Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

[coffeekitten]

They're not so private, but they ask everyone who join their group on Facebook why they joined, like some sort of control. Pete Daoust makes videos explaining his views (in french and sometimes with frenglish (?) subtitles) and even promise a documentary in the future https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V6JthbHets The subtitles would allow you to learn more about his bullshit *cough* sorry, his huge knowledge. All is there, so it's not so private, but the surety group is still something to worry about. One person who was fighting with them on the internet (bad idea) got her private identity and personal address published on the net and you bet she's scared. It's tricky to expose them: they are vindictive and nasty. But I do think something has to be done, but we need to be careful.

So, this affirmation, "good guys don't hide", it's probably because they want your personal address so bad so they can pay you a visit, if you see what I mean. I hope nobody will get hurt at this point.

All rights reserved (just kidding)

[arayder]

. . .they want your personal address so bad so they can pay you a visit. . .

They can say hello to my little friend.

[grixit]

Does he audit people before they can join his Sea Org?

[arayder]

But I do think something has to be done, but we need to be careful.

What's to do?

Duncan might generate the publicity one naturally gets when one has one's own thread on Quatloos.

Eventually he or one of his toadies will run afoul of the law, or do something that generates a civil suit. An increased number of followers means the odds will increase that a practitioner of their theories will fail badly and, despite the group's brainwashing, publicly turn on the group.

In other words the group will, without any help from us, follow the freeman/svocit circle of life.

[coffeekitten]

Does he audit people before they can join his Sea Org?

No. It's not very complicated. https://m.facebook.com/home.php?refsrc= ... 0077643471

They even distribute little business cards, how cute. https://m.facebook.com/home.php?refsrc= ... 1v_m&mdf=1 And, yeah, I know we can’t do much, but hopefully,more and more people will be aware of their tricks. And they could maybe face suits from some of their victims and lose, let's hope so.

[arayder]

And, yeah, I know we can’t do much, but hopefully,more and more people will be aware of their tricks. And they could maybe face suits from some of their victims and lose, let's hope so.

One thing done is to alert organizations of intended freeman/sovcit scams aimed at them.

A few months ago a guru was trying to get hundreds of freemen to go to restaurants and and pay the bill with a freeman credit instrument of no value. The Canadian Restaurant Association was alerted to the scam. When this sort of thing is done there is no way the guru can launch a successful law suit (or even a credible threat) against the person who turns them in since the notice to the intended victim doesn't do anything except relate the guru/scammers own, already public, words and threats.

Coffekitten, I am glad you are keeping up with exactly what Duncan is doing. So far, to me, it is a garbled mess of theory and verbiage.

[coffeekitten]

Another thing:

I looked at the surety webpage to find some info on Pete Daoust's reclamation against Terrebonne's municipality and I share it here because it's incredibly absurd. Pete Daoust got his car's seized:




Pete Daoust pretends he has paid his debts because he sent a bill of exchange and that is legal money. http://www.lasuretedesapersonne.com/201 ... -2015.html

"THEREFORE each violation of one of my rights, and / or one of the person's rights, will be charged CAD $ 2 million." I used Google translate, here's the original quote: "EN CONSÉQUENCE chaque viol d’un de mes droits, et/ou d’un des droits de MA personne, sera facturé à $2 millions CAD." Wow! he took the bill from Terrebonne and turned it into a bill of exchange and because they didn't send it back, he thinks they owe him money. Seriously. So, that's how he calculates what one person or one institution owes him. That's instructive. Couldn't we call it creative accounting?

[arayder]

Like I said. . .eventually the guru or a lieutenant gets the idea that the stuff they peddle will work in the real world.

If enough TFLers use the bill of exchange thing there will certainly be a few who will blame Duncan and Daoust for the ensuing trouble. Further trouble in the subculture would come if Duncan and Daoust try to tell rank and file TFLers that the failures aren't their fault and that the practitioners didn't do the bill of exchange thing right.

[coffeekitten]

OK Let's be a little more informative about what the new TFL crew made in Quebec is about these days.

Pete Daoust is going to the court on December 18th because of having tried to pay his ticket with a bill of exchange (according to him, you can turn any bill you received into a bill of exchange because with the surety of the person, you can discharge any debt from the government (municipal, provincial or federal) by using this surety and with a bill of exchange, the Bank of Canada will pay because the central bank is an unlimited line of credit (cool!!! ). So, it must be the Bank of Canada who got this surety (logically).

You know the Charter of human rights and freedoms of Quebec (yeah, I talked of the Bank of Canada and now I'm talking of a Charter in Quebec, whatever)? http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-12 They are now making a big deal of this first article: "1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.
He also possesses juridical personality." In french, security is "sûreté", and then Daoust (chief of Quebec section ) concluded that it is question of the surety : "surety

n. a guarantor of payment or performance if another fails to pay or perform, such as a bonding company which posts a bond for a guardian, an administrator, or a building contractor. Most surety agreements require that a person looking to the surety (asking for payment) must first attempt to collect or obtain performance from the responsible person or entity. (See: guarantor, bond)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/surety

I repeat that english is not my mother's tongue and that I do my best to explain. The new TFL group pretends that because of our birth certificate, we are slaves and got to pay the huge debt of a corrupted government, but if we use our surety (yep, the number on our certificate is a account number, lol), we don't need to pay our taxes, our Hydro-Quebec account, our tickets and so on.

Well, maybe I should have explained all this from the start. I was so angered from the incitements to commit suicide and the violence threats that I had only that in mind. They have over a thousand members. That's kind of scary. And I don't want to argue with them, because they're always right, anyway.

It's in english and french, but here's a new prey asking questions to the gurus and of course, they have all the questions. Eventually, this guy will stop paying taxes and maybe Hydro Quebec (or maybe not, they know they can get their electricity cut after all) and get into problems. But, at least, he won't be a slave anymore: he will be free! What a joke! https://www.facebook.com/groups/lasuret ... 093148031/

[NYGman]

In one of his "Interesting" 20 min video interviews, he talks about CRA asking him some questions in a survey, and then coming back to him for $35k as they believed he was underreporting his income. In the Video he says he settled it, but didn't pay them the 35k, but use Surety of the person. How is this possible? CRA would never accept that, and I have yet to see a write up from Burnaby49, so what happened.


I will add, I didn't watch it all, it was getting to me...

[arayder]

OK Let's be a little more informative about what the new TFL crew made in Quebec is about these days.

. . .They are now making a big deal of this first article: "1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.
He also possesses juridical personality." In french, security is "sûreté", and then Daoust (chief of Quebec section ) concluded that it is question of the surety : "surety

. . . The new TFL group pretends that because of our birth certificate, we are slaves and got to pay the huge debt of a corrupted government, but if we use our surety (yep, the number on our certificate is a account number, lol), we don't need to pay our taxes, our Hydro-Quebec account, our tickets and so on. . .

How rich. It is essentially the same "security of the person" theory foisted by Duncan's arch rival, Robert Menard.

. . .They have over a thousand members. . .

The difference being that Duncan and Daoust seem to be working the subscriber/follower angle far better than the drunken Menard could ever manage.

[Arthur Rubin]

Question for any Quebecois legal experts:

Is provincial law in Quebec based on English common law (the real thing, not what FOTLs say it is) or French court law? For what it's worth, in the US state of Louisiana, state law is based on French court law, to the extent that Federal law doesn't exclude the provisions.

[coffeekitten]

Question for any Quebecois legal experts:

Is provincial law in Quebec based on English common law (the real thing, not what FOTLs say it is) or French court law? For what it's worth, in the US state of Louisiana, state law is based on French court law, to the extent that Federal law doesn't exclude the provisions.

It is the only province in Canada where common law is based on French court law.

[notorial dissent]

I'm not quite sure what you are meaning by "French court law" in this instance, unless you are trying to say Napoleonic Code/Civil Code. Canadian New France and LA were first under the French Crown as provinces of France and so operated under what I would assume would have been the French common law of the time. France lost New France in the 1760's with what is now Quebec going to England and the rest to Spain and eventually back to France under Napoleon. Each then coming under the common law of the respective new countries. What was French common law was retained by the English for civil law and the rest was superseded by English common law. LA was first under Spain after the treat, and then returned to France under Napoleon who abolished what had been French and then Spanish common law in the province, and instituted the Code Napoleon, which is still the basis for modern French law, and of which a good deal still survives in LA, the only US state that has what is essentially an entirely statute based legal system. Napoleon never controlled Quebec and so there is no reason that what I think you are calling "French court law" ever existed in Quebec.

[coffeekitten]

I'm not quite sure what you are meaning by "French court law" in this instance, unless you are trying to say Napoleonic Code/Civil Code. Canadian New France and LA were first under the French Crown as provinces of France and so operated under what I would assume would have been the French common law of the time. France lost New France in the 1760's with what is now Quebec going to England and the rest to Spain and eventually back to France under Napoleon. Each then coming under the common law of the respective new countries. What was French common law was retained by the English for civil law and the rest was superseded by English common law. LA was first under Spain after the treat, and then returned to France under Napoleon who abolished what had been French and then Spanish common law in the province, and instituted the Code Napoleon, which is still the basis for modern French law, and of which a good deal still survives in LA, the only US state that has what is essentially an entirely statute based legal system. Napoleon never controlled Quebec and so there is no reason that what I think you are calling "French court law" ever existed in Quebec.

The Civil Code of Quebec is based on the Napoleonic Code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law That's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

[coffeekitten]

Here's how to make a bill of exchange, TFL version :



Bank of Canada (black ink)

See reverse side for endorsement (red ink)

Accepted by (black ink)

Bills of exchange act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4) (black ink)

Account number (social security number ) 123-345-678

2016 nov. 29

Registration number

(number on your birth certificate)

again in black ink

Sorry for annoying you with all those details, but that's how the surety group pretends we make a bill of exchange. Your social security card is a kind of debit card (or credit card?) for your person. And you need stamps. And they take themselves very seriously, of course.

Also, the Tender for Law group still exists in english: it is a closed group, because they don't want Quatloos members to read it, I guess: https://www.facebook.com/groups/5972847 ... cation=ufi

There's something weird: Pete Daoust complained that he asked to a judge if he will show you the surety of HIS person, and at first, the judge said yes, he will show you. Later, when Pete Daoust asked again, the judge said no. It seems clear to me that the judge thought Pete Daoust was a fool but Daoust, of course, is persuaded that the judge doesn't want to show it to him. THEY'RE HIDING US THE SURETY! But what Daoust wants the judge to show him exactly? Is it a person? An object? A talisman?



I'm confused. I might not be smart enough.

[LordEd]

Probably something like this.

Psst, want to see my SURITY?

[arayder]

I'm not quite sure what you are meaning by "French court law" in this instance, unless you are trying to say Napoleonic Code/Civil Code.

The Civil Code of Quebec is based on the Napoleonic Code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law That's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

Whether one is talking constitutional law, statutes, common law or the Napoleonic Code it makes little difference since there is no legal system since the beginning of time that has sanctioned theft from national treasuries. Make no mistake about it the "surety" and "security of the person" theories advocate stealing.

The only way folks like Duncan, Daoust and Menard can make their fantasies seem true is by misreading sections of national and provincial constitutions. One might explain away such misreading is mere carelessness. But these gurus have been corrected sooooo many times on this point that their continued misrepresentation of the law has to be caulked up to either stupidity or plain dishonesty.

I suspect gurus who tell their followers that there is a pot of gold awaiting them know they have tapped into their followers' greed and gullibility.

[notorial dissent]

arayder, what you are saying here is basically the truth of the matter. As one legal finding stated, they reach their conclusions/beliefs ONLY through a "tortured reading" of the law and statutes, and then pretty freely pick and choose what they are choosing to torture. One of the favorites down here is to cherry pick a definition of a term from one (completely unrelated)statute and then insist it be applied to another to get the results they want.

[arayder]

arayder, what you are saying here is basically the truth of the matter. As one legal finding stated, they reach their conclusions/beliefs ONLY through a "tortured reading" of the law and statutes, and then pretty freely pick and choose what they are choosing to torture. One of the favorites down here is to cherry pick a definition of a term from one (completely unrelated)statute and then insist it be applied to another to get the results they want.

It amazes me that the gullibles who believe either Duncan's "surety" or Menard's "security of the person" theory don't ask a few questions:
-Has anybody made this theory work?
-After everyone catches on, will the national treasury be drained of money?
-If the treasury gets drained how will my grandma get her disability check and her free medical care?
-What was the original intent of the authors of the sections of the constitutions being used to support this theory?
-Has this theory been advanced before?
-Has the question already come before the courts?