Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[FreemanMenard]

You are not being asked to prove a negative.

In the past, you had a SIN. Now, you claim, you do not. If your claim is true, then at some point your status has changed from having a SIN to not having a SIN. You are claiming that this specific event has happened. Please provide evidence of it. the Government must have records of who has a SIN, so there would be some sort of documentation if this change had happened.

Should you not then ask the government for those records? From court cases I recall, CRA agents are not obliged to prove someone did not file, all they can do is claim that they searched and did not find one. This is usually evidenced by their affidavit. This would be similar. All they could do is claim they searched and did not find evidence of me having used one in the last few years since I abandoned it, and stopped using it.

Asking someone to prove they do not have something is in fact asking them to prove a negative, for you are asking them to prove the lack of something.

The specific event is not in fact one specific event, but a continuation of not using one.
Just out of curiosity, who here thinks we do not have the right to determine our own association with a SIN and that we are obliged to have one, and contrary wise who thinks we have the right to abandon our SIN?

 

[jargon buster]

Robert Arthur Menard has a SIN

Robert-Arthur:Menard doesnt.

I think thats what hes getting at.

So its simple guys , just add a couple of dots and a dash and you are home free.

PS I wonder what Robs response to a letter from the CRA telling him he was entitled to some back taxes would be?

 

[FreemanMenard]

No, the right of association is simply not what you claim it is. Once again you are playing with words to argue something that is not the case.

Well then wise bean, how about you correct me, and tell me just exactly what the right of association is, if it is not the right to determine our own associations?

Also, in support of my argument, how can it be unlawful to not have a SIN, if we are not obliged to get one in the first place? Or do you claim that once we have one, we are bound and bonded by that choice for life and it is unlawful to abandon it?

So you know, I am honestly just trying to get a grasp on your position.

 

[jargon buster]

Also, in support of my argument, how can it be unlawful to not have a SIN, if we are not obliged to get one in the first place? Or do you claim that once we have one, we are bound and bonded by that choice for life and it is unlawful to abandon it?

Rob, no one said it was unlawful to not have a SIN, what is against the law is earning above the tax threshold and not declaring it.
If I visit Canada am I obliged to get a SIN?
I am probably asking the wrong person in Rob about visiting other countries as hes currently confined to Canada against his consent.

 

[Border Reiver]

I think that was Andre The Giant playing Fezzik who said that, not the future Dread Pirate Roberts, but anyway...

So what does the right of association mean to you then?

The line was spoken by Mandy Patinkin, playing Inigo Montoya - who at the end of the movie is being offered the opportunity to take over the role of "Roberts" from Cary Elwes.

Freedom of association is the right to form social groups with people/persons or not to be compelled to do so.

 

[jargon buster]

Social Insurance Number
The Social Insurance Number (SIN) is a nine-digit number that you need to work in Canada or to have access to government programs and benefits.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/sc/sin/

Rob Wrote

As for employment, what about private two party contracts for masonry, which I do a lot of.
This is my most recent work, still in progress. Will be completed in spring time.
Unlike so many others I have no SIN or obligation to the CRA. I keep all my earnings.
I have a normal job.
Well, I earn a lot more than that
$30-$50 square foot is a close approximation for my masonry work, depending on the job, when I am working with river rock or stone

.

Rob also wrote

As for 'slips of the tongue', how does the judge KNOW that is what it was? Is he not obliged to deal with the words spoken?

Were all the above slips of the tongue Rob?
Its clear you have a job and are working and as such you are obligated to have a SIN.

 

[fitzgibbon]

If you abandon something is it still yours?

Yup.

"Say Jim. That rusted POS car sitting on the street. Do you know whose it is?"

"Yeah, it's Bob Menard's. He just abandoned it."

People used to abandon things in the manner you refer to all the time, Bob; it was called littering.

Until and unless you've legitimately disposed yourself of something, it's still yours. Got proof?

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

Deductive intuition mostly.

During our interview she delved into that aspect considerably, then did not mention it at all in her report, and if I was wrong, it would have been a big boon to her story.

[snip]

Now how about you tell me WHY you think she did not mention it?

Easy peasey. The National's only an hour-long show and the feature-items only in the 15-minute range. From your ramblings, I'm sure there was a material for a wealth of similar items about FMOTL disconnects-from-reality. But past a certain point, it's like flogging a dead horse and I suspect it was for you to appear to remain lucid in the eyes of the casual viewers.

So if anything, not showing that particular branch of your woo was a kindness on her part.

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

I am claiming that I am not associated with a SIN, that must settle it right?

Claim≠Proof.

Proof, please

Fitz

 

[Bosozoku]

Well then wise bean, how about you correct me, and tell me just exactly what the right of association is, if it is not the right to determine our own associations?

The right of association is the right to associate with individuals (i.e. people) of your choice. An SIN is not a person, so the right of association does not apply.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Robert Arthur Menard has a SIN

Robert-Arthur:Menard doesnt.

I think thats what hes getting at.

So its simple guys , just add a couple of dots and a dash and you are home free.

PS I wonder what Robs response to a letter from the CRA telling him he was entitled to some back taxes would be?

Looney Tunes© usually depicted such individuals as being trailed by a dust cloud, scattered paper and other such detritus.

Fitz

 

[Duffy Moon]

"I am not a Social Insurance Number, I am a Freeman-On-The-Land!"

Quick coupla questions, Rob.

If you were to decide that the FOTL business wasn't for you anymore and decided to become a sheep once again - to rejoin the flock so to speak - would you have to reapply for your SIN?

Would you be told, on reapplying "Ah yes, Mr Menard, I don't believe you have a current SIN, as you disassociated from your previous one some time ago. Just wait while I arrange a new one for you."?

Or would you be told "Well Mr Menard, the SIN that you were issued with some time ago is still valid - once it's given to you, it's yours for life. I notice that you haven't used it for a while - been living in a log cabin or something? Hang on a minute, didn't I see you on the telly last week?"?

Genuine questions, old bean.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The line was spoken by Mandy Patinkin, playing Inigo Montoya - who at the end of the movie is being offered the opportunity to take over the role of "Roberts" from Cary Elwes.

Freedom of association is the right to form social groups with people/persons or not to be compelled to do so.

[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I thought it was Andre who said it. But it was when they were climbing the cliffs.

So these social groups could be composed of say engineers, teachers, or maybe people who have decided to have a SIN and collect the benefits such as welfare, EI and CPP, right? And no one can be compelled to join, or forced to remain in it, right?

 

[fitzgibbon]

NO, I don't. Care to actually prove otherwise? After all you are the one making the claim that I must be associated with a number.

You earlier admitted you have had a SIN. You claim you don't now. The burden of proof is on you.

See a pattern emerging there, Bob?

You claim I am associated with a number.
I claim I am not.

Upon whom does the onus rest?
You or me?

He states with corroborative evidence as to why you would be.
You claim you are not

Claim≠Proof. The onus is on you.

There's that pesky pattern again.

Fitz

 

[Boot2TheHead]

What is my SIN?
How will you force me to use, acknowledge and associate with it?

*Cough*

 

[jargon buster]

So these social groups could be composed of say engineers, teachers, or maybe people who have decided to have a SIN and collect the benefits such as welfare, EI and CPP, right? And no one can be compelled to join, or forced to remain in it, right?

Humpty Dumptys at it again.
Rob you were originally talking about the SIN number and its association to you, it has nothing to do with you and other people who have SIN numbers.

Try and keep on topic.

 

[fitzgibbon]

The right of association is the right to associate with individuals (i.e. people) of your choice. An SIN is not a person, so the right of association does not apply.

I don't think Bob's able to parse the distinction between animate and inanimate. FSM knows, he's been flogging the same dead horse for a while now.

Fitz

 

[Bosozoku]

[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I thought it was Andre who said it. But it was when they were climbing the cliffs.

So these social groups could be composed of say engineers, teachers, or maybe people who have decided to have a SIN and collect the benefits such as welfare, EI and CPP, right? And no one can be compelled to join, or forced to remain in it, right?

You're allowed to have whatever thoughts you want on SINs, and you have the right associate with like-minded people, however wrong you and those people may be on the subject. Likewise, the government can't tell you that you can't associate with people who think that the sky isn't blue, or that 2 plus 2 is 5.

But since an SIN is not a person, there is no freedom to associate with it or dis-associate from it.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Quick coupla questions, Rob.

If you were to decide that the FOTL business wasn't for you anymore and decided to become a sheep once again - to rejoin the flock so to speak - would you have to reapply for your SIN?

Would you be told, on reapplying "Ah yes, Mr Menard, I don't believe you have a current SIN, as you disassociated from your previous one some time ago. Just wait while I arrange a new one for you."?

Or would you be told "Well Mr Menard, the SIN that you were issued with some time ago is still valid - once it's given to you, it's yours for life. I notice that you haven't used it for a while - been living in a log cabin or something? Hang on a minute, didn't I see you on the telly last week?"?

Genuine questions, old bean.

Yes, and I believe it would be the first option. After I think it is 7 years of no use, I understand they retire it even if your intent was not to abandon it and you simply were not using it. And then you have to get a new one.

 

[fitzgibbon]

*Cough*

D'oh! Damn petard!

Fitz