Steve Bates aka Wake Up! Productions

Moderator: Burnaby49

erwalkerca
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: An hour from Spuzzum

Steve Bates aka Wake Up! Productions

Postby erwalkerca » Tue May 27, 2014 6:14 pm

People posting on YouTube never cease to amaze me.

A guy who goes by the handle WakeUpToTheNWO2 posted a video in which he claims to effectively pay no income tax. He says in the video that he works two jobs, one where he works one day a week and gets all the income tax he pays refunded when he files a return. The other job is 4 days a week and he is paid as a private contractor rather than an employee, so the company he is working for deducts no income tax from his cheque. Of course he doesn't include this income when he files a return.

What I find bizarre is the fact that he shows his income tax refund cheque with his first and last names and the cheque number clearly visible. He follows this by showing two different pay cheques, one which he pays tax on as an employee and the other for his contract work. While the company names are not visible, his name and the bank info (branch #, account #, etc) at the bottom of both cheques is clearly visible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdxMLvcAphk

erwalkerca
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: An hour from Spuzzum

Re: Stephen Bates aka WakeUpToTheNWO2

Postby erwalkerca » Tue May 27, 2014 7:00 pm

I just got off the line with CRA after reporting Mr Bates. The agent who took my call actually laughed when he saw the start of the video. He has forwarded the info to the investigators.

:lol:

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Stephen Bates aka WakeUpToTheNWO2

Postby Jeffrey » Tue May 27, 2014 9:41 pm

Smart man, posting evidence of a crime on Youtube.

User avatar
Wake Up! Productions
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:25 am

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Wake Up! Productions » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:05 pm

Post Deleted By Author.
Last edited by Wake Up! Productions on Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
DEAN CLIFFORD IS OUT OF PRISON !!! :shock:

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby arayder » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:14 pm

NYGman, I am using Blackstone here. And I use the term "natural person" because years ago the uniformed, like Eldon Warman used to argue that natural persons were not subject to the rule of law.

When that ruse failed in court Warman and others changed their get out of jail free terminology to "flesh and blood man". That word game failed and hence Bobby Menard decided to use the term "freeman on the land".

It's the same old failed ruse any way you slice it.

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby arayder » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:25 pm

Wake Up! Productions wrote:
arayder wrote:A natural person is subject to the rule of law.


Agreed 100%. If I, acting in the capacity of a natural person, earn an income while working under an employment number (SIN in Canada), I am subject to any and all tax laws. However, the Government of Canada can not FORCE me to use that number, as it is not a "license to work". I can enter into a private contract, and work without using that number. It is commonly termed working under the table, or as CRA terms it, "the underground economy". So long as the legal name (natural person) is not involved, it is not illegal, and in fact, it is completely lawful.


I don't know Canadian tax law. But in the U.S. that is not the case.

In the U.S. you can call yourself any kind of man you want and pretend you don't owe taxes on income and disavow your social security number and it won't help you get out from under tax law.

In the U.S. the only way to make it work in a practical sense is to stay under the tax man's radar. But if the state or federal government catches up with you saying you weren't using this or that name won't help at all.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10628
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:38 pm

Wake Up! Productions wrote:So, to answer the question, this is what I consider to be the 5% that I believe is valid.

And we're still waiting for the 5% as this isn't it either, just more errant nonsense.
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
Wake Up! Productions
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:25 am

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Wake Up! Productions » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:47 pm

Post Deleted By Author.
Last edited by Wake Up! Productions on Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
DEAN CLIFFORD IS OUT OF PRISON !!! :shock:

ontobserver
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 1:55 am

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby ontobserver » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:48 pm

Wake Up! Productions wrote:
arayder wrote:A natural person is subject to the rule of law.


Agreed 100%. If I, acting in the capacity of a natural person, earn an income while working under an employment number (SIN in Canada), I am subject to any and all tax laws. However, the Government of Canada can not FORCE me to use that number, as it is not a "license to work". I can enter into a private contract, and work without using that number. It is commonly termed working under the table, or as CRA terms it, "the underground economy". So long as the legal name (natural person) is not involved, it is not illegal, and in fact, it is completely lawful.


Proof? We'll need some documented court decisions to support that position.

I'm sure Burnaby will have plenty of evidence to the contrary...

User avatar
Wake Up! Productions
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:25 am

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Wake Up! Productions » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:51 pm

Post Deleted By Author.
Last edited by Wake Up! Productions on Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
DEAN CLIFFORD IS OUT OF PRISON !!! :shock:

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby arayder » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 pm

Ok.

But let me stay on the off topic topic by saying that the parts of freemanism I do endorse are those that stress personal self reliance, honorable behavior and not causing harm.

The problem is that giving God-awful bad legal advice is harmful!

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby eric » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:13 pm

ontobserver wrote:
Wake Up! Productions wrote:
arayder wrote:A natural person is subject to the rule of law.


Agreed 100%. If I, acting in the capacity of a natural person, earn an income while working under an employment number (SIN in Canada), I am subject to any and all tax laws. However, the Government of Canada can not FORCE me to use that number, as it is not a "license to work". I can enter into a private contract, and work without using that number. It is commonly termed working under the table, or as CRA terms it, "the underground economy". So long as the legal name (natural person) is not involved, it is not illegal, and in fact, it is completely lawful.

Proof? We'll need some documented court decisions to support that position.
I'm sure Burnaby will have plenty of evidence to the contrary...

I agree. Although he is correct that a person (there's that word again) may not need a SIN to perform certain types of labour, the income earned from that work may be subject to tax. As an example, if you live in rural Canada like I do and are hired on by a farmer to help with the harvest you are traditionally paid in straight cash, no cheques. To the government and the farmer you are technically a subcontractor or independant operator and the farmer has less administrative burden than with a temporary employee and you don't need a SIN. However, you can guarantee that the farmer is keeping careful records of your pay since you're a business expense. The responsibility has just been shifted over to you to declare that income and pay whatever taxes on it.

As an aside, I always found it a good laugh come harvest time to see previously rather seedy characters frequenting local businesses and watering holes carrying a few thousand dollars in bills stuffed into their jeans.

After that bit of off topic rumination, let's get back to Deano. I am quite sure that in his sometime trade as a contractor he is quite familiar with the cash economy. I've run into more than one tradesperson who has two rates - one for straight cash and another for a traceable transaction. Then in my local area there is always the option of hiring a crew of Hutterites and they're a completely seperate kettle of fish.
Last edited by eric on Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wake Up! Productions
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:25 am

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Wake Up! Productions » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:13 pm

arayder wrote:Ok.

But let me stay on the off topic topic by saying that the parts of freemanism I do endorse are those that stress personal self reliance, honorable behavior and not causing harm.

The problem is that giving God-awful bad legal advice is harmful!


I couldn't have said it better myself. Hence why I am all up Dean's face (and facebook lol).
DEAN CLIFFORD IS OUT OF PRISON !!! :shock:

Fussygus
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:54 pm

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Fussygus » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:37 pm

arayder wrote: could ride the family mule into the newly grown town .


Great Quote Arayder. Because that town has claimed that land in the name of those who inhabit it. Cross that line and you are deemed to assent to that towns rules. You are still a natural person but by crossing that line you essentially give up certain rights in exchange for certain privileges. Those privileges include a cleared and graded road, maintained walkways, and a standing army to prevent lawlessness individuals from robbing you and blowing your brains out. If you didn't want any of those privileges then you should stay out of the town because the citizens of the collective built it for their benefit and by rights they can make the rules in their own town. What they used to also do in the old days is escort anyone they didn't trust who might be passing through, who didn't want to abide by their rules (surrender your guns to the sheriff), straight on through to the other side of town. "You don't like it, then your not welcome." Is it any different if a stranger comes to the door of your house and comes in? Are they not trespassing? Do they not have to follow your rules? The rules of your society (your family)?

No signature is needed, the law is DEEMED to apply by the power of the source in control. (Overthrow Micronesia and you too can become the source in control, the undeniable claimant. Of course there may be issues with anybody trading with you if you don't uphold to a standard that other countries deem as acceptable.)

As readers will know I too have been down the rabbit hole Wake Up! Productions, and I can agree with your statement that there are elements that are valid in what you have likely learned. The problem I see is that the application of those valid components does not fit into the current reality. That is to say square pegs do exist, but they aren't going to fit into the desired round hole.

I would agree that there is a reason for differentiating persons (natural person etc) but the reason is more to do with extent of agreement jurisdiction, than an open available remedy that one can declare.

As an example my friends can call me Fuzzy all they want but that doesn't change who I am or what rules I should be following. The fact they call me Fuzzy in this case simply narrows our understood agreement that we are friends, that we are a society within the bigger society that has banded together. We have rules that may not be written, but are none the less rules:
- we shall protect each other in cases of attack or peril
- we shall not engage in dishonourable conduct such as engaging in an unfair fight
- everyone is expected to buy a round unless before hand they advise that they unable to for whatever reason

And though these rules aren't written, it is clearly understood by all that to be part of the society one must abide by such rules. "Don't come over to my house unless you intend to abide by the rules".

Freemanism attempts to come into my house and drink my beer, eat my food and shit on my bed without consequence. The common law dictates that such does not comport with what I as the homeowner am willing to accept. Now in old days I could just shoot you without consequence....but...now I am a member of this society and as such the terms dictate that I cannot shoot him for such behaviour..etc etc. If I had an island to myself in the middle of the pacific I could shoot him, or in the old days of the lawless west, you could shoot him. But in today's common law societies such is not acceptable to be part of the society. If you want freemanism then you will have to go somewhere else and claim your own land, but for so long as you engage in the benefits of this society you will be accountable to it's laws.

On the positive it is good to see that you are willing to investigate through this forum which is obviously confrontational to your views. I take your engagement as indicating you are more interested in knowing the truth, as opposed to simply trying to get confirmation of your beliefs. Try not to take offense to comments you may get in response as well. Sometimes we all get a little snarky when there are things we believe in and others even dare question that belief in any way (sort of like religions in many ways) (or recall the 1000th time you had to tell your kid to brush their teeth? "BECAUSE I SAID SO!") sometimes tact and diplomacy get put away. But I would say most are well intentioned in their responses.

All the best to you ....I guess waking up.

Fuzzy
Les semper intendit quod convenit ratione.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:43 pm

arayder wrote:
Wake Up! Productions wrote:
arayder wrote:A natural person is subject to the rule of law.


Agreed 100%. If I, acting in the capacity of a natural person, earn an income while working under an employment number (SIN in Canada), I am subject to any and all tax laws. However, the Government of Canada can not FORCE me to use that number, as it is not a "license to work". I can enter into a private contract, and work without using that number. It is commonly termed working under the table, or as CRA terms it, "the underground economy". So long as the legal name (natural person) is not involved, it is not illegal, and in fact, it is completely lawful.


I don't know Canadian tax law. But in the U.S. that is not the case.

In the U.S. you can call yourself any kind of man you want and pretend you don't owe taxes on income and disavow your social security number and it won't help you get out from under tax law.

In the U.S. the only way to make it work in a practical sense is to stay under the tax man's radar. But if the state or federal government catches up with you saying you weren't using this or that name won't help at all.


Canadian tax law is simple. You earn money in Canada you owe income tax in Canada. The Canadian Income Tax Act does not recognize "natural men" it taxes "persons". The Act stipulates this right at the beginning;

Income Tax Act
R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)


An Act respecting income taxes

SHORT TITLE
1. This Act may be cited as the Income Tax Act.

PART I - INCOME TAX

DIVISION A - LIABILITY FOR TAX
2. (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.

(2) The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer’s income for the year plus the additions and minus the deductions permitted by Division C.

(3) Where a person who is not taxable under subsection 2(1) for a taxation year
(a) was employed in Canada,

(b) carried on a business in Canada, or
(c) disposed of a taxable Canadian property,

at any time in the year or a previous year, an income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the person’s taxable income earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D


So who is a person under the Act? Check section 248(1) of the Act. This is the definitions section;

“person”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity’s taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;


In other words everybody is a person and there is nothing exempting some human classification that Freemen like to call natural men. One of the principal cases that established that natural persons are taxable persons was a case against a local Vancouver Freeman who claimed he wasn't an person as defined in the Income Tax Act;

MNR v. Stanchfield, 2009 Citation: 2009 FC 99

http://canlii.ca/t/22g7x

[2] Mr. Stanchfield argues that he did in fact comply with the RFI. He explains that the alleged inadequacies (referred to in the affidavit of Tove Mills) of the response of Cory Stanchfield, the taxpayer and respondent in this application are caused by the Minister’s confusion in attributing to him assets, income and activities of another, distinct entity whom he characterizes as “Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person acting in his own capacity and for his own private benefit”. Because this is not the first time similar arguments have been made by Cory Stanchfield as well as other taxpayers in the Vancouver area, it is worth reviewing in some detail the arguments presented by the respondent.


[6] As stated above, this is far from the first time that persons have attempted to argue that “natural persons” are not covered within the scope of application of the Act. In fact this underlying notion has been specifically and thoroughly canvassed in a number of decisions, to the extent where it can be said today that such a notion is wholly without merit. Despite this, the respondent attempts to distinguish each and every one of these cases.

[11] Finally, the respondent himself attempted to argue before this Court in the course of another application for a compliance order brought against him by the Applicant, that he, as a natural person, was not a “person” for the purposes of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 (M.N.R. v. Stanchfield (September 26, 2007), Vancouver T-1179-07). Justice Frederick E. Gibson rejects this proposition, on the basis that “the Respondent is clearly a “person” within the scope of the definitions “person” and “individual” in section 123 of the Excise Tax Act” (p. 4). The respondent seeks to distinguish the result of his very own “first kick at the can” by arguing that he agrees with the determination of Justice Gibson as he now realizes that he was in fact before him in his capacity as a taxpayer. He claims that it was counsel for the applicant that led the Court to believe that he was before the Court in his capacity as a natural person and it is for this reason that he argued in this fashion before Justice Gibson.

[12] It is of interest to note that, in a decision rendered after the date of the hearing of the present matter, the respondent was found guilty of contempt of the above-mentioned Court order. In M.N.R. v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 72 (CanLII), Justice Yves de Montigny found that “The distinction drawn by Mr. Stanchfield between his capacity as a natural person and his capacity to act in some other way is entirely of his own doing, and is devoid of any support in the case law.” (para. 27).

[27] If this is true for a corporation, purportedly created by a legislature, it even more so for a natural person. Cory Stanchfield’s attempt to argue before this Court that his body comprises two persons which act in different capacities is of one of two things: (1) an inadmissible division of his indivisible entity, or (2) an attempted creation of a second entity in a fashion which is not recognized by law, the result of which amounts to nothing in the eyes of the law. It is an attempt at the impossible and the respondent cannot do the impossible. Therefore, “Cory Stanchfield (the Respondent)” and “Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)” is but one person, with one single capacity, whom is directly included in the definition of “person” contained at subsection 248(1) of the Act.

[28] Thus, natural persons, whether described as acting in their own private capacity for their own private benefit or not, are directly included in the definition of “person” contained at subsection 248(1) of the Act. This is because the qualifying terms “own private capacity” and “own private benefit” are of absolutely no relevance in the eyes of the law.

[30] As such, the Act validly applies to all persons residing in Canada for any part of a taxation year, regardless of whether these persons are afforded the protections of the Bill of Rights, or not. The absence of a notwithstanding clause or declaration in the Act does not affect the validity and the legality of this situation, which cannot be described in any other way than representing the “due process of law”.

[31] That said, has Cory Stanchfield complied with the terms of the RFI sent to him by the Minister on February 19, 2008? In light of the evidence presented to the Court by Mr. Stanchfield (see above at para. 4), it is abundantly clear that he has not. This evidence contains blatant discrepancies with the information provided to the Minister in response to the RFI. The Court is satisfied that the respondent was required under section 231.2 of the Act to provide the information requested in the RFI and that he did not fully comply with this requirement. The Court is equally satisfied that the information requested is not protected by solicitor-client privilege. The Court will thus issue the compliance order requested by the Minister, pursuant to section 231.7 of the Act.

[32] The Minister is seeking his costs on this application which are quantified at $936. Mr. Stanchfield, again relying on his untenable legal position, argued that the Court should take into consideration the fact that he is unemployed. As noted, this is not the first time that Mr. Stanchfield is involved in proceedings of this nature. Justice Gibson ordered him to pay the Minister’s costs in his order. There are no valid reasons for not granting the applicant his costs in this matter. I fix them at a lump sum of $900.


Not a lot of comfort there for natural person adherents.

The Richard Cory Stanchfield in the case above is not a stranger to Quatloos. He just pleaded guilty to income tax evasion. He'd planned to defend himself on the basis that he was a natural person.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10464

Steve Bates seems to be saying that as long as he doesn't have or doesn't use a Social Insurance Number (SIN) he is not taxable. He said;

I can enter into a private contract, and work without using that number. It is commonly termed working under the table, or as CRA terms it, "the underground economy". So long as the legal name (natural person) is not involved, it is not illegal, and in fact, it is completely lawful.


Which indicates, at least to me, the position that the "underground economy" is a separate grouping of people without SIN numbers who are lawfully allowed to earn income without paying tax on it. This is completely wrong. The "underground economy" is comprised of people who are illegally hiding their income and not reporting it. They are as taxable as anybody else, they are just evading paying the taxes they owe. The Social Insurance Number does not make you taxable and not having one does not free you from being taxable. It is just a number regardless of the mystique that Freemen have built around it.
"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

User avatar
Bill Lumbergh
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:06 pm
Location: Initech Head Office

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Bill Lumbergh » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:46 pm

Wake Up! Productions wrote:
I apologise guys, I am not here to cause controversy, forget I ever stated my views, and please let's get back on TOPIC !!!


No need to fold your tent so quickly WUP. I was going to suggest that this be split off into its own thread for further discussion. It's not every day that someone from "the other side" is willing to come on here to share their views, so I think a discussion/debate with you would be quite valuable. I'm curious as to your extensive research regarding the all-caps name that you claim has significance when courts rule over and over that it doesn't. Perhaps you could share the research that has led you to your conclusions?

User avatar
Wake Up! Productions
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:25 am

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Wake Up! Productions » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:55 pm

Post Deleted By Author.
Last edited by Wake Up! Productions on Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
DEAN CLIFFORD IS OUT OF PRISON !!! :shock:

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:59 pm

Hutterites? Welcome to my world eric! Not as a Hutterite but as an ex tax auditor. I've already written about Hutterites on Quatloos;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9829&start=100#p167357

They are as taxable as anyone else and they agree that they are taxable. The only issue that puts them out of the mainstream is the method of apportioning the gross colony income amongst the individual colony members.
"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

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:23 am

Bill Lumbergh wrote:
Wake Up! Productions wrote:
I apologise guys, I am not here to cause controversy, forget I ever stated my views, and please let's get back on TOPIC !!!


No need to fold your tent so quickly WUP. I was going to suggest that this be split off into its own thread for further discussion. It's not every day that someone from "the other side" is willing to come on here to share their views, so I think a discussion/debate with you would be quite valuable. I'm curious as to your extensive research regarding the all-caps name that you claim has significance when courts rule over and over that it doesn't. Perhaps you could share the research that has led you to your conclusions?


Actually a good idea Bill. Unless anyone has any arguments I'll start a new discussion later tonight, maybe titled something like "Steve Bates Thinks Freemen are 5% right", and I'll move all of these recent non-Dean posts to it. Then Steve and whomever can discuss/argue/squabble to their heart's content without impinging on Dean's real estate.
"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

User avatar
Wake Up! Productions
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:25 am

Re: Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

Postby Wake Up! Productions » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:32 am

Burnaby49 wrote:
Bill Lumbergh wrote:
Wake Up! Productions wrote:
I apologise guys, I am not here to cause controversy, forget I ever stated my views, and please let's get back on TOPIC !!!


No need to fold your tent so quickly WUP. I was going to suggest that this be split off into its own thread for further discussion. It's not every day that someone from "the other side" is willing to come on here to share their views, so I think a discussion/debate with you would be quite valuable. I'm curious as to your extensive research regarding the all-caps name that you claim has significance when courts rule over and over that it doesn't. Perhaps you could share the research that has led you to your conclusions?


Actually a good idea Bill. Unless anyone has any arguments I'll start a new discussion later tonight, maybe titled something like "Steve Bates Thinks Freemen are 5% right", and I'll move all of these recent non-Dean posts to it. Then Steve and whomever can discuss/argue/squabble to their heart's content without impinging on Dean's real estate.


No need, I have deleted my original posts. Thank you for the very quick "awakening". I realise now that this site has no "grey area" at all, and no room for free thought, free expression, or well researched knowledge put into practice (as opposed to theories). Everything here is either BLACK or WHITE. George W. Bush said it best, and I believe this quote also applies to those on Quatloos: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." :mouthshut: No problem, I will stick to what I do best, reporting on Clifford and Menard.
DEAN CLIFFORD IS OUT OF PRISON !!! :shock:


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest