Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

[arayder]

So it would seem that the long and the short of it is that Daoust has again demanded that the judge recognize his surety theory by pointing out either her or Daoust's (not sure which one was asked for) surety. When this didn't happen Daoust jumped to the conclusion that in so doing the judge affirmed that everyone in Quebec is a slave.

I don't know how it works in Quebec, but in the states questions of constitutional law are not formally addressed in traffic courts or lower courts. I can't imagine it's much different in Quebec.

It would seem that Duncan and Daoust need, through the appeal process, to get their surety theory before a court which has the jurisdiction to address their question. Of course this would make for several more months of chattering and bellicose self aggrandizing on the TFL facebook page. Just what the TFL kooks live for!

This is the part of the guru's life cycle which they live for. Now Duncan and Daoust may portray themselves as brave, intelligent and stalwart freedom fighters going to the mat for the freedom of all their countrymen. Believers heap praise on them and a few donations may even come in (Duncan says he isn't in it for the money).

Eventually, the theory in question becomes old hat and the guru proposing it looses favor. The cycle ends with the guru going to the guru's old folks home where he or she plays bingo nightly with Eldon Warman, Dean Clifford, Bobby Menard, Wally Dove, Robin Belanger and any former guru who has not self-medicated himself into a stupor.

[notorial dissent]

I think the court of buffoons and idiots is booked solid at this point so they'll just have to wait for a "real" court.

[Arthur Rubin]

I think the court of buffoons and idiots is booked solid at this point so they'll just have to wait for a "real" court.

You mean, they are no Dennys in Canada?

A "common law" court has even less standing (I know, hard to believe) in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada, as the basis of the law is not "(English) common law", but Napoleonic Law.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think the court of buffoons and idiots is booked solid at this point so they'll just have to wait for a "real" court.

You mean, they are no Dennys in Canada?

A "common law" court has even less standing (I know, hard to believe) in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada, as the basis of the law is not "(English) common law", but Napoleonic Law.

That shouldn't stop them. They will haul out a dictionary -- a 19th century legal dictionary, if possible -- which says that the word "common" indicates that the law applies to everybody. Far-fetched? Yes -- but remember how many people in countries outside the US think that the Uniform Commercial Code applies to them because "uniform" means "the same for everybody", or something like that.

[coffeekitten]

They invoke the Charter of Rights, but it has nothing to do with the Common Law or Napoleonic Law. According to them, the Charter takes precedence over any other legislation. Their interpretation of the Charter is strictly economic (the surety is only something that protects you against debt) and wrong. The true reason is that Pete Daoust doesn't want to pay for a lawyer and then complains that the judge doesn't allow him to defend himself and that he has the right to surety. He has the right to a lawyer, but for him, paying like everyone else would make him a slave. So, he's now a martyr, a victim of the evil system.

[arayder]

It is interesting to note that Dust's primary argument isn't that the government doesn't have to the right to issue a parking ticket. Rather, he is arguing that he can pay the ticket using his "surety". . .which as near as I can tell is just a variant of the birth bond/security of the person theories (correct me if I am wrong here).

His beef seems to be that the judge hearing his case will have none it.

Ya' have to figure that sooner or later the court is going to say enough is enough and order Daoust to pay up the old fashion way.

[notorial dissent]

I have to go along with saying that from my perspective what they are doing is clear as mud. Of course if they had even a scintilla of idea about what they were talking about it might help, and I am quite sure from all this that they don't.

[coffeekitten]

It is interesting to note that Dust's primary argument isn't that the government doesn't have to the right to issue a parking ticket. Rather, he is arguing that he can pay the ticket using his "surety". . .which as near as I can tell is just a variant of the birth bond/security of the person theories (correct me if I am wrong here).

Yep, and Daoust insists that he's not a person, but has a person, and other nonsense. And if a cop asks him to identify himself, it would probably go like this: I'm the man who has the legal person named Pierre Daoust, registration number, etc.

[coffeekitten]

It looks like Pete Daoust believes the judge Lépine committed a crime against humanity.



Seriously...

[bmxninja357]

You mean, they are no Dennys in Canada?

yeah there are. unfortunately here in edmonton they are the only 24hr restaurant game in town other than fast food or donuts.

and hanging out in them at night i have yet to see any court come into session. and they are licensed but have no bar to cross. just a please wait to be seated sign which i frequently ignore. its policy not law man.

peace,
ninj

[noblepa]

...and hanging out in them at night i have yet to see any court come into session. and they are licensed but have no bar to cross. just a please wait to be seated sign which i frequently ignore. its policy not law man.

peace,
ninj

Yeah. Stick it to the Man! Down with tyranny!

Who do they think they are, telling a customer to wait to be seated? They're not the boss of me!

[coffeekitten]

I've never heard about Dennys: do they serve good food?

Pete Daoust just sent a notice of fraud because he lost in court and, of course, there must be fraud, because otherwise, it would mean all of Duncan's theories are wrong.

It was originally in French, but I tried to translate the best I can (with the help of Google translate).

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
No. of Cause: 700-01-133003-148
NOTICE OF FRAUD

Dear Court of Quebec, and,
The Honorable Chief Justice Elizabeth Corte
The Honorable Associate Chief Justice Mario Tremblay
The Honorable Associate Chief Justice Danielle Côté
Stéphanie Vallée Attorney General of Quebec.
Ann-Marie Jones Human Rights Tribunal.
France Lynch Under the Attorney General of Quebec.


Be advised that in this cause no. 700-01-133003-148, heard in room RC-05 Monday, December 19, 2016 at the Palais de JUSTICE in St-Jérôme, I have very good reasons to believe that there is fraud. It is impossible for me to UNDERSTAND anything else.

No consideration of these fundamental rights has been received by Judge Sylvain LÉPINE and / or the Court in this case. Legal personality has been attributed to me by violating ALL the fundamental rights decreed by Her Majesty, in the opinion and CONSENT of the National Assembly of Quebec. I am the man who has the right to the surety of his person, and at no time has this surety been revealed to me.

How can you attribute a legal personality to a man without considering the right to life, surety, integrity and freedom of that person?

All that is to be understood is that JUSTICE has transformed us all into properties and / or slaves, which seems to me to be a FRAUD and / or a serious CRIME.

You all know very well that the only legal element that keeps me out of slavery is this fundamental right to the SURETY of my person, without this right I am literally enslaved by you. This right was violated by the JUSTICE of Quebec on December 19, 2016.

I wanted to provide a reasonable defense to my person, but at no time did the state provide me with the necessary tools to do so. And yet, the State is bound by this Charter, right?

Yet, the Charter of the Rights and Freedoms of the Person Chapter C-12 is a fundamental LAW which has PRECEDENCE over all other laws in Quebec, right?

I am that person who intervenes in the proceedings, or appeals against the judgment which, in fraud of his rights, has attributed the personality.

It is impossible for me to UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT all this HOSTILITIES towards me, it is simply unacceptable. We are in Quebec, not in Nigeria, it seems to me.

Several witnesses were present during this fraud, here are some attached to this Notice of Fraud.

The whole story is public, and everything that comes out of it will be made public.

If you had answered my call for help Col. Rob Delaney, you could have stopped this fraud.

I wish a reply within 20 days to this Notice of Fraud.



AUTHORIZED BY: Pierre.
The Man who HAS the legal personality named PIERRE DAOUST registration number 1196604112851 residing at XXXX rue Xxxxxx, Mirabel (Québec) JXX-XXX
Only ADMINISTRATOR authorized for the legal person named PIERRE DAOUST.
Tel: 514-XXX-XXXX

In three weeks (because, of course, nobody will answer his letter), maybe he will consider bringing this case to appeal, or starting a revolution, or whatever. It's been 4 years since he got this ticket and refused to pay: how long could it take before he pays a fine or even gets in prison?

[Arthur Rubin]

I've never heard about Denny's: do they serve good food?

It's been argued either way.

I think the reason FMotL use Denny's as their "court" is that Denny's usually have a "private" dining room, which you can book for low cost, or possibly no cost if everyone orders food. Others with better memory can report on "common law courts" held at Denny's.

Here, in Orange County, California, most of the fast food restaurants aren't 24 hours any more; many which used to be 24 hours now close Monday 0000-0400. The only 24-hour sitdown restaurants I'm sure of are Denny's, Norm's, some IHOPs, one or two of the Carrow's.

[arayder]

Let's check the freeman/sovcit/tfl playbook and see what might come next.

Daoust's notice of fraud filing will get nowhere. I don't think he can really mount an appeal. Canadian law experts can help me here, but I don't imagine that the provinces allow folks to appeal routine cases out of traffic courts on issues of constitutional law unless it is clear the ticketing government has really, really gone off the rails.

If I am right a next trick for Daoust to pull would be to attempt to foist a sort of unilateral contract on the court by claiming that its failure to answer his notice of fraud to his satisfaction means he won.

It's the oldest trick in the book. And to be frank Duncan and Daoust don't really have any original stuff.

Since Daoust or whatever vehicle got ticketed in the first place don't amount to a hill of beans in this world his non payment of the ticket won't rise to a real level of concern to the government or the courts, thus allowing Daoust to walk the earth claiming victory.

In my mind the question is whether Daoust will up the ante by finding some way to act out, like bucking for another ticket or trying to pay a tax or fee with his surety. He seems onnary enough to try.

[Burnaby49]

I can't speak for Canada, just British Columbia. Here we have no "Traffic Court" as such, it is an informal procedure of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/types- ... aw-matters

While normal provincial court decisions have an automatic right of appeal the right of appeal from an informal procedure seems limited;

Under what circumstances can I appeal my conviction to the Supreme Court?

There are limited circumstances in which there can be an appeal of a violation ticket or a Violation Ticket (Registered Owner) to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Such an appeal is only available:

•After a conviction, acquittal and /or sentence made at a Provincial Court hearing;
•After a deemed conviction in circumstances where the offender has paid the violation ticket within 30 days of the date the ticket is served; or
•After an order of a justice regarding the fine amount made without a court hearing on a Violation Ticket Statement and Written Reasons.

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/tickets/ ... htm#appeal

[notorial dissent]

Of course it was fraud, fantabulous fotl's couldn't possibly lose otherwise.

"legal personality " "surety" he wanted to "provide a reasonable defense to my person" but the state WOULDN'T PROVIDE HIM "necessary tools to do so", huh!!!

Considering how much sense this didn't make having been translated, I'm betting it as little or less sense in the original.

The quality and palatability of Denny's food is open to debate, my opinion is that it doesn't rise to the level of good diner food. It does have the dubious quality of being relatively cheap, or at least it is around here. However cheap does not equate to good in my opinion.

Daoust strikes me as being well and truly off the rails. I can't see that he has any grounds for appeal, not that that will stop him, he is completely lost in the delusion at this point.

[Philistine]

I sense a strongly worded letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council is in the works.
After all, his rights have been trod upon so callously.

[notorial dissent]

I sense a strongly worded letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council is in the works.
After all, his rights have been trod upon so callously.

That'll do it fer shure!!!!!!! Or at the very least brighten some poor clerk's day.

[arayder]

I can't speak for Canada, just British Columbia. Here we have no "Traffic Court" as such, it is an informal procedure of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/types- ... aw-matters

While normal provincial court decisions have an automatic right of appeal the right of appeal from an informal procedure seems limited;

Under what circumstances can I appeal my conviction to the Supreme Court?

There are limited circumstances in which there can be an appeal of a violation ticket or a Violation Ticket (Registered Owner) to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Such an appeal is only available:

•After a conviction, acquittal and /or sentence made at a Provincial Court hearing;
•After a deemed conviction in circumstances where the offender has paid the violation ticket within 30 days of the date the ticket is served; or
•After an order of a justice regarding the fine amount made without a court hearing on a Violation Ticket Statement and Written Reasons.

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/tickets/ ... htm#appeal

It doesn't seem Daoust can get the job done trying to argue his constitutional question of a "surety" without first paying his fine. I doubt that Daoust's circular logic that his "surety" in effect pays the fine is going to work.

But I don't think Daoust wants to pay his fine or really even establish the concept of the "surety" as he believes it to be. I think like so many of his sort he wants to pretend he has found an elephant in a legal mouse hole which will trip up the powers that be.

Like Warman, Menard, Clifford, Duncan and all the rest he has a score to settle. Like them there is big hole in the middle of him that no amount of filings, notices and wacky theories can fill.

[eric]

Pete seems to have acquired quite the following in Quebec. As usual with previous incarnations of the gospel of Scott prospective acolytes are treated with scorn or completely confused with amazingly torturous arguments. Note the following exchange with some poor sod who has discovered a flaw in Scott's theories. Background information - prior to 1994, in Quebec there weren't always records of live birth. All vital statistic records were kept by the church, although a parent could bypass this procedure and go directly to the Registrar d'Etat Civile, as my family did.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/lasuret ... 197504987/

2. I cannot find where to request my "Declaration de naissance vivante". I called the hospital, they have no clue what I'm talking about. They are always trying to send the ball to Directeur de l'État civil. Directeur de l'État Civil sends the ball back to the Church. I remember seeing a fax number earlier. Can't find it now though...

and

The document de Naissance Vivante is used to create a PUBLIC record that I, THE MAN, Is the SOLE ADMINISTRATOR of the NAME and that NO OTHER PARTIES ARE ALLOWED TO ACT IN MY INTEREST.
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CONSENT. NO MEETING OF THE MINDS. NO CONSIDERABLE CONSIDERATION GIVEN.
NOT EVEN THE WORST OF FOOLS WOULD CONTRACT IN SUCH A MANNER!!!!!!