The infection is heading north!

[wserra]

Nope, retired.

That's what they want you to think.

[LPC]

When Charles finally ascends to the throne will all open cases be restyled "His Majesty the King Respondent", or only the cases filed after that date?

There are many American court cases brought against government officials in their official capacities, such as court cases against the Secretary of Defense over the incarceration of detainees at Guantanamo. I expect that, when the Secretary of Defense (or Attorney General, or Secretary of Health & Welfare, or other official) changes, the caption of those cases changes as well.

(One one time, cases in Tax Court--or the Board of Tax Appeals--were defended in the name of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue then serving, rather than just "Commissioner" as is done now. There was one particular idiot of a tax protester who insisted on referring to "the Helvering case," not realizing that Helvering had been Commissioner of Internal Revenue for many years and his name was on hundreds of cases, including dozens of Supreme Court decisions.)

I know that when an individual party litigant dies, there is a process usually known as a "suggestion of death" which allows the personal representative of the estate of the deceased party to become the real party litigant in interest.

So captions change, and not just because of the death of a monarch.

[LPC]

The Queen legally "controls" Canada in the sense that all Acts of Parliament (equivalent to your Acts of Congress) must get Royal Assent from the Queen or her representative the Governor General. However assent is never refused.

And if the Queen's assent was refused, I expect that Canada could ignore the refusal.

There would be a brief kerfluffle, and then everyone would say, "really, who cares," and get on with their lives.

[Pottapaug1938]

I remember a famous court case which started out as Gideon v. Cochran. Then, there was a change in the Florida office of which Cochran was the head; and so the case went into the history books as Gideon v. Wainwright, although Wainwright had little if anything to do with the case.

It's like a baseball pitcher coming into a game to protect a three-run lead, in the bottom of the ninth, with two out and the bases loaded (the starting pitcher had thrown a no-hitter for 8 2/3 innings, but had then walked the next three batters). He makes one pitch, the batter smacks the ball into the bleachers, and the guy who made one pitch is tagged with the loss.

[Burnaby49]

The Queen legally "controls" Canada in the sense that all Acts of Parliament (equivalent to your Acts of Congress) must get Royal Assent from the Queen or her representative the Governor General. However assent is never refused.

And if the Queen's assent was refused, I expect that Canada could ignore the refusal.

There would be a brief kerfluffle, and then everyone would say, "really, who cares," and get on with their lives.

Actually no. Royal Assent is not a quaint relic from the dusty past, it is, under our current system, a legal requirement to pass legislation. If the Queen refused assent the legislation would fail. However the Crown has never withheld assent except for an obscure one-off in 1937 relating to a provincial issue where a province attempted to take over a federal government power and the king, on the advice of the federal government, refused assent.

I said "under our current system" in the first sentence because if assent was refused for any reason nowadays apart from clearly illegal legislation (as in the example above) the requirement for Royal Assent would be eliminated pretty damn quickly.

BTW I was, legally, not an employee of the government of Canada but an employee of the Queen since she owns everything anyhow. As Wikipedia says on the issue;

As the living embodiment of the Crown, the sovereign is regarded as the personification of the Canadian state . . . . . . . . The state is therefore referred to as Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada or The Crown in Right of Canada, and the monarch's legal personality is sometimes referred to simply as Canada.

As such, the king or queen of Canada is the employer of all government officials and staff (including the viceroys, judges, members of the Canadian Forces, police officers, and parliamentarians), the guardian of foster children (Crown wards), as well as the owner of all state lands (Crown land), buildings and equipment (Crown held property), state owned companies (Crown corporations), and the copyright for all government publications (Crown copyright) This is all in his or her position as sovereign, and not as an individual; all such property is held by the Crown in perpetuity and cannot be sold by the sovereign without the proper advice and consent of his or her ministers.

As the embodiment of the state, the monarch tops the Canadian order of precedence and is also the locus of oaths of allegiance, required of many of the aforementioned employees of the Crown, as well as by new citizens, as per the Oath of Citizenship laid out in the Citizenship Act. This is done in reciprocation to the sovereign's Coronation Oath, wherein he or she promises "to govern the Peoples of... Canada... according to their respective laws and customs."

Since I was born here I did not have to swear allegiance as part of my citizenship but my wife, as an immigrant, did. I had to do it anyhow when I joined the federal government. No oath, no job.

[tracer]

the crown passes immediately upon death. While Elizabeth II had her Coronation on 2 June 1953 she automatically ascended to the throne over a year earlier on 6 February 1952, when her father died. The one year waiting period was standard, to get mourning out of the way. Her Coronation, for all its pomp, was actually just a ceremony confirming an existing fact.

Well, that's a relief!

I'd hate to think that if the King or Queen died while England was being invaded by huns, that there would be no monarch to rally the peasant armies of all the various English Duchies to defend the land.

[Cpt Banjo]

It's like a baseball pitcher coming into a game to protect a three-run lead, in the bottom of the ninth, with two out and the bases loaded (the starting pitcher had thrown a no-hitter for 8 2/3 innings, but had then walked the next three batters). He makes one pitch, the batter smacks the ball into the bleachers, and the guy who made one pitch is tagged with the loss.

On the other end of the spectrum is Ernie Shore. On June 23, 1917, in a game between the Red Sox and Washington Senators at Fenway Park, starting pitcher Babe Ruth walked the first batter and then got into a heated argument with the home plate umpire, who tossed Ruth out of the game. After Shore came in in relief, the runner at first was thrown out trying to steal second. Shore then proceeded to retire the remaining 26 Senators without allowing a baserunner, earning a 4–0 Red Sox win. For many years Shore was credited with a perfect game, but it is now officially scored as a no-hitter shared with Ruth.

[Burnaby49]

the crown passes immediately upon death. While Elizabeth II had her Coronation on 2 June 1953 she automatically ascended to the throne over a year earlier on 6 February 1952, when her father died. The one year waiting period was standard, to get mourning out of the way. Her Coronation, for all its pomp, was actually just a ceremony confirming an existing fact.

Well, that's a relief!

I'd hate to think that if the King or Queen died while England was being invaded by huns, that there would be no monarch to rally the peasant armies of all the various English Duchies to defend the land.

When King Harold took one for the team at the battle of Hastings in 1066 it probably wasn't much comfort to the troops to know the crown passed immediately to Edgar II. They were somewhat preoccupied in not getting slaughtered.

[LPC]

On June 23, 1917, in a game between the Red Sox and Washington Senators at Fenway Park, starting pitcher Babe Ruth walked the first batter and then got into a heated argument with the home plate umpire, who tossed Ruth out of the game. After Shore came in in relief, the runner at first was thrown out trying to steal second. Shore then proceeded to retire the remaining 26 Senators without allowing a baserunner, earning a 4–0 Red Sox win.

There have been games in which a relief pitcher has been brought in with two outs, a runner on base, and his team trailing. If the pitcher picks off the runner without throwing a pitch, and then is taken out of the game for a pinch hitter in the next inning, in which his team takes the lead and then goes on to win the game, the relief pitcher becomes the winning pitcher of record because he was the pitcher when his team took the lead even though he never actually threw a pitch.

[tracer]

It's like a baseball pitcher coming into a game to protect a three-run lead, in the bottom of the ninth, with two out and the bases loaded (the starting pitcher had thrown a no-hitter for 8 2/3 innings, but had then walked the next three batters). He makes one pitch, the batter smacks the ball into the bleachers, and the guy who made one pitch is tagged with the loss.

At least the runs scored by the guys that were on base when he came up to pitch count as Earned Runs for the previous pitcher. Only the batter who hit the grand-slam homer counts against the relief pitcher's Earned Run Average; the rest count against the E.R.A. of the pitcher who walked 'em.

(This is why I think W-L statistics for pitchers are nearly worthless. I'd take a pitcher with a low ERA over a pitcher with a high win-loss record any day.)

[wserra]

all the various English Duchies

"Anarcho-syndicalist communes". Please.

[The Observer]

"Anarcho-syndicalist communes". Please.

You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy.

[tracer]

"Anarcho-syndicalist communes". Please.

You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy.

Oh, NOW we see the violence inherent in the system!

[Burnaby49]

And Porisky gets a "faint hope" reprieve on his appeal of his conviction on the basis that the appeal isn't totally without merit.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/20 ... ca371.html

[Burnaby49]

Porisky gets bail, link below. While the Court of Appeal didn't seem to think much of his chances when the appeal is finally heard they figured he was harmless enough to let out in the interim. Some pertinant quotes;

Personal Circumstances

[65] Porisky is 51 years of age with no prior record of convictions. He is the father of four children, two of whom are still dependent on him, and he has lived in the Chilliwack area for almost 30 years. He was compliant with the terms of bail before trial.

[66] He intends to represent himself on the appeal although he wisely engaged counsel on this review. If he persists in his choice to act on his own, he will have difficulty perfecting the appeal from jail and conducting the necessary research to prepare a factum.

[67] The most significant feature of his personal circumstances is that as a non-violent offender, he is likely to serve only one-third of his sentence and thus be eligible for parole before his appeal is decided. The risk that his appeal would be rendered nugatory if bail is refused was an important reason for granting bail on review in O'Connor:

[7] The appellant has been in custody since September 13, 1996. Thus, he has already served over six months. It is a probability, amounting virtually to a certainty, that he will be eligible for parole before his appeal can be prepared, heard and determined.

The Strength of the Grounds

[68] The grounds against conviction in the notice of appeal run to 11 pages. They are prolix, unfocussed and tainted by the nonsense of the "natural person" theory. It is no wonder that the chambers justice found them frivolous.

[69] However, his counsel on the review application has identified several points of real substance which, if incorporated into an amended notice of appeal, could alter the nature of the case considerably. They are new grounds but because our review process is de novo in many respects, no objection was taken to our consideration of them.

[73] In the result, I would allow the review application and release Porisky on terms to be settled before a justice in chambers.

[74] One final comment, Porisky has the right to represent himself on this appeal. Nevertheless, he may well ask himself whether he can competently argue the points discovered by counsel and which led to his success on this review.


http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/ ... CA0467.htm

[notorial dissent]

I like [74], any bets on him being smart enough to pay attention to 1)the court, and 2) counsel???? My impression is that his ego will get in the way.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A follow-up to Eva Sydel, the dentist who's obsession with the natural person argument basically took over her life. As related in prior posts she ended up doing jail time for criminal tax evasion, a relatively rare event in Canada. She appealed everything to the British Columbia Supreme Court and in May 2011 the appeal was dismissed with costs. Not knowing when to quit she took the whole mess to the Supreme Court of Canada and applied for leave to appeal there. This was dismissed with costs in December 2011. ...

Nowhere else to go after the SCC but I don't doubt we'll be hearing about her again.

[Emphasis added.]

And Burnaby49 is very correct. Allow me to present:

Is Canada A Delusional State? http://www.revenuecanada666.com/

This is more from Eva Sydel, and elaborates on her obsession with Freemasons that was reported in the cases previously identified by Burnaby49. I particularly like the commentary here:

http://www.revenuecanada666.com/the-rus ... fraud.html

Yes, the CRA is controlled by Freemasons, otherwise why else would it have taken so long to prosecute Russell Porisky? Oh, and she still hasn't entirely given up on Porisky's ideas, as the section entitled "In Defence of Russ Porisky" illustrates.

And is Eva going to simply submit, and let those vile Freemasons get away with it? Not a chance! Only a couple weeks ago she launched a new action in Federal Court to once and for all prove that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson is neck-deep in Freemasonry and Stuff!

http://www.revenuecanada666.com/breakin ... ments.html

Freemason simp authorities beware.

And then there's this weird reverse anti-Semitism on the first page:

When insiders with the Government of Canada selected a female Jewish prosecutor to prosecute a female German national, citizen of Canada, and put the case before a male Jewish judge, they proved themselves to be amoral, sociopathic maniacs, who were prepared to mock, debase and trivialize the memory of the Holocaust by forcing the government's Jewish employees to play a part in a sick form of ethnic political theatre pitting two Jews against a German, as part of a depraved pschological strategy intended to demoralize a legitimate political movement, the "de-tax movement" in Canada.

The conduct of the Governmnents of Canada and British Columbia was exactly similar, in principle, to that of the Nazi Government in Germany, that mocked the interned Jews by forcing them to work as slaves in the concentration camps stoking the fires at Auschwitz and pulling gold from the teeth of the victims of the Nazi government of Adolf Hitler.

The pathetic attempting to mock Eva Sydel and the "de-tax movement" that she was supposed to represent, by deliberately putting her, a German national, on trail before a Jewish prosecutor and a Jewish judge, proved that the Canadian government was prepared, like the Nazis, to mock the Jewish people and their religion by forcing people of Jewish faith to do Canada's dirty work.

I hope she doesn't find out that 1/3 of the current Supreme Court of Canada is Jewish. Heaven knows what that revelation will mean!

All neatly wrapped up in that particular webpage design style that says "I'm obsessed and not entirely all there." Good luck, Dr. Sydel! Godspeed!

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

I thought I remembered her, when you got to the conspiracy rant rehash it all came hideously back.

I don't know what it is with the dentists, but they seem to produce some class A whackadoos, American or Canadian. I keep blaming it on the self administration of NO2, or maybe too much mercury absorption. This might be an actually valid case for chelation therapy, you never know!

I would be willing to bet the poor Canadian Supreme Court hasn't heard the last of her, they will undoubtedly be hearing from her yet again, that kind doesn't learn, they just probably aren't going to be hearing her, since she really has nothing worth hearing to say.

[AndyK]

Perhaps it's a result of years of exposure to nitrous oxide and the mercury used in dental fillings.

Although the mercury, once mixed into the amalgam, is relatively safe to the patient; long-term exposure to mercury metal or fumes produces esults similar to lead poisoning (Same family in the periodic table?)

BUT-- This could be a source of referrals to the chelation therapies lunatics.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks for the Eva update. I was certain that she hadn't finished her crusade just because of a few trivial setbacks (jail time, professional ruin, unemployment and penury, alienation from family, etc). I followed her self-destructive anti-tax career when I was a CRA employee and I thought she was about as sad a case of drinking the kool-aid as I ever saw. Here are some comments on that issue from the sentencing judge after her trial for tax evasion:

[30] Judges do not like to send people to jail. Judges do not want to send people to jail. In fact, Parliament has by the Criminal Code decreed that judges ought to do everything reasonably possible to avoid sending people to jail. Jail becomes a necessity only when there are no other reasonable alternatives.

[31] Bearing that in mind, the Pre-Sentence Report was prepared, and I looked through the Pre-Sentence Report, frankly, hoping that there would be something in there that would give me an explanation of what Dr. Sydel was all about, why she took the position she did, where the money went? Did it go to some other worthy cause? Did it come to be used for some societal good? What background did she have that would have caused her, notwithstanding her education, to become willfully blind as to these positions which caused her so much anxiety and grief over the years?

[32] I also looked to see what real emotional and physical effects were caused her, as a result of these proceedings. I do know that in Dr. Sydel’s own statements at sentencing, and her counsel’s submissions today, that she suffered spiritually, physically, and mentally, over the stress of taking this position and going through some eight years of battle with Revenue Canada and the courts. But yet, when the Pre-Sentence Report came down, I looked, hoping to find some confirmation of some of that, for instance, that counseling was in place, that doctors, psychiatrists or counselors were being seen, that she was on medication for depression or anxiety, be it traditional medications or be it naturopathic medications. There was none of that.

[33] I looked in the Pre-Sentence Report, hoping to find that as a dentist maybe she had provided some dental care free to people in need, children who are sick, families who are on or below the poverty line, who couldn't afford dental care; maybe help was given to people in ravaged countries, be they Africa, the Middle East, Tibet, Bosnia, Haiti, anywhere, or even in our own Aboriginal community where poverty is rampant. There was none of that.

[34] I looked for maybe some medical or dental help that was given to kids living on the street, to mentally ill people, to physically ill people, to children who are sick in this country or another country, but there was nothing free given. There was nothing given.

[35] I looked at her interests and activities, hoping to see volunteer work of some kind or other, but there was nothing. She was not a Big Sister, she did not do volunteer work for Meals on Wheels or anything else. And that was of concern to me.

[36] I then looked and hoped, that maybe there would be something that would show what happened to the money. Maybe it was put towards world peace, to combat world sickness, to help disabled people, marginalized people, the prejudiced, something, and there was nothing. All we have is somebody who earned close to a million dollars who either spent it all, or I find more probably, socked it all away somewhere or other, to be available to her later on.

[37] So as I read the Pre-Sentence Report, I thought, maybe there was something in her background that caused her to be selfish, to use the facilities of Canada, use all the tax paid for benefits, and then just sock away the money, or spend it, as she said she did. But, she grew up in a middle class family. Her family was a close knit family that provided her food, clothing, housing, warmth, money to travel, money to go on to higher education. She was not a physically abused child, nor was she a mentally abused child. She had the advantages of a good home with a comfortable style of living. She then went on to become a dentist and earn very large amounts of money.

[38] So there was nothing in the Pre-Sentence Report that I could at least look to and say, “well, I understand how all this came to be, and I have some compassion, some understanding of how somebody could end up in this position,” but I look at the Pre-Sentence Report and there is nothing that takes her out of the realm of people who have, in effect, stolen money from all the people of Canada, and all the while using the facilities of Canada, for which all other taxpayers are forced to pay.

[39] It seems to me that this type of crime, and this type of individual, as Dr. Sydel is, is precisely the type of individual and crime that society must, when they look at, say, "How can somebody go for so many years earning so much money and not pay a dime in taxes, via the process of delay and then bankruptcy, while using every free facility that Canada has to offer?" The people have to look at that and say that the only appropriate punishment for somebody like this is a jail sentence. What deterrent would there be for anyone else to earn either smaller amounts of money, or larger amounts of money, and just sock it away, or spend it all, delay as long as possible, get convicted, go bankrupt, and then essentially continue on with their life as if this is all perfectly okay?

[40] I even hoped that at the time Dr. Sydel addressed me in person on the last occasion, that she would acknowledge that she would abide by the final ruling in this case. I accept that people, whether involved in crimes of income tax, white collar crime, crimes of violence, or any other type of crime, often will, notwithstanding what the judge says, take the view that they are innocent, and they will not accept the Court’s finding of guilt. Courts can live with that. But what we cannot live with, and what society cannot live with, is somebody who is saying, "Not only do I not believe you are right, I will not obey your Order." And what she told me last time was that she will “succumb to the machinery, or succumb to the demands of the State,” or the Court Orders, only after all of the legitimate appeals have been exhausted.

[41] This is not somebody who has said, "All right, I do not accept what the judge is saying, but this is the law and I will start to obey it." There was no indication last time or today, that starting now, income will be fairly and honestly reported, taxes will be paid. No, there is more defiance and refusal to follow law and order. That is not something that helps me in believing that a specific personal deterrent is something that is not necessary for her.

[42] Dr. Sydel, in court, effectively placed herself, with her beliefs, in the position of a kind of freedom fighter whereby that she was taking and representing a stance, that was based on the Magna Carta, the Charter of Rights, the Bill of Rights, that the Government had no right to interfere with the natural rights of a natural person; that the Government could create all the artificial entities they wanted, but the Government could not exercise any control over natural persons, and she was, a natural person. But a “freedom fighter”, generally, is somebody who fights for the freedom and rights of others, not only for themselves.

[43] There are people who have fought for the freedom to vote, the freedom to be free of interrogation by the government, be free of torture by the government, to be free of imprisonment by the government, to be free to deal with your body in any way you see fit, be it blood transfusions or be it abortions, but she was not operating as a freedom fighter for anyone else except herself. Her motive was selfish, it was not utilitarian. Her motive was to permit Dr. Sydel to earn loads of money, not pay any taxes, and yet still benefit from all of the free services that the government has to offer.

[44] Her argument, that she was at liberty to use the public parks, the highways, the buildings, the health care, the airports, and everything else the province and the country provides, without paying her fair share of taxes towards those costs, is untenable.

And her contrite plea for forgiveness after these comments?

[55] THE ACCUSED: I cannot accept that.
[[59] THE ACCUSED: I cannot accept your sentence, Your Honour.
[60] THE COURT: All right.
[61] THE ACCUSED: I will not accept that.

Now that she has nothing left she has nothing to lose by going for broke. She is as good an example as you can find of how intelligence is in no way correlated to common sense. She is completely obsessed with Jews and masons. Her tax issues may stem from that and how the two groups control government and the tax system. In her appeal from her criminal conviction for tax evasion she entered as evidence the observations of a professional magician she hired to sit in court and observe the proceedings:

[18] The applicant submitted that there was a “Freemasonic conspiracy” respecting her conviction. The applicant argued that the provincial court judge and the chief investigator for the Canada Revenue Agency were Freemasons working together. This argument she asserted was the most compelling reason to set aside the order. She also argued that because, in her filed action, notices to admit were served by her as to whether the parties were Freemasons and there was apparently denials and or refusal to answer by all, this equaled an admission of affiliation to or membership with Freemasonry.

[19] The affidavit of Kirby McAllister was attached to Ms. Sydel’s affidavit in this matter. It had originally been filed in civil action no. S097390, Vancouver Registry, the action noted above in paragraph 17. Ms. Sydel pointed to this in support of her Freemason conspiracy point. Kirby McAllister deposed that he was a magician and had learned of hand movements to communicate during the course of his career, and while not professing to know the “sign language” of Freemasonry, he deposed “I have also learned that there is sign language carried out through the use of hand gestures and other bodily movements that is used by members of the Freemason fraternity, although I do not profess to know the ‘sign language’ of Freemasonry.” He further deposed that during the course of the bail hearing of the plaintiff, “I observed both Judge Paul Meyers and Richard Olney engaged in non-verbal communication through the use of a (sic) hand gestures and head movements. I observed that this occurred when Judge Paul Meyers responded to specific hand gestures initiated by Richard Olney”.

Richard Only, who is an acquaintance of mine, was a CRA employee in Special Investigations who worked on building the case against her. Apparently every time he blew his nose or scratched his ass it was a masonic signal to the judge how to direct the case.

I worked for the CRA for 35 years as an auditor (fairly senior at the end) and, if the masons controlled us, they kept it as secret from me as they did from the rest of the uninformed fools (apart from enlightened types like Eva) that constitude the population of Canada.

However Eva did make what I think to be one valid point about an issue that drives conspiracy theorists even more demented than they already are:

[21] The applicant also asserted that the federal government’s telephone numbers in Vancouver have the digits 666 in them. She submitted that 666 is the sign of the beast and is a number frequently associated with Freemasonry. The applicant continued her argument that failure to fully deny Freemasonry ties should be equated with membership of Freemasonry. Part of her argument was that by the Act For More Effectually Preventing The Administering of Taking of Unlawful Oaths, Statues of England, 1796, George III, c. 123 (assuming it to be part of the laws of British Columbia as argued by the applicant) was being violated due to the trial judge failing to disclose whether he was a Freemason. She indicated that her position was that full disclosure of membership or association with freemasonry should be made and is required by the laws of British Columbia.

The phone number comment is actually true. For no reason I have ever dug up all of the Canadian federal government phone numbers in Vancouver start with 666, the claimed mark of the beast from Revelations (although I've read that newer interpretations think it is actually 616 (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_beast)). No doubt random selection but the government, being obsessively bureaucratic, is totally tone-deaf to the fact that this is a major flash point for conspiracy theorists and hasn't, at least for the forty or so years I've kept track, bothered to change it.