“The People vs The Banks”

Vancouver, British Columbia, February 27, 2006

The People shut the court down after about twenty minutes into the hearing scheduled to be heard on February 27, 28 and March 1, 2006. After intensive questioning by the People represented by John-Ruiz: Dempsey, Pavel-N: Darmantchev, Pedro Liong and Otto Luinenburg, the presiding judge, Nicole Garson got out of the courtroom and left after she gave the Sheriff an order to clear the courtroom. Game over, the banks’ motion to dismiss the People’s claim will not be heard – at least for now.

The People came prepared, knowing they are being led to the slaughter by the banks’ lawyers and the judge who prior to becoming a Supreme Court judge has represented the banks as lead counsel for one of the defendant banks – TD Canada Trust; obviously a clear conflict of interest which she refused to admit. Pavel said: “she had lots of chances to recuse herself in order to avoid confrontation but she failed miserably, presumably under the order of someone higher than herself.”

John filed a Notice of Motion to be heard by the Chief Justice Donald Brenner. Judge Garson took it upon herself to “hear” the motion in clear violation of the Rules of Court which gave the moving party the sole right to set his own motion for hearing. John was never given the opportunity to file a Notice of Hearing; in fact it is not too clear how the motion came to be heard or what caused John’s motion to be heard; the People suddenly received a “Reasons for Judgment” released by judge Garson on December 9, 2005. The People have no recollection of any hearings being set or heard regarding John’s motion (see http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/17/2005bcsc1730.htm - Dempsey et al. v. Envision Credit Union et al., 2005 BCSC 1730). It appears like Garson J. decided to “hear” the motion and become the judge of her own cause – in violation of the legal maxim: nemo judex in sua causa.

Apprehension of bias has been clearly evident since justice Garson was appointed as case management judge. Her first biased act was to prevent John from representing others despite the fact that John had private power of attorney agreements with Pavel, Ian (Gravlin), Pedro and Otto to represent them in court. As attorney-in-fact, it is trite law, established by generations of jurisprudence, John can do all things that his principals can legally do. The law regarding power of attorney has existed long before any statute such as the Legal Profession Act came into existence.  Yet, the same judge who is supposed to be our protector and public servant decided to violate and impaired the People’s right of contract.

As humans, we have human rights and our rights are not subject to statutory control. It falls within the sovereign individual paradigm as reflected by the following US Supreme Court case:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Justice Garson has shown her true colors and where her allegiance lies by barring John to carry out his fiduciary duties to those who have agreed to be his lawful attorney based solely on “judicial discretion.” Judicial discretion has no validity when there is positive law; judicial discretion cannot abrogate a living man or woman’s natural rights; judicial discretion cannot overturn common law or statutory law. In the case of the said power of attorney contracts entered into between John and the people he represents, the contracts are even protected by the Power of Attorney Act of British Columbia. Garson J’s blatant disregard for the law is recorded in her Reasons for Judgment in Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839 (http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/08/2005bcsc0839err1.htm).

Justice Garson has shown her willingness and determination to bend over backwards to the whims and wishes of the banks by bulldozing all the bank class actions into one single action despite the objections of all the representative plaintiffs involved in these class actions including “The People vs. The Banks” class action. Although the class actions involve similar causes of actions, not all the defendants are the same. One thing is obvious however; the banks lawyers are clearly attempting a judicial holocaust by herding all the class actions into one single gas chamber (or judge chamber) so that all the class actions can be slaughtered by one single judge/executioner in one fell swoop. John and his co-plaintiffs will not allow that to happen. They represent the People of Canada; they have the duty to ensure that such a planned massacre against the People does not happen. “The People are counting on us,” John said, “this is not up to one single judge to decide on our class actions, it is the People who will ultimately decide on the People’s fate, not judge Garson, this is the law of the land.”

There are other reasons why John and his friends believe that they are being led to the slaughter such as: Garson J refused to strike the banks’ statements of defence that really forms no reasonable defence. For example, all the banks’ defence says that the class actions are frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and an abuse of process, a typical boiler plate defence that corrupt court always allowed corrupt defendant lawyers to get away with. Such a defence is no defence at all because it does not state why the class action suits are frivolous, vexatious, scandalous or an abuse of process. It is an insult to the People who know the truth.

Garson J has also allowed the banks to get away with serious violations of the Rules of Court and established legal procedures by allowing the banks’ lawyers to refuse to produce documents, answer Interrogatories, and Notices to Admit. Based on our observation, it has been the normal practice of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, the highest courts in the province to apply the rules only when they see fit. Unrepresented litigants, particularly those who are not too familiar with the rules of court have lost their cases due to such unfair double standards. The People must follow the Rules of Court, but the lawyers and judges, particularly those who gets paid handsomely by the banking cartel need not be concerned about any rules. They make up their own rules as they go along, and they have judges that makes them right all the time.

As living men and women, we can only deal in truth. We can only deal with what is wrong and what is right. The admiralty courts like the supreme courts and appellate courts of the province only deal in arguments, in fictions, in make-believe laws created by them, the “just us” society. This is only one of the reasons why we have to shut them down. We have no time for their arguments. Either they deal with us in truth, or we will have nothing to do with their corruption. We are here to set the People free, by way of the truth, not by arguing in court. People lose in court because they argue. People are not allowed to argue in court, only the “officers” of their admiralty courts are allowed to make arguments in court. We play our own rules in their courts – “for we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth.”

Justice Garson could not stand truth in her court room. Pavel asked her many times: “are you a public servant?” Garson J refused to answer a simple question with the truth. We already know the answer – she is nothing but a public servant, she is our servant. Garson J. lost it when the People in the court room themselves asked her: “why can’t you answer a simple question – are you a public servant?” That was all the heat she could take that day. She stood up and started to leave and ordered the sheriff to clear the court room. However, before she managed to get out of the court room, John and Pavel told her: “You’re fired Nicole.” And all the People in the court said so: “You’re fired.”

At any rate, the matter is res judicata or already decided by virtue of the fact that the banks have no answer to John’s Affidavit of Truth he filed in court. The affidavit was intended to solicit answers from the banks and establish the truth. In commerce, truth is established by an affidavit. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. The time for filing a reply has now passed. This means that the People have already established the truth in accordance with the law of commerce. In commerce, truth is sovereign and as sovereign, we, the People have already established the truth. We have no time for the banks’ and their lawyers’ arguments. They are precluded by estoppel.

So that was the end of that. We are ordering the transcript to make sure that no one could tamper with the records if they have not yet done so already. We will publish the contents of the court transcript as soon as we receive it. What’s going happen next? Nothing. We, the People are not going back into that temple until the court has established that they have in rem or subject matter jurisdiction over us. As sovereign men and women, they have no power over us, unless it was given to them from above; or unless we accept their assumed power or jurisdiction. God bless you all.

John-Ruiz: Dempsey

      One of Many