Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
Allow me to digress for a moment.
One of the main things people have a problem with in relation to me and my actions is expressed on another site, frequented by many here.



This raises a question.
I am frequently lambasted for 'selling false information'.
By people who never paid for it.
So if you are competent to comment on the information I present, you must have that information.
But if I am selling it, and you did not buy it, then you do not have it to begin with.
But if you have it, and did not buy it, you can't claim I am selling it.
The fact that you feel you can comment on the validity of the information and you did not pay for it, is pretty much evidence that it is available without payment and that I am not selling it.

The fact is, if I was guilty of what you claim, that I am selling false information, the only people who would be qualified to comment on its validity are those who bought it.

Imagine a theatre show. How can you critique the show if you never saw it?

Those who speak of this information, and dislike it, have received it without paying. So how do they claim I sell it, if they got it without paying for it? Disagree with it all you want, but if you do so, and bitch about me selling it, then you either bought it, or you have no right to claim that I am a bad guy for selling it. You can't claim to have the information, and that I sell it, if you did not buy it. Has to be one or the other.

You either have the information and can comment on it, or do not have it and cannot comment on it.
If you have it and did not pay for it, you cannot also claim that I am a bad guy for selling it, as you got it without buying it.
Click to expand...

Usually i hate replying to one line in a post, but seriously rob has hit new wacky levels with this one phrase.

"But if you have it, and did not buy it, you can't claim I am selling it."

Rob, don't know if you know this, but we live in an age where anyone can get pretty much any information they want sans fee, even if one is selling this information at a fee. We don't need to buy your dvd's that you are selling, we don't need to attend the lectures you charge for, it is easy as hell to find these in many different ways. We have it, your selling it, point destroyed.

This honestly just seems like your scraping the bottom of the barrel in the extreme here to try and find some kind of bon mot that will get you out of looking like you got caught with your pants down.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I have a normal job. I do masonry by way of lawful two party contracts. It is not paid 'under the table' at al as I do not try to hide my actions. .
Click to expand...

Yes that is exactly what "paid under the table" AKA "cash in hand" means. Do you, as part of being honest in your contracts as a freeman, notify your customers that they may be prosecuted for collusion in tax evasion?
 
Just noticed this on WFS
Apparently the CBC is looking at Canada's Freemen tonight on The National. They are labeling us as right wing extremist, anti-government and anti-taxes. I guess in this day and age, being for freedom, and against corruption and deceit means we are 'anti-government', and being willing to question those who claim power makes us 'extremists'.
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/

Can someone record it and post it on youtube?
Click to expand...
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=12828

Menards treachery knows no bounds, he hasn't got the bottle to record a programme and put it online himself.
 
JLord said:
I should have specified that the restriction is on being employed by an employer at a normal job. Like deadbeat parents, you can be self employed and make money as a contractor.



Under the table normally means you are paid in a way that is not reported to CRA. So if you are paid in cash and don't report any income I think most people would consider this working under the table. That's what I meant anyways and this is what people have to do to avoid a big tax bill or child support or whatever.



No, they didn't try to come after you. And even if they did they would not fail because you've decided not to have a SIN. We know this because of all the cases where people are convicted of tax evasion and the issue of them having a SIN is not raised. If this were a requirement for people to have to pay taxes in the first place then it would have to be proven in every case that the person had a SIN. It would be an essential element of the charge.
Click to expand...

Um, EVERY case I have seen with CRA, they did establish that the person had a SIN. EVERYTIME. They did not advertise it though, just slipped it through. But it was a part of the evidence submitted by the CRA.
 
BritPunk said:
Yes that is exactly what "paid under the table" AKA "cash in hand" means. Do you, as part of being honest in your contracts as a freeman, notify your customers that they may be prosecuted for collusion in tax evasion?
Click to expand...

Um, tax avoidance is not the same as tax evasion. I avoid taxes, not evade them. Thanks for playing. :D
 
And oh before I forget, CBC did a hit piece on the Freeman Movement titled 'Finding the Freemen' and I posted it on Youtube, along with my response to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54CWPYJK4qI&list=UUJ9WymQvwv2Lt2nHcXA4tsw&index=1&feature=plcp

Notice how at the end of the video, Adrienne Arsenault speaks about cops knowing that I am not a violent guy. What you should also notice is she did not mention the Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers at all, even though I did during our interview. I invited her to ask police officers if they wished to claim I was not a peace officer just like them. But she did not mention it at all! Funny that eh? I mean if she wanted to claim that I was a threat, and establishing a violent militia, that would have been a perfect opportunity, instead she completely ignored it, and chose to not even speak of it.

Pretty sure in her research she found evidence that the police recognize that we (3CPO) are in fact true Peace Officers. And that explains why so many police know I do not pose a risk of violence.

None of you can argue the fact she did not mention it, and doing so, (if we were not in fact peace officers,) would have been a perfect opportunity to paint us as a HUGE threat. But she didn't....

Enjoy!
 
FreemanMenard said:
Um, tax avoidance is not the same as tax evasion. I avoid taxes, not evade them. Thanks for playing. :D
Click to expand...

If you earn more than the statutory minimum ($10,800, I think someone else said, either on this thread or another) and do not file a return, then you are evading taxes, which is illegal whether or not you have a SIN. If you carefully ensure that you earn less income than that, then you are avoiding taxes legally, whether or not you have a SIN.
 
Jon. said:
If you earn more than the statutory minimum ($10,800, I think someone else said, either on this thread or another) and do not file a return, then you are evading taxes, which is illegal whether or not you have a SIN. If you carefully ensure that you earn less income than that, then you are avoiding taxes legally, whether or not you have a SIN.
Click to expand...

Well, I earn a lot more than that, and avoid the obligation to pay. Because I do not have a SIN, and operate under private contract. But thank you for your opinion.
 
Well, I earn a lot more than that, and avoid the obligation to pay.
Click to expand...
Yes we know, you work cash in hand and dont declare it, it happens quite a lot you know.
Rob, did Al Capone have a SIN?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Notice how at the end of the video, Adrienne Arsenault speaks about cops knowing that I am not a violent guy. What you should also notice is she did not mention the Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers at all, even though I did during our interview. I invited her to ask police officers if they wished to claim I was not a peace officer just like them. But she did not mention it at all! Funny that eh? I mean if she wanted to claim that I was a threat, and establishing a violent militia, that would have been a perfect opportunity, instead she completely ignored it, and chose to not even speak of it.

Pretty sure in her research she found evidence that the police recognize that we (3CPO) are in fact true Peace Officers. And that explains why so many police know I do not pose a risk of violence.

None of you can argue the fact she did not mention it, and doing so, (if we were not in fact peace officers,) would have been a perfect opportunity to paint us as a HUGE threat. But she didn't....

Enjoy!
Click to expand...

This is your new argument, Menard? "She didn't mention this one thing, therefore she must accept it as correct"? Get real. Jesus, it's like you assume that everyone must be at least as stupid as you are.

Wait a minute...maybe I'm onto something here.
 
Let's revisit for the umpteenth time what the Supreme Court says about who gets to be a true Peace Officer:
R v. Nolan said:
[19] On the level of principle, it is important to remember that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code is not designed to create a police force. It simply provides that certain persons who derive their authority from other sources will be treated as "peace officers" as well, enabling them to enforce the Criminal Code within the scope of their pre‑existing authority, and to benefit from certain protections granted only to "peace officers". Any broader reading of s. 2 could lead to considerable constitutional difficulties. Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that the administration of justice falls within provincial legislative competence. See Di Iorio v. Warden of the Montreal Jail, 1976 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152, and Attorney General of Quebec and Keable v. Attorney General of Canada, 1978 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218. Although the ability of the federal Parliament to create a national police force has never been challenged and any such exercise of authority is presumptively valid, to treat s. 2 of the Criminal Code as a broad grant of authority to thousands of persons to act as "peace officers" in any circumstances could well prompt a constitutional challenge. In the context of division of powers, legislation should be interpreted, when possible, so that it is not ultra vires. The assessment of legislation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, of course, subject to different considerations. See Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110.

[20] I would therefore conclude that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code serves only to grant additional powers to enforce the criminal law to persons who must otherwise operate within the limits of their statutory or common law sources of authority.R. v. Nolan, [1987] 1 SCR 1212
Click to expand...

What is your pre-existing authority Menard?
 
Last edited:
Border Reiver said:
Avoid / Evade

6 of one / Half dozen of the other

That version of word games won't impress or convince the CRA inspector.
Click to expand...

Um, the courts, (you know those things you guys bow to unquestioningly) distinguish between evading and avoiding. Again, thanks for playing! :D
 
D'rok said:
Let's revisit for the umpteenth time what the Supreme Court says about who gets to be a true Peace Officer:


What is your pre-existing authority Menard?
Click to expand...

My, my. They even use the word "person," so we know that they're excluding those who don't answer to statutes.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Um, the courts, (you know those things you guys bow to unquestioningly) distinguish between evading and avoiding. Again, thanks for playing! :D
Click to expand...
After reading and seeing your "work" I find it hard to believe you make more than the minimum required for filing. If you make more, You wouldn't mind declaring how much so your claims could be verified, right?
 
Bishop said:
This is your new argument, Menard? "She didn't mention this one thing, therefore she must accept it as correct"? Get real. Jesus, it's like you assume that everyone must be at least as stupid as you are.

Wait a minute...maybe I'm onto something here.
Click to expand...

Wow... that is not my argument at all.... I said nothing along those lines, I merely pointed out she did not mention it, was aware of it, and since it is clear her intent, she must have had a reason for not mentioning it. I did not state her reason was an acceptance. Did not even think that.

She did not mention it and there is a reason she did not mention it. That can't be argued.

Now you try to claim I stated the reason is SHE ACCEPTED it. Thanks for playing. Take up macramé. You suck at logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom