Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skeptic?

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]

Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skeptic?

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:44 am

So while researching one of my remaining Canadian gurus I stumbled across a rather interesting person who forms the current case study: Gordon Stephen Watson. Watson has a very lengthy and varied history with the Canadian courts.

He started out as an anti-abortion activist, and that led to whole mess of reported caselaw. I will only list these for reference purposes:

During this period Watson has one oddball case, Watson v. Burnaby (City of), 1994 CanLII 1027 (BC SC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1dmf1) where he sues the City of Burnaby over a plan by the local historical society to build a replica of the 1914 Masonic Lodge as part of the Burnaby Village Museum. Yes, Burnaby49, this gentleman is a neighbor, and as you see? Anti-Mason! Watson complains the reconstruction would expend municipal funds for a religious purpose, infringe on his Charter religious and equality rights, and that one of the City Councilors is a Mason and therefore biased. These arguments are all rejected and Watson is ordered to pay costs to the city.

We now move to Watson’s tax litigation phase.

R. v. Watson, 2004 BCPC 208: http://canlii.ca/t/1hmb6

Watson did not file income tax between 1991-2000, and eventually the CRA caught up with him. Watson argued that he had not filed income tax returns because the taxes he paid would go help fund abortions: para. 5. However, this rationale was supplemented by a claim that he wanted to have questions answered concerning how to properly fill out his taxes: para. 8. The CRA agreed to meet with him in private (para. 11): “however, Mr. Watson insisted on having a large meeting with many of his "constituents" and therefore no such meeting took place.”

This approach was rejected, and the court observed it was well established law that political belief is not a basis to refuse to pay tax (para. 13), and payment of tax is not optional (para. 14). Watson’s desire for a meeting was simply a tactic: para. 15.

R. v. Watson, 2005 BCPC 59: http://canlii.ca/t/1jw6h

Watson now argued before the same trial judge that taxation was contrary to the constitution. Watson seems to have talked a lot, and Judge Gove let him go at it:

[4] Watson has made it clear to the Court that he is the leader of a political party that disagrees with the way that taxes are collected in Canada. He spoke, argued and made speeches that show him to be an eloquent speaker and passionate believer in various causes. I gave him considerable latitude to make his points. Often he went well off the issue at hand and often referred to "evidence" that was not before the Court.

[5] In fact, Watson put before the Court little evidence but considerable argument and political theory as to why these Acts are repugnant to the Constitution Act and Charter and why he should not be legally bound by them. None of his arguments and no evidence established that either of the impugned Acts were unconstitutional or deprived him of his rights under the Charter.


That did not help, as again appellate case authority confirmed Watson was wrong, and income tax legislation was valid and constitutional: paras. 6, 10-14.

Watson had some more exotic arguments too. First he claimed forcing someone to file an income tax return was an unconstitutional search and seizure (Charter, s. 8 ), and a breach of his right against self-incrimination (Charter, s. 13): para. 15. Judge Gove observed taxpayers have very little privacy: para. 16.

Next was the weird claim that Charter, s. 20 was infringed by the failure of the CCRA officials to attend a meeting with him and his “constitutents”. This one caught me off guard – I had to look up s. 20 to even see what it is:

20.(1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where

    (a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or

    (b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French. …


Judge Gove observed, and I agree, that this protects one’s right to the language in which you communicate with Federal employees, not the circumstances.

Last, Watson argued that paying income tax means his private information will get into the U.S. government’s hands. The reasoning is a little odd:

[20] Watson submits that requiring him to file a tax return will contravene his Charter s.7 right of security of the person. He says that as a resident of British Columbia he is required to apply for a BC Medical Services Plan (MSP) CareCard. Because he has a low income he is eligible for Premium Assistance which means that he will not have to pay the MSP premiums. In order to qualify for Premium Assistance he must authorize MSP to have access to his tax return, to verify his income.

[21] British Columbia has recently entered into a contract with an American company to administer MSP. Under the USA Patriots Act, Watson argues, the American company will be obliged to give information to the US police agencies and British Columbia’s privacy laws will not protect him. Watson claims that due to his political activities, in particular as a spokesperson for the right to life movement, he is considered a security risk in both Canada and the US. Therefore, he says, the US police agencies will use the USA Patriots Act to obtain information about him through the American company administering the MSP; including information in any tax return; which information is protected by Canadian federal and provincial privacy legislation. In order to protect his privacy from US authorities, he ought not to be required to file tax returns.

[22] As with all of his arguments, Watson is creative. He faces two problems with this argument: First, the USA Patriots Act was not in force when he failed to comply with the Notices of Requirement and therefore the scenario that he sets out did not apply. Second, there is no factual foundation before me that supports Watson’s contentions.


I note that Watson states he has “a low income”. Gee, never saw that coming.

HMTQ v. Watson, 2005 BCSC 1225: http://canlii.ca/t/1lhck

Let the appeals begin! Judge Gove at trial had ordered Watson file his tax returns and pay $1,000.00 per year as a penalty. Watson attacked this order arguing he could not comply with it, because there are no such things as valid income tax forms:

The judge’s ruling was patently absurd. He faulted me for not doing something which I was unable to do. I proved in cross-examination that no such form as the so‑called T1 exists in law. I demonstrated that, in fact, the so-called T1 Form mentioned in the demand notice was only an internal convenience for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.


I will leave comment on that curious argument to those better positioned, but simply note that Justice Silverman summarized one of Watson’s appeal grounds was “…a conspiracy that the CCRA is out to get him because he has been a vocal and political opponent of various aspects of the Act …”: para. 9. Watson put it this way:

The judge erred by laying the blame for failure to comply on me when the evidence shows beyond doubt that the CCRA had a witting agenda to refuse to cooperate with tax protestors such as myself in order maliciously to frame us up for prosecution as part of its partnership with the Public Service Alliance of Canada to discredit and subvert the legitimate political activity of people in the tax honesty movement. The judge failed to do his duty to protect me against the depredations of government agents who were abusing their official powers for a purpose other than the proper administration of the Income Tax Act.


H.M.T.Q. v. Watson, 2006 BCCA 233: http://canlii.ca/t/1n7d1

Next appeal. He repeats his ‘there are no such things as tax forms’ argument, and this curiousity:

As I testified in this proceeding, I did not keep any fiscal records at all. To the best of my recollection I received debt instruments and a credit denominated as “dollars” in the form of notes issued by the Bank of Canada totalling, approximately, $6000, as income over the year. I do not recall receiving any money in the form of silver or gold coin, as defined in the Schedule of the Currency Act RSC.

Thus, in accordance with sections 122, 150, 151 of the Income Tax Act Revised Statutes of Canada I estimate that the federal income tax owing is approximately $0.00 = zero dollars and zero cents.


The British Columbia Court of Appeal denies leave.

R. v. Watson, 2007 BCSC 1707: http://canlii.ca/t/1txxr

Watson still didn’t file his taxes, and so once more Watson again ends up in Court. At the beginning of the new enforcement proceeding he made some disclosure demands that were rejected. It is that order that is unsuccessfully appealed at this hearing. Watson now characterizes his activities in this manner (para. 6):

Mr. Watson is part of a group, or as he calls it, a movement, of people who do not file their taxes. The group has colloquially been called “detaxers”. Mr. Watson prefers the term “Tax Honesty Movement”. Mr. Watson submits that the prosecution of himself and others is politically motivated, and indeed, he says the Prime Minister himself is behind the prosecution. He submits that the RCMP has launched a smear campaign against him by linking him to terrorists. He submits that he made enemies when he was involved in the anti-abortion protest a few years ago, and now some of those enemies work for the Canada Revenue Agency. He submitted that he has Freedom of Information requests outstanding. He submits that it is “the Court’s duty to protect me from my mendacious government because the playing field is anything but level.” In essence, he submits that he is being set-up by the Federal government because he challenges the tax laws. His disclosure motion was, in large part, aimed at obtaining information from the Government that would demonstrate the correctness of his position.


That seems to be the last of Watson’s reported cases and, it seems, tax resistance. Why do I say that? Well, that's Watson's own public position. When I first identified Watson he was in an online forum debunking the more modern Freeman-on-the-Land type OPCA beliefs and gurus. Who’d have thought?!

http://thecompletepatient.com/article/2013/april/28/
lots-people-humming-i’m-goin’-baraboo-my-mindand-realto-help-vernon

[You will need to copy/paste this URL - sorry!]

It all starts when “Lola Granola” begins the usual countries are corporations, statutes are contracts, lawyers belong to the BAR routine. Another user named “Bildo” joins in. Watson repeatedly (and bluntly) challenges these beliefs. I’m going to quote Watson at length because, well, it’s fun!

as they used to say in my Dad's generation = "Don't eat that, Elmer".... I don't doubt your sincertity - offering your explanation, in hope it will help people understand the bigger frame of reference, but it won't. That particular line has been shown to be not just nonsense, but DANGEROUS non-sense. Educate you-self via the audio Archives of George Gordon : the 7-part series "Destroyed Arguments"

during about a decade in the Tax Honesty Movement / DeTax thing, I saw many Pay-triots-for-Profit come along, spinning that yarn, only to be were exposed as con-men, when it got right down to short strokes, in a real court of law. The conmen were shrewd enough not to wind up in gaol demselves, but many of those who payed attention to them, did

For instance: At the opening of Michael Schmidt's trial in Provincial Court, some guy stood up and started peddling that 'corporate stuff'. JP Kowarsky gave him very short shrift. Point being : all that crap~ola is for lame-brains who prefer to live in a phantasy... Judges will not entertain it.

the biggest divergence from the objective reality shared by the rest of us, is the notion that "... we understand the rules, and refuse to play on their court ..." Yeah, well, ask Russell Porisky about how that worked for him. Maintaining that "they" had no jurisdiction, he refused to show up at the Supreme Court of BC, so the Mounties came out to his house, and gave him a free ride to town, where he sat in gaol, til the appointed time. Eventually convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison, lately, he's out on bail pending appeal ... still singing that absurd song.



your notion, Lola, that I pretend to "know it all" is dead wrong. But I certainly do know more than you do, on this particular topic, having been through the meatgrinder of Court, on a dozen DeTax cases. Please be good enough to substantiate your claim = about "the ONLY Canadian who had a judge bow to him in Court..." : case file number please along with style of cause and the location of the Court?. Most likely .... rank beginner that you are ... you didn't know that the ritual of opening and standing down British Courts is, those present bow to the Bench whilst the Justice bows to them. Which is how we ALL show respect for the Monarch, who is considered to be always present. And the reason we do so, is because the crucial element of that Gracious Lady = Elizabeth II = becoming Queen, was by taking the Coronation Oath in which she vowed "to use the Bible as the whole rule of law in all her Dominions".

Let's see if you're grown-up enough, to come up with the name of the Pay-triot for Profit, who's been mis-leading you with this utter nonsense: Roger Elsvick? No, he's still sitting in prison. David Wynne Miller? No, I outed him a decade ago as the conman he was. Robert Menard? I saw him go by last week ... still spining the same yarn. Mister Menard's forte is, comedy, not law. You'll notice that his "students" are infamous for crashing and burning when they hit the brick wall, in a real court of law

the kindest thing I have to say is : you're about 15 years behind me, on this learning curve.



perhaps you'll be good enough to point us to a case where this has been attempted ... better yet, Bildo ... where has such verbiage ever prevailed? "The State is a fiction", eh? send us the video of the incident, next time you try that line on one of its uniformed minions.



During the DeTax thing, I was in the gallery in Provincial Court of BC, 3 times, when judges sent people away for a psychiatric evaluation, for spouting that same crap~ola. If we know one thing for sure, it's that it doesn't gyve with what the rest of us call "reality"



Lola~belle ... .... Many times, when someone like you would start bleating these same noises in the Tax Honesty thing, I'd run the info to earth, only to find out it was clap-trap. Lola = you show the signs of so many of those I met along the way in the last 2 decades = arm-chair experts on civil rights / procedure etc, but who've never actually seen the inside of a real courtroom, let alone been in maximum security ( as I was) for standing in the gap on some of those issues.

I'm not going to hold yr hand while you get up to speed. Suffice to say that my friend, David Kevin Lindsay is the expert on this topic, and that I went through a 10 day trial with Sandra Gibbs on the failing-to-file issue, in which she put forth a brilliant argument re: "the all-caps Name". The judge just kindly told her to "move on". Point being : it does not fly in their little box.

Dentist Eva Sydel tried your approach : refusing to acknowledge the power of "the State". When the Vancouver Police arrested her, she said "which Person do you want?" To which the officer replied "they told us you''d say that." At the end of her trial, Judge Myer was inclined to let her off the hook, but she kept on defying him, yapping-away in his face about "the Name", so he sentenced her to 3 years in the penitentiary. For some hard cases, the sound of big steel gaol door is what it takes to convince them "the whole world lies in the power of the evil One'



another textbook demonstration of why these scams succeed = ie "many if not all of our cases are sealed' ... so you'll just have to trust me!. The first one I exposed was David Wynne_miller his-self. Old Windy was long on trade-marked "in the Truth" verbiage but came up short when put to the test for a single scrap of real documentation, to substantiate the tales he told, whilst making off with significant $$ from the gullible.

Anyone who leans-in to such occult practices, deserves everything they get. Meaning - the terminus for the IRS' raliway, is prison. good comic relief can be found on the Quatloos website

those Patriot Nut job scams appear to work, because the lag between the moment the sucker crosses the threshold into that fantasy, and when the IRS catches up, is about 3 years. Conman Russell A Porisky counted on that lag ... he could boast that his method 'was working" ... which it did. Until it didn't. Now RevScam is methodically auditing every one of the 800 dunces whose info. they found in his residence, executing the Search Warrants "test all things : hold fast to that which is true"



My calling is to expose the unfruitful works of darkness, which I did quite a bit of, in 10 years in the DeTax thing. If you have a shred of integrity, Mister, let's see the documentation of the case you're talking about, starting with the place of the Court, the case file #, the magistrate's name, the name of the prosecutor, the final Order for Committal = you know, little details such as can be found in ordinary news reports.
What a wonderful testimony : Bilbo, you ONLY spent = what? = 4 months in gaol?

Your's is exactly the false premise which conman, Big Daddy Russ Porisky, used to spin his yarn for 10 years = that he'd "changed the jurisdiction". Absolute Horse-shit. When he'd served their purpose, the Powers-that-Be lowered the boom on him, and he got 4 years in the penitentiary. With hindsight, it's perfectly obvious his operation was allowed to go on as a "honey-pot" = luring local "tax protesters" so they could be identified.



Same with the dabblers regurgitating all the "Freeman on the land" non-sense, like it's THE silver bullet. what you're seeing In the vitriol directed at me lately, is, how cranky they get with someone pointing-out the obvious = all that Patriot Nut Job stuff only gets you deeper in the mire


Who’d have thought – and a plug for Quatloos too!

Here’s another case where in 2010 Watson has denounced pseudolegal ideas (http://www.henrymakow.com/the_ficticiou ... ty_ca.html), this time the double/split person:

The latest addition to your website - about the legal fiction of the Person - is a stinkbomb 'midst all the good work you've done for years. You'd do your readers a favour to point them to "Destroyed Arguments" wherein Larry Beecraft put the boots to that nonsense, nigh on 20 years ago.

The strawman routine is word majic of the first water... it leads poor saps off into the thickets of the occult ... financial destruction too.

The cases in British Columbia Courts of Regina versus Eva Sydel ; Regina versus Chas Turnnir and Regina versus Loosdrecht will tell you everything you need to know about how well its practitioners do, when that stuff is put to the test in the objective reality which the rest of us share. Three times I've been in the gallery and seen men taken away out of the Courtroom for a psychiatric evaluation when they started spouting that crap-ola

Gordon S Watson
Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves & Be Their Own Politicians


So that leads neatly into what Watson has been doing with himself of late. For one, he’s a part of a B.C. provincial political party, the “Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves & Be Their Own Politicians.” [“POCWHDTTFTABTOP”]. Their only election appearance seems to have been in 2001, where they ran two candidates. Watson ran in the Burnaby-Edmonds riding and received 105 votes (0.56%). Sadly, POCWHDTTFTABTOP does not appear to have maintained any significant online history.

But Watson’s real passion these days is milk. Raw milk. Any search online will discover that he is boldly proposing various raw milk benefits, and private production networks. Sadly, that has meant, once more, a run in with the law:

Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden, 2013 BCSC 986: http://canlii.ca/t/fxswx

This relates to an outfit that was selling raw milk products, but camouflaged in this manner:

Cleopatra’s Enzymatic Yogurt Mask (appeared to be raw milk), Cleopatra’s Enzymatic Alpine Lotion (appeared to be raw milk) and Cleopatra’s Enzymatic Butter (appeared to be raw milk). On the jar lid labels it indicated “Cosmetic Skin treatment Only - Our Cows Sharemember Dividends - Packaged Not for Human Consumption.”


Health inspectors obtained an injunction to shut down this dairy, but Watson lobbied so actively in favour of the human consumption of these ‘cosmetic products’ that he was charged with contempt of court for inducing breach of a court order. Watson is currently serving a three month prison term, followed by one year probation.

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: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skepti

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:47 am

It says in the judgement that Watson's 3 month sentence was a suspended sentence.

At least the guy finally seemed to have (or maybe had) a job even if it is running an illegal dairy farm and he isn't filling the Tax Court with his gibberish any more. And let's give him some credit. He has an impressive knowledge of the players and jurisprudence in respect to the Canadian Freeman tax evader movement.

I certainly agree with this statment he made re Eva Sydel; in fact I think I made a similar one in a post somewhere:

At the end of her trial, Judge Myer was inclined to let her off the hook, but she kept on defying him, yapping-away in his face about "the Name", so he sentenced her to 3 years in the penitentiary.

She pretty much demanded the court toss her in jail and she left the courtroom as a satisfied customer.

Watson's argument that he has a constitutional right to force the CRA to have meetings with him and his BFFs anytime they want is reminiscent of the American sovereign argument that the President had to read and respond to any BS that the sovereigns coughed up at him because of their first amendment right prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The government's response was that the first amendment allowed them to petition all they wanted but it didn't mean that anybody had to reply.

Watson comes across as a grade A anti-government crank who's found a world where he feels comfortable and important. Unfortunately that world, as Mowe has shown, involves immense amount of court resources spent on entirely meritless cases. So the various levels of government are spending huge amounts of money, and the very limited time of backed-up courts, in order to feed his Narcissistic ego.

The Burnaby Village Museum is about a ten minute drive from my house. Can't say I remember a fake 1914 Masonic Lodge. Just shows how insidious these Masons are, sneaking a lodge in below my level of consciousness so I only notice it subliminally when I go there. If Watson is staying up in Chilliwack to tend to the herds he is not, as Mowe contends a neighbour since the farm, at 49211 Prairie Central Road, Chilliwack, is over 60 miles away from my neigbourhood. A very pretty area if anyone wants to take a look on Google Streetview.
"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: Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skepti

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:33 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:It says in the judgement that Watson's 3 month sentence was a suspended sentence.


Agh - thanks for catching that - mea culpa. Apologies to all for that error.

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: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skepti

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:49 pm

The reason for banning raw milk is shown in the link below, a British Columbia E. Coli outbreak that has been traced to unpasteurized milk. If Watson's farm hasn't already been shut down it soon will be.

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/heal ... 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: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skepti

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:17 am

Just an update on the adventures of the Freeman tax protesting political activist dairyman Gordon Watson. When we left him his dream was in tatters. All he wanted to do was be a raw milk producer but he faced two daunting obstacles that shattered this vision;

1 - You can't produce milk in Canada without a government quota allocation.

2 - It is illegal to sell raw milk in British Columbia. Doing so resulted in a three month suspended sentence. Had he continued the next sentence wouldn't have been suspended.

In addition he seemed broke, having spent his most of his time in and out of court ranting away about how income taxes were illegal. No indication he ever held down a job.

Well he landed on his feet ending up residing in a million dollar property rent free! However this is not as impressive as it sounds given that this is Vancouver, recently rated as having the second least affordable housing in the world (damn you Hong Kong!), and any shack on a decent sized lot easily tops a million. Which is more or less what he was staying in. It was his mother's house which had been allowed to deteriorate until it was a tear-down. Not unusual here. Land is so valuable that nobody buys an old small detached single family house to live in. They are torn down and a big house built in their place. We have a nice enough house, built mid 50's, big enough to raise a pair of kids in it without crowding, but it is only appraised at $15,000 in the property tax assessment and will be torn down when we sell.

The house was the only estate asset and even then it had over $40,000 of unpaid property tax on it and the executor had to pay some of this out of his own pocket to stop the property being sold by the municipality at a tax sale. After mom died Gordon decided to keep living in it and wouldn't leave. So his brother, who was the mother's executor went to court to get an order forcing him out. Case just concluded

[3] The petitioner seeks an order of vacant possession and a writ of possession in relation to the Estate’s principal asset: real property located at 7954 Elwell Street, Burnaby, British Columbia (the “Property”).

[4] The Property has been occupied for many years by the petitioner’s brother, the respondent Gordon Watson, and since November 2013 by one of his sisters, the respondent Marian Strong. The fourth sibling is the petitioner’s other sister, Theresa Watson, who supports the petitioner on these applications


Watson v. Strong, 2014 BCSC 754

If you check out the prior entries in this discussion he comes across as a ranting crank. Well he's shifted somewhat to become (perhaps he always was) a total jerk. He has two sisters and a brother. All but one sister alienated from him by the time the mother died and she seems cut from the same cloth as him. She also moved into the house and the court, in a prior hearing, removed her as co-executor. He wasn't exactly his mother's favorite either, she cut him out of the estate, leaving him nothing and bequeathing what would have been his one-quarter share in the estate to his son who also seemed estranged from him. Gordon had a solution to that, he claimed that the 25% interest in the estate wasn't really bequeathed to his son, mom had intended it as a constructive trust with Gordon as the beneficiary. The only problem that Gordon had convincing anyone with this argument is that there was no evidence whatever, apart from Gordon's always fertile imagination, showing the existence of a trust and the will was quite specific that the interest went to Gordon's son.

So all Gordon had left for support, apart from getting a job, was to squat and try and extort money from the family to induce him to leave. Sorry, did I say extort? What I of course meant was to obtain fair compensation for the cost of relocating and to cover the value of assets he would have to leave behind, specifically a tree he'd apparently planted. He needed significant compensation because he planned to move to Vancouver Island and take another shot at starting a raw milk farm The man has a dream! But he had another good reason why he was entitled to significant compensation. Thanks to him the property (now apparently his "homestead") had gone up in value by half a million dollars and he felt that he should be rewarded for this. As he wrote to counsel for the executor;

[18] On November 21, 2013, Gordon Watson wrote to Mr. Geldert. He stated, in part:

5 As for your expectation that the house at 7954 Elwell will be vacant on November 25 2013, you are hereby notified that will not be the situation. Part of my complaint to the Law Society is how your letter of Oct 24 2013 mis-represented that I’d agreed the house would be vacant on November 24 2013. That was an utter lie. What you all need to get through your heads, is: I have been in peaceable possession of this homestead for 23 years. The Order you pulled off by committing FRAUD upon the Court does NOT dictate that I must move out, at all, let alone by any given deadline. Go listen to the recording of the proceeding Sept. 25 2013: and find out that I did say – I always was amenable to sale of the place, but had stayed-on to ensure orderly transition. …

6 Because he [the petitioner] cut off communication your client did not appreciate that I have always been eager to remove my stuff from this place, as long as there is reasonable accommodation. …

8 … A few days ago I was in communication with Aaron Watson. He was happy to see that there seems to be movement in this matter. He told me that he was willing to approach you – not yr client – to negotiate such an advance. He asked me for a “concrete plan”. Leading in to that, I explained how the price of this real estate has gone up half a million $$ since the demise of the Testator. Which translates into a net increase in the eventual payout to each Beneficiary of $125,000. But for me being adamant to see an orderly disposition of the place, rather than it being sold into a rising market, that would not have happened. Wherefore an advance of $125,000 is plenty reasonable. …

14 The trees which have grown up on this lot during my residency are my property. I will be removing them when I get a farm lined-up. That could have happened at any time since March 1 2010. Particularly ; it would have been easily accomplished in the summer of 2012 , had yr client not refused to so much as acknowledge Marian Strong’s proposal to get a private loan. …


He ensured that the house wasn't foolishly sold in a rising market (it's always a rising market here in Vancouver) by posting this on the front;

[21] After the petitioner posted the “For Sale” sign, Gordon Watson displayed a “Notice” at the Property in the following terms:

NOTICE

Control of this property is in dispute. The Letter of Probate for the Estate of Rosamond Watson was obtained via FRAUD. Anyone considering buying this lot ought to consult me. I am one of the Beneficiaries. Until my equitable interest in the Estate is settled, I will strenuously oppose any attempt to transfer the title of this real estate.

At the first round in this matter William F Watson avoided his false affidavits being scrutinized -- file S-135578 Supreme Court of BC at Vancouver

the first to present his case seems right, but another comes forward and questions him
Proverbs 18:17

therefore I am preparing an application to have him removed as Executor for the sake of his dis-honesty ; particularly that he did commit Perjury, as well as he did conspire to evade tax liability to Canada Revenue Agency, as well as to evade fees due the Probate Court

for details of my allegations of crimes committed by Wm F Watson [William] and TEA Watson [Theresa] in this matter, contact me by telephone … or by regular mail : 7954 Elwell Street Burnaby B C V5E 1M4

The dishonest, tax evading, perjuring signer of false affidavits was Gordon's executor brother. As I said, estranged.

So it boiled down to the petitioner/executor telling the court

24] The petitioner’s position includes:

• he has a right to demand vacant possession pursuant to his authority under the Will;

• he is acting reasonably by demanding vacant possession. The relief requested is required to assist in the orderly distribution of the Estate’s principal asset;

• six months have passed since the date of the Order. Despite his attempts, the respondents continue to occupy the Property;

• Gordon Watson’s behaviour is vexatious and designed to thwart the executor from performing his duties, which he has attempted to do as responsibly as possible within the context of the respondents’ conduct. There is no evidence that he has been derelict in the administration of the Estate and the relief sought is in the Estate’s best interests;

• there is no evidence to support Gordon Watson’s assertion that he has a 25% beneficial interest in the Estate held in trust through his son, Aaron Watson. In any event, this is not a matter which can be determined on these applications;


Gordon's position was;

[
26] Gordon Watson’s position includes:

• there is no need for vacant possession for the Property to be listed and sold. In fact, he has referred realtors to the executor;

• he would have vacated the Property a long time ago had there been cooperation from the petitioner in his capacity as executor: “He has written me off as a brother and the feeling is mutual … His personal hostility is affecting his ability to act as executor”;

• his share in the Estate was placed in a constructive trust with his son, Aaron Watson, due to his (that is, Gordon Watson’s) role as a political activist;

• the current stumbling block to Ms. Strong being able to acquire the Property is the attitude of his son, Aaron Watson, who “needs to grow up”; and

• he can be out of the Property in two weeks if he gets “some money”. He has received no response from the petitioner to the $125,000 offer he impliedly made in November 2013. Mediation should be ordered by the Court. He is “all for the Court heading towards a practical solution”.


Of course, being Gordon, he wanted a bit more than the requested cash;

[35] During submissions, Gordon Watson indicated that he needs access to a 5 ton truck in order to vacate the Property. He says the minimum amount to rent this vehicle would be $1,000. In addition, there is an oak tree on the Property which he says belongs to him. He believes it was worth approximately $5,000 as green lumber and he wishes to be compensated for that.


But it all ended in a big reconciliation with hugs and kisses all round! Just kidding, this is how it actually ended;

V: CONCLUSION

[61] Accordingly, I make the following orders:
1. the Estate, by its executor William Frederick Watson, is entitled to vacant possession of the property located at 7954 Elwell Street, Burnaby, British Columbia, parcel identifier 002-093-871 (the “Property”);

2. the respondents shall vacate the Property and deliver vacant possession to the petitioner no later than Thursday, May 22, 2014;

3. within seven days of the date of this Order, the petitioner shall provide to the respondent Marian Strong the names of three licensed real estate agents acceptable to the petitioner. Within seven days of receipt of the names in question, the respondent Strong shall select one of those real estate agents and advise the petitioner accordingly. Should she not do so within that timeframe, then the petitioner shall select one of the three real estate agents;

4. on or before May 26, 2014, the petitioner shall list the Property for sale through an MLS listing with the real estate agent selected in accordance with paragraph 3 herein;

5. a writ of possession shall be issued to the petitioner with its enforcement suspended to Friday, May 23, 2014, or any earlier date by which the respondents have vacated the premises;

6. the petitioner is authorized to obtain the assistance of the Burnaby Detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and/or a firm of bailiffs authorized by the Court to execute the writ of possession together with the services of a qualified and licensed locksmith in order to obtain and secure vacant possession of the Property;

7. the Estate is to provide $3,000 to the respondent Gordon Watson on account of moving expenses. $1,500 is to be paid within 48 hours of this Order and $1,500 within 48 hours of the respondents providing vacant possession of the Property;
8. the petitioner is to make arrangements for an industrial waste container to be placed at the Property within five days of this Order;

9. copies of all bona fide offers to purchase the Property shall be forwarded by the petitioner to the respondents within 24 hours of receipt;

10. should the respondent Strong wish to present an offer to purchase the Property, it is to be presented to the listing real estate agent;

11. on or before August 18, 2014, the petitioner shall present all bona fide offers which have been received to the Court for its approval, together with his recommendation as to which offer will result in the greatest net sale proceeds to be paid to the Estate;

12. the respondent, Strong, has liberty to present what she considers to be her best offer for the Property at the application regarding court approval of the sale of the Property;

13. Abrioux J. is seized of the application regarding court approval of the sale of the Property;

14. the petitioner and the respondent Strong are to pass their respective interim and final accounts;

15. the respondents’ applications are dismissed; and

16. the petitioner is awarded his costs of these applications at Scale B to be paid out of the Estate.
[62] The petitioner also seeks special costs.

[63] The respondents have chosen to make serious allegations of misconduct, including fraud, against the petitioner and his counsel. For the reasons I have outlined above, there is no basis for the accusations of impropriety which have been advanced.

[64] I view the conduct of both respondents to be “worthy of reproof or rebuke”, entitling the petitioner to an award of special costs: Garcia v. Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. (1994), 1994 CanLII 2570 (BC CA), 9 B.C.L.R. (3d) 242 (C.A.). I conclude these costs should be assessed on a lump-sum basis, taking into account the amount the petitioner shall receive under Scale B.

[65] I consider the conduct of the respondent Marian Strong to be less egregious than that of the respondent Gordon Watson, who, both in his written materials and submissions to the Court, accused the petitioner and his counsel of fraud.

[66] The respondents’ future conduct, including their compliance with the orders I have made above, may be a factor in the amount of special costs I award. Accordingly, I direct that submissions with respect to the amount of lump-sum special costs occur after the Property has been sold. I am seized of that application.


The Google Maps Street View shots of the property, taken by chance a month or so after this decision, show a "For Sale" sign out front and Gordon's sign gone. So Gordon is apparently out and no closer to having that raw milk farm than he was in 2006 when he was kicked out of that purported farm in the Fraser Valley. No doubt he will update us with future court actions.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

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

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3550
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skepti

Postby grixit » Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:34 pm

Quest que ce "seized of"?
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

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

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

Re: Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skepti

Postby Fmotlgroupie » Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:40 pm

grixit wrote:Quest que ce "seized of"?


It means it will be heard by the same judge, instead of whatever judge of that court might be assigned

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3550
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skepti

Postby grixit » Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:41 pm

Merci.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

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

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4956
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skepti

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:44 pm

grixit wrote:Quest que ce "seized of"?


I think that he meant to say "seised of", an antique legal term relating to land ownership. In days of old, at a conveyance of land, the seller had to hand the buyer some twigs or a clod of earth, to signify transfer of ownership; and this was called "livery of seisin". For gits and shiggles, when I was doing foreclosures for my boss in the early 90s, I would have him snap a twig in two, as it was once necessary to do, at foreclosure, to signify that the Right of Entry for Condition Broken had been thus satisfied.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skepti

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:07 pm

Pottapaug1938 wrote:
grixit wrote:Quest que ce "seized of"?


I think that he meant to say "seised of", an antique legal term relating to land ownership. In days of old, at a conveyance of land, the seller had to hand the buyer some twigs or a clod of earth, to signify transfer of ownership; and this was called "livery of seisin". For gits and shiggles, when I was doing foreclosures for my boss in the early 90s, I would have him snap a twig in two, as it was once necessary to do, at foreclosure, to signify that the Right of Entry for Condition Broken had been thus satisfied.


He meant what fmotlgroupie explained. This case was long-running. There was a prior unreported decision by the same judge removing the obstructionist sister from the position of executrix. The judge has awarded special costs against Gordon for his reprehensible behaviour and wants to ensure that he reviews the final cost claim to confirm that it falls within his ruling. If a judge does not seize a case then any follow up can be arbitrarily allocated to whatever judge is available. Given the long acrimonious history of this file continuing with the same judge, who is already very familiar with the history and players, just makes sense.
"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