Quatloos!

Rob Menard has created a petition on change. org asking for a re-write of the Legal Profession Act.
See: https://www.change.org/p/the-law-societ ... -in-bc-now

Menard neglects telling potential signers that his petition is little more than a self-serving attempt to get himself back in the freeman lawyer business. On his Facebook page Bobby recently hyped his legal advice service and he has at least one "client" in the B.C. The Change.org petition lists Menard as living in Victoria, B.C.

In 2008 B.C. courts banned Rob from acting as a lawyer after he was caught lying to potential clients, among other things. One of Menard’s clients during this time claimed Rob sat drinking in a bar when he was supposed to be in court earning the fees he had been paid.

arayder wrote:One of Menard’s clients during this time claimed Rob sat drinking in a bar when he was supposed to be in court earning the fees he had been paid.

Maybe that was the most ethical thing Menard could have done in the situation; imagine how much worse it could have been if he had shown up in court.

The Observer wrote:

arayder wrote:One of Menard’s clients during this time claimed Rob sat drinking in a bar when he was supposed to be in court earning the fees he had been paid.

Maybe that was the most ethical thing Menard could have done in the situation; imagine how much worse it could have been if he had shown up in court.

During this era of Menard's "career" the courts and the Law Society were closing in on him. He had been caught telling a private investigator, posing as a potential client, that he regularly won in court when the record showed that he had always lost badly. If I recall correctly there was also a matter of his behavior in court. It's possible Bobby realized the net was closing around him and decided to spent the afternoon in the bar rather than before the bar so as not to give the courts and the Law Society more ammo to use against him.

It's possible Rob has worn out his welcome in Quebec and has migrated back to the west coast. Ya' gotta figure the Ninja Goat investors have figured out that their money went the same way as ACCP memberships and interests in freeman valley.

Bobby has recently acted as the "agent" for a "JV" in the Vancouver area who was having building code trouble with a local government over modifications he's made to his house (probably to create a rental property). Agent Bobby fired off a freemen style letter threatening legal action. The town knows about Menard's history and the Law Society knows what Bobby's up to 'cause a little birdie told them.

As of a few weeks ago the B.C. authorities regarded Bobby as a chump they didn't want to bother with. But it's possible that the small town Bobby was jawin' at with got tired of him and decided to bring up the issue of his being banned from play lawyer in B.C.

Hence the petition. . .

I think we should support the petition just to see how much quicksand Menard could get himself into. Of course that means throwing some poor folks seeking his help under the bus too.

Question: In Canada can you become a lawyer by passing the 'bar' exam as in the USA? Or is there another different process there?

The petition is not going to amount to anything. Bobby had 14 signers the last time I checked. Canada isn't going to change the Legal Profession Act based on the opinions of 14 people misguided enough to sign a Menard petition.

Bobby's had a thing about the Law Society ever since they convinced the B.C. courts to order him to stop playing lawyer. He put up a couple of YouTubes criticizing the society and challenged them to a debate. Nothing happened. Nothing ever does in BobbyWorld.

The petition is aimed at scoring points in the freeman subculture. It's the same game as Bobby's old "letters-to-the-authorities". . .wannabe freemen read them and are impressed, but the letters themselves do nothing at all.

In the past Bobby would also send out a letter after he had a run in with a minor authority, like a traffic cop or an airline employee. It's possible the petition is a pathetic push back against some authority figure who has told Bobby he's no lawyer and his letters are going in the circular file. Bobby can't have such a thing since his legal advice business relies on convincing would be clients that a Bobby letter will make the powers that be shake in their boots.

If "JV" or other clients are being told the authorities aren't going to pay Bobby any mind it's a threat to the Bobby mystique.

arayder wrote:The petition is not going to amount to anything. Bobby had 14 signers the last time I checked. Canada isn't going to change the Legal Profession Act based on the opinions of 14 people misguided enough to sign a Menard petition.

If I wanted to write a Proclamation saying that I am King of the United States, I could probably get a couple of hundred signatures... and the Proclamation woud be just as worthless as Bobby's petition.

We demand an immediate amendment of that Section of that Act to express in the positive and without ambiguity or vagueness the parties and persons subject to that Act.
We demand it be done by shifting the adverb ‘not’ to a position that logically expresses the corollary of the existing wording.
We demand it be changed from this:

This Act does not apply to a person who is both a lawyer and a part time judicial justice, as that term is defined in section 1 of the Provincial Court Act, in the person's capacity as a part time judicial justice under that Act.

To this:

This Act does apply to a person who is both a lawyer and not a part time judicial justice, as that term is defined in section 1 of the Provincial Court Act, in the person's capacity as a part time judicial justice under that Act.

Yeah that change doesn't help ambiguity because section 15 says:

Authority to practise law
15 (1) No person, other than a practising lawyer, is permitted to engage in the practice of law, except
...

So that change would make this section unapplicable. Also this part:

(4) A person must not falsely represent himself, herself or any other person as being
(a) a lawyer,
(b) an articled student, a student-at-law or a law clerk, or
(c) a person referred to in subsection (1) (e) or (f).

I thought Mr. Menard wasn't a person so none of this applies anyway, right?

LordEd wrote: . . .doesn't help ambiguity because section 15 says:

Authority to practise law
15 (1) No person, other than a practising lawyer, is permitted to engage in the practice of law, except
...

So that change would make this section unapplicable. Also this part:

(4) A person must not falsely represent himself, herself or any other person as being
(a) a lawyer,
(b) an articled student, a student-at-law or a law clerk, or
(c) a person referred to in subsection (1) (e) or (f).

I thought Mr. Menard wasn't a person so none of this applies anyway, right?

Part of being a freeman guru is pretending you can deconstruct any law and through your brilliance discern what's wrong with it. But, as the analysis of real experts here make clear much of what phony gurus like Menard think they know is just self-deluding bunk.

Ignorance isn't Bobby's only problem. His well documented behavior indicates he didn't have any problem lying to potential clients about his courtroom record and skipping his paying client's court dates. The sad truth is Bobby's wouldn't be subject to the court's scrutiny if he hadn't acted like jerk in court while he lied to and cheated his clients.

My guess is Bobby's on this Law Society rant because somebody in the freeman subculture has caught on to the fact that he can't do diddly squat no matter how much money he's paid. Bobby just wants to change the subject by pretending he's being denied equal justice.

Hanslune wrote:I think we should support the petition just to see how much quicksand Menard could get himself into. Of course that means throwing some poor folks seeking his help under the bus too.

Question: In Canada can you become a lawyer by passing the 'bar' exam as in the USA? Or is there another different process there?

Just back from another of my endless trips. In Canada lawyers are regulate by the provinces. Here in British Columbia you have to get a law degree from a University recognized by the Law Society of British Columbia and then article.

There is a case that has been recently accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada in respect to the arbitrary way the various Provincial Law Societies concludes that an educational institution is acceptable. Trinity University here in British Columbia awards degrees in law. Entirely valid curriculum. But the law Society of British Columbia has refused to allow graduates to practice law because Trinity is a Christian university with strict rules against pre-marital sex and homosexual conduct on the part of its students. So the Law Society has banned Trinity on the basis that is violating human rights. Trinity has won up to the British Columbia Court of Appeal but has lost the exact same issue in other provinces. So the Supreme Court has accepted it to get it all straightened out what the Law Societies can or can't consider when allowing an educational institution to confer valid law degrees.