What is this?

[arayder]

I wonder what this is about?

One might speculate that Menard, faced with the real world problem presented by violating a court order, has decided to go all wordy in the hopes he'll astound freeman illiterates.

He seems to be making the same show-me-this-law-applies-to-me argument he made years ago when the courts ordered him to stop playing lawyer.

https://steemit.com/law/@robertmenard/a ... h-columbia

[Burnaby49]

I just saw that myself, he's flagged it on his FB page. One paragraph stood out for me;

The Section I refer to states as follows:

Applicability
1.1 This Act does not apply to a person who is both a lawyer and a part time judicial justice, as that term is defined in section 1 of the Provincial Court Act, in the person's capacity as a part time judicial justice under that Act.

Interpreting it to mean that anything not mentioned is included, would be akin to reading a recipe for ‘Sweet Apple Pie’ which states to ‘not use sour apples’ and then assuming that anything which is not sour apples (such as rotten peaches and moldy bananas) may be used. Simply put, there is nothing in that Section which would cause a reasonable person to justify assuming it is generally applicable to all members of the public.

Essentially a variant of that old sovereign standby, playing around with the meaning of 'include'.

At the end he claims that there are only two possible responses to his letter;

As I said I see two choices for your organization. These are:

We agree that The Legal Profession Act is not nor has it ever been generally applicable, and all orders secured while operating upon that assumption we improperly secured, and then, go to the Supreme Court with this new found perspective, and have all previous improper orders based upon this incorrect assumption quashed. You inform all those against whom you have secured said orders that they are no longer bound by them, and finally make proper restitution for the damages you caused by failing to fulfill your duties. Or…

We meet before the Human Rights Tribunal, where we seek their guidance on these matters, or you can publicly claim that you are not bound by that Tribunal, nor governed or regulated by the Government, the Courts, or common law. I think that would be rather challenging for you, as there is nothing in the Human Rights Code exempting the Law Society or its members from action under it, and such a position would likely be deeply reprehensible to members of the public.

Menard is facing some tough competition from his fellow Steemit posters in getting his message out to the general public.

https://steemit.com/funny/@nahianhasan1 ... sins-creed
https://steemit.com/food/@michellectv/m ... tos-recipe
https://steemit.com/pizza/@issambak/big ... -the-world
https://steemit.com/house/@liliya15/how ... your-hands

And the mango, watermelon, banana smoothie recipe is trending hot!

[arayder]

At the end he claims that there are only two possible responses to his letter;

As I said I see two choices for your organization. These are:

We agree that The Legal Profession Act is not nor has it ever been generally applicable, and all orders secured while operating upon that assumption we improperly secured, and then, go to the Supreme Court with this new found perspective, and have all previous improper orders based upon this incorrect assumption quashed. You inform all those against whom you have secured said orders that they are no longer bound by them, and finally make proper restitution for the damages you caused by failing to fulfill your duties. Or…

We meet before the Human Rights Tribunal, where we seek their guidance on these matters, or you can publicly claim that you are not bound by that Tribunal, nor governed or regulated by the Government, the Courts, or common law. I think that would be rather challenging for you, as there is nothing in the Human Rights Code exempting the Law Society or its members from action under it, and such a position would likely be deeply reprehensible to members of the public.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there an option that includes the courts finding Menard in contempt of court?

I suspect the law society would see no point in dealing with Menard as long as all he is doing is talking big on his Facebook page. But if Menard is causing the BC courts to be bothered by his attempts at playing lawyer then that's another matter, IMHO.

Then there's the possibility that Bobby's attempting to fake relevance by doing his old "letters to the authorities" ruse. We all recall Menard's pointless "letter" to Westjet. When nothing happens regarding the letter (maybe Bobby never sent it out in the first place) he tells his minions that he's handcuffed the authorities.

[Burnaby49]

The fact that Menard says that there are only two choices that the Law Society of British Columbia can make in response to his letter doesn't mean that there are only two choices. His first choice isn't even really a choice, it's just a capitulation from the Law Society agreeing that he's right. Why would they do that when they already have a court injunction prohibiting him from practicing law in British Columbia? They've already won. However the law society does have the actual choice of just ignoring him. They are under no obligation to engage in an endless debate about Menard's interpretation of law.

The court could get involved, as it did with Chief Rock, if Menard violates the court order prohibiting him from practising law in British Columbia. But keep in mind that, as far as I'm aware, he isn't practicing law here. He talks on Facebook about things he's done but he's not (again as far as I'm aware) provided any concrete evidence showing that he's practicing law here. Just comments. So all that the Law Society has as evidence are some Menard Facebook postings. We can use Chief Rock's contempt trial as a template. You can read it here starting at page 24;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=460

Note that The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia had to do all of the heavy lifting. They had to get the charge laid and they had to present the case in court, not the Crown. They retained a lawyer and had masses of evidence proving that the Chief had violated the injunction ordering him not to practice as a notary. If the Law Society went after Menard they'd have to do the same thing. So I'm guessing that they won't bother to do any investigating of possible Menard legal work in British Columbia unless they start getting complaints accompanied by evidence.

Menard said in respect to the second choice;

We meet before the Human Rights Tribunal, where we seek their guidance on these matters, or you can publicly claim that you are not bound by that Tribunal, nor governed or regulated by the Government, the Courts, or common law. I think that would be rather challenging for you, as there is nothing in the Human Rights Code exempting the Law Society or its members from action under it, and such a position would likely be deeply reprehensible to members of the public.

I'm not an expert on the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal but I very strongly doubt that Menard would get approval for a hearing at the tribunal to 'seek their guidance on these matters'. The issue of provincial legislation requiring practice standards for the professions is not one covered by human rights legislation so it is outside of the jurisdiction of the tribunal. This is the tribunal's website;

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/index.htm

The Website states that it's mandate is;

Everyone in British Columbia has rights and duties under the Human Rights Code.

The Code’s purposes are to make sure that people can participate equally in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia. The Code does this by forbidding discrimination based on certain personal characteristics in areas of daily life.

Discrimination refers to poor treatment based on a personal characteristic like race. A person can discriminate even if they do not mean to. Sometimes poor treatment can be justified and then there is no discrimination.

The BC Human Rights Code sets up a process for dealing with complaints of discrimination. The Code makes the BC Human Rights Tribunal responsible for the process.

The process starts with someone making a complaint. The Tribunal decides if the complaint was filed within the time limit and sets out possible discrimination. If so, the Tribunal notifies the respondent. There are options available to the parties. They can agree to settle the complaint. The respondent can respond to the complaint and can apply to have the complaint dismissed. If the complaint is not resolved or dismissed, the Tribunal holds a hearing to decide if there was discrimination.

The tribunal administer's the British Columbia Human Rights Code;

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... 0_96210_01

I've done a quick run through this and I can't find any part addressing Menard's area of complaint. No doubt he'll read this posting and point out on his Facebook page how I'm wrong. The code focuses upon discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. None of these apply in Menard's complaint. His position seems to be that he has an absolute right to practice law that can't be denied through British Columbia legislation. But the legislation doesn't discriminate based on any factor that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal considers. There is no discrimination because the Legal Profession Act of British Columbia;

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/ ... 0_98009_01

applies to everyone regardless of their race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other characteristic the Human Rights Tribunal considers. It's not discriminatory if the various professional bodies set up educational, ethical and moral standards for membership as long as those standards apply to everyone.So it's my guess if Menard tried to take this to the Human Rights Tribunal it would not be accepted for hearing. Since the Law Society also knows this they won't be concerned about any human rights violations Menard threatens them with.

[notorial dissent]

Bobby has spent what amounts to his entire wasted career misreading and misinterpreting the statutes and other things. This is nothign new, just perhaps a bit more tortured than some of the others.

The salient fact here, is that like a ringing telephone, a knocked door, or a poorly written letter or screed from some loopy, none of them have a constitutional right to attention, anymore than Bobby does. He will be ignored, as is his just and due lot in life.

If Bobby wants to get up off his sorry ass, like he's ever going to do that, and go out and violate the law in question to prove himself right, then there will be some action, just not the kind he wants.

[arayder]

The fact that Menard says that there are only two choices that the Law Society of British Columbia can make in response to his letter doesn't mean that there are only two choices. His first choice isn't even really a choice, it's just a capitulation from the Law Society agreeing that he's right. Why would they do that when they already have a court injunction prohibiting him from practicing law in British Columbia? They've already won. . .

One has to wonder what Menard thinks he's going to get out of arguing the jurisdiction of a court whose authority over him on the matter was soundly affirmed nearly a decade ago. It's sore spot for Menard. Back in May he put a petition on change.org asking for a re-write of the Legal Profession Act.

Maybe it's an ego defense? As readers may recall the 2008 BC court order requiring Menard to stop playing lawyer was one of the things that precipitated his descend into Moosehead land. Who can forget the drunken and stoned videos that prompted even sympathetic viewers to question Bobby's mental stability?

Could it be that having dried out a little Bobby has returned to the "activist" ego defense he used in reaction to his numerous failures during the 2000's?