Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Werdum]

Au contraire, Werdum. Post #5892:

Apologies, far be it from me to steal an idea tweak it a bit and regurgitate it as my own. That job is taken in this thread.

 

[Bosozoku]

Wow... the mindset you must suffer under!

Would you care to tell me where I was wrong, and give specific detail as to why? I'm really sorry, Rob, but SIN's are assigned to newborn babies every single day, and no newborn has the legal capacity to accept anything. People have all sorts numbers assigned to them, oftentimes without their knowledge, much less with their consent. The government of Canada assigned you a SIN. It's their number, and they had the right to assign it how the pleased. If you ask them to revoke it and they don't, then you're still "associated" with that number as far as the government is concerned.

Answer me this: A kid in elementary has red hair, and everyone calls him "Red." He comes into school one day and announces that he is no longer associated with the name Red. Everyone ignores him and calls him Red anyway. Is he no longer associated with the name "Red"?

I hate to break it to you Rob, but you are a Prisoner.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Why yes....yes, they are (at least if they aren't to join the legion of fez-wearing monkeys that seem to be emanating from your back passage. Absent that, it shall be consigned to the dustbin alongside your other such unsupported assertions.



Who said this? Thee or me? I don't recall those words emanating from me, ergo....



For tax evasion (when of an egregious enough offence against the people). You can Google it if you like. It really mustn't be that difficult for you

Fitz

So the idea that there are people without a SIN is to you just unbelievable eh?
And you don't wish to engage in discussion and answer my questions. I hope you are not disappointed when I refuse to answer yours.

Tax evasion? I employ tax avoidance. There is a big difference. But I do not expect you to be able to make that distinction.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Would you care to tell me where I was wrong, and give specific detail as to why? I'm really sorry, Rob, but SIN's are assigned to newborn babies every single day, and no newborn has the legal capacity to accept anything. People have all sorts numbers assigned to them, oftentimes without their knowledge, much less with their consent. The government of Canada assigned you a SIN. It's their number, and they had the right to assign it how the pleased. If you ask them to revoke it and they don't, then you're still "associated" with that number as far as the government is concerned.

Answer me this: A kid in elementary has red hair, and everyone calls him "Red." He comes into school one day and announces that he is no longer associated with the name Red. Everyone ignores him and calls him Red anyway. Is he no longer associated with the name "Red"?

I hate to break it to you Rob, but you are a Prisoner.

They are not assigned without their parents requesting them. And when older they can abandon them. Unless they are slaves, or cattle to be numbered. Is that your position? They are not automatic, and there are many who do not have one. I know a few adults who never got one. The association that counts is the one in my head. Not in their files. Ask

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

. He apparently assigned a number to me without my consent, but it doesn't create any obligations upon me.

Do not alter others' usernames.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

If he doesn't answer to the name, then no he is not.


Love to break it to you, but you are wrong. As a Freeman, I have no SIN. Sorry. I know it is a difficult concept for you to grasp. Maybe one day you will be able to do so.

 

[Border Reiver]

So the idea that there are people without a SIN is to you just unbelievable eh?
And you don't wish to engage in discussion and answer my questions. I hope you are not disappointed when I refuse to answer yours.

Tax evasion? I employ tax avoidance. There is a big difference. But I do not expect you to be able to make that distinction.

BIN12345 there probably are some citizens without a SIN. However, the first time they go to get a job they will be told to get one by their employer. Should the person be one of the idle rich they will probably get one when they file that first tax return after the age of 18 - because the rich know that to stay that way they need to throw as little as they can at the government to keep us daemon spawn from getting them for tax evasion.

Avoiding tax? You're evading son. Two person contracts, sure but since the contract is for goods and services ( the raw materials and whatever work you put in) CRA and the Tax Court of Canada will look at it as income. And wonder where their HST is on top of that. Oh, and the "two person contract" with the laborer you use? That will likely be deemed an employment contract and then you'll be dinged for CPP, EI and other statutory deductions. CRA gets pissy is you don't remit the employee's taxes and the employer's share, just FYI.

 

[Bosozoku]

They are not assigned without their parents requesting them. And when older they can abandon them. Unless they are slaves, or cattle to be numbered. Is that your position? They are not automatic, and there are many who do not have one. I know a few adults who never got one. The association that counts is the one in my head. Not in their files. Ask Bozo. He apparently assigned a number to me without my consent, but it doesn't create any obligations upon me.

If he doesn't answer to the name, then no he is not.


Love to break it to you, but you are wrong. As a Freeman, I have no SIN. Sorry. I know it is a difficult concept for you to grasp. Maybe one day you will be able to do so.

The kid nicknamed Red is "associated" with his nickname whether he agrees or not under the plain meaning of the term "associated." I really don't know what else to say. Some associations are voluntary, some are not. Most Canadians are assigned an SIN at birth, and it is not a voluntary association.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The kid nicknamed Red is "associated" with his nickname whether he agrees or not under the plain meaning of the term "associated." I really don't know what else to say. Some associations are voluntary, some are not. Most Canadians are assigned an SIN at birth, and it is not a voluntary association.

If someone claims that you are now associated with the name 'Asshat', and calls you that from across the room, are you obliged to respond?

Most people voluntarily maintain their association, yet all have the right to end it if they wished. Just because they do not, maybe due to not knowing they can, does not mean they can't.

 

[FreemanMenard]

BIN12345 there probably are some citizens without a SIN. However, the first time they go to get a job they will be told to get one by their employer. Should the person be one of the idle rich they will probably get one when they file that first tax return after the age of 18 - because the rich know that to stay that way they need to throw as little as they can at the government to keep us daemon spawn from getting them for tax evasion.

Avoiding tax? You're evading son. Two person contracts, sure but since the contract is for goods and services ( the raw materials and whatever work you put in) CRA and the Tax Court of Canada will look at it as income. And wonder where their HST is on top of that. Oh, and the "two person contract" with the laborer you use? That will likely be deemed an employment contract and then you'll be dinged for CPP, EI and other statutory deductions. CRA gets pissy is you don't remit the employee's taxes and the employer's share, just FYI.

Do not alter others' usernames.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

Um, who are you talking to?

 

[JLord]

Tax evasion? I employ tax avoidance. There is a big difference. But I do not expect you to be able to make that distinction.

You're earning money and not paying taxes, so it would be tax evasion. If CRA decided decided to lay a charge my money would be on them. But the thousands of other people working under the table they don't go around policing this. And if they do it usually starts with a demand to file a return for certain years and then you have the chance to make it all right before they would proceed with any punishments. At that point most deadbeat parents or any other non-freemen in the same position as you would probably just file their returns.

But I assume that if they were to give you such a notice you would probably not comply, and then it would probably wind up in court. I'm curious what you think your chances of success in court would be given that every other freeman ever to rely on freeman arguments in court has lost. I would put your chances of success at near zero given what I know. What do you realistically think your chances would be?

 

[tsig]

Robs fashion?
No there is a point I draw the line.
I assume I wont have a choice but to dress like Rob at some point as I do expect to fall very quickly down the social pecking order in the quest to be free.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

 

[BritPunk]

So the idea that there are people without a SIN is to you just unbelievable eh?
And you don't wish to engage in discussion and answer my questions. I hope you are not disappointed when I refuse to answer yours.

Tax evasion? I employ tax avoidance. There is a big difference. But I do not expect you to be able to make that distinction.

The distinction is well known. It is YOU who does not appear to understand it.
You claim you earn more than the taxable minimum from your cowboy peddle dash industry.
You also claim to employ a labourer to assist you.
Whether you recognize your SIN or not (and no making puns on SIN and sin is not clever or funny) you are liable to tax on your earnings and you are responsible for correct payment of tax for your employee.
Do your masonry skills extend to providing a headstone for your self dug grave

 

[Bosozoku]

If someone claims that you are now associated with the name 'Asshat', and calls you that from across the room, are you obliged to respond?

Most people voluntarily maintain their association, yet all have the right to end it if they wished. Just because they do not, maybe due to not knowing they can, does not mean they can't.

If someone calls me that name from across the room, I am not obliged to respond. But if everyone calls me that name, I am associated with it. If I tell them to stop calling me that name and they continue to do so, I am still associated with it.

And I agree that everyone has the right to terminate a voluntary association, now we are getting somewhere. Where we part ways is that I have demonstrated that you may be involuntarily associated with an SIN - for example, newborns can be assigned an SIN and this is obviously not with their consent or knowledge. I'm not sure that you can successfully unilaterally demand that the government revoke your SIN. Would you care to provide documentation proving that this has been done successfully?

 

[FreemanMenard]

You're earning money and not paying taxes, so it would be tax evasion. If CRA decided decided to lay a charge my money would be on them. But the thousands of other people working under the table they don't go around policing this. And if they do it usually starts with a demand to file a return for certain years and then you have the chance to make it all right before they would proceed with any punishments. At that point most deadbeat parents or any other non-freemen in the same position as you would probably just file their returns.

But I assume that if they were to give you such a notice you would probably not comply, and then it would probably wind up in court. I'm curious what you think your chances of success in court would be given that every other freeman ever to rely on freeman arguments in court has lost. I would put your chances of success at near zero given what I know. What do you realistically think your chances would be?

Those people had SIN's, and were mostly trying to act as agent for their person, something I do not espouse. They did not try freeman arguments, they just look like that to you cause you do not understand our position vs theirs. All you see is someone not doing what they are told.

For CRA to decide that I have obligations to them, they would have to prove one of the aspects of the charge, and that being that I have an association with a SIN. Good luck doing that! Also one of the aspects of the charge is the jurisdiction of the court. Good luck with that too!

Not sure what my chance would be, likely depends on the judge, would it not? If he was a corrupt one I would lose, if not, I would win, as the CRA would never be able to prove a continuing voluntary association between myself and a SIN.

 

[tsig]

When you go to work, do you shower before you do? Do you get paid for it? I am not earning when I am on the road. Therefore I am not engaging in commerce on the highways, I am using them to get to where I do. I see a basic and simple distinction. DO you not?

But you don't feel obligated to pay for them?

 

[tsig]

Few get paid to travel to work. Most start their shift not upon leaving home, but on getting to their place of employment.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

And most pay for the road they're traveling on.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

 

[FreemanMenard]

If someone calls me that name from across the room, I am not obliged to respond. But if everyone calls me that name, I am associated with it. If I tell them to stop calling me that name and they continue to do so, I am still associated with it.

Says who? Will you start to respond to it? Unless YOU respond to it, you are not associated with it in your own mind.

And I agree that everyone has the right to terminate a voluntary association, now we are getting somewhere. Where we part ways is that I have demonstrated that you may be involuntarily associated with an SIN - for example, newborns can be assigned an SIN and this is obviously not with their consent or knowledge. I'm not sure that you can successfully unilaterally demand that the government revoke your SIN. Would you care to provide documentation proving that this has been done successfully?

Newborns are assigned with the consent of their parents. And as adults they can abandon it.

I do not need to demand they revoke it. All I have to do is decide to no longer associate with it, by not using it. I do not need their permission, nor do I need documentation from them to do so.

 

[FreemanMenard]

And most pay for the road they're traveling on.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Yeap when they buy gas. Which I do as well. Why is that so hard to grasp? You do not honestly think your income taxes go to roads do you?

 

[FreemanMenard]

But you don't feel obligated to pay for them?

For things that are already built and paid for? Why?

As for maintenance, one more time for those who came on the short bus: I pay when I buy gas.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The distinction is well known. It is YOU who does not appear to understand it.
You claim you earn more than the taxable minimum from your cowboy peddle dash industry.
You also claim to employ a labourer to assist you.
Whether you recognize your SIN or not (and no making puns on SIN and sin is not clever or funny) you are liable to tax on your earnings and you are responsible for correct payment of tax for your employee.
Do your masonry skills extend to providing a headstone for your self dug grave

I am only liable for taxable income, of which my wages are not. For them to be taxable, I would need to have a SIN. Sorry. Don't have one. I am Not a SINner. I repented. Jesus told me to. And yes it is clever.

My labourer is my partner and co-contractor.

What's going through life burdened with such fear like?

 

[Stacey Grove]

For things that are already built and paid for? Why?

As for maintenance, one more time for those who came on the short bus: I pay when I buy gas.

What about roads under construction or those that are yet to be built?