She doesn't, as yet, seem to have acquired guru status. However she is dedicated self-promoter so she deserved a review. He deadbeat debt case is here;
http://canlii.ca/t/g8zcf
The applicants in this action were two lawyers representing the bank that Blackman had stiffed on an unpaid line of credit. The respondents were Mr. and Mrs. Blackman and 8750432 Canada Inc., a private corporation The applicants had sent the Blackmans a demand letter for payment of the $21,076.50 debt plus accrued interest
She responded by sending them the following, which deserves to be reproduced in full;
The lawyers responded to this by rejecting Ms. Blackman’s unilateral imposition of obligations and advising that a court claim would be forthcoming. This just fired up the crazy and she sent a flurry of letters which had exactly no effect on the lawyer's actions. The lawyers commenced a Small Claims Court proceeding against Mr. and Ms. Blackman on 10 January 2014. So she sent the lawyers yet another with the message;THIS IS A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL- NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
Applicable to all successors and assigns
Silence is acquiescence/Agreement/Dishonour
COUNTER OFFER
October 30, 2013
[Address]
Dear Mr Myers,
I hope you are having a wonderful day. In follow up to your letter to Gail Blackman dated October 24,2013, I find this a serious issue and would like to resolve it but before I am able to engage in any kind of business with you, I would require verification of the following from you;
1. Proof of standing, and/or
2. A lawful contract between yourself and Gail Blackman, and/or
3. A contract between you and the bank to deal with this specific matter, and/or
4. A notarized copy of your power of attorney from the bank to verify your standing.
Your failure to provide the requested verification of your claim by registered post within five (5) business days constitutes agreement of the following terms;
1. You are a third party interloper
2. You have no legal standing
3. You have no first hand knowledge of this matter
4. Your claim is fraudulent
5. Any damages I may suffer, you will be held culpable, including any negative marks made to credit reference agencies, of which you will, at your own cost have removed.
6. The apparent account in question is settled and closed, that you will no longer pursue this matter any further
7. You agree to pay for my time and effort in this matter.
Further communication from you, either by phone or mail or registered mail will confirm that you are personally now assuming full commercial LIABILITY for the unlawful and fraudulent claims of the National Bank, OR, you are confirming that you are an equal respondent on the commercial lien and affidavit of obligation that may be created should the harassment continue.
Should you provide the requested evidence that I owe your organization or your client any outstanding amount and that you can provide proof that they have assigned your agency, I will be happy to pay any verified claim in full.
Please provide the requested verification, in writing, by registered post within 5 business days of the date of this letter. No response from you will be deemed as your acceptance of the terms of this NOTICE.
Sincerely,
Gail Blackman
All Rights Reserved
No assured value. No liability. Errors & Omissions Excepted
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. WITHOUT RECOURSE. WITHOUT ASSUMPSIT
Neither of the Blackmans bothered to defend themselves at small claims court, instead they wrote the clerk of the court stating that they refused to be bound by the jurisdiction of the court. They subsequently produced a copy of the lawyer's Claim document over which the words “NEW ORIGINAL” had been written in red pen and stamped “VOID” over the lawyer's signatures and that of the clerk who issued the claim. Man, if it were just so easy, the possibilities!Who are you? As you have failed to provide any proof of standing, as there is no lawful contract between you and GAIL BLACKMAN, and/or GAIL MARIE BLACKMAN and/or LARRY BLACKMAN and/or LARRY CURTIS BLACKMAN. Any debts owed by GAIL BLACKMAN, and/or GAIL MARIE BLACKMAN and/or LARRY BLACKMAN and/or LARRY CURTIS BLACKMAN are paid.
As you have failed to provide any proof of standing, nothing is owed to you. Continued communication attempts, without proof of standing, are attempts to defraud, deceive, manipulate and/or waste valuable time and will result in the attached fee schedule, in effective immediately.
CEASE and DESIST all harassment, communication and communication attempts with GAIL BLACKMAN, and/or GAIL MARIE BLACKMAN and/or LARRY BLACKMAN and/or LARRY CURTIS BLACKMAN immediately.
By: Gail Blackman
Unfortunately this rock solid defense somehow failed to work and Mr. and Ms. Blackman were noted in default on 19 February 2014 and a default judgment for $20,536.99 was issued. This generated a response by letter on 4 April 2014, the tone and content of which were consistent with the earlier letters from Ms. Blackman except that it came from 8750432 Canada Inc. The letter made reference to a “public notice” which had supposedly advised that the unauthorized use of Ms. Blackman’s name would incur a penalty of $250,000 per day. The same “public notice” also made reference to the “vessel” known as Gail Marie Blackman now being the lawful property of a private trust, that trust apparently being 8750432 Canada Inc. This letter also enclosed an invoice from the corporation for $15,000,000. A corporate records search disclosed that Ms. Blackman was the only director.
Further unproductive correspondence ensued including another missive from the corporation which included another fee schedule similar to the one attached to the prior “public notice” adding a charge for “Fraud” of $2,000,000 per use of Ms. Blackman's name. Another letter from the corporation was sent to the lawyers enclosing an invoice for $2,755,000 and a copy of a PPSA Registration verification obtained by the corporation against the lawyers. (note - A Personal Property Security Agreement (PPSA) registration is associated with registering personal property as security, (such as a car) to a loan or line of credit).
Then Ms. Blackman decided to up the crazy even further by attempting to commence a private criminal prosecution against one of the lawyers alleging fraud, trespass and breach of trust in relation to his “alleged claim and default judgment”. This was declined by a Justice of the Peace in Oshawa.
So she put liens on the lawyer's personal property. I assume they were liens,, this is not my area. On 13 August 2014 the lawyers sent the Blackmans a demand under section 56(2) of the PPSA to register a financing change statement discharging the financing statement within 10 days. The lawyers pointed out that, in the absence of a signed security agreement between either of the lawyers and the Blackmans, there was no valid security interest and, hence, no right to register a financing statement. The corporation responded to this by informing one of the lawyers that the PPSA registration against him personally would only be withdrawn upon payment of $10,255,000.
Instead of settling this in a simple sensible manner by coughing up the $10,255,000 and other related fees the lawyers did what lawyers do and took the Blackmans to court.
The judge stomped on the security registration in a perfunctory, almost brutal manner with a one-line comment;
However the applicants sought more. They said that the respondents were “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (or “OPCA”) litigants, as described by Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). Specifically, they asserted that the registration of a bogus financing statement against them, the continued abuse of the PPSA registration system by maintaining a false and voidable registration and the continuation of a harassing and abusive campaign by seeking a “ridiculous” amount of money from Mr. Myers in return for a discharge merit awards of damages and costs against all defendants.[21] It is clear on the facts that the PPSA registration against the applicants without colour of right and should be discharged forthwith.
This is where the judge took the easy road and just wheeled out Meads v Meads to do the heavy lifting;[24] Thus they request, in addition to the discharge order:
a. The sum of $500 as provided by section 56(4) of the PPSA;
b. An award of punitive damages and damages for injurious falsehood of $75,000 in favour of PHM;
c. An award of punitive damages and damages for injurious falsehood of $25,000 in favour of Mr. Myers;
d. That the individual respondents should be held liable for the actions of the corporate respondent; and
e. Costs of the application on a full indemnity basis.
As I said in my recent Glenn (Hang 'Em High!) Fearn posting, that damn judge Rooke has a lot to answer for. Meads v, Meads has been breaking the hearts and crushing the dreams of Canadian deadbeats, parasites, and the mentally unbalanced since the day it was released (perhaps unleashed is a more appropriate word). And so it proved here.[25] Whether or not the respondents are OPCA litigants (Ms. Blackman says they are not and claims to have been unfamiliar with the term), a number of the characteristics of such litigants, as described by Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. in Meads, are present in this case.
[26] An often employed tactic of OPCA litigants is said to be the use of “foisted” obligations in various forms – with the recipient being given a limited amount of time to respond and disagree, failing which they are held to have agreed to the terms of a unilateral agreement.
[27] The fee schedules sent to the applicants are typical of foisted agreements and are wholly invalid and devoid of merit (see Meads at para 470).
The judge, being a big-hearted softie, denied the requests for punitive damages, full indemnity costs, and injurious falsehood. Can't say I agree with his reasons, you can read them for yourselves. However he did grant, as a consolation prize, the $500 PPSA fee and substantial indemnity costs of $22,500, but only against the corporation. However the judge recognized that the corporation, which did all the impugned conduct, was just an alter ego for Ms. Blackman so he stripped away the corporate veil, but only in respect to her.
What Makes Ms. Blackman more than your standard Freeman litigant in this case is her actual registering of the PPSA claims and liens. Many OPCA litigants threaten to do this but very few actually carry through on the threat. It is also unusual to see OPCA litigants attempt to initiate criminal proceedings against their targets. This is a failed David Kevin Lindsay tactic.Personal Liability of Individual Defendants
[39] Where a corporation is used as a shield for fraudulent or improper conduct, it is appropriate to hold the responsible individuals personally accountable: 642947 Ontario Ltd. v Fleischer 2001 CanLII 8623 (ON CA), (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.) at 68. In the present case, the corporate respondent appears to have been incorporated principally, if not exclusively, for the purpose of shielding Ms. Blackman, its principal and directing mind, from the consequences of her dealings with and concerning the applicants and their client.
[40] As early as 28 November 2013, Ms. Blackman was describing herself as a “Secured Party Creditor”. She should not be permitted to shield behind a corporate veil to avoid the consequences of her subsequent improper use of the PPSA scheme.
[41] Ms. Blackman should therefore be held severally and jointly liable for the obligations to pay damages and costs arising from this endorsement. There is, however, no evidence to attribute similar culpability to Mr. Blackman and I therefore make no order against him personally.
So, apart from this one case, what else can we find about Ms. Blackman. Quite a bit;
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/gail.blackman
Google+:https://plus.google.com/109988085689989501071/about
Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3o_cG ... 7Okjki60rQ
She's filed a "Public Notice" on kijiji
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-financial-legal/ ... 1015785479
This states;
The very unusual aspect of this notice (apart from the usual Freeman "unusual") is that she has described her Strawman GAIL MARIE BLACKMAN as owning her biochemical makeup and fingerprints! So, how does one then distinguish the "trust property" from Ms. Blackman herself, given that she has transferred all of her personal "flesh and blood man" attributes to it?It is my wish that the corporation known as 8750432 CANADA INC takes possession and ownership of the trust account GAIL MARIE BLACKMAN and all things known and unknown associated including DNA, finger prints and all subject matter jurisdiction duly noted on September 1, 2014. Anyone having superior claim to the trust account of GAIL MARIE BLACKMAN must make a written submission to the Receivers office, 2-157 Harwood Ave N, Suite 200, Ajax, Ontario within 90 days of this notice.
She's a new-age guru type with a book (http://www.amazon.ca/Healing-Mind-Spiri ... 973909706/). Currently number 2,309,792 in Amazon's best-seller list! That baby's on fire!
She also runs something called the "WISE Network" Here's its homepage (http://www.wiseapproach.com/). She has counseling for pets;
She has a video on the site discussing her pet emotion therapy. Feel free to indulge, I bailed at the part where she claimed you could capture images from your pet's mind.WISE PETS is an approach that provides an opportunity for the pet owner to connect with their pet to further develop a mutual respect with them and aide the pet in their own health and wellbeing (sic). Introducing and using the WISE techniques with them, will allow your animal to deal with their own emotions that have an affect on behaviour, health and wellbeing.
There is much, much more. YouTube videos, a Truth Radio program, Facebook for the radio program, and on and on, the self-promotion is relentless. Hope it all brings in enough to pay off her loan and court costs!
