Then there are those reality checks. Reading an 80 page judgment that is 90% damages analysis where the parties are arguing over items such as whether a re-enforced stair handrail should be valued at $100, vs $80. Family law disputes between certified psychos. Yet Another Aboriginal Claim Of Dubious Kind And Origin.
But really … I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything that quite matches up to what happened to Justice Jamie W. S. Saunders on May 2, 2013, in Chambers at the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. He had what can only be described as a singularly crummy day.
It looks like there were six cases heard on that date. No idea the order, so I’ll report them in their citation order:
R. v. Furqan, 2013 NSCA 55: http://canlii.ca/t/fx9z6
I detected this decision a couple weeks ago and reproduced it en toto in the Amir Furqan - Subject only to the Lunar Calender thread: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9278
In brief, dude fighting conviction of driving without a license arrives with a mass of materials, argues he is not a person, he adheres only to the lunar calendar, invokes the 1793 Canada Slavery Act, and “surrendered” his birth certificate, which he then abandoned in the court when he lost and left.
Not a particularly auspicious way to start the morning.
Hatfield v. Mader, 2013 NSCA 56 follows. Nobody showed up on either side. Appeal dismissed for being out of time.
Smith v. Stead, 2013 NSCA 57 is next. Same thing.
Gillis v. Roy Stutley Plumbing and Heating Ltd., 2013 NSCA 58: Hey, people show up on this one! The parties agree the appeal should continue once logistics issues are addressed.
Will Justice Saunder’s luck hold? No…...
Doncaster v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board, 2013 NSCA 59: http://canlii.ca/t/fxbgk
It’s crazy time again! Ralph Ivan Doncaster takes center stage. He is a good old fashioned litigation terrorist, rather than a Sovereign Citizen/Freeman-on-the-Land. He demands Justice Saunders recuse himself. Why? Well, in addition to having made a formal complaint to the Canadian Judicial Counsel about Justice Saunders, the judge was also simply biased, and at para. 8 we see why:
Mr. Doncaster also did not need to follow courtroom protocol, for example:Mr. Doncaster then described the incident, and only incident, which sparked his complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council. He said it was about my “conduct” during an earlier Chambers appearance this term when, in the process of writing down some dates he (Doncaster) had referred to his estranged wife’s lawyer by “she” or “her” to which I had intervened and said something to him along the lines of “Mr. Doncaster, counsel in this Chambers has a name and so you are to refer to Ms. Stevenson by her name.” Mr. Doncaster explained that my interjection came after he had already pointed out to me that he has ADHD and Asbergers. He said that it was apparent to him that I knew nothing about Asbergers and instead of understanding his “disability” and “accommodating” it, I had “chastised” him for “not following some silly, unwritten rules of Court decorum.” He then made reference to the Charter, certain United Nations Conventions on Persons with Disability, cases dealing with reasonable apprehension of bias, and a “welcome message” he had printed off the Internet of remarks made on some occasion by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. He said that in filing his complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council he had urged the Council to require me to take “sensitivity training” to “accommodate .... someone with a mental disability, like either of the two that I have, ADHD and Asbergers ...” and until such time as I had undertaken (and I assume presumably successfully completed) such training I should be prohibited from presiding over matters which involved him.
Mr. Doncaster continues:JUSTICE SAUNDERS: And I take it you don’t wish to stand today, Mr. Doncaster?
MR. DONCASTER: If you want to stand when you talk to me, I’ll stand when I talk to you.
So beyond that, it seems Mr. Doncaster has a hobby. He files lawsuits. A lot of them. 103 to be precise (2006-2013), and these are documented in Appendix A to the decision.... may bring into question again your partiality where it is apparent, I think that you do expect people in the court with mental disability or not, you like them to follow the court decorum and I would say even archaic rituals of this Court and that my failure to show you the respect you think that may be acclaimed by judges where, in my personal opinion, a judge is no more – and I said this in another Provincial Court case before Judge Jamie Campbell to kind of explain Asbergers. To me, a judge is no more deserving of respect than a janitor. I judge people – I behave – I interact with people based on how they interact with me. Another way I put it before is respect is not acclaimed; it’s earned. And so given the fact that I don’t show you the respect that I think it seems you were use to getting from people in this court, I would say even having watched court processes a lot it seems like not just respect but deference in submission that it seems to be, I guess to go back to Medieval times, it seems like it’s still where you, people coming to the court are considered to be coming before the King’s representative and you know the King gets to sit upon his bench and people kind of see to him. So because of that lack of respect and deference I think again that brings in to question whether or not you will be deciding things on the basis of the actual evidence and facts before you rather than on the basis of your personal opinion and perhaps even emotional response to me not showing the respect and having the gall to go and complain to the Judicial Council, things like that. ...
Justice Saunders stays an appeal of one of this multitude as being fatally flawed and goes into exposition that I think may be quoted elsewhere in Canadian jurisprudence, at some points in the future:
So, we now come to the close of Justice Saunders' Very Long Day. What could possibly round out this experience? Why, a Freeman-on-the-Land, of course![44] In light of Justice Coady’s findings in the court below and from what I have seen on this and other matters on our Court’s docket, it seems to me that litigants such as Mr. Doncaster appear to fall into a camp of persons who claim an unconditional, and unassailable “right to appeal” every step, in every case. Persons who hold such a view are seriously misguided or ill-informed. No right is absolute. In our free and democratic society every right, privilege or interest is balanced and held in check by other rights, privileges and interests. The opportunity to appeal is regulated by long held practices and rules, by which deadlines, substance, style and content are strictly enforced. Those unwilling or unprepared to follow those strictures do so at their peril.
[45] Litigants, self-represented or not, with legitimate interests at stake will be treated with respect and will quickly come to realize that judges, lawyers and court staff are prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate their needs, to explain procedures that may seem foreign, and to ensure that the merits of their disputes will be heard. They and their cases will be seen as the raison d’être for access to justice.
[46] Litigants, self-represented or not, with a different agenda designed to wreak havoc on the system by a succession of endless, mindless or mind-numbing paper or electronic filings, or meant to drive a spouse or opposite party to distraction or despair or financial ruin will quickly come to realize that the Court’s patience, tolerance and largesse have worn thin. They and their cases will be seen as an affront to justice and summarily shown the door.
[47] More often than not, the individuals in this latter group whom I would dub “self-serving litigants” leave a trail of unpaid judgments and costs orders in their wake. Judges will not sit idly by as the finite resources of their courts are hijacked by people with computer skills or unlimited time on their hands; at the expense of worthy matters, waiting patiently in the queue for a hearing. Faux litigants will be exposed, soon earning the tag “vexatious litigant” or “paper terrorist” whose offerings deserve a sharp rebuff and rebuke.
[48] Over the past two months I have encountered several such cases. Their number is mounting. I find that troubling. The Bench, the practicing Bar and the public should be concerned. This trespass upon legitimate advocacy is not in the public interest. In the short term it frustrates the efficient passage and completion of litigation. In the long term it erodes and denigrates confidence in and respect for the administration of justice. It defeats a system of dispute resolution managed and overseen by people who are doing the best they can to serve the public in a way that respects and follows the law, and produces a result that satisfies the primary object of the Rules which is to provide “for the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding”.
Macdonald v. First National Financial GP Corporation, 2013 NSCA 60: http://canlii.ca/t/fxbq5
Mr. Macdonald appeals foreclosure, sale, and possession of a property in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. Oh. Did I say Mr. Macdonald? My mistake:
So what’s it like to have this chap attend your court?[3] … In his appearances before me he used a variety of sobriquets including “the natural human”, “the agent for the all capital letters”, “the beneficiary for the MICHAEL MACDONALD TRUST ACCOUNT”, “the agent of Michael W. Macdonald and Maritime Residential Housing Development Ltd.”, “the natural human” and “Michael William Sui-Juris, Human Flesh and Blood Man”.
It is obvious that Justice Saunders has had a long, long day. He decides to share it with you and I, so we too may understand, nod, and share, vicariously, in a little in his pain:[1] I encountered Mr. Macdonald several times while presiding over cases heard in Chambers this term. Each was a bizarre experience. His ill-advised forays into the juridical world led to a series of unnecessary appearances which wasted my time as well as the time of counsel representing the respondent. Mr. Macdonald’s actions show a pattern of exploiting the Court’s limited resources which only served to delay and frustrate other parties and lawyers who were forced to wait patiently in a packed courtroom for their case to be heard.
For quick reference, here's what he means by that:[4] But for exceptional circumstances or other statutory limitations, judges and lawyers proudly subscribe to the “open courts” principle. I welcome the attendance of citizens in what must be seen as their courts, so that they are free to sit at the back of the gallery, view the day’s proceedings and judge for themselves whether respect for the administration of justice is well-founded.
[5] With that in mind I will offer a few illustrations to allow the reader a glimpse of what happened in this case, both to provide context for the outcome, and to serve as a modest substitute for actually attending as an observer seated at the back.
para. 29 – won’t cross the bar, insists he is not “contracting” with the court. He’s an agent! “Yet again I reminded Mr. Macdonald that he could not appear as an agent for himself.”
para. 30 – a transcript excerpt where Justice Saunders attempts to determine who he is talking to. “Michael William” explains, among other things, “The surname is owned by the Crown.”
para. 32 – “Michael William” alleges the court is trying to trick him into admitting his name is “Michael Macdonald”. To do so, is fraud!
para. 33 – an excerpt from “Michael William’s” “Commercial Affidavit of Truth”. Yeah, it’s more split person gibberish. Oh, incidentally, you don’t get a soul by being human. It’s conferred by baptism. I think that raises more questions than answers. Are souls 'free-floating' prior to being 'installed' by baptism? Is the newborn truly soulless? What about Soviet Russia?! Is the 'virtuous pagan' truly not merely damned, but a nullity itself!?If I were to admit to being the surname Macdonald, name of the trust, not only would I be in violation of 336 of the Criminal Code, a criminal breach of trust and 403, personalization of the Criminal Code but also it would be interviewed as being trustee of the trust account or a legal fiction over which you are public servant. This would make me liable for the debt against the trust account. Men, both women, male and female does not have access to the trust account because men do not operate in commerce. This is why the public must turn us into a legal fiction making us believe we are the surname in order to operate in this fictional world. We are not legal fictions, however, in order to function within commerce we must have a surname to use with the illusion. And this can be corrected. The Crown owns legal title to the surname. If we are asked to sign our last name we would ask them, are we to violate the Criminal Code which does not apply to us. The Criminal Code only applies to public servants. I believe what you are doing now, trying to trick me into becoming the trustee of the CQV [cestui que vie] trust, is fraud.
[…]
Since the Crown has legal title to the surname this means that not only is the Crown liable for the debt created but also evidence which public servants has committed fraud. I would like to have this case dismissed in its entirety or I will have no choice but to expose all this fraud.
para. 34 – Justice Saunders gives up:
para. 38 – a review of the grounds for appeal. Lots of stupid, but I particularly like this allegation:Sadly, none of this makes any sense to me. Nor apparently to counsel for the respondent. With respect, we ought not to be obliged to waste any more time trying to plumb or fathom the depths of Mr. Macdonald’s thinking.
and among the remedies sought:5. The honourable court failed to consider the fact it is void of any authority to unilaterally change the definitions of words, such as: “insurance”, “fraud”, “unjust enrichment”, “bias” and other words. The honourable court appears to have taken the initiative of redefining such words.
Huh. How does something get empowered to make a declaration that there is no law. Let’s see. 1 divided by zero = [whooshing sound].7. In the alternative, a decree there is no law.
para. 40 – see the Appendix for a scan of “Michael William’s” “Letter of Understanding. Turns out the Masons (I presume the “Free” ones) are involved.
para. 41 – more of the “Commercial Affidavit of Truth”. It’s stupid. Here’s some. There’s lots more, if you want the pain:
Oh yeah, and you have 30 days to argue about it.1. The NS Barristers Civil Procedures Rules do not apply to me. I am not a Corporation. If you cannot get a copy of statutory Law so you can understand it then it does not apply to you. It is only written in Legalese so lawyers can understand it so it only apply to lawyers.
…
3. I am using Scriptural Law (Queen Law) and I have said that no lawyers are invited to this case because it is private.
…
21. A promissory note or a mortgage document is a negotiable instrument. A copy of 100 dollar bill is not the same as the Legal Tender 100 dollar bill therefore a copy of the promissory note or a copy of the original mortgage document is not a negotiable instrument. If you do not have the original wet ink signature, you do not have the title.
…
28. This all was deliberate deception by the Crown and the Vatican.
…
34. In any court room my name is Michael and I do not wish to contract with any court. The MAC DONALD MICHAEL WILLIAM name is a CQV Trust Acc and I am the director. I will not be tricked in any court room to be the ALL CAPS TRUST ACC.
Thankfully, Justice Saunders managed to get this decision out in six days so he met the rebuttability criteria. Whew!This document is Commercial Affidavit of Truth. Failure to rebut this in 30 days will be presumed as acceptance of the Truth. And this will be followed by a Commercial Lien recorded in the Public.
In conclusion, “Michael Williams” deserves the exact same treatment as Mr. Doncaster:
Appeal dismissed.Earlier this week I had occasion to put a stop to equally egregious conduct which I saw as a deliberate exploitation of the Court’s time and resources in Doncaster v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board, 2013 NSCA 59. Some of those same concerns apply with equal force to this case. I will merely substitute the surname “Macdonald” for “Doncaster” and repeat my conclusions starting at ¶44
And the end of a very, very long day.
I’m tempted to take up a collection to make an appropriate purchase and delivery of booze to Justice Saunders. He’s earned it.
SMS Möwe
