Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[bmxninja357]

i know its a blurry legal mechanism but not guilty does not prove innocence. someone where you are may be found not guilty do to a shady technicality but it is not an acquittal. an acquittal is absolute proof of innocence. not guilty is absolute proof we ,for some reason, could not convict on the charge.

family court is a good example. you can get found not guilty in criminal court of domestic abuse but the judge will consider it when he takes your kids. its a real convoluted mess but there is a difference.

hopefully someone with more technical jargon chimes in but i have witnessed this in action. not guilty acquits no man. if a not guilty is an acquittal theres no grounds for a civil action at all. it would be frivolous and vexatious. you would not have leverage to litigate. not guilty leaves an almost double jeopardy situation.

if you were acquitted meaning you had nothing at all to do with anything the secondary civil action is without any merit.

not guilty and acquitted look the same but smell completely different.

peace,
ninj

[arayder]

Once again, Menard has displayed his IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, but what is worse is that his Facebook followers AGREE with him !!!

Hardly a surprise. His decades long attempts to get Canadian governments to accept numerous freeman theories as actually legal rights (mostly focused around freeloading attempts to get something for nothing) have all, without exception, failed. Apart from his advancing age he's no further ahead than when he started. So followers who want at least some results for their investment in time and money have moved on leaving him with the ones who will apparently believe anything. However, given the results of his last few GoFundMe attempts, even they are not willing to open up their wallets for Rob anymore.

Consistent with his personality problem (which I am restrained from naming here) Bobby frequently feels the need to lord over others by playing professor.

Readers of his Facebook page will note that Professor Puddywuddle* has recently lectured his minions over subjects as diverse as American politics, how to give directions and how one should act upon awakening from a statist slumber.

The Professor's latest hair splitting over innocent vs. not guilty was not really about a fine point of the law. It is about an insecure narcissist feigning intellectual superiority in a predictable attempt to attract the attention and admiration of others.

-----------
* "Puddywuddle" was the screen name Menard used when sockpuppeting on the TPUC forum.

[Dr. Caligari]

In the case of oj he was found not guilty opening the door to a civil suit. Had it been an aquital there would be no grounds for a civil action.

In many instances it's legal dirty pool.

Peace
Ninj

In the U.S., there is no such thing as a verdict of "innocent"; the jury finds you guilty or not guilty. A verdict of not guilty may mean that the jury was absolutely sure you were innocent, or that they thought you were probably guilty but weren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, or anything in between.

OJ was subject to a civil suit by the heirs of Nicolle Brown Simpson because a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil suit requires only proof by a preponderance of the evidence. So a criminal acquittal doesn't bar a subsequent civil suit.

[Burnaby49]

Back in the late 1970's one of my old University profs was murdered in Switzerland. She disappeared suddenly, husband bemused and concerned, then a nude female body was found wrapped in plastic off a Swiss freeway. Too far gone to identify. Husband volunteered to get wife's dental records which he gave to Swiss police which confirmed body not hers. Except Swiss police, being thorough, demanded name of dentist to get them directly. So he admitted he'd provided fake records because he didn't want to suffer the trauma of having the body confirmed as being his dear wife. Swiss didn't buy it either. Real records confirmed it was her and he was tried but got off on the basis that "The accused is liberated by benefit of very light doubt".

From what I can recall at the time the Swiss had three possible verdicts, guilty, not guilty, and not proven. The third was essentially "We think you did it but we can't prove it".

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 6470&hl=en

[Bill Lumbergh]

In the case of oj he was found not guilty opening the door to a civil suit. Had it been an aquital there would be no grounds for a civil action.

In many instances it's legal dirty pool.

Peace
Ninj

In the U.S., there is no such thing as a verdict of "innocent"; the jury finds you guilty or not guilty. A verdict of not guilty may mean that the jury was absolutely sure you were innocent, or that they thought you were probably guilty but weren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, or anything in between.

OJ was subject to a civil suit by the heirs of Nicolle Brown Simpson because a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil suit requires only proof by a preponderance of the evidence. So a criminal acquittal doesn't bar a subsequent civil suit.

It's the same in Canada. Here's the Ontario Court of Appeal explaining it in R. v. Mullins-Johnson http://canlii.ca/t/1tb2m:

[23] There are not in Canadian law two kinds of acquittals:
those based on the Crown having failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and those where the accused has been shown to be factually innocent. We adopt the comments of the former Chief Justice of Canada in The Lamer Commission of Inquiry Pertaining to the Cases of: Ronald Dalton, Gregory Parsons, Randy Druken, Annex 3, p. 342:

[A] criminal trial does not address "factual innocence". The criminal trial is to determine whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable [page432] doubt. If so, the accused is guilty. If not, the accused is found not guilty. There is no finding of factual innocence since it would not fall within the ambit or purpose of criminal law.

[24] Just as the criminal trial is not a vehicle for declarations of factual innocence, so an appeal court, which obtains its jurisdiction from statute, has no jurisdiction to make a formal legal declaration of factual innocence. The fact that we are hearing this case as a Reference under s. 696.3(3) (a)(ii) of the Criminal Code does not expand that jurisdiction. The terms of the Reference to this court are clear: we are hearing this case "as if it were an appeal". While we are entitled to express our reasons for the result in clear and strong terms, as we have done, we cannot make a formal legal declaration of the appellant's factual innocence.

[25] In addition to the jurisdictional issue, there are important policy reasons for not, in effect, recognizing a third verdict, other than "guilty" or "not guilty", of "factually innocent". The most compelling, and, in our view, conclusive reason is the impact it would have on other persons found not guilty by criminal courts. As Professor Kent Roach observed in a report he prepared for the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Aspects of the Trial and Conviction of James Driskell, "there is a genuine concern that determinations and declarations of wrongful convictions could degrade the meaning of the not guilty verdict" (p. 39). To recognize a third verdict in the criminal trial process would, in effect, create two classes of people: those found to be factually innocent and those who benefited from the presumption of innocence and the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for Menard's post, he is arguing against a point that no one is making. I have never seen anyone claim that the presumption of innocence is anything but a presumption. Even when people say "innocent until proven guilty" they are referring to the presumption without explicitly saying so.

[bmxninja357]

See here's the problem. You are suggesting that once charged with an offense you are never innocent. I have seen not guilty used against folks. In a case we can't talk about my friend was told in family court that the not guilty in his criminal case did not mean he did not do it as he was not aquited.

I have seen the difference in court. So I have every reason to draw a distinction between not guilty and aquital.

Peace
Ninj

[arayder]

There's not guilty and then there's not guilty.

In the first case the jury can't convict based on the evidence/facts and after deliberating for a long time votes to acquit. In the other the jury comes back in an hour with an acquittal as if to say to the prosecutor, "What's a matta you?"

The first guy is not guilty. The second is innocent.

[noblepa]

In the case of oj he was found not guilty opening the door to a civil suit. Had it been an aquital there would be no grounds for a civil action.

In many instances it's legal dirty pool.

Peace
Ninj

In the U.S., there is no such thing as a verdict of "innocent"; the jury finds you guilty or not guilty. A verdict of not guilty may mean that the jury was absolutely sure you were innocent, or that they thought you were probably guilty but weren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, or anything in between.

OJ was subject to a civil suit by the heirs of Nicolle Brown Simpson because a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil suit requires only proof by a preponderance of the evidence. So a criminal acquittal doesn't bar a subsequent civil suit.

And, unlike appellate court rulings, juries do not publish any kind of explanation of their verdict. This means that a jury verdict, technically, does not establish any precedent, the way a judges ruling can. It also leads to the possibility of "jury nullification", which is not really a legal concept, but it clearly does happen.

So, in addition to the reasons for a "not guilty" verdict that you cited, there is another possibility; that the jury thought the law itself was wrong and refused to convict, despite the conclusive evidence that the defendant had violated the law. Unfortunately, while invalidating a law is supposed to be outside the jury's purview, it does happen.

Unless the jury members decide to talk to the media after rendering their verdict, there is really no official means to know exactly why a jury found as they did.

[noblepa]

See here's the problem. You are suggesting that once charged with an offense you are never innocent. I have seen not guilty used against folks. In a case we can't talk about my friend was told in family court that the not guilty in his criminal case did not mean he did not do it as he was not aquited.

I have seen the difference in court. So I have every reason to draw a distinction between not guilty and aquital.

Peace
Ninj

No, in a criminal case, one is presumed to be innocent, until the jury finds the defendant guilty. In the US and Canada, this requires that the jury be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt", that the defendant is guilty.

In a civil case, such as family court, a lower standard is required. I believe the term is the "preponderance of the evidence". This is why O.J. Simpson was acquitted in his criminal trial, but lost the civil wrongful death suit, brought by Nicolle's parents. Even though he was acquitted of murder, he was found liable for her death in a civil court. This does not constitute double jeopardy, either.

In your family court example, I doubt that any criminal court verdict would have prevented the judge from finding as he/she did. As others have pointed out, there is a binary choice in criminal verdicts; guilty or not guilty. There is no degree of not quilty. All the jury is offically saying is that they were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury speaks officially only through its verdict.

[arayder]

Since it was Menard's Facebook post that got us started on this discussion I am wondering if the question of presumed innocence and specifically how an on the run suspect ought to be treated wasn't on Bobby's mind as he contemplates missing another Menard family reunion this summer.

It is telling to note that Bobby never once discussed how the law regards those who flee the courts and the justice system.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It is telling to note that Bobby never once discussed how the law regards those who flee the courts and the justice system.

Footles only talk about judges fleeing the court, they never mention footle defendants who flee the court like Menard did.

[arayder]

It is telling to note that Bobby never once discussed how the law regards those who flee the courts and the justice system.

Footles only talk about judges fleeing the court, they never mention footle defendants who flee the court like Menard did.

I don't know the law in Canada, but in the states intentional flight by a defendant accused of a crime may be considered in the light of all the other evidence in the case. The burden is upon the government to prove intentional flight.

In the U.S. flight by itself is not sufficient alone to conclude he's guilty because flight does not create a presumption of guilt. But Bobby's flight might provide the basis for an inference of consciousness of guilt. It is up to the judge or the jury to determine whether or not evidence of intentional flight shows a consciousness of guilt.

Bobby has been working on this angle by saying that he fled Ontario out of fear that the cops would give him a beating during his next jailing.

[Wake Up! Productions]

STOP THE PRESSESS !!! Robert Menard Debunks Kate of Gaia in new video !!!

Illegal to use Legal Name??? NO! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3v7s7pO-Is

[Wake Up! Productions]

It should also be noted that Menard appears to have moved. This is not the same newly renovated kitchen that previously appeared in his past videos.

[Burnaby49]

I assumed that he was kicked out of his previous place months ago when it was sold.

[Jeffrey]

Damn Menard is encroaching on our debunking turf!



Update: his video is actually pretty good until he starts talking about the security of the person crap.

Update 2: I think Menard now has an excuse to deal withe his pending warrants in Ontario soon.

http://www.techinsider.io/ontario-annou ... lan-2016-3

[Wake Up! Productions]

Damn Menard is encroaching on our debunking turf!



Update: his video is actually pretty good until he starts talking about the security of the person crap.

Update 2: I think Menard now has an excuse to deal withe his pending warrants in Ontario soon.

http://www.techinsider.io/ontario-annou ... lan-2016-3

Funny, the Swiss are doing the same thing: "Swiss to vote on guaranteed income for all" http://www.thelocal.ch/20160127/swiss-t ... me-for-all

In my opinion, all it does is create a permanent welfare class dependant on government. Why work at a McDonalds when the government will give me the same monthly amount for not working at all?

[bmxninja357]

In my opinion, all it does is create a permanent welfare class dependant on government. Why work at a McDonalds when the government will give me the same monthly amount for not working at all?

That is not what happened in Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/mani ... s-1.868562

Peace
Ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

In my opinion, all it does is create a permanent welfare class dependant on government. Why work at a McDonalds when the government will give me the same monthly amount for not working at all?

That is not what happened in Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/mani ... s-1.868562

Peace
Ninj

BTW - New Santos update !!!

[Jeffrey]

Why work at a McDonalds when the government will give me the same monthly amount for not working at all?

Assuming it's $900 a month, you're looking at $10,800 a year. Making minimum wage at McDonald's you'd earn double that amount at $20,696 a year.