Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Moderator: Burnaby49

User avatar
eric
Trivial Observer of Great War
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by eric »

coffeekitten wrote:Update:

If you're ever interested in viewing the documents of Mario Prévost in relation with his demand for social assistance, here they are. Mario wrote he has no bank account (I don't know if it's true or even possible, I doubt it).
I noted that one of the documents provided appeared to be some form of CRA document. As you mentioned, the Social Assistance/Welfare workers in Quebec are probably quite used to dealing with people who perhaps have mental problems. Even more common are people who do not have conventional forms of identification such as a driver's licence, birth certificate, or even utility bills to verify an address.
Mario is explaining that he was summoned to receive his check, but is insisting that he was going there as a man (not as a person) and that he refused to show any identity card, but that he received his check anyway.
All Mario did was use assorted tax information to prove that he was Mario and resided in Quebec. Nothing unusual about this and not particular to FMOTL. In Alberta, to make life easier for the homeless to access government services there is even a special program to set them up with the same identification cards that those residents who don't have a driver's licence use.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... s-1.970863
Another faked victory for the surety of the person.
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by arayder »

eric wrote:. . .In Alberta, to make life easier for the homeless to access government services there is even a special program to set them up with the same identification cards that those residents who don't have a driver's licence use.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... s-1.970863
Another faked victory for the surety of the person.
That's a good observation, eric.

We can count the times freemen, sovcits and goodfers have claimed a subculture victory because some authority recognized one of our long established rights, there regardless of what the kooks do. Why should the Tender for Law folks not use the same trick.

It's like claiming a win for a whacky theory because the arresting officer read you your rights before he cuffed you.
User avatar
coffeekitten
Pirate
Pirate
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by coffeekitten »

https://lasuretedesapersonne.com/web-tv/ La Tente Roulotte

It looks like they will update regularly the Sûreté de SA personne website with videos on this new Web TV: this week, it's about the Pete Daoust's tent trailer. I don't know if you remember: we spoke about it somewhere in this thread. The bailiff seized the trailer tent because Pete Daoust refused to pay his ticket to the city of Terrebonne. Well, he paid with bills of exchange, but those bills of exchange worth nothing. Pete Daoust wrote that he would pay if Terrebonne sent back the bills of exchange, but they refused. Pete Daoust pretends that the bailiff couldn't seize his tent trailer, because it was owned by a trust he created himself (LOL). Pete Daoust explains that if Terrebonne sent back the bills of exchange, he would have paid and concluded that we didn't have the right to the surety of the person.

Also, he pretends that because of the article 7-8 of the Charter of Rights (http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-12), the bailiff committed a crime when he penetrated his house during his absence (before he seized the tent trailer). Pete Daoust is convinced he's the victim of a big fraud and that his rights have been violated, as we already know. Well, now, you know a little more about the circumstances of the tent trailer's seizing. If you understand french and don't mind the poor sound quality, you have the possibility to watch the video: https://lasuretedesapersonne.com/web-tv/
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by arayder »

So now Pete is out a tent trailer and showing a denial of responsibility that's par for the course among members of the freeman/sovcit/tfl/goodf subculture he says it's all somebody else's fault.

The folks who think all this is going to get them anywhere need to check out the mess Brian Alexander has made out of his life.
Last edited by arayder on Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by notorial dissent »

It's NEVER their fault, it's always de ebil gov't/corporations/ conspiracy/fill in the blanks as needs fault. They are just poor little innocent downtrodden souls. Pure and innocent as the driven snow. :sarcasmon:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
coffeekitten
Pirate
Pirate
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by coffeekitten »

Pete Daoust posted a video on his WebTV where he says that for paying something, you must have decided to buy it. I don't really want to go into details with this, because he speaks of things that are not really new (if you pay your Hydro-Québec bill, you don't pay for electricity, because you already own it, but you buy the public debt). He also mentions that some people spoke to him about the social contract (Le Contrat social de Rousseau), but that he never signed it. If Pete Daoust ever wants to read it, it would allow him to know better what it's all about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract He also refers to the Money as Debt from Paul Grignon and I never watched it, but it's on YouTube, so maybe I'll check later.

Things are so easy with Pete Daoust. The public debt is huge? Stop paying it and it's gone. Yes, that's simple like this. :haha:

Image

It's so simple, why nobody thought about it before? :snicker:
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by arayder »

Oh, please.

I don't know exactly how it works in Quebec. But in most places in the western world you can tell the power and light company to cut off the power and set about to heat and light your home by yourself.

It takes effort and there are substantial costs at the beginning.

The folks I know who are getting this job done are the polar opposite of the overly self-entitled Pete Daoust. They work for the things they have and they don't whine about the unfairness of it all.

It's time to grow up, Petey.
User avatar
coffeekitten
Pirate
Pirate
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by coffeekitten »

Image

Hmmm... A trust. Is this to put your stuff in it in hope the bailiffs won't seize it? Like with your tent trailer? :wink:
User avatar
coffeekitten
Pirate
Pirate
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by coffeekitten »

Scott Duncan feels concerned that you don't get the right info on his bullshit, so he posted Pete Daoust videos with frenglish subtitles on his Facebook page. The one about bills of exchange should be entertaining (kind of).

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id ... 42&fref=ts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeb7lyr ... e=youtu.be
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by arayder »

It is interesting to note ways in which freemen and the like get to the conclusion that there are secret accounts somewhere that will pay all their bills.

Some tie it to the birth certificate. In a laughable misreading of the Canadian Constitution Menard says it comes from the "security of the person". Petey here says it's a "surety".

It occurs me that none of these twits have the slightest notion of how wealth is built whether it be by individuals, businesses, societies or nations. When one gets down to the nub of it wealth is built by adding value to people or things.

If one learns a trade or a skill their laborer and services become more valuable. Businesses increase their wealth by creating valuable goods or services which they sell. Nations gain wealth by encouraging the growth of individuals and businesses which are taxed. Wise governments keep taxes reasonably low and provide for a stable supply of money so as to encourage investment and growth.

Of course, all of this is a freakin' mystery to Duncan, Menard, Daoust and other gurus who seem to think that wealth is build in the secret by faceless bankers who trade in our birth certificates, securities or sureties. The fallacy of this fantasy is made clear by asking what value is placed in a birth certificate and wondering who would be witless enough to buy one in the market place?

I speculate that this gaping hole in the knowledge bases of these gurus has occurred because none of them have ever built anything or made anything of themselves.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by notorial dissent »

The problem is that scenario requires an actual dirty four letter word, "work", and that is something Duncan, Menard, Daoust will never stoop to or utter.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
coffeekitten
Pirate
Pirate
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by coffeekitten »

Pete Daoust started explaining what is a trust tonight and "you will have to use your BRAIN here, and take lots of time to THINK." :roll: If you're not an obedient citizen (citoyen docile), the State can't take back what is yours (your house, your car, your profession, your tent trailer). So, if you establish a private trust, and if this trust owns your stuff rather than you, then the State can't seize your stuff. The problem is that it doesn't work that way. If you don't pay your taxes or your tickets because you're not a slave and you're too special to do it, there's no way you can protect yourself from getting your stuff seized (it didn't work for Pete Daoust: why should it work for you? :brickwall: ). Well, I post the videos here and you can find the english translation in the comments of the thread:

Thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/lasuret ... 826840190/

Videos: https://www.facebook.com/pierre.daoust. ... 331492542/

https://www.facebook.com/pierre.daoust. ... 380023754/
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by arayder »

coffeekitten wrote:Pete Daoust started explaining what is a trust tonight and "you will have to use your BRAIN here, and take lots of time to THINK." :roll: If you're not an obedient citizen (citoyen docile), the State can't take back what is yours (your house, your car, your profession, your tent trailer). So, if you establish a private trust, and if this trust owns your stuff rather than you, then the State can't seize your stuff. The problem is that it doesn't work that way. If you don't pay your taxes or your tickets because you're not a slave and you're too special to do it, there's no way you can protect yourself from getting your stuff seized (it didn't work for Pete Daoust: why should it work for you? :brickwall: .. . .
It's got nothing to do with trusts.

No society is perfect and sometimes governments, like teachers trying too hard to enforce the class rules, go to far. But the fact of law is that in the western democracies takings by the government are prohibited. The problem with d*cks like Petey is that they think parking tickets are takings.

Self important little men like Petey think the powers that be are trying to take everything they own when they get a parking ticket.

Get a life, Petey boy!
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by notorial dissent »

Petey is just another practitioner of magical thinking and his particular magic happens to be with with "magic trusts" instead of magic beans, and they are all worth exactly the same. He's also an idiot, so that is all pretty much a given.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
noblepa
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:20 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by noblepa »

arayder wrote:
coffeekitten wrote:Pete Daoust started explaining what is a trust tonight and "you will have to use your BRAIN here, and take lots of time to THINK." :roll: If you're not an obedient citizen (citoyen docile), the State can't take back what is yours (your house, your car, your profession, your tent trailer). So, if you establish a private trust, and if this trust owns your stuff rather than you, then the State can't seize your stuff. The problem is that it doesn't work that way. If you don't pay your taxes or your tickets because you're not a slave and you're too special to do it, there's no way you can protect yourself from getting your stuff seized (it didn't work for Pete Daoust: why should it work for you? :brickwall: .. . .
It's got nothing to do with trusts.

No society is perfect and sometimes governments, like teachers trying too hard to enforce the class rules, go to far. But the fact of law is that in the western democracies takings by the government are prohibited. The problem with d*cks like Petey is that they think parking tickets are takings.

Self important little men like Petey think the powers that be are trying to take everything they own when they get a parking ticket.

Get a life, Petey boy!
Takings by governments are not prohibited. They are tightly controlled and can only be done after due process of law. Eminent Domain is one form of taking. The government can force a property owner to sell against his/her will, but they must pay fair market value.

Seizure of assets to pay back taxes is another form of government taking. Again, it can only be done after a specific legal process, which can be appealed, is followed. If the value of the asset exceeds the debt owed, the excess must be refunded to the debtor.
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by arayder »

noblepa wrote:
arayder wrote:
coffeekitten wrote:Pete Daoust started explaining what is a trust tonight and "you will have to use your BRAIN here, and take lots of time to THINK." :roll: If you're not an obedient citizen (citoyen docile), the State can't take back what is yours (your house, your car, your profession, your tent trailer). So, if you establish a private trust, and if this trust owns your stuff rather than you, then the State can't seize your stuff. The problem is that it doesn't work that way. If you don't pay your taxes or your tickets because you're not a slave and you're too special to do it, there's no way you can protect yourself from getting your stuff seized (it didn't work for Pete Daoust: why should it work for you? :brickwall: .. . .
It's got nothing to do with trusts.

No society is perfect and sometimes governments, like teachers trying too hard to enforce the class rules, go to far. But the fact of law is that in the western democracies takings by the government are prohibited. The problem with d*cks like Petey is that they think parking tickets are takings.

Self important little men like Petey think the powers that be are trying to take everything they own when they get a parking ticket.

Get a life, Petey boy!
Takings by governments are not prohibited. They are tightly controlled and can only be done after due process of law. Eminent Domain is one form of taking. The government can force a property owner to sell against his/her will, but they must pay fair market value.

Seizure of assets to pay back taxes is another form of government taking. Again, it can only be done after a specific legal process, which can be appealed, is followed. If the value of the asset exceeds the debt owed, the excess must be refunded to the debtor.
I stand corrected. I had a brain fart. Meant to say "unjust" taking. The point was that Petey is in effect claiming to be the victim of an unjust taking
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6107
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

My Quatloos handle comes from a mountain in the former town of Dana, Massachusetts. It and three other nearby towns lost their entire corporate existence in 1938 as part of the project to create the Quabbin Reservoir in western Massachusetts. Over 2,000 people had to move; and over 3,000 buildings had to be torn down (or moved, in a few dozen cases).

It's open to debate whether "fair market value" was paid. If you had a business, you got paid for your land and your building; but (except for a few people, towards the end of the project) you got nothing for the loss of your business reputation and goodwill which you had built up over the years. As for the things for which you DID get paid, the offers from the Water Supply Commission were not known for being overly generous; and quite often, assessors from the affected towns were stingier than those from outside.

Whether things would be different, today, no one knows for sure, except that many more people would probably respond to lowball offers by filing suit.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by arayder »

Off the point of the thread, but. . . .across the Ohio river from me in southern Indiana there's a small town in which developers buying up low income housing likely be part of an eminent domain buy out by the city.

The developers are bidding far below the market value the city would have to pay as part of an eminent domain buy out. The fear is that the developers will turn around and sell the property to the city for a profit.

There is a suit filed alleging that the city is helping the process by filling excessive code violations regarding the maintenance of the homes in the area. The claim is that the city gives poor property owners grief about their homes and then the developers show up with cheap buy out offers for the overwhelmed property owners.
User avatar
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2271
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by NYGman »

Shouldn't the price they paid for the property be a guide to the value of the property when eminent domain is used, and therefore limit their profit?

I know I had to explain to my brother that he could not go to a garage sale, buy something for pennies on the dollar, and then tax deduct the full book amount. He would be limited to the purchase price.

So while the developer may be buying up under market, are they not in fact depressing the market value, which therefore should result in them receiving less. Of course, this probably makes too much sense to be the way things are.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

Post by Burnaby49 »

NYGman wrote:Shouldn't the price they paid for the property be a guide to the value of the property when eminent domain is used, and therefore limit their profit?

I know I had to explain to my brother that he could not go to a garage sale, buy something for pennies on the dollar, and then tax deduct the full book amount. He would be limited to the purchase price.

So while the developer may be buying up under market, are they not in fact depressing the market value, which therefore should result in them receiving less. Of course, this probably makes too much sense to be the way things are.
That comment goes to the heart of one of Canada's biggest tax avoidance schemes. Billions of dollars were involved. Various properties, prints of artwork, medicines, school supplies, computer software, were sold by the schemes' promoters to Canadian taxpayers as a basis for charitable donation deductions. The purchasers would donate them to a compliant charity, sometimes captive charities created by the promoters themselves, at claimed values much higher than their actual cost. This resulted in the donors making a profit from their refunds.

This is how they supposedly "worked". You would buy 100 crap art prints from a promoter for, say, $300 each. So you are out of pocket $30,000. The promoter has a piece of paper saying that they are really worth $1,000 each based on some semi-qualified appraiser saying that this is what the prints would sell for on an individual print basis in an art gallery in New York (an actual example). You'd donate the prints to a captive charity for the $1,000 amount and get a donation receipt for $100,000. At a combined provincial and Federal top tax rate of say 40% you get a refund of $40,000 for the donation for a profit of $10,000. Towards the end when there were so many of these schemes they were ruthlessly competing for suckers the claimed fake values escalated to up to ten times the cash price.

This was huge, with legal and accounting firms flogging it and thousands of Canadians buying in. It seemed foolproof until theory collided with reality in the first that case went to Tax Court. This case;

Klotz v. The Queen
2004 TCC 147
http://canlii.ca/t/1ggjc

Then NYGman's logic kicked in with Judge Bowman saying;
[40] I have reproduced large portions of Ms. Laverty's report because in fairness to her it is important that I give my reasons for not accepting it. On paper her report has a certain plausible ring to it. However, I reject it for several reasons:

(a) Even if we accept that the proper market to which one should look is the "retail" market, that is to say the retail art galleries, principally those in New York, the evidence does not support the conclusion that recourse to that market justifies the fmv determined in the report.

(iii) I do not think that what a New York art dealer might be asking for a similar print by one of the artists whose works are in the program proves anything about what scores of the same work would fetch if they were all dumped on the market at the same time.

(iv) The conclusion that over 80 per cent of the prints involved in the Klotz donation (and probably in everyone else's) were valued at precisely CDN$1,000 (which by an extraordinary coincidence is the amount mentioned in subsection 46(1)) is suspect, to say the least. I find it hard to believe that there is no difference between the multiplicity of prints valued.

(vi) Her evidence that the prints of some artists would fetch the prices she determined if exposed for sale over a period of years proves nothing about the fmv on December 30, 1999. It is moreover conjecture unsupported by the evidence. I am prepared to assume, without any real evidence, that, had we but world enough and time, the odd print of a particular artist might eventually sell for $1,000. I am not however prepared to leap from that speculative assumption to the conclusion that on December 30, 1999, 100 of that artist's prints would sell for $100,000 in the open market.

(vii) Some of the prints that were obtained by Curated through Ms. Krawczyk were obtained from dealers such as Szoke Gallery, Novak Graphics and Alex Rosenberg Fine Arts at the favourable prices authorized by her mandate. It is strange that dealers would sell the prints to Curated or Ms. Krawczyk for US$50 or less if there were a retail market out there ready to buy the prints for $1,000 each. Although the evidence of actual sales of identical or comparative prints is thin, if it exists at all, I am prepared to assume that one of a particular artist's prints may be offered for sale in a New York gallery for $1,000 and perhaps somebody might even pay that for it. However, one swallow does not make a summer and I have certainly not seen a flock.

[44] I am simply looking at the best evidence available to determine what the fmv of the gift of 250 prints is. The most contemporaneous and most comparable figure is what Mr. Klotz paid Curated for them. One might question whether even this figure is too high considering that the reason Mr. Klotz paid even as much as he did was that he believed that an expenditure of $300 would yield him a tax credit based on $1,000. It is an interesting question that I need not consider here whether the price paid for something is truly indicative of fmv where the predominant component in the price paid is the tax advantage that the purchaser expects to receive from acquiring the object. I need not pursue this question because the Crown did not suggest a lower figure. The US$50 figure (Ms. Krawczyk's maximum price) that was mentioned in the reply was not pressed in argument.

[46] The respondent's approach is in my view more realistic. Mr. Alasko described the sale to the appellant by Curated as a wholesale or bulk transaction. No doubt the respondent would have preferred to have him say it was a retail sale but in the final analysis it does not really matter what one calls it. It is what it is. It was a sale of 250 prints for $75,000 between two arm's length parties. The gift was a virtually contemporaneous disposition of the same 250 prints. What better evidence is there of what the 250 prints were worth at that time? Why chase the will o' the wisp of an elusive and largely hypothetical fmv through the trendy up scale art galleries of New York and ignore the best evidence that is right there before your very nose? The problem with the claim here, whereby property is acquired for $5 to $50, sold to the appellant for $300 and claimed to have a fmv two days later of $1,000, is that it is devoid of common sense and out of touch with ordinary commercial reality.
The taxpayers who lost at court in the earlier hearings were the lucky ones. They were allowed to deduct their actual cash purchase prices. After a while the Canada Revenue Agency decided to deny even that and the courts supported them so the taxpayers were completely out of pocket.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs