Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[tsig]

Ah, but you see, they think they didn't enter into contracts "voluntarily", they think they were tricked into signing on behalf of their "strawman".
Or something.

I suspect a lot of this comes down to these guys just not being very bright, and not understanding exactly what having a mortgage or a car loan really means. How often have we seen them say things like, "Gee, over the course of the mortgage, you'll pay X times what the house was really worth!", as if no one had ever heard of compound interest, or amortization before. Or even as if online mortgage calculators weren't available. Heck, even the banks themselves will tell you exactly what you're paying back.

They were not responsible for their actions because they were clinically insane.

 

[Border Reiver]

Statute law isn't a contract.

 

[Stacey Grove]

I never claimed the ability to withdraw consent from laws which deal with causing harm to others.

Why is withdrawal of consent impossible when laws that cause harm are concerned?
What prevents the withdrawal of consent?

 

[FreemanMenard]

So you'll share this letter or other document from CRA? A scan will work - just block out your address.

The regulations dealing with SINs indicate that only the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development has the authority to issue SINs, and based on the plain wording of the regs - no one has the authority to rescind it. That number is yours for life, and will continue to be associated with you regardless of whether you want to or not. Much like the Service number that you were issued when the CF changed over from using SINs as identifiers and switched to SN in 1992. Again, an example of your being governed without consent.

And by the way Rob, as a CF member you were never an "employee" of Canada. You were a SERVANT of the Crown. Use the correct terminiology

What documents? They send me nothing, as I am not in association with them.

No number is mine for life. I chose my associations. And I chose to not associate any longer with it. As is my choice.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

We're talking about a guy who thinks he can just up and decide he doesn't want to be Robert Menard of British Columbia anymore when it's not convenient.

Kind of hopeless.

 

[tsig]

ALL intercourse be it sexual, commercial or social, requires mutual consent, if we are equal.

I think you went around the bend ages ago, and now are (according to you) seeking to destroy some other human being whom you have never met, do not know, and you justify your hate filled heart.

Remove the beam from you own eye before you point out the mote in others.

The hardest part of self crucifixion is nailing that last hand.

Here let me help

TAP. TAP.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Why is withdrawal of consent impossible where laws that cause harm are concerned?
What prevents the withdrawal of consent?

The fact that the law of the Universe means we reap what we sow. Even if you did withdraw consent from the Criminal Code, you then open yourself to justice delivered at the hands of your victims or their families. But why would anyone want to withdraw consent for that? Do you desire to cause people harm? I know I do not. I also know many of the people here have expressed that their desire to harm is their driving force.

 

[Stacey Grove]

The fact that the law of the Universe means we reap what we sow. Even if you did withdraw consent from the Criminal Code, you then open yourself to justice delivered at the hands of your victims or their families.

That does not explain why it would be impossible to withdraw consent.
Surely you could refuse to consent to the "justice delivered at the hands of the victims or their families." If not, why not?

But why would anyone want to withdraw consent for that? Do you desire to cause people harm? I know I do not. I also know many of the people here have expressed that their desire to harm is their driving force.

Strawman argument. I have not said I wish to cause anybody any harm, nor have I said I wish to withdraw consent to such laws. I have merely asked you why you believe withdrawal of consent in those circumstances is impossible. Don't attempt to make it appear I wish to harm people.

 

[Border Reiver]

What documents? They send me nothing, as I am not in association with them.

No number is mine for life. I chose my associations. And I chose to not associate any longer with it. As is my choice.

So, your earlier statement "At least the CRA agreed that they had no way to force me to be associated with any number" is in fact a falsehood, a flib, an equivocation, or a flat-out lie, since CRA has not actually indicated that they no longer associate you with "any number" or that you "no longer have any account with them." You may be surprised.

Except of course for the folks who will associate you with those number regardless of your choice. Folks such as VAC (if you did sustain a head injury while serving that has caused this delusion you may be able to get some help from Veterans Affairs), Library and Archives Canada (where your personnel file etc is stored - don't worry, the general public won't be able to get at until you've been dead 20 years), and others.

Carry on with the delusion Rob. Or don't.

 

[tsig]

Really? Then explain WHY the Income Tax Act, and so many others require one to 'submit' an 'application' to receive benefits, which are clearly voluntary actions before the Act comes into force over them? Since I have no SIN, I cannot collect certain benefits as expressed in various Acts. Since I can't collect those benefits, I have no obligation to pay for them. This was my choice to make.

Do you agree that having a SIN is a choice?
Do you agree without it one cannot collect benefits such as CPP, Welfare and EI?
Do you agree that those benefits and how they are disbursed are covered by an Act?
Do you agree that if we do not apply (ask, beg, plead, petition) for a SIN, we are not subject to the Acts which govern those who do have a SIN?

As for proof, there is plenty out there, for those who chose to seek it out. Maybe those who are not capable of self-governing simply lack the ability to see it, and if that is the case, why should I show them? Is see no wisdom in freeing from statutory controls those who lack the ability to understand freedom, self-governance and responsibility, and those who demand proof instead of seeking it out themselves simply lack that required level of personal responsibility.

Do you really believe that your wordsmithing has any validity?

 

[catsmate]

FFS.

Among other nonsense about how to avoid paying your bills, Menard is literally telling people that by signing a $1.00 Canadian stamp (something that does not exist in Canada), they can become the Postmaster General (an office that does not exist in Canada) and a teller of the Bank of Canada (a job that does not exist in Canada).

It really is like a black hole of stupid. So much idiocy concentrated in one place.

Perhaps he's recycling USAian woo?

 

[Paul]

The fact that the law of the Universe means we reap what we sow.

Is that the same type of fact as all your other facts, or is it an actual fact?

Even if you did withdraw consent from the Criminal Code, you then open yourself to justice delivered at the hands of your victims or their families.

So other people aren't required to obey your do no harm rule?

But why would anyone want to withdraw consent for that?

The question has never been why.

Do you desire to cause people harm?

Typical dishonest response.

I know I do not.

You must be really incompetent then.

I also know many of the people here have expressed that their desire to harm is their driving force.

Aww, poor little defenceless Rob, is everyone out to get you?

 

[Boot2TheHead]

Really? Tell it to a woman you want to have sex with who does not want to have sex with you.
Tell it to someone you wish to contract with who does not wish to contract with you.
Tell it to someone you wish to speak to who does not wish to speak to you.

It is clearly and obviously the case that intercourse, for it to be lawful, requires mutual consent. It is the nature of 'inter course' regardless of what type it is.

Maybe it is you not putting any thought into it.

I await your proof that you can have any type of the aforementioned intercourse without mutual consent without breaking the law.

If the tables were turned you folks would challenge me to go rape a woman and then prove I am not liable for the fact that I did not consent to the requirement for mutual consent. I will of course not extend that challenge, as it is offensive, but will challenge you to go out create a contract with someone else for anything without mutual consent, and then get a court to enforce it, cause you do not consent to the requirement for mutual consent.

Have fun.

Cats are mammals.
Dogs are mammals.
Whales are mammals.

All animals are mammals.

If you want to argue against this, you'll have to prove that one of the above is not a mammal.

Guys, which fallacy is this? I can't tell. I think it's entirely possible that Menard pionneered a whole new form of fallacy.

It's bad enough that he misunderstands logic bad enough to think merely naming three situations that require consent is evidence enough to prove that ALL interactions ever require require consent, but he botched even that. Pretty sure there's plenty of situation where you can legitimatly force information on someone (health warnings or legal disclaimers, for example) -_-

 

[SpitfireIX]

Really? Then explain WHY the Income Tax Act, and so many others require one to 'submit' an 'application' to receive benefits, which are clearly voluntary actions before the Act comes into force over them? Since I have no SIN, I cannot collect certain benefits as expressed in various Acts. Since I can't collect those benefits, I have no obligation to pay for them. This was my choice to make.

Income Tax Act, Part I, Divison A, Subsection 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.[bolding mine]

What part of this is unclear?

Do you agree that having a SIN is a choice?

I'm no expert on Canadian law, but it appears to be required for most kinds of employment.

Do you agree without it one cannot collect benefits such as CPP, Welfare and EI?
Do you agree that those benefits and how they are disbursed are covered by an Act?

I'll grant both, at least for the sake of argument.

Do you agree that if we do not apply (ask, beg, plead, petition) for a SIN, we are not subject to the Acts which govern those who do have a SIN?

No. If the law applies to those who are required to have a SIN, not getting one won't help you.

As for proof, there is plenty out there, for those who chose to seek it out. Maybe those who are not capable of self-governing simply lack the ability to see it, and if that is the case, why should I show them?

Your extraordinary claim; your burden of proof. Fail.

Is see no wisdom in freeing from statutory controls those who lack the ability to understand freedom, self-governance and responsibility, and those who demand proof instead of seeking it out themselves simply lack that required level of personal responsibility.

Unless they pay you, of course.

 

[Paul]

Oh look, he's gone again.

 

[FreemanMenard]

We're talking about a guy who thinks he can just up and decide he doesn't want to be Robert Menard of British Columbia anymore when it's not convenient.

Kind of hopeless.

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt

There is always hope.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Income Tax Act, Part I, Divison A, Subsection 2(1):




What part of this is unclear?




I'm no expert on Canadian law, but it appears to be required for most kinds of employment.




I'll grant both, at least for the sake of argument.




No. If the law applies to those who are required to have a SIN, not getting one won't help you.




Your extraordinary claim; your burden of proof. Fail.




Unless they pay you, of course.

You are the one trying to claim I have to have a SIN, something that even the people who issue them HRC, will not claim.

The extraordinary claim is yours, not mine.

What evidence do you have that I am obliged to have one? Please do not point to the ITA, as that deals with those who do voluntarily have one.

If you were told that every one in a party had to have an invitation, would you claim I have to apply for the invitation because I am also obliged to attend the party?

Lets be clear here. YOU are arguing for people being forced to have a government issued number. WOW is all I can say....

 

[Paul]

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt

It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself.
Eleanor Roosevelt ​

There is always hope.

Seemingly not for you.

 

[Horatius]

and who files a return of income under Part I for the year,
CHOICE
Not applicable to me....

Show me the charges for failing to apply for a SIN.

Failure to provide identification number

(6) Every person or partnership who fails to provide on request their Social Insurance Number or their business number to a person required under this Act or a regulation to make an information return requiring the number is liable to a penalty of $100 for each such failure, unless
(a) an application for the assignment of the number is made within 15 days after the request was received; and
(b) the number is provided to the person who requested the number within 15 days after the person or partnership received it.

http://www.taxwiki.ca/ITA+Section+162


Now, go ahead and tell us you're not a "person". That bit never gets old.

Actually, that site quite nicely sums up most of the problems with your nonsense.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Perhaps he's recycling USAian woo?

That occurred to me, but I checked, and up until 1981 Canada had a Postmaster General. So while it's possible that this is based on SC garbage, I think it's more likely a lack of research.