Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[arayder]

Let's all grab some popcorn while Menard takes the freeman subculture apart at the seams by ignoring the first rule of the cult.

Over the years, to advance their cause, freeman have claimed that they not persons, or that they don't have first hand knowledge of their births or given names, or that they are not "defendants" or "respondents". . .or some other crazy theory. All along the way the members of the fmotl subculture have withheld harsh comment, as long as the theory in question sought to get the freeman out from under the rule of law.

Since criticism of the theories invited solid scholarship, delving into why this or that theory didn't make sense encouraged the sort of behavior that could ruin freemanism. . .that being learning what the law really is.

As successive lame theories were struck down in court or proved to be wildly impractical the subculture was forced to come with new theories as to how its members might beat the next traffic ticket, get a free meal, or get out of paying their taxes.

Think of the successive freeman theories as the subculture's version of the latest flat stomach exercise and diet regime sold to guys who don't want to stop eating cheese burgers, get exercise, or do sit ups. The publishers of men's self improvement magazines can't tolerate serious "stop eating and go for a walk" talk any more than the freeman subculture can tolerate "stop breaking the law" discussions.

The trouble with Menard is that his narsassistic need to feign superiority over everyone compels him to take cheap shots at fellow freeman theorists (Kate of Gia, Dean Clifford, Allen Boisjoli and Ed Belanger) and even the folks (Lance Thatcher, John Morkunas and the Nanaimo 3) he says have misused his theories.

What the addled Menard doesn't realize is the net effect of his violation of freemanism's first commandment is that almost nobody trusts him or wants to partner with him.

[Jeffrey]

Menard's video was painful to watch.

Rob, just to refresh your memory, your specific claim is that:

you owned stock and could hold that stock and collect dividends

the Government creates a “person” out of your name, then turns that into a “security” worth millions to use as collateral when it borrows from foreign countries? We are all security stock worth around US$7 million based on the bond floated at our birth. Robert Menard has begun deciphering the complex path towards reclaiming these millions, by attempting to exchange the birth certificate for the security certificate.

The Bank of Canada issuing shares which are held by the Minister, in no way supports your claim that every Canadian is given a share at birth, nor does it support your claim that those shares are worth "US$7 million" per person or that those shares can be cashed in.

Again, just like Kate's theory that using a legal name is illegal, it's something that the government has never claimed or stated.

You made it up, or I should say, you just copied the concept from American Redemption theory and Canadian-ized to sell it to idiots north of the border at $25 per DVD.

It's not true down here, it sure as hell ain't true up there.

[arayder]

Here's what Menard says in reply:

Kate's argument is that the government has made a claim to the copyright and that is why it is illegal to use a legal name. It is defeated by pointing out that the government has not made any such claim to the copyright of our names. It is not defeated merely because the government has not claimed it was illegal but because they have not claimed copyright over our names.
Unlike Kate, my argument concerning our right to a share of the country is NOT based upon the point that the government has made a claim, AT ALL. My argument does not state 'The Government claims..." and therefore pointing out the government has not made any such claim does not defeat my argument, for my argument (unlike Kate's) does not state they have.
Of course, the idiots at the quatloosers forum are generally incapable of such subtle distinctions.

What a silly attempt at face saving. Menard's disingenuous argument is an insult to the intelligence of freemen.

The fact is Menard's "security of the person" theory holds that the government not only claims the mythical securities but uses them in unspecified security markets to finance Canada's debt.

In a further insult to freemen Menard ignores the fact that in Meads v Meads the court dismissed Bobby's theory by saying that OPCA gurus like he wrongly claim that, ". . . a person can access their secret bank account and its funds."

Bobby's cooked his own goose. Like a witless 10 year old, he can't remember which story he's telling when.

[Chaos]

Here's what Menard says in reply:

Kate's argument is that the government has made a claim to the copyright and that is why it is illegal to use a legal name. It is defeated by pointing out that the government has not made any such claim to the copyright of our names. It is not defeated merely because the government has not claimed it was illegal but because they have not claimed copyright over our names.
Unlike Kate, my argument concerning our right to a share of the country is NOT based upon the point that the government has made a claim, AT ALL. My argument does not state 'The Government claims..." and therefore pointing out the government has not made any such claim does not defeat my argument, for my argument (unlike Kate's) does not state they have.
Of course, the idiots at the quatloosers forum are generally incapable of such subtle distinctions.

What a silly attempt at face saving. Menard's disingenuous argument is an insult to the intelligence of freemen.

The fact is Menard's "security of the person" theory holds that the government not only claims the mythical securities but uses them in unspecified security markets to finance Canada's debt.

In a further insult to freemen Menard ignores the fact that in Meads v Meads the court dismissed Bobby's theory by saying that OPCA gurus like he wrongly claim that, ". . . a person can access their secret bank account and its funds."

Bobby's cooked his own goose. Like a witless 10 year old, he can't remember which story he's telling when.

let's face it.......he screwed himself in the simplest of terms with the 'I don't consent' excuse when the first thing people like you did was point out that you don't consent to his bullshit. end of story right there. doesn't get much easier to debunk than that.

[Hanslune]

An aside on this

Has anyone in the FMOLT camp ever explained why this 'share' would have any value? How do they think it financially works?

[pigpot]

An aside on this

Has anyone in the FMOLT camp ever explained why this 'share' would have any value? How do they think it financially works?

Although I am not a FMOTL, I can tell you about the share. I can't really post much here due to what I perceive to be myself being a threat this forums integrity (which I am not), as observed by the moderators. Start with Marc McMurtrie on youtube. More than that find yourself.

Hope this helps.

[Wake Up! Productions]

FACEBOOK: Menard responds to Quatloos (despite the fact that he has an account set up here).

Robert Menard
2 hrs ..

Are you as ugly as a can of smashed feline anuses? Are you as dumb as a pile of broken bricks? Is your lack of social skills and poor personal hygiene interfering with your ability to enjoy coitus with the opposite sex? Do they run away from you and refuse to consent to intercourse?

The Quatloosers School of Logical Fallacies, Circular Reasoning, and Navel Gazing has the answer!

If a woman refuses to consent to sexual intercourse, simply exercise your right to refuse consent, and refuse to consent to her refusal of consent!

This fail safe method means you do not need the woman’s consent to have sexual intercourse, she needs your consent to deny you consent! By refusing to consent to her not consenting, you can force her to have sexual intercourse with you, and disregard her refusal to consent!

This indisputable logic is brought to you by the same legal genius’ who brought you the tried and true concepts such as “ I know you are but what am I?”, “Neener Neener Boo Boo”, “Nanny Said” and “He has a hat, disregard his opinion.”

That’s right folks, our complete ignorance as to what is and is not consent, and when it is needed, means we have concluded that someone denying consent needs the consent of the one they are denying! Without that consent, the denier cannot deny consent!

Get laid tonight! Refuse to consent to a denial of consent!

Also suitable for forcing the owners of automobiles to sell you their property for a dollar! If they do not consent to sell you their car for a dollar, simply tell them you do not consent to them not consenting, and thus you do not need their consent to buy their property!

[arayder]

FACEBOOK: Menard responds to Quatloos (despite the fact that he has an account set up here).

Robert Menard
2 hrs ..

Are you as ugly as a can of smashed feline anuses? Are you as dumb as a pile of broken bricks? Is your lack of social skills and poor personal hygiene interfering with your ability to enjoy coitus with the opposite sex? Do they run away from you and refuse to consent to intercourse?

The Quatloosers School of Logical Fallacies, Circular Reasoning, and Navel Gazing has the answer!

If a woman refuses to consent to sexual intercourse, simply exercise your right to refuse consent, and refuse to consent to her refusal of consent!

This fail safe method means you do not need the woman’s consent to have sexual intercourse, she needs your consent to deny you consent! By refusing to consent to her not consenting, you can force her to have sexual intercourse with you, and disregard her refusal to consent!

. . . .Get laid tonight! Refuse to consent to a denial of consent!. . .

It's nice to know that all the Moose Heads ole Bobby's stockpiled through tapping into his security and ACCP accounts haven't ruined his natural charm.

[rumpelstilzchen]

(despite the fact that he has an account set up here).

It's the coward's way. He is quite welcome to come and debate on here but he knows his bullshit would be ripped to shreds. That is why he has to "debate" with us by using a separate website. It's pathetic really.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It's nice to know that all the Moose Heads ole Bobby's stockpiled through tapping into his security and ACCP accounts haven't ruined his natural charm.

Bobby doesn't appear to understand that as everyone is unable to refuse to consent to man-made law it means that everyone is bound by the laws that prohibit rape.

[eric]

FACEBOOK: Menard responds to Quatloos (despite the fact that he has an account set up here).

Robert Menard
Are you as ugly as a can of smashed feline anuses? Are you as dumb as a pile of broken bricks? Is your lack of social skills and poor personal hygiene interfering with your ability to enjoy coitus with the opposite sex? Do they run away from you and refuse to consent to intercourse?

It's nice to know that all the Moose Heads ole Bobby's stockpiled through tapping into his security and ACCP accounts haven't ruined his natural charm.

Bobby's potty-mouthed ravings remind of toddlers, who having learned a new bad word, run around endlessly babbling "poo poo" or "ka ka". I expect his comedic monologues at amateur night at the local bar are in much the same vein which may account for his lack of success as a stand up comedian.

[arayder]

On-the-run-Bobby is now getting after us for not publishing our names and addresses over the internet.

Cowards act in packs and refuse to identify themselves.

What's your new address, Bobby?

[rumpelstilzchen]

On-the-run-Bobby is now getting after us for not publishing our names and addresses over the internet.

Cowards act in packs and refuse to identify themselves.

What's your new address, Bobby?

Bobby always resorts to playing that card. He is so predictable. He criticises those that debunk his bullshit for posting on the internet anonymously but he never criticises those that agree with him for doing the same. He is so stupid he cannot see that whether or not we post anonymously does not alter whether or not what we do post is correct.

[arayder]

On-the-run-Bobby is now getting after us for not publishing our names and addresses over the internet.

Cowards act in packs and refuse to identify themselves.

Bobby always resorts to playing that card. He is so predictable. He criticises those that debunk his bullshit for posting on the internet anonymously but he never criticises those that agree with him for doing the same. He is so stupid he cannot see that whether or not we post anonymously does not alter whether or not what we do post is correct.

In that same vein Bobby's newest whine is to pretend that some of his debunkers are clear dangers to his physical well being.

The reality is that when they started manufacturing beer cans without pull tabs Bobby's survivability prospects went way up.

[Llwellyn]

It is rather funny, that no-where on this forum is there anything stating what he says.. There is at times.. the tongue in cheek response to his commentary, using Menards own words and examples of the circular and flawed logic. But let him ramble on, because in his ramblings, he debunks his own theories. Get Arrested - I do not Consent .. hmm sound familiar.. Court Authority and Judgement... I do not Consent... rinse - repeat. .Ooh, Menard gems of BRILLIANCE!
Menards own systems are so full of failures (say example, 96 is your Fix, A4V, ACCP, C3P.. plus all the others), quite often he would rather dodge than coming out and saying what he should.. - Menard - try this for a starter..
"Sorry, I was wrong about so many theories, they have all failed, and I should have seen into them and their flaws. Sometimes I act on things and am wrong, it is part of being Human. " - now to expect Menard to say such a thing.. well..

Llwellyn
Guardian and Keeper of the Tor

[notorial dissent]

I see Bobby has slipped further down the bung hole, can't even muster a decent complaint about those who laugh and point now. My how the minuscule are diminished. I do agree with Eric that his Bobby's pathetic potty-mouthed ravings remind of toddlers, although they are usually more original as a rule.

I do find it upsetting that our guru of the sheeple has now come out in favor of rape though, lessens him even more than he had managed previously.

[arayder]

I see Bobby has slipped further down the bung hole, can't even muster a decent complaint about those who laugh and point now. My how the minuscule are diminished. I do agree with Eric that his Bobby's pathetic potty-mouthed ravings remind of toddlers, although they are usually more original as a rule.

I do find it upsetting that our guru of the sheeple has now come out in favor of rape though, lessens him even more than he had managed previously.

This is the guy who was going to create a sustainable community at freeman valley and secure freemen's prosperity through his "security of the person" and the ACCP.

Now he's reduced to glassy eyed youtubes and Facebook melt downs.

[notorial dissent]

This is the guy who was going to create a sustainable community at freeman valley and secure freemen's prosperity through his "security of the person" and the ACCP.

Now he's reduced to glassy eyed youtubes and Facebook melt downs.

Yup, sounds like Bobby.

[arayder]

This is the guy who was going to create a sustainable community at freeman valley and secure freemen's prosperity through his "security of the person" and the ACCP.

Now he's reduced to glassy eyed youtubes and Facebook melt downs.

Yup, sounds like Bobby.

In Bobby's Very Cunning Plan The World Freeman Society was to create a prosperous society protected by freeman style peace officers and access to freeman courts. In addition to securing the wealth of their "securities" freemen were promised health care, and post-secondary education.

Years later the execution and maintenance of this plan should be enough to keep the Executive Director of the World Freeman Society and it members busy. Instead booze addled Bobby rants over the internet from his latest hide out while a few wannabe freemen who haven't got the message try to make freeman theory work by doing what their on the run guru, himself, doesn't do.

It's sad.

[LordEd]

He falls back to that example to why we can't 'not consent' to his 'non consent'.

By seeking benefit he isnt entitled to. And no, we don't consent to him raping the country.