Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Paul]

You are the one trying to claim I have to have a SIN, something that even the people who issue them HRC, will not claim.

So you have proof that you no longer have the SIN you used to have?

The extraordinary claim is yours, not mine.

What, the extraordinary claim that as a member of the Canadian military, you had a SIN?

If you were told that every one in a party had to have an invitation, would you claim I have to apply for the invitation because I am also obliged to attend the party?

Yes, if they were the rules of the party. Your language comprehension really seems to be going downhill lately.

Lets be clear here. YOU are arguing for people being forced to have a government issued number. WOW is all I can say....

There goes the failure of comprehension again.

I'm not Canadian, but I'm sure that, as in most other countries, there are many cases of mandatory government issued numbers.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You are the one trying to claim I have to have a SIN, something that even the people who issue them HRC, will not claim.


I didn't say that. The implication of what I wrote is that you're required to pay income tax whether or not you have an SIN.

The extraordinary claim is yours, not mine.

No. Your extraordinary claim is that one can just opt out of statute law and ignore it with no consequences. Virtually no other Canadians believe this.

What evidence do you have that I am obliged to have one? Please do not point to the ITA, as that deals with those who do voluntarily have one.

Again, I didn't say you have to have one. I claim you are required to pay tax whether or not you have one.

If you were told that every one in a party had to have an invitation, would you claim I have to apply for the invitation because I am also obliged to attend the party?

"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

Lets be clear here. YOU are arguing for people being forced to have a government issued number. WOW is all I can say....

Don't put words in my mouth. Please address the argument I made, rather than the one you wish I'd made.

 

[D'rok]

A Social Insurance Number is only required for persons employed in insurable employment (Employment Insurance Act, s. 138(1)). Collecting cash at the door of the Wilfrid Community Hall and hawking DVDs of false legal advice is not insurable employment.

Filing an income tax return requires a SIN. But it isn't necessary to file a return if your income is below the basic personal amount set by CRA. The aforementioned income streams are likely below the basic personal amount.

Of course, providing false legal advice is illegal, but that's another issue.

Also, everyone who has a SIN has their personal information stored in the Social Insurance Register (Employment Insurance Act, ss. 138(2) and 139(1)). There is no mechanism for having oneself removed from this register.

Long story short. Menard's fraudulent FOTL schemes are part of the cash-based, black market economy. He doesn't neeed a SIN to rip people off. However, he has a SIN and cannot un-have it.

Perhaps one day the CRA will get around to auditing him.

 

[D'rok]

Perhaps he's recycling USAian woo?

I don't know. There's tons of cross-pollination in the FOTL world. Here's an example of the same nonsense from the UK:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cancelled_stamps

 

[BritPunk]

Perhaps he's recycling USAian woo?

Yep old wine in new bottles. Made from the fruit of the poisonous Elvickian tree.

 

[jargon buster]

The fact that the law of the Universe means we reap what we sow.

Rob, thats your opinion, it isnt a law.

And that my dear friend is where you have been going wrong from day one.
Your opinions are not laws, they are your opinions.

 

[tsig]

Really? Tell it to a woman you want to have sex with who does not want to have sex with you.
Tell it to someone you wish to contract with who does not wish to contract with you.
Tell it to someone you wish to speak to who does not wish to speak to you.

It is clearly and obviously the case that intercourse, for it to be lawful, requires mutual consent. It is the nature of 'inter course' regardless of what type it is.

Maybe it is you not putting any thought into it.

I await your proof that you can have any type of the aforementioned intercourse without mutual consent without breaking the law.

If the tables were turned you folks would challenge me to go rape a woman and then prove I am not liable for the fact that I did not consent to the requirement for mutual consent. I will of course not extend that challenge, as it is offensive, but will challenge you to go out create a contract with someone else for anything without mutual consent, and then get a court to enforce it, cause you do not consent to the requirement for mutual consent.

Have fun.

Without intercourse?

 

[jargon buster]

Perhaps one day the CRA will get around to auditing him.

Yep, I'm sure the cogs of justice are turning now he has made the mainstream media.
maybe its the law of the Universe

 

[Horatius]

Yep old wine in new bottles.

Which, true to FoTL form, is the exactly wrong way to go about scamming people with wine.

 

[Horatius]

A Social Insurance Number is only required for persons employed in insurable employment (Employment Insurance Act, s. 138(1)). Collecting cash at the door of the Wilfrid Community Hall and hawking DVDs of false legal advice is not insurable employment.

Filing an income tax return requires a SIN. But it isn't necessary to file a return if your income is below the basic personal amount set by CRA. The aforementioned income streams are likely below the basic personal amount.

While this is true, the failure to provide the SIN when required, as quoted in my post, says nothing about the amounts of income generated. So even if you have a part time job where you expect to make less than the basic personal amount set by CRA, that employer is required to ask for a SIN, and you can be fined if you fail to provide it, or apply for one, within the time limit.


Of course this isn't a worry for someone working illegally under the table, but then, that's illegal, isn't it? So, sure, go ahead and call yourself a FoTL, just hope that the taxmen never notice you.

Remember how they got Al Capone?

 

[jargon buster]

If only Al had known about the "No consent theory", he could have been untouchable

 

[fitzgibbon]

Perhaps one day the CRA will get around to auditing him.

Yep, I'm sure the cogs of justice are turning now he has made the mainstream media.
maybe its the law of the Universe

Karma, says I. Compounded by hubris.

Fitz

 

[Mojo]

The fact that the law of the Universe means we reap what we sow.

Nope, the law of the universe is that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Otherwise expressed as "You can't win, you can't even break even, and you can't quit the game".

 

[arayder]

He’s already moved on to his latest rant in which social intercourse is the same as sexual intercourse, meaning being summoned to court is being raped.

I think our boy is going ‘round the bend.

ALL intercourse be it sexual, commercial or social, requires mutual consent, if we are equal.

I think you went around the bend ages ago, and now are (according to you) seeking to destroy some other human being whom you have never met, do not know, and you justify your hate filled heart.

Remove the beam from you own eye before you point out the mote in others.

The problem with your argument, Bobby boy, is that it borrows the precept that we are all equal before the law and by sophistry mutates it into your self-serving claim, which is in effect, that you are the law.

The idea of you as lecturing law giver would be comical were it not for the trail of ruined wannabe freemen left in your wake.

 

[FreemanMenard]

So you have proof that you no longer have the SIN you used to have?


What, the extraordinary claim that as a member of the Canadian military, you had a SIN?


Yes, if they were the rules of the party. Your language comprehension really seems to be going downhill lately.


There goes the failure of comprehension again.

I'm not Canadian, but I'm sure that, as in most other countries, there are many cases of mandatory government issued numbers.

You want me to prove a negative, that I no longer have something? Do you have proof that you no longer have something you threw away five years ago?

Sheesh....

Yes I HAD a SIN, and now no longer do. It is not tattooed on my arm after all.

Who can throw a party and claim that we are obliged to attend and must beg to do so?

Don't you think that if CRA could in fact come at me they would? I have no SIN, thus no account with them therefore no obligations to them, and they know it.

Some of you are so completely conditioned it is unbelievable...

 

[Mojo]

Who can throw a party and claim that we are obliged to attend and must beg to do so?

The sort of person who ends up in charge in the sort of society you aspire to.

 

[arayder]

So Robert, when you tracked down the guy that stole your computer, believing as you do, what made you think you had the right to insist that you have intercourse with him?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Karma, says I. Compounded by hubris.

Fitz

Two years ago JB said he was reporting me to the CRA and my days were numbered.

If they could bring the charges some of you want them to bring, would they not have done so already?

And for the record, they tried many years ago, I was speaking with Allan Tocher (?) an Agent with the CRA, and he agreed that without a SIN I have no account with them, and could not establish I did not have the right to exercise my right to not associate with that number.

As for employment, what about private two party contracts for masonry, which I do a lot of. Why would they not force me to reveal the details of those and then tax me on those earnings?

Simple fact is, I have no SIN, and NO ONE can force me to associate with ANY number if I do not wish to do so.

Either this is a free country and I have a choice as to whether or not I have a government issued employee number, or I do not have that choice and it is not a free country.

The right of association means I have the right to NOT associate, especially with a number.

Sorry folks, why not seek a lawyers advice, and ask if you can be forced to apply for a SIN...

Here is a Maxim of Law concerning benefits such as a SIN and the things you can get with it...
- Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit.
- No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.

I do not consent to the 'benefit' of a SIN...

 

[D'rok]

You want me to prove a negative, that I no longer have something? Do you have proof that you no longer have something you threw away five years ago?

Sheesh....

Yes I HAD a SIN, and now no longer do. It is not tattooed on my arm after all.

You threw away the card. You still have the number. It's in the Social Insurance Register.

Don't you think that if CRA could in fact come at me they would?

No. I think they have more important things to do. I strongly suspect that you don't have enough income to make it worth their while. The CRA is typically not concerned with the fringes of the cash economy. If you were raking it in, that would be another matter. However, your public profile may come back to bite you eventually.

I have no SIN, thus no account with them therefore no obligations to them, and they know it.

You have a SIN. Regardless, I'm sure you can provide evidence for your claim that the CRA knows you are exempt from paying income tax. Right? Surely you wouldn't lie about that, would you?

Some of you are so completely conditioned it is unbelievable...

Reality is fairly convincing. It would take a better con than yours to break its grip on us.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The problem with your argument, Bobby boy, is that it borrows the precept that we are all equal before the law and by sophistry mutates it into your self-serving claim, which is in effect, that you are the law.

The idea of you as lecturing law giver would be comical were it not for the trail of ruined wannabe freemen left in your wake.

Welcome to the iggy bin. You were warned. No more intercourse for you.