Allan James: Curle - A New Dean Clifford Arising?

[Burnaby49]

This is a split-off from an existing discussion, Carl Gustafson: Poriskyite and Philanderer;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9631

The focus on that discussion has changed so I felt a new discussion thread was in order. Mowe started the prior discussion because of Carl Gustafson's conviction for tax evasion under a plea bargain. Because he cooperated with the Crown and saved a trial he got off with a fine but no jail time. After the discussion Carl joined in as a Quatloos contributor and has become an active poster under the name Fussygus.

Initially Allan Curle, a co-accused in the tax case, was a background figure because he and Bruce Johnson, the third co-accused, chose to go to trial. As events have shown Carl made a wise decision by bailing out. Given the extensive history of tax evasion litigation against Poriskyites a conviction was almost certain as was jail time had he gone to trial and that has proven to be the case for his two fellow defendants.

However that pretty much ends Carl's story and the discussion has largely moved to considering Curle and his antics. I have done a little digging on Curle and he is a true Freeman believer who seems intent on upping the ante with every traffic stop or family court proceeding. He is already a vexatious litigant in Ontario because of his relentless, pointless, endless re-litigations (res judicata is totally meaningless to him) and I see much, much more coming up with plenty of Quatloos commentary in his future.

Since Carl is yesterday's news it seems unfair to keep dragging him, and his personal affairs, back into prominence when the actual topic is now Curle. So Allan James: Curle of the "Curle" family, you get your own Quatloos discussion! I'll start by revisiting a few of the Curle posts from Carl's discussion just to get things on track. First the tax evasion conviction. This from the CRA website with decision to follow;

Directors fined and sentenced for tax evasion

Thunder Bay, Ontario, June 16, 2014... The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) announced today that Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson were sentenced on June 2, 2014, in the Ontario Court of Justice in Thunder Bay, to a total of 24 months in jail and a total fine of $305,073. On March 21, 2014, Curle and Johnson, as directors of Norall Group Contracting Inc. (Norall), were found guilty, in the same court, of one count each of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit tax evasion. Curle was given 14 months jail time and fined $174,729 and Johnson was given 10 months jail time and fined $130,344. The fines represent 100% of the federal taxes each evaded plus 50% of the cumulative total of federal income taxes evaded by the parties involved in the conspiracy to evade taxes. Curle, Johnson and a third individual involved, evaded a total of $196,428 in federal income taxes.

Also related to this matter, on December 2, 2013, Norall pleaded guilty, in the Ontario Court of Justice in Thunder Bay, to one count of conspiracy to commit tax evasion and was sentenced to a fine of $32,118.

A CRA investigation found that Curle and Johnson followed a tax evasion scheme based on the “natural persons” argument and in doing so failed to report $629,842 in income. The unreported income was paid to Curle and Johnson by Norall, for services rendered. The natural persons argument is based on the principal of treating oneself as two people (natural and legal), where the legal person is obligated to file an income tax and benefit return and that income received as a natural person is not subject to Canadian income tax.

The preceding information was obtained from the court records.

And my posting of the decision that turns Allan into a vexatious litigant;

Revisiting the cast of characters in this tale of woe we find that Alan Curle, the other litigant, is now a vexatious litigant.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20 ... bGUAAAAAAQ

Aparently the Court did not appreciate his Poriskyish legal insights. He's still heading down the chute on the tax charges;

(j) In December, 2012, Mr. Curle sought intervener status in the matrimonial litigation. He argued that he, Allan James of the Curle Family, was separate and distinct from Allan James Curle. He submitted that the courts had no jurisdiction over him and he was not subject to the domestic law of Canada. This motion was dismissed by Mr. Justice Wright who ordered Mr. Curle to post security for costs of $5,000 in the matrimonial proceeding, and also ordered that he was prohibited from initiating any motion in that proceeding except for a review of interim support upon filing relevant financial information. Mr. Curle was ordered to pay costs of $3,500. As of the date of this motion, Mr. Curle has not posted security for costs nor paid costs of the motion.

(k) Mr. Curle maintains that he, as a “natural person,” is not subject to the taxing powers of the government or the courts. He has refused to file tax returns or supply information. In June, 2012, Mr Curle was charged with tax evasion. Trial commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice in September, 2013. Canada Revenue Agency alleges that Mr. Curle has not filed a tax return since the 2006 tax year. In that proceeding, Mr. Curle claimed not to be the accused, “Allan James Curle,” but rather “Allan James of the Curle Family,” and asserted that he was appearing under duress.

(l) In March, 2013, Mr. Curle was charged with driving while under suspension. At his first appearance, Mr. Curle advised the presiding Justice of the Peace that he appeared under duress as “the human being Allan James Curle” and not the legal fiction to whom the offence related. He objected to the court’s jurisdiction at trial and was convicted in absentia.

(m) In August, 2013, prior to his trial for driving under suspension, Mr. Curle commenced a civil suit in the Superior Court against Her Majesty in Right of Ontario and the police officer who charged him with driving while suspended. Mr. Curle claimed damages for breaching his rights as Allan James Curle, “the natural person” or “human being.” Mr. Curle gave the prosecutor a copy of the statement claim before his trial for driving while suspended commenced. I take judicial notice of the fact that Mr. Curle’s civil action was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, as the motion was argued before me. Costs were ordered against Mr. Curle.

(n) In addition to his conduct in the above court proceedings, Mr. Curle has opposed disclosure of his income from the Norall Group and threatened law suits against a shareholder, former director, and corporate solicitor, should they make disclosure in accordance with Justice Shaw’s order. He has threatened to sue Ms. Curle’s family law solicitor as well.

This decision is well worth a read, it shows Curle's relentless nature and his narcissistic belief that everything must revolve around whatever he wants. I see a big Freeman future for Allan of the family Curle.

[Burnaby49]

An update on Allan James of the Curle Family. I just came across this;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/8mc4b0w5c ... 202015.pdf

He was fined $1,500 for obstruction a conservation officer by refusing to let the officer inspect his gun for compliance with hunting regulations. He refused to identify himself and threatened to use physical force on the officer.

$1,500 Fine for Obstructing Conservation Officer

NEWS

January 28, 2015

A Booth Township man has been fined $1,500 for obstructing a conservation officer.
Allan James Curle was fined $1,500 under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act for obstructing a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry conservation officer.
Court heard that on October 7, 2013, during a routine patrol, a conservation officer contacted Curle as he drove an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) with a gun case attached, on Limestone Lake Road, northeast of Nipigon. When the officer asked to inspect his gun case and ATV to determine his compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation and Off-Road Vehicle Acts, Curle refused to identify himself. He also indicated he would use physical force to resist inspection. The officer contacted the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) which confirmed his identity and advised he was prohibited from possessing firearms or driving an ATV. The officer arranged for the OPP to meet him at a location nearby to conduct the inspection.
Justice of the Peace Bernard Caron heard the case in the Ontario Court of Justice, Thunder Bay, on January 16, 2015.

The ministry reminds the public that conservation officers have the authority to conduct a vehicle stop and inspection to determine compliance with regulations regarding firearms, ammunition, licences, possession of game and licensing and insurance.
To report a natural resources violation, call the MNRF TIPS line at 1-877-847-7667 toll-free any time or contact your local ministry office during regular business hours. You can also call Crime Stoppers anonymously at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477).

Ken Tuuri, Nipigon District, 807-887-5064
Bryan Merritt, Thunder Bay District, 807-475-1671

[Fmotlgroupie]

It looks like there's another (criminal code) shoe waiting to drop (driving and possessing a firearm while prohibited), but they may well not get media coverage.

[Burnaby49]

Curle was in court recently trying to get those ignorant judges to realize that the laws of Canada simply don't apply to a Freeman like him;

http://canlii.ca/t/gh40j

The issue is outlined in the first few paragraphs;

[1] Allan James Curle brings an application seeking an order in the nature of certiorari, setting aside the decision of Justice of the Peace Bernard Caron made on January 16, 2015 and for other declaratory relief.

[2] The Crown opposes the application arguing the Superior Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to entertain this application.

[3] The proceedings for which Mr. Curle seeks an order in the nature of certiorari and other relief were commenced by information under Part III of the Provincial Offences Act (the “POA”). Mr. Curle was convicted of driving while suspended contrary to s. 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and for obstructing a conservation officer contrary to s. 96(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.

And Curle doubled down with his OPCA crap;

[5] Mr. Curle argues that s. 141 of the POA does not apply to him and a statutory right of appeal of his convictions are only available to a “man or a woman consenting to act in the capacity of, or otherwise enter into an association with, a class of person or entity created by statute and subject to the statutes allegedly engaged in this matter”. Mr. Curle argues as “he is a man not wishing to act in such a capacity and risk being deemed by state actors to have implicitly waived my dominion and duties under God and those fundamental rights and freedoms state actors are to recognize as being available to a man acting in no statutory capacity or association, no right of appeal is available to me”

[6] Mr. Curle is mistaken about how the law applies to him. His arguments mirror those used by persons identified by other courts in this province and elsewhere as “Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants. I do not believe it necessary to make a finding that Mr. Curle is an OPCA litigant as urged by the Crown in order to dismiss out of hand the persuasive value of Mr. Curle’s position.

[7] Recently the issue of OPCA litigants, was reviewed in the decision of my sister Justice Rady in O’Brien v. Murchland [2013] O.J. No. 3293. Justice Rady was faced with a litigant relying on arguments like those advanced by Mr. Curle before me today. Justice Rady eloquently and accurately describes at paragraph 14 of the decision the kinds of arguments made by litigants such as this as “attempting to create a dual persona or aspect by identifying a distinction between himself as a human being as opposed to a legal person”. In my view, Mr. Curle is attempting to persuade me that he is just such a person such that he can self-determine what laws of the land apply to him and which do not. This argument lacks merit, is spurious and has been rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII), 93 O.R. (3d) 81; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 522, 260 O.A.C. 398.

[8] Mr. Curle did have a statutory right of appeal of the decisions that relate to him under the POA. Whether or not this right of appeal is still now available to him because of time issues as the result of his decision to commence this meritless application is another matter, and one I am not deciding today. I accept the argument of the Crown that s. 141(3) of the POA applies to this application and this application is dismissed.

Curle seems as stubborn a blockhead as Dean so maybe he can yet carve out a place for himself in the annals of Canadian judicial stupidity.

[notorial dissent]

You know, a part of me keeps hoping that you are just making these names up, and then you go and dash all my hopes and aspirations by showing that they really are real people, and I don’t know which is scarier, and I really don't think anyone could jsut make this stuff up.

Poor Alan James, I fear he has found a life long avocation as those darn judges just don’t convince all that easily, and just won’t be made to see the error of their ways.

I do like, by the way, “Canadian judicial stupidity”. It has a nice ring to it to go with OPCA.

[Burnaby49]

Make stuff up? Why would I bother when all this material is dumped on my lap? Just today I've posted on Psam Frank and his imminent death by maple syrup, Allan Curle's latest courtroom folly, an analysis of the new decision on minimum sentences that might affect Dean Clifford, and I'm still working on keeping up with the day's intake. I haven't as yet posted on p’ ixya ‘qn (yes, you are reading that correctly) or the $100,000,000,000 bond owed by Timothy Geithner because of his appointment as a Fiduciary Debtor. I don't even want to think about the documents waiting for me at the Tax Court registry that will form yet another posting.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, I can definitely see it as a never ending source of comedy material, rather like a favorite DC satirist said, he was never short of material, all he had to do was look in the morning paper.

[grixit]

"Canadian Judicial Stupidity" is the name of my new Ska/Oi band.

[Burnaby49]

Its been a while since we checked on Curle so I thought I'd see what exciting developments had occurred lately in his life. Firstly though, an extraordinary document produced by Curle to free himself from the bondage to Satan in the form of the laws of Canada. In my April 14th posting in this discussion I linked to a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in rejecting Curle's application seeking an order in the nature of certiorari, setting aside the decision of Justice of the Peace Bernard Caron made on January 16, 2015. Justice Caron had fined Curle $1,500 for obstructing a Conservation Officer.

An application for an order certiorari is defined as;

A formal request to a court challenging a legal decision of an administrative tribunal, judicial office or organization (eg. government) alleging that the decision has been irregular or incomplete or if there has been an error of law.

This was the court's response to Curle's application;

[5] Mr. Curle argues that s. 141 of the POA does not apply to him and a statutory right of appeal of his convictions are only available to a “man or a woman consenting to act in the capacity of, or otherwise enter into an association with, a class of person or entity created by statute and subject to the statutes allegedly engaged in this matter”. Mr. Curle argues as “he is a man not wishing to act in such a capacity and risk being deemed by state actors to have implicitly waived my dominion and duties under God and those fundamental rights and freedoms state actors are to recognize as being available to a man acting in no statutory capacity or association, no right of appeal is available to me”

[6] Mr. Curle is mistaken about how the law applies to him. His arguments mirror those used by persons identified by other courts in this province and elsewhere as “Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants. I do not believe it necessary to make a finding that Mr. Curle is an OPCA litigant as urged by the Crown in order to dismiss out of hand the persuasive value of Mr. Curle’s position.

[7] Recently the issue of OPCA litigants, was reviewed in the decision of my sister Justice Rady in O’Brien v. Murchland [2013] O.J. No. 3293. Justice Rady was faced with a litigant relying on arguments like those advanced by Mr. Curle before me today. Justice Rady eloquently and accurately describes at paragraph 14 of the decision the kinds of arguments made by litigants such as this as “attempting to create a dual persona or aspect by identifying a distinction between himself as a human being as opposed to a legal person”. In my view, Mr. Curle is attempting to persuade me that he is just such a person such that he can self-determine what laws of the land apply to him and which do not. This argument lacks merit, is spurious and has been rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII), 93 O.R. (3d) 81; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 522, 260 O.A.C. 398.

[8] Mr. Curle did have a statutory right of appeal of the decisions that relate to him under the POA. Whether or not this right of appeal is still now available to him because of time issues as the result of his decision to commence this meritless application is another matter, and one I am not deciding today. I accept the argument of the Crown that s. 141(3) of the POA applies to this application and this application is dismissed.

So what was in Curle's application that resulted in such a disdainful response from the court? You can read it yourself here;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/im33dx1vl ... ctions.pdf

Esentially a 37 page spew of sovereign gibberish that Curle puked out. It has section headings like this;

4. MY BELlEFS RESPECTING HER MAJESTY AND THE INSTITUTES SHE
SYMBOLIZES

5. MY BELlEFS RESPECTING MY DUTlES, DOMlNIONS AND CURSES AND
PLAGUES UNDER GOD AND STATE ACTOR INTERFERENCE WITH THESE
DUTlES AND DOMINIONS

The certiorari is largely a religion-base demand that he get whatever he wants because God wants him to have it;

1. My Christian names are "Allan" and "James" and the surname is "Curle".

2. I am a Christian.

3. In accordance with my religious convictions, beliefs and c011Science, my faith is in God and the Christian Holy Bible (hereinafter referred to as "God") and his statutes, ordinances, commandments and word as contained in his lively oracles, namely the Christian Holy Bible (hereinafter referred to as "the Bible").

4. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe God created the heaven and the earth in accordance with Genesis 1.1 of the Bible. Genesis 1.1 provides as follows:

Gen 1: 1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

5. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe that God created 1, a man, and that he gave me life and made me a living soul in accordance with Genesis 1.26, 1.27 and 2.7 of the Bible. Genesis provides as follows in this regard:

Gen 1 :26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen l:2 7 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

6. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe I am a man created by God in God's image and likeness in accordance with Genesis 1.26 and 1.27. I believe I am this and only this. For greater certainty, I do not act in the capacity of, nor enter into association with, an entity or class of person created by statutes of Her Majesty with respect to this matter.

7. In all aspects regarding this matter I do not, and did not, act in the capacity of, nor enter into association with, an entity or class of person created by statutes of Her Majesty and subject to the statutes state actors allege are engaged in this matter.

8. In all aspects regarding this matter I do not, and did not, engage in any statutorily created privilege, benefit or otherwise.

9. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe that as a creation of God I am God's property only and that both my body and soul are God's in accordance with 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6: 19 and 6:20 of the Bible.

He's been listening to Parakett Belanger and his CERI bullshit;

28. I believe and understand that the executive power over the man made fictional (dead) entity . .
referred to as Canada (and related institutions) is v'ested in Her Majesty in accordance with the Constitution Act, 1867

31. I believe, and the evidence supports, that Her Majesty claims her power and authority to rule over and govern people comes from God (of the Christian Holy Bible). The Proclamation of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada issued on February 6,1952 evidences that Her Majesty purports to derive her power and authority from God. For example, in that Proclamation the Queen's Privy Council states that, "Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now ... become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lady the Second by the Grace of God" (the underlining is mine). In reference to Her Majesty that Proclamation further provides, "to whom we acknowledge all faith and constant obedience with all hearty and humble affection, beseeching God by whom all Kings and Queens do reign to bless the Royal Princess Elizabeth with long and happy years to reign over us"(the underlining is mine). I ask that notice be taken of this Proclamation.

32. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a document takenfrom a website identified as being the "official website of The British Monarchy". It is described as being the Coronation Oath taken by The Queen on 2 June 1953. I verily believe this to be an actual reproduction of the words comprising the Oath taken by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

33. With respect to this Oath, attention is drawn to the fact that Her Majesty promises, to the utmost of her power, to "maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel". I ask that notice be taken of this Oath and in particular, Her Majesty's promise to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel to the utmost of her power.

A lot more about the Queen and the application of her oath then on to the specific offense that he was charged with;

39. That relevant facts of the matter are that on October 7,2013, I, a man, was travelling, using private property (a machine) to do so, on a bush trail in the exercise of duties and freedoms under God and inherently derived fundamental rights and freedom state actors are to recognize under instruments such as the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (and the Constitution of Canada) as being available to a man who choses not to act in the capacity of, or otherwise enter into association with, a class of person or entity created by statute(s) of Her Majesty.

40. I was proceeding peacefully and assisting a 71 year old individual whose quad runner had broken down deep in the bush when a man (Kenny Tuuri), on an all terrain vehicle, claiming to be acting in the capacity of a conservation officer indicated to me he wanted me to stop. I ceased operation of the private property (machine) I was travelling upon and pulled over to the side of the trail.

42. Kenny Tuuri began making demands upon me. I provided Kenny Tuuri with a 2 page notice entitled "Provision of Notice". The Notice stated that I am a man made in God's image and only that, that I was exercising only those duties and freedoms (dominions) granted by God and rights and freedoms state actors are to recognize as being available to a man acting in no statutory capacity or otherwise, that I had never knowingly surrender any of the said duties, freedoms and rights, and that I was not acting in any statutory capacity or otherwise engaging in any statutorily defmed privilege or otherwise. My signature was affixed to the Notice attesting to the truthfulness of the information contained therein with the signatures of two witnesses to my attestation also being affixed thereto. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true copy of the document entitled "Provisions ofN otice" which I provided to Kenny Tuuri.

43. Kenny Tuuri refused to read the Notice I provided him.

46. When I arrived near the Highway I was met by Kenny Tuuri and a man (Jonathan Chabot) claiming to be acting in the capacity of a police officer. .

47. I asked Jonathan Chabot to read the two page notice entitled "Provision of Notice" (Exhibit "C"). He too refused to read it but he kept it as I asked.

48. I provided no other identification or documentation to either of the two state actors.

52. Jonathan Chabot and I knew one another. Jonathan Chabot and Ken Tuuri eventually presented me with documentation respecting the two aforementioned charges including summonses.

He had an ironclad defense;

57. I also sent the prosecutors (Celia Jutras and Axel Nowak), and Bernard Caron, the Justice of the Peace seized of the matter, letters providing information about my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience and how the conduct of state actors, in particular their deeming and forcing me to be in association with, or to be acting in the capacity of, an entity/person created by statute and subject to the statute allegedly engaged in this matter, was violating my freedoms of religion, beliefs and conscience. Attached hereto as Exhibits "E" and "P" are true copies of the letters I sent. One letter is dated August 14,2014 and the other is dated September 26, 2015.

But to no avail;

61. I raised a jurisdictional challenge with respect to the lack of evidence. The Justice of the Peace, while not specifically ruling on the challenge, implicitly found that he had jurisdiction when he abruptly halted my submissions and proceeded innnediately to a finding of guilt on both charges and ordered significant fmes on both counts (payable within 6 months). His decision was rendered on January 16, 2015 at the city of Thunder Bay.
Resulting in incalculable harm!

70. Further harm to my good name, honour and reputation has occurred as the result of state actors causing a press release to be issued in relation to the matter. I was told by a friend, Ben Lecocq, and I verily believe it to be true, that details of the conviction and alleged offence in this matter were broadcast on public radio. I am also aware that similar information was publicly disseminated by numerous sources on the internet including, at one point, the website of the Ontario Government. Attached hereto as Exhibit "G" is a true copy of 3 pages from three separate internet sources containing such information. I noted many more internet sources publicizing the information.

70. I have been subject to direct monetary loses as a result of the conduct of state actors in this
matter.

71. I have been subject to significant stress and mental pain as a result of the conduct of state
actors in this matter.

To put the comment "Further harm to my good name, honour and reputation has occurred" in perspective I'll note that he is a worthless deadbeat dad fighting hard in court to avoid paying any support whatever for the various children he has fathered. As will be related in a later post he even denied in a court filing that he was really married to one of his ex-wives, an outright lie. It's hard to attach a good name and honour of any kind to that kind of behaviour.

At this point we are not even half-way through this bloated monstrosity. Anyhow, back to the Queen and her failures;

74 .. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe that Her Majesty promulgates laws which are repugnant to God's Laws contained within the Bible. For example, Her Majesty promulgates laws which endorse same sex marriages and relationships, bondage (servitude and slavery) and usury. In this particular matter, servants of Her Majesty (state actors) are relying upon laws of Her Majesty as authority to interfere with my exercise and manifestation of duties and dominions (freedoms) conferred upon me by God as provided for in the Bible. Nowhere does God's Law, as contained within the Bible, provide that the harmless acts and omission I was engaging in in the exercise and manifestation of my duties and dominions (freedoms) under God at the time of the alleged incident are to be subject to any conditions, permission or interference of men and women serving an other god/graven image (the State). Some of the specific duties and dominions conferred upon me by God in accordance with the Bible which state actors have interfered with and negated my manifestations thereof are discussed in more detail later.

Given Curle's total contempt and disdain for the sanctity and responsibilities of regular bi-sexual marriage (we'll get to it in a later posting) it is particularly hypocritical of him to use his repugnance of the same sex marriage issue as a reason to exempt himself from man's laws

The next three paragraphs are pure, undiluted Belanger/CERI arguments;

75. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe neither the Highway Traffic Act or the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, nor any of the provisions contained therein, are found anywhere within God's Laws as provided for within the Bible.

76. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe that these statutes and the provisions contained therein, and other statutory laws of Her Majesty and the institutions she symbolizes, constitute laws which add to God's Laws since they are laws not contained within the Bible.

77. Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience, I believe, in accordance with Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, Galatians 1:8 and 1:9 and Proverbs 30:6, that God's Laws are not to be added to or diminished from and anyone purporting laws other than God's Laws shall be accursed by God. These provisions of the Bible are as follows:

Deu 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 4:2 is Belanger's favorite verse. It seems to come up in every single video he does.

Then page after page of " Pursuant to my religious convictions, beliefs and conscience" bullshit along with an outpouring of quotes of bible verses. I'll skip all that.

He comes down from the pulpit on page 32 after about a dozen pages of bible verse quotes. Vital, on point material such as this;

Deu 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

Deu 28:56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

Deu 28:57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

However, not being as well versed in the meanings of the bible as Curle, the point of these quotes eludes me. Except for their vital role of filler.

This next paragraph is an outright fib;

101. I have had, and do have, great reluctance to raise my religious convictions and beliefs at court as a matter of privacy and for fear of reprisal by state actors including the judiciary. My doing so in the past has resulted in state actors, including legal counsel/prosecutors and even the judiciary, subjecting me to ridicule and belittling treatment, labelling me with derogatory terms such as "vexatious", "freeman" or "OPCA Litigant" and citing my convictions and beliefs in God as grounds to justify harsher penal sentences under the statutes they force me to be subject to against my will including the Highway Traffic Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act. In this matter for example, the state actor (Celia Jutras) was seeking that, in addition to forcing me to be bear liability for the payment of money pertaining to the statutorily created entity subject to these Acts, I also be made to bear liability for a 60 day sentence of bondage (prison) she sought to have levied against the statutorily created entity which state actors were forcing me to act in the capacity of, or otherwise enter into association with.

Reluctance? After spewing out a dozen pages of this garbage?

Then two pages detailing the injuries he's suffered and for which he demands redress. A short sample;

a) interfering with my right of self-determination;
b) interfering with my ability to freely dispose of my natural wealth and resources.
c) exercising attributes of ownership over me, and as a result, effectively holding me in
slavery and servitude;
d) interfering with my liberty;
e) subjecting me to arbitrary detention;

But he's very careful to point out that while he is exempt from all of man's laws the government still owes him all the rights and privileges he would have if he was not exempt;

108. Under no circumstances shall this Affidavit andlor related Application, or any act or omission by me in relation to this matter, be construed or applied as being my implied or express waiver of or any fundamental rights and freedoms state actors for Canada and its provinces are to recognize as being inherent and available to I, a man who wishes not to act in a any statutory capacity or enter into any other form of association with a creature of statute, and which are enunciated in international conventions including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights instruments (including the constitntion of Canada) that state actors are obligated to recognize and respect. Any such interpretation would be a mistake and contrary to my intent and will for greater certainty, I unequivocally do not waive any of these fundamental rights and freedoms nor have I ever knowingly done so. If the method I have chosen to seek remedy respecting this matter in any way results in the abrogation of said rights and freedom then it is not my intent and the method I have chosen is a mistake and is to be without prejudice to said rights and freedoms.

Talk about weasel-words!

I have a bunch of subsequent filings and decisions I'll be reviewing but I've waded through the muck enough for one night so I'll put them in further postings. None will be as long-winded as this.

[grixit]

I don't think he'd like it very much if he were tried by the laws and practices of the time of James I.

[Burnaby49]

Part 2 of the Curle updates! And another bloated pig of a document.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/1eujxm9b2 ... cation.pdf

I said in my prior update;

I have a bunch of subsequent filings and decisions I'll be reviewing but I've waded through the muck enough for one night so I'll put them in further postings. None will be as long-winded as this.

I lied. I didn't know what I was getting into until I started reading this sucker. This is a challenge, purportedly based on the Canadian Constitution, to exempt him from Canadian laws. At least the laws he doesn't like;

This constitutional challenge pertains to a particular matter whereby state actors are coercing I, a man, to act in the capacity of (take recognition as) a statutorily created class of person subject to the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.31 (and any statute allegedly related thereto) or to otherwise enter into association with an entity created by statute and subject to the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.31, and to be subject to, and participate in, matters pertaining thereto including a statutory created and authorized proceedings, identified as default hearings, at the Ontario Court of Justice at Thunder Bay and the Superior Court of Justice at Oshawa. The two court matters are both styled as the DIRECTOR OF THE FAMII,Y RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE and ALLAN CURLE. This is being done notwithstanding my express objections to state actors in writing about their repugnant conduct and my giving them notice that I do not waive any of my obligations and dominions (freedom) under God and the fundamental rights and freedoms (not inconsistent with God's Laws) that state actors are supposed to recognize as being available to I, a man, pursuant to the Constitution of Canada as well instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), who vehemently objects to acting in any statutory capacity or otherwise entering into any type of association with any statutory entity or engaging in any statutory benefit, privilege or thing or to otherwise being subject to the statute(s) allegedly engaged.

The bastards have deprived him of his FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS! And this despite having been given clear and unequivocal notice of his wishes! He deserves damages for the harm done to him.

It will also be advanced that, as a result of state actors engaging in this conduct, which is in excess of their authority, I have been damaged. In this regard it will also be advanced that damages are appropriate in this case. In addition to the transgressions of God's Law, some of which are detailed herein, state actors have engaged in conduct with a total disregard for fundamentail human rights and freedoms as provided for in the Constitution of Canada and numerous human rights instruments, and intent respecting my duties and dominions under God in accordance with his laws as well as fundamental human rights and freedoms as detailed herein. Instead of re.specting these dominions and duties and fundamental human rights and freedoms as they are lawfully required to do, state actors have sought, and acted, to totally circumvent, deny and disregard these limits placed upon them.

And of course the violations of his "sincerely held" religious beliefs;

Taking into account my sincerely held beliefs, I assert that through their coercion and related conduct,
state actors have denied me of:

i) my ability to undertake duties, and fulfill obligations, required of me by God in
accordance with the Holy Bible and;

ii) my ability to exercise dominions (freedoms) granted to me by God in accordance with
the Holy Bible.

It will be advanced that, in addition to the protection of the exercise and enjoyment of these duties and dominions guaranteed by the Law of God, the Charter and other human rights instrument, Her Majesty's solemn promise made as part of her Coronation Oath during her Coronation Ceremony in 1953 to maintain the laws of God to the utmost of her power must also form part of the Constitution of Canada, and accordingly, Constitutionally protects my enjoyment and exercise of these duties and dominions under God.

This is a copy/paste abomination of the first order. It seems like he's found every document world-wide that has a reference to human rights and he's stuck it in here, along with copious quotes, as if it is all valid legislation in Canada. Various irrelevant odds and ends such as;

International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

And don't think he's even filing this voluntarily, he shouldn't have to bother with laws and courts at all. But the threats, the threats!

35. For greater certainty, my attendance at court in relation to the matter brought by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office is solely and unequivocally not of my own volition or freewill but as the result of demands coupled with threats made to me by state actors and/or out of fear of being further damaged.

41. Any act or omission by me previously which may have given rise to state actors believing that (1) I consented to act in the capacity of, or to enter into any type of association with, a class of person or entity created by statute and subject to the statutes state actors allege are engaged in this matter, or (2) I was engaging in a privilege, benefit, duty or otherwise created and regulated by statute, were acts and/ or omissions almost exclusively out of fear of state actors and being further damaged and/ or, to a lesser extent, by mistake which may in.elude mistake due to a lack of knowledge or clear understanding thereof of the consequences and effects of any such acts or omissions. Notwithstanding any such acts and/or omissions undertaken by me, for greater certainty I reiterate that I have never knowingly, explicitly, expressly and/or with a clear understanding of the true consequences and effects thereof waived the dominions.(freedoms) and duties conferred upon ine by God or any of the fundamental human rights and freedoms (as discussed herein) not inconsistent with God's Law which state actors are to recognize through human rights instruments including the International .Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Constitution of Canada as being available to I, a man wishing not to act in the capacity of, or otherwise enter into any type of association with, an entity or class of person created by statute and subject to the statutes allegedly engaged in this matter or any statute allegedly related thereto. Also, it never was, and is not, my will or intent, to waive, or in any way cause to be abrogated, said dominions and duties under God or said fundamental rights and freedoms. Accordingly, any act or omission by me which state actors may allege gives rise to such a waiver or abrogation or otherwise constitutes myconsent for state actor to engage in conduct which results in any loss and/or infringement whatsoever of said duties and dominions and rights and freedoms, is not effective for reasons cited.

Even by Freeman standards he's a real windbag.

So here is what he quite reeasonably demanded from the court. Note, this is only a sample of what he demanded. If you want the full meal deal read it yourself.

My Wish And My Will

44. It is my wish and my will that state actors immediately cease causing me any further damage through conduct that results in a loss and/or infringement of my duties and dominions under God and the said fundamental rights and freedoms discussed with respect to my Application.

45. It is my wish, my will, and my full intention, not to act in the capacity of, or enter into any type of association with, an entity or class of person created by statute of Her Majesty and subject to the statutes state actors allege are engaged in this matter or to otherwise in anyway be effectively subject to the statutes allegedly engaged in this matter or to any other statutes whatsoever allegedly related to this matter.

46. It is my wish, my will, and my full intention, not to engage in any type of privilege, benefit, obligation or otherwise which is created by statute and subject to the statutes state actors allege are engaged in this matter or any other related statute allegedly engaged in this matter.

47. It is my wish and my will that state actors immediately cease deeming and trying to force me to act in the capacity of, or to enter into any type of association with, a class of person or entity created by statute and subject to the statute state actors allege concern this matter or otherwise cease engaging in any other conduct to cause me to effectively be subject to statute state actors allege are engaged in this matter or any other statutes whatsoever allegedly related to this matter.

48. It is my wish and my will to not in any way whatsoever effectively be subject to the statutes state actors allege are engaged in this matter or any other statutes whatsoever allegedly related to this matter.

49. It is my wish and my will that state actors immediately cease and desist coercing me or otherwise engaging in any conduct whatsoever which in any way engenders my participation in the statutory proceedings in this matter at the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice.

50. It is my wish and my will that state actors, including the man/woman acting in the capacity of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office, police officers, the prosecutor, the judiciary and any other state actor, agent or representative whatsoever immediately cease trying to coerce me to effectively be subject to statutes allegedly engaged in this matter and any other statutes related thereto, whether directly or indirectly, and to be obligated to undertake statutory duties, and to bear liability for statutory penal sanctions. For greater certainty, it is my wish and my will that no one force me, coerce me, intimidate me, deceive me, take advantage of my lack of knowledge orotherwise engage in any act or omission whatsoever that would result in me effectively being subject to the statutes allegedly engaged in this matter and/or any statutes in any way allegedly related to this matter, whether directly or indirectly. My wish, my will and intention is to not, by any means whatsoever, effectively be subject to the statutes allegedly engaged in this matter or to any other statutes allegedly related to this matter, whether directly or indirectly.

54. It is my wish and my will that state actors, including the man/woman acting in the capacity of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office, the prosecutor and/or the judiciary do not in any way whatsoever effectively cause me to be liable for the duties and penal sanctions of the statutorily created class of person or entity which is subject to the statutes state actors allege are engaged in this matter or in any other way force my subjection to the statute(s) allegedly engaged in this matter.

57. It is my wish and my will that state actors recognize and respect the fact that all acts and/or omissions I engage in are done pursuant to the exercise of my said duties and dominions conferred upon me by God. It is my wish and my will that state actors immediately cease erroneously assuming that acts and/or omissions I engage in are done so by way of my acting in the capacity of, or entering into association with a, class of person or entity created by statute and subject to same or that I am engaging in benefits, privileges, duties or otherwise created and regulated by statute. It is my wish and my will that state actors receiving this document take steps to ensure state actors do not further interfere with and/or negate my exercise of said duties and dominions under God or the fundamental human rights and freedoms raised.

59. Unfortunately, my experience in trying to have effect given to my dominions and duties under God and to have state actors recognize and respect said fundamental rights and freedoms is that state actors deny their existence, attack me for raises them, belittle me, seek to punish and condemn me, publicly defame and ridicule me, refuse to review my documentation, direct the court clerk to shred my affidavit material, refuse to accept my documentation, and on and on. Based on my experience I fear, and fully expect, state actors reviewing my material in this matter will look at it with a view to finding ways, and/or "weakness" in my writing, to allow state actors to "squirm out" of giving effect to said duties and dominions under God and to not have to respect the fundamental human rights and freedoms discussed.

60. It is my wish and my will that state actor not treat me as an individual operating under statute. It is my wish and my will that state actors receiving this document take steps to ensure other state actors (particularly those dealing directly with me on the matter) cease damaging me by engaging in any conduct that subjects me to any loss of my said duties and dominions under God or fails to respect said fundamental rights and freedoms state actors are to respect.

Paragraph 59 relates to his vexatious litigant status. I assume the court clerks are just throwing his rubbish out without giving it the veneration and respect he feels it warrants.

And what is the noble purpose of this historic document? It was an attempt by Curle to get out of paying court ordered child support to maintain his own children. Just another whining deadbeat dad trying to weasel out of his responsibilities. We've run across a lot of totally worthless individuals here in Quatloos and I'd say, apart from the actual criminal element, Curle's been fighting hard for a place of honour at the bottom of the barrel.

Just take a look at this sleazy hypocritical bullshit;

The point is, if state actor can lawfully force my subjection to the statutes allegedly engaged in this matter, then the result is that they can then force me endure further denials of my duties (and dominions) under God's Law as contained in the Holy Bible by effectively forcing my subjection to the provision of those statutes of Her Majesty. It diminishes from God's Law by creating a situation whereby I am prevented from exercising my duties as head of the family and to my children in accordance with God's Law. Instead, God's Laws are added to by effectively replacing my duties under God's Law with duties in accordance with Her Majesty's law. The primary duty of Her Majesty's law being only to serve mammon (provide money) with respect to my children. In fact, Her Majesty places such value upon this duty, which is totally foreign to God's Law, that my failure to serve mammon in this regard as state actors demand of me could very well result in my being forced into a cage like an animal. I cannot serve God if I am to serve mammon; and I am commanded by God not to serve mammon. See Matthew 6 :24 and Luke 16: 13. With respect to freedom of religion, the Supreme Court has confirmed the following:

To summarize up to this point, our Court's past decisions and the basic principles underlying freedom of religion support the view that freedom of religion consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials.

It diminishes from God's Law by creating a situation whereby I am prevented from exercising my duties as head of the family and to my children in accordance with God's Law.

He is in court trying to get approval to throw all of his family responsibilities and obligations overboard and he is using the pretense that the court ordered support payments are what is actually stopping him from doing the right thing by supporting his family. He just wants to do it the Christian way; out of love for his family and obedience to God, not because of court-ordered obligations.

And let us not forget the horrific consequences to him of actually having to take responsibility for his own past actions. They want him to pay money to support his kids, actual money!

72. State actors have effectively placed demands upon me coupled with threats. Demands include that I perform statutorily created duties including providing financial information respecting creatures of statute such as a "taxpayer" and "payor" and filing and serving material concerning same. Other demands include, effectively, my attendance at statutory court proceedings in relation to the matter to have me act in the capacity of, or enter into association with, a creature of statute ("payor") or otherWise compel my subjection to the statute allegedly engaged to speak to, and deal with issues about, statutorily created duties including payment of a statutorily created and authorized debt upon the "payor" (creature of statute) which I most certainly never consented or agreed to bear liability for. Accompanying threats include my effectively being forced to bear liability for statutorily created and authorized penal sanctions under statute of Her Majesty respecting the matter including six months in prison.

73. I have incurred, and continue to incur, significant stress and mental pain and anguish as a result of state actor conduct and the. effects of being forced to be subject to the statute allegedly engaged in this matter and statutes allegedly related thereto. This relentless psychological torment caused by state actor conduct and the effect of my forced subject to the said statutes has also resulted in physical ailments. As result of state actor conduct and the effect of my forced subjection to said statutes, both my physical and psychologic integrity has been harmed.

74. State actors forcing my subjection to Her Majesty's statutes, including that allegedly engaged in this matter, particularly given that no man or woman has claimed that I have injured them, is completely decimating my ability to enjoy and live my life which God has given me. These statutes, which state actors allege grants them authority to engage in the conduct at issue and likely similar conduct in the . future, have forced me out of the lives of my children and my home, caused me to be humiliated in front of my children and other men and women, damaged my honour and good name, and deprived me of so much time to enjoy the life God has granted me including the limited time God has given me to both enjoy my children and to exercise my duties to them as I am required to do in accordance with God's Law as discussed herein. This time state actors have stolen from me can never be replaced. It has come and gone. The emotional and psychological pain I have had to endure because of this is insurmountable. The things done to me under the guise of law allegedly lawfully authorized by the statutes claimed to be engaged in this matter constitutes some of the most horrific inhumane treatment that can be done to a loving and caring father. There is absolutely no monetaryamount which can make up for that which has been stolen from me by state actors claiming statutes of Her Majesty lawfully authorize their repugnant conduct at issue and the corollary damages they. have cause me.

75. Incredibly, notwithstanding the unimaginable damage state actors and the effect that forced subjection to statutes of Her Majesty have caused me to date, state actors are continuing their allegedly lawfully attack by effctively forcing me to be subject to continued demands for payment of money, actual payment of money in relation to statutorily created debts, demand for production of documentation, actual production of documents, demands to serve and file documents, further attendance at court in relation to the matter and threats of incarceration and other penal sanctions for failure to comply with demands and/or pay money.

76. Harm to my good name, honour and reputation, and a breach of my privacy has been caused by public awareness resulting from state actors deeming and forcing me to act in the capacity of, or enter into association with, a class of person or entity created by statute of Her Majesty and subject to the statutes state actors allege are engaged in this matter or to otherwise be subject to the statute(s) allegedly engaged.

77. The manifestation of my duties and dominions under God in accordance with my beliefs has been interfered with and denied as a result of state actor conduct of effectively forcing my subjection to statutes of Her Majesty including, in particular those allegedly engaged in this matter.

78. I have been severely damaged by the conduct of state actors in this matter.

The Horror! The Horror!

If he loses it isn't just himself that suffers. The evil that will descend on Canada will be overwhelming in its scope;

In consideration of the facts of this matter, if state actors are found to be endowed with lawful authority to engage in said coercion and related activities, it should be self-evident that such authority would be to effectively grant them the power to obliterate of some of the most sacrosanct human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized internationally and domestically including freedom from servitude and slavery, the right to self-determination, to freedom to freely and fully enjoy and utilize one's natural wealth and resources, freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, enjoyment and exercise of liberty and to not be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention, to not be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of an act that did not constitute offence, to not be forced to take recognition as a (class of) person under the law, to not be subjected to interference with my privacy, family, home or correspondence and property, to not be subject to unlawful attacks upon my honour and reputation, freedom from being forced into association, freedom from being forced to participate in religious practices which offend my religious convictions and belief and freedom from being prevented from engaging in harmless acts and omissions in accordance with my faith.

He's really doing this for all of us! Although I don't think he needs to expend quite so much energy defending his honour and reputation. That ship sailed long ago.

If any of you quibbling lawyer types just think I'm cherry-picking to make Curle look bad then read the document yourself and contradict me. I dare you.

[notorial dissent]

Poor bunny, so he's a VERY long winded parental deadbeat who is upset that for some reason he is expected to live up to his parental responsibilities???? Definitely a rights abuse, insert hairball smiley when we get one.

[grixit]

It is the wish and will of your ex and your kids that you perform your obligations.

BTW: under the old common law, what would happen to an ordinary man who deserted his wife and children?

[Burnaby49]

It turned out that Curle's monumental June 08, 2015 "Notice of a Constitutional Question" demanding that he be made exempt from Canada's laws and, incidentally, any responsibility for supporting his own children, didn't work out quite as well as he might have hoped. He'd previously been declared a vexatious litigant which meant that he no longer had the automatic right to file court Applications or initiate lawsuits. He now required the permission of the court to file anything and it appears that this is exactly what happened to his June 08 notice. Dead on arrival for being vexatious and without merit. All that work for nothing! But Curle is a man driven by his vision, a vision of getting the court's permission to be a parasitic deadbeat so he tried again by filing this;.

June 25, 2015 - Application to end vexatious litigant status

http://www.mediafire.com/view/wbue24w34 ... cation.pdf

An application to end his vexatious litigation status. As a tactical move I'd suggest that he should have tried filing this before his March 18, 2015 Affidavit with Certiorari application or his June 08, 2015, Notice of Constitutional Question. Those two documents told the court exactly what they could expect from him if they removed his vexatious litigant status. An endless flood of bloated repetitive garbage filings to bog down proceedings by eating up massive amounts of court time.

THE MOTION IS FOR.

1. A declaration that the Constitutional Application of Allan James Curle is to be heard by the Superior Court of Justice and that the said Application is not vexatious.

2. A declaration that the proceeding at the Ontario Court of Justice which said Application is in response to, and any order(s) deriving therefrom at the Ontario Court of Justice, are to be stayed pending the release of the decision on said Application and any appeals
thereof.

and/or in the alternate,

3. A declaration that the said Application is not a new proceeding by the Applicant which may be subject to any vexatious litigant order, but a defence available to the Applicant in response to an action brought by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

4. A declaration that it would only be in the rarest of instances when an individual may be denied access to a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of adjudication upon an alleged Charter violation and that this is by no means such a case.

5. A declaration that the Applicant is not to be denied access to a court for the purpose of bringing an Application seeking remedy under the Constitution.

I like this touch;

The grounds for the motion that my Application for remedy under the Constitution be heard is as
follows:

1. Authorities provide that "it would be inconceivable that Parliament and the provinces should describe in such detail the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter and should not first protect that which alone makes it in fact possible to benefit from such guarantees, that is, access to a court."

2. Authorities provide that there "cannot be rule of law without access, otherwise rule of law is replaced by a rule of men and women who decide who shall and who shall not have access to justice."

3. My application for remedy under the Constitution involves my religious beliefs and is in a Charter context. Authorities (Meads v. Meads) provide that rights allegedly deriving from religious beliefs should be framed in a Charter context and that this is the appropriate approach.

He's using Meads v Meads as an argument in favour of his garbage being heard. I doubt he has read it. There is no comfort in the decision for him even if he can cherry-pick a line here or there.

At least he was brief and to the point this time. However he was apparently not confidant that this would seal the deal so less than a week later he filed this;

June 25, 2015 - Application to end vexatious litigant status

http://www.mediafire.com/view/wbue24w34 ... cation.pdf

Self-discipline went out the window and he was back on his religious beliefs rant. Not in my opinion, the best approach to take considering that his voluminous copy/paste of huge chunks of the bible in prior posting played a not insignificant part in being declared a vexatious litigant in the first place. It also included yet another copy of the 45 page constitutional monstrosity. He also gave a bit of background on what happened to it after he filed it;

10. After having given the Attorney General of Canada and for Ontario Notice of my Application. I endeavored to have my Application issued at the Supreme Court of Justice at Thunder Bay. The Registrar refused to accept my Application. A "vexatious litigant" statutory order issued by Helen Pierce (Justice at the Superior Court) is interfering with and could very well deny me of. access to a court of competent jurisdiction to have my Constitutional Application heard.

And he wants some money;

M) an order that her Majesty and the Director of the Family Responsibilities Office pay one million dollars to the man having the given names "Allan" and "James" and the surname "Curle" for damages they have caused him by their acts and omissions and the acts and omissions of state actors under their authority and direction.

So Allan, would this million bucks be paid out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers? You know, the same guys you tried to screw over through your attempts at criminal income tax evasion? So does this mean that while you have a sincere and deeply held religious belief that God prohibits you from paying income tax your God is fine with you're demands to be paid money realized through other people's income tax contributions?

As hypocritical a parasite as any I've yet seen. However that comment would cover all of the Poriskyites.

[Burnaby49]

So we get to the reason that Curle was making all of these bizarre failed filings to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. It turns out that Curle was in the middle of a family court issue in the Ontario Court of Justice which was heading towards an unpleasant conclusion and he was using the applications to other courts as a way to delay proceedings.

July 13, 2015 decision regarding refusal to pay support
http://www.mediafire.com/view/4atinxmoo ... 3_2015.pdf

But who can blame him for trying? It his attempts at delaying the court had worked a charm in the past;

[ 5] The default hearng process for each of these cases began in the spring of 2014. A considerable. amount of time passed before a default hearing was actually scheduled and heard. Part of the reason for the delay in scheduling a hearing is attributable to the fact that Mr. Curle was, during this timeframe, convicted on charges laid under the Income Tax Act and was subsequently·sentenced to a 14 month term of imprisonment. Based on Mr. Curle's evidence, it is my understanding that between July 2014 and December 2014 he spent approximately 6 months in custody serving the sentence.

Curle's been at this a long, long time;

[7] Anyone looking for a more detailed description of the circumstances that led to Mr. Curle appearing before me will be able to find that detail in the many decisions written by other judges concerning Mr. Curle. Those decisions deal with Mr. Curle's long hjstory before the courts in family law proceedings, criminal law proceedings and appeal proceedings. Justice. Helen Pierce of the Superior Court of Justice has done us a great favour by summarizing those proceedings in her February 9, 2014 decision declaring Mr. Curle to be a vexatious litigant.

24 - "I therefore consider Mr. Curle's checkered history in other proceedings before the courts. He does not dispute it. It can be summarized as follows:

(a) In 2003, Mr. Curle sued Ms. Lowe, the mother of his first child and her parents for "mental pain and suffering" and "loss of solace" when the mother moved from Thunder Bay to southern Ontario in 1999. The claim was dismissed by me in September, 2004 for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Mr. Curle was ordered to pay costs of $4,000 but has not done so.

Paragraph 7 gives a blow-by-blow account of Curle's defiance of the court and its orders. Worth a read to understand who the current judge was dealing with.

However his brilliant legal moves were to no avail this time and the judge wasn't willing to extend Curle the basic human right of endless delays while he filed worthless actions in other courts;

[12] On June 15, 2015, Mr. Curle appeared before me and asked that the default hearing be adjured to a later date. He showed me draft court documents and told me it was his intention to bring a court application before the Superior Court of Justice. My take on what he told me, coupled with what I read in the draft documents he showed me, suggested he wanted to argue before the Superior Court that the court should declare the entire support enforcement process, and the legislation which creates it, unconstitutional. He asked me to postpone the default hearing process until he could have this constitutionally issue resolved by a Superior Court. He acknowledged that he was aware of the order of Justice Pierce declaring him to be a vexatious litigant. He also acknowledged that he had not yet sought leave of the Superior Court to bring this new court application.

[13] I refused to grant his request for an adjournment. My reasons for doing so were delivered orally. In deciding not to grant his adjournment request, I took into account the very lengthy period of time that had passed since this enforcement processes were started, Mr. Curle's ongoing failure to supply a financial statement, the fact that he had been declared a vexatious litigant, the fact that in many prior proceedings he had advanced a variety of meritless challenges to the authority of the court to make support orders, my sense, after reviewing the documents underpinning his new proposed court challenge, that his new proposed challenge was similarly meritless and could properly be characterized as yet another iteration in the long list of meritless "freeman on the land" or "organized pseudolegal commercial argument (OPCA)" cases Mr. Curle, and others like him, have clogged the court system with.

Then the judge sidetracked the whole proceedings by focusing his review on facts rather than judging Curle on the basis of on his deep sincerely held beliefs. How could Curle be expected to win in that biased arena?

[17] Here is what his evidence establishes:

He hasn't paid any support in a long time.

He hasn't derived any properly recorded income from employment
since 2011.

He has performed services for other people since 2011 and has derived some benefit from providing those services. What those services· have been is, based on his vague evidence, impossible to determine. What benefit he has derived from providing those services and how that benefit .could be quantified or expressed in dollar terms, is, based on his evidence, impossible to determine.

Since 2011, he has devoted many hundreds of hours, possibly many thousands of hours, preparing and presenting his meritless OPCA arguments.

In the period from 2011 to today's date, he has not made any meaningful attempt to obtain paying employment. His justification for not seeking a traditional job is that he doesn't think any job he is likely to obtain in his field will produce enough income for him to pay off his major debts. He says he believes the only way he will be able to pay his major debts is for him to create a new business that will be massively profitable (or to somehow wrest control over his old business from his former spouse).

For at least the last four years, he has made some efforts with other, undisclosed, individuals to create or re-establish some form of business. He only described this business in the vaguest and most unhelpful way. He believes the business will, at some stage, generate significant income for him. His evidence ·didn't provide. me with anything I could use to assess what stage of development this business venture was at, when and if it was likely to generate income, what it's income was likely to be and who his business partners are.

Since. 2011, he has had money of his own or had money supplied to him by his girlfriend and other friends. He has used some of this money to make his access visits and his relationship with his children better and more enjoyable. He has spent some of this money on gifts for the children and on access events, meals out with the children for example. He has not used any of this discretionary spending money to pay support.

He presently relies on his friends or family for his accommodation.

He has significant. debt. His income tax liability and the fines he owes
exceed $500,000.

I should note Mr. Curle provided me with no evidence about his assets other than a bald assertion that "I have nothing"

He strongly resents the legal obligations imposed on him to pay support.

He strongly believes that his ex-wives and the courts have done him wrong;

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the payment of support to either of his ex-spouses is not, in any way, a priority for him.

New girlfriend giving him money? A woman is willing to take a chance with him regardless of his past history of treating women like garbage and refusing to support his own kids? Meritless OPCA arguments? Is that what the judge thinks of Curle's deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs?

The judge concluded that Curle was just being spiteful;

[22] On this evidence, I. have to conclude. that the circumstances giving rise to his failure to pay support were voluntary. Moreover, I have to conclude that the payor 's decision not to seek remunerative employment over the four years is rooted as much in his disregard for the support orders as it is in .his desire to rebuild a profitable business. His evidence that he was completely focused on restarting his business so he can earn a lot of money was less than credible. He provided no useful information about what he has done to restart the business. I also note that on the evidence I heard, he appears to have devoted hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours on his ONCA arguments. Moreover, I note that whenever he spoke about getting his business up and running he always spoke about being motivated by his desire to earn a lot of money so he could pay his ·tax liabilities, get his business up and running and.pay his other civil obligations. He never once expressed an interest in earning a lot of money so he could pay some of his outstanding support obligations.

But, even in the face of judicial hostility and bias Curle won! The judge allowed him a deferment to start paying on his arrears and even ordered the government to give him a hand with his accomodation problems!

[30] The payor has demonstrated a willful, deliberate disregard for his obligation to comply with court orders. His persistent failure to file financial disclosure is just one example of that disregard. His failure to seek remunerative employment so he can pay support is also a clear demonstration of his deliberate disregard for his court ordered support obligations. It is therefore open to me to consider jail as an enforcement tool. My concern is with whether jail will, in fact, enhance. the likelihood that the arrears of support will be paid and his ongoing support obligations will be met.

[31] I have come to the conclusion that sending Mr. Curle to jail will enhance the likelihood his support ordered obligations will be met. In fact, ram convinced that unless I send Mr. Curle to jail for some period· of time he will almost certainly continue to defy or ignore his responsibility to pay support. There is no other order short of jail I can make under section 41 which is likely to produce any payment towards the arrears.

[32] I have also come to the conclusion that, at this stage, given that Mr. Curle has never before been sent to jail for nonpayment of support, the course of action most likely to convince him to comply with his support obligations is to send him to jail immediately but for a period of time that is significantly less than the maximum amount of time contemplated by s. 41. To ensure payments .start to flow shortly after his release from custody, I also need to impose on him an obligation to do certain things within a specified period of time following his release. Finally, I-have to make it clear to Mr. Curle that if he doesn't comply with these obligations he will substantially increase the likelihood that he. will be jailed again in the future.

[33] I am-therefore ordering that:

(1) The payor, Mr. Curle be imprisoned immediately and continuously for a period of 60 days.

(2) The payor, Mr. Curle pay not less than $5000.00 dollars toward the arrears on or before the 1st of December, 2015 and a further $5000.00 on or before the 1st of March 2016.

(3) Mr. Curle must report to the Director, in writing, on or before the 1st of December 2015, and again on or before the 1st of March, 2016. His report to the director shall fully, accurately and completely disclose his current address telephone number and email address, all of his assets, their location and their value, all of his liabilities, all of his efforts to obtain employment and to earn income from sources other than employment and all of the gross income, before deductions and expenses, he has earned or received since today's date. These written reports must be accompanied by a fully completed, properly supported and properly sworn financial statement.

The judge even told Curle that additional free accomodation was available any time that he needed it;

[35] Mr. Curle also needs to understand that if he fails to comply with the provisions of my order it is virtually certain·he will be back before the court and the Director will once again be seeking to have him jailed.

Vindication at last, sweet sweet victory!