Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[LordEd]

A process server attempting to ticket a driver for speeding would not be awarded any protection as they have no duty to perform that task.

A process server delivering a document and assaulted before, during, or after delivery would be protected if the assault related to the delivery.

The server assaulted by a random mugger on the way home would not have that protection as it has nothing to do with that duty.

[Bill Lumbergh]

A process server attempting to ticket a driver for speeding would not be awarded any protection as they have no duty to perform that task.

That's a great example. They have no authority to issue a ticket despite being "peace officers" under s.2.

[slowlyslowly]

As I've explained on p.7 of this thread as well as in the Nanaimo 5 thread, the answer is a resounding "No", as there is no constitutional or any other legal basis for doing so. You can hire your own security guards, but they are not peace officers, nor are they employed to preserve the public peace at large. Perhaps Winteral could point to the authority that would allow Joe Blow to hire Joe Schmoe to preserve the peace for the public at large? Because the Supreme Court clearly said (and as seen with the process server example) s.2 doesn't do that.

he will get his opportunity in court, however he wont take it because he will be sitting their cap in hand head bowed hoping for all his life the judge goes easy on him.

[Burnaby49]

Menard might be using davidickes.com as a training exercise to work out his defense. He's already got some profession feedback from Bill and he's tossing alternative arguments in to see how how the Ickes readers respond to them. So he may not be changing his position and playing word games just because he's a duplicitous fool but also because he's testing alternatives. This helps him weed out the really dead on arrival stupidity. Unfortunately what he has left after the winnowing process is still too stupid to get him any traction in court.

And Rob, a question that's been nagging at me. Are you really that dense that you thought if you reversed and obscured the Statement of Claim on your Facebook shot that nobody could find out what was in it so you could still control the narrative? Did you really not know that anybody could walk into the Federal Court registry and get a copy?

[LordEd]

The target audience of his narrative has no interest in looking into minor details such as fact, truth, or evidence.

That's for us vampiric racist paid government shills.

[Burnaby49]

The target audience of his narrative has no interest in looking into minor details such as fact, truth, or evidence.

That's for us vampiric racist paid government shills.

You're paid? How did you get on that gravy train? The Western Cabal doesn't even reimburse me for bus fare!

On to other topics; K1Wi just wrote over in ickes;

And Edofquatloos, can you tell me if Menard was ever convicted of fraud for his restaurant escapade? I'm genuinely interested to know, and I know you Quatloos clowns are good at finding out stuff like that about Menard, so maybe you could give it a whack.

No, he wasn't convicted for his restaurant scam. He's claimed that he dazzled the court but I suspect he just paid up and nobody bothered to pursue it. The only thing I can find on him in BC Courts Online is his charges over trying to get free transit by not paying for a Skytrain ticket. Here is how the court identified him on that one;

Details for Participant: MENARD, ROBERT Arthur

Alias Type Alias
Alias FREEPICKLE, FREDDY
Alias ROBERT-ARTHUR: MENARD

Document Name Access In Custody Year Of Birth
135998-1 MENARD, ROBERT Arthur 1 Y 1963

Rob has been very careful to keep within the law while claiming it doesn't apply to him. He prefers that others take the fall then he claims they didn't listen to him. The Toronto charges are a very uncharacteristic slip-up. Getting old, careless. It is entirely possible that the police weren't even going to bother charging him until he put up those videos taunting them. Icarus finally flying too close to the sun!

For any of you wishing to check anything on BC Courts Online (like Canlii an invaluable resource) the link is here;

https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do

Don't forget to change your clocks.

Yours;

[Burnaby49]

Robert Arthur Menard's Rules of Guruship

Menard, such as he is, has ended up as about the last man standing as a Canadian Freeman guru. Which, when you think about it, says all you really need to know about the current state of the Canadian Freemen movement. If nothing else he has longevity. He's a survivor! And after all these years of failed promises he's still trying for the brass ring, this time a debit card scam that failed the first time around but might just work with a new set of suckers. In honour of this I thought it time to set up the principles, the rules under which he has for years navigated the tempestuous seas of Canadian sovereignty. As a public service I give you Robert Menard's rules of guruship!

Rule Number 1 - Never, under ANY circumstances, appear personally in Court.

Rule 2 - If you do end up in court, keep it quiet and pray no one ever finds about what you were doing.

Rule 3 - If you do end up in court, massage the proceedings so that there isn't a reported judgment against you, because that is certain death and Rooke will cite it.

At this point you are saying "But Menard has appeared in Toronto court on criminal charges and has initiated proceedings at the Federal Court of Canada." All true. Menard, for one disastrous moment, apparently believed in his own legend and actually confronted the police with his peace officer nonsense. He's getting old, irrational, careless, we all slip up eventually. The Federal Court action is just a doomed desperate attempt to correct things through a collateral action.

The above rules are key. Leave no trace of failure in court. Since all Freemen who go to court fail Rob has realized the only way to succeed in court is to keep out of it. Other rules of Gurudom, in no particular order are;

Menard's Xth Rule - When you set up your fraudulent organization it's ok to be the front man and promoter, but make sure someone else actually does the work and takes the fall.

Menard's Xth Rule - Never post online what cannot be deleted later.

Menard's Xth Rule - Never engage in online activities where others can make comments or reply, unless you can delete those comments or replies.

Menard's Xth Rule - Never drive a car. Always be a passenger.

Menard's Xth Rule - It's ok to conform to government obligations and have government ID - just keep it secret.

Menard's Xth Rule - When replying to online critics never link to the critic's websites or online postings - your followers might discover what kind of a failure you are.

Menard's Xth Rule - Thinking is hard, so just find someone else's work and plagiarize it. Don't worry if it's sloppy plagiarism - your customers are usually too dim to notice.

Menard's Xth Rule - You, my dear customer, failed because you did not engage in adequate due diligence! I am always successful in court with those very same techniques.

Menard's Xth Rule - That must be some other Robert Arthur Menard.

Menard's Xth Rule - It's entirely ok to be inconsistent because most of your customers will not notice the contradictions or your change in position over time. They have short attention spans. Just keep promising stuff.

Menard's Xth Rule - Most controversies can be wallpapered by saying something negative about Stephen Harper.

Menard's Xth Rule - Scott Duncan Is Not Always Right. Sorry Scott.

Menard's Xth Rule - Legal research is hard so: a) rip off David Kevin Lindsay, b) rip off Eldon Warman, or c) just make something up. Most of your customers are too dim to check that quote is accurate or able to find the case you cited.

Menard's Xth Rule - The best way to respond to Meads v Meads is to never mention it.

Feel free to add to the list!

[slowlyslowly]

menards x rule - Go through as many dictionaries as you can to find the definition of a word that suits your agenda at that time.

[LordEd]

You're paid? How did you get on that gravy train? The Western Cabal doesn't even reimburse me for bus fare

I think I get paid in entertainment value. I don't know where I put that on my taxes though.

[slowlyslowly]

Bobby seems to be in full flow now, the mods at Ickes must be hovering over the ban button (not) http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... tcount=341


Ooops

Can you show me were its states that the term 'the people of Canada' does not mean just that? If not I think I will just operate on the belief that it means what it says.

[wanglepin]

he will get his opportunity in court, however he wont take it because he will be sitting their cap in hand head bowed hoping for all his life the judge goes easy on him.

It would be nice to see Robert Arthur perform his magic in front of Judge Rooke.
It was such a long time ago but didn't Rooke once invite Menard to court in Meads V Meads?
Edit
He did and Menard accepted ...... on you tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFNiYHlk_3E

[arayder]

Bobby seems to be in full flow now, the mods at Ickes must be hovering over the ban button (not) http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... tcount=341


Ooops

Can you show me were its states that the term 'the people of Canada' does not mean just that? If not I think I will just operate on the belief that it means what it says.

Menard got busted for pretending the driveway full of middle age Canadians who were present when he took his C3PO oath where "the people of Canada". Winteral did his usual word play games and after a series of bad arguments he convinced himself that one person can hire another to be a C3PO.

You can always tell when Menard gets nailed 'cause he frantically goes all Professor Wordsworth.

Now the same poster has pointed out that althought his original C3PO oath was all about keeping the peace Menard almost immediately changed the C3PO's tasks to policing the police! I think policing the police is just what Bobby wanted to do in the first place, but I suspect he didn't put it in the oath 'cause he knew freemen would see that as work and rest of Canada would see it as a threat.

The poster goes on to point out that Menard further changed the "mission" of the C3POs to include the possibility of carrying firearms!

Were it not so tragic, the vision of those doughy kids Menard swore in as C3POs packing service pistols would be hilarious!

-------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 49 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.

reason for edit: Correct Dope Clock malfunction

[LordEd]

Are there others here posting on that thread?

[Jeffrey]

policing the police

I think you mean obstructing the police.

[rumpelstilzchen]

k1w1 appears to believe that the restaurant accepted Menard's note and subsequently found it was worthless. He also questions if the police were called when Menard was there. This is what Menard wrote on his facebook page:

Robert Menard: Note rejected. Cops called. Had a nice chat with 3 RCMP officers. Did quite well I think. Charged under Section 364 of the Criminal Code, singed a Promise to Appear. They wanted me in for fingerprinting, declined that, and they said ok, and scratched it off the PTA. Was a positive encounter. Explained why I was doing it and the reasoning behind it and how I wanted my day in court to establish that this is a lawful method available to all, and that a place such as Cactus Club cannot simply decide to not be bound by The Bills of Exchange Act. They will find it impossible to establish the mens rea necessary for this offence. So we will see what happens. Did it with consent at another place previously today, and if that one goes through then the charges cannot stand. Was a fun day!

So it looks as though the restaurant did not accept the note. I can only assume that Menard refused to pay using real money and the police were called while Menard was there.
k1w1 also says that if Menard offered one of his notes which is obviously worthless and because it is obviously worthless the restaurant refused it, then that would not be an offence. Is that right? When you read the relevant section of the Criminal Code:

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.
Marginal note: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
(a) made a false or fictitious show or pretence of having baggage,
(b) had any false or pretended baggage,
(c) surreptitiously removed or attempted to remove his baggage or any material part of it,
(d) absconded or surreptitiously left the premises,
(e) knowingly made a false statement to obtain credit or time for payment, or
(f) offered a worthless cheque, draft or security in payment for the food, beverage or accommodation,
is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof of fraud.

Note (f) Am I reading it right that simply offering a worthless note is an offence and it is immaterial if the recipient believes it to be worthless and rejects it?

[LordEd]

Burnaby, do we know when Mr. Menard's next court appearance might be?

[LordEd]

You gotta remember the context is the Nanaimo arrrests. All of them got sentenced to one day in jail plus probation if I recall. So (feel free to correct me), this is perfect for Menard. He gets to use this for fund raising, gets him Freeman street cred and all he has to do is spend a day or two in jail.

Sorry for the late correction, but I recently looked this up and found that Lange and Smith received 21 days less time served, plus 1 year unsupervised probation.

[Burnaby49]

Burnaby, do we know when Mr. Menard's next court appearance might be?

Not as yet. Ontario is very user unfriendly for this type of information, nothing equivalent to B. C. Courts Online. So I rely on somebody there checking the court calendar.

[slowlyslowly]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... tcount=373

Sorry, boys, but I'm going to have to ask that you refrain from trying to derail the thread. Members here are members here and as long as they follow the rules and remain civil there shouldn't be a problem. Nobody here needs to justify why they are here or reveal personal information.

Now back to Mr. Menard and his arrest, please. . .

Whoever wrote that knows nothing about the morality of the mods on Ickes, that post is almost a request to close your account.

[arayder]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... tcount=373

Sorry, boys, but I'm going to have to ask that you refrain from trying to derail the thread. Members here are members here and as long as they follow the rules and remain civil there shouldn't be a problem. Nobody here needs to justify why they are here or reveal personal information.

Now back to Mr. Menard and his arrest, please. . .

Whoever wrote that knows nothing about the morality of the mods on Ickes, that post is almost a request to close your account.

How well I know. The rules say you can't do this or that and when you point it out to members, or God forbid, ask the mods to do something about it you are causing trouble and you get banned.

There is a section in their rules about appealing disciplines or suspensions. I made the mistake of using it after a suspension and got banned so fast my head spun.