Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Wake Up! Productions]

Menard has not, to my knowledge, ever participated on Quatloos, either under his own name or using a pseudonym.

This is SHOCKING to me, as when I was a "follower" of Menard, I would often here him defend himself against numerous "attacks" from various forums that I had previously never heard of. I simply just assumed that he would have made an appearance here at some point. What is it about Quatloos that makes him such a shy little creature - I wonder?

[Burnaby49]

Menard has not, to my knowledge, ever participated on Quatloos, either under his own name or using a pseudonym.

This is SHOCKING to me, as when I was a "follower" of Menard, I would often here him defend himself against numerous "attacks" from various forums that I had previously never heard of. I simply just assumed that he would have made an appearance here at some point. What is it about Quatloos that makes him such a shy little creature - I wonder?

Well for all I know he's finally posting here in the guise of phiwum. That guy has only posted on this discussion and his goal seems to be to defend Menard from critical comments. Wouldn't be the first time. Menard sockpuppeted as winteral over at Ickes and as puddywuddle at TPUC.

[Bill Lumbergh]

For what it's worth there was a user registered on here as a "mrmitee". Made only one post. No way to tell if it was actually him.

I also agree that posting that photo on here and making fun of it is irrelevant to the topic and frankly a bit childish. This forum exists to discuss and expose these people's scams. I have no problem ridiculing their ideas and theories but it shouldn't degenerate into personal vendettas. Just my two cents.

[Burnaby49]

For what it's worth there was a user registered on here as a "mrmitee". Made only one post. No way to tell if it was actually him.

If so he hasn't been around since late 2012 because everyone who's posted since is on the Members list. Here is the list for "m".

memberlist.php?form=postform&field=user ... memberlist

[bmxninja357]

Wasn't that around the great purge?

Peace
Ninj

[pigpot]

the great purge?

Sounds grandiose...

[NYGman]

For what it's worth there was a user registered on here as a "mrmitee". Made only one post. No way to tell if it was actually him.

If so he hasn't been around since late 2012 because everyone who's posted since is on the Members list. Here is the list for "m".

memberlist.php?form=postform&field=user ... memberlist

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=3019&p=52274&hilit=mrmitee#p52270

The 1 post

[Burnaby49]

I stand corrected! And I posted right after Rob! Forgot all about it. Although the two posts were over five years apart. This is how it used to be on Quatloos. If nobody had anything to say discussions just stopped. So for five years Rob's discussion languished without a post until I opened my big mouth. But I doubt that I even noticed that mrmitee had posted just before me (sequentially, not chronologically) since he didn't post any comments apart from "Menard is at it again". So there you have Rob's total contribution to Quatloos.

The probable reason he's not on the Members list is that he was removed during the Great Purge. Managment decided to get rid of members who'd been on the list for years without posting; just clearing out the deadwood. The purge was in late 2012 so Rob had been roosting on the list without any new posts for about four years. A prime target for deleting.

Wserra said in that 2008 discussion;

Canadian courts are considerably more tolerant of nuts than US courts

For whatever reason, they appear not to have as many. Give 'em time.

Spot on as my court reporting has shown.

[arayder]

There is no there, there when to comes to Menard. The internal inconsistencies in his philosophy, theories and methods are so striking one has to wonder if he really believes anything. The only consistency is that Bobby says what he thinks he needs to say to whatever audience he's in front of at the time. . .

There's no point in going on and on about Bobby's beliefs, because he really only has three.

-- He believes he is superior to everybody else.
-- He believes he has the right to manipulate others for his own advancement.
-- He believes anybody he cheats or who gets in trouble after following his advice is an inferior getting what he or she deserves.

The trail of harm left in Menard's wake is why it's important to talk about his narcissistic personality disorder and where it came from. People need to know Menardian freemanism is not about freedom and self-reliance. It's all about Menard's mental health. . .

So, are you saying that Menard is a chameleon that can't be boxed, identified, and pinned down to a specific category?

Sort of. What I am saying is that talking about his freeman beliefs is difficult at best because they change according to his needs in the moment.

I am saying is that like so many sovcit/freeman gurus his philosophy is fueled by a personality defect. In Menard's case the defect is narcissism. With Dean it's an anger problem. Eldon Warman was just plain nuts. Kate of Gia has badly dealt with sexual ID issues. Many of the up and coming gurus have their own sorts of problems. . .but they still push the same old snake oil.

Since Bobby's various ideas and theories have been so thoroughly discredited and dismissed over the years there isn't much point in going over them all again. Rather I think it is important that we start looking into why he and other freeman gurus are so driven to preach their BS.

I realize that to many posters it seems a low blow to point out that a guru has a personality disorder, or a drug and alcohol problem, or a rage problem, or is struggling with transgender issues. Indeed in the past when I have pointed out Kate's transgender issues, or Menard's heavy drinking (read: self-medication) some posters have cried foul.

I think it is all about understanding the reality that the gurus are lost boys (they are mainly male) trying to make themselves whole through absurd theories.

[phiwum]

Menard has not, to my knowledge, ever participated on Quatloos, either under his own name or using a pseudonym.

This is SHOCKING to me, as when I was a "follower" of Menard, I would often here him defend himself against numerous "attacks" from various forums that I had previously never heard of. I simply just assumed that he would have made an appearance here at some point. What is it about Quatloos that makes him such a shy little creature - I wonder?

Well for all I know he's finally posting here in the guise of phiwum. That guy has only posted on this discussion and his goal seems to be to defend Menard from critical comments. Wouldn't be the first time. Menard sockpuppeted as winteral over at Ickes and as puddywuddle at TPUC.

You got me wrong. I have no desire to defend Menard from critical comments.

I do think that it's a shame when someone speculates about family relations, and diagnoses mental illness due to a need to please one's father. It is pure speculation of a particularly nasty sort.

But, as far as calling Menard out for his obviously ridiculous claims, or the fact that he's too cowardly to act on these claims, I have no complaints. That's why I've lurked on this site, off and on, for some time.

My only "defense" of Menard is that our arguments should address Menard's bizarre legal theories, and not his family life or mental health.

[Burnaby49]

You got me wrong. I have no desire to defend Menard from critical comments.

I do think that it's a shame when someone speculates about family relations, and diagnoses mental illness due to a need to please one's father. It is pure speculation of a particularly nasty sort.

But, as far as calling Menard out for his obviously ridiculous claims, or the fact that he's too cowardly to act on these claims, I have no complaints. That's why I've lurked on this site, off and on, for some time.

My only "defense" of Menard is that our arguments should address Menard's bizarre legal theories, and not his family life or mental health.

Fair enough. While I've criticized him, sometimes harshly, it's for what he does not his assumed mental state. His family is irrelevant to the discussion.

[arayder]

I think the mental state of people who act crazy is a perfectly appropriate topic. Especially when that craziness leads others to harm.

I can't count the times members have pointed out the insanity of Clifford's rages and Menard's pathological lies.

If the likely source of that insanity comes from the freeman guru's family and a member is uncomfortable talking about families then they can, IMHO, not read the post or put the poster (me) on ignore.

Member after member wonders at the sources of the looniness freemen and freemen gurus exhibit. But when Menard ruins the finances and futures of a boat load of gullible followers over more than a decade of craziness, all of a sudden it is expected by some that we shouldn't talk about where the insanity came from because the idea that it may have its origins in the family is too uncomfortable for them to hear.

If ya' can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[phiwum]

I think the mental state of people who act crazy is a perfectly appropriate topic. Especially when that craziness leads others to harm.

I can't count the times members have pointed out the insanity of Clifford's rages and Menard's pathological lies.

If the likely source of that insanity comes from the freeman guru's family and a member is uncomfortable talking about families then they can, IMHO, not read the post or put the poster (me) on ignore.

Member after member wonders at the sources of the looniness freemen and freemen gurus exhibit. But when Menard ruins the finances and futures of a boat load of gullible followers over more than a decade of craziness, all of a sudden it is expected by some that we shouldn't talk about where the insanity came from because the idea that it may have its origins in the family is too uncomfortable for them to hear.

If ya' can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Okay, I reckon we've all had our say. If you see nothing wrong with pretending that you've discovered Menard's odd ideas are caused by father issues, because you read his father's obituary and saw a photo of li'l Robby in his father's lap, then I'm sure there's no point in continuing this discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, this forum is for discussing (and debunking) odd legal theories, not armchair psychological diagnoses. A couple of others were sympathetic to this view. But unless moderators believe that your antics violate the rules or deserve sanction, I don't see that you're likely to discontinue this regrettable practice.

[Burnaby49]

As far as I'm concerned, this forum is for discussing (and debunking) odd legal theories, not armchair psychological diagnoses. A couple of others were sympathetic to this view. But unless moderators believe that your antics violate the rules or deserve sanction, I don't see that you're likely to discontinue this regrettable practice.

I have to agree. It's not just that Arayder has given us his armchair analysis of Menard's psychological issue as much as he's given it over and over and over. Whenever there's a lull we get it again. Nobody cares. Speaking for myself I just don't care about the underlying psychological pathology driving Menard. He is what he is. Even if Arayder's amateur diagnosis is correct, so what?

[arayder]

With all respect I have to say there is nothing left to say about Menard's theories of law and government. All his theories, which were borrowed in the first place, have been dismissed as selfish, amateurish horse crap. Most of freeman community has figured that out, thanks to the folks here.

But, I think it's high time we freeman debunkers wise up and realize that there isn't much to Bobby but delusions, deception, rage and narcissism.

The next time y'all get weak in the knees about telling it like it is I would urge you to consider the the case of Alexander Ream who is the classic example of the narcissist's victim. After having bought Menard's C3PO theory, hook line and sinker, he acted on it only to be arrested and was subsequently betrayed by the manipultive Menard who threw him under the bus by announcing that the poor naive boy hadn't followed his instructions to a t.

The next time y'all don't want to talk about families I would urge you to consider the anguish Ream's family went through as he languished in jail, never once blaming Menard, but still trying to make his guru's theory work.

It's a text book case of a gullible victim manipulated and abused by a narcissist. There is nothing "armchair" about it.

Just because a couple of members here don't want to see it doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

[The Observer]

As a moderator, I am going to weigh in here. As far as discussing a particular person's psychological issues, Quatloos has not moderated those issues. We all enjoy playing amateur psychologist in trying to figure out why a particular sovrun or TP persists in idiotic behavior, so trying to rein in that aspect of the conversation is pointless.

However, we have drawn the line at dragging that person's relatives into the discussion, particularly if they are not involved in the subject matter's stupid behavior. Putting up pictures that were taken by the family is not particularly informative or clinical, especially since there may be a context they were taken under for which we have no knowledge. To try to come up with some amateur conclusion at the expense of the relatives' reputations is unfair and mean-spirited.

If people insist on doing this kind of stuff in the future, it is going to be dealt with.

Just because a couple of members here don't want to see it doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

Regardless, we have standards and rules here. Please follow them.

[arayder]

If you see nothing wrong with pretending that you've discovered Menard's odd ideas are caused by father issues, because you read his father's obituary and saw a photo of li'l Robby in his father's lap, then I'm sure there's no point in continuing this discussion.

How very disingenuous. You know very well that my opinion of Bobby's mental state is based on far more than his father's obituary and his latest fawning picture of his papa.

As a moderator, I am going to weigh in here. As far as discussing a particular person's psychological issues, Quatloos has not moderated those issues. We all enjoy playing amateur psychologist in trying to figure out why a particular sovrun or TP persists in idiotic behavior, so trying to rein in that aspect of the conversation is pointless.

However, we have drawn the line at dragging that person's relatives into the discussion, particularly if they are not involved in the subject matter's stupid behavior. Putting up pictures that were taken by the family is not particularly informative or clinical, especially since there may be a context they were taken under for which we have no knowledge. To try to come up with some amateur conclusion at the expense of the relatives' reputations is unfair and mean-spirited.

If people insist on doing this kind of stuff in the future, it is going to be dealt with.

I'll admit that my original post and Wake Up's follow up of the picture was in bad taste. My apologies.

If dragging people's family into the discussion and conjecturing on the mental health of freemen gurus is now out of bounds then I think y'all mods better hurry over to the UK threads where calling freemen gurus crazy and making their families (Crawford's and Ceylon's in particular) prime targets for ridicule is par for the course.

I am reminded of the cypher cat calls about Crawford's obese wife and the pirated YouTube of his cubby daughter dancing in an unbecoming bath robe.

Is my heads up enough, or should I get a weak kneed lurker to point out these posts out to you?

Regardless, we have standards and rules here. Please follow them.

Be assured I will comply.

[Hyrion]

If dragging people's family into the discussion and conjecturing on the mental health of freemen gurus is now out of bounds then I think y'all mods better hurry over to the UK threads

Both Amanda and Craig weighed in on their father's activities, playing a significant role in the various situations - very much bringing themselves into the discussion.

Please point to where you have documentation showing Rob Menard's father weighed in on anything his son was doing.

There's a pretty big difference in the family members of an OPCA individual bringing themselves into the discussion and us bringing in the family members who have not spoken about - or played a role in - the situation.

So please point to where either Menard's father weighed in on the situation or Menard himself speaking of his father in the context of the speculation on the potential "father issues" or the context of Menard's OPCA beliefs/activities.

If you can not point to any, then a clear recognition is appropriate that you (or another) has brought a deceased individual into a discussion where it's pure speculation and conjecture with no evidence to support said speculation/conjecture.

Granted: some criminals have parent issues that lead them into the life of crime they chose - but not all criminals do. So unless you have some concrete evidence linking Menard's father to the situation - perhaps it's time to drop that part of the discussion.

[arayder]

Hyrion, the question at hand regarding Menard is not whether his father encouraged his freeman theories, but rather whether he is the source of what I believe to be Bobby's narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

I maintain that Bobby's history is consistent with the prevailing belief that NPDs are often caused by cold, hypercritical parents who NPD suffers seek to please by inventing haughty, superior and manipulative personas for themselves.

It's probably best that I either PM you the details of my "diagnosis" or start a thread over on the International Skeptics forum since a lengthy discussion of Menard's mental health is no longer allowed here.

[Burnaby49]

It's probably best that I either PM you the details of my "diagnosis" or start a thread over on the International Skeptics forum since a lengthy discussion of Menard's mental health is no longer allowed here.

Exactly. Nobody is interested in your psychological analysis. Frankly I don't understand your obsession with Menard. You are constantly posting on him even though it is the same old stuff over and over. We all know your opinions on his character and mental state. You've told us repeatedly.