Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Boot2TheHead]

Just a reminder, should we lose focus. The argument about whether BIN12345 has a SIN, or is using the road for commerce, is merely an amusing exercice in demonstrating that his made-up rules are internally inconsistent. This is independant from the bigger point, that they are completely detached from reality. At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter whether or not he has or does these things.

 

[Stacey Grove]

BIN has a SIN.

FIN.

 

[BritPunk]

BIN has a SIN.

FIN.

Oh, clever

 

[fitzgibbon]

Did you hear that fitz? Bosozuko says you are absurd.

Uhhhh.....no. "you don't have a right to associate or disassociate from a number, nor does a number have the right to associate or disassociate from you." Seems to have much more in common with what I pointed out than your point.

Even if freedom of association only applies to people,

It does (aka "sentient beings" as I put it earlier [but that's a quibble])

then the CRA is composed of people, as is HRC, and I choose to not associate with them. Fair?

However, as representatives of the Government of Canada (the physical location within which you claim to reside), they are thereby empowered to associate you with the SIN you acquired in your claimed duration of service in the CF. You are free to stick fingers in whichever orifice is closest to hand; that will not change one iota of reality.

You are free to assign whatever number you want to me in your records or your head. As is anyone else. I do not care in the least. It has no effect upon me.

You might be in for an upleasant surprise from that particular vector.

And nothing to do with me. (It's YOUR number, not mine. Even has YOUR name in it!) That is not the same as me associating with it.

It binds you going forward and (more importantly) had your agreement and acknowledgement. You can't unring that bell.

And here is the thing, there is no way you can force me to use it, or associate with it. Or accept any benefits associated with it. You can’t give me something I refuse to accept. And I do not accept your number. Just like I do not accept the CRA’s and HRC’s SIN number. Now how you going to force me to associate with it? You can’t can you?

You're a beneficiary of all that the SIN represents so long as you habit within these borders. Your option is (as has been pointed out repeatedly) to remove yourself therefrom. If you choose to remain within the jurisdiction, you tacitly accept the rules of the land.

You assert there's a third way in this binary equation yet provide no supportable proof that it has been acknowledged and accepted as such (save for blank assertion) by the ones in a position to compel. The best you seem to be able to do is assert that because you haven't been hauled away by constabulary yet that it shall not happen.

Hubris, baby

Now please tell me, how do you propose to force me to accept your number?

(grabs popcorn for Bosozuko's theatre of the absurd)

You already accepted it. Contract signed, soul delivered. End of discussion.

Fitz

 

[FreemanMenard]

Building inspectors are required for new construction, major renovations (particularly if there are additions to existing structure, or alterations to load bearing walls). Little thing called the Building Code - a little something that the folks in Canada have put in place so that persons purchasing a home can be assured that it has been built to a reasonable standard and isn't likely to fall down the first time there's a major snowfall,etc). Not to mention lenders liking to see the inspection report prior to approving sales of houses.

When doing construction on houses I usually follow the code, not because I feel obliged to do so, but because it simply makes sense. Who wants a stone wall to fail? Engineers who know more than I have determined the safest way to ensure a stone veneer does not overload a wall, or come away from it, or what sort of foundation is required for a given load. I am more than happy to use their knowledge to ensure I do a good and lasting job.

I have done work which was inspected, because as you stated, they wanted to flip the house, and needed the certificate to sell it. Got no problem with that either. I do what the one paying me wants done, according to the terms of our contract.

Now you may have made it a part of your contract for services that the property owner is responsible for getting the inspection, and if the owner is willing to do that that's OK. However, you're still earning income as defined by the Income Tax Act and CRA may become interested enough to do a little investigation.

Let them. I have no association with them, nor SIN, and no obligation to give them any information at all. And so very many questions for them if they do decide to impose upon me. And I do not consider it to be taxable income. After all, it is a private two party contract.

What I wonder about is your warranty - lets say you've done a bad piece of work and some stonework falls out or perhaps a retaining wall collapses - do you have a proper warranty, or is the owner now going to have to track you down and serve you with court papers? I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that you don't have insurance to cover such an occurrance, or any assets to cover such a problem, so I'd be leery of hiring you. This is why I go with reputable contractors for stuff I can't do myself

Well, it hasn't happened yet. As I said, I follow the engineering guidelines and codes quite strictly. I guarantee my work and if it does fail due to my workmanship, I would fix it. Thats why I like doing fun jobs like outdoor cook areas and cob ovens. People who see my work are not leery at all. As a matter of fact, I am quite reputable, in that I have a good reputation for doing quality work with an artistic flair.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Little thing called the Building Code - a little something that the folks in Canada have put in place so that persons purchasing a home can be assured that it has been built to a reasonable standard and isn't likely to fall down the first time there's a major snowfall,etc).

You don't watch "Holmes on Homes" and "Holmes Inspection" do you? Living in a '50s ranch bungalow built to withstand nuclear Armaegeddon, I'll take my house over a present-day, off-the-rack model any day.

This is why I go with reputable contractors for stuff I can't do myself.

Because you HAVE watched "Holmes on Homes" and "Holmes Inspection".

Fitz

 

[Bosozoku]

Did you hear that fitz? Bosozuko says you are absurd.

Even if freedom of association only applies to people, then the CRA is composed of people, as is HRC, and I choose to not associate with them. Fair?

You are free to assign whatever number you want to me in your records or your head. As is anyone else. I do not care in the least. It has no effect upon me. And nothing to do with me. (It's YOUR number, not mine. Even has YOUR name in it!) That is not the same as me associating with it. And here is the thing, there is no way you can force me to use it, or associate with it. Or accept any benefits associated with it. You can’t give me something I refuse to accept. And I do not accept your number. Just like I do not accept the CRA’s and HRC’s SIN number. Now how you going to force me to associate with it? You can’t can you?

Now please tell me, how do you propose to force me to accept your number?

(grabs popcorn for Bosozuko's theatre of the absurd)

On your first point, I am saying the freedom of association does not apply to numbers. Numbers can still be associated with people and things, but the freedom of association does not apply to numbers.

Of course, you are perfectly free to say "I do not wish to be associated with [insert number]." You are equally free to say "I am not associated with [insert number], and I never was associated with that number." Just because you are free to say this, however, doesn't make the statement true.

Take the BIN I assigned to you (which is BIN 12345, if you need me to jog your memory). Bozosoku Identification Numbers are numbers that I have the complete power to assign or to take away. Do you know why? Because I decide who has a BIN and who doesn't, that's why. And it's perfectly within my rights to assign someone a BIN. You don't accept? I don't care! Your BIN is 12345, and I am never going to revoke it. Now, tell me, what are you going to do to make me?

 

[fitzgibbon]

You have my permission.

Thanks but moot. We're setting up meetings already. The flock's ready for shearing.

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

Sometimes we need to just step up and say we are not right.

Eeewhuuutttt :

Fitz

 

[Jon.]

How does one prove a negative? How do you prove you are not a member of NAMBLA? Can you prove you did not get a ticket for running the red light? How would you do that?

Since I have the right to decide my associations, (as you have a right to decide yours), not anyone else, and I am claiming that I am not associated with a SIN, that must settle it right? Unless of course you wish to claim we do not have the right of association. Is that your claim?

Sorry to rewind a bit, but I want to address Rob's "prove a negative" argument again.

Nobody is asking you to prove a negative, Rob. You have made two positive assertions: first, that in spite of the fact that you had a SIN, you have been able to "disassociate" yourself from it; and, second, that doing so relieves you of the obligation to pay income tax. We are asking for evidence to support your claims.

The kind of evidence you might produce is, of course, up to you. An example might be a letter from the government confirming that you are no longer associated with the number that was once your SIN, or acknowledging that you are not obliged to pay income tax as a result. However, if you want to convince anyone that you're anything other than a con man, you might want to produce something.

Oh, and a bare assertion that you haven't paid income tax in x number of years isn't going to get you very far. (That is to say, it is evidence, but it probably won't be given much weight.) That's for two reasons: you don't have a lot of credibility given your track record; and the CRA itself admits that they haven't gotten around to prosecuting everyone who hasn't filed taxes, but that doesn't relieve people of their obligations.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Uhhhh.....no. "you don't have a right to associate or disassociate from a number, nor does a number have the right to associate or disassociate from you." Seems to have much more in common with what I pointed out than your point.

Then how come I managed to do it?

It does (aka "sentient beings" as I put it earlier [but that's a quibble])

So corporations which are not sentient beings have no right to form associations? Riiiiggghhhttt...

However, as representatives of the Government of Canada (the physical location within which you claim to reside), they are thereby empowered to associate you with the SIN you acquired in your claimed duration of service in the CF. You are free to stick fingers in whichever orifice is closest to hand; that will not change one iota of reality.

A physical area has a representative? Wow this gets better and better! Did the geographical area empower them? How does that work, if that area did not have the power on its own? And is not a representative relationship an association? But you said a non-sentient thing, such as an area can't engage in association... hmmm.... You really did not think this through did you?

You might be in for an upleasant surprise from that particular vector.

Oh they tried already and agreed that I have a right to not associate with a SIN, and no one is obliged to have one, or maintain an association with one. And my newest DVD DIstribution Minion threatened how many times now to report me. YAWN. Care to answer the question I keep raising? If we are not obliged to get one in the first place, how can we be obliged to leave our country for not having one? What about the ultra wealthy who never had to apply for one to begin with? Will you tell them they have to leave too? Will you tell them they have an obligation to get one?

It binds you going forward and (more importantly) had your agreement and acknowledgement. You can't unring that bell.

When I was an employee of the government I had to have one. I no longer do. Sorry.

You're a beneficiary of all that the SIN represents so long as you habit within these borders. Your option is (as has been pointed out repeatedly) to remove yourself therefrom. If you choose to remain within the jurisdiction, you tacitly accept the rules of the land.

No I am not. I am not a beneficiary of CPP, Welfare or EI. And you think everyone is obliged to have a SIN. What about those who have never needed one and never applied for one? The wealthy. Do they have to leave too?

You assert there's a third way in this binary equation yet provide no supportable proof that it has been acknowledged and accepted as such (save for blank assertion) by the ones in a position to compel. The best you seem to be able to do is assert that because you haven't been hauled away by constabulary yet that it shall not happen.

How can anyone compel me to associate with a SIN? Or any other number? Who are these people? And do I not have the right to not associate with them? Are they not sentient beings?

"Is this your SIN?" they ask.
"Nope, I do not have one" is my reply.
"Oh. Okay. Good bye."

Hubris, baby

I call it knowledge.

You already accepted it. Contract signed, soul delivered. End of discussion.

Fitz

Contract over. And don't you realize Jesus died so I could be SIN free?

 

[arayder]

Sorry to get off topic, Boot2TheHead.

This won’t take long.

Our subject’s unrealistic sense of self importance fit the personality profile. His loony stories of how the world kisses his beer bloat are the classic tall tales of a guy puffing himself up.

Listen what we are hearing and recall what we have heard in the past. . .

We are expected to believe that Menard is a viable operator in a building trade, masonry, when he can’t /won’t comply with the wage and tax withholding requirements related to his “laborer” and refuses to comply with building codes. He even says he manfully send the last building inspector packing.

Yet Menard says folks can’t get enough of his work, in spite of the problems his shenanigans would cause . . . if he ever really did them.

Menard says he openly drinks in public and then corrects any would be arresting police officers with his brilliant and grasp of freeman law.

He says when the BC courts told him to stop playing lawyer he just called them up and told them the ruling didn’t apply to him, and the court passively agreed with his majestic pronouncement.

These are just a few of his tall tales.

It has to strike one as curious that every time there is an actual record of his exploits and encounters with authorities the results are, shall we say, not so spectacular.

He lost custody of a child he claim a sort of parentage to, the authorities citing a poor home environment. It seems a couple of mere government social workers were all it took to best the manly Menard.

He threaten an airlines who won’t let him use freeman ID to board a plane. This threats and internet screeds where ignored by the airline. It seems our boy can’t even get by a little ole little ticket agent.

A couple of traffic cops ignored his rants while they towed a car right from under him and his traveling companions. He wrote a threatening letter (which he may or may not have sent), but it didn’t do any good that anyone can see. The little cop he called “Peppermint Patty” was too much for Mr. Manly Man.

Next our boy is going to go three rounds with Aunt Bee!

Before the BC courts ordered him to stop playing lawyer he was uniformly unsuccessful in his efforts before the courts. He says he the ruling doesn’t apply to him, but we don’t see Menard doing his Perry Mason impression before any courts now-a-days.

No, the stories don’t match the reality. Not even the new stories.

 

[FreemanMenard]

On your first point, I am saying the freedom of association does not apply to numbers. Numbers can still be associated with people and things, but the freedom of association does not apply to numbers.

Of course, you are perfectly free to say "I do not wish to be associated with [insert number]." You are equally free to say "I am not associated with [insert number], and I never was associated with that number." Just because you are free to say this, however, doesn't make the statement true.

Take the BIN I assigned to you (which is BIN 12345, if you need me to jog your memory). Bozosoku Identification Numbers are numbers that I have the complete power to assign or to take away. Do you know why? Because I decide who has a BIN and who doesn't, that's why. And it's perfectly within my rights to assign someone a BIN. You don't accept? I don't care! Your BIN is 12345, and I am never going to revoke it. Now, tell me, what are you going to do to make me?

Of course freedom of association applies to SIN's. They have to be applied for, they are not assigned arbitrarily by the HRC without the recipients having no choice in the matter.

What you do not have is the power to force me to use them, or associate with them. Still waiting for you to prove otherwise. YOUR number is inconsequential, does not affect me, and is not mine. Now for your purposes, you are free as I said to assign a number to whomever and whatever you wish. Does not mean though you can compel others to be associated with it.

Thanks for the laughs! You are especially absurd today!

 

[FreemanMenard]

Thanks but moot. We're setting up meetings already. The flock's ready for shearing.

Fitz

Go forth my Minions, and do my bidding.

 

[fitzgibbon]

When doing construction on houses I usually follow the code,

Usually, eh? Anything else you "usually" do? Wipe? Wash your hands. Shower?

not because I feel obliged to do so, but because it simply makes sense.

Returning to the "Holmes on Homes" and "Holmes Inspection" examples I cited earlier, economic sense would make sense to salt the fields of handyman Carthage so long as one can economically get away with it before moving on to fresh fields. Why would you care, after all? It isn't like you're going to be working for anyone again anytime soon.

Who wants a stone wall to fail? Engineers who know more than I have determined the safest way to ensure a stone veneer does not overload a wall, or come away from it, or what sort of foundation is required for a given load. I am more than happy to use their knowledge to ensure I do a good and lasting job.

But you said you "usually" follow building code. So clearly, the building code is not the Alpha and Omega of your work but rather an optional reference to be adhered to under.....what? Duress? A client who's not a complete idiot? What?

I have done work which was inspected, because as you stated, they wanted to flip the house, and needed the certificate to sell it. Got no problem with that either.

Therein lies the MO for "Holmes Inspection". Oddly enough, there're a lot of feckless home inspectors, Bob. Evidently, you haven't been caught-out by a conscientious one yet.

Tempus fugit.

I do what the one paying me wants done, according to the terms of our contract.

Damn the torpedoes.....

Let them. I have no association with them, nor SIN, and no obligation to give them any information at all.

Uhhhh....no. You're wrong. Quite so in fact.

And I do not consider it to be taxable income.

Your consideration is moot. You may be in for a rather ugly, unpleasant realisation.

After all, it is a private two party contract.

Only insofar as your 'work' doesn't fall upon the head of a third party. When it does? All bets're off.

Well, it hasn't happened yet.

Wanna guess what the operative word in that phrase is?

As I said, I follow the engineering guidelines and codes quite strictly.

Uhh...not what you said earlier. Remember this?

When doing construction on houses I usually follow the code,

Either you do or you don't. Or is it a case of "I do when I don't have a choice"? Enquiring mind wants to know

I guarantee my work and if it does fail due to my workmanship, I would fix it.

Except that you have nothing to back up your bravado should there be a disagreement between thee and thy client in terms of damages. Which makes you different from a fly-by-night handyman exactly how?

Thats why I like doing fun jobs like outdoor cook areas and cob ovens. People who see my work are not leery at all.

Which can only roll downhill and come apart with minimal damage to anything surrounding them. Big chances you're taking there, Bob.

You'd really have to work hard to build either of the aforementioned that someone was leery of (not that I put it outside of your degree of attainment)

As a matter of fact, I am quite reputable, in that I have a good reputation for doing quality work with an artistic flair.

So you've claimed. I'm sure the feckless handymen whose work has made Mike Holmes a household name across North America probably thought as highly of their skillsets too.

Millions have learned otherwise though

Fitz

 

[D'rok]

Of course freedom of association applies to SIN's.

Educate yourself on what freedom of association means.

http://canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-2-d.html

Your ignorance, as usual, is staggering and is only matched by your baseless arrogance.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Sorry to rewind a bit, but I want to address Rob's "prove a negative" argument again.

Nobody is asking you to prove a negative, Rob. You have made two positive assertions: first, that in spite of the fact that you had a SIN, you have been able to "disassociate" yourself from it; and, second, that doing so relieves you of the obligation to pay income tax. We are asking for evidence to support your claims.

The kind of evidence you might produce is, of course, up to you. An example might be a letter from the government confirming that you are no longer associated with the number that was once your SIN, or acknowledging that you are not obliged to pay income tax as a result. However, if you want to convince anyone that you're anything other than a con man, you might want to produce something.

Oh, and a bare assertion that you haven't paid income tax in x number of years isn't going to get you very far. (That is to say, it is evidence, but it probably won't be given much weight.) That's for two reasons: you don't have a lot of credibility given your track record; and the CRA itself admits that they haven't gotten around to prosecuting everyone who hasn't filed taxes, but that doesn't relieve people of their obligations.

They asked me to prove I do NOT have a SIN. That is a negative.
They ask I prove I do NOT have to pay Income Taxes. That is a negative.

My claim is, just in case you missed it, as you seem to have done, is that I DO NOT have a SIN. Ask me to prove it and you are asking me to prove a negative.
My claim is I do NOT have to pay income tax, as I do not have a SIN. Asking me to prove it is asking me to prove a negative.

Thanks for trying so hard though.

 

[arayder]

Go forth my Minions, and do my bidding.

This is what happens when a narcissist snaps.

 

[Bosozoku]

Of course freedom of association applies to SIN's. They have to be applied for, they are not assigned arbitrarily by the HRC without the recipients having no choice in the matter.

What you do not have is the power to force me to use them, or associate with them. Still waiting for you to prove otherwise. YOUR number is inconsequential, does not affect me, and is not mine. Now for your purposes, you are free as I said to assign a number to whomever and whatever you wish. Does not mean though you can compel others to be associated with it.

Thanks for the laughs! You are especially absurd today!

Actually, yes I can. To associate means "to connect or to bring into relation with." I created the Bosozoku Identification Number system, and then I assigned you BIN 12345 without your consent or approval. I have unilaterally connected you with and brought you into relation with a BIN number. You can pretend I didn't all you want, but it happened.

I am going to go ahead and guess that when you were born that your parents applied for a SIN, and that you were assigned one by the Canadian government. You weren't legally capable of accepting anything, and yet they went ahead and "associated" you with that number nonetheless. Why? Because the government decides who to assign an SIN to, not you. The same way I just assigned you a BIN. They're free to do it.

So, did they send you a piece of paper saying that they've revoked your SIN? Would you care to produce it if they did?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Usually, eh? Anything else you "usually" do? Wipe? Wash your hands. Shower?



Returning to the "Holmes on Homes" and "Holmes Inspection" examples I cited earlier, economic sense would make sense to salt the fields of handyman Carthage so long as one can economically get away with it before moving on to fresh fields. Why would you care, after all? It isn't like you're going to be working for anyone again anytime soon.



But you said you "usually" follow building code. So clearly, the building code is not the Alpha and Omega of your work but rather an optional reference to be adhered to under.....what? Duress? A client who's not a complete idiot? What?



Therein lies the MO for "Holmes Inspection". Oddly enough, there're a lot of feckless home inspectors, Bob. Evidently, you haven't been caught-out by a conscientious one yet.

Tempus fugit.



Damn the torpedoes.....



Uhhhh....no. You're wrong. Quite so in fact.



Your consideration is moot. You may be in for a rather ugly, unpleasant realisation.



Only insofar as your 'work' doesn't fall upon the head of a third party. When it does? All bets're off.



Wanna guess what the operative word in that phrase is?



Uhh...not what you said earlier. Remember this?



Either you do or you don't. Or is it a case of "I do when I don't have a choice"? Enquiring mind wants to know



Except that you have nothing to back up your bravado should there be a disagreement between thee and thy client in terms of damages. Which makes you different from a fly-by-night handyman exactly how?



Which can only roll downhill and come apart with minimal damage to anything surrounding them. Big chances you're taking there, Bob.

You'd really have to work hard to build either of the aforementioned that someone was leery of (not that I put it outside of your degree of attainment)



So you've claimed. I'm sure the feckless handymen whose work has made Mike Holmes a household name across North America probably thought as highly of their skillsets too.

Millions have learned otherwise though

Fitz

All these questions but you won't answer mine. Those wealthy people who have never applied for a SIN, and do not have one, do you think they have to leave the country too? YES or NO please.... and if so, how do you intend to make them?

Also, how do you claim anyone can force another to associate with a number?