Master Gee is trying to evict Mr. and Mrs. Burnaby49!

[Burnaby49]

This time it's personal.

Master Gee aka Mark Gildemeester just tried to convince the Supreme Court of British Columbia aka "THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA" that the municipality of Burnaby (from whence I get my Quatloos moniker) and indeed the entire lower mainland of British Columbia encompassing Vancouver and about 75% of the population of the province belongs, not to the registered property owners like myself, but to the Squamish Nation. The Squamish Nation is a local aboriginal band of about 4,000 people scattered about in various locations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamish_Nation

They could certainly use the money, the band leaders seem to be involved in some financial irregularities;

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/ ... story.html

To be fair to the Squamish Nation I'm not aware that the band itself promotes the argument that they own my house however Master Gee got a compliant band member to sign a nice affidavit making the claim on his behalf;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/sii777vq1 ... idavit.pdf

Gildemeester doesn't stand to get any direct personal benefit by having the Squamish Nation take over ownership of Burnaby because he is not a member of the Squamish Band and is not affiliated with them in any way. His connection to Burnaby is through his business, Master Gee's Black Belt Academy, a local martial arts school located on Hastings Street in Burnaby;

http://mastergees.com/

So what goal does Master Gee have that is of such vast importance that it justifies the draconian step of displacing the entire population of the greater Vancouver area, Canada's third largest city, to attain it? How does he plan to enrich himself through the disenfranchisement of Burnaby?

He doesn't want to pay his $300 a year municipal business license fee.

First some background and then arguments. The academy was set up in 2001 under the name Master Gee : Divine Winds Corporate Sole. This was later changed to Master Gee's Black Belt Academy. Notwithstanding the suspiciously UCC/OPCA/Freemanish original name he dutifully paid his Burnaby business license fees for the next nine years until, in 2010, he had an epiphany. He wasn't a businessman running a business for profit in the municipality of the City of Burnaby. He was a private person engaged in a private capacity and not operating for profit in the non-existent municipality of THE CITY OF BURNABY.

So he stopped paying his business license fee. The lawyer acting for Burnaby gave the subsequent events at the hearing, letters back and forth, demands etc culminating in the court hearing. One point of note is that Mark claims he would be happy to pay his fee if only the municipality will answer his apparently numerous letters demanding that it prove, to his satisfaction, that he, as a private person acting in a private capacity is required to pay the fee. He felt that the municipality's refusal to respond was both proof that he is right and that the municipality was not showing him the appropriate "respect". The issue of "respect" was really the recurring theme that provided the background music to the proceedings. Mark wanted, no, demanded, kiss-ass respect from the municipality and his feelings were hurt because he wasn't getting it. He was big on demanding respect from everyone, both Burnaby and the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He seems to be about the touchiest guy alive on the issue of the deference that has to be given to his OPCA stupidity.

After five fruitless years of this kind of back and forth the municipality went to court to get an order signed closing down Master Gee's business until such time as he paid his fees, including past fees, and various penalties. The municipality's petition is here;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/ayab4h21k ... 0Court.pdf

Mark's response is here;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/fdo334btc ... tition.pdf

I won't go too deep into discussing the municipality's petition. The obvious dry legal stuff about neglecting/failing/refusing to renew his business license in conflict with section something or another. All necessary stuff but I sat through a morning of the lawyer for Burnaby going over it in detail in court so if you're interested read it yourself.

Master Gee' response held nothing really new to a jaded OPCA voyeur like myself. However of interest is Part 4: Factual Basis, where the defendant is required to provide the facts, not the arguments, on which his defense relies. Obviously Mark has a far different understanding of the word "fact" than I or the courts do. Comments like these seem more in the realm of wild unsupported speculation than facts to me;

1. The geographic area known as Burnaby is located on unceded First Nations land that is NOT leased or sold to the "City of Burnaby"

2, The Petitioner's Petition is made to a non-existent court, from a non-existent legal person against unknown legal persons.

a. There does not exist in law a lawful court name and style "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA";

b. (just moronically stupid legal argument blather claimed to be, in actuality, fact)

c. There does not exist in law a legal person name and style "CITY OF BURNABY";

d. Letters Patent created "City of Burnaby" not "CITY OF BURNABY"'

And then a lot of Latin gibberish to dress up nonsense in fake legal styling;

e. The respondents do not consent to their names being altered from style capitis dimitio minima to capitis dimitio maxima (ie. (sic) Mark Gildemeester / MARK GILDEMEESTER) which is seen as an attempt to diminish a private person's status at law with loss of rights;

After that almost a full page of similar nonsense focusing on how they are private persons to whom laws don't apply because they are so special and how capital letters indicate that nothing exists except their right not to pay their fees. Master Gee had a squabble in a prior court hearing, small claims court, which he brushes aside on the same basis as the existence of the Supreme Court of British Columbia;

9. The "payment hearing" referred to was via a "Summary" conviction, in a meeting we were purposely not invited to. In a FOREIGN court named and style "IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (SMALL CLAIMS COURT)" contrary to the "Provincial Court Act" name and styles of the court.

I think Mark was particularly upset that he was not given a personal invitation to rant away in front of Burnaby employees about how brilliant he is;

11. We were not invited to a By-Law adjudication hearing

and a lot of resentment that Burnaby didn't snap to it and answer their questions on demand;

4. Although a business license may have been purchased in the past it was done without full knowledge or understanding of the law and not renewed when it was learned that private activities of a private person do not need a license. Questions were asked of the City of Burnaby to support their claim that private activities of private persons were lawfully required to have a license. No legitimate answers were received, other than bullying and intimidation.

The comment "No legitimate answers were received, other than bullying and intimidation" raises an interesting point. That "other than" indicates, at least to me, an acknowledgement by Master Gee that the bullying, intimidating response was in fact a legitimate answer to his questions.

In Part 5: LEGAL BASIS Gildemeester admits that Burnaby might have some rights to enforce bylaws but;

7. The community charter, if it does allow a municipality to enforce, prevent and restrain a proceeding in the "Supreme Court of British Columbia" therefore does not allow proceedings at "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA" via the "CITY OF BURNABY" both unknown entities to law;

It all culminates in this resounding rallying cry for freedom;

12. The issue is: can a non-existent legal entity, or even a lawfully created entity, forcefully, without our consent, invade, interfere, license, franchise a right of a private person exercising their property rights and privacy rights:

Emphasis in the original

As further example of the stupidity I had to wade through try this from an affidavit Master Gee signed on February 12, 2012 (not put up in Media Fire);

9) - I have read and have knowledge that the definition of commercial activity as defined in the Excise Tax Act of Canada Section 240 (1) does not include "an activity by a natural person without a reasonable expectation of profit

Where to start, where to start? How about with the obvious point that he is referring to an act of the Federal Government of Canada relating to a federal tax on sale of goods. This has absolutely no relevance whatever to the municipal regulations of the City of Burnaby. Why not argue that there is no definition of "an activity by a natural person without a reasonable expectation of profit" in Canada's Excess War Profits Act of 1917 or EC regulation No, 2257/94 mandating the minimum allowable size of bananas sold within the European Community?

Secondly "an activity by a natural person without a reasonable expectation of profit" is just a bunch of words these OPCA/UCC clowns have strung together for their own purposes with no basis in law. So how can any act defining anything to do with "commercial activity" include it? To do so correctly, according to Gildemeester's standards. would require that any definition in 240 (1) cover any other possible gibberish combination of words that the OPCA idiots can think up. If the City of Burnaby came up with a definition of natural person somewhere that refuted Gildemeester's argument there is nothing stopping him from advancing an alternate position that he is refusing to pay the Burnaby business license fee because he is a Vogon engaged in the creative activity of writing bad poetry which obviously has no possible potential for profit. Then he could write, with as much sense and legal relevance as his actual argument;

9) - I have read and have knowledge that the definition of commercial activity as defined in the Excise Tax Act of Canada Section 240 (1) does not include "an activity by a Vogon poet without a reasonable expectation of profit"

And, thirdly, subsection 240(1) of the Excise Tax Act of Canada doesn't define "commercial activity" or any other word or phrase. It's not a definitions section."

So on to the Karate Kid's Kourtroom Kapers! Or not. Readers of my numerous court reports are aware I try to be diligent, arrive on time, sit through the session, accurately record. But this case was cursed. First shot at it was on November 20th. It was an Applications Session. I've previously explained Applications Sessions and written about one here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=220#p163974

I arrived on time and sat through a whole day of applications without our case getting its turn. At lunch break I walked over to my dentist and arranged a noon appointment on the 27th for a filling. Back at court I took a short walk down the hall outside the courtroom at 2:30 and when I got back the Gildemeesters and the Burnaby lawyer were gone but the court was still in session. So I waited until break, about 3:00, to find that we'd been adjourned until November 27th, the date of my dental appointment.

So, on the 27th, after last week's wasted day, I was all set to be at the court at 9:45 and hopefully see it finished before my appointment. I was at my bus stop well ahead of the 8:58AM bus to Joyce Station and I waited. And waited, and waited. The 8:58 didn't show up, nor did the 9:12 or 9:28 although three buses rolled by in the opposite direction. I gave up and made the half-hour walk to Joyce station. Ok, fine, once on Skytrain I'm downtown in 12 minutes, get off at Granville Station, a ten minute walk to the court and at the front entrance at 10:20. But I couldn't get in. Oil pipeline protesters had blocked access by chaining themselves to the doors.

As an aside here is a video of one of the same protesters on Burnaby Mountain going all sovereign on the RCMP;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCspnAKUfjk

The downtown Vancouver courthouse is a huge low-level sprawling complex, it takes up two full city blocks and I had to walk around a bi part of one of them to get in by a back entrance. Finally made it to the courtroom at 10:25 to find I had a friend in court. A Vancouver lawyer I know who is also interested in OPCA issues was watching the hearing. He would become important later in the day by standing in my place as a recorder of events. Our case hadn't come up yet so I sat and watched events with him.

I'd written in the Applications Session discussion linked above;

. . . . . Turns out it was an Applications Session where lawyers try and cajole a judge to sign court orders on their behalf and they were all lined up to sign in with the registrar.

They were required to give an estimate of time required and they ranged from 1 minute (and he did it, in and out in 37 seconds, I timed it) to 1 hour 59 minutes with a few 1 hour 55 minutes. I checked later on that. Any request 2 hours or longer had to go to a trials session so this was a little legal trick to sneak trial session matters in through the back door. You lawyers! The registrar questioned those; "is this really an hour and fifty five or are you trying to avoid trial division". They all assured her it was legit and since they were all lawyers it must be true!

Well this time the judge caught a pair out in a little fib. They'd apparently tried to jump the queue by giving an unrealistically short time requirement. They had asked for 30 minutes which put them at the head of the pack but judge wasn't buying it. She said she'd read the affidavits and other filed documents and there was no way they were going to be finished in 30 minutes. It was a complex issue, a contested application for a court order to do with something about a child's guardianship, essentially a mini-trial. So she asked the applicant how long he realistically expected it to take. He waffled and said that he could probably finish within the 30 minutes. Then judge asked opponent the same question. She could do her spiel in 30 minutes too. Judge said that's an hour with at least another half hour for rebuttal. So she made them stand down and wait their turn at the end of the line.

Suddenly our case was culled from the herd and we were given our own courtroom and judge! Off to courtroom 55. It was huge, a jury box and seating for at least 60 or so. However judge wasn't up to speed, just assigned to the case, so we had a fifteen minute break while he went through the documents. Then, while we waited outside in the lobby, the fire alarm went off. As I said, this case is cursed. There was a sudden overwhelming roar as the emergency ventilation system kicked in to suck out all the non-existent smoke. I thought we were screwed but the court clerk opened the courtroom and told us that since it was only the intermittent alarm the judge was continuing. We'd be kicked out if the alarm went into high gear. It didn't and at 11:00 our case finally started.

Those present on the side of truth and justice were Gildemeester, his wife and two sons, and an older guy, looked aboriginal, I'm guessing Huuyaah, the guy that made the affidavit. Attendees for the oppressors were the lawyer for Burnaby (private, not crown employee), a Burnaby municipal employee watching the show, my lawyer friend and me. No other concerned residents of Burnaby showed up although we were all in peril of losing our homes. Maybe they were too busy packing.

Gildemeester immediately presented himself to the court as a private person acting in a private capacity and started arguing that the court didn't actually exist because its name on all the documents was in capital letters but in section 2.1 of the Supreme court of British Columbia Act it was in upper and lower case. He said he couldn't "relax" in court because the City of Burnaby was also styled in all capital letters in the various documents whereas it was in upper and lower case on the city website. Same with his and his wife's names. Everywhere he looked it was a fictitious alternate world of all capital letters. He wanted the court to issue an order that the documents all had to be changed to mixed case and that the court confirm that it was actually the Supreme Court of British Columbia acting as a Section 2.1 court. If it didn't his rights were not being respected. He said the fact that none of the documentation correctly identified the parties was a HUGE issue. He again demanded a court order. Judge wasn't buying it and refused saying that the capitalization issue was irrelevant. Well then, Gildemeester said, the case is over because it can't proceed if the parties and court are styled incorrectly. Judge said "We are proceeding". "You're going ahead?" Mark asked incredulously. The judge said he'd already ruled against him so the issue was finished. Mark rebutted by saying that this caused him to question the legitimacy of the proceedings. He kept going over and over the issue (at least it was an issue to him) about how neither Burnaby nor the court existed because of all those capital letters.

So Mark then demanded that the judge confirm that this was actually the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Judge responded "You know what court you are in". The judge said he hadn't memorized the Supreme Court of British Columbia Act so he had no idea what section 2.1 said but this was the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Mark accused the judge of sidestepping the issue. Mark said the judge was not willing to make him feel "safe" by confirming for the record that this was the real Supreme Court in adherence to 2.1 of the Supreme Court of British Columbia Act because this was obviously a court unknown to law "I don't want to participate in this court, I want to participate in a lawful court". Judge said "If you don't want to proceed that's fine but this application is proceeding regardless of your participation". I, along with the judge, had no idea what 2.1 of the Act said so I checked later, This is it;

2 (1) The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the "Supreme Court of British Columbia".

So, for what it is worth (absolutely nothing) Mark is right, the Act doesn't identify the court name as being in all upper case letters.

Then Mark demanded the judge's oath of office and his bonding information. When the judge refused Mark said that since the judge would not provide these "you are not a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and this is not a legitimate court". He was getting very aggressive and said he had asked three times that the judge issue an order identifying the court as a 2.1 court and to require the paperwork be styled correctly but the judge was refusing. The judge was losing his patience and I was expecting him to call security but Mark suddenly backed off and sat down. Perhaps he'd concluded, like I had, that the judge was about to start getting very unpleasantly judicial. It wouldn't be the first time, Gildemeester's had experience. He was involved in at least one other hearing, in 2012, where he harangued the judge about her oath of office until she called security and he was apparently tossed out. See the last page of this document;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/y3rs2e16s ... 20Bond.pdf

This document also includes UCC Financial Statements for Mr and Mrs., Gee, including thumbprints and stern looking photographs. He clearly isn't fighting the city just to save money on license fees since this document includes two US$90,000,000,000 Indemnity bonds that the Gees created, one each for Mark and Robyn. It also appears from this document that the Gilemeesters have copyrighted their names although this, surprisingly, did not play any part in the current proceedings.

The Burnaby lawyer went through her song and dance. She mainly referred to documents and she gave the history of Burnaby's attempts to have Gildemeester pay his business license fees which I've related briefly above. Good solid stuff but not what we're here for. I listed the various amounts the municipality was asking for but I think I lost track, my notes are almost illegible. It looks like a total of $3,865 in unpaid license fees and various fines plus requested costs of $3,500. However I stand to be corrected on that one.

As a comment as a Burnaby property owner with the associated property taxes; the expense of retaining a lawyer to handle this probably greatly exceeds any costs and back fees Burnaby will get out of this but I agree they have to be aggressive. If Gildemeester can skip on his fees because of some bullshit he pulled off the internet then so can anyone else, including we property tax owners. While I'd love to stop paying property tax I still want to have my garbage collected, water coming out of the taps, the street repaired, the usual necessities for keeping the place livable. I don't think the Squamish Nation is on top of that kind of thing.

By 11:45 she was just wrapping up and it was Gildemeester's turn. But unfortunately I had to practice Courtus interruptus and leave for my noon dental appointment. That was over at 12:40 but the court would have been at lunch recess by then, restarting at 2:00. I didn't want to hang around downtown just to find case was over so I went over to my lawyer friend's office to see if he was back. Not yet but he showed up a few minutes later. He had taken notes after I left and the remaining report of the day's proceedings is based on them. As I suspected Gildemeester got his turn within a few minutes of my leaving.

As soon as Gildemeester was up he complained about the municipality putting Robyn, his wife, as a respondent in the petition. While she worked at the academy she did not own the business and she had no control over it. The municipality relied on Section 3(a) of the Burnaby Business License bylaw which states;

Every person carrying on maintaining owning or operating within the Municipality an profession, business, trade, occupation, calling, or undertaking or thing, shall hold a subsisting license therefor (sic) from the corporation, and shall pay therefor (sic) the fee specified in Schedule "A" in respect thereof, which fee in shall in all cases be paid in advance. The words "person engaged in the profession business trade occupation calling undertaking or thing" when used in Schedule "A" shall include any person connected with the business in any manner whatever whether as an owner, partner employee, servant, or agent or any other capacity.

The judge (quite correctly in my opinion) found this over-broad and asked "does that mean it can include the receptionist?" So notwithstanding the wording of the section the judge agreed to remove Robyn from the petition. This is about as vague a piece of legislation as I've ever seen. How can the City of Burnaby require me to hold a license in order to own a thing?

Next Mark complained that he was not a OPCA litigant. He was a UCC sovereign whose goal was to uphold his rights as a private person. He said he was in court because Burnaby was disrespectful to him by not proving, as he demanded, that he was covered by the municipal licensing codes. He said that if Burnaby had answered his questions how a private person had to file as a business he was willing to "work in interest" with them but they refused to answer. Since they failed in their duty to explain this it made him a slave to Burnaby. Then back to how the court and city names were wrong. He'd gone to the Burnaby city archives and found a copy of the original city charter. There had been a fire in the past and the charter was fire-damaged but enough remained to prove that the real city of Burnaby was named in the charter in both upper and lower case letters so the upper case CITY OF BURNABY in the court filings didn't exist. Then back to respect. Burnaby was "slothful and lazy" in not answering his questions and he wanted those answers as to how a private person could be required to have a Burnaby business license. He said he wanted the court to order Burnaby to answer his questions.

Then he brought in his backup argument. Burnaby was unceded Squamish nations land so Burnaby had no control over him. His business was all legit according to the real owners of the property because he'd had Richard Baker, a member of the Squamish Nation, give him a permit to operate his business.

The Squamish Nation Baker family has been written up fairly extensively here;

Klatle-Bhi & Tay-Sun-Quay-Ton - Sovereign Indian Law Lawyers
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9712

And if Richard is part of that Baker family I'm guessing that the Squamish nation doesn't want him as their representative in these matters.

In brief, this is a dispute between the Chief and Counsel of the Squamish Indian Band and a bunch of people from the Baker family. The Bakers operated the Capilano Mobile Park, which had for some time had a lease to use Squamish land and operate the trailer park. The deal was the Band received 35% of the revenue from the park: 2011 BCSC 470, at para. 11.

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.

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:

Little things like this, just minor squabbles, tend to have a disproportionate effect on relationships.

Gildemeester's last argument was that Burnaby hadn't shown him any contract he'd signed showing that he'd consented to be covered by its bylaws. This fall right into place with his UCC Sovereign beliefs that all laws are contracts. He wants his costs too. He said the municipality couldn't get costs against him because it is unconstitutional for courts to award costs against self-represented litigants. News to me.

With that the session was over and the judge reserved his decision. My wife is remarkably calm about the fact that our life here in Burnaby hinges on the results of Mark's hearing. Women just don't understand the implications of important legal issues. I, on the other hand, am so distressed by the possible outcome of this momentous action that I'm posting this now rather than waiting for the decision to come out. If things go badly I'll probably be too busy packing and arranging for new accommodation to find the time to post. I might have to change my avatar name to LivingUnderBridge49. At least I got my current name legitimately included in a Quatloos discussion header.

[Burnaby49]

I forgot to note the mandatory Meads v. Meads reference! What Canadian OPCA case is complete without it? Meads was cited by the Burnaby lawyer. The judge asked, somewhat sharply I thought, What part of her arguements Meads related to. She mentioned the all capital letters issue. The judge said he'd already decided on that, move on.

[littleFred]

What is it with dentists and courts?

If you find yourself homeless, just come over here. Cold homes and warm beers!

[Burnaby49]

What is it with dentists and courts?

If you find yourself homeless, just come over here. Cold homes and warm beers!

LittleFred is referring of course to that greatest of alcoholic beverages, Campaign For Real Ale (CAMRA) approved real ale. Flat, warm, low alcohol, what's not to love? A friend and I started a British real ale quest over a decade ago and, at this point, have had at least one beer in over 1,000 different British pubs. I have the list, starting at the Golden Gates in Edinburgh in 2002 (bad start, a real dump, the worst pub of the thousand, not surprisingly long gone) to Doggett's in London last year. Not all real ale of course, it was hard to get in the early days, but now every pub carries it.

Regular beer is called keg beer. It is carbonated and chilled with preservatives and has a long shelf life. The problem with real ale (called cask beer) is that it is not carbonated and has no preservatives and therefore has a very short shelf life, about two weeks. Casks are much smaller than kegs, about half the size, but even so pubs with smaller volumes couldn't get through a cask before it went off resulting in a lot of wastage they couldn't afford. That was CAMRA's real challenge, to get real ale popular enough that the pubs got the volume to finish casks off before it went bad. They are now there. You might be familiar with real ale through old British movies, the ones where the barmaid pulls away on a lever to fill the glass. That was because, in the absence of carbonation, the beer had to be pumped by hand. Regular beer just squirts out the tap at the press of a button because of pressurization.

Until very recently real ale was largely unavailable in Vancouver. We have a lot of very small craft brewers and once in a while one would put out a batch of cask. But it would be almost like a religious ceremony, the Railway Club is opening a cask at 7PM Thursday night! But a brand new place just opened up with promises of real ale on tap at all times;

http://steeltoad.ca/

We went there as soon as it opened and it's the real deal. As they say on their website "Traditional English style, Low carbonation, Cellar temperature, Pumped through a beer engine". Their Best Bitter is as good as I'd expect to get at a British pub although I'm hesitant to try their Oatmeal stout even if it is cask. "Intense chocolate, toffee, and roast coffee flavour and aroma, with a silky mouthfeel" doesn't sound like my kind of thing but I'll give it a try sometime.

[Burnaby49]

Problems, problems, problems. I've just been advised by a Vancouver lawyer that my new residential plan, living under a bridge, is illegal in Vancouver. I once found a dead man under an east Vancouver bridge (quite true) but I suppose he was legally in the clear because he wasn't technically "living" there. Not a loophole that I plan to exploit.

[PeanutGallery]

Don't worry Burnaby! From my errant youth spent in Vancouver I can tell you that if push comes to shove you can always chance your arm performing tricks for the foreign backpackers on Granville (protip, start growing a beard now because drunks will pay good money to watch you light it on fire outside the Royal Nightclub). Or maybe see if you can hustle up a bed for the night on Davie street (might not want to run that plan by Mrs Burnaby).

[Burnaby49]

Don't worry Burnaby! From my errant youth spent in Vancouver I can tell you that if push comes to shove you can always chance your arm performing tricks for the foreign backpackers on Granville (protip, start growing a beard now because drunks will pay good money to watch you light it on fire outside the Royal Nightclub). Or maybe see if you can hustle up a bed for the night on Davie street (might not want to run that plan by Mrs Burnaby).

I already have a beard and moustache. Nothing to do with fashion or appearance, just sheer laziness. In the early 90's I took three months off work without pay to just relax and travel a bit. I didn't see any reason to shave every morning while I was off and, since wife didn't mind it, saw no reason to start up the irksome daily routine again when I went back to work.

You've been gone a while, times have changed. Granville Street is a nightmare of nightclubbing at night now. The police actually barricade Granville off on Friday and Saturday nights and there is a heavy police presence because of violence by drunken revelers and gang types. Just like Manchester on a Saturday night.

Davie Street, like most of Vancouver, has gone too upscale for unhassled street sleeping but I have an emergency plan! I have a friend who has an open porch. Wife and I could fit under that along with the skunks and raccoons.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Problems, problems, problems. I've just been advised by a Vancouver lawyer that my new residential plan, living under a bridge, is illegal in Vancouver. I once found a dead man under an east Vancouver bridge (quite true) but I suppose he was legally in the clear because he wasn't technically "living" there. Not a loophole that I plan to exploit.

He was probably just taking a break while travelling. Or a year off for tax purposes.

[Burnaby49]

It has suggested to me that Gildemeester's tactics are probably straight out of Irene Gravenhorst's playbook. She has been discussed here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6171

And the dire consequences of following her advice have been considered here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9396

It is entirely possible that Gravenhorst is behind the scenes manipulating our self-entitled Master Gee, his antics match up to what little I know about her positions. I'm not going to bother researching her up to try and match up her past failures to Gee's antics but if you want to check her out try these;

http://www.sovsquamishgov.org/

The claimed Sovereign Squamish Government is discussed below. Note that it is not the same entity as the Squamish Nation. The SSG is just one guy claiming to be a hereditary chief.

Some of her greatest hits videos....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVf30rA89Fc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jUxupkD57g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVf30rA ... 846C9D4915

I haven't watched this one but the title indicates a few problems with her sovereign claims;

http://truthfiles.net/?p=3387

This site;

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=3887.0

gives a bit of her background and states (as I've read elsewhere) that while she claims to be part of the Squamish nation she is actually an immigrant from Indonesia. As the site says;

SSNG seems to be one elderly Squamish man, Gerry Johnston who calls himself Kiapilanoq/CAPILANO. He seems to have fallen for an Indonesian woman half his age, his common law wife Irene Maus Gravenhorst AKA "Irene Peace Kiapilano." Gravenhorst often falsely claims to be a Squamish chief.

Gravenhorst is a real nut, a woman with a communications BA and a 2 yr certificate in business and social sciences who imagines herself a legal expert. Her site lists her career as follows:

2004 – present: Self litigator, student of metaphysics, sovereignty and Common law jurisdiction. President for Sovereign ©Squamish / Skwxwú7mesh™ Credit Group™. Economic Development Advisor for Siyam Te Kiapilanoq/CAPILANO for Sovereign ©Squamish / Skwxwú7mesh™ Government™ and Ambassador Dhelo Quete for RED JACKET™ for Turtle Island.
1998 – 2003: SACRED DEVELOPMENTS LTD. – Independent private business, British Columbia
1989 – 1997: MORCOM CONSULTANTS LTD., Executive Research Assistant and common law Business partner with Douglas Morcom
1987 – 1988: LADNER DOWNS, LLP, Vancouver; Corporate Securities Law
1986 – 1987: GOLUBOFF & MAZZEI, LLP, West Vancouver; Legal Assistant
1981 – 1984: RANDALL K. McROBERTS, Barrister & Solicitor, Invermere, BC VOA 1KO

IOW she was a legal secy and asst before trying to start businesses. Then she became a "student of metaphysics" and decided putting trademarks on her name made her real special and sovran. When not causing trouble for the actual Squamish, she runs workshops.

[Burnaby49]

A stunning new development, Mark Gildemeester, private person, U.C.C. certified sovereign, has submitted a new document to the court! A totally useless document!

http://www.mediafire.com/view/4n0tupcu4 ... Notice.pdf

Keep in mind that all of the documents that Gildemeester has submitted to the court to date are useless in advancing his case. He has not filed any argument understandable in law and nothing he has filed is in any way a legal defence of his position. So why is this one particularly useless? Because it makes no legal arguments at all and advocates no legal position. It adds nothing to what he has already submitted. It is just a record of Gildemeester's recollection of selected parts of the November 27th hearing. He's just telling the court what the court already knows.

Perhaps Master Gee was understandably upset by my sloppy reporting in my prior posting where I said;

Then Mark demanded the judge's oath of office and his bonding information. When the judge refused Mark said that since the judge would not provide these "you are not a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and this is not a legitimate court". He was getting very aggressive and said he had asked three times that the judge issue an order identifying the court as a 2.1 court and to require the paperwork be styled correctly but the judge was refusing. The judge was losing his patience and I was expecting him to call security but Mark suddenly backed off and sat down.

Maybe he was miffed that I hadn't noted that he asked six times in total.

Justice Kelleher was asked 6 times in total if the court we were presently in is "The Supreme Court of British Columbia" pursuant to section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act common law court of record.

I'll give him credit, often these guys warp what was said in court to reflect better on their arguments but Master Gee's statement seems to be accurate within the limits of what it covers. However I don't recall (and I didn't, at the time, record) him saying anything about the Supreme Court of British Columbia being a common law court of record. He may have said it once and it slipped by me but I would have noted had he made half a dozen references to it.

In the new document Gildemeester wrote;

Justice Kelleher was then requested to provide me and the court with his lawful "Oath of Office" and his bonding information 3 times, which he refused to do three times on record and in front of multiple witnesses, who are prepared to testify to that fact.

However, since Gildemeester himself has admitted that this evidence is already "on record", why does he think anybody needs to testify to prove it and why the need to prepare this document?

I'll make a guess at the reason he's done it. Even an individual with an ego and sense of entitlement as big as the great outdoors must realize that the court is going to rule against him. The judge swatted away his primary argument with the comment "it doesn't matter" and later stated in the hearing that he had already decided on the issue of capital letters. So Gildemeester is working on his appeal. This will require a transcript. He's checked out the cost to get a transcript and, rather than pay it, he's come up with the bright idea of filing this document as an alternative that costs him nothing. This document will be on record for appeals and serves, in his mind, as a valid alternate to a real transcript.

He apparently thinks that he is so important that the appeals court will be willing to accept, in lieu of an official transcript, a document that he wrote himself to further his case with the witnesses backing up his version of events being his wife and children. News Flash Mark; you are going to need an actual transcript.

It's all to no purpose anyhow. The Court of Appeal Act says;

1 In this Act:

"appellant" means the party bringing an appeal;
"chief justice" means the Chief Justice of British Columbia;
"court" means the Court of Appeal;

2 (1) The Court of Appeal is continued as a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction and consisting of the Chief Justice of British Columbia and 14 other justices.
(2) There is established for each office of justice established under subsection (1) an additional office of supernumerary judge of the court.
(3) Each of the persons holding an office under this section is a Justice of Appeal.

3 Before entering on the duties of the office, the chief justice and every justice must swear an oath as follows:

I,..........., do swear that I will truly and faithfully, according to my skill and knowledge, execute the duties, powers and trusts placed in me as a justice of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia [or as the Chief Justice of British Columbia] and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors.

All styled in upper and lower case. But somewhere, during the appeal, a document the court is going to be styled the COURT OF APPEAL and Mark will find himself confronting yet another illegitimate court. He'll rant and rave that the COURT OF APPEAL it is not really the true Court of Appeal of British Columbia and the impostor court has no jurisdiction over him. So the follies continue.

One thing that has been pointed out to me is that Mark has left a major issue out of his argument. If the original charter of the city of Burnaby is the critical document that defines how "City of Burnaby" must be legally styled why has he stopped at how the charter handles capitalization? What about font and font sizes? Logically only documents that also include these attributes can be validly recognized as pertaining to the real City of Burnaby. So Mark, you reviewed the charter, what was the font and font size in the name styling?

[Fmotlgroupie]

Justice Kelleher was asked 6 times in total if the court we were presently in is "The Supreme Court of British Columbia" pursuant to section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act common law court of record.

Ok, I'm not a lawyer, but even just from browsing case law theres some wonderful irony here. (The legal experts on here should of course feel free to correct me).

In Canada the provincial (I.e lower level) courts are "statutory" courts, which only exist because a statute says they do. The superior courts (the court of Queen's Bench in some provinces, or the BC Supreme Court in this case) are called "courts of inherent jurisdiction" because, by ancient common law tradition, there must be a court to which citizens can bring their grievances. I have no idea as to how historically accurate this is, but the point is that the BC Supreme Court is not dependent on the act that Mr Whackadoodle was referring to, exactly because of its nature as a common law court. I sometimes wonder whether some of these Freemen aren't law school faculty in disguise, giggling over their impeccably ridiculous arguments the whole time.

[notorial dissent]

Do the Canadian Courts not follow the tradition of the bailiff announcing that such and such court of such and such place is now in session either when or before the judge comes in? I would think that would be sufficient notice to all and sundry.

[Burnaby49]

"All rise for the judge" and "court is now in session" cover it. Even if the clerk identified it as the Authentic, Really Real, One and Only, Accept No Substitutes, Genuine Supreme Court of British Columbia this wouldn't fool sharp types like Gildemeester who know that document styling preempts any other evidence.

[PeanutGallery]

Of course not, the clerk would have to say it in capitals.

[Burnaby49]

Just in time for Christmas, the news that Mr. And Mrs. Burnaby49 can keep their home! The Gildemeester decision was released today and, legitimate court or not, the SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA decided against Master Gee. An astounding outcome given the massive weight of legal argument on his side all supporting the ancient venerable Anglo-Saxon legal principle of "I'm Special so I get whatever I want". The judge treated that argument very brusquely;

[12] These defences are without merit. Mr. Gildemeester operates a business in the City of Burnaby. He is required to have a business licence. He is no different from other persons operating businesses in the City.

No different than anyone else! Harsh, very harsh. One would expect, given the massive implications of this decision, no legitimate courts in British Columbia, no municipal governments, all land reverting back to the aboriginals, that the decision would be a major tome of deep legal insight, another Meads v. Meads. Instead the Honourable Mr. Justice Kelleher brushed Master Gee off with five pages of history and analysis. The decision hasn't been released yet so I'll go over it now and link to it later.

Most of the first three pages are just a history of the file to date. Master Gee won't pay, letters back and forth, nothing I didn't relate in prior postings. The first real analysis comes on page 3 where the judge reviews whether or not Master Gee ran a business for profit;

[5] Mr. Gildemeester’s position is that he did not intend to profit or gain, so no licence was required.

The judge quoted from Master Gee’s Black Belt Academy website;

[7] Master Gee’s Black Belt Academy maintains a website itself. It states under “About Us” the following:

Master Gee’s Black Belt Academy is the first choice in Burnaby for families who want to grow stronger together. As a family-run business for more than 30 years, we are living proof that “the family that kicks together sticks together”.

Our school is the longest running professional martial arts academy in Burnaby. We are grateful and proud to be voted #1 by our community year after year. We are also consistently named among the top 200 martial arts schools across North America.

At Master Gee’s, we cater to active families with busy schedules. Multiple classes throughout the week and two training floors give maximum flexibility for you to create a training schedule that works for everyone in the family. We also offer great special rates for families.

Above all, our instructors aim to offer all our students a positive, worthwhile experience as they pursue their goals in fitness, self defence and personal growth. We make sure that every day you train is a great day?

Another part of the website contains an “Introductory Offer” of $79.95 for a month of beginner classes, a private lesson and a uniform. It is referred to as a “$225 value”.

Leading to the conclusion;

[8] The academy is clearly a business. It charges fees for martial arts instruction.

Somewhat disappointing. The judge didn't even mention Master Gee's arguments about the implications of Section 240 (1) Excise Tax Act of Canada. It's like he considered it totally irrelevant.

So let's move on to the rest of Master Gee's legal positions which he had argued in great detail, both orally and in documents;

[9] Mr. Gildemeester refers to himself as “a de-jure man, private person, flesh, blood and bone living sole, and U.C.C. Certified sovereign.” He deposes that he is exercising private rights with other private persons and is not “operating” in the public. He asserts that a private person need not obtain a business licence to do private activities.

[10] Similar arguments have been raised and rejected in numerous cases across Canada.

[11] Mr. Gildemeester also objects that the petition refers to this court as THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and that the proper name and style of the court is The Supreme Court of British Columbia. He makes the same objection about the City of Burnaby, based on their letters patent. He accuses the City of Burnaby of fraud. He also asserts that the City of Burnaby is on unceded First Nations lands. He has provided evidence that a person Mr. Gildemeester says is an Elder of the Squamish Nation has given him permission to use the land in this fashion.

[12] These defences are without merit. Mr. Gildemeester operates a business in the City of Burnaby. He is required to have a business licence. He is no different from other persons operating businesses in the City.

A bit of relief at the end for Robyn Gildemeester.

13] The City has named Robyn Gildemeester as a respondent. It asserts that it has done so because she is the spouse of Mark Gildemeester and she is employed at the academy. The City points to the fact that the words “person engaged in the profession, business, trade, occupation, calling, undertaking or thing” includes any person “connected with the business in any manner whatsoever” whether “as an owner, partner, employee, servant, agent or in any other capacity.”

[14] Ms. Gildemeester may well work at the academy operated by her husband, but it does not make sense to me to find her in breach of the Bylaw. Clearly, the person who decided not to comply with the Bylaw is Mark Gildemeester.

However no relief for Master Gee;

[16] The respondents Mark Gildemeester doing business as Master Gee’s Black Belt Academy and Mark Gildemeester are in breach of the Bylaw. It is so declared.

[17] The City is entitled to a permanent and mandatory injunction pursuant to s. 274 of the Community Charter. That injunction will enjoin Master Gee’s Black Belt Academy from operating or carrying on its business within the City of Burnaby without a valid licence.

[18] The respondents ought to have paid a licence renewal fee of $307 for each of the years 2010 - 2014 inclusive, but have not done so. The licence renewal fees come to $1,535. Pursuant to s. 9(2) of the Bylaw, the respondents are liable for further fees of $750.

[19] Therefore, the respondent Mark Gildemeester doing business as Master Gee’s Black Belt Academy and Mark Gildemeester are ordered to pay $2,285 to the City of Burnaby for these fees.

[20] The petitioner is entitled to its costs.

At least the court threw Master Gee one crumb. The CITY OF BURNABY didn't get enhanced costs. They'll probably get those when Gildemeester loses his appeal of this decision.

[Burnaby49]

One point from the decision that requires comment. The judge wrote;

13] The City has named Robyn Gildemeester as a respondent. It asserts that it has done so because she is the spouse of Mark Gildemeester and she is employed at the academy. The City points to the fact that the words “person engaged in the profession, business, trade, occupation, calling, undertaking or thing” includes any person “connected with the business in any manner whatsoever” whether “as an owner, partner, employee, servant, agent or in any other capacity.”

[14] Ms. Gildemeester may well work at the academy operated by her husband, but it does not make sense to me to find her in breach of the Bylaw. Clearly, the person who decided not to comply with the Bylaw is Mark Gildemeester.

I'm not to sure that not complying with the bylaw was just Mark's decision. I sat beside the Gildemeesters in the courtroom lobby during the November 20th hearing date and eavesdropped. A public place so if they don't like it tough, show some discretion. Robyn was as indignant as Mark about the lack of respect they were shown by the municipality of Burnaby and how they couldn't in good conscience pay the business licensing fee when the municipality refused to answer their demands proving the fee applied to special people like themselves. Robyn quite openly explained it all in considerable depth to a total stranger that sat beside her (not me) and she seemed like a true believer to me. This was a solo performance since Mark was occupied listening to one of his followers/advisers explaining how he'd cured his own cancer. I didn't catch how, too busy listening to Robyn. My conclusion was that they were entirely of one mind on the issue.

Since Robyn is not in the court order it is possible that Mark will come up with the bright idea of passing the business over to her and continue the business under her ownership on the basis that she was not a named respondant in the order so it doesn't apply to her. A totally moronic losing strategy but Mark doesn't seem like a quitter.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I would suggest that, as the city didn't offer any evidence that Mrs Gee is a partner, co-director etc. and appears to be just another employee on paper, that is why that part was dismissed.

[Burnaby49]

I would suggest that, as the city didn't offer any evidence that Mrs Gee is a partner, co-director etc. and appears to be just another employee on paper, that is why that part was dismissed.

I'm not saying it was the wrong decision based on the evidence entered in court but it is my observation that Robyn was at least complicit in the refusal to pay. We'll see if they do the ownership shuffle. Given that the money involved is trivial any flaunting of the court order means that they are willing to risk their business over their idea of their rights.

[Burnaby49]

Master Gee makes the big times, he's immortalized on CanLii!

City of Burnaby v. Gildemeester, 2014 BCSC 2441

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... c2441.html

It's also up on my Media Fire account;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/9a040p9d7 ... 202441.pdf

[Burnaby49]

When we last saw Master Gee he was facing a cruel choice. He had been ordered by the SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA to pay the CITY OF BURNABY his accrued unpaid business license fees, get his license up to date, and pay a penalty and the city's legal costs. He could chose to either obey the order from the illegitimate court (the real court is the Supreme Court of British Columbia, not that all capital letters abomination) and bring his business license up to date or stay true to his principles and appeal the decision. Obeying the court order meant betraying what he knew was right, that the City of Burnaby, where his business was located, was not the entity demanding payment because the entity harassing him was some legal fiction that styled itself on documents as the CITY OF BURNABY. Since The CITY OF BURNABY does not exist it clearly had no right to impose license fees on him. However not obeying the order meant facing the possible loss of the business he's built through years of hard work.

I've been planning to go to Burnaby city hall and check it out but I walk everywhere so I was waiting for a sunny spell amongst all the rain before checking it out. That day was today. Fantastic weather, more like late April than February. Sunny, clear and warm. Sorry rest of Canada and the American eastern seaboard but that's how it is here this "winter". So I swung by city hall as part of an eight mile trek. I hadn't anticipated ending up in the city's legal department making a Freedom of Information request for something this simple but the Amazing Adventures of Burnaby49 sometimes take unexpected detours.

When I got to city hall I had a short wait behind some old coot who was just winding down a long rant about a parking ticket. Sure he had been illegally parked but it just wasn't fair that he was singled out. There were other illegally parked cars all around him that didn't get ticketed so he shouldn't have to pay. Since herd immunity doesn't apply to parking tickets the clerk was unmoved and his protests eventually petered out. He just didn't have the vitality or brio of rage-girl over at New Westminster courthouse. When it was my turn I asked to check if a Burnaby business had a valid paid-up business license. The clerk said she couldn't tell me, it was confidential. Huh? Burnaby businesses are required to display their business licenses in a prominent place on premises but they are considered confidential?

She suggested I go to the legal department and file a Freedom of Information request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privact Act. Seemed a somewhat excessive for a simple question but it was just down the hall so I went. I explained the problem to the clerk as I filled out the form and she went to the back and phoned the license people and came back to tell me that they wouldn't give out any financial information about Master Gee or any information about any past problems with the license. Again, huh? I showed her the request I'd entered on the FOI form and said it was exactly the same as what I'd asked the license people;

I want to find out if a Burnaby business license is currently paid and up to date. A yes or no is sufficient. The business is Master Gee's Black Belt Academy at 5508 Hastings St. Burnaby V5B 1R3. License would be signed by Mark Gildemeester.

So off to the phone again with the form. This time when she came back she told me that information was public but they'd misunderstood what I wanted however they'd tell me now. So off I went to find that the Academy has a valid one-year business license. He must have paid everything up to date along with penalty and costs to get it.

If you're reading this Master Gee, you made the right choice. Following your principles and being true to yourself is great in theory if you are young and have no responsibilities, when losses are still recoverable. But that is not the situation here. You've put in 20 years building Master Gee's Black Belt Academy and it is a family concern, your wife and children work there. The court order gave Burnaby the power to shut your business down if you did not comply and, while the city was probably very reluctant to take that step, it is clear that it was willing to do so had you not obeyed the order. An extremely high cost for what was essentially a totally trivial frivolous lawsuit driven by ego rather than common sense.