Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Burnaby49]

I've been queried, by PM, about how I know that Menard was arrested on scene and taken away while his companion watched. My interrogator suggested that Menard could well have left the scene without being arrested and in the company of his Freeman driver so that it looked like he'd escaped being charged. The arrest and charges could have come later. This would explain how Menard could have kept the information about charges to himself without even the person who was with him at the incident knowing about them.

The only response I can make to this is that it is a damn good point because, while I know he was arrested and charged, I don't have the details on the timing. As I stated on January 23rd;

The narrative I have on what happened is that;

-Menard was stopped in a traffic stop and called 911.
-He showed off his C3P0 badge to the police and claimed to be a peace officer. This resulted in his arrest. Menard actually produced proper identification on arrest, signed his release documents in a conventional manner. He is currently on bail.
-The video and stop evidence was sufficient that the Crown decided to lay a personating a police officer charge (Criminal Code, s 130). That’s a hybrid offence so it could be prosecuted on indictment (5 years) or as a summary conviction offence (6 months).

The information that I received did not state if he was arrested at the scene or later, just that flashing the badge resulted in his arrest. So my comment in a prior posting;

I doubt that his is the case either. If I recall correctly the driver of the car wasn't arrested, only Menard. So the driver would have no knowledge of what happened after the arrest except what Menard told him. Menard could have easily come back after release and told the driver the police had a few questions but let him go after he convinced them that he was a legitimate peace officer. Menard made a video after the incident criticizing the driver for driving recklessly, not something I'd think he'd do if he was relying on the driver to keep any secrets about the stop.

could well be wrong because of an incorrect assumption on my part. If the two were not, as I assumed, separated at the traffic stop by Menard's arrest he would have had no awkward expanations to make to the driver. That would fit better with Menard's later criticism of the driver since the man had no knowledge of an arrest to retaliate with.

As I keep saying I'm working on getting the Toronto documents and this might well be covered in them. We'll see. Famspear in Texas is 1,000 miles closer to Toronto than I am and the distance is causing delays.

[Jeffrey]

Menard did bait the cops in the post-traffic stop video daring them to charge him with personating a peace officer.

Could the cops have doubled back and charged him due to the video or did Menard throw that bait into the video knowing they had already charged him or were considering charging him?

[arayder]

Menard has not, in any way that I can find, tried to use the arrest and charges as material to either raise funds or embellish his legend I can't see that this was his intention. He posted his carefully edited video then went silent. I'm guessing because charges were filed against him after his original bluster about his Toronto triumph and his video posting so he decided he'd better shut up. Had he revealed that he'd been charged and tried to take on the role of be the great Freeman fighter battling for 3CPO status on his follower's behalf's it would have revealed that his whole accounting of the stop and his video version of it were a lie. Also I suspect that while he is free to tell the world he is out on bail after being charged if he so choses (which he has been very careful not to do) any more Freeman rants about his big traffic-stop victory would violate his bail terms and he'd be back in detention. He'd probably face the same consequences if he denied the criminal charges after I revealed them even though I provided no documentation whatever to support my accusations. So he can confirm but not deny. Don't worry Rob, I'm working on getting that documentation but the Toronto court registry is being difficult. Just a matter of time.

It's just another case of a freeman not being free at all.

In the Jeffersonian sense of freedom, the liberty to participate in society, freemen nitwits have managed to work themselves into a corner such that they can't drive cars, get jobs, start a business, go across the U.S. boarder or do much more than sit on their couches and swill beer.

Hell's bells, Menard had to think up a lame theory in order to use his SIN to get his daddy's insurance money!

[Burnaby49]

I was wrong, mea culpa. Guilty as charged my lord! Why all this self-abasement? I made an incorrect assumption. What I'd posted about Menard's arrest and charging was;

-Menard was stopped in a traffic stop and called 911.
-He showed off his C3P0 badge to the police and claimed to be a peace officer. This resulted in his arrest. Menard actually produced proper identification on arrest, signed his release documents in a conventional manner. He is currently on bail.
-The video and stop evidence was sufficient that the Crown decided to lay a personating a police officer charge (Criminal Code, s 130). That’s a hybrid offence so it could be prosecuted on indictment (5 years) or as a summary conviction offence (6 months).

All true and accurate but vague. Based on this I lazily assumed, without checking, that Menard was arrested at the scene. After my relentless interrogation last night I decided to recheck my Illuminati sources about the sequencing of Menard's stop, arrest, and charging (note - the Western Cabal is not part of, or formally affiliated with, the Illuminati. However we do from time to time share resources. It's a budget thing). It turns out I was wrong, Menard was not arrested at the stop but later. This actually fits much better into the hypothetical narrative than my assumption of an arrest at the scene. There was always the awkward issue of fitting the driver into the story. If he had seen Menard arrested Menard would have had to square that with him somehow. If there was no arrest then all the driver saw was Menard having his Freeman hissy-fit and the cops letting them both go as free as a birds. Menard triumphant! I like that story much better than an assumed conspiracy between Menard and the driver.

This would also explain Rob producing that edited video. Menard, thinking he had beaten the cops, must have put it up before being arrested. I hadn't considered this before but logically he wouldn't have put it up after being arrested because that could have resulted in his bail being revoked. I like to think that the video might have been part of the factors that the Crown considered when deciding to charge him. Hoisted by his own Menard petard! Sorry, that kind of thing is Famspear's job.

All I can do is plead ignorance. What do I know about these things? I've never been arrested or charged about anything. My last brush with John Law was a ticket I got in the early 1980s for not stopping completely at a stop sign. They nailed my mother for the same thing about a decade earlier so I should have been watching out.

So, Freeman conspiracy experts, here's a self-confessed flaw in the narrative from a member of the dark side, go nuts! The whole edifice I painstakingly constructed; the house of cards I carefully built around the Menard arrest story on the orders of the Western Cabal is collapsing around my ears. The WC does not treat failures kindly!

Yours,
Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel

[Burnaby49]

Rob finally responded, directly and incontrovertibly, to my postings revealing his Toronto criminal charges! From his latest Face Book entry;

Robert Menard9 hrs

."All true and accurate but vague."
1 - True.
2 - Neither true nor accurate.
3 - Opinion
...Keep digging.

https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard. ... riends_tab

That is a quote from my last posting;

All true and accurate but vague. Based on this I lazily assumed, without checking, that Menard was arrested at the scene. After my relentless interrogation last night I decided to recheck my Illuminati sources about the sequencing of Menard's stop, arrest, and charging (note - the Western Cabal is not part of, or formally affiliated with, the Illuminati. However we do from time to time share resources. It's a budget thing). It turns out I was wrong, Menard was not arrested at the stop but later. This actually fits much better into the hypothetical narrative than my assumption of an arrest at the scene. There was always the awkward issue of fitting the driver into the story. If he had seen Menard arrested Menard would have had to square that with him somehow. If there was no arrest then all the driver saw was Menard having his Freeman hissy-fit and the cops letting them both go as free as a birds. Menard triumphant! I like that story much better than an assumed conspiracy between Menard and the driver.

So it turns out that Rob has been following my posts all along but not responding to them. I assume that he can't respond with the normal Menard bullshit without endangering his bail terms so he's posted a totally cryptic response. Too cryptic. One of his bemused followers responded far better than I could;

Rick Gérard Levesque

huh ??!! lolà

Isn't that response great? Nobody has any clue to what Rob is on about because he replied to my posting without giving his followers any context whatever.

Menard's response, pathetically inadequate as it is, is significant because I've been getting queries, questions, comments, via PM and email, asking how do I really know that the great Menard, standing high above the trivial lies and bluster of Quatloos, has not respond to my calumnies simply because he was in total ignorance of my vile accusations? He's a busy executive totally focused on perfecting his magic debit card to free his followers from their daily financial cares and perhaps he is pursuing this noble endeavour with such dedication that he has no free time whatever to reply to the comments of some insignificant scribbler calling himself Burnaby49.

So Rob, now that we know you are watching, why the nonsensical comment about digging deeper? Deeper for what? Give me a clue. I can assure you I've dug pretty damn deep already. Don't forget that I was the one who revealed your criminal charges. But if there is more just give me a hint and I'll see what I can find. I'm here to help.

You've read all my posts so why not loudly denounce all my comments about your criminal charges and your bail status as straight-up bullshit? You said;

"2 - Neither true nor accurate."

If so, where is it neither true nor accurate? Please be specific. Why not set the story straight with your own (unedited this time please) version of what actually happened at that police stop and after? Does your hesitation possibly relate to concerns about your bail conditions? Are you trying to respond without triggering a trip to remand?

And, while we're speaking free and easy together, just two buds trying to cut through the bullshit to get to the heart of your story, how did your court hearing go? I assume you laid down the law to the judge, gave him chapter and verse on the Freeman legal basis proving your peace officer status and he dismissed all charges after apologizing on behalf of the Crown and the government of Canada for your personal inconvenience in having to bother to prove the obvious. All to the applause of the spectators. Is that assumption correct? After my last confession of my total inability to make any valid assumptions I'd like to at least get one right.

Don't worry about proving the validity of your magic credit card. Thanks to Kent Barrett's expose you can be assured I'm looking into it.

[arayder]

So Menard caught in a blatant lie, tries to get off the hook by inferring there is some greater truth regarding his arrest. In the freeman cult the chief guru follows a lie with a vagary.

What a pile of manure freemandia is!

Meanwhile the Ickes deniers are busy parsing words over whether Menard is a fraud, a liar or a misguided zealot. One denier wants to know why if Menard is a fraud he hasn't been jailed for fraud. What next? A mafia hit man isn't really a murder until he's convicted in a court of law?

The real question is why by giving Menard a pass the deniers so blatantly ignore freemandia's prime directive to do no harm? It seems to have escaped the moral senses of our denier/freemen brethren that one can cause harm by doing nothing in the face of a harmful and deliberate deception!

[arayder]

I was wrong, mea culpa. Guilty as charged my lord! Why all this self-abasement? I made an incorrect assumption. What I'd posted about Menard's arrest and charging was;

-Menard was stopped in a traffic stop and called 911.
-He showed off his C3P0 badge to the police and claimed to be a peace officer. This resulted in his arrest. Menard actually produced proper identification on arrest, signed his release documents in a conventional manner. He is currently on bail.
-The video and stop evidence was sufficient that the Crown decided to lay a personating a police officer charge (Criminal Code, s 130). That’s a hybrid offence so it could be prosecuted on indictment (5 years) or as a summary conviction offence (6 months).

All true and accurate but vague. Based on this I lazily assumed, without checking, that Menard was arrested at the scene. After my relentless interrogation last night I decided to recheck my Illuminati sources about the sequencing of Menard's stop, arrest, and charging (note - the Western Cabal is not part of, or formally affiliated with, the Illuminati. However we do from time to time share resources. It's a budget thing). It turns out I was wrong, Menard was not arrested at the stop but later. This actually fits much better into the hypothetical narrative than my assumption of an arrest at the scene. There was always the awkward issue of fitting the driver into the story. If he had seen Menard arrested Menard would have had to square that with him somehow. If there was no arrest then all the driver saw was Menard having his Freeman hissy-fit and the cops letting them both go as free as a birds. Menard triumphant! I like that story much better than an assumed conspiracy between Menard and the driver.

At 25:00 on this YouTube made after the traffic stop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FArO3G7gKa4 Bobby challenges Quatloosians in what he calls "clear test" to turn him in for impersonating a police officer.

Menard says that as he continues to walk around successfully representing himself as a peace officer Quatloosians will have deal with our deal with our "cognitive dissonance".

ROTFLMAO!

Talk about cognitive dissonance!

Bobby was arrested, forced to produce I.D., has since followed his muzzeling bail agreement and has dutifully showed up in court as instructed!

What a good little planation slave Bobby has become!

Freeman lurkers should be proud. . .not!

[Burnaby49]

Was it all a dream? I went back to Rob's Face Book page and the entry I boasted about so triumphantly last night wasn't there! Have I been caught out in yet another lie, making unsubstantiated accusations again? Good thing I suspected this might happen and took screen captures.

[Burnaby49]

A bonus! I just checked the screen capture and found Menard had made a second quote from one of my comments on the Quatloos discussion.

Robert Menard
11 hrs

"All I can do is plead ignorance"
There is no need
We have known this about you for a long, long time....

This is an except from from my Feb 15, 5:48 pm posting where I said;

All I can do is plead ignorance. What do I know about these things? I've never been arrested or charged about anything. My last brush with John Law was a ticket I got in the early 1980s for not stopping completely at a stop sign. They nailed my mother for the same thing about a decade earlier so I should have been watching out.

Either he was too cryptic or I was too dense to pick up on it last night. I'd go with too dense.

[arayder]

Was it all a dream? I went back to Rob's Face Book page and the entry I boasted about so triumphantly last night wasn't there! Have I been caught out in anothe lie, making unsubstantiated accusations again? Good thing I suspected this might happen and took screen captures.

Fez Boy has left a trail behind him a blind man could follow.

Months after his June traffic stop he was openly and publicly declaring himself a peace officer as well as acting as the C3PO chief officer while he actively recruited gullibles for his 5 C3PO detachments.

It isn't so much that Bobby's stupid. The problem is that, as a function of his narcissistic personality he's convinced himself that mere humans like cops, judges, prosecutors and especially Quatloosians can't match his greatness. He figures he doesn't need to be careful since everybody else is too dumb to keep up with him. Throw in bad judgement brought on by massive numbers of Moose Heads and the Great One ends up putting his own neck in the noose.

One has to marvel at the depth of his narcissism. Most folks would look at the couch du jour, the court summonses and the pile of empties in the corner and figure it was long passed time to make an honest appraisal of how things are going.

[Burnaby49]

For your viewing pleasure, Rob's Face Book screen shots;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/k59xedc9u ... rd%201.jpg#
http://www.mediafire.com/view/o634n6h4w ... rd%202.jpg#

Note that I missed the last line "...Keep digging." Just my usual bungling, I neglected to open the comment up before taking the screencap.

[littleFred]

The real question is why by giving Menard a pass the deniers so blatantly ignore freemandia's prime directive to do no harm?

That prime directive has more get-out clauses than Star Trek script-writers could dream of.

In particular, it is over-ridden by the maxim, "Let he who would be deceived, be deceived," which FOTLers interpret to mean that if someone believes FOTL lies, the fault lies with the believer.

[arayder]

The real question is why by giving Menard a pass the deniers so blatantly ignore freemandia's prime directive to do no harm?

That prime directive has more get-out clauses than Star Trek script-writers could dream of.

In particular, it is over-ridden by the maxim, "Let he who would be deceived, be deceived," which FOTLers interpret to mean that if someone believes FOTL lies, the fault lies with the believer.

It was apparently not a violation of the prime directive for Captain Kirk to beam down to a planet, punch the civilization's leader in the nose and then make love to his beautiful daughter.

Likewise it is not a violation of the freeman prime directive for Fez Boy to bum a ride into town, fleece a freeman out of a consultation fee and then masterbate on his couch.

[Arthur Rubin]

Likewise it is not a violation of the freeman prime directive for Fez Boy to bum a ride into town, fleece a freeman out of a consultation fee and then masterbate on his couch.

I don't think we have any evidence for the last clause.

[arayder]

Dean Clifford is in jail and likely to remain there a while.

Bonacci Santos is on the run.

Brian Alexander is making a fool of himself.

Keith Thomson has gone 'round the bend.

The self described director of the World Freeman Society, Robert Menard, has been rendered toothless by the same authorizes he imperiously claimed to have waved off countless times.

As all this is ignored by the deniers as they palaver about how very unfair it is to point out that freemanism a lie told to fools. They are above it all now. One wonders why they didn't yammer so when the gurus were sending dupe after dupe to ruin.

This is the same crowd that used to say that anybody who didn't buy their whacky theories was suffering from cognitive dissonance!

[arayder]

The deniers are struggling to understand the nature of Menard's deception.

The uninformed denier in chief (dic) seems to think myself and others are suggesting that Menard's victims might be excused from responsibility for their actions because Menard duped them.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This straw man argument his floated by the denier in chief (dic) because he doesn't have a successful argument refuting what the Menard debunkers are really saying.

Our argument is that Menard deceived and thus harmed several of his paying clients. We have also shown that Menard knew or should have known his scams were/are illegal and likely to harm his clients since that fact was explained to him in detail on several different forums. . .all while Menard actively participated in the forums and responded to each warning of illegality.

The denier in chief lapses into a fit of legalize as he tells us how difficult it is to prove fraud. As the dic does so he assumes Menard could not have known he was decieving his marks because he is just a stone mason.

What work Menard says he used to do is not relevant.

What counts is that Menard was shown in detail how his various projects were illegal and he simply choose to disregard that information.

It is interesting to note that the dic has abandoned the specious argument that Menard is excused because his duped clients willingly entered into the scam/projects.

One wonders how long it will be before the dic gives up his fraud-is-hard-to-prove argument in favor of something equally foolish.

[Hyrion]

The deniers are struggling to understand the nature of Menard's deception.
[snip]

The denier in chief [snip] assumes Menard could not have known he was decieving his marks because he is just a stone mason.

A StoneMason - internal cabal of the Illuminati. By jove, I think the denier in chief is on to Menard!!!!!

[arayder]

It's ironic that Menard tells his followers that statutes, case law, court rulings and legal definitions are, like Santa Claus, made up by the powers that be. . . .but when Menard violates the freeman tenent to do no harm his apologists parse the legalese of fraud and opine that Bobby has never been convicted of such in a court of law!

Talk about cherry picking the law and moving the goal posts!

[arayder]

Ignorance abounds.

Over on Ickes regarding the question of whether Menard is fraud Felix asks:

If I start selling used cars for a living, some of which turn out to be dangerous, can I say to the court "But....I used to be a dustman therefore I cannot be held responsible."

To which reverendjim replies:

no, if his cars are dangerous its going to come down on the guy, the professional, who certified them safe. the salesman or owner of the lot has no worries unless it can be proven that he knowingly had unsafe cars certified. however if his past profession was as a mechanic the opposite could be true.

and in reality selling consumer credit notes and selling cars is like comparing apples and oranges.

The ignorant reverendjim is unaware of the concept of negligent misrepresentation in which the seller makes representations of the product in reckless disregard for the truth, or ought to have known that such representations were not true.

If a seller represents that a car is in good condition, he has a duty to know it is so. If the seller makes the representation without having sufficiently inspected the car to know whether the statement was correct, he is subject to the same liability as though he had made a thorough inspection of the car, knew it was defective, and stated it was good.

The charge of negligent misrepresentation is a civil matter. More serious is the crime of false pretenses in which someone lies or makes misrepresentations in order to obtain someone else's property.

Read a book, rev!

[Burnaby49]

Menard just posted this on his Face Book page;



Accompanied by the comment;

Are they stating that they have a duty to the public to bring charges, and are not in this case even though they have a duty to do so, thus admitting fault and liability? Are they admitting to acting inappropriately IN WRITING???? Or, are they stating that they have a duty to the public to bring charges where appropriate and in this case they are not bringing charges because they are not appropr...iate? Bear in mind, one opens them to liability and is a failure to perform their stated duty, and one does not.

They then state that in the future this letter will be used to determine whether they bring charges or not if something similar happens again. Either they are admitting liability and a failure to fulfill their duties to the public, and giving me a warning to not do it again or else, or they are admitting that my actions were lawful. What Crown Attorney would put in writing such an admission of liability? It could cost him his license to practice.

Secondly, after that first time, I did it two other times, but after sending this letter along with my own to the police and Crown Prosecutor. The result was when the police showed up, they walked away, stating that it was a civil matter, and as far as they were concerned, the bill had been paid, and if the restaurant did not like it they were free to take me to court.

Speculation that I paid the bill silently on the side out of the escrow account is only speculation. For the record I did not.

Let me speculate why they didn't bother. It wasn't worth the time and effort for an offense as trivial as refusing to pay for a meal at Earls (or wherever it was). Go down to Vancouver's skid row sometime Rob and watch the police foot patrols in action. They ignore hundreds of infractions daily. Jaywalking, pissing in back alleys or even in public, openly flogging what are obviously stolen goods, low level drug dealing and imbibing, public drinking. If they started charging for these things the justice system would be totally overwhelmed in weeks. So they prioritize and you just haven't managed to make the cut yet.