I have two I'm not reporting on yet because, while I have the decisions, they are not yet up on CANlii so readers can't reference them. They should be up shortly. One a woman who, amongst other things, claims that her children are her personal property and can't be taken from her by the government without her permission. No, not a standard child custody case. Her children are two adult sons, both of whom face criminal charges. She claims the charges can't proceed because she won't allow her property to face prosecution.
[24] Ms. Leadbetter’s action in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench is not the only forum in which she has introduced OPCA concepts. She has also filed OPCA documents on January 30, 2018 and February 13, 2018 in a number of Provincial Court of Alberta criminal actions where the accused are her sons, “Ryan-Joseph: Lees”, and “Tyler-John: Lees”.
[25] Appendix C reproduces one example document from the Provincial Court actions, where Ms. Leadbetter claims ownership of her sons “... as her property at common law ...” since they are “... the products of her body ...”. As I understand this document, it purports to terminate the criminal litigation against her son Ryan Joseph Lees on the basis Ms. Leadbetter is “... the rightful owner to all four corners ...” of Ryan Lees.
This is an example of the gibberish she filed;
Now you're safe trying that kind of garbage in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, they seem quite happy to accommodate vexatious litigant's antics for decades. But take gibberish like that to Alberta's Queen's Bench and, as Richard Nixon used to say, it's "Time for some nut cutting". And Queen's Bench got out the nut cutters. I'll post it as soon as CANlii gets off it's butt and publishes the decision.Whereas it appears there has occurred errors on the part of Vic Findlater of Findlater Law of Bonnyville; the Chief Crown Prosecutor of Saint Paul: Jeffery Rudiak; among many others: through assumed jurisdiction under colour-of- law have: mistaken identity and mistaken locations and that all alleged contracts related to the above docket numbers are declared null and void due to coercion; stress; duress; threats; trick and infancy at common law; further: Stephanie-Lynn has claimed the human beings; the products of her body as her property at common law; as such she is the rightful owner to all four corners; and as such claims states immunity; we extend this offer to correct the situation by the withdraw of all submissions related to the docket numbers listed above; Notice: Ryan Lees© is a common law copyrighted trade name for which no permission or authorization has been granted by the holder of the copyright to any agent of or for the state party; Notice: The property of Ryan-Joseph: Lees; Ryan Lees© has been both delivered and claimed; to and by; and is under the protection of Stephanie-Lynn: Leadbetter and any and all attempts to contract with Ryan Lees© are to be forwarded to the address above through Stephanie-Lynn: Leadbetter; Notice: With the above; none of the participants have; or can claim to have a legal; or lawful; enforceable contract; Notice: Both Stephanie-Lynn and Ryan-Joseph deny the existence of a lawful contract; Notice: Both Stephanie-Lynn and Ryan-Joseph deny having authorized or conveyed any lawful authority to any agent of the state party or a minister to act as proctor; minister; banker; trustee; or executor; or that any lawful contract exist between Ryan-Joseph and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the Provincial Court of the Province of Alberta; or that Ryan-Joseph has been in-scripted into an army without his knowledge or consent; and denies a contract with the LAW SOCIETY of ALBERTA; Notice: Lawful service will only be accepted via registered mail to the exact address provided above; Notice: Both Stephanie-Lynn and Ryan-Jospeh; do not consent to a joint prosecuted with a co-accused; Notice: Any and all actors; agents of and for the state party; involved in any way with the submission of documents related to; or participants in the events related to the docket numbers listed above; all actors expose themselves to charges of copy right infringement; defamation of character; and trespass; and also charges of failure of duty of care; violation of oath of office; conduct unbecoming an officer; perjury; and criminal charges of trafficking in person contrary to 279.01 of the Criminal Code they have taken an oath to uphold. Should Vic Findlater and Jeffery Rudiak desire to continue with the above actions; new submission without a co-accused are to be filed and lawfully served;
The second unreported decision is this guy who I've already mocked on Quatloos.
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 48&t=11666
I discussed his three reported decisions. His fourth Queen's Bench shitkicking is now out but not yet on CANlii. Since he's now a vexatious litigant that should be the end of his story.
This leaves us with Theodore Hawrysh
Alberta Treasury Branches v Hawrysh
2018 ABQB 475
http://canlii.ca/t/hsm0r
Theodore has a problem. An unfeeling evil bank wants to take his home away from him because, entirely through no fault of his own, he's currently facing extreme financial distress. All he wanted to do was some entirely legitimate financial planning, screwing the Canada Revenue Agency by participating in a blatantly illegal tax evasion scam.
But he denies that he did anything wrong! Instead he himself is a victim of fraud by the Canada Revenue Agency.[3] Mr. Hawrysh is a bankrupt. His debts largely arise from Mr. Hawrysh participating in a tax evasion scam operated by DeMara Consulting, whose principles, Donna Marie Stancer and Deanne Lynn LaValley, offered what they called “the Remedy”: R v Stancer, 2016 BCSC 192. “The Remedy” was an OPCA scheme which had no legal merit. Customers of DeMara Consulting claimed as business expenses personal items such as utility and credit card bills, mortgage payments, amounts owed to the Canada Revenue Agency, grocery bills, and motor vehicle operation, insurance, registration and maintenance costs: para 3. The resulting large but fictitious losses were then used to negate income and also as a basis to claim back losses for previous years and trigger additional refunds: para 4. The Remedy resembles a similar OPCA scam conducted by Fiscal Arbitrators in around the same time period: Torres v The Queen, 2013 TCC 380 (CanLII), 235 ACWS (3d) 844, aff’d Strachan v The Queen, 2015 FCA 60 (CanLII), 250 ACWS (3d) 352.
[4] As Justice Beames observed in R v Stancer, at para 5, “... any thoughtful person would and should have seen the Remedy as an obviously illegal method of filing income tax returns.” Stancer, the kingpin of the Remedy scheme, received a 33 month jail sentence for operating the scam. The sentencing judge observed a 3-4 year sentence would instead have been appropriate, were it not for Ms. Stancer’s “fragile personal state”: para 17.
After reading that I was so overwhelmed by the cruel injustice inflicted on Theodore by an unfeeling CRA just because he tried to cheat on his taxes that I had to stop and compose myself. So I cracked open my last can of Doan's Craft Kolsch. Now, fortified by that and thoughts of brighter days ahead, I'll continue. The brighter days are for me however, not Theodore. He's completely screwed. In four days I'm off for a two week driving tour of craft breweries in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. My companion is my indomitable drinking buddy of fifty years who some of you have met on our pubbing ventures to the UK. Boise Idaho here we come! Enough of that meandering! Show some compassion Burnaby49! This post is about Theodore's pain and his unanswered cries for justice, not my selfish pleasures. So back to his lawsuit.[44] Behind all that is Mr. Hawrysh’s claims that he owes nothing to the Canada Revenue Agency. Again, he alleges fraud. The Canada Revenue Agency reassessments and gross negligence penalties that flowed from him employing DeMara Consulting and engaging in tax evasion “Are Fake and Fabricated”:
DeMara Consulting and Donna Marie Stancer are no strangers to Quatloos.
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... =50&t=9136
Not, as you can see, a tax-compliant scheme.
Theodore's errant tax planning resulted in this;
Exactly right. It's all the CRA's fault for not letting him live his dream by choking down his blatant tax scam and allowing him his imaginary and totally illegal deductions that would have allowed him to evade all of his taxes owing. The CRA actually demanded that he pay his tax the same as suckers like me. Those Bastards! Well, all water under the bridge. Now he's fighting to save his house.[8] The matter that brought me into contact with Mr. Hawrysh was an indirect consequence of his bankruptcy. Mr. Hawrysh had secured a personal line of credit from the Alberta Treasury Branches [ATB] against a residential property in St. Paul. Mr. Hawrysh ceased making payments on that debt in October 28, 2017. ATB sued seeking foreclosure on January 3, 2017 ATB, and on May 8, 2017 applied for and received a redemption order for six months, followed by judicial sale.
[9] Mr. Hawrysh at the May 8, 2017 hearing cross-applied, alleging that the foreclosure action should be “set aside” because a “... fraudulent and invalid ...” claim by the Canada Revenue Agency “... is the sole cause of the Bankruptcy and foreclosure ...”, therefore “... there is no reason for the Bankruptcy ...”. Mr. Hawrysh’s bankruptcy would be “... annulled and reversed.” That application was dismissed.
The May 2017 hearing resulted in Theodore's cross-application getting the boot and the bank being allowed to proceed with the sale of the house. He appealed and lost again and he appealed that which led to the current hearing. His legal arguments were somewhat unusual;
Then, at paragraph 21, a whole section of the decision dedicated to beating Theodore over the head for being an OPCA litigant.[19] The second page of the June 14, 2018 document appears to reproduce a published pseudolegal notice that Mr. Hawrysh (“the Theodore.: Hawrysz.”) is a member of the “[Kisiskatchewani Sipi-nation.]”, and that the name “THEODORE FREDERICK HAWYRSH©™” is the “exclusive property” of “the Theodore.: Hawrysz.”. Any infringement on that “TRADEMARK/TRADE-NAME” is a basis to bill for $500,000.00 in “... functional currency of the united states of America”, “triple damages, punitive damages, and fees.”
Whoops! Might as well wear Lady Gaga's raw meat dress in front of a pack of starving hyenas as try the strawman argument at Queen's Bench.[23] Mr. Hawrysh’s litigation is now clearly exhibiting OPCA components. This first emerged at the June 12, 2018 hearing. OPCA litigants often demand that a judge produce an “oath of office” as a (purported) precondition for exercise of judicial authority: Meads v Meads, at para 243. Demands of this kind are intended to subvert the authority of the court: Meads v Meads, at paras 287-290. However, there is no obligation on a judge to produce documentation of that kind on demand; judges are presumptively authorized to operate in their judicial role: R v Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 (CanLII) at paras 36-38, affirmed 2010 BCCA 391 (CanLII), 2010 DTC 5141; Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114 (CanLII) at paras 83-87, 586 AR 23; Holmes v Canada, 2016 FC 918 (CanLII) at paras 28, 30; R v Ainsworth, 2015 ONCJ 98 (CanLII) at paras 3, 6; R v Rhodes, 2015 BCSC 2437 (CanLII) at para 20; Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII) at para 40, 7 Admin LR (6th) 321; R v Crischuk, 2007 BCPC 470 (CanLII) at paras 8-9.
[24] The second page of the June 14, 2018 documents indicates Mr. Hawrysh subscribes to the idea that he is composed of two entities, which are distinguished by the use of punctuation and capitalization. The physical Mr. Hawrysh, “the Theodore.: Hawrysz.”, is identified by a mixed case name with aberrant punctuation. He purportedly is the “Secured Party” of a separate entity, “THEODORE FREDERICK HAWYRSH©™”. This interrelationship is mediated by an array of documents:
• Certified Trade/Security Agreement No.CTSATFH25012009
• Commercial Security Agreement No.CSATFH12281959
• State of CANADA Postal Registry No.RW324041983CA
• Personal Property Security Registry Base Registration No.835233E
• Uniform Commercial Code Filing No.09-0005077725
[25] This motif that a person is composed of two or more parts, one physical, the other legal, which are distinguished by names in mixed case (often with strange punctuation) and the other all capital letters is called a “Strawman” scheme. The non-corporeal aspect of this duality is often referred to as the “Strawman”, though OPCA litigants like Ms. Hawrysh use many different names for this non-physical doppelganger.
[26] Needless to say, the “Strawman” concept has been rejected in innumerable court decisions in Canada and every other country where it has appeared: Meads v Meads, at paras 417-446. Whether names are spelled in upper case, mixed case, or contain strange punctuation makes no difference. Mr. Hawrysh is one indivisible entity. That is good news for him, because if one could really split apart the physical and ‘legal’ aspects of an individual, the result under the English tradition common law would probably be a slave, a human without legal status: Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 (CanLII) at paras 89-95, [2017] DTC 5024.
Other arguments also got the Queen's Bench special treatment;
Resulting in;[29] Mr. Hawrysh also claimed trademark in his own name. OPCA litigants usually then claim doing that restricts the ability of others to use that name, without permission, and frequently bill for allegedly unauthorized and (purportedly) infringing use of their personal name: Meads v Meads, at paras 494-504. Mr. Hawrysh demands $500,000.00 US, as “A Bill of Exchange”, per use. As Associate Chief Justice Rooke observed in Meads v Meads, the “my name is copyright/trade-mark protected” motif as legally false and “overwhelmingly juvenile”.
[30] The June 14, 2018 and June 18, 2018 documents also indicate Mr. Hawrysh subscribes to the false concept that judges have some kind of insurance policy or “bond information” which dissatisfied litigants can then claim against: Meads v Meads, at paras 243, 481. Needless to say, there is no such “Policy” managed by an “Insurance Underwriter”. Instead, judges in Canada are immune from litigation that allegedly flows from exercise of judicial duties: Morier and Boily v Rivard, 1985 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 716, 23 DLR (4th) 1.
III. Court Access Restrictions
[31] Mr. Hawrysh’s attempted correspondence with this Court and his previous court filings and conduct are a basis on which to investigate whether Mr. Hawrysh should be made subject to court access restrictions by what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant order”.
With, as an answer, an emphatic YES!
The appendix included Theodore's public notice regarding his newly acquired aboriginal status as an example of his OPCA gibberish;[48] All this indicates yet another indicium of abuse of court processes. Ultimately, Mr. Hawrysh seeks to re-argue his tax debt that resulted from his attempts to use “the Remedy”. That is a collateral attack on his reassessment, which it appears Mr. Hawrysh did not choose to challenge. He cannot now attempt to use this Court to unwind that result.
[49] Together, this is a clear basis for this Court to investigate whether Mr. Hawrysh should be subject to court access restrictions. This is usually a two-step process to ensure adequate procedural fairness to the potential target of court access restrictions: Lymer v Jonsson, 2016 ABCA 32 (CanLII), 612 AR 122; Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 (CanLII) at paras 10-11.
[50] I therefore under this Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and on my own motion, direct that Ms. Hawrysh provide submissions:
1. as to whether he should be subject to court access restrictions, and
2. if so, what form those court access restrictions should take.
[51] This process will be conducted in writing only: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 (CanLII) at para 105; Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62. Mr. Hawrysh has until July 23, 2018 to make written submissions in relation to his being potentially subject to court access restrictions.
[52] The Court invites ATB to make submissions on the appropriate court access restrictions for Mr. Hawrysh, if any, and to file materials relating to Mr. Hawrysh’s dispute-related activities (see Chutskoff v Bonora, at paras 87-90 and Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General), at paras 100-102) by July 9, 2018.
[53] In the interim, I order that Mr. Hawrysh is immediately prohibited from continuing or instituting further court proceedings without the permission of the Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, Chief Judge, or his or her designate, of the Alberta Court in question, per R v Hok, 2016 ABQB 335 (CanLII) at para 105, enforced in Hok v Alberta (Justice & Solicitor General), 2016 ABCA 356 (CanLII) at para 7.
[54] The Court will prepare this Interim Court Access Restriction Order. Mr. Hawrysh’s approval of that Order is not required.
LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE
BE IT WITNESSED AND NOTICE: For the [Kisiskatchewani Sipi] people for the [Kisiskatchewani Sipi-nation] are private people, we are the holders of our culture, language and sacred lands for the [Kisiskatchewani Sipi-nation.] FURTHER TAKE NOTICE: for the Theodore.: Hawrysz. of the [Kisiskatchewani Sipi-nation] is with the copyright claim of the TRADEMARK/TRADE-NAME THEODORE FREDERICK HAWRYSH©™ For the Theodore.: Hawrysz. is with the claim of the Secured Party by the Certified Trade/Security Agreement No.CTSATFH25012009, Commercial Security Agreement No.CSATFH12281959, State of CANADA Postal Registry No.RW324041983CA, Personal Property Security Registry Base Registration No.835233E and Uniform Commercial Code Filing No.09-0005077725. For any name resembling this TRADE-MARK/TRADE-NAME THEODORE FREDERICK HAWRYSH©™ in any form with-in any derivation thereof REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. For the PERMANENT--EGAL-NOTICE, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. For the Theodore.: Hawrysz. is with this Right of Claim by the authority of the Theodore.: Hawrysz. of the [Kisiskatchewani Sipi-nation.] Any infringement of. the TRADEMARK/TRADE-NAME will Constitute A Bill of Exchange in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (500,000.00) functional currency of the united states of America for each use of 'it" plus triple damages, punitive damages and fees. By the authority for the Theodore.: Hawrysz-family.
ALL INQUIRIES/CONCERNS by writing:
[:Theodore.: Hawrysz.]
[:Kisiskatchewani Sipi-nation.]
