Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
thedopefishlives said:
Of course, on our side of the 49th parallel, we have Birther queen bee Orly Taitz and she still hasn't been slapped with vex. lit. anywhere, so I'm guessing the courts take an extremely cautious view of doing so.
Click to expand...

Or the courts enjoy the lulz.
 
LightinDarkness said:
So I've been thinking about this, and even if Menard got the order and its real it doesn't really say anything. I am assuming the Canadian legal system is like the United States legal system (which can be a dangerous assumption, I know, but..) in that anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason as long as its formatted properly and you pay the fees. I do believe the US legal standard here is that there is an assumption that the filing party is sane (another dangerous assumption when it comes to Menard) and that the statements made justifying initial discovery motions have the possibility of being true.

What Menard has done, if its real, is I believe the US version of a "motion to compel discovery" - which can only be objected to if the documents demanded are irrelevant to the case or is protected by privilege. And since the organization who received the demand probably has no interest in formally objecting (its just an email after all), and it is materially relevant to the case (even though the case is BS and would lose eventually anyways), then I don't know why Menard thinks hes done something so amazing here.

For example, if I wanted to tomorrow I could file a lawsuit against Robert Menard's for slander against JREF and then get a motion to compel for him to produce all documents mentioning the JREF in the past 2 years from his private emails. Assuming that I paid the filing fees, formatted the request properly, and otherwise appeared to not be a total nutcase, I would probably get it. The slander could be completely made up (and it would be thrown out since I wouldnt have standing, again that reality is irrelevant for purposes of the motion), it doesn't matter, the court will assume its true for purposes of discovery as long as it sounds not totally fruitcake-ish.

So...to conclude...even if its real, color me completely unimpressed.
Click to expand...

Pretty much correct. The only caveat would be that it looks like Menard was trying to get disclosure from a non-party, which is certainly available and quite common (I did it lots of times during my 11-year legal career) but typically requires that the non-party be served with the application and given an opportunity to speak to it. If Menard didn't do that, it might be why he didn't get a real order (if he didn't) and bluffed the community centre.
 
thedopefishlives said:
Of course, on our side of the 49th parallel, we have Birther queen bee Orly Taitz and she still hasn't been slapped with vex. lit. anywhere, so I'm guessing the courts take an extremely cautious view of doing so.
Click to expand...

Not anymore. I think courts will be happy to rely on the decision of Justice Rooke in Alberta which basically says anyone who persists in using freeman arguments is a vexatious litigant. And if Menard has indeed sued Justice Rooke, his counsel will almost certainly be applying for a vexatious litigant order against him if he is ever served with the claim and has to defend. I couldn't see Rooke not making the attempt given this is what he promotes as the correct course in his own judgment.
 
For what it's worth, the style of cause on the (unfiled) order posted by Menard on his Facebook only shows a single John Doe. It doesn't look like he's sued Rooke J. at this point.
 
Throughout Mr. Menard’s career as an anti-authoritarian guru he has consistently claimed to have done things he never did, claimed victories he never achieved and made promises he never kept.

We have covered in painful detail what drives this poor soul to invent these tall tales. Let it suffice to say that Mr. Menard’s fanciful tale of dragging his internet debunkers before the courts for a heroic drubbing is the same sort of self-aggrandizing tale he has been telling his freeman minions for years.

Indeed, telling everyone since childhood!

To our subject it doesn’t make any difference if the greater part of his freeman audience believes him. As long as he can get one or two sad sycophants to buy his story the little tiny boy that lives in him can still hope that the next story will satisfy daddy.

In the meantime there is a mountain of self medication to administer!
 
Last edited:
strummer said:
It wasn't Patrick Moore that said 'Blinded me with science', it was Magnus Pyke another great eccentric.
Click to expand...

Didn't he just exclaim "Science!"? I used to watch reruns of "Don't Ask Me" when I was a kid and I loved that guy!
 
Jon. said:
For what it's worth, the style of cause on the (unfiled) order posted by Menard on his Facebook only shows a single John Doe. It doesn't look like he's sued Rooke J. at this point.
Click to expand...


The notice of civil claim has the same style of cause title of proceedings (old habits die hard :) ). There is only the one John Doe mentioned within and it refers to an internet user name only. There is no mention of Justice Rooke at all.
 
Last edited:
Seems to come up for me. I think i'm too new for links here.

www dot facebook dot com slash robert dot menard dot 52

I might be new, but I somehow get the impression that he doesn't really like people here.
 
Jon. said:
:D I quit practicing before they made all those changes!
Click to expand...


I'm still practicing but I find myself constantly still saying style of cause instead of title of proceedings. And a whole bunch of the other 'old' terms. :D

Anyway, I couldn't upload these to docstoc properly so I took a shot at adding them to the WordPress thing I thought about starting recently. Let's see if you can read them here:

http://legaltainment.wordpress.com/menard/
 
LashL said:
I'm still practicing but I find myself constantly still saying style of cause instead of title of proceedings. And a whole bunch of the other 'old' terms. :D

Anyway, I couldn't upload these to docstoc properly so I took a shot at adding them to the WordPress thing I thought about starting recently. Let's see if you can read them here:

http://legaltainment.wordpress.com/menard/
Click to expand...

Yep, it took a couple of clicks, but I got both documents to come up. Are Notices of Civil Claim (which I assume replaced Writs of Summons and Statements of Claim) now supposed to contain legal argument??? And shouldn't his application have had an affidavit attached? Legaltainment indeed!
 
Quote from claim
[10] The Defendant stated in the email that the Plaintiff is a a criminal and engaging in criminal acts
and used such words as 'scam', 'fraud', and 'crooks' to describe the Plaintiff and his organization.

[11] In ordinary meaning these words can only be construed as harmful to ones reputation.
Click to expand...
Quote from email in claim (select sections)
Mr. Menard is advertising this event as a promotion for what is almost certainly a criminal fraud scheme
Click to expand...
First one "almost certainly" meaning it could be true, but highly doubtful.
I realize that this scheme sounds ridiculous, but this is exactly what Mr. Menard promises.
You can read all about it on Mr. Menard's promotional site here:
www dot consumerpurchasers dot ca (can't post links)
Click to expand...
Please do your own research (which they always ask you to do when talking to them)
The Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal have already ruled against this scheme - a fact of which Mr. Menard is well aware.
Click to expand...
I think they forget to mention this place as a research point usually
I urge you to look closely at the person and the organization to whom you have rented your
facilities. If you do so, I am certain that you will reconsider allowing your facilities to be
used by these crooks.
Click to expand...
Do your own research and make your own decision. The "crooks" could be a bit far (on paper), but basis is provided.
 
Jon. said:
Yep, it took a couple of clicks, but I got both documents to come up. Are Notices of Civil Claim (which I assume replaced Writs of Summons and Statements of Claim) now supposed to contain legal argument??? And shouldn't his application have had an affidavit attached? Legaltainment indeed!
Click to expand...


I'm glad they worked. I haven't got the hang of WordPress yet and this was the first time I tried uploading documents there. My extant Legaltainment™ site is at googlesites, but ever since they changed it from googlepages to googlesites, it's been more difficult to work with.

Anyway, you're quite right that statements of claim (notices of civil action in BC) are not supposed to contain legal arguments, and you're quite right that there should have been an affidavit attached to the application. There is reference to an affidavit but it's not attached for some reason. Also without proof of service and an opportunity for the respondent to respond to (or consent to, or at least not oppose) the application, I cannot imagine how any Master could grant it. Perhaps there was an affidavit filed but it seems odd that it wouldn't be attached.

Aside from the fact that his application cites the wrong rule numbers, which only goes to show that Menard doesn't know much about legal proceedings despite holding himself out otherwise, it appears that his application was filed on November 23 for a hearing on the morning of November 23. I cannot see how he could have effected proper service of the application upon the respondent, since the BC Rules of Civil Procedure require that he serve the respondent personally with a copy of the FILED notice of application and each of the FILED affidavits and documents at least 8 business days before the date set for the hearing of the application, and there is no mention of a consent being signed or filed.

Plus, the purported 'order' that Menard has made available is not appropriately worded by any stretch of the imagination, so I cannot imagine any Master signing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom