Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[jargon buster]

Still not forcing me to associate with it...

you just did Rob, you responded to the post.

Come on guru dont let me down now.

 

[FreemanMenard]

OK, I really don't respect this answer but I accept it as your perspective. I think for a normal person they would see how all these things are entwined and simply accept that to a small degree at least they are using the roads in or for commerce. To me it just goes to show how far you will go into an untenable position to support a rather minor postion. Far more respect would be had if you said, " yes it is but the conveyance used to get me and my material to the job site is registered and insured buy the owner therefore it does not effect my contact."

When you go to work, do you shower before you do? Do you get paid for it? I am not earning when I am on the road. Therefore I am not engaging in commerce on the highways, I am using them to get to where I do. I see a basic and simple distinction. DO you not?

 

[FreemanMenard]

You bring it, you load and unload it, but you don't deliver it.

Riiiiiiight.

Never said I do not 'deliver' it. I often do. But I do not get paid for that part, though gas is paid for by the purchaser. I do get well paid for the loading and unloading though. How can I lawfully get paid for the delivery, when I do not have a license? This is one of the aspects that costs me a bit of coin, I admit... If I had a license, I could charge extra for the delivery. But I do not, so I don't. Simples, eh?

 

[Border Reiver]

And just like the CRA, you can't force me to accept it, and it creates no obligations upon me unless I do. Thanks for playing.

And as I said earlier, your acceptance has no bearing on this. We are using this a bit of a lark to demonstrate that you can be associated with a number, not of your choosing, and that your consent has no bearing on whether or not is is associated with you.

And similarly your semantics re the transportation of materiel from the place of storage or purchase to the job site not being part of your job description must require a few unnecessary clauses in your contracts - what do you do about the building inspector though (they tend to be sticklers about that whole licensed tradesman thing), and the warranty of your workmanship?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Not really, you could just not go and stay home and play sitar. When you hit the road to go to the place of your employment you are actively engaged in this, it's not like you're going there for a social visit.

Few get paid to travel to work. Most start their shift not upon leaving home, but on getting to their place of employment.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

 

[Werdum]

When you go to work, do you shower before you do? Do you get paid for it? I am not earning when I am on the road. Therefore I am not engaging in commerce on the highways, I am using them to get to where I do. I see a basic and simple distinction. DO you not?

I see the distinction you are trying to make and don't accept it as a complete answer. As I have said there is an elemnt of commerce in your use of the roads. You are creating what to me is a false dichotomy, 100% commerce or 100% travel. More interesting to me is that you continue to hold what seems like a very shaky position when there are so many more honorable ways to explain and deal with this situation.

 

[azzthom]

I bring it, or my laborer does. Or it is delivered. How many times do you need this answered? And yes I am using the roads, but not for commerce. That happens when I am off the road. Traveling to a place of business is not engaging on commerce on the road, it is using the road to get to where you do engage in commerce.

Does your Labourer have a SIN? Do you meet your obligations as an employer with regard to tax reporting?

On an unrelated topic, where do you now stand on "Birth bonds"? If people are spelling their names in all sorts of new ways, those new names won't match what's on their birth certificates. How are they tied to an individual? It can't just be a number, or anyone could claim on anyone else's "Bond". Even if by mistake, that would obviously be unacceptable.

 

[FreemanMenard]

And as I said earlier, your acceptance has no bearing on this. We are using this a bit of a lark to demonstrate that you can be associated with a number, not of your choosing, and that your consent has no bearing on whether or not is is associated with you.

And similarly your semantics re the transportation of materiel from the place of storage or purchase to the job site not being part of your job description must require a few unnecessary clauses in your contracts - what do you do about the building inspector though (they tend to be sticklers about that whole licensed tradesman thing), and the warranty of your workmanship?

YOU are associating me with it for your purposes, which is your right. Fill yer boots.
That does not mean I have associated myself with it. BIG difference.

Nope it does not require any extra clauses in my contracts. It actually means LESS.

Private two party contracts do not require an inspector. Last inspector who tried to claim we needed a permit was sent packing with his tail between his legs and we never heard from him again.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Does your Labourer have a SIN? Do you meet your obligations as an employer with regard to tax reporting?

On an unrelated topic, where do you now stand on "Birth bonds"? If people are spelling their names in all sorts of new ways, those new names won't match what's on their birth certificates. How are they tied to an individual? It can't just be a number, or anyone could claim on anyone else's "Bond". Even if by mistake, that would obviously be unacceptable.

No idea if he does or not. Is hardly my business. We operate under private contracts, and if he has obligations to other parties, the onus is on him to report what ever he must report.

Then all they would have to do is use the name on the BC when seeking to access it. I see no difficulty. People can use whatever name they wish, provided they are not seeking to engage in fraud.

 

[carlitos]

... the police recognize that we (3CPO) are in fact true Peace Officers.

... And yes I am using the roads, but not for commerce. That happens when I am off the road. Traveling to a place of business is not engaging on commerce on the road, it is using the road to get to where you do engage in commerce.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I see the distinction you are trying to make and don't accept it as a complete answer. As I have said there is an elemnt of commerce in your use of the roads. You are creating what to me is a false dichotomy, 100% commerce or 100% travel. More interesting to me is that you continue to hold what seems like a very shaky position when there are so many more honorable ways to explain and deal with this situation.

Simply put, getting to the site is not something that is generally a part of my contracts. The work I do at the site is. That is the same for most. Why should I not be able to travel to my place of work?

 

[Hans]

all ready covered

 

[Werdum]

I undertand that it is not part of your contract with the customer. It is though part of the social contract. You are using the road soley to be able to later engage in commerce. Thank you for clarifying your position but I won't try to get you to accept something that obviously doesn't resonate with you. I think we both know there are many analogies to this situation that would cause your POV to be questionable but I am just as sure that you could rationalize all of them in your mind but not mine. Thanks again for your response.

 

[fitzgibbon]

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.

Permission not required. He did not acquiesce to it ergo it is moot whether you agree or not. He is free of me, free of thee and free of everything he sees.

In fact, JB, you really should go into competition and add some IP of your own to make it different enough that you can market it hither & nigh and keep the filthy lucre all for yourself. I'm sure you could out-bid him on Google AdWords for placement.

PM me and we could perhaps make a dent.

Fitz

 

[BritPunk]

No idea if he does or not. Is hardly my business. We operate under private contracts, and if he has obligations to other parties, the onus is on him to report what ever he must report.

.

No, if you hire a labourer, the onus is on you to ensure relevant taxes are paid.
Simply referring to it as a "private contract" won't cut any ice in court, old bean.
Kent Hovind was under a similar misapprehension, I believe!

 

[FreemanMenard]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/3NEws.gif[/qimg]

Why am I not surprised there are people here who cannot distinguish between engaging in commerce ON the highways, and using them to get somewhere in order to engage in trade? Why am I not surprised those same people would laugh at those who are capable of doing so?

 

[fitzgibbon]

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?

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

I said that you could gainsay future problems from Ottawa and such by removing yourself from the territory known as Canada. Again, I didn't say anything about ejection. And being "a guest of Her Majesty" is what's known as a euphemism, a turn of phrase, a short-hand. In common parlance, it refers to being an unwilling prisoner for a defined duration. Sort of gainsays the prefix "free" on anything to do with FMOTLism.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you have along that particular vector. And you have yet to prove that Ottawa has agreed with your 'I don't have a SIN anymore' assertion. I eagerly await your verifiable proof of my complete wrongness.

Fitz

 

[Border Reiver]

YOU are associating me with it for your purposes, which is your right. Fill yer boots.
That does not mean I have associated myself with it. BIG difference.

Nope it does not require any extra clauses in my contracts. It actually means LESS.

Private two party contracts do not require an inspector. Last inspector who tried to claim we needed a permit was sent packing with his tail between his legs and we never heard from him again.

Building inspectors are required for new construction, major renovations (particularly if there are additions to existing structure, or alterations to load bearing walls). Little thing called the Building Code - a little something that the folks in Canada have put in place so that persons purchasing a home can be assured that it has been built to a reasonable standard and isn't likely to fall down the first time there's a major snowfall,etc). Not to mention lenders liking to see the inspection report prior to approving sales of houses.

Now you may have made it a part of your contract for services that the property owner is responsible for getting the inspection, and if the owner is willing to do that that's OK. However, you're still earning income as defined by the Income Tax Act and CRA may become interested enough to do a little investigation.

What I wonder about is your warranty - lets say you've done a bad piece of work and some stonework falls out or perhaps a retaining wall collapses - do you have a proper warranty, or is the owner now going to have to track you down and serve you with court papers? I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that you don't have insurance to cover such an occurrance, or any assets to cover such a problem, so I'd be leery of hiring you. This is why I go with reputable contractors for stuff I can't do myself.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Permission not required. He did not acquiesce to it ergo it is moot whether you agree or not. He is free of me, free of thee and free of everything he sees.

In fact, JB, you really should go into competition and add some IP of your own to make it different enough that you can market it hither & nigh and keep the filthy lucre all for yourself. I'm sure you could out-bid him on Google AdWords for placement.

PM me and we could perhaps make a dent.

Fitz

I give you my permission to do so. And I give you my permission to think you do not need it. I want you to do it. Anything to help get the information out to a wider audience, and if he is doing all that work for me, he deserves to be paid!

Again, permission granted. Whether you like it or not. Whether you think you need it or not, so if your goal was to do it without my permission to prove some sort of point, well sorry but that opportunity has been lost. You have my permission.

 

[Werdum]

Why am I not surprised there are people here who cannot distinguish between engaging in commerce ON the highways, and using them to get somewhere in order to engage in trade? Why am I not surprised those same people would laugh at those who are capable of doing so?

Rob I take offence to this passage. Although the capabiltiy you refer to seems to question my intelect I would say that the capabilty you should be refering to is the abiltity to rationalize any behaviour that fits your model, use word games to do the same. Rhetoric and semantics are no replacement for honest discourse. Although these "capabilities" may serve you well in your role in the fmotl world they are not things I aspire to, neither will I encourage the ability to justify any behaviour to my son. Sometimes we need to just step up and say we are not right.