Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacey Grove said:
Agreed. But this ten years ago before he started this freeman stuff.
Click to expand...
True. But all the ingredients are there in nascent form. Everything that Child Services did was "unlawful" and "under the colour of law", etc. The whole letter has his blatant ego-maniacal delusions on full display.
 
D'rok said:
True. But all the ingredients are there in nascent form. Everything that Child Services did was "unlawful" and "under the colour of law", etc. The whole letter has his blatant ego-maniacal delusions on full display.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I was sort of implying that the Child Services considered him an unsavoury character back then before he started promoting FOTL.
 
Last edited:
The Spy who freed me.

Rob strides into a well appointed office, a middle aged suit sits behind a mahogony desk

M - Menard, thanks for coming in at short notice. Take a pew. I was going to call in Bond but he's otherwise engaged.

RM - What's Bond up to, Sir?

M - I shouldn't really say but he's down at the Magistrates Court on Horseferry Road sorting out his Council Tax. He told me in confidence he's going to require the Magistrate to give his oath & has his birth certificate ready in order to release his 'straw man'

RM - Good old Bond. Always pushing the boundaries.

M - Right, before we get down to business I'd just like to thank you for your invaluable work on the 'Birth Bond' case - I spent some mine on super strength lager & golf balls. The rest of the £6 million is under my mattress - can't trust those damned bankers can I?

RM - Quite right Sir.

M - Menard, for a while we've been hearing 'chatter' about a top secret organisation called the 'Law Society'. We suspect they're a bunch of master criminals with literally millions of members worldwide. I want you to infiltrate them & destroy them.

RM - I'll do my best, Sir

M - Good man, here's your Licence to withdraw Consent. Use it sparingly. You best be on your way. Go & see Q - he's discovered something called 'Youtube' which he thinks may be of great help to you with this mission. Oh, please be careful with Moneypenny on your way out. She's been a bit 'funny' recently & I don't want her upset.

RM - Don't worry, Sir, she's far, far too old for me.

M - (laughing) You rogue, Menard, you rogue.

(to be continued)
 
:D
gtm said:
Rob strides into a well appointed office, a middle aged suit sits behind a mahogony desk

M - Menard, thanks for coming in at short notice. Take a pew. I was going to call in Bond but he's otherwise engaged.

RM - What's Bond up to, Sir?

M - I shouldn't really say but he's down at the Magistrates Court on Horseferry Road sorting out his Council Tax. He told me in confidence he's going to require the Magistrate to give his oath & has his birth certificate ready in order to release his 'straw man'

RM - Good old Bond. Always pushing the boundaries.

M - Right, before we get down to business I'd just like to thank you for your invaluable work on the 'Birth Bond' case - I spent some mine on super strength lager & golf balls. The rest of the £6 million is under my mattress - can't trust those damned bankers can I?

RM - Quite right Sir.

M - Menard, for a while we've been hearing 'chatter' about a top secret organisation called the 'Law Society'. We suspect they're a bunch of master criminals with literally millions of members worldwide. I want you to infiltrate them & destroy them.

RM - I'll do my best, Sir

M - Good man, here's your Licence to withdraw Consent. Use it sparingly. You best be on your way. Go & see Q - he's discovered something called 'Youtube' which he thinks may be of great help to you with this mission. Oh, please be careful with Moneypenny on your way out. She's been a bit 'funny' recently & I don't want her upset.

RM - Don't worry, Sir, she's far, far too old for me.

M - (laughing) You rogue, Menard, you rogue.

(to be continued)
Click to expand...

Brilliant! Looking forward to the next instalment! :D

It won't make a blockbuster in the classic Bond mould though. In this one, Menard took on the despotic SPECTRE (The Law Society) in their evil den (court) and............................ lost.

I like films with a good twist like this!
 
Menard reveals a little more about his character
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149694&page=2
Let me ask you this: If someone imposes a service upon you against your will, is that a benefit for which you should pay? Think of a gigolo who imposes his services on a woman. Can he charge her for those services she did not want, or can she charge him?
Click to expand...
A man forcing himself on a woman........of all the analogies he could have chosen to illustrate his point and he chose that one
 
I'm honestly starting to think that Menard has some sort of learning disability. Combined with his character flaws which make him incapable of judging his own capacity, this makes for a heady mix of hilarious incompetence presented as sound reasoning. Actually, he's a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Here's his latest statutory interpretation masterpiece in which he explains how BC's Legal Profession Act only applies to lawyers and therefore cannot prevent him, a non-lawyer, from practising law.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059530532&postcount=307

Section 15 of the Legal Profession Act says this:
s. 15 said:
Authority to practise law

15 (1) No person, other than a practising lawyer, is permitted to engage in the practice of law, except

(a) a person who is an individual party to a proceeding acting without counsel solely on his or her own behalf,

(b) as permitted by the Court Agent Act,

(c) an articled student, to the extent permitted by the benchers,

(d) an individual or articled student referred to in section 12 of the Legal Services Society Act, to the extent permitted under that Act,

(e) a lawyer of another jurisdiction permitted to practise law in British Columbia under section 16 (2) (a), to the extent permitted under that section, and

(f) a practitioner of foreign law holding a permit under section 17 (1) (a), to the extent permitted under that section.

(2) A person who is employed by a practising lawyer, a law firm, a law corporation or the government and who acts under the supervision of a practising lawyer does not contravene subsection (1).

(3) A person must not do any act described in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the definition of "practice of law" in section 1 (1), even though the act is not performed for or in the expectation of a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, from the person for whom the acts are performed, if

(a) the person is a member or former member of the society who is suspended or has been disbarred, or who, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, has resigned from membership in the society or otherwise ceased to be a member as a result of disciplinary proceedings, or

(b) the person is suspended or prohibited for disciplinary reasons from practising law in another jurisdiction.

(4) A person must not falsely represent himself, herself or any other person as being

(a) a lawyer,

(b) an articled student, a student-at-law or a law clerk, or

(c) a person referred to in subsection (1) (e) or (f).

(5) Except as permitted in subsection (1), a person must not commence, prosecute or defend a proceeding in any court, in the person's own name or in the name of another person.

(6) The benchers may make rules prohibiting lawyers from facilitating or participating in the practice of law by persons who are not authorized to practise law.
Click to expand...

Menard seizes on subsection (3) which states:

s. 15(3) said:
A person must not do any act described in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the definition of "practice of law" in section 1 (1), even though the act is not performed for or in the expectation of a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, from the person for whom the acts are performed, if...
Click to expand...
He says in response to the poster who originally quoted s. 15 to him:

Menard said:
I notice you mention a section of the LPA which references Section 1, yet you failed to examine that.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is Menard who fails to examine that, as he goes off on a bizarre tangent about s. 1.1, which is an exemption for lawyers who are also part-time judges, rather than s. 1(1), which is the definitions section to which s. 15(3) refers.

Not a good start.

It gets worse, however, as Menard seems to think that s. 1.1 exempts judges who are also lawyers, but not judges who are full time judges, thus creating some sort of absurdity or ambiguity in the Act. And somehow this means that he can practice law despite being prohibited to do so by s. 15. Yikes.

Of course, if he had just looked at s. 1(1) like s. 15(3) clearly says he should do, he would see that the definition of "practice of law" refers to the things that lawyers do, not the things that judges do:

s. 1(1) said:
"practice of law" includes

(a) appearing as counsel or advocate,

(b) drawing, revising or settling

(i) a petition, memorandum, notice of articles or articles under the Business Corporations Act, or an application, statement, affidavit, minute, resolution, bylaw or other document relating to the incorporation, registration, organization, reorganization, dissolution or winding up of a corporate body,

(ii) a document for use in a proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial,

(iii) a will, deed of settlement, trust deed, power of attorney or a document relating to a probate or letters of administration or the estate of a deceased person,

(iv) a document relating in any way to a proceeding under a statute of Canada or British Columbia, or

(v) an instrument relating to real or personal estate that is intended, permitted or required to be registered, recorded or filed in a registry or other public office,

(c) doing an act or negotiating in any way for the settlement of, or settling, a claim or demand for damages,

(d) agreeing to place at the disposal of another person the services of a lawyer,

(e) giving legal advice,

(f) making an offer to do anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e), and

(g) making a representation by a person that he or she is qualified or entitled to do anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e),

but does not include

(h) any of those acts if not performed for or in the expectation of a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, from the person for whom the acts are performed,

(i) the drawing, revising or settling of an instrument by a public officer in the course of the officer's duty,

(j) the lawful practice of a notary public,

(k) the usual business carried on by an insurance adjuster who is licensed under Division 2 of Part 6 of the Financial Institutions Act, or

(l) agreeing to do something referred to in paragraph (d), if the agreement is made under a prepaid legal services plan or other liability insurance program;
Click to expand...

The list is inclusive rather than exclusive, but it cannot be read to include things unrelated to the items in the list. In other words, it could be interpreted to include other things that lawyers do, but not things that judges do, except in the instance where their roles overlap - such as when a lawyer is also a part-time judge. Thus the reason for s. 1.1., which clearly exempts a lawyer who is also a part-time when acting in his or her judicial capacity.

Furthermore, "practising lawyer" is defined like so:

s. 1(1) said:
"practising lawyer" means a member in good standing who holds or is entitled to hold a practising certificate;
Click to expand...

So, when s. 15 says "No person, other than a practising lawyer, is permitted to engage in the practice of law...", it means just what it says. Menard cannot engage in activities such as those defined in s. 1(1) of the Act as "practice of law" unless he is a member of the bar or if one of the exceptions in subsections 15(1)(a)-(f) apply to him.

The Act applies to him.
 
Last edited:
Menard cannot engage in activities such as those defined in s. 1(1) of the Act as "practice of law" unless he is a member of the bar or if one of the exceptions in subsections 15(1)(a)-(f) apply to him.

The Act applies to him.
Click to expand...

Which has already been decided by a legal ruling.
I dont have the link to hand D'rok but you know which one I mean :D
 
The Spy who freed me (part deux)

6 months later

Rob is sitting in a down market greasy spoon toying with a plate of egg & chips. On the table next to him is his trusty Nokia Cityman 1320 - a state of the art communications device. Suddenly the 'Cityman' goes off.

M - Menard? is that you?

RM - the names' Menard, Robert Arthur Menard

M - Good, thank god I've got through to you. We've had terrible troubles here. Bond is in 'clink', he filmed his Council Tax hearing & they threw him in jail for it. Do they serve Martinis in jail, Menard? If he doesn't have at least 5 every evening he starts seeing pink elephants.

RM - I'm afraid I don't know, Sir.

M - I've got the bods to do habeus corpus so we'll see. Anyway that's not why I called. How's the 'Law Society' case getting on? Have you go 'in' yet?

RM - Very little progress to report. I've identified the organisation but they say they I've got to pass loads of exams before I'm allowed it. I tried using my licence to consent but they laughed at me. Sir, I believe they use statutes.

M - Statutes? Dear God it's worse than I thought! What's your next move?

RM - I'm going to hit them in the pocket. As we speak a 'Fee Schedule' demanding $10 trillion is heading towards them by recorded post. They'll be done for when it arrives.

M - Good stuff Menard. You're the best we've got & I knew I could rely on you. Unrelated matter but Beryl from Accounts asked me to query an item on your latest expenses claim. She says you purchased $20,000 worth of Janet Reger ladies undergarments.

RM - Yes, I was investigating 'silks'

M - I see. Did you need to buy $20,000 worth? What have you done with them?

RM - I can't disclose that for operation reasons.

M - Ok Menard we'll leave it there for the time being. I'm sending one of our best people to help out. Pick up 'Agent Gye' at the airport tomorrow at 2pm.

RM - How will I recognise 'Agent 'Gye'

M - The question is how will you not recognise her?

click

to be continued :D
 
Menard has just alienated 99% of his audience.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149694&page=4
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen
Thanks for that, rob. You believe that anybody claiming welfare cannot be a freeman? Have I got that correct?
Click to expand...
Rob wrote
I do not see how. Welfare, Employment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan, all these are benefits of the SIN, and without the SIN they are not accessible.
Click to expand...

So to be a freeman on the land you cannot be on any state benefits :D:D:D

way to go Rob
 
Now I know why it is pointless debating with Menard. He's nuts:
A SIN makes you an employee of the federal government. I know of one guy who is a postal worker, he kept his SIN due to necessity, and when in uniform he was a person. After his shift, he would remove his uniform and no longer be an employee. As he was not on shift.

He established that status with a claim of right.

He is one of the few I know of who achieved freeman status and kept his SIN.

When at work he is bound by those rules applicable to employees. When not at work, he is not bound to act like he is.

Hope that clarifies.
Click to expand...

(Oh BTW, brilliant gtm. Keep it coming:D)
 
This is hilarious:

Menard said:
When government builds roads and infrastructure they do not use their own money, they use the peoples money, as such that which is built belongs not to the government, but to the people.
Click to expand...
Quite right. And how does the government collect the peoples' money which it then uses to build roads and infrastructure?

Taxes of course.

Did Menard just admit that roads and infrastructure are the benefits of being a taxpayer? Oops. I guess they're off-limits to FOTLers then.
 
D'rok said:
This is hilarious:


Quite right. And how does the government collect the peoples' money which it then uses to build roads and infrastructure?

Taxes of course.

Did Menard just admit that roads and infrastructure are the benefits of being a taxpayer? Oops. I guess they're off-limits to FOTLers then.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed. It's a point which someone needs to push.
 
Yozhik on trusts
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148955&page=6
Whether the courts recognise it or not, means nothing, other than the abomination that exists under the ******** label of law in the modern courts, doesn't recognise it. That does not mean it does not exist. Rather than providing evidence of the trust not existing, it is more evidence of the flaws and the fraud of the court. The trust exists. Period. Whether the court recognises it is irrelevant. More than being irrelevant, it highlights the nefarious nature of the ruse being played out on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

So when you go to court and the courts decision is that a trust does not exist, that means it does and they just dont want to acknowledge it.

I suppose using that logic you could say that when they find you not guilty, you actually are guilty after all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom