Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Chaos]

But what if Burnaby49 (or his person) doesn't consent to the statute against criminal harassment?

exactly. seems once again the steaming pile of BM© hasn't thought this through.

[wanglepin]

Can anyone tell me the year that the World Freeman Society and when the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society was founded and by whom?Please.

[Burnaby49]

Now I'm doing Robs's work for him. I found the case he's referring to. Of course there is a back story. A man sent a woman a letter. He'd already been convicted and jailed for criminal harassment for numerous previous acts harassing the woman including multiple letters. When out of jail he started again and sent a letter containing "explicit and aggressive sexual references." So he was starting again at the very thing that had resulted in a prior criminal conviction;

R. v. Kosikar, 1999 CanLII 3775 (ON CA)

http://canlii.ca/t/1f9qj

[9] Despite this he persisted and began sending her letters and, once he found out where she lived, leaving gifts at her apartment. Once, she found him sleeping in the hall by her front door. She changed jobs but that did not help. She moved to a different community but he managed to locate her. The letters and gifts kept coming with only short interruptions. Over time, the letters began to carry the theme that God had promised her to him, that she had no free will, and that her life had been predestined to be with him.

[10] On October 27, 1992, she obtained a peace bond which he honoured for its one-year period but as soon as that ended, he recommenced the sending of letters. On September 26, 1994, he was convicted of criminal harassment and received three years' probation.

[11] During his term of probation and for several months thereafter the complainant did not hear from him. Then, on January 15, 1998, the letter arrived. It reiterated his love for her. It rebuked her lifestyle and offered to save her for God. Unlike the prior letters, it contained explicit and aggressive sexual references. The letter left her very shaken.

[12] The appellant was charged pursuant to s. 264 of the Criminal Code. The Crown's case was that although there had been no other contact in the six months preceding the charge, the January 15 letter constituted threatening conduct for the purposes of s. 264(2)(d) and that the other elements of the offence had, in the circumstances, all been made out. The Crown relied on the earlier relationship between the appellant and the complainant to prove these elements, particularly that the complainant was harassed on receipt of the letter.

A somewhat different situation than my single letter.

The case also said

"Harassment" was not defined by Parliament in s. 264.

In Ryback and Sillipp, supra, the courts agree to give this word a contextual interpretation. These cases point out that it is not sufficient that the complainant be "vexed, disquieted or annoyed", rather it must be demonstrated that the prohibited conduct "tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered".

Why "tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered" is exactly how I feel after Rob's potentially criminal harassment of a friend of mine over the phone. Much more personal and immediate than a letter about squirrels. Or doesn't it count when you do it Rob?

Rob generally doesn't care what people say about him. Check out what Arayder calls him here and over at TPUC. Water off a duck's back. So why the animus against me? I suspect it was because I revealed, and proved, that he had been criminally charged for impersonating a peace officer and, once on trial, had fled the jurisdiction of the court without answering the charges. He'd been very quiet about that, nobody knew. However the Toronto court documents I provided proved that he hadn't walked away from the traffic stop a free man because the police had agreed that he was a peace officer. It proved that claiming to be a cop had serious consequences. I think that hurt.

News flash Rob. Making public documents available isn't harassment. It is a fundamental right in a democracy. Anyone could have got their hands on them, all they had to do was ask. I asked. It's what we call providing proof of bald statements. And you brought it on yourself with that doomed Federal Court application. Remember? When you wanted a letter from the court saying you were a peace office under federal law? You were very coy about that, showing your Statement of Claim on your Facebook page but reversed and obscured so nobody knew what it was about. Again a public document so I just wandered over to the court and asked for it. But that got me thinking. Why is he doing this? So I checked it out and found out about your Toronto charges and trial. Again, all public information.

I await the RCMP's knock on the door to discuss harassment by squirrels.

[Burnaby49]

Oops! missed a critical part of my reply to Rob's comment;

RE: ROB MENARD AND THE OTHER LEVEL
Postby Rob » Fri Dec 25, 2015 8:46 am
Who here realizes that courts in Canada have previously ruled that ONE SINGULAR letter, sent anonymously, through regular mail, was deemed to be prima facie evidence of criminal harassment?

Wanna be charged and convicted of criminal harassment?
1) Send a letter anonymously.
2) In it speak about the interior of the targets home.
3) Mention you have shared their address with a unknown third party.

That should be more than enough for any court to conclude the actions were intended to harass.

The court did not rule that ONE SINGULAR letter, sent anonymously, was deemed to prima facie evidence of criminal harassment. That's just more Menard bullshit, throwing the actual facts of the case out and making up a story more in tune with his threats. Perhaps that's why he didn't give a citation over at TPUC. He knew we'd read the case and know he was just fantasizing.

The letter at issue in Kosikar was not sent anonymously. The defendant sent his victim a signed letter. The word "anonymous" is not included anywhere in the judgment. If the letter had been anonymous the judgment would have said so. But since Rob needed the letter to be anonymous to fit into his rant about my letter he made that part up. Call it artistic license. Let's be fair, maybe it's just ignorance. Perhaps Rob didn't have a citation because he's never read the case and didn't have a case name. He'd just heard somewhere about a case where one letter was used in a conviction and he decided to make his own assumptions as to what was in it.

And even the "ONE SINGULAR letter" point doesn't work because, while one letter was enough to convict, it was clearly because it was the last of a long series of letter for which he'd already been convicted. So where are my prior letters Rob?

As I've said, the letter at issue in the case was signed so the conviction was based on the letter itself, not on whether it was signed or not. So why was he convicted? It is clear from actually reading the decision that the defendant was convicted because of his long past history of relentlessly harassing the woman and because the letter contained "explicit and aggressive sexual references". Rob, please contradict me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any aggressive sexual references in my letter.

[notorial dissent]

What I want to know, is if ONE letter was supposedly sent ANONYMOUSLY, then how did they know who sent it? Must be pretty good ouija boards your Canadian cops get issued.

[arayder]

What I want to know, is if ONE letter was supposedly sent ANONYMOUSLY, then how did they know who sent it? Must be pretty good ouija boards your Canadian cops get issued.

It's simple.

Bobby lied about the note being anonymous. He knew who it was from but reckoned if he described it as anonymous he'd have a more plausible explanation when the RCMP didn't round up Burnaby49 or anybody else.

Bobby told the lie in an attempt to make himself seem more powerful and more competent than he is. That's what all his stories are about in the end.

Bobby lies like a witless 10 year old.

[Chaos]

it really is killing him that Clifford is getting more attention at the moment. he could change all that by going back to Toronto and turning himself in. New year hilarity for all!

[ArthurWankspittle]

Isn't "tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered" how Bobbie is normally, behind his façade? Complaining about one letter is like complaining that someone emptied a bucket of water into the lake you are drowning in.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I think Menard's recent posting on tpuc is the most idiotic I have seen in a long time. He makes a claim about a court decision and then, when asked for the details of the case, he refuses to identify it. What kind of behaviour is that? Nutty behaviour in my opinion. Sheer nuttery.

[notorial dissent]

Sounds like typical vintage Menard ism to me, when caught in an, obvious, lie, bluster, obfuscate, and change the subject immediately> Anyone who is at all familiar with him will instantly recognize the behavior.

Arthur, it's just easier and less challenging to Bobby to focus on the non-existent anonymous letter than the very real terrors of his real every day life. At least he can blame someone else when nothign happens with the letter.

[Burnaby49]

More from Rob;

I will give you one little bone to chew on. I will admit I conflated two separate cases. I read about 20-30 cases concerning harassment. Sue me. Have a dance. Celebrate that I misspoke. I was actually referring to two separate ones. The issue if we are to discuss would be whether one singular action, could be considered harassment, AND whether said action, when engaged in anonymously would be reckless. Whether acting anonymously evidenced recklessness or wanton disregard or mens rea. And the tools we would use would be logic and reason, and not what a court ruled alone, unless you wanted people to look to what some judge said instead of their own heart as the final arbiter of right and wrong. In that case you mentioned, I believe the court did rule that one singular action could be viewed as harassment. Keep looking and you will find another case where the court ruled that acting anonymously was seen as evidence of harassment due (I believe) to recklessness. I admit I was mistaken in thinking that both issues were determined in the same case. Aren't you proud of yourself now?

Warn Burnaby49 that the hungry dogs are closing in on him. People can't send letters anonymously with implied threats through the post without the recipient having the right to know who sent it. And since I know that Ron Usher knows who he is, and I have screen shots of Burnaby admitting to sending the letter, a court order or request from the RCMP will cause his identity to eventually be revealed to me. Also have him research about what sort of concern for safety is involved. Did you know that not only physical safety, but emotional and psychological safety is also considered? Did you know the courts also look at signs of escalation to determine if concern for safety is reasonable in the circumstances? I think that him deciding to escalate his actions against me using the postal service, means my concern for my safety in these circumstances is reasonable. I wonder what a judge will say about that, when I present his letter and swear out my information, and present reams of evidence of Burnaby admitting to harassing me and defaming me as his retirement hobby. You do realize that his endless posting about me, is strongly suggestive of an unhealthy obsession, which could easily turn into a full psychotic break, right? Certainly it is a reasonable concern. I wonder if the judge will see the sadism inherent in the letter that both lawyers I showed it to did. I wonder if the judge will find his obsession with me 'weird' and concerning. I wonder if there is any judge out there stupid enough to accept Burnaby's claim that he only wanted to discuss squirrels, and that his failure to put any return address, or include his real name was merely an oversight on his part. Or that he couldn't do so on the internet using email or his forum. He can look forward to explaining to a judge why it was not harassment, or at least recklessness concerning whether I felt harassed.

Recklessness is now an offense?

[Chaos]

ever notice that scammers always have to post long winded, say nothing, diatribes?

[rumpelstilzchen]

I see Menard is playing his usual "two lawyers" card. It's never one, it's always two.
He is so predictable.

[Burnaby49]

I see Menard is playing his usual "two lawyers" card. It's never one, it's always two.
He is so predictable.

I feel kind of slighted. You'd think I warranted at least three lawyers. Maybe a retired judge too.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I feel kind of slighted. You'd think I warranted at least three lawyers. Maybe a retired judge too.

You just wait until he gets Secret Squirrel on to you. Agent 000 will soon find out who you are.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Criminal harassment

264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

Prohibited conduct

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

To my knowledge, nothing Burnaby has done could REASONABLY make Menard fear for his safety.

Having said that, I can see from Menard's position there are 2 possible reasons why he may fear for his safety.

1 - That his address is publicly published. Though, had he actually shown up for court, his current address would be publicly available on the court documents. Also, there is no publication ban currently being enforced.

2 - That the Police could pay him a little visit. Considering the warrants out for his arrest, I would say that Menard rightfully SHOULD be living in fear - though this is nothing of Burnaby's doing.

[Burnaby49]

To my knowledge, nothing Burnaby has done could REASONABLY make Menard fear for his safety.

Having said that, I can see from Menard's position there are 2 possible reasons why he may fear for his safety.

1 - That his address is publicly published. Though, had he actually shown up for court, his current address would be publicly available on the court documents. Also, there is no publication ban currently being enforced.

2 - That the Police could pay him a little visit. Considering the warrants out for his arrest, I would say that Menard rightfully SHOULD be living in fear - though this is nothing of Burnaby's doing.

Keep in mind that I did not publish or tell anyone Menard's address. It became public knowledge well after I had it. It was revealed last August 4th as a result of his NinjaGoat video. There was enough visual information in the video to locate the place through Google Maps and StreetView and somebody did.

I wrote after he was outed;

Burnaby49 » Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:15 pm

Jeffrey wrote:
Maybe posting his actual location might be over the line.

Which is why, although I've known where he is for a while, I didn't post it. I've done him enough damage just through posting documents that I thought I'd give him a break about outing him on the location of his super-secret hideout. I don't want him to think that this is a personal vendetta. As far as I'm concerned he's just another failed guru.

[Arthur Rubin]

Criminal harassment

264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them....

To my knowledge, nothing Burnaby has done could REASONABLY make Menard fear for his safety

Is this the standard set by that paragon of virtue, the "reasonable person"? If so, there should be no possibility of meeting the condition, as Menard and "reasonable person" cannot be in the same sentence....

[LaVidaRoja]

And THAT ("as far as I'm concerned, he's just another failed guru.") is the real threat. People might research Bobby here and discover that he really has nothing new or feasible to offer. You're destroying his income source!

[Burnaby49]

Here in Canada we favour the judgement of the man on the Clapham omnibus;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_o ... am_omnibus