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:
- Watson v. Cull, 1992 CanLII 939 (BC SC): http://canlii.ca/t/1dglg
Everywoman's Health Centre Society (1988) v. Bridges, 1993 CanLII 1276 (BC SC): http://canlii.ca/t/1dkgt
Watson v. Williams, 1993 CanLII 1208 (BC SC): http://canlii.ca/t/1dhv1
Watson v. Cull, 1993 CanLII 2588 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1dbtg
Ministry of Health, Re, 1994 CanLII 1471 (BC IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1gdgc
Ministry of Attorney General, Re, 1994 CanLII 1169 (BC IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1gdgv
Everywoman's Health Centre Society (1988) v. Watson, 1994 CanLII 1467 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1dcx1
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Re, 1996 CanLII 762 (BC IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1gdj3
Vancouver Police Department, Re, 1996 CanLII 394 (BC IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1gdj2
R. v. Watson, 1996 CanLII 2013 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1f0kt
R. v. Watson, 1996 CanLII 3242 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1f0f3
R. v. Watson, 1998 CanLII 5673 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1f0rj
R. v. Watson and Spratt, 2002 BCSC 786: http://canlii.ca/t/1czfq
R. v. Spratt, 2004 BCCA 367: http://canlii.ca/t/1hd8h
R. v. Watson and Spratt, 2006 BCCA 234: http://canlii.ca/t/1n7d2
R. v. Spratt, 2008 BCCA 340: http://canlii.ca/t/20jnz
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:
 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.
 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:
 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.
 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.
 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?!
[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.