Menard's new tall tale

Bobby has a new story. As always, this serial liar does not reveal where this supposed incident happened, what jurisdiction he's writing to, who his lady friend was, what motel he was walking to.. . or any other details one might use to check out his tall tale.

My suspicion is that the story is Bobby's sad attempt to gain relevancy so as to bolster a revival of his failed freeman career. And let me guess. . .in the end Bobby will claim his brilliance befuddled the authorities.

I content that Bobby is, after 20 years of outright lies, doing the only thing his MooseHead soaked arse knows to do . . . promote the sale of his "letters to the authorities" and his phony legal advice service by pretending he makes his woo work.

He is a liar and a fraud.

Quote:

NOTICE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 61 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT Monday, May 17, 2021 Hello and good day. I am Robert Arthur Menard, a Freeman-on-the-Land. On Friday May 14, 2021 I was with a friend and we were exercising our common-law right to travel by walking down the side of a road on the sidewalk. A police car stopped beside us and the driver activated the emergency lights. There was no emergency at the time. The officer driving informed us that we were breaching a curfew. Two officers, whom I am assuming were a man and a woman, exited their vehicle and demanded we identify ourselves. As I am a Freeman-on-the-Land I do not have any identification issued by any lawful government, and so I provided him under duress with my name and what I believe is my date of birth. My companion provided identification information in the form of a passport. They went back to their car and returned several minutes later and imposed upon us without our consent two ‘tickets’ apparently for merely walking down the street. All we were doing was exercising our common law right to do so. I would like to point out that we were less than 50 meters from our temporary residence (a motel) and that those officers enjoy discretion and could have acted with restraint and compassion, however they chose to unlawfully issue a ticket instead. I say unlawfully because for one we have the right to peacefully walk down the street, but also because when I asked if the thing he was imposing on me was a security interest, he had no idea whether it was or not. If it is a security interest, and he did not know it was one, he is grossly negligent in creating them, and such gross negligence constitutes fraud. For the record and for the edification of the public and your officers, a security interest is any written instrument which creates an obligation to pay or perform. Once that was explained to him, he agreed that it was a security interest. He then explained that I could either pay it, or within 30 days register a desire to contest it in court. The instrument he imposed upon me under duress consisted of two parts, one being a remittance, which is a specie of money once completed. These were the only two options he explained. I believe that by failing to explain what remedies exist under the Consumer Protection Act, he committed further acts of fraud by omission. It does not matter that the omission was due to his ignorance, stupidity or arrogance. It gives rise to the ability to exercise rights as found under the Consumer Protection Act to negate the obligations to pay or perform created with that security interest. It is my understanding that the Consumer Protection Act is applicable to the Government and Government departments and agencies. See Section 4. It is my understanding that said Act is applicable to any contract entered into in the geographical area of Quebec. See Section 1. It is my understanding that the instrument imposed upon me without my consent is a security interest as it creates or purports to create an obligation to pay or perform. This is a function of law and is implied by the Act. It is my understanding that security interests can only be created by way of a lawful contract as a functional law. It is my understanding that contracts can be voided as a function of law due to fraud, misrepresentation, or gross negligence. It is my understanding that the officers who imposed those instruments were grossly negligent as they did not know they were generating a security interest, and they failed to inform us of our remedy under the Consumer Protection Act. It is my understanding that the Government of Quebec is an itinerant merchant, a corporate entity providing governmental type services. See Section 55. It is my understanding that as a consumer I may cancel any contract entered into with an itinerant merchant at my sole discretion within 10 days of being in possession of a duplicate of the instrument. See Section 59. It is my understanding that I can avail myself of the right of cancellation by a notice in writing for that purpose to the itinerant merchant or his representative. See Section 61. It is my understanding that within 15 days of the cancellation, the parties must restore what they have received from one another, and that the itinerant merchant shall assume the costs of the restitution. See Section 63. Therefore with this Notice I am availing myself of my right of cancellation, and returning the remittance which was imposed upon me. I am further demanding the sum of $250 as the cost of restitution incurred by myself. Furthermore I am taking this opportunity to inform you that I do not consent to any future transactions of any security interests and that any attempt to impose further security interests upon me will constitute willful fraud and justify civil actions. Furthermore if in the future any of your agents attempt to initiate violence or threaten to do so in order to create any security interests, that will constitute an unlawful assault. Finally I am claiming that the curfew being imposed by the Government is unlawful as it does not meet the standards required by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms required to impose limits on my common-law right to travel. Please take the appropriate steps to educate your agents concerning how tickets of this sort are security interests, and ensure they understand they have a duty to inform consumers of their rights and remedies found under the Consumer Protection Act. Also, I would strongly suggest that you never promote the officer I dealt with, as he demonstrated a glaring lack of compassion, and an inability to wisely exercise discretion. Personally I do not think anyone so grossly incompetent and negligent should be walking around with a gun let alone imposing themselves on people after dark. I would not trust him to issue parking tickets. Finally I am going to take lawful yet extraordinary steps to ensure that as many Quebecers as possible understand their rights under the Consumer Protection Act when dealing with tickets of this sort. You can thank the issuing officer for this, for if he had exercised his discretion and acted with even an ounce of compassion, instead of trying to impress his female partner, all of this would have been avoided. Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, AND WITH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Robert Arthur Menard Freeman-on-the-Land.

-------------------------
Dope Clock: It has been 84 days since Robert Menard promised the "launch" of his latest project.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2Rxu9vj