Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

[Burnaby49]

And I'm apparently the prime villain!

The BEST part is when they finally admit that we have NEVER EVER said "don't pay your taxes", they then say "I'll bet he's never filed".

Yes. I file EVERY QUARTER. The total is always ZERO. Any tax CREDIT I'm ENTITLED to, is directed toward the National Debt, which is an option you can check. I KNOW this because I file every quarter, and I read and understand the documents I sign.

It turns out Burnbaby69 was a CRA stooge! He is the loudest about how not complying with theft is "evading responsibility". If you can show how I'm "responsible" for paying debt I did not consent to, I'll concede the point, but you can't. All income Tax does is pay interest on debts your grandparents made because they were too stupid to understand exponents. They take their cut to pay their 100k+ salaries, first of course. THAT is simply FACT.

So apparently his income taxes don't fund the free medical system or other current government expenses.

Whatever it is he files, it's not his tax return because that is a one-time annual event due April 30th and he says he files quarterly. What he may be referring to is quarterly installments. These are quarterly payments from individuals who don't get their taxes deducted at source. However if you don't have reported income there is no requirement to make quarterly installments and, as he says himself, he files zero returns. Some tax news Scott; filing zero returns if you actually have income is legally considered non-filing and you can be penalized for them the same as if you refused to file at all.

But I agree with him on one point! After a 35 year career as a CRA auditor I can't disavow the accusation of being a CRA stooge.

[eric]

Scott Duncan is angry at us.
Facebook Post
He's an illuminati, apparently. Well, that's what he said.
The Truth about the Illuminati

Interesting.... Scooter sometimes peruses Public Domain Review, but he never seems to, in my father's words when I was asking him for help with my school work, "read, mark, and inwardly digest" what it says. I present to him the following:
http://publicdomainreview.org/2014/04/0 ... onspiracy/
I shall leave it as an exercise to the student to trace the links between "read, mark, etc" and Scooter's favorite phrasing of POS Christians.

[notorial dissent]

I think Scooter has finally slipped not so quietly 'round the bend.

[coffeekitten]

Pete Daoust Facebook video in french

DPJ (the equivalent of Children's Aid Society in Quebec) is often criticized for different reasons: lack of judgment in some cases, failure to protect some children, etc. But Pete Daoust has something to tell you about it that will sound surprising (and, well, if you look a little more into it, you'll realize soon enough it's false): the DPJ can't keep your child more than 60 days. After that, they are required to give it back to you. He expresses himself as if a child is your possession and you can do what you want with it as long as you're not a serial killer or another kind of very dangerous criminal. It's wrong in so many ways. Mario Prévost, one of his followers, has seen his child taken by the DPJ and when I recalled a video he made with his daughter and his general behavior on the net, I can figure why.

Of course, if you take a look at the article he refers to (76.1 of Youth Protection Act) Youth Protection Act, you'll see that it's article 76 and not 76.1 and that he got it all wrong. It talks about a notice to be sent in less than 60 days. Pete Daoust pretends that if you send a notice of mistake (acte de faute), the DPJ will have no choice that to send your child back. His followers are so willing to believe him, I guess, that they will not see how stupid it is.

[coffeekitten]

Today, Pete Daoust nuanced his remarks, explaining that if you are violent with your child, the DPJ will hesitate to give you back your child. But his interpretation of the law is still flawed, to say the least. He takes one article without taking into consideration the rest of the law. I already posted a link to the english version of the law. Pete Daoust refers to article 79 to say that the DPJ can't keep your child for more than 60 days:

79. In application of section 76.1, the tribunal shall order the provisional compulsory foster care of a child by a foster family or an institution operating a rehabilitation centre if, after an assessment of the situation, it concludes that the child’s remaining with or returning to his parents or to his residence is likely to cause him serious prejudice.The tribunal shall without delay notify the parents of the child who is the subject of a measure carried out under this section.No provisional compulsory foster care measure may exceed 30 days. However, where justified by the facts, the tribunal may order a single extension for a period of not over 30 days.

Except this apply for a provisional compulsory foster care. It doesn't apply for all cases. Also:

91.1. If the tribunal orders a foster care measure under subparagraph j of the first paragraph of section 91, the total period of the foster care may not exceed(a) 12 months if the child is under two years of age on the date the order is made,(b) 18 months if the child is from two to five years of age on the date the order is made, or(c) 24 months if the child is six years of age or over on the date the order is made.When determining the duration of foster care, the tribunal must take into account the duration of any foster care measure applied to the same situation in an agreement on voluntary measures referred to in subparagraph j of the first paragraph of section 54, as well as the duration of any prior foster care measure it ordered under the first paragraph. It may also take into account any prior period during which the child was placed or provided with foster care under this Act.If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis.However, the tribunal may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family in the short term, if the interest of the child requires it or for serious reasons, such as failure to provide the services agreed upon.At any time during a period specified in the first paragraph, if the security or development of the child is still in danger, the tribunal may make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis.

Seriously, would it make sense if the DPJ couldn't keep a child more than 60 days if he's in danger with his parents? No, it wouldn't.

[coffeekitten]

THE TENDER FOR LAW is back. I'm pretty sure most of you didn't miss it, but whatever... They are millionaires (with bitcoins), but fear to lose their home and are persecuted by the CRA .
THE TENDER FOR LAW: PHASE TWO

2018 is almost here. Phase 2 has begun. Let's lay out the ground rules.

They are pretty much the same as THE TENDER FOR LAW.

Pay attention to the rules, and you will learn a lot. Do not try to pick and choose the answers you like, and do not try to mix what I teach you , with ANY other "belief". If it contradicts what I say, IT IS WRONG; it doesn't matter what you say/think/feel/believe. There is a LOT to Cover/Verify, and the more time you waste contradicting me, the more time you rob from others getting answers to questions they NEED answers to. This is why we have no time for opposing "belief"; It's wrong by default. We are at war with wrong.

While we all support open and decentralized governance, it does not apply here. This is a dictatorship. You have been warned.

YOU ARE HERE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL. WE DO NOT PROMOTE OR ADVERTISE. WE ARE NOT SEEKING "RECRUITS", AND WE DO NOT CARE HOW "POPULAR" WE ARE.

What I teach in THE TENDER FOR LAW, comes at a price. You owe a debt. You pay that debt by passing on what you learn. TRUST that what I say is TRUE, but VERIFY IT! Do not charge money for anything I teach. EVER! This is for your own good! Pete Daoust has held TWO conferences, and has NEVER charged money for what he teaches, nor does he profit in any way from it. He is paying a DEBT to Rogue Support Inc. The CRA makes bogus charges because they are SO SURE he must be charging money (Thus giving them standing/jurisdiction) that they just counted on finding evidence of it! They seized his phone and Eric Bardier called EVERYONE on Pete's contact list, trying to find someone who's paid for this knowledge. Mister Bardier failed to call me though. Go figure! Others simply asked Mister Bardier "Can I use the SECURITY of my PERSON to DISCHARGE this PUBLIC DEBT"?

...he didn't like that. When awkward evasion failed, he simply lied, and said "NO". So of course they wisely asked if he could send the "fact" that "No, yous cannots beings usings the SURETY of Le PERSONne to bings DISCHARGEs dems PUBLIque DEBTes" (I tried to keep the LEGAL terms and the FRENGLISH together! I'm quite impressed with myself.) to them in writing, and they could shut us all up! Mister Bardier declined! Every Time! GO FIGURE!

LEGAL TENDER is LAW TENDERED (THE TENDER FOR LAW! Get it?)

This group is NOT about "Law" or "Legal". It has ALWAYS been about MONEY! The money you labour for. The money we make through math. The money we are going to make.

People who listened to me in 2012 and earlier, are ALL MILLIONAIRES. Making money will ALWAYS be a byproduct of listening to everyone from the "First Wave". They will all help you "catch up". It's a LOT of work/reading. We get that, and we will do our best to help you along, but you are being notified now; YOU DON'T GET TO UNLEARN WHAT WE SHOW YOU HERE. This is a ONE-WAY trip, and you can't go back! Ever.

Like the "Phase One" of THE TENDER FOR LAW, we start the group at the end of the year. It was December 2012. Cryptocurrencies had been around for 3 years in a decentralized model, and 15 years in a centralized model. The Aquilae Trust has used a cryptographic centralized currency since 1997. It still sounded "crazy" to make your own bank/currency.

Now, not so much. It's time to "Up The Crazy" a few notches! I'm always 5 years ahead of all of you, and I'm literally the dumbest among "My kind". What will unfold here in the coming months is NO DIFFERENT. It will seem "crazy" at first. You are welcome to think that as well! Just keep it to yourself. I don't care. The same goes with with any opinion that contains any of the following words:

"Ego"
"Arrogance"
"Crazy"
...and pretty much anything that contradicts the fact that I'm BETTER than you. I know that hurts your fee-fees, but it's still true. To think otherwise means you are WRONG by default. If it contradicts what I say, YOU ARE WRONG. Wasting time trying to debate shit that was covered way back in THE TENDER FOR LAW, robs those who see "Phase Two" as a "Second Chance" of precious time.

In "Phase One" of THE TENDER FOR LAW (Hereafter "Phase One") and in THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING, you have seen me speak of "TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF FREE SHIT JUST WAITING TO BE EXPLOITED". Well it's still there. Waiting. I want to show you how to build things that will feed you, and sustain you, free of Government oversight. There really is TRILLIONS of dollars worth of free shit out there. I see THOUSANDS of opportunities that would consume a lifetime, were I to pursue them. That's why I need to teach YOU! I want YOU to understand what I see. I want to GIVE you ideas and the ability to build them, for little or no start-up costs. What's the catch? I want 10 of whatever you make. Make currency? I want 10 of them. Make a computer? I want 10 of them. Make a machine gun? Ten please!

That's it. I collect when you succeed, and you "pay" with the product/service you make ANYWAY. The rest is ALL YOURS. I waive any other claim on anything you produce. It sounds "crazy" but we are going to build something that cannot be stopped. It cannot be turned off, and we won't need ANYONE'S permission to do ANYTHING commercial EVER AGAIN! Sound crazy? I'm just getting warmed up!

We are starting a video channel (On every major, and a few minor, streaming services) and it will be YOU who decide the subject. If you ask a question that would take a lot of typing, I'll make a video instead! Pete Daoust is going all video crazy, but he speaks in Quebecois Pseudo-French, so nobody else in the world will understand. I, on the other hand, promise to speak in clear, articulate, accent-free English. (Fun Fact: This is one of the GUARANTEES Rogue Support Inc offers to its clients. It's VERY popular!)

At Pete Daoust's next conference, we will be showing off what we build here in this group. Work hard to "catch up" if you need to! There is ALWAYS someone from "Phase One" in THE TENDER FOR LAW's DISCORD channel [ https://discord.gg/7JVjDPR ] if you have any questions. You will find Tara and I there often, as well. There is NO shortage of answers there!

Remember: THERE ARE NO STUPID QUESTIONS, Just Inquisitive Idiots, and there are a LOT of you. It's not your fault. Necessary knowledge was stolen from you. I intend to give it back. I'm the ONLY ONE who can LEGALLY do that. I understand that's going to change, but that just means the rats are leaving a sinking ship, so we are pressed for time.

War is good for innovation. Peace is good for prosperity. We need innovation, and adults with imaginary friends from middle-eastern death cults (Believers in Abrahamic cults) are dumbing down the West in a shockingly efficient manner.

I mean to change that. I'm going to teach you how to get the LEGAL advantage that all the big corporations have. I'm not giving LEGAL ADVICE, though! I'll be giving SOLICITOR'S advice. Because of this, I WILL BE THE ONLY ONE PERMITTED TO CITE OR QUOTE ANYTHING "LEGAL". I'm looking at YOU, Derek Moran. You even do it ONCE, and you will be so banned, they will feel the shockwave at city hall. You ( Derek Moran ) are not to write about ANYTHING "legal" henceforth.Just shut the fuck up and read.

Everyone else may write what they like. This is a "Special" (Like "Special Olympics") case, and we've already established that this is an educational dictatorship.

I leave you with artwork from Grand Fluff Auto(tm), where we show off cool Rogue Support swag, and some La sûreté de SA personne / The person's SURETY Conference Shuttle Busses.

[notorial dissent]

Never notice, nor cared, that it had gone missing.

1369 words slung together in what appears to be a coherent pattern with exactly NO meaning or value contained or imparted.

Usually, I find that when some says "WE DO NOT......" that is exactly what they do and are doing.

Doesn't seem to like Derek Moran for some reason. My. My.

[Jeffrey]

I assumed something must have happened because Duncanites are back online trolling.

[Jeffrey]

For example, I caught this Duncanite (at one point suggests he’s Duncan himself) trolling JJ Mcnabb: https://twitter.com/subscribedoaths/sta ... 7922606080

[eric]

Just to put some names to the cast of characters in the link above:
1. jjmacnab and doazic are quatloosian posters;
2. Derek Moran is an old buddy of Scooter in Toronto from way back. His only claim to fame is that because of his lack of gainful employment for the last while, he is a frequent flyer, one man citizens' delegation to Toronto City Council and various Services Boards meetings where he is allowed his few minutes of glory and then rudely cut off when the wall timer counts down from five minutes to zero.
3. nx2000_Scott is Scooter himself.

[coffeekitten]

Derek Moran accused Doazic to be a paid agent and Scott pretends Doazic enjoys lying for the thrill of it. That's what happens when they run out of arguments.
Twitter post

Scott Duncan insinuates that the Canadian Charter of Rights only applies to the governments (and not to people, I guess). And if you say otherwise, you're a liar.

[Burnaby49]

Scott Duncan insinuates that the Canadian Charter of Rights only applies to the governments (and not to people, I guess). And if you say otherwise, you're a liar.

Actually, as odd as it might sound, Scott is quite correct. This is the government's own explanation of Section 32 of the Charter;

Section 32-33: Application of Charter

Section 32

1. This Charter applies

a. to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
b. to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

2. Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.

The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.

As mentioned earlier, section 32(2) was necessary in order to give governments a chance to amend their laws to bring them into line with the right to equality. Section 15 of the Charter did not come into force until three years after the rest of the Charter became effective on April 17,1982.

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-herit ... ion32intro

Or, as the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre explains;

Who does the Charter apply to?

The Charter applies to government action. This is the case whether a federal, provincial or municipal government is acting.

The Charter does not apply to private interactions between individuals or private businesses. For example, the Charter would not apply to dealings between an individual and his or her spouse or landlord. Interactions between private parties are governed by provincial or federal human rights legislation (click here for more information).

The Charter applies to the following parties or government action:

Written laws, by-laws or regulations

This would include, for example, a federal law on immigration, a provincial law stating that all restaurants are non-smoking, or a municipal by-law dealing with garbage collection.

Government Actors

This includes interactions with a government body or employee. For example, the Charter applies to your dealings with the Alberta government, the City of Calgary, an R.C.M.P. officer, or a Canada Border Services agent.

Actors Controlled by the Government

Some organizations that do not look like government actors are nonetheless treated as such because the government controls their actions. This will occur when, for example, government appointees control a board of directors, or when a statute designates the entity as an “agent” of the Crown.

Non-Government Bodies Carrying out Government Actions

Sometimes, an entity that appears to be private will be subject to the Charter because it is exercising a power given to it by the government, or it is implementing a government objective.

When a non-governmental body is given powers of compulsion by the government, the Charter will likely apply to that specific action. For example, the Law Society of Alberta regulates lawyers. The Alberta government gave the Law Society this authority in a statute. Therefore, when the Law Society is regulating lawyers, it must comply with the Charter. However, the Charter will likely only apply to the actions that have a public dimension. Purely internal matters (for example, internal employment policies) would not trigger the Charter.

A non-government entity that implements a government objective will be subject to the Charter. For example, the Courts have held that a hospital is governed by the Charter when it was delivering medical services to the public, because this is implementing a government objective (health care). Like the law society example, the Charter will only apply to the hospital's public action. A hospital would not be governed by the Charter regarding purely private matters (for example, it's creation of a retirement policy).

http://www.aclrc.com/who-does-the-charter-apply-to/

[Jeffrey]

I think what he meant to say is that Duncan is repeating the claim that section 32 ACTUALLY means is that all laws and statutes only apply to government employees and not private individuals.

[Burnaby49]

If so Scott is a moron. Given my history of reading Scott's posts not a hard leap. Laws mean what they say. Section 32 of the Charter quite specifically says that the Charter only applies to the government.

1. This Charter applies

a. to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

b. to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

However neither section 32 or any other section of the Charter says that any legislation, apart from the Charter itself, applies only to government or government employees. Seems quite specific in its application to me. If Scott wants to prove his point rather than his endless idiotic internet babbling he should go and smash the window of a police car then argue in court that the Charter exempts him from all statutory laws because of his interpretation of section 32.

[Jeffrey]

For the sake of convenience, this is the tweet where he lays out his Section 32 argument, specifically in this image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSO2g2nW4AABxjJ.jpg

THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA USES HIS CLARIFICATION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 32.(1) OF THE CHARTER, THAT ACTS AND STATUTES ONLY APPLY TO GOVERNMENT ACTORS, GOVERNMENT ACTIONS AND THOSE PERFORMING A PUBLIC FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT, AND THAT THE CHARTER DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE ACTIVITY

That misquote and misinterpretation of Section 32 is pretty common among Canadian Freemen, Menard has repeated it, Dean Clifford used it in his criminal case and promoted the argument in his lectures, Duncan repeats it etc.

The argument was explicitly rejected in 2012 by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in R. v. Petrie:

With respect, the applicant appears to be endeavouring to turn the jurisprudence pertaining to s. 32 of the Charter on its head. If he is arguing that because he is a private citizen the Constitution, and by extension the laws of this country, only apply to government actions and agents, he is mistaken. He, too, is subject to the laws of Canada, including the CDSA. He cannot pick and choose what laws apply to him, nor can he engage in what Myers J. characterized in Porisky at para. 67 as "legal numerology" by picking and choosing extracts from statutes and cases and weaving them together in an attempt to create logical links where none exist.

[Jeffrey]

Probably unwise for me to keep poking Scooter but he keeps throwing out stuff like this:

https://i.imgur.com/Y3G8saX.jpg

If he’s not on a watchlist in Canada, he should be.

[eric]

Just Scooter trying to maintain his persona as a supposed bad ass rather than a potty mouthed school boy regularly banned/blocked from various forms of social media. Even in discussions with some of his vaunted heroes he gets brushed off.
https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/stat ... 8468861956
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee
or:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/sta ... 1001626624
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

More
This seems like a hot button issue for you? So I'm not sure there's room for productive dialogue on the matter. Thx for sharing your opinion

[notorial dissent]

Does he even dare go out in public?