Wally Dove - from CCRA toady to Human Rights Defender

[Judge Roy Bean]

Since she does not work, where is the $2,600 going to come from if the parties decide to try and collect it?

[Philistine]

Since she does not work, where is the $2,600 going to come from if the parties decide to try and collect it?

My guess is that it will come from the Canadian tax payers via social assistance payments, so in a sense, she's actually won!
The govt. will pay her bills to the govt.

[Burnaby49]

Since she does not work, where is the $2,600 going to come from if the parties decide to try and collect it?

To start with there is nothing in the decision indicating that she doesn't currently work. Her goal is to be able to opt out of working and live the sovereign dream of becoming a parasite on Canadian taxpayers but she might not be there yet given that the government refuses to fund her demanded adequate living.

Secondly, pay court costs? That's for suckers. I have a pile of documents on Charles Norman Holmes' recent court adventures where he's lost case after case and paid none of the costs awarded against him. That's over, at least in the Federal Court of Canada, since he's been declared a vexatious litigant. And do you think Menard paid the costs assessed against him after that Federal Court of Canada farce last year?

[notorial dissent]

Couple of real winners there Bunraby.

[Burnaby49]

Wally's taking his case to the Supreme Court of Canada!

http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info ... ?cas=37487

Assuming that they grant leave to appeal. But they must! There's a critical issue here, the $100,000,000 the government owes him in support of his right to an adequate lifestyle. He's not going to earn that much by himself, even if he was employed.

It appears Wally's having a bit of a snit;

Correspondence received from, (Letter Form), Wally Dove (by email). Question regarding the style of cause. , (Electronic version filed on 2017-03-24)

I assume that's because some document has his name recorded in capital letters. Probably the Crown mocking him. Those Bastards!

[notorial dissent]

Of course Wally is going to appeal. He hasn't gotten a clue so far, why should he change now? It's not like he'll fare any better there than he has otherwise, but still. Wally's life is simply fraught with frustrations to his aspirations.

[Burnaby49]

Poor Wally.

I seem to have started a lot of posts on this discussion saying that. Wally is the guy who claimed to have been a CRA auditor who saw how the CRA cheated and robbed Canadians through intimidation and harassment. So, being an upright ethical guy, he quit and decided to spend his life fighting against income taxes. His first step was to become a promoter of a sleazy tax scheme which collapsed at the first contact with reality. He then sued the government of Canada for $100,000,000 to provide him with funds for a lifestyle of "happiness". Since he had a government protected right to work this meant, in WallyWorld, that the government also protected his right not to work. Since he'd chosen the right not to work it was the government's responsibility to step up to bat and pay him the money he needed for an "adequate" living while not working. He lost. Poor Wally. It's all in the discussion.

I've always been skeptical of that CRA auditor claim. He said he was an auditor in the Vancouver office of the Canada Revenue Agency. I spent almost 35 years as an auditor in the Vancouver tax office, including the time he'd have had to have worked there, and I don't remember him. Be hard not to notice someone with Lucille Ball's hair colour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9z1-N7_12A&t=353s

Note a comment on this video;

Interesting content but a very bad choice of chairs for making such a recording.

It's because Wally, apparently clueless about presentations, picked the world's creakiest chair to sit in while doing this one. It's overwhelming. WD-40 next time Wally! Anyhow, had Wally worked in audit in Vancouver I'd have known him or heard about him unless his employment was of extremely short duration.

But that's not why I'm doing another post on him. He's had yet another setback. He recently filed this legal action;

Wallace Maxwell Raymond Dove and Legal Aid Ontario
2018 ONSC 17
http://canlii.ca/t/hphwk

[1] On or about October 26th, 2017, Wallace Maxwell Raymond Dove caused to be issued a Statement of Claim against Legal Aid Ontario.

[2] In that Statement of Claim (also entitled Notice of Application), Mr. Dove claims that the defendant is in violation of the rule of law and the rules of commerce by:

a) Refusing to apply the plaintiff's tender of a promissory note in satisfaction, discharge and payment of the debt between them;

b) Not removing the related lien against the plaintiff's real property; and

c) By failing to abide by the rule of law, the defendant has created circumstances that result in the defendant being guilty of the indictable offence of "trafficking in persons" against the plaintiff, contrary to s. 279.01, 279.04 of the Criminal Code.

So Wally owed Legal Aid Ontario money and he tried to pay it off with a bullshit promissory note. For some inexplicable reason they chose not to accept it. Why did he owe them money?

[3] Legal Aid Ontario, as defendant, has submitted that Mr. Dove had applied for and received a Legal Aid certificate and in consideration of receiving Legal Aid services, Mr. Dove was required to contribute towards the cost of the legal aid service to him pursuant to s. 40, 45 and 48 of the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998. On or about July 22nd, 2003, Mr. Dove executed a payment agreement with Legal Aid Ontario, and on July 31st, 2003, the lien was placed on his property. The lien remains on title as the debt has not been paid. Rather than offer payment, Mr. Dove has asked Legal Aid Ontario to accept his promissory note and to discharge the lien.

[4] Legal Aid Ontario is asking that the court dismiss Mr. Dove's Statement of Claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure R.R.O., Reg 194 on the basis that on its face it appears to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The defendant relies upon the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 (CanLII) wherein that court found that a promissory note was not the equivalent of cash and that such an argument was frivolous and vexatious.

The case that Wally required legal aid for was his 2004 trial for three counts of evading taxes, making false statements and conspiring to evade taxes.

R. v. Dove, 2004
45964 (ON SC)
http://canlii.ca/t/1jdl6

This was reported earlier in this discussion. He got off, not because he was proven innocent but because of delay. Things had taken so long that the judge stayed charges. You will note that he had a lawyer during the trial, one Raj Napal. This is Raj;

https://www.bramptonguardian.com/news-s ... isconduct/

More amusingly this is also Raj;

https://lawdiva.wordpress.com/tag/raj-napal/

In that one Raj defended a lawyer who was about to be disbarred for grossly overcharging legal aid. He lost. But what was of more interest was the case the lawyer overcharged over;

Wills’ married mistress of six years, Linda Mariani, went missing in 2002. Having been dumped by Ms. Mariani, Wills was immediately identified as a viable suspect even though he broadly hinted to his police associates that her husband was the likely culprit. Four months after her disappearance Wills retained top criminal counsel to cut a deal for him. He would admit that Linda accidentally fell down the stairs in his home, and acceding to her wishes, to avoid an undesirable burial in her husband’s mausoleum, he hid her in a 60 gallon vat behind a wall in his home, so he could later bury her in the resting place she desired.

So he hid his girfriend's body in a steel drum behindf a wall in his house so she wouldn't face the indignity of a legitimate burial. But;

The police weren’t buying what Richard Wills was selling. They located Linda’s body where Wills said it was but the evidence screamed homicide. She had a skipping rope tied around her neck and a baseball bat jammed in beside her. She died of blunt-force trauma. Mr. Wills was promptly charged with first degree murder.

That's when the fun started;

The “Richard Wills Show” began with a 65 day preliminary hearing, a process designed to determine if there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial. Wills paid his first set of lawyers with his own money, after all, he was a millionaire. By the time he had fired multiple sets of new lawyers, he had transferred all his assets, including real estate and his police pension to his ex-wife and was now officially a pauper begging for legal aid. As an indigent criminal defendant the Attorney-General was obliged to follow Canadian case law and compelled to pay for his defence. Legal Aid received funds for Mr. Will’s defence from the Ontario government and was expected to oversee payments to his lawyers, only they didn’t realize they were to do more than just dole out money.

Representing himself for much of the preliminary hearing, his behaviour was outrageous. He was rude and childish, belching, passing gas, lying prone in the prisoner’s docket, and contemptuously degrading, swearing, and insulting the Judge, the prosecutors, and anyone else unlucky enough to be a part of the process.

He regularly urinated in the police van on the way to and from the courthouse and on one occasion displayed a handful of excrement to the Judge after a well-coordinated courtroom bowel movement. He revelled in the spotlight, ignoring the Judge’s admonitions and rebuke and obstreporously belaboured and delayed proceedings with his interminably irrelevant questioning of witnesses.

He rambled and repeated himself with the obvious goal of drawing out and delaying the hearing. He was finally ejected from the courtroom and forced to watch the proceedings via video from a separate room. Ultimately, he achieved his goal when the Attorney-General, in an unusual move, declared an end to the preliminary hearing even though it was far from finished, and directed that Mr. Wills go straight to trial. Of course, pre-trial motions occupied another 144 days before Mr. Wills 84 day trial commenced.

Anyhow, back to Wally's problems. He'd gotten off from the criminal charges but owed Legal Aid Ontario money for Raj's services. He'd tendered the usual OPCA promissory notes to no avail so he sued Legal Aid Ontario for "trafficking in persons". How did it go? This is what Legal Aid wanted;

[4] Legal Aid Ontario is asking that the court dismiss Mr. Dove's Statement of Claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure R.R.O., Reg 194 on the basis that on its face it appears to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The defendant relies upon the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 (CanLII) wherein that court found that a promissory note was not the equivalent of cash and that such an argument was frivolous and vexatious.

This is what it got;

[5] Should the defendant's request to have this matter dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 (or Rule 2.1.02) be granted? I have had the opportunity to review the plaintiff's Statement of Claim; Legal Aid Ontario's request dated November 28th, 2017 to have this matter dismissed; and Mr. Dove's submissions dated December 15th, 2017 (some 30 pages). Based upon these materials, I have been able to consider this matter and to determine if the request of the defendant to have the action stayed or dismissed should be granted.

[6] In matters of this nature, the court must take a cautious approach. See Husain v. Craig et al 2015 ONSC 1754 (CanLII

[7] Rule 2.1 is an extremely blunt instrument that should be reserved for the clearest of cases and only where the hallmarks of frivolous, vexatious or abusive litigation are plainly evident on the face of the pleading. Rule 2.1 is not meant to be an easily accessible alternative to a pleadings motion, a motion for summary judgment or a trial. Khan v. Krylov and Co., 2017 OJ No. 4073.

[8] I am satisfied, having considered the materials, and the law applicable to requests of this nature, that Mr. Dove's Statement of Claim has absolutely no chance of success. On the face of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, this a clear case of an abuse of process. Even if more facts were pled, the action itself is frivolous and vexatious and cannot possibly succeed.

[9] The action is therefore dismissed.).

Note that the debt was incurred in 2003 and this decision is 2018. I assume the Law Society, having a lien on some real property Wally owed, was content to sit back and wait, with interest building up, until he tried to dispose of the property. The alternative was suing Wally for the money which I'm guessing they thought was a waste of time if he was so broke he qualified for legal aid in the first place. Now the lien is apparently causing Wally problems and he wants rid of it without paying his debts.

Poor Wally.

[notorial dissent]

A Joe Banister wannabe without the charm.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Another rewarding Burnaby epic.

One of Mr. Will’s last lawyers, Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, was fired by Wills before the trial commenced. He alone billed almost $700,000 for “preparatory work” and was later disbarred by the Law Society of Upper Canada for overbilling by more than $100,000.

I noticed this snippet in one of the links,to Raj Namal and the Wills trial.

As I read the second sentence the figure of $700,000 struck me as manifestly absurd, surely 10 or 20 times what could possibly be incurred. I was mildly shocked to see that the deemed over billing was a relatively trivial mere $100,000, a comparative pittance. And not for some intricate commercial case that could include thousands of exhibits and depositions, but a pretty well open and shut murder.

This seems to me to be not just feet in the trough, but consumption of the food,the trough, and the rest of the livestock on the farm. Truly is it written, deep pockets create long arms.

[Burnaby49]

There are no simple murder trials in Canada any more. Six month trials are routine. It's the fault of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/C ... -2002E.pdf

A defendant can delay proceedings almost indefinitely by constantly submitting Charter applications that must be addressed. It's endless. Check out my Poriskyite trial write-ups. Years between charges being laid and the actual trials. most of this eaten up by endless Charter applications by the defendants. When events actually got to the trials they proceeded relatively briskly but before that point I attended dozens of hearings where the defendants squabbled at absurd lengths how their Charter rights had been violated. Since the Charter is the ultimate law of the land the courts now have no discretion, they have to go through it all. It's bogged most courts down to a standstill. You can see the results ikn this posting;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747#p205438