Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

[notorial dissent]

noblepa, didn't mean to come off that way at all, in fact I agree with everything you said. I was just expanding on it, just not very clearly apparently. My one comment, however, does still stand, I still don't see how they could take such excellent raw materials and produce such dreck. The do, or at least did, make really good ceramics and malted milk products as well.

[wserra]

No, it IS Rocky Mountain Spring Water.

Carefully selected to come only from those parts of the spring where the mountain lions piss.

[notorial dissent]

Rowwrrr!!

[arayder]

I get the idea. So is it the case that Pete developed his own tax forms because the government's ones don't have a little boxes where he can write in mumbo jumbo about his surety?

Here's the template translated in english of a tax report, Pete Daoust style:

. . .ALL RIGHTS RESERVED / WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TAX REPORT FOR THE YEAR 2014.
Declaration of the income and gains of the legal person named PIERRE DAOUST with account number 261-348-515.

Given that your forms are far too complicated to fill out for me, I have no choice but to administer the tax return for legal personality I own as follows.

The LEGAL person named PIERRE DAOUST with the account number 261-348-515, received $ XX, XXX.XX CAD in LEGAL money during the year 2014.

I am the man who OWNS this legal person, and in spite of myself, I administer it.

If additional information is required, the rate is $ 1000.00 CAD / hour.

My intentions are to respect the LAW, for ALL must respect the LAW, and that no one is above the LAW. And all LEGAL persons must declare having received LEGAL money.

So, as the only authorized administrator for that LEGAL person I have, I administer this income tax return. . . .

As nearly as I can tell from reading the mish-mash that is Tender For Law theory their two main ideas are the same as every other freeman theory.

- One may deny being a person subject to the rule of law. This part of TFL theory is exceptionally twisted but, despite Scott's claim that he isn't a freeman, it comes down to the same strawman/legal person woo at the heart of every other freeman/sovcit theory.

- Income taxes are voluntary, a matter of contract law which one may simply opt out of. As nearly as I can tell the lynchpin of the Duncan version of the theory is that the nature of currency in Canada is determined, not by law, but by the references on Canadian currency to legal tender. Then using the freeman theorist's practice of cherry picking the meanings of the words [in the case "tender"] Duncan concludes taxes are a matter of contract law.

The funny thing is Duncan and Daoust go the long way around the barn to get to the same conclusions every other lame detax/freeman/sovcit theory gets to.

Does this make sense, coffeekitten?

[notorial dissent]

If someone is feeling ambitious, they might just start a "Tender For Law " thread since that is apparently a Canadian idée fixe that some of us have no information on, and it has come up several times now that I can remember.

[coffeekitten]

As nearly as I can tell from reading the mish-mash that is Tender For Law theory their two main ideas are the same as every other freeman theory.

- One may deny being a person subject to the rule of law. This part of TFL theory is exceptionally twisted but, despite Scott's claim that he isn't a freeman, it comes down to the same strawman/legal person woo at the heart of every other freeman/sovcit theory.

- Income taxes are voluntary, a matter of contract law which one may simply opt out of. As nearly as I can tell the lynchpin of the Duncan version of the theory is that the nature of currency in Canada is determined, not by law, but by the references on Canadian currency to legal tender. Then using the freeman theorist's practice of cherry picking the meanings of the words [in the case "tender"] Duncan concludes taxes are a matter of contract law.

The funny thing is Duncan and Daoust go the long way around the barn to get to the same conclusions every other lame detax/freeman/sovcit theory gets to.

Does this make sense, coffeekitten?

Absolutely. They try hard to prove they're more legit that what they call freedumbers, but they're not so different.

[arayder]

As nearly as I can tell from reading the mish-mash that is Tender For Law theory their two main ideas are the same as every other freeman theory.

- One may deny being a person subject to the rule of law. . .
- Income taxes are voluntary. . .

The funny thing is Duncan and Daoust go the long way around the barn to get to the same conclusions every other lame detax/freeman/sovcit theory gets to.

Does this make sense, coffeekitten?

Absolutely. They try hard to prove they're more legit that what they call freedumbers, but they're not so different.

My understanding is that Karl Lentz has a version of Tender For Law. I wonder if Lentz's theory predates Duncan's revelation thus suggesting he borrowed Lentz's idea rather than thinking it up as a product of his self-proclamed brilliance?

[coffeekitten]

My understanding is that Karl Lentz has a version of Tender For Law. I wonder if Lentz's theory predates Duncan's revelation thus suggesting he borrowed Lentz's idea rather than thinking it up as a product of his self-proclamed brilliance?

I don't know. I will start making a research on Karl Lentz, because I admit I don't know much about him. On his page broadmind.org, he shows himself as a multiculturalist Freeman theorist and, unlike Duncan, calls for donations via Paypal. I wonder if his business is very lucrative, but it's clear he's wishing to make money with this.

[eric]

If you are prepared for the search you can find on youtube a few videos dealing with Duncan's actions while he was in the process of losing his condo in Toronto. There are also a few webpages written in first person terms by his wife/gf describing the exact details. I don't have the links handy and I simply view him as an arrogant SOB rather than suffering from some personality disorder so you can track them down yourself, I always have to wash my hands after dealing with him too often. At the beginning I believe he was simply a rather conventional FMOTL, in one of the videos when he is confronting a locksmith and a couple of police officers he seemed to be using tactics most often seen in the UK.

[NYGman]

Oh wait, this is the guy who got in trouble with his co-op, turned to Freeman gibberish and list the apartment.... If so I think we discussed then here years ago, should probably find the link

[coffeekitten]

I tried to find the video on youTube without success. I remember that I read something here on Quatloos about Scott Duncan losing his condo and Robert Menard being his coop (?), but I can't find this neither. I would be very curious about the video, though: it might be funny to watch.

[Burnaby49]

I seem to remember a condo issue, I may even have posted about it. As I recall Duncan got in a fight with his condo board about essentially nothing and ended up losing the place. I think it was something to do with a pet. If so he's really lost since real estate values have skyrocketed in Toronto in the past few years.

[eric]

As time, and my intake of opiod medications dictate, I will dig out the references. Here's a brief summary beforehand. Scott was living in a condo in Toronto for some time and had changed the locks on his unit without informing the condo board. (count 1) At some point in his tenancy, which was the trigger incident, he took a vacation for a few months and lent his unit to friends, again not informing the condo board. (count 2) He returned during his vacation to check on his cat and got into a pissing contest with condo security who had denied him access to his parking spot. The whole affair escalated over the next few months with neither side bending an inch. Scott wouldn't pay for the locks to be changed back or the condo "fines" and the board wouldn't accept his normal condo fees until he did and sued him for some rather outlandish amounts - his condo fees that they wouldn't accept, assorted legal fees and liens to remove liens. At the same time Scott was conducting a campaign of complaints to every governing body in Ontario that would allow him to discredit the opposition such as the Ontario Law Society and the Office of the Attorney General. The end result was that Scott no longer resides in the building. A very similar case of two sides being silly and squabbling in exactly the same ridiculous fashion with a condo board using the same tactics can be found here:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... nd-arrests
and it made it to CanLII:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2 ... ultIndex=1

[notorial dissent]

Sounds like more than a condo situation to me, but maybe not, on the other hand I wouldn't want to live someplace that dictated what locks I had to have and who can stay in my home. Maybe I'm just fussy, but still.

[eric]

And here you go with Tara Duncan's outline of the whole affair:
http://web.archive.org/web/201305162357 ... mtcc983.ca
It seems to me to be a fairly standard FMOTL action that is not as outlandish as some we have seen and has little or none of Scott's Tender for Law theories. For those of you who wish to be punished you can find on Youtube videos of Scott interacting with the Office of the Attorney General and a visit by the locksmith under police escort. That being said we are starting to stray from the main topic of the thread, our friend Pete.

[coffeekitten]

Wow! Things escalated quickly. There were clearly wrongs on both sides, but I'm pretty sure FMOTL way to solve issues doesn't help. Freemen are good to bring themselves in deeper trouble.

[arayder]

I seem to remember a condo issue, I may even have posted about it. As I recall Duncan got in a fight with his condo board about essentially nothing and ended up losing the place. I think it was something to do with a pet. If so he's really lost since real estate values have skyrocketed in Toronto in the past few years.

I assume Scott Duncan had signed an agreement with the condo association. My guess is that the agreement disallowed subletting condos, prohibited lock changes, prescribed a pet policy and and specified parking arrangements.

One might suspect Scott Duncan violated the freeman/sovcit/TFL prime directive of honoring one's agreements by signing the document and then doing as he damn well pleased.

[notorial dissent]

In my neck of the woods, they are called HOA Rules or By-Laws and they effectively have the force and effect of law. They generally come part and parcel with the property when you buy. A lot of them here pretty quickly turned in to petty dictatorships when the boards, or their lawyers, figured out that they could do pretty much anything they wanted. For all intents and purposes in some places they became contractually created municipal governments. Some of them got quite dictatorial down to prescribing the colors you could paint your house and the type of grass, and that you had to have green grass in your yard at all times possible. This came to a head during a water crisis when they were demanding that residents had to water and keep their lawns green even though water had been rationed and was being charged a premium price at the time, and they were seriously fining owners who didn't. This ultimately went to court and the HOA got slapped down hard, and then the mean old legislature pretty well trimmed their sales for them. They can still be pretty despotic, but no where near as bad as they used to be. Now that being said, there are some very good reasons for HOA's, but they can still be a headache if they are abusive. You're supposed to be given the By-Laws when you purchase a property, but it doesn't always happen, and people don't always read them. Really a case of buyer beware.

[Burnaby49]

Here are some documents pertaining to Duncan's legal issues with the condo board;

http://www.mediafire.com/file/4k974q4my ... _claim.pdf

http://www.mediafire.com/file/0h92l1lhi ... factum.pdf

[arayder]

they [HOAs]can still be pretty despotic, but no where near as bad as they used to be. Now that being said, there are some very good reasons for HOA's, but they can still be a headache if they are abusive. You're supposed to be given the By-Laws when you purchase a property, but it doesn't always happen, and people don't always read them. Really a case of buyer beware.

My HOA has a lot of rules, but it seems to me that the officers of the association formally enforce them only after first talking nice to the violator. In effect the hammer comes down on folks who consistently trash the neighborhood, don't ever pay their fees or make their homes into hotels.

To your point, notarial, my association board as a couple of real tight arses who if given the authority would fine us for keeping our garage doors open while we move our lawns.

The matter came to a head, for the good, when the association president, berated the control freak members of the board for wanting to fine a newly widowed woman who was so deep in grief that the knee high grass on her lawn was the last thing on her mind. The "problem" was solved the old fashion way: casseroles, hugs and assigning a kid in the neighborhood to mow the lady's lawn.