Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding roadhogfrozen and the major win:
(All quotes are from various YouTube channels. Bolded is mine)

roadhogfrozen (23 hours ago)
ya know what i noticed tho??, it didnt matter how much research i did, or how i studied their mannerisms, or looked into how to talk to or deal with thos people, the process is so random ad they are so good with their words that it , i was still unprepared for them, i barely got through it, they have the abillity to watch you prove your innocence and find you guilty anyway just to get the contract orders in,this is a problem.. and i was lucky the judge liked me.there are bad cops that now do not LOL
Click to expand...

roadhogfrozen (1 day ago)
dont try this at home , yull poke your eye out lol
Click to expand...

I can not find any official reference to the court proceedings taking place at
London Courthouse
80 Dundas St.
London ON N6A 6A3
Tel: 519-661-1882
Fax: 519-661-1944

roadhogfrozen (2 days ago)
no not me im in london and had the typical text book traffic case, it went down today. i had in s and license just not on me, and they couldnt prove they had jurisdiction, or that i didnt have it, or that i was a charge of ontario, or that i was engaged in commerce, lol so they dropped it when i suggested to issue a bill on top.. it was over fast, but took 5 months of research, and texas size nuts man.
Click to expand...

roadhogfrozen (3 days ago)
dude i have trial in london court would you film it for me?.. its going to be perfect
Click to expand...

I find it odd that neither roadhogfrozen or Menard are shouting more about this victory.
 
ComfySlippers said:
Regarding roadhogfrozen and the major win:
(All quotes are from various YouTube channels. Bolded is mine)





I can not find any official reference to the court proceedings taking place at
London Courthouse
80 Dundas St.
London ON N6A 6A3
Tel: 519-661-1882
Fax: 519-661-1944





I find it odd that neither roadhogfrozen or Menard are shouting more about this victory.
Click to expand...
Aha. So it's option number 2 from my post here:

D'rok said:
There are three possibilities:

1. This was more "case dismissed" jackassery - i.e., FOTLer does song and dance in court until judge declares a recess followed by FOTLer declaring victory. At a later date FOTLer is convicted in absentia. Like this:


2. FOTLer has license and insurance and agrees to hand it over after doing the usual song and dance. Court's patience is sorely tried, but tickets quashed because FOTLer is actually in compliance. Like this (traffic stop version):


3. There was some legitimate procedural problem with the tickets because the officer who wrote them made some sort of error. Tickets quashed despite the idiocy of the FOTLer song and dance.

Numbers one and two are the most likely. Take your pick. Chances are, no verifiable details will ever be forthcoming.
Click to expand...

In fact, it may even be the actual character from the video, as that traffic stop went down in London, Ontario.
 
London, Ontario seems to have many of these nutjobs for some reason.

As I see no reason for a car driver to be wearing a helmet I can only assume the offence was regarding him driving a motorcycle.

roadhogfrozen has an issue with police officers not liking his helmet(!)
He also thinks he drives his motorcycle in a similar fashion to Batman.
cc-radio.net

YouTube:
roadhogfrozen (1 day ago)
i put the cop on the stand and the first thing i said was, " u pulled me over cause you didnt like my helmet right?? and hes like ya', and i go dont you have anything better to do than bully someone about a helmet when we give you all this money? and the judge laughed..lol...i had to retract it but i still said it out loud LMAO by the end i was jokin around with them all getting along, the cop hated me tho im surprised he didnt bother me after :) was all way too funny
Click to expand...

Also:
it was over fast, but took 5 months of research, and texas size nuts man.
Click to expand...
would suggest that this is his first attempt at FOTL-WOO and there will be no previous vids of him.
 
Last edited:
The video's that D'rok has posted are ones that I saw right after Keith was in court. My kid brother came home that day so proud that they had won and he was laughing. There were 2 video's taken at the time, the one shown here and the one showing him leaving the court house and all his friends that were with him in court leaving with him. They were all standing outside talking and laughing. My kid brother was one of the people but he was not with inside the courtroom because he was afraid due to his own trial coming up. He was sure that the police were out to get him. That same evening the video's were on youtube but I did not see them until a few months later. I was told that over 80 thousand people had already viewed the video's within a week. Such bull, when I saw them there were only 1700 had seen them and I am very sure that it was the same ones seeing them over and over again to bring the count up.
I can inform that he did end up paying a fine of $260 and therefore it was never mentioned again around here.
There have been lots of cases around here within the last 2 years that we have not heard about as wins so I guess they got themselves into trouble with the court right away. I can't imagine that Rob would let it pass if they had not been found guilty.
 
I have not been around for a while. I read once in a while but have not posted. Trying to really work through the way that I feel about my brother and what he has done is really hard.
I heard from him while he was in jail but I did not really speak to him other than to just say yes sure to all his nonsense. After he got out (I have not clue how he got out), I only heard from him 2 times after he came to collect his things. One time he called to find out about his mail. I informed him that we had sent it return because he was in jail and we knew nothing. Next time he had the gall to call me and ask if he could borrow money to start a business. You can imagine what popped into my mind. He must be crazy if he really thinks that I would lend him money. He cost us while he was living here and he wants to borrow money that we already know we would never get back. Besides how in their right mind would want to go into business with someone that has the belief that they do not have to pay taxes or other debts. I can just see where the money he borrowed would end up and that would not be back in our account for sure. He did try by telling me that he was doing it for himself and I. Also really a load of bull.

I know him very well and really would never trust him in any business dealing period. Yes he has always had the freeman attitude towards money. Why work when you can try to cheat others really. All in good faith is usually the way he puts it.

Thank god we have not heard more from him and hopefully we won't. I do know that he has been back in court but I have no clue what happened so cannot tell you here.
 
This seems to be the new way of creating pretend success stories.
They actually are compliant with the law as regards paperwork but are just arsy with the police and refuse to comply, until they get to court that is, then claim all charges dropped.
freeman victory assured. :rolleyes:
 
Ive had some freeman on my facebook page claiming victory with regards having charges dropped for cultivating cannabis.
I will try and get him to come here and tell us all how he did it, he has up to now given me some dates when/where he attended court, I will get into his ribs a little later.
I sense the courts just thought he wasnt worth the effort , but I will investigate further.
 
Menard is now backpedalling slightly with this freeman victory.
A sceptic on Icke's has pointed out that the defendant did indeed have insurance and a licence, but just not on him.
Menard replied:

He was charged with refusal to show it, not with not having one.
Click to expand...

But, earlier in the thread Menard had claimed:

He was charged under the MVA for driving with no license, registration or insurance.
Click to expand...
 
I was wondering why a business owner would facilitate Menard's con, going so far as to allegedly open the restaurant just for him. I found this on CanLII, seems excessively minor but might have to do with it:
http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcracj/doc/2011/2011canlii12356/2011canlii12356.html
(Still can't post proper URL, sorry. Case is Painchaud (Re), 2011 CanLII 12356 (QC R.A.C.J.) — 2011-02-21)

Basically it seems that earlier this year about 50 bottles of beer were confiscated because they didn't come from an authorized vendor, and their alcohol license was suspended for three days. No big deal, honestly I wouldn't be surprised to find similar incidents by looking up any restaurant I regularly go to. Might have contributed to some anti-regulation sentiment, although according to this the owner admitted to the fault, promised to rectify the situation, and was overall cooperative all the way through.

What's interesting though is that it lists the restaurant as having a 44 person capacity (+20 with terrace but I doubt that was open already last week), so that answers that question I guess.
 
Last edited:
In the UK if you don't have your license and Insurance with you the Cop gives you a 'Producer' You nominate a Police Station, take the form along and show your documents. Hardly anyone carries their insurance or license with them.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
In the UK if you don't have your license and Insurance with you the Cop gives you a 'Producer' You nominate a Police Station, take the form along and show your documents. Hardly anyone carries their insurance or license with them.
Click to expand...

in alberta, you must produce them on demand.
the fines for failing to do so total hundreds of dollars.
 
and the judge laughed..lol...i had to retract it but i still said it out loud
Click to expand...

Just because a judge laughs after something you said, does not mean the judge found your comment funny. Sometimes people laugh at you and not with you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom