No Bud, I'm not a cop. I'm an avid pot smoker who wants to see full legalization happen similar to alcohol. And I'm not being vindictive, although I do like to make fun of you a bit sometimes. I don't have any rage that's being directed at you, just frustration that you don't see the possible consequences. If you were going into this knowing full well you have no actual immunity etc, that would be a different story. Or better yet, if your methods worked, I'd be rooting for you.

"'They' are all the people and laws standing in the way of what Bud's doing."

Well, insofar as "the way" is a road, they seem to be getting out of Bud's way. They tried to have Bud do things their way, but he wouldn't play properly in their field, so they told him "get out of our way!" and ejected him from the Courthouse. So Bud's not in their way, and they are certainly not going to leave their way for Bud's way---as it were.

Also, these things you call laws, they are not laws; they are acts, like conveyances of land, birth certificates, etc. They're not "laws" except insofar as you may be required or may desire to call them such.


"And if you are saying the VPD etc, share my view that Bud's going to get a dangerous label, then that just proves my point - which is that that is how they will view him."

I am saying that low-ranking VPD officers and members of the Sheriff Services make the same sort of slanderous observations as you. What this shows is that both they and you have difficulty interpretting the peaceful actions of others without recourse to the categories of mental illness; historically, you would have said something like "he's a witch!" or accused Bud of practicing Dark Magic or of being possessed by a demon---indeed, it is a sort of magic, to use words in the way that we have, but that is another topic entirely. What on earth is a "dangerous label"?

"Personally, I don't think he's any real threat to the gov't and their status quo, since his methods are ineffective. But they'll probably flag him as a potential loose cannon. I'm not wishing this on him, just warning him to be careful."

Ineffective? The matter was struck from the list last time Bud went to Court, and nothing has come of it since; Bud has spoken with a higher-up in Canada's Public Prosecution Office, and she's given no hint that any new process against Bud the Oracle is forthcoming. What is ineffective about this? It's certainly not finished, but to call it ineffective---if this is ineffective, surely most other efforts are also ineffective, no? Tell me, is Bud being more or less effective than someone who pleads guilty?

But that's not over yet for sure. They haven't dismissed it. Who knows what's coming?


Noooooooo! Not this again. Go away with all that freeman crap about laws vs acts. It means nothing since you're required to follow both, you get into legal shit if you get caught breaking both, and no one has ever won immunity from all acts anyways.


You're getting this wrong, I'm the person saying 'Bud, watch out, they will burn you as a witch if you do that to them'. The dangerous label, or whatever it might be called, a watch list maybe, just means that they probably consider him unstable and unpredictable. They probably don't know how far or in what direction he will go next, which will make them want to keep an eye on him, possibly leading to them someday taking action to stop him that they might not have otherwise done.


Apples and oranges. Bud's trying to claim that he's allowed to break all the laws that are called 'acts'. You can't assume that someone who pleads guilty is competing with Bud for effectiveness. There are many reasons why people plead, and you can't assume they are all activists trying to effect change.

I think your way to rash in your negative assessment of the distinction between law and act.

Why don't you assess the distinction without the taint of the 'freeman' stuff. It's just words on paper. I remember when Canadian Psycho and I were a part of the formation of the SKMP. Many an hour was spent working over words on paper to define our groups rules. The meaning of particular words is important.

Do you want decrim, legalization, or repeal? People use these words in the cannabis debate interchangably. But, as you know, they each have a very particular meaning, especially around here.

In the vastness that is the rule set that we call the law of Canada, do you not suppose that great deliberation was taken in distinguishing the terms law, statute and act?

Perhaps this freeman stuff is crap. However, there is nothing wrong with being precise in your use of words, especially when it comes to law.

And, wether it is freeman stuff or legal loopholes, you gotta give Bud props for getting turned away at court. I would have liked to see him get his silver, though.

Oh no, if it aint the legal expert critiqin again. If it were up to you, which it has been, you'd never see change, which you haven't.

Lucky that a few good men are left, who are able to see in these murky stagnant legal waters, cause sure as shit nothing is ever going to change with the likes of you establishment supporters. You can have it your way all you want and be happy projecting your cowed attitude, I'm not going to accept it in the face of my reality which is moving right along.

Yeah, the big legal shyster's expert with no hope except expensive charter challenges and other losing bullcrap.

I have walked away from the tyranny of that monopoly without them squeezing me for a cent yet. So I can really see where someone with a lot invested in "the law" might develop a resentful attitude, if someone else points out another way. This then bypasses the supposed expertise of the former legal expert. This makes it kind of apparent that these shysters have been performing fraud for decades.

Of course we are a serious threat to people who thought that they could jerk others around for their entire lives, profitably. Support your lovely golden goose legal tyranny scam all you like, we don't. And the fact is, we do as we please. Can't be put any simpler.

The Justice Minister still has not gotten off the pot and answered the registered letter senders with a simple "No sir, these claims of right are not valid" within the require 10 days. All these people were asking was a clarification of the law as to our claims. This Man, the Federal Minister of Justice, could not come up with a simple "No! you will be breaking the law if you attempt to sell marijuana under the Marijuana Guild's Claim of Right." These people asked in good faith, not wishing to break the law, yet he could not deny our Claim of Right. Why is that Mr. Smarty pants, know it all?

"But that's not over yet for sure. They haven't dismissed it. Who knows what's coming?"

Dismissed what? It is nothing appurtenant to Chief Justice Buf the Oracle. More or less, the loop, as it were, has already been run. IT is this:

(I) Arrest as KLAUS KACZOR
(II) Night in Jail
(III) Court in morning, under duress, voiding any extractd recognizance.
(IV) Day of Recognizance's Return: "I am not Klaus Kaczor, I am Chief Justice Bud the Oracle as it says in this parliamentary record. Your inferior court should have no trouble syncing up with Parliament..."
(V) JP: "Uh...this is Mr. kaczor's matter. IF you're not Mr. Kaczor, stop disrupting our court!"

And that is that, more or less, with (II) possibly extended.

"Noooooooo! Not this again. frown Go away with all that freeman crap about laws vs acts. It means nothing since you're required to follow both, you get into legal shit if you get caught breaking both, and no one has ever won immunity from all acts anyways."

You simply don't seem to get it. It's not about "winning" immunity as though it were a prize to be handed down by some superior. If you're going to use incredibly precise terms like "legal shit", I'm just not certain why you feel so strongly on this matter...further, statements of the form "no one has ever" are v. difficult to prove.


"Apples and oranges. Bud's trying to claim that he's allowed to break all the laws that are called 'acts'."

No, he is not trying to claim that at all. He is not trying to claim that he is "allowed to break all laws" or any laws. The acts of a society have the force of law over the members of that Society. Bud is not a member of Canada, and, therefore its acts have no force of law over him. Now, one cannot say 'I am not a part of any society' but it is an accepted intercultural norm that every man carry some body of positive law with him. And Bud does: the same as Elizabeth II. Elizabeth I was once indicted similarly to Bud, and, similarly to Bud, though she was indicted in her proper person, she refused to plea: monarchs and heads of state do not plea before men.

"You can't assume that someone who pleads guilty is competing with Bud for effectiveness. There are many reasons why people plead, and you can't assume they are all activists trying to effect change."

Well, a plea is a great shot in the arm to the status quo, so, if they're not trying to effect change, what're they trying to do, cement the status quo? There are many justifications as to why people plead, but, to my mind, there is one statement sufficient to render all guilty pleas to cannabis charges incorrect, except for pragmatic reasons: the charge is unjust, and it is improper to countenance an unjust charge with a guilty plea. A guilty plea is not merely a bare admittance of the facts contained in the indictment; a guilty plea implies acceptance of the justness of the law under which one is charged, for who but an unreasonable person would knowingly plead guilty to an undue charge?

Buf? Bud IS Klaus K in every legal way as far as responsibility for his actions goes. If he did something under the name Klaus, he is still responsible after changing his name to Bud.


Stage II arrest will be even more extended the next time he get brought in for anything. Perjury. He should have admitted that KK used to be his name. Instead he pretended KK had nothing to do with him.


It should be very easy to prove. Bud is using the freeman cult's method of affidavitted immunity claims and made up fee demands. The 'win' of this method is an esstopple that has been court validated. As shown in that very long thread on the freemen, not even the cult leaders have got that yet.


Bud IS a member of Canada. His pretend society does not have their own country. He lives in Canada, is a citizen of Canada, and obviously subject to Canada's rules, including the ones called 'acts'. Blather on about monarchy all you want, but what's that going to get you? Bud is no monarch or head of state, except maybe of Delusionaland.


Plea whatever you want. The court doesn't figure or even care that you find the law unjust, they just want to know if you did the thing you are charged with.

As for status quo, people who plead guilty are not supporting the bad law. They are simply people who have to find the best way of dealing with a situation of being arrested. In some cases the best outcome for the person is to plead guilty, and sometimes not.

"Buf? Bud IS Klaus K in every legal way as far as responsibility for his actions goes. If he did something under the name Klaus, he is still responsible after changing his name to Bud."

Uh...no, they're not the same person at all. Chief Justice Bud the Oracle is a person in his own right, and this is well evidenced by the Record of the Justice Committee meeting. Klaus Kaczor did not "change his name" to Bud. The name plate from the House of Commons says Chief Justice Bud the Oracle---nothing about Klaus Kaczor.

"Stage II arrest will be even more extended the next time he get brought in for anything. Perjury. He should have admitted that KK used to be his name. Instead he pretended KK had nothing to do with him."

Uh, sorry, arrests cannot be extra-judicially lengthened. Perhaps things will get crazy during the olympics due to suspension of much judicial process, but who knows. As for your talk of perjury, that is simply silly. Ed Fast called him Bud the Oracle in parliament; Klaus Kaczor did not used to be Bud the Oracle's name; they're two different persons. The situation is different from one person changing that person's name to something else; this is the adoption of an entirely different persona. It would make more sense if you thought of persons as masks instead of something integral to a body, etc.

"It should be very easy to prove. Bud is using the freeman cult's method of affidavitted immunity claims and made up fee demands. The 'win' of this method is an esstopple that has been court validated. As shown in that very long thread on the freemen, not even the cult leaders have got that yet."

No, Bud the Oracle was created Chief Justice at the First Parliament of The Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society, which was held openly in the court at The University of British Columbia's George F. Curtis Law Building. The Parliament was held openly, and advance notice was given. He also read all of Deuteronomy. This would be kooky even by freeman standards; many of them are mature, responsible adults, you see...

so, once the Society was created, I decided it would be good for us to go before some Parliamentary Committee, etc. to get the Chief Justice on Record as such---and it happened, so that's great. So, Canada can never pull a "you're just this guy, we have no idea what Bud the Oracle is; you're crazy!" If Bud is crazy, Parliament is crazy, too, because he's just saying what appears in Parliamentary Record.

"Bud IS a member of Canada. His pretend society does not have their own country."

We have our own country; their names are in a big red file folder. We're not big, but we're small, etc. etc. Chief Justice Bud the Oracle is from The Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society, not Canada.

"He lives in Canada, is a citizen of Canada, and obviously subject to Canada's rules, including the ones called 'acts'."

Well, no, he lives on Mount Pleasant. He is not subject to acts of Canada, though, of course, he is subject to acts of God, such as contained in the new and old testament. You're free to live in Canada, tho, I have no idea what that is---some sort of federation, like on Star Trek?

"Blather on about monarchy all you want, but what's that going to get you? Bud is no monarch or head of state, except maybe of Delusionaland."

That is simply untrue; he is Chief Justice of The Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society. This position stands in relation to the Society's proper Monarch as Chief Justiciar Ranulph de Glanvil stood to his King, who was off fightin' crusades. So, he is not quite a monarch de jure, but he is an acting monarch, while the King is away. He wore his own Crown in the House of Commons, when it was sitting at Vancouver as the Justice Committee. You were not there, so perhaps you cannot appreciate the signifigance of this fact...

"Plea whatever you want. The court doesn't figure or even care that you find the law unjust, they just want to know if you did the thing you are charged with."

So far the tack for Bud has been to avoid pleas, as pleas are what create justiciable controversies, that is, A pleads X and B pleads Y, and the judge must decide whose plea is better. Guilty/Not Guilty is not just wanting to know whether or not you "did the thing you are charged with." Even straight that isn't true; one may have comitted the act with which one is charged but plead not guilty of necessity, etc. etc. Not that I am saying Bud is doing that, before you get all head up about how he's not going to meet that burden---I'm just saying that a plea is about more than whether or not one did what one was charged with.

"As for status quo, people who plead guilty are not supporting the bad law."

Of course they are. They're giving another notch in the Occupying Canadian Forces' Drugwar Belt. Perhaps I too much believe that things are either increasing or retrograding, but, if that is the case, pleading guilty is hardly an increase in support, so it must be retrograde.

"They are simply people who have to find the best way of dealing with a situation of being arrested. In some cases the best outcome for the person is to plead guilty, and sometimes not."

Best outcome considered in terms of what? How can it be "best" to plead guilty to a charge under an unjust law? Maybe it is "better" than pleading not guilty for selfish reasons, but "best"?

Well Mal and Bud, good luck with convincing the courts of all that garbage.

The courts seem reluctantly convinced of who I am, so is the VPD it appears, and the Bylaw enforcement.

I have had encounters with each lately and all's well that ends well. The VPD one, I was partaking of the pipe when a Peace officer, Paul, came by and had a discussion about the pipe I was smoking in a public park. The encounter left me feeling kind towards this cop and I wished him well in his career as a true Peace officer. He is 5 years younger than me and also concerned for our youth.

The second encounter was yesterday afternoon at God's window, Trout Lake, with a Bylaw officer. My Wolf was peacefully unleashed and he came over to warn, or ticket me. Once I informed him of my status he left peacefully and harassed others, who later in the circuit around the lake warned me of an "Bylaw Dick" and one woman claimed he was abusive towards her. They took my cards and enjoyed hearing about my encounter.

These people were very inquisitive about this Chief Justice/Society thing. These are small incremental victories and I am not at all rushed to be "accepted" by the "masses," if ever. I don't know if I am ready for that level of harassment yet, but I am gaining experience from you guys,

And truly, thanks for your good wishes.

I really enjoy how our contrariwise Registrar accounts himself in this to and fro, ebb and tide of doubt.

I sure am glad he's on our side!

He has good advice for people who are honestly seeking a solution. The long and short of it for me is it is a matter of perception. The courts rule you because you perceive that you have no power to escape this reality. This door is there and it is wide open, yet you are blind to it. I have worked with cows/cattle and this is the way with herd animals.

I see it all around me now because I have had a paradigm shift in my understanding. And yes I do see how it might seem that I am delusional, but the fact is that I am not. I am willing, though, to bet my very liberty, not ever plead guilty to something which is an abomination to me, to support my cause. You say that I am doomed, I say "Watch me!"

As I have heard some politicians say about Canada, "I am punching above my weight class." I have a good trainer in my corner! I am not currently sitting behind bars, nor do I see myself ever sitting for any more length than that of a night in jail while we repeat this end loop once again.

Actually if they learn nothing else, they will learn that I am a quick study and if they were impressed by my last court performance, they aint seen nothing yet!

It's not so much a price to pay, compared to what others paid for their chance to submit by pleading to an insane law. Yeah, I can see how this might upset some legal experts here. I like it and firmly believe that everything that doesn't kill me will make me stronger. I am very strong right now and expecting to bulk up even more.

I am not at all concerned with your doubt because daily I enjoy my liberty openly selling whatever I please to a growing, very supportive, clientele.

Ok Since I became a Free Man, I have been jailed over night 2 times. How long a sentence did those get "fighting" by pleading?

No, I will take my way every time. Even if we get to play this end loop a couple of more times. No big deal. Sooner or later they will leave off, because for them the outcome will always be the same and every time they tangle with me is guarantied to make me stronger and their position weaker. They have no hold on me. I am Chief Justice Bud the Oracle and I am under the laws of the UDS, not Canada. And you can deny this till the cows come home, but it makes no difference. I am a lawful seller of substances, and soon will be expanding my base of operations to a store front near you.

Thanks for all of your inspiration, it has spurred things on considerably!