Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[solzhenitsyn]

Can you show me a case where someone who does not have a SIN was found guilty of failing to file? Can you show me a case where someone was ordered to submit an application for a SIN and ordered to associate themselves with that number? Thought not.

R. v. Turnnir, 2008 BCPC 400 (link)

[58] For Mr. Loosdrecht to suddenly determine that through such transparent mechanics as the insistence that the letters of his name be capitalized, refusal of a GST registration number, the refusal to be identified by a social insurance number, the adoption of the title "natural person" or the addition of gobbledegook wording to the attestation in his income tax return, he could thereby lawfully create a parallel existence separate and apart from his responsibilities as a taxpayer, defies any logic and, in particular, is not believable in the context of a person in his circumstances. His conduct amounts to wilful blindness at law.

[59] I agree with the Crown's submission that the law of mistake, that is the mistaken belief held by Mr. Loosdrecht that the Income Tax Act does not apply to him in his capacity of a natural person, is not a defence. I agree with Judge Wingham of this court when he stated in R. v. Turnnir, supra at paragraph 78 the following:

Mistake of law is only available as a defence to tax evasion in very limited circumstances. (R. v. Klundert 2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), (2004), 187 CCC(3d) 417 Ont. CA, leave to appeal to SCC refused, R. v. Kennedy, [2004] BCJ 2588 (BCCA))

A mistaken belief that a statute is invalid or otherwise not applicable to his conduct is a mistake of law which is irrelevant to the fault requirement of tax evasion.

[60] I find the Crown has proven that the accused possessed the mens rea in making false or deceptive statements in his tax returns, and in wilfully evading or attempting to evade payment of income tax in respect to each of the years from 2001 through 2004 and I find him guilty on all counts.

Also see:

R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118 (link)

[13] Mr. Pinno further adopted all of the contents of the documents filed as exhibits on his behalf, which help explain these strange pronouncements provided to the court. For example, exhibit D2, headed Constructive Notice reads, inter alia:

"I have recently learned that I, a natural person of commoner status, am not a "person" included in the Income Tax Act of Canada who is subject to the income tax. I further learned that I have been deceptively induced by Revenue Canada's propaganda into making a supposed contract by filing an income tax return, thus changing my status to "taxpayer" which makes me subject to the income tax by that supposed contract.

I hereby revoke and void any such supposed or assumed contract, past, present and future; and, hereby declare my status as a natural person and a commoner.

I hereby revoke and forbid any usage of my Social Insurance number as a taxpayer number; and, void any contract such past usage of it as a taxpayer number may have implied.​

...

[21] The defendant asserts further that he has no contractual arrangements with the CCRA to file income tax returns. As indicated, the requirement to file income tax returns however is statutory. This means compelled by law to do so by reason of a statute passed by (in this case) the federal parliament of Canada. There is no contractual element to it. Citizens are required to obey such laws whether they agree to do so or not and in fact, whether they are even aware of such law or not. By contrast, one can enter into a contract to do certain acts which binds the individual by reason only of his or her agreement to do so. Statutes (laws passed by governments) don't operate on the principle of mutual agreement however. If stopped for speeding or caught breaking into someone's residence, the guilt of the accused does not depend on whether it can be proven he or she agreed to be subject to such law.

[24] I have taken some effort to deal with all positions advanced by the accused to ensure him that he has been given full answer and defence to the within charges. I have also done so for the sake of clarity for those who would follow and raise similar arguments before the court on such charges of failing to file personal income tax returns. It is indeed unfortunate that otherwise law-abiding citizens can be influenced and manipulated in such fashion. The defendant freely acknowledged in his evidence and argument that the material presented to the court "came from higher up the chain." It is obvious that certain groups and organizations peddle such ideas, even apparently for a profit at seminars and through publications, striking responsive chords in those who believe such information legitimizes what in fact is nothing less than civil disobedience. Most assuredly, few people, if any, enjoy paying personal income tax and most would have strong, valid opinions as to how such tax revenue should be allocated. Such opinions must be expressed democratically through our elected institutions, not by buying into fallacious and ill-conceived dogma which results only in criminal sanction - not for those of course who profess it, but for those who act upon it. Such is the unfortunate result here for Mr. Pinno.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I hereby revoke and forbid any usage of my Social Insurance number as a taxpayer number; and, void any contract such past usage of it as a taxpayer number may have implied.

So he does in fact have one.
Sorry Charlie.

PS- I accept that IF I voluntarily signed and submitted an application for a SIN and maintained an association with that number as he did, I would be bound by that Act, as he is. The question is whether we are obliged to apply, sign and submit and maintain an association with that number.

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Incidentally, you likely are required to have a Social Insurance Number by the Employment Insurance Act:

Types of insurable employment

5. (1) Subject to subsection (2), insurable employment is

(a) employment in Canada by one or more employers, under any express or implied contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether the earnings of the employed person are received from the employer or some other person and whether the earnings are calculated by time or by the piece, or partly by time and partly by the piece, or otherwise;

(b) employment in Canada as described in paragraph (a) by Her Majesty in right of Canada;

(c) service in the Canadian Forces or in a police force;

(d) employment included by regulations made under subsection (4) or (5); and

(e) employment in Canada of an individual as the sponsor or co-ordinator of an employment benefits project.

...

Registration

138. (1) Every person employed in insurable employment shall be registered with the Commission.

One might also note that income tax liability (pursuant to the Income Tax quite clearly does not depend on a person having a social insurance number (indeed, there is no mention of it all):

2. (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.

Taxable income

(2) The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer’s income for the year plus the additions and minus the deductions permitted by Division C.

Tax payable by non-resident persons

(3) Where a person who is not taxable under subsection 2(1) for a taxation year

(a) was employed in Canada,

(b) carried on a business in Canada, or

(c) disposed of a taxable Canadian property,

at any time in the year or a previous year, an income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the person’s taxable income earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D.

 

[FreemanMenard]

No one is obliged to submit an application. EVER.
Since that is THE ONLY WAY to get a SIN, logic dictates that no one is obliged to have one.
When they forcefully tattoo one on my forearm, then they can claim I am obliged to have one.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Types of insurable employment

5. (1) Subject to subsection (2), insurable employment is

(a) employment in Canada by one or more employers, under any express or implied contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether the earnings of the employed person are received from the employer or some other person and whether the earnings are calculated by time or by the piece, or partly by time and partly by the piece, or otherwise;
CONTRACT FOR SERVICE AND NOT FOR HIRE
(b) employment in Canada as described in paragraph (a) by Her Majesty in right of Canada; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

(c) service in the Canadian Forces or in a police force; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

(d) employment included by regulations made under subsection (4) or (5); and HAVEN'T READ THEM, BUT I BET IT IS A GOVERNMENT TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT

(e) employment in Canada of an individual as the sponsor or co-ordinator of an employment benefits project. AGAIN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

SORRY CHARLIE....

 

[FreemanMenard]

One might also note that income tax liability (pursuant to the Income Tax quite clearly does not depend on a person having a social insurance number (indeed, there is no mention of it all):

But without an account, there is no obligation, and without a SIN, there is no account.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

So he does in fact have one.
Sorry Charlie.

PS- I accept that IF I voluntarily signed and submitted an application for a SIN and maintained an association with that number as he did, I would be bound by that Act, as he is. The question is whether we are obliged to apply, sign and submit and maintain an association with that number.

Not that it matters in the least (as I already noted, s. 2 of the Income Tax Act makes absolutely no mention of social insurance numbers), but neither of the gentlemen in the two cases I cited "maintained an association with [a social insurance number]." Indeed, they had both explicitly revoked such association. Simply out of morbid curiosity, are you arguing then that only people who have never ever had a social insurance number are able to escape income tax liability? That would seem like bad marketing for you considering that the no-SIN cohort is a profoundly small target market for your "seminars".

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

No one is obliged to submit an application. EVER.

Since that is THE ONLY WAY to get a SIN, logic dictates that no one is obliged to have one.

Um, according to who? I've just posted a provision of the Employment Insurance Act which explicitly does just that (obliges certain people to submit an application for a SIN.)

When they forcefully tattoo one on my forearm, then they can claim I am obliged to have one.

The Employment Insurance Act explicitly claims that you are obliged to have one (if the stated conditions are met of course.) Whether you actually apply for and obtain one is of course entirely up to you.

 

[D'rok]

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Why are you quoting the Charter? It doesn't apply to you, remember?

(1)This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.


Don't see how you can claim it applies to me.
Unless you wish to claim the above does not say what it does.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7817268#post7817268

Having trouble keeping your lies straight again? It's understandable, given that you do nothing but lie.

Remember these lies?

A human being and a person are not the same thing, we've been led to believe that they are but they're not.

You are not a person; you have a person; it exists in association with you.

http://youtu.be/sB4o3afM11w?t=1m

Keep digging.

 

[D'rok]

This seems to be a subtle variation on what Myriad once termed a Masochistic Lie.







In this case, Menard is actually lying to those he hopes are stupid enough to fall for his schtick. By now, he knows none of the regulars here will buy his BS, but he hopes a few lurkers might.

I agree. But I think he also lies just to hear the sound of his own voice.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Not that it matters in the least (as I already noted, s. 2 of the Income Tax Act makes absolutely no mention of social insurance numbers), but neither of the gentlemen in the two cases I cited "maintained an association with [a social insurance number]." Indeed, they had both explicitly revoked such association. Simply out of morbid curiosity, are you arguing then that only people who have never ever had a social insurance number are able to escape income tax liability? That would seem like bad marketing for you considering that the no-SIN cohort is a profoundly small target market for your "seminars".



Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Um, he referred to HIS number, and then tried to dictate what could be done with it. He clearly maintained an association to HIS number. After all, he called it HIS number.

Again, getting the number requires one to voluntarily submit an application. One they signed. No one is obliged to apply (beg, plead, petition, implore or entreat) nor are they obliged to submit. Nor can anyone be forced to sign a legal document and then have that signature used as evidence applying.

If they did not need us to sign and submit applications, why not just assign them without us having any choice at all?

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Types of insurable employment

5. (1) Subject to subsection (2), insurable employment is

(a) employment in Canada by one or more employers, under any express or implied contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether the earnings of the employed person are received from the employer or some other person and whether the earnings are calculated by time or by the piece, or partly by time and partly by the piece, or otherwise;
CONTRACT FOR SERVICE AND NOT FOR HIRE
(b) employment in Canada as described in paragraph (a) by Her Majesty in right of Canada; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

(c) service in the Canadian Forces or in a police force; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

(d) employment included by regulations made under subsection (4) or (5); and HAVEN'T READ THEM, BUT I BET IT IS A GOVERNMENT TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT

(e) employment in Canada of an individual as the sponsor or co-ordinator of an employment benefits project. AGAIN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

SORRY CHARLIE....

I'm not sure what your point is? What distinction do the courts recognize between a "contract for hire" and a "contract for service"? In any event, none of this has anything to do with income tax liability.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Um, according to who? I've just posted a provision of the Employment Insurance Act which explicitly does just that (obliges certain people to submit an application for a SIN.)



The Employment Insurance Act explicitly claims that you are obliged to have one (if the stated conditions are met of course.) Whether you actually apply for and obtain one is of course entirely up to you.

You mean the people who voluntarily seek employment within certain sections of the government?

 

[FreemanMenard]

I'm not sure what your point is? What distinction do the courts recognize between a "contract for hire" and a "contract for service"? In any event, none of this has anything to do with income tax liability.

Where does it state clearly and explicitly that private two party contracts are unlawful? And if it doesn't then that contract is no one else's business, especially if there is a non-disclosure clause within it.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Um, he referred to HIS number, and then tried to dictate what could be done with it.

I suppose I'll repeat my question (as you didn't answer it):

Simply out of morbid curiosity, are you arguing then that only people who have never ever had a social insurance number are able to escape income tax liability? That would seem like bad marketing for you considering that the no-SIN cohort is a profoundly small target market for your "seminars".

Again, getting the number requires one to voluntarily submit an application. One they signed. No one is obliged to apply (beg, plead, petition, implore or entreat) nor are they obliged to submit. Nor can anyone be forced to sign a legal document and then have that signature used as evidence applying.

Um, I'll repeat myself again: According to whom? I've just provided you with one of the many instances where people are required to have a license or number, and obtaining said license or number requires that person to submit an application (filled in with the required information, usually.)

If they did not need us to sign and submit applications, why not just assign them without us having any choice at all?

Um, because not everyone is required to have a SIN. For instance, only people employed in certain types of employment are required to have one. As each individual person is in a much better position to know if they have are employed in one of those types of employment, it makes perfect sense for the government to rely on a system of self-reporting.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

(d) employment included by regulations made under subsection (4) or (5); and HAVEN'T READ THEM, BUT I BET IT IS A GOVERNMENT TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT


SORRY CHARLIE....

Just incidentally, as you are too lazy to read them for yourself, here are the types of employment specifically enumerated in the Regs:

6. Employment in any of the following employments, unless it is excluded from insurable employment by any provision of these Regulations, is included in insurable employment:

(a) employment of a union member by the member's union in conducting union business, other than picketing in a labour dispute;

(b) employment of a person as an apprentice or trainee, notwithstanding that the person does not perform any services for their employer;

(c) employment of a person as a member of the clergy or as a member of a religious order;

(d) employment of a person in a barbering or hairdressing establishment, where the person

(i) provides any of the services that are normally provided in such an establishment, and

(ii) is not the owner or operator of the establishment;

(e) employment of a person as a driver of a taxi, commercial bus, school bus or any other vehicle that is used by a business or public authority for carrying passengers, where the person is not the owner of more than 50 per cent of the vehicle or the owner or operator of the business or the operator of the public authority;

(f) employment of a person who holds an office, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Canada Pension Plan,

(i) in or under any department or other portion of the federal public administration set out in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V to the Financial Administration Act,

(ii) where the person is appointed and remunerated under an Act governing the public service of a province, the government of which has, pursuant to subsection 2(1), agreed to insure all of its employees,

(iii) where the person holds the office in or under a corporation, commission or other body that is an agent of Her Majesty in right of a province referred to in subparagraph (ii), or

(iv) where the person holds the office in a union or an association of unions to which the person was elected by popular vote, or was elected or appointed to that office in the union or association in a representative capacity, and that employment is not included in insurable employment by paragraph (a); and

(g) employment of a person who is placed in that employment by a placement or employment agency to perform services for and under the direction and control of a client of the agency, where that person is remunerated by the agency for the performance of those services.

Damn government barbers! They're even more annoying than bee-keeping-notaries!

 

[solzhenitsyn]

Where does it state clearly and explicitly that private two party contracts are unlawful?

Um, it doesn't. Why would it? There's nothing "unlawful" about employment contracts between private parties. Indeed, there are millions and millions of them are entered into in Canada every year.

And if it doesn't then that contract is no one else's business, especially if there is a non-disclosure clause within it.

Parliament has quite clearly made employment contracts their business. Of course, its not impossible to hide employment contracts from the government (i.e., under the table employment.) Many people do this. Its just contrary to the Employment Insurance Act.

 

[FreemanMenard]

SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/society

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

A free and democratic society implies I have a right to not be a member of that society. If I cannot choose to not be a part of it, it is not a society, and if I am obliged to have a number within it, it is not free one.

Face it Sol, whether someone has a SIN or not, is their choice, and they are not forced on people.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Um, it doesn't. Why would it? There's nothing "unlawful" about employment contracts between private parties. Indeed, there are millions and millions of them are entered into in Canada every year.



Parliament has quite clearly made employment contracts their business. Of course, its not impossible to hide employment contracts from the government (i.e., under the table employment.) Many people do this. Its just contrary to the Employment Insurance Act.

No it's not, for if it was, they would be mentioned. You cannot claim something is against a particular Act, when that something is not mentioned. An Act that does not even mention a right must be deemed to not affect that right.

 

[TSR]

The benefit of paying taxes? Seriously?

.
Did I stutter?
.

None of the things you mentioned require me to have a SIN and are not benefits associated with one. As a matter of fact, they are not even 'legal benefits'.

.
Wel, they aren't legally yours, certainly.
.

The proof of that is the fact that I am using the internet at the moment without one.

.
Sorry, that's just proof of your willingness to let someone else foot the bill, assuming you are not also spinning tall tales about that document which says that it's okay which despite being asked for several times is spectacularly missing from the discussion.
.

And you obviously have expanded the definition of 'legal benefit' to now include anything good or a 'convenience' not even built by those who impose taxes.

.
No, I have not.

I have pointed out that a legal benefit has fruit of which you are taking advantage of, whether or not you "consent" to that legal benefit.

Even if you personally have created your very own personal infrastructure from naturally occurring materials you have gathered from non-public lands with your own hands and refined, manufactured and deployed it -- your connection to this board is using the more traditional type, making your use of it in part dependent on the taxes other people have paid.

And one notes that you have skipped rather obviously over things like the airport (whose services you *tried* to advantage of and were prevented) and the court system of which you also took advantage.
.

Nice try though.

.
No, your has not been.
.

So, care to answer my questions or merley try to avoid some more?

.
...and TAOILHTN.

What's that question that has been being asked since page one of this thread? The one you have yet to do more than *make up* stories about onstead of answering?

Gee, if there were only a way for us to easily determine that sort of thing -- you know, some sort of announcement that goes near the top of the thread?
.