Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

[cudgel]

Reading Ezekiel 33:1-10 means you in your egoed haste to point your bony fingers seem to forget a ministers duty is to warn folks of their corruption and faulty direction...When I say it is your law that convicts you it is not in use of that bloody commercially owned and copywritten code, that by the doctrine of use binds me,as I made no use of it, but I in duty merely warn you of the hole in law and your head your stepping into...My duty as the watchman per Ezekiel is to warn you.....Their is no use of defacto law by warning you....I notice none of you courageous pundents wish to deal with the world bank's definition of defacto government? Does it get to close to your core? Or maybe it is above the heads of your ilk? When ego and bloated corruption takes charge of the judiciary lawyers and politicians it is the duty of every morally bound man and woman to oppose the infestation and expose them with every ounce of his strength and faith he can muster or you condemn your children's children to inherit the charred and smouldering carcass of freedom...Having puffed false pride and greedy ego running the system is nothing new... exposing it and defending faith is something almost forgotten and it appears your crew does not like the memory....It appears you feel that defending yourself from fraud and abuse of corruption is a bad thing and is to be categorized as renegade slave syndrome...Does that about sum up your criticism of men and women who use faith to escape fraud and an old boys club that intimidates all into bed with a festering old and quite dead prostitute?

[arayder]

...My duty as the watchman per Ezekiel is to warn you.....Their is no use of defacto law by warning you....

You have no authority to warn anybody about anything in this world or the next.

All you have is a little weed, a phony church, a misguided moral philosophy and a self-serving theology. I hesitate even to call your rants "theology".

My question is whether anybody in your make believe church ever bothered to warn Maya that the useless and dangerous advice you gave her about not needing a passport for international travel was hogwash?

Shame on you, ole son, for trying to lead an impressionable girl astray! One has to wonder how else you may have abused her. You're angling for one almighty bitch slap at the pearly gates, ole son.

One can only hope she had the sense to carry her passport with her in spite of your lame advice.

. . .and an old boys club that intimidates all into bed with a festering old and quite dead prostitute?

Has it ever occurred to you that your stoned YouTubes and rambling rants are like Rorschach tests in which you project your own warped and evil thoughts?

[LordEd]

Reading Ezekiel 33:1-10

Hey, I like how that one reads.

3 when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, 4 then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head.

So like when we say "what you are doing has been tried before, has no legal meaning and will result in fines and/or imprisonment". When you don't listen, then its back on your own head.

5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life.

Mr. Ream may have finally heard the trumpets and might be saved.

6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’

So that would be you and other Gurus. You know people are being arrested for these ideas, yet you refuse to warn them.

Watchmen of the Quatloos

[Pottapaug1938]

Cudgel reminds me of the story about a Vermonter who was at Town Meeting, listening to someone speak. About fifteen minutes after the speech began, the Vermonter's neighbor came in and sat down next to him.

"What's that guy sayin' up theyah?", the new arrival asked.

"He ain't told us yet," was the reply.

"...It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing." — Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 26-28)

[Fmotlgroupie]

We have an expression around here: there's no point getting in a pissing contest with a skunk. Let's leave cudgel to have his say in this thread and ignore him (as dismissive shills do.)

[LordEd]

We have an expression around here: there's no point getting in a pissing contest with a skunk. Let's leave cudgel to have his say in this thread and ignore him (as dismissive shills do.)

Or to translate for our religious friend:

Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge.

It IS fun making the bible say pretty much whatever you want it to.

My method of arguing with freemen usually involves using their own words against them. But I can stop feeding him:

A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back.

Ok, now I can stop feeding him.

[notorial dissent]

Depends on whose version!!!!

[Dr. Caligari]

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

[wserra]

Doc C. - my thoughts exactly.

[LordEd]

I was thinking of going the "blessed are the cheesemakers" route at some point.

[arayder]

My question is whether anybody in your make believe church ever bothered to warn Maya that the useless and dangerous advice you gave her about not needing a passport for international travel was hogwash?

So let's have it straight, in plain English, cudgel. How did Maya make out at the border?

[cudgel]

Maya has never tried out the advise but the Minister for immigration and the ministry for transportation offices both told me that no one needs a passport to leave the country but that you would need a return ticket as the country your travelling to may not allow you to you to enter unless you have an invitation from the country and they are expecting you...minister Maya has an invitation to Pakistan offered to her by the Diplomat from Pakistan so minister Maya would come their to aid in the development and working of a orphans refuge. I have not spoken with minister Maya to see when she will travel there but did advise her it may be a dangerous choice. Pakistan is not a Christian country... So one of you not to bright souless vampires seems to think that my duty to warn folks, as defended by the Queen,(Ezekiel 33:1-10) of your religious ilk thinks is not within my capacity...Seems several of your own Judges think otherwise as they got disqualified by their boss who knew the privately pending tort of discrimination and intimidation was inescapable and disqualified 7 of the judges from ever sitting in front of the good minister...Rook intentionally lied and slandered our church and our ministy by implying we charge for info or teach folks lies. Pure damage control tactics...None of you lac lustre excuses for knowledge banks can prove even one minute particle of what we teach and promote is untrue as it is all 100% accurate . The fact that most of you are horribly inadequately informed as none of you are Bible scholars is quite apparent. Most of you forgot we as men and women are purportedly guaranteed to be able to practice our faith in this country if you wanna call yourself a fictional dead person in law and you may wanna educate yourselves as to what the word "includes" means and rexamine your own oath that none of you respect evidently. There is no honor in trashing men and women sincerely practicing what Christ advised but then your ilk likes to makes themselves look quite antichrist and sinister certainly not who you would place trust in as you advertise your dark souless natures...Romans 16:17-20 seems to fit the crew here....and of course John 8:44...It seems your crew cannot but help look like full blown satanists in your cut and hack job your egoed minds engage upon...One of you seems to have merits as an ambulance chaser and has very high moral standards,,,, now thats humerous eh? right Wesley? Have you ever defended religious discrimination or intimidation by a public official or is it your law firms position those cases are not worth defending? Maybe a youtube about your practices would help your business by slowing down the ambulances ...Do you need some help Wesley?

[cudgel]

When Jesus spoke the Truth to his accusers, he would justify himself by quoting Law. First, he would quote God's Law, and after quoting God's Law He would often quote the accuser's law and use that against them as well. For example, Jesus would say, "Did ye never read in the scriptures..." and then quote God's Law. Then he would turn around and say, "Is it not written in your law..." and quote their own law! His accusers would have no answer, they could not overcome Him. How could anyone overcome somebody who is obeying both God's Law and man's law!? If a man made law is just, it will be in harmony with God's Law.

This is the purpose of this article. These maxims are the foundation and principles of the laws that man passes today. Unfortunately, men enforce their own will more than they enforce law. So, this is why, in addition to knowing God's Law, it is also important to know man's law, because man's law is based upon God's Law. And when you are accused of "breaking the law," you can do what Jesus did, and use both God's Law and man's law to justify your lawful acts, for this is the only thing that will excuse you.

It is important to distinguish between commercial law and maxims of law, when quoting from their law. We should never, ever quote their codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, common law, merchant law, public policies, constitutions, etc., because these are commercial in nature, and if we use their commercial law, they can presume we are engaged in commerce (which means we are of the world), which will nullify our witness (because we are not of the world). Maxims of law are not commercial law, but are mostly based upon scripture and truth.

Here is a court case which demonstrates a typical example of the fruitlessness of describing oneself in the terms of the world, as distinguished from who and what our Heavenly Father has already told us we are.

It was rendered by JOHN V. PARKER, Chief Judge:

"Petitioner's shield of the "Common Law" as an "Unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States of America, a Republic," provides him with the same degreee of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal Calvary - ZERO." 599 F.Supp. 126, George E. McKinney, Sr. v. Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Civ. A. No. 84-470-A., United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana, November 19, 1984.

Many insist on using the "common law" to defend themselves. The reason we should not is because, first and foremost, you do not see the term "common law" in scripture. Bondservants of Christ are only to use God's Law. Secondly, the common law is a commerical law today, created by merchants, influenced by Roman Law, and used for commercial purposes. The following definitions are taken from "A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, 1893."

Custom of merchants: A system of customs, originating among merchants, and allowed for the benefit of trade as part of the common law. Page 303.

Law-merchant; law of merchants: The rules applicable to commercial paper were transplanted into the common law from the law merchant. They had their origin in the customs and course of business of merchants and bankers, and are now recognized by the courts because they are demanded by the wants and conveniences of the mercantile world. Pages 670-671.

Roman Law: The common law of England has been largely influenced by the Roman law, in several respects:…Through the development of commercial law. Page 910.

All of man's laws, except for many maxims of law, are commercial in nature.

The following are the definitions of "maxims," and then the relevant maxims of law will be listed.

Maxim (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856): An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.

2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.

3. The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain how the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.

4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst. 210.

Maxim (William C. Anderson's A Dictionary of Law, (1893), page 666): So called…because it's value is the highest and its authority the most reliable, and because it is accepted by all persons at the very highest.

2. The principles and axioms of law, which are general propositions flowing from abstracted reason, and not accommodated to times or men, are wisely deposited in the breasts of the judges to be applied to such facts as come properly before them.

3. When a principle has been so long practiced and so universally acknowledged as to become a maxim, it is obligatory as part of the law.

Maxim of Law (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, (1933), page 1171): An established principle of proposition. A principle of law universally admitted as being a correct statement of the law, or as agreeable to reason. Coke defines a maxim to be "a conclusion of reason" Coke on Littleton, 11a. He says in another place, "A maxim is a proposition to be of all men confessed and granted without proof, argument, or discourse." Coke on Littleton. 67a.

Maxim (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition): Maxims are but attempted general statements of rules of law and are law only to the extent of application in adjudicated cases."

These maxims are taken directly from man's law dictionaries and court cases. The following books were referenced for this article:

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, by John Bouvier, (1856)
Legal Maxims, by Broom and Bouvier, (1856)
A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, (1893)
Black's Law Dictionary, by Henry Campell Black, (3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Editions, 1933-1990)
Maxims of Law, by Charles A. Weisman, (1990)

[arayder]

Maya has never tried out the advise. . .

That was smart.

. . .So one of you not to bright souless vampires seems to think that my duty to warn folks, as defended by the Queen,(Ezekiel 33:1-10) of your religious ilk thinks is not within my capacity

Do me a favor, Eddy and don't put words in my mouth. In my opinion you don't have the emotional, mental stability or the knowledge and intellectual capacity to warn anybody about about anything.

...Seems several of your own Judges think otherwise as they got disqualified by their boss who knew the privately pending tort of discrimination and intimidation was inescapable and disqualified 7 of the judges from ever sitting in front of the good minister…

Please document this claim.

Rook intentionally lied and slandered our church and our ministy by implying we charge for info or teach folks lies. Pure damage control tactics...None of you lac lustre excuses for knowledge banks can prove even one minute particle of what we teach and promote is untrue as it is all 100% accurate.

What you teach is all untrue. If you want to leave with your tail between your legs we can start with a discussion of the supremacy clause of the Canadian Constitution, which so far you have been afraid to talk about.

The fact that most of you are horribly inadequately informed as none of you are Bible scholars is quite apparent.

That's bold talk from a guy who just a few years ago claimed to be a Druid!

..It seems your crew cannot but help look like full blown satanists in your cut and hack job your egoed minds engage upon...One of you seems to have merits as an ambulance chaser and has very high moral standards,,,, now thats humerous eh? right Wesley? Have you ever defended religious discrimination or intimidation by a public official or is it your law firms position those cases are not worth defending? Maybe a youtube about your practices would help your business by slowing down the ambulances ...Do you need some help Wesley?

If you stay on topic and quit pretending a haughty insult wins every argument the denizens of the forum will had you your hat.

Again, let's start with a discussion of the supremacy clause of the Canadian Constitution.

You game, Eddy?

[arayder]

When Jesus spoke the Truth to his accusers. .

Eddy, all the above dismissed by the simple realization that common law, 19th century dictionaries or your fanciful Biblical readings are not the supreme law of Canada.

If you'd stay on topic you might learn something.

Since you lack the backbone to make an honest argument, I will make your argument for you and refute it.

Simply put you claim that your version of Christianity is the law of the land, but the plain fact is Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that the Constitution of Canada is the "supreme law of Canada", and any law inconsistent with it is of no force or effect.

Let me quote what you have never had the honesty to show your minions (do you even have two?):

"The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect." Section 52, The Canadian Constitution Act of 1982.

Checkmate, sonny. Where did you leave your hat and coat?

[wserra]

no one needs a passport to leave the country

That's actually true. The problem isn't leaving the country you're in, but entering the one next to it - and, of course, returning to the country you're in, but that's down the road. In other words, no one will stop you from jumping into the Pacific off Vancouver Island and swimming as far west as you can. Some might actually encourage you. Y'know, like you do to people who don't know better.

So one of you not to (sic) bright souless (sic) vampires

Before you start criticizing others, you might bring your own spelling and grammar up to third-grade level. At least make the effort while you're calling others "not to bright".

Seems several of your own Judges think otherwise as they got disqualified by their boss who knew the privately pending tort of discrimination and intimidation was inescapable and disqualified 7 of the judges from ever sitting in front of the good minister

Putting it politely, that seems quite unlikely. Putting it less politely but more accurately, it's a goddam lie.

Maybe a youtube about your practices would help your business by slowing down the ambulances ...Do you need some help Wesley?

Do whatever you want. Nothing you do can affect me in the slightest. It's likely to be quite amusing, however.

[Burnaby49]

I'll admit it, my feelings are hurt. After all my work I feel slighted, ignored, rejected. I started this discussion thread and I was the first to mock Peterson. As a result Belanger crawled out from wherever he was lurking and started posting, to date seven of the total of nine postings he has made in Quatloos. But when Belanger starts a lunatic tirade against a specific poster who does he pick? Wserra! A peripheral player in the Canadian Freeman scene and an American! Don't I deserve at least some of Belanger's hostility and unintelligible curses? Is it wrong to want a pat on the back now and then? Well I'll try to take some comfort from the rant he posted with his anti-Quatloos video. However I think he has gone over the line in his apparent comments about Mrs. Burnaby49.

Published on Feb 16, 2014
This crew of false ego based seemingly apparent megalomaniacs smear twist and disinform folks as they desperately try to defend the old diseased prostitute they regularly bed with....Can you imagine the smell that unwashed filth gives off.? . Watch them again try to twist and defame me by taking this video and attempt to defame me and alter my intent with their assumptions. My intent is to walk in the laws of God and expose a fraud...nothing more or less....Whining soulless lawyers attempting to save their fraud business are what Quatloos is comprised of ....I would not wish to be them stuck in their dark hearted defense of fraud ..They must really feel the threat to their fraud to expend so much energy trying to denounce the efforts of true hearted men and women in Christ. .

Although, since he uses plural, I don't get full credit even here. Maybe he's including Mowe in this rant, fair enough I guess.

Anyhow, enough of my grievances. I got back from a week in Palm Springs to find the discussion has taken off with Belanger goaded into significant participation. I have to say that I totally disagree with the position that his crazed postings are so moronic, unintelligible, and devoid of any comment that he should be banned. This is exactly the reason I think his postings are so valuable. While Mowe has a fascination with all aspects of the Freeman world I tend to pay most attention to the tax aspects. I spent my working life in income tax and I have an ongoing interest in tax avoidance schemes. Belanger goes on and on how his positions are based purely on religious beliefs but, at heart, what he is peddling is justification for tax evasion. Do any readers really think that Peterson is avoiding tax purely on the basis of a totally moronic belief that only laws specifically written in the bible are relevant to him?

So, if any potential followers of Belanger who are looking for a way (or at least a way with any possibility of success) of avoid paying taxes stumble on this thread what do they get? They get information from Peterson, in his own videos, on how well Belanger's scheme is working for him, the CRA after him, seized funds, big and growing tax bill. They also get Mowe's analysis of the caselaw showing how all of Belanger's arguments are guaranteed to fail in court. However, of almost equal value, they get Belanger, the man supposedly able to rebut Mowe and defend Peterson's position, totally avoiding the actual legal problems that Peterson is facing and instead posting incoherent lunatic rants about vampires. This is just what potential tax avoiders need as a cold dose of reality about relying on Belanger's snake oil. So as far as I'm concerned the more of Belanger's insane ramblings the better.

Also of interest is the fact that Mowe and I have poked at Belanger for a long time without getting any response and suddenly he is aggressively front and center on a discussion thread that seemingly is pretty much unrelated to him. Mowe has it right. Belanger has been forced out in the open because his own welfare is at stake. He can't live out of Peterson's fridge and wander his waterfront property while keeping arm's length from the Quatloos criticism of Peterson since Peterson is basing his entire defense on Belanger's arguments. When Peterson has his final spectacular fail Belanger is going to look like crap even amongst the most gullible of potential tax avoiders. So he has to at least make it look like he is defending Peterson and try to hang on to his beachfront meal ticket as long as possible.

[wserra]

Belanger has been forced out in the open because his own welfare is at stake. He can't live out of Peterson's fridge and wander his waterfront property while keeping arm's length from the Quatloos criticism of Peterson since Peterson is basing his entire defense on Belanger's arguments.

What do you expect from a guy who calls himself "parasite Belanger"?

[webhick]

Did I just hear a raging Canadian?

[AndyK]

...
A peripheral player in the Canadian Freeman scene and an American! Don't I deserve at least some of Belanger's hostility and unintelligible curses? Is it wrong to want a pat on the back now and then? Well I'll try to take some comfort from the rant he posted with his anti-Quatloos video. However I think he has gone over the line in his apparent comments about Mrs. Burnaby49.

...

This is just another of the unexpected consequences of Canada joining NAFTA: Borderless free trade of insults.