But there’s a little oddity with Klatle-Bhi and Tah-Sun-Quay-Ton’s signatures – each is followed this some additional text: “with rep :UCC 1-207” or simply “UCC 1-207”.
And we all know what that means!
There are two judgments associated with the litigation that led to the Law Society’s action:
- Squamish Indian Band v. Capilano Mobile Park, 2011 BCSC 470: http://canlii.ca/t/fl19x
Squamish Indian Band v. Capilano Mobile Park, 2012 BCCA 126: http://canlii.ca/t/fqlm7
In 2008 the Band decided to end this arrangement. The Bakers did not cooperate. The Bakers continued to make ‘rent’ payments until May 2010, when the entirely stopped: para. 12. Unsurprisingly, the Band took legal action to punt the Bakers and the trailer park off the Band property: paras. 14-19. A receiver was ordered to take control of the trailer park: paras. 20-21. The Band sought summary judgment to its unanswered claim.
Enter Klatle-Bhi and Tah-Sun-Quay-Ton. They spoke in court for the Bakers. It appears Klatle-Bhi did most of the talking. They demanded to know if the judge had taken an Oath of Office, which he had (para. 25). However, the judgment only offers a sketch of Klatle-Bhi's argument.
In other words, we have a usual OPCA approach of a foisted unilateral agreement to define the manner in which the Band proved ownership of the trailer park, and an attempt to disqualify the Band’s lawyers, probably via to another spurious contract argument.[26] I have listened very carefully to what Klatle-Bhi has told me. I am not able to find within what has been said anything that would allow me to deny the judgment that is being asked for today.
[27] The position that was taken on behalf of the defendants related to such things as a denial of the right of the Squamish Nation to claim ownership of the lands in the first instance, as I understood it. However, I am not able to find on the facts before me that there is any issue whatsoever in that respect. The facts are well laid out in the affidavits. I do note, of course, that there is the permit agreement to which the mobile home park defendants were in possession for some length of time, which is in fact with the Squamish Nation. So there is no real issue about ownership of the lands.
[28] At the hearing, Klatle-Bhi made demand for certain permits and licenses and other legal documents that have not been produced. However, I am not able to find that the lack of anything that is being asked for is of any legal relevance in this matter.
[29] There was also reference to a conflict of interest on behalf of the law firm acting for the Squamish Nation. There is no application in front of me, nor any evidence whatsoever, that would relate to a conflict of interest. So again, that is not a basis upon which I could deny the judgment that is being sought.
Justice Verhoeven unsurprisingly concluded the Bakers were trespassing on Band land and gave them the ol’ heave ho. The Bakers also owed $497,403.29.
Then we turn to another interesting subject – costs. The Band sought an elevated cost award on the basis that the Bakers (and their representative) had engaged in “reprehensible” conduct. What is identified are classic Freeman/Sovereign tactics:
Again, classic Freeman-on-the-Land / Sovereign Citizen tactics, including attempts at paper terrorism and foisted unilateral copyright name claims.[59] … second, that the defendants refused to identify themselves to the court when specifically requested to do so by Justice Sigurdson; third, at the January 14, 2010, hearing, they permitted a person to speak on their behalf who was highly disrespectful of the court and its processes and who purported to fire Mr. Justice Sigurdson and the court clerk, as well as opposing counsel, before the proceedings concluded.
…
[61] The applicants go on to say in support of the application for special costs, however, that the defendants made false representations in the British Columbia Personal Property Registry and the Washington DC Uniform Commercial Code Registry against the plaintiff, legal counsel for the plaintiff, and their family members, the court-appointed receivers, senior government officials, and most notably a judge of this court.
[62] Further, the applicant/plaintiff indicates that the defendants delivered a significant number of documents to the plaintiff’s legal counsel and their family members, the court-appointed receivers, the West Vancouver Police Department, and this court. While largely nonsensical, the documents demand payments of hundreds of millions of dollars, allege trespass, and purport to bind the recipients to "self-executing contracts/security agreements" regarding the unauthorized use of their names.
Justice Verhoeven concluded the Bakers (and representatives) had forced unnecessary court proceedings (para. 63), added “tremendously” to the cost of the proceedings (para. 64), and advanced a defence that is nothing but an abuse of process (paras. 67-68). The paper terrorism activities are identified as particularly problematic (para. 66):
At this late point and facing a half-million dollar judgment the Bakers clue in. Their appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal is largely a plea of the stupid for having trusted the law firm of Khatle-Bhi and Tah-Sun-Quay-Ton. The narrative is pretty much the same, though it appears Klatle-Bhi titled himself “a notary public in Washington State, United States of America” in his communications with the Band: 2012 BCCA 126 at para. 7.What is of most significant concern, on the basis of the evidence before me, is the filing of materials in the Personal Property Registry of British Columbia and in the Washington DC Uniform Commercial Code Registry against not only the plaintiff, but also including legal counsel for the plaintiff, family members, including wives, mothers, court-appointed receivers, and most troublesome of all, a judge of this court.
Klatle-Bhi filed the appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal but eventually the Bakers figured out they were in trouble and got real lawyers: para. 11. Those lawyers tried to make a genuine legal argument and enter new evidence. Unsurprisingly, the band took an opposite opinion, and Justice Chaisson agreed as the proposed new evidence was not relevant: para. 15.
The Bakers pled for mercy and a new trial because they were fools:
The Bakers had repudiated their contract, they were nothing but trespassers: para. 74. The Band was entitled to eject them.[36] The appellants state candidly that they were in error in allowing Klatle-Bhi to represent them and apologize to this Court for having done so. In Shebib v. Victoria (City), 2012 BCCA 42 (CanLII), 2012 BCCA 42 at para. 11, I commented on the difficulties that often are created when parties do not participate appropriately in court proceedings. This case represents another example, an example that sees the appellants inviting this Court to overrule the decision of a Supreme Court judge and to put the respondents through another trial because they chose not to participate properly in the Supreme Court proceedings.
[37] The appellants go so far as to raise as a ground of appeal the judge’s exercise of his discretion to allow Klatle-Bhi to represent them. Klatle-Bhi first became involved with the appellants concerning this matter in the summer of 2010. His hand appears to have been involved in the appellants’ incomprehensible response to the November 18, 2010 letter from the respondents’ lawyer. Even after the judgment against them, the appellants continued to allow Klatle-Bhi to represent them in this appeal. The appellants’ decision to involve and to continue to involve Klatle-Bhi caused their interests to be compromised, hampered the ability of the court to address the real issues between the parties and increased significantly the costs of these proceedings for the respondents.
[38] I would not accede to the ground of appeal advanced on the basis of the representation of the appellants by Klatle-Bhi.
[39] Klatle-Bhi was asked by the judge whether he was being paid to speak on behalf of the appellants. Klatle-Bhi replied: “[n]o, I am actually under Indian law so when my elders tell me to represent them I am here under Indian law today” (Supplemental Appeal Book at pp. 12-13). The respondents noted to the judge that the financial records of the appellants appear to show a total of $95,000 in professional fees paid to Klatle-Bhi and an associate (Supplemental Appeal Book at p. 13). In my view, this is a matter that merits the attention of the Law Society of British Columbia.
The Bakers also appealed the elevated court cost award. Again, no dice, the court confirmed the trial result: para. 89. A cross-appeal by the Band for greater damages was also dismissed: para. 101.
I dug around for some other information, and found a few things. The Squamish Nation kept its members appraised of the litigation in a series of newsletters:
- Dec. 10, 2010: http://www.squamish.net/files/PDF/event ... 0_2010.pdf
Jan. 27, 2011: http://www.squamish.net/files/PDF/event ... 1_0126.pdf
April 6, 2011: http://www.squamish.net/files/PDF/notic ... cured).pdf
May 17, 2012: http://www.squamish.net/files/PDF/event ... hip_v3.pdf
I located some media reporting (http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=6347190) (http://fnbc.info/rv-parks-legal-fees-questioned), but it offers little new other than some further information on Klatle-Bhi’s argument, which was apparently that the Bakers had an oral contract from the chief to operate the park, and that “Aboriginal law supersedes all their paper law.”
The latter news story has an anonymous comment that is less than complementary on Klatle-Bhi’s motivation in this matter.
I did however dig up one other interesting artifact. The dynamic duo posted a “Legal Notice” in 2011 in a number of locations, including a number of issues of “Outlook West Vancouver” magazine in 2011, and a classified ad website (http://www.usedvancouver.com/classified ... t_14028731)
This is very interesting as the language of this notice generally resembles material from the Tacit Supreme In Law Courts cluster of groups. Yet another instance of their penetration into aboriginal society. Quite curious.LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to the Legal Public Notice Jurat-Affidavit of Publishing and Notarial Certificate of Non-Response dated July 29, 2010. BE IT WITNESSED AND VERIFIED: For the tah-sun-quay-ton and for the klatle-bhi, as well as: tla kwa-gilla-ogua,: tla-kwa-gilla,: gig-a-mi,: ga-use-dis,: men-ta-le-adus,: ts'elxweltxw,: hi-mi-ka-las and: tla-tla-tlo-num of the skomesh and: ley-la-wa-gilla people, and the sovran-alliances, that we are with the acceptance for value of the claim of right of the BRITISH COLUMBIA PERSONNAL PROPERTY SECURITY AGREEMENT BASE REGISTRATION LIEN NUMBER: 659362F and 898104F, WASHINGTON DC UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE DOCUMENT LIEN NUMBER: 2010061093, 2010108008 and 2010108018. Further be it verified and notice that, we are further with the claim of right of the acceptance for value and return for value of Canada's Office Consolidation [may be cited as the Indian Act] and its attached "WARNING NOTE-Users of this Office Consolidation are reminded that it is prepared for convenience of reference only and that, as such, has no official sanctions." Therefore, we are with the acceptance for value and return for value that the Squamish Indian Band and it's lawyer(s) are agents for Canada and do not represent the best interest of the skomesh-people. We, Her Majesty's Royal Allies will deploy the Provost Marshal and Her Majesty's Royal Rifle for any continued trespass against us on our sacred skomesh-lands. Submit any and all alleged claims in the form of Notarized Jurat Affidavit c/o (non-domestic) IR #9 PO Box 97 Keremeos, Keremeos (V0X 1NO). We reserve all rights with prejudice. As long as the Sun shines, the green grass grows, the wind blows, the rivers flow and our people still occupy our sacred lands, then we are still Royal Allies of Her Majesty in Council of Great Britain et al, by the authority of the tah-sun-quay-ton and the klatle-bhi.
As for the duo who acted under “Indian Law”, Klatle-Bhi appears to be a quite prominent west-coast aboriginal artist, who appears to work often in carved materials, for example such as masks and totem poles:
- http://www.sunspirit.ca/artistKBhi.html
http://douglasreynoldsgallery.com/klatle-bhi
http://www.coghlanart.com/klatle-b.htm
While post-Meads v. Meads it's nothing unusual to see spurious court filings and pseudolegal demands lead to elevated costs awards, this litigation is nevertheless interesting for the strong language used by both the trial and appeal court in response to misconduct of this kind. It is also noteworthy that the British Columbia Court of Appeal was unwilling to bend after the Bakers admitted their foolish choice of litigation strategy and representation. That too is an important message.
SMS Möwe
