Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
JLord said:
Yes, I'm not saying the Lawful bank is a good idea, or that the person promoting it does not hold unreasonable positions on other issues. But if someone came to me and said "I don't believe in any freeman legal claims, but I would love to do my banking at a bank governed by freeman philosophy, so I'll try to start one," I would have to admit that there are is no fantasy element to this plan. It is a possible thing that could be done. Trying to gain support for this idea would not be deceptive in the way that typical freeman legal claims are.
Click to expand...
I think you're wrong about that. It's an out an out scam designed solely to separate the gullible from their money. See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I4ZcTwsubzk#t=1431s

Hayes proposes to take $100 (British Pounds, actually) from each depositor, "retire" that money (or, more likely, retire on that money), and then issue $1000 credit in the Lawful Bank's own (obviously worthless) currency. It's a scrip scam.

It would be different if Hayes was proposing a Credit Union. He's not.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Mojo says this:

Mojo said:
Your position is that the legislation of the country you are living in does not apply to you without your personal consent.
Click to expand...

Rob responds with this:

FreemanMenard said:
That is not an accurate expression of my beliefs at all.
Click to expand...

And, of course, that response is a shameless, outrageous, self-serving and bald-faced lie...
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. Note that my comment was about the position for which Rob advocates, while his was about what he believes. These are not necessarily the same.
 
Mojo said:
Not necessarily. Note that my comment was about the position for which Rob advocates, while his was about what he believes. These are not necessarily the same.
Click to expand...
True. That would explain why he never practices what he preaches but just contents himself with collecting money from patsies who do believe.
 
Not necessarily. Note that my comment was about the position for which Rob advocates, while his was about what he believes. These are not necessarily the same.
Click to expand...

Thats a very good point, I wonder if he will come back to clarify his position.
 
D'rok said:
I think you're wrong about that. It's an out an out scam designed solely to separate the gullible from their money.
Click to expand...

It may be right to characterize it as a scam. I was saying it could be done in a way that isn't deceptive. For instance, if they are doing what they are telling people they are going to do then it wouldn't be deceptive. Like I said, I don't doubt that it is a terrible idea for a bank, but if people are getting what they pay for then I would place it above other freeman schemes where people pay for information that is demonstrably false.

You certainly could be right about this particular bank. I don't know what exactly this person is telling people and he might be selling people a false bill of goods. But if someone can honestly get people to invest in a bad idea with full knowledge of the situation, I rate this above paying for accurate information and getting false information.
 
JLord said:
It may be right to characterize it as a scam. I was saying it could be done in a way that isn't deceptive. For instance, if they are doing what they are telling people they are going to do then it wouldn't be deceptive. Like I said, I don't doubt that it is a terrible idea for a bank, but if people are getting what they pay for then I would place it above other freeman schemes where people pay for information that is demonstrably false.

You certainly could be right about this particular bank. I don't know what exactly this person is telling people and he might be selling people a false bill of goods. But if someone can honestly get people to invest in a bad idea with full knowledge of the situation, I rate this above paying for accurate information and getting false information.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying, but I suspect you might be making a distinction without a difference. Although it's true that the “lawful bank” proponents aren’t selling false information about actual banks including bogus "remedies" for dealing with them, in the end it’s still FOLTers falling for a con.

I would think that a Freeman Credit Union could accomplish a lot of the goals of dissatisfied and alienated FOTLers. It’s a shame they can’t channel their energies in a productive manner.
 
Last edited:
The problems are:

Roger Hayes is bankrupt and is not allowed to promote a business. He will be getting into trouble. However he does a Menard and claims this bankruptcy to be success story.
(I am not Mr Roger Hayes blah blah blah)

There is also the question of where the "retired" real money goes to, something he won't answer.

Scam.
 
I believe there are numbered accounts in the Bahamas. That seems like a nice climate to retire to.
 
I'm in the middle of reading the reasons for judgement in a case related to my work, from the Federal Court of Appeal, and there's a really nice quote that made me think of Menard, et al.


The focus should remain on the principles to be derived from the jurisprudence. Catch phrases, tag words and generalizations can take on a life of their own, diverting attention away from the governing principles.
Click to expand...




The case is

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
Appellants
and
AMAZON.COM, INC.
Respondent
and
CANADIAN LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE ASSOCIATION INC.
and THE CANADIAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION
Interveners
Click to expand...

Which issued on Nov. 24, 2011, if any of you legal types can find an online version.
 
I've only just read the end of the rant. As usual Rob is playing at being important but this does seem like it could certainly be taken as a threat:
Robert-Arthur: Menard's Letter to the RCMP Officers Who Gave Him a Ticket said:
Well, I have much to do in order to lay a foundation allowing us to lawfully
create our new police force so we can bring many big men with big guns to bear
against people like you. As this process will involve making public claims, I
will be sure to serve you a copy of it and allow you an opportunity to dispute
the rights claimed within.

I am sorry that this is what must apparently happen, but the law provides us
remedy when people like you commit fraud or are otherwise grossly negligent,
and you people do not seem inclined to serve the law first and your political
masters second. Sorry, but with your ignorance and arrogance you have made
this a necessity.
Click to expand...
Of course the letter is from 2009 and, as usual, Rob has done nothing yet, but it still seems at the very least a really stupid thing to send the the police.
 
Last edited:
Paul said:
I've only just read the end of the rant. As usual Rob is playing at being important but this does seem like it could certainly be taken as a threat:Of course the letter is from 2009 and, as usual, Rob has done nothing yet, but it still seems at the very least a really stupid thing to send the the police.
Click to expand...

wow...so he threatened the police with "big men with big guns."
sounds almost like penis envy.
wow.
 
Last edited:
Paul said:
Of course the letter is from 2009 and, as usual, Rob has done nothing yet, but it still seems at the very least a really stupid thing to send the the police.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that actually sending that letter is just another "to-do" on Menard's ever growing "I tell you what I'm gonna do" list.
 
I've read the bleesed thing, and it has so many errors that if corrected with red pen would cause my pen to run dry. I thought of posting my comments on it, but there are so many errors to correct that it runs to 26 pages and if I put it up here that would be a clear violation of the "No Wall -o- Text rule...

Nothing like starting off with "I respect office holders" and immediately referring to them as cartoon characters. Way to stay classy.
 
Whilst I find it fascinating/funny/sad following the gurus and their gullible followers, I must apologise for derailng JB's thread, which is about Robert Menard's ludicrous claims rather than those of other conmen.

I can understand how to the untrained eye Roger Hayes, Robert Menard, Lawful Bank, "Peace Officers", EdgeMediaTV and alex:g et al might seem unrelated.

Roger Hayes is quoting, word for word, (I shall avoid using the word 'verbatim'), not just generic FOTL-Waffle/SovereignCitizen/Redemption nonsense but nonsense he has copied from Menard. /shrug

Menard copied his beliefs from a decades-old scam.

I am loathed to create a new thread devoted just to Hayes.

I shall await my punishment JB.
And big thanks to the person who pm'd me with good info about Mr Roger Hayes ;)

ETA: It would be nice to have a devoted FOTL-Waffle thread with sub-sections devoted to each conman.
I despise all FOTL Gurus and how they ruin peoples' lives with their silly tales.

ETA2: LashL is a Godess of Legaltainment.... All will be well!
 
Last edited:
A marked difference between Hayes and Menard is that Hayes has at least attempted to do the stuff he talks about, unlike Menard who just talks the talk and persuades others to act out his own fantasies.
However, it has to be said that Hayes appears to either be seriously misinformed or deliberately hides the truth. Hayes claims that after his recent court appearance (28th Oct) the official receiver:
advised Roger that because he was so passionate in his beliefs… (meaning they knew he was right) and they BACKED DOWN.
Click to expand...

http://inquiringminds.cc/roger-haye...tax-and-challenged-the-court-system-–-and-won

Now, perhaps Hayes did not understand what happened at that hearing and because of that misunderstanding he claimed victory on the internet. But, this (footnote) tells a completely different story to Hayes' account of the proceedings on the 28th:

http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov...2242&Court=BIRK&OfficeID=600000067&CaseType=B

So, maybe Hayes is perhaps not telling the full story. Maybe deliberately.
But, it does have to be said; he is a doer and not just a talker.
 
Last edited:
ComfySlippers said:
Roger Hayes is quoting, word for word, (I shall avoid using the word 'verbatim'),
Click to expand...

Very prudent of you. Apparently it is a very complicated word and should only be handled by trained professionals (i.e., english speakers with access to a dictionary), lest one find themselves nominated for certain dubious (but no doubt prestigious) awards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom