r/amibeingdetained • u/DNetolitzky • 23d ago
British Columbia courts rule that President (first time around) Donald J Trump did not miracle away all debts worldwide by NESARA and GESARA. Well darn...
https://canlii.ca/t/k895r24
u/DNetolitzky 23d ago
(1 of 2)
The British Columbia Court of Appeal has rejected Karen Lew’s claim that her mortgage debt was erased by a “debt jubilee” which resulted from GESARA and NESARA, imaginary global and US re-financing legislation.
This decision nicely illustrates how pseudolaw litigation drags out. Or grimly illustrates that. Depends on your perspective, I suppose.
The tale isn’t anything extraordinary, though Justice Fenlon has provided a detailed chronology of events in Appendix A, which illustrates my point. This matter has been running since 2021. In 2022 Lew claimed she didn’t have any debt because of the NESARA (National Economic Security and Recovery Act), which was secretly enacted in the US, reconstructed the US economy, and eliminated all debts in that country. Handy!
GESARA (Global Economic Security and Recovery Act or Global Economic Security and Reformation Act) supposedly extended that process globally. Needless to say, that’s totally imaginary.
But popular! This scheme has been circulating in conspiratorial/counter-authority circles for decades, but it’s not something commonly seen asserted in Canadian courts. I wasn’t able to locate any references to either GESARA or NESARA in Canadian case law other than the Lew litigation.
In any case, Lew got foreclosed in 2022, appealed to the BCCA, that was tossed in 2023 for Lew not pursuing the appeal. Lew then immediately sued the bank and its lawyers for $10 million, alleging the foreclosure and other activities were criminal and illegal. That was struck out as abusive at the British Columbia Supreme Court (Lew v Bank of Montreal, 2024 BCSC 59), but Lew then appealed that, resulting in among other things the Fenlon decision.
The BCSC judgment of Gropper J is very critical:
... I must find that Ms. Lew’s pleadings are an attempt to use the court’s process dishonestly and unfairly for some ulterior and improper purpose. She is adamantly opposed to the foreclosure proceedings and has attempted to forestall them at every opportunity and by whatever means. The allegations raised in her notice of civil claim are to that end.
...It is time to bring Ms. Lew’s unfounded allegations and her repeated actions to an end.
... The notice of civil claim is struck in its entirety.
... For the reasons that were given by Justice Wilkinson, I find Ms. Lew’s conduct is worthy of rebuke. I order that the defendants are entitled to special costs of the proceeding and of this application, to be assessed.
Lew’s argument is a little different from the usual NESARA/GESARA scheme, because she places the origin of that (fictitious) litigation with Donald Trump’s first presidency:
... Ms. Lew has raised an argument based on a theory that the former United States President Donald Trump enacted “laws” pursuant to a doctrine described as the National Economic Security and Reformation Act and Global Economic Security and Reformation Act [“NESARA/GESARA”] that cancelled all worldwide debt. The former US President did not enact any such law and in any event would not have authority to enact laws applying in Canada. Ms. Lew’s arguments have no merit and have been rejected by both the BC Supreme Court and this Court. ...
(Lew v Bank of Montreal, 2024 BCCA 64 at para 7.)
Maybe Trump will enact the legislation more formally in his new presidency?
16
u/PracticalTie 23d ago
You always bring us the most interesting wormholes. Thank you.
10
u/DNetolitzky 23d ago
Thank you so much - I'm delighted my posts are interesting. I've long enjoyed this community and am glad to contribute.
20
u/DNetolitzky 23d ago
(2 of 2)
In any case, the BCCA has clamped down on Lew. It first required she pay a kind of deposit, “security for costs”, before continuing her appeal. She didn’t, and Fenlon JA terminated the appeal as abandoned, and granted a “vexatious litigant” application requiring Lew obtain permission - “leave” - before initiating additional litigation relating to the foreclosure.
The BCCA definitely has taken a “no nonsense” approach to this litigation, rejecting GESARA/NESARA on legal and logical grounds. Good to see!
This litigation has dragged on for over 3.5 years. Not only has Lew lost her home, but she has incurred unfavorable court costs. The house sold for nearly $2 million, of which $1.13 million in sales proceeds was surplus, and is going to be paid to Lew. At present, Lew says she is living out of her car, and is in poor health. It’s worth pausing to think about this. Lew had enough equity in her home that she could have quite likely refinanced her mortgage, if she hadn’t gone all pseudolaw. The address of the house is listed. It’s a nice-looking modern property in Vancouver, a pretty choice living location.
Pseudolaw just makes things worse. This outcome was eminently avoidable.
Related court decisions are:
Bank of Montreal v Lew, 2022 BCSC 1320
Bank of Montreal v Lew, 2023 BCSC 1986
Lew v Bank of Montreal, 2024 BCSC 59
5
u/mrmarjon 22d ago
And at no point in the proceedings did anyone take her to one side and say “word to the wise …”? All the lawyers just looked stern and made sure to record their billed hours.
3
u/DNetolitzky 22d ago
My experience and that of other court and law firm workers I've spoken to is that the timing of interventions like that is very important. The earlier you confront a pseudolaw adherent with "that's not the law", and supporting materials, the better the odds are the problem litigant will correct their path.
At least a part reason for that pattern is most pseudolaw systems have a rule that "silence means agreement" or "silence means consent". So when one of these individuals files documents with a court, and nothing happens for months - a very typical situation - all the time they've switched from "maybe I'll win" to "I'm Winning!" So delay - even when legitimate according to legal and court rules - helps create worse outcomes.
Does that explain Lew? Possibly. There's a good chance it was a factor.
2
u/mrmarjon 20d ago
That’s my point - nobody seems to have had that conversation 🙄
1
u/Dumbf-ckJuice 11d ago
Why would they? She's the opposing litigant in an adversarial system. It's not the job of the bank's lawyers to advise her, and in fact it's unethical for them to do so. If she wanted competent legal advice, she wouldn't have resorted to SovCit fuckery and hired a competent attorney.
About the only thing they can do is conference with her to tell her that she's got no chance of winning and every chance of getting sanctioned, so she should probably not oppose a motion to dismiss with prejudice.
7
u/dfwcouple43sum 23d ago edited 23d ago
The best part: the defendant (lender) was awarded costs.
No one should have to pay to defend themselves from complete and utter nonsense like this, stuff that has zero basis in fact or law.
5
u/DNetolitzky 23d ago
For better or worse, the common law tradition legal system used in Canada and the US makes every presumption in favour of parties initiating civil litigation.
Does this create an apparatus that is open to abuse by those with unusual beliefs, mental health issues, and/or bad intent? Maybe...
5
u/WizardofSorts 23d ago
But how does the defendant recoop their costs? I doubt she has any money.
8
u/dfwcouple43sum 23d ago
If she has no money and no assets then they’re SOL. Still, a judgement is better than none.
People shouldn’t be allowed to use the court systems repeatedly for merit less claims and make others suffer for it.
4
u/DNetolitzky 23d ago
In this instance the pseudolaw adherent is receiving $1.1 million in "left over" funds after her home was foreclosed and sold.
So there's a very good chance that costs and any other penalties can be recovered.
But yes, that's unusual for pseudolaw types. Most aren't wealthy, or what assets they have are things like houses.
3
u/NotCook59 23d ago
Are these “SovCits”? This should be in the SovCit Sub!
5
u/nutraxfornerves 23d ago
Dr. Netolitsky has given me leave to crosspost his OPs to other relevant subs, so I crossposted it to r/SovereignCitizens and r/Qult_Headquarters.
5
u/DNetolitzky 23d ago
So I'm kind of particular in where and how I comment on pseudolaw stuff. The reason has to do with what I usually write about. I'm in Canada and have focused my investigations and writing on pseudolaw in Canada, since that's the domain I know well. I'm comfortable saying I am the subject expert for the country, given my frontline activities as a court worker and "hobbyist academic" work.
Now that I'm retired I'm in a position to be more public on this subject and possibly to act as an expert witness in court, academic contexts, or committee/legislative processes. That is, provided I'm careful about my credentials.
The truth is, I don't know that much about what's going on in jurisdictions like the US, Germany, the UK. I have some data, but at present there are others who are more informed. Therefore, I'm pretty cautious about commenting about other jurisdictions. I don't want to find myself under cross-examination on my writing and analyses, and then having to admit: (1) I don't really know that much about an issue/scenario, or (2) that there are better positioned authorities who disagree with me.
For example, there are a number of very well informed and insightful writers/analysts in Germany commenting on their local Reichsburger pseudolaw phenomenon. If I'm going to talk about Germany, I should point at their analyses and conclusions, rather than trying to come up with something myself.
So that leads to the "SovCit" label. You'll almost never see me use it. That's because Sovereign Citizen is used in two sense. There was and is a discrete variation on pseudolaw with its own culture in the US, who are called "Sovereign Citizens". They are the "Ur source" for much of modern pseudolaw, and have operated in various ways in the US since at least the 1980s. Depends on what you consider critical elements, particularly politics and cultural perspectives. Most describe Sovereign Citizens as right wing, libertarian, often racist and holding fundamentalist/conservative religious beliefs.
The second use of "Sovereign Citizen" is as a kind of global label for anyone who uses pseudolaw. I personally think that broader label is a mistake, because it takes a very diverse group of populations and labels them in a manner that could lead to misapprehension about population characteristics. For example, in Canada we've never really had a "Sovereign Citizen" population with the kinds of political, economic, and social beliefs typical of the US Sovereign Citizen movement. Our anti-tax Detaxers were either apolitical or politically amorphous. Our Freemen-on-the-Land movement were lefty neo-hippy anti-government social parasite basement dwellers - and more often than not involved in marijuana advocacy, production, and trafficking. More a criminal than political culture.
So I know a fair bit about US Sovereign Citizens, as in the US Sovereign Citizen movement, but I'm no expert on the population. I know a crapload about Canadian pseudolaw users and their history, to the point I'm comfortable saying I'm the expert on the subject. But those Canadians aren't true US-style Sovereign Citizens, except for a few rare exceptions.
So if you call a discussion forum or published resource a "Sovereign Citizen" or "SovCit" thing, I back away from that. I'm not a "Sovereign Citizen" expert, as I use that term. I strongly suspect I sometimes drive other commentators in the pseudolaw subject area a little crazy by how I am extremely careful to define what I mean by Sovereign Citizen, when I do use that term in public dialogue or publications. But that's why. I want to preserve my potential status as an expert to the field where I think I do have unusual and specialized knowledge. But that means me being very precise on the terminology I use. Hence, I'm not likely to participate in a "SovCit" discussion, except as perhaps an interested inquiring participant. It's not something I know all that much about. In the modern milieu where there are a lot of "nation specific" pseudolaw experts? I don't need to comment outside my area of expertise.
There's already some really problematic guesswork in the literature where, for example, genuine US Sovereign Citizen experts projected their opinions into Canada, assuming what goes on up here is the same as in the US. It wasn't, isn't, and that led to a lot of confusion, some with serious potential consequences.
Gawd I'm long winded.
3
u/NotCook59 23d ago
LOL. I appreciate the background. From most of our perspectives in the USA, SovCits are a joke. I don’t know what”pseudolaw even means, but from our perspective, SovCits “think” they know something about the law, when they are just being led by the nose by one guy who is selling the nonsense for a price, and they’re buying it. My view, and I think probably that of most of the contributors to this subreddit, is that they are a fringe element who would like to believe they have some “inside scoop”, when what they have is utter nonsense.
While I u destined your reluctance, your observations would be more at welcomed in this group, I am sure.
30
u/Kriss3d 23d ago
Lol. So Biden wanting to cancel $1.7BN student loans: COMMUNISM
But cancelling ALL debt in the world by EVERYONE: YAAAY
How completely delusional would you need to be to sit and argue gesara/nesara but that it is so secret that nobody knows - yet she somehow does, and she have no documentation for it to have taken place ?