Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
arayder said:
Noooo. I think it is effect, Pard. :-)
Click to expand...

Nowhere Man is correct.
(Hey look Rob, a discussion about the meaning of words!:D)

I haven’t [gotten one scrap of paper from the courts, heard one peep from my internet and email providers, or in any other way] been effected.
Click to expand...
should read:

I haven’t [gotten one scrap of paper from the courts, heard one peep from my internet and email providers, or in any other way] been affected.
Click to expand...


Because, as your Webster's quote says, the fact that you haven't
gotten one scrap of paper from the courts, heard one peep from my internet and email providers
Click to expand...
 there has been no effect on you, therefore you have not been affected.

Get your whiteboard out and "deconstruct" that Bobby!
 
Last edited:
ComfySlippers said:
Nowhere Man is correct.
(Hey look Rob, a discussion about the meaning of words!:D)


should read:




Because, as your Webster's quote says, the fact that you haven't there has been no effect on you, therefore you have not been affected.

Get your whiteboard out and "deconstruct" that Bobby!
Click to expand...


I stand corrected, Comfy.
 
Hans said:
Arayder I wonder if the Menardian's have accepted the convention of the Gregorian calendar? Or do they still operate from the Julian? If so its eleven days earlier....and oh, well maybe they've taken a page from the French revolution and started their own calendar.....hey Rob here's your next scam, convince people that they can change the calendar and just delete days that have court dates, income tax due dates, etc....I mean it madder than a box of frogs but you've have done worse
Click to expand...

I know they don't accept that their guru is shooting blanks.
 
The dope clock is still running!

It is day 32 since Fez Boy filed his magic papers and I haven’t gotten one scrap of paper from the courts, heard one peep from my internet and email providers, or in any other way been affected.

. . .tick. . .tick. . .tick. . tick
 
What exactly does he claim he is suing over? I've gone back through some of the thread and followed some links. What I have put together is this:

Robert-Arthur goes around Canada advertising and performing his "comedy" show. His comedy is actually a bunch of Freeman on the Land nonsense. He pretty much advertises for his "ANNOY THE SYSTEM! GET BIGGER FINES AND MORE JAIL TIME!" kit.

Some of the people who post at JREF have sent emails to places that host his show to let them know what he is doing. At some point one of the venues canceled the FOTL show. :Menard claims this is the result of defamation, and is suing for damages. Or he might be, but nothing has happened yet.

Is this right?
 
BenjaminTR said:
Is this right?
Click to expand...



Pretty much.

He's also thrown in a bit about him being called a criminal, claiming that if he's never been convicted, we aren't allowed to call him that.

That of course ignores the fact that we are allowed to come to our own conclusions based on the facts at hand, regardless of whether or not those facts have ever been considered by the courts. I mean, how many people think OJ Simpson is a murderer, despite his lack of conviction on those charges?
 
Horatius said:
He's also thrown in a bit about him being called a criminal, claiming that if he's never been convicted, we aren't allowed to call him that.
Click to expand...
Actually, in the emails he has a beef with, he was called a crook, not a criminal. Which is nothing more than the plain truth. His consumer purchase scam was called "almost certainly a criminal fraud scheme", which is also the plain truth. In typical FOTL failure to parse simple English grammar, he can't understand that "criminal" modifies "scheme" in this sentence, or that "almost certainly" is a clear caveat.
 
Horatius said:
Pretty much.

He's also thrown in a bit about him being called a criminal, claiming that if he's never been convicted, we aren't allowed to call him that.

That of course ignores the fact that we are allowed to come to our own conclusions based on the facts at hand, regardless of whether or not those facts have ever been considered by the courts. I mean, how many people think OJ Simpson is a murderer, despite his lack of conviction on those charges?
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Is that the best argument he can offer, that he has not been convicted? One might expect someone in his position to argue that what he does is not against the law. Has he attempted this?

Also, what would he have to do to win a case like this? There are so many intricacies to these slander, libel and defamation laws that it is hard to keep track. And what standard of evidence does it have to meet? Not that it matters, since the lawsuit is probably just a bluff, but the details of his antics are often amusing.
 
BenjaminTR said:
Also, what would he have to do to win a case like this?
Click to expand...

First you need to show there was a defamatory statement. This is a statement that reduces the esteem or respect in which the Plaintiff is held by others in the community. The test is objective and based on a reasonable member of the public would think less of you as a result of the statement. The defamatory statement must refer specifically to the Plaintiff and be made to a third party.

If you can satisfy all this, then it falls to the Defendant to put forwards one of the many defences. The common defences ar that the statement is true, absolute or qualified priviledge, or fair comment on a matter of public interest. Also apology and retraction can act as a partial defence.

Or particular note here is the defence of fair comment. This applies when the statement is one of comment or opinion and would be interpreted as such by the ordinary reader. This defence does not extend to statements of fact. The comment also must be based on a matter of public interest. This extends to things like the business matters, government matters, the arts, comedy, etc. Finally the comment must be fair, which in this context does not mean it has to be balanced or reasonable, but it means it must be honest.

If all the defences fail then the Plaintiff gets damages regardless of any actual financial loss.
 
BenjaminTR said:
Thanks.

Is that the best argument he can offer, that he has not been convicted? One might expect someone in his position to argue that what he does is not against the law. Has he attempted this?
Click to expand...


So far as we've seen, yes, this is his best argument. He does also argue that "what he does is not against the law", but that's because his whole philosophy revolves around not believing himself subject to the laws he'd be breaking in the first place. The lack of conviction is the best evidence he can point to in order to support that argument, however.

Of course, this ignores the difficultly inherent in proving fraud in cases where the victims themselves don't realize or acknowledge that they are victims. Menard knows this, which is why he targets people desperate, stupid or delusional enough to believe his crap. He steadfastly avoids anyone who might possibly come to their senses and register a complaint against him with the police.



JLord said:
Or particular note here is the defence of fair comment. This applies when the statement is one of comment or opinion and would be interpreted as such by the ordinary reader. This defence does not extend to statements of fact. The comment also must be based on a matter of public interest. This extends to things like the business matters, government matters, the arts, comedy, etc. Finally the comment must be fair, which in this context does not mean it has to be balanced or reasonable, but it means it must be honest.
Click to expand...


And this alone should knock this case out. There's no doubt that the issues of legitimate government authority (or lack thereof) are valid topics for public comment and action, and that Menard has, by his own actions, placed himself squarely in the middle of this discussion. There's also little doubt that holding (and expressing) the opinion that Menard is a conman and fraud is a reasonable belief, based on the decision in the Meads case alone. I'd love to see Menard try to argue that it's unreasonable for a lawyer such as D'rok to publicly agree with a sitting judge on such a case.
 
As others have noted, Fez Boy has an uphill argument in trying to make the case that pointing out his past scams, already established in Judge Rooke’s decision, is slander.

Consistent with his narcissistic personality, the phony FOTL paperwork/suit and the bluster is only about developing a facade of credibility for consumption in the freeman cult.

What “Mr. I-can’t-plan-beyond-my-next-buffet-breakfast” fails to realize is that once he fails to make good on his phony suit anyone he attempts to associate with can very safely be told of his conman past.

That’s right, Bobby, you’re ***********. . . . and you are going to learn to like it.
 
Last edited:
What “Mr. I-can’t-plan-beyond-my-next-buffet-breakfast” fails to realize is that once he fails to make good on his phony suit anyone he attempts to associate with can very safely be told of his conman past.
Click to expand...
Yep, another massive foot in mouth moment from Menardio the clown.
He allegedly files a lawsuit against people who he claims have slandered and libelled him then fails to go through with it.
Menard debunks himself yet again.
I wonder what he will say when people ask him why he didn't pursue it?
"Oh, I have bigger fish to fry, just watch me, the Wolverine is just getting warmed up"
 
jargon buster said:
Yep, another massive foot in mouth moment from Menardio the clown.
He allegedly files a lawsuit against people who he claims have slandered and libelled him then fails to go through with it.
Menard debunks himself yet again.
I wonder what he will say when people ask him why he didn't pursue it?
"Oh, I have bigger fish to fry, just watch me, the Wolverine is just getting warmed up"
Click to expand...

Warmed up!? Stick a fork in him, he's done.
 
The dope clock is still running!

It is day 33 since Fez Boy filed his magic papers and I haven’t gotten one scrap of paper from the courts, heard one peep from my internet and email providers, or in any other way been affected.

. . .tick. . .tick. . .tick. . .tick
 
Has he attempted to email the person(s) in the email he is suing over and supposedly has?
 
Sorry, apparently I can't type coherently today.

He supposedly has in-hand an email he claims he was able to obtain through a court order.

Has he attempted to contact the sender of that email by replying to it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom