Its been a while since we checked on Curle so I thought I'd see what exciting developments had occurred lately in his life. Firstly though, an extraordinary document produced by Curle to free himself from the bondage to Satan in the form of the laws of Canada. In my April 14th posting in this discussion I linked to a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in rejecting Curle's application seeking an order in the nature of certiorari, setting aside the decision of Justice of the Peace Bernard Caron made on January 16, 2015. Justice Caron had fined Curle $1,500 for obstructing a Conservation Officer.
An application for an order certiorari is defined as;
A formal request to a court challenging a legal decision of an administrative tribunal, judicial office or organization (eg. government) alleging that the decision has been irregular or incomplete or if there has been an error of law.
This was the court's response to Curle's application;
 Mr. Curle argues that s. 141 of the POA does not apply to him and a statutory right of appeal of his convictions are only available to a “man or a woman consenting to act in the capacity of, or otherwise enter into an association with, a class of person or entity created by statute and subject to the statutes allegedly engaged in this matter”. Mr. Curle argues as “he is a man not wishing to act in such a capacity and risk being deemed by state actors to have implicitly waived my dominion and duties under God and those fundamental rights and freedoms state actors are to recognize as being available to a man acting in no statutory capacity or association, no right of appeal is available to me”
 Mr. Curle is mistaken about how the law applies to him. His arguments mirror those used by persons identified by other courts in this province and elsewhere as “Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants. I do not believe it necessary to make a finding that Mr. Curle is an OPCA litigant as urged by the Crown in order to dismiss out of hand the persuasive value of Mr. Curle’s position.
 Recently the issue of OPCA litigants, was reviewed in the decision of my sister Justice Rady in O’Brien v. Murchland  O.J. No. 3293. Justice Rady was faced with a litigant relying on arguments like those advanced by Mr. Curle before me today. Justice Rady eloquently and accurately describes at paragraph 14 of the decision the kinds of arguments made by litigants such as this as “attempting to create a dual persona or aspect by identifying a distinction between himself as a human being as opposed to a legal person”. In my view, Mr. Curle is attempting to persuade me that he is just such a person such that he can self-determine what laws of the land apply to him and which do not. This argument lacks merit, is spurious and has been rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII), 93 O.R. (3d) 81; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused,  S.C.C.A. No. 522, 260 O.A.C. 398.
 Mr. Curle did have a statutory right of appeal of the decisions that relate to him under the POA. Whether or not this right of appeal is still now available to him because of time issues as the result of his decision to commence this meritless application is another matter, and one I am not deciding today. I accept the argument of the Crown that s. 141(3) of the POA applies to this application and this application is dismissed.
So what was in Curle's application that resulted in such a disdainful response from the court? You can read it yourself here;http://www.mediafire.com/view/im33dx1vl ... ctions.pdf
Esentially a 37 page spew of sovereign gibberish that Curle puked out. It has section headings like this;4. MY BELlEFS RESPECTING HER MAJESTY AND THE INSTITUTES SHE
5. MY BELlEFS RESPECTING MY DUTlES, DOMlNIONS AND CURSES AND
PLAGUES UNDER GOD AND STATE ACTOR INTERFERENCE WITH THESE
DUTlES AND DOMINIONS
The certiorari is largely a religion-base demand that he get whatever he wants because God wants him to have it;
1. My Christian names are "Allan" and "James" and the surname is "Curle".
2. I am a Christian.
3. In accordance with my religious convictions, beliefs and c011Science, my faith is in God and the Christian Holy Bible (hereinafter referred to as "God") and his statutes, ordinances, commandments and word as contained in his lively oracles, namely the Christian Holy Bible (hereinafter referred to as "the Bible").
4. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe God created the heaven and the earth in accordance with Genesis 1.1 of the Bible. Genesis 1.1 provides as follows:
Gen 1: 1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
5. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe that God created 1, a man, and that he gave me life and made me a living soul in accordance with Genesis 1.26, 1.27 and 2.7 of the Bible. Genesis provides as follows in this regard:
Gen 1 :26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen l:2 7 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
6. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe I am a man created by God in God's image and likeness in accordance with Genesis 1.26 and 1.27. I believe I am this and only this. For greater certainty, I do not act in the capacity of, nor enter into association with, an entity or class of person created by statutes of Her Majesty with respect to this matter.
7. In all aspects regarding this matter I do not, and did not, act in the capacity of, nor enter into association with, an entity or class of person created by statutes of Her Majesty and subject to the statutes state actors allege are engaged in this matter.
8. In all aspects regarding this matter I do not, and did not, engage in any statutorily created privilege, benefit or otherwise.
9. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe that as a creation of God I am God's property only and that both my body and soul are God's in accordance with 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6: 19 and 6:20 of the Bible.
He's been listening to Parakett Belanger and his CERI bullshit;
28. I believe and understand that the executive power over the man made fictional (dead) entity . .
referred to as Canada (and related institutions) is v'ested in Her Majesty in accordance with the Constitution Act, 1867
31. I believe, and the evidence supports, that Her Majesty claims her power and authority to rule over and govern people comes from God (of the Christian Holy Bible). The Proclamation of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada issued on February 6,1952 evidences that Her Majesty purports to derive her power and authority from God. For example, in that Proclamation the Queen's Privy Council states that, "Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now ... become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lady the Second by the Grace of God" (the underlining is mine). In reference to Her Majesty that Proclamation further provides, "to whom we acknowledge all faith and constant obedience with all hearty and humble affection, beseeching God by whom all Kings and Queens do reign to bless the Royal Princess Elizabeth with long and happy years to reign over us"(the underlining is mine). I ask that notice be taken of this Proclamation.
32. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a document takenfrom a website identified as being the "official website of The British Monarchy". It is described as being the Coronation Oath taken by The Queen on 2 June 1953. I verily believe this to be an actual reproduction of the words comprising the Oath taken by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.
33. With respect to this Oath, attention is drawn to the fact that Her Majesty promises, to the utmost of her power, to "maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel". I ask that notice be taken of this Oath and in particular, Her Majesty's promise to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel to the utmost of her power.
A lot more about the Queen and the application of her oath then on to the specific offense that he was charged with;
39. That relevant facts of the matter are that on October 7,2013, I, a man, was travelling, using private property (a machine) to do so, on a bush trail in the exercise of duties and freedoms under God and inherently derived fundamental rights and freedom state actors are to recognize under instruments such as the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (and the Constitution of Canada) as being available to a man who choses not to act in the capacity of, or otherwise enter into association with, a class of person or entity created by statute(s) of Her Majesty.
40. I was proceeding peacefully and assisting a 71 year old individual whose quad runner had broken down deep in the bush when a man (Kenny Tuuri), on an all terrain vehicle, claiming to be acting in the capacity of a conservation officer indicated to me he wanted me to stop. I ceased operation of the private property (machine) I was travelling upon and pulled over to the side of the trail.
42. Kenny Tuuri began making demands upon me. I provided Kenny Tuuri with a 2 page notice entitled "Provision of Notice". The Notice stated that I am a man made in God's image and only that, that I was exercising only those duties and freedoms (dominions) granted by God and rights and freedoms state actors are to recognize as being available to a man acting in no statutory capacity or otherwise, that I had never knowingly surrender any of the said duties, freedoms and rights, and that I was not acting in any statutory capacity or otherwise engaging in any statutorily defmed privilege or otherwise. My signature was affixed to the Notice attesting to the truthfulness of the information contained therein with the signatures of two witnesses to my attestation also being affixed thereto. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true copy of the document entitled "Provisions ofN otice" which I provided to Kenny Tuuri.
43. Kenny Tuuri refused to read the Notice I provided him.
46. When I arrived near the Highway I was met by Kenny Tuuri and a man (Jonathan Chabot) claiming to be acting in the capacity of a police officer. .
47. I asked Jonathan Chabot to read the two page notice entitled "Provision of Notice" (Exhibit "C"). He too refused to read it but he kept it as I asked.
48. I provided no other identification or documentation to either of the two state actors.
52. Jonathan Chabot and I knew one another. Jonathan Chabot and Ken Tuuri eventually presented me with documentation respecting the two aforementioned charges including summonses.
He had an ironclad defense;
57. I also sent the prosecutors (Celia Jutras and Axel Nowak), and Bernard Caron, the Justice of the Peace seized of the matter, letters providing information about my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience and how the conduct of state actors, in particular their deeming and forcing me to be in association with, or to be acting in the capacity of, an entity/person created by statute and subject to the statute allegedly engaged in this matter, was violating my freedoms of religion, beliefs and conscience. Attached hereto as Exhibits "E" and "P" are true copies of the letters I sent. One letter is dated August 14,2014 and the other is dated September 26, 2015.
But to no avail;
61. I raised a jurisdictional challenge with respect to the lack of evidence. The Justice of the Peace, while not specifically ruling on the challenge, implicitly found that he had jurisdiction when he abruptly halted my submissions and proceeded innnediately to a finding of guilt on both charges and ordered significant fmes on both counts (payable within 6 months). His decision was rendered on January 16, 2015 at the city of Thunder Bay.
Resulting in incalculable harm!
70. Further harm to my good name, honour and reputation has occurred as the result of state actors causing a press release to be issued in relation to the matter. I was told by a friend, Ben Lecocq, and I verily believe it to be true, that details of the conviction and alleged offence in this matter were broadcast on public radio. I am also aware that similar information was publicly disseminated by numerous sources on the internet including, at one point, the website of the Ontario Government. Attached hereto as Exhibit "G" is a true copy of 3 pages from three separate internet sources containing such information. I noted many more internet sources publicizing the information.
70. I have been subject to direct monetary loses as a result of the conduct of state actors in this
71. I have been subject to significant stress and mental pain as a result of the conduct of state
actors in this matter.
To put the comment "Further harm to my good name, honour and reputation has occurred" in perspective I'll note that he is a worthless deadbeat dad fighting hard in court to avoid paying any support whatever for the various children he has fathered. As will be related in a later post he even denied in a court filing that he was really married to one of his ex-wives, an outright lie. It's hard to attach a good name and honour of any kind to that kind of behaviour.
At this point we are not even half-way through this bloated monstrosity. Anyhow, back to the Queen and her failures;
74 .. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe that Her Majesty promulgates laws which are repugnant to God's Laws contained within the Bible. For example, Her Majesty promulgates laws which endorse same sex marriages and relationships, bondage (servitude and slavery) and usury. In this particular matter, servants of Her Majesty (state actors) are relying upon laws of Her Majesty as authority to interfere with my exercise and manifestation of duties and dominions (freedoms) conferred upon me by God as provided for in the Bible. Nowhere does God's Law, as contained within the Bible, provide that the harmless acts and omission I was engaging in in the exercise and manifestation of my duties and dominions (freedoms) under God at the time of the alleged incident are to be subject to any conditions, permission or interference of men and women serving an other god/graven image (the State). Some of the specific duties and dominions conferred upon me by God in accordance with the Bible which state actors have interfered with and negated my manifestations thereof are discussed in more detail later.
Given Curle's total contempt and disdain for the sanctity and responsibilities of regular bi-sexual marriage (we'll get to it in a later posting) it is particularly hypocritical of him to use his repugnance of the same sex marriage issue as a reason to exempt himself from man's laws
The next three paragraphs are pure, undiluted Belanger/CERI arguments;
75. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe neither the Highway Traffic Act or the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, nor any of the provisions contained therein, are found anywhere within God's Laws as provided for within the Bible.
76. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe that these statutes and the provisions contained therein, and other statutory laws of Her Majesty and the institutions she symbolizes, constitute laws which add to God's Laws since they are laws not contained within the Bible.
77. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe, in accordance with Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, Galatians 1:8 and 1:9 and Proverbs 30:6, that God's Laws are not to be added to or diminished from and anyone purporting laws other than God's Laws shall be accursed by God. These provisions of the Bible are as follows:
Deu 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 4:2 is Belanger's favorite verse. It seems to come up in every single video he does.
Then page after page of " Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience" bullshit along with an outpouring of quotes of bible verses. I'll skip all that.
He comes down from the pulpit on page 32 after about a dozen pages of bible verse quotes. Vital, on point material such as this;
Deu 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
Deu 28:56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,
Deu 28:57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
However, not being as well versed in the meanings of the bible as Curle, the point of these quotes eludes me. Except for their vital role of filler.
This next paragraph is an outright fib;
101. I have had, and do have, great reluctance to raise my religious convictions and beliefs at court as a matter of privacy and for fear of reprisal by state actors including the judiciary. My doing so in the past has resulted in state actors, including legal counsel/prosecutors and even the judiciary, subjecting me to ridicule and belittling treatment, labelling me with derogatory terms such as "vexatious", "freeman" or "OPCA Litigant" and citing my convictions and beliefs in God as grounds to justify harsher penal sentences under the statutes they force me to be subject to against my will including the Highway Traffic Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act. In this matter for example, the state actor (Celia Jutras) was seeking that, in addition to forcing me to be bear liability for the payment of money pertaining to the statutorily created entity subject to these Acts, I also be made to bear liability for a 60 day sentence of bondage (prison) she sought to have levied against the statutorily created entity which state actors were forcing me to act in the capacity of, or otherwise enter into association with.
Reluctance? After spewing out a dozen pages of this garbage?
Then two pages detailing the injuries he's suffered and for which he demands redress. A short sample;
a) interfering with my right of self-determination;
b) interfering with my ability to freely dispose of my natural wealth and resources.
c) exercising attributes of ownership over me, and as a result, effectively holding me in
slavery and servitude;
d) interfering with my liberty;
e) subjecting me to arbitrary detention;
But he's very careful to point out that while he is exempt from all of man's laws the government still owes him all the rights and privileges he would have if he was not exempt;
108. Under no circumstances shall this Affidavit andlor related Application, or any act or omission by me in relation to this matter, be construed or applied as being my implied or express waiver of or any fundamental rights and freedoms state actors for Canada and its provinces are to recognize as being inherent and available to I, a man who wishes not to act in a any statutory capacity or enter into any other form of association with a creature of statute, and which are enunciated in international conventions including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights instruments (including the constitntion of Canada) that state actors are obligated to recognize and respect. Any such interpretation would be a mistake and contrary to my intent and will for greater certainty, I unequivocally do not waive any of these fundamental rights and freedoms nor have I ever knowingly done so. If the method I have chosen to seek remedy respecting this matter in any way results in the abrogation of said rights and freedom then it is not my intent and the method I have chosen is a mistake and is to be without prejudice to said rights and freedoms.
Talk about weasel-words!
I have a bunch of subsequent filings and decisions I'll be reviewing but I've waded through the muck enough for one night so I'll put them in further postings. None will be as long-winded as this.