Margaret Kocsis (I AM, Eternal Essence) loses her home

[Burnaby49]

Quatloos has had a very brief brush with a Margaret Kocsis in respect to Carol Volk's self-destructive loss of her house on the advice of a bunch of people who knew as little about Canadian mortgage law as she did;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10123

[7/24/2013 2:08:51 PM] Carol MHVolk: The Bank will allow your Mortgage accoun XXX to remain open until maturity, August 3, 2013, as long as payments on the Mortgage remain up to date.

[7/24/2013 2:10:08 PM] Carol MHVolk: Yes — it is up for renewal which was why I sent the letter before signing the mortgage renewnal

[7/24/2013 2:11:35 PM] Margaret Kocsis: Carol, it does not say that after that date it is payable in full.

[7/24/2013 2:14:13 PM] Carol MHVolk: ARE THEY GOING TO SELL MY HOME?????????????? I want to be calm and just relax but I have so many comments coming in…

[7/24/2013 2:15:41 PM] Dr. Michelle Johnson, ND: No, they are going to probably give another ‘lending institution’ the opportunity to ‘service your mortgage.’

[7/24/2013 2:15:52 PM] Steph: they are scared by your letter. Do you know why? Because THEY KNOW YOU ARE RIGHT

[7/24/2013 2:17:23 PM] Dr. Michelle Johnson, ND: They don’t want problem ‘clients’ like us…they don’t want to have to be held to account for their fraud…

[7/24/2013 2:20:18 PM] Carol MHVolk: I am thinking if they haven’t said you OWE X amount it’s DONE!!!

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10123&start=40#p177628

Well, a year and a half after this, in November 2014, Margaret (I'm assuming she's the same Margaret Kocsis) tried almost the exact same thing regarding her own mortgage even though she knew that the Volks had lost their case and been kicked out.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/117egzofu ... idavit.pdf

Three pages of total gibberish. Here's a sample;

11 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA'S actions to date prevent full disclosure to Affiant, denying Affiant any opportunity to make a fully informed decision with regard to this alleged transaction.

12 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA never disclosed any documented fact that ROYAL BANK OF CANADA purchased Affiant's alleged obligation, thereby allegedly obligating Affiant to ROYAL BANK OF CANADA.

13 royal bank of canada INDUCED AFFIANT INTO BELIEVING ROYAL BANK OF CANADA'S capital was the sole source of funding regarding alleged account CA 199718 and account BB684898 from MARGARET KOCSIS.

14 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA is knowingly and willfully engaging in the collection of an extension of credit while inducing Affiant into believing Affiant is repaying ROYAL BANK OF CANADA'S capital.

15 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA IS using extortionate enforcement of payment without clear and full disclosure of foundation to Affiant.

16 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA is intentionally concealing and withholding material facts regarding any trust or creation of any trust in re alleged Mortgage/Deed of Trust connected to alleged account From MARGARET KOCSIS

17 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA is intentjonally concealing and withholding material facts in re any trustee or beneficiary, designated, nominated, appointed, or assigned by Afflant.

18 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA is willfully withholding or concealing full disclosure of all material facts to Affiant.

In a nutshell this seems, without explicitly saying so, to be her attempt to nullify the mortgage on the basis of bad faith by the Royal Bank. Bad faith as defined by her.

21 Any man or woman having first hand knowledge of all the facts asserted herein and having absolute power and authority to rebut this Affidavit must rebut each and every point separately with the rebutting party's own signature and endorsement notorized, under penalty of perjury and willing to testify and executed as true, correct, and complete with positive proof attached. Absent positive proof any rebuttal shall be deemed null and void having no force or effect, thereby waiving any of ROYAL BANK OF CANADA's immunities or defenses.

The property covered by the mortgage that Margaret was trying to eliminate was at 1390 Archibald Rd., White Rock, British Columbia. Check it out in Google Street View. Far grander than the house the Volks were desperately trying to keep.

For some reason this heap of total gibberish didn't do the trick. Instead the bank started foreclosure proceedings against her. So she responded by filing an overwhelming heap of total gibberish in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to stop all this foreclosure nonsense immediately. Note - I'm not going to go over the cut and paste and correct for errors from a poor copy PDF.

First, so that they know who they are dealing with;

DECLARATION OF REJECTION WITHOUT DISHONOR BY I AM

I AM, eternal essence, completely factualized in body, September 1.5, I 950, also perceived as Margaret Kocsis, duly pre-approved, preauthorized, pre-paid, recorded, secured, noticed, governed, bonded, insured and guaranteed by I AM, inclusive of Eternal, Universal and International Record No. 2013032035 and 20 12 127914, in perpetuity, Record No. 2000043135, du ly declared, DECLARATfON OF I AM, with refereoc;e number IAM-mk09 I 51950, duly DONE, executed, and noticed, duly perfected, nunc pro tune praeterea preterea, a lawfully duly established original depos itory and deposit of I AM, source of the Value of I AM, DECLARATION OF ORIGINAL DEPOSITORY AND DEPOSIT OF l AM, with reference number DODD-IAMmk0915 l 950, duly DONE, executed, noticed: perfected, all restated and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full, without prejudice, with all :;aid records and Value of I AM duly made, issued, deposited, domicil. confirmed, reconfitmed, ratified, verified and noticed, nunc pro lune, praeterea preterea, at this moment, also perceived as , 20 14, DO duly make, issue, confirm, rati fy, and verify this DECLARATION Of REJECTION WITHOUT DJSHONOR BY I AM, with reference number DREJORDDF-IAM-mk0915 l950, with full respons ibility and liability of I AM, without prejudice, nunc pro tunc, praetera preterea, and that this DECLARATION is true, accurate, complete, and I AM conscious and competent to say so:

I. I AM, eternal essence, in body, also perceived as Margaret Kocsis, duly recorded, secured, noticed, governed, bonded, insured and guaranteed by I AM, Record No. 2013032035 and 2012127914, in perpetuity Record No. 2000043135, and OECLARATrON OF I AM, reference number IAM-mk09151950, a lawfully duly established original depository and deposit ofl AM, source of the Value of I AM, DECLARATION OF ORIGINAL DEPOSITORY AND DEPOSIT OF I AM, with reference number OOOD-IAMmk09l51950, restated, without p.ejudice, nnnc pro tune praetera preterea, all restated, without prejudice, nunc pro tunc praetera pretcrea, duly declares, issues, reconfirms, ratifies, verifies and notices, without prejudice, none pro tune praetera preterea:

That's right, an adherent of Heather Tucci-Jarraf's One Peoples Public Trust! And trying it out right here in Vancouver.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/t0hpiyjau ... idavit.pdf

This is our discussion on the OPPT;

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9038

Which of course turned out to be a total disaster for everybody involved. Note that Margaret is careful not to include the words One People's Public Trust in the document. By 2015 the scam had been totally discredited so I assume a believer like Margaret wanted to employ the OPPT techniques but not get saddled with the reputation.

Anyhow this quote is a part, a small part, of the gibberish Margaret dumped on the court.

b. I AM rejecting the document purporting to be a judicial order for a purported debt and financial instrument without dishonor, for lawful due cause, specifically and particularly, the document purporting to be a judicial order:
I. lacks lawful due identification of the presenter of the purported judicial order:
a. lacks lawful due identification of th e standing of the presenter of the purported judicial order;
b. lacks lawful due identification of the authority of the presenter of the purported judidal order;
c. lacks lawful due identification of the principle of law authorizing presentment of the purported j ud icial order;
d. lacks lawful due indorsemcnt by the presenter oftlie purported judicial order; and,
e. lacks lawful due knowing, willing and intentional written consent by l AM to present the purported judicial order;
2. lacks lawful clue identification of the issuer of the purported judicial order:
a. lacks lawful due identification of th e standing of the issuer of the purported judicial order;
b. lacks lawful due identification of the authority of the issuer of the purported judicial order;
c. lacks lawful due identification of the the principle of law authorizing issue of the purported judicial order;
ct. lacks lawful due indorsement by the issuer of the purported j udicial order; and,
e. lacks lawfu l due knowing, willing and intentional written consent by I AM to issue tJ1e purported judicial order;
3. Jacks lawful due indentification of the required underwrit.ing of the purported debt to I AM to issue the purported judicial order:
a. lacks lawful due identification ofthe required underwriting of the pu1μorted loan required to create the purported debt of I AM,'
specifically and particularly:
i.) lacks lawful due identification of the purported creditor of the value allegedly loaned to I AM;
ii.) lacks lawful due identification of the purported value allegedly loaned to I AM;
iii.) lacks lawful due identification ofche purported issuer of the purported creditor's purported value allegedly loaned to JAM;
iv.) lacks lawful due identification of the purported creditor's title and ownership of the purported value allegedly loaned to I AM;
v.) lacks lawful due identification of the purported history of the purported creditor's purported value allegedly loaned to I AM;
and,
vi.) lacks lawful due identification of the actual transfer to [AM of the purported value allegedly loaned to I AM;
b. lacks lawful due indorsement by the purported creditor of the required underwriting of the purported loan allegedly made to I AM
by the purported creditor required to create t?f ~urported debt of I AM; R FJ c
c. lacks the original contract by and between the ~t)llleged creditor] ...l:1<,and) AM, with the sworn wet-ink s ignature of _[alleged creditor]_ and I AM, signed with the full reiponsibility aJ1d liability of/\ ~]alleged creditor] /:;i /-find I AM, under the penalty of perjury, under duly identified law, that the foregoing is true, accurate and complete; and, ·
d. lacks the lawful due knowing, willing and intentional written consent by I AM to create the purported debt of I AM; and,

This part is pure OPPT bullshit, straight from the source;

IV. I AM, eternal essence, completely factualized in this particular inbodyment, also perceived as Margaret Kocsis, an original depository and deposit of I AM, source of the Value of l AM, without prejudice, nunc pro tune, praetc rea preterea: Due declaration and implementation of l AM, inclusive of this original depository and deposit of I AM, is not to be compelled to perform under any contract or agreement inclusive or commercial agreement or bankruptcy inclusive of any and all jurisdictions and any and all unlawful claims to I Am therefrom, therewith, thereof, and thereto, that I Am did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally; Furthermore, I AM does not and will not accept the liability or responsibility of the compelled benefit of any and all unrevealed contract aqnd agreement, inclusive of any and all commercial agreement or bankruptcy; Nunc pro t une, praete rea proteren; and,

Seems airtight to me. So how did it go?

ON THE APPLICATION of the Petitioner, Royal Bank of Canada, coming on for hearing at Vancouver, British Columbia on June 11, 2015, and on hearing Aron P. Hochhauser, Counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent Margaret Kocsis appearing on her own behalf, Lauren L. Longbottom, Counsel for the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia appearing by telephone, and Marie-Louise Fast, Counsel for the Respondent Marie-Louise Fast Law Corporation, doing business as Fast & Company Law Firm;

THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The sale ("Sale") of the lands and premises ("Lands and Premises") known and
described as:

City of White Rock Parcel Identifier: 009-931-741 Lot "B'' Section 10 Township I New
Westminster District Plan 14079

to Cong Min Zhao ("Purchaser"), on the terms and conditions set out in the Contract of Purchase and Sale dated April 25, 2015, for the sum of $2,250,000 be approved.

Whoops!

http://www.mediafire.com/view/rswlo6zwp ... r_Sale.pdf

So what happens to that 2.25 Mil?

3. On completion of the Sale, vacant possession of the Lands and Premises be delivered to the Purchaser at 12:00 o'clock noon on July 10, 2015.

4. The net purchase price after adjustments shall be paid to Fulton and Company, in trust, or otherwise in accordance with the written direction of Fulton and Company, and shall be disbursed in accordance with the following priorities without further Order:

5.
(a) firstly, any arrears of taxes, water and sewer rates, interest and penalties thereon;

(b) secondly, in payment of real estate commission in an amount not exceeding 7% of the first $100,000 of the gross selling price and 21;2% of the remainder, plus applicable tax thereon;

(c) thirdly, to the Petitioner, Royal Bank of Canada or in accordance with its direction, the amount required to pay the outstanding balance of its first mortgage plus interest plus costs on a party and party basis;

(d) fourthly, in payment of the balance due and owing to the Crown in right of the Province of British Columbia under its Land Tax Deferment Act Agreement registered under No. BB439682 to and including the date of payment, payable to the Minister of Finance;

(e) fifthly, in payment of the balance due and owing to Fast & Company Law Firm under its Judgment registered under no. CA344910 and renewal CA4398938 in the sum of $12,810.00; and

(f) sixthly, the balance then remaining of the proceeds of the sale, if any, to be paid into Court to the credit of this proceeding and to be held pending further Order of this Court.

That sixthly part is what Margaret gets if there was anything left over. And, if she decided that OPPT saved from all this hassle and decided not to move out;

7. If any person fails to deliver vacant possession of the Lands and Premises to the Purchaser on or before 12:00 o'clock noon on July 10, 2015, then the Petitioner shall be at liberty to apply to the Registrar for a Writ of Possession, under Rule 13-2(13) and without further Order.

She tried to get a stay on this order but nobody was inclined to cut her any slack;

ON THE APPLICATION of the Respondent, Margaret Kocsis, coming on for hearing at Vancouver, B.C., on July 22, 2015, and on hearing the Respondent, Margaret Kocsis appearing on her own behalf and Aron P. Hochhauser, Counsel for the Petitioner, Royal Bank of Canada;

THIS COURT ORDERS that

1. The Application of the Respondent, Margaret Kocsis for a stay of the Order of Master MacNaughton pronounced herein on June 11, :W15 is hereby dismissed .

If the Respondent Margaret Kocsis does not sign this Order by 4:00 p.m. on July 28, 2015, her signature is thereby dispensed with.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/mx2k6a29l ... _Order.pdf

But did Margaret give up? Don't be silly! However she tossed OPPT overboard and dumped an entirely new pile of crazy on the court;

3. I appoint myself, as the settler and/or beneficiary (one in the same) of KOCSIS, MARGIT, leaving me as the private administrator with the power of appointment to settle all claims against the beneficiary with notices to the trustees to list all the assets at closing before returning the body of the trust to the beneficiary. I am of the age of majority and competent granter, and I claim my inheritance to my private trust/estate.

4. I am the Registered Owner {for KOCSIS, MARGIT and all variations thereof used in commerce, as well as all assets held in the name(s) thereof) and I am the only real party of interest of all property tangible and intangible thereof. My body and life is the res/corpus of the MK PUBLIC TRUST and therefore, I am the grantor/settlor with the power as private administrator in equity to appoint public trustees

• to settle all claims/debts for benefit of I as the beneficiary and
• transfer any and all property tangible and intangible to I as the beneficiary
• that an Order to close and settle the above noted account via legal and equitable

remedy for court File No. VLC-S-H-140061 as the third party intervener, real party in interest now coming in this equitable plea pursuant to any and all acts in nature of "defence of property", and/or laws within the common law.

• order that the court record acknowledge that I. Margaret (Margit) Kocsis tendered my resignation as an agent trustee for HMG/CROWN Corporations/ CANADA thus revoking the agency of the legal PERSON MARGIT KOCSIS from services of process and it is for the purpose of obtaining lawful remedy in good faith and conscience in equity.

• Court Order. sealing all public documents. court cases and accounts in the names of MARGIT (MARGARET) KOCSIS, or show why all court cases in the name should not be sealed.

Sealed records? Maybe this is getting a bit embarrassing for her.

5. The unlawful and illegal misconduct of public trustees is cause for the loss of property, which is currently causing me hardship (all charges against me were dropped by the Provincial Court of British Columbia, September 30, 2015)

6. I assign the clerk of the court and the Public Guardian and Trustee as the nominal defendant and fiduciary trustee for KOCSIS, MARGIT under the court file number VLC-S-H-140061 for the purpose of providing indemnification. (under this statement and notice, reason being, " fear of injury, damage and harm", pursuant to section 810 of the criminal code.)

So, like Charles Norman Holmes appointing a Supreme Court of British Columbia judge as his trustee Margaret has picked th court clerk.

7. I believe when Parties are disabled to Act, the Chancery Court will Act for them, especially
contracts relative to land and the Court at all times having in view the best interest of the parties and acting as would a prudent and considerate parent.

Margaret is backing the wrong horse with this one. There is no longer a Court of Chancery in Canada. Or Britain for that matter.

8. If believe if the clerk of the court does not provide indemnification, the clerk of the court may be liable under section 140 of the criminal code for public mischief by misleading other officers of continuing and investigation by making false statements that accuses some other person of having committed an offense.

9. I believe if the clerk of the court does not provide indemnification, the clerk of the court may be liable (under section 328 of the criminal code) for theft, notwithstanding that anything that is alleged to have been stolen was stolen by the owner of it from a person who has a special property or interest in it.

I assume these have something to do with the court clerk now being Margart's trustee.

Then more gibberish leading to a court order she wrote up and wants the court to sign;

ORDER

1. Court order the contract with RBC to be null and void ab initio (from the beginning) and close and settle the account via legal and equitable remedy for court File No. VLC-S-H-140061.

2. Court order the parties to immediately return the keys to Margaret Kocsis and inform all parties that Margaret Kocsis is the lawful owner of the real property in question and ascertain that this is properly documented at BC Land Registry.

3. Margaret Kocsis acted in good faith in "defence of her property" and is entitled to compensation for the actions of those who acted in "bad faith", and the Court facilitate her move back into her property at 1390 Archibald Rd, White Rock, BC V4B 3M9.

4. Let the court record acknowledge, I Margaret Kocsis tendered my resignation as an agent/trustee for HMQ/CROWN Corporations/ CANADA thus revoking the agency of the legal PERSON/MARGIT KOCSIS from services of process

5. Let the court record acknowledge my claim in equity that I Margaret Kocsis am the beneficiary and only real party of interest in my life, name and body as part of my private trust/estate and intangible property and I am the registered owner of MARGIT KOCSIS and all derivations thereof.

6. Court order sealing all public documents, court cases, and accounts in the name of MARGIT KOCSIS or show cause why this should not be sealed.

Margaret Kocsis. private person

Grantor/Settlor and Beneficiary

CEO OF RECEIVER: 9297,::;61 CANADA I.Ve

http://www.mediafire.com/view/vazhlmy73 ... idavit.pdf

Since she wanted the keys and the title back she'd obviously lost the property. At this time she was living at 7315 202A Street, Langley, BC. Nice place but well inland from the almost oceanfront property she'd had before.

There are a batch of documents attached to this. One of interest show how real estate values have shot up in the Greater Vancouver area. She bought the place in 2005 for $640,000 and, by 2015 when it was sold, it had almost quadrupled in value.

There's a document at the end of the pdf called an INDEMNITY AGREEMENT and I'm really not to sure what it is about but it seems to be part of her attempt to make the clerk of the court her trustee. It has a definition of "contract" that I'm sure doesn't match what I learned in my introductory law course in university. But that was almost 50 years ago and no doubt the definition has changed somewhat;

Definitions

The following definitions apply in the Agreement:

a) "Contract" means the following: Human Rights and Identity Theft under the jurisdiction the Court and the Ministry (custodians) for owners. true owners and granters;

And this paragraph that designates the clerk of the court responsible for all of the costs, fines, losses, etc that Maragaret has, or will incur as part of this whole nonsense;

Failure to Defend

11.If the Indemnifier (note - court clerk) elects not to assume the defense against the claim or action then the Indemnitees may defend against the claim or action in any manner the Indemnitees deems appropriate. The Indemnifier will promptly reimburse the Indemnitees for expenses, judgments, fines. settlements and any other amounts actually and reasonably incurred in connection with the defense of the claim or action subject to the limits on the indemnification described in the section called Exceptions to Indemnification.

So, how did the court respond to this batch of legal brilliance?

ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION

Before MASTER BAKER, 29 October 2015

ON THE APPLICATION of the Petitioner, Royal Bank of Canada, coming on for hearing at Vancouver, B.C., on 29 October 2015 and on hearing Aron P. Hochhauser, Counsel for the Petitioner, and the Respondent Margaret Kocsis appearing on her own behalf, and no one appearing on behalf of the remaining Respondents although duly served;

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1. The Petitioner is awarded its costs, fees and expenses of enforcing the Order of Master MacNaughton made June 11, 2015 in the amount of $27,058.57.

2. The sum of $27,058.57 paid into court to the credit of Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry No. VLC-S-H-140061 shall be paid out of court forthwith and without further order to the Petitioner c/o Fulton & Company Law Corporation, in trust.

3. The approval as to the form of this Order by the Respondent Margaret Kocsis shall not be
required.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/p1hpt94sq ... _Order.pdf

No problem for the Royal Bank in getting the money. The surplus of proceeds of the sale in excess of the costs I listed previously went ito a court trust acount and the Bank's $27,059 was taken out of that.

And, as far as I'm aware, that's the end of the story. Except, I believe, that after all the various costs were paid out Margaret got the remainder of about $1,000,000.

[SteveUK]

But, but, but it's almost like she's just making stuff up and sending it to the court.
That couldn't be, could it?

[notorial dissent]

Makes my head hurt to read. In amongst all that slush is there any real indication of what triggered this outburst of sovcit OPPT gibberish other than she seems to have lost her home to a mortgage default(which is as close as I can get)and somehow got hooked on the OPPT nonsense and some point?

[KickahaOta]

The sad thing (or not, depending on your point of view, I suppose) is that, judging from the fact that the got a considerable chunk of change back from the forced sale of the house at the end, she wasn't anywhere near the typical sovcit situation -- someone who owes more than the home is worth and thrashes around avoiding the inevitable. She had massive equity in the house, so even if she had a cash flow problem, she could almost certainly have refinanced, or even sold voluntarily and bought a smaller house for cash. Instead, she apparently stood up for the warped sovcit version of 'the principle of the thing', and as a result lost large amounts of that equity to cover the other side's time and expenses.

As with the Crawfords, she has brought a lot of pain on herself needlessly. And as with the Crawfords, she'll probably blame it on the government and the banks for the rest of her days.

[Burnaby49]

The sad thing (or not, depending on your point of view, I suppose) is that, judging from the fact that the got a considerable chunk of change back from the forced sale of the house at the end, she wasn't anywhere near the typical sovcit situation -- someone who owes more than the home is worth and thrashes around avoiding the inevitable. She had massive equity in the house, so even if she had a cash flow problem, she could almost certainly have refinanced, or even sold voluntarily and bought a smaller house for cash. Instead, she apparently stood up for the warped sovcit version of 'the principle of the thing', and as a result lost large amounts of that equity to cover the other side's time and expenses.

As with the Crawfords, she has brought a lot of pain on herself needlessly. And as with the Crawfords, she'll probably blame it on the government and the banks for the rest of her days.

If you want an example of somebody who brought totally needless pain on herself and lost big-time as a result check out Alice Jastrebske;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9267&p=182939

She got scammed while apparently trying to get out of paying taxes on her pension and lost all of her accumulated pension funds. Then she was convicted of fraud against the CRA by trying to hide assets on her bankruptcy.

[2] The circumstances of the offences are that in approximately the year 2000 Ms. Jastrebske took early retirement from the University of Saskatchewan where she taught as a professor in psychology for approximately 25 years. Her pension money was in excess of $500,000.00 and she invested it directly with a fraudster who absconded with most of it. Because it was pension money and taxable upon withdrawal, CRA assessed the whole amount as income. As of the date of bankruptcy, October 19, 2006, CRA filed a proof of claim for $521,926.94 made up of assessments, penalties and interest. The evidence at trial indicated that Ms. Jastrebske did not disclose to her trustee in bankruptcy that she had on deposit in a financial institution in the United States (Everbank), $58,600.00, as well as some shares in a public company called Asia Pacific which were held at the CIBC Mellon Bank in the USA, the exact value of which was not known to the trustee because the CIBC Mellon Bank declined to co-operate with disclosure. The trustee does know that the dividends generated by the shares were $69.90 per month or $838.00 per annum. Had this money been disclosed it would have been assigned to the trustee in bankruptcy for the benefit of creditors. The only creditor other than the CRA was the Bank of Montreal for $30,000.00.

She could have gotten off with a conditional sentence but her conduct at trial was so outrageous that the judge said he was compelled to sentence her to jail and she got five months.

On April 18, 2013, Ms. Jastrebske arrived at court at 2:30 p.m. In the hearing which followed the Crown submitted a brief in which it took the position that a conditional sentence was no longer appropriate in view of Ms. Jastrebske’s unwillingness to abide by court orders, never mind possible probation orders and recommended a period of incarceration of six to nine months. I asked Ms. Jastrebske for her position with respect to the Crown’s new position on incarceration and she repeated the jargon that she has been spouting all along that she is a living person who operates by contract and the system has wrongly refused to recognize her legal principles, and until it does it is not her fault. She maintained this position despite the fact I reminded her we were talking criminal law not contract law.

So she went from an easy retirement with a half million value pension to bankruptcy and jail. All self-inflicted.

[Philistine]

All self-inflicted.

Well, not all self inflicted. You said she was scammed for her 500K. What's the story with that?
That might drive anyone over the edge to desperation.

[Jeffrey]

So in net terms, the OPPT bullshit probably cost her what, $15,000 due to court costs?

[Burnaby49]

All self-inflicted.

Well, not all self inflicted. You said she was scammed for her 500K. What's the story with that?
That might drive anyone over the edge to desperation.

I gave my theory about what happened to Jastrebske's half million in the discussion. Just a guess based on the experiences of other people who got too cute trying to avoid paying tax on their pensions. If I'm correct it was self-inflicted.

[Philistine]

Ah, looks like you may be right then. Self inflicted through greed...
I read that thread a while ago and had forgotten the details.

[notorial dissent]

Yeah, basically she tried to cheat on her taxes, and in turn got cheated out of her retirement, a rather expensive and ill learned lesson I would say from the results.

[Burnaby49]

We last heard from Margit Kocsis about a year and a half ago. She'd pulled a lot of sovereign gibberish (mainly Heather's OPPT bullshit) out of her ass in an attempt to get her mortgage eliminated by the court. It ended with foreclosure and eviction. But, on the bright side, she apparently walked with about $1,000,000 in equity after bank and costs paid off. Now, after a two and a half year gap we continue with her exciting adventures.

Vilag-Virag Trust v Pannekoek
2018 BCSC 1743
http://canlii.ca/t/hvjf1

So what's Margit been up to. She's a leading edge Tesla driver!

Background

[5] On March 26, 2018 Margit Kocsis was stopped while driving a 2015 Tesla vehicle on Quadra Street in the city of Victoria by Constable Pannekoek. Constable Pannekoek is a municipal constable in the City of Victoria. He issued Ms. Kocsis a violation ticket for the offenses of driving without a driver’s license and driving without insurance. The Tesla vehicle did not have any license plates on it.

[6] The Tesla vehicle was towed and impounded by Kustom Towing at the expense of Ms. Kocsis. The towing and storage fees have not been paid in regard to the Tesla vehicle.

[7] On May 9, 2018 the petitioner issued a notice of civil claim in the Victoria Registry action S182246 against the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia. In that action the petitioner claimed among other things the release of the 2015 Tesla vehicle currently impounded by Kustom Towing and orders under the Personal Property and Security Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 359 (“PPSA”). July 5, 2018 Master Bouck made an order striking the notice of civil claim without leave to amend.

So Margit did a little creative asset transfering and claimed that her car was now owned by the Vilag-Virag Trust.

[10] The petitioner argues that it is the beneficial owner of the Tesla vehicle. The petitioner argues that on April 16, 2018 they registered a PPSA Security Agreement in regards to the Tesla vehicle. That agreement would suggest that the Tesla vehicle is in fact owned by 9297561 Canada Corporation.

[12] The petitioner relies on the affidavit of Margit Kocsis made on July 23, 2018 on this application.

But apparently Margit's affidavit didn't get the job done;

[16] Mr. Dalmyn on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia argues that Ms. Kocsis uses the vocabulary and methodology of some of the Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument litigation strategies detailed in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). In particular Ms. Kocsis uses terms recognized by lawyers, courts and legislators without regard to their ordinary or legal meaning and sends letters and notices to public officers such as in this case to the Chief Forester. In that regard I would agree with Mr. Dalmyn.

[17] Ms. Kocsis is really arguing that she is not bound by Provincial statutes or Municipal bylaws in regard to being the holder of a valid driver’s license or having insurance on her vehicle.

[18] There is no cause of action disclosed in the petition or the proposed amended petition against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Columbia.

[19] The petition was brought in an effort to circumvent Ms. Kocsis’ obligation to hold a valid driver’s license and have valid insurance on the Tesla vehicle when she was driving it.

[20] I find that this petition is unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious.

Conclusion

[21] The petitioner’s application is dismissed other than their application to remove the defendant Stephen Pannekoek from the proceedings.

[22] As the petition discloses no reasonable claim and is unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious the petition is struck in its entirety without leave to amend pursuant to Rule 9-5 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

[23] Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia shall have their costs in this matter.

[Chaos]

if she had one of those self driving teslas, she might have had a chance.

[Pottapaug1938]

Looking back at Burnaby49's original post, I see where all of Margaret's problems began -- she forgot to utter the Magic Words correctly. There may be other instances which I have overlooked; but I did notice that one Magic Phrase was uttered as:

nunc pro tune
nunc pro lune
nnnc pro tune
nunc pro tunc
none pro tune

Aw, shucks, Margaret! On the fourth try, you got it right; but then, you went and nullified the magic by getting it wrong again. Under the Common Law Code of Hammurabi, that nullifies everything, and gives victory to the Dark Forces!

[wserra]

Nunc looney tune.

[KickahaOta]

As a happy owner of a Tesla (who wouldn't necessarily buy another today, but that's another story), I support any legal proceeding to transfer Margaret's unfortunate vehicle to a more stable home.