A couple of years ago I wrote this on Dean Kory's discussion in respect to the then-current status of Canadian Freeman gurus;
One of those followers who went to court was Steve Pomerleau who I wrote up here;John Spirit - pumping out videos showing how you can force the government to fund your lifestyle as a human right. A premise that a number of his followers have taken to court using arguments based on his teachings and have all lost badly. Time to think up a new scam John.
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 48&t=11388
Steve wanted to get out of any and all income tax obligations and have his past taxes refunded. He didn't get it. As the discussion shows he used John Spirit's arguments at court and, along with his personal failure, discredited Spirit too. We have a discussion on John Spirit;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 6&p=222282
Essentially his scam was that he could teach you how to evade all obligations to Canada, including taxes, while forcing the Canadian government to continue paying you all the benefits you want. How? By demanding your rights under various feel-good United Nations covenants which John argued were binding law in Canada. As he said;
So if you don't have to create it who does? The Canadian government! Great deal if you can swing it and the latest to try is Shirley Walsh.So a natural right that we see expressed in the covenants is that a man or a woman has the right to have an adequate living. It doesn't say you have to earn it, it doesn't say you have to pursue after it, it doesn't say you have to create this adequate living on your own.
Walsh v. Attorney General of Canada, et al
2018 ONSC 2251
http://canlii.ca/t/hrcz8
First she wanted to shed all of those pesky obligations;
How is she to be made whole? She'll settle for $4,000,000;51) Accordingly, I am seeking a declaratory order that certain sections of offending statutes violate my right to choose under s.7 of the Charter and international covenants as follows:
a) Ontario Business Corporations Act articles 6, 167, 1.2, 115, 133 and 1.1 definitions.
b) Income tax Act articles 2.1, 248.1 definitions, 153.1, 227.1(1) and 237.1.
c) Excise Tax Act articles 4.3, 122 and 123.1.
d) Ontario Municipal Act articles 1.1 definitions, 4.1, 225, 5, 203, 425, 429.1 and 8.3.
e) Land Titles Act articles 31, 44, 45 and 46.
52) The order I seek would stipulate that these sections are of no force or effect against me only, per s.52(1) of the Constitution. As a result, the rest of these enactments cannot be enforced against me and have been invalid against me since they were first enacted (Canada v. Sam Levy & Assoc. 2005). As a consequence of my rights having been violated, I am made whole as if the trespass never happened including restoration of my rights and natural wealth and resources.
and the promise never to be bothered by Canada again;53) I am reimbursed for income taxes assessed over my working life including taxes paid plus appropriate interest as defined by the Bank of Canada, reflecting loss of use of those funds over the period, and which I calculate to be in the amount of $2,500,000.00.
54) I am reimbursed for consumption taxes paid since the inception of the GST in 1991 including taxes paid plus appropriate interest as defined by the Bank of Canada, reflecting loss of use of those funds over the period, and which I calculate to be in the amount of $600,000.00.
55) I am reimbursed for property taxes back to 1982 on current and past properties owned in Ontario including taxes paid plus appropriate interest as defined by the Bank of Canada, reflecting loss of use of those funds over the period, and which I calculate to be in the amount of $100,000.00.
56) As a result of the tort committed against me wherein, first the respective Ministers and, subsequently, the corresponding Attorneys General refusal to protect my rights as was their duty, tort damages in the amount of 25% be added to the total of the principle sums above and which I calculate to be an additional $800,000.00 bringing the overall total to $4,000.000.00.
I'm calling bullshit on that $4,000,000. She's pulled that number out of her ass. $4,000,000 based on an appropriate recompense for the loss of use of funds? Why not a trillion dollars with such vague unsubstantiated comments?57) I have no further liability going forward for federal, provincial or municipal taxes or other charges or assessments. That my name is permanently removed from the tax rolls and files of the Canada Revenue Agency and my name and property are removed from the municipal tax rolls and from MPAC and the contrary is expressed on the register regarding liabilities.
59) I am registered as first registered owners with absolute title of my property located in, Ontario. In addition, the register is rectified in respect of my property removing all liabilities including, but not limited to, provincial and municipal taxes, rates and assessments, school and water rates, rights of way and easements, right of expropriation or access, planning and zoning regulations and other municipal by-laws. Furthermore, any property which I may acquire in the future in Ontario is similarly registered to me with absolute title and free of all liabilities on the register.
But the fact that Shirley doesn't want to pay anything towards the common good or towards supporting the government doesn't mean she wants to lose government benefits. Do you think she's an idiot? What Freeman/Sovereign type is willing to give up the right to be a hypocritical parasite? Let's face it, if John Spirit only taught how to divorce yourself from Canada at the cost of losing access to the benefits of being a Canadian who would pay him for his instructions? Not Shirley! She demanded that;
But let's not be too judgmental about what, on the surface, seems to be pure rank hypocrisy. As Shirley said she wasn't demanding these benefits out of personal selfish greed, she was just doing her best to help maintain the integrity of the system. She's willing to accept government benefits to help her fellow Canadians! As you'll read below the court wasn't willing to agree to Shirley's generous offer, probably because it didn't have the benefits of John Spirit's teachings. The link to John is in the just quoted paragraph. ICESCR is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations covenant right at the heart of Spirit's scam. UDHR is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, another of Spirit's favorite UN feel-good puffballs ignored by everybody else.60) In accordance with ICESCR articles 11 and 12 and UDHR article 25, I continue to access services provided by the government of Canada or any province as required without the creation of joinder or the erosion of my full legal capacity. This includes, but is not limited to, medical care, licences, permits or other authorizations (ie- drivers licence, licence plates, passports, etc.) necessary to benignly co-exist alongside the juristic federal unit Canada. In addition, an appropriate mechanism is established for ongoing reimbursement (quarterly or annually) of consumption taxes, licences, fees, permits or other authorizations collected, so that the apparent integrity of the system may be maintained.
Anyhow this was how the court saw Shirley's application;
[4] In reviewing the application itself, it is, on its face, frivolous and vexatious. The application relies on various legal principles cherry-picked from legislation and reported cases and attempts to put them together in a manner that I find to be unreasonable, inconsistent, contradictory, and fails to justify any of the relief sought, as set out above.
[5] The Applicant continues to attempt to rely on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms while ignoring Section 1 of that Charter, which “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
[6] The “rights and freedoms” claimed by the Applicant are unreasonable and lack any insight into the shared responsibilities associated with the rule of law. There is simply no demonstrable basis for the relief sought by the Applicant herein. The limiting of the so-called “rights and freedoms” claimed by the applicant is reasonable by dismissing this action as frivolous and vexatious pursuant to the above noted rules of practice of this court. That dismissal is also demonstrably justified in the context of a free and democratic society.
[7] This application is accordingly dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. As the Respondents have not been required to file any formal documentation in response to this application, there shall be no order as to costs.
