Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Jeffrey]

I believe I have found a common law remedy that would allow Menard to get the charges dropped.

As we all know, strippers regularly pretend to be peace officers yet they are never charged criminally. The stripper exception isn't written into the statutes, it is a common law exception to the rule.

All Menard has to do is say he was lawfully employed as a stripper at the time of the arrest.

[LordEd]

Well, I think the consensus here is that he's a bit of a tool...

[Burnaby49]

Rob in action? No, a year too young and we all know Rob is too busy to return to Ontario;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener ... -1.3104519

Rob, here's your chance! I'm assuming this guy is going to be facing identical charges to you. Since you are just too overwhelmed doing really really important stuff to return to Toronto why not advise him by phone how to fight it? When he wins you can inform the Crown Attorney handling your case and I'm sure your charges will be dropped immediately.

Actually he sound like a prime C3PO candidate. Drunk and acting strangely.

[Hyrion]

I believe I have found a common law remedy that would allow Menard to get the charges dropped.

As we all know, strippers regularly pretend to be peace officers yet they are never charged criminally. The stripper exception isn't written into the statutes, it is a common law exception to the rule.

All Menard has to do is say he was lawfully employed as a stripper at the time of the arrest.

There's a pretty big difference between that stripper and Menard.

The stripper is nothing more then in costume performing an act that has nothing to do with enforcing the Law.

Menard - whether in costume or not - is attempting to use his "authority" to try and enforce his version of the Law.

Pretty big difference and in my humble opinion the stripper is performing a far more honorable service.

[grixit]

But what if he only handcuffs his targets to a pole and then grinds them?

[Jeffrey]

Didn't realize Menard released yet another video of him beating a dead horse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYkQWw_z1fw

[Burnaby49]

Didn't realize Menard released yet another video of him beating a dead horse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYkQWw_z1fw

You're way behind the times. I posted about it a week ago.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10492&start=620#p192550

[Burnaby49]

Well here we are, two weeks after Rob started waving his begging bowl at us, and he's reaped the grand total of $728 of which $590, or 81% of the total, is comprised of suspect "offline donations". Let's be generous and assume they are all legit. That means that if he keeps up this current torrid pace he's going to get about $19,000 in the next year. Not bad Rob although the assumption is clearly beyond your reach since, with the exception of one $80 donation, there has been nothing in the past week.

Time to stop playing around over at TPUC, get back to work, and cough up some more videos to motivate your fan base. You're getting your ass handed to you over there anyhow. Maybe you can do one giving us an update on how the ACCP cards will be issued any time now.

[Jeffrey]

My bad, didn't see you had linked the video already.

Isn't $800 enough for Menard to appeal his federal case to the Supreme Court? Go try that Menard, the Supreme Court will declare you a peace officer and then the criminal charges against you can't stick.

[arayder]

Jeffrey, Menard says he also wants the to use the funds to recruit, train and equip (read:arm) C3POs all across Canada.

I'll wait while you control your laughter. . . . . . Are you done?. . . .No?. . . .Try to breath deeply. . .Okay, ready?

This is essentially the same plan Menard puked up last year around the time of his Toronto arrest for impersonating a police officer. At that time he said he was going to use his father's insurance and estate money to start the process.

But one suspects that money got pissed away. . .literally. So now he's back at the white board trolling for Canada's most gullible.

[grixit]

I really enjoy America's Most Gullible but i think franchising tends to dilute the quality of a good reality show. I think the canadian producers should come up with their own show, perhaps "Canada's Got Suckers" or "So You Think You Can Scam".

[LordEd]

Question on process servers: if a document is to be served to somebody, is that document always something filed in court prior to serving?

Need a basis of understanding on my tpuc argument.

[wserra]

Question on process servers: if a document is to be served to somebody, is that document always something filed in court prior to serving?

Nope. Consider subpoenas.

[Llwellyn]

Question on process servers: if a document is to be served to somebody, is that document always something filed in court prior to serving?

Need a basis of understanding on my tpuc argument.

Any person 'can' act on behalf of an agency. However, the documents are always filed with court, law, council.. some 'office of authority' prior to the document being 'served' out.

A MAJOR flaw that good old Menard keeps skipping by (and he does it with a certain subtlety) is that fact that while ANYONE can indeed act as a Process Server there is a clause that states they are 'EMPLOYED AS' .. employment as, usually comes with a certified/recognized agency or office. IE, working at a law firm, you may have a process server assigned to the firm (to dispense documents etc) that firm is recognized, and authorized (within some limitations) by a main governing body or associated office of some sort. Just as with his phone call video to find out about Process Servers.. the company he phoned, is a recognized and ascribed 'authority' allowing them to have Process Servers.

- and Wserra noted a subpoena - which are filed prior to there being served.
Subpoenas are usually issued by the clerk of the court in the name of the judge presiding over the case. Additionally, court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court. Typically subpoenas are issued "in blank" and it is the responsibility of the lawyer representing the plaintiff or defendant on whose behalf the testimony is to be given to serve the subpoena on the witness. If a witness is reluctant to testify, then the personal service of subpoena is usually required with proof of service by non-party server.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

[LordEd]

Working on the Nolan case as my base where it states peace officers must derive their authority from other sources. The execution of civil process is defined and controlled by the judicial system, so that is the source of authority.

[Burnaby49]

Working on the Nolan case as my base where it states peace officers must derive their authority from other sources. The execution of civil process is defined and controlled by the judicial system, so that is the source of authority.

I noted one error in your reporting of Nolan over at TPUC. You kept referring to the judge's decision.

This judge's decision has been cited many times.

It was not decided by a single judge, it was a Supreme Court of Canada decision so it was the Court's decision. Far more authoritative than any judge.

Menard's Puddywuddle's response to your citing Nolan was breathtakingly stupid, almost unreal in how overwhelmingly, majestically, idiotic it was;

So given an opportunity to tell us what you think, and what logic you used to arrive there, you simply point to what someone you consider to be a master has to say?

Thanks for sharing what he said.
Do you have anything to add, from your own mind, using your own brain, or is that all you got?

Your position seems to be "Let's not think for ourselves, lets just look at what our masters have said."

Do you have an opinion of your own, or do you need to point to someone else's and expect that should be accepted, because you are quoting a judge?

Incidentally, is there ANY mention in that ruling of 'common law sources of authority"? Because that opens up a pretty big door. Also that ruling you are pointing to dealt with government agents, operating under statutes, who were not peace officers, seeking to claim the status of one.

So common law sources of authority. Do you see it there? Care to discuss it?

Uh, Rob? Are you not aware that yes, the Supreme Court of Canada is the "Master" when it comes to determining points of law? What edofquatloos thinks on the issue is entirely irrelevant once the SCC has spoken. Far more to point is that what you think on the issue is entirely irrelevant once the SCC has spoken and, when you finally face the Ontario court on your criminal charges, it is Nolan that you will have to refute not edofquatloos. I wouldn't suggest trying the arguments at court that you are using at TPUC. The Ontario courts aren't going to buy into your position that Supreme Court of Canada decisions are just opinions holding no more legal weight than your own opinions. They are the law.

As for your comment;

Under the common law, do the public have a right to preserve and maintain the public peace?

Under the common law, do members of the public have the right to use contracts for lawful purposes?

If one member of the public employs another member of the public to preserve and maintain the public peace, is that not a peace officer operating under common law sources of authority?

Using logic and reason, does that ruling stand the test? Or are you one of those people who reject logic and reason, and embrace instead some judges ruling, thinking it saves you form having to think for yourself?

You seem to be confused as to what you are facing. You have been charged under the Criminal Code of Canada. That is statutory law, not common law. Common law, particularly the common law you pull out of your ass, is irrelevant to answering the charges. But what the hell, it's your dime so go for it! When you are at trial demand a common law court and jury.

[Bill Lumbergh]

I'm stating the obvious here, but freemen have a complete misunderstanding of what "common law" means. They think it means whatever the hell they want it to mean.

There isn't a single shred of evidence that would provide common law authority for people to create their own vigilante police squads. You can't just stand up in court and say "well, common law let's me do it". You (not the court, in response to inane questions) actually have to provide proof.

Even if some such ancient authority could be found, it would be meaningless because of our constitution. Most freemen don't understand this because they can't grasp how common law legal systems actually work.

[LordEd]

I'm having trouble finding Menard's loss in court where he tried to get approval for his police force but was promptly dismissed. I thought Burnaby posted the decision.

Just need it for accuracy.

[Bill Lumbergh]

http://www.mediafire.com/view/yyct95xbk ... -43-15.pdf

This settles it as far as I'm concerned. The court determined that his claim, even if we accept all of his pleadings as true, has no hope of success at trial. Done.

EDIT: it seems that link is broken.... Burnaby?

The decision was transcribed earlier in this thread:

Date: 20150318

Docket: T-43-15

Montréal, Quebec, March 18, 2015

PRESENT: Prothonotary Richard Morneau

BETWEEN:

ROBERT MENARD
(ACTING FOR THE CANADIAN COMMON CORPS OF PEACE OFFICERS)

Plaintiff

and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Defendant

Motion in writing on behalf of the defendant for an order striking the statement of claim.
[Rules 4, 24, 221(1) and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules (the rules)]

ORDER
CONSIDERING the statement of claim of the plaintiff filed on January 13, 2015;

CONSIDERING the motion record filed by the defendant on February 4, 2015 in connection with the above motion;

CONSIDERING that no motion record in response has been served and filed in connection with the motion at bar;

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.

“Richard Morneau”

Prothonotary

[NYGman]

http://www.mediafire.com/view/yyct95xbk ... -43-15.pdf

This settles it as far as I'm concerned. The court determined that his claim, even if we accept all of his pleadings as true, has no hope of success at trial. Done.

EDIT: it seems that link is broken.... Burnaby?

The decision was transcribed earlier in this thread:

Date: 20150318

Docket: T-43-15

Montréal, Quebec, March 18, 2015

PRESENT: Prothonotary Richard Morneau

BETWEEN:

ROBERT MENARD
(ACTING FOR THE CANADIAN COMMON CORPS OF PEACE OFFICERS)

Plaintiff

and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Defendant

Motion in writing on behalf of the defendant for an order striking the statement of claim.
[Rules 4, 24, 221(1) and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules (the rules)]

ORDER
CONSIDERING the statement of claim of the plaintiff filed on January 13, 2015;

CONSIDERING the motion record filed by the defendant on February 4, 2015 in connection with the above motion;

CONSIDERING that no motion record in response has been served and filed in connection with the motion at bar;

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.

“Richard Morneau”

Prothonotary

Ahhh yes, Menards last Victory. Isn't the court saying here that they decided it wasn't necessary to have a hearing as Menard was right.