Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Burnaby49]

I don't think you can consider yourself a real freeman until your trial has been visited and reported on by Burnaby49. Something like how artists know they've made it when they've been parodied by Weird Al.

When your case is going down in flames, use only genuine Burnaby 49. Accept no substitutes.

The Burnaby49 Seal of Approval will be bestowed on a number of lucky recipients this spring. The Chief's hearing is on Friday and Rory Hawes should be up next week. Both must-sees for a voyeur like me. Then another Lawson hearing the week after. The one yesterday where I met Master Gee is a Poriskyite I can't, at the moment, report on because of a publication ban. A professional windbag! He leaves my sometimes overly rambling postings looking like models of conciseness. It was a all day session and I could only stay the morning but, even so, I have seven pages of single-spaced full foolscap sized notes sitting in front of me to try and transcribe. All of it Freeman Follies, none of it touching the actual substance of the charges.

[Burnaby49]

And I think the 1930's Felix the Cat logo is great.

Are you sure? That looks more like the 1960s Felix that i watched as a child.

You could be right, My only association with Felix is the logo that some US navy pilots used to put on their aircraft in the 1930's. This one is from 1935 and is somewhat different from the one used by felixk;

[Jeffrey]

in my time as a fotl i originally used my name. i stopped because of certain anti freeman folks contacting my family members, friends, employer, local authorities, stalk my non freeman related webcams, sites, and basically be real asshats. none of them ever had balls enough to try me face to face. just anonymous cowards.

I don't approve of such things, for the record.

[Burnaby49]

I went out for groceries and came back to a pissing match. Prior to the Great Purge of 2012 Quatloos used to have a section called "Flame Wars and Pissing Contests" where discussions were moved when they just degenerated into pointless personal attacks. We no longer have it because we no longer allow flame wars. So you've both vented, fine, now it's time to stop. Arayder, you started it with, in my opinion, a pointless attack on ninja. I also thought your quip about Menard jerking off on a couch went to far but I wasn't a mod then. So no pointless personal attacks or unsubstantiated criticisms. The subject of this discussion is Robert Menard, not either of your past histories or prior arguments.

[notorial dissent]

Ninj has a very valid point, there are seriously crazy, and along with that dangerous, people on both sides of the spectrum, and you don't need a gun to be dangerous. There are a number of the seriously out there I wouldn't want to encounter on a one on one basis. You don't need that kind of crazy to come calling at your door.

[arayder]

I went out for groceries and came back to a pissing match.

My apologies to Burnaby and the rest of the crew here.

Ninj has a very valid point, there are seriously crazy, and along with that dangerous, people on both sides of the spectrum, and you don't need a gun to be dangerous. There are a number of the seriously out there I wouldn't want to encounter on a one on one basis. You don't need that kind of crazy to come calling at your door.

Consequently, folks have learned a series of cyber safety rules which are the equivalent of the home safety rules we were taught as kids. One is to not go around on the web telling people who you are. Just like there are places in the real world you shouldn't go, there are places on the web that aren't safe either.

-------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 38 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Are they stating that they have a duty to the public to bring charges, and are not in this case even though they have a duty to do so, thus admitting fault and liability? Are they admitting to acting inappropriately IN WRITING???? Or, are they stating that they have a duty to the public to bring charges where appropriate and in this case they are not bringing charges because they are not appropr...iate? Bear in mind, one opens them to liability and is a failure to perform their stated duty, and one does not.

They then state that in the future this letter will be used to determine whether they bring charges or not if something similar happens again. Either they are admitting liability and a failure to fulfill their duties to the public, and giving me a warning to not do it again or else, or they are admitting that my actions were lawful. What Crown Attorney would put in writing such an admission of liability? It could cost him his license to practice.

These comments show a complete misunderstanding of what prosecutors do and what their duties are.

Prosecutors do NOT have a duty to prosecute every single case that comes across their desk. They DO have a duty to screen potential charges and then decide whether to begin prosecution. Even where they have a reasonable prospect of conviction they may choose not to prosecute because it is not in the public interest to do so. When a matter is as trivial as a dine-and-dash (or any of the other examples Burnaby49 provided), a prosecutor may determine that it is not in the public interest to waste limited judicial resources on taking the matter to trial.

Here's the fun part... the decision of whether to prosecute or not falls under something called core prosecutorial discretion that cannot be reviewed by the courts unless there is an abuse of process.

But don't take my word for it! Here's what the Supreme Court had to say in Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta http://canlii.ca/t/51rs:

Para 32

The court’s acknowledgment of the Attorney General’s independence from judicial review in the sphere of prosecutorial discretion has its strongest source in the fundamental principle of the rule of law under our Constitution. Subject to the abuse of process doctrine, supervising one litigant’s decision-making process __ rather than the conduct of litigants before the court __ is beyond the legitimate reach of the court. In Re Hoem and Law Society of British Columbia (1985), 1985 CanLII 447 (BC CA), 20 C.C.C. (3d) 239 (B.C.C.A.), Esson J.A. for the court observed, at p. 254, that:



The independence of the Attorney-General, in deciding fairly who should be prosecuted, is also a hallmark of a free society. Just as the independence of the bar within its proper sphere must be respected, so must the independence of the Attorney-General.



We agree with these comments. The quasi-judicial function of the Attorney General cannot be subjected to interference from parties who are not as competent to consider the various factors involved in making a decision to prosecute. To subject such decisions to political interference, or to judicial supervision, could erode the integrity of our system of prosecution. Clearly drawn constitutional lines are necessary in areas subject to such grave potential conflict.

Para 42

In making independent decisions on prosecutions, the Attorney General and his agents exercise what is known as prosecutorial discretion. This discretion is generally exercised directly by agents, the Crown attorneys, as it is uncommon for a single prosecution to attract the Attorney General’s personal attention.

And perhaps most importantly, paras. 46-47

Without being exhaustive, we believe the core elements of prosecutorial discretion encompass the following: (a) the discretion whether to bring the prosecution of a charge laid by police; (b) the discretion to enter a stay of proceedings in either a private or public prosecution, as codified in the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 579 and 579.1; (c) the discretion to accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge; (d) the discretion to withdraw from criminal proceedings altogether: R. v. Osborne (1975), 25 C.C.C. (2d) 405 (N.B.C.A.); and (e) the discretion to take control of a private prosecution: R. v. Osiowy (1989), 1989 CanLII 4780 (SK CA), 50 C.C.C. (3d) 189 (Sask. C.A.). While there are other discretionary decisions, these are the core of the delegated sovereign authority peculiar to the office of the Attorney General.

Significantly, what is common to the various elements of prosecutorial discretion is that they involve the ultimate decisions as to whether a prosecution should be brought, continued or ceased, and what the prosecution ought to be for. Put differently, prosecutorial discretion refers to decisions regarding the nature and extent of the prosecution and the Attorney General’s participation in it. Decisions that do not go to the nature and extent of the prosecution, i.e., the decisions that govern a Crown prosecutor’s tactics or conduct before the court, do not fall within the scope of prosecutorial discretion. Rather, such decisions are governed by the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control its own processes once the Attorney General has elected to enter into that forum.

And a note on deference to prosecutorial discretion at para. 49:

In Campbell v. Attorney-General of Ontario (1987), 1987 CanLII 4333 (ON CA), 35 C.C.C. (3d) 480 (Ont. C.A.), it was held that an Attorney General’s decision to stay proceedings would not be reviewed save in cases of “flagrant impropriety”. See also Power, supra; Chartrand v. Quebec (Minister of Justice) (1987), 1987 CanLII 751 (QC CA), 59 C.R. (3d) 388 (Que. C.A.). Within the core of prosecutorial discretion, the courts cannot interfere except in such circumstances of flagrant impropriety or in actions for “malicious prosecution”: Nelles, supra. In all such cases, the actions of the Attorney General will be beyond the scope of his office as protected by constitutional principle, and the justification for such deference will have evaporated.

Emphasis added.

I'd say the decision not to prosecute a petty dine-and-dash does not amount to "flagrant impropriety". What's more, the Crown is clearly not "at fault and liable" by not bringing a prosecution. That decision is not reviewable by any court. And finally, to somehow conclude that this is an admission that the ACCP scam is somehow lawful... well that's just completely illogical. The letter is a clear warning stating that while it's the Crown's view that it's not in the public interest to prosecute now, that view may change if it happens again. Why not go back to that same restaurant and try the same stunt again?

[arayder]

An informative post, Bill!

It's one thing to do a modified dine and dash and quite another to get a load of groceries out of the store! Menard isn't just proposing that his subscribers eat a meal and then play freeman word games with the restaurant staff. He is proposing that ACCP subscribers load their carts up with groceries and use their ACCP debit cards to get out of the store with the goods in hand.

-------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 39 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.

[rumpelstilzchen]

An informative post, Bill!

Agreed.
Meanwhile over on Icke's felixk has drawn Menard's winteral's attention to the post. Check out his desperate respose:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... tcount=157

[arayder]

An informative post, Bill!

Agreed.
Meanwhile over on Icke's felixk has drawn Menard's winteral's attention to the post. Check out his desperate respose:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... tcount=157

The narcissist has to prove he's the smartest guy in the room.

This reminds me of the time the BC courts told him to stop playing lawyer and he spent the next several weeks yammering that he was "Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Arthur: Menard" and not the "Defendant Robert Arthur Menard".

[LordEd]

no matter how many times someone tries to mislabel it as a dine and dash, there was no dash part.

He's right there. This was the charge:

364. (1) Every one who fraudulently obtains food, a beverage or accommodation at any place that is in the business of providing those things is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Presumption

(2) In proceedings under this section, evidence that the accused obtained food, a beverage or accommodation at a place that is in the business of providing those things and did not pay for it and
...
(f) offered a worthless cheque, draft or security in payment for the food, beverage or accommodation,

So for accuracy, we should refer to it as 'dinner and a show of fraud'.

The effect on the restaurant is the same. Perhaps slightly worse in that the restaurant has to waste more time dealing with him to secure payment prior to calling the cops.

[wserra]

So for accuracy, we should refer to it as 'dinner and a show of fraud'.

Perhaps "eat and cheat"?

[arayder]

no matter how many times someone tries to mislabel it as a dine and dash, there was no dash part.

So winteral was at the Cactus Club Cafe with Bobby? Go figure!

So for accuracy, we should refer to it as 'dinner and a show of fraud'.

Perhaps "eat and cheat"?

I like it!

[Arthur Rubin]

A related question, which I ran across in a restaurant critic's autobiography, is

• Is there a crime if the diner cannot find anyone to pay the bill to?

It's not exactly "dine and dash". I've never had this happen in Canada, but there were a couple times here in California....

[Jeffrey]

So for accuracy, we should refer to it as 'dinner and a show of fraud'.

Perhaps "eat and cheat"?

I think that was on Cosmopolitan's list of 100 ideas for romantic dates.

[arayder]

Menard's having trouble keeping his stories straight!

Regarding his "eat and cheat" at the Cactus Club Cafe, on his FaceBook page Bobby says:

"Speculation that I paid the bill silently on the side out of the escrow account is only speculation. For the record I did not."

But in an Randi/internationalskeptics post he said:

"I put money in escrow to cover my [restaurant] bill if payment does not go through". http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=6757

So which story is it Bobby? The one where you follow the freeman prime directive to do no harm and ensure that innocent merchants get paid? Or the one where you stiff the restaurant because paying up makes you look bad?

Or is it the third one where you put on a show at the restaurant so you'll look like a freeman stud and then return the next day and pay the bill so you'll escape prosecution?

-------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 40 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.

[Burnaby49]

Rob is under attack at Ickes and Winteral is getting very defensive in his support of the fez. It's almost like like he's taking the attacks on Menard personally.

[arayder]

Kinda' reminds ya' of the good old days when Big Ole Bob was aclearin' brush and abuildin' structures at freeman valley 16 hours a day and apostin' on the Randi forum the other 10 hours.

[Jeffrey]

Don't know what all this jibber jabber about "net stalking" him is.

This thread was functionally dead for the time period that he stopped preaching Freemanism before the traffic arrest, we only started talking about him again after that arrest and him reviving the consumer purchase scam. Prior to that it was only references to his theories popping up here and there, and that doesn't count as stalking.

All the guy has to do is quit with the scams and we'll stop discussing him if that's what upsets him.

[arayder]

Don't know what all this jibber jabber about "net stalking" him is.

This thread was functionally dead for the time period that he stopped preaching Freemanism before the traffic arrest, we only started talking about him again after that arrest and him reviving the consumer purchase scam. Prior to that it was only references to his theories popping up here and there, and that doesn't count as stalking.

All the guy has to do is quit with the scams and we'll stop discussing him if that's what upsets him.

The line of thought is, "They aren't refuting me. . .they are stalking me. . .so my ACCP scam must be legal."

I didn't say it made sense.