Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[jargon buster]

How can ANY government agent, lawyer or court force me to associate with a number against my will?

Speak to that...

Rob what gives you the authourity to reject a number assigned to you by a government agent?
Its clear the courts support the issuing of numbers as they jail people all the time.

You have no authourity as you cant enforce it.

By the way, check out the Holocaust thread for an example of a number being issued against an individuals will.

 

[Stacey Grove]

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?

Rob, if you are suggesting that if the defendant had omitted the word "my" when referring to the social security number the judge would have accepted the defendant no longer had a social security number and the case would have gone the other way, I can only assume you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and you are making it up as you go along.
Is your position this case rested on the defendant's use of the word "my" and that is the reason for the judge's decision but the judge would have reached a different decision if the defendant had not used the word "my"?

 

[jargon buster]

Is he not obliged to deal with the words spoken?

No, he is obliged to deal with proven facts.
Im pretty sure if he was obliged to deal with words spoken literally then as soon as the defendant said "not guilty" they could all go home.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Deductive intuition mostly.

Right so you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim that she believes the police recognise the status of your peace officers. It's just your belief with nothing to back it up.

During our interview she delved into that aspect considerably, then did not mention it at all in her report, and if I was wrong, it would have been a big boon to her story.

If you are wrong it would indeed have been a big boon to her story. But the fact she did not mention it is not necessarily an indication of whether she believes you are right or wrong. Are you suggesting it is an indication of that?

(Freemen are creating their own force of peace officers and claim the right to hold cops accountable to the law!) Why would she fail to mention that, if it was an unlawful stance?

There could be many reasons. It could be simply due to lack of time. Maybe she thinks your peace officers are not worthy of a mention. Who knows?
However, you do appear to be drawing a conclusion that suits your own mindset as to the reason she did not mention them. You are simply guessing.

Plus the fact that in the last couple of weeks, 3 people who are members of 3CPO were invited to interviews with federal investigators with the RCMP, all of whom afterward acknowledged the peace officer status and peaceful lawful actions of our officers.

Plus nothing.
Even if that did happen that has nothing to do with the interviewer's conclusion regarding your peace officers. Unless you are now saying she was there and has first hand knowledge of this?
You are introducing something that is irrelevant in an attempt to strengthen your argument. A kind of embellishment.

Did you even bother watching the clip, and pay attention to her body language at the end of the clip? Did you hear her words where she stated MANY police do not feel I am a violent threat? If they do accept that I am a peace officer, would that not justify their position?

Or they may not accept you are a peace officer but do not consider you to be violent. You are arriving at unfounded conclusions. Again.

(This is where you will try to latch on to 'body language' and claim I am using it alone as 'proof' when all I am doing is using it as part of the evidence supporting my deductions.)

And of course your deductions could be wrong.

Now how about you tell me WHY you think she did not mention it?

I have no idea why she did not mention it. However, I do like your use of capitals with the word "why". It's as though you are suggesting there is a specific reason why she failed to mention it. Maybe I should have used capitals when typing "reason" there?
All we know is she did not mention it. But that is not proof that she believes the police recognise the status of the 3CPO. It is only proof that she didn't mention them.
So to conclude, you have no evidence to suggest she believes the police recognise your 3CPO. Your deductive intuition is based on her body language and not anything she said, but what she did not say.

 

[jargon buster]

Whereas it is my understanding those who have a SIN (Social Insurance Number) are in fact employees of the federal government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the federal government, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that it is lawful to abandon one’s SIN, and,

So you agree you had a SIN and have abandoned it.
So by definition to abandon something it must have once been attributed to you.
That little number is still down on a record somewhere with your name on it.

 

[BritPunk]

Um, tax avoidance is not the same as tax evasion. I avoid taxes, not evade them. Thanks for playing.

Seriously?? You have spent "thousands of hours" studying law and you make a schoolboy error like that? As I mentioned before, I spent years working as an employment adviser, I know the difference and I also know whats constitutes a "collusive employer". Which is your customers.
You obviously don't know the difference between avoidance and evasion, back to the library for you, old bean!

 

[FreemanMenard]

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.

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?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Right so you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim that she believes the police recognise the status of your peace officers. It's just your belief with nothing to back it up.

Basically. Just like so many of your beliefs concerning me I guess.

If you are wrong it would indeed have been a big boon to her story. But the fact she did not mention it is not necessarily an indication of whether she believes you are right or wrong. Are you suggesting it is an indication of that?

Nope.

There could be many reasons. It could be simply due to lack of time. Maybe she thinks your peace officers are not worthy of a mention. Who knows?
However, you do appear to be drawing a conclusion that suits your own mindset as to the reason she did not mention them. You are simply guessing.

Must be spending too much time here...

Plus nothing.
Even if that did happen that has nothing to do with the interviewer's conclusion regarding your peace officers. Unless you are now saying she was there and has first hand knowledge of this?
You are introducing something that is irrelevant in an attempt to strengthen your argument. A kind of embellishment.

I was not speaking of her conclusion, silly bean! I was referring to mine.

Or they may not accept you are a peace officer but do not consider you to be violent. You are arriving at unfounded conclusions. Again.

Except for the three who were interviewed.

And of course your deductions could be wrong.

True.

I have no idea why she did not mention it. However, I do like your use of capitals with the word "why". It's as though you are suggesting there is a specific reason why she failed to mention it. Maybe I should have used capitals when typing "reason" there?

But at least you admit she did not. I think there is a specific reason why she did not mention it. I admit I do not KNOW what that is, but I think what makes the most sense is what I proposed. Of course, that is merley my opinion.

All we know is she did not mention it. But that is not proof that she believes the police recognise the status of the 3CPO. It is only proof that she didn't mention them.

Which is very strange considering the tone of her piece.

So to conclude, you have no evidence to suggest she believes the police recognise your 3CPO. Your deductive intuition is based on her body language and not anything she said, but what she did not say.

True. However what people do not say is often very telling, is it not?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Rob, if you are suggesting that if the defendant had omitted the word "my" when referring to the social security number the judge would have accepted the defendant no longer had a social security number and the case would have gone the other way, I can only assume you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and you are making it up as you go along.
Is your position this case rested on the defendant's use of the word "my" and that is the reason for the judge's decision but the judge would have reached a different decision if the defendant had not used the word "my"?

And if he hadn't been using the SIN, and seeking benefits under it, which he was.

I take it you do not believe that there is anyone in jail for a slip of the tongue eh? Can you prove there is no one in jail due to a slip of their tongue? (How do you like my new RANDI FORUM approved tactic? Asking people to prove a negative.)

 

[Border Reiver]

You keep using legal terms Rob like "security of the person" and now "right of association" - to quote the future Dread Pirate Roberts, "I don't think that means what you think it means."

 

[Paul]

Since I have the right to decide my associations...

If only you had the slightest idea what you are talking about.

 

[FreemanMenard]

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"?

I don't think so, though that is pretty much the opposite of what I was arguing, so I do not know why you are even mentioning such an example. .

Are you suggesting that if someone tells you "I no longer have a donut" they mean "I still have a donut"?

May I ask, are you arguing against our right to determine our own associations, specifically if we are associated with any number?

 

[FreemanMenard]

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.

So as an expert on the Canadian legal system, it is your opinion, we do not have a right of association, (which implies a right to not associate) and me claiming that we do is not plausible to you? Is that right?


Tell me when did we lose our right of association? (assuming we did)

 

[FreemanMenard]

You keep using legal terms Rob like "security of the person" and now "right of association" - to quote the future Dread Pirate Roberts, "I don't think that means what you think it means."

I think that was Andre The Giant playing Fezzik who said that, not the future Dread Pirate Roberts, but anyway...

So what does the right of association mean to you then?

 

[Call Me Crazy But]

Coppers

I got home a bit late last night so sat down channel hopping for a bit. I am lucky enough to work from home so getting up isn't an issue. I should also mention I am one of the non-thinking 'sheep'.....file tax returns, tax, MOT and insure my car etc, you know - stay within the law.

Anyway I came across a repeat of the program 'Coppers' on channel 4+1, this is in the UK. Coppers is a reality show following the police around while they are on duty, I did not remember seeing this episode so I stayed with it.

Towards the end of the program there were two arrests, a set of three lads drunk and disorderly and a guy on his own, again drunk and disorderly. All were mouthing off to the police etc.

They focussed on one guy from the three lads, a 19 year old (this is where my ears pricked up) who immediately started spouting 'I don't give my consent, you have no authority, statutes and acts, what are you arresting me for' etc. The guy on his own eventually stopped play acting and calmed down.

The guy on his own was fined £80 and sent home once he sobered up.

The 'no consent' guy was charged under the criminal justice act along with his two mates. On conviction this can carry not only a criminal record but possible jail time.

I hope his mates found time to thank him for his FOTL victory in due course. It would also be interesting to see if he carried this on when he got to court.

 

[jargon buster]

hes off on the "you must answer my questions" route again guys.

He mistakenly believes it gives him the upper hand during exchanges.

Rob, you can continue to pretend to ignore my posts, however I know you have read them as you are alluding to them in your posts.

Might want to remember that you had a SIN when you are in the army, breaking news for you mate, you still have it.

You are like the disapointed father who tells his friends "I have no son",(son/sin, see what I did there) because he is ashamed of him, his son still exists and is still a disappointment to him.
(Apologies to your dad if that hit too close to home.)

 

[FreemanMenard]

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.)

How do you know it was a slip of the tongue and not an indication of his mindset and beliefs? It is not the number that generates the obligation, but the right to access certain benefits which do so. Are you saying that people do not have a right to reject benefits, or that they still have to pay for them if they do not accept them? Do you argue against the legal maxims which state the contrary?

 

[jargon buster]

So what does the right of association mean to you then?

your right of association is protected by statute, how else could you enforce that right if not through the courts?

 

[Mojo]

How does one prove a negative?

You are not being asked to prove a negative.

In the past, you had a SIN. Now, you claim, you do not. If your claim is true, then at some point your status has changed from having a SIN to not having a SIN. You are claiming that this specific event has happened. Please provide evidence of it. the Government must have records of who has a SIN, so there would be some sort of documentation if this change had happened.

 

[Mojo]

So as an expert on the Canadian legal system, it is your opinion, we do not have a right of association, (which implies a right to not associate) and me claiming that we do is not plausible to you? Is that right?

No, the right of association is simply not what you claim it is. Once again you are playing with words to argue something that is not the case.