Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

[Jeffrey]

Theory: there was no inheritance and SIN issue, this was a ruse by Menard to bait out D'rok, perhaps see who was viewing his Facebook posts and reverse engineer his identity.

[LordEd]

Can you view who views your facebook post?

[Jeffrey]

It's possible to check who has viewed posts on groups. So this might just be me being paranoid, but for someone viewing group posts on Freeman Facebook groups I'd recommend either logging out of your own account or using a fake one.

Edited to update the info after rechecking it.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

This is a strange development.

In addition to the document identified by LordEd, Menard also filed this application:

• http://legaltainment.files.wordpress.co ... nard-2.pdf

It too appears to have been rejected. Menard at one point posted this order (http://i.imgur.com/T0K4U.jpg?1) that would logically have followed from that application, however as you see the order is neither signed nor endorsed, which suggests it was simply a proposed draft.

The original statement of claim was filed on Nov. 20, 2012. There is usually a deadline to serve a filed statement of claim, and the problem that Menard is facing is that unless he can find the defendants and serve them during that period his lawsuit expires. It looks like Rule 3-2 is the relevant one in British Columbia. It provides a 12 month deadline in which to make service (Rule 3-2(1)), but that may be renewed for another up to 12 month period via a court-ordered extension (Rule 3-2(2)). I am not certain if 3-2(2) can be applied over and over, or if there is a maximum 24 month period for service.

It would be interesting to know what has happened on the file from Nov. 2013 onward.

Jeffrey: as to your theory I can offer at least this one tidbit; Menard's father did indeed die in the last few months. This is his obituary: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/windso ... =167300422

SMS Möwe

[LordEd]

If Menard sincerely believes he has identified the person he wants to sue, wouldn't it make sense to amend his lawsuit and file against the notary identified, and present his evidence to link the names in court?

He's backpedaling anyway.

If you are not D'Rok, call the RCMP and tell them a Freeman is threatening you with violence

For the record I do not mean a rifle scope, nor am I threatening violence.

Menard's cat is in a quantum state...

Are you willing to sign an affidavit of your own stating that you have never posted on the RANDI Forum as D'Rok and give your ISP permission to look over their records to verify? If you are not D'Rok, then you should have no problem doing so. IF you are not willing to do so, I take that as admission that you are D'Rok.

And its clear what he will do to those he found guilty if the courts won't:

If you do not wish to meet me there, then I clearly have the right to secure justice outside of the courts using whatever means I feel are necessary

[rumpelstilzchen]

Are you willing to sign an affidavit of your own stating that you have never posted on the RANDI Forum as D'Rok and give your ISP permission to look over their records to verify? If you are not D'Rok, then you should have no problem doing so. IF you are not willing to do so, I take that as admission that you are D'Rok.

Menard is more stupid than I thought.

[Burnaby49]

Are you willing to sign an affidavit of your own stating that you have never posted on the RANDI Forum as D'Rok and give your ISP permission to look over their records to verify? If you are not D'Rok, then you should have no problem doing so. IF you are not willing to do so, I take that as admission that you are D'Rok.

Menard is more stupid than I thought.

Hey, it's your standard Freeman unilateral contract. Guaranteed to be totally ineffective. In fact, just a few hours ago, I saw another one fail as David Lange tried to dismiss criminal charges against himself by claiming he'd imposed a unilateral contract on the British Columbia Provincial Court. Just got back from the hearing so, in an hour or so, I'll have the whole story posted on this discussion thread;

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9388

[LordEd]

Menard is pulling another page from the terrorist playbook: its your fault I shot the hostage.

Is D'Rok a coward? Let us examine the facts. If Russ Weninger is as I believe D'Rok, then since he reufses to acknowledge it, he knows he did wrong and does not want to own up to it. That makes him a coward. But what if it is not him?
If it is not him, then whoever it is has awareness that an innocent party is being targeted for their actions, and they are not stepping up to save that innocent party. Therefore they are a coward.
Conclussion: D'Rok is a coward, if he is Russ Weninger AND he is a coward if he is not Russ Weninger Notary Services.

Stop being a coward Russ, you are a disgrace already to the legal profession,and not admitting the truth shows you know you are acting unlawfully. And the truth will out.

Lets re-word this:

Is Menard a coward? Let us examine the facts. If Alexander Ream is as I believe one of Menard's peace officers, then since he refuses to acknowledge it, he knows he did wrong and does not want to own up to it. That makes him a coward. But what if he is not?
If Ream is not one of Menard's C3POs, then Menard is still aware that an "innocent party" is being prosecuted for doing exactly what he claims to do, and is withholding the magic words to release him. Therefore a coward.

Stop being a coward Menard, you are a disgrace already to the freemen, and by not admitting the truth shows you know you are acting unlawfully. And the truth will out.

Lets make it even more freeman. He has 30 days to appear in defense of Mr. Ream in court or must submit to a coward forehead tattoo.

[LordEd]

Dear Quatlooser LordEd.
1- Alexander is not a member of the Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers.
2- Alexander did not follow the path suggested to him by me, and as a matter of fact, did that which I suggested he not do.
3- I am not a lawyer like D'Rok, and as such do not have the obligations to the court which he has.
Nice try, your logic is extraordinarily faulty, and based upon faulty assumptions. AND my charge of cowardice is supported by D'Rok not identifying himself. I do identify myself.

Anything else?

Yes.

If you are that certain of an identity, why don't you just sue the notary? Prove the link to the identity in court. Put yourself at actual legal risk of costs against you. Or, you can take the coward's approach and stay in the court of your Facebook cheering squad. Much safer. Maybe one of them will do your implied violence for you.

[JamesVincent]

Dear Quatlooser LordEd.
1- Alexander is not a member of the Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers.
2- Alexander did not follow the path suggested to him by me, and as a matter of fact, did that which I suggested he not do.
3- I am not a lawyer like D'Rok, and as such do not have the obligations to the court which he has.
Nice try, your logic is extraordinarily faulty, and based upon faulty assumptions. AND my charge of cowardice is supported by D'Rok not identifying himself. I do identify myself.

Anything else?

Yes.

If you are that certain of an identity, why don't you just sue the notary? Prove the link to the identity in court. Put yourself at actual legal risk of costs against you. Or, you can take the coward's approach and stay in the court of your Facebook cheering squad. Much safer. Maybe one of them will do your implied violence for you.

Looks like you have fan LordEd.

[notorial dissent]

Yabbut, Bobby is a liar and a fraud, and a COWARD, so he isn't going to do anything except to continue ranting and rail impotently, just as he has ranted impotently about just about everything else to the point he is becoming a comic satire of himself. He isn't going to step in to a court where someone else, without his peaceful intentions could possibly ask him a whole lot of questions he doesn't want to answer, or want answered in public, hence not only a fraud and a liar, but a COWARD as well. This is going to be another of those cases the redoubted M T Chair will win without ever having to file a thing.

[rumpelstilzchen]

If you are that certain of an identity, why don't you just sue the notary?

Menard is a talker, not a doer.

[notorial dissent]

And that mean nasty ole notary might just show up in court and tell even more lies truths about him, and besides I can't imagine any recent paradigm shift in the universe that would allow for him to do anything but lose miserably and abjectly in court on this as he does at all his other endeavors. Besides, he's a COWARD!!!

[LordEd]

Its not like menard is a real freeman anyway. He talks bur doesn't actually practice it. Smart in that he lets others like clifford, lange, or ream waste their time in court. When they fail, he can point to the magic flaw.

But cowardly, of course. Send his sheep to slaughter and continue to promise freeman heaven through the doors nobody returns through.

How's the tooth menard? I read dental is a consumer purchase. Its right on the site. Funny nobody told you.

[LordEd]

I see we have others reading the site. Whatever you do, DON'T ask Menard about any inconsistencies in his theories here, such as his sore tooth being a consumer purchase. He only works with mindless sheep and any spark of alternate thinking will put you in the enemy pile.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Its not like menard is a real freeman anyway. He talks bur doesn't actually practice it.

Correct. He teaches other people how to do FOTL but doesn't actually do it himself. When his students' efforts fail he promptly throws them under the bus. Students such as Lance Thatcher. Menard charged him $800 for a document "that indicated how he could fight the law more effectively."
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2011 ... ys-ex-wife

Thatcher had his first run-in with the law in Kamloops in 2007, which cost him four days in jail, she said. After that, he had a conversation with well-known freeman Robert Menard, who sold him an $800 document that indicated how he could fight the law more effectively.

When Thatcher failed Menard immediately washed his hands of him. As far as I am aware Thatcher was not offered a refund.

[Pottapaug1938]

I get the feeling that Menard is just like Hendrickson -- his followers don't succeed because they didn't believe strongly enough in fairies they didn't follow The Exalted Expert's pronouncements to the letter.

[LordEd]

Even Lance is practicing more freedom than Menard:
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2013 ... of-clothes

Naked and espousing Freeman slogans, Lance Thatcher stood his ground to stop bailiffs from taking his home.

There would be an interesting Burnaby report...

[Jeffrey]

I'd like to propose a slightly different model for understanding Menard. What if he fully intends for his followers to be jailed? What if his safe at-a-distance freeman model is completely intentional.

The consensus has always been that what triggered Menard into becoming who he is currently was his pseudo-custody battle, which has been pretty heavily discussed here and at JREF and in Menard's own videos. Menard has crafted a narrative where he cloisters himself up with a bunch of law books and emerges with some somewhat divinely given understanding of how law actually works; like Neo who could suddenly see the green matrix code after his resurrection. To us skeptics, we interpret it more like Don Quixote shutting himself up in his library with books on chivalry and knights until he loses his mind.

What if what actually happened was a lot more sinister and perverse? What if the result of his encounter with Family Services triggered a radicalization and hatred directed directly at the government of Canada. What if instead of a Mohamedan cave revelation or Quixotic break from reality, the more appropriate analogue is a Fez wearing Bin Laden waging war against Canada at a safe distance by proxy.

Menard basically makes that clear in his anecdote about his encounter with CRA (where he attempted to collect a tax refund despite not filing a tax return). I'm paraphrasing here but he clearly states, it was the government that took his baby, CRA may not have been the agency that did it but the people who took his baby get their funding from CRA. The freeman thing is the weapon Menard chose to use to get his revenge for what they did to him all those years ago.

Like that other bearded recluse, Menard puts out his little videos, recruiting followers and sending them out to do his bidding. The freeman associations give him access to disenfranchised young males, allowing him to send wave after wave of expendable pawns to clog up the court system. The question is always being asked, why does Menard keep it up when he has had zero successes, the answer is he measures success by a different metric. The purpose of 96 is your Fix was not a scheme for obtaining free electricity, it was his way of griefing the state owned Hydro Quebec. That was not a failure to him.

Likewise C3PO, consumer purchases, his beef with the Law Society, Meads v Meads, right to travel, etc. None of it is a failure to him. He pissed off the government, he pissed off the people he wanted to upset. And he gets to watch it online and on tv from the comfort of his little cave while smoking and drinking.

[Burnaby49]

Even Lance is practicing more freedom than Menard:
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2013 ... of-clothes

Naked and espousing Freeman slogans, Lance Thatcher stood his ground to stop bailiffs from taking his home.

There would be an interesting Burnaby report...

I'm just one man, I can't be everywhere! Although Brian Alexander is very tempting. But Kamloops in the winter with the Coquihalla Highway in between? Forget it. Don't even mention the old Fraser canyon route, that's problematic even in summer.