Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

Yes they can Rob, Im sure there is a number associated with the court ruling prohibiting you from giving legal advice.

I'm sure your prisoner number will be given to you against your consent at some point as well.
 
Dont worry arayder, he will still be reading all your posts.
Send him a PM if it goes through then he doesnt have you on ignore.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Welcome to the iggy bin. You were warned. No more intercourse for you.
Click to expand...

FreemanMenard said:
This message is hidden because arayder is on your ignore list.
Click to expand...
Stick your fingers in your ears all you want. Arayder is precisely correct. You spout off about equality and the rule of law whenever you don't get your own way. It is clear that you simply want to make your own rules, which, by definition, is contrary to the rule of law. And without the rule of law, equality is, for all practical purposes, impossible. Without the rule of law, only the tyrant is free. We don't like tyrants; therefore, we reject your rejection of the rule of law.
 
All of this is far more attention than your muddled political philosophy deserves. Instead, why aren't you explaining why Keith (Canadian Freeman in Court - WINS BIG) Thompson is languishing in jail?
 
Last edited:
And without the rule of law, equality is, for all practical purposes, impossible.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and this is what I mean by my signature.
If Rob can claim to withdraw consent to the law then by the rule of law we can reject his withdrawal of consent.

Its so simple Im sure even Rob can see it.

He may spout off about sex and rape now.:rolleyes:
 
arayder said:
So Robert, when you tracked down the guy stole your computer, believing as you do, what made you think you had the right to insist that you have intercourse with him?
Click to expand...

Robert, you said, “I also had a chat with the thief who owned up to it, and he agreed to do 10 hours of community service with Salvation Army in lieu of other punishment. [The] Homeowner. . .agreed to not mete out punishment if the thief did this community service. . . .the guy who returned it and the homeowner . . . are far tougher than you [arayder] will ever be.”

So you confronted the thief and under the quite obvious threat of being turned into the cops you, the homeowner and the guy who returned the computer, using your "toughness" coerced the thief into doing community service.

According to your belief system you nor the home owner had any right to forcibly have intercourse with the thief!
 
Last edited:
According to your belief system you nor the home owner had any right to forcibly have intercourse with the thief!
Click to expand...
But the man broke Robs rules, and its Robs rules that matter to Rob.

Im going to spend a bit of time going back over this thread and compile a list of all Robs contradictions.

Will post it later tomorrow.
 
It went through.

I quess he'll say he just hasn't gotten around to it yet. . . .
Click to expand...

Yep, so did mine, and he claims to have had me on ignore for months.

His ego wont allow him to miss something.
The fact you are on his ignore list means that you have gotten to him, I stopped playing his game a while ago and he blanks me now.

JUST KEEP POSTING MATE, HE READS THEM ALL DONT WORRY
 
You should have refused to consent to his warning and asked him if it was an order, you could have then given him a bill , hang on though, wouldn't he have to consent to that bill for you to be able to collect on it??

MENARDIAN MANIA

PS I take it you didnt consent to going in his pretend iggy bin?

Isnt that a man governing another without his consent Rob?
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Two years ago JB said he was reporting me to the CRA and my days were numbered.
Click to expand...

What JB did or didn't do two years ago is neither here nor there. Comparing the profile you attract on a forum such as this vs what would inevitably be attracted as a result of a feature item on the national (government-owned, I might add) broadcaster is a bit of a non-starter.
Perhaps you're intentionally putting the CRA's crosshairs on yourself because you fancy yourself a Gandhi or a Mandela. Dunno, don't care; it's ill-conceived in any case.

You make all sorts of claims and challenge all and sundry to disprove them. That's not how real intercourse works. You provide the independently verifiable proof of your claims. You can claim that you talked to someone named "Allan Tocher (?)". There may be someone of that name working for CRA; there might not. It's your assertion and yours to prove factual. It also falls to you to provide the proof that he said what you claimed, not for anyone else to go digging for some passing reference in a post that might or might not support your assertion.

FreemanMenard said:
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?
Click to expand...

You claim. Another bare assertion supported by nothing of substance.

FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...

You had one as a member of the CF (assuming you actually were a member of the CF) and if you've lost/disposed of/whatever your SIN card, that doesn't mean that you are without a SIN.

FreemanMenard said:
The right of association means I have the right to NOT associate, especially with a number.
Click to expand...

You just let everyone know when you get into a conversation with a number. I don't think anyone would gainsay you not talking to a number; certainly, I wouldn't. That doesn't remove its association with you, like it or not.
 
What JB did or didn't do two years ago is neither here nor there. Comparing the profile you attract on a forum such as this vs what would inevitably be attracted as a result of a feature item on the national (government-owned, I might add) broadcaster is a bit of a non-starter.
Perhaps you're intentionally putting the CRA's crosshairs on yourself because you fancy yourself a Gandhi or a Mandela. Dunno, don't care; it's ill-conceived in any case.
Click to expand...

Nope, just figured that since I was a vocal advocate of these beliefs, the right thing to do was to not hide, but instead accept the invitation to share and clarify our beliefs. I felt refusing their offer would be cowardly.

You make all sorts of claims and challenge all and sundry to disprove them. That's not how real intercourse works. You provide the independently verifiable proof of your claims. You can claim that you talked to someone named "Allan Tocher (?)". There may be someone of that name working for CRA; there might not. It's your assertion and yours to prove factual. It also falls to you to provide the proof that he said what you claimed, not for anyone else to go digging for some passing reference in a post that might or might not support your assertion.

I know he is no longer working for CRA; he suicided.

As for making claims the people in the government do that all the time, and then I ask them to do exactly what you are asking of me, provide proof of their claim, and guess what? THEY COULD NEVER DO IT! The difference is, I am not making a claim UPON you. I do not seek to govern you. I have no obligation to prove my claims to you, as I demand nothing of you.



You claim. Another bare assertion supported by nothing of substance.
Click to expand...
There are pictures available if you want to see them...


You had one as a member of the CF (assuming you actually were a member of the CF) and if you've lost/disposed of/whatever your SIN card, that doesn't mean that you are without a SIN.
Click to expand...

It is not only the SIN card I do not have, I no longer willingly and voluntarily associate with one in any fashion. What obligation do I have to do so? I claim I do not need to, AFTER others try to claim I must. Clearly the onus is on them to provide proof of their claim. Something the people in HRC and CRA were incapable of doing.

You just let everyone know when you get into a conversation with a number. I don't think anyone would gainsay you not talking to a number; certainly, I wouldn't. That doesn't remove its association with you, like it or not.
Click to expand...
Um, associating yourself with something is not ONLY accomplished by conversing with it nor did I even imply such a thing.

It is incapable of associating, for that requires a conscious choice, and it is not conscious, and incapable of choice.

Like it or not, we actually have the right to choose our associations. Sorry to see you are the type of human being who refuses to accept that level of power over your own life.

Like it or not, I am not associated with a SIN, and neither you nor anyone in the government can force me to do so. :D
 
FreemanMenard said:
Lets be clear here. YOU are arguing for people being forced to have a government issued number. WOW is all I can say....
Click to expand...

Here is the fundamental misunderstanding again. Describing how the de facto law is currently enforced is not an argument for or against any particular law. This is the fundamental disconnect.

For Menard everything is debatable and if you're saying the law requires him to pay tax then you are arguing "for" that particular law. He doesn't want to pay tax so he argues that the law says something else. Non-freemen I believe see the law for what it is and agree that there is a correct answer as to how the de facto law will be enforced.

Only a freeman would think this way in my opinion. They seem to believe that telling someone what the law says is an argument "for" that particular law. Conversely, if you don't agree with a particular law you would tell people that it says what you want it to say and that is an argument "against" the law.
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
FreemanMenard said:
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.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion. Too bad it is contrary to the one held by people in the CRA. See they need an account number to be able to demand payment. Which also happens to be the SIN. Since I do not have a SIN, I do not have an account with them, and therefore no obligation to associate or interact with them in any way.

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.
Click to expand...
Sorry Yankee Boy, there are many here who do, and that number grows daily. And the original extraordinary claim was the one made by folks in the government who claimed they could govern me individually without my individual consent. I am still waiting for them to provide proof of that. Been waiting years....



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

Well then you should have no problem forcing me to pay. Incidentally, what is the account number and is there a SIN associated with it?


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

Not surprised. Your conditioning precludes you from understanding anything that would erode your accepted paradigm. All people are like that, until they break out of their conditioning. Many never find the strength to do so. The point is you cannot point to the terms of a contract I am not party to, and then claim that due to that contract, I am obliged to consent to it. Cart/Horse.


Don't put words in my mouth. Please address the argument I made, rather than the one you wish I'd made.
Click to expand...
Just did. NO CONSENT = NO SIN = NO ACCOUNT = NO OBLIGATION TO PAY.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JLord said:
Here is the fundamental misunderstanding again. Describing how the de facto law is currently enforced is not an argument for or against any particular law. This is the fundamental disconnect.

For Menard everything is debatable and if you're saying the law requires him to pay tax then you are arguing "for" that particular law. He doesn't want to pay tax so he argues against that law. Everyone else sees the law for what it is and like it or not, there is a correct answer as to how the de facto law will be enforced.

Only a freeman would think this way in my opinion. They that telling someone what the law says is an argument "for" that particular law. Conversely, if you don't agree with a particular law you would tell people that it says what you want it to say and that is an argument "against" the law.
Click to expand...

Sorry old beany boy, you fail again. But I see you up to your old tricks of trying to take my argument and dilute it by saying I am arguing about how it should be and not is.

I have no SIN. The law allows me to exist in that manner.
Since I have no SIN, I have no account with CRA.
Since I have no account with them, I have no obligations to them.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that is how it should be. I am saying that is how it is.

The fact that so many here argue that we have to have a SIN, is actually them arguing that is how it should be. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom