Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Stacey Grove]

Am I required to have a SIN?
NO.
If I do not have one, am I bound by the rules which bind those who do have a SIN?
NO

Are those rules for those who do have a SIN the 'law of the land'?
NO.

So anybody visiting Canada is not bound by Canadian statutes?

 

[jargon buster]

He thinks not having a SIN means that you can't pay income tax as they can't take it unless you have a SIN.
His massive leap of idiocy then makes him think that statute law doesn't apply as well.

It all makes sense in "Menardworld"

 

[Jon.]

Adrienne Arsenault is a very intelligent reporter (or at least, she gives the impression of being very intelligent). It should, indeed, be quite interesting (and funny) to see her make logical mincemeat of Mr. Menard. I hope the Canadians on here will keep an eye out for when this will be on. I will, too.

 

[arayder]

Sure. And then I will show her a Birth Certificate with the words REVENUE RECEIPT - TREASURY USE ONLY on it, and she can decide for herself if her eyes are lying to her, or if someone in the government lied.

Do you think it will be a tough sell, to get her to realize that someone in the government either lied or is misinformed and that her own eyes are telling her the truth?? Bearing in mind she is a reporter, is used to the government trying to lie, and has learned to trust her own eyes?

That’s such a line of whooie, Bobby.

This link shows that waaaay back in 2004 you were informed that your birth certificate card gambit was a joke: http://www.angelfire.com/folk/free_education/letters.html

Yet seven years later you are still selling the same old snake oil and even plan to try and foist this ruse on the CBC.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Adrienne Arsenault is a very intelligent reporter (or at least, she gives the impression of being very intelligent). It should, indeed, be quite interesting (and funny) to see her make logical mincemeat of Mr. Menard. I hope the Canadians on here will keep an eye out for when this will be on. I will, too.

She is an excellent journalist (one of the best in Canada.) I very much look forward to her story on FMOTL. Although she will no doubt be respectful and fair, I suspect that Mr. Menard will be very disappointed in the end.

 

[jargon buster]

Rob wrote in his ludicrous letter from this link
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/free_edu

Abandoning this discussion will be seen as an abandonment of the issue and submission to my beliefs on this matter and agreement as to the truth.

So, by Robs logic if someone decides to stop responding to a loon on the internet it means they acknowledge their opinion as the truth.

So what if that were true?
It still doesn't validate his opinion any more than it already is in his silly mind.

"So what evidence do you have for your claim Rob"?
"Someone on the internet stopped responding to me"
"errr...OK"

 

[mikeyman]

This is mrmitee`s BC alias Rob Menard I believe.

Its on photobucket. As this is my first I can`t post a link to it.


mikeyman

 

[jargon buster]

Mrmitee,Yes thats him, the number on the birth certificate is the batch reference number so the card can be traced back to the member of staff/department who issued it.

Its simply for audit purposes, thats why it says "treasury use only" it has nothing to do with the actual details of the individual named on the certificate.
Anyone with a modicome of intelligence can see that.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

 

[jargon buster]

Its easy to be the director of something that you are the only member of.

Signed
Jargon Buster
Director of posting under the name Jargon Buster at the JREF forum.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

http://canlii.ca/en/on/onccb/doc/2011/2011canlii73645/2011canlii73645.html

Man diagnosed with schizophrenia convinced that he is a "peace officer". I wonder wherever he could have gotten this idea?

The following documents were marked as Exhibits to the Hearing:
(...)
Exhibit 11: Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right prepared by the Applicant dated 2011/09/13;

He noted that presently NM demonstrated severe distortion of reality with a fixed delusion that he was a Peace Officer above the law and the courts of the land.

He noted that he had demands for the wrongs that were done to him and that he required compensation with his rate at the time of the Hearing being $25 million/hour. He noted that he was above the law and jurisdiction of the Court and this Board. He stated that the Panel members were public servants that answered to him.

Dr. Chaya noted that NM had previously received treatment for mental disorder of a recurring nature that, in his clinical opinion when not treated, is of a nature that will likely result in substantial mental deterioration in NM. He noted that NM had been treated for the same or similar disorder in his local community and that when not treated NM demonstrated deterioration in his mental state. Dr. Chaya noted that NM had periods of non-compliance with medication which resulted in the deterioration.

Hey Rob, maybe a little screening process before giving people a sense of authority, an order to carry it out and a conviction that right and wrong is only "what's in their heart"?

 

[D'rok]

I wonder how much NM "donated" to Menard's fleece the vulnerable fund? Yet another extroadinarily vulnerable member of Canadian society taken in by Menard's lies. Sickening.

 

[DGM]

Wow.. you guys and this forum apparently support online stalking to the extent of going to dating sites? WOW.... Talk about absolute desperation... Gotta wonder what he was doing looking through the mens section of a dating site... did he just accidentally come across my profile? That is sad enough. Did he search for it? How much time does he spend trying to follow me on the web? That is absolutely pathetic.

I noticed you skipped my post. I know I have not given you fodder for mindless replies but, can you answer this?

Will she be able to contact these people and verify independently their stories? Are you planning on letting her borrow this document long enough to verify it's authenticity and meaning of these stamps?

 

[FreemanMenard]

I noticed you skipped my post. I know I have not given you fodder for mindless replies but, can you answer this?

I don't see why she would not be able to. As for the BC thing, all she has to do is ask the folks in her office to look at theirs. Or even her own.... sorry did not mean to ignore your post.

 

[FreemanMenard]

http://canlii.ca/en/on/onccb/doc/2011/2011canlii73645/2011canlii73645.html

Man diagnosed with schizophrenia convinced that he is a "peace officer". I wonder wherever he could have gotten this idea?









Hey Rob, maybe a little screening process before giving people a sense of authority, an order to carry it out and a conviction that right and wrong is only "what's in their heart"?

It is distressing case. Mostly because according to the Health Act (a) (you know their law) the following must be established.

that the patient is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,
(i) serious bodily harm to the patient,
(ii) serious bodily harm to another person, or
(iii) serious physical impairment of the patient,
unless the patient remains in the custody of a psychiatric facility; and
(b) that the patient is not suitable for admission or continuation as an informal or voluntary patient.

They never established the any of the needed criteria.
Do a search of the page and the only time the words 'seriously bodily harm' or 'serious physical impairment' is in the requirements to be met. None of the questions asked in bold had anything to do with the requirements for serious bodily harm to herself or others, nor physical impairment. They did say 'mental impairment' BUT THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE CRITERIA!

So here we have a case, where the people locking this woman up, are not following their own rules, nor the law, and you try to place the blame on me. WOW!

Incidentally, I we in 3CPO will be having a screening process, and no, I do not think it is up to me to screen someone before empowering them.

 

[kmortis]

Due to the high number of MA violations, this thread is closed until a moderator can get around to cleaning it up. Do not start other threads to get around this closure or import this topic to other threads.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[LashL]

A large number of posts containing breaches of Rule 12, Rule 0 and Rule 11 of the Membership Agreement have been split to Abandon All Hope, and several posts either breaching Rule 8 or following on from a breach of Rule 8 have been moved out of view to Deep Storage. Please take note that Rule 8 prohibits the posting of another member's personal information unless it is both publicly available and relevant to the ongoing discussion.

Also, this thread has required a disproportionate amount of Moderator time and work, with multiple splits and mod-boxes and such, so any further breaches of the Membership Agreement after this mod-box and the re-opening of the thread will not be treated leniently or given any 'benefit of the doubt'. Everyone, please, stick to the topic, stick to the rules, and stick to your Membership Agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Border Reiver]

So, if I understand you correctly the "peace officers" of C3PO will need to be screened before being attested, but it's not up to the person who so empowers them to do the screening?

This is why people will prefer real police. The people who hire them will take responsibility for who they hire

 

[Paul]

It is distressing case.

Certainly.

Mostly because according to the Health Act

That's not the distressing part.

(a) (you know their law) the following must be established.

It's the law, it doesn't just apply to a nebulous them.

that the patient is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that...

Items i, ii or iii don't apply because NM was already in the care of Regional Mental Health Care – St. Thomas, and informal or voluntary treatment was not possible because of the patient's innability to manage his medication.

They never established the any of the needed criteria.

Quite clearly they did.

Do a search of the page and the only time the words 'seriously bodily harm' or 'serious physical impairment' is in...

More careful reading of the requirements would serve you better.

So here we have a case, where the people locking this woman up, are not following their own rules, nor the law, and you try to place the blame on me. WOW!

Your righteous indignation would be less ridiculous if nearly everything afterwards were not wrong: NM is a man, the Consent and Capacity Board followed the rules and the law, and as for blaming you, NMs actions bear a striking similarity to you philosophy.

Incidentally, I we in 3CPO will be having a screening process, and no, I do not think it is up to me to screen someone before empowering them.

Do you mean you will not be screening?

If you mean no, what do you think is responsible about empowering people who cannot even function normally in society without the added stresses and pressure of being a 'peace officer'?

If you mean yes, what is the point in screening if you are just going to empower anyone regardless of their suitability?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Certainly.


That's not the distressing part.


It's the law, it doesn't just apply to a nebulous them.


Items i, ii or iii don't apply because NM was already in the care of Regional Mental Health Care – St. Thomas, and informal or voluntary treatment was not possible because of the patient's innability to manage his medication.


Quite clearly they did.


More careful reading of the requirements would serve you better.


Your righteous indignation would be less ridiculous if nearly everything afterwards were not wrong: NM is a man, the Consent and Capacity Board followed the rules and the law, and as for blaming you, NMs actions bear a striking similarity to you philosophy.


Do you mean you will not be screening?

If you mean no, what do you think is responsible about empowering people who cannot even function normally in society without the added stresses and pressure of being a 'peace officer'?

If you mean yes, what is the point in screening if you are just going to empower anyone regardless of their suitability?

Sorry for the typos, I was multi tasking. NM is identified as a man, whether they followed the rules is ONLY your opinion and nothing more, and his beliefs bear a passing semblance to my philosophy.

Apparently according to you, no one should share any beliefs on the internet, for fear that someone with a previous mental condition may misinterpret and act upon them.

They did not establish that the requirements were met.

They went from a requirement for serious physical impairment, to physical or mental, and then to just mental impairment.

I had dinner today with a couple of lawyers and showed it to them. They agreed that the requirements were not met, and told me that those boards often play fast and loose with their powers. But I found that hard to believe; someone having power over another and abusing it? That can never ever happen with people who work for the government right?

Can you help me and show me where in the bolded parts, the question concerning his likelyhood to be a threat to himself or others, or was likely to suffer serious physical impairment was raised?

At the Time of the Hearing did NM have the Ability to Understand the Information Relevant to a Decision about Treatment?

At the Time of the Hearing did NM have the Ability to Appreciate the Information Relevant to a Decision about Treatment?

At the time of the Hearing was NM suffering from Mental Disorder?

At the time of the Hearing has NM previously received treatment for mental disorder of an ongoing or recurring nature that, when not treated, is of a nature or quality that likely will result in substantial mental or physical deterioration of the person ? (here they ask about the physical deterioration at least, but they also mention mental, which is not part of the requirements to be met, but which they later use to justify. It is called the bait and switch)

At the time of the Hearing has NM shown clinical improvement as a result of the treatment?

At the time of the Hearing is NM suffering from the same mental disorder as the one for which he previously received treatment or from a mental disorder that is similar to the previous one?

At the time of the Hearing, given NM’s history of mental disorder and current mental or physical condition, is likely to suffer substantial mental or physical deterioration? Mental deterioration is NOT one of the requirements justifying continued incarceration.

At the time of the Hearing has NM been found incapable, within the meaning of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, of consenting to her treatment in a psychiatric facility and the consent of his or her substitute decision-maker has been obtained? Hey look they made a typo too! Gonna dismiss all they had to say for that reason?

Now just for clarity, here are the requirements:
20(5) The attending physician shall complete a certificate of involuntary admission or a certificate or renewal if, after examining the patient, he or she is of the opinion both,

(a) that the patient is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,
(i) serious bodily harm to the patient,
(ii) serious bodily harm to another person, or
(iii) serious physical impairment of the patient,
unless the patient remains in the custody of a psychiatric facility; and
(b) that the patient is not suitable for admission or continuation as an informal or voluntary patient.

Please show me 'serious mental impairment' in the above, as that is what they used to justify keeping him/her in there.

Can you do that please? I can't seem to find it.... But I am sure you can show me. Thanks in advance.

 

[D'rok]

Please show me 'serious mental impairment' in the above, as that is what they used to justify keeping him/her in there.

Can you do that please? I can't seem to find it.... But I am sure you can show me. Thanks in advance.

Certainly. Here it is:

Exhibit 11: Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right prepared by the Applicant dated 2011/09/13