Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
arayder said:
I always thought that not being able to look somebody in the face and say what you gotta’ say is an indication of dishonesty. But since we are talking about looking into a camera my intuition on that behavior may be inappropriate.
Click to expand...

On that particular point, I'd say that some slack-cutting is in order. Eyeballing an unblinking lens without looking away takes some practise and on that particular vector, I'd give pretty much anyone a pass. Imagine having a conversation with HAL and that's what it's like being on the business end of a camcorder.

Fitz
 
fitzgibbon said:
On that particular point, I'd say that some slack-cutting is in order. Eyeballing an unblinking lens without looking away takes some practise and on that particular vector, I'd give pretty much anyone a pass. Imagine having a conversation with HAL and that's what it's like being on the business end of a camcorder.

Fitz
Click to expand...


+1

I just had to give a presentation for a communication class, and I did poorly on my eye contact. It was partly because I didn't have much time to practice, and partly because I'm generally not that good of a public speaker. It wasn't because I didn't believe what I was saying.
 
Its not about maintaining eye contact its where the eyes go under questioning.
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php

If you ask someone to remember an event they should lean backwards slightly as the mind tries to go back in time to recall the event, if they are making stuff up they can lean forward in their chair.

It's not cut and dried or an exact science but over a couple of hours questioning patterns form in peoples behaviour which you can read if you know what you're looking for.
 
Menard self-debunking at its finest. Check out this Toronto Star article, which is partially shown right at the beginning of his new scam video:

A former Richmond Hill councillor who owes the TD Bank more than $176,000 has lost a court appeal arguing he can pay off his debt using nothing more than a piece of paper with the words “consumer purchase” on it.

Citing an obscure part of the Bills of Exchange Act, Elio Di Iorio says the “consumer bill” is a legitimate form of payment, like a cheque.

It is essentially a piece of paper with “consumer purchase” written on it that can be exchanged for goods and services when signed by the purchaser. The payee — a car dealer, for example — then signs the document and can take it to a bank and get money or credit in exchange.

Di Iorio argues this counts as money because the bank takes that “unpayable debt” to the Bank of Canada which uses it to issue more currency.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1102979--a-new-way-to-pay-off-your-debt#article
Click to expand...

I like this bit:

""The appellant’s documents have no commercial value whatsoever," the high court ruled."

The decision in its entirety:

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Di Iorio said:
[1] The appellants appeal from the summary judgment granted by Price J. of the Superior Court of Justice on June 2, 2011. The judgment was in favour of the respondent T-D Bank in two amounts, $156,603.46 and $22,178.78, relating to mortgage, line of credit, and credit card debts owed by the appellants.

[2] The appellants contend that the motion judge erred by not accepting that the documents they submitted to the respondent, namely, so-called “Bill-Consumer Purchases” were legal tender for their debts.

[3] We disagree. The appellants’ documents have no commercial value whatsoever. Accordingly, the appellants’ debts to T-D Bank remain unpaid.

[4] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to its costs of the appeal fixed at $3000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

http://canlii.ca/t/fpbh1
Click to expand...

Menard is taking this scam wholesale from Di Iorio and dressing it up with his send-me-money association and with the inisistence that it will work on burgers rather than mortgages. **** me, what a tool.
 
Last edited:
06142010_simpsons_krusty_INTRO_500.jpg


freeman maxes out his card.
 
Di Iorio argues this counts as money because the bank takes that “unpayable debt” to the Bank of Canada which uses it to issue more currency.
Click to expand...


Okay, so he's basically admitting he can't pay his debt, and wants someone else to?

What, is he too proud for bankruptcy?
 
Menard is taking this scam wholesale from Di Iorio and dressing it up with his send-me-money association and with the inisistence that it will work on burgers rather than mortgages. **** me, what a tool.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Whilst his latest scam has gone largely unnoticed / ignored over at DIF and WFS there will be, I'm sure, one person who will fall for it.

While any sane person can see this for the blatant scam that it is there will always be another Lance Thatcher who will fall for it. And it is for this reason that Menard's idiotic ideas and scams must always be outed.

Do we know if the lawyer who posted at WFS actually made that post?
I'm not insinuating that Menard would ever lie, but the fake letter from the Irish Law Firm that he waved around does make one wonder.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest that Menard has but one last option - become the guru of a strange religious cult which oddly spouts, FMOLTiese, as religious dogma.
 
Every one here with their anti-fez agendas. Meh, I'd like to see any of you do any better at actually finding solutions or remedy...

At least Rob tries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom