Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why is Rob doing work at all? Instead of working for a month for 10k he could go access his treasury bond and take out hundreds of thousands. Why is it he insists on doing masonry work instead?

Or could it be that the treasury bond was flavor of the month last month and he knew he had nothing to it, and now we've moved on to "consumer purchase" woo...and next month it will be something else.
 
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

How about this scenario:

Say you do such a crappy job that you end up owing HER money?
 
If this "kindly old lady" exists (I dont think she does by the way) then isn't she just the latest Lance Thatcher?

Sure you claim to be doing work for her but it's her thats putting her signature on the bill isn't it?

Rob, it should be you putting your signature on someone else's bill.
Why didn't you get someone to do something for you and then let them bill you?

the current situation is that if it all goes 'pear shaped' you are in the clear
"But Officer she told me I would get paid if I took this to the bank, she said it was just like a cheque, I have done all that work for her and now I'm out of pocket"

The whole story is nonsense, as LID says, why bother doing any work at all?
I have just smiled at a woman and I have given her a bill for a million dollars,(its the going rate per smile) now what do I do with this bill now she's signed Rob?

What a Menard.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Bank of Canada Act lists the powers of the bank in sections 18-24, and no where in there or the rest of the act does it allow the bank to issue payment for dishonoured consumer bills, that would be the responsibility of the payer, as per the bills of Exchange Act.

The Bank Act lists the powers of a Bank in Canada - s.409-412. And again does not allow the Bank to draw on funds other than the payer for Bills of Exchange.

And finally, the Financial Administration Act governs how the Canadian Government and Crown corporations shall manage their accounts. No where in the act does it establish a fund that allows people to pay debts using the money of the Government of Canada.

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...

The philosophical argument is irrelevant if the legal argument holds no water as you are asserting a matter of law.

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!
Click to expand...


I do not believe that you have it covered. I believe that you have either misread, not understood or at worst willfully misinterpreted these Acts.

One of those willful misinterpretations is the notion that the Banks create money for their own profit - the amount of money in circulation is determined by the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada in its role as the Central Bank - your local Scotiabank or Caisse Populare doesn't get to create money.

Your biggest task is to demonstrate that your concepts work, an a clear demonstration to us naysayers would go miles towards doing so. If you can do what you claim and the courts, etc go along with it, good for you. I remain convinced that your concept is fatally flawed.
 
Last edited:
Border Reiver said:
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...



Here's a question: In addition to still being on the hook for the cost of work, wouldn't the homeowner also be at risk of criminal charges for creating a fraudulent financial document?

If I signed a cheque for $10 000, asserting that I had that money in my account when I did not, I'd be liable for financial fraud. Why wouldn't the same hold true if I signed this "consumer note", which asserts that the funds are available, somewhere, when they are not?

And prosecuting this homeowner would be entirely out of Menard's control: the Bank would be the one to contact the police once they see Menard is trying to deposit a fraudulent financial document, and the police would quite naturally first look at the person who signed it: the homeowner who's about to get a very nasty wake-up call.

So, once again, Menard is looking to prove his BS using someone else to take the risk.
 
Of course Rob may have problems at the bank if he doesn't have an account there getting the Bill cashed anyway - I don't think most banks will give out $10K in cash...
 
FreemanMenard said:
She is a kindly older lady...
Click to expand...
The perfect mark.

Elder abuse can take several forms, often with more than one type of abuse occurring at the same time for individuals. National and provincial statistics indicate that the two most identified and reported types of elder abuse are financial and psychological.

Financial Abuse

This is "the misuse of an older person's funds or property through fraud, trickery, theft or force." It can include:
  • frauds
  • scams
  • the misuse of money or property
  • convincing an older person to buy a product or give away money
  • stealing money or possessions
  • misusing bank or credit cards
  • misusing joint banking accounts
  • forging a signature on pension cheques or legal documents
  • misusing a power of attorney
http://www.albertaelderabuse.ca/page.cfm?pgID=6
http://www.onpea.org/english/elderabuse/formsofelderabuse.html
Click to expand...

Preying on the vulnerable again. I sincerely hope Menard follows through with this plan, because this one is likely to result in more serious consequences for him than a court order prohibiting him from practising law in BC.
 
Last edited:
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...

Dear Mr. Menard,

I suppose it's darn nice of you to outline your future plans. I am however rather doubtful whether or not you will be successful in obtaining payment from the bank upon presenting them with your signed bill. I'd be more then willing to seriously consider your claims when you can show conclusive evidence that the bank honored the signed bill.

Best regards,

Amazer
 
FreemanMenard said:
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!
Click to expand...

H1) Sounds like she's writing you a check.

H2) Anyone can deposit money in a bank and write a check.
 
FreemanMenard said:
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.

Snip
Click to expand...

I can then safely assume you are using this method to pay for the material(s) being used to complete this job?

Would you kindly explain, if you are not using this 'method' of payment to acquire the job related materials, why you are not?

If you used this method, would it not reduce the amount the homeowner owes/signs to you? Material needed therefor should not be billed to the homeowner unless you wanted to double bill he/she, because they would be paid for in advance.
 
FreemanMenard said:
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!
Click to expand...

Rob, walking into a bank and handing them a note saying you want money is frowned upon in this society.
 
aggle-rithm said:
How about this scenario:

Say you do such a crappy job that you end up owing HER money?
Click to expand...

Judging by the arguments we see here there will be a free standing stair out in the yard, a fine brick barbeque in the living room and walls placed at random all around.
 
Horatius said:
Here's a question: In addition to still being on the hook for the cost of work, wouldn't the homeowner also be at risk of criminal charges for creating a fraudulent financial document?

If I signed a cheque for $10 000, asserting that I had that money in my account when I did not, I'd be liable for financial fraud. Why wouldn't the same hold true if I signed this "consumer note", which asserts that the funds are available, somewhere, when they are not?

And prosecuting this homeowner would be entirely out of Menard's control: the Bank would be the one to contact the police once they see Menard is trying to deposit a fraudulent financial document, and the police would quite naturally first look at the person who signed it: the homeowner who's about to get a very nasty wake-up call.

So, once again, Menard is looking to prove his BS using someone else to take the risk.
Click to expand...

I wonder who's paying for the construction materiel, last time I went to the hardware store they wouldn't let me take anything til I paid for it.
 
FreemanMenard said:
...Also, I already have it confirmed from lawyers with a large grocery store chain and a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Still laughing here.

I wish my head could live in Chucklesville too.
You get to talk all kinds of crap and expect people to believe you.

Rob, during the last year;
How many times have you said a lawyer agrees with your rubbish?
How many times have you said a Judge agrees with your rubbish?
How many times have you said Police Officers agree with your rubbish?

Do you even remember your own lies?

Noone agrees with your rubbish.... because it is RuBBish!
It's not even your rubbish, it's rubbish you copied from the internet :jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well, speaking for myself, I would rather see evidence that shows you successfully spending these consumer notes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom