Luc D’Abadie Talks Himself Into a Jail Term

[afateworsethandeath]

Can we get him on secondment to the UK please

[arayder]

We now have slightly more evidence that Justice Rooke reads Quatloos:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/20 ... qb213.html

I like the part where Rooke shots down ACCP like consumer purchases:

[Gauthier's]home was the subject of a foreclosure proceeding, which Gauthier resisted by frivolous and vexatious OPCA arguments. . . These include the following frivolous arguments, in some cases with my responses:

1. His mortgage contract is a void bill of exchange because it offends the “Consumer Purchase” provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act, RSC 1985, c B-4, ss 188-192.

2. Gauthier should not be obliged to pay for his mortgage because banks “create money out of thin air” via a process called “book-entry credit.” Master Schulz identified the source of this scheme was an Australian text, Laurence F Hoins, How To Screw ‘Your’ Bank: What Bank? Any Bank, 2nd ed (Nowra: self-published, 1992), which had been universally rejected by Australian courts. . .

I like the way Rooke and Schulz research freeman theories back to their roots.

It is interesting to note that freeman gurus rarely cite the origins of their lame theories. I used to think that was because they hadn't done research beyond the last YouTube they watched. But, I am beginning to get the idea that the gurus realize tracing theories like the ACCP back to their origins makes it painfully obvious they are peddling lies.

Freeman lurkers considering joining in Menard's eat and cheat should know that their guru is either waaaay behind the curve, or just plain lying to them.

[notorial dissent]

I think you are giving the majority of the gurus much too much credit. for the most part they strike me as being far too lazy to have done that king of research. I think it is rather more likely that they "borrowed" their pet theories from elsewhere and didn't attribute their original source, but I wouldn't ever accuse them of actually doing any or much research, and I seriously doubt hat most of them actually know the true sources of their theories. As to lying, yes, they are doing that regardless.

[guilty]

If Quatloos awards medals then I think DDJ Rooke is a worthy recipient.

I particularly liked "officious buttinsky" and "YouTube videos of men scribbling on whiteboards" even though they were not his own words.

[Burnaby49]

This is classic Karl Lentz crap. If you recall, Dean Clifford also tried the "idiot" magic bean on the last day of his trial. Didn't do him any good either.

Quite right. ACJ Rooke, the man himself, confirmed your opinion;

[34] The “idiot to legalese” argument and other components of this decision betrays the identity of at least one of Gauthier and d’Abadie’s gurus: Karl Rudolph Lentz. Lentz is a US OPCA guru who uses characteristic motifs, such as “i: a man; prosecutor”, and targets “wrongdoer(s)” who “trespassed on his property”, see for example: Lentz v Robert Bentley, Docket 2:12-cv-1014-MHT, US District Court, Alabama, Northern Division; Lentz v Department of Human Resources, Docket 2:13-cv-387-MEF, US District Court, Alabama, Northern Division. Lentz’s concepts work no better in Canada than in the US. Lentz personally appeared in R v Zombori, (Williams Lake) 20130927 (BCSC), the trial of two Freeman-on-the-Land marijuana grow-op offenders, where the Court explicitly rejected Lentz as a litigation representative. Lentz appears to be nothing more than another OPCA guru fraud who has personally failed when he tried to apply his techniques. He and his ideas are not welcome in Canadian courts.

Then called Karl a fraud;

[57] Gauthier has now been warned and warned and warned again. He has been pointed to the correct law, but has preferred “Youtube videos of men scribbling on whiteboards”, books with confidence building titles such as “How To Screw ‘Your’ Bank”, and frauds like Karl Lentz. He has now spent enough time in court to know its basic procedures and rules but, apparently, in his view, those apply to someone else. His answer to court directions is “I don’t wish to do so.”

Gauthier v Starr, 2016 ABQB 213
http://canlii.ca/t/gpj7c

[JamesVincent]

As much as I would not want to criticise Rook he forgot to add: while sticking his fingers in his ears while chanting bananas, I can't hear you.

[pigpot]

Quite right. ACJ Rooke, the man himself, confirmed your opinion;

Excellent work. Opinion that the code applies because the code says it applies.

[Burnaby49]

As much as I would not want to criticise Rook he forgot to add: while sticking his fingers in his ears while chanting bananas, I can't hear you.

That's Rooke, not Rook. And yes, I'd be careful what I said about him. You are safe down in the US but I'm the next province over. To close for comfort if I piss him off. I try to avoid antagonizing judges.

[Burnaby49]

Quite right. ACJ Rooke, the man himself, confirmed your opinion;

Excellent work. Opinion that the code applies because the code says it applies.

I approved this post because, while it is gibberish, it is neutral gibberish. You Quatloosian readers have the inestimable benefit, which I unfortunately don't share, of not having to read pigpot's posts because almost all of them are screened out by the moderators and disapproved.

Pigpot recently posted about his total disdain for Quatloos (one of the 95% you didn't get to read) because he said nobody at all reads it. If that is the case I'd suggest that he stop posting here since we obviously aren't worth wasting his time.

[Jeffrey]

What happened to Pigpot's pen, I like that thread.

[Philistine]

What happened to Pigpot's pen, I like that thread.

Wasn't that "Pigpot's Pot"? As in chamber...
It seems piggy is opposed to enforcing codes under the various acts. If that's the case, lobby to have them changed.

[notorial dissent]

Quite right. ACJ Rooke, the man himself, confirmed your opinion;

Excellent work. Opinion that the code applies because the code says it applies.

Amazing, Piggy actually almost got something right, even if it was by accident, and snark. The law as it stands applies to everyone equally unless it says otherwise, or you can prove otherwise, but the onus is on YOU to do so, contrary to what Marc "the fool and liar" Stevens claims. If you're a special little snowflake and can prove it, then go for it, otherwise, whine and prevaricate a lot like Marc does.

If nothing else, I think Rooke should get a medal for patience for having to wade through all that tripe. On the other hand he has found a useful end for what would otherwise be wasted verbiage, perfect examples of the type of nonsense they hare having to put up with, that can be useful and instructive in how to deal with it, and reduced what could be pages of rebuttal to a simple see Rook....

[JamesVincent]

As much as I would not want to criticise Rook he forgot to add: while sticking his fingers in his ears while chanting bananas, I can't hear you.

That's Rooke, not Rook. And yes, I'd be careful what I said about him. You are safe down in the US but I'm the next province over. To close for comfort if I piss him off. I try to avoid antagonizing judges.

Yeah, well, trying to post while typing on my phone without my glasses on will do that.

[pigpot]

What happened to Pigpot's pen, I like that thread.

Thanks "Jeff" for supporting the thread. Is it going to come back for some rational two sided discussion or stick with rail-roading peoples thoughts without rational discussion?

[Burnaby49]

What happened to Pigpot's pen, I like that thread.

Thanks "Jeff" for supporting the thread. Is it going to come back for some rational two sided discussion or stick with rail-roading peoples thoughts without rational discussion?

We already have rational discussion without the Pigpot's Pigpen, it was locked up for good reason. So yes, railroading it is. Jeffery will just have to reconcile himself to the loss of the Pigpen.