Robert Menard

[Bill Lumbergh]

Interestingly, Rob provides supporting material - his own book! I didn’t see the book title identified, so your guess is as good as mine.

Is the book bot "Bursting the Bubbles of Government Deception"? The cover was included as one of the exhibits.

And this appears to be the full text: http://pacificguardian.info/files/UCC-% ... eption.pdf

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

That certainly is the logical candidate.

As I've been going through the Gerber affidavit documents I've been checking to see if Menard is using templates from his earlier books. So far, no hits.

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

Private Investigator Lisa Koltun: http://www.mediafire.com/view/k9e6jxiek ... igator.pdf[/list]

The Securities Commission affidavit documents Menard's activities in front of that body, it has an attached transcript. The Koltun affidavit documents a private investigator who called up Rob and asked if he could help with her legal issue. What follows is an inside account on how Rob promoted himself at the time. . .

He added that he has fun in court and likes to wear a certain hat when he appears in court.

SMS Möwe

Thanks, Möwe. This one is classic. Bobby bragging on his fez just too funny!

If I am reading this right, the law society engaged a private investigator to call up Menard and ask for his services regarding a traffic ticket. The hilarious part is when Menard tells the investigator he had just recently "kicked ass" in court on a case like hers.

For years we have heard Menard down play his recruitment of paying dupes, often saying the client, upon going to ruin, didn't follow his instructions. But here we have clear case of the mendacious Menard clearly misrepresenting his performance in the first few minutes of a phone call with a perspective client.

Clearly this suggests all the failures Bobby tired to pass off were his doing and not that of his clients!

What a Menard!

[rumpelstilzchen]

Ellen B. Gerber: http://www.mediafire.com/view/hv8zj6752 ... Gerber.pdf

Thanks for that. When I came to page 40 it suddenly rang a bell.
In his letter Menard writes:

I also acknowledge that this is a "quazi-criminal" proceeding and that the word "quazi" is defined as "almost but not quite." We have concluded that a "quazi-criminal" proceeding is a "not-criminal" proceeding and thus must be a civil proceeding. Please see the enclosed Notice of Interpretation and Intent.

(I assume this was a typo on Menard's part. I know Canadians like to use a "z" where us Brits use an "s" but I can't believe they would go that far. )

That letter reminded me of this thread on Icke's:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=176553
A thread started by Rob on his favourite subject: consent.
In post 39 rob writes:

So remember now, there are only two types of legal actions CIVIL and CRIMINAL. If something is not criminal, it has to be civil, and thus either contracts or torts are being decided.

Now lets look at some of the things people are charged with, and look at whether they are criminal and cannot be denied, or civil and can be.

Traveling or driving on the road is the example in this case. Is it a criminal charge or a civil one? If the latter it rests upon a contract. If the former it does not, and no contract is required. No previous consent to point to.

The courts call them 'quasi-criminal' charges. Does that mean it is criminal and thus not requiring consent, or civil requiring consent? Look up the definition of quasi in a legal dictionary and you will find that it states "Almost but not quite". So if something is almost but not something, is it that something or not? Clearly it is stating it is not a criminal charge, and thus must be civil in nature. Simple logic tells us that.

How do quasi criminal charges come to be? By you entering into and agreeing to a contract the terms of which allow breaches to be treated as if they were criminal. But it is up to you to first agree to it, and just cause everybody else does agree to it, does not mean you must as well. YOUR INDIVIDUAL CONSENT is required, not the consent of a majority within some arbitrarily imposed 'group'. That is because it is governed by contract law, not criminal law.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... stcount=39
Rob has now changed his spelling from "quazi" to "quasi"

Later in post 41 Rob writes:

Quasi= almost but NOT quite.

Quasi pregnant = NOT pregnant
Quasi right = WRONG
Quasi laid = NOT laid
Quasi criminal = NOT criminal.

I argued this successfully in court. Quasi-criminal is not a part of the criminal law AT ALL. It is ALL contract. It is in fact entirely CIVIL.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... stcount=41

When pressed for more info at post 77 Rob wrote:

It was with Robert Christy, many years ago. No I do not have transcripts.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... stcount=77

And when asked what Christy was charged with and if Rob was successful he replied

Parking and traveling infractions.
Yes I kicked ass.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... stcount=97

Kicked ass? Haven't I heard that somewhere else?
Rob won!

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

How about an interlude? Ok ok – this one was just so funny I had to share it.

Rob’s Youtube alias is “mrmitee” (https://www.youtube.com/user/mrmitee). I always thought that was a little weird, and a long time ago I ‘Googled’ that and it didn’t seem to go anywhere interesting. Perhaps an inside joke? Perhaps an old forgotten reference, like “Freddy Freepickle”? Who knew.

Well, now I know. Turns out Rob hates bugs. Bugs that get in your garden and eat stuff. Bad bugs. Kill those bugs with Rob!

This was a chance discovery. I began doing some online prowling to see if I could find more items and materials linked to Rob and Mr. Christy’s litigation discussed above. And, among the detritus, I found this (http://www.angelfire.com/bc3/mrmitee/exempt.pdf). A foisted unilateral agreement targeting the Federal government regulatory scheme that flows from the Pest Control Products Act, SC 2002, c 28 to control what pesticides are permitted for use in Canada. The product?

Mr.Mite-E! Let’s have a gander:

Affidavit and Notice of Understanding and Intent
Claim of Right
Claim of Exemption from Registration

I, Robert-Arthur: Menard, a Freeman-on-the-Land by The Grace of God, of sound mind, body and Spirit, am standing in Honour and do hereby upon my Oath to God swear, declare and affirm that the following is true and complete to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and is a direct result of first hand knowledge except where it is stated as a belief in which case I do upon my Honour verily believe it to be true.

Whereas it is my understanding that Canada is a common law jurisdiction, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that in a common law jurisdiction the only form of government recognized as lawful is a representative model, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that representation requires mutual consent, and,
Whereas I, Robert-Arthur: Menard and my friend Robert-Scott: Christy have both lawfully revoked consent to be represented and governed, and,

Whereas it is my understanding the purpose of the Pest Control Product Act is to protect the public from poisons and not simply to protect large companies such as Monsanto from competition, and,

Whereas it is my belief the process claimed to be required by those in government is onerous and is virtually impossible for anyone save large corporations to meet, and,
Whereas it is my belief this creates the effect of closing a market to all save large mostly foreign corporations, and,

Whereas it is my understanding an Act is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law, and,

Whereas it is my understanding a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that as a human being in a common law jurisdiction I have the power and ability to secure rights through uncontested claims, and,

Whereas I claim that as a Freeman-on-the-Land I am not subject to statutory obligations, restraints or restrictions, and,

Whereas I claim that the product manufactured by me and my friend called ‘Mr.Mite-E’ is an effective pesticide by action and not subject to regulation or government control and thus is exempt from needing a P.C.P. Act registration number.

Whereas I do hereby claim the right on behalf of myself and my friend to market Mr.Mite-E with the following information on the label: “P.C.P. Act Exemption # EAES-001 - This pesticide is exempt from registration by undisputed claim”, and,

Whereas I, Robert-Arthur: Menard and my friend Robert-Scott: Christy are the creators and developers of Mr.Mite-E, and,

Whereas ‘Mr.Mite-E’ kills bugs in the garden and as such is by action and definition a pesticide, and, Whereas ‘Mr. Mite-E’ is not a pesticide as defined by The Pest Control Product Act, and, Whereas everything in ‘Mr.Mite-E’ is generally recognized as safe and is derived from non-toxic plants,

Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned parties, that Robert-Arthur: Menard and Robert-Scott: Christy do hereby clearly, specifically and unequivocally claim the right to make, bottle, sell, advertise and otherwise market as a pesticide without limits the product known as Mr.Mite-E and that we claim said product is a pesticide by action and definition and is also completely free of any and all government regulation or control.

We do hereby claim that any government agent or agency wishing to dispute this claim has TEN DAYS (10) from the date of notice of this action to register a counterclaim or dispute by registering a sworn Affidavit created upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury to the Notary office herein listed.

We claim anyone acting as a government agent who having received notice of this claim fails to dispute said claim within the limits and terms provided, and then wishes to remove Mr.Mite-E from a retailers shelves must act lawfully and thus the only option open to them is to purchase at full price the Mr.Mite-E from the retailer from whose shelves they remove Mr.Mite-E.

We claim any one, government agent or otherwise, who having been served notice of this claim fails to dispute this claim and then attempts to affect the marketing of Mr.Mite-E is grossly negligent, committing mischief and fully and personally liable for any damages they may cause.

The law of agent and principal applies and service of this Notice of Claim one either is deemed to be service upon both.

Disputes and counterclaims must be registered via certified mail or personal delivery to:
Chad C. Kwon
Notary Public
High Gate Village
Unit # 255 – 7155 Kingsway
Burnaby, BC, [V5E-2V1]

Sworn as true on the twenty-ninth day of June, in the year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Six.
Signature of Claimant and Affiant: _________________________________________ Robert-Arthur: Menard
Notary Public: __________________________________________

NOTICE: Use of a Notary Public is for attestation and verification and impartial registration of documents only and does not constitute adhesion, change in status or contract with any governing body. All Affiant rights are completely reserved with none whatsoever waived.

If only someone had told Dean Clifford that he could exempt himself from firearms legislation in the same manner! Or Brian Alexander from speeding tickets! Or Rory Hawes from … hmm, there isn’t really a law against acting like a dumbass, is there?

Now that I knew that mrmitee is “Mr.Mite-E” I searched with that term. Only four relevant hits turned up – the Notice of Claim of Exception above, a website by the company “OrganoZone” all about Mr.Mite-E (http://www.angelfire.com/bc3/mrmitee/), and a JREF post where this website had been reported (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=8033). I must have missed it there as I don’t recall encountering “OrganoZone” before.

Anyways, let’s look around this new Menardian fossil! It shares the attractive colour, font, and layout designs of many other early Menardian websites. If you haven’t admired one of these before you should check it out.

On the right is what looks like a label for the product, which reads:

LOVE
Mr. Mite-E
Organic
Cinnamon, Garlic and Cayenne
Garden Defending
Foliar Spray
You can protect your Garden…
Without attacking the Planet.
With Anti-Fungal Agents

Nature has the Asnwers
OrganoZone
Has the solutions

250 ml – 8 oz

And if it doesn’t kill bugs I guess it might make an emergency marinade?

So what about Mr.Mite-E? Well, there’s a handy introduction to the product (http://www.angelfire.com/bc3/mrmitee/about.pdf):

Nature has the Answer!
OrganoZone
Has the Solution!

Plants have been fighting insect pests for millenniums and have developed powerful defenses against such problems. OrganoZone, creators of Mr.Mite-E use only food grade ingredients and plant extracts in manufacturing this incredible garden defending spray.

Mr.Mite-E is a powerful pest control product made from food grade ingredients, essential oils and plant extracts and is composed of over 15 active ingredients
with the key components being cinnamon, cayenne pepper and garlic.

Cinnamon is to insects, a powerful central nervous system toxin and interferes with certain octa-dopamine receptors. As neither fish, nor birds nor mammals have these specific receptors, they are not affected. Insects such as aphids, thrips, spider mites, whitefly, leaf hoppers, ants and most other garden pests are easily and quickly dispatched to their doom by Mr.Mite-E.

Included in the formulation are essential oils long known for their anti-fungal actions and ability to fight mold. Thus Mr.Mite-E is also a powerful anti-fungal spray
and deals very effectively with powdery mold. Incidentally, deer find the taste most unpleasant.

Being composed of ingredients which are generally recognized as safe and
manufactured by a couple of Freemen-on-the-Land, the makers of Mr.Mite-E have
lawfully claimed exemption from registration under the Pest Control Product Act. (We are the first in Canada to do so!) The product is safe to use right up to harvest and is safe for all plants, indoors or out, be they fruits and vegetables, house plants, herbs or flowers.

This highly concentrated formula is available in 250ml bottles and is sufficient for 10L of control solution, 5L of attack solution, or 1L of wasp and hornet killer.

Shipped in cases of 25 bottles @ $8/bottle the price/case is only $200 and the small size bottles mean valuable shelf space is conserved.

Order by the end of July and receive a free DVD titled “Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception” and learn what a Freeman-on-the-Land is capable of!

Hmm. Deer don’t like the taste … maybe not such a great marinade. And I think we don’t need a copy of your DVD Rob – we’re painfully aware of what a Freeman-on-the-Land is capable of!

But then there’s an MSDS (“Material Safety Data Sheet”) (http://www.angelfire.com/bc3/mrmitee/Might-EMSDS.html). This is a standard document that is required in Canada to accompany materials that have a potentially hazardous character. But what’s in here?

Well … it looks vaguely plausible. However, the format and content looks like its intended for a U.S. market – mention is made of OSHA, the EPA National Response Center, and U.S. legislation such as the Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Act, and the appendix seems to relate to U.S. regulations for low-risk pesticides.

And the MSDS does not follow the usual Canadian format (http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/msdss.html), for example there is no data here on who prepared the MSDS.

So my guess is that Rob and Rob didn’t invent this Mr.Mite-E stuff, but instead purchased it in bulk from some U.S. supplier, repackaged it, and here we have the copied U.S. MSDS data for the original product.

So – all fine and good – Where can I get this amazing product of the Future, but Here Today?

Well, I didn’t find much mention of it anywhere. There’s one post by Rob flogging Mr.Mite-E in the Cannibis Culture forums in a response to a plea for assistance with spider mites (http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forum ... got-mites/):

Posted 14 October 2000 - 07:21 AM
I have never posted here before, and I hope you do not think I am spamming. I am an inventor and my product is my name. MrMite-E is an organic all natural insecticide/garden defender made with food grade ingredients and plant extracts. Cinnamon, garlic and cayenne are the primary ingredients plus there are a whack and a half of plant extracts and essential oils. It has been selling in Vancouver for a year now and next spring will be available globally.

It really works and is very safe for your plants. Unrooted clones can be dipped into a full strength solution without ill effect. I have also recently produced a formula that appears to be quite successfull against mold, although we still need to do more testing on it.

Available through Jon's Plant Factory in Burnaby. They have a secure mail order system.

you can check out a site at http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/organozone

If there are any questions, I can be reached at mrmitee@hushmail.com or mrmitee@hotmail.com

If this is a breach of Netiquette, (I hope it's not, I am honestly trying to help, eh?) please forgive and delete.... Thanks.

Peace

That sounds like Rob – but check the date – way back in 2000! Was Mr.Mite-E Rob’s original scam? The website link goes nowhere.

Jon’s Plant Factory (https://jonsplantfactory.com) still exists, but it doesn’t stock the product.

That said, Rob still until at least 2010 was excited about his Mr.Mite-E. “Organozone” appears as an income generating mechanism in this post about “Robs Very Cunning Plan v2.0” (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/ ... 93361.html) and a video on the same topic:

• RVCP v2 Directors Address pt2.mp4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoyzWxu9Vj4).

Boy there’s a lot of abandoned projects here. Wow – at 5:00 he talks about making a motion picture. Huh. And five years later it’s still in pre-production hell. That's Hollywood for ya...

But at 5:20 we get the plug for Mr.Mite-E – and ROB HOLDS UP A BOTTLE! Mr.Mite-E exists!

We’re going to have OrganoZone. OrganoZone is going to create and market this stuff. It’s my invention – it’s Mr.Mite-E. It’s a non-toxic pest control product for gardening with garlic, cayenne, cinnamon and a bunch of essential oils and this was generating some revenue before the government came and decided that they wants to play with me. So we’re going to get that back up happening.

Oh. I guess the “Affidavit and Notice of Understanding and Intent Claim of Right Claim of Exemption from Registration” didn’t work. What a shock…

And that’s all I found. It's an interesting sideline off Rob’s usual focus.

Rob Menard – bug slaughter! With spices and spiciness he’ll save your garden, and win your heart…

SMS Möwe

[Jeffrey]

we claim said product is a pesticide by action and definition and is also completely free of any and all government regulation or control.

When I see the guys from Monsanto at the next Illuminati meeting; I'll let them know that they can just exempt their products from any government regulation with this letter. Thanks Menard!

Reminds me of Clifford's assertion that corporations and commerce cannot be regulated by the Government because the CEO created them. I think that's why FMOTL can't properly be called a political movement. If you actually try to imagine what their system would look like, you can't. All taxes would be optional but the government should still build roads for them and give them free healthcare. Anyone can drive on the road and cops can't pull you over. If you want a hamburger you just write A4V or Consumer Purchase on the ticket and tada! Oh and if someone wants to build some wind turbines or a dam to produce electricity, then they should be paying you for using their electricity.

but check the date – way back in 2000! Was Mr.Mite-E Rob’s original scam?

I got a great idea for Menards' very cunning plan version 6 (which version is he on by now?):

1. Obtain skills via some sort of education or apprentice program.
2. Use your new skills at some sort of workplace and get paid for your labor. (Make sure they've hired you before you start working there).
3. Use the money they pay you to obtain goods and services from other people.

[arayder]

I had thought that Menard's new product, The Ninja Goat, was his first entree into the world of private enterprise. But, I can see I was wrong.

I think it's interesting that in the case of Mr.Mite-E, way back in 2000, Bobby decided he was not going to put up with any of those mean old government bug spray regulations.

Anybody thinking of putting any of their hard earned money into the Ninja Goat needs to ask Bobby if he is going to go through the regulatory process required to get the product to the market place.

One has to ask what sane movie maker is going to set himself up for the liability problems involved in using a Ninja Goat that hasn't met basic safety regulations.

[notorial dissent]

Seriously, would you trust anything mechanical that Menard put together or had a hand in? I just don't see it.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Back to the Gerber affidavit!

Exhibit G is simply entitled “Notice” and dated Feb. 13, 2006. This is a notice of constitutional issue which is a requirement prior to raising a Charter or other constitutional issue in court. It looks like its at least roughly in a correct form.

Rob, on behalf of Christy, argues his s. 8 , 9 and 15(1) rights have been violated. That’s an unreasonable search and seizure, arbitrary detention, and discriminatory treatment, respectively.

Some of the complaints are the same as before:

• a) Christy never gave his consent to be tried (para. 1).
  
  b) Christy was treated in a discriminatory way by having a time limit set on his submissions (para. 2).
  
  c) Vancouver refuses to say whether the litigation is against Christy the Strawman (“Legal Fiction”) or Christy the not-a-Strawman (“Human Being”) (para. 3). Hey – that’s actually a habeas corpus issue – though badly framed. Charter, s. 10(c) then! The prosecutor has a Charter obligation to indicate whether the litigation is against the Strawman or not-a-Strawman. (But it doesn't because the Strawman is a phantasm of fantasy in the Freemen’s fevered minds.)
  
  d) your guess is as good as mine:
  

  4. We are not sure if this is an administrative tribunal or a court of law. Our actions will depend on where we are. Incidentally, Robert-Scott: Christy claims the right to administrate his own affairs. This too will be clarified on the 28th of February

  e) There was a Vancouver witness in the court, which causes an unfair proceeding. That’s a Charter, s. 7 argument, but whatever (para. 5).
  
  f) Christy signed documents “under duress” and so that means you have no jurisdiction. And that document was a commercial security interest:
  

  7. Robert-Scott: Christy does claim that the promise to appear he signed was signed under duress and thus is void ab initio. Furthermore it is a security interest under The Law and Equity Act and thus is negated by the unlawful actions of the peace officer who secured unlawfully an endorsement on a commercial security interest. For the Court to seek to continue with this matter in light of this information is to seek a gain from an act of intimidation and extortion and will call the administration of justice into serious disrepute.

  Again, I think that’s a Charter, s. 7 argument.
  
  g) You have to discuss and negotiate first:
  

  9. The prosecutor and Corporation of the City of Vancouver have repeatedly rejected offers of discussion and therefore denied Robert-Scott: Christy his most fundamental right: The right to peace without subjugation through the use of the tools of discussion and negotiation.

  I guess that would be Charter, s. 7?

So anyway we now have the following Menardian concepts as Charter issues:

• a) you’re only liable to the law if you consent;
  b) there’s a Strawman shackled to me;
  c) saying that you’re under duress miracles away any document you signed;
  d) a ticket or other document that creates a fine or sanction is a commercial security; and
  e) a government actor can only seek court remedy if it first engages in “discussion and negotiation” with Mr. Freeman.

It looks like Exhibit H is a cover letter that accompanied the Charter Notice. It’s probably only interesting aspect is that Rob claims that even though he has filed a Charter notice for Mr. Christy that still doesn’t mean Christy consents to anything. Rhetoric ensues:

… Robert-Scott: Christy claims he is in fear from armed police officers who are unaware that he has the right to administrate his own affairs and that a warrant is a commercial instrument and an unendorsed commercial instrument grants no liability. Their threat to strand and infant and mother at the side of the road in order to secure an endorsement on a commercial instrument is offensive and opprobrious. For the courts to continue in this matter is also offensive to community standards. He sees no course of action except to come to court with respect but without entering an appearance.

And the next document (Exhibit I) has the same date, Feb. 13, 2006, and is titled “Notice of Protest and Duress”. Aside from some formatting and the date it’s the same as Exhibit C.

Exhibit J is yet another Feb. 13, 2006 document, a letter to Justice of the Peace Makhdoom talking about Charter remedies. Rob argues this isn’t a Charter scenario because it’s not about freedoms and its “quazi-criminal”.

With respect, I claim that this court lacks proper jurisdiction due to the manner in which the issue was brought before the court by the peace officer and the manner in which the conflict was created and continued by the corporate fictional entity known as The Corporation of The City of Vancouver.

This is not a matter of freedoms under the Charter; it is a matter of Law exclusive of the Charter. I also acknowledge that it is a ‘quazi-criminal’ proceeding, and that he word ‘quazi’ is defined as ‘almost but not quite.’ We have concluded that a ‘quazi-criminal’ proceeding is a ‘not-criminal’ proceeding and thus must be a civil proceeding. Please se the enclosed sworn Notice of Interpretation and Intent.

Sadly, that document is not part of the Gerber affidavit.

Well, the “quazi-criminal” argument doesn’t work because it’s well established in Canadian jurisprudence that the Charter rights apply “… to persons prosecuted by the State for public offences involving punitive sanctions, i.e., criminal, quasi‑criminal and regulatory offences, either federally or provincially enacted. …”: R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 SCR 541 at para. 16.

But here we have the first explicit appearance of that old Menardian standby – governments are corporations, so they can only interact with us via contract (that is, if we consent).

The Feb. 13, 2006 documents had no effect. The British Columbia online court records indicate a hearing on Feb. 28, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. for “ARG” (argument – but an alternative exclamation is also workable!). The matter proceeds so presumably Rob’s “It’s a Charter argument but not a Charter argument” was rejected.

The next document, Exhibit K, is so mind-blowingly stupid that I’m going to take the time to type it all out for everyone to enjoy.

AR82367, AN37165, AP95995, AR97565, & AT21325

In the Provincial Court of British Columbia

REGINA

v.

ROBERT SCOTT CHRISTY

Affidavit and Default Judgment

I, Robert-Arthur: Menard, a Freeman-on-the-Land and Agent for the above named ROBERT SCOTT CHRISTY and the following information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and based on first hand knowledge and personal action. That which is merely my believe and I do affirm I verily believe to be true.

• 1. Under the Constitutional Questions Act a notice of the action must be brought to the attention of both the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of The Province of British Columbia.
  
  2. Notices for this matter were served within a timely and appropriate fashion as required.
  
  3. The Attorney General of Canada did, in writing, decline to dispute the claims made.
  
  4. The Attorney General of The Province of British Columbia by its silence declined to dispute the claims made and did express that desire lawfully by its silence.
  
  5. By so doing both have acknowledged that they are in agreement and thus the questions that would have been raised are hereby deemed answered and agreed to.
  
  6. The key questions were the following:
  • i. Can a Peace Officer use threats against an infant to secure an endorsement on a security instrument from the infant’s parent?
    ii. If done so is that signature valid?
    iii. As the Corporation of The City of Vancouver claims the limited liability and other benefits of corporate status, are they then also bound by all of the laws and restrictions which bind all corporations?
  7. The answers to these questions are hereby deemed to be as follows:
  • i. NO
    ii. NO
    iii. YES
  8. The answers to those questions are obvious to any reasonable person.
  
  9. The proper administration of justice, in the context of shrinking public resources and increasing public needs, requires that tackling summary matters of this sort be expeditious.
  
  10. This Default Judgment is lawful, just and addresses the aforementioned concerns of expeditiousness.
  
  11. This Notice of Default Judgment will be sent to the aforementioned parties via registered may on the day it is notarized.
  
  12. The Attorney General’s herein mentioned are herby granted fourteen days to file an objection to this Default Judgment.
  
  13. The failure to file said objection by the aforementioned parties is indication of their acceptance of this Judgment.
  
  14. At that point this Judgment will be binding on all tribunals, courts and administrative bodies.

THEREFORE BE IT NOW KNOWN TO ANY AND ALL, that the questions raised herein are hereby deemed lawfully settled by the party who raised them.

Sworn and Attested by Robert-Arthur: Menard a Freeman-on-the-Land and Agent for ROBERT SCOTT CHRISTY at Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada on the 2nd day of March, 2006.

Affiant: [Menard signature with copyright symbol]

Notary Public: [signature]

A Notary Public in and for The Province of British Columbia
Use of a Notary Public is for attestation purposes only and does not constitute a change in staus.
All Rights Reserved.

There are two stamps to the end of the document, one a disclaimer by the Notary that not advice was requested or given, the second that identifies the Notary:

Adriana Baggio Notary Public
Suite 206 – 2121 Kingsway
Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6N 2T4
Telephone: (604) 438-2606

Well, shame on you Adriana.

So yes, we have a foisted unilateral judgment. Wow.

I’m going to presume for a moment that the constitutional questions application wasn’t Exhibit G (because the questions don’t line up), but in any case, are the questions in para. 6 constitutional questions? No. They have nothing to do with the division of power, and I can’t see a Charter issue in there, particularly question 3.

Further, this "default judgment" can't be appealed, and is binding on higher authorities! Yes, the Supreme Court of Canada cannot review it ... because it says so. Should I bother? Ah heck, why not. Rob? No: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.

This is really, really stupid.

But it does raise some more familiar Menardian concepts:

• a) a birth certificate is a contract,
  b) conforming with government legislation and regulation are “threats” which nullify a signed document or agreement, and
  c) that a government body (in this case a municipality) is just a corporation.

So this leads to an interesting question – from what body does Rob get authority to issue a default judgment? Thankfully, that fascinating question is explained in the next document, Exhibit L, boldly entitled:

Notice of Adjournment
In The Provincial Court of British Columbia

Regina
v
CHRISTY, Robert Scott

But the body of the document is a letter addressed to Ms. Gerber, dated March 6, 2006:

Hello and good day. You are hereby lawfully advised that the hearing set for April 7, 2006 is the above mentioned matter has been adjourned and the key points to be determined have been settled by the defaults of the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada. Apparently they had no desire to dispute those basic points. I do not see why anyone would.

…

I have chosen this course of action after seeing your performance in court and due ot your preliminary notion seeking to seize my agency in the Constitutional Question portion of this context. If successful in your application, when the challenge dies, as Rob is not going to carry forth this action on his own nor hire a lawyer, and if unsuccessful you will have delayed these proceedings to the point that he is denied a fair trial.

Therefore, in order to preserve his rights and protect the administration of justice and the integrity of the existing yet changing system, I went to a Notary Public, and under Oath explained what was happening and how the AG’s defaulted and asked that she grant me a Default Judgment against them. She is clearly empowered to do so by Section 18 of the Notaries Act and chose to exercise her power after hearing my testimony concerning the facts of this case.

…

You may of course seek a hearing to have this administrative Default Judgment overturned by a higher court, assuming you can find one willing to do so, and you are willing to then dispute the three key points determined by that Default Judgment. Doing so is in my humble opinion incredibly, absolutely and completely injudicious and as it may call into question Notorial powers, will likely result in the Notaries Society rightfully seeking Intervener Status. Incidentally, I realize that I am not a lawyer and you have no need to continually remind me. You will also note, that when you say things in court like “We don’t do it like that” or “That’s not how we normally do things here” you are speaking of members of your Society and how things would normally operate between two such members in court. And because as you say I am not a lawyer or a member of your society, we will be doing things a little differently, although of course entirely lawfully.

Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivoloity,

[signature with copyright mark]
Robert-Arthur: Menard ©
Freeman-on-the-Land
Spiritual Brother and Agent for Robert-Scott: Christy
All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Defended, By the Grace of God.

Yeah. The magical notaries. And everybody better watch out because if you disagree with me, The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia will Kick Your Ass.

Adriana? You really botched.

The next hearing in the proceeding before Justice of the Peace Makhdoom occurred on April 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. It’s another ARG! matter, and apparently Rob’s summoning of Notorial Authority and his Default Judgment didn’t do the trick because the trial itself was then scheduled for Sept. 12, 2006.

Nevertheless, this hearing triggered a flurry of additional documents from Menard. The first one, Exhibit M, dated April 7, 2006, provides some insight into the events of that day, since it seems this document was prepared after the morning hearing. It is titled “Notice of Protest”, and indicates it is “Registered via the PPSA”. This document has an unusual basis for its authority:

2. This Notice of Protest is created and served as per the rights and relief expressed by the common law and the Law and Equity Act in conjunction with the Personal Property Security Act and the Universal Declaration of Human rights.

Apparently the ‘constitutional default’ did come up, but it seems to have been vectored to a different tribunal:

4. I did verily believe that the one who initiates a Constitutional Questions action can be the one to cancel said action. We did cancel this action after securing the defaults of the Attorney General’s of both CANADA and THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA as well the technical default of the prosecutor in this case. She has yet to properly dispute any of the claims made, preferring instead to use her time to attempt to block the one making the claims. Thus she is in technical default. She did for whatever reason fail to properly dispute the claims made within the time period allowed.

5. We were told that once the Constitutional Question portions of these proceedings were over we would return to the good JJP Makhdoom and it was based upon these words, from a man who has earned out respect and thus gained our trust, that we agreed to go to another court. It was only on the agreement that we would return to JJP Makhdoom that we changed venue.

But something must have gone wrong in that other court, because Rob states:

8. It is obvious these are transactions of a security interest and that said transaction is rendered void abinitio by anything that would render a contract void at law.

9. Therefore we RESPECTFULLY DECLINE TO ACCEPT the offer, opinion or judgment of the court in this regard, as to do so would be detrimental to the administration of proper justice and would severely and negatively impact certain rights recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

10. We are willing to keep our end of the original agreement and return to JJP Makhdoom forthwith to settle these matters reasonably and lawfully. See the Attached Notarized Affidavit.

What is then attached is an affidavit from Menard which largely relates to the question of whether or not he is acting as a lawyer. I’m going to step out on a limb here and guess what happened. The Justice of the Peace did not have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional question, so the matter was bumped up to a Provincial Court judge. That judge said “who is the guy in the hat?” to which Gerber said “not a lawyer.” The judge then ordered Menard out (Menard complains in his Notice of Complaint (well named at least) that he has not read the transcript of the proceeding yet) and the constitutional question issue is rejected.

So here we have another good ol' Freeman standby - a judgment of a court is a contract offer that you can reject if you don't like it. (I wonder if they'd accept the same when the direction of the effect is reversed?)

The next document, Exhibit O, is a declaration by Christy that he’s not a lawyer. All nicely notarized as usual by Chad C. Kwon, who seems to be the usual go-to notary used by Rob and Rob. This document was bundled with Exhibit N judging from the filing stamp on each.

This is a handy place to pause.

So, in this review and in my prior post on this subject we now have seen the following Menardian memes deployed and rejected by the court:

• 1) the existence of the Strawman double/split person
  2) that the Strawman is subject to state authority, not the human being
  3) there is a constitutional obligation on state actors to clarify whether an action is directed against the Strawman vs shackled human being
  4) some kind of A4V scheme
  5) the courts only have authority when a person consents to be subject to the court’s authority
  6) a court judgment is a contract offer that can be rejected if you don't like it
  7) that some kind of out-of-court dialogue and negotiation is a prerequisite to court jurisdiction
  8) saying that you are under duress miracles away any document you signed
  9) conforming with government legislation and regulation is “threats” which nullify a signed document or agreement
  10) a ticket or other document that creates a fine or sanction is a commercial security
  11) a birth certificate is a commercial security
  12) government actors are corporations and so only can enforce contacts with persons (i.e. no consent means no authority to enforce legislation and regulations)
  13) a government actor that does not respond on a deadline is deemed to have agreed unless it responds to the contrary:
  • a) in response to a constitutional issue application, and
    b) in response to a joisted unilateral judgment from a fictitious court-like authority
  14) Notaries have magical judgment-making powers that are parallel to or trump those of courts.

And we’ve still another eight more documents to go…

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

Well, what it all boils down to is that the freeman tenant that they are only liable to the law if they so consent has no basis in the law, customs or history of the western democracies.

Freeeman have been posing this wishful belief as reality for some time now and have managed to create a cult around the idea. This despite the fact that it has been consistently and universally rejected by the courts.

Every freeman since day one of freemanism has floated this Menard canard and had it shot out of the water. Bobby Menard, Dean Clifford, Keith Thompson, Brian Alexander, Glenn Winningham, Irene Gravenhorst, Dave Lange, Alexander Ream, David Bradley Smith and the rest have all been sent packing in the light of open court.

But there is hope. We hear in Dean's latest rant that he has finally realized that the courts are going to recognize him as falling under their jurisdiction no matter what freeman argument he makes.

[grixit]

The Feb. 13, 2006 documents had no effect. The British Columbia online court records indicate a hearing on Feb. 28, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. for “ARG” (argument – but an alternative exclamation is also workable!). The matter proceeds so presumably Rob’s “It’s a Charter argument but not a Charter argument” was rejected.
[/quote]

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one, Teach-- it's a Quazi-Charter argument!

[grixit]

Also, to clarify things for those poor, easily confused, sovniks-- the word "corporation" has been used to refer to modern style municipal government. That's the kind with a written charter, mayor, council, local appointed officials, and so forth. This is not the same as a business corporation.

[arayder]

The Feb. 13, 2006 documents had no effect. The British Columbia online court records indicate a hearing on Feb. 28, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. for “ARG” (argument – but an alternative exclamation is also workable!). The matter proceeds so presumably Rob’s “It’s a Charter argument but not a Charter argument” was rejected.

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one, Teach-- it's a Quazi-Charter argument!

So when Bobby told everybody he "kicked ass" in court, he lied?

I am shocked! Shocked!

[rumpelstilzchen]

So when Bobby told everybody he "kicked ass" in court, he lied?

Perhaps when he wrote "I kicked ass" he meant to write "I got my ass kicked".

[grixit]

He quazi-kicked it.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Well, time to finish this off.

The majority of the remaining Gerber affidavit exhibits date to June 27, 2006. First is an “Affidavit” of Robert-Scott: Christy (Exhibit P), “a non-consenting and ungoverned Freeman-on-the-Land who is not a child of the province.” It hints at attempts to implement the strategy in Menard’s “Parking Tickets The Scam Revealed!” book. The parking ticket is a bill, and is not “endorsed”. Vancouver is a legal fiction “without soul or conscience” and unless Christy has contracted with Vancouver it has no basis to bill.

The Affidavit repeats earlier arguments, including that the police stop was “extortion and unlawful”, so the ticket is unenforceable as “the result of duress.”

We get the “quazi-criminal” proceding argument again, along with the requirement for negotiation and discussion. Lots of rhetoric:

20. I do not consent to be governed by a corporation or by those who due to their own lack of honour, responsibility and character insist on operating under limited liability nor do I consent to having my Spirit hindered by soulless fictions.

21. The Corporation of the City of Vancouver is not now and has never been ‘Regina’ to me as I am my own Sovereign.

22. As a responsible Freeman-on-the-Land I do not consent to being governed by those lesser beings that require limited liability due to their own lack of personal responsibility.

The argument now expands to not merely consent being necessary for Vancouver, but any government:

24. I believe the only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representative one. Representation requires mutual consent and I have never consented to being governed by a corporation. I have a soul; The Corporation of the City of Vancouver does not. Only a fool would allow a soulless fiction to dictate the actions of their conscience.

And now we have a shift in focus, one that will make up most of the June 27 documents. Rob and Rob specifically target Gerber, and demand she pay $27,130 “for the damages and harm she has unlawfully and unprofessionally caused":

26. I do believe she harmed my family relationships and my standing in my community by denying me my day in court and denying me lawful defence options. These actions have eroded my faith in the courts and the justice system and as such maintaining societal membership is no longer a viable option, as all societies need a system of justice which is fair and impartial and it seems obvious to me people in British Columbia no longer have that available to them, due mostly to the arrogant and deceptive practices employed by people like Ellen B. Gerber.

And once more, notaries are the actual judges:

29. I believe it is entirely lawful for me to seek justice and remedy using a member of the Notary Society and this sworn and uncontested Affidavit.

30. I believe a Notary Public has the power to craft and endorse court orders if they result from uncontested Affidavits and that these court orders as they are the result of default cannot be overturned by any court.

Notarized by Chad C. Kwon.

Exhibit Q, is a “Bill of Exchange” demanding payment:

Ellen B. Gerber you are hereby unconditionally ordered to pay within ten days of receipt of notice of the existence of this lawful bill of exchange the sum certain of $27,130.00 Canadian Dollars by way of certified cheque given to the Notary Public herein listed for delivery of the drawer of this bill.

The document instructs Gerber “a human being in a common law jurisdiction” to send payment to Notary Chad C. Kwon of Burnaby.

Exhibits R and S are letters that likely accompanied the Affidavit and Bill of Exchange. The first is from Rob, demanding payment of the $27,130:

… for unlawfully denying him a fair trial and having a serious negative and unlawful effect upon his life …

Your actions in dragging these proceedings on created much stress in his life and did have a very negative effect on his personal family relationships and did harm his standing in the community. You did in fact stop him from speaking the truth and expressing his belief which is required for any member of a society to feel included. … A fair trial would have allowed him to present information which may have changed the way in which bylaws are enforced. To claim that a fair trial is a right and then to deny that right to such a degree that it is impossible to achieve at all and then to claim that no trial is the remedy for a lack of a fair trial is ludicrous. It is akin to interfering with someone’s right to speak by punching them in the mouth and then claiming the remedy for this assault and negative effect on communication is to cut out the tongue. … By denying him a fair trial you denied him an opportunity to lay a foundation which would have been used in a civil action against the West Vancouver Police. A lack of trial does not begin to cover the damages you caused.

Your actions have reinforced his previous belief that The Corporation of the City of Vancouver is engaged in a fraud without granting him the relief of judicial acknowledgement or an opportunity to publically address these issues in an open and public court. Your temporized, were rude and unprofessional and you acted with arrogance unbefitting a court office purporting to serve the public. Your actions seriously eroded his faith and trust in the judicial system and he now no longer trusts it at all.

We get a break down on the bill: time - $2300, gas - $130, “emotional and general harm” - $12,000, “Lost Opportunities” - $7000, “Punitive and Exemplary Damages” - $5000, and $1000 for transcripts.

Then it’s the notaries again:

Because of your actions, Rob expressed a complete lack of faith in the judicial system and in the Law Society of British Columbia, and since the Law Society seems to have a strangle hold on the courts remedy will be sought lawfully using Affidavits and the power of a Notary Public. If you fail to dispute or pay, a court order directing a Bailiff to seize and auction sufficient property of yours to cover this claim will be created. A Notary Public has the power to do all of this under Section 18 of the Notary Act. Any dispute must be in the form of a sworn Affidavit of your own making and created under threat of perjury and upon your full commercial liability. If you do not dispute the facts stated in the Affidavit within ten (10) days, the facts within it will be deemed as uncontested and thus as truth accepted by all affected parties. If the Notary listed below does not receive either payment or disputing Affidavit a default judgment will be issued against you, as well as a permanent estoppel forever barring ‘The Corporation of The City of Vancouver’ from enforcing bylaws without consent or contract.

Having spoken with Robert Christy, I have managed to get him to agree to forego the punitive and exemplary damages in lieu of a written apology which acknowledges his status as a Freeman-on-the-Land. I hope you appreciate my efforts on behalf.

And the Notary is Chad C. Kwon, again.

Of course, Rob can’t help but put in a threat:

NOTICE: Attempting to contact him for any reason besides delivering your Affidavit or payment will be viewed as obstruction of justice and may lead to criminal charges. You may if you wish contact me for discussion and negotiation purposes only at 604 721 0890.

Exhibit S is the letter from Christy. It’s just more rhetoric about how Christy is going to opt out of state authority, you’re a jerk Ms. Gerber, he complains on how this has stressed out his wife and kid, etc. etc. No point in quoting from it.

So, the June 27 documents provide us with that classic maxim – an unrebutted affidavit is truth … or at least as far as notaries go. With their magic powers.

Exhibit T is a letter from Rob to Gerber, dated July 12. He threatens that not being referred to by his proper “lawful status” “an actual Freeman-on-the-Land could be seen as insulting and a potential tort.”

Apparently Gerber wrote Notary Chad Kwon, but in an unsatisfactory way:

… Be aware the truth requires neither your agreement nor does it need any concession from you; it merely is. The truth in this matter will be determined by sworn or duly attested Affidavits only. Your letter was not an Affidavit and therefore has been deemed by the Notary Public in his capacity as a Notary to be a non-response to the claims made in the originating documents.

I am thankful for your communication and for the wisdom of the Notary who recognizes as I do that it was not sworn or attested and thus is deemed to be a non-response, at least as far as us establishing the truth with Affidavits is concerned.

Unless you respond with a sworn Affidavit disputing each point made in mine, the points left undisputed will be deemed judicially to be truth and binding upon all. This seems really fair and merely binds you to the law and the truth like everyone else. I see no problem with that and do not understand why you would wish to claim otherwise.

If you fail to dispute an order will be signed and Notarized and this judgment may result in a lien on property, a garnishee of wages, an enforcement order, civil action, or perhaps action against your principal(s). I mean this only as a fair and lawful warning.

Have you ever played poker? You can not ‘ante up’ without actually throwing into the pot and merely saying you do ante and in reality not doing so means you lose.

Your letter in no way covers the Affidavits in this file.

Notably, though this document has a spot for the Notary Public that was left blank. Did Kwon finally catch on?

Now we move into the Three / Five letters procedure. Exhibit U is a July 20, 2006 “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure”.

Ellen B. Gerber you are herby served Notice of the following.

Whereas Robert-Scott: Christy did make certain claims against you, and
Whereas proper Notice of said claims was properly served on you, Ellen B. Gerber, and,
Whereas you, Ellen B. Gerber did fail to dispute said claims or make counterclaim in the proper fashion and within the allotted time, and
Whereas a bill of exchange as defined in the Bill of Exchange Act was created and endorsed by Robert-Scott: Christy, and,
Whereas a copy of that bill and Notice of how to accept was sent to you, Ellen B. Gerber, and
Whereas you, Ellen B. Gerber did dishonor said bill by non-acceptance, and,
Whereas a Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure is hereby created, therefore,

BE IT NOW KNOWN TO ANY AND ALL CONCERNED PARTIES
that Ellen B. Gerber is in default and dishonor in regards to a bill for $27,130.00 lawfully created, endorsed and served upon her.

This Notice is to inform you that you have ten days to cure this default and failure to do so will result in judgment secured against you for the full amount.

Response must be made in the form of a duly sworn or attested Affidavit and created upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury and received within ten days of service of this Final Notice by the Notary Office herein listed. Default will result in judgment against you.

GOVERN YORSELF ACCORDINGLY

Yep, Chad C. Kwon, Notary Public of Burnaby B.C. notarized this one too. I guess he didn't catch on.

One would expect the next document would be that impending and threatened default judgment, but it’s not in the package. What gives? Did Rob and Rob decide not to continue the scheme? Did Chad C. Kwon, Notary Public bother to read the documents put in front of him and had a wee ‘ah ha!’ – perhaps pretending to be a judge is not such a good idea? Who knows.

Christy was found guilty in two of the four tickets on September 12, 2006, not guilty on another. One remained outstanding.

The next day Christy responded with a document called a “Lawful Public Notice” – this is Exhibit V of the Gerber affidavit. It deploys some more standard Menardian Freeman defences, including the split/double person:

5. Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Scott of the Christy clan was not and is not surety for CHRISTY, Robert Scott, nor does Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Scott of the Christy clan exist in any association with that entity.

…

7. Claim is hereby made that the trial conducted on September 12, 2006 and its outcome and any security interest generated by that transaction has nothing whatsoever to do with Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Scott of the Christy clan and that any one who attempts to claim or acts otherwise is committing a fraud and a tort. Failure to dispute constitutes acceptance.

Does this imply Rob and Rob have unshackled the Strawman? If so, there’s no documentary record of that in the materials.

And Gerber allegedly committed a criminal act by not presenting her BAR card on demand:

2. Freeman-on-the Land Robert-Scott of the Christy family did demand Ellen B Gerber produce her BAR card and she refused to do so and thus did commit an offence against Section 337 of The Criminal Code of Canada.

Which reads:

337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

No basis for why you need to produce a BAR card on demand. Or even what a BAR card is. (I wish I had a BAR card.)

I have no idea where this document would be deployed. It shows no sign of being filed. Was it mailed to someone? In any case, it ends:

IT IS UNLAWFUL TO REMOVE THIS NOTICE WHEN PUBLICALLY POSTED.

YIKES! I guess I won’t touch this then. Online it stays!

So, this time we have four Menardian motifs:

• a) the Strawman is subject to criminal sanction and to unfavourable judgments, but not the not-a-Strawman half.
  b) there are BAR cards.
  c) failing to present a BAR card is a criminal offence.
  d) denying the truth of the Strawman is “a fraud and a tort”.

One last document. Exhibit W. A “NOTICE to CEASE AND DESIST” from Rob, dated October 31, 2006. It references a trial scheduled at some point in the future. My guess is its the Nov. 17, 2006 trial where Christy once more gets found guilty and fined. But I don't know - Rob and Rob don't cite a docket number.

Anyways, not much new. Rob says Christy is not the Strawman, he has revoked his consent, doesn’t want your letters, and demands Gerber cease and desist.

And that’s it.

On November 17, 2006 Christy was found guilty of another ticket offence and fined. Nothing Rob or Rob did stopped that.

In total, the following Menardianism appear and apparently did not work:

• 1) the existence of the Strawman double/split person
  2) that the Strawman is subject to state authority, not the human being
  3) you can refuse to be liable to Strawman-based obligations or penalties
  4) there is a constitutional obligation on state actors to clarify whether an action is directed against the Strawman vs shackled human being
  5) denying the truth of the Strawman is “a fraud and a tort”
  6) some kind of A4V scheme
  7) the courts only have authority when a person consents to be subject to the court’s authority
  8) a court judgment is a contract offer that can be rejected if you don't like it
  9) that some kind of out-of-court dialogue and negotiation is a prerequisite to court jurisdiction
  10) saying that you are under duress miracles away any document you signed
  11) conforming with government legislation and regulation is “threats” which nullify a signed document or agreement
  12) a ticket or other document that creates a fine or sanction is a commercial security
  13) a birth certificate is a commercial security
  14) government actors are corporations and so only can enforce contacts with persons (i.e. no consent means no authority to enforce legislation and regulations)
  15) a government (or other) actor that does not respond on a deadline is deemed to have agreed unless it responds to the contrary:
  • a) in response to a constitutional issue application,
    b) in response to a foisted unilateral judgment from a fictitious court-like authority, and
    c) to anything in someone else’s sworn affidavit – the unrebutted affidavit is truth in law
  16) Notaries have magical judgment-making powers that are parallel to or trump those of courts
  17) A Notary's decision cannot be appealed
  18) Notaries have search, seizure, and liquidation authority when enforcing Notary "judgments"
  17) If you give a Notary an affidavit then the Notary can make a default judgment out of that. If the affidavit is countered then presumably a Notary is a judicial finder of fact/law? Seems the logical endpoint
  18) There are BAR cards.
  19) Failing to present a BAR card on demand is a criminal offence
  20) Saying you're a Sovereign gives you magic powers
  21) Saying you're a Freeman-on-the-Land gives you magic powers
  22) Denying the truth of Freeman-on-the-Land status is "a fraud and a tort"

So I have some closing thoughts. We can now put some concrete dates to Menard’s knowledge that the ideas he has promoted were false. The majority of those were rejected by the British Columbia courts by 2006. Menard did not choose to appeal those results, but continued nevertheless to teach ideas that he knew were wrong. There is no evidence in the B.C. Courts Online of an attempt to enforce a debt against Gerber.

The Christy lawsuit files cover most of Menard’s pseudolegal schemes and concepts, though I see no explicit evidence that at least four major Menardian memes were addressed:

• 1. The “Notice of Intent, Understanding, and Claim of Right” documents allow an individual to ‘opt out’ of state authority.
  
  2. One can create and enforce a “fee schedule” against state actions you don’t like.
  
  3. That when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms mentions “the security of the person” in section 7, that means an A4V secret bank account.
  
  4. His “consumer purchase” scheme for paying for stuff by writing “consumer purchase” on a bill, or by using the Menard Card based on that service.
  
  5. The "Rob pays you a Dollar and you become a C3PO" fake peace officer scheme.

That said, the logical basis for item 1 would seem to collapse given the fact the Christy matters proceeded to conviction even though Christy said he didn't consent. Similarly, the failure of the various foisted unilateral thingies logically indicates a Fee Schedule would be equally ineffective.

Post-Christy we have no evidence that Menard ever again entered a courtroom. If he had done so in the period prior to the Law Society of British Columbia’s injunction then we could expect that to have appeared in the injunction application’s supporting materials. Similarly, there is no evidence Menard has ever challenged the injunction and appeared in court. That would be very likely documented on the B.C. Law Society’s website in a subsequent contempt application, or in the British Columbia Courts Online service, or as reported case law.

Menard does not appear to have subsequently personally used any of the schemes and strategies deployed in the Christy litigation, or directly assisted another individual in the implementation of these ideas. In fact, I believe we only have one record on which to infer that Menard ever personally using any of his ideas – his 2004 transit ticket action (file #135998) where he was found guilty and fined $50. This post-dates his alleged success reported in Violation Tickets and Appearance Notices De-Constructed (Volume #2).

That said, Menard's ideas are promoted to this day on the World Freeman Society website by written materials for sale there which advocate these very concepts.

Menard has, of course, said that his techniques work. We now know that is false – he personally has failed. He has, for years, blamed his customers/followers for improperly implementing his “fun” strategies. We now know Menard himself did no better than anyone else.

All this is interesting and provides a useful historical narrative, but I think there’s another lesson here – one of a lost opportunity. The Christy litigation offered a chance to debunk at an early point a huge cluster of toxic memes that have caused harm to many. These documents have been sitting in court files since 2006. The Law Society of British Columbia knew about Menard and his concepts – in detail – by 2007. By 2008 the Gerber affidavit and its supporting affidavits were a public record. I believe that skeptics and critics of Menard have been aware of the January 8, 2008 injunction against Menard for many, many years.

I can only guess at what point the injunction became common knowledge in the Freeman community.

Only now do we have these documents in the public’s hands.

Here’s what we lost. And by “we”, I mean everyone – in Canada and elsewhere, both skeptics, ordinary citizens, “Freemen-on-the-Land”, OPCA affiliates of all kinds – all of us. We had a chance to know that the courts had already considered and rejected a very broad slice (probably the majority) of the ideas advanced by Robert Arthur Menard. We had a chance to say, conclusively: here’s the paperwork, here’s the result. I won’t tell you what it means – just read.

Instead, we get this data almost eight years too late.

Why too late? Because there are many persons who have oriented their lives, finances, families, jobs around concepts promoted by a man who knew that when he put those same ideas to the court they proved ineffective. He personally tried to use them in a court – and observed the result. That has cost everyone: court resources, police attention, regulatory and tax enforcement resources, persons have been arrested, tried, found guilty, lost their homes, jobs, vehicles. And worst – these ideas have interfered with families. It’s a toxic mess.

So, then, lessons learned? I actually don’t fault the persons who were well positioned to use this information at an earlier point. It would have been great if Justice of the Peace Makhdoom had written on the subject, presumably some other Provincial Court judge or judges were involved at some point. It would have been great to have a published decision to guide interested individuals. I know why that didn’t happen – why commit the time to rebut these freakishly weird, amorphous ideas? Who knew these memes would have then been spread and applied by many?

It would have been great if the Law Society of British Columbia had made this information public. Frankly, I think that’s a significant error – it’s a good thing to post online what persons have engaged in an unauthorized practice of law (http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=188), but more specifics would have been an enormous benefit. Why doesn’t the Law Society post the supporting affidavits in these matters? I don’t know – I think it subverts the purpose of publicizing unauthorized lawyering activity if one just only knows a name. The public also benefits from knowing the kind and structure of the scam.

Similarly, the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia likely had some inkling of what was going on. Adriana Baggio’s involvement with the “Default Judgment” is deeply disturbing – first that she notarized that document, and second if her action did not lead to some complaint to her and/or the Society. Chad C. Kwon doesn't come out smelling like a bouquet of roses, either. Here in 2006 we have the clear indication that the operation and function of notaries is being badly misrepresented, and that their authority (as claimed!) was being used as a weapon. This was a chance for an affected professional organization to act.

Now, I want to clarify that these two professional Societies have been leaders in Canada in responding to OPCA litigation and gurus. That’s worth a lot – the Notaries in particular have taken point in the public arena, and they deserve credit for that. What I am stressing here is that there was an opportunity – at an earlier, critical point – to cut this entire parasitic meme off at the knees. The material and judicial result was there – it just wasn’t exploited.

And Menard (wisely enough) never went back into a courtroom again.

Let’s contrast that with Dean Clifford. The SS Clifford is adrift, listing, on fire, leaking like a sieve, and has been the subject of criticism, mockery, and defections. Part of that is due to Dean being apparently unable to stop himself from a protracted campaign of self-injury – but a second and I think critical factor is that there are now resources available to investigate and debunk false claims. Disclosure of court materials has proven an issue for Dean. So has access to court records of what was heard when and the result. Sure, there are costs involved to recover some if these items, but the result – globally – is substantial.

Ultimately one can hope that court documents and activity logs will become more accessible and that will, no doubt, make it much harder for conmen such as Menard and Clifford to ply their trade. We also have the wonderful trend that courts are writing on these subjects, and their judgments are detailed both in response to the legal issues and in disclosing the scams and their associated paperwork.

In the meantime, I at least am quite happy to stroll over to my local Federal Court, plunk down a few coins, and shine a light into the dark corners. It’s a worthwhile investment.

And I do NOT want to dwell on how much pain could have been avoided if someone had taken that step in 2006-2008 with these items.

Again – thanks to Our Friend. Better late than never!

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Interestingly, Rob provides supporting material - his own book! I didn’t see the book title identified, so your guess is as good as mine.

Is the book bot "Bursting the Bubbles of Government Deception"? The cover was included as one of the exhibits.

And this appears to be the full text: http://pacificguardian.info/files/UCC-% ... eption.pdf

That's definitely it - the Gerber affidavit at para. 6 identifies that as the book she received.

What a lucky woman - she didn't even have to buy a case of Mr.Mite-E!

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

. . .We can now put some concrete dates to Menard’s knowledge that the ideas he has promoted were false. The majority of those were rejected by the British Columbia courts by 2006. Menard did not choose to appeal those results, but continued nevertheless to teach ideas that he knew were wrong. (my emphasis). . .

. . . Menard does not appear to have subsequently personally used any of the schemes and strategies deployed in the Christy litigation, or directly assisted another individual in the implementation of these ideas. . .

That said, Menard's ideas are promoted to this day on the World Freeman Society website by written materials for sale there which advocate these very concepts.

Menard has, of course, said that his techniques work. We now know that is false – he personally has failed. He has, for years, blamed his customers/followers for improperly implementing his “fun” strategies. We now know Menard himself did no better than anyone else.

. . .there are many persons who have oriented their lives, finances, families, jobs around concepts promoted by a man who knew that when he put those same ideas to the court they proved ineffective. He personally tried to use them in a court – and observed the result.

. . .It would have been great if the Law Society of British Columbia had made this information public. . . .The public also benefits from knowing the kind and structure of the scam.

SMS Möwe

Let me point out again that individuals with narcissistic personality disorders (NPD) often do not care who they manipulate and lie to or how much harm it may cause by lying.

Of prime importance to NPD suffers is their self aggrandizement and the propping up of their fragile egos, not the well being of their fellow men and women. . .even if those men and women are fellow "freemen".

This in mind it is hardly surprising that Menard would, for nearly a decade, purposefully misrepresent his courtroom failures as occasions when he "kicked ass".

[notorial dissent]

So when Bobby told everybody he "kicked ass" in court, he lied?

Perhaps when he wrote "I kicked ass" he meant to write "I got my ass kicked".

Maybe he meant he kicks his own, which he has a history of doing. He certainly is his own worst enemy.

[rumpelstilzchen]

SMS Möwe wrote:

Similarly, there is no evidence Menard has ever challenged the injunction and appeared in court.

He has always claimed it isn't him.

They mention the order is applicable against 'The Respondent, Robert Arthur Menard'. Must be some other Robert Arthur Menard (there are several in Canada) as I am NOT 'The Respondent'.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... stcount=67