Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
Okay for the purposes of this discussion let us assume they are, or at least that you refuse to see it otherwise.
Click to expand...


It's not just me, it's not just the other posters here: it is the entire legal establishment, including the courts (which are the source of common law).

Does it not occur to you that it might not be everyone else who is out of step, it might be you?

Which one says that if I do not have a SIN, I can be ejected from the country?
Click to expand...


Nobody has claimed that that is the case.
 
Last edited:
fitzgibbon said:
What's don't associate (or dissociate for that matter). They aren't sentient so there's no application of the concept of "freedom of association".

Oy :rolleyes:

Fitz
Click to expand...

You should ask CRA if there is a SIN associated with your tax records.

They will say yes. Now since according to you, neither the number nor the records are sentient, they should not be able to be associated. But they are! Hey what about Associations of Businesses? They are not sentient, but can by law associate with each other. And besides, did you miss where I said I was choosing to not associate with the sentient people who have SIN's by not having one myself??? HM?

And also, I am choosing to not associate with the people at CRA. That is my right is it not?
 
Last edited:
[Ed] Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

FreemanMenard said:
So where does it say I can be ejected form Canada because I refuse to hacve a SIN.

Care to show me that, or at least admit and agree there is no such thing?
Click to expand...

You are the only person who brought up the ejection thing.

You mustn't own property otherwise you'd be paying property taxes to the small-beer that is the municipality.

You are far more likely to end up a guest of Her Majesty.

You refuse to admit that even if you were entirely self-sufficient (which by your own admission by having to earn from masonry you are not ) and never, ever left the cave on your squat (because you mustn't own property otherwise you'd be paying property taxes to the small-beer that is the municipality), you'd still be obliged to pay your requisite portion to pay for the costs of state, the benefits of which you afford yourself by virtue of residence.

Quit yourself of such residence and away goes your obligation (to this jurisdiction at least).

<SNIP> . Full stop

Fitz

Edited, breach of rule 0.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreemanMenard said:
Well then wise bean, how about you correct me, and tell me just exactly what the right of association is, if it is not the right to determine our own associations?
Click to expand...


Border Reiver said:
Freedom of association is the right to form social groups with people/persons or not to be compelled to do so.
Click to expand...

Bosozoku said:
The right of association is the right to associate with individuals (i.e. people) of your choice. An SIN is not a person, so the right of association does not apply.
Click to expand...


I'm sure Rob would prefer a definition from a legal dictionary, so here's the one from the Dictionary of Canadian Law: "RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION: The right of workers to form unions or other trade associations."

It comes just above "right of audience".
 
fitzgibbon said:
You are the only person who brought up the ejection thing.

You mustn't own property otherwise you'd be paying property taxes to the small-beer that is the municipality.

You are far more likely to end up a guest of Her Majesty.

You refuse to admit that even if you were entirely self-sufficient (which by your own admission by having to earn from masonry you are not ) and never, ever left the cave on your squat (because you mustn't own property otherwise you'd be paying property taxes to the small-beer that is the municipality), you'd still be obliged to pay your requisite portion to pay for the costs of state, the benefits of which you afford yourself by virtue of residence.

Quit yourself of such residence and away goes your obligation (to this jurisdiction at least).

<SNIP> . Full stop

Fitz
Edited by Locknar: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...

I thought you said I had to leave if I did not want to be associated with a SIN?

My Trust pays the property taxes.

Who is 'Her Majesty'? IS it some sort of fiction, like Santa Claus? Do you still believe in THAT? :jaw-dropp

Is constantly insulting me by calling me a Freeloader cause I do not have a SIN the extent of your argument?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have just seen off two cops, i was drinking in the park and they came up speaking to me, I told them i was the same as Rob Menard, I saw the look of shock on their faces as they took a step back, I told them I didnt have to listen to them as I was exempt from anything I didnt like and was entitled to everything I did.

They ran my name through the police computer, nothing came up, I think it must have been the dots and dashes I spelt out to them ;)

Anyway , I am on my fifth can now and may just flash this old lady, after all its easy when you are free and wheres the harm, she's sure to get a thrill.
 
FreemanMenard said:
You should ask CRA if there is a SIN associated with your tax records.

They will say yes. Now since according to you, neither the number nor the records are sentient, they should not be able to be associated. But they are! Hey what about Associations of Businesses? They are not sentient, but can by law associate with each other. And besides, did you miss where I said I was choosing to not associate with the sentient people who have SIN's by not having one myself??? HM?

And also, I am choosing to not associate with the people at CRA. That is my right is it not?
Click to expand...

Well, now you're talking about something different entirely. What you were talking about before is freedom of association - the right to associate with individuals of your choosing. Nobody is saying that numbers and records can never be associated with anything, that would be absurd. What we're trying to point out to you is that the freedom of association only applies to people. In other words, 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.

And of course, if you don't want to gather with the CRA and openly express your ideas, then that is your right. But they have the right to assign you a number, whether you want them to or not.

For example, I could assign you a Bosozoku Identification Number, and you are powerless to stop me. Watch me do it - I hereby declare that your BIN is 12345. I don't care if you don't accept - that's the number I'm assigning you. Now, please tell me how you propose to stop me from doing what I have just done.
 
Last edited:
fitzgibbon said:
Like I said about Catch-22, Bob. Best of luck Jargon:-Buster; this should be interesting. :D

Fitz
Click to expand...

LMAO! I have already consented to anyone and everyone making copies, and in fact appreciate it when they do, you know to help spread the message of freedom.

Permission granted JB.
Knock yourself out!
My minion.
:D
 
Minion?
We are equals Rob, are you suggesting we are not equal??

I dont want to lose faith in you so soon o wise one.

PS Glad to see you admit to reading my posts again now we are both freemen.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I thought you said I had to leave if I did not want to be associated with a SIN?

My Trust pays the property taxes.

Who is 'Her Majesty'? IS it some sort of fiction, like Santa Claus? Do you still believe in THAT? :jaw-dropp

Is constantly insulting me by calling me a Freeloader cause I do not have a SIN the extent of your argument?
Click to expand...


Rob,

You have a SIN, if you ever stop dealing with your FMOTL nonsense and get a job with an employer you will need to use the SIN that has already been issued to you. And, if you remain a self employed tax evader, the person who will be required to wind up your estate after your death will need to use that very number when they file the final tax return with CRA - as they will be required to do under the appropriate provincial estate laws.

You know Her Majesty - Elizabeth II Queen of Canada and head of State. The person to whom you took the following oath to:

"I, Robert Arthur Menard, do swear (or for a solemn affirmation, "solemnly affirm") that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God. (May be omitted for a solemn affirmation)" (See Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, Vol.1 Chapter 6, Article 6.04

And whose servant you were until she released you from your service pursuant to QR&O Vol 1, Chap. 15 Art. 15.01(4(c)).
 
fitzgibbon said:
Like I said about Catch-22, Bob. Best of luck Jargon:-Buster; this should be interesting. :D

Fitz
Click to expand...

LMAO! I have already consented to anyone and everyone making copies, and in fact appreciate it when they do, you know to help spread the message of freedom.

Permission granted JB.
Knock yourself out!
My minion.
:D
 
Rob, honest question. When you are doing your work how do you and the materials arrive at the job site. Would you not consider this using the public roads for commerce? If so where is the compensation to the state and if not, why not?

thanks
 
Well, now you're talking about something different entirely. What you were talking about before is freedom of association - the right to associate with individuals of your choosing. Nobody is saying that numbers and records can never be associated with anything, that would be absurd. What we're trying to point out to you is that the freedom of association only applies to people. In other words, 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.

And of course, if you don't want to gather with the CRA and openly express your ideas, then that is your right. But they have the right to assign you a number, whether you want them to or not.

For example, I could assign you a Bosozoku Identification Number, and you are powerless to stop me. Watch me do it - I hereby declare that your BIN is 12345. I don't care if you don't accept - that's the number I'm giving you. Now, please tell me how you propose to stop me from doing what I have just done.
Click to expand...

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)
 
don't give in now rob pal, you've been doing a good job of not commenting on jb's posts and i see you're about to relent. Remember it's driving him wild that you are ignoring him;).
 
Werdum said:
Rob, honest question. When you are doing your work how do you and the materials arrive at the job site. Would you not consider this using the public roads for commerce? If so where is the compensation to the state and if not, why not?

thanks
Click to expand...

Generally they are delivered, or I go pick them up. Any commerce I engage i takes place off the roads, not on them. Using a road to get to a place of commerce is not the same as using them for commerce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom