Re: Wally Dove - from CCRA toady to Human Rights Defender
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:30 pm
Since she does not work, where is the $2,600 going to come from if the parties decide to try and collect it?
Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
My guess is that it will come from the Canadian tax payers via social assistance payments, so in a sense, she's actually won!Judge Roy Bean wrote:Since she does not work, where is the $2,600 going to come from if the parties decide to try and collect it?
To start with there is nothing in the decision indicating that she doesn't currently work. Her goal is to be able to opt out of working and live the sovereign dream of becoming a parasite on Canadian taxpayers but she might not be there yet given that the government refuses to fund her demanded adequate living.Judge Roy Bean wrote:Since she does not work, where is the $2,600 going to come from if the parties decide to try and collect it?
I assume that's because some document has his name recorded in capital letters. Probably the Crown mocking him. Those Bastards!Correspondence received from, (Letter Form), Wally Dove (by email). Question regarding the style of cause. , (Electronic version filed on 2017-03-24)
It's because Wally, apparently clueless about presentations, picked the world's creakiest chair to sit in while doing this one. It's overwhelming. WD-40 next time Wally! Anyhow, had Wally worked in audit in Vancouver I'd have known him or heard about him unless his employment was of extremely short duration.Interesting content but a very bad choice of chairs for making such a recording.
So Wally owed Legal Aid Ontario money and he tried to pay it off with a bullshit promissory note. For some inexplicable reason they chose not to accept it. Why did he owe them money?[1] On or about October 26th, 2017, Wallace Maxwell Raymond Dove caused to be issued a Statement of Claim against Legal Aid Ontario.
[2] In that Statement of Claim (also entitled Notice of Application), Mr. Dove claims that the defendant is in violation of the rule of law and the rules of commerce by:
a) Refusing to apply the plaintiff's tender of a promissory note in satisfaction, discharge and payment of the debt between them;
b) Not removing the related lien against the plaintiff's real property; and
c) By failing to abide by the rule of law, the defendant has created circumstances that result in the defendant being guilty of the indictable offence of "trafficking in persons" against the plaintiff, contrary to s. 279.01, 279.04 of the Criminal Code.
The case that Wally required legal aid for was his 2004 trial for three counts of evading taxes, making false statements and conspiring to evade taxes.[3] Legal Aid Ontario, as defendant, has submitted that Mr. Dove had applied for and received a Legal Aid certificate and in consideration of receiving Legal Aid services, Mr. Dove was required to contribute towards the cost of the legal aid service to him pursuant to s. 40, 45 and 48 of the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998. On or about July 22nd, 2003, Mr. Dove executed a payment agreement with Legal Aid Ontario, and on July 31st, 2003, the lien was placed on his property. The lien remains on title as the debt has not been paid. Rather than offer payment, Mr. Dove has asked Legal Aid Ontario to accept his promissory note and to discharge the lien.
[4] Legal Aid Ontario is asking that the court dismiss Mr. Dove's Statement of Claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure R.R.O., Reg 194 on the basis that on its face it appears to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The defendant relies upon the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 (CanLII) wherein that court found that a promissory note was not the equivalent of cash and that such an argument was frivolous and vexatious.
So he hid his girfriend's body in a steel drum behindf a wall in his house so she wouldn't face the indignity of a legitimate burial. But;Wills’ married mistress of six years, Linda Mariani, went missing in 2002. Having been dumped by Ms. Mariani, Wills was immediately identified as a viable suspect even though he broadly hinted to his police associates that her husband was the likely culprit. Four months after her disappearance Wills retained top criminal counsel to cut a deal for him. He would admit that Linda accidentally fell down the stairs in his home, and acceding to her wishes, to avoid an undesirable burial in her husband’s mausoleum, he hid her in a 60 gallon vat behind a wall in his home, so he could later bury her in the resting place she desired.
That's when the fun started;The police weren’t buying what Richard Wills was selling. They located Linda’s body where Wills said it was but the evidence screamed homicide. She had a skipping rope tied around her neck and a baseball bat jammed in beside her. She died of blunt-force trauma. Mr. Wills was promptly charged with first degree murder.
Anyhow, back to Wally's problems. He'd gotten off from the criminal charges but owed Legal Aid Ontario money for Raj's services. He'd tendered the usual OPCA promissory notes to no avail so he sued Legal Aid Ontario for "trafficking in persons". How did it go? This is what Legal Aid wanted;The “Richard Wills Show” began with a 65 day preliminary hearing, a process designed to determine if there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial. Wills paid his first set of lawyers with his own money, after all, he was a millionaire. By the time he had fired multiple sets of new lawyers, he had transferred all his assets, including real estate and his police pension to his ex-wife and was now officially a pauper begging for legal aid. As an indigent criminal defendant the Attorney-General was obliged to follow Canadian case law and compelled to pay for his defence. Legal Aid received funds for Mr. Will’s defence from the Ontario government and was expected to oversee payments to his lawyers, only they didn’t realize they were to do more than just dole out money.
Representing himself for much of the preliminary hearing, his behaviour was outrageous. He was rude and childish, belching, passing gas, lying prone in the prisoner’s docket, and contemptuously degrading, swearing, and insulting the Judge, the prosecutors, and anyone else unlucky enough to be a part of the process.
He regularly urinated in the police van on the way to and from the courthouse and on one occasion displayed a handful of excrement to the Judge after a well-coordinated courtroom bowel movement. He revelled in the spotlight, ignoring the Judge’s admonitions and rebuke and obstreporously belaboured and delayed proceedings with his interminably irrelevant questioning of witnesses.
He rambled and repeated himself with the obvious goal of drawing out and delaying the hearing. He was finally ejected from the courtroom and forced to watch the proceedings via video from a separate room. Ultimately, he achieved his goal when the Attorney-General, in an unusual move, declared an end to the preliminary hearing even though it was far from finished, and directed that Mr. Wills go straight to trial. Of course, pre-trial motions occupied another 144 days before Mr. Wills 84 day trial commenced.
This is what it got;[4] Legal Aid Ontario is asking that the court dismiss Mr. Dove's Statement of Claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure R.R.O., Reg 194 on the basis that on its face it appears to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The defendant relies upon the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 (CanLII) wherein that court found that a promissory note was not the equivalent of cash and that such an argument was frivolous and vexatious.
[5] Should the defendant's request to have this matter dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 (or Rule 2.1.02) be granted? I have had the opportunity to review the plaintiff's Statement of Claim; Legal Aid Ontario's request dated November 28th, 2017 to have this matter dismissed; and Mr. Dove's submissions dated December 15th, 2017 (some 30 pages). Based upon these materials, I have been able to consider this matter and to determine if the request of the defendant to have the action stayed or dismissed should be granted.
[6] In matters of this nature, the court must take a cautious approach. See Husain v. Craig et al 2015 ONSC 1754 (CanLII
[7] Rule 2.1 is an extremely blunt instrument that should be reserved for the clearest of cases and only where the hallmarks of frivolous, vexatious or abusive litigation are plainly evident on the face of the pleading. Rule 2.1 is not meant to be an easily accessible alternative to a pleadings motion, a motion for summary judgment or a trial. Khan v. Krylov and Co., 2017 OJ No. 4073.
[8] I am satisfied, having considered the materials, and the law applicable to requests of this nature, that Mr. Dove's Statement of Claim has absolutely no chance of success. On the face of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, this a clear case of an abuse of process. Even if more facts were pled, the action itself is frivolous and vexatious and cannot possibly succeed.
[9] The action is therefore dismissed.).
I noticed this snippet in one of the links,to Raj Namal and the Wills trial.One of Mr. Will’s last lawyers, Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, was fired by Wills before the trial commenced. He alone billed almost $700,000 for “preparatory work” and was later disbarred by the Law Society of Upper Canada for overbilling by more than $100,000.