Rocco Galati

[Burnaby49]

Kiwi is right. Legally the gurus are not committing fraud generally. People go to them. Get told what they want to hear. Then give them some money.

Bad advice? Generally.
Morally reprehensible? Often yes.
Illegal? Generally no.

Every multi millionaire religious grifter on the TV would be in jail. Along with the psychics and peddlers of everything from yoga to acupuncture. And many of the medical ones actually harm and/or kill people.

People have a right to spout bs as much as folks have a right to buy it and belive it.

Yes and no. Let's say Menard was successful in his GoFundMe campaign for his C3PO dream and got a pile of money to promote his private police force ideas. When he failed (which he would) that can be considered just a pie in the sky scheme that didn't work out. If people gave him money for that and the money just disappeared with no results, tough. Rob might well believe in it himself and be sincere in his plans. He's just fighting a hopeless battle.

But if he ran an ACCP scheme saying that paying him $250 a month will allow participants to pay off ten times that amount of debt that might be fraud if he issued worthless credit cards that didn't work and he knew they wouldn't work. We don't know because his plan didn't get off the ground and, like the Peter of England WeRe scheme, it appears nobody can be bothered to get all official about it. Point is that giving a guru money may or may not involve a fraudulent scheme depending on what the scheme is, what was promised, if deceit and sham was involved, and what the guru actually did compared to what he promised to do. Dean Clifford is going to jail but I don't think anyone here claims he's acted fraudulently. He was convicted of crimes totally unrelated to fraud. He's frantically trying to get money right now but there is no hint of fraud involved. He's just asking for it to promote his grandiose dreams. So ninja is right, the various gurus are not committing fraud generally but some might be on specific schemes.

Now K1W1, you say;

Burnaby, you say it’s a fraud because (shock, horror!) people give them money.

What is the "it" that I'm saying is fraudulent? Rub my nose in it with a quote from my past comments rather than just making an unfocused unsupported statement. If you are talking about the COMER lawsuit, the point of this discussion, there is nothing whatever fraudulent about it. It is just legally wrong and the applicants will lose. However from that vague statement you build to this;

I hate to inform you of this at this stage of your life, Burnaby, but people are allowed to spend their money as they see fit, not how you might want them to spend their money, and if they believe giving their money to a so-called guru is best for them then it’s none of your business nor anyone else’s. [Edit: Actually, I didn’t hate doing that at all; someone had to. Lol.]

But if that was all that constitutes committing a fraud, receiving money from people for an idiotology, for a bullshit idea or theory, then the likes of Ray Comfort would have been jailed years ago.

This implies that I've somehow, somewhere, said that any money paid to any guru for any reason involves fraud. So please, verify with a quote from a past statement instead of just attributing positions to me. Actually I agree with you in general. If you want to empty out your piggy bank and give it all to Menard to get you a shiny toy policeman's badge go for it, that's your right.

I've noticed that nobody over at WFS has posted about the Federal Court's comments regarding the implications of the Mancuso case. No doubt You're going to get right on it.

[arayder]

The argument that freeman gurus are simply peddling an ideology is belied by the fact that so many of them have been caught telling demonstrable lies in attempts to validate the theories they are peddling.

Menard was caught telling prospective clients he had "kicked ass" in court, when he knew full well the record showed he had lost. Bobby was also caught trying to pass off as real a forged letter from an Irish law firm which he claimed endorsed his methods.

Dean Clifford regularly tells his paying clients he has "dismissed case[s]" against him when he was, in fact, tried and convicted.

Keith Thompson/Kate of Gia told everyone he'd beat the rap on a traffic ticket, when in fact he was fined.

One can't reasonably claim that people telling willful lies for profit are just peddling ideas.

[k1w1]

What is the "it" that I'm saying is fraudulent? Rub my nose in it with a quote from my past comments rather than just making an unfocused unsupported statement.

Ah, my humbliest apologies Burnaby... It were Jeffery I was referring to. Sorry, but sometimes you all look the same to me...

I've noticed that nobody over at WFS has posted about the Federal Court's comments regarding the implications of the Mancuso case. No doubt You're going to get right on it.

Why don't you get right on to it yourself? You're not helpless, are you? And why do you think I'd want to do that anyway? I'm not even vaguely interested in Rocco Galati. What makes you think I am?

And arayder, why don't you post your definition of what you believe constitutes a fraud? Is it like this?

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (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.

I got that from a legal dictionary. Where'd you get yours from?

For these OPCA gurus, it'll always fall down at number (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement.

[Burnaby49]

Why don't you get right on to it yourself? You're not helpless, are you? And why do you think I'd want to do that anyway? I'm not even vaguely interested in Rocco Galati. What makes you think I am?

If you're not interested in Galati why are you posting on this discussion, conveniently titled "Rocco Galati" rather than one of the other numerous Quatloos discussions? In fact if your comments are totally unrelated to Galati why not start a new Quatloos discussion that specifically addresses what you want to write about?

I don't post on WFS because I can't be bothered to post anywhere but Quatloos. I spend enough time here without looking for new venues to waste it. Frankly WFS isn't worth the trouble. Just terr-y and verynewtothis rambling on and on.

[Jeffrey]

(1) a false statement of a material fact
Guru's lie all the time about material facts so checkmark there.

(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue
Check.

(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim
Check

(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement
Freeman victim relying on Freeman advice, check.

(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
Let's see here, money loss, losing in court, jail time, cars impounded, fines, etc etc etc.

It fits all 5 requirements for fraud.

[arayder]

arayder, why don't you post your definition of what you believe constitutes a fraud?

That point has already been addressed, K1W1. The freeman guru's practice of lying by telling prospective clients they have won when in fact they have lost is the very definition of fraud.

You can dance around it all you want, but a lie is a lie.

[k1w1]

Burnaby, what you wrote about Menard and the scheme with cards... That would be an example of a guru practicing the bullshit they preach, eh. That would be against the advice I gave above.

No, a wise OPCA guru would sit back and let someone else give their idea a whirl... and then tell the other person they done it wrong when the other person gets done for fraud or whatever crime or misdemenour they might be commiting.

[k1w1]

Jeffrery, what justifiable reason does anyone have to honestly believe they're getting legitimate legal or financial advice from someone like Menard or Clifford? There's no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe either of them are legitimate legal professionals, they don't even try to pretend to be lawyers or accountants, and that would be the only reason anyone has to believe they've received legitimate legal advice -- that they had an honest belief they were dealing with legitimate professionals and not some Joe Public. There's no justifiable reason for anyone to rely of anything they've been told by an OPCA guru.

Arayder, got a link to what you claim is the "very definition of fraud"? So far all you've done is give what is apparently your own definition... the very thing you accused me of doing. So, put up or...

[arayder]

. . .what justifiable reason does anyone have to honestly believe they're getting legitimate legal or financial advice from someone like Menard or Clifford? There's no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe either of them are legitimate legal professionals, they don't even try to pretend to be lawyers or accountants, and that would be the only reason anyone has to believe they've received legitimate legal advice -- that they had an honest belief they were dealing with legitimate professionals . . . .

So you don't believe the lies, k1w1? Congratulations.

But the the fact is Clifford, Menard, Thompson, Crawford and countless other gurus tell everybody they are legal scholars who have used their methods to beat the system.

They lie. They fake their evidence.

Why do you apologize for them?

[Famspear]

After reviewing the posts in this forum, I believe I have it straight, now.

Rocco Galati is not a kind of Italian ice cream after all.



EDIT: I ate 'way too much turkey this weekend.

[Burnaby49]

After reviewing the posts in this forum, I believe I have it straight, now.

Rocco Galati is not a kind of Italian ice cream after all.



EDIT: I ate 'way too much turkey this weekend.

And too much pre-Christmas eggnog.

We Canadians do it more sensibly and have thanksgiving in October to give us a longer break to recover before Christmas. I serve ham at thanksgiving. One turkey a year is enough.

[Famspear]

.....One turkey a year is enough.

That sounds like the punch line for yet another joke.

I just can't think of the joke right now.....

[k1w1]

So you don't believe the lies, k1w1? Congratulations.

When did you finally figure that out? But good for you for finally catching up. Now, do try to keep up, eh.

Firstly, in spite of you always trying to make it the issue, this has never been about whether or not it works. It's always been about whether it's fraud for a OPCA-type guru to express an opinion about legal matters, even if their opinion is demonstrably wrong. And evidently it is not fraud to do that.

But the the fact is Clifford, Menard, Thompson, Crawford and countless other gurus tell everybody they are legal scholars who have used their methods to beat the system.

It doesn't matter what they say about themselves, there still isn't a justifiable reason for you or anyone else to rely on anything they say about the law or the legal system.

Did you believe them when they said the were legal scholars whose methods have been used to beat the system? No? For what reason?

Yeah, well, other people have the same reasons for not believing they're legitimate legal professionals, too. But you'll find that no one actually believes they're legitimate legal scholars, let alone legitimate lawyers or accountants.

They aren’t lawyers or accountants: they’re just people who have an opinion about the law and whatnot. And here in the Free World people are allowed to have an opinion even about the law, and even if their opinion is drunken and barely comprehensible and entirely contrary to reality.

At any rate, there’s no justifiable reason for anyone to rely on anything an OPCA guru says about the law, no justifiable reason for anyone to go off and actually use anything they say before checking it with a legitimate legal professional. If they don’t do that, if they wilfully use it regardless (and the so-called OPCA litigants do, to a man), they can’t then turn around and claim to be a victim if or when it all turns sour down the road.

Or more to the point, you shouldn't try to claim OPCA litigants are victims when clearly they're not.

They lie. They fake their evidence.

Yes, yes, it’s terrible, simply terrible. Sigh. That character Comfort who I mentioned earlier, the creationist guru, he also does all of that. He’d be in jail right now if doing that was fraud...

Why do you apologize for them?

I don’t apologise for them any more than I apologise for the likes of Comfort.

As wise Solomon once said to Jesus about the Greeks: Yeah, dude, I don’t agree with or even really like what they say, but I’ll defend their right to say it…

Or was it the prophet Muhammad who uttered those words as recorded by the Romans in the Bhagavad-Gita?

[Arthur Rubin]

If the gurus say they are legal scholars, that seems to constitute sufficient justification for the sheeple followers to believe their pronouncements. It could be fraud.

[bmxninja357]

Step one for every legal guru is one simple phrase.

"Don't take my word for it. Do your own research"

Peace
Ninj

[arayder]

As wise Solomon once said to Jesus about the Greeks: Yeah, dude, I don’t agree with or even really like what they say, but I’ll defend their right to say it…

Now you say freeman gurus have a free speech right to defraud their marks.

Unbelievable!

[arayder]

If the gurus say they are legal scholars, that seems to constitute sufficient justification for the sheeple followers to believe their pronouncements. It could be fraud.

Freeman gurus not only claim they are legal scholars, but the also claim successes that never happened.

One might argue that their claims of scholarship are self delusions of a sort. But, when they tell willful and demonstrable lies they cross the line into the kind of dishonorable behavior freemenary says it loathes.

[k1w1]

If the gurus say they are legal scholars, that seems to constitute sufficient justification for the sheeple followers to believe their pronouncements. It could be fraud.

Yes, it could be fraud... but it's not.

It could be a duck, too, but it's not that either.

I'm not sure why you think anyone should believe they're legal scholars simply because they say so. How does them saying anything constitute sufficient justification for anyone to believe their pronoucements?

Did you believe them? No? Why not?

Arayder, I'm still waiting for you to post a reference to your "very" definition of fraud. Otherwise I'm just going to think you made it up Freeman-style...

[arayder]

k1w1, you are pretending by inference that freeman gurus are simply exercising their right of free speech by expressing their "ideologies".

In order to get that over on the reader you are going to have to explain away the reality that:

1. At least one freeman guru has been ordered by the courts to stop representing himself as a legal expert.

2. Several gurus have been branded as vexatious litigants and as such denied easy access to the courts.

3. Freemen gurus have routinely been denied to use of public and private halls were they hoped to sell their advice.

4. Citing violations of use policies Facebook and Youtube have shutdown the pages of several freeman gurus.

5. The bail agreements of several freeman gurus have required them to restrict their use of the web to hawk their methods.

If selling phony freeman legal advice is protected free speech how is it possible that so many governments, courts and businesses have effectively muzzled the freeman brain trust?

Arayder, I'm still waiting for you to post a reference to your "very" definition of fraud. Otherwise I'm just going to think you made it up Freeman-style...

Oh, please, k1w1, enough with the straw man argument. I am not saying freeman gurus have been convicted of fraud. I said they are committing fraud.

You can spare us the grade school debate trick of claiming the only way one can demonstrate their guilt is by producing a record of their fraud convictions. You wouldn't try to pretend that a fly-by-night driveway sealing company that takes your money and skips out on the work, but never caught by the authorities, isn't committing fraud.

So why do you deny the fraud of freeman gurus? Why? Could it be you are a freeman apologist who wants them to enjoy the special rules you have made up for them?

[Arthur Rubin]

If the gurus say they are legal scholars, that seems to constitute sufficient justification for the sheeple followers to believe their pronouncements. It could be fraud.

Yes, it could be fraud... but it's not.

It could be a duck, too, but it's not that either.

I'm not sure why you think anyone should believe they're legal scholars simply because they say so. How does them saying anything constitute sufficient justification for anyone to believe their pronoucements?

We know how to verify whether they are recognized legal scholars. However, it is not obvious.

Wasn't our old "friend" Irwin Schiff convicted of fraud, not just tax fraud on his own returns, but of fraudulently inducing others to commit tax evasion. US law is not the same as Canadian law, but US law has "Freedom of speech", which protects many types of speech which are banned in Canada.