Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[BobHaulk]

Reading thru the this thread http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=198600&page=24
i come across more idiocy from captain Menard

"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..."
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940

"Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business."


He seems to think that employed only means doing work/business for money. It couldn't mean "to make use of" could it? you couldn't employ a hammer to bang an nail in, could you? What about occupy or devote (time, energies, etc.): I employ my spare time in reading, maybe captain menard should do the same.

What we have here with captain Menard is a complete lack of understanding of the english language. His idiocy is a fine thing indeed and i thank him for it.

 

[jargon buster]

He's just trolling Ickes forum, they should simply ignore him, just correct his claims with "no thats not true".
If he asks for evidence to the contrary simply explain you will provide evidence to the contrary when he provides evidence of his claim.

To try and de-bunk his stupid analogies and sophistry just feeds his ego.
After all how can you correct something when it doesn't have a basis in reality to start with.

 

[Mojo]

Reading thru the this thread http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=198600&page=24
i come across more idiocy from captain Menard

"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..."
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940

"Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business."


He seems to think that employed only means doing work/business for money. It couldn't mean "to make use of" could it? you couldn't employ a hammer to bang an nail in, could you? What about occupy or devote (time, energies, etc.): I employ my spare time in reading, maybe captain menard should do the same.

What we have here with captain Menard is a complete lack of understanding of the english language. His idiocy is a fine thing indeed and i thank him for it.

This is pretty much the basic FOTL strategy: siezing on a particular definition of a word which suits their purpose and resolutely ignoring any other definition, however obvious it is that that other definition is more appropriate. See, for example, the discussion of the term "security of the person" in this thread, in which it was argued that the word "security" must mean a financial instrument.

Incidentally:

You can test it. Go to a store, grab something they are selling, walk out without paying for it, and without a receipt, and when security stops you and asks for the receipt, just point to the object and tell them IT (all by itself) fulfills the function of a receipt. See how that goes for you.

How can a financial instrument stop someone and ask them for a receipt?

 

[jargon buster]

Menards either lying or being an idiot again.

when asked

Yes or no, are you just relaying your ideas and not advising on the law after all?

he replied

I do both occasionally. Why does it have to be always one or the other with some of you?

Sometimes I share my opinion on what the law is, and sometimes on what it should be.

For instance when I point to easily seen words in the criminal code and they clearly establish that a claim of right is lawful excuse, I am pointing out what IS. When I point out that equality means no one can lawfully govern another without consent, I am pointing to what IS. When I point out that people in the government should obey the rule of law and refrain from trying to force others to their will, I am pointing out what should be.

I point to what is, and you all say I am only pointing to what should be. Yet when you point to something, it is always what IS.

See how he buried that one, its OK Rob no one noticed.

I wonder if the law society of Canada can interpret that post as an admission of him giving legal advice?

 

[Cocana The Second]

I think they should know he's still giving advice.

I don't know whether he still believes any of this stuff (actually, I have my doubts about whether he ever did), whether he's just trolling internet forums now or whether this is a pitiful last ditch attempt to make friends and influence people - and maybe make a buck or 800 in the process.

Whatever it is, his act has got really stale.

I've got an idea. Hey Rob, how about some honesty and some straight answers, plus some verifiable evidence to back up your claims?

It won't happen, but I might as well ask just to ensure that the conclusions people have reached are not wide of the mark.

 

[D'rok]

Reading thru the this thread http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=198600&page=24
i come across more idiocy from captain Menard

That thread is a gold mine. I like this one, in which Mr. law expert is unable to distinguish between evidence and argument:

Her arguments where not presented as evidence.
Hard to say they were rejected by the court, when according to the court, it was not presented under testimony nor entered as evidence.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060576151&postcount=351

 

[D'rok]

Oh dear. It gets worse:

The court heard the argument, but it was not part of the record to be weighed and was not counted as evidence. Again, THE ONLY EVIDENCE presented was the testimony of the prosecuting witness.

I have to wonder if it would have been different if they got that argument presented properly and which the court would have had to weigh as evidence. It was not though was it?
Read the part where the judge states THE ONLY EVIDENCE over and over until you can see that argument though heard, was not considered as testimony or evidence, and therefore not part of that which could be weighed by the judge.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060576237&postcount=356

 

[SpitfireIX]

Anyone know the source of the quotation in his signature?

Let me try and explain the difference to you: Rob is right. The government is a con trick. A few people are making money off the suffering of others. If, to get that message to the gullible, Rob has to violate the rules of the Law Society, I consider that a price worth paying.

Is that something he said himself? Does he think he's George Bernard Shaw?

ETA: I could see him talking about himself in the third person.

 

[Mojo]

That thread is a gold mine. I like this one, in which Mr. law expert is unable to distinguish between evidence and argument:

He really ought to have at least looked at how the court dealt with the arguments before claiming that it is "hard to say they were rejected by the court".

Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley

See paragraphs 35-56. There are some real classics in there:

Argument #2 – The defendant was not a driver

[39] The defendant provides a definition of "driver" that reads "one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle". This is from the Fourth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary. However, the full definition of this term, from the revised Fourth Edition, is as follows: "One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle or motor car, through not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle." This is taken from Wallace v. Woods, 340 M. 452, 102 S.W. 2d 91 @ 97, a 1936 case from Missouri.

...

[42] To return to the definition of "driver", it is worth noting that the abridged Fifth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, published in 1983, does not even contain a definition of "driver". The Seventh Edition, published in 1999, contains a much more simplified definition of "driver". It reads, in its entirety, as follows: "1. A person who steers and propels a vehicle. 2. A person who herds animals; a drover."

[43] The definition of "driver" in the Dictionary of Canadian Law, Third Edition, published in 2004 by Thomson Carswell, reads as follows: "1. A person who drives or is in actual physical control or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed or pushed by another vehicle. 2. Includes a person who has the care or control of a motor vehicle whether it is in motion or not. 3. Includes a street car operator. 4. Includes the rider of a bicycle. 5. The occupant of a vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system."

[44] At any rate, there is really no need even to resort to dictionary definitions. There is a clear definition of "driver" contained within the HTA itself. In section 1, the definition reads, simply: "driver" means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway.

Or (my emphasis):

Argument #4 – the HTA lacks jurisdiction in that it lacks the defendant’s express consent

[55] The defendant’s argument is simply that, as she has not expressly consented to be subject to the HTA, it does not apply to her.

[56] It may well be the defendant’s wish not to be governed by the HTA, or any other statute, for that matter. It may offend her personal beliefs, which she is obviously entitled to have. But, if she does not wish to be subject to the HTA, the solution is quite clear. She simply need not drive. The HTA, whether the defendant likes it or not, governs her conduct when she is the driver of a vehicle on a highway in the Province of Ontario.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Oh dear. It gets worse:

Don't you just love this bit:

I have to wonder if it would have been different if they got that argument presented properly

It's the old "they did not perform the moves exactly right, if they had done they would have won" excuse.

Menard obviously doesn't realise what a fool he has made of himself by displaying his ignorance about legal arguments and evidence whilst he claims to have spent over twenty thousand hours studying law.

 

[D'rok]

Don't you just love this bit:

It's the old "they did not perform the moves exactly right, if they had done they would have won" excuse.

Menard obviously doesn't realise what a fool he has made of himself by displaying his ignorance about legal arguments and evidence whilst he claims to have spent over twenty thousand hours studying law.

I can't wait to see how he keeps digging this time. Maybe he'll surprise us all and admit his error.

Actually, I was expecting him to just say "she had a driver's license and registration which she gave to the police so obviously she consents...blah blah blah", which would be his usual way of avoiding addressing the substance of the case.

 

[D'rok]

He really ought to have at least looked at how the court dealt with the arguments before claiming that it is "hard to say they were rejected by the court".

It really was a ruthless demolition of everything Menard claims about "driving" and "travelling". I love it when judges get snarky.

 

[Stacey Grove]

It really was a ruthless demolition of everything Menard claims about "driving" and "travelling".

In conclusion, therefore, this court makes the following summary of its findings: The defendant is and was a person, who was the driver of a motor vehicle in traffic and her conduct is therefore governed by the provisions of the HTA.

I fail to see how that conclusion demolishes any of Menard's arguments.

 

[D'rok]

I fail to see how that conclusion demolishes any of Menard's arguments.

As will Menard.

 

[Stacey Grove]

As will Menard.

Indeed.
If you had any comprehension skills and were able to use reason and logic instead of acting like a child, you would then see that rather than demolishing Menard's arguments, the judge is in fact agreeing with Menard's arguments and endorsing them. Plus, you know in your heart it's true

 

[D'rok]

Indeed.
If you had any comprehension skills and were able to use reason and logic instead of acting like a child, you would then see that rather than demolishing Menard's arguments, the judge is in fact agreeing with Menard's arguments and endorsing them. Plus, you know in your heart it's true

 

[jargon buster]

Menard obviously doesn't realise what a fool he has made of himself by displaying his ignorance about legal arguments and evidence whilst he claims to have spent over twenty thousand hours studying law.

To be honest I don't think he has actually spent over 50 hours studying law, consider his actions when he's posting, he gets stumped, disappears for a couple of hours and then comes back with a link to another redemption/freeman site.
He has no direct links or evidence to hand to back his arguments, surely he should have at least something to hand he could post up, the letters that prove he is indeed a freeman, oh its locked away with my other stuff.

He is just wasting peoples time now, he has nothing now and he has never had anything.

Menards done, full stop ,end of story.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Perhaps a slight derail, but what is a "bondservant"? I got a rather rambling email from someone calling himself Bondservant (given name). Says he's discovered that judges across Canada have taken a false oath.

 

[catsmate]

Perhaps a slight derail, but what is a "bondservant"? I got a rather rambling email from someone calling himself Bondservant (given name). Says he's discovered that judges across Canada have taken a false oath.

Well usually it's a synonym for 'indentured servant' or slave, i.e. an unwaged servant, but some people have a rather different take on it, using it to mean one who has subjected themself to god.

 

[tsig]

Well usually it's a synonym for 'indentured servant' or slave, i.e. an unwaged servant, but some people have a rather different take on it, using it to mean one who has subjected themself to god.

The passion of Christianity comes from deliberately signing away my own rights and becoming a bondservant of Jesus Christ. Until I do that, I will not begin to be a saint.


Slaves for Jesus.