Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have not thought it through you say.

Can you show me in the BOE Act, Part 5 where it states the individual using this method of payment requires a SIN. I bet you can`t.

Can you show me where in the BOE Act Part 5 it states the person providing the service needs one. I bet you can`t.

Can you show me where in that same section it states the person cannot be a corporation and where it states that a Freeman can`t be an employee under contract with them, and be a silent shareholding partner. I bet you can`t.

As for the lady I am doing the work for, our contract releases her from any payment obligation save signing the bill as the house owner, regardless of the difficulty I may have in getting the bank to honour it and do their duty as outlined in the BOEA. I did mention that, but I guess ignoring that is justified in the same way you all justify refusing to read the Act in question. I would disrupt your previously held beliefs, and changing those would be too stressful for some egos.

What I find so telling, is so many here challenged me to go out and get a meal, and pay for it using this method, and when I say, I will go one better and provide services valued at over $10K the most ignorant can only mock, and others remain silent.

Is my actions not sufficient to show my belief in the concept....
Breaches of rules 0 and 12 removed. Do not insult other posters.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ComfySlippers said:
:D

That's got to be the funniest post ever. Made me laugh it was so full of crap.

Welcome to Chucklesville folks!

Rob, don't forget to video your latest fantasy.
Click to expand...

So I take it CS you did read the Act. Or not.

Likely not, you like JB, prefer to mock from your fortress of ignorance.

`The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don`t know anything about`. Wayne Dyer

YOU comfy can only reject, and it is obvious you know nothing about the Act, and not only that, you refuse to educate yourself in any meaningful way.

Why you so scared to read the Act comfy... ask yourself that!
 
As for the lady I am doing the work for, our contract releases her from any payment obligation save signing the bill as the house owner, regardless of the difficulty I may have in getting the bank to honour it and do their duty as outlined in the BOEA. I did mention that, but I guess ignoring that is justified in the same way you all justify refusing to read the Act in question. I would disrupt your previously held beliefs, and changing those would be too stressful for some egos.
Click to expand...

Great, Im glad you claim the poor lady is going to be in the clear, however once you go into the bank and start passing dud cheques Im pretty sure you are going to have to give the police a full explanation of how you came by the alledged specimen of 'money'.

What I find so telling, is so many here challenged me to go out and get a meal, and pay for it using this method, and when I say, I will go one better and provide services valued at over $10K the most ignorant can only mock, and others remain silent.
Click to expand...
Rob, you havent done anything yet, it just you talking about doing something.

Iggy bin :D
Grow up Rob.
 
Can you show me in the BOE Act, Part 5 where it states the individual using this method of payment requires a a bike with a flat tyre I bet you can`t.
Click to expand...
Can you show me where in the BOE Act Part 5 it states the person providing the service needs a puncture repair kit and two spoons. . I bet you can`t.
Click to expand...
Can you show me where in that same section it states the person cannot be a corporation and where it states that a conman can`t be an employee under contract with them, and be a silent shareholding partner. I bet you can`t.
Click to expand...


See its easy to write nonsense Rob

Rob can a person be a corporation, or do you mean a human person?
 
Last edited:
Can you show me in the BOE Act, Part 5 where it states the individual using this method of payment requires a SIN. I bet you can`t.

Can you show me where in the BOE Act Part 5 it states the person providing the service needs one. I bet you can`t.

Can you show me where in that same section it states the person cannot be a corporation and where it states that a Freeman can`t be an employee under contract with them, and be a silent shareholding partner. I bet you can`t.
Click to expand...

Good game Rob, why dont you try it!

Can you show me some pictures of freeman valley.
Can you show me the c3po operating throughout canada
Can you show me the millions you have claimed from cashing in your birth bond.


Rob the reason people are silent about your suggestion is because they know what will happen, you will claim its in action and then after months of silence you wont discuss it again. It will be like your lawsuit against the airline... nothing of it,

so dont make us wait, do it now, bring in a bill with consumer purchace writting on it, into a shop and use it as payment for something and show us now.

Just do that, prove to us it works, Dont you know by now that people dont accept your stories as fact, back up what you say for once, or be mocked yet again.
 
mushy said:
Good game Rob, why dont you try it!

Can you show me some pictures of freeman valley.
Can you show me the c3po operating throughout canada
Can you show me the millions you have claimed from cashing in your birth bond.


Rob the reason people are silent about your suggestion is because they know what will happen, you will claim its in action and then after months of silence you wont discuss it again. It will be like your lawsuit against the airline... nothing of it,

so dont make us wait, do it now, bring in a bill with consumer purchace writting on it, into a shop and use it as payment for something and show us now.

Just do that, prove to us it works, Dont you know by now that people dont accept your stories as fact, back up what you say for once, or be mocked yet again.
Click to expand...

Aren`t you even a little embarrassed sounding like such a child... You will mock me... OH NO! Quel Surpriz! What will I do if I am mocked I wonder... Unlike you I learned long ago about sticks and stones...

PROVE TO ME! PROVE TO ME! SERVE ME! DO NOT ASK ME TO THINK FOR MYSELF! Sheesh... :boggled:
 
ComfySlippers said:
FreemanMenard said:
Well, if you were willing to actually read the Act
Click to expand...
:D

That's got to be the funniest post ever. Made me laugh it was so full of crap.

Welcome to Chucklesville folks!

Rob, don't forget to video your latest fantasy.
Click to expand...

Menard's interpretation of the Act is so super good that the only conceivable way one could possibly disagree with him is if they didn't read the act.

Amazingly, Menard is the first person to ever read the act since it was written in 1985.

What a pioneer!
 
Rob, I see why you think the way you do about the BOE but disagree with your conclusion. The difference of opinion I have is based on the "note" needing to be backed by something. I doubt the bank would cash a "note" from the account holder because they already have methods in place that are safe and efficient, cheques, money transfers etc. It would require a huge burden on them to make sure they were not giving people money fraudulently if all that was required was a napkin with someones alleged signature.

At the end though you may be able to get them to honor your homemade IOU if there were funds in the account you wanted to draw on. There is the rub, an account to draw on. Who's account are you drawing on? Birth bond account? You have never established that such an account actually exists, nor have you shown that you can access your "shares" in Canada. Without clearly establishing not only the right to do this but also the abiltiy to do it your plan falls flat in reality and we come back to a neat idea and a philosophical discusion about our "ownership" of our country that has no shown basis in reality.
 
Werdum said:
Rob, I see why you think the way you do about the BOE but disagree with your conclusion. The difference of opinion I have is based on the "note" needing to be backed by something. I doubt the bank would cash a "note" from the account holder because they already have methods in place that are safe and efficient, cheques, money transfers etc. It would require a huge burden on them to make sure they were not giving people money fraudulently if all that was required was a napkin with someones alleged signature.

At the end though you may be able to get them to honor your homemade IOU if there were funds in the account you wanted to draw on. There is the rub, an account to draw on. Who's account are you drawing on? Birth bond account? You have never established that such an account actually exists, nor have you shown that you can access your "shares" in Canada. Without clearly establishing not only the right to do this but also the abiltiy to do it your plan falls flat in reality and we come back to a neat idea and a philosophical discusion about our "ownership" of our country that has no shown basis in reality.
Click to expand...

Did you read the ActÉ (É = question mark) See how there is specific things mentioned which can result in punishmentÉ

Why would one need to have an account to draw upon when WE own the Bank of Canada and are merely exercising our right to spend money into circulation for consumer purchases, and not drawing upon an account with money in itÉ That is covered under cheques and other notes in the same Act. And the whole story is not there in that one Act. You have to analyze a couple of others to find all the pieces. Also, I already have it confirmed from lawyers with a large grocery store chain and a lawyer.

In any event, lunch is over, have to get back to work!
 
FreemanMenard said:
Wow... I think I understand the kamikaze level of stupidity express by you now JB. You with your hidden identity do not care just how stupid you look, as long as you can get some of the herd here on side, and embracing the same level of stupidity. You operate solely on assumption, and full of ignorance. And you apparently do it just to yank my chain, right....

I have not thought it through you say.

Can you show me in the BOE Act, Part 5 where it states the individual using this method of payment requires a SIN. I bet you can`t.

Can you show me where in the BOE Act Part 5 it states the person providing the service needs one. I bet you can`t.

Can you show me where in that same section it states the person cannot be a corporation and where it states that a Freeman can`t be an employee under contract with them, and be a silent shareholding partner. I bet you can`t.

As for the lady I am doing the work for, our contract releases her from any payment obligation save signing the bill as the house owner, regardless of the difficulty I may have in getting the bank to honour it and do their duty as outlined in the BOEA. I did mention that, but I guess ignoring that is justified in the same way you all justify refusing to read the Act in question. I would disrupt your previously held beliefs, and changing those would be too stressful for some egos.

What I find so telling, is so many here challenged me to go out and get a meal, and pay for it using this method, and when I say, I will go one better and provide services valued at over $10K the most ignorant can only mock, and others remain silent.

Is my actions not sufficient to show my belief in the concept....:rolleyes:

Bye Bye JB, you are now back in the iggy bin. You just want to yank my chain, and are simply too stupid to realize how ignorant you actually are.
Click to expand...

You're going to have a few issues Robbie and I'm going to list them for you here as a service to both yourself and to the puir wee fools who might be considering this:

a. your consumer notes made pursuant to s. 189(2) of the BOE are promissory notes;
b. Part IV of the BOE cover Promissory Notes and clearly states that Promissory Notes are to be paid by the maker of the Note (ie. the homeowner) s.186); and
c. Dishonoured bills of exchange are to be made good by the payer of the Note, not the Bank of Canada, (sections 94-106).

In essence, by doing this your homeowner is still on the hook for the cost of the work you perform, this is not a way to get the Bank of Canada to pay. It is trite law that you cannot bind parties to contract who have not agreed to the terms. Since the Bank of Canada is not a party to the Promissory Note it cannot be compelled to pay. I trust you advised the homeowner to get independent legal advice prior to signing that contract.
 
Border Reiver said:
You're going to have a few issues Robbie and I'm going to list them for you here as a service to both yourself and to the puir wee fools who might be considering this:

a. your consumer notes made pursuant to s. 189(2) of the BOE are promissory notes;
b. Part IV of the BOE cover Promissory Notes and clearly states that Promissory Notes are to be paid by the maker of the Note (ie. the homeowner) s.186); and
c. Dishonoured bills of exchange are to be made good by the payer of the Note, not the Bank of Canada, (sections 94-106).

In essence, by doing this your homeowner is still on the hook for the cost of the work you perform, this is not a way to get the Bank of Canada to pay. It is trite law that you cannot bind parties to contract who have not agreed to the terms. Since the Bank of Canada is not a party to the Promissory Note it cannot be compelled to pay. I trust you advised the homeowner to get independent legal advice prior to signing that contract.
Click to expand...
Read this Rob.
 
FreemanMenard said:
So you know I am presently doing some masonry upgrades on a house, and am accepting as payment a signed bill, which I will take to the bank for redemption. I am talking a months work, valued at around $10K. If the bank refuses to honour it, the homeowner will not be held liable and she gets my work for free. However I know they will. If they don't I am prepared to go to court.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you plan on suing the Bank of Canada and representing yourself? This will make my day if it happens.
 
If you're working on a cause of action against the Bank of Canada, I assume you must have a legal argument to counter this, yes?

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...

Don't forget to directly address the hilighted phrase.
 
Last edited:
Hey, what a surprise. Instead of providing proof, Menard is just talking. Again.
 
Border Reiver said:
You're going to have a few issues Robbie and I'm going to list them for you here as a service to both yourself and to the puir wee fools who might be considering this:

a. your consumer notes made pursuant to s. 189(2) of the BOE are promissory notes;
b. Part IV of the BOE cover Promissory Notes and clearly states that Promissory Notes are to be paid by the maker of the Note (ie. the homeowner) s.186); and
c. Dishonoured bills of exchange are to be made good by the payer of the Note, not the Bank of Canada, (sections 94-106).

In essence, by doing this your homeowner is still on the hook for the cost of the work you perform, this is not a way to get the Bank of Canada to pay. It is trite law that you cannot bind parties to contract who have not agreed to the terms. Since the Bank of Canada is not a party to the Promissory Note it cannot be compelled to pay. I trust you advised the homeowner to get independent legal advice prior to signing that contract.
Click to expand...

So you are on the right track....
As for the homeowner, if I am wrong she gets the work for free. She WILL NOT be on any hook, nor will I seek payment from her if this method fails. She is a kindly older lady and I would do it for free.

As I said that Act is not the only box holding the pieces. For some reason they put them in separate Acts, almost like they were trying to hide them. The Bank of Canada Act, The Bank Act, The Financial Administration Act all hold pieces of the puzzle, and when assembled the fact we have the right to spend money into circulation for what is defined as a consumer purchase, (not merely draw upon an account for the expenditure with money already in it) becomes rather clear.

So you know I see two sides to the argument; the philosophical and the legal. There really is little sense looking at the legal if the other is not strong to begin with, and the first does not matter at all if the legal is not strong after ward.

I think I have both pretty much covered, though of course time will tell, and I could be wrong on both. I realize I may face opposition from the banks who now presently enjoy a monopoly on the creation of money and control how much is in circulation for their own profit. I also think i have developed a fair plan and strategy for proving it legally, and getting it accepted philosophically by the public at large. And although it does involve proving the concept, it does not involve accepting childish challenges to show my hand at the beginning of the campaign using a youtube video to prove one transaction. I have something much much bigger in mind, and proving to the naysayers here is not even on the list. I will keep those who care appraised as I engage; I will not accept directives on how to do it.

I really have to get back to work now. See you maybe at coffee in a couple of hours!
 
FreemanMenard said:
So you know I am presently doing some masonry upgrades on a house, and am accepting as payment a signed bill, which I will take to the bank for redemption. I am talking a months work, valued at around $10K. If the bank refuses to honour it, the homeowner will not be held liable and she gets my work for free. However I know they will. If they don't I am prepared to go to court.
Click to expand...

FreemanMenard said:
Can you show me in the BOE Act, Part 5 where it states the individual using this method of payment requires a SIN. I bet you can`t.

Can you show me where in the BOE Act Part 5 it states the person providing the service needs one. I bet you can`t.
Click to expand...


Can you show me who is liable for payment on a consumer bill? It's in the BOE Act Part 5.
 
FreemanMenard said:
As I said that Act is not the only box holding the pieces. For some reason they put them in separate Acts, almost like they were trying to hide them. The Bank of Canada Act, The Bank Act, The Financial Administration Act all hold pieces of the puzzle, and when assembled the fact we have the right to spend money into circulation for what is defined as a consumer purchase, (not merely draw upon an account for the expenditure with money already in it) becomes rather clear.
Click to expand...


Show us the other "pieces".
 
FreemanMenard said:
So you know I see two sides to the argument; the philosophical and the legal. There really is little sense looking at the legal if the other is not strong to begin with, and the first does not matter at all if the legal is not strong after ward.
Click to expand...
You fail on both sides. Even better, you utterly fail if you truly believe that philosophy trumps law in a court of law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom