Judge Accuses TP Of Using Old-School Frivolous Arguments

[notorial dissent]

Cudgel, welcome to Quatloos. Parenthetical, we really do need a fresh meat smilie.

I don't know if your post was intended as humor, or if you were serious, since communication obviously isn't your forté, but either way between the incoherence, gibberish, and just plain low comedy, you did manage to provide a snicker or two, so it served at least some modest purpose. Joyeux Noël!

[LPC]

You have no idea of knowing how the ability of anyone to use 794 of the criminal code make all of these bloated toads privately liable for even suggesting your a person as decribed in section 35 of the Interpretation Act put in place so law goons cannot twist the words. The contract is the signing for a Social Insurance Number It is an assumpsit contract only valid as long as you do not gain agreement privately as per a "Notice to Admit" that any move forward to threaten or intimidate you to violate your faith in the Bible the Queen swore to defend is a action under private liability as no legislation exists to allow intimidation to violate the commands of God. You can denounce God and the Bible all you wish, enjoy yourself, have a fire and dance naked around it! But take note!! You can never disprove that private liability ensues upon those officers of her Majesty that swore an Oath to be truly allegiant to her but in opposition to that oath Intimidate Nuisance or Obstruct men and women in their practising their faith bound duties travels and ministry. See Section 176,180,and 423 of their corporations code it as explains who is guilty for doing such things, You may wish to attack the QC lawyers who manufactured such law as I only post it for your expert evaluation albeit it is obviously biased and in no tangibly fair position to judge,,,

Welcome to Quatloos.

May I make some suggestions?

1. The carriage return (or "Enter" key) is your friend. Please use it to break up messages into coherent paragraphs.

2. We value syntax and grammar.

3. We also value context. You may understand an ongoing conflict with a government agency, or an argument from another forum. We don't. You'll need to explain the factual context of your comments.

4. This forum is primarily about laws of the United States. Commentary on the Bible (i.e., religion) and the Queen (i.e., English, Canadian, or Commonwealth law) might not be welcomed with much enthusiasm.

That probably about does it. Thanks. Be well. Be safe. Be coherent. Merry Christmas. Happy Festivus.

[JamesVincent]

...Be coherent...

Ummmm.....

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

You have no idea of knowing how the ability of anyone to use 794 of the criminal code make all of these bloated toads privately liable for even suggesting your a person as decribed in section 35 of the Interpretation Act put in place so law goons cannot twist the words. The contract is the signing for a Social Insurance Number It is an assumpsit contract only valid as long as you do not gain agreement privately as per a "Notice to Admit" that any move forward to threaten or intimidate you to violate your faith in the Bible the Queen swore to defend is a action under private liability as no legislation exists to allow intimidation to violate the commands of God. You can denounce God and the Bible all you wish, enjoy yourself, have a fire and dance naked around it! But take note!! You can never disprove that private liability ensues upon those officers of her Majesty that swore an Oath to be truly allegiant to her but in opposition to that oath Intimidate Nuisance or Obstruct men and women in their practising their faith bound duties travels and ministry. See Section 176,180,and 423 of their corporations code it as explains who is guilty for doing such things, You may wish to attack the QC lawyers who manufactured such law as I only post it for your expert evaluation albeit it is obviously biased and in no tangibly fair position to judge,,,

minister Belanger, is that you?

In any case, welcome to Quatloos!

If I am correct in my (admitted) presumption, I several weeks ago had a large number of questions that I posed to your collegue, minister Catherine. You can view those here:

• viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9261&start=20#p164221

My interest is genuine - I would be very interested to learn more about your group and your own experiences over the past decade plus. It seems to me you have lived through some interesting times.

Please have a very pleasant holiday season.

SMS Möwe

[Dr. Caligari]

You have no idea of knowing how the ability of anyone to use 794 of the criminal code make all of these bloated toads privately liable for even suggesting your a person as decribed in section 35 of the Interpretation Act put in place so law goons cannot twist the words. The contract is the signing for a Social Insurance Number It is an assumpsit contract only valid as long as you do not gain agreement privately as per a "Notice to Admit" that any move forward to threaten or intimidate you to violate your faith in the Bible the Queen swore to defend is a action under private liability as no legislation exists to allow intimidation to violate the commands of God. You can denounce God and the Bible all you wish, enjoy yourself, have a fire and dance naked around it! But take note!! You can never disprove that private liability ensues upon those officers of her Majesty that swore an Oath to be truly allegiant to her but in opposition to that oath Intimidate Nuisance or Obstruct men and women in their practising their faith bound duties travels and ministry. See Section 176,180,and 423 of their corporations code it as explains who is guilty for doing such things, You may wish to attack the QC lawyers who manufactured such law as I only post it for your expert evaluation albeit it is obviously biased and in no tangibly fair position to judge,,,

You know absolutely nothing about law, and apparently also flunked remedial English.

[JamesVincent]

Taxes are evidence of a contract. The Supreme Court of Canada, in Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, in 2004, provides an interesting loophole for those persistent tax protesters. The Taxman Corp thinks it is a contract God. Seems to me that the couple proved that they could not be held to contracts that offend their faith. If you do not tell the taxman your faith, and that bowing to false gods offends it, how can you avoid his assumptive contract? Yes I can see that commercial motivation and digression will be resorted to, and even name calling innuendo and shoot the messenger type wisdom. But address the topic like your interested in the existence of the fabled silver bullet, it exists because you just saw it with Amselem. Or showing how, with logic, that the case has no merit

Ok, I think I almost made it understandable. Of course I have no real idea what he was trying to say but still.

[JamesVincent]

You have no way of knowing how the ability of anyone to use Section 794 of the criminal code would make all of these bloated toads privately liable for even suggesting that you are a person as described in section 35 of the Interpretation Act, put in place so law goons cannot twist the words. The contract is the signing for a Social Insurance Number. It is an assumpsit contract, only valid as long as you do not gain agreement privately, as per a "Notice to Admit", that any move forward to threaten or intimidate you to make you violate your faith in the Bible. The Queen swore to defend it as an action under private liability so as no legislation exists to allow intimidation to be used to cause you to violate the commands of God. You can denounce God and the Bible all you wish, enjoy yourself, have a fire and dance naked around it! But take note! You can never disprove that private liability ensues upon those officers of her Majesty that swore an Oath to be truly allegiant to her, but in direct opposition to that oath intimidate, nuisance, or obstruct men and women in their practicing of their faith bound duties, travels, and ministry. See Section 176,180,and 423 of their corporations code. it explains who is guilty for doing such things. You may wish to attack the QC lawyers who manufactured such law as I only post it for your expert evaluation; albeit it is, obviously, biased and in no tangibly fair position to judge.

I tried.

[wserra]

Thanks, James. I tried, too, but couldn't make any progress at all. When I saw that you got further than I, but still didn't succeed in coming up with something that made any sense, I was about to give up, figuring the guy had used the object of his login on his head a few too many times. Then I recalled the Gibberish Generator.

Ug whaxavo je didoaxa eb gnewick whed zo axafiritupp eb axanyeno te uso 253 eb zo climinaxar cedo vaxako axarr eb zoso freaxatow teaxads plivaxatorupp riaxafro bel ovon suggochick yeep pit dolsen axas poclifow din sondien 49 eb zo Dinkolplotaxatien And put din praxaco se raxaw keens caxannet twich zo welds. Zo cenklaxand dis zo signick bel pit Seciaxar Dinsulaxanco Numfol Dit dis up axassumpsit cenklaxand enrupp maxarid axas reck axas ug pe jet kaxain axagloomonk plivaxatorupp axas dol pit "Jetico te Admit" zaxat axanupp vevo belwaxald te zloaxaton el dinkimidaxato ug te mieraxato yeep baxaith din zo Fifro zo Quoon swelo te poboct dis pit axandien uctol plivaxato riaxafiritupp axas je rogisraxatien oxichs te axarred dinkimidaxatien te mieraxato zo cemmaxacts eb Kew. Ug caxan poneunco Kew pi zo Fifro axarr ug wisk, onjeupp yeulsorb, whaxavo pit bilo pi daxanco naxakow axaleuct dit! Fut taxako jeto!! Ug caxan jovol isplevo zaxat plivaxato riaxafiritupp onsuos upen zeso ebbicols eb whol Vaxajochupp zaxat swelo up Eaxath te fo slurupp axarrogiaxank te whol fut din eppesitien te zaxat eaxath Dinkimidaxato Nuisaxanco el Efchlund von pi wemon din zoil plaxandisick zoil baxaith feuct dutios slaxavors pi vinichlupp. Soo Sondien 128,160,pi 374 eb zoil celpelaxatiens cedo dit axas oxpraxains he dis kuirtupp bel peick sust zicks, Ug vaxaupp wisk te axattaxang zo QC raxawyols he vaxanubaxandulow sust raxaw axas Pum enrupp dech dit bel yeep oxpolt ovaxaruaxatien axarfoit dit dis efvieusrupp fiaxasow pi din je taxackifrupp baxail desitien te quidgo

There! Much better.

[Burnaby49]

Makes as much sense as the original.

Perhaps Mowe is right and it is Belanger. He's big on the King James and has a demonstrated expertise in pumping out gibberish.

[JamesVincent]

Thanks, James. I tried, too, but couldn't make any progress at all. When I saw that you got further than I, but still didn't succeed in coming up with something that made any sense, I was about to give up, figuring the guy had used the object of his login on his head a few too many times.

I got really bored waiting for other things to happen today. I think I kept it somewhat close to the original but when the ideas just have no flow, what can you do?

[.]

Cudgel, don't let these guys discourage you.

We all know that you're eminently capable up burping up obscene volumes of Van Peltish-level gibberish and word-salad fantasies, even if it all does have a distinctly Canuckian flavor, never mind the completely bogus and totally inapplicable citations.

Keep up the good work! We're starved for fresh TP meat. And vegetables.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... Perhaps Mowe is right and it is Belanger. He's big on the King James and has a demonstrated expertise in pumping out gibberish.

If cudgel is not the minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger, then cudgel is definitely affiliated with the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International ["CERI"], which is discussed in this thread (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9261). But I'd put my money on it being Belanger himself. I've read enough of his material over the years.

The only other religiously-oriented guru in Canada is "Marcus the Not-A-Lawyer" from ServantKing (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9393). Since "Marcus" is probably relaxing in a metal box prior to his trial I think we can eliminate him from the list of usual suspects.

Though it is a little strange Belanger did not identify himself by name - either "minister Belanger" or "Paraclete Belanger". I've never before seen him be this coy on an Internet forum.

Notice how the author identifies government actors as "intimidating" him? And how the key is to obtain agreements in "private liability" with government actors? The latter is the central schtick to CERI, members fire off foisted unilateral agreements like this one (http://www.allcreatorsgifts.org/main0027.html) or (http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.ca/201 ... cting.html) that supposedly frame the limits of interaction between the CERI member and the state.

These three videos are the clearest restatement I have ever encountered of Belanger's beliefs:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEF_cvI1CPo
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5UCQWEjDnQ
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNB4ymbLE8

Another unique CERI trait is claiming to be religious officials ("ministers"), and then alleging criminal misconduct via Criminal Code, s. 176:

176. (1) Every one who

(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling, or

(b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)

(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or

(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Belanger here has referenced the Criminal Code as "their corporations code", which is kind of cute. CERI members (and in particular Belanger) are known to attempt to initiate criminal proceedings against police and security personnel using that provision.

CERI is a pretty unusual organization for Canada. It's one of very few Freeman/Sovereign groups of which I am aware that appears to exist primarily via face-to-face contact. It is also local; its membership seems to be drawn from the Edmonton, Alberta region. CERI is also very old, at least 10 years old, probably closer to 15 years. It's difficult to tell how much the belief set has evolved in that time.

Belanger himself is a quite interesting personality, as I have never seen him actually promote his concepts for cash, and he has persisted through the rise and fall of at least two Sovereign-type movements in Canada, first the Detaxers, then the Freemen-on-the-Land. He's always present in the periphery of those groups, in contact with their leaderships, but never actually participating in their schemes. Quite interesting to watch. I suppose the closest analogue I can think of in the U.S. menagerie is the Judge Plenipotentiary David-Wynn: Miller. Each is a part of the same system, but is positioned in a highly eccentric, unique orbit well off the ecliptic.

As for cudgel's argument, that issue is reviewed in Associate Chief Justice Rooke's Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 decision at paras. 276-282 (http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq), where Belanger himself gets a mention:

[276] Religion is a common basis for a claim that a court cannot act. While the precise manner in which religion or religious principles are invoked may vary, all these schemes appear to flow from a common rationale; there is some form of religious authority or law that trumps that of the court and Canada.

[277] Some OPCA litigants claim immunity on the basis of religion, or like Mr. Meads, say they are only subject to something like “God’s Law”, or biblical principles. Often these religious beliefs conveniently excuse an OPCA litigant from some onerous obligation, such as paying taxes, or obtaining a driver’s licence, motor vehicle registration, and automobile insurance. Members of the Edmonton area Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, the group headed by “minister” Belanger, claim that their possession and use of marijuana is authorized by the King James Bible and therefore the state and courts have no authority to restrict those activities. Similarly, Mr. Meads, in his submissions, stated he does not recognize marriage outside a biblical context, and divorce can only flow from infidelity. He says a court‑ordered divorce based on other criteria cannot bind him.

[278] Belief, religious activity, and association is a protected right under Charter, s. 2(a). However, Canadian courts recognize that as a restricted right that is subordinate “... to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”: Charter, s. 1. The Supreme Court of Canada has been explicit that religious beliefs do not trump the right of government to organize and regulate Canadian society, as was recently reviewed in Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37 (CanLII), 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567.

[279] OPCA litigants do not usually frame their religious arguments in a Charter context, but that would be the appropriate approach for them to pursue the rights they say flow from their beliefs, rather than a bald declaration of religion‑based immunity. That is not to suggest that such Charter-based arguments will succeed, but they will at least be appropriately framed.

A religious basis to object to paying tax is addressed in Pappas v. Canada, 2006 TCC 692, (http://canlii.ca/t/1q75q). That's not the case referenced by Burnaby49, but it covers the same point.

So, "cudgel" / minister Belanger, I have a few other questions, some legal, some not:

• 1. You have in the past mentioned an action in Federal Court, launched in the last year or so? I've looked for that. Is this document (http://www.scribd.com/doc/97602634/Robi ... -of-Motion) related to that action? Can you tell me about the action and what you are trying to do?
  
  2. You and minister Catherine have mentioned a civil action directed against Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judge John Rooke - can you tell me more about that? In what court is that lawsuit being heard? Have you filed that lawsuit? What are your claims? Any other details would be interesting.
  
  3. You have in the past claimed that Robert Arthur Menard, a.k.a. Robert-Arthur: Menard, a.k.a. "Freddie Freepickle" is a Canada Revenue Agency agent, and you have said you have seen paperwork that establishes that fact. I'm afraid the video recording where you made that statement appears to have been deleted, so I can't offer any more commentary. Subsequent to that however you attempted to collaborate with Menard. Your holidays and travels together are described in a number of your videos. I'm confused about this. Is Menard a CRA agent? Or an agent for some other government entity? If so, why did you try to cooperate with him in the summer of 2013? Do you think he is an evil man? Misguided? Simply stupid?
  
  4. How about Dean Clifford? Is he another government agent?

I have many other questions, but perhaps that would be a nice starting point.

Again, best of the holidays.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

If it is Belanger he's picked an odd spot to jump into the pool. This thread originally started as a discussion about an American who refused to pay his taxes because the IRS couldn't give him an adequate definition of the word "income" for tax purposes. I sidetracked it by discussing Blackmore, a Canadian tax case about a legal loophole that allowed religious communes (specifically Hutterites) to allocate income amongst the entire community. I didn't bring Blackmore up because of its religious aspects but because of its complexity. I wanted to point out the depth of legal analysis sometimes require by the Canadian Tax Court in reviewing tax appeals. My choice of Blackmore was essentially random; I could have as easily picked GlaxoSmithKline, a case about the transfer price of a prescription drug.

Then Cudgel qua Belanger waded in rambling incoherently about Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, a case he incorrectly claims allows Canadians not to pay tax based on religious beliefs, a topic not previously considered on this thread and one not contemplated in Blackmore where the taxpayer wanted to use his religious beliefs to fit into existing tax law, not opt out.

Mowe, and myself to a limited extent, have discussed Belanger in some depth elsewhere on this site, in reference to Canadian sovereigns and in discussion threads about Belanger himself. So why hasn't he commented there? I'm guessing its because Minister Catherine, Belanger's landlady, told Belanger about Quatloos after her tussle with Mowe and he has been lurking since waiting for a chance to strike. He saw the word religion and jumped in even though the issue in Blackmore has nothing to do with any of his professed beliefs.

If you are Belanger I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the videos of your historic food court meeting with Sean Henry, a.k.a. :Chief :Nanya-Shaabu: El: of the At-Sik-Hata First Nation of Yamassee Moors discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9261&p=156049&hili ... id#p156049

I also thought Mowe did a very moving, indeed lyrical, write-up of your summer meeting with the Freedom Pickle referenced here:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9261&p=159581&hilit=rheumy#p159581

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

If it is Belanger he's picked an odd spot to jump into the pool. This thread originally started as a discussion about an American who refused to pay his taxes because the IRS couldn't give him an adequate definition of the word "income" for tax purposes. ...

Then Cudgel qua Belanger waded in rambling incoherently about Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, a case he incorrectly claims allows Canadians not to pay tax based on religious beliefs, a topic not previously considered on this thread and one not contemplated in Blackmore where the taxpayer wanted to use his religious beliefs to fit into existing tax law, not opt out.

Mowe, and myself to a limited extent, have discussed Belanger in some depth elsewhere on this site, in reference to Canadian sovereigns and in discussion threads about Belanger himself. So why hasn't he commented there? I'm guessing its because Minister Catherine, Belanger's landlady, told Belanger about Quatloos after her tussle with Mowe and he has been lurking since waiting for a chance to strike. He saw the word religion and jumped in even though the issue in Blackmore has nothing to do with any of his professed beliefs. ...

And here I thought I was rather polite to minister Catherine, but perhaps that is an "assumption" on my part.

In any case, if there is any doubt that "cudgel" is minister Belanger I point out this post dated Dec. 29, 2013, a comment to a Youtube video, echoed on Belanger's Google+ website (https://plus.google.com/111766028273352068402/posts):

Marc got conned by false oathed lawyers which are beholding to the system that arrested him as their first duty and did not know the power of stepping outside the system of commercial law by getting private agreements with all the so called officials to remove their erroneous and foolish assumptions about the harmless herb marijuana...Trusting in lying masonic affiliated lawyers like Tousaw is why Marc went to jail...He would never have gone to jail if he had focused on getting agreements of private liability upon those who intimidated him and conned him into submitting to the commercial fraud by argument and failed established one point..that he is not a person of law!!!.

Argument is seen by the courts as dishonor and invites jurisdiction,,Agreements formed in private remove the commercial assumptions of the corporation called CANADA and listing as a profit motivated business on the US stock exchange,,,

A Province and a province are two different animals under the defacto corporate rules,,,,Yes a capital letter makes all the difference in law. Reading section 24 of the defacto Canada Land Surveys Act tells you where Canada is....Section 30 of the defacto charter tells you as well as the defacto Canada Interpretation Act section 35 and section 2 of the defacto criminal code tells you that the only provinces comprising Canada are the NWT Nunavit and the Yukon. Just reading section 32 of the Charter tells you it does not apply to you. Typing "Section 32 Heritage" into google will apprise you who the charter applies to.

Underlining by myself. Again, we have the emphasis on "private agreements", and I have noted Belanger's quite unique motif of composing his ellipses with commas. I don't think I've ever seen anyone else do that except him, and, of course, "cudgel".

I will separately repeat the last paragraph of minister Belanger's comment because he's rather emphatic about his interest in teaching and sharing:

I will provide anyone with the definition of the word "includes" so you can grasp what you read there! I have far more expertise in law than lying lawyers that put Marc in jail and will prove it to anyone who enquires.... I do not charge for my time as information should be free and invite anyone to challenge my knowledge and irrefutable proof of what I say!

Well, "cudgel" / minister Belanger, I think you have a forum here where parties would be interested to better understand your definition of the word "includes", and your other legal expertise.

We're waiting.

SMS Möwe