American readers can still be whatever the hell they want. However my personal conversion
from atheist to Judaism necessarily follows from the startling revelations that Gary Neil
Gauvreau and Myra Marie Gauvreau made at Alberta's Queen's Bench. Apparently there are
currently no enforceable statutory laws in Canada, including income tax laws (the subject of the
hearing) because;
Gauvreau v Lebouthillier[2] That said, what is clear from the Statement of Claim is that the Gauvreaus on a variety
of bases claim that the Minister has no statutory authority to require that the Gauvreaus file
income tax returns, including:
1) Queen Elizabeth II is the “Chief of the Tribe of Judah” and therefore is required to
“administrate the 613 Laws and Commands set out in the Constitution Written in Heaven
(Torah).” The Torah is the supreme law of Canada.
2) The 1867 British North America Act is invalid, and the authority of the Crown over
Canada in 1953 was “delegated” to “pope (inc)”, which “is head of a rock.” Queen Elizabeth II
and “pope (inc)” administrate the Torah.
3) The current Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp ) is invalid because its 1948
precursor was unauthorized.
2021 ABQB 108
https://canlii.ca/t/jd3rt
So, much to my surprise, it turns out that I'm a member of the Tribe of Judah and, as such, I'm
required to learn all 613 Torah laws and commands that Queen Elizabeth has sworn to
administer.
This is unfortunate news for Paraclete Belanger. He's spent the better part of twenty years
relentlessly promoting his position that the King James Bible is the supreme law of Canada.
He invented his own church to promote the concept. All wasted. King James is clearly trumped
by the Torah which preceded it by thousands of years. So he, like the rest of us, had best toss
out King James and learn the new set of rules. To do otherwise is fraud and treason!
Civil Practice Note N0. 7 is a nuclear option Queen's Bench has established to streamline the[3] The Gauvreaus say the Minister has been informed of these facts and that “... she and
her predecessors have kept this fraud, and treason, going on for 72 years ...”, which is “bearing
false witness”, “coveting my property”, and “stealing my property”. On this basis the Gauvreaus
seek the following remedies:
Gary and Myra(Gauvreau) require Diane to pay back all funds extorted from me at the rate of
100% of estimated property stolen from me and Myra bearing a rate of 10% per day.
Gary and Myra(Gauvreau) each claim the aforementioned amount to be $10,000,000.00.
Remedy as proscribed by law for denying the authority of Elizabeth.
That 10% per day interest obviously adds up!
The fraudulent treasonous Crown of course opposed these demands for religious
accommodation;
[4] Counsel for the Department of Justice Canada, who represent the Minister, on January
27, 2021 referred the Gauvreau’s Statement of Claim as an Apparently Vexatious Application or
Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 5. I am the judge
assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Wetaskiwin at the Court of Queen’s Bench. CPN7 is
reviewable on-line at https://www.albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-o ... tice-notes.
process of tossing out cases like this and deeming idiots like the Gauvreaus to be vexatious litigants. Under CPN7 vexatious litigation can now be ejected from the court system about as fast as a bouncer tosses a drunk out of a bar. You can read it here;
https://www.albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-o ... tice-notes
This is the core of it for the purpose of our hearing;
Note what paragraph 8 says. Since at least the late 1990's OPCA idiots have placed much ofII. CPN7
[6] The Court implemented CPN7 to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be
unmeritorious, has no chance of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious. CPN7 is
intended to provide litigants with a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response: Unrau v
National Dental Examining Board, 2018 ABQB 874 (Unrau #1).
[7] If, on initial review by the Court, an AVAP appears to have no merit, have no prospect of
success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision
that identifies the apparent issue or issues that may be a basis to strike out the AVAP under r
3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court .
[8] The party who filed the AVAP is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide to the
Court a Written Submission of up to a total of 10 pages in length that responds to, and
demonstrates why, the AVAP is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue. The
Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of” the Justice who initiates the
CPN7 process, and must also be served on the other parties to the litigation.
their faith on the validity of unilateral contracts. They send a huge pile of paper stuffed with legal
gibberish purporting to be a contract between themselves and the recipient party. The 'contract'
deems that unless the recipient replies in writing within a specified time period answering a
mass of unanswerable questions, or refuting assumptions in the documents, or performing
some specified action, the contract becomes legally binding on the recipient. The recipient has
also agreed that the contract cannot be appealed. If there is no response it implies assent with
the contract. If there is a response the response must be to the satisfaction of the sender.
Paragraph 8 shows that Queen's Bench has found a practical use for unilateral contracts! It's
turned the process around and puts the onus on the OPCA plaintiff to respond.
The judge has given the Gauvreaus 14 days to respond to a batch of statements the court has made (reviewed in a moment). They have to respond to the satisfaction of the court and if they don't respond or respond inadequately they lose and their action is discontinued. And, unlike the garbage
spewed out by OPCA litigants, CPN7 works because the court has the power to enforce it.
So the court went through the plaintiff's claims showing how they're garbage and demanding it
be proven wrong;
This one is going to screw them, proving a negative;A. God’s Law Does Not Have Supraconstitutional Status
[12] The Gauvreaus’ proceeding is explicitly based on a claim that religious law, either the
Torah, and/or the Vulgate Bible, are the supreme law of Canada. Canadian courts have
consistently rejected that the Bible, or some other form of God’s Law, has supraconstitutional
authority, . . . . . .
[13] The Supreme Court of Canada in Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay
(City), 2015 SCC 16 at paras 144-149 ruled that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ,
s 7, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 , being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982,
c 11 preamble reference to the “supremacy of god” is essentially meaningless:
... the reference to the supremacy of God does not limit the scope of freedom of conscience and
religion and does not have the effect of granting a privileged status to theistic religious practices.
Contrary to what the respondents suggest, I do not believe that the preamble can be used to
interpret this freedom in this way.
[14] Canadian Courts also consistently reject that the Coronation and Coronation Oath of
Queen Elizabeth II has any special legal significance:
[15] I request the Gauvreaus explain why these legal authorities are incorrect.
And an OPCA classic!B. The Statement of Claim is an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument
Proceeding
[16] Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) (Meads v Meads) are a
collection of spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law, and purport to be
real law. Pseudolaw is typically employed by conspiratorial, fringe, criminal, and dissident
minorities who claim pseudolaw replaces or displaces conventional law. These groups attempt
to gain advantage, authority, and other benefits via this false law.
[17] In Meads v Meads, Associate Chief Justice Rooke at paras 276-285 documented
how purportedly superior religious law authority is a commonplace OPCA argument. Meads v
Meads also examined how OPCA strategies are often employed by “Detaxers” and “Detaxer
gurus” (paras 87-101, 125-133, 169-171) to evade or reject income tax obligations.
[18] Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants
immediate court response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at
paras 180 , 670-671. The Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim appears to be an abusive OPCA
proceeding, and so I therefore require the Gauvreaus explain why their lawsuit is not OPCA
litigation.
And, if they don't satisfy the judge;C. The Income Tax Act is Valid Legislation
[19] The Gauvreaus claim that the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5 th Supp ) is not valid
constitutional legislation. The Alberta Court of Appeal in Winterhaven Stables Limited v
Canada (Attorney General), 1988 ABCA 334 at paras 12-16 ruled that the Income Tax Act is
valid legislation authorized by The Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3 , s 91.
[20] Furthermore, the specific complaint made by the Gauvreaus is that a defect existed in
the 1948 version of the Income Tax Act , and that defect then somehow propagated forward to
invalidate the current legislation. That exact argument was considered and rejected in
Heckendorn v Canada, 2005 FC 802 ;
[21] I request the Gauvreaus explain why these legal authorities are incorrect.
After spending massive amounts of my time enduring Michael Millar's endless court rantings IIV. Conclusion
[22] The Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable AVAP candidate for
review pursuant to CPN7. The Court seeks responses from the Gauvreaus to the following
questions
:
1) Why are Canadian Court authorities that have rejected religious law has
supraconstitutional status incorrect?
2) Why are Canadian Court authorities that have rejected the 1953 Coronation and
Coronation Oath of Queen Elizabeth II has any legal significance incorrect?
3) Why is the Statement of Claim not an abusive OPCA pleading?
4) Why are the Canadian Court authorities that have rejected the 1948 Income Tax Act has
any relevance to the current Income Tax Act incorrect?
[23] CPN7 now advances to its second step. This step consists entirely of written
submissions; there will be no Court appearances or oral argument. The next steps are:
1) The Gauvreaus have 14 days to provide a Written Submission of no more than a total of
10 pages, to be filed and served, as described in para 3(b) of CPN7. The Written Submission
must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”.
2) If this Court receives no Written Submission by that deadline, the Court will make its final
decision on whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part under r 3.68
of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(c)).
3) If the Gauvreaus provide and serve a Written Submission, then the Defendant has
seven days to provide a Written Reply of up to 10 pages in length (see CPN7, para 3(d)). The
Written Reply must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G.
Nielsen”.
4) After the Court receives the Gauvreaus’ Written Submission and the Defendant’s Written
Reply, if any, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Statement of Claim should be
struck out in whole or in part, under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(e)).
[24] The Court will prepare and serve an Interim Order staying this action (see CPN7,
para 7). The Gauvreaus’ approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(c) of the
Alberta Rules of Court .
particularly appreciate this aspect of the judge's order;
So in a few weeks we can expect this moronic lawsuit to be struck without leave to amend and[23] CPN7 now advances to its second step. This step consists entirely of written
submissions; there will be no Court appearances or oral argument.
the Gauveaus on their way to a vexatious litigant status. And I can get back to worshiping the one true god, Baal;
