Wally Dove - from CCRA toady to Human Rights Defender

[Burnaby49]

Poor Wally.

The Federal Court of Canada website said that a judgment had been issued on Wally's hearing. Since it has not been released I went down to the Federal court registry today and got a copy. It was $7.20 worth of sadness and tragedy. Forget money, forget the legal argy-bargy, all that Wally was fighting for, all that he really wanted, was happiness!

33. The applicant has a right to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts to do. The applicant, however, has chosen not to gain a living by choosing to work. Instead, the applicant has chosen to pursue happiness in life. In pursuing happiness the applicant is not gaining his living by work yet he remains with the right to enjoy an adequate standard of living.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/kzqeq7mqv ... Appeal.pdf

Wally is really just everyman, dreaming the same dream we all have, happiness. Wally had spent some time, no matter how briefly, as a Canada Revenue Agency auditor. After that searing nightmarish experience wasn't he entitled to a little happiness? I spent years as a CRA auditor and I understand his pain! However happiness can't be attained on a bargain budget and Wally needed $100,000,000 to fund the lifestyle that would allow him to realize his dream. But one other thing that Wally wanted was the right to be a deadbeat. He didn't want to work so it was the government's duty to step up to bat and subsidize the "adequate" lifestyle that would give him his nirvana;

20. The applicant is seeking to exercise, inter alia, his fundamental right to an adequate living. The applicant claims that this right to enjoy a living has been restricted, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

22. The applicant claims that the right to work in order to gain a living was forced upon the applicant contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. [ ... ]

24. The applicant is under no obligation to exercise the right to work. In fact, the applicant claims that this right does not produce an obligation in law, a right never produces an obligation but a choice. [ ... ]

25. The applicant claims that the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen, as a state party member is under obligation, as a signatory to the international covenants, to recognize the right to work.

26. There is a right to work that an individual can choose to exercise. As with any right, it can be used or not. The right to work includes (a cannon of construction holding that to express or include one thing, implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative) the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work . The right to work then, is for the sole purpose of gaining the applicant's living. This right extends to everyone (Human Being) to permit one the opportunity (choice or opportunity) to gain his or her living by work.

28. The applicant claims that this right to work and earn, gain or pursue a living is something that must freely be chosen or accepted. This is the principle of fundamental justice concerning the right to work.

30. The applicant claims that in order to have and enjoy an adequate standard ofliving, the applicant tried to exercise his fundamental right to an adequate living and was denied by the defendant. [ ... ]

32. The applicant has invoked his right not to work,[ ... ]

33. The applicant has a right to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts to do. The applicant, however, has chosen not to gain a living by choosing to work. Instead, the applicant has chosen to pursue happiness in life. In pursuing happiness the applicant is not gaining his living by work yet he remains with the right to enjoy an adequate standard of living [ ... ]

34. The applicant claims that this right is being restricted by the defendant contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

35. Another right that is being restricted, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice is the right of the applicant to contribute (or not) to the economic, social and cultural development of the defendant.

It wasn't as if this would cost the government anything. All they had to do was pay him the hundred million they already owed him;

13. In the case of Complainant, Wally Dove, the value of this Bond is more or less, $522,800,000.00 and the interest earned to date is more or less, $475,800,000.00. Wally Dove is also entitled to triple damages of the amount of actual damages sustained by him and the costs of the action including reasonable attorneys' fees, if applicable.

Bond? Bond? What bond? Wally explained it this way;

57. The applicant claims there has been a security issued to him when he was a child, shortly after his birth, and this security represents the obligation (debt) that the defendant and her agents are under to allow the applicant, a Human Being, to be secure from fear and want and to allow him to enjoy an adequate standard of living.

59. The applicant claims that the defendant, in right of Canada, through her executive powers became a signatory to the international Covenants, and thereby became obligated and accountable to respect and ensure all the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the covenants

62. The applicant claims that a security is in registered form if it bears a statement upon it that it is in registered form. If one looks upon the documentation given or received from the government (Registrar General) after the applicant (Human Being) was born, it is designated a registration of live birth (a.k.a., birth registration document). Written upon this instrument are terms such as Registration number, Registration date, etc., all indications that the instrument is registered, meaning it is in registered form.

63. The applicant claims that the office ofthe Registrar General from whom he obtained a certified copy of the birth registration document (security), is also an agent of the defendant and operating on Her behalf.

65. The applicant claims his security is proof of the debt obligation that the defendant owes to the applicant.

66. This obligation, inter alia, is to ensure the applicant (Human Being) enjoys an adequate standard ofliving including food, clothing and housing and to the continued improvement of those living conditions [ ... ]

Why the old tried and true OPCA birth bond of course. Exactly the same bond that Bernie Yankson and Charles Norman Holmes went to court to force the government to cough up. And how could the government possibly refute the force of this argument?

67. This security is issued to the natural person (i.e. The Human Being) and creates or represents the obligation (debt) owing to the applicant by the defendant.

72. The applicant claims that the registration of live birth is an instrument that proves the birth of a child (human being). The applicant accepts that a child in law, an infant, is a minor and not capable of handling its own financial and other affairs and must be looked after (governed by a trustee).

73. The applicant respectfully submits that it is, inter alia, the Bank Act that creates a Trust because the bank may treat a person as a registered security holder who is entitled to exercise all the rights of the security holder if this person presents to the bank a certain piece of evidence.

75. The applicant claims that the defendant (Queen in Council) is declaring that the applicant is indeed a minor and unable to operate the entitlements to the security of the person. The Ministers, agents of the defendant, are the persons who are currently exercising the rights to the applicant's security.

Even a Notice of Understanding

80. The applicant further claims that he has severed the Constructive Registered Holder's claimed rights over his security via the Notice of Understanding and Claim of Recognition sent to the holder ofthe defendant's Executive powers, the Governor General on March 31, 2015 and received by him on April8, 2015.

81. The applicant claims that the Receiver General failed to allow the applicant to operate upon his security by refusing to comply with the applicant's Instruction for Payment.

82. The applicant sent a request for funds to be released in accordance with his instructions, solely for the purpose of fulfilling his right to an adequate standard ofliving, even though, since the money comes from the applicant's security (from the Consolidated Revenue Fund), the defendant's agents have absolutely no right to operate upon his security any longer which means the request for funds did not even have to be justified in anyway.

But evil perfidy awaited Wally's entirely fair and reasonable request;

84. The Receiver General did not fulfill its obligations as indicated in this claim. In fact, the Receiver General did not even respond to the applicant.

So here is what Wally asked for to make things whole again;

88. The applicant claims that the Receiver General is subject to the Constitution Act of Canada and has not fulfilled his duty by reconciling the applicant's claims and releasing the funds as instructed.

Relief Sought:

The applicant therefore claims as follows:

a) An Order that the defendant honour Her obligations to the applicant, inter alia, as outlined in
Article 7 of Schedule B of the Constitution Act, 1982.

b) An Order that the defendant arrange for the return of care and control of the applicant's
security to him and it is the applicant, not the Constructive Registered Holder, who is "entitled to
vote, to receive notices, to receive any interest, dividend or other payment in respect of tile
. " [ ] security ....

c) An Order that the defendant arrange for the transfer of care and control over the applicant's
Patrimony, the remaining portion of the Consolidated Revenue Fund that represents the "interest,

dividend or other payment in respect of the (applicant's) security".

d) An Order that the defendant pay damages to the applicant in the amount of$50,000,000.00.

e) An Order that the defendant pay the applicant $50,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

f) An Order to cease and desist hindering the applicant in his expression and operation of his
individual rights and fundamental freedoms by allowing the applicant to use Promissory Notes
without the interference of any representative of the defendant's Bank OR the defendant.

g) An order that the defendant safeguard the applicant's rights, inter alia, as expressed in Article
7 of the Charter, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person". The applicant
a Human Being, has the right to the security of his person and no one can deprive him of this
right.

So, to put it in layman's terms, this is what Wally wanted the Federal Court of Canada to award him;





And (SPOILER ALERT) this what he got;





Things started out well for Wally with the judge saying what a great straight-up kind of guy he was and indicated some sympathy for him;

[4] At the hearing ofthe present Motion, Mr. Dove spoke well; he was courteous and respectful. To my observation Mr. Dove presented an honest commitment to, and belief in, the following statement, upon which the Statements of Claim are based:

And then the court crapped on him;

[7] I find that the Plaintiffs' attempt to seek access to justice in this Court must be rejected because their Statements of Claim have no reasonable prospect of success. As evidenced by the "Bill in Equity", the Plaintiffs have developed a belief unknown to the laws of Canada, upon which their Statements of Claim are based

[8] No cause of action arises from a belief that, by birth in Canada, a person acquires a proprietary interest in the resources of the country, under the wrongful control of Her Majesty the Queen, that founds a monetary claim which is calculable based on that person's date of birth. [9] As a result, pursuant to Rule 221(1)(a) of the Rules, I order that the Statements of Claim in each of the actions in the present Consolidated Action, be struck out, without leave to amend.

I disagree with the decision in one area; costs.

IV. Costs

[10] As the successful party, I accept Counsel for the Respondent's request that costs of the present Motion be ordered to be paid by the Plaintiffs jointly.

[11] In preliminary written argument dated September 15, 2015, Counsel for the Respondent argued for an elevated cost award to discourage "this type of abusive litigation and to indemnify the Defendant for her legal costs". Given that I have found that the Plaintiffs have brought the present Consolidated Action on the basis of an honest belief, and similar claims have not been determined by this Court, I have no reason to conclude that the present litigation is an abuse of process.

[12] However, I would caution that the present minimal costs award is being made strictly on the basis of the present unique circumstances.

I award costs in favour of the Respondent, to be payable by the Plaintiffs jointly, in the lump sum of $2,000.00.

What "present unique circumstances"? I don't see any and the judge didn't bother to explain. There is nothing new in this case; the birth bond issue has been beaten to death by the courts. I suppose it probably doesn't matter what costs were awarded. Given Wally's passionate dedication to his constitutional right not to work I can't see him paying off any amount of costs anytime soon. Maybe the government can take it out of his birth bond.

In a prior posting I'd said

However I wish the court would make its mind up if Wally sent a Bill of Equity or a Bill in Equity. Not that it really matters; I have no idea what either is supposed to be.

- 2015-11-17 Toronto Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell dated 16-NOV-2015 directing that Accept the Bill of Equity submitted by the Plaintiff. placed on file on 17-NOV-2015

- 2015-11-16 Toronto Bill in Equity received on 16-NOV-2015

Well the court cleared at least that up for me.

Bill in Equity

For purposes of this Instrument, CLAIM means- A claim is a challenge of the ownership of a thing which a man has not in possession and is wrongfully withheld by another. Plowd. 359; Wee i Dall.444; 12 S. & R. 179. _1856 Bouvier's Law Dictionary The petition of Wally Dove, a private person, of Minden, in Hailiburton County, Ontario, individually, and as next friend of Jason Dove, Glenn Bursey and Michael Bursey, respectfully represents:

1. That the Complainants grant In Personam jurisdiction to this Honourable Court under the Rules of Equity.

2. That Wally Dove is the father of Jason Dove and friend of Glenn Bursey who is the father of Michael Bursey, all of whom live in the geographical area known as Ontario.

3. That the defendant in these matters claims be the Queen of Canada and represents herself as the Legislative, Executive and Judicial power for Canada and has delegated Her powers to the Governor General of Canada, who in turn, delegates certain of those powers to others who are acting in various capacities within the defendant's agency, the government of Canada.

4. That all of the Claimants were born as human beings (see Annex "A" [statements ofbirth]) and choose to be recognized as private persons within the geographical land mass known as Canada and were born free and equal in dignity and rights with all other human beings.

5. That as free born human beings, the Claimants were with the Power of Attorney (Dominion) from their Creator over all the land, resources upon the land, resources within the land and resources underneath the sea ("assets").

6. That the defendant has created a system of commerce complete with Rules (Acts and Statutes having the force of law), a Government (delegated the power to carry on the defendant's business in Canada and govern Her subjects who have consented to be Her subjects), and Fiat Currency (money), the foundation of the system of commerce.

7. That as a part ofthe process of establishing and implementing this system of commerce, the defendant assumed control over all the land, resources upon the land, resources within the land and resources underneath the sea. All of which are the "assets" belonging to the Creator and over which the Complainants have power of Attorney (Dominion).

8. That the defendant has, and/or Her agents and/or agencies acting on Her behalf, have seized control and are managing those "assets" (a Trust) since the inception of the system of commerce and in the Complainants' case, since their respective dates of birth, or at least the date of registration of their births.

9. That the defendant has sold a significant portion of the Complainants' "assets" for money and has kept the money.

10. Further, the defendant has trespassed upon the Complainants' fundamental rights and freedoms, thus causing severe harm and damages.

11. That the Complainants claim the restoration of their property (including, inter alia, the value of their "assets" sold to date, care and control of their "assets" and future returns, as well as their individual fundamental rights and freedoms).

12. The damages are estimated to be the value of the Bond
(Statement of live birth and/or Birth Certificate).

13. In the case of Complainant, Wally Dove, the value ofhis Bond is more or less, $522,800,000.00 and the interest earned to date is more or less, $475,800,000.00. Wally Dove is also entitled to triple ·damages of the amount of actual damages sustained by him and the costs of the action including reasonable attorneys' fees, if applicable.

14. In the case of Complainant, Jason Dove, amounts and evidence to be presented on November 17, 2015.

15. In the case of Complainant, Glenn Bursey, amounts and evidence to be presented on November 17,2015.

16. In the case of Complainant, Michael Bursey, amounts and evidence to be presented on November 17, 2015.

Dated at Minden the 11th day ofNovember, 2015

Wally Dove, Human Being (Private Person)

[Bill Lumbergh]

Was Meads not brought up at all? Not that it's binding on the Federal Court, but it has clear instructions on how to rule on costs for these OPCA loons.

[Burnaby49]

Loon? Bill, please, that's a totally unwarranted comment. Wally is entirely sane and reasonable. He wants a hundred million and the only way he is going to get it is to make the government give it to him. What could be saner than that? I'm on his side because if he's entitled to it so am I! Of course if we're all entitled to a hundred mil from the government funding the payout gets a bit problematic. But that's just the accountant in me fretting away. I have to think like Wally, a dreamer and visionary!

Think of it as a cost effective long-shot. Even if the applicants pay the awarded costs it is only $400 each split pro-rata amongst the five of them. And Wally was being very reasonable in his demands. The government actually owed him over four billion with the triple damages thrown in;

13. In the case of Complainant, Wally Dove, the value of this Bond is more or less, $522,800,000.00 and the interest earned to date is more or less, $475,800,000.00. Wally Dove is also entitled to triple damages of the amount of actual damages sustained by him and the costs of the action including reasonable attorneys' fees, if applicable.

But, having only modest dreams about what he required for an adequate lifestyle to pursue happiness, he was willing to compromise by settling for only a tiny fraction of that. And he was still rebuffed by an uncaring government and a corrupt judiciary. As I said, a tale of sadness and tragedy.

[Jeffrey]

Anything under $300 million and Wally would have to reduce the size of his entourage and wouldn't have enough to have a ho for each day of the week.

[Burnaby49]

Wally isn't giving up, he's a scrapper! Kicked in the teeth, kneecapped and left for dead by the Canadian judicial system he's somehow struggled to his feet and, punch-drunk but game, is staggering into yet another haymaker! He strikes a feeble flailing blow at his relentless adversary, the Federal Court of Canada!

2015-12-07 Toronto

Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 07-DEC-2015 re: Notice of Statement of Indenture and Bill in Equity recevied (sic) by e-filing sent to the Court for direction as to filing.

But the court brushes that off and returns a knockout punch;

2015-12-09 Toronto

Oral directions received from the Court: Kevin Aalto, Prothonotary dated 09-DEC-2015 directing that The documents submitted to the Court for filing on December 9, 2015, Notice of Statement of Indenture and Bill in Equity are to be returned to the Applicants and are not accepted for filing. Applicant advised electronically - documents returned through e-filing placed on file on 09-DEC-2015 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies

)

When the court doesn't even extend you the courtesy of pretending your case has a scrap of merit by at least accepting your documents for filing you are . . . how, not being a lawyer do I put this in legal terminology . . . got it . . . totally screwed.

Poor Wally. If the court is willing to violate, nay, blatantly rape, the principles of fundamental justice by not awarding him a $100,000,000 to fund his constitutional right not to work then he's proven that there is no justice in Canada for a humble man who has decided to chose happiness. A sad lesson for us all of the nightmare that we Canadians endure daily.

[Burnaby49]

There's more to this story than an uncaring court stomping on the dreams and aspirations of a man who stood alone in the annals of federal government employment, an ethical and caring income tax auditor. Not only is Canada punishing Wally for this betrayal of his employer they are mercilessly trying to destroy his family too.

It turns out that his son Jason felt the lash of injustice from a different court years ago. He'd gone to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal for justice after a manifestly egregious violation of his basic human rights. A woman with "the worst attitude of anyone" had entered a men's washroom while he was in it washing his hands!

Dove v. UHN Rehabilitation, 2011 HRTO 905
http://canlii.ca/t/flczd

What could be a more blatant violation of his human rights? And the tribunal summarily dismissed his application after a phone call. I feel ashamed to be a Canadian.

Jason had been on some program to toughen him up, apparently after an injury;

WHP is a physiotherapy-based and active rehabilitation program that is designed for clients who have not returned to their full job duties after being off work due to musculoskeletal injuries and pain, especially after 3 months, (Mayer et al. 1984).

The program is specifically meant to increase the participant’s level of conditioning and physical tolerance in preparation to return to work, or to increase present work duties.

http://meridianhealthassessments.com/as ... dening.php

Perhaps that experience triggered his decision to join his father in suing the federal government for $100,000,000 to fund his constitutional right not to work. But he got stomped there too.

Poor Jason.

[notorial dissent]

Would seem to be a genetic family thing. Proof that stupidity and cupidity are inherited.

[Burnaby49]

Wally isn't giving up. He's appealed his loss at the Federal court of Canada to the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal also includes Jason Dove, Michael Bursey and Glenn Bursey. Good luck guys!

[Burnaby49]

Wally isn't letting any grass grow under his feet in his quest for that $100,000,000. He's already busy working away (ironic since his lawsuit is to enforce his right not to work) filing documents at the Federal Court of Appeal;

( 4 records found ) Doc Date Filed Office Recorded Entry Summary

2016-01-08
Ottawa Memorandum to file from the Registry of the FCA dated 08-JAN-2016 transmitting a copy of the Notic of Appeal to Justice Campbell, the prothonotary Aalto and the Actions section of the FC. placed on file.

3 2016-01-06
Toronto Notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent with proof of service upon all appellants on 06-JAN-2016 filed on 06-JAN-2016

2 2015-12-23
Toronto Copy of DOC. 1 with proof of service on the respondent on 23-DEC-2015 filed on 23-DEC-2015

1 2015-12-18
Toronto Notice of Appeal filed on 18-DEC-2015 against a decision OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL DATED 24-NOV-2015 IN T-1287-15 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Director of the Regional Office of the Department of Justice Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes

[arayder]

I suppose it probably doesn't matter what costs were awarded. Given Wally's passionate dedication to his constitutional right not to work I can't see him paying off any amount of costs anytime soon. Maybe the government can take it out of his birth bond.

So Burnaby what happens to Dove if he don't pay costs?

I often hear of freemen being required to ay court costs. I have assumed that they rarely, if ever, pay.

[Burnaby49]

I suppose it probably doesn't matter what costs were awarded. Given Wally's passionate dedication to his constitutional right not to work I can't see him paying off any amount of costs anytime soon. Maybe the government can take it out of his birth bond.

So Burnaby what happens to Dove if he don't pay costs?

I often hear of freemen being required to ay court costs. I have assumed that they rarely, if ever, pay.

Nothing much as far as I'm aware. He owes the money to the crown but it's hardly worth going after. I think the crown could try and stop the case from proceeding at the Federal court of Appeal until past costs are paid but I don't know for certain.

[Burnaby49]

Poor Wally.

He's lost yet again in his attempts to force the Canadian goverment to accept that it owes him $100,000,000 in order for him to enjoy an adequate lifestyle.

Judgment dated 15-SEP-2016 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Pelletier The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Near Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Appeal Result: dismissed Filed on 15-SEP-2016 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 296 page(s) 299 - 299 (Final decision)

Reasons for Judgment rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Pelletier concurred in by The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Near dated 15-SEP-2016 The Court's decision is with regard to Appeal Filed on 15-SEP-2016 Copies sent to parties

http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/fca ... o=A-552-15

Note that the decision to kick poor Wally in the balls took only one page. I went to the Federal Court registry to get a copy but it isn't available yet.

All that's left for him in his increasingly hopeless quest for justice is to file a Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He has about as much chance of that being accepted as finding the $100,000,000 under his pillow so he's going to have to think up some new hook to get the money he deserves as compensation for not wanting to work.

[notorial dissent]

Poor Wally, just gets NO respect. Maybe the Supreme Court will finally see the light and grant him the justice he so richly deserves

[Arthur Rubin]

Poor Wally, just gets NO respect. Maybe the Supreme Court will finally see the light and grant him the justice he so richly deserves

Perhaps:

Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal denied.
Costs to appellant.

[The Observer]

All that's left for him in his increasingly hopeless quest for justice is to file a Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He has about as much chance of that being accepted as finding the $100,000,000 under his pillow so he's going to have to think up some new hook to get the money he deserves as compensation for not wanting to work.

Good thing he has not consulted with David Merrill of Van Pelt and learned about filing UCC liens and phony suits against government bodies for sums of large dollars. He would likely be disappointed with the results, if David's attempt to get $23 million from the state of Colorado is an example of what failure looks like.

[Burnaby49]

All that's left for him in his increasingly hopeless quest for justice is to file a Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He has about as much chance of that being accepted as finding the $100,000,000 under his pillow so he's going to have to think up some new hook to get the money he deserves as compensation for not wanting to work.

Good thing he has not consulted with David Merrill of Van Pelt and learned about filing UCC liens and phony suits against government bodies for sums of large dollars. He would likely be disappointed with the results, if David's attempt to get $23 million from the state of Colorado is an example of what failure looks like.

And don't forget that Allen Boisjoli is up on paper terrorism charges for burying the Alberta government and police in mountains of bullshit paperwork. Be very interesting to see how that works out.

[notorial dissent]

What I'd like to know is if they let him loose after they arrested him, since if they did it is an almost dead bang certainty that he won't show up. He has no regard for the law or legal process as he has continued to show.

[Burnaby49]

Wally hit the big-time! He made CANLii;

Dove v. Canada, 2016 FCA 231
http://canlii.ca/t/gtvcc

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

[1] Mr. Wally Dove appeals from the judgment of Campbell J. of the Federal Court dismissing five claims which were consolidated by order of the Federal Court dated November 4, 2015. Mr. Dove also appeals from Justice Campbell’s dismissal of a motion for reconsideration. In the Federal Court consolidation order, file no. T-1287-15 was made the lead file. When this appeal was filed, all concerned appear to have assumed that the Federal Court’s consolidation order continued in force in this Court. That is not the case as the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal are separate and distinct courts. As a result, the only appeal before us is Mr. Dove’s appeal from the judgment rendered in file no. T-1287-15. Since the appeal will be dismissed, this oversight has no practical effect since all five claims will continue to be dismissed.

[2] Mr. Justice Campbell, and Prothonotary Aalto before him, dismissed the claim in issue before them on the basis that “none of these statements of claim raise any cause of action and are bereft of any chance of success” (Prothonotary Aalto) or that the statements of claim “have no reasonable prospect of success” (Justice Campbell). There is no error in these conclusions.

[3] The legal propositions which Mr. Dove puts forward are incoherent and devoid of any legal meaning. They are the legal equivalent of Noam Chomsky’s famous phrase: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” Each word in the sentence can be given a discrete meaning but the sentence constructed from those words is devoid of intelligible content. So it is with Mr. Dove’s claim. Mr. Dove has assembled words, phrases, and concepts which have some meaning in the context in which they are originally found but have none whatsoever in the use which he has made of them.

[4] Mr. Phillips, on behalf of her Majesty, asked this Court to declare that Mr. Dove and his fellow litigants are OPCA (Organized Pseudo Commercial Argument) litigants as that term is defined and used in the case of Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), [2012] A.J. No. 980 (QL). It is true that Mr. Dove’s claim shares some of the characteristics attributed to OPCA litigants, but the OPCA phenomenon is not a threat to the orderly administration of justice in this Court at this time. Other courts may be having a different experience; it is for them to decide how to deal with their particular circumstances.

[5] Mr. Dove and his co-litigants should know that, while they are entitled to be heard, they are not entitled to blame their lack of success on the bad faith and corruption of the judges who hear and decide their cases and on collusion between the lawyers who represent the Crown and the judges and prothonotaries who have heard their cases. Such allegations have consequences and if Mr. Dove continues in his present vein, he will have to deal with those consequences: see Abi-Mansour v. Canada (Department of Aboriginal Affairs), 2014 FCA 272 (CanLII), [2014] F.C.J. No. 1145, at paragraphs 9-15.

[6] This appeal will be dismissed with costs fixed at $3,000.

[notorial dissent]

Poor Wally, just gets no traction. Appeal denied and socked with costs, double slap. Will he get the message, not likely.

[Burnaby49]

Turns out that Wally seems to have inspired a whack of imitators. Charles Norman Holmes;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9683

Has also tried, and failed at getting $100,000,000 or so by suing the federal government to honour his right to work by paying him an "adequate" standard of living for choosing instead not to work. I'll be posting on that when I get my Charles Holmes documents in order, I've been busy at the Federal Court of Canada registry.

And now this sad tale of a woman striving, and failing, to be a deadbeat on the taxpayer's dime. Another of Wally's adequate standard of living acolytes;

Doell v. Canada, 2016 FCA 235
http://canlii.ca/t/gv28z

This was an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal from prior losses. The decision, in its entirety is;

[1] By order dated September 4, 2015, the Federal Court (per Lafrenière P.) struck out the appellant’s statement of claim. The Federal Court held that the statement of claim did not advance a viable cause of action. The appellant appealed under Rule 51. By order dated October 19, 2015, the Federal Court (per Zinn J.) dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals to this Court.

[2] We agree with both sets of reasons in the Federal Court. Both accurately characterized the appellant’s claim as one for a right not to work and to be afforded an adequate standard of living based on her status as a person born in Canada and based on several documents of a constitutional, international and legislative nature. In this Court, the appellant submits that a more accurate characterization is that she owns a share of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and it should be awarded to her. Under either characterization, this claim cannot succeed in law. Therefore, we shall dismiss the appeal.

[3] At the conclusion of the hearing, we invited submissions from the parties on the issue of costs. We have considered those submissions.

[4] Considering that this is the second appeal in a matter that has been adjudged twice before to be wholly without merit—and the same is true for this appeal—we shall also award the respondents their costs of this appeal, fixed in the amount of $2,600, all inclusive.

The reason she got two kicks at the can at the Federal Court of Canada is the result of the role of the prothonotary. This is a quasi-judge who acts as a gate-keeper to cull out the crap cases so they don't end up wasting a judge's time. The weakness in this system is that anyone who has an adverse decision from a prothonotary can, under Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules, appeal the prothonotary's decision to a Federal Court judge and get a fresh hearing. So Caitlin Doell did and lost again so she appealed that loss to the Federal Court of Appeal. A lot of work to try and enforce her right not to work.