Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
D'rok said:
You are ridiculous. You are now arguing against yourself and trying to twist your own words. Give it up, fraud.
Click to expand...

So you admit there was in fact no threat of death made by me, and you are abandoning your argument. You are bailing. You are failing. AGAIN. And YOU are giving up.
I knew you would. Your arguments have been so very weak from the beginning.

Bye bye.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Sheesh dude do I really have to point this out?

Read that over and over again... until you see this part:

my Social Insurance Number
my Social Insurance Number

Did he or did he not claim to HAVE a Social Insurance Number?

Did he refer to it as 'my social insurance number?

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.

KEY POINT:
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.

He referred to a SIN as HIS.

And he paid for it.

I claim I do not have one, and do not refer to any such number as 'MY SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER.

God the level of stupidity here, by people who claim to be able to read is astounding.

Just answer this: DID HE REFER TO A SIN AS IS NUMBER? YES or NO?

If yes you see where he messed up.

He claimed a number as his own.
I do not.

So different story, right?

Sol, either you can see he referred to a SIN as his, or you cannot. Can you?
Click to expand...

So you believe that, in Canadian law, it is possible to voluntarily and unilaterally disassociate oneself from one's social insurance number, thereby freeing oneself from all tax liability. However, for some unimaginable reason, even if a person explicitly and unequivocally states that they no longer wish to be associated with a social insurance number (with which they were once associated), if that person mistakenly refers to that social insurance number as "my social insurance number", a simple slip of the tongue, that dooms said person to the pitiable fate of taxes for the foreseeable future? That is really what you believe?

And before you protest that I am speaking for you (as you are known to do), I am simply trying to understand what you are saying (because I can't believe that you are saying this.)
 
solzhenitsyn said:
So you believe that, in Canadian law, it is possible to voluntarily and unilaterally disassociate oneself from one's social insurance number, thereby freeing oneself from all tax liability. However, for some unimaginable reason, even if a person explicitly and unequivocally states that they no longer wish to be associated with a social insurance number (with which they were once associated), if that person mistakenly refers to that social insurance number as "my social insurance number", a simple slip of the tongue, that dooms said person to the pitiable fate of taxes for the foreseeable future? That is really what you believe?

And before you protest that I am speaking for you (as you are known to do), I am simply trying to understand what you are saying (because I can't believe that you are saying this.)
Click to expand...

You do not refer to something you have abandoned as 'mine', do you? If you abandon it, it is no longer 'yours'. That which I abandon, is no longer 'mine'.

Answer this: DO YOU REFER TO SOMETHING YOU HAVE ABANDONED AS 'MINE"? OR NOT?
 
Answer this: DO YOU REFER TO SOMETHING YOU HAVE ABANDONED AS 'MINE"? OR NOT?

Just answer that Sol... do not try to play semantic games.

If you abandon something, do you then claim (as he did) that it is still yours?

As for 'slips of the tongue', how does the judge KNOW that is what it was? Is he not obliged to deal with the words spoken?

If you abandon something is it still yours?
 
I wonder which syllable of the incantation Keith Thompson mispronounced?

 
FreemanMenard said:
You do not refer to something you have abandoned as 'mine', do you? If you abandon it, it is no longer 'yours'. That which I abandon, is no longer 'mine'.

Answer this: DO YOU REFER TO SOMETHING YOU HAVE ABANDONED AS 'MINE"? OR NOT?
Click to expand...

Yes. For example: "Rob Menard's claims about the legal system sound plausible to me, therefore I have abandoned my senses."
 
The plain fact is Menard’s own history is one failure after another.

He lost custody of Elizabeth Anne Elaine.

He embarrassed himself trying to threaten the airlines into letting him use freeman ID.

A couple of traffic cops ignored his rant while they towed a car right from under him and his traveling companions.

Before the BC courts ordered him to stop playing lawyer he was uniformly unsuccessful in his efforts before the courts.

Freeman valley is bust.

He just got pole axed by the CBC.

. . .and that’s just the stuff I know about. . .

Everybody reading his posts has to wonder how a guy could be this nutty.

But, one has to realize that all the poor boy has are his fantasies. As ludicrous as they may be they are easier for him to accept than for him to come to grips with an existence filled with lies and failure.
 
Last edited:
solzhenitsyn said:
Yes. For example: "Rob Menard's claims about the legal system sound plausible to me, therefore I have abandoned my senses."
Click to expand...



Oh Snap!
That, was simply clever.
Well played.
Made me laugh. Out loud and for real.
Thanks,

If you need help
reclaiming them there
senses,
let me know.

I have some DVD's.

Paix, eh...
 
Note how desperate he is in diverting attention to the speaker, rather than the argument. "I decided you left the conversation, so the argument just vanishes!", "I don't know your name so facts don't count!". Pathetic.

Also, "I didn't say death, I said shot and killed". Seriously?
 
FreemanMenard said:
If you need help
reclaiming them there
senses,
let me know.

I have some DVD's.

Paix, eh...
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind offer, but there is no need. It was just an example. I don't actually find your claims about the legal system plausible at all (having studied and worked in Canada's legal system for a number of years now), so therefore I have not abandoned my senses.
 
FreemanMenard said:
If you abandon something, do you then claim (as he did) that it is still yours?

If you abandon something is it still yours?
Click to expand...

Alright then, let's play the game a while...

You HAD a Social Insurance Number (you have admitted as much in this thread). Let's call that number x.

You now claim that you DO NOT HAVE a Social Insurance Number.

Please provide evidence that the Social Insurance Number x is no longer associated with you, and that the government has accepted this fact.

Simply saying that they haven't asked you to pay taxes in a while (or since you left the military, or whatever) won't cut it. I ran a red light a while ago, and I haven't received a red-light camera ticket for it. That doesn't mean that I am allowed to run red lights. It just means the Crown doesn't have the evidence to ticket me.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Answer this: DO YOU REFER TO SOMETHING YOU HAVE ABANDONED AS 'MINE"? OR NOT?

Just answer that Sol... do not try to play semantic games.

If you abandon something, do you then claim (as he did) that it is still yours?

As for 'slips of the tongue', how does the judge KNOW that is what it was? Is he not obliged to deal with the words spoken?

If you abandon something is it still yours?
Click to expand...

I can't believe that I'm still humoring this silly argument, but whatever:

Let's say that I used to live at 123 Apple Street, but I've moved to 456 Orange Street. Are you suggesting that if I say "123 Apple Street is no longer my address" (or "I totally revoke 123 Apple Street as my address"), that any english speaking person would understand that to mean that I am saying "123 Apple Street is still my address"?
 
Boot2TheHead said:
Note how desperate he is in diverting attention to the speaker, rather than the argument. "I decided you left the conversation, so the argument just vanishes!", "I don't know your name so facts don't count!". Pathetic.

Also, "I didn't say death, I said shot and killed". Seriously?
Click to expand...

Who exactly are you quoting?

I was accused of making death threats.
I never did so.

Stating that someone could be in danger is not the same as threatening to subject them to that danger.
 
After reading Robs last few posts Im thinking hes planning a comeback to the comedy circuit.
I haven't read so much irrelevant senseless waffle in a long time.

Rob, bit of advice, the audience is meant to laugh with you. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom