Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Hans]

No. No more discussion. Even if you want to keep claiming that the fault lies with us and not with you, it has been clear for quite some time now that talking about this with you achieves nothing.

This can go no further without you demonstrating this in practice. Do what X said, and show us the proof. That is all you need to do.

Gee I think a few hundred more pages of this Menardian banter is just what we need, lol

 

[D'rok]

Welcome back Rob. If you don't mind, please interpret the phrase "no commercial value whatsoever" for us. Should be good for a few chuckles.

[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

 

[ComfySlippers]

The answer is surely "Prove that they were the appellants"

 

[D'rok]

The answer is surely "Prove that they were the appellants"

They probably have drivers licenses, so they clearly consented to being governed.

 

[Border Reiver]

One might also argue that if you wish to avail yourself of the benefits of statute law that you consent to statute law.

 

[Paul]

Paul, we are growing exponentially from30,000+.

How were you growing before more than 30,000?.

From what number were you growing exponentially and at what rate?

Also, what makes you think I want or need to impress YOU or the other posters here?

Mostly it's your speech and your actions.

That is YOUR mindset which you are projecting.

Curious, because I didn't mention your ego this time.

YOU have a need to impress, so you assume I do as well.

"That is YOUR mindset which you are projecting."

Why not just read the BOE Act and take it from there? Too much for your brain to accept isn't it?

After reading it, you must make a basic effort to understand it. Apparently you missed this step.

Just blind rejection is all I see here.

That's because you want to be seen as the victim.

so many about me and my supposed failings and criminal intent

Funny that, anyone would think the thread was call Rob Menard's FOTL Claims.

Post away my little bitches! Even when I was not on this forum, you could not stop posting about me, and doing my will. And you can't stop now either, can you?

"Are you gonna bark all day little doggie? Or are you gonna bite?"

 

[Mojo]

Now that you are back, perhaps you can address this:

Why you spamming the board with a same question you have already asked and had answered?

Taxi Driver --- commercial.
Bus Driver ---- commercial
Transport Driver --- commercial.

Driving by definition is being employed as a vehicle operator for pay.

No, it isn't. See the definition in the 4th edition of Black's Law Dictionary, as cited in Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 at paragraph 39:

One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle or motor car, through not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle.

That clearly includes driving without being employed to do so.

Or see the one from the 7th edition of Black's, as cited in the same case at paragraph 42:

1. A person who steers and propels a vehicle. 2. A person who herds animals; a drover.

No mention of commerce or employment there, unless you are talking about driving animals rather than motor vehicles.

The judgment in that case, and the definitions cited from your favourite law dictionary, clearly show that contrary to your claims "commercial use" or "private profit" are not necessary for someone to be a driver.

The judgment also contradicts FOTL claims about "persons" (paras 47-54) and "consent" (paras 55-56).

 

[JLord]

Rob, what would it take for you to post a video of yourself paying for a bill at a restaurant with a consumer purchase? Is this something you are willing to do or are planning to do?

 

[ComfySlippers]

He's a very busy man. No time for pesky things like proof.
30,000+ Freeemen you know... see how it's busy busy busy over at WFS....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 

[Hans]

Rob, what would it take for you to post a video of yourself paying for a bill at a restaurant with a consumer purchase? Is this something you are willing to do or are planning to do?

Well he could fake that but then it would be fun to see that.

I'd like to see him take that poor restauranteur and his newly provided consumer bill, into the bank and demand it be paid.....on video of course

lol

 

[Horatius]

Well he could fake that but then it would be fun to see that.

I'd like to see him take that poor restauranteur and his newly provided consumer bill, into the bank and demand it be paid.....on video of course

lol

That's the thing about a good con - he just might be able to talk a restaurant owner into accepting his "consumer note", but that doesn't mean the owner will get paid by the bank afterwards. What I'd love to see is the follow-up: go back to the same restaurant for a few weeks in a row, and see if he still gets served, or if he gets chased out of the place as a deadbeat con artist.

 

[arayder]

Rob, what would it take for you to post a video of yourself paying for a bill at a restaurant with a consumer purchase? Is this something you are willing to do or are planning to do?

It seems to me that this would be an elegantly simple and direct proof which if provided by Menard, with enough documentation to demonstrate that the video isn’t fake, would go a long way to restore some of Menard's credibility.

Follow up documentation that the resultant owner actually cashed in the Menard signed bill at the bank would send his debunkers packing.

What do you think, Menard?

Are you up for the challenge?

 

[arayder]

And yes CS, I am in fact busy setting up the ACCP.

Yes, we all realize that your newest enterprise requires some set up.

But if the concept and principle behind it are as simple as you claim you should be able to use the “method” to pay a restaurant check this very afternoon by signing the bill in just the way you say works.

You could post the video proof here and include the video in the packet you send out to customers!

What’s to know, Robert?

Just do it!

 

[ComfySlippers]

Yes, we all realize that your newest enterprise requires some set up. ...

...You could post the video proof here and include the video in the packet you send out to customers sell to your marks! ...

QuickFix.

ETA:
Just to remind everyone how Rob has no qualms about taking $800 off mentally unstable people, Lance posted this on Facebook in January:

Peaceful Inhabitant

It will take time for many to understand this, as I have been labelled 'nuts' or 'out on cloud nine' for explaining this to others, some are just not ready yet. I do not think these speakers in this video are nuts at all ~ they know!

David Icke 2011 - We think we are Humans.
www.youtube.com

David Icke 2011 - So who do we think we are? Feat. Bill Hicks, Terence Mckenna, David Lynch, John Hagelin Ph.D.

Like · Share · 17 January at 22:51 ·

"...some are just not ready yet."
How many times have we heard that?

 

[fitzgibbon]

I understand Rob has opted out of following Canadian law and this is allowed because he does not accept any of the benefits provided to normal taxpaying members of Canada.

I wonder if he'll opt-out of the border services or the F-35 purchase?

That I'd be interested in seeing in action

Fitz

 

[mushy]

Rob, in response to my post you claimed i had already made up my mind and was not looking at the proof, so to speak, you are kind of correct, i have now made up my mind that you are a conman. Look at my poastiing history, you will see im not friends with the randi forum crewe, and almost always have an opposite opionion to them, however, on this occation its so cleary obvious they are right, your scam is done, you dont have the brains to come up with an original one, and you dont have the public speaking or persona to convince people of an old one.

You talk around points and try to play word games, but you never have proof. You are happy discuss word meaning for endless hours, but if someone asks you to get get a document and post it here, you see that as too much work apparently.

you really are an idiot, seriously, how believeable do you think this scam is, i know you are here because you are desperate to cling onto it, but its not going to happen. Its obvious that your own forum thinks you are full of ****,

all these payment methods you are advocating why dont you accept them? Just answer that, surely that should be a glaring flaw in your scam, even a retard could see that, why cant you?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Rob, in response to my post you claimed i had already made up my mind and was not looking at the proof, so to speak, you are kind of correct, i have now made up my mind that you are a conman. Look at my poastiing history, you will see im not friends with the randi forum crewe, and almost always have an opposite opionion to them, however, on this occation its so cleary obvious they are right, your scam is done, you dont have the brains to come up with an original one, and you dont have the public speaking or persona to convince people of an old one.

You talk around points and try to play word games, but you never have proof. You are happy discuss word meaning for endless hours, but if someone asks you to get get a document and post it here, you see that as too much work apparently.

you really are an idiot, seriously, how believeable do you think this scam is, i know you are here because you are desperate to cling onto it, but its not going to happen. Its obvious that your own forum thinks you are full of ****,

all these payment methods you are advocating why dont you accept them? Just answer that, surely that should be a glaring flaw in your scam, even a retard could see that, why cant you?

Well, if you were willing to actually read the Act, you would see that certain things are clearly identified as not being consumer purchases and thus not capable of being paid using this method. Some things are however.

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.

Is that not better than going to a restaurant, and getting one measly meal, which others will then claim I 'got for free' cause I am a 'freeloader'? After all, you want me put my money where my mouth is, what's better to prove I believe in the concept and am so sure of its validity than working my ass off for a month, with my receiving payment subject to it being correct, and taking a huge hit if I am wrong?

I also have a plan coming together for proving it to restaurants and other providers, but getting them onside requires I put money in escrow to cover my bill if payment does not go through. I already have a couple of restaurants lined up, with the owners having done what you refuse to do (read the Bills of Exchange Act) do their own study, talk to their lawyers and confirm it is an actual method of payment. Also have a Doctor and a soon a Dentist who are willing to try it as well.

Well, sun is up, day is nice, and I have a full days hard work ahead of me. Have a good one!

 

[jargon buster]

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.

So lets get this right, you will complete the work then give them a bill and they will simply sign it and you will go to the bank and the bank will pay you $10k, is that what you are claiming?
Does the $10k come from their government account or yours?

I also have a plan coming together for proving it to restaurants and other providers, but getting them onside requires I put money in escrow to cover my bill if payment does not go through.

Why wouldnt it go through?
Maybe because you have no SIN?
Why not just leave cash with the restaraunt owner and get it refunded if your signed bill gets accepted as payment?
Why the need for escrow?
Dont you trust the restaurant mangers to return your money.
I think this shows a lack of trust on your part because its your nature to welch on a bill and you judge others on your own actions.

However I know they will. If they don't I am prepared to go to court.

if payment does not go through.

GLAD YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE IN YOUR THEORY

Look forward to you going to court to claim your $10k, Im pretty sure you will need a SIN to get the money awarded, seeing as its earnings and all.

Rob, do you ever think things through?

 

[Border Reiver]

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.

Is that not better than going to a restaurant, and getting one measly meal, which others will then claim I 'got for free' cause I am a 'freeloader'? After all, you want me put my money where my mouth is, what's better to prove I believe in the concept and am so sure of its validity than working my ass off for a month, with my receiving payment subject to it being correct, and taking a huge hit if I am wrong?

I strongly suspect that you will end up in court over your signed bill. I look forward to the case report.

 

[jargon buster]

i strongly suspect that you will end up in court over your signed bill. I look forward to the case report.

if rob does end up in court he will be the plaintiff and the poor woman whos house he renovated would be the defendant.