covers every concieveable action.
So he is bound by the law exactly the same as everyone else, I reall dont know what his point is anymore.

That is because you have never known nor accurately surmised nor been willing to hear what my point and position actually is.

But at least you are now finally admitting your ignorance. One needs to start there to learn anything. I wish you luck in your search for knowledge.

[jargon buster]

Hey Rob, back again so soon, have you advertised your land yet? (link please)

I saw you wind your neck in on the video of you and the officers, well done that man.

and hes gone again thataway>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

he doesnt stay long does he?

Quote:

That is because you have never known nor accurately surmised nor been willing to hear what my point and position actually is.

the floor is yours Rob...

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

That is because you have never known nor accurately surmised nor been willing to hear what my point and position actually is.

But at least you are now finally admitting your ignorance. One needs to start there to learn anything. I wish you luck in your search for knowledge.

You've told us what your position is. You've also fraudulently represented that position as an effective legal strategy to your victims. Now we want evidence that it is true.

We know perfectly well that there is no such evidence, because your position is in fact false. But with every refusal to provide evidence, every pathetic attempt to dissemble and distract, and every sophistic mangling of plain English words and simple concepts, you reveal yourself to be a peddler of lies to anyone who cares to read this thread.

You sell lies. If they weren't lies, you wouldn't need to make a single tortured attempt at logical argument; you could simply show the evidence that your legal "reasoning" is true by successfully using it.

Get to it.

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Hey Rob, back again so soon, have you advertised your land yet? (link please)

I saw you wind your neck in on the video of you and the officers, well done that man.

and hes gone again thataway>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

he doesnt stay long does he?


the floor is yours Rob...

Um, I have a life, and many things to do to prepare for my tour. But feel free to use me not being at the keyboard, or not on this forum as evidence you are 'winning'. It does not sound like you are desperate to claim a win at all.

I did not 'wind my neck in' though that is what you may have thought. I walked up to them and engaged respectfully. Funny that you would consider that as winding my neck in. I only spoke originally because one elbowed the other and pointed me out, and having recognized me, I felt I should respond by ensuring they knew of my status. Then when one mentioned my name, I figure it would have been simply rude to ignore him or go on my way without saying hello.

Notice how none tried to dispute my claims like the people here try to do?

Well, have to go now again. Lots of important and useful work to do. Being on this forum is neither.

Feel free to claim victory herein though!

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by D'rok

You've told us what your position is. You've also fraudulently represented that position as an effective legal strategy to your victims. Now we want evidence that it is true.

We know perfectly well that there is no such evidence, because your position is in fact false. But with every refusal to provide evidence, every pathetic attempt to dissemble and distract, and every sophistic mangling of plain English words and simple concepts, you reveal yourself to be a peddler of lies to anyone who cares to read this thread.

You sell lies. If they weren't lies, you wouldn't need to make a single tortured attempt at logical argument; you could simply show the evidence that your legal "reasoning" is true by successfully using it.

Get to it.

No I did not tell you what my position is, at least not so you could understand it apparently.

Otherwise you would not be bringing in that straw man you always do,.

So you claim refusal or inability to provide evidence is key right? So if I used that standard to establish that the people in the government cannot and do not claim or establish they have a right to govern me without my consent, I would be in the right, is that correct?

Consent of the governed means consent of the governed.
Why can't you see that?

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

No I did not tell you what my position is, at least not so you could understand it apparently.

Otherwise you would not be bringing in that straw man you always do,.

So you claim refusal or inability to provide evidence is key right? So if I used that standard to establish that the people in the government cannot and do not claim or establish they have a right to govern me without my consent, I would be in the right, is that correct?

Consent of the governed means consent of the governed.
Why can't you see that?

You claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it. You claim the the Canadian government can't govern you. Prove it.

Enough BS. Provide evidence.

[jargon buster]

Menard wrote

Quote:

I did not 'wind my neck in' though that is what you may have thought. I walked up to them and engaged respectfully.

After drunkenly shouting "Freeman on the land, freeman on the land", yes that was full of respect

Quote:

Funny that you would consider that as winding my neck in. I only spoke originally because one elbowed the other and pointed me out, and having recognized me, I felt I should respond by ensuring they knew of my status.

Nope, I think you were not thinking straight as you were bladdered.
The look on the cops faces, they were just itching for you to start your ramblings, one even tried to get you to start by saying you had some interesting ideas.
They are on to you Rob, you had better watch your step

Quote:

Then when one mentioned my name, I figure it would have been simply rude to ignore him or go on my way without saying hello.

Thats it Rob, be nice, you know it makes sense.

Quote:

Notice how none tried to dispute my claims like the people here try to do?

Im sure when they finally come to lock you up they will dispute them, but that wont happen will it Rob, after all you obey statute law dont you?

5,4,3,2,1 has he gone yet?

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by D'rok

You claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it. You claim the the Canadian government can't govern you. Prove it.

Enough BS. Provide evidence.

LAST TIME> I do not claim to be above the law of Canada. Never have. I claim the p[eople in the Government are not above the law, and as such need our consent to govern. It is simple, and you ALWAYS misrepresent it as claiming I am above the law. Then you demand I prove what YOU ARE CLAIMING. And anyone reading this thread will see THAT.

I claim the people in the government have been incapable of providing evidence to the contrary.

So how about YOU PROVE YOU CAN GOVERN ME WITHOUT MY CONSENT.
Failure means you can't.

Get to it.

[D'rok]

Here's a specific example of your BS for sale:

Quote:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says you have the right to "security of the person". Do you think the "person" means a human being?


Did you know you owned stock and could hold that stock and collect dividends?


This new work from Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Arthur: Menard examines the meaning of the term "security of the person" and how it relates to your relationship with the government.





http://shop.worldfreemansociety.org/...&products_id=6

Instead of fleecing the gullible with idiotic nonsense, provide specific evidence for this specific claim.

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Menard wrote

After drunkenly shouting "Freeman on the land, freeman on the land", yes that was full of respect

Nope, I think you were not thinking straight as you were bladdered.
The look on the cops faces, they were just itching for you to start your ramblings, one even tried to get you to start by saying you had some interesting ideas.
They are on to you Rob, you had better watch your step
Thats it Rob, be nice, you know it makes sense.
Im sure when they finally come to lock you up they will dispute them, but that wont happen will it Rob, after all you obey statute law dont you?

5,4,3,2,1 has he gone yet?

That's the only way you can claim victory isn't it?

Yes they are on to me... oooohhhh so scary!
Why did they not arrest me then?

Maybe I have spoken with some of them since then, at length, and found they agree with much of what I espouse.

Ok, now I am gone, well in about ten minutes...



(Sure I am glad I have more to do with my life than live on a forum trying to denigrate others for their beliefs.)

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

LAST TIME> I do not claim to be above the law of Canada. Never have. I claim the p[eople in the Government are not above the law, and as such need our consent to govern. It is simple, and you ALWAYS misrepresent it as claiming I am above the law. Then you demand I prove what YOU ARE CLAIMING. And anyone reading this thread will see THAT.

I claim the people in the government have been incapable of providing evidence to the contrary.

So how about YOU PROVE YOU CAN GOVERN ME WITHOUT MY CONSENT.
Failure means you can't.

Get to it.

Quit playing the same losing hand over and over.

Originally Posted by D'rok

Remember when I asked for a citation for your definition of statutes? Remember how badly that failed and how the source you linked to explicitly said statutes are law? That was good times.

So, you are not above the laws of Canada because the laws of Canada are not laws because you made up a definition of law that excludes the laws of Canada.

*********** awesome. Circle-jerk reasoning at its best.

Some evidence soon please?

Evidence when?

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Here's a specific example of your BS for sale:


Instead of fleecing the gullible with idiotic nonsense, provide specific evidence for this specific claim.

Will logic and reason be sufficient? Or do you abandon your ability to use those in favour of someone else's opinion after they have employed the same tools and heard the argument?

You know, will you demand that some judge has heard this argument first, and agreed with it, because you are incapable of using your own faculties?

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

Will logic and reason be sufficient? Or do you abandon your ability to use those in favour of someone else's opinion after they have employed the same tools and heard the argument?

You know, will you demand that some judge has heard this argument first, and agreed with it, because you are incapable of using your own faculties?

Evidence will be sufficient. Here is an example of evidence:

[jargon buster]

Quote:

Why did they not arrest me then?

Because you obey the laws/statutes

Quote:

Maybe I have spoken with some of them since then, at length, and found they agree with much of what I espouse.

..and maybe you haven't, see how easy it is to make a claim without anything to back it up.

Oh and as for claiming to be above the law, you have stated already that you dont consent to statutes, isnt that the same thing?
By the way statutes are laws, its just you that doesnt think so.

PS please post a link to your land when you put it up for sale, I might buy it.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by FreemanMenard

LAST TIME> I do not claim to be above the law of Canada. Never have. I claim the p[eople in the Government are not above the law, and as such need our consent to govern. It is simple, and you ALWAYS misrepresent it as claiming I am above the law.

You have claimed statutes do no apply to you. Shall we dispense the with your statute/law quibble, and just focus on your claim to be above statutes, then?