Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone who uses fraud to mislead and instill confidence in order to steal.
Click to expand...
Lets just look that up in Blacks Law dictionary shall we

Rob.jpg
 
catweasel said:
So any proof? Or is this something we do not apply our critical skeptical thinking skills too? And isn't belief without proof why we laugh at the FMOTL?
Click to expand...


Demanding "Proof" is an avoidance tactic often used by those who don't want to look at the evidence.


Can we "prove" that Menard is a conman via convictions in court for that very accusation? No, we can't.

But we can point to evidence that supports the conclusion that he's a conman. All evidence and all conclusions are open to challenge, and that is legitimate. But demanding one and only one type of evidence, while ignoring all others, isn't useful.

We do have lots of evidence that FOTL in general is fundamentally incorrect: Every time we can see that it has been tested in the venues where such tests really matter (police interactions and court cases), it has demonstrably failed.

We know, despite all that, that Menard, and others of his ilk, continue to ply their wares, in full knowledge that they've failed as discussed above. That's evidence of their fraudulent intent.

Now, Menard has claimed that he has lots of "evidence" that this works by "keeping people out of court in the first place". However, that evidence exists only in Menard's mind - it's pure hearsay, backed up literally by nothing more than his word. He actively refuses to provide anything more than that.

So, we have clear cut positive evidence of FOTL's failures, clear cut positive evidence of Menard's continuing to sell his FOTL schemes, and only hearsay evidence from Menard himself as to FOTL's successes. The conclusion we reach, as reasonable people, is that Menard is a conman.

So, were he willing to substantiate his claims to FOTL successes, we'd re-visit that conclusion. But at this point, the reasonable provisional conclusion is that he's a conman.

If that's not enough for your friend, well, that's his life; but if and when Menard walks away with his money, he'd better expect us to say we told him so, because we will.
 
Stacey Grove said:
catweasel wrote:



Why did you tell your co-worker Menard is a conman?
What was it that led you to believe it to be true?
Click to expand...

What I read here and on the Icke Forum. You guys all say it so much, I thought you must have proof. I think if you don't you must be guilty of the same thing you laugh at the FMOTL for. You have a belief in something which you share on the 'net, but you have no proof of it.

That is why you laugh at the FMOTL, right?
 
jargon buster said:
Contact him here
mrmitee@hotmail.com
You can send him $250 for some DVDs to help you overturn a parking ticket.
See how it works out for you then make up your own mind.
Click to expand...

Thanks for his email addie. I think I will email him and see what he has to say. There is no way I will send him money for his DVD's though. After all I can watch them on YouTube for free. Which raises another point; if he is a conman why would he share his videos for free?
 
What I read here and on the Icke Forum. You guys all say it so much, I thought you must have proof.
Click to expand...
What!!!
You went around slandering Rob Menard without a shred of proof, what sort of a man does that, are you really admitting you cast doubt on a mans honesty by simply reading a forum?
Which raises another point; if he is a conman why would he share his videos for free?
Click to expand...
You need to ask yourself that question, after all its you who thinks he's a conman isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
Demanding "Proof" is an avoidance tactic often used by those who don't want to look at the evidence.


Can we "prove" that Menard is a conman via convictions in court for that very accusation? No, we can't.

But we can point to evidence that supports the conclusion that he's a conman. All evidence and all conclusions are open to challenge, and that is legitimate. But demanding one and only one type of evidence, while ignoring all others, isn't useful.

We do have lots of evidence that FOTL in general is fundamentally incorrect: Every time we can see that it has been tested in the venues where such tests really matter (police interactions and court cases), it has demonstrably failed.

We know, despite all that, that Menard, and others of his ilk, continue to ply their wares, in full knowledge that they've failed as discussed above. That's evidence of their fraudulent intent.

Now, Menard has claimed that he has lots of "evidence" that this works by "keeping people out of court in the first place". However, that evidence exists only in Menard's mind - it's pure hearsay, backed up literally by nothing more than his word. He actively refuses to provide anything more than that.

So, we have clear cut positive evidence of FOTL's failures, clear cut positive evidence of Menard's continuing to sell his FOTL schemes, and only hearsay evidence from Menard himself as to FOTL's successes. The conclusion we reach, as reasonable people, is that Menard is a conman.

So, were he willing to substantiate his claims to FOTL successes, we'd re-visit that conclusion. But at this point, the reasonable provisional conclusion is that he's a conman.

If that's not enough for your friend, well, that's his life; but if and when Menard walks away with his money, he'd better expect us to say we told him so, because we will.
Click to expand...

Hi Horatius... thanks for the reply and not accusing me of being Menard. The problem that I have is that my co-worker is driving around with his homemade plates, no registration or insurance or license. I was with him the other night on the long weekend, we went through a check stop here in Ontario, and the cops saw his plate and just waved him through, and everyone else they stopped and made sure they weren't drinking. I have a picture of his car showing the plates, but did not have a camera during the stop. So I have to wonder if there is not some truth to it.
 
Hi Horatius... thanks for the reply and not accusing me of being Menard. The problem that I have is that my co-worker is driving around with his homemade plates, no registration or insurance or license. I was with him the other night on the long weekend, we went through a check stop here in Ontario, and the cops saw his plate and just waved him through, and everyone else they stopped and made sure they weren't drinking. I have a picture of his car showing the plates, but did not have a camera during the stop. So I have to wonder if there is not some truth to it.
Click to expand...
Yawn..

menardian off topic tactics

Why would you slander someone on the strength of two websites?
 
catweasel said:
I know... now I am going to eat crow for it too... live and learn I guess.
Click to expand...
You are. Starting an argument without even having a clue if your argument is correct is the dumbest thing to do.
You've made yourself look a right fool.

Is it also 'Menardian' if others here do the exact same thing?
Click to expand...

It is. Although none of us here get into an argument like that. We all agree he is a conman. No need for any arguments at all.
 
Robert Menard hears words from God.
Here see for yourself
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thinkfree/childorlife.pdf
Within two minutes of walking in, a beautiful young woman walked in the bar. I swear I thought I spoke the following words, Ben says he never heard me say them however. I heard them like they had come from my own mouth. “She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” I noticed all the crack dealers and pimps eyeing her like she was the dinner special and I got a huge sadness settle upon my heart. I was like a big wet carpet and I thought my heart my stop. Suddenly, something grabbed the love in my heart and communicated with mne by vibrating it. “Take her child as your own and you will be foreever blessed.” In my minds eye, I had a picture of my father and mother and I realized he had never raised his voice to her let alone his hand. I was being asked to love her and her child like my father had loved his wife and children. I said “Okey Dokey” to the power that grabbed my love and I became a daddy at that moment.
I invited Megan over to our table and in the first fivew miniutes told her she was pregnant. She didn’t believe me. She was only a week or two pregnant and was showing absolutely no physiological signs. She had no place to stay that night so I invited her over to my place and she accepted. We became a couple a fewq days later. At this time she was into hard drugs and hjarder living. I told her God had told me she was pregnant and she dismissed it refusing to believe in a God. When she later found out she was preg- nant, it blew her away that I had known and claimed God told me. It empowered her considerably.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
catweasel said:
Hi Horatius... thanks for the reply and not accusing me of being Menard. The problem that I have is that my co-worker is driving around with his homemade plates, no registration or insurance or license. I was with him the other night on the long weekend, we went through a check stop here in Ontario, and the cops saw his plate and just waved him through, and everyone else they stopped and made sure they weren't drinking. I have a picture of his car showing the plates, but did not have a camera during the stop. So I have to wonder if there is not some truth to it.
Click to expand...



See, now this is quite a good example of hearsay vs. evidence. You've said this, but simply saying it is of no use to us, or anyone who isn't you or your buddy.

However, it would be trivially easy for you, or your buddy, to turn this into evidence - by documenting such occurrences. A video showing what you describe above would go a long way to countering the evidence we currently have at hand (the court cases).

And this is really the difference between healthy skepticism that demands evidence for conclusions, and psuedo-skepticism such as your friend is playing at: When we demand evidence of FOTL actually working, such evidence should be relatively easy to come by; we have many many hearsay reports of successes such as you've claimed above, and we know that FOTLers in general are quite fond of videoing their interactions with the police and the courts. So, it's reasonable to think that one FOTLer, somewhere, sometime, actually got video of this happening.

But we never see that.

Contrast that to what you buddy is asking for: "Proof" of Menard being charged and convicted of being a conman. That's "proof" that is completely outside the power of any of us here to create; we're not his victims, the police, the Crown Prosecutors, or the Judges. We have to wait for Menard to scam someone who realizes they've been scammed, who then takes it to the police, with enough evidence to substantiate the accusation, and then have it proceed through the entire court system to a conviction, and then, probably, an appeal or two. In a court system that's already overworked.

That's nowhere near the equivalent of asking a FOTL to video himself as he gets waved through a RIDE checkpoint.
 
catweasel said:
Someone who uses fraud to mislead and instill confidence in order to steal.
Click to expand...

So, someone who had been offering legal advice for a defacto fee and has, as a result, been enjoined from doing so in the future due to a complete lack of qualifications to do so would fit this description?
 
catweasel said:
He says that since the people who call Menard a conman reject the FMOTL position for lack of court proof, court proof should be required to support their claim that Menard is a conman, or else they have double standards and are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

catweasel said:
You have been calling him one more than anyone. Surely someone as honourable as you would not do that without proof right?
Click to expand...

catweasel said:
What I read here and on the Icke Forum. You guys all say it so much, I thought you must have proof. I think if you don't you must be guilty of the same thing you laugh at the FMOTL for. You have a belief in something which you share on the 'net, but you have no proof of it.
Click to expand...

Geez Menard, you really make this easy. Thanks for the softball though.
 

Attachments

Tried to post a pic but can't until I make more posts... but I have a picture of my coworkers car next to another Freeman's and the other guy did contracting work for a cop and had it parked in his driveway for four days, and all the cop said is that he did not want trouble. Plus like I said, I was with him when he went right through an OPP check stop last holiday weekend.
 
wait for it..wait for it.....

"But doesn't that refer to "the respondent", surely that cant be Rob, he isn't a respondent is he?

:rolleyes:
 
Now please, we're all dying to know how your masonry wall scam turned out. Did you actually do the work? Did you con the nice little old lady into using your consumer purchase scam? How did that work out?

And why did Tracey leave the ACCP? It couldn't be because her eyes were opened to your scamming ways, could it? You could also explain why you are trying to trick people into sending you $150 per month for a scheme that has already been crushed by the Ontario courts. Shouldn't you inform your "customers" that the money for nothing scheme you are selling them is illegal?

An honest man would do that.
 
Within twelve posts catweasel has changed from a disbeliever in fotl to a promoter of fotl.
Now, I wonder how that could have happened:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom