Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
I called CRA once, and asked if I owed money. They asked what my SIN was, I said I do not have one. They said "Well then you do not have an account with us. Would you like me to transfer you to HRC to apply for one?"

I said no thank you and hung up.
Click to expand...

Oh, and just FYI, even if you had given them your SIN, they probably would have said that you hadn't filed returns, and they couldn't answer your question until you did.

That, of course, is assuming that you're telling the truth about all of this; I wouldn't take your word for it if you told me there would be 366 days in this year.
 
Who do you send the paperwork too?
Click to expand...
You send it to the Queen because it would be rude not too, you send it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he needs to cancel my eligibility to access any of my $8 million dollar bond, and you put out flyers in your neighbourhood so every one knows to go back indoors when you walk down the street as you now can do whatever you please and they cant do jack.
 
FreemanMenard said:
EVERY case I have seen, the CRA submitted evidence usually letters addressed to the Defendants, with the SIN right on it. Responses they made were also submitted, with the SIN acknowledged. They do not have to prove things that are not contested, do they?
Click to expand...

Yes, they do if they are going to impose criminal punishment. The onus is on the crown to prove every element of the case. It doesn't matter if you contest it or not. If you plead not guilty then they have to prove each element of the case.

When questioned they stated they searched the database for evidence of filing by searching the SIN. EVERY TIME.
Click to expand...

Here are the first few cases of personal tax evasion that come up on canlii when you search for tax evasion cases:

http://canlii.ca/t/21j7z
http://canlii.ca/t/fppg9
http://canlii.ca/t/1rkxs

None of these cases mention anyone searching for anyone's SIN or even mention the SIN at all. If you do believe that these cases do consider the question of whether the defendant had a SIN then please poit out the relevant passages.

If not, then these are just the first few cases that show up and they seem to confirm my sentiment that I have never seen a judge ever require proof that the accused had a SIN. Your claim that you have never seen a case that didn't raise this issue seems to make no sense.


Doubt I would even get there. If they send me something with a SIN on it, I know it is not for me, as I do not have one.
Click to expand...

Obviously if they wanted to charge you, the fact you didn't respond to a letter from them wouldn't make any difference. If they wanted to lay a charge they certainly could.

Why would I believe that? That is ludicrous, and makes no sense. They see people accepting the SIN's, and using them in their correspondence. They act upon the belief they are associated, as that is what the evidence shows.
Click to expand...

As you are now aware, there are many cases in which the issue of SIN is never mentioned at all in the decision. Also, take note that these decisions are specifically setting out the required elements of the offence and they do not mention having a SIN as being a required element. It is not mentioned at all in fact.

So would you say these judges must be corrupt because they are leaving out something that you claim to be an essential element of the offence?


I called CRA once, and asked if I owed money. They asked what my SIN was, I said I do not have one. They said "Well then you do not have an account with us. Would you like me to transfer you to HRC to apply for one?"
Click to expand...

Why not call them and ask them speifically about what you are doing. Ask them something like "do I have any obligation to report my earnings if I have chosen to no longer be associated with my SIN." I wonder what they would say?
 
Or maybe:
JLord said:
Why not call them and ask them speifically about what you are doing. Ask them something like "do I have any obligation to report my earnings if I have chosen to no longer be associated with my a SIN." I wonder what they would say?
Click to expand...
 
a fortune????
Nah, its not real money anyway, its nothing compared to the freedom you have to sit around all day smoking dope and boozing.

Now that is freedom, bring it on.
 
abaddon said:
Rob,

You had a SIN when you were in the CF.
You claim you have dissociated yourself from that SIN. (though you won't say how).
Since you are no longer associated with that SIN, why not post it, here and now?

After all, if it is not associated with you, what possible harm could it do?
Click to expand...

Rob,
You seem to have missed this question.
Why is that?
 
JLord said:
Yes, they do if they are going to impose criminal punishment. The onus is on the crown to prove every element of the case. It doesn't matter if you contest it or not. If you plead not guilty then they have to prove each element of the case.



Here are the first few cases of personal tax evasion that come up on canlii when you search for tax evasion cases:

http://canlii.ca/t/21j7z
http://canlii.ca/t/fppg9
http://canlii.ca/t/1rkxs

None of these cases mention anyone searching for anyone's SIN or even mention the SIN at all. If you do believe that these cases do consider the question of whether the defendant had a SIN then please poit out the relevant passages.

If not, then these are just the first few cases that show up and they seem to confirm my sentiment that I have never seen a judge ever require proof that the accused had a SIN. Your claim that you have never seen a case that didn't raise this issue seems to make no sense.




Obviously if they wanted to charge you, the fact you didn't respond to a letter from them wouldn't make any difference. If they wanted to lay a charge they certainly could.



As you are now aware, there are many cases in which the issue of SIN is never mentioned at all in the decision. Also, take note that these decisions are specifically setting out the required elements of the offence and they do not mention having a SIN as being a required element. It is not mentioned at all in fact.

So would you say these judges must be corrupt because they are leaving out something that you claim to be an essential element of the offence?




Why not call them and ask them speifically about what you are doing. Ask them something like "do I have any obligation to report my earnings if I have chosen to no longer be associated with my SIN." I wonder what they would say?
Click to expand...

Did they have accounts with CRA or not?
If so, then they had an account number, right?
And that IS their SIN.
 
abaddon said:
Rob,

You had a SIN when you were in the CF.
You claim you have dissociated yourself from that SIN. (though you won't say how).
Since you are no longer associated with that SIN, why not post it, here and now?

After all, if it is not associated with you, what possible harm could it do?
Click to expand...

abaddon said:
Rob,
You seem to have missed this question.
Why is that?
Click to expand...

FreemanMenard said:
How can I? I do not remember it... I think there was a 4 in it though.. :D

Plus someone could then use it for fraud, and try to use it, and then that could be blamed on me....
Click to expand...
That is not an answer, that is evasion.
If you are no longer associated with that SIN then post it here.
The resources for dealing with fraud on SIN have already been posted in this very thread.

What you are now claiming is that if I or anyone else use your SIN for fraudulent purposes, you will not report it, for fear of claiming it as your own.

The consequence is that if I or anyone else do use your SIN for fraud, then you will steadfastly refuse to claim it as your own, thereby enabling said fraud to continue, and accepting the legal consequences upon yourself.

Are you sure you want to pursue such a course? Are you sure?
 
abaddon said:
That is not an answer, that is evasion.
If you are no longer associated with that SIN then post it here.
The resources for dealing with fraud on SIN have already been posted in this very thread.

What you are now claiming is that if I or anyone else use your SIN for fraudulent purposes, you will not report it, for fear of claiming it as your own.

The consequence is that if I or anyone else do use your SIN for fraud, then you will steadfastly refuse to claim it as your own, thereby enabling said fraud to continue, and accepting the legal consequences upon yourself.

Are you sure you want to pursue such a course? Are you sure?
Click to expand...

I do not remember it... sorry. Your point is moot.

And I never said I would not report it. If I was aware of you engaging in fraud I would likely report it. I do not have to claim it as my own to report your fraud.
 
Hans said:
In Canada can you set up a trust without a SIN?
Click to expand...

Sure, at common law you can set up a trust in all sorts of different ways that don't require any contact with banks, governments or officialdom generally.

If you want to take advantage of the tax-avoidance properties of a trust (I don't remember how, but I learned at one time), you need to be a taxpayer, though. So does the trust.

Also, I'm not entirely sure, but you may not be able to open a bank account without a SIN.

ETA: According to this, you have to provide a SIN to open an interest-bearing bank account. I guess if you are willing to forego any interest (that big 0.05%!) on your savings, you don't need one.
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
I do not remember it... sorry. Your point is moot.
Click to expand...
Nope. You had a SIN. Whether you happen to remember it or not is moot. The "ebil gubmint" remembers it.

If you are truly dissociated from it, then post it here, and also your methodology of dissociating yourself from it.


FreemanMenard said:
And I never said I would not report it. If I was aware of you engaging in fraud I would likely report it. I do not have to claim it as my own to report your fraud.
Click to expand...
Well, for starters, I am on the far side of the globe to you, so report away.
Secondly, I file my taxes, so report away. We will just laugh.
Thirdly, you did. You claimed you were dissociated from your SIN. But we all know you are not, and you just admitted it. Thanks.
 
I think you may be correct if Menard had actually, dissassociated himself from the SIN he'd announce it - 'see I don't need this badge of slavery; here anyone is free to use it'

chuckle
 
Readers, Menard teaches his dupes to never answer the authorities’ questions and to pepper the cops, at traffic stops, and judges, in court, with endless questions.

We know the method doesn’t work, but we need to realize that all Menard is doing here is showing off that disingenuous and failed approach. . . because he can’t do anything else.

It’s his brand, folks.

I think I have gone, with enough detail, into the deep seeded psychological reasons Menard has such difficulty with questions, so I won’t cover that ground again.

But, it has been my experience over the years that detaxers, sovereigns, free willed men, freemen or whatever these boys are calling themselves today often tend to exhibit the sort of manic internet posting (or paper filing) behavior we see in Menard during times of extreme stress.

It's what Keith Thompson did before he cracked up.

Dollars to donuts our boy is being cornered by his associates, or the authorities, or bank note has come due, or whatever . . .

Maybe he’s run out of fezzes?
 
abaddon said:
Nope. You had a SIN. Whether you happen to remember it or not is moot. The "ebil gubmint" remembers it.

If you are truly dissociated from it, then post it here, and also your methodology of dissociating yourself from it.



Well, for starters, I am on the far side of the globe to you, so report away.
Secondly, I file my taxes, so report away. We will just laugh.
Thirdly, you did. You claimed you were dissociated from your SIN. But we all know you are not, and you just admitted it. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Wish I could but I can't even remember it....
And I admitted what? That I am still associated because I can't remember it? WOW...
 
fitzgibbon said:
And you honestly believe that that covers the totality of your portion of upkeep, do you? That's in the same class of answer as what you get from 4-year-olds when asked how much they think that diamond ring costs.

"A dollar".

:boxedin:

Fitz
Click to expand...

Upkeep? What are we children? As a Freeman I cost the government much less that those who are not freemen costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom