http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 48&t=11994
When I found that he'd been dealt yet another body blow that I'd missed. Another decision has been released out where a court tears Belanger a new one. This time it isn't the infamous Queen's Bench but the Federal Court of Canada with this decision;
Williams v. Payette
2019 FC 800
http://canlii.ca/t/j0z57
Before I get into an analysis, a confession. I've known about this case since it was filed but I was just too lazy to open up a new discussion and write it up. I only mentioned it peripherally here;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 48&t=11861
Now, continuing in my indolence, rather than write up the back-story to this case now I'll just cut and paste what I wrote about Williams in the above discussion;
And that was where I stopped paying attention to the case. Belanger had promised Williams a free school if he followed CERI legal tactic, Williams followed them and filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Canada chock full of CERI garbage. On June 11, 2019 the court released its decision. Another unhappy day for Belanger.. . . minister David: Williams, the lead plaintiff, while a stranger to Quatloos, is not a stranger to Burnaby49. I've been meaning to post about him for the last six months. This is not the first time he's sued Judge Rooke. Last summer I picked up his name in a news report about somebody in Parry Sound Ontario being arrested for squatting in an abandoned public school and claiming to be protected from arrest because he was a Christian minister. Sounded familiar so I checked out various court websites and found this at the Federal Court of Canada, Belanger's favorite court (formatting screwed up).
Court number information
Court Number : T-1200-18
Style of Cause : MINISTER DAVID WILLIAMS v. JULIE PAYETTE ET AL
Proceeding Category : Actions Nature : Others - not provided for anywhere else [Actions]
Type of Action : Ordinary
1 2018-06-22 Toronto Statement of Claim filed on 22-JUN-2018 Tariff other action - $150.00
Since Julie Payette is the Governor-General of Canada I knew I'd hit a winner. So I trundled of to the Federal Court registry in Vancouver to get the Statement of Claim. Here it is;
http://www.mediafire.com/file/d1ur9setc ... m.pdf/file
Jackpot! This is how minister David portrays the events that led to the lawsuit.
2. minister David: Williams ("minister David")
2.1 . Minister David: Williams was directed to move to Parry Sound as part of his ministerial calling and made that move on April 01, 2017.
2.2. Minister David established a church sanctuary at the address of 15 Forest Street, Parry Sound; formerly the Parry Sound Victory Public School.
2.3. In the summer of 2017 private property notices were posted at all entrances to the property as well as on every side of the building.
2.4. Minister David continues to maintain a church sanctuary at 15 Forest Street while also securing the building and property.
2.5. On Oct. 05, 2017 the David had involuntary interaction with a man named St. Amant who threatened to arrest the minister David and he later admitted for no reason and without cause. St. Amant attempted to knowingly and falsely attempt to escalate minister David's intervention with known errant children in the park as "stalking". The knowingly fake, phony, and false claim that David had singled out someone when he had addressed a group of errant children was abundantly clear and evidenced to be a concocted fantasy. A colleague of St. Amant named Shawn Retzler was injected into the involuntary interaction. St. Amant and Shawn Retzler were advised that David was a Christian minister going about his calling and the minister David read criminal code section 176 to Shawn Retzler. Shawn Retzler("Shawn") unwanantedly threatened that minister David would be terrorized. Shawn with knowledge and awareness falsely perpetrated and perpetuated the fraud that minister David: Williams was a "free man on the land"; a terrorist. This was essential to fulfill his threat to terrorize minister David. Shawn repeatedly asked minister David if he was a free man on the land and when minister David asked what a "free man on the land was" Shawn Retzler could not define or explain. It is understood that minister David Williams' whereabouts and sojourneying is being tracked and monitored via his cell phone by the actors of the OPP and that the OPP escalated issues to the R.C.M.P. for additional investigations/te1rnrization.
2.6. On Oct. 12, 2017 Shawn with knowledge and awareness trespassed onto clearly marked private property invading property without permission, cause, or warrant, and in violation of the criminal code with the deliberate intent to fulfill his threat of terrorizing minister David.
2.7. On Oct. 12, 2017 at approximately 10:20am, Shawn did trespass onto clearly marked private property and did trespass against minister David by threat, force, violence, intimidation, terrorism, and unlawful arrest without warrant. Shawn unlawfully obstructed minister David who was in the performance of his duties and Shawn did prevented minister David from performing his divine service and obstructed the minister from performing the functions of his calling. All actions taken against minister David and church property by Shawn took place on well signed private property and Shawn acting without warrant or permission on known private property.
2.8. Shawn having violated many sections of the criminal code nullifies any findings thereafter wither criminal or civil and makes them inadmissible in court.
2.9. When Shawn approached minister David, minister David immediately served Shawn with a physical copy of criminal code section 176, 180, and the minister David's church card. Shawn was advised that minister David was in the process of performing his ministerial duties and calling.
2.10. Shawn arrested minister David.
The official version of events is somewhat different. Williams, apparently homeless, decided to squat in a vacant public school (the 15th Forest Street property) so he broke in, made himself at home, then proceeded to put up "Private Property Keep Out" signs around it on the basis that the school now somehow belonged to him and was a protected religious sanctuary where he had to be allowed to perform his duties as a CERI minister free of harassment. Not surprisingly authorities weren't as on-board with that as he might have wished and sent police in to get him out which resulted in his arrest by Police officers Rezler and St. Amand. He retaliated with Williams v Payette. Note the massive list of defendants. Most seem to be either Parry Sound locals, like the police officers, or federal government officials. But, for some reason, Judge Rooke is in there too.
I'd planned to write it up but somehow, like many other potential Quatloos postings, I just never got around to it.
. . . . . . .
As part of his lawsuit Williams sent all of the defendants a foisted unilateral agreement stuffed full of gibberish. Since none of them replied to it they were all, according to Williams, legally bound to admit that they have agreed to every claim in his private agreement. I don't have a copy but Belanger posted it in his website.
http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.com/20 ... sound.html
Then a lot of bible quotes leading to page after page of "it is agreed by you". Essentially they have agreed that they have indeed illegally prosecuted a minister of god acting within his rights under the law, So he gets a free school!To the private men and women: Steven Scharger, Brian Bencze, Wesley Beatty, Shawn Retzler, and Dawn Connor acting in the de facto capacities of Crown attorneys and OPP officers.
I am seeking to clearly express my position to you in order that your obligations to me can be fulfilled as I am one individual with fundamental rights and freedoms and my legal rights that are being limited and abridged contrary to the principles of justice by everyone involved in these actions of these people.
I am writing this in concern, I am not being frivolous, malicious, vexatious, insensitive, discriminatory or have any ill will towards anyone; I expect to be treated the same. I genuinely care for mankind and their souls. It is a part of my duty and calling to be a watchman and to warn. I must warn those who trespass against me, and others. I do not want to see anyone lose their job, be put into prison, jail, or the worst be condemned for eternity. I am forgiving, but I also must stand up in God’s name, and protect my rights and the rights of others.
I am Christian minister of the Church Of The Ecumenical Redemption International as called by God Almighty; I greet you in the name of Yahushua the risen Christ and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor defender of the Christian faith. I do this in accord with the Royal Styles and Titles Act, being an enactment of the Canadian Parliament, in keeping with her majesty’s sworn Coronation oath to defend the Laws of God along with the Churches, the clergy, and ministers therein, with all of her power.
God’s Law forbids us to obey other “law”, just His Laws. Acts 5:29, Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
The defendants clearly confessed their guilt in this paragraph;It is agreed by you in your private capacities with no dispute to the fact that God’s law in the authorized version of the King James Bible is supreme and is defended by Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor anointed of God who you have sworn an oath to bear true allegiance to.
It is agreed upon by you in your private capacities with no dispute the fact, that you in your public capacities have no authority in any law to intimidate me to violate my faith by suggesting my lawful excuse for nonappearance, so expressively provided and substantiated with facts, is invalid and that an arrest warrant will issue if I the man do not formally submit myself to the jurisdiction of a fraudulent court with a false oath acting as a false god.
It is agreed upon by you in your private capacities with no dispute to the fact that the preceding fact if ignored will amount to a treason against the government of her majesty by attempting to overthrow the rule of law and government of the King James Bible.
It is agreed upon by you in your private capacities with no dispute the fact that all the laws in Ontario are applicable only to the government as per section 32 and 52 of the Constitution.
It is agreed by you in your private capacities that minister David Williams with witnesses confirming and as of his faith, is doing his duty and officially performing his function as a Christian minister under the Christ's charge and protection of the diligent oath sworn duty of the Christian Monarch.
It is agreed by you in your private capacities the minister known as David Williams is being obstructed upon the pretence of executing: a civil process, civil code violation, and or civil process and being denied access to truly allegiant justice, by those acting under the oath and office of a sworn Allegiant to a Christian Monarch.
It is agreed by you that you are aware in your private capacities that the minister known as David Williams is being discriminated against, by those private men and women acting as Crown attorneys and OPP officers executing de facto policies, because of David Williams’ diligent and faithful adherence to his Christian faith and defence of same.
It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you are aware of your international signatory duty as a service provider, that applies to you in your capacities as a Crown attorney and OPP officer of her majesty, and your sworn duty to accommodate a minister’s faith when that accommodation of faith is demanded of you, and that you must go to hardship to provide that accommodation.
It is agreed by you in your private capacities that I, am a minister of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, you have a duty and are required to accommodate my firmly held beliefs and faith; not to accommodate my freedoms is a Human Rights violation; being discrimination against me. That despite many demands for accommodation of my faith you all have ignored and refused that accommodation.
It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you have knowledge and awareness that the man known as David Williams is a minister of Christ and that you the private men and women have the knowledge and the awareness that you have the duty to accommodate his faith and failure to accommodate the minister’s faith can and may result in criminal charges against those who had knowledge and awareness of his desire to be accommodated as per Section 176 of the Criminal Code.
And minister David isn't going to continue defending himself in court for free. He demands to be paid for his time and the defendants have agreed to pay!It is agreed by you in your private capacities that any and all attempts by any and all private men and women using commercial de facto incompetent legal fiction law and associated regulations to continue this unlawful intimidation and deliberate violation of our faiths freedoms, as defended by her majesty the Queen the anointed of God, will be seen as irrefutable proof and evidence of your mens rea or to be clear, your guilty mind directed towards the deliberate unlawful actions of Intimidation, nuisance, blasphemy, breach of trust, perjury, obstruction of a minister, treason, sedition, conspiracy, fraud, impersonation, theft, extortion, all being violations of God Jehovah’s law, and as such constitutes your consent to acknowledging full and irrevocable responsibility for your total private liability for any and all damages, consequential discomfort and trauma to our church ministry and it’s ministers . Please see Leviticus 6:2-5 for the rule the Queen defends as well as Ezra 7:23-26
And on, and on, and on, that's only a small part of it. Nobody can acccuse Belanger of brevity. He takes a kitchen sink approach. There's a photocopy of one of the actual letter at the end if you are interested.It is agreed by you in your private capacities that there is no involuntary servitude; if I am requested to come to court, I will be paid and will bill according to my fee schedule.
It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you have no jurisdiction over a man and if you create an order or one is created as a result of you actions or inactions you all will be held personally liable.
It is agreed by you in your private capacities that: I give notice to anyone that is moving a false claim against me, I will move a claim for answering a false claim and I will require fair and just compensation from all men or women moving their false claims, I give fair and just warning for anyone interfering with my rights that I will require fair and just compensation from all men or women who interfere with any of my rights, I give fair and just warning should anyone make any pleas or decisions on my behalf without my consent and full agreement in writing they and you all will be held fully and personally liable.
But, ignoring the fact that they've agreed with everything minister David wants through their private agreements with him, the dishonourable treasonous defendants have requested that the lawsuit be struck without leave to amend. Williams apparently ran into a problem right from the start. He, or Belanger, realized that the Statement of Claim was flawed (really?) and tried to amend it somehow or another. Unfortunately once a Statement of Claim has been filed it can only be changed by the assent of all parties or through a court order. This resulted;
Memorandum to file from R. 369 Team (M. Pace) dated 27-JUL-2018 We are in receipt of the Plaintiff's letter to amend the style of cause in the Statement of Claim. There is no consent. I advised Mr. Williams to obtain consent from the parties. He said he will. I then asked him if it would be ok to shred his letter and await a new letter with consent included He advised yes to shred the letter. placed on file.
Anybody want to hazard a guess how much chance there is that the defendants will agree to allow Williams to modify his Statement of Claim?
The various filings include this oddity from Williams;
Copy of a Letter from Plaintiff to Defendant dated 03-AUG-2018 inquiring if the Defendant's Counsel is a man or a woman and requiring proof that Michael Miller represents the Defendants received on 03-AUG-2018
And a request by Williams for the noted CERI expert, minister Belanger, to come and give him a hand explaining everything;
Letter from Plaintiff dated 13-AUG-2018 advising that he requires the presence of expert witness Edward Jay Robin for his motion to strike and he requires the Court to subpoena Edward Jay Robin. received on 15-AUG-2018
On October 15th we have this;
Letter from the Defendant dated 10-OCT-2018 "I am counsel for Justice of the Peace Cornella Mews, Justice of the Peace Gary McMahon, Yasir Naqvi, Paul Boniferro, Commissioner Vince Hawkes, Lowell Hunking, Susan Stothart, Natalie Beausoleil, Steven Scharger, Brian Bencze, Wesley Beatty, Mike Gordon, Rick Mackay, Dawn Connor, Shawn Retzler and David Lewis (collectively the "Ontario Defendant's"). I am writing in reply to Mr. William's motion which was filed in response to my clients' motion to strike his claim. It is the Ontario Defendants' position that Mr. William's motion ought to be dismissed. Mr. Williams, had he wished to oppose the motion to strike, ought to have responded to that motion. Instead he has commenced a separate motion which, similarly to his claim, is vexatious and without merit. The Ontario Defendants repeat and rely on their submissions filed in support of their motion to strike in opposition to Mr. William's counter-motion. received on 15-OCT-2018
The final document on file is this from October 23rd;
Letter from Plaintiff dated 23-OCT-2018 Advising the court that an error has been committed "...The claimant needs to notice and notify the Federal court and them pointing out that they have erred in allowing government employed individuals paid by tax dollars to act as counsel to file defences for private individuals and their private acts; the Claimant has not filed a claim against government..." and relevant caselaw (cc. Defendants) received on 23-OCT-2018
This last quote is prime CERI gibberish. Although Williams is suing government employees who were going about their official government duties he's labeled his lawsuit a "Private Claim". Just by including these two words as a magical incantation in the Statement of Claim Williams has (at least in the CERI alternate legal universe) barred the government from become involved in the lawsuit in any way. Why? Because Williams says so. So there. This means (again in CERI fantasy law) that the defendants cannot be represented by government lawyers. But they are all represented by Crown counsel which is what Williams is complaining about in the above letter.
These were the reasons he sued;
This is what he demanded as compensation for these grevious injuries;E. Causes of Action, with sub-headings Negligence and Civil Liability, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Abuse of Government Authority, Breach of Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress, Breach of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Breach of the Canadian Human Rights act, Breach of the Ontario Human Rights act, Breach of the Canadian Rights commission – Policy on Preventing Discrimination Based on Creed – Duty to accommodate (PPDBC – CA), Breach of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Breach of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Breach of intentional, negligence, and strict liability or absolute liability torts.
This is what the Federal Court of Canada awarded him;F. Damages, including all pecuniary damages stemming from the Defendant’s action, inaction; non-pecuniary damages for emotional and psychological harm among other things; exemplary and punitive damages in relation to alleged abuse of power by the Defendants; Charter damages; and the sum of $100,000,000.00 Canadian dollars.
[65] I will briefly address the Defendants’ submissions that the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim should be struck pursuant to Rule 221(1)(c) as being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious. In considering a motion to strike on these grounds, the Court is required to consider the merits of the claim; see the decision in Blackshear v. Canada, 2013 FC 590 (CanLII) at paragraph 12.
[66] There are no proper pleadings set out in the Statement of Claim. There is nothing upon which the merits can be assessed.
[67] In my opinion, the Statement of Claim should be struck on the basis of Rule 222(1)(c), as well.
[68] Since the Statement of Claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action and is otherwise defective pursuant to Rule 221(1)(c), I am satisfied it represents an abuse of process per Rule 221(1)(f).
[69] The Defendants characterize the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim as “OPCA” litigation, that is a claim in the nature of “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument”.
[70] According to the decision in Meads, supra at paragraph 4, an OPCA litigant is one who expresses:
a general rejection of court and state authority ... . Arguments and claims of this nature emerge in all kinds of legal proceedings and all levels of Courts and tribunals. This group is unified by:
1. a characteristic set of strategies (somewhat different by group) that they employ,
2. specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are (or portray as) significant, and
3. the commercial sources from which their ideas and materials originate.
This category of litigant shares one other critical characteristic: they will only honour state, regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it. And typically, they don’t.
[71] The Applicant appears to make a general assertion that the named Defendants violated his rights, pursuant to the statutes that he names in his Statement of Claim. There is no such thing as a right of action for breach of legislation, as discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, 1983 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205 at p. 225 as follows:
For all of the above reasons I would be adverse to the recognition in Canada of a nominate tort of statutory breach. Breach of statute, where it has an effect upon civil liability, should be considered in the context of the general law of negligence. Negligence and its common law duty of care have become pervasive enough to serve the purpose invoked for the existence of the action for statutory breach.
[72] In order to obtain a remedy for any alleged statutory breach, the Plaintiff must establish a breach of the common law duty of care. The Plaintiff has not shown that any of the Defendants owe him a Duty of Care.
[73] I accept the Defendants’ arguments that the Plaintiff is attempting to pursue OPCA litigation. By its nature, such a course of action is a vexatious pleading.
[74] The Plaintiff responded to the motions to strike by filing a Motion Record, seeking to strike out all “documentation” filed by the Defendants. He challenged the arguments that characterized his Statement of Claim as OPCA litigation by arguing that such description applies only to “commercial” litigation and that he was not raising such a case.
[75] The Plaintiff otherwise challenged the “right” of the Defendants to bring their motions and submitted that he was bringing his action against them as “private” persons, not in respect of any public offices they may hold.
[76] In my opinion, none of the Plaintiff’s arguments and submissions respond to the defects in the Statement of Claim, as identified by the moving parties. On the contrary, the submissions support the criticism that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is otherwise non-compliant with the usual rules of pleading.
[77] Further, the submissions of the Plaintiff tend to confirm that he is indeed an OPCA litigant, seeking to avoid the application of general rules of practice and procedure.
[78] Leave to amend pleadings will be granted where there is a curable defect in the pleadings; see the decision in Simon v. Canada (2011), 2011 FCA 6 (CanLII), 410 N.R. 374 (F.C.A.). In my opinion, there is no such curable defect here.
[79] I conclude that the Statement of Claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action, is frivolous and scandalous, and fundamentally vexatious. Moreover, I am satisfied that no amendment could be made to the Statement of Claim to cure the radical defects.
[80] Accordingly, the Statement of Claim will be struck, without leave to amend. As for costs of the motion, I see no reason to deviate from the general rule that costs should follow the event.
[81] In the result, the Defendants’ motions are granted and the Statement of Claim will be struck without leave to amend.
[82] A Direction will issue in respect of costs.
I'm not going to go into details on the decision. This was the list of defendants;
Julie Payette;
Chrystia Freeland;
John D. Rooke;
Jody Wilson-Raybould;
Yasir Naqvi;
Paul Boniferro;
Cornella Mews;
J. Gary McMahon;
Lowell Hunking;
Susan Stothart;
Natalie Beausoleil;
Steven Scharger;
Brian Bencze;
Wesley Beatty;
E. Simpson;
Vince Hawks;
Mike Gordon;
Rick MacKay;
Dawn Connor;
Shawn Retzler;
Charles Constable;
David Cass;
Taryn McCormick;
David Lewis;
Norman Sabourin;
Dan Mayer; and,
Martha Milczynski.
And while the court granted them all their requests to strike the statement of claim without leave to amend the court went into considerable discussion on the situation regarding the claims against each defendant and their responses. So a lot of repetition. When you come down to it the court simply didn't bother going into go into a deep reasoned analysis. Williams' CERI gibberish didn't deserve the dignity of a detailed rebuttal so paragraphs 65 to 82 cover it all nicely.
After all of the recent body-blows to CERI, "conman guru" Belanger's beloved "fake religious group", Belanger might finally have to carry on his endless lawsuits by himself. In the past he's had his followers initiate lawsuits while he remains in the background running the show on the basis of his demented CERI bullshit. But given his followers consistent losses he'll soon have no cannon-fodder left. Alberta's Queen's Bench has been bestowing vexatious litigant designation on his ministers like ribbons at a grade six sport's day and Williams v Payette shows him he'll be getting no better treatment at the Federal Court of Canada. His problem is that if he personally initiates any proceedings at Alberta's Queen's Bench, his natural venue since he lives in Edmonton, he's guaranteed to be immediately deemed a vexatious litigant. If that happens what little credibility he has amongst his few remaining desperate ignorant followers will be totally destroyed. If he can't win at trial using his CERI based alternate law who can?