Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[k1w1]

Well, that's all very nice but the fact is Menard did pretend to be a legal professional.

That was seven years ago… but go on, mate, you just keep holding on to that as a reason for your existence here. I think you’ll find that since then Bobby has learned to tell people to put his nonsense into their own words -- but those people still aren’t victims if they go off and actually do that; they still know perfectly well that what they’re doing is bullshit or wrong.

And then there’s the sheer absurdity of the ideas your Bobby comes up with and tells people about -- for instance, the thing where he stands up and tells people they can write dollars signs on a bit of paper and then use it to obtain goods and services.

Do you think merchants and trades people or anyone else out in the public are going to be fooled by that? I it doubt very much. And yet here you lot are trying to claim that the person trying to present the thing in an attempt to get goods or service has been fooled and that they’re a victim of a fraud! You’ve got a queer way of thinking, that’s for sure.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall if one of these alleged victims ever fulfilled your fantasy by going down to the station to claim they’ve been the victim of fraud because your Bobby, a stand up comedian by trade, tricked them into thinking they could write dollar signs on a piece of paper…

Arayder, maybe you could go along with them and tell the officer about how Bobby once pretended he was a lawyer. That might help, eh.

[LordEd]

I point you to the Nanaimo thread for first-class victim Alexander Ream.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9388

Mr. Ream believed everything he was told. He held the honest belief that he was a peace officer and took it the entire distance when his other partners had given up.

(Judge)"Mr. Ream you are the luckiest man in the world because you have the most generous prosecutor I've seen in 39 year."

Crown recommended conditional discharge after successful completion of nine months of unsupervised probation. No jail time. The only terms of probation were that Ream not contact his fellow defendants and that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour. No victim surcharge. The judge noted this was the second most lenient sentence it was within his power to impose.

And Ream tried to screw it up.

When the judge imposed AS VIRTUALLY THE ONLY PROBATION CONDITION that Ream keep the peace Ream popped up with the interjection that "But wouldn't that make me a peace officer since I am keeping the peace?" Everybody sort of looked away like it was drunken uncle Arthur acting the fool at Christmas dinner and it's best just to ignore him.

[Dr. Caligari]

That was seven years ago… but go on, mate, you just keep holding on to that as a reason for your existence here. I think you’ll find that since then Bobby has learned to tell people to put his nonsense into their own words -- but those people still aren’t victims if they go off and actually do that; they still know perfectly well that what they’re doing is bullshit or wrong.

And then there’s the sheer absurdity of the ideas your Bobby comes up with and tells people about -- for instance, the thing where he stands up and tells people they can write dollars signs on a bit of paper and then use it to obtain goods and services.

The people who listened to Bobby may or may not have "reasonably relied" on Bobby so as to be able to sue him for fraud. That doesn't mean Bobby does not himself have some liability.

I can't speak to Canadian law, but in the United States, anyone who "counsels, commands, induces or procures" someone else to commit a federal crime is equally liable for that crime along with the person who actually did it. 18 USC section 2(a).

[arayder]

Well, that's all very nice but the fact is Menard did pretend to be a legal professional.

That was seven years ago… but go on, mate, you just keep holding on to that as a reason for your existence here. I think you’ll find that since then Bobby has learned to tell people to put his nonsense into their own words -- but those people still aren’t victims if they go off and actually do that; they still know perfectly well that what they’re doing is bullshit or wrong.

I think you are cherry picking the facts to fit your argument. The fact you ignore is that as recently as the early 2015 revival of the ACCP Menard offered legal advice and counsel to paying ACCP subscribers.

And then there’s the sheer absurdity of the ideas your Bobby comes up with and tells people about -- for instance, the thing where he stands up and tells people they can write dollars signs on a bit of paper and then use it to obtain goods and services.

Do you think merchants and trades people or anyone else out in the public are going to be fooled by that? I it doubt very much. And yet here you lot are trying to claim that the person trying to present the thing in an attempt to get goods or service has been fooled and that they’re a victim of a fraud! You’ve got a queer way of thinking, that’s for sure

There you go moving the goal posts again. The question isn't whether merchants or trades people can be fooled by Menard. The question is whether he fooled the people we know he fooled.

You have to move the goal posts because your argument has no basis in law. We have already established that the definition of fraud includes decieving the very gullible and the stupid.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall if one of these alleged victims ever fulfilled your fantasy by going down to the station to claim they’ve been the victim of fraud because your Bobby, a stand up comedian by trade, tricked them into thinking they could write dollar signs on a piece of paper…

I think you're trying to put words in my mouth now. I am under no illusion that any of Menard's victims are going to drag him into court over a $200 scam. I believe I have been quite clear about that.

---------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 216 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.

[rumpelstilzchen]

.

You say Bobby has been banned from playing lawyer in court somewhere. Wow! Really?

No not really. It was more than that. Read (g) and (h):
http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/docs/uap/20 ... nction.pdf

[notorial dissent]

Did someone leave the freetard door unlocked at the Icke forum?

Sorry, maybe it's just me being more confused than usual at this early hour of my morning, but.... I thought Icke's place was a roach motel for the freetard, and dim, deluded and bewildered contingent?

[k1w1]

It just amazes me how vigorously you lot are trying to defend the actions of these people. It’s laughable. You should be ashamed.

I’ll remind you what the eminent Justice Rooke called these people and what he said about them: He called them OPCA litigants and he said: “No court has ever found them to have been acting in good faith”. And he cited Sydel as a classic example of what they’re like.

These OPCA ratbags you lot are trying to defend are no more acting in good faith than Sydel was and for the same reasons. They’re predisposed to being ratbags; they take absurd legal advice from people who they know aren’t legal professionals and not only do they not bother to check it’s validity before they decide to actually use it -- as any reasonable person would do -- they instead wilfully ignore anyone and everyone who advises them that it isn’t valid and go ahead with it anyway.

But you say these OPCA litigants were acting in good faith when they decided to subscribe to Bobby’s group. You say they were acting in good faith when they take legal advice from Bobby the stand up comedian and then use in spite of knowing it’s not valid. What nonsense.

If these bits of paper they’ve written dollar signs on don’t fool the public (e.g. merchants, trades people, etc.) then why on earth do you think the OPCA litigants who try presenting them were fooled by it? What makes you think they’re so gullible when no one else is?

Now, people are perfectly entitled to start a group or to subscribe to a group.

What’s more, along with the rest of the public who aren’t lawyers, Bobby Menard the stand up comedian is entitled to provide legal advice to other people or to people in a group -- people are allowed to do that.

You trying to link those things together and saying presto! there’s proof that Menard is acting as a lawyer, is a stretch. And if you’re so adamant that is the case, then why don’t you report it to the Law Society to investigate? Huh?

And saying he did something seven years ago isn’t proof that he’s doing it now.

So, possibly that group of his could be classed as a criminal organisation, but to try and say he coerced or commanded or induced the other members to commit the organisation’s crimes is another long stretch. More likely criminal associates. Again to paraphrase Rooke: These people are not acting in good faith. He also said they only pull the wool over their own eyes. And your eyes, too, if you think they might have been coerced or induced to act they way they did.

As for that joker Ream…

Anyone over the age of twelve knows that whatever Ream did is not the way to become a legitimate police officer. Ream has basically known since he was at least twelve years old about how to become a police officer, just like all of us, and it didn’t all just fly out of his head when decided to join Bobby’s crew of misfits. Nobody in that courtroom actually thought Ream held an honest belief at any time that he was a legitimate peace office -- not the prosecution, not the judge, and not Ream himself -- but for whatever reason, they were going to pretend he really was that witless, and that’s why he was “lucky”. Except he went and gave the game away, didn’t play the dummy to the end when he made the wise crack about being a peace officer after the judge ordered him to keep the peace. Classic!

Anyway, I’m sure Ream will be up to more mischief soon enough since he’s predisposed to be recusant and a ratbag. But a witless victim he is not nor ever was.

As for that particular little group impersonating peace officers… all they need do is stop calling themselves “peace officers” and come up with another name for themselves to put on shiny badges -- a legitimate name, you could say -- and then carry on pretending to “keep the peace”. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see.

[arayder]

K1W1, it seems to me that you don't have any arguments other than to misstate what others are saying and to create your own version of the law regarding fraud.

Nobody is saying the victims of Menard's scams shouldn't have known better. All that is being said is that some of them may have a valid case for a civil suit and that Menard's scams meet the standard for criminal prosecution. And again, I don't imagine that any of these victims will sue and I doubt prosecutors would bother.

When you are not putting words in other people's mouths you are working overtime to tell us that the law regarding fraud comports with your fantasies. First, employing a logical fallacy, you tell us that since you thought that Menard wasn't part of a group it must follow that he was just a guy saying stuff on the internet which the listener/mark could take or leave.

But when it was pointed out that Menard was, and still is, part of an organized effort to provide legal advice and counsel you wandered off to argue that his scams couldn't have been fraudulent because they worked on the gullible, naive and uneducated.

Duh? That's what fraud is!

Essentially you have re-written the law regarding fraud to fit your argument and in doing so given Menard a free pass.

I am beginning to truely understand why Menard pulled the wool over so many people's eyes at WFS for so long. If only you had spoken up sooner there might not be so many ruined lives in Bobby's wake.

I hope you can deal with the guilt.

---------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 217 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.

[LordEd]

They’re predisposed to being ratbags; they take absurd legal advice from people who they know aren’t legal professionals and not only do they not bother to check it’s validity before they decide to actually use it -- as any reasonable person would do -- they instead wilfully ignore anyone and everyone who advises them that it isn’t valid and go ahead with it anyway.

Somebody buys drugs laced with something that kills them. Are they a victim?

[arayder]

K1W!1, with regard to Bobby's dust up with the BC law society years ago and his continuing practice of giving legal advice you say:

. . .And saying he did something seven years ago isn’t proof that he’s doing it now.

I am a little bit surprised at you trying to imply that Menard stopped giving legal advice seven years ago.

While you were camped out at the WFS forum Menard introduced several projects, almost all of which offered legal advice to its members or subscribers who were told that being a part of the project would brand them as freedom loving rebels who the powers that be would harass. Menard then informed the members/subscribers that the WFS legal team stood at the ready give the needed legal advice necessary to ensure the member's freedom.

Lest you opine that this is old history let me point out again that such legal services were an integral part of the ACCP re-introducted just this year by the ACCP group which included Menard and his money man, Wilfred Leger.

So my question is two fold, K1W1. Did you just miss the projects, or are you trying to re-write history so as to obscure a silent consent given to Menard's scams?

[notorial dissent]

K1W1, as one of my emploees was once fond of saying, "what is your damage", but it does seem to go nicley with your general ignorance of what is going on.

I don't think anyone here is saying that Bobby's acolytes are innocent, but some of them are seriously stupid as well as desperate and grasping at straws and so will try even Bobby's BS. Does it make them any less guilty of attempting fraud, no, but it is somewhat mitigated by their very stupidity and desperation. There are also a good number who do or at least should know it is a crock and try it anyway, and they are just as guilty. Bobby is guilty of practicing law without a license, and has been slapped down a number of times for it, regrettably it didn't take since Bobby knows better.

Despite your deeply held beliefs, some of Bobby's followers really are that stupid, I think Ream is probably case in point, that boy is dumbern' a door post after it has been turned in to tinder. The rest, not so sure, but Bobby selects for young and dumb, since the old and dumb are usually on to him by now.

There is no argument, except seemingly in your head, that Bobby and his followers are in one fashion or another all criminals. The problem is that in the grand scheme of things they don't amount to squat, and yes they should be prosecuted, but it most likely ain't a gonna happen. They will probably eventually get Bobby on his impersonation charge and that will be about it, since otherwise they aren't worth the time and expense to go after. The Nainamo Nitwits got busted and prosecuted because they did something really stupid and potentially dangerous and did it in public in front of a policeman. Most of Bobby's larceny is aimed at his fellow fools and so will never get prosecuted since they won't come forward for the obvious reasons. It's just one of those unfortunate facts of reality. If you want him prosecuted, find one of his victims and get them to press charges, that is the only way it is going to happen.

[LordEd]

An extremely ill person is told by a non-medical professional that his potion can cure anything. His doctors advise against it. The non-professional convinces him that the doctor is just trying to protect his way to make money by keeping him sick.

The ill person should know this magic potion won't work, but is desperate for a solution and does it anyway.

He dies.

Was he a victim?

[arayder]

. . .Bobby selects for young and dumb, since the old and dumb are usually on to him by now.

Even during his first "lectures" in the early 2000's Bobby was talking to an audience that had already bought the line that constitutions and statutes are make believe fictions that non-consenting folks in the know could ignore. So in a way Menard selected for the already brain washed, as well as the young and dumb.

When you add in that lots of people in the live and Youtube audiences were struggling with their finances you have to figure Bobby knew he had hit the mother lode of needy, gullible people.

But Menard crossed line into willfully fraudulent statements when, in order to make it seem he had a practical plan, he started making up stories about how his methods had worked and how they had been endorsed by various authorities. After a while Menard had to think up stories to explain away all the times his method hadn't worked.

Before he make up these lies one might have been able to argue that Menard was just the guy spouting on the internet, that K1W1 alludes to.

An extremely ill person is told by a non-medical professional that his potion can cure anything. His doctors advise against it. The non-professional convinces him that the doctor is just trying to protect his way to make money by keeping him sick.

The ill person should know this magic potion won't work, but is desperate for a solution and does it anyway.

He dies.

Was he a victim?

Well, yes since he's been caused an injury that leaves him in a worse position than he was in before he was convinced to use the potion. I'd think the potion pusher is in a real fix if the the guy's doctors had a course of treatment that had a good chance of success.

Along K1W1's line of thought, IMHO, it would make a difference if the ill person was a doctor with knowledge of his illness who, for some reason, decided to go ahead with the potion treatment anyway.

[wserra]

What’s more, along with the rest of the public who aren’t lawyers, Bobby Menard the stand up comedian is entitled to provide legal advice to other people or to people in a group -- people are allowed to do that.

I can only speak to U.S. law, but that is surely not the case here. My guess is that it not the case in Canada either.

Most obvious is unauthorized practice. There is of course a line between speaking about the law and practicing it, but "to provide legal advice" for money generally crosses it.

Moreover, one Thurston Bell - remember him? - already attempted the "I was just exercising my right to free speech" argument. Since Bell charged for his "advice", he was thrown out on his ear. The Third Circuit concluded that Bell loses on both fraudulent commercial speech and aiding and abetting grounds (Doc C makes the latter point above).

The District Court found Bell's bogus tax advice enjoys no First Amendment protection and may be restrained because it is false commercial speech . . . In concluding the materials on Bell's website were predominantly commercial speech, the District Court made a factual finding that his website was the internet version of "a television infomercial" made to entice visitors to join Bell's organization and pay him for tax advice. This finding is uncontradicted.
...
Promoters of tax fraud who, like Bell, provide detailed instructions and techniques to avoid paying taxes have been prosecuted on aiding and abetting grounds in several cases notwithstanding asserted First Amendment defenses.

United States v. Bell, 414 F.3d 474 (3d Cir. 2005).

I don't want to defend the people who buy into this stuff. My own very anecdotal experience is that three are greedy for every one who is desperate. Still, it's the promoter who should be tarred and feathered.

[k1w1]

So, if you lot reckon Menard is illegally practicing as a lawyer when he offers legal advice to people in a group then why hasn’t one of you reported it to the Law Society? And you say he’s been doing it for years… so what are you waiting for?

Here’s the numbers to call to report these things in British Columbia -- 604-669 2533 or 1-800 903 5300

And fraud… again, if you reckon these people who subscribed to Menard’s little group are in fact themselves victims of a fraud, that Menard is defrauding those people by creating or coming up with the idea for the group they subscribed to, then why haven’t you reported that to the Police? They’d be interested if it was fraud. And you don’t have to be a victim of the alleged fraud yourself, you wouldn't have to be one of the people who subscribed to his group yourself to report it. Here’s the number in Canada to do that: 1-888-495-8501

Arayder, you could easily do those things, you could make those calls and try to substantiate your claim that people like those you listed previously and people who subscribe to any of his little groups are in fact victims of a fraud perpetrated on them by Menard.

Oh, and a victim is a victim. Trying to ascribe some sort of fraction or percentage to it like you clowns are trying to do, is ridiculous -- it’s like trying to say someone is only partly pregnant.

[wserra]

So, if you lot reckon Menard is illegally practicing as a lawyer when he offers legal advice to people in a group then why hasn’t one of you reported it to the Law Society?

My guess is that they know. He's simply too penny-ante for them to worry about.

And fraud… again, if you reckon these people who subscribed to Menard’s little group are in fact themselves victims of a fraud, that Menard is defrauding those people by creating or coming up with the idea for the group they subscribed to, then why haven’t you reported that to the Police?

My guess is that they know. He's simply too penny-ante for them to worry about.

BTW, if you want to stay around here, knock off the name-calling.

[LordEd]

We don't know who he suckered out of $200 for debit cards.

He's also in Quebec (or was)

[arayder]

So, if you lot reckon Menard is illegally practicing as a lawyer when he offers legal advice to people in a group then why hasn’t one of you reported it to the Law Society? And you say he’s been doing it for years… so what are you waiting for?. . .

And fraud… again, if you reckon these people who subscribed to Menard’s little group are in fact themselves victims of a fraud, that Menard is defrauding those people by creating or coming up with the idea for the group they subscribed to, then why haven’t you reported that to the Police?. . .

Arayder, you could easily do those things, you could make those calls and try to substantiate your claim that people like those you listed previously and people who subscribe to any of his little groups are in fact victims of a fraud perpetrated on them by Menard.

. . .Trying to ascribe some sort of fraction or percentage to it like you clowns are trying to do, is ridiculous -- it’s like trying to say someone is only partly pregnant.

There you go moving the goal posts again. The question isn't whether anybody turns Bobby in for playing lawyer or gets him busted for fraud. I think most folks here understand that Bobby has become too small time for the courts to worry about his pretend lawyer act and that his marks are either too embarressed or too busy to hunt him down over a $200 scam.

Bobby's more likely to do time for impersonating a peace officer and that's what folks here seem interested in facilitating. You don't need to throw down the gauntlet over this point, K1W1, because folks here are on the case.

BTW, K1W1, the question you have studiously avoided is the complicity of your silence about Menard's scams during your tenure on the WFS forum.

That must be a sore spot since you are reduced to phony challenges and name calling in an attempt to change the subject.

---------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 218 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system

[arayder]

We don't know who he suckered out of $200 for debit cards.

He's also in Quebec (or was)

We know Wilfred Leger was in on it with Menard. Bobby better keep his friends close.

[LordEd]

The issue with those who are victims of freemanism is that the end game is rarely reported. Take the GOODF for example. You can follow those to the point where they're proudly announcing how they are going to court with a full game plan and various liabilities/etc. in play.

Most never report their result and stop posting.