Fuctum? A New Canadian Sovereign Tax Term.

[Burnaby49]

I was drifting down memory lane perusing some of the golden oldies Canadian sovereign tax protester cases over a morning coffee when I read of this unknown (at least to me) legal term in a 2007 criminal tax case where a Canadian sovereign type refused to file tax returns.;

http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skpc/doc/20 ... EzNQAAAAAB

This document contained some of his objections to the CRA's position;

[15] 7) Fuctum
This undated document was presumably filed by the accused. I will give the accused the benefit of the doubt that he simply misspelled the word “Factum” on the cover page of the document and did not intend otherwise to be offensive or disrespectful. This document consists of materials obviously received from or prepared by a Douglas M. Nagel. It is of interest that Mr. Nagel attempted to represent the accused on the first return date of this matter, knowing that he was the subject of an injunction obtained by the Law Society of Saskatchewan on November 27, 2002 enjoining him from, among other things, practicing at the Bar of any court of civil or criminal jurisdiction. I refused to allow Mr. Nagel to represent the accused. The document in question deals with unsuccessful attempts to obtain a certified copy of the Income Tax Act. I ruled that this was a matter to be dealt with in closing argument after all the evidence had been heard.

I can see the court's point. If the taxpayer's representative doesn't know his Fuctum from his Factum he is obviously better employed elsewhere where terminology isn't a critical issue. Although the court might have been a bit too generous in coming to its conclusion. Maybe the document means exactly what it says.

For the rest the case was your standard sovereign boilerplate. Arguments about the meaning of words such as “corporation”, “natural person” and “artificial person”, arguments that continue to this day without a single example of sovereign success. The exhausted old warhorses about spelling of names, whether the Income Tax Act was actually validly legislated, tax assessments are contractual relationships, ad nauseam.

But there are links to the present. We have this in paragraph 20;

SETTING TRIAL DATE

[20] Originally, a trial date in April 2007 was set; however, the accused advised that one of his witnesses, Lovey Cridge, would not be available on that date because she would be busy preparing Income Tax returns. The Crown consented to a later date and the trial was set for June 5th 2007. I made it very clear to the accused that the trial was to proceed on that date. On June 5th, after the Crown had closed its case, the accused advised that he was not ready to proceed since his witness, Lovey Cridge, had been delayed. I viewed this as another example of the accused attempting to delay and/or obstruct the process of the Court. Nevertheless, I granted a further adjournment.

So who is Lovey?

[31] The first Crown witness was Lovey Cridge, a retired certified management accountant. This witness testified that when some of her friends were in court on income tax matters, they asked her to do some research. Ms. Cridge provided details of research that she conducted in 2000, 2001 and 2002 on the history of Income Tax Acts going back to 1948 and earlier. On the basis of her research, she concluded that the Income Tax Act 1948, chapter 52 did not exist, based on her inability to locate a copy. Ms. Cridge filed voluminous exhibits detailing the documents that she had found. In cross-examination, Ms. Cridge testified that in advising clients she used the Revised Statues of 1985 for the Income Tax Act. She testified that she took a class in legal research fifteen to twenty years ago.


[32] Some discussions took place as to whether Ms. Cridge should be qualified as an expert witness but Mr. Lemieux did not attempt to qualify her as such; this may have been an oversight on his part. In any event, it is quite clear that this witness did not possess the necessary qualifications in legal research to be qualified to give opinion evidence on legal issues including legal research and statutory interpretation. Even if Mr. Lemieux had moved to have her qualified as an expert witness, I would have rejected such an application. Accordingly, while I accept Ms. Cridge’s testimony as to the research that she conducted, I do not accept her opinion that the 1948 Income Tax Act was never passed. Ms. Cridge also testified that in a telephone conversation the Clerk of Parliament advised her that the 1948 Chapter 52 Income Tax Act had been destroyed; this evidence is clearly not admissible to prove the truth of the alleged statement of the Clerk of Parliament.

[33] One further part of Ms. Cridge’s testimony requires comment. Ms. Cridge filed a copy of a transcript of part of a case involving Bill Wilkinson, a friend of hers. She referred specifically to comments made by Mr. Baird, the Crown Prosecutor. In final argument, Mr. Lemieux purported to use this testimony to demonstrate “Conflicting stories between the Crown Prosecutors, Joelle Graham and Mr. Baird, which brings the administration of justice into disrepute.” This evidence, as well as being inadmissable, is of absolutely no relevance; if the Judge in the Wilkinson case decided an issue that might be relevant to the trial before me, I would have been prepared to consider it. However the copy of the transcript contains no decision; it ends with the Judge adjourning the matter to another date. Further, I have conducted searches for a reported case of this name and have found none.

She has been beating the drum for years that there is no Canadian Income Tax Act. She was involved in Heckendorn, a 2005 Federal Court of Canada case. In that case the taxpayer argued, inter alia, that there was no Income Tax Act; an idea promoted by Lovey;

[6] . . . . . . . Rather, to paraphrase, it is the contention of the Plaintiff that there being no proper Income Tax Act, he must succeed as against the Queen in Right of Canada, at least to the extent of relief from taxation.

[7] Mr. Heckendorn, who acts for himself, clearly did not fully understand his oral presentation or questions related to that presentation. Rather he had a researcher and assistant sitting at the counsel table with him. To take into account both Mr. Heckendorn's lack of familiarity with and understanding of the material and argument and to give him the benefit of any possible doubt, I allowed Mr. Heckendorn full rein to present his case in the manner he chose, save that I refused Mr. Heckendorn's request that his researcher and assistant, Ms. Cridge, be allowed to present part of the argument. I also denied him the ability to pull undisclosed documents from his bag of additional material, for to allow such, during the course of the motion, would have both put Crown counsel at an unfair disadvantage and resulted in the uncontrollable hearing of the motion. I have, as I must, taken Mr. Heckendorn's facts as he has set them out in his Statement of Claim as if proven, except where too far-fetched to be credible and here I do not accept, as if proven, the allegation that the Income Tax Act does not exist.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/dec ... 9ybgAAAAAB

Note that the decision was rendered by the prothonotary, an individual who screens out the nutcases and other worthless filings to stop the actual court from being bothered with this dross. He certainly felt that this was the case here;

CONCLUSION

[19] The Crown has made its case that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is frivolous and vexatious and is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is appropriate that the action, both as against the Crown and as against the individual Defendants, be struck out. There being no scintilla of a cause of action, the striking out is without leave to amend. The action is therefore dismissed. The Defendants may tax one set of costs.

But these defeats haven't deterred her in the slightest. While she is till promoting her views on the legality of the Act she has also very recently informed us, through the services of Global F.A.C.T Radio, of the stunning news that all of the Canada Revenue Agency's employees have been fired and tax collection and assessment in Canada is now the responsibility of the IRS!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/5966965 ... 328707874/

A question comes to mind. If she believes there is no valid Income Tax Act, what is she doing filing tax returns for clients?

[Dr. Caligari]

Fuctum?

Damn near killed him!

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I recalled that Lovey was a feature guest on Tony Boutros’ “Global F.A.C.T.” Internet radio program last year, and went searching for that recording so that Burnaby49 could enjoy Lovey’s proof of why there isn’t an Income Tax Act. It’s here:

• March 3, 2014 – Lovey Cridge Proves Income Tax Is Not Legal: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/globalfact ... -not-legal
  
  And there’s an entire directory filled with various Hansard excerpts, correspondence, and old statutes: http://globalfact2012.com/radio/lovey/20130314/

But that’s not the only material I turned up. Instead, it was one of those ‘geeze – how did I miss all this stuff? Moments.’ This is a survey in no particular order.

Lovey (Josephine) Cridge has a huge litigation footprint – when I checked the B.C. courts database I found a total of 60 civil actions. In some Lovey’s role is unclear:

• Royal Bank v. Duncan McGeachy – 2002 BCSC
  3 x Cridge – no other parties – 1992 BCSC
  2 x Cridge – no other parties – 1993 BCSC

She initiated the lawsuits in most:

• Cridge v. Quentin Adrian – 2010 BCPC
  Cridge v. Avante Construction Ltd. – 1992 BCPC
  Cridge v. Robert Barber – 2000 BCSC
  Cridge v. Walter Beukers – 1996 BCSC
  Cridge v. Walter Bisschop – 1994 BCPC
  Cridge v. Greg Calcutta- 2010 BCPC
  Cridge v. Steve Catlin – 2010 BCPC
  Cridge v. Canadian Victims of Law – 1993 BCSC
  Cridge v. Canadian Victims of Law Dilem – 1991 BCPC
  Cridge v. Robert Cockburn – 1992 BCPC
  Cridge v. Estate of Margit Makranczi – 2000 BCPC
  Cridge v. Dr. Esteves – 2003 BCPC
  Cridge v. Peter Gamble – 1990 BCPC
  Cridge v. Greater Vancouver Transit Authority – 2002 BCPC
  Cridge v. Kellie Hamilton – 2012 BCSC
  Cridge v. William Henke – 1993 BCPC
  Cridge v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada – 2005 BCSC
  2 x Cridge v. Elaine Ivancic – 2007 BCPC
  Cridge v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia – 2007 BCSC
  Cridge v. JGJ Foods Ltd. – 2007 BCSC
  Cridge v. ICBC – 1991 BCPC
  Cridge v. ICBC – 1996 BCPC
  Cridge v. IGL Auto and Equipment Auction Ldt. – 2002 BCPC
  Cridge v. Igor Kabakov – 1993 BCPC
  Cridge v. Langley Ukrainian Cultural Society – 1994 BCPC
  Cridge v. Langley Ukrainian Cultural Society – 1995 BCSC
  Cridge v. Langley Ukrainian Cultural Society – 1997 BCSC
  Cridge v. Edward McGreachy – 2002 BCPC
  Cridge v. Edward McGreachy – 2003 BCSC
  Cridge v. Lorne McLeod – 2001 BCPC
  Cridge v. Richard Pelletier – 1997 BCPC
  Cridge v. Jack Philips – 1991 BCPC
  2 x Cridge v. John Phillips – 1991 BCPC
  Cridge v. John Phillips – 1993 BCPC
  Cridge v. John Phillips – 2003 BCSC
  Cridge v. RCMP – 1994 BCPC
  Cridge v. Raghubar Sharma – 1999 BCPC
  Cridge v. Jim Townsend – 2004 BCPC
  Cridge v. Richard Turner – 2004 BCPC
  Cridge v. Richard Turner – 2005 BCSC
  Cridge v. Lorne Van De Vord – 2002 BCPC
  Cridge v. Lorne Van De Vord – 2003 BCSC
  Cridge v. United Scaffold Supply Company – 2005 BCSC
  Cridge v. Westfair Foods Ltd. – 1999 BCPC
  Cridge v. Dorothy Yung – 2004 BCPC

And there’s a few where she is the defendant:

• Robert Barber v. Cridge – 1998 BCPC
  Syrus Bacha v. Cridge – 2000 BCSC
  Certified Management Accountants Society of BC v. Cridge – 2000 BCSC
  Cyril James v. Cridge – 2002 BCPC
  John Morin v. Cridge – 1995 BCPC
  Joan Mitchell v. Cridge – 2001 BCSC
  Pierce Van Loon v. Cridge – 1994 BCSC

There were a couple extremely minor ticket things on the criminal side.

This has led to a mess of reported judgments:

• Cridge v. Bock and Aikins MacAulay & Thorvaldson, 2001 MBQB 260: http://canlii.ca/t/1qz5b - Lovey disputes a bill and loses.
  
  Cridge v. De Vooght et al, 2003 BCSC 2019: http://canlii.ca/t/1jw5- Lovey is suing in relation to the 1962 home swap deal (see cases below), asks for an extension to a jury trial notice, doesn’t get it.
  
  Cridge v. Harper Grey Easton & Company, et al, 2004 BCSC 101: http://canlii.ca/t/1g9st - Lovey and her husband entered into a deal to swap two houses in 1962! It went sideways, and they lost both properties. This led to long and lingering litigation, with an action against the Cridges' lawyer moldering for 18 years. While it was an essentially hopeless case that delay was negligent, but led only to nominal damages.
  
  Cridge v. Harper Grey Easton, 2004 BCSC 836: http://canlii.ca/t/1hcfl - More on that action - Lovey retained the defendants to run a trial, and the court concluded the law firm had breached its standard of care in how it managed her action. Lovey received only nominal damages, but the law firm was refused costs “because of the disrespectful manner in which it handled the plaintiff’s file.” At para 11 we have this statement:
  

  I would also add that I was impressed, negatively, by the disrespectful memo of Mr. De Vooght referring to the plaintiff, who had hired him, and paid him, as “crazy" and the apparent indifference of the current partnership to take the plaintiff's complaints or this trial seriously.

  Ouch.
  
  Cridge v. Harper Grey Easton, 2005 BCCA 33: http://canlii.ca/t/1jln4 - At this appeal Lovey wants more damages and doesn’t get it. The law firm wants more costs, and is successful.
  
  Cridge v. Ivancic, 2010 BCSC 425: http://canlii.ca/t/29223 - Lovey is in a car accident, gets some damages, and fights over costs. Mixed success.
  
  Cridge v. Ivancic, 2010 BCCA 476: http://canlii.ca/t/2d3qw - Lovey appeals the car accident result and an attempt to pre-empt her appeal fails.
  
  Cridge v. Lawrence, 1998 CanLII 6493 (BC CA): http://canlii.ca/t/1dxwm - Cridge unsuccessfully disputes legal fees that arose from a car accident. She doesn’t argue this appeal, but instead that was done by a “Lyle Patrick O’Sullivan”, later discovered as a fake lawyer. Geeze Lovey, the people you hang out with...
  
  Cridge v. McGeachy, 2004 BCSC 1154: http://canlii.ca/t/1hqr8 - Cridge appeals a dispute on boat repairs which she loses.
  
  Cridge v. Turner, 2006 BCSC 407: http://canlii.ca/t/1mt7h - Lovey sues that a judge who decided against her was biased. Answer – no.
  
  Pierce v. Cridge, 1996 CanLII 1958 (BC SC): http://canlii.ca/t/1f2zs - Cridge disputes court cost items.

That stuff was bland, but this isn’t. Lovey actually took her 1962 house swap deal to the United Nations! Here’s the 2009 decision of the Human Rights Committee for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.bayefsky.com/pdf/canada_t5_i ... 9_2006.pdf). The reasons are detailed, and reveal that Lovey’s complaint is a lack of an impartial judicial apparatus, and a monopoly by lawyers on legal representation:

3.1 The author claims to be a victim of a violation of article 14, as the judicial system to which she applied for remedy lacked independence and impartiality, and articles 14 and 26 with regard to equality before the courts. The author also claims a violation of article 17 in that the court attacked her reputation and dignity by being too dismissive of her claim. Finally, the author claims a violation of her right to own property under article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3.2 The author alleges that as her claims were directed against a prominent law firm with close linkages to the political, legal and judicial elites of Canada, she could not obtain a hearing of her civil claim before an independent, impartial and competent tribunal in Canada, she was denied her right to equality before the law and the courts, was deprived arbitrarily of her property and was subject to inappropriate attacks upon her honour and reputation.

3.3 The author claims that her failure to obtain a resolution according to Canadian law in the Canadian civil dispute resolution system is a result of institutional and/or organizational bias, where a self-insured legal profession has been granted a semi-exclusive monopoly on the provision of legal services for real estate transactions and an exclusive monopoly on the provision of advocacy services and the positions of judges in the Canadian courts.

3.4 The author claims that her problems were exacerbated by the fact that the self-insurance fund of the legal profession in British Columbia was technically insolvent at the time her case was before the courts in British Columbia. Accordingly, both the judiciary and the legal profession had a financial self-interest in assuring that she lost her claim.

Lovey’s application is rejected – the tribunal has no jurisdiction where Lovey failed to use Canadian routes for remedy, and there was no legal action which was “manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.”

Have a look above at the civil litigation list – the 2005 Cridge v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada case? It’s a class action lawsuit, according to this news release:

New Westminster, B.C., April 10, 2005. Plaintiffs Lovey Cridge, a retired forensic accountant and John Ruiz Dempsey, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist, both residents of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, filed their amended Statement of Claim on August 2, 2005. The original class action suit filed on behalf of the people of Canada was filed on April 22, 2005.

The suit alleges that the government of Canada has engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the people of Canada through its illegal use of an invalid or non-existent statute, namely, the Income Tax Act of 1948 which has never been properly enacted according to law. The statement of claim alleges that the Plaintiffs which includes all of the People of Canada as the purported “taxpayers” have been defrauded and continues to be defrauded by the Canadian government, its collection agents, the now privatized Canada Revenue Agency (the former Revenue Canada), and robbed of their wealth and fruits of their labour through an elaborate scheme of coloured, illegal and unlawful seizure of property and money through the use of various coercive schemes, threats of fines and incarceration using the bogus and non-existent tax law, and the unlawful revisions thereof namely the Income Tax Act as contained within the Revised Statutes of Canada.

Dempsey is extensively profiled in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras 109-120. He was a self-declared lawyer who claimed to have degrees in law and criminology, his education was allegedly in the Philippines. Entirely spurious. Lots of interesting case law on his antics as he tried to run actions for various persons.

Next fun item – I found this news release posted on Stormfront.org, the notorious skinhead/white supremacist web forum, by “Sovereign” (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t224165/). That’s Dean Clifford’s old alias on the forum. Dean had this to say:

Class Action Suit - Bogus Income Tax Act

I do not know if this was ever posted on in the Canada forum, but here it is. The initial claim was filed some time ago in April, but the Amended claim was filed just days ago. This was forwarded to me by someone who is involved to some degree in the case and wanted the information to get out since it probably will not make much of an appearance in the controlled media.

There is no source for this, it was an Email, so I will post the entire document. At the very least, the more people that know about this the less likely it will be that these two guys 'dissappear'. It starts to get embarrassing when people who stand up to GOVERNMENT keep winding up dead.....or in prison in Germany.

Unfortunately it seems decisions relating to the class action itself are not reported – but I did find a copy of the Statement of Claim (http://lege.net/blog.lege.net/financial ... ss%20A.doc) (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/49028757/Ca ... Tax-Return)

And I spotted a number of reports of the goings on.

Blog: In Pursuit of Happiness – No Income Tax Act (http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.c ... e-tax-act/) - Dempsey rallies the troops with a news release just prior to a January 19, 2007 British Columbia Supreme Court hearing. I tried cutting it down, but it just didn’t feel right:

This is a clash between the truth and the untruth. As human beings, we can only deal in truth. We cannot deal in fiction. We have the truth, and the truth is: the Income Tax Act 1948 or any derivative thereof, did not exist in truth. The original Income Tax Act was never even enacted lawfully if at all and therefore it is a fraud. And the so-called “governments” have committed one huge, colossal fraud. It never existed even when your corporate government of ” Canada” started charging us like a common thief because we started to refuse to pay the so-called income tax that they now impose on everyman woman and child on this area of the planet.

Our hearing is your hearing. The government we thought is here to serve and protect us is not here for that reason. These “governments” are here because we created them for our benefit. Now they insist that we, the people, flesh and blood men women and children, second in command from God, must now serve the creatures that our creations which includes our excretions have created into existence.

I thought the totem pole looks like this: God the Creator is on the very top, while man is second from the top because we are His Children. Are we not?

This is the game where liars cannot win. Unless the liar speaks the truth. But the liar we are facing are born out of the untruth. Truth is foreign to them. They must therefore be exposed, revealed for those who want to see the whole truth.

The hearing set for January 19, 2007 was pre-set for us by the court. Lovey Cridge and David Butterfield including myself were all infirmed last December 4, 2006 when the same lawyers who have sworned their “solemn oaths” to serve the corporation, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, a.k.a. The Crown, The Queen of Canada , etc. decided to file a motion to prevent our lawsuit from being heard in a trial by jury of our peers. The government lawyers are moving to have our action dismissed. Can they do that? Of course they can, but they must produce a certified true copy of the original Income Tax Act.

At this hearing, we shall have the opportunity to challenge the corporation of “Canada” to show us the truth as to whether or not these so-called governments, both Federal and Provincial, all of which are creations of them, have any lawful authority over us, natural men and women, created by God.

We invite you to attend the hearing, let us show those who are set to enslave and destroy us that as human beings, we are here to rule and reign. We are here to govern. Those who know how to govern themselves do not require the services of any de facto corporate government, like “Canada”, or ” British Columbia”.

Since when did this area, this area right here where we stand or rest upon, came to be known as: “British Columbia” ?

British?

Columbia ?

Since when did this piece of land become British?

And where did you get the word “Columbia” ? The Indians call this land mass Turtle Island . Who gave these pirates the right to change the name of the place?

These “governments” are guilty of having possession of stolen property. Whose property? The people’s property. These governments stole from the Indians, they stole from the Whiteman, they stole from the Chinese, from the Japanese, they stole from all of us. They claim we need their “protections” and “benefits”, [like hell we do], so we must now pay them the costs of their protection racket, just like the mafia, these governments are the grand mafias. They call it income tax, GST, they call it “taxes”. We call them enterprise racketeering, in the name of the Monarch. We want to know the truth here too.

So the message here is that, we request the honour of your presence at the courthouse on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. to be at the hearing; those who cannot come, we hope that you pray for us, that the Lord our God shall give us all the strength to bear witness of the truth on that day. Let this day be our emancipation day.

Blog: In Pursuit of Happiness – What Happened ‘At No Income Tax Act’ Lawsuit (http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.c ... t-lawsuit/) - Well, they lost, as the judge pointed to the Canada Evidence Act and its presumption that required judges take judicial notice of apparently valid legislation – like the Income Tax Act. Of course, Dempsey and Cridge disagree:

… That’s affirmative, we lost, I came in with that expectation; I went into the battle knowing I will be bruised, in front of many people. But as far as the truth is concerned, we won the day. How can we lose the battle and still win? Well, firstly, we did not lose the battle. If you happen to be in courtroom that day, you know that the “government” failed to produce any copy of the non-existent Income Tax Act 1948 which is the root of our entire claim. Our challenge is simple: show us the law. We won because we established a lot of truth on public record, that the Income Tax Act we have now is founded on fraud. We have established the truth that the income tax act was enacted improperly and therefore void. The examples I gave on record, such as when I described the so-called Income Tax Act was like a still born baby, dead on arrival, it cannot be revived and the truth and historical record is our witness, that it was never revived.

…

This is only the beginning. Our case does not end here. The question of whether or not the Income Tax Act did not exist was decided on January 19, 2007 in our favour. We have proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the “government’s” non-response, such a law does not exist. The proceeding had been recorded on tape and we will soon have the transcript of the proceeding available to us. This will give the people the opportunity to review the transcript and be your own judge and from there, we shall take the case to the next higher level to prove that we have the truth. Truth is the only thing that matters here. We have the truth that not only the Income Tax Act did not exist, we also have the truth that those who tried to pass it and subsequently ‘smuggled’ by the crooks and made part of the Revised Statutes of Canada, are themselves not lawful or de jure governments.

We have now broken the code, and that gave us the truth that there is no lawful government in “ Canada ” because “ Canada ” does not even exist as a sovereign nation. If there is no “ Canada ” then it follows that there cannot exist any lawful government in a “ Canada ” that is not in this planet called Earth. Those who run “ Canada ” are nothing but criminals who are in possession of stolen property which is the land and the rights of all people whose rights have been stolen by them.

Our next foray into their court system will come when we expose more truths that “ Canada ” is not a sovereign nation. “Canada” was created by fiat decree or royal prerogative made by Queen Victoria in total violation of international law and their own British Parliament. It is a nation created on paper when Queen Victoria said: “let there be Canada ” and it was so. “Let there be British Columbia ”, and it was so. Let there be Ontario , let there be Alberta , let there be Saskatchewan , etc., and it was so. “Only God can create anything out of nothing” per Judge Mahoney, First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daily, [1968 Minnesota ]. Queen Victoria and all other British Monarchs like her are not God and therefore they cannot create anything out of nothing which is the fundamental modus operandi of the British mafia who came into this part of the planet to colonize, steal, enslave and plunder the entire wealth of the people to whom all things belong.

The transcript of the proceeding is on order, that will be published for all too see and judge for themselves whether we won or lost. How could we have lost? We have the truth, we are not in dishonor. Our fight is not a fight for the weak. This is a fight where honor truth and justice and integrity as well as the rights and freedoms of our future generation are at stake.I also write this letter to silence those who are critical of what we do. Even now, the naysayers, the bullshitters, and those who think they know better are already hard at work spreading discord and casting aspersions with what we do even though I have never met them or they were not even there at the courtroom that day. I feel sorry for those people. But I forgive them for they know not what they do. …

Lovey and Dempsey appear to have had quite the extended collaboration, for example Lovey acted as Dempsey's agent when the Law Society of British Columbia sued to make him stop playing lawyer: The Law Society of B.C. v. Dempsey, 2005 BCSC 1277 (http://canlii.ca/t/1lm34).

Last, “ConspiracyKing.com” is offering what appears to be a recording of Lovey’s legislative analysis (http://www.conspiracyking.com/catalog/g ... yth-detail):

IS INCOME TAX "A MYTH"? Get inside information on this essential subject as it pertains to the lawfulness (and lawlessness), of the Canadian Income Tax Act! What do you know about income taxes? Have you tried to get a copy of the income tax act? Discover revealing evidence that may change your mind about what you've been told. Learn ‘inside information’ about this essential subject! This was a live presentation in Vancouver B.C., by Lovey Cridge, a retired C.M.A., an agent for non-filers and an expert witness for Judges. For over a decade, she has helped the average person in court regarding their taxes. She is known as an expert witness with judges. She's spend a lot of time studying secret information on taxes... that's kept from the public, and learned the 'second language' behind this so-called law. She became provoked by a shocking, personal experience. By hearing her own story and how she's helped countless people in court, you'll be inspired whether on the subject of taxes, or just in general... as to how no one is ordinary, and how each and every one of us can make a difference in this world, and stand up to those who try to control our lives. Feb 2008 – I hr & 15 min.

It’s $25, and sadly I couldn’t find a pirated copy.

Quite the tale, hmm? Have fun Burnaby49 …

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

What can I say but wow! At 2PM I posted some scraps about Lovey, basically a side issue, and a few hours later Mowe has her entire history apart from her dental records (and maybe they're there and I missed them) with analysis. I can only conclude that he does this through the services of an army of diligent dedicated researchers at his immediate command:



That's one hell of a litigation history Mowe uncovered; it's like turning on the shower and being hit by a tidal wave. I typed Lovey's name in the British Columbia court judgement database and found multitudes. I'm going to go through some but I suspect the general theme is indicated by a comment in the first one I checked, the one Mowe mentions where Lovey is represented by a fake lawyer;

1] On this application, the appellant Lovey Cridge seeks leave to extend the time for bringing an application to review a decision made by Mr. Justice Hollinrake on June 26, 1997
dismissing her application to extend the time for bringing an appeal against an order made by Madam Justice MacKenzie on July 30, 1996. That order dismissed the action under Rule 19(24)(a) and (b) on the ground that no reasonable cause of action could be shown. Mr. Justice Hollinrake gave extensive reasons in which he indicated that he would have granted the extension if he had been able to find any merit whatever in the appeal, but that he could find none.

[2] In order to grant the extension which is now sought, I would have to find that a division of the Court might disagree with Mr. Justice Hollinrake on that point. Having reviewed
fully all of the extensive documentation placed before me by Ms. Cridge, I have come to the same conclusion - the appeal cannot possibly succeed.

I'll listen to her dissertation on F.A.C.T. Radio about why the Income Tax Act is not valid but I doubt I'll hear anything new, never mind anything actually persuasive. Lovey has one little problem in respect to this issue. Regardless of Lovey's opinion the government and the courts act as if it is valid legislation and proceed accordingly, paying no attention to Lovey's yammering. And while Dempsey can say;

… That’s affirmative, we lost, I came in with that expectation; I went into the battle knowing I will be bruised, in front of many people. But as far as the truth is concerned, we won the day. How can we lose the battle and still win? Well, firstly, we did not lose the battle. If you happen to be in courtroom that day, you know that the “government” failed to produce any copy of the non-existent Income Tax Act 1948 which is the root of our entire claim. Our challenge is simple: show us the law. We won because we established a lot of truth on public record, that the Income Tax Act we have now is founded on fraud. We have established the truth that the income tax act was enacted improperly and therefore void. The examples I gave on record, such as when I described the so-called Income Tax Act was like a still born baby, dead on arrival, it cannot be revived and the truth and historical record is our witness, that it was never revived.

he misses the point that the government did not have to prove the Income Tax Act was valid legislation or cough up what he would agree is a valid copy of the Act. He had to prove the Act was invalid and he failed. So the only "truth" he has established on the public record is that the Income Tax Act is valid because the courts have declared it to be so.

So, thanks Mowe. It's not like I had anything else to do tonight, or tomorrow, or . . . . .

[notorial dissent]

So Lovey CAN'T find the Tax Act, probably went out of her way to not look in the right places too.

Sounds like a Canadian version of the "show me the law" crowd, who are never satisfied no matter what is shown to them. Who knew??

[Burnaby49]

My life has been a complete lie.

Well, at least my working life; which reflects on my entire life and how I've failed to live it as a decent moral person. I listened to Lovey's lecture on Global F.A.C.T. Radio and Lovey has torn my life to shreds by proving that the Canadian Income Tax Act never existed. Her evidence is overwhelming. Snippets of statutes! Regurgitations of regulations! Bits and pieces taken out of context! Tax discussions from 1921 and statutes that she cites incorrectly! 1947 House of Commons debates! Three filing cabinets full of income tax "stuff"! This means that my 35 year career enforcing a lie was a third of a century of oppressing decent people who understood, better than I, the hypocrisy of my role as a state enforcer of a counterfeit law. Thank you Mowe, for forcing me to face all this when I thought I was home free, basking in the thought of a life well lived.

Tony himself, the very voice of skepticism, said "I have no doubt in my mind that the evidence is quite damning"! So Lovey's met the Gold Standard. Tony wonders at the dark designs of the government in not giving up in the face of Lovey's onslaught. It boils his blood, a gruesome thought indeed.

Lovey answered the question I pondered in my prior post, why does she file tax returns for clients when she has proven that the purported federal legislation responsible for this abomination has no force in law. It's simple, she provides a public service "There are still people who want to file and pay income tax". So she sacrifices her beliefs to help them.

She said she dropped her CMA designation because if she kept it she would probably have been "dismembered". Given my understanding of the word I think she may have phrased that a bit incorrectly, albeit vividly;




Somehow I'll have to carry on. My illegally earned government pension will help, and the warm memories of oppressing innocent people. Good times, good times . . . . .

Also the fact that, in the end, I'm so far gone in degenerate evil that I just don't give a fuctum.

[Burnaby49]

An addition to my prior post because, frankly, it's been a long haul getting through Lovey's verbiage and I made the prior post prematurely having been convinced that I'd covered the gist of it but I find there is much more. I've been grinding through the interview (thanks to the assistance of copious quantities of home-made red wine) and, convinced as I am on the righteousness of her conclusions, I must still provide a voice of caution in respect to specific comments. Not that they are wrong but her thesis seems to move past a generalized discussion on confronting the evil entity, the Canada Revenue Agency, to real life advice. She and Tony discussed how a hypothetical "you", as an employee, can stop your taxes being deducted at source. You Americans know that actually trying this one out in real life always ends very badly.

At 63'20 Tony says "I have a question from the audience Lovey, this gentleman is asking how do I stop the government from taking tax off of my paycheque?" Lovey responds "Is it the government taking it or is it your employer taking it?" Tony responds "Well I guess the employer is taking it on behalf of the government". Lovey's response "In other words, your employer is a slave to the government and slavery has been outdated. The United Nations has said stated that Canada cannot make slaves of the people". Not a specific, helpful answer to the question but I assume from this that she is advising that the employee confront his employer and demand that he no longer be treated as a slave. As a CRA evil enforcer I've been there, done that, and It's my experience that that employers generally find it much easier just to fire the troublemaker trying to get out of slavery rather than confront the more fundamental issue of the legality of source deductions. So don't try this at home kids!

[notorial dissent]

If nothing else, the homemade red wine, hopefully inured you to the mind numbing babbling that had to be the team of Lovey and Tony. You are a far braver soul than I, or that wine is a whole lot better/stronger than anything I have on reserve in the basement. Now that I think about it, my Meade probably could do it, but I would prefer to reserve it for more special occasions.

[Burnaby49]

Well, enough dark night of the soul ruminations about my failures and shortcomings. It's a new day and time to brighten it up with a review of Lovey's court victories. I'm using the word "victories" somewhat liberally because it's difficult to put a positive gloss on some of her cases. The one where she was offered a $30,000 settlement pre-trial, refused it in righteousness indignation, and was awarded $100 by the court is a good example of a result beyond my skills to defend as an unalloyed win. Well if John Ruiz Dempsey can spin a total loss into a moral and legal victory I suppose we have to cut Lovey some slack too. Overall a comment made by the court in The Law Society of B.C. v. Dempsey 2005 BCSC 1277 in respect to aforementioned individual will serve equally for the bulk of Lovey's court decisions;

[1] John Ruiz Dempsey is not a member of the Law Society of British Columbia (the “Law Society”). A self-styled “forensic litigation specialist”, he has commenced and defended, both on his own behalf and as an agent for others, a great many legal proceedings in this province. The record before the Court indicates that he has been singularly unsuccessful in these endeavours.

Note that I've only skimmed the surface of Lovey's output, there may be victories lurking in the ones I neglected, However, after spending about two hours of last night on her radio program, I need a break. Anyhow, on with the hunt!

Cridge v. Harper Grey Easton & Company, et al, 2004 BCSC 101

This is the one where she turned down the 30 grand. I'll let a few paragraphs of the decision explain the issues;

[1] On August 6, 1964 the plaintiff and her husband were found by Wooten J. to be the unsuccessful defendants in a law suit over an aborted house sale. The appeal from the decision of Wooten J. was dismissed on April 23, 1965.

[2] To this day, (note, November 2003) the plaintiff does not accept her loss in either court. In 1967 she decided to sue Marney Stevenson, the counsel who represented the plaintiff and her husband at trial and on appeal. After being turned away by about a dozen lawyers, she was referred to Peter De Vooght of Harper, Gilmore, Grey & Company (now known as the defendant, Harper Grey Easton & Company).

[3] Mr. De Vooght kept the plaintiff’s file for approximately 18 years. During that time the action against Ms. Stevenson never progressed past the issuance of a writ of summons.

Due to the slight delay in getting this revived corpse to court these was a bit of a problem getting contemporaneous witnesses able to testify on Lovey's behalf;

[5] In the meantime, the solicitor who represented the plaintiff on the original house transaction, William Moresby, has died. Ms. Stevenson has been diagnosed with diffuse cerebral vascular disease which has worsened over the years. She is now cognitively impaired and incompetent to testify. Mr. De Vooght has died, as has his law partner Mr. McDonald, who was assisting him at the outset of the litigation. The plaintiff’s husband has died. Judge Wooten has died. In short, most of the persons involved in the original litigation and the litigation against Ms. Stevenson have died or are unavailable to testify. The only witnesses at the trial before me were the plaintiff; Mr. McJannet, the defendant’s nominal representative; Dennis Milne, who represented Ms. Stevenson in the 1980s; Ms. Stevenson’s trustee in bankruptcy; a representative of the Law Society; and a representative of Jardine Lloyd Thompson Canada Inc., who is the Law Society’s insurance broker.

The court was not impressed by Lovey's legal acumen;

[6] The plaintiff had no legal representation at trial, although I allowed her friend Mr. Kennedy to assist her with leading her evidence and examining witnesses. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was not a reliable witness. As discussed later in my judgment, in her oral opening she misstated the basis on which she was seeking to hold Ms. Stevenson liable. Throughout her cross-examination she contradicted prior statements made during examinations for discovery. Most importantly, over the years she has lost all objectivity about her claim and the ability to recall facts about the claim clearly without reconstruction or bias.

She won this one but;

[69] I cannot find that the plaintiff suffered any loss arising from the breach of duty of care Mr. De Vooght and Harper Grey Easton & Company owed to the plaintiff. The defendant cannot be held liable in negligence if there are no resulting damages in fact.

[70] However actual damages are not an essential element to liability for breach of contract. The plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages (Fisher v. Knibbe (1992), 125 A.R. 219 (C.A.); Gouzenko v. Harris (1977), 13 O.R. (2d) 730 (H.C.J.)). I assess these nominal damages at $100.

Cridge v. Harper Grey Easton, 2005 BCCA 33

A follow up to the preceding. Lovey wasn't happy about being awarded .00033% of what she was offered pre-trial and appealed that travesty of a verdict.

1] Josephine Cridge appeals from a judgment of Madam Justice Satanove awarding her only nominal damages against a firm of solicitors, Harper Grey Easton, for breach of contract and negligence in the failure to prosecute an action commenced on her behalf: 2004 BCSC 101. The firm cross-appeals from the judge's subsequent decision to deny them costs where an offer of settlement had been made that was greater than the damages awarded: 2004 BCSC 836.

[2] In the main, the questions are whether Ms. Cridge can now be awarded more than nominal damages and whether the solicitors are entitled to costs as provided by the Rules of Court.

And the answer was no and yes. Lovey was not awarded additional damages and the defendants were awarded costs against her for continuing to flog this dead horse.

Cridge v. McGeachy, 2004 BCSC 1154

Speaks for itself;

1] Ms. Cridge appeals the decision of the Honourable Judge Thomas of the Provincial Court dated July 2, 2003 dismissing her claim against Mr. McGeachy, dba 49 West Marine.

[2] Her Notice of Claim filed in the Provincial Court is for boat repairs that she says the defendant Mr. McGeachy had been credited for but did not do. She had the repairs done by someone else and wanted to be compensated for the cost of that repair.

CONCLUSION
[17] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent, Mr. McGeachy, is entitled to costs which I fix at $500, to be paid to him by Ms. Cridge by September 30, 2004.

Cridge v. Ivancic, 2010 BCSC 425

And, finally, an actual victory! She got only one-tenth of what she demanded but in Lovey's world I'll call that a win. This one is interesting in respect to the perspective it gives on Lovey's exciting incident filled life.

[4] Although the defendants admitted liability for the September 2005 accident, they argued that Mrs. Cridge’s health problems were either due to pre-existing injuries, or injuries she sustained after the accident. In particular, the defendants point to six car accidents prior to September 2005, two car accidents subsequent to that date, as well as other traumatic incidents that occurred before the accident in issue, including walking into a glass wall, walking into a door, having a large woman fall on her from above while on an escalator, and being dragged half-in and half-out of a car while trying to stop a robber pulling out of her driveway.

Anyhow the heart of the lawsuit was;

6] At trial, Mrs. Cridge sought non-pecuniary damages of $100,000. The defendants argued that the plaintiff should be awarded at most $1,500 to $2,500 for soft tissue injuries. Ultimately, in a decision rendered on December 17, 2009, I awarded the plaintiff $10,000 for non-pecuniary damages and $2,402 for special expenses. I dismissed her claim for wage loss, and I held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs of $6,600 under R. 66 of the Rules of Court.

While we are on the topic of the life of Lovey I have a word of advice to our good friend Chief Rock Sino General. He has just posted this on his Facebook account;

Told CRA, if they want me to volunteer to file tax wont happen but i will invoice you $1000.00 for taking my precious time to do the tax filings for the person owned by Ontario Government. The guys says, well no, we cant pay you for that. I said, well why not, you dont expect me to work for free do you ? after all the SIN number is govt property and not mine, he agrees its not mine but still thinks i should do it because he doesnt get paid to do his. I said,well that sucks on your part cause you got suckered into working for free and/or paying an accountant... xxxx amount to do it for you. So i asked him for his accounts payable dept lol...he didnt know really what to say to me. I wish i recorded it, was classic. He, than goes well your account, i correct him and say, you mean the Govt account, why you do you keep referring me as the owner? He says yes your right.

Why is he wasting his time with those losers? Lovey has told us that all of the CRA staff has been fired. So he should just wait until the IRS gets around to contacting him and discuss his issues with someone who can actually assist him. A big break for the Chief; you Americans know how sympathetic and helpful the IRS is compared to our petty, heartless, CRA bureaucrats.