Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Border Reiver]

It is not us who when reading the words 'consent of the governed' claim it does not mean 'consent of the governed'. It is the people here who try to claim that it means 'consent of the people'. It is not us who claim 'equality' does not mean 'equality'. It is the people here who claim 'equality does not mean what you think it means'.
It is not us who label actual law as 'your rules', though it is you who claim your rules are the actual law.
It is not us who stretches the definition of society so that people are deemed to be members not due to their consent as the definition demands, but due only to their existence within a specific geographical area.
It is not us who constantly redefines words in Acts and statutes so they have no resemblance to the English language.
It is not us who claim that because something is happening, it must be ok, and the people doing it must have the lawful right to do it, for no other reason than they are.

Let's try this using standard definitions (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th edition, 1995 will be my source unless otherwise specified)

consent - v: express willingness; give permission; agree
n. voluntary agreement; permission; compliance

governed - subject to authority, policy or law

Consent of the governed would then be either: "The voluntary agreement to be subject to authority, policy or law." "the permission to be subject to authority, policy or law," or "the compliance with subject to authority, policy or law."

Law - 1. a. a rule enacted or customary in a community and recognized as enjoining or prohibiting certain actions and enforced by the imposition of penalties; b. a body of such rules; 2. the controlling influence of laws; a state of respect for laws; 3. laws collectively as a social system for or subject of study; 4. (with a defining word) any of the specific branches or applications of law (ex. tort law); 5. binding force or effect; 6. the legal profession; 7. the statute and common law; 8. jurisprudence; etc.

society - 1. the sum of human conditions and activity regarded as a whole functioning interdenpently; 2. a social community; 3. a. A social mode of life, b. the customs and organization of an ordered community; etc.

jurisdiction - n. 1. the administration of justice; 2. a. A legal or other authority; b. the extent of this; the territory it extends over.

I don't see consent as being part of the definition of "society." Essentially, if you live with other humans, sovereign citizens, persons, etc. you're part of society. So I guess if you are living as part of society, you've consented to society's rules, in their entirety.

Consent isn't necessary for jurisdiction (see definition 2.b.) Live in Canada - you're subject to Cdn law. Consent isn't required for the law to apply, there just needs to be a rule with a penalty for non-compliance.

How many people have driver's licenses and never read the Act under which they applied BEFORE submitting an application? And how many of them can find the Section of the Act which clearly, specifically and unequivocally removed the rights which clearly existed prior to that Act being deemed 'law' by them?

And what rights would those be? You still have the mobility rights guaranteed by s.6 of the Constitution Act 1982. The requirement to comply with the law and regulations regarding the licensing of vehicles and drivers are "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." (s.1 Constituition Act 1982)

You can look at the whole Act at Canlii (links once I hit 15 posts).

As for people being concerned about my income and if I report it to CRA: Why would I do that if I do not even have an account with them, and who is willing to claim I have a duty or obligation to have a SIN and thus an account with them?

You people claim to demand 'evidence' and 'proof', but that which you point to in order to support your continued allegations of criminal wrong doing on my part, well that does not qualify as evidence at all does it? But you accept it without question. You require no evidence to justify your hatred and anger and vilification, yet demand it in order to believe in equality and freedom.

See a problem with that?[/QUOTE]

No, actually I don't - you've made an allegation, it's up to you to prove it. Otherwise all you have done is state a philosophical position, vice how things work in the real world. The proof we demand is that your claims that by appealing to a particular legal argument that you are absolved of your legal responsibilities. Given that every time these arguments have been presented in Canadian courts they have failed (go to any database of legal judgments, type in the appropriate phrase or search term and tell me if any of them have been successful), I would think that the burden of proof would lie with yourself.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Provide some evidence Mr Menard

Evidence that none of you will answer simple questions, or evidence that the people in government have the right to govern us without our consent? STILL WAITING ON THAT FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOLKS! They can't seem to find any evidence that they have the right to be my representative without my consent, or that they can claim to be my government if they are not my rep, or that I am obliged to be a 'child of the province' or 'ward of the state'.

Kinda telling eh?

 

[D'rok]

Are you paying taxes as all other Canadian are suspose to do?

Nope. Tax evader

You are avoiding them by avoiding them - they'll be catching up with you soon I'm sure......LOL

Don't you sell magic words and documents to make the CRA go away?

Actually, in all likelihood he simply doesn't make enough money. If a Canadian makes less than the personal income cutoff, he doesn't owe taxes and doesn't even have to file.

 

[Hans]

Evidence that none of you will answer simple questions, or evidence that the people in government have the right to govern us without our consent? STILL WAITING ON THAT FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOLKS! They can't seem to find any evidence that they have the right to be my representative without my consent, or that they can claim to be my government if they are not my rep, or that I am obliged to be a 'child of the province' or 'ward of the state'.

Kinda telling eh?

Yep that you are a liar and a conman - if after all these years you cannot show evidence that your made up system works - why should we waste our time going over and over your personal delusions?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Are you paying taxes as all other Canadian are suspose to do?

Nope. Tax evader

You are avoiding them by avoiding them - they'll be catching up with you soon I'm sure......LOL

Don't you sell magic words and documents to make the CRA go away?

SUPPOSED TO? So are you an expert on the Income Tax Act? HAVE YOU EVEN EVER READ IT?
Show me where in it, I have an obligation to have a SIN, or that I have an account with CRA if I do not have one.

CAN"T DO IT CAN YOU?

Sure must be nice to be so sure of everything with so little evidence. Remember how you like evidence so much? Show me evidence that I am obliged to have a SIN. And I am not talking about your social conditioning or unsupported beliefs. Actual evidence. You have none, do you?

Just answer me this: Have you ever read the ITA and if not, how can you claim we are 'supposed to' pay income tax?

(let me guess: Everybody knows! So just do it and don't asdk questions, right?)

 

[Hans]

Actually, in all likelihood he simply doesn't make enough money. If a Canadian makes less than the personal income cutoff, he doesn't owe taxes and doesn't even have to file.

That is probably the most likely answer but I do like how he lies about it and tries to make it look like he "taking on the ebil government" <snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0.

 

[D'rok]

Evidence that none of you will answer simple questions, or evidence that the people in government have the right to govern us without our consent? STILL WAITING ON THAT FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOLKS! They can't seem to find any evidence that they have the right to be my representative without my consent, or that they can claim to be my government if they are not my rep, or that I am obliged to be a 'child of the province' or 'ward of the state'.

Kinda telling eh?

What's telling is that you have been comprehensively answered in this very thread just a few days ago. Now you are shamelessly lying about that easily verifiable fact.

You have ignored all my previous posts (despite the fact I am one of the few answering your questions and not interested in insults) and likely will ignore this one as well.

Here are some court rulings where a person used your argument (that the government has no right to govern without their individual consent) and failed. Since you have asked so many times I assume you are unfamiliar with these rulings so I will link to hte case and post the relevant passages:


R. v. Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2007/2007abca45/2007abca45.html

[6] The applicant submits that the jurisdiction of the Court or the applicability of statutes such as the Traffic Safety Act is based on individual consent, and that consequently the courts below lacked the ability to hear this matter or convict him. In my view, those arguments are without merit and fail to raise a question of law of public importance.

This decision alone owuld certainly give reason to conclude that individual consent to be governed by statutes is not required in Canada according to the de facto courts. This is sufficient and convincing, but there are lots of other cases where people have succesfully been "governed" by statute law through the courts without their consent:



Kanwar v. Kanwar, 2010 BCCA 407 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2010/2010bcca407/2010bcca407.html

[33] Mr. Kanwar argued that the matter is one of settled law in India, and without his written consent to being governed by Canadian law; the parties remain governed by Hindu law and the issues raised by Ms. Sukhija can only be resolved under the provisions of the laws of India. Ms. Sukhija argued that there are no such legal restrictions.

...

[43] Although both parties and the child were born in India, all applied for and received landed immigrant status in Canada, and as such, are subject to Canadian law.

R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca767/2008onca767.html

[20] More important, the essence of his argument is that ‘the Act does not apply to me because I choose to have it not apply to me’. Contrary to what Mr. Christie says, this is a jurisdictional argument (and one which is void of merit) that leads to a mistake of law which does not afford a defence. This court has already said in Klundert No. 1 – this kind of mistake of law is irrelevant to the fault requirement of the charge of tax evasion.

If you are still interested I will post links to other such cases:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii9368/2009canlii9368.html

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2000/2000bcsc190/2000bcsc190.html

I don't want to go too far with this at this point, because you may not respond at all, and if you do there is already enough to respond to in the first case posted.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Yep that you are a liar and a conman - if after all these years you cannot show evidence that your made up system works - why should we waste our time going over and over your personal delusions?

This post is contrary to the forum rules you agreed to.
Post reported.

 

[Stacey Grove]

This is getting silly now.
We keep on asking Menard for evidence when in reality we know (and he knows) he hasn't got any and he never will have any.
He is a one trick pony.
He waffles. That's all there is to it.

 

[Hans]

SUPPOSED TO? So are you an expert on the Income Tax Act? HAVE YOU EVEN EVER READ IT?
Show me where in it, I have an obligation to have a SIN, or that I have an account with CRA if I do not have one.

CAN"T DO IT CAN YOU?

Sure must be nice to be so sure of everything with so little evidence. Remember how you like evidence so much? Show me evidence that I am obliged to have a SIN. And I am not talking about your social conditioning or unsupported beliefs. Actual evidence. You have none, do you?

Just answer me this: Have you ever read the ITA and if not, how can you claim we are 'supposed to' pay income tax?

(let me guess: Everybody knows! So just do it and don't asdk questions, right?)

Nope I'm American.....laughs on you conman, LOL

and still a demonstrated liar and conman

 

[Border Reiver]

Of course they know about me. There is no agreement, except that the SIN is the account number, and no one is obliged ot have a SIN, and those who do not have no obligation to CRA, as they do not have an account.

See the SIN is the evidence of the agreement, the lack of SIN is evidence of the lack of agreement.

No agreement (or consent) no obligation.

Simples.

This is the relevant quote from the Income Tax Act

. (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.

Taxable income

(2) The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer’s income for the year plus the additions and minus the deductions permitted by Division C.

Tax payable by non-resident persons

(3) Where a person who is not taxable under subsection 2(1) for a taxation year

(a) was employed in Canada,

(b) carried on a business in Canada, or

(c) disposed of a taxable Canadian property,

at any time in the year or a previous year, an income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the person’s taxable income earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D.

Not seeing anything there about the requirement for a SIN for you to have to pay tax - or that whole consent business.

 

[FreemanMenard]

That is probably the most likely answer but I do like how he lies about it and tries to make it look like he "taking on the ebil government" - whata tool!

Reporting this one too!
At least try to stick with the rules of the forum eh?

 

[Hans]

This is getting silly now.
We keep on asking Menard for evidence when in reality we know (and he knows) he hasn't got any and he never will have any.
He is a one trick pony.
He waffles. That's all there is to it.

That's pretty much all he got - but he'll just keep trying

 

[Hans]

Reporting this one too!
At least try to stick with the rules of the forum eh?

Got any evidence from your last made up lie from above?

What no evidence, eh?

 

[FreemanMenard]

This is getting silly now.
We keep on asking Menard for evidence when in reality we know (and he knows) he hasn't got any and he never will have any.
He is a one trick pony.
He waffles. That's all there is to it.

I have plenty of evidence and have presented it many times. You however refuse to accept it, and then demand 'proof' usually in the form of some other person expressing an opinion on its validity, and refuse to use logic, reason or law.

Speaking of no evidence, know who has NONE? The people in the government AND YOU! None to show that you can personally govern me without my consent and not break the law. And know who else has none? Your representatives.

Well this has been fun! I have to go now, and prepare for my meeting later with a man who agrees with me. And oh, he is a judge.

 

[FreemanMenard]

This is the relevant quote from the Income Tax Act

. (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.

Taxable income

(2) The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer’s income for the year plus the additions and minus the deductions permitted by Division C.

Tax payable by non-resident persons

(3) Where a person who is not taxable under subsection 2(1) for a taxation year

(a) was employed in Canada,

(b) carried on a business in Canada, or

(c) disposed of a taxable Canadian property,

at any time in the year or a previous year, an income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the person’s taxable income earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D.

Not seeing anything there about the requirement for a SIN for you to have to pay tax - or that whole consent business.

The requirement is based upon someone having an account with CRA. If they do not have one, they are not required by the Act. Those without a SIN, have no account, and thus are not 'required by this Act'.

 

[Stacey Grove]

I have plenty of evidence and have presented it many times.

No, you have presented your word games.
Word games that (I don't know how to break it to you) you are not very good at.

You however refuse to accept it,

Correct.
Your word games are not proof.
They are rubbish.

and then demand 'proof' usually in the form of some other person expressing an opinion on its validity, and refuse to use logic, reason or law.

LOL
And yet if one of those people you have just described judged in favour of a FOTLer you would be proclaiming it from the rooftops.

 

[Hans]

Menards kinda like a guy who believes in perpetual motion machines, they want to talk about the theory all the time but can never come up with a machine that works

 

[Stacey Grove]

I have to go now, and prepare for my meeting later with a man who agrees with me. And oh, he is a judge.

Name him.

 

[JLord]

The challenge was to do so LAWFULLY. Claiming that because you can beat someone up without their consent means you have a right to lawfully do so is similar to what you described.

And claiming that someone can't beat you up because there is no way for them to lawfully do so is similar to what you are claiming. However if I am able to beat you up because I have immensely more power than you, the police won't stop it and in fact go along with it, the courts won't stop it, and there is nothing you can do to stop me, it would be dishonest for someone to go around saying "he can't beat you up if you do XYZ..." You can talk aobut how unjust it is, but it is simply false to say I can't do it when in fact you know that I can and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

It may be a philosophical challenge to ponder how I can "LAWFULLY" govern you, but the practical question that people seeking legal advice want to know is "what CAN they do to me under their rules." Not "what can they do to me under Rob Menard's sense of justice." I don't mind debating the philosphical reasons behind various laws, but that is a seperate issue from someone like yourself who is claiming that using THEIR rules, there is a way out that THEY will accept.