I have sad news to pass on about our CERI minister Thomas Peterson, he is dead. I have this unfortunate news from an unimpeachable source, Peterson himself, and who am I to contradict the recently deceased?
When we last left Thomas he was trying to Belanger his way out of his tax problems. We saw how well that worked for the Volks (I know, I know, big talker here promised a dissertation on the Volks. It's taking time, sue me) and I assume Peterson got the same results. No longer having any use for his CERI cover he shut down his website Ecclesiastic Salvation Wordpress (
http://ecclesiasticsalvation.wordpress.com) and has moved on, trying a brand new approach to getting something for nothing.
What is his new scheme all about? Damned if I know. It is entirely new to me and I've seen a lot of this stuff. It does however have a very Bernard Yanksonish vibe to it so maybe Bernie is involved. If Peterson is guru shopping Bernie would be one of my last choices for guru. Then again I could say the same thing about Belanger. It started with Peterson filing this notice of civil claim against the Attorney General of British Columbia;
Claim:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/xii6a3zca ... n_v_AG.pdf
Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT
In the Matter of the Trusts affecting property known as THOMAS RAE PETERSON
The Claimant seeks the following relief:
1. an Order that the legal and beneficial title of the above property do vest in the Claimant for all the estate and interest therein which were vested in trust in THOMAS RAE PETERSON
immediately before its dissolution;
2. The Claimant requires this Claim to be heard and assisted by a Specialist Circuit Judge at the
High Court of Chancery, in the Vancouver District Registry, under S9 of the Senior Courts Act
1981 and sections 12 and 18 of the British North America Act, 1867.
3. that the costs of this application be provided for from the estate.
4. Whether this claim in proper form for legal and beneficial title of the property is from the
outset ground for a Remitter to be established in a grant for dependent heirs and beneficiaries of the estate to prevent burden on the public prior to vesting of these titles in the Claimant - since the Claimant is now indigent and depends with beneficiaries on these revested benefits of title to be made available with the kind assistance of the Court.
5. Supreme Court Rules of British Columbia apply to this claim.
If this makes any sense to any of you readers feel free to jump in and enlighten me. The demand that the case be heard in the High Court of Chancery under S9 of the Senior courts Act implies Thomas has been cribbing from British sources since the High Court of Chancery is a British court, we don't have one here in Vancouver and the Senior Courts Act of 1981 is British legislation regulating their own courts and therefore has no standing in Canada;
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publication ... s-act1981/
At least the Notice of Civil Claim it is short but Peterson made up for that by filing a 43 page supporting affidavit.
Affidavit:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/bo7bb4wln ... terson.pdf
It's full of gibberish like this;
*NOTE: The Claimant here claims the role ofthe Attorney General in an application for a vesting order is more that of an amicus because although he/she is named within it as a party he/she will not make competing claims against the Claimant. Nor does the Attorney General oppose the making of the Vesting Order so long as the Court is satisfied this is a proper case. The role of the Attorney General is therefore to assist the Court on the evidence and the law to ensure an Order is made when justified under the provisions appropriate to the Claim because the Claim is non-contentious and administrative.
Peterson claims that his date of birth was actually the date of his incorporation (he includes a copy of his birth certificate, sorry certificate of incorporation, in a later page). The company acquired him as property but then the company was wound up allowing Thomas to tranfer ownership of himself to himself. Then the company was dissolved.
1. I was Secretary of THOMAS RAE PETERSON from its incorporation to its dissolution. My knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposed to was obtained through acting as such Secretary. I make this statement in support of the claim and am authorized to do so.
2. THOMAS RAE PETERSON was incorporated by law on Dec. 12, 1955 as a limited company. The registered office of the Company was situate in British Columbia. A copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association ofthe Company is now shown to me marked "TRP1". The objects ofthe Company (so far as material hereto) were to carry on the business of owning and managing property of all kinds and to acquire and hold property.
3. After its incorporation the company acquired various Freehold and leasehold properties, including Freehold property known as THOMAS RAE PETERSON ("The Freehold"). There is now shown to me marked "TRP2" the conveyance dated July 12, 2014 of Freehold from one THOMAS RAE PETERSON to the Company. 4. On July 12, 2014 the Company filed a declaration of solvency, and on July 12, 2014 an extraordinary general meeting of the contributories of the Company passed a special resolution that the Company be wound up voluntarily and that Thomas Peterson was thereby appointed Liquidator of the Company for the purposes of such winding up. The said meeting also passed an extraordinary resolution, authorizing Thomas Peterson to transfer The Freehold to the Claimant in specie. There is now shown to me "TRP3" the minute book of the Company containing the said special and extraordinary resolutions, which were registered with the Registrar of Companies on .................. ..!4/o; jzvrs..-
5. Shortly after the said extraordinary general meeting I gave the title deeds of The Freehold to the Claimant and he occupied it and has continued to occupy it as his estate.
6. The property of the Company other than The Freehold was distributed in the course of the liquidation. The final meeting of the Company was held on July 12, 2014 and a copy of the account and return was sent to the Registrar of Companies on ............. .l.f/o!/2015 and registered by him on ........ !.{f.:.(.a!./2015. A copy of the said account and return and the acknowledgement thereof by the Registrar of Companies tied together in a bundle, are now shown to me marked "TRP4". The Company was accordingly dissolved three months later, namely on October 13, 2014.
7. Unfortunately, however, the need for a conveyance of The Freehold to the Claimant was overlooked by my own inability to do any real diligence in the law and in my own ignorance I even wrote regrettable letters to the Attorney General. I did not even fully understand there was a trust and in consequence the legal estate therein never vested in him and there is now no person able to execute a conveyance to him without the kind assistance of the Attorney General. ("When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things". 1 Corinthians 13:11 King James Version. I ask the forgiveness ofthe Attorney General).
Don't blame me, I had nothing to do with drafting this.
He then included a copy of the order he wanted the court to sign;
ORDER
UPON THE APPLICATION of the Claimant by Claim Form dated_ /01/2015
AND UPON HEARING the Claimant and for the Defendant
AND UPON READING the documents in the Court File recorded as having been read
AND IT APPEARING to the satisfaction of the Court that THOMAS RAE PETERSON the sole Trustee of the above-mentioned property has been dissolved and that the Claimant is beneficially entitled to the said property
IT IS ORDERED that the legal and beneficial title ofthe property known as THOMAS RAE PETERSON do vest in the Claimant for all the estate and interest therein which has vested in THOMAS RAE PETERSON immediately before its dissolution.
The next document is a hand-scrawled copy of his will bequeathing all of his property on his death to himself. And they say you can't take it with you!
I like this part on page 23;
APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTOR
I here appoint THOMAS RAE PETERSON to the office of Executor of the Thomas Peterson Estate and if he is unable to serve, then I name my spouse Pauline as alternate Executor. My Executor and alternate shall have all powers granted by me to carry out all provisions of this Will, may use provisions and procedures for the simplified handling of estates, and shall not be required to post a bond.
Normally the deceased is indeed "unable to serve" as executor of his own will since he is otherwise employed decomposing but Thomas seems to have found a way around that.
After that more hand-written nonsense I'm not going to bother trying to read and some boilerplate copied from elsewhere that is obviously relevant to the dearly departed but has no connection that I can tell. However I admit it is presumptuous of me to say there is no connection when I have no idea what Peterson is talking about.
The Crown's answer is very direct and basically calls Thomas an idiot. All in polite legalese of course;
Division 2 -Defendant's Version of Facts
1. The defendant holds the office of Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia.
2. Thomas Rae Peterson:
a) was born in New Westminster, BC on December 12, 1955;
b) describes himself as the executor and corporate secretary of a fictitious entity called the THOMAS RAE PETERSON Estate ("the fictitious Estate entity") which he incorrectly characterizes as a corporate entity;
c) owns his own assets, and incorrectly asserts that he hold his assets in trust for the fictitious Estate entity;
d) desires to transfer or appear to transfer his assets to the fictitious Estate entity, for a purpose which he has not disclosed, without disclosing his assets.
Division 3 - Additional Facts
1. No officer, agent or employee of the government of BC at any material time: a) encouraged Thomas Rae Peterson to believe that he may transfe r his assets to the fictitious Estate entity or any fictitious entity; or
b) interfered with any attempts by Thomas Rae Peterson to lawfully manage his assets and organize his affairs in his own best interests.
Part 2: RESPONSE TO RELIEF SOUGHT
1. The defendant opposes the granting of the relief sought the Notice of Civil Claim.
Part 3: LEGAL BASIS
1. This Court cannot direct the hearing which Thomas Rae Peterson demands in Paragraph 2 of Part 2 of the Notice of Civil Claim, or any proceeding other than a proceeding provided by the Rules of this court and the legislation constituting this Court:
a) There are no Chancery Courts in BC;
b) The Senior Court Act 1981 is a British statute, and has no effect in BC; and
c) This court is a superior court of record, competent to grant equitable relief under sections 2, 4, 7 and 9 of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 253 and vesting orders under s. 37 of the Larv and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 253 to any parties entitled on the merits in a proper proceeding.
2. The Attorney General should not be a defendant in this action involving private rights.
3. Thomas Rae Peterson has not pleaded facts to justify the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction to grant an order vesting any property of Thomas Rae Peterson in the fictitious Estate entity or any actual person.
Defence:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/cxedpqgo1 ... n_v_AG.pdf
So what is this all about? My guess is that what Peterson is trying to do is:
-kill his Strawman by dissolving it as a company
-the Strawman's property then falls to the Crown as the residual beneficiary of the Strawman's property
-making a claim that Peterson the flesh and blood man has an equitable claim on the Strawman's property, thus the application for the declaration that the Strawman's property is his own.
He doesn't say what property he wants the Crown to cough up and I have no idea what he is getting at with this;
AND IT APPEARING to the satisfaction of the Court that THOMAS RAE PETERSON the sole Trustee of the above-mentioned property has been dissolved and that the Claimant is beneficially entitled to the said property
IT IS ORDERED that the legal and beneficial title ofthe property known as THOMAS RAE PETERSON do vest in the Claimant for all the estate and interest therein which has vested in THOMAS RAE PETERSON immediately before its dissolution.
I could make a wild guess that this relates to his ongoing tax problems and he feels that this court order, duely signed, will clear him of his tax liabilities by killing off the taxpayer and making him, as the natural man and the last man standing, immune from further CRA actions. But that would just be unbelievably stupid so I'm probably wrong. My hunch is Yankson is in the background on this. This scheme has his 'kill the Strawman' motif. But why the UK? In any case, this is a very strange one. Full marks to Thomas for originality.
