Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

[coffeekitten]

Is Daoust selling or giving away his tax forms?

No, he's not selling anything, he's not like Robert Menard, he's so much better and honest.

[Burnaby49]

Refresh my memory, what's the link between Daoust and Duncan? And Burnaby, could this get Daoust in trouble?

Daoust is, or was, an acolyte of Duncan. No this probably won't get him into trouble if you mean legal trouble. His followers don't seem to be hiding anything, just sending in silly forms. Daoust is so insignificant he barely registers and the individuals using his forms probably have insignificant taxes owing anyhow. They will eventually end up being looked at by the CRA but at a very low level. The CRA has a large workload and this will be a low priority review so Daoust probably has a long spell coming where he can brag that the scheme is working.

The CRA went after the Poriskyites as hard as they did because it was a very large, very organized tax evasion scheme that was essentially franchised nationally. It had to be stomped on because of scale, volume of taxes evaded, and the obvious willingness of gullible Canadians to believe that it was legit. The CRA also had a windfall in prosecuting because almost all of the necessary evidence to convict all of the Paradigm evaders was sitting in Porisky's home computer. The basis of prosecution of every trial I've attended has been the seized Porisky documents. Daoust is just some guy with some homemade forms.

[notorial dissent]

I suspect that one of the factors in his favor is that he, and his guru probably don't make enough and owe enough in tax to make prosecution worthwhile unless they really make nuisances of themselves. In other words, they really are as inconsequential in reality as we think they are in our sphere.

[coffeekitten]

Another TFLer claims a victory because of the surety and, one again, it sounds fishy.

Daniel de Chambly (I don't think it's his real name, but well...) was risking a $2500 fine and a suspension of his driving license for one more year, but according to him, the case has been dismissed because of the surety. If you read his post (in french again, sorry) it's written that the judge dismissed the case because of a lack of a PPO. What is a PPO? I made a Google search and I don't think it's a organization that provides health care to a lower cost, so, I don't know. He can tell what he wants, the lack of information he gives and his dishonesty doesn't impress me. And he's currently studying in criminology! What the hell is that? It might be a bad joke! The case has been dismissed because a paper was missing, that's it! That's kind of absurd, if you ask me, but sometimes, cases are dismissed because of details like this. It's not the surety, that's for sure!







https://www.facebook.com/daniel.dechamb ... nref=story

[eric]

I'm not a resident of Quebec but here is what happened as best as I can tell from his rather self-serving account of the court proceedings. Daniel DeChambly whose real last name is Auclair from searching other facebook posts went to court for driving while suspended. Suspension reason was Article 259 (4) - impaired driving. Now the complex part starts. Since impaired driving convictions in Canada can result in both a driving prohibition (federal) and a suspension (provincial) the judge wanted to find out what exactly DeChambly was prohibited from doing and for how long because of his previous offence. Similarly, especially in Quebec, if the Crown is asking for something unusual for a sentence for a second or subsequent offence they must prove to the court that they have served the defendant with notice of the sought after sentence. This is the missing paperwork.....
And Jordan strikes again....

JUGE: Bon ! Vous êtes chanceux M. DeChambly. Il manque le PPO au dossier. Ce dossier est abandonné/rejeté dû à la lenteur qu'il sera occasionné par ce manque. Je ne peux même pas vous accuser sans ce PPO.
MOI : La lenteur en lien au procès Jordan M. Le Juge ?
JUGE (penche la tête en signe d'acquiescement). Ce n'est pas pour votre "Sûreté", aucun rapport. Et ce n'est pas une passe droite non plus. Me comprenez-vous bien ?

I guess this whole affair had stretched out for some time, so to get the relevant paper work and schedule a new court date would have put it over the 18 month Jordan limit so DeChambly walked, not because of some supposed "surety of the person" but laziness on the Crown's part who was expecting a simple guilty plea.

[coffeekitten]

Ah! The subtleties of the freemen! And then, if you write DUNCAN: jOHn, Scott, what is it?



I guess that must feel good to be a crown registered organization, right? It makes someone feel important. And everyone is somewhat an agent too. It is how the world goes round in Duncan delusional universe.

[NYGman]

Ah! The subtleties of the freemen! And then, if you write DUNCAN: jOHn, Scott, what is it?



I guess that must feel good to be a crown registered organization, right? It makes someone feel important. And everyone is somewhat an agent too. It is how the world goes round in Duncan delusional universe.

All this talk about vessels... I'm confused, So that's the pellet with the poison’s in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!

https://youtu.be/TJ9f2rnjB84

[grixit]

What is the status of someone without a middle name?

[Pottapaug1938]

What is the status of someone without a middle name?

All I can say is that I got by just fine without one for the first 25 years of my life. When I was in my last year of law school, though, I learned how to do a legal name change; and remembering all those years of seeing my name as, say, Pottapaug (NMI) Mountain or Pottapaug (NMN) Mountain, or having people react to "I don't have a middle name" the same way they would react to "I'm actually an alien from the planet Gusta (third star from the left, and straight on until morning)", I went into Suffolk County Probate Court and got it legally changed.

[coffeekitten]

Duncan antisemite? I'm not even surprised.

[coffeekitten]

Here's another one of Scott Duncan being racist. He's obviously according too much credit to himself: most people don't give a shit about Duncan and his "teachings". Comparing himself to Obama could suggest he probably suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. Trying so hard to prove he's relevant.

[arayder]

Here's another one of Scott Duncan being racist. He's obviously according too much credit to himself: most people don't give a shit about Duncan and his "teachings". Comparing himself to Obama could suggest he probably suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. Trying so hard to prove he's relevant.

Racism and narcissism are common among freemen gurus. Whether it's Clifford's white supremacy, Nazi Bob's holocaust denial or Eldon Warman's anti-semitism it's all pretty much disgusting.

As we have learned narcissism often arrises in individuals who have been raised in a cold unapproving manner. Unable to please a parent or possibly older siblings the narcissist, despite his bluster, grows up with a tragically low sense of worth.

In the case of many freeman gurus this sense of worthlessness translates into a fear and dread of the laws and customs of even the most just, fair and democracy society on the planet, Canada. Each parking ticket, tax bill or minor regulation becomes and emotional replaying, a deja vu, of father's whippings and the older sister's cold glares.

[The Observer]

As we have learned narcism [sic] often arrises in individuals who have been raised in a cold unapproving manner. Unable to please a parent or possibly older siblings the narcissist, despite his bluster, grows up with a tragically low sense of worth.

Factually not true. Psychology has not determined a cause for narcissism in individuals. I am not sure what you are relying on to make this claim. However, I do note that you have tried to inject your theories about parents being the cause for Menard's behavior before. You have been warned about this several times before and you really need to stop doing it.

[arayder]

As we have learned narcissism often arrises in individuals who have been raised in a cold unapproving manner. Unable to please a parent or possibly older siblings the narcissist, despite his bluster, grows up with a tragically low sense of worth.

Factually not true. Psychology has not determined a cause for narcissism in individuals. I am not sure what you are relying on to make this claim. However, I do note that you have tried to inject your theories about parents being the cause for Menard's behavior before. You have been warned about this several times before and you really need to stop doing it.

My reading on the subject indicates that the cold parent hypothesis is one of predominant theories as to the causes of narcissism.

I find it interesting that so many folks palaver about narcissistic freemen gurus and the havoc they cause yet shy away from any discussion of what drives these phonies to do what they do. I think we long long ago established the foolishness of freeman/sovcit/GOODF/tfl theory. Rather than chase that pea around the plate with a knife I prefer to get to the point.

It is helpful to realize that narcissists are interested in boosting their fragile egos and manipulating others for their own gain. If Scott Duncan (the subject of this thread) doesn't fit the profile then I don't know who does. And I think it would be helpful wannabe freemen to realize that they are often being manipulated by individuals who are in no way interested in anything other than getting over on them.

I apologize if this bothers you, friend.

[The Observer]

My reading on the subject indicates that the cold parent hypothesis is one of predominant theories as to the causes of narcissism.

It's a theory, among many. But there is no consensus for this and too many exceptions exist that point against this as being the simple explanation that you make out to be.

I find it interesting that so many folks palaver about narcissistic freemen gurus and the havoc they cause yet shy away from any discussion of what drives these phonies to do what they do.

They probably do so because they are (1) aware that there is no pat answers as to what causes narcissism and (2) they are not going to go into sensitive areas where there is no proof or fact that exists in support of a pet theory and (3) are not willing to drag innocent 3rd parties into the conversation.

Rather than chase that pea around the plate with a knife I prefer to get to the point.

But you need to get there with facts, not unsubstantiated opinions or theories.

It is helpful to realize that narcissists are interested in boosting their fragile egos and manipulating others for their own gain.

But that does not justify dragging innocent 3rd parties into the picture and blaming them for creating a narcissist.

And I think it would be helpful wannabe freemen to realize that they are often being manipulated by individuals who are in no way interested in anything other than getting over on them.

Not when you have no facts to substantiate what you are claiming - especially at the expense of other people who may not be to blame.

I apologize if this bothers you.

And stop being manipulative. This is not an issue of me being bothered; this is an issue of you ignoring prior directives from the board management to stop indulging in the blame game against parents.

[arayder]

The thread is about Scott Duncan. But since you insist on rehashing Bobby’s case let he tell you how I think I know what I know.

Back in the early 2000’s when Menard was the next big thing he was frequently interviewed by the several movement web radio shows that populate the web.

During these shows Menard would very often muse in great detail about his childhood. Listening to the shows is like listening to Menard as he lay on a psychiatrist’s couch telling us what he thought about his father, his mother, step mother and his sisters. . .telling us what was wrong with him.

He very plainly described how very very difficult it was the please his father, how his sisters had dominated him and how he saw his family’s total rejection of his freeman philosophy as an ego shattering personal betrayal.

When you add in the fact that Menard’s behavior follows a textbook description of a narcissistic personality disorder it makes a pretty good case for my argument.

Frankly I wouldn’t mind if Menard’s mental health problems caused him to sit alone in a room and not bother a soul.

And to the point of this thread we now have Scott Duncan showing the same behavior pattern as Menard. . . only more manically.

[Burnaby49]

Time to cut it out. Apart from this being about Scott I see no value in amateur psychological theorizing on why people turn out the way they do. We can do that endlessly but so what? Duncan does what he does, Belanger does what he does, Menard does what he does, and we report on that. Frankly I don't care at all about theoretical guesswork into the root causes of their behaviour based on anecdotal stories about events in their past and I doubt anyone else does either.

[arayder]

Time to cut it out. Apart from this being about Scott I see no value in amateur psychological theorizing on why people turn out the way they do. We can do that endlessly but so what? Duncan does what he does, Belanger does what he does, Menard does what he does, and we report on that. Frankly I don't care at all about theoretical guesswork into the root causes of their behaviour based on anecdotal stories about events in their past and I doubt anyone else does either.

With all due respect, friend, if we had it your way months and years from now we’ll still be talking about how wrong freemen gurus are without realizing that the problem isn’t about phony legal arguments, but rather about a subculture (freemanism) run in large part by self-proclaimed leaders with personality disorders.

[LordEd]

if we had it your way months and years from now we’ll still be talking about how wrong freemen gurus are without realizing that the problem isn’t about phony legal arguments, but rather about a subculture (freemanism) run in large part by self-proclaimed leaders with personality disorders.

I vote for dissecting legal arguments and watching current activity. I don't really care if they got hugs at bedtime. The mental illness side is sad, not for ridicule.

[Burnaby49]

if we had it your way months and years from now we’ll still be talking about how wrong freemen gurus are without realizing that the problem isn’t about phony legal arguments, but rather about a subculture (freemanism) run in large part by self-proclaimed leaders with personality disorders.

I vote for dissecting legal arguments and watching current activity. I don't really care if they got hugs at bedtime. The mental illness side is sad, not for ridicule.

Or endless, endless repetition.