Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Moderator: Burnaby49

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Sun May 05, 2013 4:48 am

And the CRA earns another kill-ring, this time it’s a Jerry Leroy McCaw:

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Estevan+ ... story.html
http://ckom.com/story/saskatchewan-man- ... ion/107412
http://www.estevanmercury.ca/article/20 ... provincial

This is yet another of the Porisky clan.

These articles identify another Porisky promoter, a Gerald W. Blerot, who is presently facing charges for tax evasion and promoting tax evasion. Up until this point I had not detected Blerot, however he has an extensive litigation history with quite unusual aspects.

He first appears in 1996, engaged in some kind of pseudolegal-type activity. This leads to an action by the Law Society of Saskatchewan, court decisions with a couple chiefly procedural aspects are reported here:

Blerot v. Saskatchewan Law Society, 1996 CanLII 4971 (Sask. C.A.): http://canlii.ca/t/1mb4t
Blerot v. Agricultural Credit Corporation of Saskatchewan, 1996 CanLII 4919 (Sask. C.A.): http://canlii.ca/t/1mb33

Media reporting from this period indicates that Blerot claimed that as a “paralegal” that he could take dramatic activities, while rabble-rousing against the Canadian Wheat Board:

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/artic ... der-arrest
http://business.highbeam.com/5587/artic ... egal-busts
http://www.producer.com/1996/02/farm-gr ... extortion/

The Canadian Wheat Board is an organization that in Canada until 2011 acted as a required marketing conduit for producers of wheat and some other grains. The producers sold grains to the Wheat Board at a set price, and then the Wheat Board marketed those grains to any customer.

A parallel Manitoba practicing as a lawyer prohibition also issued in this period:

http://www.producer.com/1997/01/activis ... l-counsel/

Shortly after these developments Blerot makes a kind of citizen arrest of the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice and Attorney General inside the Legislative Building. The details of this encounter are reported in this decision:

R. v. Blerot, 1998 CanLII 13335 (SK PC): http://canlii.ca/t/1nqrs

In brief, Blerot and several other persons intercept the Minister in a semi-secure area, Blerot grabs the Minister’s arm, announces he is under a citizen’s arrest, all while the other persons videotape the events. Security intervenes, the Minister is released, and Blerot is arrested.

It appears the basis for Blerot’s actions was that Blerot disapproved of the Crown staying criminal charges against a Sasktchewan lawyer, Conrad D. Hadubiak. At para. 21 we find a breakdown of Blerot’s beliefs, which includes:

The accused's name is typed in small letters on his birth certificate but completely in capital letters on his driver's licence and the information charging the offence before the court. As the court understands the accused's position, he feels we have the wrong person and the information is not valid. The court can reject this position outright as having no basis in law whatsoever.


This appears to be the first instance in Canada where the upper/lower case name OPCA argument is reported, and is not identified in Meads v. Meads.

Unsurprisingly, Blerot is found guilty of assault. He appealed, presumably unsuccessfully, which resulted a quite odd decision of the Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench that concluded the court had not lost jurisdiction when the appeal was heard in a different courtroom than where it had initially been scheduled:

R. v. Blerot, 1999 SKQB 23: http://canlii.ca/t/1lbtx

I guess you can’t fault the guy for trying…

Blerot next pops up in 1999, in a dispute over how interest should be calculated for a farm loan. This leads to a series of decisions:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Blerot, 1999 CanLII 12604 (Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench): http://canlii.ca/t/1lbfb
Canada (Attorney General) v. Blerot, 2001 SKCA 18: http://canlii.ca/t/4tbz
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is denied.

Blerot then in 2003 promoted a cluster of businesses, all which have “Synergy” in their names, and that that offer investment in a “tax free environment”. This presumed scam gets shut down as well:

http://www.msc.gov.mb.ca/legal_docs/inv ... lerot.html

Then it’s all quiet on the Blerot front, at least until 2006. At that point Blerot is heading a corporation named “Plain Investment”, which was part of an investment scheme in sporting and cultural event tickets, described this way in the 2008 Canadian Securities Administrators report:

In cases of illegal distribution, investors are often promised guaranteed or unrealistic returns on an investment. In the Executive Marketing Strategies (EMS) case in Alberta, for example, investors were promised “highly attractive” returns of as much as 18 per cent per quarter to invest in an event ticket business. The respondents in EMS raised approximately $10 million from over 300 investors by selling them loan agreements in which money would be lent to ticket brokers for the purchase of large blocks of event tickets. An Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) panel found that EMS failed to demonstrate all of the money raised through the loan agreements was used for this purpose, and that the respondents personally benefited from the money received by EMS. The ASC panel ordered a total of $490,000 in administrative penalties and trading bans against the respondents.


Again, quiet, until Blerot attempts to contest search warrants by the CRA for information presumably related to tax evasion.

Blerot v. Canada (National Revenue), 2011 FC 882: http://canlii.ca/t/fmcd5
Canada (Attorney General) v. Blerot, 2012 FCA 124: http://canlii.ca/t/frc7j

And that didn’t work. In the Federal Court decision he is identified as "Gerald Blerot (Natural Person)".

Blerot appears to be a pure-stream Detaxer, with no associated Freeman-on-the-Land indicia or aspects. If he has an online presence, it eluded me.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby wserra » Sun May 05, 2013 11:32 am

Does Canada have the equivalent of the U.S. "vexatious litigant"? The application is somewhat haphazard here: once some nitwit has filed a number of baseless lawsuits, typically but not necessarily against government, courts sometimes declare him a vexatious litigant. This prohibits him from any further new filings without a judge's consent.

If Canada hasn't employed the device to date, Blerot seems a good place to start.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Sun May 05, 2013 4:55 pm

wserra wrote:Does Canada have the equivalent of the U.S. "vexatious litigant"? The application is somewhat haphazard here: once some nitwit has filed a number of baseless lawsuits, typically but not necessarily against government, courts sometimes declare him a vexatious litigant. This prohibits him from any further new filings without a judge's consent.

If Canada hasn't employed the device to date, Blerot seems a good place to start.


Canada also uses the vexatious litigant concept, and it operates in somewhat the same way as you described. Historically, the capacity of a judge to make an order of that kind was something of an issue, because Canadian courts are divided into two kinds: those with 'inherent jurisdiction', and those assigned jurisdiction via legislation. The former category are the Canadian provincial superior courts, such as the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the British Columbia Court of Queen's Bench. Most provinces use the "Queen's Bench" name to identify these courts; Ontario decided to be different.

When the 'legislative courts' were brought into existence they were not specifically authorized to make vexatious litigant declarations and so for quite a time judges in 'legislative courts' lacked authority to restrict a person's ability to file materials or initiate a legal action or appeal. However, in the last couple decades all provincial governments have passed legislation to explicitly provide an authority of this kind, though its operation varies jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Prior to that, it was only the Canadian provincial superior courts that could restrict a person's activities by a vexatious litigant declaration, and those courts could do so because their jurisdiction is flexible and essentially 'deals with whatever is necessary', which led to some odd situations as court jurisdictions interfaced. Since legislation on this issue was passed that is not really a problem.

I suspect the Canadian and U.S. situations have some parallels. As our vexatious litigant schemes are provincial in origin and administration, the approaches to litigants of that kind varies province to province. Further, a declaration in one province does not affect the litigant's ability to cause mayhem in another jurisdiction.

It seems to me that Canadian courts are generally quite hesitant to 'pull the trigger' and designate a person a vexatious litigant, though (qualitative assessment) that step appears more and more frequent. Another issue is who should initiate the vexatious litigant declaration process. Some courts seem to want someone else to take that step. A good illustration is this pair of cases:

McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABQB 456: http://canlii.ca/t/fs212
McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABQB 625: http://canlii.ca/t/ftd0n

The first decision is a (successful) motion to strike a lawsuit for hundreds of millions of dollars in relation to alleged wrongful prosecution of a dog neglect case. Reading through this judgment makes it obvious that the plaintiff, a Greg McMeekin, is quite the character. There is a cute passage at para. 83 where the judge discovers Mr. McMeekin's very extensive and colourful litigation history in other jurisdictions. Combined, these lead to an analysis of whether Mr. McMeekin is a vexatious litigant (paras. 178-212), and then the judge nudges the Attorney General to make a vexatious litigant application (para. 213).

The second decision then is the subsequent application for a vexatious litigant declaration. Mr. McMeekin's closing argument is quoted extensively at para. 36, and well ... he certainly argues his case in a direct manner:

... I’m not going away. The next step is, the next step is going to be applications to the judicature counsel, the applications to the human rights commissions, the UN, the UN is also making, is also making rulings in the N.W.T. on human rights cases and violations by the courts.

... Well, they are. And, if they want to be embarrassed, hey, then we can go that way too. I haven’t even begun to embarrass them yet. I’ve just followed the rules, tried to get my applications heard, and tried to get, tried to get these proceedings over. If they want to be embarrassed, then I’m going to exploit them for everything that’s gone on. I’ve got six or seven Charter violations, right there from day one. You wanna go at it? Let’s go at it. I’m capable of doing that. The hardship they have caused my family and the people that I care about, and the amount of loss that I am going to have to face because they wanted to play their little charade is just phenomenal.

So if you wanna, if you wanna avoid any further embarrassment, that’s the way to go, because I’m not quitting. I’m not going to give up, and I can, I can barely sentence being charged. If you look at my application properly, then I can do it. And I’m going to do it. They want, they want, they want $7500.00, shipping my application to the Supreme Court of Canada is $100.00.

...

Well, if they want those costs, it’s cheaper for me to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. I can write, I can write the judicature counsel, I can write the upper law society of Canada. I got Charter violations. I got administrative law violations. I’ve got civil contempt. I’ve got abuse of process. I’ve got abuse of qualified privilege. I can keep going, I haven’t even got, I haven’t even spent two days on this so far. And if you want to find out how good I am, then let’s go at it. But you know, at the end of the day, I’m not walking away. And it’s not going to get any better for them.


Kind of thoughtful for him to make the judge's analysis straight forward.

My understanding is that the Federal Courts (Federal Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal) are putting in place even more detailed procedures to head off problematic litigation, though I am not familiar with the details. These courts are pretty specialized, they deal with immigration issues, intellectual property, lawsuits against the Canadian government, judicial review of federal tribunals, and income tax appeals. I'm not certain precisely what kinds of frivolous lawsuits have been clogging up these courts, but there certainly are some Sovereign Citizen/Freeman-on-the-Land types who wiggle their way in.

So that's how things operate here in Canada.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5641
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:15 am

Mowe wrote:

My understanding is that the Federal Courts (Federal Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal) are putting in place even more detailed procedures to head off problematic litigation, though I am not familiar with the details. These courts are pretty specialized, they deal with immigration issues, intellectual property, lawsuits against the Canadian government, judicial review of federal tribunals, and income tax appeals. I'm not certain precisely what kinds of frivolous lawsuits have been clogging up these courts, but there certainly are some Sovereign Citizen/Freeman-on-the-Land types who wiggle their way in.

So that's how things operate here in Canada
.

The Federal Court of Canada has responsibilty for all federal government legislation. This tends to be dull technical stuff, the exciting things such as criminal and tort issues are provincial. As a sad confession on my life I've been deeply involved in federal court issues over the years. All of the issues Mowe cited above are federal jurisidiction.

As far as vexatious litigants are concerned the Federal Court of Canada, to the best of my knowledge, has largely had to respond to anti-taxer fanatics. We have one nutcase who, as a law student perhaps 20 years ago started litigating the federal government about the Canada Pension Plan and Unemployment Insurance (now Employment Insurance, better PR) taxing rates, about as uninteresting and obscure an issue as you can find. He, like Eva Sydel in her own venue, became obsessed with this issue which appears to have sidetracked his life. However vexatious lititgants tend to favour tort remedies so the Federal Court of Canada is spared most of the nutcase focus.
"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
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:39 am

Burnaby49 wrote:The Federal Court of Canada has responsibilty for all federal government legislation. This tends to be dull technical stuff, the exciting things such as criminal and tort issues are provincial. ...

As far as vexatious litigants are concerned the Federal Court of Canada, to the best of my knowledge, has largely had to respond to anti-taxer fanatics. ... However vexatious lititgants tend to favour tort remedies so the Federal Court of Canada is spared most of the nutcase focus.


I note that the Federal Courts also have sole and unique jurisdiction to hear judicial reviews of Indian Band Chief and Council decisions. Including election disputes. And oh, if there's a domain that qualifies for nutjobbery, that's it.

And I am so, so, so very thankful, as that means I don't have to face that particular serbonian bog.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:21 pm

A brief update.

The CRA has reported the sentence for Jerry Leroy McCaw in the tax evasion matter above (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/cnvctns/ ... 2-eng.html). On August 12, 2013 McCaw was given a 14 month custodial sentence, and fined $164,728 for tax evasion. The company he owned and controlled, Jake's Oilfield Construction Ltd., was also found guilty and was fined $99,607.

The legal proceeding against Gerald Blerot continues. My review did not identify any further case law that relates to either matter.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:39 pm

The CRA has announced that on Jan. 14, 2014 Gerald Blerot was convicted in Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench of tax evasion and counselling others to evade taxes (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/cnvctns/ ... 4-eng.html). Blerot is a Poriskyite promoter.

No published judgment so far.

Sentencing is set for March 10, 2014.

Another kill notch for the CRA. Porisky promoters have been receiving some pretty stiff sentences, so I suspect Blerot is looking at time in a box. His prior history of fraud and assaulting government officials won't help either.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5641
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:44 am

Funny how the phrases "Natural Person" and "income tax evader" flow together so frequently up here in Canada. Gerald Blerot was just convicted of income tax evasion and promoting income tax evasion, which he justified on the basis of Porisky's natural person argument. You know, the one that has worked so well in these cases;

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=7827

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9631

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9587

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=8317

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=8968

Russ Porisky's tax evasion method was the idiotic concept that we are all two people and the other guy owes the tax. All of the individuals in the links above used Prisky's method to justify tax evasion however that was the limit of their involvment with Porisky. Blerot was in much deeper. He gave seminars showing people, through the use of Porisky's BS, how to evade tax and he took a cut of the taxes they evaded. McCaw, the original subject of this discussion, is used as the poster boy in the Blerot decision to show how Blerot actively abetted tax evasion and was paid by McCaw for doing so.

Blerot seems to have had a somewhat shady employment history. The court mentioned the sources of income that he had over the tax years in question (none of which he reported); to quote;

[31] In addition to the income earned from this source (note - counseling tax evasion), the Crown has established other business operations conducted by Mr. Blerot, usually involving the same people that were students of his in PEG. In this regard, the Crown has established that Mr. Blerot earned a commission from Synergy Group 2000 Ltd., Stoneset Equities, Business in Motion and as a paralegal. The evidence to establish the amount of income received came from different sources. Some came from the PEG contract form, some information came from cheques deposited to the credit union, some came from cheques deposited to the Royal Bank of Canada. There is no doubt the Crown has established that Mr. Blerot, during the time frames indicated in Count 1 of the indictment, received income from the provision of goods and services to these other individuals.


So let's run through his employment history;

Synergy Group 2000 Ltd. was a tax avoidance scheme I believe currently under criminal investigation. Individuals "invested" in businesses which unfortunately ended up with large losses that the investors were told could be applied against their other income for tax purposes. Problem was that the losses were just made-up and there were no actual businesses. These links give you the idea;

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2013/ ... 27231.html

http://www.thestar.com/business/persona ... esson.html

Business in Motion was a straight out and out Ponzi scam.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/12/22/s ... -collapses

http://pyramidschemealert.org/canadian- ... rs-doomed/

The Federal Court gave summary judgment in the amount of $6,560,000 against Allan Kippax (the principal in the scam) and Business in Motion International Corporation. Branch MacMaster LLP is currently administering the attempt to collect the funds. Good luck on that.

Stoneset Equities was a proposed real estate development that ended up in failure and lawsuits.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-releas ... 522628.htm

So on to Blerot's trial. He was charged with the following;

[5] Mr. Blerot was initially charged in August 2011 with a six-count indictment alleging that he willfully evaded payment of taxes under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act for the taxation years 2006 through 2009. He was also charged with assisting three named individuals in evading taxes under the Income Tax Act during those periods of time in various amounts. He was lastly charged with defrauding the government of significant amounts of money by aiding or abetting various unnamed persons to evade the payment of taxes. All the offences were indictable.


His vigorous defense was, in fact, to mount no defense at all apart from denying the court's jurisdiction over him. However this does not mean he accepted his fate quietly! As the judge said about his behaviour in court;

[11] The Crown's case was based on documentary evidence, and there were a significant number of exhibits tendered by the Crown for the purpose of proof of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. When asked if he objected to the tendering of the document, Mr. Blerot would not comment directly on the document but would, rather, read from a prepared statement that dealt with his rights as a natural person and the lack of jurisdiction of the Court to deal with him. The entire process was not lengthy and took about a minute for each document to go through the exact same routine and statement from Mr. Blerot. After a while, Mr. Blerot simply asked if the Court would note his comments, not an objection, as per his standard statement. From that point forward, each tendered document was subject to the general comments of jurisdiction made by Mr. Blerot without him actually repeating the same.

[12] Other than that concession, Mr. Blerot did not participate in the trial. His behaviour was, at times, inappropriate and, at times, contemptuous. He seldom responded to any comments or questions from the Court, and when he did, they had nothing to do with the issue attempting to be addressed. He was prone to interruption and verbal abuse. He attempted to forcibly leave the courtroom and had to be physically restrained by the RCMP, on my instructions, from doing so. Although he had been released on his own recognizance prior to the commencement of the trial, he remained in custody for the majority of the trial to ensure his continued attendance as it was obvious that he felt he would only be present so long as he thought it appropriate. He spent much of his time ignoring the witnesses' evidence and/or the comments of Crown counsel and the Court by turning his back on the Court throughout the proceedings. He often spoke during the trial when facing the gallery, which made it extremely difficult to capture on tape much of what he said. Almost invariably, however, what he spoke of was his rights as a natural person and not the evidence that was being presented to the Court.

[14] On occasion, his outbursts became aggressive, causing security concerns in the court. At the conclusion of the trial, I was not able to determine if Mr. Blerot actually believed the things that he said and submitted by motion or whether his actions were part of an attempt to goad the Court into decisions that would give him an opportunity for review on appeal.

[15] It matters little what his motive was. He is entitled to the same due process as any other individual appearing before the Court. His lack of recognition of the authority of the government, his lack of recognition for the authority of the Court and his refusal to participate in the process does not change the nature of the rights and protections that are inherent in our system. In this particular case, it was more important to complete the trial process so that the Crown and Mr. Blerot would have an ultimate disposition of the charges, rather than spending time on his antics.


His being held in custody during the trial was just an extension of his pre-trial antics. He initially did not show up at all and he had to be detained under an arrest warrant in order to get him into court.

Guilty on all counts. Link below;

http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/20 ... IDIAAAAAAQ
"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
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:49 pm

There's a nice little review article on Blerot and his antics in the Moosomin Saskatchewan "World-Spectator":

And I do suspect the author popped by Quatloos during his research, which is nice to see.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:09 pm

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Fmotlgroupie » Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:56 am

Great to see Mowe's hard work get out to a (slightly) larger audience. If only the national papers did as much in-depth reporting!

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5641
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:53 am

Blerot is sentenced and gets almost four years.

As followers of my Excellent Adventures know my diligent Quatloos reporting has resulted in my meeting, and interacting with, numerous Vancouver area Freemen. By and large I have found them quite pleasant and reasonable to deal with in person. I very much doubt I would say the same about Gerald Blerot if I associated with him. From the reports a thoroughly unpleasant individual.

As Mowe forecast Blerot gets significant jail time. It didn't help that he didn't bother to show up for his own trial. Or that he acted up throughout the whole thing to the point that the judge suspected he was trying to trigger some judicial activism that would serve as grounds for an appeal.

Anyhow a significant and well deserved sentence.

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Sask+cal ... story.html

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Anti+edu ... story.html
"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
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:09 am

If I were a Poriskyite promoter I’d be getting a little nervous – the sentencing range is firming up around a four year duration. With that benchmark set, I suspect it is realistic to anticipate other convicted promoters will receive a similar treatment.

Something that I don’t think was previously known is that Blerot was the promoter for the Amells (viewtopic.php?f=46&t=8317&p=157819).

Another interesting tidbit is Blerot had a conviction in 1999 “of threatening six Crown prosecutors.” I don’t believe that is in a reported judgment – would be interesting to know more of the circumstances.

All in all, an unpleasant con-artist. Somehow I doubt we have heard the last of him.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Dr. Caligari » Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:37 am

Under Canadian law, what percentage of that sentence is he likely to serve? (Meaning, does Canada have parole, time off for good behavior, or the like?)
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:24 am

Dr. Caligari wrote:Under Canadian law, what percentage of that sentence is he likely to serve? (Meaning, does Canada have parole, time off for good behavior, or the like?)


It depends on the offence and its duration, but as a rule of thumb 1/3 of the sentence must be served in gaol before parole is available. Parole is not automatic, but an offender must apply to the Parole Board for early re-integration. Parole is pretty generous.

Canada used to have a 'good behavior' early release scheme but this was replaced by what is called "statutory release", where at 2/3 of the sentence duration an offender is presumptively released to serve the remainder of his/her sentence in the community, with conditions. Corrections Canada can apply to the Parole Board to have statutory release delayed/declined, but that has to be based on public safety threats.

Here's an interesting question: the typical Freeman-on-the-Land OPCA litigant in Canada denies court and state authority, en toto. We know that at the sentencing and bail steps that belief is a basis to deny community sentencing and pre-trial release. Will that also prove true for a Freeman who is incarcerated, and seeks parole or who otherwise would qualify for statutory release? I am unaware of any decision of the Parole Board on that subject, but given the path the courts have taken it seems pretty plausible that a Freeman offender will not obtain the benefit of these early release options.

Most Detaxers do not challenge state and court authority, but instead just the obligation to pay tax. By default, they would probably not fall into the same trap as Mr. Hypothetical Freeman. However, Blerot here is acting in a very Freemanish way, so for him he may actually spend his entire sentence in gaol.

I, for one, would not shed a tear.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:09 pm

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Fmotlgroupie » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:37 am

After a few minutes of scanning a John Howard Society pamphlet and trying to use mental arithmetic I come up with eligibiity for day parole (halfway house) in 10 months and full parole after 16 months. As Mowe observes, Jerry's mileage may vary depending on his tactics.

User avatar
Lambkin
Warder of the Quatloosian Gibbet
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:43 pm

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Lambkin » Sun Mar 23, 2014 11:06 pm

Opinion piece on Blerot in Yorkton This Week
http://www.yorktonthisweek.com/article/ ... he-tax-man

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5641
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu May 22, 2014 11:04 pm

Blerot appeals. Seems kind of vague in his reasons though. A failure to recognize his status? That one's easy, convicted incarcerated felon. A failure to settle the matter? Seems settled to me.

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Natural+ ... story.html
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

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

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5641
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:58 am

An update on both Blerot and McCaw. First Blerot. I obtained a copy of the transcript of his sentencing hearing;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/b6oef3muz ... script.pdf

The whole document is worth a read to see how Canadian courts go about sentencing but a few selections stand above the rest to show what a self-detructive SOB Blerot is. The first selection is Blerot's answer to the court when he was asked if he had read the prosecution's sentencing brief;

THE ACCUSED: I'm not interested in that stuff. I'm not the accused.

THE COURT: Sorry, you're not here to read -- you don't want to read it?

THE ACCUSED: I'm not interested in that. I'm not the accused, nor am I the defendant in this matter. I’m just a human being. I'm here, like, in the capacity of the beneficiary.

THE COURT: I appreciate that you've --

THE ACCUSED: (Inaudible).

THE COURT: I appreciate that's your position, but what's going to happen today, Mr. Blerot, is I'm going to sentence you. And if I sentence you today, to a period of time in jail, which is quite likely, then whether you're a natural person or you're the beneficiary of an estate or whoever you are, you will go to jail. And you, that being the person sitting in front of me, is going to be in jail. Whatever name you want to go by. So that's the risk you're facing today, Mr. Blerot. So that's why I say, you haven't read the Brief. You've heard a summary of what they say. If you haven't read the Brief, I encourage you to do so, and I'm prepared to adjourn to allow you time right now to take a look at it, and then provide me with your comments, if you choose to do so. What would you like to do, Mr. Blerot?

THE ACCUSED: I told you I was not interested in that garbage.

THE COURT: You're not interested in the Brief? Is that what you're saying?

THE ACCUSED: That's what I said.

THE COURT: Pardon me?

THE ACCUSED: That's what I said. I'm not interested in that -- that garbage (inaudible).


After Blerot was sentenced to a jail term and fines this was his brilliant idea about how to avoid going to jail. Just decline to accept the sentence.

THE ACCUSED: Okay. I duly accept the order of the fines. And as far as the benefit for incarceration and corrections, I'll waive those benefits.

THE COURT: Benefits of what? I don't understand what you're saying, Mr. Blerot.

THE ACCUSED: Incarceration, I waive those benefits.

THE COURT: What do you mean by you waive those benefits?

THE ACCUSED: They are a benefit, I don't want them. I waive that.

THE COURT: Oh well, you know, Mr. --

THE ACCUSED: I 1 do not accept those benefits.

THE COURT: Well, quite frankly, it's not a benefit, it's a sentence. And whether you waive or want it, or don't accept it, doesn't really matter much to me. You're going to serve that time in prison, as I've ordered. And the --


And, while Blerot seemed to accepted responsibility for the fines, he had a novel way of trying to pay them off, make the judge pay it for him!

THE ACCUSED: I command you to order the clerk of the court, the administrator, to make a cheque payable to the estate named in the charging instrument, in the amount of the fines, plus the surcharges, and I want those -- I want the cheque given to me today.

THE COURT: Oh, I appreciate what you want, Mr. Blerot, but we've been through this kind of situation before. You don't get to order the clerk of the court to do anything.

THE ACCUSED: You made the order, I duly accept -- duly authorize and duly accept.

THE COURT: Whether you accept it or not, is of little consequence to me, Mr. Blerot. I've made the order of what's going to occur and will occur.

THE ACCUSED: And I duly accept the order, and I waive the benefit of incarceration.

THE COURT: I appreciate what you're saying.

THE ACCUSED: Order the clerk to make the cheque payable in the full amount that you ordered, and I will accept that cheque. And I duly authorize --

THE COURT: And that won't -- and Mr. Blerot, that won't occur. So as I said, under s. 734, the order for payment of the fine, madam clerk -- a order for payment of the fine should be given to Mr. Blerot. It can be mailed -- it can be mailed to him --

THE ACCUSED: I previously put you on notice that you say that I am detained, will cost you and the Prosecutor, the $100,000 a day.

THE COURT: Mr. Blerot, thank you. It can be mailed to him, okay?

THE ACCUSED: I previously put you on notice, that notice continues. That notice has been ongoing since October 10th of 2013.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Blerot. Is there anything further from the Crown, Ms. Newsham, Ms. Janis?


The judge concluded with;

THE COURT: Do you have any questions, Mr. Blerot?

THE ACCUSED: (Inaudible). What's your -- your given name?

THE COURT: Mr. Blerot, we've been through this before.

THE ACCUSED: What's your given name? I know your family name is (inaudible), what's your given name?

THE COURT: Mr. Blerot --

THE ACCUSED: What is it?

THE COURT: -- you're not -- I'm not going to answer any questions for you now. The -- the time for your antics is now over. You'll be taken into custody and placed in the appropriate penitentiary, in accordance with the system. You can close court.


Couldn't happen to a grander guy.

The second document is this;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/o058c5u69 ... cision.pdf

The decision from Jerry McCaw's appeal of his conviction for tax evasion. However he appears to have done nothing to articulate his grounds of appeal at the hearing, leaving the appeals court mystified as to what his arguments were. One claimed ground of appeal was that the Crowm had not given full disclosure of their documents to him at trial. However they hadn't because he refused to accept disclosure;

POSITION OF APPELLANT

[ 4] Mr. McCaw did not file any sort of written argument. This Court, during the appeal hearing, requested that Mr. Mccaw elaborate on his stated grounds of appeal, but he chose not to. The thesis and purpose of his oral presentation was uuascertainable and therefore, the court was left only with the consideration of the grounds as set out in his notice of appeal. Unfortunately, these grounds are not articulated in any detail.


They had to deal with stuff like this;

Failure to Provide Disclosure Requested

[19] The appellant would not tell the court what his concerns were regarding this ground during his oral presentation. The court was then left with having to comb through the transcript to try and ascertain if that ground had merit.

[20] It appears at the start of the trial the trial judge asked Mr. Mccaw if he had any concerns about disclosure. There was an exchange between the court and Mr. McCaw as follows:

THE COURT: Okay. And so Mr. McCaw, the Crown has raised the issue of disclosure. Usually the defence raises the issue of disclosure but I think that they're sort of dealing with it right off the bat. Are there any issues of disclosure from yourself that you want me to look at preliminarily here?

MR.MCCAW: Youire the trustee, sir [sic].

THE COURT: Okay. So - so the Crown simply raised the question of disclosure. They're saying we've disclosed everything.

MR.MCCAW: I don't know sir.

THE COURT: From your - tl:om your perspective is there an issue that I have to rule on?

MR.MCCAW: Did they disclose the bonds they brought in here?

THE COURT; From your perspective is there any disclosure issue that you think is outstanding?

MR.MCCAW: I'm asking. I'm asking.

THE COURT: Okay, so what's the question'?

MR.MCCAW: I'm asking the Crown here, did you bring your bonds forth?

THE COURT: So you have a question as to some disclosure?

MR.MCCAW: Yes, the bonds - to put my full answer in here, in a commercial venue you must have your bonds up front. I've bonded myself up.

THE COURT: Okay, so you're saying there's some kind of a bond document that hasn't been disclosed to yourself?

MR.MCCAW; That's right. Where's your risk management insurance? Where's tlle public hazard bonds, the
company, the phone number.

THE COURT: I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you want to explain what document you 're looking for?

MR.MCCAW: Then you guys won't have any problem with me liening them.

THE COURT: Can you - can you explain what document you're saying that you weren't provided by the Crown?

MR.MCCAW: I'm not here to educate you people.

THE COURT: Okay. Then you can have a seat then.

THE COURT: Okay, so - okay, so there is no issue as to disclosure. The Crown has on the record that they - they provided disclosure but it's a - the disclosure in issue is that it was raised by the defence so none is raised and so anything else before we start off?


So the appeals court had no problem tossing out that ground for appeal.

[24] Disclosure is, of course, an important aspect of any criminal or quasi.criminal case. However, I am satisfied that Mr. McCaw was given ample opportunity to receive disclosure and simply did not do so, I can see no merit in this ground of appeal and therefore dismiss this ground.


Next McCaw argued that his Charter rights had been violated at his trial. However the appeals court had difficulty with this since he never mentioned Charter rights during the trial.

[26] I reviewed the transcript and cannot see where a Charter issue was actually raised by the appellant. The Charter may. in a sense, have come up it seems, when (as mentioned above) the appellant became concerned about what appeared to be another charge. As near as I can determine, there was a search of Mr. McCaw's residence and ultimately various weapons were seized along with business records. The business records would appear to have been seized for the purposes of prosecuting the charges that are the subject of this appeal. There appears to have been some sort of tape that Mr. McCaw became concerned about during this prosecution. However, counsel for the respondent replied that the issue of the search and seizure was the subject of a voir dire held before Justice Dawson of this Court during another trial. Crown counsel provided a copy of the transcript of that decision (June 17, 2013) in which Justice Dawson decided that there had not been any Charter violations in regard to the search and seizure. I am satisfied that even though the appellant has not raised any specific Cha11er concerns, they are nonetheless dealt with in that decision.

[27] In any event it was incumbent upon the appellant to have raised any Charter concerns, particularly about admissibility, during the trial. A Charter concern cannot now be raised during the appeal when it was not raised during the trial.

(28] I am not satisfied that there is a meritous Charter issue before me and therefore I dismiss that ground of the appeal.

[29] Therefore, the appellant has not established that the trial judge erred in applying the law to the facts of this case. Accordingly. those two grounds are dismissed.


He also appealed being given a jail sentence for his crime but, at apppeal, he declined to give any reasons why he felt the sentence inappropriate;

[32] The appellant did not set out in his notice of appeal or during his oral
presentation what his concerns about the sentence might be. However, counsel for the respondent did set out a numbet of cases dealing with sentences pronounced regarding similar offenders. I have reviewed these cases and particularly of Justice Whitmore (as he then was) in the case of R. v. Amell, 2012 SKQB 87, 391 Sask. R. 196. As I indicated above, the trial judge carefully considered all of the usual circumstances in sentencing and did note that Mr. McCaw was an active participant and recruiter of what the trial judge described as tax protestor ideology and this was a course of conduct that went on for several years. I find that the sentence is fit and see no reason to depart from the usual deference provided to a sentencing judge. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal against sentence as well.


So that got deep sixed too.

The next document is a genuine curiosity, a package of documents that McCaw sent into court prior to his criminal trial to immunize himself:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/1va0ebygb ... dacted.pdf

I'm not going to try and summarize it because I have no confidence that I really follow it. One strange part is the way McCaw identifies himself. It is usual to have Freemen types splay their thumb-prints on documents but McCaw, being a professional, includes all ten fingers. Then (check out page 17) he decided to go for broke on the ID thing and included both feet as ID's! He even got his footprints notarized. I assume the notary has to sit and watch as McCaw inked up both clodhoppers and stuck them on the paper.

The idea behind this stupidity seems to come from US sources and it looks like McCaw was trying to "A4V" his criminal proceedings. There is one thing missing from the pdf. McCaw had included, as an attachment, his 2006 income tax return. I cut it out even though it is now publically available. The only item of note in it is the one that got him into trouble; he reported income of $304,555 but claimed a non-existent $439,178 business loss against it.

I mentioned US sources because the source of the documents seems to be the Commander in Chief of the united States government himself, President James Timothy Turner!

http://dev.republicoftheunitedstates.or ... 4-of-4.pdf

Mr. Turner is a notable US OPCA personality, as he was none other than the President of the Republic for the united States of America (http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/) - the RuSA. Quatloosians know how well this scheme worked for President Timmy. So a convicted Canadian income tax evader got the material he usd to try and fight his prosecution from the president of the United States!

As far as I can tell the scheme McCaw pulled was a helping of Fiscal Arbitrator scam mixed in with the Porisky fraud. I'm guessing Fiscal Arbitrators because of McCaw's links to the Fiscal Arbitrator scam through his tax preparers. McCaw authorized Damara Consulting to be his CRA interface. Note the letter on page 11 of the pdf from the CRA to McCaw acknowledging that Damara was his duely authorized representative. The tax return which claimed the business loss was also prepared by Demara Consulting. Demara Consulting is an outfit run by Donna Marie Stancer, who along with her husband, are the subjects of a couple OPCA-related bankruptcy proceedings:

Stancer (Re), 2009 BCSC 398
Stancer (Re), 2012 BCSC 1533

Stancer and Demara are also implicated with the Fiscal Arbitrators scheme:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Da ... story.html

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/group ... of-its-own

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/dsc-p ... rs-charged

And Stancer has come up a few times on Quatloos:

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10077
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9136

And here's another instance where Demara has come up in the courts - what certainly looks consistent with a Fiscal Arbitrators type strategy:

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10077
"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

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2522
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Jeffrey » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:50 pm

Is there any link to Winston Shrout. The "declining jail as a benefit" thing was something he pushed heavily and the stuff about bonds is something Shrout was selling in Canada seminars.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5641
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:31 pm

Jeffrey wrote:Is there any link to Winston Shrout. The "declining jail as a benefit" thing was something he pushed heavily and the stuff about bonds is something Shrout was selling in Canada seminars.


Could well be. McCaw was already mixing up Fiscal Arbitrators, Porisky, and President Timmy. Why not throw some Shrout into the mix? However no smoking gun that I've seen.
"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


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest