Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[notorial dissent]

Well, afraid you might laugh yourself silly and fall off your chair, maybe???? That you might strain something laughing at him??? Do those count as being in fear?

[wserra]

I'd testify that I sent Rob the totally innocuous letter as a direct result of that call (which is actually true)

So much the better.

[The Observer]

I'd testify that I sent Rob the totally innocuous letter as a direct result of that call (which is actually true)

So much the better.

Yes, that would be a tactic that would take Menard by surprise:

"Well, that was a low blow! Burnaby relied on the truth and got away with it!"

[arayder]

We have already covered the practical problem a fugitive from the law would have with marching into an RCMP post with a criminal complaint.

If Bobby was clean as a whistle he'd still have a problem convincing the cops that he had a valid complaint. Even crazy people have the right to the protection of the law. But in this imperfect world showing up at the cop station in an all black outfit, topped by a dirty watch cap (the boy ran out of fezzes), spouting crazy freeman sh1t about some note and a bunch of stuff you say people have said about you is a losing proposition.

We are used to Bobby and in his circles being a bit off can be a plus. But let's face it. .. the crazy years have caught up with hermit boy.

One can't imagine the egotistical Menard biting his tongue and trying to re-state his case when the an RCMP officer looks him over, gets a whiff of the crazy, and and tells he isn't sure he has a valid complaint. The usual Bobby behavior would be to insult the cops then go home and write a million word screed about how he's being wronged.

But as we have said, it is questionable as to whether Bobby would make it home.

No, Bobby behavior is typically to write pestering letters and emails, make phone calls which he records and go on forums to pretend he's got the powers that be by the short hairs.

It's much ado about nothing.

[LordEd]

Telewarrants

487.1 (1) Where a peace officer believes that an indictable offence has been committed and that it would be impracticable to appear personally before a justice to make application for a warrant in accordance with section 256 or 487, the peace officer may submit an information on oath by telephone or other means of telecommunication to a justice designated for the purpose by the chief judge of the provincial court having jurisdiction in the matter

Will Mr Menard get his own warrant?

[arayder]

Telewarrants

487.1 (1) Where a peace officer believes that an indictable offence has been committed and that it would be impracticable to appear personally before a justice to make application for a warrant in accordance with section 256 or 487, the peace officer may submit an information on oath by telephone or other means of telecommunication to a justice designated for the purpose by the chief judge of the provincial court having jurisdiction in the matter

Will Mr Menard get his own warrant?

I say Bobby should go for it. While on the run from the law for playing cop he can double down and call a justice, tell him he's a peace officer and we can sit back and laugh!

[bmxninja357]

start at 4:20....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGomdoO368g

peace,
ninj

[Burnaby49]

It doesn't look very good for Menard's criminal harassment case against Burnaby:

Toronto man found not guilty in Twitter harassment trial widely viewed as a Canadian first

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... dian-first

The potentially precedent-setting case is believed to the first time a Canadian court has dealt with harassment on the social media network. Experts and civil rights lawyers said in the lead-up to Friday’s verdict that it was a major test of freedom of expression in Canada and the limits of free speech.

For anyone interested here's a link to the decision.

http://canlii.ca/t/gn1hq

Not everyone is happy about it. Slate, an American left-leaning online publication, had this to say about it;

In Canada, criminal harassment occurs when you repeatedly follow someone from place to place, repeatedly communicate with them “either directly or indirectly,” stake out their house or office, or engage in “threatening conduct” against someone in a way that causes them to “fear for their safety.” The elements of a harassment charge vary by state and country, but Canada’s standard mirrors the one at play in many U.S. jurisdictions. It’s a criminal offense that hinges on a meeting of the minds between perpetrator, victim, and judge. Prosecutors must prove that the perpetrator purposefully (or in some cases, just recklessly) harassed the victim. The victim must feel so harassed that she fears for her safety. And the judge must deem her fear reasonable given all the circumstances of the case.

That meeting of the minds didn’t happen here. Though Knazan agreed that Guthrie and Reilly felt they had been harassed, and acknowledged that Elliott knew or should have known that he was harassing them, he did not agree that the women feared for their physical or psychological safety as a result of that harassment. For one thing, they were being very saucy on Twitter. Guthrie’s “retweeting of forceful, insulting, unconfirmed, and ultimately inaccurate attacks” against Elliott hardly gave the impression that she cowered in his presence, Knazan wrote. Neither did Reilly, when she retweeted a comment telling Elliott to “disappear up your own arse you supercilious fart golem.” As Knazan put it: “This is the register of language sometimes used by both those arguing for an open Twitter and those wanting to prevent further attacks on women.” You say “fat ass,” I say “fart golem,” and as far as the court’s concerned, it’s not harassment when everybody’s spitting equally crude insults.

Now, Knazan is telling victims that these trusted tactics may disqualify them from legal victory. Women who lash out at harassers online aren’t necessarily less scared than those who don’t. In many cases, they’re distressed enough to rally friends and followers to come to their aid. But the same Twitter norms that make it quick and easy to lob abuse at a target also goad that very target into hitting back in a tone that’s cool, confident, and maybe a little bit nasty—and not nearly quivering enough to build a criminal conviction.

When it comes to online harassment, this decision seems to say, you can’t have both Twitter justice and real justice. You have to pick. In most cases, though, you’re still likely to receive neither. Lodging a harassment complaint with the cops remains, more often than not, a surefire way to waste an afternoon. And lodging a complaint of harassment on Twitter is the easiest way to receive more harassment on Twitter.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... itter.html

[Chaos]

start at 4:20....

ha....i get it. wacky

[bmxninja357]

i just went to rewatch that and it is not the vid i meant to post. the one i meant to post had rob starting at 4:20 in the vid. give me a sec i will try and find it and fix it.

peace,
ninj

[bmxninja357]

start at 4:20....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGomdoO368g

peace,
ninj

this was the video i meant to post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhIKVYLkp44

sorry bout' that.
ninj

[bmxninja357]

heres the script of the interview on vice:

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/we-spoke ... n-standoff

peace,
ninj

[arayder]

In Canada, criminal harassment occurs when you repeatedly follow someone from place to place, repeatedly communicate with them “either directly or indirectly,” stake out their house or office, or engage in “threatening conduct” against someone in a way that causes them to “fear for their safety.” . . . And the judge must deem her fear reasonable given all the circumstances of the case.

That about says it for Bobby's case. Everybody knows he's in no danger. Tripping over a Moose Head empty and bashing your head doesn't count. Ever the victim, Menard is trying to get folks to think he was and is frightened over a non-threatened letter. He goes on in an attempt to bolster his case by pretending that debunking him is the same as threatening him.

The truth is that Bobby wants to get even with the people who have, for the last decade, exposed him as a con man. To him exposing him is a crime.

Burnaby is just the most recent debunker for whom Bobby has found some contact information and is attempting to trump up a case.

I don't how it works in Canada, but in the states prosecutors and grand juries don't start the criminal process based on BS like Bobby's. Menard should have learned somewhere in grade school that the world doesn't take much note of whining, crybabies.

----------------
Dope Clock III
It has been 35 days since Robert Menard promised to turn Burnaby49 over to the RMCP and the courts for criminal prosecution. So far nothing has happen.

[notorial dissent]

The thing is that you have to be in danger from something besides your actions, stupidity, drunken stumblings. I don' think this counts. Bobby's just SOL, AGAIN.

[arayder]

In the present situation the Menard playbook is to make as big a splash as possible in the freeman toilet bowl by writing post incident letters and/or court appeals which he posts on the internet in an attempt convince the rank and file freemen that he's got a big swingin' thang.

Then nothing happens.

This ploy goes all the way back to his "letters to authorities" which Bobby put on the web after he was unceremoniously kicked out of the home of his teenaged paramour, Megan, and her child back in the early 2000's.

Bobby's big on making a show of it when his ego is bruised. But he never follows through.

Bobby's continual use of this ruse is getting boring.

[notorial dissent]

Bobby's ego must get bruised an awful lot all things considered.

[ComfySlippers]

Somewhat but not really off topic:

Not sure why but when I saw this it made be think of Rob:

Based on that pic I posted the following over in the BoBBy Thread at JREF a long time ago:



I Thank yow.
/bow

[arayder]

As it said;

Elliott was arrested in November 2012 after months of escalation in his online interactions with Guthrie and Reilly. The pair had blocked him in August, but the court heard he continued to mention them in other tweets or comment on events or subject matter they were discussing on the social network. His defence argued the pair continued to “taunt” Elliott even after blocking him, and they wouldn’t have done so if they were genuinely afraid of him.

The Criminal Code defines criminal harassment, in part, as engaging “in conduct… that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.”

Based on this analysis I'm sure that the police and a court would be very interested in hearing how Rob made me genuinely afraid of him and afraid of my personal safety as a result of that wild threatening rant he made to Ron Usher, a friend of mine. The incident where Rob hunted him down and phoned him at work for the specific purpose of harassing me. I'd testify that I sent Rob the totally innocuous letter as a direct result of that call (which is actually true) in an attempt to try and stop him from threatening me and my friends.

Menard's debunkers are wise to be cautious.

Bobby's wild, ranting, threatening phone calls and correspondences paired with threats to use thugs to collect civil damages awarded through mystical freeman legal processes are reasons for concern.

Menard's propensity for misidentifying random innocents as his debunkers and calling for their public shaming pales by the concern caused by his boasts over the years that he is a skilled bomb maker.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Robert Menard: King of the Understatement !!!

[Wake Up! Productions]

Robert Menard
1 hr ·
Illustrator/ Graphic artist needed. Please contact for paid gig details!

What the hell is he up to now?