Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Burnaby49]

Here's Menard's legal advice to Dean Kory on how to get his criminal charges dismissed (according to Dean, most recent charges are failure to appear, obstruction of a peace officer, carrying a concealed weapon. No doubt there are more, as this has been going on forever):

Robert Menard
Acting in the private, extend an offer to discuss, negotiate and settle with 'The Injured Party'. Keep a record of that. If 'they' refuse that, then you have grounds to dismiss all charges. Offer to discuss and negotiate with the identified injured party. A refusal on their part to do so, extinguishes charges against you. You are so close....

https://www.facebook.com/dean.kory/post ... nref=story

Brilliant stuff. I just can't believe he's giving it away for free.

However, to be fair to Rob, there is always somebody giving even worse advice;

Laurence Lozza Lazarus
seize the building under article 61 an shut them down for a week. it will cost them loads,but u will need a few people in lawful rebellion. lawful excuse. no place of business,no revenue,coffers go empty,whole system collapse...........

[NYGman]

Brilliant stuff. I just can't believe he's giving it away for free.

However, to be fair to Rob, there is always

You get what you pay for in this instance, however having said that I still don't think he got value for anything

[notorial dissent]

I don't think Dean needs any m ore advice, he's in enough trouble as it is from the sounds of it. If they've got him for carrying a concealed weapon, then most likely they also have him for illegal firearm since one seems to go with the other in that crowd. Sounds like Dean is in a whole heck of a lot of trouble that he doesn't need any further help with.

[arayder]

Shill of the purple fire farting dragon.

Can we give the mrmitee account a title?

One can't count the times Bobby's been schooled on how the governments of the western democracies get their authority. The fact that he can't figure it out belies his claim to superior intelligence.

The "I can make you rich" lie is Bobby's brand.

Lying Bobby's selling a bill of goods to gullible freemen by telling them the Canadian government is holding a fortune in trust for each of them. Ever since Bobby made gullible freemen believe he could make them rich he's been hooked on the notion that he can be a big man by appealing to the greed of layabout freemen, like himself.

Ever since he made gullible freemen gasp in amazement at the notion that he could make them rich there hasn't been a single lie he won't tell to get over on these gullibles. . .including making the ridiculous claim that his sister, a lawyer with the Canadian Department of Justice, backed up his "security of the person" theory!

The idea that Kate has a competing theory, complete with big ole billboards, which might win the hearts of freemen is simply not acceptable to Bobby the narcissist.

------------
Coward Clock: It has been 47 days since Robert Menard was challenged to explain his embrace of Orlando false flag theories. So far Bobby has declined.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Robert Menard
Acting in the private, extend an offer to discuss, negotiate and settle with 'The Injured Party'. Keep a record of that. If 'they' refuse that, then you have grounds to dismiss all charges. Offer to discuss and negotiate with the identified injured party. A refusal on their part to do so, extinguishes charges against you. You are so close....

If that method is "so close" why didn't Bobby follow his own advice when he got done for personating a peace officer? Why did Bobby opt for running away and hiding? What was he scared of?

[arayder]

Robert Menard
Acting in the private, extend an offer to discuss, negotiate and settle with 'The Injured Party'. Keep a record of that. If 'they' refuse that, then you have grounds to dismiss all charges. Offer to discuss and negotiate with the identified injured party. A refusal on their part to do so, extinguishes charges against you. You are so close....

If that method is "so close" why didn't Bobby follow his own advice when he got done for personating a peace officer? Why did Bobby opt for running away and hiding? What was he scared of?

Bobby's game is to pretend he did something similar. He petitioned the Canadian courts for approval of the C3PO and when they dismissed his petition without a hearing he claimed it was a win since, according to him, not doing so face to face amounts to a refusal.

Freeman magic at work for the self-delusional!

Of course, in the real world Bobby, still wanted by the law, is forced to fly under the cop's radar and miss the family reunions in Ontario.

Battle worn Bobby is living large. . .not.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Bobby's game is to pretend he did something similar. He petitioned the Canadian courts for approval of the C3PO and when they dismissed his petition without a hearing he claimed it was a win since, according to him, not doing so face to face amounts to a refusal.

And unfortunately for Bobby it did not "extinguish" the charges. Bobby can't get it to work for himself but he encourages other people to take exactly the same course.

[arayder]

Bobby's game is to pretend he did something similar. He petitioned the Canadian courts for approval of the C3PO and when they dismissed his petition without a hearing he claimed it was a win since, according to him, not doing so face to face amounts to a refusal.

And unfortunately for Bobby it did not "extinguish" the charges. Bobby can't get it to work for himself but he encourages other people to take exactly the same course.

It's standard operating procedure for freemen to lose in court and later claim victory based the judges refusal to respond to some "freeman correct" demand. When judges ignore demands to repeat their oaths or refuses to magically transfigure the court into common law jurisdiction freemen claim victory. . .even as they are sent to jail!

In that same vein Bobby's latest ruse is to claim victory when the court refuses to dismiss criminal charges and agree to a private, extra judicial negotiation of the charges which are magically refigured as "disputes" by Bobby's ruse. It wouldn't be so bad, it might even be funny, if Menard didn't sell legal advice like this to the gullible and desperate.

The truth is Menard has never once in 20 years made this sort of advice work for himself or anyone else.

[arayder]

So, Bobby, the question would be:

What is your responsibility to the handful of dues paying members of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers who gave you hundreds of dollars and got nothing for it?

------------
Coward Clock: It has been 49 days since Robert Menard was challenged to explain his embrace of Orlando false flag theories. So far Bobby has declined.

[arayder]

So, Bobby, the question would be:

What is your responsibility to the handful of dues paying members of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers who gave you hundreds of dollars and got nothing for it?

To which Bobby dodges the question by saying:

Sorry Stalking Idiot, the actual question is "What obligation do I have to answer ANY of your questions?" The answer is NONE.

Does Bobby mean he doesn't have to answer questions?

Or does he mean he hasn't met this responsibility?

Or does he mean he doesn't want the ACCP subscribers to know what he did with their money?

Any freeman lurker considering paying Bobby for a "service" should ask what happened, not just to the ACCP money, but that of his other projects and promised law suits!

------------
Coward Clock: It has been 50 days since Robert Menard was challenged to explain his embrace of Orlando false flag theories. So far Bobby has declined.

[The Observer]

The sad reality is that, despite Menard's lack of success in any endeavor, there will always be someone who will accept Menard's beliefs and set about trying to implement them in their own lives. You can only protect some people so far.

Which pretty much proves what Barnum said about the availability of suckers.

[arayder]

The sad reality is that, despite Menard's lack of success in any endeavor, there will always be someone who will accept Menard's beliefs and set about trying to implement them in their own lives. You can only protect some people so far.

Which pretty much proves what Barnum said about the availability of suckers.

So how are these folks not victims of Menard's scam?

No reasonable individual would have given the advice Menard gave. There was already existing case law contradicting what he said and sold to his victims. Menard had been informed of the law long before he scammed these folks out of their money!

How is what he did not fraud?

[wserra]

How is what he did not fraud?

Obs didn't say it wasn't. He said, in essence, that the existence of fraudsters depends on the existence of victims.

[notorial dissent]

The sad reality is that, despite Menard's lack of success in any endeavor, there will always be someone who will accept Menard's beliefs and set about trying to implement them in their own lives. You can only protect some people so far.

Which pretty much proves what Barnum said about the availability of suckers.

So how are these folks not victims of Menard's scam?

No reasonable individual would have given the advice Menard gave. There was already existing case law contradicting what he said and sold to his victims. Menard had been informed of the law long before he scammed these folks out of their money!

How is what he did not fraud?

No one said they weren't, the are being scammed, just because they are asking to be scammed doesn't mean it isn't fraud. As you note in your next sentence (n)o reasonable individual is the kicker, these aren't reasonable or sensible individuals in any sense of the word. They are gullible, clueless, and quite frankly in some/most cases brainless, and I would go so far as to say in some cases at risk individuals, but regardless, they are being defrauded. The problem is that in order to really prosecute him, one of the aforementioned crowd would have to file a complaint against him, and so far it hasn't happened.

[arayder]

The sad reality is that, despite Menard's lack of success in any endeavor, there will always be someone who will accept Menard's beliefs and set about trying to implement them in their own lives. You can only protect some people so far.

Which pretty much proves what Barnum said about the availability of suckers.

So how are these folks not victims of Menard's scam?

No reasonable individual would have given the advice Menard gave. There was already existing case law contradicting what he said and sold to his victims. Menard had been informed of the law long before he scammed these folks out of their money!

How is what he did not fraud?

No one said they weren't, the are being scammed, just because they are asking to be scammed doesn't mean it isn't fraud. As you note in your next sentence (n)o reasonable individual is the kicker, these aren't reasonable or sensible individuals in any sense of the word. They are gullible, clueless, and quite frankly in some/most cases brainless, and I would go so far as to say in some cases at risk individuals, but regardless, they are being defrauded. The problem is that in order to really prosecute him, one of the aforementioned crowd would have to file a complaint against him, and so far it hasn't happened.

I don't think anyone here is trying to say Menard's clients are not being scammed. I didn't mean to imply that.

What has happened is that Bobby has, in effect, claimed the right to harm these poor gullible people.

He tried to make the workings of the ACCP secret and he was careful to have some one else handle the money. And he won't talk to anyone about what work he did for the project or where the money went.

Criminals hide what they do. Criminals run. Criminals lie.

------------
Coward Clock: It has been 51 days since Robert Menard was challenged to explain his embrace of Orlando false flag theories. So far Bobby has declined.

[notorial dissent]

Babbling Bobby can, and does, claim anything he wants, just doesn't happen to give it ANY validity.

[The Observer]

I don't think anyone here is trying to say Menard's clients are not being scammed. I didn't mean to imply that.

Yet it came across that way, to me, as well as to others. I think this comment is what set up that perception:

So how are these folks not victims of Menard's scam?

But I can surmise that my post somehow gave you the impression that I was saying that Menard's marks were the real people to blame, since I stated that they appear to be willing to swallow hook, line and sinker whatever Menard tells them despite the lack of verifiable proof that his methods work. In fact, some of them are willing to double down despite the fact that there is proof that Menard's claims don't work.

In that regard, all I am saying is that we can prosecute Menard, lock him up and throw away the key. But when his next mark insists on following through and emulating Menard, then we need to prosecute the mark as well. They obviously did not learn anything from his stupidity and did this with the intent of creating a benefit for themselves at the expense of you and me.

[arayder]

I don't think anyone here is trying to say Menard's clients are not being scammed. I didn't mean to imply that.

Yet it came across that way, to me, as well as to others. I think this comment is what set up that perception:

So how are these folks not victims of Menard's scam?

But I can surmise that my post somehow gave you the impression that I was saying that Menard's marks were the real people to blame, since I stated that they appear to be willing to swallow hook, line and sinker whatever Menard tells them despite the lack of verifiable proof that his methods work. In fact, some of them are willing to double down despite the fact that there is proof that Menard's claims don't work.

In that regard, all I am saying is that we can prosecute Menard, lock him up and throw away the key. But when his next mark insists on following through and emulating Menard, then we need to prosecute the mark as well. They obviously did not learn anything from his stupidity and did this with the intent of creating a benefit for themselves at the expense of you and me.

My apologies, Observer. I can see my mistake. The way I wrote my response it looks like was trying to put words in your mouth. It was meant as a rhetorical response to the Menard apologists who lurk here.

I agree that Menard's marks are willing dupes. I agree with you completely.

[arayder]

On Facebook Bobby says:

In brief; lawful and legal differ in that ‘lawful’ contemplates the substance of law [its content], whereas ‘legal’ alludes to the form of law [its form or appearance].
The adjective LAWFUL has 4 senses:
Conformable to or allowed by law
According to custom or rule or natural law
Authorized, sanctioned by, or in accordance with law
Having a legally established claim
Clearly #4 is the reason many people believe both lawful and legal mean the same. (see observations below)
Lawful:
To say an act is “lawful” implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. The term lawful more clearly suggests an ethical content than does the word legal.
Legal:
Legal denotes compliance with technical or formal rules.
To say that an act is “legal” implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner.
In this sense “illegal” approaches the meaning of “invalid.”
Legal fraud is possible, but lawful fraud is a contradiction in terms.
Note however that a lawful writ, warrant, or process is the same as a legal writ, warrant, or process.
Example – Lawful versus Legal
Marriage is “lawful”. That we know. Also we know that government cannot give a license or permit you to do anything that is “unlawful”.
Nonetheless government insists you have a marriage license/certificate so that your marriage is ‘legal’.
If however we can do something ‘legally’ with a license/certificate, we can do the same thing ‘lawfully’ without one.
‘Lawful’ speaks of freedom while ‘legal’ speaks of being bound.

The passage Bobby tried to pass of as his own was material he completely plagiarized from this site: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-differ ... and-lawful

You can see in the comments section of Bobby's Facebook page where a few of the freeman faithful talk about how brilliant Bobby is to have thought all this up.

When a commenter (on to Bobby's ruse) mentions that people should credit their sources, Bobby still won't own up to the fact that he stole the passage!

[arayder]

Bobby, when you propose to sell legal advice it doesn't do to plagiarize "legal wisdom" and post it on your Facebook page pretending it is yours.

Potential clients might wonder what unethical short cuts you will take in their cases. Worst of all. . .they might begin to wonder if everything your debunkers say about you is true.

They might think what's a little plagiarism to a guy who lied to potential clients in the 2000's, failed to show up in court for his client 'cause he was drinking' in a bar, scams his "brothers" with through useless projects and even threw his own sister under the bus.

------------
Coward Clock: It has been 52 days since Robert Menard was challenged to explain his embrace of Orlando false flag theories. So far Bobby has declined.