Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[LordEd]

I do not see it as an argument dismissed, and Menard having lost.
What I see, as a member of the public, with no dog in the fight, is this:

1- He presented his interpretation and invited the Federal government to meet him in court if they disagreed with him.

2 - They chose to seek a motion to dismiss, and did not want to disagree with his interpretation in court, essentially stating they have no disagreement with his interpretation.
3 - His interpretation now stands as one accepted by both parties.

How do you consider that a loss on his part?
The only way the government could have won, is if they met him in court and won the argument there. Refusing to meet someone on the field of dispute does not mean you won that dispute. It means you forfeited.

Just to memorialize the statement and to share with those wanting to avoid JIF.

[Jeffrey]

essentially stating they have no disagreement with his interpretation

Except for the motion explicitly stating that Menards interpretation is incorrect.

[Burnaby49]

The Crown, in it's response to Menard/Winteral's Statement of Claim wrote;

11. The Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that he is a member of any legitimately recognized law enforcement agency.

12. The Defendant therefore submits that the Plaintiff does not fall under the scope of the definition of "peace officer" written in the Criminal Code as he fails to demonstrate in his Statement of Claim that he derives any pre-existing authority granted by federal or provincial regulation.

13. in the Statement of Claim, it seems that the Plaintiff is trying to be recognized as a peace officer in order to create his own police force that would effectively not be subject to legislative control.

16. The Defendant submits that it is plain and obvious that this Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action because there are no facts supporting his arguments and even if there were, his arguments have no basis in law;

The Court, in response to this and having reviewed Menard/Winteral's Statement of Claim concluded;

FOR THE REASONS provided by the defendant in her written representations dated January 30, 2015, the plaintiff’s statement of claim is hereby struck out pursuant to paragraph 221(1)(a) of the rules, without leave to amend, the whole with costs, since it is plain and obvious that the statement of claim contains no reasonable cause of action.

When you are talking plain and obvious that is about as plain and obvious as it gets.

Rob, your claim over at Ickes that this is actually a great victory for you just reeks of desperation. Do you really think anyone, even whatever remnants of supporters you have left, will believe it? Posting something like that just indicates that you don't have any sense of shame or self-respect left at all.

[arayder]

Rob, your claim over at Ickes that this is actually a great victory for you just reeks of desperation. Do you really think anyone, even whatever remnants of supporters you have left, will believe it? Posting something like that just indicates that you don't have any sense of shame or self-respect left at all.

This is what happens when people with narcissistic personality disorders are confronted with the reality that they aren't even a small portion of what they think they are.

At this point in Bobby's life it's easier to pretend that he won in court (and everybody who says different's a fool) than it is to except that he's a 52 year-old zero for life loser.

[Pottapaug1938]

Winteral said:

I do not see it as an argument dismissed, and Menard having lost.
What I see, as a member of the public, with no dog in the fight, is this:

1- He presented his interpretation and invited the Federal government to meet him in court if they disagreed with him.

2 - They chose to seek a motion to dismiss, and did not want to disagree with his interpretation in court, essentially stating they have no disagreement with his interpretation.

3 - His interpretation now stands as one accepted by both parties.

This strikes me as nothing more than yet another attempt at foisting a unilateral assertion upon the courts. Bobby-boy "presented his interpretation" and dared the court to prove him wrong; and the court, not wanting to dignify his idiocy with a reasoned response (see the Crain and Wnuck cases), instead chose to bring a motion to dismiss. Now, Winteral interprets that as an acknowledgment that Bobby's interpretation is accepted by both parties.

Tell you what, Winteral. Sometime, have a grownup explain to you how the courts work.

[Hyrion]

Now, Winteral interprets that as an acknowledgment that Bobby's interpretation is accepted by both parties.

I'm still waiting on an explanation of why costs were awarded against Bobby.

If he won - why does he have to pay the costs of the Crown to have responded?

[Jeffrey]

not wanting to dignify his idiocy with a reasoned response

Did people not read the motion to dismiss? It contains a reasoned response explaining in clear English why Menard is incorrect.

[Pottapaug1938]

not wanting to dignify his idiocy with a reasoned response

Did people not read the motion to dismiss? It contains a reasoned response explaining in clear English why Menard is incorrect.

Sorry -- I meant lengthy.

[littleFred]

As gurus often do, Winteral inverts the truth.

1- He presented his interpretation and invited the Federal government to meet him in court if they disagreed with him.

Okay, I'll go with that. The plaintiff Menard asked the court to rule that he was a peace officer.

2 - They chose to seek a motion to dismiss, and did not want to disagree with his interpretation in court, essentially stating they have no disagreement with his interpretation.

Nope. The court documents are very clear: the defendant presented a motion and draft order to the court to the effect that the plaintiff's argument was junk. The court agreed.

3 - His interpretation now stands as one accepted by both parties.

Nope. The other party clearly did not accept his interpretation.

Nobody who reads those court documents could possibly believe that the government agreed with Menard's interpretation.

Assuming that Winteral is Menard, I ask myself, as I often do: does Menard believe his own junk? Is he that delusional? Or is he deliberately lying?

In any event, if he was hoping this case would prove that he was a peace officer and therefore wasn't guilty of falsely claiming to be one, he is out of luck. When he loses that case, I suppose he'll declare another victory.

[Burnaby49]

Menard, even when he's being at his stupidest, thinks he is being brilliant by deflecting the argument through pointless wordplay. Winteral said at Ickes;

I do not see it as an argument dismissed, and Menard having lost.
What I see, as a member of the public, with no dog in the fight, is this:

1- He presented his interpretation and invited the Federal government to meet him in court if they disagreed with him.

2 - They chose to seek a motion to dismiss, and did not want to disagree with his interpretation in court, essentially stating they have no disagreement with his interpretation.

3 - His interpretation now stands as one accepted by both parties.

Which, even on a factual basis, is bullshit. Menard did not present the Federal Government with an "interpretation" then, like a challenger at a mediaeval joust, invite them to combat in court if they disagreed with him. In his mythology the Crown declined and trembled in their tent like cowards afraid to fight the mighty Menard so he won his victory by default. In actual fact he petitioned the Federal Court demanding that the court issue a declaration that he was a peace officer as defined in the Criminal Code. The Federal Court, after considering his arguments and those of the Crown, declined to do so as I said they would in my posting of January 23rd;

Well sorry Rob but this won't help you. I'm guessing that the Federal Court of Canada will treat this like the nonsense it is and strike it because;

a) Menard lacks standing in the court because It is a reference question without a basis for Menard to be particularly prejudiced.

b) The Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to address it. There is no alleged wrongdoing by a federal body, or the federal government. This is not a judicial review of a Federal tribunal. As I understand it the Federal Court can only pass judgment on a federal law if the law breaches the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the law is outside the jurisdiction of the federal government of Canada. Menard is not arguing that either of these occured.

c) This is a collateral attack on an Ontario Court of Justice proceeding and so Menard should instead be making his application there.

So Menard doesn't have to fret about whether or not the Federal Court will try the issue in Montreal since they won't be hearing it anywhere.

Even if you want to discuss what happened on Menard's mano a mano terms the Crown took up his challenge by saying in their response that he was totally wrong and stating why. So the Federal Government met him in court, disagreed with him completely in their response, and beat him.

Rob, posting obvious lies like this is just self-destructive behavior that destroys any last scraps of credibility you might have retained. Accept the fact that you're finished as a Freeman guru and move on. Nothing that you have ever done has worked and it's time to give up and find some other direction to your life. A little late to start at fifty-two but I can't see that you have a choice.

[rumpelstilzchen]

We could apply winteral's logic to Menard's court case where he is accused of impersonating a police officer.

1. The Crown presented their accusation and invited Menard to meet them in court if he disagreed with them.

2. Menard chose not to appear, and did not wish to disagree with their accusation in court, essentially stating that he had no disagreement with their accusation.

3. The Crown's accusation now stands as fact as accepted by both parties.

We can all play at word games, winteral.

[arayder]

All Bobby has now is the hope he can develop plausible stories about his failures.

Think of a ten year old coming home from school desperate to think up a story explaining why he tore his coat and got suspended all in the same day.

------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 61 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]

After sharing his somewhat idiosyncratic analysis of Menard's Federal Court decision with us Winteral seems to have fallen silent. Was it because we were unkind?

I'm guessing that Menard was quite happy to defend himself over at davidickes.com because it was a like-minded group that wasn't overly harsh with him and I doubt the discussion had many viewers. But after his idiotic posting about how he'd won his Federal Court case when, in fact, he actually lost very badly the response here might have dissuaded him from any further defense of his actions. This discussion has a very wide readership, including Menard himself. There have been over 1,400 viewings of this discussion since I split it from the original discussion a little over a week ago. Let's say about 175 viewings a day. Perhaps Menard/Winteral has finally realized that anything he says on Ickes will be reported here and widely disseminated so it might actually be time to be careful what he says.

[LordEd]

I'd like to think my last few questions had something to do with stumping winteral, as they use Menard's words. Hard to counter with 'i didn't mean it that way' when you can't admit you're menard (assuming he is of course).

He should be used to unkindness by now. Think of the families of the Lance thatchers that bought into the theories. Think of the parents of the Reams seeing their children's futures being wasted. How many lives has he influenced to their detriment to make a few doliars or fame while hiding behind the 'didnt do their due diligence' shield?

[notorial dissent]

Also, too, don't forget that Bobby doesn't like a forum where he can be contradicted, questioned, or challenged. Or more importantly, laughed at. Offends his magnificence and dignity it does.

[arayder]

I'd like to think my last few questions had something to do with stumping winteral, as they use Menard's words. Hard to counter with 'i didn't mean it that way' when you can't admit you're menard (assuming he is of course).

Like I said all Bobby is looking for is a story good enough to fool the next mark. As far as he is concerned the tale doesn't have to make sense.

By Bobby's own theories when he entered into the realm of the court he came under its rules. . .and the rules explicitly state that the courts may dismiss hopeless claims like the one he filed.

Game, set, match to the courts!

Bobby's latest cry baby routine is just like the one he pulled when the BC courts ordered him to stop playing lawyer. If you recall he went on a months long rant saying the courts hadn't proved he was the "respondent". What a wuss!

It shouldn't be ignored that after that order Bobby, the obedient little card carrying planation slave he really is, stopped messing with the BC courts. Facing re-arrest and trial over his phony cop routine it's a good bet the cowardly lion Bobby won't be flashing his Dick Tracy badge under any cop's noses for a while.

He should be used to unkindness by now. Think of the families of the Lance thatchers that bought into the theories. Think of the parents of the Reams seeing their children's futures being wasted. How many lives has he influenced to their detriment to make a few doliars or fame while hiding behind the 'didnt do their due diligence' shield?

Messing up other people's lives is the only thing of any significance Robby the Phony Bobby is good at. People who probably can't afford it pay him hundreds of dollars for nothing, or end up with arrest records, or poor credit ratings, or all of the above!

He's a walking disaster!

------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 62 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.

[Jeffrey]

We now have the first defection within the Menardian ranks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9KIbuDTnE

Bates used to be a fan of Menard, not so much anymore. Very candidly admits that when Menard first claimed that Canadian law allows individuals to simply become Peace Officers, people simply believed Menard without checking whether or not it was true.

[notorial dissent]

I still say that naive and gullible, and well, just plain stupid seem to be general hallmarks of the FOTL community, and they keep right on proving it.

[arayder]

We now have the first defection within the Menardian ranks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9KIbuDTnE

Bates used to be a fan of Menard, not so much anymore. Very candidly admits that when Menard first claimed that Canadian law allows individuals to simply become Peace Officers, people simply believed Menard without checking whether or not it was true.

One less couch for Bobby.

Like a feral hog whose habitat has being destroyed Bobby has fewer and fewer places to eat, sleep and use the bathroom.

I'd suggest to the authorities that they follow the trail of empty Moose Heads.

------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 66 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.

[wserra]

Like a feral hog whose habitat has being destroyed Bobby has fewer and fewer place to eat, sleep and use the bathroom.

I prefer the parasitoid - a parasite that eventually kills its host - as a metaphor. Picture the alien bursting from someone's chest and running off in, well, Alien.