Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Wake Up! Productions]

Again, I think one has to take responsibility for ones own actions. I am not crying crocodile tears for any freeman who got onboard the Menard train out of a simple desire to get something for nothing.

But I think most societies in the world hold that that the person committing the fraud doesn't receive a get-out-of-jail-free card because his victims had a few smarts, weren't mentally ill and should have known better.

Fraud is generally considered to be a deceitful, false or dishonest act.

Time and time again Menard told his victims that the law was as he said it was, not as it was or is. Menard told them they weren't getting something for nothing. He told his victims they were getting what the law properly allowed.

He told them they could effectively use his methods and went so far as to make up stories about how he had used those same methods with great success.

Menard was caught red handed lying to a private investigator, who he thought was a potential client, telling him he had "kicked ass" in court and won cases for clients. That was a lie that got Bobby banned from playing lawyer in the BC courts.

In a weak moment Bobby even went so far as to admit that the real goal of his courtroom antics and legal advice was to harass the courts, not win victories for his clients or for freemen reading his advice.

In view of these falsehoods and lies I don't see that Bobby even has the argument that he truly believed his BS was real.

Absolutely Menard must pay for what he has done, but unless and until a complaining victim steps forward with enough evidence of fraud to actually prosecute him, he will continue to get away with it. Until there is a complaining victim, Menard is free to do as he pleases. This is why I think he needs to stand trial on the "Peace Officer" charges. When that happens, hopefully people will see him for what he is and step forward with their evidence that he defrauded them.

[arayder]

. . .Menard must pay for what he has done, but unless and until a complaining victim steps forward with enough evidence of fraud to actually prosecute him, he will continue to get away with it. Until there is a complaining victim, Menard is free to do as he pleases. This is why I think he needs to stand trial on the "Peace Officer" charges. When that happens, hopefully people will see him for what he is and step forward with their evidence that he defrauded them.

I agree. I doubt a victim is going to come forward. The last group he shafted was the crew that signed on to the ACCP. My guess is that anybody who lost their membership fee to Bobby has since caught on, contacted the bank to get his access to their account revoked and written the fee off to experience. Anyway why bring suit over a $200 fee?

The best Bobby can do now is the one thing he can't do. . .lay low. After a few years of freeman YouTube celebrity the ole boy is going to have to get a fix. That's what the C3PO dust up in TO was all about. The freeman thing was slipping away and Bobby had to do something.

Like always he made a bad choice. He'll do it again.

[Wake Up! Productions]

. . .Menard must pay for what he has done, but unless and until a complaining victim steps forward with enough evidence of fraud to actually prosecute him, he will continue to get away with it. Until there is a complaining victim, Menard is free to do as he pleases. This is why I think he needs to stand trial on the "Peace Officer" charges. When that happens, hopefully people will see him for what he is and step forward with their evidence that he defrauded them.

I agree. I doubt a victim is going to come forward. The last group he shafted was the crew that signed on to the ACCP. My guess is that anybody who lost their membership fee to Bobby has since caught on, contacted the bank to get his access to their account revoked and written the fee off to experience. Anyway why bring suit over a $200 fee?

The best Bobby can do now is the one thing he can't do. . .lay low. After a few years of freeman YouTube celebrity the ole boy is going to have to get a fix. That's what the C3PO dust up in TO was all about. The freeman thing was slipping away and Bobby had to do something.

Like always he made a bad choice. He'll do it again.

Coming from the position of having fallen for the whole "freeman movement", it was obvious for me to grasp that Dean Clifford was a fake, mainly because of his extreme ANGER and RAGE. His foul language and hatred for anything and everything was a turn off for me. Menard on the other hand, has played the role of the "peaceful nice guy". It took me much longer to get past the "peaceful nice guy" persona in order to see that he is exactly the same as Clifford. This is why you will not get a complaining victim - people are empathetic, and they are reluctant to turn in or change a "peaceful nice guy".

[Burnaby49]

He was neither peaceful or nice when he was ranting at Ron Usher about my comments about him on Quatloos.

[Wake Up! Productions]

He was neither peaceful or nice when he was ranting at Ron Usher about my comments about him on Quatloos.

Oh trust me, I have now seen his REAL persona. He is very good at playing the "victim" - a well recognised trait of a narcissist. In his mind, he has done nothing wrong, and pointing out the his THEORIES have done other people harm is taken by him as "SLANDER" !!!

[notorial dissent]

Wake Up and arayder, while I happen to agree with you fully on this, I just don't see it happening, and here's why. Bobby, for all his multitudinous faults, does one thing very well, he gauges the stupidity and cupidity of his intended victims very accurately. To put it bluntly, he picks on the very stupid and clueless, who think they are rebels and picked upon with no one to give them voice and validation, and he plays to that in full measure. He also picks them for being the ones who will blindly follow without thinking or hesitation because they could never manage to come up with any kind of active thought or action on their own, and will thus, at least in theory, follow his magnificence blindly and willingly. And be honest now, it has worked for him, repeatedly, in the past. Now the other characteristic that these "victims" all share in common, is that once their support system / motivation / brains, Bobby, does a bunk, they are paralyzed and lost, and the last thing they are going to do, the even the very few who actually can do some independent thinking, is going to go to the authorities and complain. They, at least some of them, will rant and rail, but that is as far as it will ever go. They had no motivation to action before Bobby showed up, and they will have none afterwards, even if it means getting some of their own back by turning him in. There is a specific mentality at work here and it has worked well for him before, the problem is that it applies to only an ever increasingly smaller subset of the whole, and he is now caught on the inevitable and inescapable horns of the diminishing return. There will always be the gullible few who will swallow without questions whatever he throws at them, but their numbers are becoming vanishingly small now. Bobby hasn't changed, but his subset of FOTL victims has diminished to the point it can and will no longer support him, in any style, let alone the one to which he had become accustomed.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Now the other characteristic that these "victims" all share in common, is that once their support system / motivation / brains, Bobby, does a bunk, they are paralyzed and lost, and the last thing they are going to do, the even the very few who actually can do some independent thinking, is going to go to the authorities and complain.

Agreed, turning him in would be to admit their own criminality (if in fact they acted upon his theories). Not to mention the embarrassment factor. Again, I state, the ONLY WAY Menard is going to go down is for him to stand trial on the already existing "personating a peace officer" charges. Let us all agree to do what we can (within the limits of the law) to bring this about. AGREED?

[notorial dissent]

I quite agree, I don't think he will face any kind of justice unless and until he is brought to heel on the C3PO charges. It is the only really public crime he has committed, and will certainly be easier getting him on that than it would be on the other frauds and scams since none of his victims, as you so rightly point out, are likely to come forward or testify. It wouldn't be the FOTL thing to do, and they'd look foolish, and possibly guilty as well.

[Jeffrey]

Might be worth remembering that we don't live in a perfect world. People get away with doing far worse things than anything Menard has done.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Might be worth remembering that we don't live in a perfect world. People get away with doing far worse things than anything Menard has done.

I understand your position, however, the charges have already been laid. I filed the "crime stoppers" online tip because I refuse to harbour a known wanted man - no matter what he may be charged with. I have asked him repeatedly to do the HONORABLE thing, to turn himself in and get his day in court to prove his 3CPO THEORIES, and he keeps coming up with the excuse that he "won't get a fair trial". Funny, I didn't know Menard can predict the future?

[arayder]

He was neither peaceful or nice when he was ranting at Ron Usher about my comments about him on Quatloos.

He also has some Youtubes in which the dark side shows. Here's just one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4v93fY3lCI

At 3:13 he talks about how he would break the pictured lady cop's arm and neck and then scrolls a request across the screen asking for help in identifying her.

. . . There will always be the gullible few who will swallow without questions whatever he throws at them, but their numbers are becoming vanishingly small now. Bobby hasn't changed, but his subset of FOTL victims has diminished to the point it can and will no longer support him, in any style, let alone the one to which he had become accustomed.

Yes, exactly. Even if Bobby never goes to jail for the C3PO thing we can have the solace of knowing that having been outted as the shyster he is his ability to con the gullible has been greatly reduced.

Bobby's living large freeman lifestyle has shrunk. He's on the run from the Ontario authorities. Since he's in hiding he has to sockpuppet when he wants to comment on web forums. He's a persona non grata at WFS. His Youtubes are confined to basement rants on obscure points of freeman theory. He isn't able to beg funds on the internet because his reputation so bad. He can no longer rent halls for his freeman empowerment lectures. He doesn't do comedy shows any more.

But he still has the goat.

---------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 214 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.

[grixit]

Cue 70's buddy comedy music. Something like "The Courtship of Eddie's Father". Montage of Menard and Goat flying a kite in the park, eating hotdogs-- oops, catsup in the face!, playing Mario Kart at an arcade, racing across a plaza-- Menard cheating by taking the stairs, taking selfies with their peace officer badges, wearing fake mustaches as the real cops go by, Menard reading Quatloos on a library computer while Goat ogles a centerfold in Popular Mechanics, running away from an angry ex-host while carrying badly packed suitcases. Last scene: Menard shivering on a park bench while Goat covers him with newspaper.

[k1w1]

…In Russ Porisky's first trial, he became Canada's first ever conviction of "counseling to commit tax evasion". In theory, the law saw it fit to hold him at least 50% responsible for the actions of certain others.

Given this, Menard has never been legally held responsible (liable) for the actions of others, and I highly doubt he ever will. So, if it is question of law, Menard is not responsible for the actions of others. If it is a question of morality, then yes, Menard bares the burden of some of the liability - perhaps as much as 40%. The other 60% should be owned by the dupe(s).

The reason Rob Menard will never be held to account for telling people crap about the law is because, just like any other legal layman, he has a right to do that if he wants. There is no reasonable expectation that anything Rob Menard says about the law will be correct or accurate, and he has absolutely no responsibility in law for anyone who goes off and practices anything he preaches about the law -- he doesn’t represent them for anything they do; he’s not an agent of their actions.

Arayder might try to deny that our society allows this to happen, that people are allowed to make up stuff about how the law works and tell other people, but that’s the way it is -- it’s called freedom of expression and association.

Russell Porisky was convicted for counselling only as the principal of Paradigm Group which he started at the beginning of 2001; he had been doing exactly the same thing sans Paradigm Group for years before that. Russell Porisky as the principal of Paradigm Group was a completely different beast to Russell Porisky the construction worker.

The principal of a “Group” that does what Paradigm was doing, the principal of that is supposed to be a chartered accountant or tax lawyer. For instance when a change is made to the tax laws an accountant creates a Group to hold seminars etc. to inform the public on how to stay compliant (usually aimed at companies or business since it usually only affects them); the principal of the Group is responsible for creating the material in the seminars, books, videos, etc. although the other people involved in the Group, e.g. those presenting the material, need not be tax professionals themselves. If you attend a seminar about taxation which has been put together by something named a Group then there is a reasonable expectation that the material being presented is valid and legitimate and can be used without going and checking it with another accountant first.

And that’s essentially why Porisky was convicted for counselling others to evade taxes from 2001 but not before then. And he was one hundred percent responsible for doing that himself. He knew exactly what he was doing when he named it Paradigm Group -- he did it because he was frustrated that he wasn’t getting his message across to enough people… after all, no one takes seriously anything a construction worker says about tax laws.

In 1998, prior to Porisky creating Paradigm Group, one of the people who had attended his seminars back in ‘95, a dentist named Sydel, tried to claim at her trial for tax evasion that she had been acting in good faith, tried to claim that because of the information she had gotten from Porisky’s seminars she had reason to believed at the time she was only trying to avoid tax rather than trying to evade it -- in other words, she was trying to claim that Porisky was in some way responsible for what she did. However, the prosecution was able to show that Sydel was predisposed to evade her tax obligations before she ever encountered Porisky and his motley crew; it was able to show that she wilfully ignored all advice against the scheme, even from people she had every reason to trust -- for instance her father who attended one of the seminars with her and left before the end and advised her it was crap and to avoid it -- and even tax professionals, but she wilfully disregarded all that and went ahead and used it anyway. She had no reason to expect that anything Porisky the construction worker told her about taxation would be valid and so it was entirely incumbent on her to check that it was valid before she actually went ahead and used it. She was duly convicted.

Her argument may have been found to have merit if she’d attended the seminars organised by Paradigm Group after 2001.

Justice Rooke cited her case as a classic example of the sort of people who wilfully go off and practice the kind of crap Rob Menard preaches. He calls them OPCA litigants. “No court has ever found them to have been acting in good faith.”

Those people were no more gullible or witless or stupid than any other person you see around you every day, and neither were they any more desperate than countless other people out there who keep their senses about them in spite of it all. And neither did Menard “pick” them. That’s all just a fantasy. No, they knew perfectly well that what they were doing wasn’t commonly acceptable but they wilfully went ahead and did it anyway -- they had their minds set on it; they picked themselves.

Whatever the reason they went off and caused themselves harm is their own private business, but, whatever their reason, they obviously believed at the time that it was best for them. Perhaps they’re legal masochists and wanted be hurt that way… we can only speculate as to their reasoning.

But if any of them steps forward and tries to claim they were the victims of fraud by claiming they had reason to believe that what Rob Menard told them was legitimate, that they had a justifiable reason to rely on the information he gave them, they will get told they had no reason to believe that at all and for precisely the same reasons Sydel didn’t.

For your edification the following elements have to be proved to all be present for a fraud:

(1) a false statement of a material fact,
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

[arayder]

K1W1, all your argument does is move the goal posts. First you tell us that people can't be held responsible for a fraudulent advice business and then, in the Porisky case, you give us an example of exactly that happening. Then you try to explain it away by saying the conviction happen because Russ had a business, a "group".

Bobby had a "group" at WFS through which promised legal advice to WFS members and paying clients.

Then you go on to give a set of standards for fraud which, in all likelihood, Menard's actions met. I also point out that the standards you set don't give the fraudster a get-out-jail-free card if the victim was foolish enough not to see through the scam.

Essentially you destroy your own argument, K1W1.

I agree that it would be difficult to prove fraud in the case of Menard's legal advice. But his freeman valley and ACCP projects would present, IMHO, a lower hurdle. In the case of both projects Bobby made false statements of fact, which he had to know were untrue. I believe Bobby went so far as to say he had taken certain pivotal steps towards the completion of the projects, which in fact he never took. IMHO those deceptions make it more clear that he intended to deceive his victims. His victims relied on his advice and were injured by it in the form of lost subscriptions and fees.

---------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 215 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.

[k1w1]

K1W1, all your argument does is move the goal posts. First you tell us that people can't be held responsible for a fraudulent advice business and then, in the Porisky case, you give us an example of exactly that happening. Then you try to explain it away by saying the conviction happen because Russ had a business, a "group".

Bobby had a "group" at WFS through which promised legal advice to WFS members and paying clients.

Then you go on to give a set of standards for fraud which, in all likelihood, Menard's actions met. I also point out that the standards you set don't give the fraudster a get-out-jail-free card if the victim was foolish enough not to see through the scam.

Essentially you destroy your own argument, K1W1.

I gave two examples of Porisky, one before 2001 and one after 2001 when he created Paradigm Group. He was convicted as the principal of Paradigm Group for counselling others to evade tax. As the principal of Paradigm Group he was personating a tax professional and basically gave away his right to say whatever the hell he pleases about the law like the rest of us -- we don't have to be right about what the law means; we're allowed to tell a bunch of people that when tax law says "person" it doesn't mean a flesh and blood person so if you fill out your form in such-and-such a way....

Him and his mates had been giving the same seminars for years before he started calling it all a Group and turned it into a specific type of business of which I believe the principal is supposed to be a tax professional. That's when he stepped over the mark. But he can always go back to being an ordinary Joe and telling anyone who'll listen what he reckons tax law means, just like he was doing before Paradigm Group. You just refuse to see the difference.

Bobby's little "group" over at WFS is nothing at all like Paradigm Group and what it was doing -- more like what Porisky and his mates where doing before 2001, before he created Paradigm Group -- and you trying to compare the two is ridiculous. What your little Bobby does is the same as what Porisky was doing when Sydel unsuccessfully tried to claim he counselled her, tied to claim that she honestly believed at the time that he and his group were legitimate.

I agree that it would be difficult to prove fraud in the case of Menard's legal advice. But his freeman valley and ACCP projects would present, IMHO, a lower hurdle. In the case of both projects Bobby made false statements of fact, which he had to know were untrue. I believe Bobby went so far as to say he had taken certain pivotal steps towards the completion of the projects, which in fact he never took. IMHO those deceptions make it more clear that he intended to deceive his victims. His victims relied on his advice and were injured by it in the form of lost subscriptions and fees.

But they all fail on number four, just like it did for Sydel. No one has a justifiable reason to believe anything Bobby says about the law will be accepted by the courts or by any other authority. Why would they? He's a professional stand-up comedian, not a lawyer -- and he's not personating a lawyer either... except maybe in your fantasy.

[Burnaby49]

K1W1 was making this bizarre argument over at Ickes almost seven months ago, how individuals can say whatever they want without legal consequences but suddenly become criminals if the call themselves a group.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.p ... 68&page=01

He started on page 5 of the discussion with this comment;

Is Rob Menard a registered lawyer or accountant or financial advisor? Or is he doing something to give people a reason to believe he is, like Porisky did when he formed Paradigm Group?

If not, then obviously he’s just an ordinary Joe Public, and us ordinary Joes are allowed to interpret the law however the fuck we want, and we’re also allowed to associate with other people and express it to them. And, what’s more, other people are allowed to give us money for that if that’s what they want to do. And it doesn't have to be fit for purpose because people have no reason to believe it will be.

But if Menard has done something like Porisky did in 2001, then he’ll be in trouble because a Joe Public isn’t allowed to fob themselves off as a professional lawyer, accountant or financial advisor. That would be a deception and people would have a reason to believe they needn’t consult with a professional before they went ahead and acted on the advice or information they’d received.

So, did he actually set up a business? What's the name of it?

Now…

“Your Honour, in spite of the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution, the defendant is still preaching that the world and all its creatures were created in seven days by God. I can prove that the defendant is knowledgeable of the theory of evolution, can prove he has read scientific papers on many aspects of the subject, but in spite of that he is still writing books and still holding seminars in support of Creation. Your honour, the defendant is taking money from people in exchange for information that he clearly knows is false, and the public needs to be protected from him because they’re all complete idiots who can’t be trusted to know their own minds. I respectfully ask that he be imprisoned and we throw away the key.”

“Er, no, sorry, can’t do that. But if it makes you feel any better I’ll say the scoundrel should be consigned to some special part of Hell…”

Then went into greater detail on page 13;

Originally Posted by felixk LOLYou came on here telling me he has formed an association and now that you realise that a reason for setting up an unincorporated association is to not make a profit, you say the profit is immaterial. What a load of old bollocks. You can't set up an organisation specifically to earn a profit and by slipping the word "association" in its title claim it is not a business.

What utter nonsense, you silly old puss. I haven’t mentioned profits or anyone making a profit. I asked about the name of his business; I didn’t ask if you think he’s making a profit. Whether or not there’s any profits is irrelevant to whether or not people who buy into the scheme are being duped by Rob Menard -- and so is whether or not his so-called association is registered as one for tax purposes.

What is relevant would be a name he uses that gives people a reason to have a reliance on any false statements he may provide them regarding the legality of his scheme, and using the word association (or for that matter the word society, as he did with the WFS) does not give a person reason to believe that the principal -- in this case Menard -- is in any way officially qualified or registered or under any obligation to provide them advice or information about matters of law or finance that is valid or fit for purpose.

Things related to law, for example taxation and financial issues, are serious matters, are matters that can have life-changing effects, and people do not, or should not, enter lightly into them. For a person who obtains information of a legal nature from someone who they have no reason to believe is a qualified professional in the matter, it is only reasonable for it to be their responsibility to check or ensure the information or advice is fit for purpose before they actually go ahead and use it -- and that’s regardless of how sensible or legitimate the information may appear to be to them. Conversely, if a person gets advice from someone who they have reason to believe is a qualified or registered legal professional then it’s only reasonable for them to believe they can act on the advice without checking its validity -- and that’s regardless of how absurd or outlandish the advice may seem to them to be.

The reason Porisky fell foul after 2001 was because the name of the enterprise that he formed and was the principal of used the word “Group”, and that’s because, unlike the word Association or Society, the word Group can only be used as a name by specific types of organisations (only two, in fact), one of which is an organisation set up by a chartered (or registered) accountant for the purpose of advising people about changes to the tax regime. Only a chartered accountant can use the word Group and be the principal of the organisation and do what Porisky was trying to do. So when people went to seminars run by the Paradigm Group or otherwise got information that came from the Paradigm Group they had a justifiable reason to believe they were getting legitimate advice that was fit for service -- and that was withstanding the fact he still issued a disclaimer -- and so those people, unlike Sidel, could have justifiably claimed they had no intention to evade taxes but were rather trying to avoid them by what they believed were legitimate means.

As far as those five things that need to be satisfied for there to be fraud, in Porisky’s case the prosecution could prove he knew his information was false since he’d published his analysis of the judge’s reasons for Sidel’s case, so obviously he was familiar with it, and then the fact that by deliberately posing as the principal of a Group, by impersonating a chartered accountant, he gave people a justifiable reason to rely on his legal information, absurd as it was, and that was enough to tick all his boxes.

Any Tom, Dick or Harry can form an association or be the principal or president of an association, so there’s no reason for anyone to believe the president of an association isn’t some common Joe -- that‘s not a reason for someone to assume they‘re obtaining information about legal matters that doesn‘t require verification before use. If a person buys into this scheme of Menard’s and then they end up facing a conviction under Section 364(1)CCC for fraudulently obtaining food, beverage or accommodation, they won’t be able to justify what they’ve done by claiming they were acting on something they believed at the time was legitimate, that they have a justifiable reason for their ignorance of the law because they paid money to something called an association which gave them reason to believed Rob Menard, as the principal of the asociation, was therefore qualified to advise them of the law, and so in fact they are also the victim of the fraud.

I posted somewhere on Quatloos at the time that I thought his position just plain stupid but I wasn't debating it with him because I wasn't signing on to Ickes to do it; I post only on Quatloos. However I think I commented that he was free to sign on to Quatloos and go to it which he has now done. However the Menard discussion is not the place to do it since K1W1 is really arguing obsessively about Russell Porisky, a Vancouver income Tax evader and Eva Sydel, who was convicted of evasion after taking Porisky's advice. Porisky has his own discussion;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10485

And Sydel (not Sidel k1W1) is discussed here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7827

Neither Porisky or Sydel have anything to do with Menard whatever. So K1W1, if you want to continue the individual/group thing, start up an argument over at the Porisky discussion.

[arayder]

K1W1, Menard was not just somebody shooting his mouth off on Youtube. Before the dustup with the BC law society he sold his services as someone who would file legal documents for freemen and stand up in court to argue their cases.

Being banned from playing lawyer didn't stop Menard from offering counsel and advice. WFS members were offered advice and counsel as well as anyone signing up for the ACCP.

The fact that the service didn't "look" like the service Porisky provided doesn't change the fact that Menard hawked counseling and advice services provided by the efforts of WFS and the ACCP. So even by your fantastic standard (that the fraud has to be done though a group effort to be illegal) Menard's counsel qualifies as a fraud. . . twice.

The argument that no one has a justifiable reason to believe anything Menard says about the law since he's not a lawyer could have just as easily been applied to Porsiky since he was no more a tax expert than Menard is a lawyer.

But we don't even need to go there since people who are especially gullible or ignorant may recover damages for fraud if the fraudster knew about their condition and took advantage it.

Since Menard actively recruited needy freemen and did everything he could to keep them misinformed it's pretty hard to argue that Bobby's advice doesn't meet the standard for fraud.

[k1w1]

What I’m talking about isn’t so much about either Porisky or Menard per se; it’s about the right of ordinary people to say whatever they please about law, even if it’s not correct and even if they know it’s not correct, and about why doing that is not fraud or a scam.

Legal professionals such as lawyers and accountants obviously have an obligation to correctly interpret the meaning of the law for the public whereas the public itself has no such obligation and are free to express themselves however they want in that regard. People acting as legal professionals do not have that right or privilege.

If someone who is acting as a legal professional knowingly gives people bunk legal information that ends up causing them undue harm then that would be fraud since the victim has a justifiable reason to rely on the information and all the elements for fraud would be present. If, however, they got the same information from someone who they have no reason to believe is a legal professional, from someone who they have no reason to believe is qualified to give legal advice, then they don’t have any reason to rely on the information before they go off and put it to practical use and it can’t be fraud.

Porisky demonstrated the point where a person has a right to tell people utter nonsense about the law and when they don’t. For Porisky that point was on 1st February 2001, the very same day he created Paradigm Group and started giving people a justifiable reason to believe they were dealing with a tax professional regardless of whether he was one or not.

And my point is that your precious little Bobby is not giving anyone a justifiable reason to believe anything he says about how the law works, is not giving anyone the impression they’re dealing with some sort of legal professional; he’s not actually doing anything wrong when he preaches legal nonsense. And that’s regardless of how much you anti-Freeman zealots squawk about “victims” and how much of a percentage you think he should be responsible for what they did to themselves.

You say Bobby has been banned from playing lawyer in court somewhere. Wow! Really? But doesn’t that apply to anyone who isn’t actually a lawyer anyway? Or are you trying to pretend that he was once a bona fide lawyer but then he got banned or debarred?

Pretending people to be lawyers and pretending others to be victims… you really do live in a fantasy world here, eh.

[arayder]

. . .point is that your precious little Bobby is not giving anyone a justifiable reason to believe anything he says about how the law works, is not giving anyone the impression they’re dealing with some sort of legal professional. . .

Well, that's all very nice but the fact is Menard did pretend to be a legal professional.

[Philistine]

. . .point is that your precious little Bobby is not giving anyone a justifiable reason to believe anything he says about how the law works, is not giving anyone the impression they’re dealing with some sort of legal professional. . .

Well, that's all very nice but the fact is Menard did pretend to be a legal professional.

Indeed. Did someone leave the freetard door unlocked at the Icke forum?