And, of course, the mockery a brave but humble Freeman must face for standing up for his rights in totalitarian police state (at least we're polite in Canada);8] Cst. Jones confirmed much of Cst. Vandadyga’s evidence. He indicated that Mr. Gerlitz refused to answer any questions when he arrived at the Arrest Processing Unit (“APU”). He also refused to stand on the mark on the floor to have his photograph taken and indicated he would do so only “on the duress of violence”. He had postage stamps attached to his arm and refused to remove them on the basis the stamps belonged to the universal postal service. In cross-examination, Cst. Jones testified that Mr. Gerlitz did not appear to be shaken up or scared during the arrest process. Rather, he appeared to be calm, though somewhat passive aggressive wanting to push the boundaries a little.
Although I'll concede it might be difficult to take someone with Canada Post stamps stuck all over himself seriously.[11] Mr. Gerlitz told the police that his human rights were being violated and that his body was his personal private property. When he referred to s. 39 of the Criminal Code and his right to defend himself against unlawful seizure, several officers laughed at him.
Gerlitz was charged with;
Not enough information to determine, yet, if he is a Poriskyite or not but he's certainly a Freeman. We've got a pile of decision on him with more to come. I'll go through them chronologically. But first a problem I've grappled with before. Is this a tax protester/evasion issue or a Freeman/Sovereign issue. After my extensive readings of Gerlitz's cases, given below, I'm going with tax. While he uses fundamental Freeman arguments he seems to have little understanding of them and just parrots them out as a defense to counter his tax evasion charges. As an old-school hard-core tax guy I'm calling the evasion charges a tie breaker. Keep in mind that the cases discussed below were all just desperate attempts by Gerlitz to stop his trial for tax evasion from being held. The cases to date are;[1] Christopher Gerlitz is charged in an indictment dated January 15, 2013 with 2 counts of making false or deceptive statements on tax returns, contrary to s. 239(1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 2 counts of fraud over $5,000, contrary to s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code; one count of making a false document, contrary to s. 268(1)(b) of the Criminal Code; and 1 count of theft over $5,000, contrary to s. 334 of the Criminal Code.
October 3, 2013 - R v Gerlitz, 2013 ABQB 576
October 21, 2013 - R v Gerlitz, 2013 ABQB 624
November 11, 2013 - R v Gerlitz, 2013 ABQB 661
April 22, 2014 - R v Gerlitz, 2014 ABQB 243
April 24, 2014 - R v Gerlitz, 2014 ABQB 247
April 25, 2014 - R v Gerlitz, 2014 ABQB 252
October 3, 2013 - R v Gerlitz, 2013 ABQB 576
This hearing was a procedural follow-up to Gerlitz's attempt to have the tax charges against his quashed. He had been committed to trial and he was trying to get out of this by appealing the decision on the basis that he shouldn't be tried on the tax charges. He went Freeman right out the gate;
The hearing concluded as expected;[43] At the outset of the preliminary inquiry, and prior to the calling of any evidence, Mr. Gerlitz brought a motion to quash, alleging that the Provincial Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with him. He filed several affidavits in support of this application, including an Affidavit of Facts, two Affidavits of Seizure, a Certificate of Default, an Affidavit of Arrest, an Affidavit of Assault, and a Public Notice Fee Schedule. Documents with similar names were filed in the within proceeding in support of Mr. Gerlitz's various pre-trial applications.
[44] In essence, Mr. Gerlitz advanced three arguments in support of his application:
a) that he was not a legal entity or person who can be prosecuted in the courts;
b) that the courts do not have jurisdiction over him, and;
c) the laws under which he was charged do not, in fact, apply to him.
October 21, 2013 - R v Gerlitz, 2013 ABQB 624Conclusion
[80] Having carefully considered Mr. Gerlitz’s arguments regarding the alleged errors of Judge Ogle during the course of the preliminary inquiry, I am of the view that there is no reasonable chance of success on a certiorari application. Accordingly, I decline to exercise my discretion to extend the time for the filing of this application. The application is dismissed.
This was an attempt to exclude the evidence obtained at a warrant authorized search of Mr. Gerlitz's house. One problem was that the warrant authorized a search from 8AM to 8PM but it took 13 hours because;
Gerlitz put up a valiant fight;[10] Approximately one hour after the initial entry, approximately six or seven more searchers arrived. The search of the residence did not begin until approximately 10:30 a.m. Mr. Warner stated the additional searchers were required due to the cluttered state of the residence.
But to no avail. After 13 hours they left and Mr. Gerlitz challenged the search on the constitutional grounds that the RCMP and CRA staff were rude to him. He also claimed anything collected after the 12th hour was the result of an invalid search. Sadly neither of those worked. He seemed to think he had a winner in the argument that he had erected a magic talisman in front of his house, a "NO TRESPASSING" sign, and this protected him from all the evils of the outside world, like those pesky search warrants. Unfortunately the "A man's home is his castle" doctrine doesn't cut it when a judge authorizes a lawful warrant. Another strikeout.[27] A couple of hours after CRA entered the residence, Mr. Warner served the warrant on Mr. Gerlitz. At this point, Mr. Gerlitz asked whether he was serving the document on the living person, the homeowner, or himself. Mr. Gerlitz asked Mr. Warner to be clear on this point. Mr. Warner was confused by the question, and Mr. Warner slammed his hand on the table in response stating he was serving the house. He told Mr. Warner that he did not understand why they were there and that he did not accept any liability nor consent to them being there.
Then the obviously corrupt judge put a totally unacceptable suggestion in the decision, at least unacceptable to any right-thinking Freeman accused tax evader. Let's just adjudicate the case on its merits! What kind of offensive suggestion is that from the courts?
The judge pointed out that the evidence gathered under the warrant was critical to the Crown's case. Well why else was Gerlitz trying to exclude it?[97] In Grant, the Court explained that the public expects that a criminal allegation will be decided on its merits. As such, this third question focuses on whether the truth-seeking function of the criminal process would be better served by the admission of the evidence or by its exclusion. As the Court stated at para. 79, quoting from their earlier decision in Askov: “This inquiry reflects society’s “collective interest in ensuring that those who transgress the law are brought to trial and dealt with according to law.” The Court went on to reiterate that s. 24(2) requires a broad inquiry into all of the circumstances.
So Gerlitz loses another round.[98] In this instance, the records in issue constitute highly reliable evidence of Mr. Gerlitz’s financial dealings. The evidence is important to the Crown’s case. In the absence of this evidence, the Crown will be unable to proceed further. As such, the exclusion of the records would significantly undermine the Court’s truth seeking function.
November 11, 2013 - R v Gerlitz, 2013 ABQB 661
Just further procedural squabbling. The Crown had filed an application seeking to admit three out of court videotaped statements of Lucille Hetherington into evidence pursuant to the principled approach to the hearsay rule. These same statements were admitted at the preliminary inquiry. Hetherington was Gerlitz's bookkeeper. She had been unable to attend trial because she had been hospitalized because of lung and kidney problems. So Gerlitz tried to get her testimony tossed on the basis it was hearsay. Failed again.
April 22, 2014 - R v Gerlitz, 2014 ABQB 243
He's still in there pitching! This round involves his attempts to adjourn the trial, hopefully indefinitely. His reasons for an adjournment? He'd sent a pile of questions to the Crown and they refused to answer them. Relevant questions such as proving that the Crown and court actually had the jurisdiction and authority to proceed against him. He took the position that he could not move forward with the trial until these questions were answered.
And of course he relied on those unimpeachable sources of judicial authority, random documents gathered on the internet and Gerlitz's somewhat novel definitions of various words. I suspect that Gerlitz has only a superficial understanding of all this crap he's dumped on the courts, he's just bottom fed through the dank world of Freeman websites downloading anything that looks, to him, impressively judicial;[10] Subsequently, at p. 3, l. 27-36, he stated his position as follows:
In order for the Queen to have any type of standing here in what they call Canada, she has to have rights, title and interest to all the land here. And I’ve been trying to, for the past couple of years, is to try and get information regarding that from the federal government and no one can tell me that.
So unless someone is going to provide some sort of evidence to the fact that the land has been ceded to the Crown and that The Queen has standing and authority over all the lands that stand here, then how can she have title and interest over all the land of Canada? It would have to be proven that the Indians, the aboriginals or originees (sic), actually ceded the land to her, which can’t be proven.
The Crown, apparently dumbfounded by this fount of legal wisdom that even plausibley accused the government of genocide in charging him with tax evasion, just floundered in platitudes;[12] Mr. Gerlitz advances the further argument based on a document obtained from the Internet entitled “Roles and Responsibilities of the Governor General” which describes the Governor General as the de facto head of state in Canada. According to Mr. Gerlitz, the term “de facto” means unlawful. As such, he argues “if the Queen is operating in de facto head of state...then she doesn’t have the lawful authority to be acting on behalf of Canada.” (p. 8, l. 31-37).
[13] In further support of his application, Mr. Gerlitz also sought to advance the argument that the charges instituted against him are, in fact, a penal sum. He explained (Transcript of Proceedings, p. 9, l. 25-33):
My belief—my belief is that the charges created on - - against me through the indictment are an actual penal sum - -
The Court: They’re a what?
Mr. Gerlitz: Are an actual penal sum. Amount of money. That’s why they’re called charges. And from it, there’s bonds which underwrite this Court case which I believe is being traded on the Security and Exchange Commission by the Courts in order to unjustly enrich a third party, which would be the government.
This is a profoundly important issue to all of us; if his trial wasn't adjourned and his rights as a beneficiary of his imaginary trust weren't acknowledged it would result in genocide!
[15] In one of his September 17, 2013 affidavits, Mr. Gerlitz affirms the following statements:
3. Her Majesty the Queen has no Jurisdiction [sic] and legal rights to this land that we live on. The Federal Government and Her Majesty the Queen must produce the Title, Deed and Bill of sale to this land or stand down from the enforcement of its defacto policies.
4. The Governor General carries out Her Majesty the Queen’s duties in Canada on a daily basis as Canada’s defacto head of state.
5. The Agents of Her Majesty the Queen lack the authority to enforce the Codes, Statutes and Laws against a private living man and/or beneficiary and I hold its agents and servants to the strict proof thereof if it is believed otherwise.
6. The government and agents of the government and Her Majesty the Queen are in possession of all original documentation of the Estates and all property, real and personal, and as such are Trustees that have a duty to act for the benefit of the beneficiary or be in Breach of Trust and Criminal Breach of Trust.
7. The matters before the court must be adjourned. The Crown must respond to the challenge of jurisdiction. The Crown has exceeded their jurisdiction by bringing forward a [sic] charges and claims against me despite providing no evidence that they have the authority to do so. I have asked numerous times for the Crown to produce any documents to support their claims that they have jurisdiction over me. They continue to refuse to do so.
8. In the absence of any evidence, the Crown admits to lacking any authority to enforce its policies on me and in doing so is participating in involuntary servitude and genocide.
So the judge brutally cut our hero off at the knees;[19] The Crown opposes the request for an adjournment of the trial. In the absence of any evidence supporting his challenges to the jurisdiction of the Queen, the Court and the Crown, the Crown takes the position that there is simply no merit to Mr. Gerlitz’s position in this regard and the trial should proceed.
One clue here that we might be dealing with a Poriskyite;[34] In my view, the materials filed by Mr. Gerlitz do not afford evidence which in any way calls into question Her Majesty the Queen’s authority over the lands of Canada. To the extent that Mr. Gerlitz relies on the summary conviction appeal decision in the Paul case from New Brunswick, I believe that this reliance is misplaced. The decision was reversed by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (as described in para. 17, above). Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.
[35] Likewise, Mr. Gerlitz’s reliance on an Internet article describing the Governor General as the de facto head of state in Canada simply does not support the interpretation advanced, specifically that the Queen does not have lawful authority to be acting on behalf of Canada. The phrase “de facto” does not mean “unlawful”, as suggested by Mr. Gerlitz. Rather this Latin phrase means “in fact...[c]haracterizes a state of affairs which must be accepted”. (The Dictionary of Canadian Law, 3rd Edition, Thomson Carswell Canada, 2004). Similarly, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition, Thomson Reuters) defines the phrases as: “in point of fact”. In short, Mr. Gerlitz’s mistaken interpretation of the phrase “de facto” is, in my view, a complete answer to his argument in this regard.
[36] Mr. Gerlitz offers no evidence in support of his contention that there are bonds which underwrite these court proceedings so as to unjustly enrich the government. As such, this is a bald allegation which even on a superficial level does not appear to relate to the Queen’s authority over the lands of Canada. In the absence of any evidence, I am not prepared to consider this argument.
[37] Mr. Gerlitz’s final argument relates to the authority of the Queen’s Privy Council over Canada. During oral argument, it became clear that Mr. Gerlitz was operating under the view that there was only one Privy Council, namely the United Kingdom Privy Council. The documents which he produced confirmed that Her Majesty’s United Kingdom Privy Council had no jurisdiction in North America and Canada. In my view, this is a correct statement of the law. However, contrary to Mr. Gerlitz’s understanding, there is more than one Privy Council. Relevant to Canada, the Queen’s Canadian Privy Council exercises more or less the same functions in Canada as the Queen’s United Kingdom Privy Council exercises relative to the United Kingdom. As such, the fact that the United Kingdom Privy Council has no jurisdiction in Canada in no way calls into question the Queen’s authority over Canada.
[44] The application for an adjournment is denied.
Two months for what, on the face of it, is a simple evasion trial, along with the massive amount of records seized, indicates much more than one man operating a small cash business. I've written about Keith Lawson and his microbiologist wife May Dang-Lawson;7] On January 15, 2013, the Crown, relying on s. 574(1) C.C., filed the six count indictment which is currently before the Court. Mr. Gerlitz appeared in Criminal Appearance Court before Wilson J. on January 25, 2013. The trial was set to commence on September 9, 2013 for a period of 8 weeks.
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8223&hilit=lawson
Keith is accused of being both a Porisky promoter and follower and he's slated for a one month trial here in Vancouver in the spring. So I assume double that for Gerlitz was significant. However Lawson had promoting right in the indictment where it says he "did counsel various persons to commit the indictable offense of fraud in excess of $5,000, contrary to section 380 of the criminal code and did thereby commit an offense contrary to section 464(a) of the criminal code." I don't see a similar charge for Gerlitz. We'll see.
April 24, 2014 - R v Gerlitz, 2014 ABQB 247
This was an application challenging the constitutional validity of the Income Tax Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. Gerlitz was trying to do an end run around his pesky charges by getting the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta to agree that the two acts he has been charged under have no legal authority over him. He was again cruelly disappointed.
This time that old chestnut, his birth bond. He claims to have revoked that symbol of bondage, his birth certificate, and retained only the Freeman approved document, his certificate of live birth. Apart from freeing him from the slavery of being subject to the laws of Canada the certificate of live birth gives him "a debt to him as a beneficiary of the common stock of Canada." This magic document is now legally binding on the government through that dynamite legal term PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, AND ESTOPPED BY ACQUIESCENE (sic) because he sent the government a notice to which he required be rebut with a ten day time period or it became legally binding on them and they neglected to reply.
All in vain, the application was dismissed.[8] Exhibit V-3, Revocation of Power of Attorney, is dated October 9, 2011, and is addressed to Verlyn Olson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The document states that it was sent via certified mail RW564091569. The attached Public Notice to Respond is also dated October 9, 2011 and addressed to Verlyn Olson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The document states that it was sent via registered mail RW564091569CA. In his oral submissions, Mr. Gerlitz advised that a copy of this Notice was sent to both the provincial and federal Attorney General.
[9] In his submissions, Mr. Gerlitz advised that when the government creates a birth certificate, this results in various accounts being registered with government which can put an individual under citizenry. Mr. Gerlitz claimed that he was bound without his knowledge or consent to follow laws beyond the common law and that this Notice was to serve as an indication that he no longer wished to be part of this scheme.
[10] The document Revocation of Power of Attorney (Exhibit V-4) is dated May 2, 2012, and is addressed to the Hon. Verlyn Olson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The document states that “Christopher Henry Gerlitz account number 637-570-458 do hereby revoke, terminate, and rescind all Powers of Attorney from the Provincial Government of Alberta, in fact or otherwise; previously assigned by me; implied by law, by trust or otherwise; or with or without my consent and/or knowledge, that pertain to any property, real or personal.”
[11] In this document, Mr. Gerlitz refers to the fact that he is in possession of a certificate of Live Birth filed at Vital Statistics in Alberta. He states that the birth certificate is prima facie evidence that the Government owes a debt to him as a beneficiary of the common stock of Canada. The document goes on to appoint Mr. Gerlitz as Executor and Director to administer the Legal Person, Christopher Gerlitz, “for the benefit of the beneficiary and to protect his investment.” The document states that in his contact with all government agents, civil servants, Public Servants and Public Trustees, he is never acting as an employee of the government and is never to be considered as performing a function of Government at any time. Similarly, he is never a Trustee or surety. In all contact or dealing with him, all government agents, civil servants, Public Servants and Public Trustees “are to be presumed to be acting in the capacity as Public Trustees and performing a function of Government.”
[12] Exhibit V-4 goes on to state that in relation to all court appearances, Mr. Gerlitz is to be “considered the Beneficiary who has appointed myself as the Executor and Director to administrate [sic] the Legal Person. The Justice and Crown are always considered acting in the capacity of Public Servants and Public Trustees in every interaction with me in and out of the courtroom.” The document then states that as Executor and Director of the Legal Person, Christopher Gerlitz, Mr. Gerlitz does not “consent for any Public Servants or Public Trustees to administrate [sic] or dictate the Policy of the Legal Person. The role of Public Servants and Public Trustees are to follow public policy as given to them.” Exhibit V-3 then stipulates that the Government has 10 days to rebut this notice. Failure to respond is then stated to be agreement as facts between the parties and “will constitute as an operation of law, the admission by TACIT PROCURATION to the statements, claims and ANSWERS to inquiries shall be deemed RES JUDICATA, STARE DECISIS. Failure to respond will constitute PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, AND ESTOPPED BY ACQUIESCENE.”
Gerlitz failed on the most elementary of procedural issues. Individuals making Charter challenges must give the government advance notice along with the facts and arguments supporting the challenge;
[18] The requirements of the Judicature Act are set out in s. 24(2) in the following terms:
24(1) If in a proceeding the constitutional validity of an enactment of the Parliament of Canada or of the Legislature of Alberta is brought into questions, the enactment shall not be held to be invalid unless 14 days written notice has been given to the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta.
(3) The notice shall include what enactment or part of an enactment is in question and give reasonable particulars of the proposed argument. (emphasis added)
[21] In Gramaglia, the Court of Appeal dealt specifically with s. 24(3) of the Judicature Act, finding the notice failed to identify the portion of the enactment that was challenged and failed to provide any particulars as to the proposed argument. In that instance, the Court upheld the chambers judge finding that “the notice under s. 24 of the Judicature Act was so inadequate and deficient as to constitute a bar to the appellant’s constitutional notice.” (at para. 54)
[22] In my view, these decisions by the Court of Appeal are determinative of this matter. As in Gramaglia, Mr. Gerlitz has failed to provide the federal and provincial attorney general with proper notice as to the statutory provisions that are challenged. He has similarly failed to comply with s. 24(3) in that he provides no particulars as to his proposed argument. In my view, these deficiencies are fatal to his application.
There were a few other deficiencies in his arguments;
I have written about the Tyskerud case here;[23] If I am wrong in concluding that Mr. Gerlitz’s notice is so deficient as to constitute a bar to hearing his application, I will go on to consider his challenge to the Income Tax Act. Though Mr. Gerlitz indicated a number of times that he was also challenging the constitutional validity of the Criminal Code, he filed no materials and made no submissions on this point. As more fully described below, he did, however, made submissions on the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”) to interactions between private individuals.
[24] Mr. Gerlitz challenges the validity of the Income Tax Act on the basis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, 1950 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1951] SCR 31. As such, he says that this case determines that the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to engage in direct taxation, a power reserved to the provinces.
[25] In reference to this argument, Mr. Gerlitz conceded in cross-examination that he had not noted up the Lord Nelson decision (Nova Scotia (A.G.) v. Canada (A.G.)). Further, he acknowledged that he was unfamiliar with the Bruno decision (Bruno v. Canada Customs, 2002 BCCA 47 (CanLII)); and, though he had read the Meads decision (Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)), he was not aware that it addressed this same argument.
30] Mr. Gerlitz advances a further argument challenging the validity of the Income Tax Act. In his evidence, he indicated that the original Income Tax Act was not published in the Canada Gazette and, as such, is invalid. He testified that he had searched the Canada Gazette for every month in the years 1939 and 1949, dates when he alleges the Act was supposed to be published, but that he was not able to find the original Act.
[31] This argument was addressed in R. v. Tyskerud, 2011 BCPC 494 (CanLII), where the accused where the accused argued the Income Tax Act 1948 was not published in the Canada Gazette. As such, he argued that this was required by s. 12 of the Publication of Statutes Act . At para. 9, the court stated:
[9] In Heckendorn v. Canada, 2005 FC 802 (CanLII), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1006, the Federal Court of Canada concluded at paragraph 19 that if an Act appears on its face to have been duly passed by a competent legislature, the courts must assume that all things have been done to properly pass it, and a court cannot, therefore, "entertain any argument that there is a defect of parliamentary procedure lying behind the Act as a matter of fact." The Federal Court further confirmed that the Income Tax Act, as set out in the Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, cannot be impeached by the courts and concluded in that case by saying:
Thus the case of the Plaintiff, as to the existence of a valid and enforceable Income Tax Act, is one which plainly, obviously and beyond doubt cannot succeed.
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9129
Essentially all of Gerlitz's arguments are ones that have been before the courts before, often multiple times, and all have failed. He is possibly too dense to read these decisions and realize they actually lost. As the judge said " though he had read the Meads decision (Meads v. Meads, he was not aware that it addressed this same argument."
And that perennial, he has revoked his adherence to laws and has become stateless, no longer a Canadian. He based this on the same argument that EVERY LAST FREEMAN I'VE SEEN AT TRIAL HAS USED, their mystical belief in the awesome power of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to allow them to do whatever they want as a human right;
However Gerlitz still likes the benefits of being a Canadian and sees no reason to relinquish those although he has cast aside the accompanying responsibilities. But, like being pregnant, you can't be half stateless and the judge had some problems with our non-Canadian applying for, and using Canadian government documents when it suited him. Your basic Freeman hypocrisy;[35] According to Mr. Gerlitz, the constitution does not apply to original people living on the land of Canada and those who are not citizens of Canada. He reasons that everyone is born stateless as a free living being and only becomes a citizen by joining an association that recognizes you as a Canadian citizen. Full disclosure is required before joining any such association and a person has to consent to joining. Relying on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mr. Gerlitz argues that everyone has the right not to have a nationality and to be considered stateless. As a stateless individual, he says that laws still apply to these individuals, but only the common law and not statute law. Only citizens are forced to follow statute law.
And of course rather than do his own work the judge just hauled out Meads to do the heavy lifting;[37] In cross-examination, Mr. Gerlitz acknowledged that he travelled (sic) to Peru in 2002-03, and that he used a travel document to enter the country. He also acknowledged that he surrendered a travel document in conjunction with the terms of his release from custody relative to these charges. While he did not specifically refer to holding a Canadian passport at the time, I am of the view that this is the only reasonable inference to be drawn regarding these references to “travel document”.
[38] Mr. Gerlitz conceded that he is not a citizen of any other country and that he plans to travel outside of Canada in the future. He also acknowledged that at the time of his 2001 car accident he had a document issued by the Province of Alberta that allowed him to drive a motor vehicle. He testified, however, that he no longer has this document.
April 25, 2014 - R v Gerlitz, 2014 ABQB 252[41] With respect to Mr. Gerlitz’s argument that statute law only applies to government and to individuals who consent to being citizens, he offers no authority for this novel argument. This argument was discussed at length, and rejected, by Rooke ACJ in Meads, specifically at para. 325-330. I agree with Rooke ACJ’s conclusion (at para. 330) that the argument that common law somehow trumps statute law or legislation has been consistently rejected by the courts. I also reject Mr. Gerlitz’s contention that he has somehow relinquished his Canadian citizenship and put Canadian governments on notice that he no longer wishes them to act on his behalf. If nothing else, this argument is inconsistent with his own evidence that he has used a Canadian passport as recently as December 2002 and January 2003, and was operating a motor vehicle under a license provided by the Government of Alberta in 2001 at the time of his motor vehicle accident.
April 2014 was not a good month for our hero. This is the case cited at the beginning regarding his postage covered exterior. This covered his challenge regarding the search warrant on his house. Yet again another failure in a long history of them. The case was largely based on conflicting testimony and the court had credibility problems with Gerlitz and his wife;
This is a long decision base on "He said this, she said that, yadda, yadda, yadda". I'll leave you to read it for yourselves if interested. I've had enough of Gerlitz for the moment[47] I have no doubt that the circumstances surrounding his arrest must have been traumatic for both Mr. and Mrs. Gerlitz, particularly the initial involvement of members of the CPS Tactical Team. However, I do accept their evidence regarding the level of force employed or the cavalier, aggressive attitude they attribute to members of the CPS involved in the arrest. As more fully described below relative to the events alleged to have later taken place at the Remand Centre, I find Mr. Gerlitz’s description of the events surrounding his arrest to be exaggerated and implausible. The evidence of both Mr. and Mrs. Gerlitz appeared to be “rehearsed” and story-like in nature, as opposed to the expressions of individuals honestly trying to relate events that were doubtless unexpected and surprising.
So, with all of Gerlitz's cries of injustice scattered in the winds I have hopes that sometime in the relatively near future we'll actually get to the trial at issue, his tax evasion charges. He seems to be desperate to avoid having these dealt with on their merits. I can guess why.
