Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims
- Thread starter jargon buster
- Start date
- Status
Stacey Grove
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,041
The Palmernator
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 189
Is he now consenting to statute law? Doesn't this mean he will have to leave dry land and answer to his NAME in Court? Can't see the trial lasting very long...
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
LOL..Robert, a PI will not a be able to secure the names of people via IP addresses.
Are you stupid enough to believe that service providers willingly give that information out to every Tom, Dick or Harry?
It would have to be part of a criminal investigation.
Also, Robert, do you really believe its in your interest to be trying to communicate with individuals identified in your law suit?
I dont really know why Im wasting time responding to this, its just another "freeman valley" pipe dream.
lol..you will first have to prove it works, if not, its a scam.
lol all Fez...
Last edited:
remirol
Senior Wrangler
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,089
Ho, ho, that is humorous
I see Robert does not comprehend how things work in the real world at all... not that there was much doubt of that.I look forward to the legaltainment™ this will provide
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Let's take a look at Bobby's little missive here and see how it actually relates to Canadian Law, particularly BC Civil procedure.
As the Plaintiff you are required to prove your assertions. If you are suing for defamation, you have to show that you have suffered some sort of loss of reputation as a result - generally the loss of business or job opportunities. This would be the first challenge for Robert.
Now accusations of criminal activity and/or negative comments about your trade or business can be considered defamatory, unless of course the Defendants can show that:
a. The comments are true (and driving without a license, drinking in public, etc are offences that Robert has admitted to, whether or not there is a criminal record is irrelevant - Mr. Menard has stated that he has done so.);
b. Absolute privilege - statements made in Parliament or as evidence in a court proceeding are not defamatory (ie. good luck with proceeding against Judge Rooke);
c. Qualified privilege - statements made in good faith, without malice and to a limited audience may attract this defence;
d. Fair comment - if you state something publically, and people comment on it in a fair and honest manner, then it is not defamatory. For example, Bobby's Consumer Purchase idea was made public on a website and we commented on it (alright, we very clearly demonstrated that it was based on a whole lot of wishful thinking and really bad legal interpretation on Robert's part); and
e. Responsible communication of matters of public interest - this is a new (from 2009) defence to Defamation as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada (v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 found at Canlii . Essentially, if a matter is of public interest journalists should be able to report statements and allegations – even if they are not true – if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defense, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if:
i. the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and
ii. the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story.
The court defined “journalist” widely to include bloggers and anyone else “publishing material of public interest in any medium.”
Note, you don't need leave to hire a PI. You will need a court order to obtain that information from their email providers, et al. Those companies (most likely NOT based here in the Great White North) will not just hand those out to someone who thinks he's Tom Selleck. They would require a court order at a minimum, and depending on the relevant laws where they are based may invite the PI to perform an unnatural act with said order (comply with the laws in that country) before divulging said information.
Beware Robert, publication of personal information may lead to criminal charges against you.
Not necessarily, you'd need to check the relevant provincial law society rules, but again, you've got to prove it son. And you'd be surprised at how little a defamation lawsuit can get - going back to that whole proven loss thing again...
There is no obligation in law to provide the people who want to sue you your full name and contact information. Of course, when playing the internet tough guy, it is always good to intimate that your critics are too afraid to face you in person.
Well yes, you can sue, getting the judgement isn't going to happen unless you can provide proof of service - the person you are suing must be formally made aware of the matter being brought against them by being given a copy of the Notice of Civil Claim in accordance with the Rules set down by the Court. The Court won't issue a default judgment unless it is satisfied that the other party has been served - and they will only do so against a legal person, not an internet handle, so get researching Bobby!
Again, you've got to actually get the judgement first before you start spending the money. Perhaps you're familiar with the idiom of putting the cart before the horse?
The cost of your PI might be part of your Special Damages - or the court might disallow it - either way no one is under an obligation to identify himself to Mr. Menard.
Look at the Rules of Court, those identify the various ways that service can be effected. You'll need an Order from the Court to do what you're proposing and something other than an internet name to get that.
Cart does not preceed the horse Bob. You need some actual information to get a judgment - like say a legal entity who is capable of being sued. D'rok's internet handle is not a legal person. No judge in Canada will issue a judgement against an internet name and a John Doe.
As the Plaintiff you are required to prove your assertions. If you are suing for defamation, you have to show that you have suffered some sort of loss of reputation as a result - generally the loss of business or job opportunities. This would be the first challenge for Robert.
Now accusations of criminal activity and/or negative comments about your trade or business can be considered defamatory, unless of course the Defendants can show that:
a. The comments are true (and driving without a license, drinking in public, etc are offences that Robert has admitted to, whether or not there is a criminal record is irrelevant - Mr. Menard has stated that he has done so.);
b. Absolute privilege - statements made in Parliament or as evidence in a court proceeding are not defamatory (ie. good luck with proceeding against Judge Rooke);
c. Qualified privilege - statements made in good faith, without malice and to a limited audience may attract this defence;
d. Fair comment - if you state something publically, and people comment on it in a fair and honest manner, then it is not defamatory. For example, Bobby's Consumer Purchase idea was made public on a website and we commented on it (alright, we very clearly demonstrated that it was based on a whole lot of wishful thinking and really bad legal interpretation on Robert's part); and
e. Responsible communication of matters of public interest - this is a new (from 2009) defence to Defamation as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada (v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 found at Canlii . Essentially, if a matter is of public interest journalists should be able to report statements and allegations – even if they are not true – if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defense, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if:
i. the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and
ii. the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story.
The court defined “journalist” widely to include bloggers and anyone else “publishing material of public interest in any medium.”
Note, you don't need leave to hire a PI. You will need a court order to obtain that information from their email providers, et al. Those companies (most likely NOT based here in the Great White North) will not just hand those out to someone who thinks he's Tom Selleck. They would require a court order at a minimum, and depending on the relevant laws where they are based may invite the PI to perform an unnatural act with said order (comply with the laws in that country) before divulging said information.
Beware Robert, publication of personal information may lead to criminal charges against you.
Not necessarily, you'd need to check the relevant provincial law society rules, but again, you've got to prove it son. And you'd be surprised at how little a defamation lawsuit can get - going back to that whole proven loss thing again...
There is no obligation in law to provide the people who want to sue you your full name and contact information. Of course, when playing the internet tough guy, it is always good to intimate that your critics are too afraid to face you in person.
Well yes, you can sue, getting the judgement isn't going to happen unless you can provide proof of service - the person you are suing must be formally made aware of the matter being brought against them by being given a copy of the Notice of Civil Claim in accordance with the Rules set down by the Court. The Court won't issue a default judgment unless it is satisfied that the other party has been served - and they will only do so against a legal person, not an internet handle, so get researching Bobby!
Again, you've got to actually get the judgement first before you start spending the money. Perhaps you're familiar with the idiom of putting the cart before the horse?
The cost of your PI might be part of your Special Damages - or the court might disallow it - either way no one is under an obligation to identify himself to Mr. Menard.
Look at the Rules of Court, those identify the various ways that service can be effected. You'll need an Order from the Court to do what you're proposing and something other than an internet name to get that.
Cart does not preceed the horse Bob. You need some actual information to get a judgment - like say a legal entity who is capable of being sued. D'rok's internet handle is not a legal person. No judge in Canada will issue a judgement against an internet name and a John Doe.
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
Ho, ho, that is humorous
I look forward to the legaltainment™ this will provide
It looks like Robert of the family Menard's idea of "service" closely resembles that of Orly Taitz's.
The PI thing is a predictable Menardian touch.
It allows Bobby to engage freeman wannabes in another internet adventure and the same time allowing him to beg for further donations based on the added expense.
When nothing comes of it the Bloated Fez Rack can simply opine that there was some sort of problem with the gum shoe's service.
BTW, folks Bobby already claims to know who I am and, if you recall, was offered an all expenses paid trip down to Louisville to meet me.
So what's the deal with Fez boy?
It allows Bobby to engage freeman wannabes in another internet adventure and the same time allowing him to beg for further donations based on the added expense.
When nothing comes of it the Bloated Fez Rack can simply opine that there was some sort of problem with the gum shoe's service.
BTW, folks Bobby already claims to know who I am and, if you recall, was offered an all expenses paid trip down to Louisville to meet me.
So what's the deal with Fez boy?
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Probably the need for the additional expense to get you properly served down in the US.
Bailiffs/process servers/couriers/etc are expensive and this might be cutting into his beer and weed budget...
Bailiffs/process servers/couriers/etc are expensive and this might be cutting into his beer and weed budget...
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
Stacey Grove
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,041
Don't hold your breath.
It seems that Bobby boy has had a rethink on the FOTL woo. From his reply above:
The FOTL stance on this is quite simple. The (ahem) contract would be between D'rok and our hero. The judgment could not be sold on under FOTL rules because the "sharks" would be what the FOTL refer to as "third party interlopers" who would not have a contract with D'rok. Bobby knows this.
It seems that the fez wearer is abandoning his principles.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Bobby boys principles align with the money.
Read his post from WFS
So it has nothing to do with clearing his reputation, its about who he thinks he can get money out of.
More legal guessing. I think the test of libel/slander is not whether a statement is true or false. The test is whether it is knowingly false and intended to cause harm.
Here would be an interesting legal defense:
1. Use the $800 document that lets you avoid legal jurisdiction
2. If it succeeds, then you have successfully applied his teachings and the court is unable to force a judgement on you without consent/jurisdiction/etc.
3. If it doesn't succeed, then you have proven the material provided is a scam and provided direct evidence that the statements were true, resulting in a win.
Of course, taking any legal advise from an internet forum is a terrible idea.
Here would be an interesting legal defense:
1. Use the $800 document that lets you avoid legal jurisdiction
2. If it succeeds, then you have successfully applied his teachings and the court is unable to force a judgement on you without consent/jurisdiction/etc.
3. If it doesn't succeed, then you have proven the material provided is a scam and provided direct evidence that the statements were true, resulting in a win.
Of course, taking any legal advise from an internet forum is a terrible idea.
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Surprised then that he didn't go for some of the other Cdn members who've posted on this thread. It would have been alot easier to get orders for alt. service for people that actually live in the country, and foreign judgments are so easily ignored.
Does Kentucky have a reciprocal agreement with Canada for the enforcement of judgements?
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
JB are you surprised at this? LOL. The conman's focus has been and will always be on money......
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
not surprised at all Hans, just stating the obvious.
I like that idea. You wouldn't have to actually use the defence yourself but it would be fair to point out that if his teachings were valid, that he could not impose any legal remedy on another person without their consent. And the very act of filing a defence to the claim shows that you don't
It is not the "test" for defamation but truth is a defence to defamation. So if it's true it isn't defamation.
I don't know what he plans to do if he gets leave of the court to hire a PI. Does he not realize that there is nothing preventing him from hiring a PI right now? Other than the fact that they would charge money which he doesn't have.
He also seems to be implying that if the court gives leave, it would enable a PI to simply tell him the real names of people who post on these forums. As though a PI already has this information but would not give it to their own clients without leave of the court.
So I'm glad you are not too worried about the fact your forum name has been included in his claim because otherwise I wouldn't think this, but now I hope he tries it too. Just because it would be comical to see the attempt.
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
But of course! Should we keep track of how long Menard howls about this until he quitely drops it and takes up yet another way to try and obtain money?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7177604&postcount=1315
Last edited:
- Status