Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[gtm]

There's always a gem over there:



Yeah. What's a judge doing being all judgemental.

You owe me half a glass of wine - I just spat it over the keyboard.

 

[jargon buster]

Robs Elizabeth Ann Elaine Society site where he is advertising his book

Biography -- Robert Arthur

Born in Windsor Ontario in 1963, he grew up in a loving environment with six sisters. A father who disliked the Government, Unions and monopolies and a mother who successfully fought the Provincial Government for fifteen years shaped his personality into one that refuses to accept injustice. After spending 4 years as an Infantry Soldier, he attended college where he studied Mechanical Engineering. A decade of odd jobs later, he found a niche doing Stand-Up Comedy. Eventually, he fell in love with a beautiful young woman and they had a baby nine months later. On December 5th, 2000, The Ministry of Children and Family Services 'removed' his two-day-old daughter, refusing to accept him as the father.

Unable to just blindly accept their supposed authority to do so, he grabbed a copy of their Act and a Blacks Law dictionary and looked up every single word. It took him three days and when he was finished, he uttered one word; 'sonofabitch'. His eyes had been opened to what is quite possibly the greatest deception of our time.

This book is the result of his heartache, loss and study. This is the book Big Brother does not want you to read; it is full of Truths, which the Government has gone to great lengths to conceal in the hopes that we would remain ignorant of them.

On Dec 5th 2000, the Government stepped on the wrong toes.
Robert Arthur is fighting back.

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/elizabeth/

He has been asked to verify if this story is true on several sites and always runs away, bearing in mind Megan (the mother) was under 15 its understandable.

Just bumping this info to annoy him.

 

[Stacey Grove]

I never knew that the baby was only two days old. That is shocking.

 

[gtm]

How do we know Megan was 'under 15' at the time?

The age of consent in Canada was 14 in 2000 & so Rob (if he was indeed the father) may not be a sex offender. That being said I find the idea of a 37 year old man 'messing around' with a 14 year old girl profoundly unedifying.

 

[jargon buster]

Rob Menard proving yet again that most analogies dont bear close examination
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148684&page=31

Says who? If I am not a member of that Law Society, and a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and that society is bound by the law which says we are all equal, then why should I care what they say if I am not a member and they have no power over me?

In the dog breeding world there are associations specific to a breed. This does not mean if you own such a breed you are obliged to join that association.

The Law Society does not have a monopoly on the Law.

In the dog breeding world(law society) if you want you dog(argument) accepted then you have to play by its rules.

Come on Rob, is that the best you can do?

 

[D'rok]

The quality of his reasoning is really top notch:

There is in fact no obligation to register. If they wanted to say 'obligation' they would do so. Instead they say 'must register'.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059526703&postcount=280

That's right up there with his other moment of statutory interpretation brilliance - interpreting "includes" to mean "excludes".

I think we can safely answer this question...

Would you admit the statute is deceptive, and that a layman such as myself can just as easily interpret those Acts as well as if not better than a lawyer

...with a resounding "no".

 

[gtm]

The quality of his reasoning is really top notch:

That's right up there with his other moment of statutory interpretation brilliance - interpreting "includes" to mean "excludes".
I think we can safely answer this question...
...with a resounding "no".

He's using 'Menards Rule' (one of the lesser know rules of statutory interpretation ) - which means the legislation must be interpreted to to suit Rob's specific purposes (irespective of what parliament may have intended)

The shocking thing about Menard is that to intents & purposes he practices as a 'lawyer' in that he provides legal advice for renumeration.

http://worldfreemansociety.org/become+a+member

WFS Membership is $250 & note the sections offering notarial services & support. Perhaps we should try & collate info about what happens to the unfortunates who fall into Rob's clutches?

 

[tsig]

He's using 'Menards Rule' (one of the lesser know rules of statutory interpretation ) - which means the legislation must be interpreted to to suit Rob's specific purposes (irespective of what parliament may have intended)

The shocking thing about Menard is that to intents & purposes he practices as a 'lawyer' in that he provides legal advice for renumeration.

http://worldfreemansociety.org/become+a+member

WFS Membership is $250 & note the sections offering notarial services & support. Perhaps we should try & collate info about what happens to the unfortunates who fall into Rob's clutches?

These items seem especially problematic:

9.

De Jure Courts (We will convene our own courts within which all are equal and charges may be confidently brought against existing courts and their agents and officers and within which the criminal code is enforced against them and disputes between us may be judicially settled.)
10.

Freeman Valley (We will be claiming and seizing a valley within which those who desire can join a working and stable community. )

Item 9 will put them in direct conflict with the real courts.

Item 10 sounds a lot like stealing but I'm sure the present residents of Freeman Valley will happily vacate when show the proper papers drawn up my the DJ courts.

ETA: personally I'd have thought that Freedom Mountain would be more impressive. Freedom Vally sounds, well, feminine.

 

[D'rok]

He's using 'Menards Rule' (one of the lesser know rules of statutory interpretation ) - which means the legislation must be interpreted to to suit Rob's specific purposes (irespective of what parliament may have intended)

The shocking thing about Menard is that to intents & purposes he practices as a 'lawyer' in that he provides legal advice for renumeration.

http://worldfreemansociety.org/become+a+member

WFS Membership is $250 & note the sections offering notarial services & support. Perhaps we should try & collate info about what happens to the unfortunates who fall into Rob's clutches?

I think they key thing to remember is this....

"Members will eventually enjoy all the following"

None of the things on that list are currently in place. I don't know if that makes the scam better or worse. He's taking people's money based on promises that he can't keep.

ETA: Might as well talk contracts. There is clearly an offer that has been communicated, a means is in place for acceptance to be communicated, and consideration appears to flow both ways ($250 to WFS; List of services to members). At what point is the WFS in breach of contract when they fail to provide all of those services?

 

[gtm]

These items seem especially problematic:



Item 9 will put them in direct conflict with the real courts.

Item 10 sounds a lot like stealing but I'm sure the present residents of Freeman Valley will happily vacate when show the proper papers drawn up my the DJ courts.

ETA: personally I'd have thought that Freedom Mountain would be more impressive. Freedom Vally sounds, well, feminine.

These 2 items I think are about Rob's colossal ego. Who will be the Judge at these 'De Jure' Courts? One Robert Arthur Menard perhaps? I don't know what the position in Canada is with regard to Arbitration but I doubt Rob's looked into this. The Freeman Valley will allow Rob to play the benevolent community leader / meglomaniac (with hilarious consequences)

The really disturbing thing is the Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers. I hate to think what could happen if Rob tells some heavily armed, paranoid loon that he's now a 'peace officer' & can enforce the 'law' as he sees fit. Additionally, the words 'private' & 'militia' spring to mind. Not a pleasant prospect

 

[Stacey Grove]

He's using 'Menards Rule' (one of the lesser know rules of statutory interpretation ) - which means the legislation must be interpreted to to suit Rob's specific purposes (irespective of what parliament may have intended)

I suppose he can interpret legislation any way he wishes because he knows it will never be him standing in the dock. I'm convinced he never does any of the stuff he persuades others to do. He has never offered any proof of any success he has had. That is what I don't understand, why do his followers believe him when he has nothing to show them? Why don't they ask for proof before jumping in a vehicle without a licence and believe they are immune from prosecution?

 

[D'rok]

These items seem especially problematic:



Item 9 will put them in direct conflict with the real courts.

Item 10 sounds a lot like stealing but I'm sure the present residents of Freeman Valley will happily vacate when show the proper papers drawn up my the DJ courts.

ETA: personally I'd have thought that Freedom Mountain would be more impressive. Freedom Vally sounds, well, feminine.

"Freeman valley" will be the point when this turns from farce into Waco. It will not be good for anybody.

Fortunately, this group of ineffectual misfits is highly unlikely to get sufficiently organized in order to actually seize land. Also, remember Rob's Freeman Valley beta version fiasco this past summer?

 

[D'rok]

The really disturbing thing is the Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers. I hate to think what could happen if Rob tells some heavily armed, paranoid loon that he's now a 'peace officer' & can enforce the 'law' as he sees fit. Additionally, the words 'private' & 'militia' spring to mind. Not a pleasant prospect

Exactly. All the ingredients for violent confrontation are there. It has already escalated to violence in the USA.

 

[gtm]

Exactly. All the ingredients for violent confrontation are there. It has already escalated to violence in the USA.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/deadly-ark...-citizens-jerry-kane-joseph/story?id=11065285

I think the likelihood of a shootout between the 'Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers' & the Mounties is slim but it's not beyond the realm of possibilities.

 

[jargon buster]

That is what I don't understand, why do his followers believe him when he has nothing to show them? Why don't they ask for proof before jumping in an vehicle without a licence and believe they are immune from prosecution?

Its simple really, its because you have to be an idiot to believe the initial concept in the first place.
Once an idiot always an idiot

 

[talkie toaster]

Its simple really, its because you have to be an idiot to believe the initial concept in the first place.
Once an idiot always an idiot

I'd go beyond idiot, vacant perhaps.The FOTL gubbings doesn't even sound plausible at the very briefest of skim throughs.

 

[jargon buster]

gtm wrote

How do we know Megan was 'under 15' at the time?

This is part of Menards letter to social services, read between the lines, the fact she is underage is clear enough.
Although her age is never identified it is obvious Megan is a child herself.
http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/elizabeth/

Hello,

My name is Robert Arthur and I am writing you concerning the actions of one of your Agents. The name of the Agent in question is Robert Gordon and he works for the Ministry of Children and Family Services. As you know, I have very strong paternal feelings for the child baptized Elizabeth Anne Elaine ******. In my heart, I am her daddy and I always will be. I may not have legal rights, but I am willing to bet I have as many legal rights concerning Elizabeth as you had on Dec 05, 2000, the day you unlawfully effected what you called a ‘legal removal’ and which I call ‘Kidnapping under color of Law’. I am assuming by your silence that you have yet to find a document proving Elizabeth existed legally in ‘The Province of British Columbia’ on that fateful day.

Back in October of this year, Megan *******, mother to Elizabeth, stated that she wanted me to be a permanent part of Elizabeth’s life and towards that ends, she wished for me to visit Elizabeth daily if possible and weekly on Sundays for mass. She knows how much I love Elizabeth. She knows I am a decent man and that I would have a positive influence on Elizabeth. Robert Gordon was informed of this and the result was a visit for Elizabeth and me every two weeks. Seeing as how I was looking forward to seeing Elizabeth on a daily basis and weekly for mass, I was a little angry and asked whether a baptismal certificate was a legal document evidencing a family in act and intent. (I know now it is). His reaction was to phone Megan and using coercion, convince her to cancel my visits. He told her that allowing me access to Elizabeth would be viewed by The Ministry as a sign of poor decision-making skills and would likely result in her not getting Elizabeth back. Once he had unlawfully secured new instructions from Megan, he then left a message on my machine informing me HE had cancelled the visit. He left no reason why, nor did he mention it was at Megan’s request. It was not until after many days that he informed me Megan had requested the cancellation. It was not until I saw Megan at court that I found out about Robert Gordon’s coercion, duplicitous actions and words spoken in bad faith.

I have been Megan’s friend since we met and I have never done anything intentional to hurt her. Robert Gordon’s actions had a very negative effect on Megan and our friendship. I have been a source of support for her and now I can no longer do so. I worry a lot about Megan and used to be able to call her and find out how she is doing and offer moral and spiritual support. Due to Robert Gordon’s lies, I can no longer do so. Elizabeth, Megan and I suffered harm because of his actions. Those actions were made in bad faith and his words were lies. Megan is his client. Because of your Ministry, she is in a fragile and weakened state and he worsened that situation with an unlawful and bad faith act. She needs emotional and spiritual support and he purposely and willfully removed that support from her. I wish to know how your Ministry expects Megan to recover when you are constantly removing from her the emotional and spiritual support she needs. It appears that Megan’s failure is actually your goal. If Megan’s failure is not the Ministry’s goal, please explain how removing emotional support systems benefit her.

Many experts agree that unconditional love during the formative years is vital to a developing child. I love Elizabeth unconditionally and have sworn oath to God over her. I am dedicated to her. I was the first person to know of her existence and I became her daddy before she was born and long before your Ministry even knew of her existence. I have strong paternal instincts and endless love for her and I cannot just turn them off. No one in your Ministry is dedicated to her. The harm you have all allowed to happen to her and her mother is Prima Facie evidence of this. I do what I do without pay. Who in your mercenary Ministry can say the same?

I have to acknowledge that I believe not only does a prenatal baby’s life begin at conception, but that there begins fatherhood also. It is at conception that the father and mother are conjoined to produce new life. It is at conception that the most beautiful thing on the planet, the God-blessed spark of innocent human life, begins its journey through existence.

From that moment, every good father loves his baby, and is moved by a need to protect, defend, and care for her from that moment, through all the days of her life. This empathy, this compassion and emotional investment, is a society builder. It is what gives fathers the motivation to work, to build homes, and to try and make the world a safer place.

I have loved Elizabeth since before her mother knew and accepted she was pregnant.
In examining Robert Gordon’s actions, I have come to these logical conclusions.

Either,

A- The Ministry does not believe love is important to Elizabeth, or,

B- The Ministry does not believe I love Elizabeth, or,

C- The Ministry thinks that my love is not relevant because I am likely to harm Elizabeth, or,

D- The Ministry knows how important love is, knows I am a great source of love for Elizabeth, and is using access to her to punish me for mentioning facts of law. If this is the case, it means the Ministry is acting in spite and against what is clearly best for Elizabeth.

As you can see, I have very good reason to be concerned. If the case is A, then you are actively harming Elizabeth through ignorance. If it is B, then the Ministry is again blind to reality and unable to distinguish what is best for Elizabeth and is harming her by depriving her the unconditional love I feel for her. If it is C, then this means anytime I have a child in my life, the Ministry will come in and remove that child, likely without investigation, as they did with Elizabeth. (If anyone believes that I would harm a child, let alone Elizabeth, they need to have their head examined.) Finally, if it is D, then again I am in danger when I have another child. If you people acted spitefully once, what’s to stop you from doing it again? And again and again…

I seek a full, rational, logical, reasonable and completely honest explanation for my visits being cancelled. Saying Megan requested it will not suffice, as Robert Gordon subjected her to coercion. So which is it? Why exactly did Robert Gordon unlawfully coerce Megan into doing what is clearly not in Elizabeth’s best interest? Is coercion standard operating procedure for your Ministry? Were his words to Megan indicative of his Principle’s position? If so justify them. If not, please be aware that Robert Gordon is guilty of professional misconduct. If you believe for any reason, that I would harm Elizabeth or any child, I wish to know immediately. If you do not think love is important, tell me in writing. If you were acting spitefully knowing full well that your actions would harm Elizabeth, silence on your part at this time will indicate that just fine.

Also, I have uncovered information which will one day be presented in a court of competent jurisdiction proving one of your Agents said that if my age was 21, they would have acknowledged my status of standing lawfully in place of the father. Because of the difference however, they felt justified in denying me the same rights they would have acknowledged existed for a younger man. This is clearly an unlawful act and against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was denied my lawful status as father for no other reason then age. Are your Agents the determiners of morality now? Do these people who act so capriciously now determine on the fly whether a family is a family based upon their own narrow mindedness, skewed morals and ignorance of the law? God help us all, if this is the case. In my opinion, and based on what I have seen of your Agents, a Ministry worker determining morals is like a blind man determining color or a deaf man determining tone.

I know this entire situation is far from the norm. I realize and accept that. The difference in ages is not what I wanted or looked for. I didn’t find out Megan’s actual age until seven months after agreeing to accept her child as my own. At that time, I was torn on what the proper course of action should be. I took me very little time however, to realize that Megan’s age had nothing to do with my duty to Elizabeth. At this point in time, I reaffirmed my previous oath and was accepted by Megan’s parents as daddy to Elizabeth. My entire goal since meeting Megan was to see her reach a point where she would be confident in her decisions, competent in her actions and ready to venture forth with love and conquest aforethought. My primary duty as Elizabeth’s daddy is to protect the mother and child bond. I do not seek access to Elizabeth against the wishes of Megan. I know however, that if successful in being a daddy, she would want me to be a part of Elizabeth’s life. I strongly believe that Elizabeth misses me and her not being able to see me must be hurting her as much as it does myself. I spent many hours on a daily basis speaking to her in the womb. She really responds to me. She loves me. Megan knows how good I would be for Elizabeth and you put her in a horrible position. Please justify using an unlawful act of coercion to deny Elizabeth the love I have for her, which she needs.

One of my greatest fears is that Megan will not recover from her present situation. The reason she will not is because she is unjustly burdened with feelings of fear, anger and shame. These feelings rightfully belong to your Ministry and certain Agents in it. Everyday you refuse to apologize to her is a day she suffers. Everyday she suffers puts Elizabeth one step closer to growing up not knowing her Natural Mother at her potential. If that happens, I promise, you will never know peace.

Every morning I wake up and worry about those two. Not being able to check on them is worse than torture. Is there even anyone in your organization who is a ‘daddy’ and can understand what I am going through? Does anyone care? Do you people love your children only because you have legal documentation?

I like the fact Menard loved the baby before Megan even knew she was pregnant.

 

[gtm]

gtm wrote

This is part of Menards letter to social services, read between the lines, the fact she is underage is clear enough.
Although her age is never identified it is obvious Megan is a child herself.
http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/elizabeth/


I like the fact Menard loved the baby before Megan even knew she was pregnant.

It's a very strange & creepy document & you can see the same unpleasant character traits we see in the current Menard - arrogance, vanity etc. He adopts 2 stances a) the 'concerned Uncle' figure looking out for a young girl in her hour of need & b) the biological father pining for the infant, Elizabeth. He to a large extent dodges the rather 'inconvenient' of what a 37 year old man is doing having a sexual relationship with a young girl. He makes an oblique reference to her age saying he wasn't aware of it & didn't want it but frankly that's rubbish. It's one thing to make mistake one a 'one night stand' scenario but it's clear Menard was involved with Megan for a while. The school uniform & the fact that she lived with her mum & dad should have rung alarm bells. There may well have been an element of grooming involved. All in all a very unsavory story & this may be the 'smoking gun' Mensrd document.

 

[jargon buster]

I think the most telling thing is the fact that his name is Robert Arthur.
Wheres the "Menard" and when did it appear?

Was Menard added to hide something by any chance?

 

[Stacey Grove]

He told her that allowing me access to Elizabeth would be viewed by The Ministry as a sign of poor decision-making skills and would likely result in her not getting Elizabeth back.

So possibly the child was reunited with her mother, as long as Menard was not around.