Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Jon.]

Update to Rob`s night out from his Face Book page:


Steven Sharp UPDATE - Rob posted the following on the World Freeman Society public forum yesterday:

"Well the bill was signed, a note created, and it was included in the daily deposit today! Am meeting with the owners and their accountant on Friday to review their agreement with their bank and see if there is anything that might trip us up.... wish us well!"

about an hour ago · Edited

Sounds like Rob wrote the owner a cheque and they're waiting to see whether it will be accepted. Big deal!

 

[Horatius]

"....and see if there is anything that might trip us up.... wish us well!"

about an hour ago · Edited

You mean, besides this?

2. Bill Consumer Purchases
[544] Recently the Ontario Court of Appeal has, in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Di Iorio, 2011
ONCA 792 a paras. 2-3, rejected what seems to be a new ‘money for nothing’ scheme, where the
applicants claimed that documents called “Bill-Consumer Purchases” would discharge a debt:

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.

[545] The trial judgment is not reported, and the Court of Appeal offers little detail on the
theoretical basis of this scheme. My assumption is that this concept in some manner relates to the
“consumer bills and notes” component of the Bills of Exchange Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-4, ss. 188-
192.


[546] A similar scheme may have been in play in Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201.
There the court evaluated whether a claim had been proven, when not refuted by affidavit, and
concluded that it:

... appears to be a distorted view of the Bills of Exchange Act. It is, however,
apparent that the documents do not even slightly resemble genuine bills of
exchange. Furthermore, signing for the registered mail that contained the
documents does not amount to an “acceptance” of any legitimate bill of exchange
that might be in the envelope. “Acceptance” in the Bills of Exchange Act is a
technical term, and is not the same as acknowledging physical receipt of the
envelope.

[547] A scheme of this type warranted elevated costs against the OPCA litigant: Ramjohn v.
Rudd, 2007 ABQB 84 at paras. 9-10, 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 38.

I tell you, that court document is going to be so much fun to use!

 

[Horatius]

Sounds like Rob wrote the owner a cheque and they're waiting to see whether it will be accepted. Big deal!

Haven't you followed this bit? It's hilarious! When presented with the bill at the restaurant, you're supposed to write "Consumer Purchase" on it. That action is supposed to turn the bill into a "Consumer Note", which Menard claims is a "specie of money". Submitting this alleged "note" to the bank will cause them to take it to the Bank of Canada, who are allegedly on the hook to honor all such "Consumer Notes", by giving money to the bank that accepted the deposit.

Ta Da! Free meal!

Except, you know, for the part where none of that is true.

 

[Horatius]

and it was included in the daily deposit today! Am meeting with the owners and their accountant on Friday to review their agreement with their bank and see if there is anything that might trip us up....

Maybe it's just me, but I would have done the latter part first. But then I'm a sheeple like that, with my whole effect and cause backward like that!

 

[jargon buster]

and it was included in the daily deposit today! Am meeting with the owners and their accountant on Friday to review their agreement with their bank and see if there is anything that might trip us up......and get arrested for fraud on Monday

sounds to me like he's just stiffed the waiter on the bill at the moment.

 

[Stacey Grove]

[123] In 2008 the British Columbia Supreme Court in The Law Society of British Columbia v.
Robert Arthur Menard (8 January 2008) Vancouver S073719 (B.C.S.C.) granted an order
prohibiting Menard from acting as a lawyer and providing legal advice, and receiving
compensation for the same.

So Rob lied to us when he kept insisting that he was not that Robert Arthur Menard.

 

[jargon buster]

He kept saying he wasn't "the respondent", he kept dodging the name aspect of the accusation.

 

[Horatius]

sounds to me like he's just stiffed the waiter on the bill at the moment.

Well, he claims he had the owner's permission to do this, so he might have only stiffed the waiter on the tip.

 

[Mojo]

Well, he claims he had the owner's permission to do this...

Does this mean that the only consequences of it not working will be that the owner won't get his money?

 

[Horatius]

Does this mean that the only consequences of it not working will be that the owner won't get his money?

That's probably the most likely outcome, but there's a chance he could be on the hook for criminal charges related to passing fraudulent financial documents. If he'd accidentally accepted a bad cheque, he'd be in the clear, but if what Menard is saying is true, he knowingly accepted and passed along a document which any reasonable person should know is worthless.

He might be able to avoid that by claiming he's honestly just that stupid, but if the bank is in a foul mood, it could potentially go very badly for him. At a minimum, I'd expect the bank to scrutinize his deposits very closely from now on.

 

[Bishop]

While the possibilities you guys have mentioned are certainly plausible, I personally believe that the whole story is a fabrication.

 

[Horatius]

While the possibilities you guys have mentioned are certainly plausible, I personally believe that the whole story is a fabrication.

Hence the caveat, "but if what Menard is saying is true". But really, at this point, shouldn't we just assume that's appended to every post in this thread?

 

[ComfySlippers]

From JLord's wonderful OCPA thread a Judge says:

[544] Recently the Ontario Court of Appeal has, in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Di Iorio, 2011
ONCA 792 a paras. 2-3, rejected what seems to be a new ‘money for nothing’ scheme, where the
applicants claimed that documents called “Bill-Consumer Purchases” would discharge a debt:
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.

Bolding is mine.

Let us wait for the outcome of Bobby's latest scam.

 

[Mojo]

From JLord's wonderful OCPA thread a Judge says:

[544] Recently the Ontario Court of Appeal has, in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Di Iorio, 2011
ONCA 792 a paras. 2-3, rejected what seems to be a new ‘money for nothing’ scheme, where the
applicants claimed that documents called “Bill-Consumer Purchases” would discharge a debt:
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.

Bolding is mine.

Let us wait for the outcome of Bobby's latest scam.

Of course, we've already had the Di Iorio case discussed here:

Menard self-debunking at its finest. Check out this Toronto Star article, which is partially shown right at the beginning of his new scam video:

A former Richmond Hill councillor who owes the TD Bank more than $176,000 has lost a court appeal arguing he can pay off his debt using nothing more than a piece of paper with the words “consumer purchase” on it.

Citing an obscure part of the Bills of Exchange Act, Elio Di Iorio says the “consumer bill” is a legitimate form of payment, like a cheque.

It is essentially a piece of paper with “consumer purchase” written on it that can be exchanged for goods and services when signed by the purchaser. The payee — a car dealer, for example — then signs the document and can take it to a bank and get money or credit in exchange.

Di Iorio argues this counts as money because the bank takes that “unpayable debt” to the Bank of Canada which uses it to issue more currency.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1102979--a-new-way-to-pay-off-your-debt#article

I like this bit:

""The appellant’s documents have no commercial value whatsoever," the high court ruled."

The decision in its entirety:

[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

Menard is taking this scam wholesale from Di Iorio and dressing it up with his send-me-money association and with the inisistence that it will work on burgers rather than mortgages. **** me, what a tool.

 

[jargon buster]

I sent Robert a link to the decision and here is his response
Pull up a chair guys

Sure sounds like those in power are starting to get scared eh? \
I imagine no one on the RANDI forum will see that his statements essentially amount to a political abuse of office, for he speaks of things not entered as evidence, and makes claims of which no proof was provided.

This judge essentially tried to rule on an issue which affects him directly, that being how much power he has. Shouldn't justice demand that the adjudicator not be affected by the ruling?

I wonder if he would be willing to meet me in our courts, and defend his position that some fiction gave him power over his fellow man...

Anyways, hope you are well!
Rob

Delusional just doesn't cover it.

 

[jargon buster]

Robs dissecting the judgement in his own inimitable way

That judges opinion certainly exceeded his office... did you see this part of his ruling:
[626] I have previously discussed the potentially appropriate civil responses to arguments of
this kind. What remains is to determine suitable penalties for those persons who sell and promote
OPCA schemes, and for their customers who, perhaps naively, employ those instructions,
techniques, and materials. I believe that question is better fully explored in a relevant factual
context.

So no trial, no charges even, and the only thing that remains is to determine the punishment the court should mete out!

Rob really knows how to read and comprehend information, its no wonder freemen say "no" to the question of "do you understand"

 

[Horatius]

Robs dissecting the judgement in his own inimitable way



Rob really knows how to read and comprehend information, its no wonder freemen say "no" to the question of "do you understand"

It was obvious right away that the OPCA guru response to this would be to quote-mine it. After all, that's how they do everything.

Where these Reasons will have an effect is in making it easier for the Judges dealing with them to just tell the OPCAs to shut up and sit down. We won't have every judge in every case trying to wend his way through their nonsense any more. At the end of the day, that was all the OPCAs ever had, and now, the Courts are taking even that away from them.

 

[Hans]

I sent Robert a link to the decision and here is his response
Pull up a chair guys


Delusional just doesn't cover it.

Well then I think Menard should challenge the judge in court - don't ya think?

Will he? NOPE

 

[jargon buster]

I have already asked him if he's going to pick up the gauntlet.
He dodged the question.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Well then I think Menard should challenge the judge in court - don't ya think?

Will he? NOPE

Nah, of course he won't.
But it must be remembered Rob wrote:

I wonder if he would be willing to meet me in our courts,

So Rob is not referring to the courts that we recognise as courts but is instead referring to a FOTL court. You know the type of thing. It's where a few fotl gather in Denny's and hold their own court. The decisions in these courts always go the FOTL way. Strange that.