:charles-norman: holmes, OPCA fighter for Justice! And cash.

[Burnaby49]

I'm turning into the go-to guy to act as an intermediary for individuals who find Canadian west-coast cases of interest to Quatloos but are apparently too shy to post directly. In fact, thanks to the suggestions of other parties, I anticipate spending much of this week in a Quatloosian court marathon. I currently plan to sit though three separate hearings. First at bat is Charles Norman Holmes v. various levels of government on Wednesday (more on Charles below). Friday is Chief Rock's day of reckoning with the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia. Thursday is one I may not report on depending on arguments. It is a case referred to me that involves family court issues. Normally Quatloos wants nothing to do with the detritus of failed relationships however, as Mowe has pointed out, OPCA adherents are apparently moving past their usual obsessions into more personal areas like family court matters and the defendant in this one is a local OPCA type. Since he might try and bring the unique OPCA brand of crazy into family court I plan to be there to check it out. If he goes all Freeman/OPCA I'll report back. I know, I know, OPCA is Mowe's baby, but the guy can't be everywhere.

On to Charles! I've been sent a bunch of court documents but I can't link to them since they are not posted on the net and, if they are available through a court search, I'm too incompetent to find them. So I'll laboriously type out the relevant portions. Charles has issues with the Canada Revenue Agency about the ways they are trying to trammel on his personal freedoms. You know, like trying to collect tax and refusing to cash out his secret government trust. So, deciding that the best defense is an offense he's off and running with a lawsuit against the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia. All he wants is to be left alone, have $5,000,000 of assessed taxes forgiven, and $43,000,000 from the two governments to compensate for hurt feelings. He's tried before, this is his seventh action against the federal government so far this year. The prior six were dismissed as scandalous, vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of process but Lucky Seven is sure to do the trick. To be fair he's becoming far more reasonable. Previously he apparently wanted $100,000,000 in damages but he's decided to moderate his demands.

So who is Charles Norman Holmes? Well, in his own words in his Notice of Application for his court hearing he is;

3. I am registered holder of a Notice of Live Birth security # 2108 (printed by the Canada Bank Note Company) I, through the private grantor; CHARLES N HOLMES TRUST T-30-7543-18, am the lawful secured party creditor with perfected claim to the patrimony and value therein of the CHARLES NORMAN HOLMES ESTATE including the expressed transfer of equity and management to the related Government of Canada accounts.

He owns something called Conscious Planet Enterprises Solutions Ltd. and Dharma Distributors Ltd. I'm too lazy to look them up. Anyone interested in his background can check out these links;

http://lighttransitionsradio.com/charle ... mmunities/

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/charles-nor ... 17/9b5/784

So what's his beef? Well, we find ill treatment by his own government and trustees abounding. Mainly they want him to pay tax that he denies owing because he has opted out of the whole tax thing, and (Bernie Yankson take note!), he wants the federal government to finally cash out his secret trust account;

3. . . . . . The Public Servant trustees have failed to perform for the beneficiary and are in breach of trust under Section 336 of the CCA. I have had illegal garnishment of accounts by CRA agents, dishonoured payments and improper ledgering of accounts by CRA, Justice Department, Receiver General and other Government agents, refunds have been withheld and I have not been provided my Canadian stock certificates as requested. I have demanded may times that CRA answer my questions and prove that I am the owner of the SIN account and a public servant employee with taxable income

4. I have lawful excuse (Section 126 of the CCC) as a human being with intrinsic rights by my unrebutted Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right and recognition (a certified copy shall be submitted with this application or may be summoned from public record into court by contacting the International Notary: Hajistahenhway . . . ). Unless otherwise specified, I deny consent to be recognized as a juridical/legal person before the law.

In short;

The parties being sued in regards to the issues at hand are the men and women who represent HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA and are remunerated as public servant fiduciary trustee employees and who failed to perform, are in breach of trust and/or failed to serve me as the beneficiary.

Note that International Notary: Hajistahenhway referenced above is none other than our own Chief Rock Sino General:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9377&p=163613&hili ... ay#p163613

No doubt this "Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right and recognition" is the kind of document that has the British Columbia notaries in a snit about the Chief. However they are fighting the big boys when they go after an International Notary.

The SIN account he is referring to is his Social Insurance Number, a general ID number used by the federal government to, amongst other things, identify payments to taxpayers.

Other indignities have been heaped upon him;

c. My Statement of Claim into Vancouver Federal Court file # T-178-13 for an appropriation for my living expenses and damages from withheld access to the patrimony/credit held in trust for me was dismissed without a hearing and due process of law. I have been commercially injured.

In addition to the money there is the issue of slavery;

2. I have been stripped of my intrinsic rights and forced into involuntary servitude as a recognized Canadian Citizen/Juridical personality. Her majesty the Queen in Right of Canada the corporation, has usurped power and is in defacto possession of the sovereign power and calling itself Canada.

Powerful stuff, grave injustices crying to the heavens for redress. So what could possibly make Charles whole again after this vile mistreatment? Well, money. He wants the government to honour his Private Bond #BNDS-28031963840CNH-7, reg #RW 652 445 205 CA for $10,000,000. He also wants the government to finally process the CHARLES N HOLMES TRUST T3 returns and pay him the $33,000,000 sitting in his private trust. The federal government of Canada, in its response, says he wants a total of over $100,000,000 but I don't see that in the documents I have. In addition he wants to be left alone;

1. Removal of all inferences to me as the juridical/corporate personality CHARLES NORMAN HOLMES et als and that I be recognized by all Canada government agencies, unless otherwise stated, under common law as :charles-norman: holmes, a human being with intrinsic rights and with lawful excuse as per my Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights attached, that I am exempt from levy, and that I use government ID for convenience sake only and usage does not create enactment or citizenship joinder.

He cites a lot of cases that support his position but they are, unfortunately, not entirely persuasive. As an example he wants the court to stop the federal government from trying to seize assets and garnishee amounts to satisfy his $5,000,000 or so in taxes owing. He cites Optical Recording Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen (FCC T-7392-86). On the face of it a slam-dunk for Charles. A Federal Court of Canada judge went ballistic over reprehensible CRA actions to collect taxes owing, quashed all actions against the taxpayer and prohibited the Crown from further collection proceedings. The judge said things like;

"The respondents, by illegal abuse of authority and false inducements, are estopped from taking any benefit from their sudden garnishments of the applicant's accounts. They are justly estopped even in publicly law and even though although the benefit taken is not for personal gain but for the public purse . . . . the Minister cannot be permitted to put a taxpayer to prejudicial disadvantage by invocation of illegal administrative means of the Minister's own invention. . . The actions of the Minister are so infected with errors of law, illegal conduct, excess of jurisdiction and unfair pouncing . . . that those impugned decisions and acts which affect the applicant adversely ought all, in justice, to be quashed."

A decision from the Federal Court of Canada is strong stuff as precedent since only the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme court of Canada are higher level. Unfortunately Charles failed to mention in his Notice of Application that this decision was in fact appealed to the Federal court of Appeal and was totally reversed on the basis that the Federal Court judge had absolutely no authority to make it. He was essentially nullifying a valid assessment and it was not within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to grant such a remedy. I wonder if the Crown attorneys will mention that awkward fact.

The cowardly government agents, rather than face Charles' grievance four-square on their merits, are instead arguing that his claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is nonsensical and embarrassing, is frivolous and vexatious, and is an abuse of process. Just because they have won on this basis six times in a row they seem to be getting lazy.

[notorial dissent]

I would say our Mr Holmes has a number of issues, all of them "scandalous, vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of process" to quote the judge. You know what they say, "If at first you don't succeed, fail fail again!", of which he would seem to be a firm believer. I think we are looking at No. 8??? at this point.

Canadian Stock certificates???

I would say your candidate is a purveyor of fine and true sovrun jibber jabber.

I am betting that the Chief will be a no show at the hearing, since he doesn't recognize their authority, why should he show up? And once again thank you for your efforts.

If the family matter delves in to the murky goo, it could get interesting despite the unfortunate reason for the hearing. Some of the sovrun nonsense I've heard here is even further out there than the regular variety, or they may just argue the whole no authority thing.

Have fun on you adventures, and have one at your favorite pub for me, I have a feeling after all that you'll need one or several.

[Burnaby49]

I would say our Mr Holmes has a number of issues, all of them "scandalous, vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of process" to quote the judge. You know what they say, "If at first you don't succeed, fail fail again!", of which he would seem to be a firm believer. I think we are looking at No. 8??? at this point.

Canadian Stock certificates???

I would say your candidate is a purveyor of fine and true sovrun jibber jabber.

I am betting that the Chief will be a no show at the hearing, since he doesn't recognize their authority, why should he show up? And once again thank you for your efforts.

If the family matter delves in to the murky goo, it could get interesting despite the unfortunate reason for the hearing. Some of the sovrun nonsense I've heard here is even further out there than the regular variety, or they may just argue the whole no authority thing.

Have fun on you adventures, and have one at your favorite pub for me, I have a feeling after all that you'll need one or several.

Keep in mind that Meads v. Meads, Canada's overwhelmingly detailed precedent decision for all things OPCA related, was a family dispute to do with a father trying to opt out of child support. So Family Court has more potential than you might think.

While the Chief showing up would provide me with some solid entertainment I also think it unlikely. However I'll get to see our new poster, Ron Usher, in action.

Holmes' hearing is in New Westminster, not much opportunity for a decent beer there. However the next two are right in downtown Vancouver, a hop skip and jump away from the Railway Club.

[grixit]

We should give Burnaby the tile "Kookeral Anthropologist".

[grixit]

I don't think the Rock 'em Sock 'em Robot will show up on behalf of anyone who called him an "international notary", That would weaken his assertion that he has never claimed to be a notary at all.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Thanks for the introduction to Chuck, Burnaby49! I did a minimal amount of online investigation and located a book he has written:

• Conscious Nutrition and the Essentials of Hemp
  By Charles Holmes
  (http://www.scribd.com/doc/9703927/Conscious-Nutrition)

99 pages about the miracles of marijuana. I hope someone has sent Mr. Ream a link...

I didn't get too far into it, the personal testimonial left me ready for some other entertainment alternatives.

In my early 20s, my real health journey began following by years of discomfort and aggravation due to allergies, severe acne, bowel issues and constipation.

...

I had been severely constipated (including some rectal bleeding) for many years and I soon discovered that this was not normal. I discovered a pre-cancerous blockage in my colon that would likely have required surgery and removal of part of my large intestine if it had gone untreated. After 3 or 4 colonics (colon fushing with water), I watched in horror as black, chunky, rope-like, putrefying, fowl smelling, nuclear waste matter was ejected from my body. For those of you who have not seen the pictures in Bernard Jensen’s book, Tissue Cleansing Through Bowel Management, I highly recommend it. Your life will never be the same. When I saw those pictures, I felt sympathetic toward the people in the pictures because, that could never happen to me, could it?

charles-norman: holmes - the Man with the Bird-Scented Nuclear Butt.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Thanks for that image Mowe. Now, because of Mowe's diligent digging, I have Charles' vivid disclosure front and foremost in my visual processing while The Flintstones theme replays in my brain incessantly, over, and over, and over . . . .

I feverently hope that Charles steers clear of that topic at court tomorrow. What interests me, as an ex tax guy, is what Charles does for a living that resulted in outstanding taxes of $4,707,506.89 assessed against him for the 2006 to 2009 tax years. In addition his corporations and wife are on the hook for $745,000 of GST/HST (unremitted sales tax for you Americans). The Crown has recovered $95,268 through seizures that Charles wants back but the bulk is still outstanding. However, in Charles' world, it must have been somehow already collected because he is demanding a return of $5,000,000 he claims the CRA has already taken from him.

I'm surprised that the Crown has not as yet requested an order to have Charles declared a vexatious litigant. He's as much a hopeless loser as Bernard Yankson and, similar to Bernard, has apparently lost all of his cases on an identical set of arguments. There is nothing in the documents that I have to indicate that the Crown will go the vexatious litigant route this time either.

[notorial dissent]

I think Mr Holmes must have either smoked, absorbed, or enemaed too much of his favorite product over time.

Brain bleach someone stat!!!

[Burnaby49]

One point I neglected to mention in my earlier postings. Wednesday's hearing will be at the New Westminster Provincial Courthouse. Convenient for me but not necessarily for Holmes, he seems to have had some prior unfortunate misunderstandings there which he was thoughtful enough to include into his Notice of Application just in case the court had forgotten. Part 1b of his Statment of Facts in the Application reads:

I have been coerced and tricked into being recognized as a juridical person in New Westminster Supreme Court case #143476 and when I demanded the master/administrator produce his Oath of Office, and to answer my questions in regards to evidence and to meet my accuser or at least see an affidavit from the Plaintiff, he had Sheriffs escort me out of the building. My intrinsic rights were stripped away, I was denied due process of law and a proper hearing. I have been commercially injured.

Reading between the lines of his little adventure in demanding his rights I'm assuming that the court might just think it prudent to put on a little extra security for his hearing. Seems to be par for the course with the cases I'm attending.

[notorial dissent]

I think, that if he thinks his rights have been stripped away before now, that he is in for one heck of a rude surprise in the not too distant future.

[Burnaby49]

Triage time. I foolishly boasted in a prior post that I was going to do a Quatloosian triathlon and attend three different hearings in three days. That is no longer possible. I attended :charles "just call me Charlie"-norman: holmes' day in court today however the hearing (If you call the shambles I attended a hearing, Judge did his best but see below) was adjourned after arguments with the decision to be given at 10AM tomorrow. So tomorrow I can either go to New Westminster for the decision or go to downtown Vancouver to hear the family court matter. I've decided on New Westminster so I can finish at least one story. I'll still be at the Chief Rock Sino General's hearing on Friday.

The prologue to the hearing was a lot of wasted time. Hearing was slated for 10AM. Turned out that while Charlie was still scheduled for 10 there was no assigned courtroom. I ended up at Trial Division Scheduling Office, a glass panel the end of a narrow corridor filled with a lot of people in the same boat. I was told that this was the Trial Division Overflow Court. Made Charlie sound like a plugged toilet in need of repair. Perhaps an appropriate simile given Mowe's excerpt from Charlie's writing. They was a shortage of judges and they were scrabbling to set up hearings on a bunch of assigned cases. Maybe we would get a judge, maybe we wouldn't, come back at 10:30. While waiting I chatted with the Crown Counsel for the Province of British Columbia. Turns out he has been following this discussion thread and the Chief Rock Sino General thread! He was aware of the Bernard Yankson decision but not that I had written it up so here is the link for him;

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9597#p162387

Anyhow, went back at 10:30 and found the case slated for a hearing at 2:00. Having three hours to kill in New Westminster is a trial in itself but I managed. Just before the hearing started Charlie asked me if we knew each other. Seems he remembered me from the Yankson hearing. Shows my powers of observation that I hadn't noticed him although he sat right in front of me beside Chief Rock Sino General. Charlie had a small but enthusiastic set of supporters. One burly Sheriff in attendance sitting near Charlie. The hearing started with the judge advising us he was not up to speed because he had only been assigned the case at noon so hadn't read all the documentation.

Problems immediately. Faithful readers of the Yankson chronicles know that Bernard would not enter the court because the case name was Bernard Yankson, the name of a dead man. Charlie, while willing to enter court, had a similar problem. He refused to be recognized as the plaintiff because the plaintiff was Charles Norman Holmes and that was the Trade Name of a "person" who was a Corporate Entity. He was :charles-norman: holmes, who was not a person as defined in any legal statute but a human being with inalienable rights who was willing to act as the advocate for the corporation. Judge wasn't buying it. He said (paraphrasing) that a person by the name of Charles Norman Holmes had coughed up this lawsuit and if that person wasn't in court as the plaintiff then there was no trial. The judge told Charlie he was either a person or he wasn't. If he wasn't then he couldn't be the plaintiff and there was no case. Charlie really, really didn't want to be called the plaintiff or a person, he wanted everybody to concede he was the advocate and a human being with inalienable rights. We heard the phrase "a human being with inalienable rights" A LOT during the hearing. Charlie stuffed it into almost every sentence like a magic talisman. He conceded, finally, that he was willing to agree to be Charles Norman Holmes for the purpose of the hearing but did not want the judge calling him that corporate name. He said "just call me Charlie". Judge declined and said he would call him Mr. Holmes. However I'm taking it as an invitation to call him Charlie.

The case being heard was a set of applications by the Federal and Provincial governments to have Charlie's lawsuit struck as being vexatious and an abuse of process and, from the province, a request that Charlie be deemed a vexatious litigant. Charlie's lawsuit was essentially what I've reported prior, no income tax payable ever, a refund of the phantom taxes he'd had seized, a huge boatload of cash for having trampled on his human rights, and a declaration by the court that Canada's laws only applied to him to the extent that he personally deemed them applicable. The judge explained to Charlie that he was not in court today to discuss the merits of his case against the Crown but to answer the applications to strike. Since these were the Crown's applications the Crown counsels were supposed to speak first to explain the basis of their arguments with rebuttal from Charlie. Charlie wasn't having any of that! As a human being with inalienable rights he demanded the right to speak first and the Crown, quite wisely, was happy to let him. Time for a comment from me on the overall proceedings. I had a large notebook and I wrote as fast as I could but Charlie overwhelmed me. Once Charlie started it was like a dam bursting with me trying to record the flood as it swept me away. Statutes beyond counting! A recital of every clause in the Canadian Constitution! The UN Declaration of Human Rights! All of them supported, no, demanded, that Charlie's rights as a human being with inalienable rights be respected so that he got his $100,000,000. My notes say "long rambling opening statement of general blather", sounds about right sitting here now.

At one point the judge asked Charlie if he agreed he was subject to the laws of Canada and British Columbia or not. Charlie agreed that he was but with the qualifier "as long as they don't conflict with my inalienable human rights". Judge asked him question again "to make it clear" and Charlie replied "Absolutely". Judge wanted Charlie to understand that he couldn't have it both ways, pursuing a case in a court of law while denying that the laws the court upheld did not apply to him. The judge returned to this point at the end of the hearing. The judge kept going back to the issue of who was addressing him because he said that Charlie calling himself :charles-norman: holmes while "Charles Norman Holmes", the name on the case documents, was only a corporate trade name seemed complete nonsense to him. Charlie told the judge he just didn't understand the fine details of the law pertaining to "person" and "human being" and suggested the court refresh its knowledge on the topic with a review of the Interpretation Act. He did a lot of telling the judge his understanding of law was deficient. Not, in my opinion, a good tactic.

At this point (I think, we were all over the map) we got down to Charlie's main argument. Here is my understanding of what he was arguing, not necessarily what he actually explicitly said. The Income Tax Act, Part I, subparagraph 2(1), states: "An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year." This is why Charlie does not want to be a person. He kept repeating that while the word "person" is in the Income Tax Act the term "human being" is not. Therefore, as a human being rather than a person, he was not subject to tax. Additionally. somewhere in the Act, it says that "a person" includes a corporation. He told the judge that this meant that only corporations were persons so if Charles Norman Holmes (that other guy) was a person then CNH was a corporation. Judge said the word "includes" implies an addition too something. Charles said the judge was wrong, the word "includes" in a definition means "includes only" so only corporations were persons and therefore subject to income tax, not human beings like charles-norman: holmes.

Then, suddenly, Charles won! At least within the reality enclosed within his cranium he did. The judge apparently agreed that Charles was a human being along with being a person. Charles immediately responded "So you've agreed that I'm a human being with inalienable rights". He said thejudge couldn't refute his agreement because "it's on the record". Judge's response was "I didn't say that, I just said you are human, we all are" but as far as Charlie was concerned the case had been conceded because the judge had agreed that "inalienable human rights", as defined by Charlie, applied at trial as a basis in law.

In any case this was a matter of commercial private contract law, not statute law. Charlie had a "private contract" with the Crown because they had not rebutted his claims in time thereby agreeing to his terms. It wasn't that Charlie was being unreasonable. While the Crown had no case Charlie was willing to negotiate, at least to some extent, the $100,000,000 he was owed, but he was getting no good faith responses from the Crown. A comment here about the cross-fertilization of OPCA beliefs. Charlie is an acquaintance of Chief Rock Sino General and, as related in a prior post, the Chief "notarized" at least some of the documents he submitted in this case. The Chief is big on the magic of unilateral contracts so I'm assuming that is where Charlie got this little idea.

Judge asked Charlie if everybody had a secret trust with $33,000,000 in it. Charlie said yes but most people didn't know their rights or the law so they couldn't get at it but he could if justice was served here today. So judge asked, if everyone in Canada was owed 33Mil by the Canadian government, who paid for it? Not Charlie's concern, he was there for justice not accounting. In addition he wanted $350 per day for every day of his life from the day of his birth to present. This was apparently the per diem cost to the government of Canada government to keep federal prisoners imprisoned and Charlie saw no reason why, if prisoners were getting it, he wasn't entitled to it also.

Charlie had other argument, many others, but you get the idea. One thing that seemed to concern the courts was some comment somewhere in Charlie's documents that if the various government officials, including the courts, did not give him his rights as he understood them he would have to take action against them. So the judge asked, if you don't get what you want today, what are you going to do? Charlie conceded that was a good question but he had no answer at present.

Then it was the Crown's turn but before they could speak Charlie jumped up and declared an objection. The judge said "to what? They haven't said anything yet". Charlie said it was an unnecessary waste of time for the Crown to present arguments because anything they said was irrelevant and hearsay so anything the Crown said was just "entertainment". He said that the two Crown attorneys had no standing to be at court acting against him because they had not been personally injured by his actions and only parties who could identify themselves as having suffered personal injury from Charle's actions could actually be present as counsel at trial. In addition he had appointed both counsels as his trustee in respect to his CRA trust and they were in breach of their fiduciary duty by acting against his wishes.

The judge, I supposed not being as well versed in the law as Charlie, allowed the Crown to present arguments anyways, interrupted constantly by eruptions from Charlie who was getting angry. Crown kept it short and to the point just repeating the various arguments in their Application to Strike with a constant background chorus of "Objection" from Charlie.

By this time Charlie was getting frustrated and angry at the obtuseness of the court. Asking all these pointless questions about laws and persons when the court's obvious job was to recognize and respond to the obvious injustices faced by the human being of inalienable rights! He dismissed the nit-picking arguments by the Crown that the Provincial Court of British Columbia had no jurisdiction over his tax matters, that these issues belonged to the exclusive jurisdiction of Tax Court and the Federal Court. Charlie made a good rebuttal to that. He'd been to the Federal court six times to get the justice he deserved and been dismissed without a hearing on every single occasion. So he had no choice but to come to the Provincial Court for justice and redress. He kept telling the Crown to stop talking since the lawyers had no standing and in any case, since they were his trustees, anything adverse they said in respect to his position was inadmissible. He said the whole case was a waste of his time and money since he was right. He pulled out a big package, must have been four or five inches thick, wrapped for delivery, and whacked it on the table telling the court to look at the huge wad of documents the Crown had sent him, totally irrelevant, and how much money did the Crown waste preparing it? The judge said that was the Crown's court submissions and asked "You didn't even read it?". Charlie got indignant! Why would I read it? It was addressed to the corporation Charles Norman Holmes. What had that got to do with the human being plaintiff :charles-norman: holmes, with intrinsic rights, stading here in court?

It was getting late and the judge said he was adjourning with a decision at ten tomorrow morning. In closing the judge told Charlie that he had agreed that he was subject to the laws of Canada and therefore bound by any decision the court made. Charlie went back to yes, but he was subject only to laws that conformed to his inalienable human rights. The judge told Charlie to consider two points. If the court agreed with the Crown and dismissed the case what was Charlie going to do? And if the Court deemed Charlie a vexatious litigant what was Charlie going to do? Then Charlie went after the judge, demanding the judge give Charlie his full name. The judge said "I'm the judge". Charlie warned the judge that he was in breach of paragraph 55 of some statute because he was now also declared to be one of Charlie's trustees and, under that paragraph, the judge/trustee was in breach of the law if he didn't give his name on demand. Apparently Charlie, as a beneficiary of the trust, had the right to have his trustees legally identified. Charlie told the Sheriff that he was a legal witness to the refusal of his trustee to identify himself and that we onlookers (including me!) were also witness to this violation of Charlie's rights.

His supporters obviously had a different take on proceedings than I did. After the adjournment it was high fives and hugs all round in the lobby. I'd say they were jubilant. "When you told the judge you said NO to Revenue Canada,, you weren't going to contract with them, he didn't know what to say". I can't argue that. I'd bet there is more than one Sheriff in the courtroom tomorrow morning.

I was sitting in the lobby scribbling away trying to catch up when Charlie, passing by. asked me if I'd learned anything today. I said I'd wait on the judgment before answering that. He said there would be no judgment. There was no point since the court had no authority over him. He wanted to continue the debate with me but I'd had enough. I'll say one thing about Charlie. He seemed entirely completely sincere. He's a true believer.

After adjournment I had a quick chat with the crown counsel for the federal government. She wondered if I was going to write her up. I said I don't identify counsel by name. Turns out she had never heard of Quatloos, Bernard Yankson, or Chief Rock Sino General. So, if she is reading this, I've already provided a link to Bernard's thread and here is the one for the Chief:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9377

I realize this review is somewhat incoherent, lacking in structure and continuity, and in large part unintelligible. However that is how the hearing went and I'm not willing to spend the time and effort to make it more understandable. It was a long day.

[LordEd]

I realize this review is somewhat incoherent, lacking in structure and continuity, and in large part unintelligible. However that is how the hearing went and I'm not willing to spend the time and effort to make it more understandable. It was a long day.

I disagree. Considering the topic at hand involves those who are somewhat incoherent, lacking in structure and continuity, and in large part unintelligible, this listing of the court case captures the true essence of what you had experienced.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Burnaby49: thank you for the very enjoyable report.

... The prologue to the hearing was a lot of wasted time. Hearing was slated for 10AM. Turned out that while Charlie was still scheduled for 10 there was no assigned courtroom. I ended up at Trial Division Scheduling Office, a glass panel the end of a narrow corridor filled with a lot of people in the same boat. I was told that this was the Trial Division Overflow Court. Made Charlie sound like a plugged toilet in need of repair. Perhaps an appropriate simile given Mowe's excerpt from Charlie's writing. ...

I honestly submit we should collaborate on a proposal that the ongoing Canadian 'Access To Justice' issue be addressed by colonic irrigation.

With photos. Of you know ... black slime things ... and parasites ... and atomic bird-scented growths ...

Ahem.

I realize this review is somewhat incoherent, lacking in structure and continuity, and in large part unintelligible. However that is how the hearing went and I'm not willing to spend the time and effort to make it more understandable. It was a long day. ...

Nonsense, nonsense - you replace cause by effect. Let's mangle Shakespeare a little: you observed a tale as scripted by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Perhaps except for solicitor and own client costs for the Crown(s).

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Burnaby49: thank you for the very enjoyable report.

... The prologue to the hearing was a lot of wasted time. Hearing was slated for 10AM. Turned out that while Charlie was still scheduled for 10 there was no assigned courtroom. I ended up at Trial Division Scheduling Office, a glass panel the end of a narrow corridor filled with a lot of people in the same boat. I was told that this was the Trial Division Overflow Court. Made Charlie sound like a plugged toilet in need of repair. Perhaps an appropriate simile given Mowe's excerpt from Charlie's writing. ...

I honestly submit we should collaborate on a proposal that the ongoing Canadian 'Access To Justice' issue be addressed by colonic irrigation.

With photos. Of you know ... black slime things ... and parasites ... and atomic bird-scented growths ...

Ahem.

I realize this review is somewhat incoherent, lacking in structure and continuity, and in large part unintelligible. However that is how the hearing went and I'm not willing to spend the time and effort to make it more understandable. It was a long day. ...

Nonsense, nonsense - you replace cause by effect. Let's mangle Shakespeare a little: you observed a tale as scripted by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Perhaps except for solicitor and own client costs for the Crown(s).

SMS Möwe

Words of praise from the man who introduced us all to the concept of the the "Bird-Scented Nuclear Butt", a post that still has me involuntarily shuddering. Mowe has much to answer for.

[Burnaby49]

I realize this review is somewhat incoherent, lacking in structure and continuity, and in large part unintelligible. However that is how the hearing went and I'm not willing to spend the time and effort to make it more understandable. It was a long day.

I disagree. Considering the topic at hand involves those who are somewhat incoherent, lacking in structure and continuity, and in large part unintelligible, this listing of the court case captures the true essence of what you had experienced.

I made the post at 9:31PM Pacific time. I started it about 5PM after plenty of coffee and beating my head against the wall to re-focus my understanding of reality. The intervening four and a half hours were spent on my attempts to beat Charlie's massive tirade (you got a sample, not the full frontal assault) into some kind of coherent sense not evident in court. I felt a straight unfiltered transcript of his somewhat chaotic presentation would have been of little value to the readers. My copious notes, if transcribed as written at the time, would have made almost no sense at all, at least sense as I understand reality. So if I captured the true essence of what transpired it was not through a literal recording of actual events.

I was accused, in the Bernard Yankston thread, of mocking and making fun of Bernard in my reporting of his hearing. In retrospect I'll say this, Bernard was a model of judicial logic and clarity compared to Charles. In comparison Bernard almost made sense. I wouldn't have thought, yesterday, that I'd ever make that concession. At least it took a lot less effort on my part to parse out what I thought to be the essence of Bernard's arguments. I'm not a lawyer and have no formal legal background so these guys are really putting me to the test in interpreting what the hell they are talking about.

Even if I had nothing good whatever to say about Bernard I would freely concede that he, very much unlike Charlie, was respectful and observant of court rules and procedures. I appreciate that.

[Burnaby49]

One last post before I hit the sack (early day tomorrow, well actually today since it's 1AM with a bottle of wine consumed to recover from the joint trauma of a day of chaotic alternate reality and memories of Mowe's posting on bird-scented nuclear butts (I know, I know, heal yourself and move on, easy words, hard reality)). However I need to post this just in case Charlie reads my comments and accuses me of lying to him in court. He had asked me, before the hearing, if I was for or against his position. My response was that I was neutral and that I was there to report what actually transpired. However my post may have indicated a more anti rather than pro position. In my defense my review of proceedings was entirely driven by my analysis of the the evidence supporting Charlie's position (none) and the arguments presented at the hearing; Charles - legally incoherent, Crown - Home Run. I judge these things entirely on the basis of the quote Wserra uses as his signature:

"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence." - David Hume

Words to live by. Hence my response to Charlie's question regarding "had I learned anything today" where I said I would wait on the court decision. In my reality that is where the validity of beliefs are decided.

[notorial dissent]

Burnaby49's opening summary of "long rambling opening statement of general blather" I think your summary is concise and to the point. I think you could equally follow it up with "further long winded and pointless meandering and incoherent statements, and still maintain total accuracy and objectivity. I think you also sifted through the dross to get to the actual heart of his argument, such as it is. Quite obviously another of the grammatically as well as organizationally challenged as well.

You are to be commended for your bravery and perseverance, and dedication.

[wserra]

Thank you, Burnaby. Making sense from the nonsensical is an impossible job, legal training or no. Charlie - who doubtless fails to appreciate his good fortune - drew a judge with inordinate patience. I know quite a few judges, virtually all of whom would have told that burly marshal to throw Charlie out on his ear after five minutes.

[LordEd]

I found it a good read, in case my words were unclear. As much as these people* entertain me, I don't think I would like to have direct personal* exposure to them

* Or turnip in the case of the chief

[grixit]

I'm surprised the judge allowed him to yell at opposing counsel and try to silence them.