Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Might be too late depending on the contract they signed with Rob for the rental though.
Click to expand...
I will guarantee the contract isnt with Rob, he wont be paying for it.

Although you could just inform the venue owners that full disclosure wasnt given as to the nature of the "seminar" and that they could withdraw consent to the contract, Im sure Rob will understand.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
According to what JB quoted above, it's $50 on the Saturday, but free on the Sunday (unless you plan to join up).
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I missed that.
But I suppose it does make sense. Offer free entry when you want the mark to part with $100.
 
jargon buster said:
I will guarantee the contract isnt with Rob, he wont be paying for it.

Although you could just inform the venue owners that full disclosure wasnt given as to the nature of the "seminar" and that they could withdraw consent to the contract, Im sure Rob will understand.
Click to expand...


Actually, isn't there a principle in law that you cannot have a valid contract to commit an illegal act? And promoting a financial fraud would certainly count as "illegal".



ETA: Come to think about it, that could be the best way to get Menard in front of a judge on this issue - if he sued the Masons for breach of contract, they could bring this into the court as their justification. The judge would likely have to rule on whether or not Menard's scheme is legal in order to determine if the contract was valid or not.
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
Actually, isn't there a principle in law that you cannot have a valid contract to commit an illegal act? And promoting a financial fraud would certainly count as "illegal".

ETA: Come to think about it, that could be the best way to get Menard in front of a judge on this issue - if he sued the Masons for breach of contract, they could bring this into the court as their justification. The judge would likely have to rule on whether or not Menard's scheme is legal in order to determine if the contract was valid or not.
Click to expand...

I'd hope that the Temple Corporation would have wording in their standard rental boilerplate that would allow them to rescind a rental booking if the uses are found to be inconsistent with the moral nature of Freemasonry. I'll wager that Menard will keep anything he says just enough on the white side of grey as to be legal in absolute definition but otherwise immoral in intent.

Fitz
 
LightinDarkness said:
As a mason on our building committee for my own lodge - I can guarantee you pretty much they have no idea who its being rented to. All we ask when renting our lodge out is (1) a check for the entire amount ahead of time as well as a deposit for any damages, (2) how long they want to rent for and what rooms they want access to, and (3) the general purpose of the rental.

I imagine Rob put "business conference" or something generic when renting the room. My lodge is pretty vigilant about declining kook/insane groups from using the rooms (because every time they do someone goes OMG KOOK GROUP IN MASONIC LODGE = MASONS SUPPORT IT)...but most lodges wont. If you just tell them its being used for a generic meeting 99% wont ask any further questions. These days, most lodges really rely on that rental income and are glad to take a check from just about anyone except the KKK.

However, if I can find the lodge information Im still going to contact them and point out that they are renting to a kook group and recommend as a brotherly suggestion that they not do so. Might be too late depending on the contract they signed with Rob for the rental though.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the consideration.

I suppose one may argue that Menard believes that what he is setting up is workable, legal and proper. People’s ability to fool themselves seems limitless. Plenty of tax protesters and detaxers have gotten off on tax evasion charges because their lawyer’s argued that they honestly thought their interpretation of tax law was correct and legal. Mind you, they still had to pay the taxes.

But, I am struck by Menard’s attempt to “fancy up” the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. He has a website, implies that he has operating officers (including a lawyer), has association applications, a Q&A page, and what is meant to be seen as a workable plan.

Frankly, I am not buying the notion that Menard is being honest.

Everything he has ever hawked has been all promotion and no product.

He promotes himself as a brilliant, hipster who has burst the bubble of western government, when in fact he is a manipulative, balding, bloated wannabe making a living off the sad reality that there is a sucker born every minute.

I would urge the Masons to show this guy the door and tell him to “sue and be damned” if he threatens legal action.
 
That. Is. Hilarious! I mean, it almost makes me feel for Menard that there's someone in the world even more cuckoo than he and that thinks he has him in his sights. Almost. I especially love the music inspired by "The Perils of Pauline". And the "Pys Ops".

But I will agree with it on one point: Rob wants money :D

Fitz
 
TSR said:
Not free, according to 'Debbie' -- she has this consumer purchase voucher, see...
Click to expand...

He's so far from being Freemason material, it isn't funny. Among other things, to be a Freemason:

1) You have to be of good character (Strike #1)
2) You have to submit to the supreme legislature of the country (Strike #2)
3) You must be of mature age (Strike #3)

Sporting a fez does not a Shriner make

Fitz
 
arayder said:
I would urge the Masons to show this guy the door and tell him to “sue and be damned” if he threatens legal action.
Click to expand...

I doubt he would sue over something like that. It seems that doing so would be counter to what he is trying to achieve. But you never know what's going on in his mind.
 
I once nicked his logo from the WFS and set up a Google blog with it on, Menard contacted Google claiming copyright (under the Copyright ACT :D)
The fact that they took it down not only proved he was a hypocrite but it also gave him an example of one man governing another without his consent.
 
JLord said:
I doubt he would sue over something like that. It seems that doing so would be counter to what he is trying to achieve. But you never know what's going on in his mind.
Click to expand...

"Mind" assumes facts not in evidence.
 
ACCP is a group of Canadians who exercise their rights to pay for consumer goods and services using a Consumer Note, as defined in the Bills of Exchange Act, and to ensure the Bank of Canada fulfills their duty to accept these Notes in exchange for credit or currency
Click to expand...

This type of pitch is liable to fool a lot of people in my experience. Lots of people are unable to make the connection that something can be a consumer note but not have any value. This gets lost when you're looking at the act.

I would not be surprised at all if this idea quickly grows to the point that someone winds up in court citing the Bills of Exchange Act. The idea is well crafted by Menard to avoid any court confrontations on the issue because merchants will simply reject the consumer notes. It will probably take a freeman suing the bank of Canada for not giving them the cash value of their worthless consumer notes, or else someone tries to pay their credit card debt incurred on consumer purchases using a worthless consumer note. One of these two I think.

It might be interesting to ask whether a Menard consumer note can be used to pay a debt for past consumer purchases. Because I bet the answer would be yes and I think that answer would appeal to a lot of desperate people trying to get out of debt. And if someone tried it for a large enough debt they would wind up in court.
 
Nope. He's all in. Calling himself el Presidente and everything.
Click to expand...

Mmm..I wonder who appointed/elected him?
The fact is that the notes will only be valid at certain retailers who sign up to the scheme and none will.
Its the retailers who would try to cash them at the bank.
So if someone rolls up Sunday and signs up they should then get $2,500 credit to spend....nowhere.

Its all nonsense, he just wants the quick $50 on the door and no one is going to pay that, it will be a washout, I also hope he doesnt try and decorate the stage with balloons. ;)
 
jargon buster said:
So if someone rolls up Sunday and signs up they should then get $2,500 credit to spend....nowhere.
Click to expand...




Actually, from looking at his numbers, they wouldn't even get that. This seems to be for signing people up for the $100 initial buy-in, while it's the $125/month recurring fee that gets you the $2500 play money.

So he'll bamboozle them a bit, get them to sign on the dotted line, get their $100, and then tell them, "Yeah, see, this is seed money to set up the retailer network, you'll get the opportunity to pay the monthly fee (and thus be able to buy things with our "Notes") just as soon as that's done..."

I'm hoping someone there asks, "If we can just sign "Consumer Purchase" on our receipt and thus create a "specie of money" that can be taken to the bank and redeemed by the Bank of Canada, why exactly do we need to be paying you all this money?"
 
I'm hoping someone there asks, "If we can just sign "Consumer Purchase" on our receipt and thus create a "specie of money" that can be taken to the bank and redeemed by the Bank of Canada, why exactly do we need to be paying you all this money?"
Click to expand...
Exactly, cut out the middleman, which is exactly what Robert was going to do with the fictitious "Debbie's" note.
He did say he was going to bill her $10,000 for the work and then redeem the note for cash at the bank, if thats possible why do they need any retailers on board at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom