Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[arayder]

News from our friend ComfySlippers over on the International Skeptics Forum: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=3389

Robert Menard ‏@FreemanMenard Feb 19
EMPOWERMENTALITY Coming in March!

Must be true. He uzed biG letTerz.

https://twitter.com/freemanmenard

A radio show no less.

Now, in my defence I've got a bad case of the giggles...
Google prefers TheEmpowermentality Shoe to TheEmpowermentalityShow
As for Bobby's Co-Host, a Derek Govini, due to a tiny typo on my part it preferred Derek GoWiWi
Not being one to argue with Google, I'm happy to use it's choice of terms.

The tweet is an image of a Facebook post.

Robert Menard to The Free Thought Project.com
February 19 at 11:07am

Empowermentality is a new web based radio show hosted by Robert Menard and Derek Govini. Half hour segments will cover a wide range of topics, from art and alternative lifestyle options, current events, debates on community issues, social justice, law, government, money, interviews with authority and/or public figures, and generally our place as temporary sentient beings in the infinite cosmos. Pretty much any topic with a focus on being inspiring and empowering, well seasoned with humor.

[Philistine]

From what I recall, ComfySlippers is a Brit and may not get the Ed Sullivan reference.

[arayder]

It's another of Menard's "look at me" phases in which he goes on about the great thing he's got going.

I am reminded of the time he made a big deal out of his pitching the property stewards idea to a bank so as to make it seem his idea of using street people to watch over and rehab foreclosed homes was a sure winner. Nothing happen.

As I said earlier in the thread he's got to get over the hurtle of convincing prospective guests that he's going to show up for the radio show on time and clean and sober.

Then Bobby's going to have to demonstrate that he won't make the show all about himself and will leave some oxygen in the room for the guests.

[notorial dissent]

Bobby has two, well three really when you crank in credibility, issues to overcome, that I fear are well nigh insurmountable. The double laugh test to begin with. I don't think he can get around the fact that anyone with functioning gray matter will break out at the very least in sniggering giggles just upon sight of him, which will then turn immediately upon hearing whatever his latest brain fart is in to choking uncontrollable laughter. I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but is he also of the bathing is unnatural school, he certainly seems the type, and that would really limit things.

[Hanslune]

Bobby has two, well three really when you crank in credibility, issues to overcome, that I fear are well nigh insurmountable. The double laugh test to begin with. I don't think he can get around the fact that anyone with functioning gray matter will break out at the very least in sniggering giggles just upon sight of him, which will then turn immediately upon hearing whatever his latest brain fart is in to choking uncontrollable laughter. I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but is he also of the bathing is unnatural school, he certainly seems the type, and that would really limit things.

I've always held he looked a bit like the type that would drink his own urine.

[arayder]

The idea that one might listen to Menard's radio show so as to see a possible train wreck could work in Bobby's favor. The prospect of seeing if Bobby shows up drunk or just usually inappropriate has to be a draw to listeners.

Bobby's problem is that he can't maintain professional relationships. He has routinely shafted his partners, whether it was over his several failed projects or his faulty legal advice. So who wants to partner with him over a show or even a guest spot?

[Hanslune]

The idea that one might listen to Menard's radio show so as to see a possible train wreck could work in Bobby's favor. The prospect of seeing if Bobby shows up drunk or just usually inappropriate has to be a draw to listeners.

Bobby's problem is that he can't maintain professional relationships. He has routinely shafted his partners, whether it was over his several failed projects or his faulty legal advice. So who wants to partner with him over a show or even a guest spot?

Maybe he could have a member of Quatloos as a guess and speak about those things we agree on.......

[notorial dissent]

The idea that one might listen to Menard's radio show so as to see a possible train wreck could work in Bobby's favor. The prospect of seeing if Bobby shows up drunk or just usually inappropriate has to be a draw to listeners.

Bobby's problem is that he can't maintain professional relationships. He has routinely shafted his partners, whether it was over his several failed projects or his faulty legal advice. So who wants to partner with him over a show or even a guest spot?

That would require someone/anyone could possibly think that Bobby was interesting or had anything to say, or would at least make entertaining listing, and I would think that at this point, the few unclued who have been living under rocks for the last twenty years and haven't learned he is full of hot air has to be getting vanishingly small.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I've always held he looked a bit like the type that would drink his own urine.

Well, not surprising really when you consider his urine is overproof.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Menard just admitted he is GUILTY .... sort of:

FACEBOOK:

Robert Menard
6 hrs ·

I don't like it when people say 'innocent until proven guilty'. Maybe it is just the semantically inclined asshat side of me, but the actual concept is 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'. If you murder someone, you are guilty of that, regardless of whether you have a trial or not. A trial or it's outcome will not change the fact that you murdered someone, and you will always be guilty of that fact. You are not 'innocent until proven guilty', you are 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'. It is a presumption which is assumed, not a fact.

The guilt is a function of your actions; the punishment a function of the outcome of a trial. A trial does not magically 'make you guilty or not guilty'. It simply finds an existing level of guilt or it does not. That process requires the presumption of innocence for it to be fair, but that presumption does not change facts.

"Innocent until proven guilty" = WRONG
'PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty' = RIGHT

I commented:

So, Rob, by your own logic - you are GUILTY of 4 counts of IMPERSONATING A PEACE OFFICER - until you stop being a COWARD and stand trial !!! Thanks for clearing that up !!!

[Burnaby49]

Still better than idiotic blather like this;

Robert Menard

The Awakening.

The standard paradigm and mainstream media advanced cultural outlook and perspective is being radically shifted by increased communication technology which is bringing a growing sense of unity and awareness of injustice. Many people are concluding our society and it’s system of governance is not working. From increasing police abuses, obvious political corruption, an archaic justice system, corporate interests taking precedence over those of the populace, and t...he rising cost of money itself, a great many are experiencing what is referred to in certain circles as ‘The Awakening’.

People are awakening from the dream that the government has their best interest at heart, the police serve and protect them, the money supply system is fair, and all you have to do is work hard to succeed. Experience is showing a far different reality and what was once widely accepted and vigorously defended, is now seen as an illusion. There is a man behind that curtain, we all see him, and the Wizard is no more.

There is a large problem however with such an awakening. In the army I learned waking up is not the goal, but merely the first step in a morning routine. And if you were waking up early, it was likely you had extra duties, and you would wake up quietly, and prepare the camp for those still sleeping. Once awake all need to shit, shower, shave, get dressed, make their beds, check their gear and get their orders for the day.

The problem is there seems to be many who are awakening more like infants, crying and demanding their diapers be changed, someone feed them, and things change so they are comfortable. If you are 'awake' and still crying in your bed, you are an infant, not an adult. And your cries will only bring an angry nanny.

Waking up is not easy.
Getting out of bed is even less so.

All that to tell us he doesn't like getting out of bed?

[arayder]

The problem is there seems to be many who are awakening more like infants, crying and demanding their diapers be changed, someone feed them, and things change so they are comfortable. If you are 'awake' and still crying in your bed, you are an infant, not an adult. And your cries will only bring an angry nanny.

This from the guy who, over the years, has said he and his minions can claim government held lands (the idea behind freeman valley) and raid Canada's treasury to pay their bills (the idea behind the 96 fix, security of the person, the A4V and the ACCP).

I-can't-remember-what-I-said-yesterday Bobby has gone so far as to demand that the government "feed [his] people".

[Wake Up! Productions]

I am rather surprised that more people haven't weighed in on Menard's legal THEORIES, specifcally:

The guilt is a function of your actions; the punishment a function of the outcome of a trial. A trial does not magically 'make you guilty or not guilty'. It simply finds an existing level of guilt or it does not. That process requires the presumption of innocence for it to be fair, but that presumption does not change facts.

By his own theory, he has pronounced HIMSELF GUILTY of 4 counts of PERSONATION ("guilt is a function of your actions"), but what really bothers me is his statement, "A trial does not magically 'make you guilty or not guilty'."

From my understanding, that is the entire purpose of a trial (be it a bench or jury trial), to determine guilt or lack of guilt.

Once again, Menard has displayed his IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, but what is worse is that his Facebook followers AGREE with him !!!

If I am wrong, please point it out, but from where I stand, Menard is completely NUTS !!!

[Burnaby49]

Once again, Menard has displayed his IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, but what is worse is that his Facebook followers AGREE with him !!!

Hardly a surprise. His decades long attempts to get Canadian governments to accept numerous freeman theories as actually legal rights (mostly focused around freeloading attempts to get something for nothing) have all, without exception, failed. Apart from his advancing age he's no further ahead than when he started. So followers who want at least some results for their investment in time and money have moved on leaving him with the ones who will apparently believe anything. However, given the results of his last few GoFundMe attempts, even they are not willing to open up their wallets for Rob anymore.

[bmxninja357]

Gosh I wish I had a real keyboard for this.

A verdict of not guilty is not an aquital. As my friend al found out after being found not guilty. In family court it was treated as near guilt. Because he was not guilty it simply meant there was not enough evidence to convict. It does not denote innocents.

Much like the presumption of innocence does not mean you are not guilty. It simply means they may not get a conviction. It does not allude to your not having done it. That's for the court to decide.

Peace
Ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

Gosh I wish I had a real keyboard for this.

A verdict of not guilty is not an aquital. As my friend al found out after being found not guilty. In family court it was treated as near guilt. Because he was not guilty it simply meant there was not enough evidence to convict. It does not denote innocents.

Much like the presumption of innocence does not mean you are not guilty. It simply means they may not get a conviction. It does not allude to your not having done it. That's for the court to decide.

Peace
Ninj

This was one of the sticking points with me as far as the whole "freeman movement". The "presumption of innocence" vs. the "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict.

Basically, you are "presumed innocent", but found "not guilty" (as opposed to "innocent"). A person is never found "innocent". Can somebody explain this to me (and others) in very basic terms?

[bmxninja357]

An aquital is innocence. Not guilty is not enough to convict.

Peace
Ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

An aquital is innocence. Not guilty is not enough to convict.

Peace
Ninj

Thank you.

Given the O.J. Simpson knife is in the news, I am thinking that this was a possible reason for Menard's initial comment.

[bmxninja357]

In the case of oj he was found not guilty opening the door to a civil suit. Had it been an aquital there would be no grounds for a civil action.

In many instances it's legal dirty pool.

Peace
Ninj

[grixit]

An aquital is innocence. Not guilty is not enough to convict.

Peace
Ninj

In the US "not guilty" *is* an acquittal.