Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Cocana The Second]

I honestly find that many of these freemen believe that they are much more intelligent than most of the rest of the human race. By tossing in a few big words in their you tube speach's or in their writings then they seem to find themselves to be extremely intelligent even though the rest of the speach or blog or letter is total rubbish.

Spot on.

I've tried to reason with these people before but I don't really see the point now. I'm just wasting my own time. The only difficulty that I have arises when I see them causing harm to others (Menard being a prime example of this). The ones who decide that they know it all and won't be reasoned with might as well be left to their own devices, to my mind. They're only going to fall flat on their faces and more fool them if they don't learn from that.

Those, like Menard, who bring this about, should know better though and should be challenged.

After having many of these cult members in our home I come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with them. Many are criminals seeking an out for the situation that they are in. When confronted with their total ignorance of the law they claim that they have just learnt legalese and therefore they know better than the rest of us do.

I've spotted another one of those sorts recently, facing fraud charges and looking for a freeman excuse to get him out of the mess that he put himself in. Waste of space.

They very quickly when caught in something utterly stupid change the wording so that it will suit their needs better. I am really not sure that many of them even know what they are talking about. As long as they can toss out a lot of words very quickly and have a large word that I am sure they do not even know the meaning of into the equation then they surely must be right.

I still stand by the fact that Rob Menard whether the father or not is nothing more than a mere abuser and rapist that lost a child due to this. He must have been found nuts by the childrens services and the courts. I guess his long winded speaches did not help him much regardless of how many big words he has tossed in.

Agreed - again

 

[jargon buster]

Menards unravelled on Ickes again.
He seemed to be of the belief that a SIN made you and employee of the government??
When asked why you didnt recieve a paycheck from the government as all employees by definition must recieve a salary or payment he changed his entire story to people being agents rather than employees, that fell apart now he's back to employees again
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154350&page=2

 

[Cocana The Second]

Menards unravelled on Ickes again.
He seemed to be of the belief that a SIN made you and employee of the government??
When asked why you didnt recieve a paycheck from the government as all employees by definition must recieve a salary or payment he changed his entire story to people being agents rather than employees, that fell apart now he's back to employees again
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154350&page=2

Some comments there are bordering on stundies -

Many are deceived into applying for a SIN. I contend the SIN is a Federal Employee Identification number and having one means you are an employee of the federal government and bound by rules you otherwise would not be.
HRC does not tell people they are applying for employee status.

Ask HRC what HRC stands for. Human Resources Canada. Human Resources deals with employees.

Payment into a pension is prima facie evidence of employee status. Why would anyone pay into a pension plan if they were not an employee of the employer administrating that pension?

It is impossible to get any government job without a SIN. Of course that makes sense, as the SIN means you are already on the books as one of their employees.

Can you point to any other party that pays into a pension plan who is not an employee of the administrator of the plan?

Human Resources CANADA.... Why get a number form them unless you wish to be a Human Resource for CANADA?

Why pay into that plan if you are not an employee of CANADA?

Yeap, a SIN clearly establishes you as an employee of the federal government. And now the rules which are only applicable to employees of the federal government are applicable to you. And if I do not have one, I am not bound by those rules. Right?

If they were stupid and humorous, I'd be doing some nominations. Unfortunately they're just stupid.

 

[Cocana The Second]

Actually his post 31 is a direct contradiction of the one above -

You are twisting my words. I never said that they said we were employees. I said they said that the SIN was an employee identification number. With the exception of the SIN being identified as a FEIN, pretty much all your substitutions still work, and although they do change slightly some of the implied relationships, it is actually likely closer to the truth then what I said. In just about every instance where you replaced 'employee' with 'agent' with the exception of the one dealing with Federal Employee Identification Number, the facts still stand, and your choice of word seems better to me.

Again, not humorous enough for me but it is a stundie. What a wazzock.

 

[Cocana The Second]

O blimey, he then contradicts himself again at 35 -

It is entirely possible to lawfully enter into an employee/employer relationship via contract in this common law jurisdiction without such a number.

On this evidence he doesn't need anyone to dig the holes for him; he's a master at doing it himself.

 

[Horatius]

Okay, I am a Federal Employee, and I'm pretty sure I don't have a "Federal Employee Identification Number". Is it just barely possible that he's making up some more crap?

 

[Sledge]

What makes this so annoying is he's such an idiot. I appreciate that the law can be complicated, but has he never heard of private pension plans? What a maroon.

 

[Agatha]

Maroon is a good description, but I prefer cocana's word: "wazzock". It reminds of when I lived near Barnsley.

 

[jargon buster]

I appreciate that the law can be complicated, but has he never heard of private pension plans?

Bearing in mind the circles Menard moves in, I would wager probably not.
Potheads, drunks and the unemployed dont consider a pension plan to be high on their list of priorites.

 

[Vladd]

I see Ben10 raised the point of a private pension, Menard just raised the point of people thinking Ben is JB and then insulted him.
I like this in post 33

6 - If you do not associate with a SIN, you do not have an account with Revenue Canada and thus do not have any obligations to them to pay Income Tax or file returns.

Bet you can still get benefit from them though.
Should be interesting to see how Menard deals with JulesWinfield's attempt to pin him down and get a straight answer

You clearly believe the SIN number defines you as an employee, but cannot establish how it does so or provide anything to substantiate this claim apart from an alleged phone call a few years ago.
You seem to just make things up as you go along jumping from one idea to the next because it fits in with your argument.

By the way, the government are the issuer of the number and you are the recipient of the number, there is no relationship made.

if i hadnt asked the question about employees getting paid you would never have brought up the issue of people acting as agents at all.
You would have just let people go along thinking they were "employees", which I'm not sure if you are back with that initial standpoint.
so just for clarity..
In your opinion are people with SINs employees of the government?

 

[tsig]

Bearing in mind the circles Menard moves in, I would wager probably not.
Potheads, drunks and the unemployed dont consider a pension plan to be high on their list of priorites.

Many of them will be living courtesy of the state.

 

[jargon buster]

Rob seems to have made his mind up finally
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059627070&postcount=38

Yes, I believe they are 'defacto' employees or agents, though not dejure employees or agents.

employees or agents?
What a tosspot.
Juleswinfield has pinned him down now on the paycheck issue, lets see how he worms his way around that one.

So we are employees ,fact!
Great, so wheres our paycheck?

 

[jargon buster]

Rob has now got in in for "juleswinfield" over on Ickes, hes trying to get him banned.
he stotlly destroyed his own freeman individual consent theory all by himself, big respect to thomas j
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154764&page=12
post 130 onwards

Robs just started a thread about "consent" and boy did he start of on a bad foot.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155464
Rob wrote

Consent....
is needed for lawful intercourse between two people, be it sexual or commercial.

Thread started.

Who disagrees?

Jules winfield wrote

is it true that minors cannot lawfully consent even if they say yes?

Rumpole wrote

What if a 15 year old girl 'consented' to a sexual relationship with a 37 year old man? Do you think this is 'lawful' behaviour, Rob? Most people would regard this as grossly exploitative & in fact illegal in many countries. What's your view of the FMOTL 'take' of this issue, Rob?

Girlgye has now advised him to take down the thread, even an idiot like that sees how hes made a fool of himself.

 

[Horatius]

...and down the memory hole they go!

 

[jargon buster]

I knew there was a reason I copied the posts, the cavalry has arrived to save Rob

Moderator ex-sheep wrote

Disruption on this forum will stop.
Any person who is disrupting no matter who it is will receive notices to this effect.

 

[ktesibios]

Maroon is a good description, but I prefer cocana's word: "wazzock". It reminds of when I lived near Barnsley.

Is that some sort of colourful Canadian slang? e.g., "Johnny, you know you have to take the puppy out of the igloo when he needs to make wazzock"?

 

[dafydd]

Is that some sort of colourful Canadian slang? e.g., "Johnny, you know you have to take the puppy out of the igloo when he needs to make wazzock"?

Popularised by Tony Capstick (in "Capstick Comes Home") in 1981 and used since as a minor insult (similar to how "idiot" is used as an insult).

Originally meant "bull's penis". See also "wazz" for another derivative of this sense of the word. Whether it was ever applied to other animals or humans I don't know - but as "wazz" is used for human urination in the West and North of England, I'd imagine so.

Was fairly rare in Yorkshire before Capstick's popularisation of it in 1981.
''You great useless spawny-eyed parrot-faced wazzock."
(Tony Capstick, 1981)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wazzock

 

[Wisp]

Rob's thread about consent is his way of saying that it was ok to rape that young girl. He was proven wrong by having the laws on the matter written out for him very clearly. It seems that in his own mind he did nothing wrong. She was underage and therefore no matter what he believes or does not believe it was still rape. Whether she consented or not it was still rape.
I have heard something similar to this once before and have to admit that I am often amazed that there are really so many that do not realize that having sex with a minor is rape.
Many years ago I was told by a male that had sex with a 14 year old that he did not know her age when it happened and that for someone that was underage she sure did know what she was doing. Besides she wanted it. He could not understand the fathers rage at the time.
So whether she consented, seemed to know what she was doing or not it was still rape.
It is a nice try on Rob's side though it really does not hold any water at all. He raped her no matter how he tries to talk his way out of it.
The more this person writes the more a fool I find him to be. He really has no clue what he has done to this young girl and I am sure he does not care. I am also starting to wonder if he has done this with other young girls without getting them pregnant. He seems really naive in oh so many ways.
I am so happy that my daughters were even at a young age older and wiser and would never have fallen for the likes of him.
Seems to me that if he cannot be charged with anything else then he could still be charged with rape. I am no lawyer so don't know that law well enough to know if the statute of limitations can still nail him for it. He has openly admitted to having sex with a minor on his blog so he cannot say that he did not do it. I am sure that all his letter nonsense would not get him out of that one. He can write as much as he wants, upside down, sideways, backwards and it would never change the fact that he raped that young girl and perhaps impregnated her (still not sure if it is his child or not).

 

[gtm]

Rob's thread about consent is his way of saying that it was ok to rape that young girl. He was proven wrong by having the laws on the matter written out for him very clearly. It seems that in his own mind he did nothing wrong. She was underage and therefore no matter what he believes or does not believe it was still rape. Whether she consented or not it was still rape.
I have heard something similar to this once before and have to admit that I am often amazed that there are really so many that do not realize that having sex with a minor is rape.
Many years ago I was told by a male that had sex with a 14 year old that he did not know her age when it happened and that for someone that was underage she sure did know what she was doing. Besides she wanted it. He could not understand the fathers rage at the time.
So whether she consented, seemed to know what she was doing or not it was still rape.
It is a nice try on Rob's side though it really does not hold any water at all. He raped her no matter how he tries to talk his way out of it.
The more this person writes the more a fool I find him to be. He really has no clue what he has done to this young girl and I am sure he does not care. I am also starting to wonder if he has done this with other young girls without getting them pregnant. He seems really naive in oh so many ways.
I am so happy that my daughters were even at a young age older and wiser and would never have fallen for the likes of him.
Seems to me that if he cannot be charged with anything else then he could still be charged with rape. I am no lawyer so don't know that law well enough to know if the statute of limitations can still nail him for it. He has openly admitted to having sex with a minor on his blog so he cannot say that he did not do it. I am sure that all his letter nonsense would not get him out of that one. He can write as much as he wants, upside down, sideways, backwards and it would never change the fact that he raped that young girl and perhaps impregnated her (still not sure if it is his child or not).

In those days the age of consent in Canada was 14 as opposed to 16 so Menards conduct whilst morally abhorrent was technically not criminal. The child protection services understandably took a dim view.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Popularised by Tony Capstick (in "Capstick Comes Home") in 1981 and used since as a minor insult (similar to how "idiot" is used as an insult).

Originally meant "bull's penis". See also "wazz" for another derivative of this sense of the word. Whether it was ever applied to other animals or humans I don't know - but as "wazz" is used for human urination in the West and North of England, I'd imagine so.

Was fairly rare in Yorkshire before Capstick's popularisation of it in 1981.
''You great useless spawny-eyed parrot-faced wazzock."
(Tony Capstick, 1981)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wazzock

Mike Harding uses it in his 'Posh Parties' routine on the 'Komik Kutz' album from the 70s