Wally Dove - from CCRA toady to Human Rights Defender

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Wally Dove is one of Canada’s more persistent anti-government activists. Arguably, he is also one of the most successful. Back in 2004 he and Sonya Zenz (relationship unclear) were charged with tax evasion, conspiracy to evade taxes, and false partnership claims. This led to two reported decisions:

• R. v. Dove, 2004 CanLII 31861 (Ont. S.C.): http://canlii.ca/t/1hxgc
  
  R. v. Dove, 2004 CanLII 45964 (Ont. S.C.): http://canlii.ca/t/1jdl6

In the first case Wally argued that the accused had not committed tax evasion because there was no such thing as the Income Tax Act. Justice O’Connor put it this way (para. 1):

… Mr. Dove seeks an order dismissing the charges “because there is no law called the Income Tax Act, Chapter 1 (5th Supp.) R.S.C. 1985, as amended”. In the alternative, he seeks an order requiring the Crown attorney “…to place before the Court, the Income Tax Act…, the very act which the charges in this matter have been laid against the Applicant, by producing a certified copy from the Clerk of the Parliaments”.

Dove tried and tried to get a certified copy of the Income Tax Act – he and others phoned government agencies, all in search of the One True Act. The Law Clerk, Parliamentary Counsel, the Clerk of Parliament, and CCH Canadian Limited. No luck. Ergo, if no official copy of the Income Tax Act exists, it can’t really be a law – and the offences are nullities!

And the judge rejected Wally’s application:

[4] I disagree with his position. The solution to his supposed dilemma is simple. However it is one he has chosen to ignore. In response to his letter to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Colette R. Charlebois of that office replied on July 28, 2004:

• The Clerk of the Parliaments, who is the custodian of the original Acts of Canada and on whose behalf this office prepares certified copies, can only respond to a request that specifies the Act required to be certified with a full citation (i.e. chapter no. and year of statute) to the Statutes of Canada. If only a portion of an Act is to be certified, it should be identified by section number as well as by the full citation.

[5] Ms. Charlebois explains that upon payment of a nominal per page fee, the certified copy requested will be provided. She also provides other suggestions for obtaining copies of public statutes, from local bookstores or from the Canadian Government Publishing, Communication Canada. The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel gave substantially the same answer and advice to friends and supporters of Mr. Dove in response to similar requests, which responses are contained in his application materials.

[6] Mr. Dove and his supporters have simply failed to avail themselves of the offer to deliver certified copies of the Act or portions of it upon their advising the Clerk what parts of the very voluminous statute they wish certified, i.e. chapter and section numbers, together with a prescribed nominal fee. I am confident they will receive a certified copy upon compliance with this procedure.

[7] I am satisfied the Income Tax Act is a lawfully passed and constitutionally valid statute of Canada.

[8] Mr. Dove’s application for a declaration that the Income Tax Act does not exist is dismissed.

On to judgment #2! This time Wally and Sonya each have lawyers. The accused made an application to stay the charges they faced and … they win! Freedom! So what was the key to their having defeated the C[C]RA? Simply put, delay. Wally and Sonya successfully argued that the delay in their trial had been so great that it was contrary to justice for the proceeding to continue. In total, it had taken 65 months to reach trial, with 108 appearances.

As a consequence the judgment does not directly address whether Wally and Sonya were, in fact, guilty, but it does lay out a little of what they were up to. Both Wally and Sonya were accountants had had set up a partnership that allegedly was structured to evade tax. The scheme was based around an obsolete software package that had been purchased for $8,700, but was valued at $2.85 million. The scheme was to depreciate the software and offset income: para. 4-7.

The Crown argued that Wally had engaged in “antics” and those were a substantial cause for delay (paras. 26-27):

… The crown attorney argued that the manner in which he conducted his defence, most particularly during the 30 month preliminary inquiry was obstreperous, nonsensical and largely a waste of everyone’s time. Some of the time spent at the preliminary inquiry dealt with motions by Dove respecting matters that would not have been advanced by competent counsel on his behalf. For example, he moved to have the court exclude Ms. Lynn Watson, the chief investigator, from the court. The court had ruled at the outset that she was exempt from the order excluding witnesses. He argued at some length that “…the Crown was using this court for criminal purposes…”, allegedly compelling witnesses “…to give evidence against their will.” Of course, the witnesses had been served with proper subpoenas and had little choice about giving evidence. He sought to have the charges dismissed on grounds he was not one of the persons named in the indictment. He took the position he had copyrighted his name and sold it. He also took the position that he was a member of the “Nishwinobi” Nation and that, as an aboriginal person, the court had no jurisdiction over him. He presented no evidence that he is aboriginal, nor that the Nishwinobi Nation even exists, nor why the court would not have jurisdiction to hear these criminal charges against him. He wrote lengthy letters to crown counsel, the investigator, and the preliminary inquiry judge demanding compensation for alleged wrongs, including using his copywrited name without his permission. On several occasions the court adjourned briefly, usually for no more than an hour or two, to permit Dove to consult with duty counsel. …

Both Wally and Sonya argued they were substantially harmed by these delays. For Sonya she ran up a ton of debts and had a hard time finding work: para. 54. Wally suffered even more. Before trial he and his wife had owned two houses and lived a comfortable lifestyle, but instead had run into debt to continue this lawsuit: para. 53. But that was not all (para. 52):

Dove suffered physical and emotional stress over and above that expected and associated with any accused person awaiting trial on criminal charges. The extensive delays in this matter resulted in his becoming depressed, according to his wife and his doctor. Dr. Rick Lindall performed a psychological assessment of Dove and gave evidence of his findings and treatment of him. He said, “Mr. Dove also had an elevated score on the Major Depression scale, within in (sic) the Severe Syndrome scales… Mr. Dove reported that he continues to experience psychological/emotional difficulties as a direct consequence of the lawsuit. The symptoms he experiences include: Anxiety, depression, irritability, anger, frustration, apprehensions about health, somatic problems, changes in sleep pattern, diminished libido, disturbing dreams, marital stress, fatigue, and a compromise in cognitive functioning due to stress. The psychological test findings indicate a significant level of affective distress for Mr. Dove in terms of anxiety and depression…” See Ex. 29. Dr. Warsi, another physician with whom he consulted, said, “He experienced an episode of vasovagal syncope in Dec. 2003…” See Ex. 30. …

Curiously, litigation on the Dove/Zenz con was still going on as late as last year! In February the Tax Court of Canada refused to permit a constitutional challenge of an aspect of an audit of Dolores Romanuk (Romanuk v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 58: http://canlii.ca/t/fq9wf) who had been one of the subscribers to the software depreciation scam. The gears grind slow at times here in Canada…

So, now living free and easy, would Wally make his life afresh and anew? Well, not really. First Wally hooks up with David-Kevin: Lindsay, and in R. v. Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401 (http://canlii.ca/t/1pwgv) provides affidavit evidence on the non-existence of the Income Tax Act. Yep, basically the same argument. Still doesn’t work.

So what else do we know about Wally? Well, among other things, Dove claims to be a former auditor of the Canada Revenue Agency, at the time named the Canada Customs Revenue Agency. But he defected, as a “deeply religious man”, given the disturbing things he had witnessed. A lot of the accounts of his time with the CCRA seem to have disappeared off the net, but here are some I found:

• Alex Doulis: Tackling the Taxman: http://books.google.ca/books?id=0xIw4nm ... ve&f=false
  
  Letter to the National Post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecyberc ... essage/590
  
  A letter reproduced by Trueman Tuck (and there’s another story…): http://tucksprofessionalservices.com/article.php?ID=159
  
  The Truth About the Federal Income Tax and Other Illegal and Unconstitutional Activities of the Federal Government, a Self-Help Educational Book by Wallace Maxwell Raymond: Dove: http://liw.usersdocs.com/docs/2062/index-716.html
  
  [This is a Microsoft Word text, 133 pages long, explaining everything according to Wally. It no longer is present on Wally’s own Blog website but can be downloaded from this location by hitting the “Download” button.]

He has been a candidate for the Freedom Party of Ontario. In 2003 he finished last in a field of five, receiving 356 votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_P ... l_election

He has recorded a helpful series of videos on lots of stuff (http://www.youtube.com/user/rorfront/videos) adopting the usual format of dude reading stuff in front of a bland office background.

His blog, The Freedom Blog (http://wallydove.wordpress.com/) appears to have been culled a number of times. It’s a little thin on content at the moment. Wally has been hooked up with practically every major aspect of Canada’s DeTax community, but most recently has gravitated to the Human Rights Defenders League in Canada (http://www.humanrightsdefenders.ca/). He seems to be the driving mind behind that organization’s lawsuit against the Federal Government, an exciting development (http://HumanRightsDefendersLeague.ca/our-legal-action/). This must be the real thing, because they have a lawyer who is willing to quit his trade just to carry this lawsuit forward!

We have a lawyer who has agreed to hand in his bar card(s) and help us take the legal action necessary to accomplish our objective which he understands to a degree that very few, if any, in the legal profession do.

In conclusion, let us quote from a recent e-mail from this lawyer,

“I need every single one of you on board to justify my stepping away from my practice and making such a potentially explosive application to the superior courts. And all of you certainly need me (or another competent lawyer willing to sacrifice his “legal” career) to properly handle this action…. We can [and will] win this, but to win a case of this scope and nature will not be easy, fast, or inexpensive. Even as the sizable group we are, this will still be very much a ‘David & Goliath’ battle.”

Excited? Well, you will most certainly want to listen to Wally explain this lawsuit of Global F.A.C.T. Radio:

• http://www.blogtalkradio.com/globalfact ... nst-canada
  
  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/globalfact ... nst-canada

The tide is turning, friends! 560 flesh and blood humans have signed on! Banksters and Feds beware! Sign up now! http://HumanRightsDefendersLeague.ca/get-started/

Oh - the lawsuit? They're going to argue international human rights treaties means you don't have to be a "person" and subject to statute law.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

I was involved (from the Canada Revenue Agency's side) in the software scams. They were huge for a while. How they "worked" was simple. Software can be depreciated for Canadian tax purposes at a straight line 50% per year. So if you buy software for any business purpose you can write it off against any otherwise taxable income over a two year period even if that income is not related to the software use. So how is this turned into a tax avoidance scheme?

I'll use, as an example, the basic mechanics of some of the files I worked on. A construction company has a huge profit coming up this year and next of, say, $12,000,000 and they don't want to pay any tax on it. So they buy $12,000,000 of software and use the depreciation to totally eliminate this otherwise taxable income. They pay for the software with $1,000,000 cash and a 25 year term note with no principal or interest due until the end of the term. So they get a $12,000,000 tax write-off for an actual payment of $1,000,000 and an $11,000,000 debt paid through a "let's all pretend it's real" note that won't fall due until everybody in the CRA who dealt in the file is retired. The so-called business purpose for the software (which is some failed crap that nobody wants and doesn't even work) is a back-of-the-envelope business plan to sell licensed copies to a world-wide market which is assumed to be desperate for it. Sadly that assumption never seemed to pan out.

For how well this scheme actually worked for the taxpayers who insisted on going to Tax Court see the citations below. No points for guessing the taxpayers always lost everything but cash. Well, except in Baxter where the Federal Court of Appeal didn't allowed even that.

McCoy v. The Queen
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/200 ... cc332.html

Brown v. The Queen
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/200 ... ii788.html
and;
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/200 ... ca192.html

CIT Financial Ltd. v. The Queen
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/200 ... cc544.html
and;
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/200 ... ca201.html

Morley v. The Queen
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/200 ... cc280.html

Canada v. Baxter (the Crown lost at Tax Court but won big-time at Federal Court of Appeal)
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/200 ... ca172.html

[grixit]

Heh. Nice to get the story from two differnt angles. If only we could get a lawyer from one of these cases to explain what the heck they were thinking.

[notorial dissent]

I think the thinking part is where the problem comes in.

[Arthur Rubin]

That is where I came in.

Dumb - - - de - DUMB - DUMB ....
(see, for example, this for context.)

[Burnaby49]

That is where I came in.

Dumb - - - de - DUMB - DUMB ....
(see, for example, this for context.)

A nice dramatic flourish but my working life was far more mundane than that. Sitting at a desk in a government office plodding through piles of legal documents and tax avoidance reports didn't really get me juiced up. About the only really invigorating part of my job was arguing with high-powered tax lawyers. That was fun.

[notorial dissent]

Most particularly when you are right, and can prove it.

[Burnaby49]

One thing I should point out to you non-Canadians. Mowe refers to the CCRA in this header while I talk about the CRA. That's because the Canadian government kept changing its mind about what to call the tax department. When I joined up back in 1974 it was the Federal Income Tax Department. Then it was changed to Revenue Canada. Sometime in the late 1980s the government decided to change our status from a department to an agency. No idea why and the effects for a guy like me at a desk in a regional office were minimal. At that point we were called the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

In 1999 some bright guys in Ottawa came up with the idea that the income tax department and the customs border guards did the same thing (funny, I don't remember having a stint as a border guard) so they figured there were economies of scale in combining Revenue Canada and Canada Customs. The reorganized entity, called the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) was a bureaucratic disaster. The two departments had virtually nothing in common and totally different corporate cultures. So in 2003 they unwound it. We went back to being the CRA and the customs guys became the Canada Border Services Agency.

So Mowe and I use CCRA and CRA interchangeably depending on the time frame we are talking about.

[Burnaby49]

A bit of an update on Mowe's first post. Dolores Romanuk recently appealed her Tax Court dismissal to the Federal Court of Appeals. Got cut off at the knees there too.

http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2013/ ... ca133.html

or, if you use CanLii - Citation: 2013 FCA 133

The heart of her argument was in this paragraph:

[4]The remedy that the Appellant is seeking is the exclusion of evidence or the allowance of her appeal. Essentially, the appellant is arguing that because the CRA may have been or was contemplating charging the appellant or someone else with an offence under section 239 of the Act, the CRA could no longer use any of its audit powers to gather information or documents that could be used for the purpose of reassessing her or that could be used in relation to her appeal before the Tax Court of Canada.

Her argument is that the evidence used as the basis if her civil reassessment was gathered as part of a contemplated criminal tax evasion charge against her and so could not be used to reassess her civilly. Unfortunately for her there is no basis in law supporting this position. The law is that information gathered as part of a civil tax audit cannot be used as evidence in a criminal charge. However she tried to convince the court that it was implicit in the law that the reverse was true also. The appeals court judges, being sticklers for words on paper, refused to accept that if a law clearly says one thing it can also be assumed to be reversable.

She's taking this seriously. Her lawyer is David Chodikoff, one of the highest-profile Tax litigators in Canada and an ex-government senior tax lawyer.

o

[grixit]

Yes, but unless he is also the Hereditary Inspector of Dryer Lint for an imaginary indian tribe, he's not going have the proper understanding of sovereign legalese.

[Burnaby49]

Yes, but unless he is also the Hereditary Inspector of Dryer Lint for an imaginary indian tribe, he's not going have the proper understanding of sovereign legalese.

Dolores Romanuk doesn't seem to be a sovereign, at least as far as I can tell from her Tax Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions. She just got into bed with one, Wally Dove, to participate in the Softcom Solutions – Partnership tax scheme. Tax scams make strange bedfellows. Her position at both court hearings have not included any sovereign BS, just the normal arguments that, because her Charter of Rights and Freedoms rights have been violated, the courts should tell the CRA to go away and leave her alone with her deductions. Standard boilerplate.

Chodikoff is too prominant a guy in the Canadian tax litigation establishment to get his name caught up in any arguments that had sovereign overtones so I anticipate a pretty dull Tax Court decision from Mowe's perspective after this finally gets a hearing. I'm more a tax than a sovereign guy so I'm looking forward to it but up until now the hearings have just been procedural skirmishing and it's my guess that this will be settled pre-trial. There is little public information out about the Softcom Solutions deal but it seems shadier than most of the software schemes that have been to court and none of them won.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Her argument is that the evidence used as the basis if her civil reassessment was gathered as part of a contemplated criminal tax evasion charge against her and so could not be used to reassess her civilly. Unfortunately for her there is no basis in law supporting this position. The law is that information gathered as part of a civil tax audit cannot be used as evidence in a criminal charge.

I may very well be proven wrong, but I think this is an extremely weak argument. It all comes down to principles. The reason why data from a civil tax audit may potentially be excluded from a criminal prosecution is the different standards for investigation. During an audit the CRA has a very broad authority to search and seize - I believe at least some of our Freeman friends characterize that as "gestapo-like". In contrast, in a criminal proceeding evidence from a warrantless search is presumptively inadmissible.

So, it makes sense that evidence gathered via the potentially less 'privacy rights focussed' audit regime may not meet the standard for admission as evidence in a criminal proceeding. But the other way around? Nonsense. If the information is acquired via a stringent, rights-oriented procedure, then it will clearly be admissible in a context where a more intrusive and less scrutinized procedure is in play.

It seems to me that this is analogous to the effect of parallel criminal and civil proceedings. Someone beats you up. The Crown files charges and tries the attacker for assault. To establish its case the Crown must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If that occurs, then if you sue your assailant in tort for damages then you can simply point at the criminal proceeding and say "that judge said the tortfeisor is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. I only need to prove it on a balance of probabilities - so I win."

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Hilfskreuzer Möwe wrote:

I may very well be proven wrong, but I think this is an extremely weak argument.

It is not an extremely weak argument, it is no argument at all. Both the Tax Court and the FCA stomped on it. The Crown clearly has the right to use information from criminal proceedings as evidence against taxpayers in civil reassessments; the CRA does it all the time with drug dealers and other types who have their criminal activities exposed in court. There have been any number of appeals on the issue in the past and they have all failed. Beats me why Chodikoff bothered to appeal his client's loss at Tax Court to the FCA. It was dead on arrival. As the FCA said:

[10] As a result, it is plain and obvious that the appellant cannot succeed in her additional claims assuming that the additional facts as pled are proven. Even if the CRA were contemplating an investigation of the appellant before any requirement for information was made by the CRA, this does not suspend the right of the CRA to make such requests for information for the purposes of administering the Act using the inspection and audit powers as set out in subsections 231.1(1) and 231.2(1) of the Act. Any information or documents obtained using such powers could be used to reassess the appellant (including the assessment of penalties under subsection 162(1) and 163(2) of the Act). Whether such information or documents could also be used for the purpose of an investigation of an offence under section 239 or the prosecution of such offence is not a matter for the Tax Court of Canada. The only issue before the Tax Court of Canada is the validity of the reassessment, i.e., whether the appellant’s claim in relation to the losses of the partnership that were allocated to her is correct and whether the assessment of the penalties under subsections 162(1) and 163(2) is correct.

BTW, the CRA has no right to search and seizure during a normal civil audit. That can only be done through a warrant during criminal investigations. If some of the freemen have faced "Gestapo-like" searches they were done under a court issued warrant.

[Arthur Rubin]

It seems to me that this is analogous to the effect of parallel criminal and civil proceedings. Someone beats you up. The Crown files charges and tries the attacker for assault. To establish its case the Crown must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If that occurs, then if you sue your assailant in tort for damages then you can simply point at the criminal proceeding and say "that judge said the tortfeisor is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. I only need to prove it on a balance of probabilities - so I win."

It's a little more complicated than that. That it's you the tortfeasor beat up is not necessarily a conclusion of the criminal case.

[Dr. Caligari]

That it's you the tortfeasor beat up is not necessarily a conclusion of the criminal case.

The indictment will specify the person assaulted.

[Arthur Rubin]

That it's you the tortfeasor beat up is not necessarily a conclusion of the criminal case.

The indictment will specify the person assaulted.

(Assault requires identification of the victim, but criminal battery may not.) It may depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not sure it's necessary for the person battered to be identified, although it might be necessary to do so to verify that the touching is offensive.

[Burnaby49]

I said in an earlier post on this topic in respect to Dolores Romanuk:

Her argument is that the evidence used as the basis if her civil reassessment was gathered as part of a contemplated criminal tax evasion charge against her and so could not be used to reassess her civilly. Unfortunately for her there is no basis in law supporting this position. The law is that information gathered as part of a civil tax audit cannot be used as evidence in a criminal charge. However she tried to convince the court that it was implicit in the law that the reverse was true also. The appeals court judges, being sticklers for words on paper, refused to accept that if a law clearly says one thing it can also be assumed to be reversable.

Well her hot-off-the-press case is already serving as a precedent!

Piersanti v The Queen

http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2013/2 ... cc226.html

[22] The Supreme Court of Canada made a distinction between the procedures that had to be used when CRA officials were engaged in a criminal investigation rather than the verification of tax liability. They found that although an audit and an investigation could be conducted concurrently, the results of the audit could not be used in furtherance of the prosecution. However, the results of the audit can be used in relation to an administrative matter, such as a reassessment: Romanuk v The Queen, 2013 FCA 133 at paragraph 7.

[23] It is my view that the Appellant's rights under section 7 and 8 of the Charter are not violated by using the information from the Requirements to raise the reassessments at issue. In fact, the use of Requirements is one of the tools the CRA has to further an audit. Her section 7 and 8 rights may have been violated by using the information from the Requirements to prosecute her under the ETA but that would have been a question for the Superior Court of Justice to decide at the Appellant's trial for GST evasion: Romanuk at paragraph 8. The Appellant chose not to raise that defence at the proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice.

[26] In Romanuk (supra), the taxpayer alleged that the CRA used its audit powers in subsection 231.1(1) of the ITA to obtain documents after it had commenced a criminal investigation. The taxpayer argued that the use of these audit powers by CRA violated her sections 7 and 8 Charter rights. Webb JA wrote:

[8] The use of such information or documents in administering the Act and reassessing the appellant does not violate her rights under either section 7 or 8 of the Charter because the CRA has the right to continue to use its audit powers provided that the information or documents are only used for the purposes of administering the Act. If the information or documents are to be used in an investigation or prosecution of an offence under section 239 of the Act, the issue for the particular court dealing with the prosecution of the offence under section 239 of the Act, will be whether the predominant purpose of the exercise of such powers was to gather information or documents for such investigation or prosecution.
...

[10] Even if the CRA were contemplating an investigation of the appellant before any requirement for information was made by the CRA, this does not suspend the right of the CRA to make such requests for information for the purposes of administering the Act using the inspection and audit powers as set out in subsections 231.1(1) and 231.2(1) of the Act. Any information or documents obtained using such powers could be used to reassess the appellant (including the assessment of penalties under subsection 162(1) and 163(2) of the Act). (emphasis added) Whether such information or documents could also be used for the purpose of an investigation of an offence under section 239 or the prosecution of such offence is not a matter for the Tax Court of Canada. The only issue before the Tax Court of Canada is the validity of the reassessment, i.e., whether the appellant's claim in relation to the losses of the partnership that were allocated to her is correct and whether the assessment of the penalties under subsections 162(1) and 163(2) is correct.

[27] It is my view that the recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeal in Romanuk answers the question in this motion. The motion is dismissed.

[Burnaby49]

Ms. Piersanti wasn't happy about losing at Tax Court and has appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. As I said about the similar case involving Dolores Romanuk she has no chance at the FCA. This is an issue that has already been beaten to death at court. Canadian courts have confirmed, numerous times, that evidence gathered for criminal prosecutions can be used in civil issues.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I’m wondering if there has been a tragic breakup betwixt the minds behind the Human Rights Defenders League In Canada. A few days ago one if its leading lights, Wally Dove, was interviewed on a ‘Freedom Radio’ web broadcast, “Global F.A.C.T. Radio”: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/globalfact ... ction-more

However, Kent Barrett, the other leading mind behind the HRDLIC has not made the slightest mention about that interview on his Facebook page. And Wally had some Stuff to Say about the impending class action legal action previously documented on this message thread.

First, there had been some kind of database screwup when the HRDLIC website switched hosts, and as a consequence everyone who had signed up with the HRDLIC class action prior to Dec. 3, 2013 had their data deleted (http://humanrightsdefendersleague.ca/an ... d-present/). Oopsie! In Wally’s interview he is rather vague about how this all happened – he’s just not a tech guy. And though the Class Action had been announced as heading forward last summer … nothing has still happened. Wally excuses himself as not being directly in charge of that project and so he should not be blamed!

They had “a legal team out west”, but Wally is now “disconcerted and concerned” that the class action was not filed in August, 2013. Wally has been told “its in the works” there are “inexplainable delays” with the lawyer who was going to “turn in his BAR cards” and sue on behalf of the HRDLIC. Wally is not (yet) disassociating himself from the class action. As far as he knows the class action lawsuit is live, but Wally isn’t going to talk further about that, but notes this is the first time he has cooperated with “people he didn’t know intimately”, and it “sounded so good”, “I don’t know whether we’ve we been fooled, but I’m not doing this anymore. I’m moving ahead, on our own!”

But not to worry – Wally has a second in-court scheme that will bring The State to its knees! And this time they have two lawyers a “former Crown attorney” and “a practicing civil litigant lawyer” (oh the irony…). It’s already underway but not explicitly under the HRDLIC label. The scheme? A court action to determine who owns and is legally responsible for the legal name that appears on a birth certificate.

Wally explains “what is going on in the system” so as to “deal with the system and its agents and governments”.

- A birth certificate has a registered legal name.
- The legal name is a Crown agency – at least in Ontario.
- Suing a legal name is actually suing the Queen – and that’s treason!
- Government use of that name to identify the human being, that is an improper use of the birth certificate that is contrary to Ontario Vital Statistics Act, s. 531.1(1).
- A birth certificate cannot legally be used as identification.
- Wally has heard (second hand) that a guy facing a CRA criminal litigation complained about misuse of his name this way – and the CRA dropped the case! Wally “talked to the guy who knows the guy who did it.”
- You have a human right to be recognized “as a person before the law”. And you can waive a right – so that means you can waive being a person. If you’re not permitted to do that? That’s extortion – Criminal Code, s. 346. See R. v. Davis.
- So if the CRA goes after you, and you waive your personhood, that’s extortion and illegal.
- An income tax assessment is a security (under the Criminal Code), with the value in the amount owing. The same is true of court orders.
- Since you don’t sign a birth certificate, you are not a party to the birth certificate. The parties who are named are “Ontario”, “Canada” – see the officials' signatures – but since you carry around a birth certificate you are an employee or manager or trustee of the birth certificate – but any attempt to collect from the person named on the birth certificate, the trustee, that is a criminal offence: Criminal Code, s. 363 – obtaining a valuable security by fraud!
- Unknowingly we are tricked into underwriting the birth certificate, but it was originally intended that the Queen would own all property and labour associated with the legal name – that’s because the Queen owns all legal names. In that context we are trespassers against the Queen when we use our own (so called) names.
- “A fiction cannot deal with a human being, and can’t stand over a human being.” The legal name is a fiction – a person – created so the government could interact with human beings, but instead this has been misused.
- No one has authority over us without our consent, but by taking on that birth certificate name, that permits the state to get us.
- Wally talked on the phone to someone who said in court “I’m not going to underwrite this social insurance number” and immediately the legal action was terminated!

Wally and Co. are now going to use this newfound knowledge to register legal actions, and we are all invited get on board, smashing the state! If the source of your name is the birth certificate, and you didn’t sign that birth certificate, nothing associated with that name is yours. Poof! They go away.

Wally has a friend (he doesn’t name) who has an action with an April 14, 2014 hearing. Wally refuses to identify the court in question. There is a second lawsuit planned to demand the return of property – the statement of birth – that belongs to the human being. Wally goes on at some length that there is mystical power associated with a statement of birth, and that if you ever did get it, oh watch out because the entire state apparatus will be after you!

There’s other oddities. Wally explains that you own your first and middle names, but not your last name, it’s collective property. He also promises that the HRDLIC website will soon have tasty, tasty form documents for you to fill out for fun and entertainment! He reads one out as a sample. A public service – for you, by your friends at the HDRLIC.

Exciting times indeed…

Sadly, Wally did not highlight the court judgments that have already rejected the HRDLIC's basic premise, that you can 'waive being a person':

• O’Brien v. Murchland, 2013 ONSC 4576: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9453
  
  Claeys v Her Majesty et al, 2013 MBQB 313: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9758

nor does he recognize that his "birth certificate legal name" argument is no more than the long dead and debunked Strawman, in yet another guise.

Wouldn't it be nice if Wally himself went to court to test out these things, instead of recruiting others to be his guinea pigs? Hmm. Wonder why he doesn't do that.

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

Möwe, I don't know if tragic breakup is quite the phrase I would use in this instance, major disfunction, impending trainwreck, tragi-comic farce, maybe I can see.

If they are depending on some on line list for their magic law suit, I would say they are in for a number of very rude surprises somewhere down the road.

I think it is the phrase “a legal team out west” that says it all best. If they haven't done anything by now, I very much doubt they are EVER going to do anything except soak up what money they can, and I am betting that has been an ongoing thing here. Then we get to “inexplainable delays” and “turn in his BAR cards” which I think just about says it all, at least to anyone functioning in reality. The "lawyers" and the money done gone west!!!! My sense is that good ole Wally is not the most astute judge of character or all that well grounded in reality himself. Yeah Wally, you just go right ahead and do it yourself, you've made such good decisions so far, how can you miss???

Yup, I like that litigation duo he's come up with, a “former Crown attorney” and “a practicing civil litigant lawyer”. Query, is that Canadian polite speak for a defrocked attorney and an ambulance chaser???? And they're going to argue before a court about who owns the name on a birth certificate. If this is true, I can definitely see why one of them is a “former Crown attorney”.

I'd say you've found another comedic jewel here and that there will be more unintended comedy to follow.