Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:13 pm

I was debating on the title of this discussion. For a while I favoured;

Andrew Miracle - Batshit Craziness overwhelms Canadian court.

But that just doesn't fit into the serious professional approach I try to take in my Quatloos postings. Not to say that it isn't accurate, just that it focuses on only one aspect of Andrew Miracle's Federal Court of Canada litigation. Which, on review, is actually the only aspect of this litigation.

He's very litigious. Once I started looking into his legal affairs I was as overwhelmed as the courts. And it's gone into some very unexpected areas that has resulted in my posting, for the first time, heavily redacted documents. Not that anyone can't do exactly what I did and walk into a Federal Court of Canada registry and pick up an unredacted copy but I'm not going to post details about the children involved in the case.

However I'm getting ahead of myself. First, why Andrew came to my attention. It started with the Rocco Galati / COMER discussion;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10450

After COMER lost it's lawsuit but before the decision was released I periodically went to the Federal Court of Canada website for any updates on the file. And on one check I found this;

Related cases
T-195-16 ANDREW MIRACLE ET AL. v. THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ET AL. Others - Crown (v. Queen) [Actions]

Who is that and how does he fit into COMER? How was it a related case? I checked it out and found this batch of litigants.

2016-02-01 Ottawa Statement of Claim and 2 cc's filed on 01-FEB-2016 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Deputy Attorney General of Canada Section 48 - $2.00

Party Name
MIRACLE, ANDREW
HSBC (& AFFILIATES)
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO (THE)
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
BANK OF CANADA (THE)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA (THE)
CHALUPNICEK, TIM
BELL, ZANE
PROVINCE OF ALBERTA (THE)
CROWN IN RIGHT OF CANADA (THE)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO (THE)
HOWEL, AMANDA CORNEILLE (AKA)
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE (THE)
BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP
MARACLE, BARBARA
MARACLE, WILLARD
REYNOLDS, ROBERT J
ALGONQUINS OF ONTARIO (THE)
MARACLE, R DONALD (CHIEF)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (THE)


Who the hell were all these people and what did they have to do with COMER? Turned out they had nothing to do with the COMER lawsuit but I had to do a fair amount of research and another visit to the Federal Court of Canada registry to find that out.

The first and most obvious step was to check Andrew Miracle out on CanLII. He's had some experience with litigation;

Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2003 CanLII 19327 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/5vmz

Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 41345
http://canlii.ca/t/1lzrq

Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 2305 (ON CA)
http://canlii.ca/t/1jpzl

Maracle v. Brant, 2008 CanLII 13368 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/1wb3m

Tyendinaga Mohawk Council v. Brant, 2008 CanLII 45007 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/20mt2

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte v. Brant, 2009 ONCA 581
http://canlii.ca/t/24qgh

Estate of Maracle v. Bay of Quinte et al., 2010 ONSC 4975
http://canlii.ca/t/2c7n1

Maracle v. Bay of Quinte Mutual Insurance Co. et al., 2010 ONSC 5217
http://canlii.ca/t/2cqks

ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 5682
http://canlii.ca/t/2d2dt

ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 4056
http://canlii.ca/t/2cjkq

ING Insurance Company of Canada v. Miracle (Mohawk Imperial Sales and Mohawk Liquidate et al, 2011 ONCA 321
http://canlii.ca/t/fl4r9

Mohawks (Bay of Quinte) v. Maracle, 2013 ONSC 4733
http://canlii.ca/t/g04cp

Tyendinaga Mohawk Council v. Brant, 2014 ONCA 565
http://canlii.ca/t/g8856

Andrew Clifford Maracle (a.k.a. Sir Andrew C. Miracle and Andrew Clifford Miracle) v. R. Donald Maracle, Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte on behalf of the Tyendinaga Mohawk Council and all members of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, 2015 CanLII 8565 (SCC)
http://canlii.ca/t/ggh5h

The Miracle/Maracle confusion in the casenames is explained by this quote from one of the above cases;

And Andrew Clifford Maracle, also known as Sir Andrew C. Miracle and Andrew Clifford Miracle (“Miracle”)

While that's a hell of a lot of litigation it largely has a common core, a small shopping mall on reservation land. I'm not going into great detail on the underlying litigation but enough to get us to the Federal Court Statement of Claim because it is largely, although not entirely, related to the above litigation. The litigation can be reviewed in groups. I'll start by grouping and explaining the non-core cases;

Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2003 CanLII 19327 (ON SC)
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 2305 (ON CA)
Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v. Miracle, 2005 CanLII 41345


These three related to an illegal sign Miracle put up for his business. It was removed, he sued and lost and appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. CanLII 2305 (ON CA) is the appeal decision.

M owned and operated a shopping plaza near a major highway and also owned land abutting the highway. He affixed a 400- square-foot sign to a tractor-trailer parked on his land a few metres south of the highway advertising his plaza. The Minister of Transportation applied for a warrant authorizing officers to enter onto M's property and remove the sign on the basis that it did not comply with s. 38(2)(e) of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. Section 38(2)(e) prohibits signs (other than a single sign not more than 60 centimetres by 30 centimetres in size) being placed within 400 metres of controlled-access highways unless authorized by a permit issued by the Minister. M alleged that s. 38(2)(e) infringed his freedom of expression, contrary to s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Minister's application was granted. M appealed.
Held, the appeal should be dismissed.


2005 CanLII 41345 is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada rejecting his leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. It was rejected with the terse comment;

The application for an extension of time is dismissed, but, in any event, the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C40235, dated February 2, 2005, would not have succeeded.


Maracle v. Bay of Quinte Mutual Insurance Co. et al., 2010 ONSC 5217
Estate of Maracle v. Bay of Quinte et al., 2010 ONSC 4975


Miracle was not a party to this litigation. He represented his mother's estate in an action against an insurance company for compensation for water damage to an unoccupied property. The court did have some comments about Miracle's credibility;

(iii) Andrew Clifford Miracle

[29] Mr. Miracle is the plaintiff’s representative and key plaintiff witness. He is 66 years of age and is a businessman. . . . . . .

[30] Mr. Miracle was caught out in numerous inconsistencies and incongruities, some peripheral and some integral.

[31] He could not explain why it was that Jasmine, the youngest and least connected person on site, made the call to the broker. He could not explain why she disclosed the cause of loss to be a malfunctioning furnace and frozen pipes.

[32] Mr. Miracle denied having knowledge of delivery of the Power of Attorney to the broker on March 21, 2005. I don’t know why he would do that. The Power of Attorney was cobbled together within days of ostensible discovery and on notice from the broker (De Silva) that they needed someone with authority to represent Mrs. Maracle’s interests.

[33] Mr. Miracle testified to signing the statement compiled by the adjuster during an interview at the insured premises on April 11, 2005 without reading its contents. In the statement he confirmed his understanding that the furnace appeared to have malfunctioned, that he discovered the flood after his return from Cuban vacation at the end of January 2005. He said he had instructed a brother to effect repairs. Much of what he stated in 2005 is distinctly different than his testimony today.

[34] His testimony was exposed to inconsistencies between examinations for discovery and trial and from one part of trial testimony to others in respect to his knowledge of the insured home well water flow capacity, the type of pump, the depth of water in the basement and when he learned of the cause of the water release.

[35] Mr. Miracle did not know when the damage occurred. Initially he tied it temporally to a trip he took to Cuba at the end of January 2005. He then declared that he had been to the house in or about the second week of February when he noticed Mr. Mintz on site so the loss must have been thereafter. When he filled out the proof of claim he indicated that the loss occurred in or about January 2005. In the end he confirmed that he did not know when the loss occurred.

[36] Mr. Miracle’s evidence is that the source of the water escape was the cold water line to the main floor bathroom sink. There was some confusion as to when he first discovered the source. Every witness who entered the home on or after March 11, 2005 was struck by the mould growth and none was interested in spending too much time in that environment. In the final analysis that is the only evidence pertaining to the source of the water escape.


Discussion

[46] Mr. Miracle was not a credible witness. Although most of the discrepancies in his testimony arises relative to the issue of whether the loss was the result of an insured peril the tainting carries over to the live issue of intent to return. I have trouble accepting anything Mr. Miracle posits without objective or independent confirmation. Inconsistencies involving material matters about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken can demonstrate carelessness with the truth. A witness who is not credible cannot deliver reliable evidence.

[47] Mr. Miracle’s position is that although his mother was resident or living in the long term care facility after July 2004 and although no one has resided or lived in the home after June 2004 he and his mother never forfeited the intention of her homecoming. He asserts that there were regular overnights and day visits at all material times. The furniture, his mother’s clothing and even food remained in the home. He is disturbed that he was not informed about the vacancy permits or the resulting change in coverage on February 10, 2005. He argues that the house was never vacant as defined in the policy and that the defendant cannot establish the damage occurred after that date.

[48] He asks me to accept that he was actively pursuing engagement of a nanny to provide home care for Mrs. Maracle and that it was a viable plan. He did not produce any documentation to buttress that claim. He says that he visited his mother every second day in the nursing home, yet professed to be unaware of the extent of her impairments. There is no evidence that he engaged Mrs. Maracle’s physician to test out the viability of this plan. He declares that the reason for the attendance March 11, 2005, was to show the home to Jasmine with a view to the insured premises becoming the inaugural marital home for Jasmine and Andrew’s son. That goes directly to the issue of vacancy between sets of occupants as defined in the policy.


Next batch;

ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 5682
ING v. Miracle, 2010 ONSC 4056
ING Insurance Company of Canada v. Miracle (Mohawk Imperial Sales and Mohawk Liquidate et al, 2011 ONCA 321


These three can be disposed of with a quote from 2011 ONCA 321;

The insured operated a convenience store and gas bar. Gasoline from an underground storage tank on his property allegedly migrated onto adjacent lands owned by Canada. Canada sued him for damages, alleging strict liability, nuisance and negligence. The plaintiff was insured under a commercial general liability insurance policy which excluded coverage for losses "arising out of the actual, alleged, potential or threatened spill, discharge, emission, dispersal, seepage, leakage, migration, release or escape of pollutants" from the insured's lands or premises. The insurer sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured on the ground that Canada's claim was excluded from coverage. The application judge dismissed the application on the ground that, as the insured was not an "active industrial polluter" and as the claim was based on the insured's alleged negligence, the pollution exclusion clause did not apply. The insurer appealed.


Resulting in;

[4] For the following reasons, I would allow the appeal and grant ING a declaration that the claims asserted in the action are excluded by the pollution liability clause.


A quote from this decision gives an idea of Miracle's property which was the subject of the remaining jurispruence;

Miracle's business and the insurance policy
[5] Andrew Miracle owned two businesses on Highway #2 within Tyendenaga Mohawk Territory near Desoronto and Shannonville, Ontario. In 2001, ING issued Mr. Miracle a CGL policy to insure his first business location, which included a donut shop, convenience store, jewellery store, gift shop, apartments and a full-service gas bar. In 2002, Miracle opened a 24-hour self- service gas bar at a second location. That business was added to the CGL policy. The policy provides broad coverage for bodily injury and property damage, but the exclusion clause provides that the insurance did not apply to: [page244]


This clears away the underbrush and leads us to the litigation which eventually resulted in the Statement of Claim that I picked up at the Federal Court registry. The remaining cases are detailed and complex but can be boiled down to this short article Published on January 15th, 2010 in the Quinte News;

It may be the end of the line a for a successful business on Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled today that the appeal by Andrew Clifford Miracle and Mohawk Liquidation has been dismissed with costs meaning Miracle must pay the Band Council 600-thousand dollars and close up the Highway-2 store and gas pumps immediately. The decision brings an end to an 18-year legal dispute over the property which began when Shawn Brant and his father constructed a building on the property despite the fact they didn’t own it. Brant later sold it to Miracle. A judge ruled in 2008 that Miracle had full knowledge of his risks when he purchased the property. There’s been no comment from Band Council on when they will assume ownership of the property. Meanwhile, about 90 employees of Mohawk Imperial Sales are planning to band together to protest the possible closure of the business.


http://www.quintenews.com/?s=Andrew+Clifford+Miracle&searchsubmit=Search

However the comment that the decision brought to an end to an 18-year legal dispute over the property was somewhat premature since Miracle is still fighting it six years later. Losing all the way but still fighting. I'll stop this post at this point. My next post will cover the land issues behind the Statement of Claim. A very roundabout way of getting to a $2,000,000,000,000,000 or $2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 claim against the government of Canada. It all depends on how you define a quadrillion. A more subjective issue than you might think. No wonder I failed math in university.
"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
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 576
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby eric » Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:54 pm

I'm actually following "Mister Miracle's" activities with some interest and he is actually not as foolish as he seems on first appearance. You noticed that he had named the "Algonquins of Ontario" as an interested party which indicates that he is aware that any supposed damages to crown land is on territory that is the subject of an extremely complex land claims dispute between two levels of government and three seperate native groups who claim that it is their ancestral territory, plus competing associated native chiefs organizations who want to stick their respective noses in. Members of my family could benefit from these land claims or find themselves tied up in complex litigation forever. Hint - I told my wife that the only advantage of claiming "status" was cheap smokes in our present situation. :lol:

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Mar 06, 2016 12:32 am

He has not, as yet, done anything that I'd call foolish in the cases I've reviewed. Straightforward legal cases. Up until the Statement of Claim his legal fights, while in hindsight losers, were conducted entirely properly and fought using actual law. The next batch are truly hopeless since he is fighting for legal recognition of personal ownership of aboriginal land to which he has no legal right because it's band land that he got from a guy named Brant who had no right to it either. I've done a quick review of the various decisions regarding the land issues and have found no trace of Freeman/sovereign bullshit in them. That may change on a closer look. However, when he fell off the wagon with his Federal Court pleadings, he fell off bigtime. To give a trailer before the main event here's how it starts;

1. The Plaintiff Sir andrew miracle is a living, sentient being who claims from the
defendants The Queen of England. The Crown in Right of Canada, the Attorney
General of Canada. the Province of Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario:

(a) Declarations that

I) Sir andrew miracle is a sentient. living being (as opposed to a corporate number)
who is a Domestic Sovereign. His status is based on WHO he is, not where he is.
and therefore the decisions of Ontario courts are not binding without his consent;


IV) the orders of the ONCA in Tyendinaga v. Brant, 2014 ONCA 565 and R. Donald
Maracle v. S. Brant, R. Brant, A Miracle and Ohwistha., Ontario Court File No.
0704A:>2 are overturned, quashed. enjoined or otherwise rendered null and void.
"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
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 576
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby eric » Sun Mar 06, 2016 1:00 am

Keep them coming... I will have to grovel through the references you've listed this weekend to give me some background as to when he went bat sh*t crazy. You may be interested to know that some of the various native groups involved such as the Algonquins of Ontario have a seperate claim to overturn aspects of the Indian Act so that they can claim legal ownership of land, rather than just communal band ownership. Great in theory, but I'm tilting towards political discussion so I'll shut up and put my steak on the grill.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Mar 06, 2016 1:22 am

This quote;

IV) the orders of the ONCA in Tyendinaga v. Brant, 2014 ONCA 565 and R. Donald
Maracle v. S. Brant, R. Brant, A Miracle and Ohwistha., Ontario Court File No.
0704A:>2 are overturned, quashed. enjoined or otherwise rendered null and void.


is a bit stunning because who prepared it. In the filing it is Sir Miracle deeming that the legal decisions which were decided against him are declared null and void. But the Statement of Claim was prepared and filed by an actual real Bar Association lawyer. So a lawyer, supposedly competent and cognizant of professional ethics and responsibilities, is unilaterally declaring that valid court decisions he doesn't like are null and void against his client.
"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: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:37 am

On to the next round of cases. The ones I discussed in my prior posting were peripheral, insurance claim issues, illegal signs, but the ones covered in this post are in respect to the most important issue, the ownership of the land on which Sir Miracle had built his little retail empire.

Maracle v. Brant, 2008 CanLII 13368 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/1wb3m

This is the first reported judgment that I found on the land litigation. There were five prior decisions. I'll quote extensively from this judgment because all of the subsequent trials were just attempts to re-litigate this decision.

[1] The plaintiffs seek, through a variety of forms of relief including injunctive and declaratory relief and other orders, to regain complete control of certain lands, being a portion of Lot 2-1-1, Concession 1, RSO 4897R and a portion of Lot 3-3-1, Concession 1, RSO 5603R of the Tyendinaga Indian Reserve No. 38 (the “Lands”) and a building on the Lands (the “Building”) located on Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory (the “Territory”). The plaintiffs also seek damages from the defendants.

[2] The Territory is reserve land under the Indian Act, R.S. 1985, c. I-5 (the “Act”). The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (“MBQ” or the “Band”) own all land on the Territory that is not allotted to Band members.

[3] This action is brought by R. Donald Maracle, Chief of the MBQ (the “Chief”) on behalf of the Tyendinaga Mohawk Council (the “Council”) and all members of the Band against individual members of the Band, namely Shawn Brant, his father, Ron Brant (collectively the “Brants”) and Andrew Clifford Maracle, also known as Sir Andrew C. Miracle and Andrew Clifford Miracle (“Miracle”).

[4] The defendants claim by way of counterclaim that Miracle is the beneficial owner of the Lands and Building, and for damages.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[8] It is not disputed that “ownership” of the Lands is pursuant to s. 18(1) of the Act and that the Band is presently the beneficial owner of the Lands in accordance with s. 18(1).

[9] The Band says it has never allotted the Lands to the Brants or Miracle and that Miracle’s present occupation of the Lands and Building is a trespass.

[10] Shawn Brant says he has acquired an equitable interest in the Lands and Building and that in 2002 he had a legal right to sell his equitable interest to Miracle. He and Miracle say they are entitled to specific performance by the Band of its obligation to sell the Lands and Building in accordance with the terms of a September 1, 1993 agreement, and to damages.

[11] The Brants have been involved in litigation over the Lands and Building for the last sixteen years, since 1992. There have been at least five prior court orders. Hundreds of documents, including previously filed court documents, affidavits and transcripts of cross-examinations have been entered as exhibits in this trial. At trial, this Court heard from sixteen witnesses. I have considered all of this evidence.

[12] The picture of Shawn Brant, in particular, that emerges from the last sixteen years is not one that is flattering.

[13] It reveals a person always acting very deliberately in his own best interests in respect of the Lands, a person acting very quickly in 1992 to receive $430,000 in loan monies and then again acting very quickly in 2002 to receive $100,000 in purchase monies. It reveals a person who certainly did not act quickly to purchase the Lands.

[14] Shawn Brant has also demonstrated, both in his past affidavits to this Court and in his testimony at this trial, that he is able to be loose with the facts.

[15] He is a person who can speak quite eloquently about fairness and justice for himself and for members of his community, but whose actions reveal an extended pattern of a person looking after himself first, to the serious detriment of others and in deliberate disregard of the authority of the Council and of court orders.

[17] It is the overall picture of the Brants’ dispute with the Band for the last sixteen years that is startling, and seriously prejudicial to their request for equitable assistance.

[18] Reduced to its skeletal facts, this overall picture is quite simple, and revealing. In 1992 the Brants wanted to purchase the Lands from the Band. They did not purchase or pay for the Lands. They did borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars from Ohwistha and from Industry Canada to help them construct the Building on the Lands. They did not pay this money back. They carried on business on the Lands and Building for about a year. By 1995 or 1996 they had vacated the Lands and Building. In 2000 they tried to pay the purchase price that had been owed in 1992, saying they were going to forcibly re-enter the Building the next day. Council refused their last minute offer to purchase. They re-entered the Lands and Building anyway, on March 6, 2000, and claimed it as their own. In 2002 Shawn Brant purported to sell the Lands and Building to Miracle. Miracle paid Shawn Brant $100,000 for the Lands and Building. The Brants kept the sale price for the Lands and Building they had never purchased. Miracle presently operates profitable businesses on the Lands and Building that Miracle now claims as his own and ignores the objections of Council.

[19] There are parts of this overall picture that need to be brought into sharper focus.

[20] In 1992, Shawn Brant was willing and able to quickly arrange and use borrowed money totaling $430,000 so that he could construct the Building for his business and continue to run his business on Lands that he had never purchased and knew full well that he had never purchased. I have concluded from the evidence that in the years before 2000 he was able but not willing to purchase the Lands.

[21] The payment of the purchase price sum of $8700 in 1992 and 1993 was a simple matter that I find the Brants chose not to make happen, even after they had been given an extension of time and a new form of agreement of purchase and sale in court proceedings on September 1, 1993.

[22] I also find it reasonable to infer from all of the evidence that before 2002 and the purported sale of the Lands and Building, it did not matter to the Brants whether or not they owned the Lands and it only came to seriously matter to them in 2002, when Miracle offered $100,000.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[35] In 2000, on the flimsiest of theories and while making false statements, Shawn Brant claimed that a litigation summary (the “Litigation Summary”) referring to an allotment resolution having been passed by Council in 1993, meant that he and his father had been the victim of injustices and a cover-up by Council with respect to the sale of the Lands to them in 1993 so that he and his father were the true owners.

[36] He continued with his claim of ownership and victimization by members of Council and in 2002, he agreed to sell the Lands and Building to Miracle for $100,000.00, knowing that he had never purchased the Lands, had never received a certificate of possession and had never repaid his loan monies. He and Miracle went ahead with the purported sale in March 2002.

[37] Miracle, who enjoys the power of money and a honed business acumen, has been operating his own businesses on the Lands and Building ever since. Mr. Brant has seen fit to keep the $100,000 for his own personal uses. Ohwistha, his primary lender, has never received any repayment on the defaulted portion of its loan.

[38] At times during the last sixteen years, therefore, the Brants have used the Lands and Building almost for free, for their own purposes. They have used hundreds of thousands of dollars from lenders, for their own purposes. Shawn Brant has purported to sell that which he never did purchase and knew he did not purchase and he has kept the sale monies, for his own use.

[39] The bold claims Shawn Brant has made along the way of these last sixteen years of litigation are surprising in their audacity, arising as they have from such a simple matter as looking after the payment of a relatively small purchase price amount. They also have a more serious character. They are claims and actions that have been carried out in defiance of the ownership rights and authority of the Band and Council and in defiance of the Cunningham Order. They are also claims that have often been misleading and dishonest, as the evidence at trial has revealed and as set out below in part.

[40] Turning to Miracle’s role, Miracle is an experienced businessman. He saw a good business opportunity that was available and took it, with full knowledge of his risks, with full knowledge that Shawn Brant had not been authorized by Council to receive an allotment and with full knowledge of the Band’s position that he, Andrew C. Miracle, was not lawfully occupying the Lands and Building. He chose to go ahead and purchase, renovate and invest substantial sums of monies on the basis of Shawn Brant’s claims of ownership.

[41] Miracle has expanded the Building and has included a gas station in the businesses he operates from it. There are serious environmental concerns arising out of his unregulated operation of this gas station. He has ignored the Band’s objections to his occupation of the Lands and Building. In April 2002, the Chief sent him a letter telling him to stop his construction on the Lands. He refused. The Band later asked him to let an inspector come in to inspect the gasoline station equipment. He refused.

[42] He says he has invested over $1,000,000.00 in the Building to date and employs about twenty people year-round. His annual profits from his businesses on the Lands are between $200,000.00 and $300,000.00.


Them a lot of exposition about the events, actions, and personalities involved until the judge gave his finding of facts;

3. Summary of Factual Findings

[90] I find, therefore, that the evidence at trial has proved these facts in particular:
1. The Band, pursuant to s. 18(1) of the Act, is the beneficial owner of the Lands and Building;

2. The Brants have never paid a purchase price for the Lands;

3. Council has never passed a resolution allotting the Lands to the Brants;

4. Shawn Brant has always known that the purchase price for the Lands under the September 1, 1993 agreement was owed to the Band;

5. Shawn Brant has always known that he required an allotment resolution from Council to be able to have lawful possession of the Lands pursuant to the Act;

6. Shawn Brant has always known that he did not have the necessary allotment resolution from Council;

7. Shawn Brant has always known that he was not in lawful possession of the Lands and Building and he knew this when he occupied the Lands and Building at different times including when he re-entered in 2000, and in 2002 at the time of his purported sale of the Lands and Building to Miracle;

8. When Miracle paid Shawn Brant for the Lands and Building, he knew that Shawn Brant did not have the required allotment resolution, that the Lands and Building could not be transferred to him as the purchaser and that the Band opposed his occupation and activities on the Lands and Building;

9. The Brants and Miracle have ignored the Cunningham Order.


Leading to this;

Mandatory Injunction

[116] There is no dispute that an owner of real property is generally entitled to an injunction to restrain a trespass thereon: Injunctions and Specific Performance, Sharpe, to November 2001, p. 1-3.

[117] I accept the plaintiffs’ submissions that in the context of the long history of this case, damages are not an adequate compensation in lieu of a mandatory injunction. None of the trespasses have been inadvertent. Each has been in deliberate disregard of the Band’s title and express objections and the Cunningham Order.

[118] What has been and is at stake is the Band’s ability to control its lands in the Territory. The Brants and Miracle took possession because that is what they wanted to do for monetary gain, notwithstanding the Band’s rights. It is important, in my view, to end the pattern of wrongful conduct that has consumed so much of the Band’s time and resources for so long and to now allow the Band to regain complete control of the Lands and Building without the continued occupation of Miracle.

[119] I fully recognize that Miracle has invested substantial effort and monies in the Lands and Building. For all of the reasons expressed before, however, he has made these investments with full knowledge of his risks. He is very experienced businessman. In addition, he has taken the initiative to install and operate an unregulated gasoline station, ignoring the Band’s request for a provincial inspection. He has profited well from his unlawful possession, however, his actions, in my view, have been sufficiently blameworthy that he should not be able to continue to profit from these investments in the future.

[120] It is unfortunate that the 20 employees of Miracle on the Lands and Building will lose their employment in the Building. However, the six year history of Miracle’s blatant disregard of the Band’s rights and concerns, the Band’s need and right to regain and assert complete control over the Lands and Building and the Band’s justifiable concerns over the health and environmental dangers that it fears may be present in the Lands and Building, make this unfortunate consequence necessary.

[121] I order, therefore, the injunctive relief requested by the plaintiffs.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[125] The plaintiffs seek general damages as compensation for their loss of use and enjoyment of the Lands and Building during the trespasses by the Brants and Miracle. I agree that on this basis, the plaintiffs should be compensated.

[126] The quantum they seek is $250,000.00, being approximately one year’s worth of Miracle’s profits from his wrongful businesses on the Lands and Building.

[128] The quantum of $250,000.00 is not an excessive amount to award by way of restitutionary damages, in my view, in that it is representative of the taking away of one year of Miracle’s profit from the other years of profit from the wrongdoing.

[129] General damages in the amount of $250,000.00 are, therefore, awarded to the plaintiffs.

[130] Special damages are also awarded to the plaintiffs for expenses incidental to their ownership of the Lands and Building. These special damages have been detailed in the plaintiffs’ Revised Schedule B-B filed at trial and presently are in the total amount of $65,117.84. If the parties disagree as to matters of entitlement to and quantum of special damages, a reference on these issues with the plaintiffs having carriage of the reference is directed to another judge, registrar or other officer of the Court or to a person agreed upon by the parties, pursuant to Rule 54 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[131] The final issue is the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages in the amount of $250,000.00.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[133] Certainly the misconduct of the Brants and Miracle has been persistent for many years, always in defiance of the Band’s authority and its rights over the Lands and Building and also in defiance of the Cunningham Order. It is important that the Brants, Miracle and other members of the Band who might have supported them understand that the Band and Council control the land in the Territory, that their authority must be recognized, that court orders must be respected and that the lawlessness that has occurred in this case cannot continue or be repeated.

[134] The injunctive relief together with the general and special damages awarded to the plaintiffs, already achieve to some extent the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation for the misconduct. Miracle will have to close down his businesses on the Lands. He may have to remove the Building and the gasoline station equipment if Council requires this, all of which will be very visible to the community in terms of its denunciatory and deterrent effect, and costly for Miracle.

[135] I do find, however, that an award of punitive damages is appropriate even in addition to the other penalties, to reflect the extra measure of specific and general deterrence that is needed in all of the circumstances so as to reinforce the principle of the rule of law on the Territory. In my view, punitive damages in the amount of $50,000.00 are proportionate to the degree of misconduct be each of the Brants and Miracle and the relief already ordered.

[136] Punitive damages are, therefore, payable by the Brants and Miracle to the plaintiffs in the amount of $50,000.00.

[137] Costs are also awarded to the plaintiffs. If the parties are unable to agree on their quantum, written submissions (a maximum of 5 pages each exclusive of attachments) may be forwarded to me before April 21, 2008.


Tyendinaga Mohawk Council v. Brant,2008 CanLII 45007 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/20mt2

This determined costs of $223,000 for a grand total to be paid by Brant and Miracle of $523,000.

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte v. Brant, 2009 ONCA 581
http://canlii.ca/t/24qgh

This was an appeal by the band for something or other. I suppose they thought they should have received more costs or punitive damages, I can't tell from the decision. The Court of Appeal for Ontario seem to have left things largely the same except to hit Miracle for more remedial costs and an environmental study.

Mohawks (Bay of Quinte) v. Maracle, 2013 ONSC 4733
http://canlii.ca/t/g04cp

After all this litigation a previously silent party decided to stick his oar in and say that the whole dispute was no business of the court and it should butt out because the Mohawks could, and should, resolve it themselves through the use of their traditional justice measures. Not surprisingly Brant and Miracle agreed with this position. The court didn't.

NATURE OF THE MOTION

[1] The moving party, The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, seek relief against Andrew Clifford Maracle for damages and costs owed by him to it in the nature of the transfer of certificates of possession in his favour for parcels of land located on an Indian reserve to the moving party so as to satisfy the indebtedness.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

[2] James McMurter is a member of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. He says he is not represented by the moving party. He is the President of Ohwistha Capital Corporation against whom the action has been previously dismissed.

[3] He made a statement before me that his people have their own justice and their own means of achieving justice. He stated that the courts becoming involved in a dispute such as this violates this tradition of these people.

[4] He stated that the people can do their own justice, and have done so for 400 years. He states that they can handle this issue without the involvement of the courts. He asserts that the traditional practices of his people provide for the proper way for this dispute to be handled, through discussions until a resolution is achieved.

[5] The responding party to this motion supports these submissions.

The underlying issue in this judgment was Brant and Miracle's argument that the Band could not take back title of the property from them. Their argument related to some obscure rule about transferring title under the Indian Act.

[9] The issue is whether this court can order the transfers of Certificates of Possession issued to Mr. Maracle under the Indian Act in order to satisfy a debt for money which he owes to the Band, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte.

[10] The decision on the issue involves the interpretation and reconciliation of s. 29 of the Act, “Reserve lands are not subject to seizure under legal process.”, and s. 89(1), “Subject to this Act, the real and personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve is not subject to…seizure…or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band.”

[11] The lands in issue are held by the respondent pursuant to Certificates of Possession as provided for in the Indian Act. They are not the lands that were in issue at the original trial.

[12] It is common ground that the Sheriff, a Government of Ontario employee, cannot seize the subject lands because of sections 29 and 89(1). The Sheriff is not an Indian or a band and therefore cannot own lands situated in a reserve, which is the effect of seizing same for sale. I am told by the parties that there is no Sheriff who is an Indian or a band.

[13] The motion seeks the assistance of the court to collect a debt.

[14] The title to land in a reserve under the Indian Act remains vested in her Majesty the Queen. Under the Act, s.20, the council of the band me may allot possession of land in a reserve to an Indian. The second step required by the Act is the approval of the allotment by the Minister. If he approves, the Minister may issue to the Indian who is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve a Certificate of Possession as evidence of his right to possess the land.


The judge decided that title could be transferred and ordered Miracle to do it;

72] Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I make the following Order:

1. Andrew Clifford Maracle shall complete any documents required to transfer his certificate of possession to Parcel 1 as listed on the Plaintiff’s draft Order and submit those documents to the Indian Land Registrar within 14 days;

2. If Andrew Clifford Maracle fails to comply with paragraph 1 of this order, he shall be deemed to have consented to and authorized the transfer of the certificate of possession to Parcel 1 to the band. Any documents required to give effect to this transfer may thereafter be completed by the Plaintiff on Mr. Maracle`s behalf and submitted to the Indian Land Registrar;

3. If the band is unable to realize, with best reasonable efforts, upon Parcel 1 to the full extent of the monies owing to it then Andrew Clifford Maracle shall complete any documents required to transfer his certificate of possession to Parcel 7 as listed on Schedule A of the Plaintiff’s draft Order and submit those documents to the Indian Land Registrar within 14 days;

4. If Andrew Clifford Maracle fails to comply with paragraph 3 of this order, he shall be deemed to have consented to and authorized the transfer of the certificate of possession to Parcel 7 to the band. Any documents required to give effect to this transfer may thereafter be completed by the Plaintiff on Mr. Maracle`s behalf and submitted to the Indian Land Registrar;

5. The Plaintiff shall have judgment against the Defendant for the sum of $1,682.45 on account of disbursements incurred in enforcement; and

6. Paragraph 5 of the order dated May 10, 2011 of Justice MacLeod-Beliveau, insofar as it directs the Sheriff to proceed with seizure and sale of the Defendant's property situated on the reserve lands shall be set aside.


Tyendinaga Mohawk Council v. Brant, 2014 ONCA 565
http://canlii.ca/t/g8856

This action was Miracle's appeal of the previous decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. He's fighting hard and still no freeman-type components. The entire appeal is based on an in-depth review of various sections of the Indian Act relating to Aboriginal land title ownership. Miracle lost again;

6. DISPOSITION

[92] For the reasons set out herein, I would dismiss the appeal. I would award costs of this appeal to MBQ fixed in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST. I would order that the costs award be added to the debt owed by Miracle to MBQ and satisfied through the sale of Miracle’s possession of lands evidenced by the Certificates of Possession, which was the subject of the motion judge’s order.


Andrew Clifford Maracle (a.k.a. Sir Andrew C. Miracle and Andrew Clifford Miracle) v. R. Donald Maracle, Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte on behalf of the Tyendinaga Mohawk Council and all members of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte,
2015 CanLII 8565 (SCC)

Sir Miracle appealed the above decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supremes told him to get lost;

JUDGMENT

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C57655, 2014 ONCA 565 (CanLII), dated July 30, 2014, is dismissed with costs.


This takes us to the present Federal Court of Canada action. Sir Miracle had exhausted all actual real-law defenses to his attempts to keep the land he doesn't own and now decided to embrace the crazy side of litigation. I'll cover that in my next posting.

I'll end with some non-court progress reports on how things unfolded from the Quinte News. Turns out that Sir Miracle, apart from the donut shop and gas station, was running a cigarette factory on the property;

Auction & lawsuit over former cigarette assembly
Mon, Jan 11th, '16 - 12:07 pm

Image

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte are hoping to clear the way for an auction of a highway 49 property.

Quinte News has learned lawyers for the band are in court today, asking a judge to force Andrew Clifford Miracle, the former property owner to remove all items from a building, which once housed a cigarette making operation.

Our source says the building, once owned by Miracle, is now in the possession of the band, who is hoping to auction the property.


MBQ win court battle over Highway 49 property
Wed, Jan 13th, '16 - 10:55 am

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte has won a court battle over a former cigarette-making factory on highway 49.

On Monday, January 11, the Band Council and representatives for former property owner Andrew Clifford Miracle, were in front of a judge in Belleville, discussing the future of the property, near highway 2.

The site was an operational factory, until several pieces of cigarette manufacturing equipment were taken from the property.

After both sides were heard, Justice Michael J Quigley ruled in favour of the band, granting it the title to the property.

Andrew Clifford Miracle must remove items off the property before February 15 and is also ordered to pay the band $20,000.

He is also ordered to stay away from a possible auction the band may hold on the property

The property was turned over, after the courts previously ruled Miracle owed the band $870,000 for another property on Highway 2.
"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
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3500
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby grixit » Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:19 pm

Here's a question: having been found to have let his gasoline storage tank leak, wouldn't his license to have one be taken away? That would mean that even though he only had to close one facility, he wouldn't be able to operate the other either.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:54 pm

grixit wrote:Here's a question: having been found to have let his gasoline storage tank leak, wouldn't his license to have one be taken away? That would mean that even though he only had to close one facility, he wouldn't be able to operate the other either.


What license? I'm assuming that since this was Indian Band land many of the regular municipal and provincial laws didn't apply. Not that I'm knowledgeable on the application and enforcement of government rules on Band land but they are exempt from a lot of them. I assume that's why Miracle's gas station did so well and why he could run a cigarette factory. He probably didn't charge provincial sales tax on the gas and didn't have to bother with whatever tax applies to cigarettes. Gives a competitive edge.
"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
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 576
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby eric » Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:27 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:What license? I'm assuming that since this was Indian Band land many of the regular municipal and provincial laws didn't apply. Not that I'm knowledgeable on the application and enforcement of government rules on Band land but they are exempt from a lot of them. I assume that's why Miracle's gas station did so well and why he could run a cigarette factory. He probably didn't charge provincial sales tax on the gas and didn't have to bother with whatever tax applies to cigarettes. Gives a competitive edge.

Pretty accurate. In theory, the way the law is written, natives don't have to pay provincial taxes on many items or follow provincial statutes on the assumption that the items are for native use on native land. A gray area is gasoline since the enforcement of environmental rules is a shared federal/provincial responsibility. An enterprising native businessman can do well in regards to smokes, booze if he is careful and restricts his sales to "personal use only", but selling tax exempt gasoline is generally avoided since it's too easy to get caught selling to non-natives for off reserve use.
edit: don't get me started on the sale of fish and game products or this thread will turn into a rant that is far removed from the original subject.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:10 am

So, time for a ride on the express train to Crazytown. Sir Miracle is the driver and Glenn Bogue, a Toronto lawyer, is the fireman. This is the Statement of Claim I've been coy about providing. I figured I'd make you all wade through those two background posts before I got to it;

http://www.mediafire.com/download/vohd0hvwsr12j3j/Miracle_v_The_Queen_(scanned).pdf

The Statement of Claim starts with a bang; demanding declarations from the Crown in Right of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada. the Province of Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario that;

- all of the court decisions against him over the past decade or so are quashed and are null and void. This is because Sir andrew miracle is a sentient, living being (as opposed to a corporate number) who is a Domestic Sovereign. His status is based on WHO he is, not where he is, and therefore the decisions of Ontario courts are not binding without his consent and he does not consent.

- Chief Rock Sino General's favorite treaty, the legendary and non-existent Two Row Wampum Treaty overrides the Indian Act.

- All of Canada (except, for some reason, those portions south of the 49th parallel which include Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and most of the Maritimes) belongs to the natives and that the cities and towns of Canada are actually reservations put aside for we non-natives to live in.

- All of the land that Sir Miracle claims he owns are actually owned by him.

- That the Bank of Canada and its actions are unconstitutional and ultra vires Parliament.

- Sir Miracle can start up his own bank.

and, the only one that at least makes some legal sense in that it is an action in law that can be addressed by a court, an injunction banning the defendants from selling the reserve land that Sir Miracle claims that he owns and which he has irrecoverably lost since he never had any right to it in the first place.

Hands up those of you that think that the Queen is going to sign that declaration.

The oddest part of all this, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that this steaming pile of horse manure was filed by an accredited practicing lawyer. And it gets worse. This paragraph explains why this action was noted in the COMER Federal court file as being a related case;

VI) that the actions of The Bank of Canada in dealing with private central banks is a violation of Natural Justice, and further are both ultra vires Parliament and unconstitutional, on the same grounds as set forth in the Claim made in Comer, William Krehm and Ann Emmett v. Her Majesty the Queen et. al. (Federal Court No. T 2010-11) attached hereto as Appendix A and incorporated herein by reference, and the declarations sought therein are sought here as well.


I have no idea why that is in the Statement of Claim and we already know how the COMER lawsuit worked out. So if Sir Miracle wants the "declarations" sought there to apply here then the lawsut can stop right now with an order from the Federal Court to strike this Statement of Claim without leave to amend. Which, in the end, is what is going to happen anyhow.

This takes us to the bottom of page two then yet more demands against The Royal Bank of Canada, The Minister of National Revenue, the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, HSBC and its central bank affiliates located on Turtle Island (North and South America):

4. Damages for:

I) fraud in entering native land and enforcing contracts without consideration,

II) unconstitutionally usurping the power to regulate money from The (Public) Bank of Canada;

In the amount of the total debt created by computer and/or mere bank entry, and saddled onto property on Turtle Island since 1974, which sum shall be calculated before trial.

5. Damages for:

I) illegally extracting $91.000 from plaintiff's ABC account by Revenue Canada In 2013-14, and $285,000 (plus rare bills and jewellery) from TD Canada Trust, CIBC, Scotia Bank and BMO, and from his home in 1981.

Ill) tortuously stopping gas suppliers from delivering to Sir miracle's gas station in 1981, in an amount to be determined at trial or prior thereto.


So Sir Miracle has some tax problems. Problems significant enough that the Canada Revenue Agency has scooped his various bank accounts.

Part 3 brings another player into the game;

6. The Plaintiffs Sir andrew miracle, and zane bell are living, sentient beings who claim from the defendants Blaney, McMurtry LLP. the Algonquins of Ontario, the Queen of England, the Crown in Right of Canada and the Crown in Right of Ontario:


Zane Bell? Who the hell's he? Sir Miracle says he's this guy;

12. zane bell is Grand Chief of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation,
whose family is traceable to 1608, but whose DNA goes back 30,000 years.

He must be an important guy if he's a Grand Chief of an indigenous nation but I can't say that I've ever heard of him or the nation he leads. So time for a bit of research. Zane has a linkedin page;

https://ca.linkedin.com/in/chief-zane-bell-03810619

The nation has its own Facebook page, apparently started a month and a half ago. And a flag!

https://www.facebook.com/Anishinabek-Solutrean-Metis-Indigenous-Nation-541939135973433/

A corporate headquarters;

http://www.datalog.co.uk/browse/detail.php/CompanyNumber/CA9074791/CompanyName/Anishinabek+Solutrean+Metis+Indigenous+Nation+Management+Corporation

This is their website, although not much on it;

http://www.anishinabeksolutreanmetis.com/

And, best of all, you can get a lifetime member in the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation for the bargain price of $55!

http://www.anishinabeksolutreanmetis.com/uploads/3/5/9/9/3599110/150621_asmin_application_main__.pdf

Which gets you this spiffy membership card (substitute your picture for the bear. Unless you prefer the bear);

Image

Image

and they are swamped with applications!

Current : We are using our Historic name the Tribe of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation © to recognize our ancestors. Currently our membership process is getting large numbers of "membership to the tribe" applications. It is slowing down our printing process so have be patience if your Tribal membership card is slow in getting to you.


And the nation isn't just a batch of empty internet websites. They have a boots on the ground presence signing international treaties, they are the founding signatory of an new intergoverment treaty, and it's a member of the United Nations;

I believe we are the First Tribal Nation in Canada to submit Treaty Negotiations through Article 102 of the United Nations Charter. Our Tribal Nation is now Adopting Status and Non Status Inuit and Metis into our Nation, per the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration of the Right of Indigenous People.

We have also signed numerous Treaties around the World and are the founding signatory the The native Nations Intergovernmental Alliance Treaty, soon also to be submitted to the United Nations under Article 102.


This is Article 102;

Article 102

1 - Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.

2 - No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.


Since only members of the United Nations can submit treaties to it for registration under Section 102 the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation must be a member. Otherwise all of those comments would be just empty blather and bullshit.

However I'm having some difficulty finding any information on the native Nations Intergovernmental Alliance Treaty. The only hits I get on Google are for the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation related websites. Nothing from other signatories. Must be a problem with Google's algorithms.

Anyhow back to Sir Miracle and Bell's joint complaint against Blaney, McMurtry LLP. the Algonquins of Ontario, the Queen of England, the Crown in Right of Canada and the Crown in Right of Ontario

a) damages for colluding in a plan to pass a Referendum on Feb. 291 2016 to sell native land belonging to all native peoples of Turtle Island in community, or to self those lands without the participation of all Algonquin tribe members and without the consent of other (non-surrendered) tribes occupying the Referendum land going back 30,000 years, in an amount to be determined at trial or prior thereto;

b) an interim, interlocutory and permanent injunction restraining the defendants The Crown in Right of Canada. their officers and employees, and Blaney McMurtry or any of their partners, lawyers or employees, and The Algonquin of Ontario from conducting the Feb. 29, 2016 Referendum until the issues raised in this proceeding are resolved


and that's it for Zane Bell's part of the lawsuit. I'm assuming he's miffed because the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation wasn't invited to participate in the referendum.

After this Sir Miracle has a few more vague complaints against various parties and wants "Punitive Damages against each defendant in an amount to be determined at trial." Good luck with that! It presupposes that there actually will be a trial instead of what is going to happen, this steaming pile being struck without leave to amend. As we've noted Sir Miracle really doesn't have a very good track record at trials. After this a bit of a story about the parties to the action and the "facts" from Sir Miracle which are just his side of the story about his past litigation.

Then, on page 5, the real crazy starts. Keep in mind that no matter how insane this Statement of Claim might be the portion that I've reviewed so far has a connection to the past Sir Miracle litigation. Even his COMER nonsense can be considered a response to his grievance about losing his businesses. Not the next part. It is an entirely unrelated lawsuit by individuals who have not been mentioned in any prior lawsuit or documents relating to Sir Miracle's land issues or anything else to do with him. Essentially the Statement of Claim includes two separate lawsuits which in no way relate to each other. The next part involves two mothers suing the Alberta and Ontario governments for apprehending their ten children and placing them in care.

A full, or at least fuller disclosure from me. I had no idea whatever that this was in the Statement of Claim when I picked it up at the Federal Court registry. I had assumed that the Claim related only to Sir Miracle's issues with his prior jurisprudence about his gas station and related businesses which I'd already checked out in CanLII. The child apprehension story came right out of left field. And, bizarrely, I already knew the backstory to it from researching an entirely different issue. The story is covered in two court judgments. The first involved seven children who were taken from their two mothers under an emergency apprehension without a court order and who were later put under a Permanent Guardianship Order. The second case covered three more children taken from the same mothers. I have the cases and one starts with this;

Restriction on Publication: Identification Ban
– See the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, section 126.2. No one may publish the name or photograph of a child, or of the child’s parent or guardian, in a manner that reveals that the child is receiving, or has received, intervention services. NOTE: This judgment is intended to comply with the restriction so that it may be published.


And the other this;

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT


In other word exactly the same publication ban issue that caused considerable dispute on this discussion;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10814

So, as I did in the Boisjoli discussion, I'm not going to "publish the name or photograph of a child, or of the child’s parent or guardian". Nor will I link to the two cases, or give information in them which is not included in the Statement of Claim. Hence the redactions. Lots of redactions.

So on to part 2 of the Statment of Claim;

36. The Plaintiffs . . . . . . are living, sentient beings who claim from the defendants The Provinces of Ontario and Alberta (and their Attorneys General), The Attorney General of Canada, The Crown in Right of Canada and The Queen of England as follows:

37. Declarations that:

a) the Plaintiffs bore children as surrogates to a Treaty non-band card carrying Mohawk, and accordingly the children, as original natives to North America, are exempt from the laws of Canada;

b) the Treaties that existed prior to the Constitution Act of 1867 bind Canada and its provinces, especially as reinforced by S. 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, and that agents of both the federal and provincial governments (cited above} breached those treaties when they entered lands belonging to natives, forced them off the reserve as non-number carrying band members and snatched these 1O children.

38. An interim, interlocutory and permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their officers and employees from any and all detention actions of these 10 children.

39. Damages against The Crown in Right of Canada, the Provinces of Ontario and Alberta for the pain and suffering as a result of the breach of contract (Treaties) in the amount of $15 million.

40. Damages in tort for:

a) negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress in the amount of $15 million;

b) breach of plaintiffs constitutional rights provided for by ss. 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 24, 25, 26 and 35 of The Constitution Act of 1982.

c) damages specifically against R. Donald Miralce for wilfully (and maliciously) directing Mohawk members in Ontario and Alberta not to help this family, in an amount to be determined at trial or prior thereto.


Now for the somewhat unconventional family relationship. I'll give my own names for the parties in quotation marks where the document is blacked out;

The Plaintiffs

45. "Mom1" is the mother of 7 children born as surrogate to "Father" a Treaty Status Mohawk. a non-band card carrying, living, sentient being.

46. "Mom2" is the mother of 3 children born as surrogate to Father, a Treaty Status Mohawk, and non-band card carrying, living, sentient being.

47. These two women are referred to as 'the mothers' who stand on the Mohawk Dad's Treaty-secured right to raise his children according to Mohawk tradition.

48. "Wife" is a living, sentient being who is married to Father and is a caregiver to the children.

49. "Offside" is a living, sentient being who is married to Mom2 and is a caregiver to the children.


So you essentially have two women acting as a breeding farm for a guy who isn't married to either of them and is in fact married to a third woman who supposedly helps care for her husband's brood by Mom1 and Mom2. Mom2 has a husband who has apparently not fathered any children but, like Wife, supposedly helps care for the children.

I used the word "supposedly" because all ten children have been removed from the mothers and placed in foster care. Three of the children were apprehended immediately at birth. This does not indicate an acceptable level of care. However that's not how the mothers see it, everything was going great until various governments retaliated against them for stopping the pillaging of Indian land;

52. The native peoples with whom this extended family resided were the same natives who participated in the refusal of natives to allow an Oil pipeline across their land by the Harper government.

53. In retaliation. on Nov. s. 2011, five children of Mom1 and two children of Mom2 were taken by the Alberta governmental authorities without an apprehension order or a warrant, or any other grounds (and in contravention of S.19(2) of the Alberta mandate entitled 'Child, Youth, Family Enhancement Act'),


However the government framed it differently;

57. On Feb. 27, 2013, in a closed door •terrorist" trial, Justice O'Gorman made the children wards of the state on the grounds of 'medical neglect'. The children have since been denied access to their natural caregivers and native culture.


As an aside, and entirely unrelated to any of this, I like that paragraph 52 comment "by the Harper government". Stephen Harper, once head of the Conservative party, was our prime minister for a decade. He got kicked out last fall. He was personally very unpopular. I'm a lifelong Conservative and I voted against him in the last election. Two things made me vehemently anti-Harper. The first was significant. He ended what was called the "long form" census.

During the census — done every five years — most Canadian households get an eight-question form. However, a longer, more detailed, 61-question form was distributed to one-in-five households.

With questions on everything from income, cultural heritage, education, work habits, even details of where people live, it gave researchers a rich source of data to build an understanding of Canadian society.

The data was used in myriad ways, planning everything from public health to transit and rural development.

“The use is almost never-ending,” Ian McKinnon, chairperson of the National Statistics Council, the senior advisory body to the chief statistician at Statistics Canada told the Star.

Yet in 2010 that lengthy census form was scrapped by the Conservatives, who said its questions were intrusive, even though the data is kept confidential.


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/05/liberals-restore-mandatory-long-form-census.html

There was absolutely no reasoned basis for this decision. The long form was critical for the government and all Canadians to get a grasp on demographic and cultural trends. Businesses relied on it, academics relied on it, everybody relied on it. And Harper killed it just to suck up to his extreme right-wing base. There was an uproar but Harper had become His Majesty King Stephen the First by this time and just said, essentially, Don't like it? Screw you. After the Liberals got a majority in the recent election their first legislative act was to restore the long form.

The other thing that really irked me was "The Harper Government." Once Harper was in power he ordered that all announcements made by federal government departments no longer be issued under the name of the Government of Canada but under the title "The Harper Government". So I'd go to the Canada Revenue Agency website and find that a release about depreciation rates or some other technical stuff was being done by the Harper Government, as if we'd voted him dictator and it wasn't the government of Canada any more. A trivial issue but it enraged me every time I saw it and was entirely typical of how he operated. He antagonized people over petty mean-spirited issues that gave him no political advantage. So I thought it a nice touch by the Plaintiffs to refer to the Harper government rather than the Government of Canada in their pleadings.

Anyhow the plaintiffs spend a few pages giving their side of the story. All of it related to their children being taken from them. Then on to their demanded redress;

PART SIX

63. The Plaintiffs are living, sentient beings, who claim from the defendants the Queen of England, the Crown in Right of Canada and HSBC (and its affiliate central banks) the following Damages for.

a) tortious infliction of emotional distress resulting from the rape and murder of native people and in treating natives as less than human:

b) theft of natives' Identity as Domestic Sovereigns;

c) rents due to natives for all the construction on native soils.

In the amount of $2 Quadrillion.


You will note that none of the injuries claimed in paragraph 63 relate to anything to do with the preceding portion of the Statement of Claim regarding the child apprehension issues.

The Statement of Claim ends with a wrap-up of the entire document.

68. The plaintiffs in this case are the unfortunate fodder of an international attempt
to use the government apparatus to;

a) strip successful native business leaders (Sir miracle) of their possessions;

b) strip treaty mothers (Mom1 and Mom2) of their offspring;

c) strip indigenous tribes (like Zane bell's Metis) of their land.

69. The rest of the populace of Canada is labouring under a numbered 'social security' system, and too much artificially-created, non-gold backed debt to overcome the web now descending on this planet's five billion native peoples.

70. It's now up to the Federal Court to lead the way out.


All this signed by Glenn Bogue, their lawyer. Now a comment from me on jurisdiction. All of the Sir Miracle litigation and all of the litigation in respect to the removal of the children was done under provincial law. However the Federal Court of Canada can only review issues covered by Federal legislation. And only a limited range of Federal Legislation at that. Specifically;

The Federal Court cannot hear any case unless a federal statute confers jurisdiction on the Court to hear cases of that type.

Some examples of the sort of cases heard by the Federal Court are:[3]
· judicial review of immigration decisions,
· judicial review of Veterans Review and Appeal Board of Canada decisions,
· intellectual property disputes,
· cases involving admiralty (maritime) law,
· various aboriginal law matters, and
· claims against the Queen in Right of Canada.

These instances of jurisdiction may either be exclusive or concurrent with provincial superior courts, depending on the statute. The Court has the authority to judicially review decisions made by most federal boards, commissions, and administrative tribunals, and to resolve lawsuits by or against the federal government.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_(Canada)

This means that the Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear anything included in this Statement of Claim. If the mothers want their children back they have to go to the courts in the provinces that apprehended them in the first place. All of Sir Miracles prior jurisprudence was in respect to Ontario provincial legislation and he has exhausted all of his possible legal recourse in respect to his land issues. So the plaintiffs have tossed in this last-chance shot at the Federal Court, filled it full of Freeman gibberish, and tried to dress it up as an issue between them and the federal government in respect to aboriginal rights;

63. The Plaintiffs are living, sentient beings, who claim from the defendants the Queen of England, the Crown in Right of Canada and HSBC (and its affiliate central banks) the following Damages for.

a) tortious infliction of emotional distress resulting from the rape and murder of native people and in treating natives as less than human:

b) theft of natives' Identity as Domestic Sovereigns;

c) rents due to natives for all the construction on native soils.

They are hoping to find an area which might fall under the Federal Court's jurisdiction. But they've given no facts to serve as the basis for these claims. The Federal Court really has only one option here, to strike without leave to amend. This Statement of Claim is just too poorly done to serve as a basis to continue the action.

So Glenn Bogue also tried some other approaches outside of the Statement of Claim. He initially tried to get an extremely rushed ex parte hearing, apparently without even telling the defendants that they were being sued. This would have given him every lawyer's dream case, an uncontested lawsuit. This is the definition of an ex parte hearing;

Ex parte is a latin legal term meaning "from (by or for) [the/a] party". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. In Australian, Canadian, U.K., South African, Indian and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. It is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party.


Here is the sequence of events on his ex parte bid;

2016-02-02
Ottawa

Oral directions received from the Court: Mireille Tabib, Prothonotary dated 02-FEB-2016 directing that "The Court does not authorize the motion being heard on less than 3 days notice as the Court is not satisfied with the urgency of the motion." placed on file on 02-FEB-2016


2016-02-05
Ottawa

Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 05-FEB-2016 re: Motion Record (Ex Parte) on behalf of the Plaintiffs sent to Court for Direction.

Didn't work;

2016-02-09
Ottawa

Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Madam Justice Roussel dated 09-FEB-2016 directing that "Upon review of the motion, the Court is not satisfied that the motion should proceed on an ex parte basis. A motion record prepared in accordance with the Federal Courts Rules shall be served on the Respondents and filed with the Court with valid proof of service. The motion shall be made returnable at a date and time thereafter." placed on file on 09-FEB-2016 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)


So he tried something else. This;

2016-02-18
Ottawa

Letter from counsel for the Director of Child and Family Services (Calgary) dated 18-FEB-2016 "I act as counsel for the Director of Child and Family Services in Calgary (the "Director). We received an e-mail from Glenn Bogue, counsel for the Plaintiffs in the above noted matter, this morning stating that a Petition for Habeus Corpus is set for this coming Tuesday February 23, 2016 in Federal Court. We understand the Petition is in relation to children who are the subject of Permanent Guardianship Orders with the Director granted by the Provincial Court of Alberta and upheld by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. We understand from Mr. Bogue that a Statement of Claim has been filed. We have asked Mr. Bogue to properly serve our office with a copy of the application. As far as we are aware, the Director has not received any application materials or proper notice of the application. Mr. Bogue has also indicated to us that he is mailing the Statement of Claim for service on the Solicitor General of Alberta. As are as we are aware, the Statement of Claim has not been previously served..." received on 18-FEB-2016


In other words Bogue is claiming that children are illegally detained prisoners of the state and he is petioning for their release on a Habeus Corpus basis entirely unrelated to the Statement of Claim. However Bogue just pulled that February 23rd date for the Habeus Corpus hearing out of his ass and there was no scheduled hearing or request by Bogue to the Federal Court to hold one.

2016-02-19
Ottawa

Memorandum to file from Marc Medas dated 19-FEB-2016 I spoke with Michelle Lee, counsel for the Director of Child and Family Services in Calgary to inform her that no Habeus Corpus hearing is scheduled for Tuesday February 23, 2016 at the Federal Court.. placed on file.


So now we head to the smackdown;

2016-02-29
Ottawa

Letter from Defendant, Robert Reynolds, dated 29-FEB-2016 re: seeking case management and bringing an early motion to strike received on 29-FEB-2016

And they had no problem getting it;

2016-03-04
Ottawa

Order dated 04-MAR-2016 rendered by Mireille Tabib, Prothonotary Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Letter from the Defendants dated 01-MAR-2016 Result: THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. This proceeding shall continue as a specially managed proceeding. 2. The deadlines for filing statements of defence are suspended pending further order of the Case Management Judge. 3. The parties shall, no later than 14 days following the date of an order designating a Case Management Judge, having discussed with each other, file submissions as to a proposed schedule for filing and briefing preliminary motions to strike and counsel's mutual dates of availability to participate in a case management telephone conference to discuss and fix a schedule. Filed on 04-MAR-2016 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1294 page(s) 434 - 435 Interlocutory Decision


Note this part;

3. The parties shall, no later than 14 days following the date of an order designating a Case Management Judge, having discussed with each other, file submissions as to a proposed schedule for filing and briefing preliminary motions to strike


This is a description of Specially Managed Proceedings under Federal court rules;

Specially Managed Proceedings

The case management rules or the rules governing “Specially Managed Proceedings” are contained in rules 383 through 385. Rule 383 empowers the Chief Justice of the Federal Court to appoint a judge or prothonotary to act as a case management judge or to appoint a prothonotary to assist in the management of a proceeding. It is noteworthy that a prothonotary may be either a case management judge or may simply be appointed to assist the case management judge. Rule 383.1 similarly empowers the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal to appoint a judge as a case management judge in a proceeding.

Rule 384 provides that the court may at any time order that a proceeding continue as a specially managed proceeding. The rule provides no indicia of the circumstances in which the court should so order or the factors that the court ought to take into account in making such an order. The case law also provides little guidance on this issue.


The last nine pages of the Statement of Claim is a copy of the December 12, 2011 doomed Statement of Claim by COMER, William Krehm, and Anne Emmett trying to make the federal government of Canada give free money to anyone that wants it. We've covered that disasterous lawsuit in depth here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10450

As an aside I'm trying to figure out how much we'll have to cough up if those two mothers win their lawsuit. Specifically what the hell is $2 Quadrillion. Turns out it depends on where you are (from Wikipedia).

Quadrillion may mean either of the two numbers (see long and short scales for more detail):
1,000,000,000,000,000 (one thousand million million; 10 to the 15th power for all short scale countries

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one million million million million; 10 to the 24th power for all long scale countries


So, what are we facing here, long or short?

The long and short scales are two of several large-number naming systems for integer powers of ten, that use the same words with different meanings:

Long scale
Every new term greater than million is one million times larger than the previous term. Thus, billion means a million millions (1012), trillion means a million billions (1018), and so on.[1][2]

Short scale
Every new term greater than million is one thousand times larger than the previous term. Thus, billion means a thousand millions (109), trillion means a thousand billions (1012), and so on.[1][2]

For integers less than a thousand million (less than 10 to the 9th power) the two scales are identical. From a thousand million up (greater than 10 to the ninth power) the two scales diverge, using the same words for different numbers; this can cause misunderstanding.


Wikipedia has a helpful list of which countries use which scale but Canada's not in it because we use both. Short scale in English speaking provinces and long scale in Quebec. So if they win in Quebec it's 10 to the 24th power and we're really screwed. Not that we can pay $2,000,000,000,000,000 either.
"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
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10642
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:30 am

I think they’ve got him right at the get go, anyone who produce this much drivel does not qualify as sentient, and what the blazes is a “domestic sovereign” anyway?

He doesn’t want much does he? Way too many zeros for a sentient.

I think the Queen might fall off her throne laughing, if she were given to such things, which she isn’t.

And here I always thought “Natural Justice” was when a tree fell on you when you were walking in the forest trampling the pretty flowers. Silly me. And just what the frack is “ultra vires of Parliament”?
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: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Mar 09, 2016 10:28 am

I must admit to a serious error in my last posting. I said;

This is their website, although not much on it;

http://www.anishinabeksolutreanmetis.com/

And, best of all, you can get a lifetime member in the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation for the bargain price of $55!

http://www.anishinabeksolutreanmetis.com/uploads/3/5/9/9/3599110/150621_asmin_application_main__.pdf

Which gets you this spiffy membership card (substitute your picture for the bear. Unless you prefer the bear);

Image

Image


Quite wrong. A closer look at that identification card shows that it only runs for a five year period before it has to be renewed. The first time that I've run across an ethnic/racial self-identification that has an expiry date.
"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
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3500
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby grixit » Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:02 pm

Has anyone taken the time to figure out just what laws apply to these "instant indians". I don't think the traditional procedures and punishments for cheating and stealing were as generous to the accused as the system they're trying to escape from.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 576
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby eric » Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:39 am

grixit wrote:Has anyone taken the time to figure out just what laws apply to these "instant indians". I don't think the traditional procedures and punishments for cheating and stealing were as generous to the accused as the system they're trying to escape from.

Hmmm, from a technical point of view you are asking two questions. Legally there is no such thing as a "self-identifying" status Native or Metis. You have to meet the strict ancesteral rules from a recognized band to claim status. Even after obtaining status (basicly a registration number good for life) that is accepted for government benefits, your own particular band may have its own internal laws that limit band specific benefits. As an example, many of the Mohawk nations have the rule that if a status woman marries a non-status male they are no longer members of the nation and have to live off-reservation. Still eligible for government benefits that apply to all natives, not eligible to share in the proceeds of land claim payouts or share in the proceeds from band-run businesses (some are fairly wealthy), not nice in this day and age, but they can set their own rules.

With respect to natives, self-identifying or otherwise, who break the law, there are judicial procedures to apply "traditional justice" to them with healing circles, Gladue reports, and the like. That being said, I've always wondered how one of these "Indians of Convenience" would do in any crowbar hotel in western Canada which typically have a problem with the native gangs who run their own turf inside. The results might not be pleasant. <grins>

Just as a side note, there are a significant minority of people in Canada who could claim status and don't. In some cases it's a matter of personal pride that they don't need or want any government handouts. In one particular family that I personally knew who was going through a rough spot I had to do a lot of convincing to persuade the daughter to claim status so she could get her college degree and make her own way in life.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:52 am

Bad news for our litigants. This just posted on the Federal Court website today;

Order dated 07-SEP-2016 rendered by Martha Milczynski, Prothonotary Matter considered with personal appearance

The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 16 Result: granted
The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 20 Result: granted
The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 30 Result: granted
The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 34 Result: granted
The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 38 Result: granted
The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 42 Result: granted

1. The statement of claim is struck without leave to amend and the action is hereby dismissed.

2. In the event the parties cannot agree on the costs of this motion, they may file written submissions no longer than 2 pages in length, within 15 days of the date of this Order.

Filed on 07-SEP-2016 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1311 page(s) 309 - 316 Final Decision


The hearing was on Sept 6 and this court order came out on the 7th. Obviously this didn't require a lot of thought on the part of the Prothonotary.

http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/fca-caf/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-195-16

So the two mothers don't get their $2 Quadrillion. Good thing; if they'd won we'd have had to figure out what a quadrillion actually was. Not that it would matter to Canada. Either defined quadrillion, as I discussed previously in this discussion, would bankrupt Canada.

Not a big surprise. As I said in a previous post in this discussion;

This means that the Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear anything included in this Statement of Claim. If the mothers want their children back they have to go to the courts in the provinces that apprehended them in the first place. All of Sir Miracles prior jurisprudence was in respect to Ontario provincial legislation and he has exhausted all of his possible legal recourse in respect to his land issues. So the plaintiffs have tossed in this last-chance shot at the Federal Court, filled it full of Freeman gibberish, and tried to dress it up as an issue between them and the federal government in respect to aboriginal rights;

63. The Plaintiffs are living, sentient beings, who claim from the defendants the Queen of England, the Crown in Right of Canada and HSBC (and its affiliate central banks) the following Damages for.

a) tortious infliction of emotional distress resulting from the rape and murder of native people and in treating natives as less than human:

b) theft of natives' Identity as Domestic Sovereigns;

c) rents due to natives for all the construction on native soils.


They are hoping to find an area which might fall under the Federal Court's jurisdiction. But they've given no facts to serve as the basis for these claims. The Federal Court really has only one option here, to strike without leave to amend. This Statement of Claim is just too poorly done to serve as a basis to continue the action.
"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: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:24 am

Time for an update on Sir Miracle and his peerless lawyer Glenn Bogue. When we last left Miracle he'd seemingly exhausted all legal recourse for his various problems. That was only petty thinking on my part, Bogue thought in larger brush strokes.

First there is this recent case which involved the parties in the previously discussed case of the two mothers who had their children taken from them by authorities. This time they were not redacted so I won't redact either.

Chalupnicek v The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
2017 ONSC 1278
http://canlii.ca/t/gxqgj

These are the parties;

Amanda Chalupnicek, Sandra Isaacs, Ronald Maracle, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society Of Ottawa, The Children’s Aid Society of Ontario, Gail Bowen, Alberta Justice O’Gorman, Michelle S. Lee, Esq., Ontario Justices Marie Linhares De Sousa, Paul Kane, Mark Shelston, Tracey Engelking, Esq., Cheryl Hess Esq., Bell Baker Llp, Pasquale Santini Esq., Steven Appotive Esq., Kelly Santini Llp, Christine Perruzza Esq. The Attorney General Of Ontario, (Her Majesty) Queen Elizabeth, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, Defendants/Respondents/Applicants


And the issue;

[5] The Plaintiffs issued a Statement of Claim March 7, 2016 against the Defendants seeking declaratory relief and damages in the amount of $60 million. The Defendants had resort to rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 which provides for the summary treatment of actions that are on their face, devoid of merit. Master MacLeod, (as he then was) provided the Plaintiffs with an opportunity to make written submissions, and stayed the action pending completion of this process (2016 ONSC 2353 (CanLII)). Following receipt of the Plaintiffs’ submissions, Master MacLeod, in his detailed written reasons, dismissed the action “as it appears to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.” (2016 ONSC 2787 (CanLII)).


[1] The Defendants move to quash the Appeal of the Plaintiffs from the decision of Master MacLeod (as he then was) dated April 26, 2016, dismissing the action without costs as against all Defendants pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground that an appeal from the final order of a Master must be heard by the Divisional Court.


In other words they'd filed their lawsuit in the wrong court, been stomped by the Master for doing it and were appealing this decision even though Bogue, a lawyer, had been told that they were in the wrong court. He seemed to think he should be able to file an action in any damn court he wanted;

[6] The Plaintiffs delivered an undated Notice of Appeal framed in the Superior Court of Justice. The Defendants advised the Plaintiffs that an appeal from a final order like this must be taken to the Divisional Court pursuant to Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Plaintiffs, in correspondence, refused to acknowledge that the appeal must be heard by the Divisional Court and insisted the appeal was properly taken. When the Defendants had resort to Rule 2.1 to have the Registrar summarily dismiss the appeal, the Plaintiffs wrote to the Registrar insisting the appeal had been properly constituted. Justice Beaudoin, in his decision of July 6, 2016, (2016 ONSC 4452 (CanLII)), concluded that the Rule 2.1 summary procedure was not available on an appeal, but noted that the proper jurisdiction for the appeal was to the Divisional Court. After being pressed by the Defendants to change his appeal route, Mr. Bogue on behalf of the Plaintiffs, wrote to the Defendants with gratuitous comments about Beaudoin J., and threatened a complaint to the Law Society concerning one of the Defendants’ counsel because of the legal position taken by her.


Note how Glenn Bogue is so on top of things he couldn't even remember if he'd filed a factum, a key document stating the facts of the case.

[2] The Plaintiffs have not filed a factum or motion record in response to this motion, although Plaintiffs’ counsel, at the conclusion of argument, thought he had served a factum but was unsure. Counsel for one of the Defendants later confirmed that she had checked with her office and indeed, contrary to her submission, they had a record of having received an emailed factum. The other counsel had not seen a factum from the Plaintiffs.


And so, not unexpectedly;

[8] The Defendants’ Motion to Quash is granted. The Plaintiffs’ appeal is quashed on the ground that a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal from the final order of Master MacLeod (as he then was) dated April 26, 2016.


The judge wasn't happy about Glenn knowingly pursuing this in the wrong court and gave the defendants enhanced costs;

[10] This motion was entirely unnecessary. Had the Plaintiffs wanted to seriously pursue this appeal, they had merely to acknowledge the Divisional Court was the proper forum. It is not the law concerning the appeal route that is questioned by the Plaintiffs, but that they are not bound by it. I am mindful that several judges have concluded that the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claim are devoid of merit. That question, however, is not before me, except to remind me that the appeal route they chose in their Notice of Appeal was equally devoid of merit. I see no reason why these Defendants, in these circumstances, should have to subsidize the Plaintiffs’ decision to pursue an unmeritorious claim against them through an appeal route that is contrary to the express provisions of the Courts of Justice Act to the point of opposing this Motion to Quash. This is one of those rare cases where the successful parties should be entitled to their costs on a full indemnity basis.

[11] I find the reasonable full indemnity costs inclusive of disbursements and HST of Ms. Crain’s clients to be $8,684.88; and the reasonable full indemnity costs of Ms. Asaro inclusive of disbursements and HST to be $9,000. The Plaintiffs are ordered to pay those costs within 30 days in accordance with Rule 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.


So on to the next loser.

Miracle v. Canada (Attorney General)
2017 ONCA 174
http://canlii.ca/t/gxrjc

The parties are;

Andrew Clifford Miracle

Appellant/
Moving Party

And

Her Majesty the Queen
The Attorney General of Canada Tyendinaga Township
HSBC
Royal LePage ProAlliance Team Weir Brokerage


Again with Glenn Bogue representing Miracle. This one is so short I'll just post the entire decision;

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant moves to review the order of Gillese J.A. dated February 21, 2017, dismissing his motion for a stay pending appeal of the order of Kershman J. of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 15, 2017, which dismissed his motion to pay monies into court, or alternatively, for an injunction preventing the sale of certain property in Tyendinaga Township by the respondent HSBC (the “Property”).

[2] We are not persuaded that Justice Gillese erred in her decision and, indeed, we agree with her reasons.

[3] The proposed sale of the Property arises out of proceedings between the appellant and HSBC that were fully and finally resolved on consent. That settlement is a complete answer to the appellant’s assertion that HSBC cannot sell the Property.

[4] The appellant’s oral submissions that he, through the Métis people, has a legal claim to the Property based on Simcoe Treaty 3.5 is simply unsupported by any adequate evidence.

[5] For these reasons, the motion is dismissed.

[6] We fix costs of the motion to the respondent HSBC at $1,750, all inclusive.


So on to loser number 3;

Miracle v. Maracle III
2017 ONCA 195
http://canlii.ca/t/h08v6

This one started, right off the bat, with Bogue trying to get the entire appeals panel disqualified for bias. They declined to recluse themselves for two reasons;

1 - They claimed that they weren't bias.

2 - Glenn had already successfully done this once and was apparently willing to keep doing it forever;

[6] We further note that, when this appeal was listed for hearing last week, counsel for the appellant made similar allegations of bias against a differently constituted panel. That panel ruled that, while there was no substance to those allegations, the case would be adjourned to a different panel. The repetition of the same complaint today reveals a pattern of conduct on the part of counsel that cannot be condoned. Unfounded claims of bias and repeated requests for adjournments cause delay and impose added cost to other litigants and the court system. Judges have a duty to sit and hear cases to ensure proper and expeditious justice. They must not be dissuaded from fulfilling that duty by groundless allegations of bias.


So on to the issues at appeal;

[
8] The appellant appeals the dismissal of his motion seeking to:

• add Chief R. Donald Maracle, Victor Dodig, Sherry Walker and Donald A Maracle as co-defendants, and seeking damages jointly and severally against those parties in the amount of $76 million;

• claim an order striking down the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, and declaring land north of the 49th parallel to be held communally;

• claim punitive damages in the amount of $24 million; and

• claim costs on a solicitor and client basis.

[9] This action, as presently constituted, is brought by the appellant against his son, his son’s wife, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”). It arises out of a partnership between father and son involving a tobacco and convenience store business and a dispute concerning an account the business had at the CIBC. None of the proposed defendants are parties to that dispute and there are no allegations made against those proposed defendants in the pleadings.


The case had been dismissed because, as always, Bogue had totally ignored required court procedure and had chosen to things his way. He had tried to add defendants against court rules and, when he lost in the attempt, appealed it. And with added chutzpah, he requested that the appeals court find a default judgment in his favour against the proposed defendants without a trial!

[10] The motion was brought without leave after the action had been set down for trial. Because the appellant failed to obtain leave to bring the motion, the motion judge dismissed it on the basis of rule 48.04(1). That rule provides that, subject to certain exceptions not relevant to this case, “any party who has set an action down for trial … shall not initiate or continue any motion or form of discovery without leave of the court.”

[11] The appellant asks this court to reverse the decision of the motion judge and to proclaim “a decree of default judgment” against various parties. He raises a number of grounds of appeal, including the submission that the motion judge erred by failing to “move [the court] into its exclusive equitable jurisdiction”. He submits that this case should be referred to a court of equity as it existed prior to 1881 and that this court lacks jurisdiction because of the appellant’s alleged Métis status.


And the usual Bogue outcome;

[12] There is no merit to those arguments or to any of the other arguments raised by the appellant. They are entirely lacking in any legal foundation.

[13] The appellant has brought his action in the Superior Court of Justice and he must abide by the Rules of Civil Procedure. His Aboriginal or Métis status does not exempt him from those rules. The appellant’s motion to add additional parties after the action had been set down for trial without first obtaining leave is a plain breach of rule 48.04(1). The appellant has failed to demonstrate any error made by the motion judge in dismissing the motion.

[14] The appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondents CIBC, Victor Dodig and Sherry Walker fixed at $7,500 and costs to the respondent Chief R. Donald Maracle fixed at $7,500. Both figures are inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

[15] We order that the appellant shall not be permitted to take any further actions against any of these parties without leave of a judge of this court if those costs have not first been paid. The costs we have ordered may be enforced in the same manner as provided in paras. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the order of Tranmer J. dated August 14, 2013. Approval of the formal order is dispensed with.
"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
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10642
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:10 pm

Does Bogue actually practice law or does he just pretend to very badly, or as another real lawyer puts it, craptice law. That is all just unbelievable, and if I counted correctly, he cost his clients what $25,000 Canadian plus whatever he overcharged them for for his alleged services? That is gross malpractice and negligence I should think.
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: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Apr 01, 2017 7:47 pm

notorial dissent wrote:Does Bogue actually practice law or does he just pretend to very badly, or as another real lawyer puts it, craptice law. That is all just unbelievable, and if I counted correctly, he cost his clients what $25,000 Canadian plus whatever he overcharged them for for his alleged services? That is gross malpractice and negligence I should think.


He may not be practicing much longer. The Upper Canada Law Society has finally gotten off its ass and decided to suspend him pending an investigation into complaints about his behaviour.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/hex6ec93nucbe40/Bogue_-_LSUC_Notice_to_Suspend.pdf

1. The Law Society has received evidence that raises serious concerns about the Responding Party's competence and/or capacity to practice law.



Pinkie Pie Webhick?

Image

Blatant favoritism giving all of us prancing pink ponies while Wes gets this cool avatar;

Image
"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
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3868
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby webhick » Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:24 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:Pinkie Pie Webhick?


We were invaded at about 1AM EST. Ponies everywhere.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie

User avatar
coffeekitten
Pirate
Pirate
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:15 pm

Re: Andrew Miracle Et Al. V. The Queen of England

Postby coffeekitten » Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:32 pm

I'm angry bunny and you better don't bug me. :P


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest