Rocco Galati

[bmxninja357]

Canada has freedom of expression. One can express thier views as they see fit. A few restrictions but I belive the states has those also. Same duck, different flock.

And with both gurus and contractors it's buyer beware. It's also your duty to know the quality of the person with whom you deal.

And ya know, don't take my word for it. Do your own research.

No one can feed me the gurus would not be charged with fraud if they fit the legal definition. The courts generally dislike gurus and would jump right on that.

Peace
Ninj

[arayder]

It would seem our visiting freeman apologists think lying is protected free speech. . . and if one gets away with the lies they magically become mere "ideology".

[bmxninja357]

and politicians dont lie to you on a daily basis? or any of the plethora of medical quacks? or cops to suspects? or religious groups?

funny, that all seems to ,within limits, be protected.

and i dont think your ad hom of calling anyone who does not agree with your opinion an apologist makes you correct. neither k1w1, wup nor i are apologizing or justifying anyone. and no one cares if you like it or not. if they were a fraud there would be charges, a civil suit, or the likes. and there is not. as much as you like blaming the guru you are wrong. the courts in the decisions that form the basis of law blame the person following the opca trend.

they are not victims. they are willfully ignorant. big difference.

ninj

[arayder]

and politicians dont lie to you on a daily basis? or any of the plethora of medical quacks? or cops to suspects? or religious groups?

funny, that all seems to ,within limits, be protected.

and i dont think your ad hom of calling anyone who does not agree with your opinion an apologist makes you correct. neither k1w1, wup nor i are apologizing or justifying anyone. and no one cares if you like it or not. if they were a fraud there would be charges, a civil suit, or the likes. and there is not. as much as you like blaming the guru you are wrong. the courts in the decisions that form the basis of law blame the person following the opca trend.

they are not victims. they are willfully ignorant. big difference.

ninj

My apologies, ninja.

It would be more accurate to say that there are those who would give a get out of jail free card to lying, cheating con men. That's not really apologizing for lying freemen gurus. . .it's giving them free rein.

These are the sort of folks who sat on their hands while Andreas Pirelli trashed Rebekah Caverhill's duplex and did nothing while Bobby Menard duped the impressionable Alexander Ream into ruining his life.

They say it's all okay because somehow lying is protected free speech. . . .and none of the freemen gurus who lied to their marks have been charged with fraud. . . .and other people lie too, so what's the beef?

But I say until the members, hangers on and former members of the so called "truth movement" grow a set of balls and stand up to call out freemen gurus for the liars they are the trail of ruined lives will only get longer.

Again, my apologies, ninja.

[bmxninja357]

The "truth movement" has little to do with Menard or perelli.

By now I would think it well known the "truth movement" is mainly to do with 9/11 and a perceived government cover up.

And for that matter why was perelli not already in jail as he had outstanding violent charges? And I don't believe perelli was a freeman as claimed. In any way. In fact for the thousands of words of gibberish on his site not a single one of them was freeman. But the hysterical half truths called him one. He was already a violent offender and police would like everyone looking everywhere but at the fact they refused to arrest a violent offender on outstanding warrants. And the media was in a tizzy over everything but the issue. The province that let him on bail wouldn't pay for him to face justice. No freeman gibberish jabber needed.

And anyone who decided to put on a tin star and call themselves officer o'malley never did their own research nor where they duped. They just plain thought it a good idea no matter what anyone said. Or the consequences.

Weapons grade stupid requires no guru.

If any of these folks you call dupes did their own research they wouldn't be in the situations they are. I guarantee you there's more cops, accountants and members of the bar then there are gurus. Anyone refusing to talk to one or listen to any counterpoint is willfully blind and at law, they did it to themselves.

Ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

By now I would think it well known the "truth movement" is mainly to do with 9/11 and a perceived government cover up.

I have to agree on this point. I have done a lot of soul searching. What is TRUTH, and what is nothing more than online fantasy fiction? Other than the real scientific investigations into 9/11, the only other thing that I consider a part of the "truth movement" is the admitted history of international Bankers (such as David Rockefeller) wishing to create a "one world government". Their own quotes, published in their own books qualify this as truth.

Other than that, there is very little actual TRUTH within the so-called "truth movement".

[k1w1]

But I say until the members, hangers on and former members of the so called "truth movement" grow a set of balls and stand up to call out freemen gurus for the liars they are the trail of ruined lives will only get longer.

You simply do not get it...

Those "members, hangers on and former members"... they aren't lawyers or accountants either, so their opinions about legal matters are as valid as Menard's or Clifford's or any other Joe Public. Why would anyone believe those people know more about legal matters than Menard or Clifford or any other so-called guru?

Anyway, the people who go off and actually practice what some guru has preached, so-called OPCA litigants, they ignore advice even from people they know are lawyers or an authority. They even ignore judges! So what makes you think they'll listen to these members, hangers on, former members and other such Joe Publics?

Please, save your tears for them. They ain't victims, and they don't need to be saved by you and your big balls.

We know how to verify whether they are recognized legal scholars. However, it is not obvious.

Who is the "we" you refer to? You and god?

Are you trying to suggest the public is too stupid to know how to verify if someone is a qualified legal scholar?

[arayder]

But I say until the members, hangers on and former members of the so called "truth movement" grow a set of balls and stand up to call out freemen gurus for the liars they are the trail of ruined lives will only get longer.

You simply do not get it...

Those "members, hangers on and former members"... they aren't lawyers or accountants either, so their opinions about legal matters are as valid as Menard's or Clifford's or any other Joe Public. Why would anyone believe those people know more about legal matters than Menard or Clifford or any other so-called guru?

Well, now you have argued yourself in a nihilist corner in which opinions by non-experts are useless. That's a prescription for rule buy the elitists if I ever heard it.

But your notion of subserviance to authority would explain why so many freemen and freemen-lites sat on their hands while their gurus wrecked life after life.

Anyway, the people who go off and actually practice what some guru has preached, so-called OPCA litigants, they ignore advice even from people they know are lawyers or an authority. They even ignore judges! So what makes you think they'll listen to these members, hangers on, former members and other such Joe Publics?

Please, save your tears for them. They ain't victims, and they don't need to be saved by you and your big balls

.

Well, your opinion on the rights of victims of fraud and the duty the rest of society has to point out the fraudsters is, by your own words, simply useless.

You have admitted that your idea of what constitutes fraud and victimhood is of no relevance and should be ignored.

[Arthur Rubin]

We know how to verify whether they are recognized legal scholars. However, it is not obvious.

Who is the "we" you refer to? You and god?

Are you trying to suggest the public is too stupid to know how to verify if someone is a qualified legal scholar?

We = (almost) everyone here on Quatloos.
and, yes. The general public doesn't know how to verify that the cases quoted by the gurus do not say what the gurus say they say, and is unable to do a Lexis/Westlaw search to verify that no court case says that.

[arayder]

We know how to verify whether they are recognized legal scholars. However, it is not obvious.

Who is the "we" you refer to? You and god?

Are you trying to suggest the public is too stupid to know how to verify if someone is a qualified legal scholar?

We = (almost) everyone here on Quatloos.
and, yes. The general public doesn't know how to verify that the cases quoted by the gurus do not say what the gurus say they say, and is unable to do a Lexis/Westlaw search to verify that no court case says that.

One of the favorite pseudo-scholar tricks which dates all the way back to detaxer days is to leave out or misstate case notations so as to make it difficult to find the case law being falsely portrayed.

Since the the cases become difficult to look up the fraudsters feel free to lie by citing non-binding dicta, dissenting opinions and even the briefs filed by the losing side as binding case law.

Another trick (which patriotdiscussions loves to pull) is to cite case law which has since been modified or overturned.

IMHO this is evidence of a clear intent to deceive.

Menard and Clifford know we are on to this trick so they double down on the obfuscating lies by claiming they short circuit the legal system by befuddling the cops on the beat when they first try to deal with them.

Bobby and Dean's arrests have outted those tall tales for the lies they are.

[notorial dissent]

Or they just flat out lie in general and make it up as they go along, since they know their followers will never bother to check, and doing it that way makes it hard for other people to fact check them, except that it eventually happens and they are shown up as liars and frauds.

[k1w1]

We know how to verify whether they are recognized legal scholars. However, it is not obvious.

Who is the "we" you refer to? You and god?

Are you trying to suggest the public is too stupid to know how to verify if someone is a qualified legal scholar?

We = (almost) everyone here on Quatloos.
and, yes. The general public doesn't know how to verify that the cases quoted by the gurus do not say what the gurus say they say, and is unable to do a Lexis/Westlaw search to verify that no court case says that.

Ah, right… and presumably you don’t believe you and your fellow Quataloosians are part of society, that you aren’t part of the general public. Interesting. That’s very similar to what Freeman believe about themselves. Are you a Freeman too?

To find out if someone is a qualified lawyer or accountant, ask to see their qualification. The same method works for dentists, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers… That’s how we do it. And by “we” I mean me and the general public.

Menard and Clifford (as examples of OPCA gurus) do not profess or even pretend to be qualified lawyers or accountants. Yet you say people -- the general public, the man on the Clapham omnibus -- will still have a justifiable reason for believing an OPCA guru is qualified to give legal advice (and therefore have a justifiable reason to rely on the advice and thus be victims of a fraud) because, er… the public is just so stupid they might mistake them for a lawyer or an accountant anyway.

Your arrogance is matched only by your general ignorance.

[Burnaby49]

Your arrogance is matched only by your general ignorance.

I could use that for my signature once I'm bored with Menard.

[arayder]

Menard and Clifford. . .do not profess or even pretend to be qualified lawyers or accountants. Yet you say . . .the general public. . .will still have a justifiable reason for believing an OPCA guru is qualified to give legal advice. . .

That's not entirely accurate, k1w1, and I think you know it.

Both Menard and Clifford claim to be more expert at the law than judges, prosecutors and lawyers. They both claim to have out studied, out maneuvered and out done every legal professional they have ever encountered. In Bobby's case he claims to have "kicked ass in court". Dean says he has single handedly dismissed every charge ever made against him.

They both have tried to falsify the record in attempts to pull off these deceptions.

It's pretty clear that both Menard and Clifford pretend to have superior legal minds and a spotless string of wins. Worse yet they had told their clients their methods can work of them. . .for a price.

Now, k1w1, if your general point is that these two are hopeless liars, I don't think you are going to get any argument here.

But if you are trying to say these two conmen are self-proclaimed everymen expressing mere opinions then my suggestion is that you pause and wait for the laugh track. . . .

[Arthur Rubin]

To find out if someone is a qualified lawyer or accountant, ask to see their qualification. The same method works for dentists, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers… That’s how we do it. And by “we” I mean me and the general public.

Menard and Clifford (as examples of OPCA gurus) do not profess or even pretend to be qualified lawyers or accountants. Yet you say people -- the general public, the man on the Clapham omnibus -- will still have a justifiable reason for believing an OPCA guru is qualified to give legal advice (and therefore have a justifiable reason to rely on the advice and thus be victims of a fraud) because, er… the public is just so stupid they might mistake them for a lawyer or an accountant anyway.

You have finally presented a point.
But if you comb your hair carefully, it won't show.

Sorry, but getting back to the specific point. The general public could (sometimes) verify that their guru is not a lawyer. (The general public could often verify that their guru is in jail, but that's another issue.) However, there are a few recognized legal scholars who are not lawyers. There are quite a few who are a lawyer in a different jurisdiction then that of their expertise, and also a fair number of legal scholars who are no longer registered with the bar (legal association, or whatever the term is in your jurisdiction). Conversely, there are a number of (not-yet-disbarred) lawyers who claim to be legal scholars. Ms. Orly comes to mind, but that's not OCPA-related nonsense, but a different brand of nonsense, entirely.

No, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether there is "reasonable reliance".

[Hyrion]

To find out if someone is a qualified lawyer or accountant, ask to see their qualification. The same method works for dentists, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers… That’s how we do it. And by “we” I mean me and the general public.

As a layman, I want more. I wouldn't know the difference between real and falsified credentials - but that's just me personally recognizing where I have a lack of knowledge causing a weak point that a criminal could take advantage of.

[bmxninja357]

It's really stretching saying you don't know how to check credentials. When someone applies for a job they should get checked. At work we do it all the time. You say you got a degree from x we email x and verify. Ocassionally checking if x is qualified to hand out valid certification.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It's the law in canada.

Peace
Ninj

[Hyrion]

It's really stretching saying you don't know how to check credentials.

I didn't say I didn't know how to check credentials.

What I did say was that I want more then just asking to see their credentials which is specifically what I responded to:

To find out if someone is a qualified lawyer or accountant, ask to see their qualification. The same method works for dentists, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers…

You must admit that asking to see someone's qualifications and then checking up on those qualifications is two different things. To repeat myself: I want more then just asking for their qualification - I want to check up on their qualifications in as many ways as I can till I'm comfortable.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It's the law in canada.

Never said it was and I totally agree with that policy.

Edited to clarify the following point.

When I said:

I wouldn't know the difference between real and falsified credentials

I meant exactly that: I'm not familiar with all forms of credentials. For example, I've never seen a Yale diploma. Might have glanced at one in a doctors office but never paid much attention to what they've got on the walls - in other words, I never looked over them closely.

So - not having seen a Yale diploma before, how could I reasonably be expected to spot a careful forgery over the real McCoy? Hence the context of that specific statement.

[notorial dissent]

Menard and Clifford. . .do not profess or even pretend to be qualified lawyers or accountants. Yet you say . . .the general public. . .will still have a justifiable reason for believing an OPCA guru is qualified to give legal advice. . .
YES, because they are presenting themselves as “proven experts” to a gullible public, FOTL’s, who after all are the prime dictionary definition of gullible, and they are charging for their “expert advice”. They aren’t experts(except well at failure), they are lying, they are committing fraud.

That's not entirely accurate, k1w1, and I think you know it.
Damning with faint praise I think.
Both Menard and Clifford claim to be more expert at the law than judges, prosecutors and lawyers. They both claim to have out studied, out maneuvered and out done every legal professional they have ever encountered. In Bobby's case he claims to have "kicked ass in court". Dean says he has single handedly dismissed every charge ever made against him.
They can claim all they want, but reality shows that they have flat out lied ABOUT IT ALL, and yet are presenting themselves as experts at something they have BOTH repeatedly and consistently FAILED AT.
They both have tried to falsify the record in attempts to pull off these deceptions.
It’s called lying in the real world, and they’ve tried it and FAILED at it spectacularly, just as they’ve FAILED at everything else.
It's pretty clear that both Menard and Clifford pretend to have superior legal minds and a spotless string of wins. Worse yet they had told their clients their methods can work of them. . .for a price.
Claiming superior minds is the biggest fraud, since neither of them barely manage anything but barely mediocre intellects. They sell their “winning” methods to the desperate and gullible, this constitutes lying at the very least as their methods DON’T work, and fraud since they are selling something that they claim works and has worked for them that doesn’t
Now, k1w1, if your general point is that these two are hopeless liars, I don't think you are going to get any argument here.

But if you are trying to say these two conmen are self-proclaimed everymen expressing mere opinions then my suggestion is that you pause and wait for the laugh track. . .
.Which is coming.

[k1w1]

...there are a few recognized legal scholars who are not lawyers.

Yeah, that's right, anyone can call themselves a legal scholar or a legal expert and have an opinion on legal matters -- and their opinions can be wrong, too. And they can even claim to know more about law than any judge who ever lived. That's freedom of expression for ya, eh.

But not everyone can call themselves a lawyer or an accountant; not everyone is qualified to give legal advice to the public. You do know what lawyers and accountant do, right?

Again, these OPCA gurus do not profess or even pretend to be lawyers or accountants who are qualified to give legal advice. So Hyrion wouldn't even have to check or double check their formal qualifications because they don't have any, and if asked they'll say they don't have any formal qualification. In fact, OPCA gurus usually say to avoid lawyers, so how can you think they are one?

Arthur, of course it's perfectly alright for you to believe these OPCA litigants are victims. But Justice Rooke doesn't agree with you, nor any court. Apparently there have been some litigants who have tried to claim they were victims of an OPCA guru, but the courts always shoot them down. Rooke says no court has ever found these characters to have been acting in good faith -- he used the case of Sydel as an example.

I tend to believe Rooke, who says they aren't victims, over someone like ayrader who tries to claim they are victims. Rooke is a judge, a recognised legal professional, whereas arayder just makes up legal definitions to suit his argument... like a Freeman.

(Hey arayder, you got an authoritive reference yet to what you claim is the "very" definition of fraud? If it's the very definition then it shouldn't be very hard to find one. Ah, don't worry about it; I know you just made it up.)

Anyway, Arthur, are you familiar with the case of Xabre from WFS? There's a thread here about his legal antics. He's one of these so-called OPCA litigants, tried to rip off a vehicle finance company, ended up summoned to court... He's an example of someone who you would consider is a victim of this alleged fraud, if indeed it is fraud.

So, who do you say Xabre is a victim of? Who committed the fraud?