JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Moderator: Burnaby49

Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:09 pm

JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by Fmotlgroupie »

Jackie Grant Harper ("JackieG") is a second-order Freeman guru or at least flamboyant practitioner. I'm sure others here know more about him than I but I thought I should give a quick background on him:

JackieG was a long-time contributor to the World Freeman Society boards. I don't really remember anything about him there, but that probably says more about me than about him.

JackieG however had the distinction of launching a lawsuit against a variety of Saskatoon politicians (and maybe police officers?? I googled three defendants before I got bored, all were politicians). Even better, it got to CANLII! http://canlii.ca/t/2fz6r . In the judgement the lawsuit is tossed because the lawsuit was premised on the Magna Carta being of some effect in Canada. For good measure the judge adds
I have not attempted to incorporate the multiple arguments and objections taken by the applicants in both their written and oral arguments. Suffice it to say that most if not all of their submissions have considerable merit and would have led to a like conclusion.[striking out the statement of claim]
Anyway, Jackie has had a new adventure that he narrates in a new posting:

http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/74- ... -cst-tonge

Here is a rough draft of where it is going to go...

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
CANADA
PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN
IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF MELFORT, SASKATCHEWAN
BETWEEN:
JACKIE GRANT HARPER PLAINTIFF
-and-
L. BENNET DEFENDANT
RICHARD TONGE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
SGI
The Prosecutor who takes up this case in Provincial court.



As a result of charges coming before the Melfort Provincial Court the Plaintiff asserts and alleges the following;

Background information,

1) The Plaintiff claims the fundamental right to be free of any actions taken by anyone who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he has a lawful right to abstain from doing,

a) Namely, intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person by threatsthat, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him, or that the property of any of his will be damaged;

b) Or, hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him of them or hinders him in the use of them;

c) besets or watches the place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

d) blocks or obstructs a highway.

Allegations,

Plaintiff alleges being arbitrarily arrested on a traffic stop at Melfort on March 15, 2015 by RCMP Cst. L. Bennet #S7847.

Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer approached the window, asked the Plaintiff for drivers license and registration.
(i) Plaintiff alleges he responded with; "I don't have any".
(ii) Plaintiff alleges the officer wished to clarify; "you don't have them with you or you do not have any?"
(iii) Plaintiff alleges he stated; "I do not have any".
c) Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer then asked the Plaintiff; "give me your name".
d) Plaintiff alleges he responded by asked the arresting officer; "what do you want with my name?"
(i) Plaintiff alleges he then informed the defendant in stating; " look, all I'm doing here is simply exercising my public right of access to the road"
e) Plaintiff alleges he was immediately arrested after the Plaintiff informed the the officer he; "was exercising his public right of access to the road"
f) Plaintiff alleges he was arrested within 9 seconds into the stop, searched, cuffed and placed in the arresting officers car .
g) Plaintiff alleges a second officer arrived who began searching the Plaintiffs car.
h) Plaintiff requested that he wanted his computer from the car to which the arresting officer complied, then gave the second officer the Plaintiff's request.
i) Plaintiff alleges he never gave permission to either officer to search his car.
j) Plaintiff alleges he was read his rights to which he conditionally understood his right to remain silent.
k) Plaintiff alleges he informed the arresting officer that the Plaintiff understood his rights as long as the arresting officer knew the same applied to him, to which he affirmed.
l) Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer booked the Plaintiff into the unit.
m) Plaintiff alleges the second officer arrived shortly, informing the arresting officer he found marijuana in the Plaintiff's car.
n) Plaintiff alleges he asked the second officer while in the presence of the arresting officer if he found the marijuana in plain sight.
o) Plaintiff alleges the second officer responded, "no, it was not in plain sight".
p) Plaintiff alleges he was informed of warrants for failing to appear on 2 driving offenses arising from Saskatoon.
q) Plaintiff alleges he questioned the officer in ascertaining whether the officer was competent by requesting the officer state the legal definition of "highway, "license", "registration".
r) Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer had no idea what the legal definition of "highway, "license", "registration" is.
s) Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer at the material time had no idea, legally speaking, "where he was", "what he was asking for", "who he was requesting it from".
t) Plaintiff alleges he requested the arresting officer give him the name and contact number of his lawyer.
u) Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer refused to supply the requested name and referred the Plaintiff to his supervisor.RCMP Cst. R. Tonge.
v) Plaintiff alleges he attended a meeting with RCMP Supervisor Cst. R. Tonge on March 20, 2015 in order to resolve the matters at hand.
w) Plaintiff alleges the sole purpose of the meeting was to severely restrict the Plaintiff's right to seek relief in a real court.
x) Plaintiff alleges the attending officer incessantly requested the Plaintiff give him the authorization to begin the paper work on a complaint to the RCMP Citizens Public Complaints Commission.
y) Plaintiff alleges the attending officer knows full well the meaning of "res judicata" and its import in any complaint to the aforementioned commission.
z) Plaintiff alleges the RCMP recorded the meeting on March 20, 2015 between the Plaintiff and defendant #2 now known as "AGENT SCARLET FOX".

At all material times,
2) Plaintiff alleges neither defendant's #1 nor #2 have any knowledge of , what the legal/common law definition of a "highway" is.

3) Plaintiff alleges neither defendant's #1 nor #2 have any knowledge of, what the legal definition of a "license" is.

4) Plaintiff alleges neither defendant's #1 nor #2 have any knowledge of , what the legal definition of a "privilege" is.

5) Plaintiff alleges neither defendant #1 nor #2 has any knowledge of, what the legal definition of "registration" constitutes or means.

6) Plaintiff alleges all defendants violated numerous Charter rights the Plaintiff has in contravening the Criminal Code of Canada in exercising their claimed authority in enforcing the Traffic Safety Act.

7) Plaintiff alleges defendant #2 admitted to the Plaintiff on March 20, 2015, that the Plaintiff possessed the right of access to the roads by foot only, not with his car.

Plaintiff alleges defendant #2 did not disclose the origin of his aforementioned caveat restricting the Plaintiff's right of access.

9) Plaintiff alleges this aforementioned position taken by defendant #2 in claiming restrictive authority over the highway is a Charter violation (12), amounts to being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in claiming the Plaintiff must now walk 44 km. in order to get grocery's.

10) Plaintiff alleges he was arrested, detained, was not taken before a court of competent jurisdiction in order that the arrested person may be dealt with according to law. (see sec. 276 (1) (2) T-18)

a) Plaintiff alleges he is still under arrest having not been released by a justice.

b) Plaintiff alleges both defendants (#1,#2) knew at the material time that the arrest was unlawful, that the subsequent search and seizure was unlawful, that it negated the process by not complying with the Traffic Safety Act section 276 subsection (2) as required by law.

11) Plaintiff alleges the defendants are currently obstructing the "highway" using C-46 section 423 subsection (d) in compelling the Plaintiff to abstain from doing something he has a lawful right to do.

Plaintiff alleges he afforded numerous opportunity's for all the defendants to right themselves in this matter to which they refused all offers.

13) Plaintiff alleges that, "Canada is a free and democratic country founded on the principals that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law".

Plaintiff alleges that, "Canada is inhabited by free people who exercise their right to be free from any form of tyranny under arbitrary, despotic governments".

15) Plaintiff alleges the RCMP do not have the Plaintiff's permission to interpret his rights.

Plaintiff claims he is not a subject of the RCMP.

Plaintiff alleges a contract exists with SGI wherein SGI has agreed to not maintain any information on the Plaintiff .

Plaintiff alleges SGI is in breach of contract thereby subjecting themselves to a tort claim.

Plaintiff alleges the province is confused in its claim that the Government of Canada issues driver licenses where a peace officer can then request a driver to produce it upon demand.(see sec. 32 (2), (a), (iii) T-18)
Plaintiff further alleges the province places the onus upon the accused to somehow produce something that only exists within the confines of their own minds, nowhere else.
(see sec. 32 (4), T-18)

Plaintiff alleges a federal informant stated that; "the Government of Canada is not in the business of licensing the publics right of access to the roads"
(a) Plaintiff alleges the Government of Canada does not even issue IDP's (International Driving Permits) where Service Canada refers applicants to a private corporation (CAA).

21) Plaintiff alleges the province is in the business of converting pubic rights to private laws also known as; "privileges".

22) Plaintiff alleges pursuant to C-46, PART XXVII SUMMARY CONVICTIONS, being the rules for Traffic Safety court where, the civil interpretation of "highway" is used by prosecutions in provincial court where the common law meaning is to be adopted in Saskatchewan as per interpretation in C-46
(see I-21 sec. 8.2)
Duality of legal
traditions and
application of
provincial law

(a) Plaintiff alleges the RCMP are erroneously using the civil interpretation of "Highway" as depicted in sec. 2 (1), (k) T-18 contrary to adopting the common law meaning as depicted in the federal Rules of Construction in regards to property and civil rights. (see I-21 sec. 8.1, 8.2)

(b) Plaintiff alleges the informant can not raise a court of competent jurisdiction due to the now established fact: the crown can not produce a competent witness, the informant committed criminal code violations in discharging his duties, the informant/perpetuator failed to sign the 'CEASE AND DESIST ORDER', the prosecution is covering it up.

23) Plaintiff alleges; "No provision in a private Act affects the
rights of any person, except as therein mentioned
or referred to". (see I-21 sec.9)
Provisions in
private Acts

24) Plaintiff alleges the RCMP treat the public much like Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and operate as if Saskatchewan is; "occupied territory".


Now, you five (5) reprobates, you now have the opportunity to admit or deny the allegations, return it signed, along with your BADGE//BAR CARD/EMPLOYEE number within ten (10) days of service where it will be entered into the record as evidence by the courts that each admitted fact is admitted for all purposes.
Failing to respond, the defendants will thereby admit they have no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeit all credibility and right to claim authority.
Plaintiff will simply move the court to enter judgement in favour of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff in waiting,

Jackie G. Harper
The TL;DR version is this:
-Jackie got pulled over by a police officer
-instead of providing his license and registration (registration and insurance are the same thing in Saskatchewan) he spouted some Freeman nonsense, and was quickly arrested.
-that wasn't really a big deal because he had outstanding warrants anyway (failing to appear)
-after his arrest the police searched his vehicle (probably a search incident to arrest, looking for proof of identity, vehicle ownership, etc) and located some marihuana ( note to self: when driving around with Freeman plates and outstanding warrants, leave your stash at home!)
-the police OUTRAGEOUSLY released him on a promise to appear rather than keeping him in cells until a bail hearing could be arranged
-when Jackie went down to the police station to complain the supervisor OUTRAGEOUSLY tried to start a formal complaint!

The injustices are many and grievous. I can't imagine how the Justice System will survive once the lawsuit starts!

(I really can't be bothered to listen to the audio of Jackie's meeting with the police supervisor, so if anyone does let us know if it's any good)
slowsmile
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 7:59 pm
Location: Perigord Noir, France

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by slowsmile »

I assume this is the same Jackie Harper whose NOUICOR gave him virtual diplomatic immunity according to Menard?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... ostcount=7
bmxninja357
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:46 am

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by bmxninja357 »

Yes it is. He is also a ardent promoter of the five letters, holocaust denier, liar and general buffoon. Of his work I'm extremely familiar.

If you check his records you will find he couldn't even recover his bicycle. One of my favorite of his many failures.

If I wasn't posting from my phone at work I would post links.

Peace
ninj
whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had gonorrhea....
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: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by Burnaby49 »

JackieG has finished his Statement of Claim and posted it on WFS;

http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/43- ... 5140-filed

That's going to rock the world of illegal law enforecement! How can he lose? After all he is the only man in Canada publicy acknowledged by a senior federal government official to exist outside all statutory Canadian laws!
2) Jackie Grant Harper is a farmer, accomplished tradesman, marketing expert, video producer, who performs valuable services for the surrounding community and is, according to former Honorable M.P. & Minister of Revenue Carol Skelton, the only man in Canada who; "exists completely free of all statutory restraints, obligations and restrictions";
One nitpicking criticism, he's very verbose in his pleadings.
"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
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by notorial dissent »

And a true legend in his own, and only his own, mind.

You're doing that Canadian under under statement thing again, aren't you?
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.
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: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by Burnaby49 »

Well JackieG's case is moving along. First this setback;
FILED 1 month 2 weeks ago #138414

I was arrested on Tuesday for filing this and serving an affidavit on the RCMP Court Liaison Officer.

Arrested right outside the court room.

Their excuse was warrants from 3 year old tickets from Saskatoon but the timing shows otherwise.

The court liaison officer did not have to answer for the affidavit as the provincial prosecutor was speaking on the arrest matter which the traffic court prosecutor has no jurisdiction.
Everyone is getting served tomorrow.

Then the war is on
Then silence for a month. Had he lost heart? Was he quitting? No! JackieG has come up with this blockbuster!
FILED 3 days 9 hours ago #139006

2) Jacks Reply to Defense
This attachment is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it.
1) Attorney General's Statement of Defense
This attachment is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it.
But these documents are only available to registered members of The World Freeman Society, a status I will never attain. How will I get them? What to do, what to do?

:thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

What about the court where they were filed? Burnaby49 has some expertise in getting court documents;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/hyhy9jt2o ... efense.pdf

http://www.mediafire.com/view/z7r7h2ytw ... eneral.pdf

The Attorney General is fighting dirty, using JackieG's old case, Harper v Atchison 2011 SKQB 38, against him, saying that the current issue is res judicata because JackieG is just trying to re-litigate a prior loss.

But JackieG comes back swinging hitting them hard with a flurry of gibberish!

Court File QBG 32/2015

IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF MELFORT, SASKATCHEWAN
BETWEEN:

JACKIE GRANT HARPER PLAINTIFF

-and-

LORNE BENNET DEFENDANT
RICHARD TONGE
MEL LEVEQUE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN
CITY OF SASKATOON
SGI AUTO FUND

Form 3-17
(Rule 3-17)

Plaintiff's Response to Attorney General's Statement of Defense

1) Plaintiff claims the Defendants blanket denial of every allegation of fact and law in the statement of claim (as referred to in para. (2) does not constitute a defense as required in Rule 3-15.

2) In response to para. (3) Plaintiff claims it is not his duty to question or investigate the allegations made against the Defendant, its agents, employees whereby the Defendants counsel is commanded to conduct his own due diligence in questioning his client before claiming the allegations lack sufficient clarity and specificity.

3) In response to para. (4) Plaintiff asserts Defendant's statement is redundant, prolix and frivolous as the Defendant has previously denied all allegations of fact and law.

4) In response to para. (5) Plaintiff has not taken issue with the Province's authority to regulate traffic on public roads within the scope of its legally authorized powers nor does the Plaintiff allege he has the constitutional right to drive an automobile. (see para. 61, 65, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77,78, 79)

Plaintiff does take issue with being compelled under threat by the Attorney General's agents to do something he has a lawful right to abstain from doing namely being

threatened to license his common law right of access to the road in order to exercise suchright; (see para 87, 88, 89, 90).

5) In response to para. (6) contrary to what the Defendant claims the "Attorney General" was not a defendant in Harper v. Atchison 2011 SKQB 38 nor were any other specific issues listed then now found in Harper v. Attorney General QBG 32 of 2015 thereby leaving no basis to claim the doctrine of res judicata.

6) In response to para. (7) Plaintiff regards immunity as qualified and puts the Defendant to the strict proof thereof. Furthermore, Plaintiff has reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe that criminal charges will arise from the statement of claim.

7) In response to para. (8) Plaintiff pleads and relies on section 7 (1) Ultimate limitation periods of The Limitation Act, 2004 whereby the Plaintiff has reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe that criminal charges will arise from the statement of claim.

8) In response to para. (9) Plaintiff restates paragraph 2.

9) Plaintiff restates paragraphs 1, 2, 3, whereas the Defendant has failed to submit an answer in conjunction with affirmative defense's, relies strictly on the blanket denial which of course is no appearance at all. Plaintiff will move the court to enter default judgment against the Defendant for failure to appear.

NOTICE

This reply may only make admissions or respond to matters raised for the first time in the Statement of Defence. (see rule 13-14).

Dated at Melfort, Saskatchewan, this 29th day of June 2015.
JackieG knows the word "prolix! How can he lose?
"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
LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by LordEd »

I had to look up prolix. Highly ironic for a Freeman to say somebody else's argument is too wordy.
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: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by Burnaby49 »

LordEd wrote:I had to look up prolix. Highly ironic for a Freeman to say somebody else's argument is too wordy.
As a result of your comment I decided to find out how prolix JackieG really was with his Statement of Claim. So I went back and did a word count. And opened up a can of worms. It turned out that I've been posting at cross-purposes to the original point of this discussion.

Fmotlgroupie started the ball rolling by posting the Statement of Claim recorded at the beginning of this World Freeman Society discussion;

Ground Control to Cst. Tonge
http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/74- ... -cst-tonge

Started 3 months, 1 day ago (they have a goofy way of recording posting times, not by the date posted but a running count of how long its been since the post). This discussion started by posting JackieG's Statement of Claim but quickly went off the rails by turning into a Karl Lentz love note, a conspiracy video about the Boston bombing and the Picton serial killings, RCMP corruption, and ended with a comment on Marcus the Servant King. It seemed to have burned out quickly, the last post was a little over two months ago.

However I wasn't paying attention to the link to this discussion when I read Fmotlgroupie's original post because I was following an entirely different discussion, again started by JackieG, on exactly the same topic.

FILED
http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/43- ... 5140-filed

Started one month two weeks ago.

This discussion also has JackieG's Statement of Claim so I carelessly thought that this was the discussion that Fmotlgroupie was referring to. It seems to have been started to carry on the story of JackieG's monumental crusade to end oppression in Canada by getting a traffic ticket voided which may explain why "Ground Control to Cst. Tonge" ended so abruptly.

To add to my confusion JackieG posted the Statement of Claim on yet a third discussion he started just for that purpose!

SAMPLE STATEMENT OF CLAIM
http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/72- ... aim#138025

Started two months one week ago. This one has only three posting, all by JackieG, and ended almost immediately. The Statement of Claim in this discussion is hidden to guests so I can't read it. I'm thankful for small mercies.

So the posting I here made yesterday doesn't refer back to "Ground Control to Cst. Tonge", it is based on the postings in "Filed", the only discussion now carrying this story forward.

The Statement of Claim in "Ground Control" is in any case just an embryonic shadow of the final result published in "Filed". Ground Control's version has a mere 2,427 words. The bloated monstrosity published in Filed had ballooned to 5,429 words. Prolix indeed!

It contains vital information not included in the Ground Control version such as these accolades about our hero;
2) Jackie Grant Harper is a farmer, accomplished tradesman, marketing expert, video producer, who performs valuable services for the surrounding community and is, according to former Honorable M.P. & Minister of Revenue Carol Skelton, the only man in Canada who; "exists completely free of all statutory restraints, obligations and restrictions";
And an expanded list of defendants. The original had only four defendants;

L. BENNET
RICHARD TONGE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
SGI - The Prosecutor who takes up this case in Provincial court.

But JackieG figured the more the merrier and added a couple more to the "Filed" version.

LORNE BENNET
RICHARD TONGE
MEL LEVEQUE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN
CITY OF SASKATOON
SGI AUTO FUND

In addition he included the vital issue of relief. In the Ground Control version he'd asked only for this;
CEASE AND DESIST COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT

I, RCMP Cst. L. Bennet #S7847 do hereby agree to stop using the provincial Traffic Safety Act in order to violate the Jackie Grant Harper’s fundamental human rights, public right of access to the highways, illegal arrest, illegal search, illegal seizure, intimidation which are in violation of Jackie Grant Harper’s rights. I understand that this is my final chance to cease these activities. I understand that Jackie Grant Harper potentially has the right to pursue legal action against me relating to my engagement in these activities, but he will not pursue those rights in contemplation of my compliance with this written demand. I further understand that Jackie Grant Harper has not waived his rights and may pursue legal remedies against me if I fail to abide by this agreement. I understand that this agreement is not specifically limited to the activities named herein. I will not engage in any activity now or in the future done for the purpose of committing criminal code violations, committing Charter violations against Jackie Grant Harper. I furthermore agree not to engage in any activity, regardless of its official title, that is done in violation of Jackie Grant Harper’s legal rights. If I fail to cease performing these activities, Jackie Grant Harper may pursue legal action against me in accordance his legal rights. This agreement acts as a contract between RCMP Cst. L Bennet #S7847 and Jackie Grant Harper. Forbearing enforcement of legally enforceable remedies is sufficient consideration to support this agreement. This agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties. Any statements made orally, written, or otherwise which are not contained herein shall have no impact on either parties’ rights or obligations elaborated in this agreement.
Date ____________________
_____________________________________[perpetrator's name]
_______________________________________[perpetrator’s signature]
However by "filed" he'd decided that some financial recompense for his time and effort was in order;
Damages;

The Plaintiff suffered serious damages as a result of the Attorney General's negligence in monitoring its agents activity's, as a result of SGI AUTO FUND breach of contract and negligence in monitoring its employees and its agents, as a result of the City of Saskatoon's negligence to monitor its principals, employees, agents; as a result of Lorne Bennet's gross negligence, as a result of RCMP Supervisor Richard Tonge's being complicit in condoning Lorne Bennet's gross negligence, as a result of Mel Leveque's gross negligence resulting in charges against the Plaintiff;

REMEDY SOUGHT;
62) Plaintiff Jackie Grant Harper claims from the defendant LORNE BENNET;
(a) general damages in the amount of $50,000.00;
(b) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $100,000.00;
(c) special damages in the amount of $40,000.00;
(d) aggravated damages in the amount of $90,000.00;
(e) damages in the amount of $25,000.00 under section 24(1) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c,11;
(f) Prejudgment interest pursuant to the Pre-Judgment Interest Act and amendments thereto;
(g) costs; and
(h) such further and other relief as seems just to this Honorable Court;

63) Plaintiff Jackie Grant Harper claims from the defendant RICHARD TONGE;
(a) general damages in the amount of $20,000.00;
(b) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $40,000.00;
(c) special damages in the amount of $20,000.00;
(d) aggravated damages in the amount of $20,000.00;
(e) damages in the amount of $25,000.00 under section 24(1) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c,11;
(f) Prejudgment interest pursuant to the Pre-Judgment Interest Act and amendments thereto;
(g) costs; and
(h) such further and other relief as seems just to this Honorable Court;

64) Plaintiff Jackie Grant Harper claims from the defendant ATTORNEY GENERAL of SASKATCHEWAN;
(a) general damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00;
(b) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $300,000.00;
(c) special damages in the amount of $150,000.00;
(d) aggravated damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00;
(e) damages in the amount of $25,000.00 under section 24(1) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c,11;
(f) Prejudgment interest pursuant to the Pre-Judgment Interest Act and amendments thereto;
(g) costs; and
(h) such further and other relief as seems just to this Honorable Court;

65) Plaintiff Jackie Grant Harper claims from the defendant SGI AUTO FUND;
(a) general damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00;
(b) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00;
(c) special damages in the amount of $600,000.00;
(d) aggravated damages in the amount of $4,000,000.00;
(e) damages in the amount of $100,000.00 under section 24(1) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c,11;
(f) Prejudgment interest pursuant to the Pre-Judgment Interest Act and amendments thereto;
(g) costs; and
(h) such further and other relief as seems just to this Honorable Court;

Plaintiff Jackie Grant Harper claims from the defendant MEL LEVEQUE;
(a) general damages in the amount of $20,000.00;
(b) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $40,000.00;
(c) special damages in the amount of $20,000.00;
(d) aggravated damages in the amount of $120,000.00;
(e) damages in the amount of $25,000.00 under section 24(1) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c,11;
(f) Prejudgment interest pursuant to the Pre-Judgment Interest Act and amendments thereto;
(g) costs; and
(h) such further and other relief as seems just to this Honorable Court;

Plaintiff Jackie Grant Harper claims from the defendant CITY of SASKATOON;
(a) general damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00;
(b) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00;
(c0 special damages in the amount of $400,000.00;
(d) aggravated damages in the amount of $3,000,000.00;
(e) damages in the amount of $100,000.00 under section 24(1) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c,11;
(f) Prejudgment interest pursuant to the Pre-Judgment Interest Act and amendments thereto;
(g) costs; and
(h) such further and other relief as seems just to this Honorable Court;
For a grand total of (as I count it, these things confuse me) $14,730,000.

Note that JackieG's arrest at the court, which I reported yesterday, occurred after he filed this final version of his Statement of Claim. Not a good sign about the status of his lawsuit,

Hope this straightens things out. Unless JackieG goes on another orgy of starting yet more discussions ON EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUE "Filed" should be the only one to follow.
"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: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by Burnaby49 »

The last posting that JackieG made in his own World Freeman Society discussion regarding his big court case was over five months ago. Since then nothing but silence from him, not a word. Which made no sense since he was clearly just a hearing or two away from his imminent victory against those who had wronged him and then failed to see the magnificence of his freeman arguments. It was all in his statement of claim, a document so learned, so comprehensive, so overwhelmingly profoundly right that there were no possible arguments that the defendants could make against it!

http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/43- ... 5140-filed

Why JackieG said himself, in his pleadings, that the defendants had no chance at all!
Plaintiff takes notice of both the required substantive law and procedural law in seeing this case prove successful;

Plaintiff asserts the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming in relation to anything the defendants may concoct in response;

Plaintiff swears the above allegations of fact and law are true and correct, that discovery will undoubtedly lead to admissible facts proving the Plaintiff’s allegations above & beyond the requirements of this honourable court, the defendants are guilty as charged, the defendants have no known defense [sic] in law nor equity, the defendants have no reasonable chance of success in challenging this statement of claim;

Pro se Plaintiff in waiting.
He was one inevitable favourable judgment away from the $17,230,000 in damages that he was claiming for the wrongs inflicted against him. So why the uncharacteristic silence? Was he killed by the dark forces because he was too dangerous to be allowed to live? Has he collected his millions and disappeared? Or could it have been this?

Harper v Bennet, 2015 SKQB 314
http://canlii.ca/t/glpwd

A sad, sad document. Here is the court's analysis of JackieG's Statement of Claim;
[21] The plaintiff’s averments are a hodgepodge and a mixture of some alleged fact, some purported law, with some considerable argument and opinion sprinkled in. It is apparent the plaintiff has thought long and hard about the complaints he has with various persons in authority.

[22 What he has not done, however, is to transpose those long hard thoughts into a readable and intelligible document. He has not pled relevant facts nor has he pled facts which would support individual causes of action. He has said things happened. He has raised various groups of wording which appear to suggest the basis for a cause of action. He has even thrown in other words like “voodoo” and “terrorism” with no real basis for their inclusion.

[23] To attempt to analyse the statement of claim within the confines of the Filson decision is a practical impossibility. I acknowledge a court must be reluctant to dismiss an action knowing it will bring the claim to a conclusion without an actual trial of the matter. However, I am similarly reluctant to engage in a waste of court, legal and judicial resources attempting to sift through the quagmire that is here and find some possible, theoretical basis upon which to justify the plaintiff’s complaints.

[24] Practically, that cannot be done with what the plaintiff has produced here. The plaintiff’s claim is unintelligible and indecipherable. In the result, I am prepared to dismiss the action on the basis it discloses no reasonable cause of action pursuant to Rule 7-9.
The court even inflicted more injury on our hero by awarding costs against him!
[25] The parties each seek costs with respect to this application. In Foley J.’s decision, costs were assessed for each group of parties in the amount of $450.00 as against the plaintiff. It is apparent that award of costs did not catch the plaintiff’s attention enough to forestall his efforts in this action.

[26] I am awarding costs against the plaintiff in favour of each group of defendants. I assess those costs in the fixed amount of $800.00 per each group of defendants payable forthwith.
That comment about the Filson decision just shows how blatantly the fix was in against Jackie. That was a prior case that JackieG lost and the judge shamelessly used it against him in this decision!
[18] The plaintiff here has been before the court before. In Atchison, Foley J. had an opportunity to review the plaintiff’s pleadings and actions and to make comment. Regrettably, the pleadings in the action before me appear to be, if not a carbon copy, identical in intent to the pleadings being analysed by Justice Foley. It appears the plaintiff has found a new target for his view of justice and is directing that at the defendants to this action.

[19] In the Atchison decision, Foley J. states:
2 The document filed here as a statement of claim, in fact, is one in name only. It complies with the prescribed Form 2 of the Rules in that it has a beginning - identifying the defendants - and an end - setting out the relief sought but insofar as a middle is concerned - setting out the foundation, detail and particulars of the claim - it is wholly lacking. The Rules provide a framework for the orderly advancement of claims, defence to those claims and methods of resolution by trial and otherwise. Unless the parties and the court are clearly informed as to what the plaintiff says the defendants have done, why and when they so acted, how those actions wrongfully impacted on the plaintiff, the nature and basis for relief the plaintiff seeks from the court, why relief is sought against each particular defendant, and under what principles of law any one defendant should be obliged to comply with the plaintiff's demands, the litigation process is frustrated. The pleadings, starting with the statement of claim, provide the factual and legal base for the action to move forward.

He then goes on to cite Ball J. from Country Plaza Motors Ltd. v Indian Head (Town), 2005 SKQB 442 (CanLII), 272 Sask R 198.
[20] As identified, the statement of claim here comprises a number of paragraphs but the plaintiff has made an error in the numbering. When Foley J. identified the plaintiff’s previous action as being a statement of claim in name only, the same situation exists in the material before me.
How can a man win with the court playing such unscrupulous tricks? Using his own words against him! No wonder Canadian freemen feel they can't get justice in Canada's courts.

I suppose this means that JackeG is still a Pro se Plaintiff in waiting.
"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
bmxninja357
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:46 am

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by bmxninja357 »

what? jackieg failed again? awe, poor moron.

ninj
whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had gonorrhea....
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by notorial dissent »

It would seem that Jackie G does not qualify as even one of the duller knives in the drawer, and apparently can't count among his other sins.

That was just flat out embarrassing, or at least it would be to someone with any sense, see prior comment.

Wonder what he'll try suing them for next.
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.
bmxninja357
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:46 am

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by bmxninja357 »

notorial dissent wrote:

Wonder what he'll try suing them for next.
improper mental health care.
ninj
whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had gonorrhea....
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by notorial dissent »

bmxninja357 wrote:
notorial dissent wrote:

Wonder what he'll try suing them for next.
improper mental health care.
ninj
He might actually stand a chance on that one. :snicker:
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
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7550
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by wserra »

Anybody still have an account there? I'd be curious as to the management's reaction to a post that consists solely of the CanLII link.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by rumpelstilzchen »

wserra wrote:Anybody still have an account there? I'd be curious as to the management's reaction to a post that consists solely of the CanLII link.
Sorted.
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
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: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by Burnaby49 »

wserra wrote:Anybody still have an account there? I'd be curious as to the management's reaction to a post that consists solely of the CanLII link.
Somebody called inner_temple did exactly as you suggested;

http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/43- ... led#140853
"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
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7502
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by The Observer »

Burnaby49 wrote:How can a man win with the court playing such unscrupulous tricks? Using his own words against him! No wonder Canadian freemen feel they can't get justice in Canada's courts.
I think your empathy is misplaced, if not downright inappropriate. After all, Jackie himself had already gotten fair warning that this approach was going to go down in flames seven months ago:
I was arrested on Tuesday for filing this and serving an affidavit on the RCMP Court Liaison Officer.

Arrested right outside the court room.
If that doesn't provide a clue to one about the lengths the government is willing to go to to stop one's attempt to get freemen justice, then you have to realize that the lightbulb is never going to light up in Jackie's head.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by notorial dissent »

Lightbulb, lightbulb, I think it is more like a long guttered out candle of very low candlepower.
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.
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: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by Burnaby49 »

It's been almost three days since a link to JackieG's court disaster was posted at World Freeman Society and not a comment. Barely anybody has even looked at 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
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: JackieG Rides (travels?) Again!

Post by notorial dissent »

They don't like bad news and contrary news.
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.