Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[LordEd]

It's a bit like how the People's Front of Judea rivaled the Judean People's Front.

Splitters!
https://youtu.be/NrDVsprWRCQ (3:30)

[arayder]

From Bobby's Facebbok page:

COPY AND PASTED SO ALL CAN SEE
From all available evidence it's clear that the most compelling hypothesis explaining the interconnected crimes, lies, and human slaughter occurring in our modern world is that an international cabal took control of the planet in the early part of the twentieth century and is now methodically destroying world institutions and values. The main goal of the cabal has been to consolidate political, economic, and social power in its hands while obliterating the minds of the masses to establish a militaristic, imperialistic dictatorship. Why all world leaders are corrupt!!

Once again the Tupperwear Thief has posted somebody else's work without giving credit. In this case the guy ripped off is Norman D. Livergood.

Here's a link to the original: http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/ ... ergood.htm

[notorial dissent]

Burnaby, I like your idea of an inauguration, so much more entertaining than anything any of our mayors ever do.

[Burnaby49]

Rob's picked himself up, dusted himself off, and found a new venture which will, I assume, serve as a potential source of yet more GoFundMe bounty. He's apparently considering setting up a new Canadian court system because the existing one is treating him so harshly! Not a bad idea; he'll need it in any case when his newly legitimized peace officers corps strap on their now authorized side arms and go out and start arresting traitors like the Banksters, our former Prime Ministers (Jean Chrétien, you've been warned) and the Queen. Obviously our current corrupt court system will refuse to accept the cases.

https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard. ... 6281562785

Robert Menard reviewed The Law Society of Upper Canada — 1 star
June 2 at 9:48am ·

Why did the LSUC advise member Mandeep Saggit to refuse to give an ex-client a statement of truth which would allow said person to address charges of failing to attend? Mandeep told the client to not attend court as he would attend for the client, then he failed to do so. Warrant issued. Mandeep could easily provide a brief statement which would provide lawful excuse and avoid the charges. He promised to do so, then refused when directed by LSUC to not do so. Funny that the prosecutor who is engaging in a clearly malicious prosecution is also a member of the LSUC. Maybe it's time, since these privately operated courts are no longer serving the public, for the public to establish their own courts of law.

Rob finally acknowledges a few things in this posting. He was charged, he failed to attend, and an arrest warrant was issued. But it was all his lawyer's fault. But Rob, why oh why did you trust a member of the British Accredited Registry?

And Rob, yes, I got your message on Friday. It was very kind of you to find the time to fit me into your schedule when it must be so jam-packed with important projects that you are currently labouring so hard to implement. No doubt they are causing you a lot of stress but still, that temper of yours! Not a good sign in your dangerous middle-age years.

[Fmotlgroupie]

I don't think Rob is well-advised to start anything with Jean Chretien, unless he's looking forward to a Shawinigan Handshake!

[Jeffrey]

So just to Recap:

Menard fails to show up February 9th.
Burnaby reports that Menard failed to appear March 12th and has active arrest warrants.
3 months pass.

Mandeep told the client (me) to not attend court as he would attend for the client, then he failed to do so.

Menard has had 4 months to come up with an explanation for why he didn't show up to court and after 4 months of alcohol and weed fueled brainstorming sessions, his excuse is to blame the lawyer for not showing up?

[arayder]

So just to Recap:

Menard fails to show up February 9th.
Burnaby reports that Menard failed to appear March 12th and has active arrest warrants.
3 months pass.

Mandeep told the client (me) to not attend court as he would attend for the client, then he failed to do so.

Menard has had 4 months to come up with an explanation for why he didn't show up to court and after 4 months of alcohol and weed fueled brainstorming sessions, his excuse is to blame the lawyer for not showing up?

Bobby must have some sort reason to invent this lame excuse now. Maybe he thinks the cops are closing in on him? Maybe he realizes that pursuing his promised C3PO court action/fantasy would require him to stand up in court or reveal the location of his latest hideout?

And it is a lame excuse. If it was all a foul up by his lawyer, why didn't Menard just go to the court house and tell the prosecutor that his lawyer messed it up, that they don't need a warrant to find him and that he's not going to run and he's going to be in court next time?

Instead he ran.

The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.-Proverbs 28

Yeah, we see the Great Fezzed One acting dishonorably. For centuries of law flight has been believed to indicate consciousness of guilt. You have to ask why, after studying the law for a zillion hours, Bobby didn't recall this seminal truth?

As one learns more about Bobby, the less there is to like.

------------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 133 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.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Bobby must have some sort reason to invent this lame excuse now. Maybe he thinks the cops are closing in on him? Maybe he realizes that pursuing his promised C3PO court action/fantasy would require him to stand up in court or reveal the location of his latest hideout.

Maybe his lawyer has got fed up with trying to contact him and his non-appearances in court, and told him he isn't representing him any more. Bobby Bullshit now does the 5 year old foot stamping and cries "you let me down" when he finds out.

[Bill Lumbergh]

I also doubt this lawyer got paid. They don't work for free.

[Burnaby49]

I don't think Rob is well-advised to start anything with Jean Chretien, unless he's looking forward to a Shawinigan Handshake!

For those of you who are not familiar with Shawinigan Handshakes;

Shawinigan Handshake is the epithet given to a chokehold executed on February 15, 1996 by Jean Chrétien, then Prime Minister of Canada, on anti-poverty protester Bill Clennett. The phrase comes from Chrétien's birthplace of Shawinigan, Quebec, as the former prime minister often styled himself the "little guy from Shawinigan".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawinigan_Handshake

[Burnaby49]

Rob's complaint is going to be doubly ineffectual since he couldn't even get the lawyer's name correct. Rob was represented by Mandeep Singh Saggi, not Mandeep Saggit. A hint Rob; these details matter if you plan to prove to the world that he is the one actually responsible for your problems.

I checked up on Saggi's discipline status and he's not facing any disciplinary or complaint proceedings. I guess Rob's still compiling his evidence and legal arguments. Will we see a few videos about it first?

[Burnaby49]

Rob just got another $80! Online too, the real deal, not a questionable "Offline Donation". That brings him up to $728! Canadian dollars of course, about $585 in real money. He has $138 in real online donations so far. His latest contributor said;

Good luck Robert. You have more friends than they do.

A nice sentiment but it won't carry any legal weight when Rob finally faces a judge.

[arayder]

Rob just got another $80! Online too, the real deal, not a questionable "Offline Donation". That brings him up to $728! Canadian dollars of course, about $585 in real money. He has $138 in real online donations so far. His latest contributor said;

Good luck Robert. You have more friends than they do.

A nice sentiment but it won't carry any legal weight when Rob finally faces a judge.

Mr. I-can't-plan-beyond-my-next-bowl-movement Menard doesn't seem to realize that the more money he raises, or fakes raising, the higher the expectations will be regarding his claimed legal brilliance.

This means sooner or later he's going to have to leave his latest hideout and get busy with his freeman Perry Mason routine.

[Jeffrey]

Mandeep told the client (me) to not attend court as he would attend for the client, then he failed to do so.

Are the basic mechanics of this even true? Can you really have your lawyer show up to court for you in a criminal trial? Surely you have to show up with your lawyer, at least that's what I see on televised court stuff. The bane of never being criminally charged is not knowing how this stuff works.

Hadn't Mandeep quit already by that point?

[Fmotlgroupie]

Mandeep told the client (me) to not attend court as he would attend for the client, then he failed to do so.

Are the basic mechanics of this even true? Can you really have your lawyer show up to court for you in a criminal trial? Surely you have to show up with your lawyer, at least that's what I see on televised court stuff. The bane of never being criminally charged is not knowing how this stuff works.

Hadn't Mandeep quit already by that point?

The accused is required to show up for trial but in the courts that I've seen it's very common for lawyers to attend without the client for pretrial appearances (scheduling a trial etc). Occasionally lawyers /do/ fail to show up and the accused gets a warrant for his arrest; in legitimate cases like that the law society gets a bit upset (I'll try to dig up some CANLII examples)

[Bill Lumbergh]

650. (1) Subject to subsections (1.1) to (2) and section 650.01, an accused, other than an organization, shall be present in court during the whole of his or her trial.

A lawyer that is fully retained and on record may file something called a "designation" with the court. This allows the lawyer to make pre-trial appearances without the client.
Here's the Criminal Code section:

650.01 (1) An accused may appoint counsel to represent the accused for any proceedings under this Act by filing a designation with the court.

Contents of designation
(2) The designation must contain the name and address of the counsel and be signed by the accused and the designated counsel.

Effect of designation
(3) If a designation is filed,
(a) the accused may appear by the designated counsel without being present for any part of the proceedings, other than
(i) a part during which oral evidence of a witness is taken,
(ii) a part during which jurors are being selected, and
(iii) an application for a writ of habeas corpus;
(b) an appearance by the designated counsel is equivalent to the accused’s being present, unless the court orders otherwise; and
(c) a plea of guilty may be made, and a sentence may be pronounced, only if the accused is present, unless the court orders otherwise.

When court orders presence of accused
(4) If the court orders the accused to be present otherwise than by appearance by the designated counsel, the court may
(a) issue a summons to compel the presence of the accused and order that it be served by leaving a copy at the address contained in the designation; or
(b) issue a warrant to compel the presence of the accused.

Unless such a designation is filed then the accused must attend every court appearance. If there's no designation and only the lawyer shows up, the court will usually issue a discretionary bench warrant, as it did with Menard. But it doesn't have to. It could just as easily issue a straight bench warrant. It's a risk (in my opinion, a big risk) that many lawyers take.

[LordEd]

How do you refer to a freeman in such a way that they understand who you're talking to?

Maybe he didn't consent to being the 'accused', so he decided he wasn't needed. Isn't there a case where he decided he wasn't the "respondent"?

In any case, to illustrate:

I -nominative form of the first person singular pronoun
Me- oblique form of the personal pronoun of the first person singular

Thought it was understood im not a person ? So, how could there be a first person? or any at that if im not one ?

I think there's some freemen who get confused with "you".

[arayder]

Over the years one debunker after another has busted Menard big time for lying.

Whether it was his story about having "kicked ass" in court during his early freeman days, or his claim to have a letter in support of freeman theory from an Irish lawyer, or his tall tale that the Canadian government officially recognized him as a C3PO, Bobby just isn't credible!

He's been caught lying too many times.

I don't know who Bobby thinks is going to believe his story that he'd have beaten his impersonating a peace office rap if it just hadn't been for his lawyer?

[Hanslune]

..anyway to find this outstanding lawyer and ask them for their side of this?

Oh lawyer question presuming Menard is telling the truth (take that with a chunk of salt the size of the Sicily) could Menard sue him for this action(s) or complain to whatever Canada has a governing board for lawyers?

I ask because if Menard takes not action one would have to ask.....why he isn't.

[Burnaby49]

..anyway to find this outstanding lawyer and ask them for their side of this?

Oh lawyer question presuming Menard is telling the truth (take that with a chunk of salt the size of the Sicily) could Menard sue him for this action(s) or complain to whatever Canada has a governing board for lawyers?

I ask because if Menard takes not action one would have to ask.....why he isn't.

All Rob has to do is make a complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada

https://www.lsuc.on.ca/complaints/

and tell them how Saggi is so criminally incompetent that Rob is now on the run from an arrest warrant when, instead, he could have walked out of that court in triumph as a peace officer. I assume that Rob is building and documenting his case, these things take time. Take the ACCP as an example. It should have been up and running months ago but not a sign of it yet. I assume that this delay is not because it was just a scam from the start but because Rob is being very methodical about setting up the proper structure behind the plan so that once it is in operation it will run flawlessly.

Or, as another example, The C3PO plan. Rob has proven in his recent videos that he can go back to that Toronto courthouse with his whiteboard and defeat his charges any time he wants just by demonstrating to the court, as he has to us, that they have misinterpreted the definition of "peace officer" in the Criminal Code of Canada all along. Plain Reading, Harmony and Ecclussion! But is he doing so? No! He's not just selfishly seeking easy personal victories. He wants to effect a cultural change! So he is taking the long view and trying to raise $50,000 to;

initiate legal action, create a defence fund for our members, establish national and provincial level councils, provide training and education, conduct a membership drive and expand public awareness.

Tax exempt non-profit NGOs! Boards of Directors! A new free Canada!

So stop asking foolish questions about why Rob is blaming his problems on his ex-lawyer through a Face Book posting rather than just making a complaint to the Law Society. In a year, eighteen months at most, he'll have a devastating indictment to show the world about his legal mistreatment. I wonder if Saggi knows it's coming.