http://www.mediafire.com/download/qr3q5 ... _costs.pdf
I have to admit his legal reasoning is rock solid;
How is he being denied fundamental justice? By Canada not giving him all the money he wants to enjoy his life of happiness as he sees fit. And now for the deadbeat's anthem;24. The applicant is under no obligation to exercise the right to work. In fact, the applicant claims that this right does not produce an obligation in law, a right never produces an obligation but a choice. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Davis, {1999] 3 S.C.R. 759, that interference withlhfreedom of choice is Extortion, in addition to the obvious trespass upon Human Rights, and stated:
25. The applicant claims that the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen, as a state party member is under obligation, as a signatory to the international covenants, to recognize the right to work."Extortion criminalizes intimidation and interference with freedom of choice. It punishes those who, thro"gh threats, accusations, menaces, or violence induce or attempt to induce their victims into doing anything or causing anything to be done. Threats, accusations, menaces and violence clearly intimidate: see R. v. McGraw, [1991) 3 S.C.R. 72, at p. 81; R. v. Clemente, {1994) 2 S.C.R. 758, at pp. 761-62. When threats are coupled with demands, there is an inducement to accede to the demands. This interferes with the victim's freedom of choice, as the victim may be coerced into doing something he or she would otherwise have chosen not to do. " [bolding for emphasis] (See Applicant's Book of Authorities)
26. There is a right to work that an individual can choose to exercise. As with any right, it can be used or not. The right to work includes (a cannon of construction holding that to express or include one thing, implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative) the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work . The right to work then, is for the sole purpose of gaining the applicant's living. This right extends to everyone (Human Bei'!g) to permit one the opportunity {choice or opportunity) to gain his or her living by work.
27. · The applicant claims that the reason for working is declared in law as strictly to gain a living by this work. If the applicant chooses to exercise the right to work then the reason for working is strictly to produce, earn or gain a living. To gain the resources needed to live and survive; To provide a living for himself and his family, including food, clothing and housing, etc.
30. The applicant claims that in order to have and enjoy an adequate standard of living, the applicant tried to exercise his fundamental right to an adequate living and was denied by the defendant. Article 11 of the "ICESCR" states as follows:
3 I. Article 7 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states:"1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent. " [bolding for emphasis]
32. The applicant has invoked his right not to work, a right that is articulated in Article 6 of the "ICESCR" as quoted earlier."Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to he deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." [bolding for emphasis]
33. The applicant has a right to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts to do. The applicant, however, has chosen not to gain a living by choosing to work. Instead, the applicant has chosen to pursue happiness in life; In pursuing happiness the applicant is not gaining his living by work yet he remains with the right to enjoy an adequate standard of living (Article J 1, "ICESCR" quoted earlier).
34. The applicant claims that this right is being restricted by the defendant contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
But he's not alone in this quest. The Federal court docket record for the Pearce action indicates it was held at the same time as James Ford v Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II, docket T-1275-15, which normally means identical or nearly identical applications. So two braved deadbeats battling together for free money! So what specifically does Stu want?35. Another right that is being restricted, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, is the right of the applicant to contribute (or not) to the economic, social and cultural development of the defendant.
He starts by demanding justice. A flexible term in the freeloader world. Right off the bat he whines that his ICESCR and ICCPR rights have been violated.
He states that he tried to have the Crown agree that he no longer be recognized as a servant and subject of the Crown. He'd legally accomplished this by sending the Governor General of Canada a Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right (he used Recognition instead) and since the GG hadn't replied he was a free man. Sadly the Crown just won't agree to his new status although he relied on Canada's greatest constitution expert, Rocco Galati himself! He quotes from Rocco's moronic COMER filings to show he's right. He cites a pile of totally inappropriate cases to pad up his legal brilliance.
He's told the Queen in council that he will only be recognized as a human being and that the Financial Administration Act supports him. I'm not going to bother figuring out how he came to that conclusion. Then on to his fundamental right to an adequate living and how the government refuses to provide it which they could easily do, Yankson style, by coughing up his birth bond. Making him work violates the principle of fundamental justice. It gets very confusing, at least to me, because he can't finish a sentence without a page of quotes from Supreme Court cases.
Anyhow the Queen is required by international covenant to recognize his right to work which, in his interpretation means the right not to work. Pure Wally Dove.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9418
It shows how I've wasted my life that I can type that last sentence and know what it means.
Then on to his tax problems. The Income Tax Act is invalid because it doesn't have an enacting clause therefore it has no force and effect in Canada so he wants his tax problems to go away and all of his back taxes repaid. Taxes violate ICCPR because they steal his property. Sounds like McCarthy.
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11016
In fact McCarthy was only tortured but Stu (he calls himself Stu in the document) is a "permanent injured worker" because of the physical and mental abuse he's been subject to from the CRA. Those bastards must have saved the beatings for privileged staff because nobody ever invited me to kick the shit out of helpless taxpayers.
Then a demand to the Receiver General for his birth-bond cash out which was ignored. His registration of live birth is rock solid proof because it is a legally binding. Granted it has no dollar amount on it but apparently that is so you can pick whatever you want. He said that the amount of a security does not, legally have to be written on the security so the government leaves it blank. Then natural persons, human beings, he packs a lot of bullshit into a few pages. Like Bernard Yankson he's the trustee.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9597
Not giving him the money violates his security of person. While he is no longer subject to Canada or it's laws Canada is still responsible for supporting him and whatever he wants because, why not? It's very repetitive once he starts demanding his adequate living.
Then he has a bizarre page about how he can't leave his house because it would cost him money and that means he's a slave. If he left home he'd have to pay for a car and gas and a license and only the court can relieve him from this slavery by, I suppose, ordering that anything he wants from now on is free.
For remedy he wants $50,000,000 in actual damages and $50,000,000 in punitive damages. Won't cost Canada anything because they can just take it out of his birth bond.
He wants the title on his birth bond changed from the "Constructive Registered Holder" to him as a human being and then he, as trustee, be given the bond. Lastly he wants the court to order that everybody in all levels of government leave him alone from now on. That also has to cover his bank who is also pestering him. Apparently he doesn't want the bank to have any of the hundred mil.
He includes as an appendix a boilerplate letter from his MP saying that UN conventions are not binding law in Canada which I assume he's stuck in there to prove that UN conventions actually are binding law in Canada. All too deep for me.
Overwhelmed by this relentless legal logic the Federal Court of Canada handed Stu a resounding victory! Or not. Following Stu's logic you have to conclude that his right to win the case also included his right to lose it and so, on that basis, the Federal Court allowed Stu his victory by denying it to him.
Pearce v. Canada, 2016 FC 475
http://canlii.ca/t/grqj4
However I don't want to leave you with the impression that Stu is just some crank trying unbelievably idiotic arguments at court so that he can live off the work of others. There is more to the man than that. Much, much more.[31] In striking out the Statement of Claim without leave to amend, the Prothonotary properly followed the applicable principles and jurisprudence. Since this appeal is a review de novo, where I can decide the issues myself, I will follow and apply the same principles and the case law, in particular the decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Meads, supra.
[32] The Charter challenges made by the Plaintiff do not, by themselves, disclose a reasonable cause of action. The Plaintiff has not set out a sufficient factual foundation or context to adjudicate the claims which he makes.
[33] The Plaintiff appears to be making a generalized challenge to the application, to him, of unnamed statutes. In these circumstances, his claim appears to fall within the circumstances described in Meads, supra at paragraph 379 as “common OPCA litigation”.
[34] The Plaintiff’s arguments about the Judicature Act are not relevant. That Act governs proceedings in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, it has no application to proceedings in the Federal Court. As noted by Counsel for the Defendant, the Plaintiff chose to bring his action in this Court. He could equally have brought his action in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador where reliance on the Judicature Act alone would be no guarantee that his action could proceed.
[35] As noted by the Plaintiff, this Court enjoys an equitable jurisdiction, pursuant to section 3 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 which provides as follows:
[36] However, that jurisdiction is not exercised in a vacuum. The decision in Garford Pty Ltd. v. Dywidag Systems International, Canada, Ltd (2010), 2010 FC 997 (CanLII), 375 F.T. R. 57 (F.C.) at paragraph 8 provides as follows:3. The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
[37] A mere claim for the exercise of equity is not sufficient to establish a cause of action. The Plaintiff has failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action in his Statement of Claim and the Statement of Claim was properly struck by the Prothonotary. The Plaintiff has failed to show any error of law on the part of the prothonotary and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.This Court does have some equitable jurisdiction by virtue of section 3 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7. This statutory grant allows the Court to apply the rules of equity in cases in which it otherwise has jurisdiction (as for example, in admiralty matters), but it does not give the Court a general jurisdiction in a civil action to consider equitable claims and remedies where the action is based on a statutory cause of action. See Bedard v. Kellogg Canada Inc., 2007 FC 516 (CanLII), [2007] F.C. J. No. 714; 325 F.T.R. 79; 2007 FC 516.
[38] The Defendant also sought to have the Statement of Claim stuck on the basis of Rule 222(1)(c), that the Statement of Claim is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.
[39] In considering a motion to strike on these grounds, the Court is required to consider the merits of the claim; see the decision in Blackshear v. Canada, 2010 FC 590 (CanLII) at paragraph 12.
[40] A vexatious pleading is one that is so deficient in factual material that the defendant cannot know how to answer; see the decision in Kisikawpimootewin v. Canada, 2004 FC 1426 (CanLII).
[41] In Fiander v. Mills (2015) 1149 A.P.R. 80, Chief Justice Green of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal said at paragraph 40 the following about litigants involved in OPCA litigation:
[42] I note that the Plaintiff sought to represent a person in Fiander, supra. That request was refused. Nonetheless, the fact that the Plaintiff is mentioned by name in that case suggests that he has some personal knowledge about OPCA litigation and OPCA litigants.In this case, this Court has now declared that arguments relating to opting out of legislation, the fractionating of human personality to support claims of not being subject to law and the fanciful use of arguments based on birth certificates to create notions of estates to advance submissions that would otherwise have no rational support in the jurisprudence, have no basis in the law of this jurisdiction. It would therefore be open to a trial court in the future, when made aware of such submissions in other proceedings, to treat those submissions as presumptively vexatious and abusive and to act preemptively to prevent such claims from improperly clogging up the legal system to the cost and prejudice of those who would otherwise have to face and deal with them.
[43] In any event, the decision in Fiander, supra supports the conclusion that the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim in the present proceeding is vexatious and scandalous, and should be struck without leave to amend.
[44] The Defendant seeks elevated costs on this motion. In the exercise of my discretion, I award costs in favour of the Defendant in the amount of $750.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements and GST.
To start with he's the man involved in this case;
Pearce v Anderson, 2015 CanLII 11196 (NLSCTD)
http://canlii.ca/t/ggmvt
Stu sued concerning the disputed transfer of a property in Port aux Basques. Pearce demanded a “common law trial by jury consisting of 12 members from his community” as that is a right in “common law courts”: para 2.
Furey J concluded there was no such right, as while the Judicature Act which authorizes the court to permit jury trials in civil matters, the usual approach is for trial by judge alone: para 7. The exceptions are defamation, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment: para 17. Here the claim did not fall into those categories, nor were there other special circumstances. No jury trial was ordered.
Did you note that reference to Fiander in paragraphs 41 to 43 above? Stu appeared as the OPCA litigation representative in that case. This was an important decision regarding striking vexatious claims based on OPCA hallmarks;
Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31
http://canlii.ca/t/gjw43
So what was the case about? Who knows? Even the Court didn't seem to have a grasp of Stu's legal brilliance;[1] In dry legal terms, this appeal addresses the correctness of an applications judge’s decision to strike out a statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The legal principles relating to these issues have been dealt with by this Court on many prior occasions. This characterization, however, masks a bigger underlying issue: how a court should respond to claims that allegedly not only are unsupported by a cause of action, but are so fundamentally at variance with and profoundly contrary to accepted law and principle that they appear to be advanced for an improper and ulterior purpose.
[8] I note in passing that the reference to the appellant’s “appointed Attorney” in the notice of appeal appears to be to an individual by the name of Stuart Pearce, who is listed as the appellant’s address for service on the notice of appeal. Attached to the notice of appeal is a document headed “Full Power of Attorney for Legal Work” in which the appellant purports to appoint Mr. Pearce as his continuing attorney to perform his legal work on his behalf and to act as his litigation guardian in any legal proceeding.
[9] The registry of this Court has confirmed that Mr. Pearce is not a member of the bar of this province. Nor is there any indication that he is a member of the bar of any other jurisdiction in Canada. Accordingly, he had no authority to represent the appellant in these proceedings except perhaps as a McKenzie friend. A person who was identified by one of the counsel as Mr. Pearce appeared with the appellant in Court, but, while conferring with the appellant and passing him papers, he did not speak. The appellant read from a prepared text. His manner of delivery indicated that he was not familiar with the words he was reading. It may well be, therefore, that it had been prepared by Mr. Pearce or someone else.
We all know where this one is going;[18] It is in any event plain and obvious to me that there was no cause of action disclosed. No facts were pleaded from which any cause of action known to the law could be discerned and for which the relief claimed could be awarded. With respect to the Crown prosecutor, the claim contains no allegation of prosecutorial indiscretion or malicious prosecution. In like manner with respect to the fishery officer, there is no allegation of malice, lack of good faith or improper execution of enforcement authority. With respect to the judge, who prima facie could avail of the defence of judicial immunity, there is no suggestion made in the statement of claim that the judge was in some manner purporting to act outside her judicial capacity or role, thereby triggering non-application of the immunity (Morier v. Rivard, 1985 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716 at paragraphs 85-110).
[19] The only possible argument that the prosecutor, fishery officer and judge stepped outside of their official roles or judicial capacity, as the case may be, relates to the argument that the fisheries legislation does not apply to the appellant. But that submission has no traction whatsoever. The assertions that an individual is entitled unilaterally to “waive” his rights as a person and thereby shield him or herself from the application of legislation intended to be applied to all Canadians is absurd and has been uniformly rejected by Canadian courts. See Meads and cases therein cited. The general application of the law to all is the essence of the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of our constitutional polity. All citizens of and most residents within Canada are subject to the law and cannot opt out of it.
[20] The appellant also asserted in his statement of claim that he is the “grantor and sole beneficiary” of the “Estate” of the human being known as “Edward John Fiander” and that the government continues wrongfully to “administer” his estate in breach of trust by forcing him to pay licence fees and seizing his fish, amongst other things. This notion of treating a named individual as an “estate” that is somehow separate from the person who is subject to the law and that is free from governmental regulation is also a concept unrecognized by the law of Canada. It is just nonsense and has no basis for inclusion in a statement of claim.
[21] The appellant’s assertion in the statement of claim that the issuance of a birth certificate, which merely records an historical fact and does not create identity, somehow nevertheless results in “the process of the creation of an Estate with the parents or guardians granting to the government, as Trustee, their offspring’s (child) share of the earth over which it was given dominion by its creator, the earth and all things of it (Genesis 1:26-28)” is, quite apart from the incomprehensible nature of the assertion, unconnected to any basis for asserting a claim for damages against the respondents.
But there is much more to Stu than these few court decision. Pearce is also a leading personality in the “Save our People Action Committee” group which focuses on moose-related motor vehicle accidents.[36] The ability of a Court to strike out a claim on the basis of abuse of process is an important tool in the Court’s arsenal to control its own process. It enables the Court to balance the competing interests of providing access to the courts for a legitimate purpose with preventing the courts from being used for an oppressive and illegitimate end. While the power to strike for abuse of process is found in the rules of procedure, this important power also exists at common law as part of the court’s inherent jurisdiction: Brace at paragraph 22; Penney v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1996), 1996 CanLII 6622 (NL SCTD), 145 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 355 (NFSC, TD) per L.D. Barry J. at paragraph 14.
[37] The claims being asserted, being completely baseless and having no recognized foundation within the jurisprudence in our judicial system and no rational connection to the remedies being claimed, are clearly frivolous. By asserting them, not only in the trial court but continuing to press them on appeal in the face of their rejection in the court below also makes them vexatious, at least at the level of this Court. Furthermore, where a claim not only does not disclose a cause of action but is additionally based on assertions that are profoundly contrary to accepted law, it is open to the Court to infer that the claim is being advanced for an ulterior and improper purpose and is thereby an abuse of process. It is not hard to draw that inference here. The commencement of the action in this case appears to be an indirect way of trying to avoid having to deal with the prosecution of the fisheries charges that the appellant was facing, and that consequently the appellant was attempting to use the court system for a collateral and improper purpose. Furthermore, it amounts to a veiled threat to public officials who are purporting to act under applicable law that if they proceed against him they will face inconvenience, nuisance and unnecessary cost. It is an abuse of process which perfectly entitled the applications judge to strike out the claim.
[38] In addition, as noted previously, the pleading in this case, with its assertions of a right unilaterally to opt out of the application of Canadian law and the elevation of the status of the appellant’s birth certificate as creating some sort of “estate” of which the appellant was the beneficiary, are characteristics of an OPCA litigant, as described in Meads. As Rooke A.C.J. noted in that case, because every person, individual or human being (there is no difference in law with respect to these terms in this context) is subject to Canadian (including provincial) law and Canadian courts:
Conclusion and Disposition
[57] I would dismiss the appeal from the decision to strike out the statement of claim and affirm the award of lump sum costs of $1,800 in the Court below and in favour of the first and second respondents.
And he's a Human Rights Defender - the evidence is in a comment where he stands tall beside Amy Collins;
http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2 ... jections/1
Amy now, sadly, has deserted the HRDLIC and is a Tenderizer. We've written about Amy here;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9593
Stu has a fun litigation history beside the two cases above. First, he has a 2012 assault and uttering threats conviction for throwing "a bag of turkey organs" at a woman and pinning her.
R. v. Pearce, 2012 CanLII 24229 (NL PC)
http://canlii.ca/t/fr7sq
I think we can be pretty sure that's Stu, since this also took place in Port aux Basques.
The conviction was upheld on appeal:
R. v S. P., 2015 NLCA 30
http://canlii.ca/t/gjgd8
When Stu isn't flinging giblets at people he tries to stiff his ex-lawyers:
Poole Althouse v. Pearce, 2013 CanLII 14677 (NL SCTD)
http://canlii.ca/t/fwnf2
Googling Stu's name turns up no end of insights into his fascinating life;
Stu promotes poaching fish (see the comments):
http://www.thepacket.ca/News/2010-02-04 ... -him-out/1
http://www.cbncompass.ca/News/Local/201 ... poachers/1
Stu wants Newfoundland government officials shot:
https://www.change.org/p/the-provincial ... c/15749459
Give us back our resources government bastards!
http://www.southerngazette.ca/News/2013 ... Labrador/1
Stu's face book page;
https://www.facebook.com/STUCANCHEW
Sure enough, he's a fan of the usual suspects, and the page content is classic Freeman-type interests and bullshit.
Stu's LinkedIn page;
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stu-pearce-637a575b
- from welder to Human Rights Defender!
Before he began his crusade against the courts he had another foe - Canada's greatest enemy, the MOOSE! He leads the Save our People Action Committee to save us all - from MOOSE!
https://web.archive.org/web/20160109171 ... pacnl.com/
http://sopacnl.com/sopac/wp-content/upl ... -flyer.pdf
http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Loca ... ication-/1
https://www.facebook.com/nlmooseupdates/
http://www.chescrosbie.com/blog/lack-of ... s-many.cfm
At least the government are willing to join him in the common cause ...
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/ ... 15n03.aspx
No? What? STILL bored? Well, here's a disturbing, very creepy video of Stu apparently encouraging a woman to urinate in her pants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj-DjAQbh0I
Pee those jeans and shower them baby! You Betcha!
