Gordon S. Watson: from Detaxer to Milkman and ... Skeptic?

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

So while researching one of my remaining Canadian gurus I stumbled across a rather interesting person who forms the current case study: Gordon Stephen Watson. Watson has a very lengthy and varied history with the Canadian courts.

He started out as an anti-abortion activist, and that led to whole mess of reported caselaw. I will only list these for reference purposes:

• Watson v. Cull, 1992 CanLII 939 (BC SC): http://canlii.ca/t/1dglg
  
  Everywoman's Health Centre Society (1988) v. Bridges, 1993 CanLII 1276 (BC SC): http://canlii.ca/t/1dkgt
  
  Watson v. Williams, 1993 CanLII 1208 (BC SC): http://canlii.ca/t/1dhv1
  
  Watson v. Cull, 1993 CanLII 2588 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1dbtg
  
  Ministry of Health, Re, 1994 CanLII 1471 (BC IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1gdgc
  
  Ministry of Attorney General, Re, 1994 CanLII 1169 (BC IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1gdgv
  
  Everywoman's Health Centre Society (1988) v. Watson, 1994 CanLII 1467 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1dcx1
  
  Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Re, 1996 CanLII 762 (BC IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1gdj3
  
  Vancouver Police Department, Re, 1996 CanLII 394 (BC IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1gdj2
  
  R. v. Watson, 1996 CanLII 2013 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1f0kt
  
  R. v. Watson, 1996 CanLII 3242 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1f0f3
  
  R. v. Watson, 1998 CanLII 5673 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1f0rj
  
  R. v. Watson and Spratt, 2002 BCSC 786: http://canlii.ca/t/1czfq
  
  R. v. Spratt, 2004 BCCA 367: http://canlii.ca/t/1hd8h
  
  R. v. Watson and Spratt, 2006 BCCA 234: http://canlii.ca/t/1n7d2
  
  R. v. Spratt, 2008 BCCA 340: http://canlii.ca/t/20jnz

During this period Watson has one oddball case, Watson v. Burnaby (City of), 1994 CanLII 1027 (BC SC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1dmf1) where he sues the City of Burnaby over a plan by the local historical society to build a replica of the 1914 Masonic Lodge as part of the Burnaby Village Museum. Yes, Burnaby49, this gentleman is a neighbor, and as you see? Anti-Mason! Watson complains the reconstruction would expend municipal funds for a religious purpose, infringe on his Charter religious and equality rights, and that one of the City Councilors is a Mason and therefore biased. These arguments are all rejected and Watson is ordered to pay costs to the city.

We now move to Watson’s tax litigation phase.

R. v. Watson, 2004 BCPC 208: http://canlii.ca/t/1hmb6

Watson did not file income tax between 1991-2000, and eventually the CRA caught up with him. Watson argued that he had not filed income tax returns because the taxes he paid would go help fund abortions: para. 5. However, this rationale was supplemented by a claim that he wanted to have questions answered concerning how to properly fill out his taxes: para. 8. The CRA agreed to meet with him in private (para. 11): “however, Mr. Watson insisted on having a large meeting with many of his "constituents" and therefore no such meeting took place.”

This approach was rejected, and the court observed it was well established law that political belief is not a basis to refuse to pay tax (para. 13), and payment of tax is not optional (para. 14). Watson’s desire for a meeting was simply a tactic: para. 15.

R. v. Watson, 2005 BCPC 59: http://canlii.ca/t/1jw6h

Watson now argued before the same trial judge that taxation was contrary to the constitution. Watson seems to have talked a lot, and Judge Gove let him go at it:

[4] Watson has made it clear to the Court that he is the leader of a political party that disagrees with the way that taxes are collected in Canada. He spoke, argued and made speeches that show him to be an eloquent speaker and passionate believer in various causes. I gave him considerable latitude to make his points. Often he went well off the issue at hand and often referred to "evidence" that was not before the Court.

[5] In fact, Watson put before the Court little evidence but considerable argument and political theory as to why these Acts are repugnant to the Constitution Act and Charter and why he should not be legally bound by them. None of his arguments and no evidence established that either of the impugned Acts were unconstitutional or deprived him of his rights under the Charter.

That did not help, as again appellate case authority confirmed Watson was wrong, and income tax legislation was valid and constitutional: paras. 6, 10-14.

Watson had some more exotic arguments too. First he claimed forcing someone to file an income tax return was an unconstitutional search and seizure (Charter, s. 8 ), and a breach of his right against self-incrimination (Charter, s. 13): para. 15. Judge Gove observed taxpayers have very little privacy: para. 16.

Next was the weird claim that Charter, s. 20 was infringed by the failure of the CCRA officials to attend a meeting with him and his “constitutents”. This one caught me off guard – I had to look up s. 20 to even see what it is:

20.(1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where

• (a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or
  
  (b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French. …

Judge Gove observed, and I agree, that this protects one’s right to the language in which you communicate with Federal employees, not the circumstances.

Last, Watson argued that paying income tax means his private information will get into the U.S. government’s hands. The reasoning is a little odd:

[20] Watson submits that requiring him to file a tax return will contravene his Charter s.7 right of security of the person. He says that as a resident of British Columbia he is required to apply for a BC Medical Services Plan (MSP) CareCard. Because he has a low income he is eligible for Premium Assistance which means that he will not have to pay the MSP premiums. In order to qualify for Premium Assistance he must authorize MSP to have access to his tax return, to verify his income.

[21] British Columbia has recently entered into a contract with an American company to administer MSP. Under the USA Patriots Act, Watson argues, the American company will be obliged to give information to the US police agencies and British Columbia’s privacy laws will not protect him. Watson claims that due to his political activities, in particular as a spokesperson for the right to life movement, he is considered a security risk in both Canada and the US. Therefore, he says, the US police agencies will use the USA Patriots Act to obtain information about him through the American company administering the MSP; including information in any tax return; which information is protected by Canadian federal and provincial privacy legislation. In order to protect his privacy from US authorities, he ought not to be required to file tax returns.

[22] As with all of his arguments, Watson is creative. He faces two problems with this argument: First, the USA Patriots Act was not in force when he failed to comply with the Notices of Requirement and therefore the scenario that he sets out did not apply. Second, there is no factual foundation before me that supports Watson’s contentions.

I note that Watson states he has “a low income”. Gee, never saw that coming.

HMTQ v. Watson, 2005 BCSC 1225: http://canlii.ca/t/1lhck

Let the appeals begin! Judge Gove at trial had ordered Watson file his tax returns and pay $1,000.00 per year as a penalty. Watson attacked this order arguing he could not comply with it, because there are no such things as valid income tax forms:

The judge’s ruling was patently absurd. He faulted me for not doing something which I was unable to do. I proved in cross-examination that no such form as the so‑called T1 exists in law. I demonstrated that, in fact, the so-called T1 Form mentioned in the demand notice was only an internal convenience for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

I will leave comment on that curious argument to those better positioned, but simply note that Justice Silverman summarized one of Watson’s appeal grounds was “…a conspiracy that the CCRA is out to get him because he has been a vocal and political opponent of various aspects of the Act …”: para. 9. Watson put it this way:

The judge erred by laying the blame for failure to comply on me when the evidence shows beyond doubt that the CCRA had a witting agenda to refuse to cooperate with tax protestors such as myself in order maliciously to frame us up for prosecution as part of its partnership with the Public Service Alliance of Canada to discredit and subvert the legitimate political activity of people in the tax honesty movement. The judge failed to do his duty to protect me against the depredations of government agents who were abusing their official powers for a purpose other than the proper administration of the Income Tax Act.

H.M.T.Q. v. Watson, 2006 BCCA 233: http://canlii.ca/t/1n7d1

Next appeal. He repeats his ‘there are no such things as tax forms’ argument, and this curiousity:

As I testified in this proceeding, I did not keep any fiscal records at all. To the best of my recollection I received debt instruments and a credit denominated as “dollars” in the form of notes issued by the Bank of Canada totalling, approximately, $6000, as income over the year. I do not recall receiving any money in the form of silver or gold coin, as defined in the Schedule of the Currency Act RSC.

Thus, in accordance with sections 122, 150, 151 of the Income Tax Act Revised Statutes of Canada I estimate that the federal income tax owing is approximately $0.00 = zero dollars and zero cents.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal denies leave.

R. v. Watson, 2007 BCSC 1707: http://canlii.ca/t/1txxr

Watson still didn’t file his taxes, and so once more Watson again ends up in Court. At the beginning of the new enforcement proceeding he made some disclosure demands that were rejected. It is that order that is unsuccessfully appealed at this hearing. Watson now characterizes his activities in this manner (para. 6):

Mr. Watson is part of a group, or as he calls it, a movement, of people who do not file their taxes. The group has colloquially been called “detaxers”. Mr. Watson prefers the term “Tax Honesty Movement”. Mr. Watson submits that the prosecution of himself and others is politically motivated, and indeed, he says the Prime Minister himself is behind the prosecution. He submits that the RCMP has launched a smear campaign against him by linking him to terrorists. He submits that he made enemies when he was involved in the anti-abortion protest a few years ago, and now some of those enemies work for the Canada Revenue Agency. He submitted that he has Freedom of Information requests outstanding. He submits that it is “the Court’s duty to protect me from my mendacious government because the playing field is anything but level.” In essence, he submits that he is being set-up by the Federal government because he challenges the tax laws. His disclosure motion was, in large part, aimed at obtaining information from the Government that would demonstrate the correctness of his position.

That seems to be the last of Watson’s reported cases and, it seems, tax resistance. Why do I say that? Well, that's Watson's own public position. When I first identified Watson he was in an online forum debunking the more modern Freeman-on-the-Land type OPCA beliefs and gurus. Who’d have thought?!

http://thecompletepatient.com/article/2013/april/28/
lots-people-humming-i’m-goin’-baraboo-my-mindand-realto-help-vernon

[You will need to copy/paste this URL - sorry!]

It all starts when “Lola Granola” begins the usual countries are corporations, statutes are contracts, lawyers belong to the BAR routine. Another user named “Bildo” joins in. Watson repeatedly (and bluntly) challenges these beliefs. I’m going to quote Watson at length because, well, it’s fun!

as they used to say in my Dad's generation = "Don't eat that, Elmer".... I don't doubt your sincertity - offering your explanation, in hope it will help people understand the bigger frame of reference, but it won't. That particular line has been shown to be not just nonsense, but DANGEROUS non-sense. Educate you-self via the audio Archives of George Gordon : the 7-part series "Destroyed Arguments"

during about a decade in the Tax Honesty Movement / DeTax thing, I saw many Pay-triots-for-Profit come along, spinning that yarn, only to be were exposed as con-men, when it got right down to short strokes, in a real court of law. The conmen were shrewd enough not to wind up in gaol demselves, but many of those who payed attention to them, did

For instance: At the opening of Michael Schmidt's trial in Provincial Court, some guy stood up and started peddling that 'corporate stuff'. JP Kowarsky gave him very short shrift. Point being : all that crap~ola is for lame-brains who prefer to live in a phantasy... Judges will not entertain it.

the biggest divergence from the objective reality shared by the rest of us, is the notion that "... we understand the rules, and refuse to play on their court ..." Yeah, well, ask Russell Porisky about how that worked for him. Maintaining that "they" had no jurisdiction, he refused to show up at the Supreme Court of BC, so the Mounties came out to his house, and gave him a free ride to town, where he sat in gaol, til the appointed time. Eventually convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison, lately, he's out on bail pending appeal ... still singing that absurd song.

…

your notion, Lola, that I pretend to "know it all" is dead wrong. But I certainly do know more than you do, on this particular topic, having been through the meatgrinder of Court, on a dozen DeTax cases. Please be good enough to substantiate your claim = about "the ONLY Canadian who had a judge bow to him in Court..." : case file number please along with style of cause and the location of the Court?. Most likely .... rank beginner that you are ... you didn't know that the ritual of opening and standing down British Courts is, those present bow to the Bench whilst the Justice bows to them. Which is how we ALL show respect for the Monarch, who is considered to be always present. And the reason we do so, is because the crucial element of that Gracious Lady = Elizabeth II = becoming Queen, was by taking the Coronation Oath in which she vowed "to use the Bible as the whole rule of law in all her Dominions".

Let's see if you're grown-up enough, to come up with the name of the Pay-triot for Profit, who's been mis-leading you with this utter nonsense: Roger Elsvick? No, he's still sitting in prison. David Wynne Miller? No, I outed him a decade ago as the conman he was. Robert Menard? I saw him go by last week ... still spining the same yarn. Mister Menard's forte is, comedy, not law. You'll notice that his "students" are infamous for crashing and burning when they hit the brick wall, in a real court of law

the kindest thing I have to say is : you're about 15 years behind me, on this learning curve.

…

perhaps you'll be good enough to point us to a case where this has been attempted ... better yet, Bildo ... where has such verbiage ever prevailed? "The State is a fiction", eh? send us the video of the incident, next time you try that line on one of its uniformed minions.

…

During the DeTax thing, I was in the gallery in Provincial Court of BC, 3 times, when judges sent people away for a psychiatric evaluation, for spouting that same crap~ola. If we know one thing for sure, it's that it doesn't gyve with what the rest of us call "reality"

…

Lola~belle ... .... Many times, when someone like you would start bleating these same noises in the Tax Honesty thing, I'd run the info to earth, only to find out it was clap-trap. Lola = you show the signs of so many of those I met along the way in the last 2 decades = arm-chair experts on civil rights / procedure etc, but who've never actually seen the inside of a real courtroom, let alone been in maximum security ( as I was) for standing in the gap on some of those issues.

I'm not going to hold yr hand while you get up to speed. Suffice to say that my friend, David Kevin Lindsay is the expert on this topic, and that I went through a 10 day trial with Sandra Gibbs on the failing-to-file issue, in which she put forth a brilliant argument re: "the all-caps Name". The judge just kindly told her to "move on". Point being : it does not fly in their little box.

Dentist Eva Sydel tried your approach : refusing to acknowledge the power of "the State". When the Vancouver Police arrested her, she said "which Person do you want?" To which the officer replied "they told us you''d say that." At the end of her trial, Judge Myer was inclined to let her off the hook, but she kept on defying him, yapping-away in his face about "the Name", so he sentenced her to 3 years in the penitentiary. For some hard cases, the sound of big steel gaol door is what it takes to convince them "the whole world lies in the power of the evil One'

…

another textbook demonstration of why these scams succeed = ie "many if not all of our cases are sealed' ... so you'll just have to trust me!. The first one I exposed was David Wynne_miller his-self. Old Windy was long on trade-marked "in the Truth" verbiage but came up short when put to the test for a single scrap of real documentation, to substantiate the tales he told, whilst making off with significant $$ from the gullible.

Anyone who leans-in to such occult practices, deserves everything they get. Meaning - the terminus for the IRS' raliway, is prison. good comic relief can be found on the Quatloos website

those Patriot Nut job scams appear to work, because the lag between the moment the sucker crosses the threshold into that fantasy, and when the IRS catches up, is about 3 years. Conman Russell A Porisky counted on that lag ... he could boast that his method 'was working" ... which it did. Until it didn't. Now RevScam is methodically auditing every one of the 800 dunces whose info. they found in his residence, executing the Search Warrants "test all things : hold fast to that which is true"

…

My calling is to expose the unfruitful works of darkness, which I did quite a bit of, in 10 years in the DeTax thing. If you have a shred of integrity, Mister, let's see the documentation of the case you're talking about, starting with the place of the Court, the case file #, the magistrate's name, the name of the prosecutor, the final Order for Committal = you know, little details such as can be found in ordinary news reports.
What a wonderful testimony : Bilbo, you ONLY spent = what? = 4 months in gaol?

Your's is exactly the false premise which conman, Big Daddy Russ Porisky, used to spin his yarn for 10 years = that he'd "changed the jurisdiction". Absolute Horse-shit. When he'd served their purpose, the Powers-that-Be lowered the boom on him, and he got 4 years in the penitentiary. With hindsight, it's perfectly obvious his operation was allowed to go on as a "honey-pot" = luring local "tax protesters" so they could be identified.

…

Same with the dabblers regurgitating all the "Freeman on the land" non-sense, like it's THE silver bullet. what you're seeing In the vitriol directed at me lately, is, how cranky they get with someone pointing-out the obvious = all that Patriot Nut Job stuff only gets you deeper in the mire

Who’d have thought – and a plug for Quatloos too!

Here’s another case where in 2010 Watson has denounced pseudolegal ideas (http://www.henrymakow.com/the_ficticiou ... ty_ca.html), this time the double/split person:

The latest addition to your website - about the legal fiction of the Person - is a stinkbomb 'midst all the good work you've done for years. You'd do your readers a favour to point them to "Destroyed Arguments" wherein Larry Beecraft put the boots to that nonsense, nigh on 20 years ago.

The strawman routine is word majic of the first water... it leads poor saps off into the thickets of the occult ... financial destruction too.

The cases in British Columbia Courts of Regina versus Eva Sydel ; Regina versus Chas Turnnir and Regina versus Loosdrecht will tell you everything you need to know about how well its practitioners do, when that stuff is put to the test in the objective reality which the rest of us share. Three times I've been in the gallery and seen men taken away out of the Courtroom for a psychiatric evaluation when they started spouting that crap-ola

Gordon S Watson
Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves & Be Their Own Politicians

So that leads neatly into what Watson has been doing with himself of late. For one, he’s a part of a B.C. provincial political party, the “Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves & Be Their Own Politicians.” [“POCWHDTTFTABTOP”]. Their only election appearance seems to have been in 2001, where they ran two candidates. Watson ran in the Burnaby-Edmonds riding and received 105 votes (0.56%). Sadly, POCWHDTTFTABTOP does not appear to have maintained any significant online history.

But Watson’s real passion these days is milk. Raw milk. Any search online will discover that he is boldly proposing various raw milk benefits, and private production networks. Sadly, that has meant, once more, a run in with the law:

Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden, 2013 BCSC 986: http://canlii.ca/t/fxswx

This relates to an outfit that was selling raw milk products, but camouflaged in this manner:

Cleopatra’s Enzymatic Yogurt Mask (appeared to be raw milk), Cleopatra’s Enzymatic Alpine Lotion (appeared to be raw milk) and Cleopatra’s Enzymatic Butter (appeared to be raw milk). On the jar lid labels it indicated “Cosmetic Skin treatment Only - Our Cows Sharemember Dividends - Packaged Not for Human Consumption.”

Health inspectors obtained an injunction to shut down this dairy, but Watson lobbied so actively in favour of the human consumption of these ‘cosmetic products’ that he was charged with contempt of court for inducing breach of a court order. Watson is currently serving a three month prison term, followed by one year probation.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

It says in the judgement that Watson's 3 month sentence was a suspended sentence.

At least the guy finally seemed to have (or maybe had) a job even if it is running an illegal dairy farm and he isn't filling the Tax Court with his gibberish any more. And let's give him some credit. He has an impressive knowledge of the players and jurisprudence in respect to the Canadian Freeman tax evader movement.

I certainly agree with this statment he made re Eva Sydel; in fact I think I made a similar one in a post somewhere:

At the end of her trial, Judge Myer was inclined to let her off the hook, but she kept on defying him, yapping-away in his face about "the Name", so he sentenced her to 3 years in the penitentiary.

She pretty much demanded the court toss her in jail and she left the courtroom as a satisfied customer.

Watson's argument that he has a constitutional right to force the CRA to have meetings with him and his BFFs anytime they want is reminiscent of the American sovereign argument that the President had to read and respond to any BS that the sovereigns coughed up at him because of their first amendment right prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The government's response was that the first amendment allowed them to petition all they wanted but it didn't mean that anybody had to reply.

Watson comes across as a grade A anti-government crank who's found a world where he feels comfortable and important. Unfortunately that world, as Mowe has shown, involves immense amount of court resources spent on entirely meritless cases. So the various levels of government are spending huge amounts of money, and the very limited time of backed-up courts, in order to feed his Narcissistic ego.

The Burnaby Village Museum is about a ten minute drive from my house. Can't say I remember a fake 1914 Masonic Lodge. Just shows how insidious these Masons are, sneaking a lodge in below my level of consciousness so I only notice it subliminally when I go there. If Watson is staying up in Chilliwack to tend to the herds he is not, as Mowe contends a neighbour since the farm, at 49211 Prairie Central Road, Chilliwack, is over 60 miles away from my neigbourhood. A very pretty area if anyone wants to take a look on Google Streetview.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

It says in the judgement that Watson's 3 month sentence was a suspended sentence.

Agh - thanks for catching that - mea culpa. Apologies to all for that error.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

The reason for banning raw milk is shown in the link below, a British Columbia E. Coli outbreak that has been traced to unpasteurized milk. If Watson's farm hasn't already been shut down it soon will be.

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/heal ... story.html

[Burnaby49]

Just an update on the adventures of the Freeman tax protesting political activist dairyman Gordon Watson. When we left him his dream was in tatters. All he wanted to do was be a raw milk producer but he faced two daunting obstacles that shattered this vision;

1 - You can't produce milk in Canada without a government quota allocation.

2 - It is illegal to sell raw milk in British Columbia. Doing so resulted in a three month suspended sentence. Had he continued the next sentence wouldn't have been suspended.

In addition he seemed broke, having spent his most of his time in and out of court ranting away about how income taxes were illegal. No indication he ever held down a job.

Well he landed on his feet ending up residing in a million dollar property rent free! However this is not as impressive as it sounds given that this is Vancouver, recently rated as having the second least affordable housing in the world (damn you Hong Kong!), and any shack on a decent sized lot easily tops a million. Which is more or less what he was staying in. It was his mother's house which had been allowed to deteriorate until it was a tear-down. Not unusual here. Land is so valuable that nobody buys an old small detached single family house to live in. They are torn down and a big house built in their place. We have a nice enough house, built mid 50's, big enough to raise a pair of kids in it without crowding, but it is only appraised at $15,000 in the property tax assessment and will be torn down when we sell.

The house was the only estate asset and even then it had over $40,000 of unpaid property tax on it and the executor had to pay some of this out of his own pocket to stop the property being sold by the municipality at a tax sale. After mom died Gordon decided to keep living in it and wouldn't leave. So his brother, who was the mother's executor went to court to get an order forcing him out. Case just concluded

[3] The petitioner seeks an order of vacant possession and a writ of possession in relation to the Estate’s principal asset: real property located at 7954 Elwell Street, Burnaby, British Columbia (the “Property”).

[4] The Property has been occupied for many years by the petitioner’s brother, the respondent Gordon Watson, and since November 2013 by one of his sisters, the respondent Marian Strong. The fourth sibling is the petitioner’s other sister, Theresa Watson, who supports the petitioner on these applications

Watson v. Strong, 2014 BCSC 754

If you check out the prior entries in this discussion he comes across as a ranting crank. Well he's shifted somewhat to become (perhaps he always was) a total jerk. He has two sisters and a brother. All but one sister alienated from him by the time the mother died and she seems cut from the same cloth as him. She also moved into the house and the court, in a prior hearing, removed her as co-executor. He wasn't exactly his mother's favorite either, she cut him out of the estate, leaving him nothing and bequeathing what would have been his one-quarter share in the estate to his son who also seemed estranged from him. Gordon had a solution to that, he claimed that the 25% interest in the estate wasn't really bequeathed to his son, mom had intended it as a constructive trust with Gordon as the beneficiary. The only problem that Gordon had convincing anyone with this argument is that there was no evidence whatever, apart from Gordon's always fertile imagination, showing the existence of a trust and the will was quite specific that the interest went to Gordon's son.

So all Gordon had left for support, apart from getting a job, was to squat and try and extort money from the family to induce him to leave. Sorry, did I say extort? What I of course meant was to obtain fair compensation for the cost of relocating and to cover the value of assets he would have to leave behind, specifically a tree he'd apparently planted. He needed significant compensation because he planned to move to Vancouver Island and take another shot at starting a raw milk farm The man has a dream! But he had another good reason why he was entitled to significant compensation. Thanks to him the property (now apparently his "homestead") had gone up in value by half a million dollars and he felt that he should be rewarded for this. As he wrote to counsel for the executor;

[18] On November 21, 2013, Gordon Watson wrote to Mr. Geldert. He stated, in part:

5 As for your expectation that the house at 7954 Elwell will be vacant on November 25 2013, you are hereby notified that will not be the situation. Part of my complaint to the Law Society is how your letter of Oct 24 2013 mis-represented that I’d agreed the house would be vacant on November 24 2013. That was an utter lie. What you all need to get through your heads, is: I have been in peaceable possession of this homestead for 23 years. The Order you pulled off by committing FRAUD upon the Court does NOT dictate that I must move out, at all, let alone by any given deadline. Go listen to the recording of the proceeding Sept. 25 2013: and find out that I did say – I always was amenable to sale of the place, but had stayed-on to ensure orderly transition. …

6 Because he [the petitioner] cut off communication your client did not appreciate that I have always been eager to remove my stuff from this place, as long as there is reasonable accommodation. …
…
8 … A few days ago I was in communication with Aaron Watson. He was happy to see that there seems to be movement in this matter. He told me that he was willing to approach you – not yr client – to negotiate such an advance. He asked me for a “concrete plan”. Leading in to that, I explained how the price of this real estate has gone up half a million $$ since the demise of the Testator. Which translates into a net increase in the eventual payout to each Beneficiary of $125,000. But for me being adamant to see an orderly disposition of the place, rather than it being sold into a rising market, that would not have happened. Wherefore an advance of $125,000 is plenty reasonable. …

14 The trees which have grown up on this lot during my residency are my property. I will be removing them when I get a farm lined-up. That could have happened at any time since March 1 2010. Particularly ; it would have been easily accomplished in the summer of 2012 , had yr client not refused to so much as acknowledge Marian Strong’s proposal to get a private loan. …

He ensured that the house wasn't foolishly sold in a rising market (it's always a rising market here in Vancouver) by posting this on the front;

[21] After the petitioner posted the “For Sale” sign, Gordon Watson displayed a “Notice” at the Property in the following terms:

NOTICE

Control of this property is in dispute. The Letter of Probate for the Estate of Rosamond Watson was obtained via FRAUD. Anyone considering buying this lot ought to consult me. I am one of the Beneficiaries. Until my equitable interest in the Estate is settled, I will strenuously oppose any attempt to transfer the title of this real estate.

At the first round in this matter William F Watson avoided his false affidavits being scrutinized -- file S-135578 Supreme Court of BC at Vancouver

the first to present his case seems right, but another comes forward and questions him
Proverbs 18:17

therefore I am preparing an application to have him removed as Executor for the sake of his dis-honesty ; particularly that he did commit Perjury, as well as he did conspire to evade tax liability to Canada Revenue Agency, as well as to evade fees due the Probate Court

for details of my allegations of crimes committed by Wm F Watson [William] and TEA Watson [Theresa] in this matter, contact me by telephone … or by regular mail : 7954 Elwell Street Burnaby B C V5E 1M4

The dishonest, tax evading, perjuring signer of false affidavits was Gordon's executor brother. As I said, estranged.

So it boiled down to the petitioner/executor telling the court

24] The petitioner’s position includes:

• he has a right to demand vacant possession pursuant to his authority under the Will;

• he is acting reasonably by demanding vacant possession. The relief requested is required to assist in the orderly distribution of the Estate’s principal asset;

• six months have passed since the date of the Order. Despite his attempts, the respondents continue to occupy the Property;

• Gordon Watson’s behaviour is vexatious and designed to thwart the executor from performing his duties, which he has attempted to do as responsibly as possible within the context of the respondents’ conduct. There is no evidence that he has been derelict in the administration of the Estate and the relief sought is in the Estate’s best interests;

• there is no evidence to support Gordon Watson’s assertion that he has a 25% beneficial interest in the Estate held in trust through his son, Aaron Watson. In any event, this is not a matter which can be determined on these applications;

Gordon's position was;

[

26] Gordon Watson’s position includes:

• there is no need for vacant possession for the Property to be listed and sold. In fact, he has referred realtors to the executor;

• he would have vacated the Property a long time ago had there been cooperation from the petitioner in his capacity as executor: “He has written me off as a brother and the feeling is mutual … His personal hostility is affecting his ability to act as executor”;

• his share in the Estate was placed in a constructive trust with his son, Aaron Watson, due to his (that is, Gordon Watson’s) role as a political activist;

• the current stumbling block to Ms. Strong being able to acquire the Property is the attitude of his son, Aaron Watson, who “needs to grow up”; and

• he can be out of the Property in two weeks if he gets “some money”. He has received no response from the petitioner to the $125,000 offer he impliedly made in November 2013. Mediation should be ordered by the Court. He is “all for the Court heading towards a practical solution”.

Of course, being Gordon, he wanted a bit more than the requested cash;

[35] During submissions, Gordon Watson indicated that he needs access to a 5 ton truck in order to vacate the Property. He says the minimum amount to rent this vehicle would be $1,000. In addition, there is an oak tree on the Property which he says belongs to him. He believes it was worth approximately $5,000 as green lumber and he wishes to be compensated for that.

But it all ended in a big reconciliation with hugs and kisses all round! Just kidding, this is how it actually ended;

V: CONCLUSION

[61] Accordingly, I make the following orders:
1. the Estate, by its executor William Frederick Watson, is entitled to vacant possession of the property located at 7954 Elwell Street, Burnaby, British Columbia, parcel identifier 002-093-871 (the “Property”);

2. the respondents shall vacate the Property and deliver vacant possession to the petitioner no later than Thursday, May 22, 2014;

3. within seven days of the date of this Order, the petitioner shall provide to the respondent Marian Strong the names of three licensed real estate agents acceptable to the petitioner. Within seven days of receipt of the names in question, the respondent Strong shall select one of those real estate agents and advise the petitioner accordingly. Should she not do so within that timeframe, then the petitioner shall select one of the three real estate agents;

4. on or before May 26, 2014, the petitioner shall list the Property for sale through an MLS listing with the real estate agent selected in accordance with paragraph 3 herein;

5. a writ of possession shall be issued to the petitioner with its enforcement suspended to Friday, May 23, 2014, or any earlier date by which the respondents have vacated the premises;

6. the petitioner is authorized to obtain the assistance of the Burnaby Detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and/or a firm of bailiffs authorized by the Court to execute the writ of possession together with the services of a qualified and licensed locksmith in order to obtain and secure vacant possession of the Property;

7. the Estate is to provide $3,000 to the respondent Gordon Watson on account of moving expenses. $1,500 is to be paid within 48 hours of this Order and $1,500 within 48 hours of the respondents providing vacant possession of the Property;
8. the petitioner is to make arrangements for an industrial waste container to be placed at the Property within five days of this Order;

9. copies of all bona fide offers to purchase the Property shall be forwarded by the petitioner to the respondents within 24 hours of receipt;

10. should the respondent Strong wish to present an offer to purchase the Property, it is to be presented to the listing real estate agent;

11. on or before August 18, 2014, the petitioner shall present all bona fide offers which have been received to the Court for its approval, together with his recommendation as to which offer will result in the greatest net sale proceeds to be paid to the Estate;

12. the respondent, Strong, has liberty to present what she considers to be her best offer for the Property at the application regarding court approval of the sale of the Property;

13. Abrioux J. is seized of the application regarding court approval of the sale of the Property;

14. the petitioner and the respondent Strong are to pass their respective interim and final accounts;

15. the respondents’ applications are dismissed; and

16. the petitioner is awarded his costs of these applications at Scale B to be paid out of the Estate.
[62] The petitioner also seeks special costs.

[63] The respondents have chosen to make serious allegations of misconduct, including fraud, against the petitioner and his counsel. For the reasons I have outlined above, there is no basis for the accusations of impropriety which have been advanced.

[64] I view the conduct of both respondents to be “worthy of reproof or rebuke”, entitling the petitioner to an award of special costs: Garcia v. Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. (1994), 1994 CanLII 2570 (BC CA), 9 B.C.L.R. (3d) 242 (C.A.). I conclude these costs should be assessed on a lump-sum basis, taking into account the amount the petitioner shall receive under Scale B.

[65] I consider the conduct of the respondent Marian Strong to be less egregious than that of the respondent Gordon Watson, who, both in his written materials and submissions to the Court, accused the petitioner and his counsel of fraud.

[66] The respondents’ future conduct, including their compliance with the orders I have made above, may be a factor in the amount of special costs I award. Accordingly, I direct that submissions with respect to the amount of lump-sum special costs occur after the Property has been sold. I am seized of that application.

The Google Maps Street View shots of the property, taken by chance a month or so after this decision, show a "For Sale" sign out front and Gordon's sign gone. So Gordon is apparently out and no closer to having that raw milk farm than he was in 2006 when he was kicked out of that purported farm in the Fraser Valley. No doubt he will update us with future court actions.

[grixit]

Quest que ce "seized of"?

[Fmotlgroupie]

Quest que ce "seized of"?

It means it will be heard by the same judge, instead of whatever judge of that court might be assigned

[grixit]

Merci.

[Pottapaug1938]

Quest que ce "seized of"?

I think that he meant to say "seised of", an antique legal term relating to land ownership. In days of old, at a conveyance of land, the seller had to hand the buyer some twigs or a clod of earth, to signify transfer of ownership; and this was called "livery of seisin". For gits and shiggles, when I was doing foreclosures for my boss in the early 90s, I would have him snap a twig in two, as it was once necessary to do, at foreclosure, to signify that the Right of Entry for Condition Broken had been thus satisfied.

[Burnaby49]

Quest que ce "seized of"?

I think that he meant to say "seised of", an antique legal term relating to land ownership. In days of old, at a conveyance of land, the seller had to hand the buyer some twigs or a clod of earth, to signify transfer of ownership; and this was called "livery of seisin". For gits and shiggles, when I was doing foreclosures for my boss in the early 90s, I would have him snap a twig in two, as it was once necessary to do, at foreclosure, to signify that the Right of Entry for Condition Broken had been thus satisfied.

He meant what fmotlgroupie explained. This case was long-running. There was a prior unreported decision by the same judge removing the obstructionist sister from the position of executrix. The judge has awarded special costs against Gordon for his reprehensible behaviour and wants to ensure that he reviews the final cost claim to confirm that it falls within his ruling. If a judge does not seize a case then any follow up can be arbitrarily allocated to whatever judge is available. Given the long acrimonious history of this file continuing with the same judge, who is already very familiar with the history and players, just makes sense.

[Burnaby49]

Time to revisit Gordon Watson. Way back, in 2013 in this discussion, I posted the following;

Watson comes across as a grade A anti-government crank who's found a world where he feels comfortable and important. Unfortunately that world, as Mowe has shown, involves immense amount of court resources spent on entirely meritless cases. So the various levels of government are spending huge amounts of money, and the very limited time of backed-up courts, in order to feed his Narcissistic ego.

In August 2015 I wrote;

If you check out the prior entries in this discussion he comes across as a ranting crank. Well he's shifted somewhat to become (perhaps he always was) a total jerk. He has two sisters and a brother. All but one sister alienated from him by the time the mother died and she seems cut from the same cloth as him. She also moved into the house and the court, in a prior hearing, removed her as co-executor. He wasn't exactly his mother's favorite either, she cut him out of the estate, leaving him nothing and bequeathing what would have been his one-quarter share in the estate to his son who also seemed estranged from him. Gordon had a solution to that, he claimed that the 25% interest in the estate wasn't really bequeathed to his son, mom had intended it as a constructive trust with Gordon as the beneficiary. The only problem that Gordon had convincing anyone with this argument is that there was no evidence whatever, apart from Gordon's always fertile imagination, showing the existence of a trust and the will was quite specific that the interest went to Gordon's son.

And;

So all Gordon had left for support, apart from getting a job, was to squat and try and extort money from the family to induce him to leave. Sorry, did I say extort? What I of course meant was to obtain fair compensation for the cost of relocating and to cover the value of assets he would have to leave behind, specifically a tree he'd apparently planted. He needed significant compensation because he planned to move to Vancouver Island and take another shot at starting a raw milk farm The man has a dream! But he had another good reason why he was entitled to significant compensation. Thanks to him the property (now apparently his "homestead") had gone up in value by half a million dollars and he felt that he should be rewarded for this.

Backstory is an inheritance and a dead broke Gordon who wanted money. Gordon's mom had four children. She died and left a one quarter portion of the estate to each of three of the now adult children and the other quarter went to Gordon's son. Gordon was left right out of the loop. So Gordon went to court and started suing his family for what he thought was rightfully his. However the chickens have come home to roost for Gordon, both in respect to his mother's estate and his ability to continue litigating the case. He's finally, after years of litigation, been cut out of the estate by the courts.

We'll start with a review of Gordon's Quatloos-reported activities. Hilfskreuzer Möwe Kicked off the discussion with an August 5, 2013 posting that said, in part;

So while researching one of my remaining Canadian gurus I stumbled across a rather interesting person who forms the current case study: Gordon Stephen Watson. Watson has a very lengthy and varied history with the Canadian courts.

He started out as an anti-abortion activist, and that led to whole mess of reported caselaw. I will only list these for reference purposes:

Then a long, long posting of Watson's endless litigation. He loves being in court. Watson tried to start a raw milk farm, he's apparently an fanatic about raw milk. However he was shut down by the government because of health concerns, no pasteurization, no dairy. Additionally Canada's communist style farm supply system requires that you have a government issued diary quota to produce milk and Gordon didn't have one. But he still had a dream, to start a new raw milk farm. However he had no money and he wanted an inheritance from his mother's estate to fund it. Problem was his mother, no doubt for good reason, didn't leave him anything. She'd had four children and three of them got a quarter of the estate each. You can guess which of the four didn't. Gordon's quarter went down to his son instead.

The only real asset in the estate was the family home that Gordon moved into and wouldn't leave. So litigation ensued and, by May 2014, Gordon was apparently out of the house (by court order) and the court had approved sale. And that's where things stood when I made my last posting in this discussion over three years ago. But they haven't been peaceful productive years for the family, Gordon didn't leave the house and he kept litigating and litigating and litigating. He wanted his share. The fact that his son got it instead of him? No problem. Mom had really left it to him in a constructive trust with the son as executor and Gordon as beneficiary! Problem was that the only evidence that Gordon had for this was whatever he pulled out his ass. He said that he'd suggested this arrangement to mom and she'd agreed to it but she'd apparently forgotten to mention this in her will or elsewhere. Mothers! As Gordon testified in one of the proceedings;

[12] At various times, Gordon took the position that his son Aaron’s share of the estate was held in trust for him. According to Gordon, since he was a political activist who had advanced various contentious causes over the years, he had persuaded his mother to put his share of the estate into his son Aaron’s name.

As anyone with an IQ over basic sentient comprehension will realize this explanation of why he requested that the money be put in trust made no sense whatever. So what if he was a political activist? British Columbia is full of them. Aaron, for one, wasn't onboard with the trust nonsense. He wanted his share.

Anyhow, while the estate litigation is not to point on a Quatloos basis I thought I'd bring Gordon's saga for his fair share up to date with two recent cases that have stomped him flat. First this one;

Watson v. Watson,
2017 BCCA 331
http://canlii.ca/t/h6djh

This is an appeal from a case that Gordon lost in 2016. You can read that case here;

Watson v. Strong
2016 BCSC 988
http://canlii.ca/t/grx2q

I won't go into details on the 2016 case. Two years after Gordon was ordered out of the house he was still there and refusing to move. And as agressively litigious as ever;

[39] In late January 2015, Mr. Watson circulated a letter to former neighbours in which he outlined alleged criminal activity involving the petitioner and “his shyster enabler” which was a reference to the petitioner’s counsel “looting the Estate of hundreds of thousands of dollars”. Reference is also made to having “hard evidence of conspiracy to commit indictable offences including.perjury.obstruct/pervert justice” and “plenty of hard evidence to go before a Justice, with a private information of criminal charges”.

[40] Furthermore, during submissions on April 28, 2016, Mr. Gordon Watson stated that he now believes he is close to having sufficient evidence to have the petitioner prosecuted for fraud. There was not a shred of evidence before me to substantiate this accusation. Gordon Watson’s letter to the court advising of his non-attendance today is further indication of his conduct since the order for special costs was made.

So Gordon got his ass kicked yet again;

[55] The final issue relates to Mr. Gordon Watson’s applications for “Declarations of Right” that he is a beneficiary of the Estate, or in the alternative, that he is a ”person of interest” in the Estate and that a constructive trust exists between him and his son, Aaron Watson “for the share of the inheritance allocated to him” in the Estate. During submissions, Mr. Watson referred to an implied trust as opposed to a constructive trust.

[56] These applications can be disposed of on the basis that they are dismissed since Mr. Watson has not personally served his son Aaron Watson. That is essential in this case since the basis of the relief sought is that his son’s 25% interest in the Estate is held in trust for him.

[57] The Deceased passed away in 2010 and Mr. Gordon Watson’s conduct over the past number of years, including occupying the Property, is predicated on his alleged interest in the Estate, being the beneficiary of Aaron Watson’s 25% interest.

[58] And yet during submissions, Mr. Watson stated that he would never take legal proceedings against his son. He also took no steps to claim an interest or attach the $50,000 interim distribution made to Aaron Watson in November 2015. This is all entirely inconsistent with a bona fides assertion of a right to an interest in the Estate.

[59] Accordingly, I conclude that Gordon Watson has in effect abandoned his claim to any interest in the Estate. That being the case, he is not entitled to notice of any further applications relating to the Estate, including the passing of the petitioner’s accounts, and has no standing at the Registrar’s hearing when those accounts are passed. He also does not have to be provided with a copy of the informal interim accounts to which I referred above.

So on to the appeal of this decision. The appeal summary tells the story;

Appeal from an order in estate litigation dealing with the assessment of special costs, an application to remove the executor and an application for a declaration that the appellant is a beneficiary of the estate. Held: Appeal dismissed. There is no merit in any of the twenty grounds of appeal.

When there is no merit in even one of twenty grounds of appeal it's pretty obvious you have no case at all. However this was obvious from the start. The twenty grounds are listed individually. The first one was the one most critical to Gordon;

First for a Declaration of Right that I, Gordon Stephen Watson, never having been dis-inherited by the Testator, am now, and always was, a Beneficiary of the Estate of Rosamonde M Watson and also, in that I do have an interest in the property of that Estate, certainly am a Beneficiary according to the Wills Estates and Succession Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia.

The court didn't think much of Gordon's arguments;

[12] The first ground deals with the application for a declaration that Gordon Watson is a beneficiary of the estate or has an interest in the estate. As noted by Abrioux J., it was not shown that the application was personally served on Aaron Watson, a person who may be affected by the requested declaration, and it would not have been appropriate to have dealt with the application in those circumstances. Indeed, such an application was not even properly brought in the underlying proceeding. It was a proceeding brought by William Watson, as trustee, for an order for possession of the trust property. Aaron Watson was not named as a party to the proceeding and no application was made to join him as a party. There was no pleading that would have supported the declaration sought by Gordon Watson and, even if he had wanted to create such a pleading, Rule 3-4 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules permits the filing of a counterclaim only in actions commenced by way of a notice of civil claim, not in proceedings commenced by petition that have not been transferred to the trial list. In my opinion, it was not an error for Abrioux J. to have dismissed the application.

[13] The fresh evidence that Gordon Watson has sought to introduce on this appeal does not overcome these defects and is not admissible because it would not have affected the outcome of the application before Abrioiux J.

Gordon seemed absolutely obsessed with getting his brother kicked out as executor;

[17] The fourth through ninth grounds and eleventh through seventeenth grounds all relate to the application for the removal of William Watson as executor of the estate. Apart from the obstacles that the application was not properly brought in this proceeding and that Gordon Watson was not a beneficiary of the estate and had no standing to bring the application, the finding of fact by Abrioux J. that there was no proven conduct warranting the removal of the executor is entitled to deference, and can only be set aside if he made a palpable and overriding error. I am not persuaded that the judge made any such error.

So, like every decision in Gordon's quest to get his hands on some of his mother's money, it was a disaster for him. But not as great as the disaster to come when Gordon became totally unhinged in this recent case.

Watson v Strong
2018 BCSC 692
http://canlii.ca/t/hrrjd

By this time Gordon was out and the house sold. Gordon had moved to Victoria, my home town. He commenced an action against the estate, yet again, in Victoria. So his brother, as executor, started yet another action here in Vancouver to quash the Victoria action.

[30] Rick submits that the only impediment to the estate being wound up and the final passing of accounts are the delays caused by Gordon’s conduct, which includes pursuing his appeal and commencing the Victoria action. In his counsel’s words, “to get to the finishing line we need the Victoria action dismissed and no further proceedings brought against the estate”.

As for what Gordon wanted in the Victoria action;

[31] The Victoria action advances various heads of relief, all of which are related to the estate and its administration, including:

(a) unspecified damages against the defendants for “distress” and “alienation of affection”, among other things (para. 42);

(b) an order requiring the Land Title Office to “revoke” the transfer of the Property ordered by Abrioux J. in the estate litigation as a result of “criminal conspiracy” and “fraudulent conversion” allegedly perpetrated by the defendants (para. 43);

(c) damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 to be paid into the estate by the defendants and Michael Geldert (as an “accomplice”) jointly and severally for “criminal conspiracy to perpetrate Fraud upon the court” and “deliberately misusing the powers and resources at the disposal of the office of Executor” allegedly perpetrated by the defendants (para. 44);
(d) unspecified damages in favour of the estate for “funds of the Estate which were wasted by William F. Watson, as he fomented litigation motivated by his own mendacity” (para. 45);

(e) an order that the Canada Revenue Agency perform a “full accounting” of the estate as a result of conspiracy to “commit tax evasion” allegedly perpetrated by the defendants (para. 46);
(f) unspecified damages apparently relating to wrongfully retaining Michael Geldert as counsel (para. 47);

(g) “exemplary” damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 payable to the plaintiff and Marian Strong, the plaintiff’s sister (a non-party to this proceeding) for “squandering” Estate assets (para. 48);

(h) damages against the defendants for allegedly “mis-managing” the office of executor of the estate and in particular failing to obtain the best price for the Property (para. 49);

(i) unspecified damages against the defendants for alleged contravention of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act, “criminal conspiracy” and “criminal negligence” among other things respecting the “rigged” sale of the Property to the purchaser, 0831167 BC Ltd. (para. 50);

(j) punitive damages against the defendant and Michael Geldert for “obstruction of justice” (paras. 51–52);
(k) punitive damages against Michael Geldert for “obstruction of justice” on account of “perjury” (paras. 53–55);

(l) damages against the defendants for criminal mail theft (s. 356 of the Criminal Code) payable “in the form of a gold Maple Leaf coin uttered by the Royal Mint” (para. 56);

(m) punitive damages against the defendant and Michael Geldert (as an “accomplice”) for “extortion” (para. 57); and

(n) damages for “tortious interference” against the defendants for allegedly requesting that certain utility providers cease service to the Property which was “a place in which I was then living, with winter coming on, which was an attempt to deny me the necessities of life” (paras. 58–59)

And how does Gordon intend to prove these claims?

[35] He argued that not all of his claims in the Victoria action necessarily relate to Rick’s actions qua executor. He stated in his submissions that he intends to have the action proceed before a jury and that he will have the proof that there has been a fraud perpetrated on the court and the beneficiaries by Rick, his former counsel, and perhaps the real estate agent involved in the sale of the Property.

[36] In part, Gordon alleges that he will garner the required evidence to prove to a jury that the Property was purchased by individuals involved in organized crime who used funds laundered through B.C. casinos. There was not a shred of evidence before the court on these applications in that regard, nor is that pleaded in the Amended NOCC.

Judge wasn't buying it;

[41] In my view, the Victoria action should be dismissed not only pursuant to R. 9-5(1)(b) and (d), but also (a) in that it discloses no reasonable claim and is bound to fail.

[43] As was the case in I.J., I am of the view that there is no basis for providing Gordon with the opportunity to articulate his claims against Rick and perhaps others.

[44] Accordingly, the Victoria Action is dismissed with costs to Rick. It follows that Gordon’s application for leave to file a Further Amended NOCC is dismissed.

But what about Gordon's endless all-consuming appetite for yet more and more litigation? The judge imposed a time-sensitive, case-specific, quasi-vexatious litigant status on Gordon;

[56] The orders will be as follows:

(a) the respondent, Gordon Watson, is hereby restrained and enjoined from instituting any legal proceeding in this Court against the petitioner William Frederick Watson (Rick Watson), Theresa Watson, the estate, the petitioner’s current or former counsel, and any parties, including real estate agents involved in the sale of the Property without leave of the court (the “leave application”);

But pluck and determination will find a way. And Gordon has nothing if not determination.

[grixit]

Wow. I'm surprised that Gordon hasn't been sanctioned for costs.

But in any case, it's too bad that in his plans to move to Vancouver Island, he never hooked up with any of the various sovcit geniuses that have also sojourned there. They could have made millions by creating a farm on aboriginal lands with non citizen cows, which are not subject to agricultural and health regulations.

[Burnaby49]

Wow. I'm surprised that Gordon hasn't been sanctioned for costs.

But in any case, it's too bad that in his plans to move to Vancouver Island, he never hooked up with any of the various sovcit geniuses that have also sojourned there. They could have made millions by creating a farm on aboriginal lands with non citizen cows, which are not subject to agricultural and health regulations.

Perhaps you've forgotten the most salient characteristic of Dean Kory, our most prominent Vancouver Island sovereign. When we started Dean's discussion almost five years ago he was living in Ontario, unemployed, apparently totally unwilling to do any type of gainful employment, and incessantly demanding welfare. Today he's living in British Columbia, unemployed, apparently totally unwilling to do any type of gainful employment, and incessantly demanding welfare. The gap in between? Exactly the same.

Gordon Watson is, on the evidence, willing to work if it is employment of his chosing. He actually started and operated a raw milk dairy farm until the government shut him down. So what does he have to gain by hooking up with Dean? Dean's only demonstrated expertise is an impressive ability to get into immediate and relentless conflict with the local police force anywhere he choses to live. Not quite what I think Gordon wants in a partner.

[Hercule Parrot]

But pluck and determination will find a way. And Gordon has nothing if not determination.

More like obsessive malice and greed, it seems to me.