Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5837
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:59 am

Before we introduce Steve this is John Spirit standing beside the recently paroled Dean Clifford;

Image

John is discussed in various places in Quatloos but mainly here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10996

John is a freeman guru who is very big on the concept of freeloading. His primary scheme has been promoting the idea that you can force the government (in this case Canadian) to supply you with an "adequate" living. Adequate is a very flexible word depending on what you feel your own needs are. Wally Dove, who tried out a scheme somewhat akin to Spirit's teachings in the Federal Court of Canada, thought that $100,000,000 would do nicely;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9418&start=20#p211002

But Wally's arguments differed from Spirit's enough that they could be disowned when he lost.

John gives the basis of his theories in this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGNcb6NvocY

And he's willing to sell you all of this, the fruits of years of research and analysis, for the meager sum of $1,000. Seems more than fair since it guarantees you a lifetime of government dole. Free housing! An adequate living! All with no effort on your part, you don't even have to do any work for it;

So a natural right that we see expressed in the covenants is that a man or a woman has the right to have an adequate living. It doesn't say you have to earn it, it doesn't say you have to pursue after it, it doesn't say you have to create this adequate living on your own."


The key to all this is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

Specifically Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights which says;

Right to an adequate standard of living

Article 11 recognizes the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to adequate food, clothing, housing, and "the continuous improvement of living conditions".[40] It also creates an obligation on parties to work together to eliminate world hunger.

The right to adequate food, also referred to as the right to food, is interpreted as requiring "the availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture".[41] This must be accessible to all, implying an obligation to provide special programmes for the vulnerable.[42] This must also ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need, taking into account the problems of food-importing and food-exporting countries.[43] The right to adequate food also implies a right to water.[44]

The right to adequate housing, also referred to as the right to housing, is "the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity".[45] It requires "adequate privacy, adequate space, adequate security, adequate lighting and ventilation, adequate basic infrastructure and adequate location with regard to work and basic facilities – all at a reasonable cost".[45] Parties must ensure security of tenure and that access is free of discrimination, and progressively work to eliminate homelessness. Forced evictions, defined as "the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection", are a prima facie violation of the Covenant.[46]

The right to adequate clothing, also referred to as the right to clothing, has not been authoritatively defined and has received little in the way of academic commentary or international discussion. What is considered "adequate" has only been discussed in specific contexts, such as refugees, the disabled, the elderly, or workers.[47]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights

You can take that to the bank! And John has, selling his interpretation of it to anyone who wants a guaranteed life of freeloading courtesy of the United Nations.

But my comment on this theory was;

But in parting I'll point out the one fatal flaw in all of his aspirations and dreams. None of the United Nations agreements John is banking on are legally binding on Canada. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not an international treaty, it is a feel-good declaration without any legal effect. So it is not law that a Canadian judge will have to consider if John ever stands in front of him yammering away demanding that his mortgage be paid off and a new Maserati tossed in because the United nations says so.


http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10492&start=1420#p219106

But who listens to me? Dreamers gotta dream and that's what Spirit and his followers have been doing. Until harsh reality hit them on the head with a club wielded by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, the lair of the dreaded Judge Rooke. And it was Steve Pomerleau, the individual in the title of this discussion, who was the plaintiff who got his ass handed to him as a result of trying Spirit's methods.

Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency)
2017 ABQB 123
http://canlii.ca/t/gxnsd

However Zeus himself did not deign to personally descend from Olympus to blast this upstart with Hephaestus's thunderbolts. This task was instead passed down to one of the lowest of his minions, a Master, essentially a gatekeeper assigned to keep the judicial detritus away from the Queen's Bench judges. But you wouldn't know that from the decision which is essentially a mini-Meads v Meads, 56 pages of analysis to stomp on a lawsuit that could probably been dismissed in a quarter that length.

The starting gun was a Statement of Claim Pomerleau filed in November 2015 which, while not very enlightening as to the cause of action, was at least notable for its brevity;

Statement of facts relied on

1. Canada Revenue Agency is in possession of my property & so far, after approximately 152 days and many attempts sent by registered mail to Canada Revenue Agency officials, demanding the return of my property to its rightful owner, me, Canada Revenue Agency never returned my property nor replied to any of my letters.

Remedy sought

2. Four Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Six Hundred Forty One 22/100 CAD ($475,641.22) as of November 5, 2015
+
All daily compounded interest of 25% and 10% late penalty fees that are still in effect until the full payment of my property is paid and there are no outstanding balance due.

+
The fee of Twenty Five (25) troy ounces of .999 pure gold or its equivalent in CAD at the time/date of any and every of Steve Pomerleau court appearance(s) in order to recover his property.


Possibly feeling that this wasn't sufficient to sway the court in January 2016 he filed another;

Statement of facts relied on:

1. The Defendant is unlawfully in possession of the Plaintiff’s property which was fraudulently collected for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 & 2009.

2. The Plaintiff tried at multiple occasions to settle this dispute out of court but the Defendant ignored the Plaintiff’s request to have his property returned.

Remedy sought

3. One Million One Hundred Ninety Two Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Nine 14/100/CAD ($1,192,749.14).

+
All daily compounded interest of 25% and 10% late penalty fee which will be added every 90 days and until the full repayment of my property plus interest (is applicable) and late penalty fee(s) (if applicable) is paid and there are no outstanding balance due

* The 25% daily compounded interest will be recalculated on February 5, 2016
** The next late payment fee will be added (if applicable) on March 14, 2016.

+
The fee of Twenty Five (25) troy ounces of .999 pure gold or its equivalent in CAD at the time and date of any and every of Steve Pomerleau Court appearance(s) (if applicable) in order to recover his property with interest and penalties.

4. The Fee of Four Hundred Fifty CAD ($450.00) per hour for my physical and mental labors preparing this case in order to recover my property as stated in this Statement of Claim sections 1, 2 & 3. An Affidavit will be submitted as evidence of labors in order to recover these fees.


It all started with this;

[27] Mr. Pomerleau also explained more about the history of this dispute. In 2014, he received a $42,534.69 CRA reassessment. The CRA classified a living allowance as income. He then received a further reassessment for about $29,000 for his 2011 tax year, a year he had not filed a tax return. The total debt claimed was $71,286.45. Mr. Pomerleau was also laid off from his employment around this period.

[28] Mr. Pomerleau explained he was not the only person affected by this CRA action, which he called bullying. About 40 other employees of the same company were also reassessed in a parallel manner. This had caused personal and marital distress. Mr. Pomerleau at this point began to research law, and then discovered “great deceptions pertinent to Statutory creatures of the state et al as of: the ‘person’, ‘legal person’, ‘fictional person’”. He advanced these ideas in correspondence to the CRA, and demanded refund of amounts his employer had deducted for 2011-2014. Mr. Pomerleau also wrote a book that explained his ideas and his litigation. That book was then distributed to government officials and legal counsel for the CRA. I note Mr. Pomerleau’s book was not entered into evidence in this matter.


I'm familiar with what happened here, my wife had the same thing happen to her except it was in respect to free parking provided by her employer. The CRA often does projects where they check out an industry or an employer for a specific item. I'm not certain exactly what specific item was involved with Pomerleau, some kind of payment either the employer or the employees figured was non-taxable but the CRA disagreed.

This statement;

Mr. Pomerleau was also laid off from his employment around this period.


Has a back story related to Pomerleau's squabble with the CRA.

[29] Mr. Pomerleau’s conflict with the CRA spilled over into his employment relationship, and Mr. Pomerleau in February, 2016 was terminated from his employment with the ClearWater Energy Services LP business. Mr. Pomerleau explained he was well paid, making about $250,000.00 per year. He filed two lawsuits against his employer (Pomerleau v Clearstream Energy Holdings, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket No 1613 00126; Pomerleau v Clearstream Energy Holdings, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket No 1613 00127), but both these actions were struck out by Master Smart on April 19, 2016.


I'm guessing that Pomerleau lost a well-paying job because he tried to drag his employer into his tax dispute. The Income Tax Act requires Canadian employers to deduct taxes from gross wages (source deductions) before the net wages are distributed to employees. I assume that either Pomerleau demanded that Clearstream stop deducting taxes from his paycheque, a violation of federal law, or that he had his salary garnisheed after refusing to pay the assessment and he demanded that Clearstream not honour the garnishee. Either way he got the boot and he unsuccessfully sued his employer. Clearstream is in the oil sector which is facing a major recession in Alberta with many very qualified individuals looking for work. So good luck to Pomerleau in finding another job in the sector after suing his prior employer for refusing to help him avoid paying his taxes.

Russell Porisky, the "mastermind" behind the Paradigm tax evasion scheme, was an advocate of relentlessly harassing your employer to stop making source deductions from your pay until the problem solved itself by getting yourself fired. His big selling point was that Canadians can make themselves non-taxable by essentially just saying that they don't want to pay tax anymore. But Porisky knew that the Canada Revenue Agency wouldn't buy this argument so if you declared your income but didn't pay tax on it they would come after you even though you didn't owe it. So Russ's big solution was to not tell them. This turned tax avoidance (filing your returns but not paying the tax) into tax evasion and criminal convictions for most of Russ's followers. If you were an employee Russ had a lesson in his very comprehensive series of courses on how to get your employer to stop taking the illegal taxes from your pay and giving them to the government. Threaten to sue them! The Porisky harassment method is described here.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10271

Russ did note that there was a possibility that you'd be fired for threatening to sue your employer for following the law but his philosophy was nothing ventured, nothing gained. That worked about as well as you'd expect for Porisky's followers and, I assume, Pomerleau. So, now unemployed and with a pile of illegally taken back taxes owed to him, Pomerleau went to Queen's Bench. Essentially he wanted the court to force the CRA to return all of his previous years' taxes.

[3] In short, Mr. Pomerleau claims that the CRA has improperly received paycheque income tax deductions made by Mr. Pomerleau’s employers. His lawsuits are for the return of those funds, and various penalties.


The first order of business at trial was a Crown argument that Queen's Bench had no jurisdiction to hear the case since disputes of income tax assessments are the responsibility of the Tax Court of Canada. However Queen's Bench decided that this wasn't about the actual assessments but about a number of different issues all of which fell within the court's jurisdiction;

[40] Mr. Pomerleau’s lawsuits can be framed in a number of ways. They could be called a tort lawsuit, an equitable claim that Canada is unjustly enriched by operation of an unlawful scheme, a lawsuit for conversion of stolen property, or an application for reimbursement of moneys collected under ultra vires legislation. But in each of these cases, Mr. Pomerleau is not challenging his tax assessments themselves, but rather an ‘upstream’ basis for the operation of income tax legislation.


Based on this Queen's Bench decided that it had the jurisdiction to beat the crap out of Pomerleau. However the key position taken by the Crown was in paragraph 45;

[45] I therefore move to the second basis on which the CRA argues Mr. Pomerleau’s lawsuits are fatally flawed: his claim that he is outside the income tax apparatus as a whole is wrong in law, without merit, and an OPCA scheme.


A problem that Pomerleau faced was that Queen's Bench isn't kind to OPCA litigants.

V. Mr. Pomerleau’s Lawsuits are OPCA Litigation

[46] The basis on which I strike out Mr. Pomerleau’s litigation is that his arguments are legally false. He has no legal basis to seek return of amounts collected by his employers per the Income Tax Act and other related legislation. I will therefore trace through Mr. Pomerleau’s argument, as I understand it, and indicate where that scheme encounters issues.

[47] I subsequently also identify other problematic aspects to his litigation conduct to date. This has less to do with whether Mr. Pomerleau’s lawsuits have a legal basis but instead relates to him being potentially subject to other court responses, such as increased costs, and court access restrictions. Some of these supplementary findings are also intended to assist Mr. Pomerleau in understanding how certain points he has raised are false.


And one thing you don't do, ever, at Queen's Bench is crap on their landmark case, Meads v. Meads;

A. Preliminary Issue - Status of Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)

[48] Mr. Pomerleau in his written filings at various points criticizes the Meads v Meads decision of Associate Chief Justice Rooke of this Court. For example, in his April 18, 2016 filings Mr. Pomerleau says this decision is irrelevant to his litigation. He “object and REBUT” the Meads v Meads judgment. Mr. Pomerleau’s arguments and evidence are valid. He states that relying on Meads v Meads is “frivolous, improper, irrelevant and would constitute an abuse of process”, and is “PRIMA FACIE evidence that there is NO MERIT” to the CRA’s defence.

[49] More drastically, Mr. Pomerleau’s March 23, 2016 Application in Pomerleau v CRA #1 states that the Meads v Meads judgment is invalid. It is a fraud designed to deceive and injure humanity:

The FACT that a court Judgment (i.e Meads v. Meads) and/or Court cases (i.e. Meads v. Meads) and/or any/every documents/CONTRACTS (i.e Meads v. Meads) which are/is/was/were INTENTIONALLY made with the INTENT to DECEIVE/ AID and ABET humanity into FRAUD via ignorance of these CONTRACT FACTS are NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tune, ad infinitum. Any/all FRAUDS by virtue of its INTENT and CREATION remain as such, any/all FRAUDS exposed, all CONTRACTS are NULL and VOID upon its discovery where a FRAUD revealed is, in FACT, NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tune, ad infinitum.

[50] As a decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Meads v Meads judgment is a binding authority for a Master of this Court. I inquired during the hearing on Mr. Pomerleau’s position concerning that decision. He confirmed he had read it. Mr. Pomerleau was at this point more circumspect. He restated his respect for the Court and its decisions, but nevertheless indicated he believed the Meads v Meads judgment was engineered with the intent of concealing from Canadians their true rights, particularly when they did not use the exact correct terminology and/or language.

[51] Meads v Meads is binding case law on a Master and relates to many elements of Mr. Pomerleau’s litigation. In Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 703 (CanLII) at paras 32-46 I reviewed how the Meads v Meads decision is not merely a binding authority in this Court, but has been broadly endorsed by courts in Canada and the Commonwealth. I therefore reject Mr. Pomerleau’s argument that I cannot rely on this decision, or that it is “in FACT, NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tunc, ad infinitum.” Meads v Meads is instead a correct statement of Canadian law on this subject.


Pomerleau's main argument was that he was a special snowflake who couldn't be taxed. The court summarized this as;

B. The Tax Immunity Argument

[52] I interpret Mr. Pomerleau’s argument to have the following steps:

1. The Income Tax Act, s 248(1) definitions of “person” and “taxpayer” means that only corporations may be subject to income tax.

2. Human beings in Canada are misled into acting in concert with a government-owned artificial entity or corporation, a “fictional person”, “legal person”, “person/corporation”, “death fictional entity” [a.k.a. the “Strawman”], and/or being an employee thereof;

3. This makes human beings officers of the “Strawman”, and subject to income tax.

4. International human rights treaties are binding authorities that govern how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be interpreted, particularly Charter, s 7.

5. International treaties recognize that human beings have certain innate rights that they possess as a consequence of being human beings.

6. These inherent rights are also a reflection of common law and/or natural law principles.

7. The Charter, s 7 right to “life, liberty, and security of the person” must be interpreted so that it captures the rights enumerated in international human rights treaties.

8. One of the protected rights under Charter, s 7 is that a human being can be “a person before the law”.

9. A right is a privilege. A human being can reject any right, including being “a person before the law”. That is a right to refuse or reject being linked to the “Strawman”.

10. A second protected right is a right to property. A human being has an absolute right to their property.

11. A third protected right is the right to work, and to engage in economic activities without restriction.

12. Any restriction on rights identified in international treaties makes a human being a slave.

13. A human being who has rejected being “a person before the law” cannot be taxed because that human being is not a taxpayer, per Income Tax Act, s 248(1). The human being’s right to their property is absolute, therefore any employment contract payment deductions made by an employer are theft on behalf of the CRA, which receives those funds.


The first leg that the court kicked out from under Pomerleau was his argument that he wasn't a person as defined in the Income Tax Act because the Act defines "person" as;

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


and, under Pomerleaus understanding of "includes", this means that only corporations are persons. At virtually every freeman court hearing I've attended, all of the Poriskyites, Bernie Yankson, Charles Holmes, the sovereigns involved have used this argument and lost. A fact that the court was crass enough to bring up;

[61] Third, Mr. Pomerleau is wrong because the meaning of the “person” definition in the Income Tax Act has been repeatedly evaluated in Canadian case law, with a single consistent result. This is because the idea that a “person” is only a corporation and not a human being is one of the oldest Detaxer OPCA motifs. In every case, Canadian courts have said the same thing. Human beings are persons according to the Income Tax Act, s 248(1) definition. Here are a few examples.


In support of it's rejection of Pomerleau's arguments the court cited R v Klundert, Kennedy v Canada, R v David Lindsay, and Canada v Stanchfield.

Then on to the Freeman staple, the Strawman. The court noted that Pomerleau did not actually use the word "Strawman" but that was the argument he was making, that we are two people, generally the corporeal legal person and the physical natural person.

[75] Mr. Pomerleau’s approach clearly has evolved from what was initially a classic “Strawman” with two parts, one physical, the other non-corporeal, linked by a birth certificate, and where the non-physical aspect of the doppelganger provides the basis for state authority. As I have indicated, this concept has been globally rejected by Canadian courts.

[76] However, Mr. Pomerleau’s written submissions for the January 30, 2017 hearing display a somewhat different approach. Like the classic “Strawman”, he objects to being a “person”, or a “legal person”, or an “employee of a corporation”, or an “officer of a corporation”, because those are different and less than his ‘physical’ half, which he in his written argument calls “a Human Being in Full Legal Capacity”. Mr. Pomerleau says he does not have to be “any class of person”.


Queen's Bench, not being much interested in metaphysics, dismissed Pomerleau's arguments with the terse comment;

[78] None of these phrases, including “Human Being in Full Legal Capacity”, is found in any reported Canadian case. Frankly, they are just magic spell language. It does not matter how Mr. Pomerleau describes his human-ness.[1] In law, he is a person. This “Human Being in Full Legal Capacity” is called a “natural person”. And a natural person is a taxpayer, as I have previously explained.


But Master Schulz decided to make sure that the argument was totally stomped by adding;

[79] But there another, deeper problem with Mr. Pomerleau’s scheme. His mechanism for getting rid of the “Strawman” takes a somewhat different path. The traditional version attacks a contract between the human and the “Strawman”, or the effect of a birth certificate.

[80] Mr. Pomerleau’s version works this way. He cites two international treaties:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 16:

Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 6:

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

[Emphasis added.]

[81] Then Mr. Pomerleau says something unexpected. “A right does not produce an obligation.” “[R]ecognition everywhere as a person before the law” is a “right”. Ergo, Mr. Pomerleau can reject being “a person before the law”:

I have a right to recognition as a person, a legal person, a designated class of persons before the law and, my right does not obligated me to take recognition as of such designated class of persons ...

[82] And that is what Mr. Pomerleau says he has done. He has repeatedly told the CRA and other government actors that he is not “a person”, under a wide variety of labels.

[83] This is nothing but the “Strawman” tarted up in a new dress. In Canada a human being is also a legal person, “a person before the law”. You cannot reject that, or opt out of it. To try to do so is simply nonsense. To use the language of Mr. Pomerleau, a “Human Being in Full Legal Capacity” is also and always “a person”. They are one and the same. They have exactly the same rights. They have exactly the same obligations under Canadian law.


Tarted up in a new dress? Hardly judicial language from a court named after HRH Elizabeth II! Next the court will be talking about back alley quickies.

One point in this is worth a comment. Where have we heard “A right does not produce an obligation.” before? From my John Spirit quote at the beginning of this post;

So a natural right that we see expressed in the covenants is that a man or a woman has the right to have an adequate living. It doesn't say you have to earn it, it doesn't say you have to pursue after it, it doesn't say you have to create this adequate living on your own."


Spirit based this on Part 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cited by Pomerleau;

25. FOOD AND SHELTER FOR ALL

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


We've all seen how well these rights work in real life like, say, in Somalia.

An unfortunate point for John Spirit is that if the court crapped on Pomerleau's United Nations treaties based arguments because they have no binding legal authority in Canada it meant that it also crapped on John Spirit's main selling point in all of his videos and free money schemes. And crap away it did;

a. International Treaties are Not Binding Supra-Constitutional Authorities

[99] Mr. Pomerleau’s first fundamental error is that he claims international treaties are binding on Canada. This is wrong. International treaties, themselves, have no legal effect on governments or persons in Canada. A treaty is an agreement between states that is political in nature: A.G. for Ontario v Scott, 1955 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1956] SCR 137 at 142, 1 DLR (2d) 433. The only way in which an international treaty has any force and effect inside this country is by government order or if the treaty’s provisions are enacted as Canadian legislation: Capital Cities Communications Inc. v Canadian Radio-Television Commission, 1977 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 141 at 188, 81 DLR (3d) 609. Canadian governments may ignore international treaty and law, and even legislate in conflict and default on their international obligations, provided that is done in an explicit manner: R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26 (CanLII) at paras 53-54, [2007] 2 SCR 292.

[100] Mr. Pomerleau has cited a number of Supreme Court of Canada judgments that discuss the role international treaties play in the interpretation of Canadian legislation. For example, he quotes R v Hape, at para 53:

It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that legislation will be presumed to conform to international law. The presumption of conformity is based on the rule of judicial policy that, as a matter of law, courts will strive to avoid constructions of domestic law pursuant to which the state would be in violation of its international obligations, unless the wording of the statute clearly compels that result. ... the legislature is presumed to act in compliance with Canada’s obligations as a signatory of international treaties and as a member of the international community. In deciding between possible interpretations, courts will avoid a construction that would place Canada in breach of those obligations ...


[101] It is important to note that this quote from paragraph 53 omits an important concluding sentence: “Parliamentary sovereignty requires courts to give effect to a statute that demonstrates an unequivocal legislative intent to default on an international obligation.” Canadian law trumps anything in international treaties. What the passage quoted by Mr. Pomerleau means is that where there are alternative ways to interpret legislation, and one form is consistent with an international treaty, then that is the correct alternative interpretation.

[104] Another passage cited by Pomerleau states this principle in a clear and explicit manner. In Németh v Canada (Justice), 2010 SCC 56 (CanLII) at paras 34-35, [2010] 3 SCR 281 Cromwell J explains how international treaties serve as an interpretative tool, but do not dictate Canadian law:

[34] I also accept, of course, that, where possible, statutes should be interpreted in a way which makes their provisions consistent with Canada’s international treaty obligations and principles of international law. As LeBel J. noted in R. v. Hape ... it is presumed that the legislature acts in compliance with Canada’s obligations as a signatory of international treaties and as a member of the international community as well as in conformity with the values and principles of customary and conventional international law ...

[35] The presumption that legislation implements Canada’s international obligations is rebuttable. If the provisions are unambiguous, they must be given effect ... [Citations omitted.]


[105] Justice Cromwell here is very clear. R v Hape stands for the principle that when one is unsure how to interpret a statute, one presumes that statute is consistent with the international treaties to which Canada is a party. However, if legislation does not implement a treaty, then that ends the matter. The treaty is irrelevant.


Which leaves John Spirit twisting in the wind right alongside Steve Pomerleau. This analysis would have been enough to torpedo both John and Steve but Queen's Bench decided to pile it on. Paragraphs 106 to 125 explore the general topic of;

b. International Treaties are (sic) Do Not Invalidate Canadian Income Tax Legislation

And arrived at this conclusion;

d. Conclusion

[126] This shows how international treaties simply do not work the way Mr. Pomerleau says they do. Treaties are not ‘superior law’. Instead, a treaty is a political statement, and has no direct relevance or binding effect on Canadians and Canadian governments, unless the government takes the positive step of creating a domestic law that matches an international treaty. Even then the international treaties do not control the operation of that domestic law. Treaties are, at most, an interpretive tool.


And then Queen's Bench got giddy and went off on an unnecessary frolic;

VI. Other OPCA-Related Issues

[128] Though I have disposed of Mr. Pomerleau’s lawsuit on multiple bases as an attempt to implement legally incorrect OPCAs, there are other issues that arise in his materials that I wish to deal with, again as much for his benefit as for those litigants who follow this line of argument.

In other words the Master just decided, perhaps on a whim, to keep going even though Pomerleau was already dead and buried. First that old chestnut, a favorite of Chief Rock Sinl General and his followers, tacit agreement;

[129] Mr. Pomerleau in his written argument indicates on many occasions that he had sent documents to the CRA and other government officials. They did not reply or rebut the contents of those documents. That creates “tacit assent”. I asked Mr. Pomerleau in court what he meant by that, and he explained that silence means agreement. When I asked him whether he had Canadian court cases which indicate that is a rule of law, he said he had found that concept via “Google”, and on the Internet there are many mentions of this rule. He therefore accepted the principle must be correct.

[130] I pause at this point to note that the “Google” search engine is an unwise choice for legal research. In Canada the law is defined by legislation and the common law, which are the judgments given by Canadian courts. These can be accessed using the CanLII database, which is free and an extremely well designed and powerful legal research tool.

[131] In any case, Mr. Pomerleau’s belief that silence can mean agreement is wrong, and again this is a subject which is addressed in detail in the Meads v Meads decision at paras 447-528. Mr. Pomerleau says he has read this decision, which is binding on me. He should have understood that “tacit assent” does not apply here, and that the government actors had no obligation to reply to any of his documents, except two.

[132] Mr. Pomerleau on March 23, 2016 filed two “Notice to Admit Facts” documents. Rule 6.37 makes it a legal rule that a party to a lawsuit who receives a “Notice to Admit” is presumed to agree with an alleged fact in that “Notice”, unless it denies the fact, or objects to that fact. Here, silence does mean agreement, but this is a law put in place by the Alberta Legislature, and not a principle of common law. The CRA disputed Mr. Pomerleau’s Notices, and I agree with its position that the proposed admissions were irrelevant, improper and unnecessary, and nonsensical.


Pomerleau had sent the Crown a fee schedule of what it would have to pay him to have him get involved in the lawsuit he'd instigated. The schedule is included as an appendix to the decision and included items like this.

(A) Correspondences

A) Ten (10) troy ounces of .999 pure gold (or its equivalent in CAD at the time/date of the initiated correspondence) will be pay up front for any future correspondence by any public servants of Canada Revenue Agency, Government of Canada, the Crown or any other Canadian agencies private or public, Federal or Provincial including their affiliates, requiring a written reply, regardless of the nature of the request or the content of the reply. The followings must be taken in consideration;

1. Since phone conversation could be left open to interpretation therefore assumption, all correspondences will be done by register mail.

2. If section A) 1 is not meet, the correspondence(s) will be ignored without any consideration or acknowledgment of its content and included fee(s) (if applicable) will be non-refundable. The correspondence(s) will be kept for the record.

3. The fee is/are payable up front and must be included in the request at the time of the correspondence & at the rate mentioned in section A).

4. Once receive, the fee listed in section A) will be non-refundable.

B) Court appearance from any legal action(s) taken against or by Steve Pomerleau or for any general appearance requested.

B} Twenty Five (25) troy ounces of .999 pure gold (or its equivalent in CAD at the time/date of the initiated correspondence) will be pay up front for any request made by any public servants/Government employees/Canadian Citizens/taxpayers, to appear in any of the Canada's Court system regardless if it was subpoena and regardless of the nature of the request.


There is one section I particularly liked.

4. In the event of the unlikely disappearance of Steve Pomerleau;
a) If Steve Pomerleau goes missing for more than Fifteen (15) consecutive days, tangible proof of life e.g. verbal & physical contacts is requires with his direct family members (if alive) or trusted relatives.

b) In the event of section D) 4 a. is not witnessed, ANY of Steve Pomerleau' successors will be authorized to initiate section F) of this document, regardless of any laws or jurisdiction's which they believe could apply, since he will be presumed death.

c) If Steve Pomerleau reappears within the Fifteen (15) days period mentioned above and was unlawfully detained against his will, Legal action{s) will then be applicable to anyone directly or indirectly involved. All fees in regard of such legal action(s) will be applicable. *Refer to this entire document for all applicable fees.

d) If Steve Pomerleau reappears after section D) 4 b. is initiated, Legal action(s) will then be applicable to anyone directly or indirectly involved. All fees in regard of such legal action(s) will then be applicable. *Refer to this entire document for all applicable fees.

(F) In the event of the physical death of Steve Pomerleau due to any sections of this document, One hundred thousand (100, 000) troy ounces of .999 pure gold (or its equivalent in CAD at the time of death) will apply to anyone on planet Earth, found liable Including; the Government of Canada or any other representatives of any foreign countries or their Governments, if political influences (but not limited to) were use/utilized by any public servants of the Government of Canada or foreign Governments or anyone, to deliberately and intentionally inflict injuries/harms to Steve Pomerleau for which resulted in the physical death of Steve Pomerleau.


So, as I interpret this, Pomerleau could skip out to Mexico for a month without telling anyone. While he's basking on the beach the fifteen day limit expires triggering 4(a). Since they don't know where he is 4(b) triggers (F) and Pomerleau, presumed dead, is owed 100,000 troy ounces of gold. If he comes back at the end of the month 4(d) still means that he is entitled to a pile of money. I'm not going to go through the fee schedule and figure the amount out because Queen's Bench told him, politely, where to shove his fee schedule. He got ticked off over this and asked why the government can impose fee schedules but he can't. Simple;

[134] Mr. Pomerleau at the January 30, 2017 hearing asked why government actors can impose fines, like he did via his fee schedule. The answer to that is simple. Those fines and penalties ultimately flow from legislation authorized by democratically elected governments. They are law, and may be enforced without an individual’s agreement or consent. Mr. Pomerleau has no equivalent authority to impose analogous penalties.


Then a threat. Allen Boisjoli has been charged with what theAmericans call "paper terrorism" for swamping Queen's Bench with bullshit documents esentially similar to those that Pomerleau is so free with. So the Master said;

[136] I strongly recommend Mr. Pomerleau read the Re Boisjoli decision with care. In that decision Rooke ACJ concluded that Allen Nelson Boisjoli had prima facie committed the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 423.1 offence of intimidation of a justice system participant when Boisjoli attempted to enforce a fee schedule claim via the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. Boisjoli was subsequently charged with that offence and is facing trial.


And then there was another possible criminal offense that Pomerleau may have committed through his filings;

B. Criminal Interest Rates

[139] Mr. Pomerleau in his Statements of Claim demands “daily compounded interest of 25%” for the amounts he alleges are owed by the CRA. Criminal Code, s 347 makes excessive interest charges a criminal offence:

347(1) Despite any other Act of Parliament, everyone who enters into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate, or receives a payment or partial payment of interest at a criminal rate, is

(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

[140] “Criminal rate” is defined in s 347(2) as:

...an effective annual rate of interest calculated in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and principles that exceeds sixty per cent on the credit advanced under an agreement or arrangement;

[141] Mr. Pomerleau via this lawsuit is obviously attempting to charge and enforce a criminal rate of interest.

[142] While Mr. Pomerleau’s attempts to foist these interest obligations on the CRA are legally ineffective, Criminal Code, ss 24(1), 463 also make an attempt to commit an offence such as charging a criminal interest rate a basis for criminal prosecution and sanction.

[143] I will not belabour this point, other than to note to Mr. Pomerleau that he puts himself at risk when he advances claims of this kind. Further, attempts to co-opt the Court to enforce this kind of illegal activity is a basis to restrict future court access (Re Boisjoli, at paras 98-103), as well as other sanctions such as unfavorable and/or elevated costs.


Paragraphs 144 to 149 dismiss other trivial OPCA brick a brac that Pomerleau threw in the mix. After all this the Master struck out Pomerleau's lawsuits and gave him some constructive advice. If he's unhappy living in the dystopian hellhole that we other Canadians somehow tolerate he can bugger off and find somewhere else more amenable to his desires for a freeloading lifestyle.

VIII. Conclusion

[154] Mr. Pomerleau’s two lawsuits are struck out. Costs are ordered against him as indicated above.

[155] Mr. Pomerleau’s argument that he has a valid action against the CRA is clearly composed of old OPCA motifs, somewhat rearranged and rejiggered in what I perceive is an attempt to work around Canadian jurisprudence, such as that reviewed in Meads v Meads. It won’t work. Mr. Pomerleau in his oral submissions insinuated in a very polite manner that Canadian judges, government officials, and lawyers are attempting to conceal a way to the golden prize - life in Canada with all the benefits but none of the obligations. There simply is no way to do that.

[156] This does not, however, mean that Mr. Pomerleau has no choices. If he does not want to be subject to Canadian law, including a potential obligation to pay income tax, then he has an alternative. Leave. As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in R v Hape, Canada is sovereign and has the same independent and separate authority within its territorial boundaries as that of any nation-state. The corollary is that, with limited exceptions, Canada cannot reach out and impose its laws on those outside its land and controlled waters. There is nothing to stop Mr. Pomerleau from leaving Canada. Charter, s 6(1) gives him that right. However, if Mr. Pomerleau chooses to remain in Canada, and chooses to engage in activities such as working at a job that generates income, then Mr. Pomerleau is potentially subject to an obligation to pay income tax per Canadian legislation, including the Income Tax Act.

[157] It is as simple as that.


This line lingers;

Mr. Pomerleau in his oral submissions insinuated in a very polite manner that Canadian judges, government officials, and lawyers are attempting to conceal a way to the golden prize - life in Canada with all the benefits but none of the obligations. There simply is no way to do that.


Who else promotes that idea as part of his for sale package of OPCA advice? Hi John!

And there is this;

[160] I hope in the future Mr. Pomerleau will seek better sources for information than “YouTube videos of men scribbling on whiteboards”: Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, at paragraph 103. It is unlikely this or other courts will consider him a “fair dealer” if he continues down his current path.


YouTube videos of Men scribbling on Whiteboards? Hi again John!

And John Spirit's response to his life's work being gutted?

He didn't like it.

It's a little subtle, but if you look at this Facebook thread;

https://www.facebook.com/eternallyaware/posts/10155176583968319

and go to the end of it, there's a post by Eiricki Ragnarok which tells a whole lot, and is followed by over 100 replies:

Christian Gauthier John Spirit, although it may be difficult and time consuming, I'm going to do a response video to the judgement that zack tried to share. The guy made a whole pile of fatal errors which showed he didn't understand what he was doing, as well, Sandra made a mess of things by intentionally misrepresenting some of his submissions and twisting them up into what Im sure she though was a piece of art. We shouldn't hide or delete those comments, but rather used them for what they are, a chance to expose exactly what and how they are squashing people as they try to find their way.


It's pretty clear that "Zack" posted a reference to Pomerleau and that got deleted, along with the following replies. Spirit knows he's fucked, and is getting all worked up about it.

So here's a little roadmap for John to follow when he tries to disassociate his bullshit from Pomerleau's bullshit.

Spirit's concept shows up at a couple of points in Pomerleau. The first is that international law binds Canadian authorities. Pomerleau at paras 97-127 guts that. Spirit argues you can take international human rights treaties and 'read in' their provisions into Charter, s 7. The incomplete quote at para 100 from R v Hape is pure John Spirit. Pomerleau's other SCC case quotes are also straight from Spirits materials.

So that's the first great kick to the balls for Spirit. International treaties are, at most, an interpretation tool but they do not define Canadian law.

At paras 113-114 we see the treaties Spirit says are binding on Canada. The analysis by Master Schulz that follows eviscerates that axis of Spirit's argument, which is that international law creates property rights for Canadians via Charter s 7. Instead, the cases cited there show the opposite is true. Property and economic rights are never protected in Canada, and that was a conscious policy decision. The SCC and other courts have specifically rejected application of treaties as a basis for property rights via the Charter. So that rebuts what Spirit has been arguing for a least 3-4 years.

The modified Strawman argument at paras 75-88 is also pure John Spirit. He accepts that Meads has rejected the Strawman, and so has attempted to develop this new variation on the Strawman. Schulz rejects that as just another Strawman scheme. It doesn't matter whether the Strawman is a separate legal thing, or you are saying "I refuse the privilege of being a person before the law". Both are Strawman schemes. Spirit's innovation, such as it was, was that he reframed "a legal person" as being a personal right, rather than the Strawman being a distinct and separate entity glued to you by the State as was taught by Menard. The Pomerleau judgment says it doesn't matter - those two claims are variations of the same thing.

Spirit also argues that the Bill of Rights is a binding authority, which is rejected at para 147, but Spirit should have known better to use that argument, it's been long established as spurious.

So get to work on that video John. However I see that, as a fallback, you're trying a new gig, debt elimination;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9fNxPniwZw

Good luck with that!
"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
bmxninja357
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1027
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 7:46 am

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby bmxninja357 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:25 am

i imagine john spirit is what he will brew up in his cell toilet.....
peace
ninj
whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had gonorrhea....

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby wserra » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:34 am

bmxninja357 wrote:i imagine john spirit is what he will brew up in his cell toilet.....


More commonly known as "bowl punch".
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5837
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:50 am

I spent a lot of time on that posting, trying to focus the decision into a serious discussion about the effects of the most recent Canadian jurisprudence in respect to OPCA theories on the livelihoods of the current Canadian Freeman gurus. Then you two just make a joke out of it.

Although John's choice of a last name does fit well into a play on words about imprisonment . . . . . Screw you for thinking of it first Ninja!
"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

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby SteveUK » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:49 pm

A brilliant 10/10 write up there Burnaby. This is one of the funniest judgements since Parlee.

Gold star.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10916
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby notorial dissent » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:57 pm

I have to say that John looks rather like an animated corpse in that picture, and Deano actually looks washed and respectable. Otherwise, I'd say things didn't go well for Steve and John.
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.

LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby LordEd » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:21 pm

adequate location with regard to work and basic facilities – all at a reasonable cost".
I think he missed this part in the declaration.

norrha
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby norrha » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:31 pm

In all fairness to John Spirit, the language in the covenants, coupled with Canada being a signatory to them, is sufficiently strong so that an individual could reasonably assume that they are indeed law in Canada; so perhaps someone could post a Canadian court decision rebutting the presumption?

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby The Observer » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:48 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:I spent a lot of time on that posting, trying to focus the decision into a serious discussion about the effects of the most recent Canadian jurisprudence in respect to OPCA theories on the livelihoods of the current Canadian Freeman gurus. Then you two just make a joke out of it.


Well, you can hardly blame them for that. After all, putting up an court ruling with the words "tarted up" in it only flung the doors wide open for a few bon mots.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Arthur Rubin » Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:06 pm

norrha wrote:In all fairness to John Spirit, the language in the covenants, coupled with Canada being a signatory to them, is sufficiently strong so that an individual could reasonably assume that they are indeed law in Canada; so perhaps someone could post a Canadian court decision rebutting the presumption?
I believe you misread the statements about treaties. The judge (or master) stated that treaties are not the law of the land; however, if a statute is ambiguous, it should be interpreted consistently with treaties. The clarity of the treaty is irrelevant.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4962
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:13 pm

norrha wrote:In all fairness to John Spirit, the language in the covenants, coupled with Canada being a signatory to them, is sufficiently strong so that an individual could reasonably assume that they are indeed law in Canada; so perhaps someone could post a Canadian court decision rebutting the presumption?


Even better -- perhaps you or John Spirit could post a Canadian court decision showing that these covenants not only are indeed law in Canada, but override any provision to the contrary?

Any law student with half a brain understands that no international covenant overrides the laws of a sovereign nation unless that nation wishes it so.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5837
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:09 pm

norrha wrote:In all fairness to John Spirit, the language in the covenants, coupled with Canada being a signatory to them, is sufficiently strong so that an individual could reasonably assume that they are indeed law in Canada; so perhaps someone could post a Canadian court decision rebutting the presumption?


I did. Note that I cited;

a. International Treaties are Not Binding Supra-Constitutional Authorities

[99] Mr. Pomerleau’s first fundamental error is that he claims international treaties are binding on Canada. This is wrong. International treaties, themselves, have no legal effect on governments or persons in Canada. A treaty is an agreement between states that is political in nature: A.G. for Ontario v Scott, 1955 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1956] SCR 137 at 142, 1 DLR (2d) 433. The only way in which an international treaty has any force and effect inside this country is by government order or if the treaty’s provisions are enacted as Canadian legislation: Capital Cities Communications Inc. v Canadian Radio-Television Commission, 1977 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 141 at 188, 81 DLR (3d) 609. Canadian governments may ignore international treaty and law, and even legislate in conflict and default on their international obligations, provided that is done in an explicit manner: R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26 (CanLII) at paras 53-54, [2007] 2 SCR 292.

[100] Mr. Pomerleau has cited a number of Supreme Court of Canada judgments that discuss the role international treaties play in the interpretation of Canadian legislation. For example, he quotes R v Hape, at para 53:

. . . . .


All kinds of caselaw there including Supreme Court of Canada cases. You can start with R v Hape;

R. v. Hape
[2007] 2 SCR 292, 2007 SCC 26 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/1rq5n

I assume Pomerleau, given the obviously exhaustive internet research that he did prior to trial, is capable of checking into an issue of such importance to his arguments. All it takes, even without knowledge of specific jurisprudence, is to do a bit of research on the legal standing of United Nations treaties in respect to domestic law. I spent maybe fifteen minutes doing that myself while researching this decision just to clarify the status of the treaties in my own mind. I didn't need the entire fifteen minutes to determine that the arguments are bullshit.
"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: 10916
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:01 am

Burnaby49 wrote: I didn't need the entire fifteen minutes to determine that the arguments are bullshit.
Image Image
And it would seem, apparently neither did the court.
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.

Hallow
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:07 am

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Hallow » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:16 pm

Pottapaug1938 wrote:
norrha wrote:In all fairness to John Spirit, the language in the covenants, coupled with Canada being a signatory to them, is sufficiently strong so that an individual could reasonably assume that they are indeed law in Canada; so perhaps someone could post a Canadian court decision rebutting the presumption?


Even better -- perhaps you or John Spirit could post a Canadian court decision showing that these covenants not only are indeed law in Canada, but override any provision to the contrary?

Any law student with half a brain understands that no international covenant overrides the laws of a sovereign nation unless that nation wishes it so.


Pottapaug1938 wrote:
norrha wrote:In all fairness to John Spirit, the language in the covenants, coupled with Canada being a signatory to them, is sufficiently strong so that an individual could reasonably assume that they are indeed law in Canada; so perhaps someone could post a Canadian court decision rebutting the presumption?


Even better -- perhaps you or John Spirit could post a Canadian court decision showing that these covenants not only are indeed law in Canada, but override any provision to the contrary?

Any law student with half a brain understands that no international covenant overrides the laws of a sovereign nation unless that nation wishes it so.


I am no student of law and you guys are the experts.

s. 26 of the Charter
This section of the Charter states the guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exists in Canada.

Preamble of the Emergencies Act R.S.C., 1985, c. 22 (4th Supp.),
“AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency”.

If I comprehend you guys correctly, these international covenants are of no force or effect except in time of emergency or not at all ever?

Searched Supreme Court of Canada - "ICCPR"

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... AFSUNDUFIB

[25] As a treaty to which Canada is a signatory, the ICCPR is binding.

S.C.C. R. Hape

pg. 3 a court should seek to ensure compliance with Canada’s binding obligations under international law where the express words are capable of supporting such a construction.

pg. 4 investigative activities sanctioned by foreign law that would place Canada in violation of its international obligations in respect of human rights. Deference to the foreign law ends where clear violations of international law and fundamental human rights begin.

pg. 23 Prohibitive rules of international custom may be incorporated directly into domestic law through the common law, without the need for legislative action.According to the doctrine of adoption, the courts may adopt rules of customary international law as common law rules in order to base their decisions upon them, provided there is no valid legislation that clearly conflicts with the customary rule: I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (6th ed. 2003), at p. 41. Although it has long been recognized in English common law, the doctrine received its strongest endorsement in the landmark case of Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] 1 Q.B. 529 (C.A.). Lord Denning considered both the doctrine of adoption and the doctrine of transformation, according to which international law rules must be implemented by Parliament before they can be applied by domestic courts. In his opinion, the doctrine of adoption represents the correct approach in English law. Rules of international law are incorporated automatically, as they evolve, unless they conflict with legislation.
He wrote, at p. 554:

It is certain that international law does change. I would use of international law the words which Galileo used of the earth: “But it does move.” International law does change: and the courts have applied the changes without the aid of any Act of Parliament. . . .

Seeing that the rules of international law have changed — and do change — and that the courts have given effect to the changes without any Act of Parliament, it follows to my mind inexorably that the rules of international law, as existing from time to time, do form part of our English law.

pg. 25 Despite the Court’s silence in some recent cases, the doctrine of adoption has never been rejected in Canada. Indeed, there is a long line of cases in which the Court has either formally accepted it or at least applied it. In my view, following the common law tradition, it appears that the doctrine of adoption operates in Canada such that prohibitive rules of customary international law should be incorporated into domestic law in the absence of conflicting legislation.

pg. 27 While sovereignty is not absolute, the only limits on state sovereignty are those to which the state consents or that flow from customary or conventional international law. Some such limits have arisen from recent developments in international humanitarian law, international human rights law......

pg. 28 Every principle of customary international law is binding on all states unless superseded by another custom or by a
rule set out in an international treaty.

pg. 31 That deference ends where clear violations of international law and fundamental human rights begin.

pg. 32 First, the legislature is presumed to act in compliance with Canada’s obligations as a signatory of international treaties and as a member of the international community. In deciding between possible interpretations, courts will avoid a construction that would place Canada in breach of those obligations.....

Parliamentary sovereignty requires courts to give effect to a statute that demonstrates an unequivocal legislative intent to
default on an international obligation....

pg. 33 This Court has also looked to international law to assist it in interpreting the Charter. Whenever possible, it has sought to ensure consistency between its interpretation of the Charter, on the one hand, and Canada’s international obligations and the relevant principles of international law, on the other. For example, in Slaight Communications
Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038, at p. 1056, Dickson C.J., writing for the majority, quoted the following passage from his dissenting reasons in Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, at p. 349:

The content of Canada’s international human rights obligations is, in my view, an important indicia of the meaning of the “full benefit of the Charter’s protection”. I believe that the Charter should generally be presumed to provide protection at least as great as that afforded by similar provisions in international human rights documents which Canada has ratified.

pg. 52 Canadian officers from participating in activities that, though authorized by the laws of another state,
would cause Canada to be in violation of its international obligations in respect of human rights.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... AFSUNDUFIB
In this case the man's appeal was granted so he could claim damages against the crown under the ICCPR for breach of charter rights.....See para's. 135, 136, 137, and 138

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... AFSUNDUFIB
That the international community has collectively acted to condemn hate propaganda, and to oblige State Parties to CERD and ICCPR to prohibit such expression, thus emphasizes the importance of the objective behind s. 319(2) and the principles of equality and the inherent dignity of all persons that infuse both international human rights and the Charter.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... AFSUNDUFIB
[84] Canada has recognized that it is desirable to compensate victims of miscarriages of justice. In particular, it acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171

85] However, Canada has not enacted legislation to incorporate the ICCPR into Canadian domestic law. There is no legislation establishing an obligation for the federal government or the provinces to compensate victims of miscarriages of justice, nor is there any legislation establishing a right to such compensation.

So there you have it. Claim of rights under ICCPR can go either way. I suppose it depends, in part, on the type of claim and the status of capacity of the claimant. Best not go at it via a statutory court,

Scarola v. M.N.R., 2002 CanLII 741 (TCC)
[27] In R. v. Unnamed Person, [1985] O.J. No. 189, Zuber J.A. said, The term "inherent jurisdiction" is one that is commonly and not always accurately used when arguments are made with respect to the jurisdictional basis upon which a court is asked to make a particular order. The inherent jurisdiction of a superior court is derived not from any statute or rule of law but from the very nature of the court as a superior court (see, generally, I.H. Jacob, The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, 1970, C. Leg. Probs. 23).

[25] In Bogie v. The Queen, 97 DTC 1079, Brulé J. said at page 1080: The Court, as a statutory creation, does not have the inherent jurisdiction……..

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson [1995] 4 SCR 725
30 Discussing the history of inherent jurisdiction, Jacob says (at p. 25): the superior courts of common law have exercised the power which has come to be called "inherent jurisdiction"

Interpretation Act (Canada)
Property and Civil Rights

Duality of legal traditions and application of provincial law

8.1 Both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada and, unless otherwise provided by law, if in interpreting an enactment it is necessary to refer to a province’s rules, principles or concepts forming part of the law of property and civil rights, reference must be made to the rules, principles and concepts in force in the province at the time the enactment is being applied. 2001, c. 4, s. 8.

I'd stay away from those civil rights.......

Civil (adjective): Applying to ordinary citizens as contrasted with the military

Who wants to be an ordinary citizen? Heck, why would any one chose to be a citizen. Oh Canada.......in all our sons command. I ain't no son of Canada.

Let's see what Canada is,

Supreme Court of Canada Re: Authority of Parliament in relation to the Upper House, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54 Date: 1979-12-21: “Further, although s. 91(1) gave the Queen the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, to alter the “Constitution of Canada” except in certain expressly designated areas, it does not confer a power to amend the B.N.A. Act. The word “Canada” in s. 91(1) does not refer to Canada as a geographical unit but refers to the juristic federal unit”.

Ah, so Canada is not a geographical place it is a thing. Now I am certain I am no son of a thing, I mean Canada.

Ah, so this is how people are sucked in, incorporated into a thing as a son of that thing.

Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25
“municipality” means a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated; (“municipalité”)

Body corporate
4 (1) The inhabitants of every municipality are incorporated as a body corporate. 2001, c. 25, s. 4.

172. “resident” means a person who is a permanent resident or a temporary resident having a permanent dwelling within a geographic area and who is a Canadian citizen and is at least 18 years of age; (“résident”)

Criminal Code
municipality includes the corporation of a city, town, village, county, township, parish or other territorial or local division of a province, the inhabitants of which are incorporated or are entitled to hold property collectively for a public purpose [Gee, you mean all those years of workin to buy a house and I am incorporated, a resident, or entitled to hold it for public purpose]

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.ns ... 05171.html
Body corporate
The terms “body corporate” and “corporation” mean the same in that both are entities created by statute as legal persons with rights and obligations. However, “body corporate” is used in the laws administered by Corporations Canada to mean a corporation created by a corporate law other than one administered by Corporations Canada.

http://www.trenthills.ca/en/services/mu ... ration.asp
The CAO provides for the coordination, administration and direction of all the affairs of the Corporation of the Municipality of Trent Hills.

And to top it all off, only residents are subject to the Income Tax Act;

Liability for Tax
Tax payable by persons resident in Canada
2 (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.

Blacks Law 4th Ed.
Resident: One who has his residence in a place.
Residence: It requires only bodily presence as an inhabitant of a place

Ya, we got sucked in alright. From the ground up. And God formed man of the dust of the ground and the head of Canada turned on the vacuum called municipal corporation, a creature of the provinces. I mean who in their right mind would knowingly or willingly work their entire lives to hold property, a home, for a public purpose and get to pay income tax to boot? Time to go blow my load

I know I know it is all hogwash what I wrote but I do have a question. If all of this is binding on us because we are here then why the need to write all the code? I mean, if there is no choice to be incorporated or not, a son of Canada or not, a resident or not, a taxpayer or not; then why the Constitution of Canada? Why the Municipal Act and Income Tax Act? Heck, think of all the lawyers who'd be unemployed except they'd carry guns instead.........get to work you slaves...........

Hallow
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:07 am

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Hallow » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:31 pm

Gee I almost forgot,
The S.C.C. in Canada (The Minister of National Revenue) v. Stanchfield at para. 21 “Persons are of two classes only – natural persons and legal persons. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights or duties A legal person is anything to which the law gives a legal or fictitious existence and personality, with capacity for rights and duties”.

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission) [1990] 1 SCR 425 “While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities”.

I wonder. If man claims to be or appears as or to be a resident, citizen, taxpayer, driver, subject, officer, tenant, joint tenant, incorporated inhabitant, lawyer, is he a man living a fictitious existence, a creature of the state enjoying civil rights granted by the thing, I mean state?

Whose your daddy

I think I will write me a movie......Ya, I shall call it Man in Wonderland.

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4962
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:43 pm

Hallow wrote:
I am no student of law and you guys are the experts.


The first part of your statement is readily apparent from the hash of snippets from here and there.

I'll let the Canadian members of this forum respond to your laundry list in greater detail; but I can assure you that in the United States, your purported distinctions between "common law" and "statutory" courts would get any case based on that premise a swift dismissal. The same goes for a case based on a long-outdated legal compendium such as the 4th edition of Black's Law Dictionary.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5837
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:52 pm

Hallow contradicts me! And even cites some of the same legislation that I used. Particularly Hape;

R. v. Hape
[2007] 2 SCR 292, 2007 SCC 26 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/1rq5n

However, given the size of Hallow's vague and (at least to me) incomprehensible posting, I'm not going to spend the time necessary to attempt to refute it. I've already analyzed the issue once. So I'll just make two points;

1 - I've made an extensive posting analyzing why United Nations feel-good treaties do not override domestic law in Canada. Hallow has made an extensive posting saying otherwise. I'll leave it to the readers to study both and come their own conclusions which of us is correct. And Hallow and I are on the same footing! I'm not a lawyer either.

2 - If Hallow is correct why did Pomerleau lose? I've been to a vast amount of Freeman/Sovereign trials and court hearings where they argue their positions based on United Nations treaties. They have, without exception, lost. So if Hallow and John Spirit are correct in their interpretation of the law why do they all lose using this argument?
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby The Observer » Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:52 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:So if Hallow and John Spirit are correct in their interpretation of the law why do they all lose using this argument?


Because the Canadian court system is incredibly compromised and corrupt when it comes to ruling against sovrun gibberish?
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Hallow
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:07 am

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Hallow » Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:47 am

The Observer wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:So if Hallow and John Spirit are correct in their interpretation of the law why do they all lose using this argument?


Because the Canadian court system is incredibly compromised and corrupt when it comes to ruling against sovrun gibberish?


You guys are hilarious. I cannot speak for others and you have no clue who I am, what I have done, nor how. I am aware of people who did claim rights under the Charter but did so as citizens. Big mistake. They also go at it via a statutory court. Another big mistake. Unless in all your wisdom you know something I do not, only the Minister of Citizenship may grant citizenship. I never asked for nor has the said minister granted me the privilege of serving under Her Majesty. Article 8.2 of the ICCPR is found in domestic law at s.7 of the Charter. Liberty being the opposite of servitude. Anyhoo. You dudes are not the law and your opinions are just that, opinions. Ya ya, I know, so are mine. I know show you the proof. Show me your and I may show you mine..............hahahahahahaha


Actually I think I know who you are. I haven't named you because we don't out posters on Quatloos. However, if you say it's ok for me to post who I'm guessing you are, I'll give a name.

Hallow
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:07 am

Re: Steve Pomerleau screws John Spirit at Queen's Bench

Postby Hallow » Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:52 am

Burnaby49 wrote:Hallow contradicts me! And even cites some of the same legislation that I used. Particularly Hape;

R. v. Hape
[2007] 2 SCR 292, 2007 SCC 26 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/1rq5n

However, given the size of Hallow's vague and (at least to me) incomprehensible posting, I'm not going to spend the time necessary to attempt to refute it. I've already analyzed the issue once. So I'll just make two points;

1 - I've made an extensive posting analyzing why United Nations feel-good treaties do not override domestic law in Canada. Hallow has made an extensive posting saying otherwise. I'll leave it to the readers to study both and come their own conclusions which of us is correct. And Hallow and I are on the same footing! I'm not a lawyer either.


Absolutely correct, or about 70% correct. Article 8.2 of the ICCPR (thou shalt not be held in servitude) may not be accepted as authoritative in Canada, but s.7 of the Charter is. Liberty being the opposite of servitude.

2 - If Hallow is correct why did Pomerleau lose? I've been to a vast amount of Freeman/Sovereign trials and court hearings where they argue their positions based on United Nations treaties. They have, without exception, lost. So if Hallow and John Spirit are correct in their interpretation of the law why do they all lose using this argument?


I answered in the post that follows but good a question, the answer to which, reveals much.

Moderator note: Edited to adjust quotes
Last edited by Arthur Rubin on Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited by moderator to indicate who said what


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests