New posts

No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Nov. 1, 2016, 11:57 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016

Let's not get too caught up in Mr. Colbert's "genius"

He didn't read the appropriate act, or if he did he didn't think he needed to follow it. Which is funny as he sought to rely on the same act.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc1703/2016bcsc1703.html?resultIndex=1

It wasn't "adjourned generally" his petition was struck. Gone, finito, Void Ab Initio.. See paragraph 24.

Probably the best part is where he tried to have counsel for Mr. Bond removed as counsel of record. The Grayall J's response is priceless para 33 - "no basis" and then Mr. Colbert suggests that this is the whole reason he showed up aaaand.. "we are adjourned". Dude dropped the judicial mic right there. No wonder HC has had to deal with so many lawyers. They love unrepresented litigants like this. Takes away from the drudgery.

ps. Bruce Greyall J. is a Justice of the Supreme Court his honorific is "My Lord" - not "Your Honour". That is for provincial court judges.

There are so many errors in your analysis I have but no choice to respond.

There were four hearings. The ones on June 8 and 9, 2016 were decided in my favour. The one on June 28, 2016 was adjourned generally. The one on August 18, 2016 was decided in Bond's favour. There is a considerable cost to have an oral decision (the 3 decisions were all oral) transcribed and published, very considerable. I saw no reason to have the first 2 transcribed and published, so I elected not to pay the cost. The DNV paid the cost to have the 4th hearing transcribed so that either the DNV or their lawyer could then send it to the Vancouver Sun and the North Shore News for publication likely for some type of consideration, certainly from the North Shore News. Both outlets conveniently did not report on the first two hearings decided in my favour. The North Shore News had known all along that the first two decisions were in my favour and made a decision not to publish anything about the matter unless it concluded with a dismissal. Some time ago the North Shore News cut a deal with DNV Council not to ever write anything negative about a sitting councilor else Council would pass a resolution banning North Shore News boxes from the streets of the DNV. I challenge anyone to find, ever, a negative word about a member of DNV Council in the North Shore News. Even when disgraced ex-Councillor Alan Nixon was twice found offisde to rules of the BC Real Estate Council, the North Shore News refused to acknowledge the matter.

The decision of the court was based on a technical detail, not merit in law. As such, the entire question of law, but with different particlars, can be returned to the court. While Justice Greyall referenced a failure to serve the DNV and to serve affidavits within a timely fashion as a fatal flaw in the matter, his colleague Justic Macnaughton disagreed with him on June 9, 2016 and alowed the matter to remain open until alleged flaws could be remedied. Greyall also discounted Hunt v Carey as a precedent in the matter, again in contrast to Macnaughton relying on my argument that it was relevant and deciding in my favour. Geyall furhter errored by not considering that the matter must remain open until DNV Council votes "yea" or "nay" on whether Bond contravened the Community Charter. Such a vote never took place. The fundamental matter of whether a member of a BC Society can act for both the Society and a municipality at the same time remains a question for the court to answer. It is absolutely NOT "finito." In fact Bond's actions on behalf of the NSMBA in the No Trespassing signs matter with CMHC is a legitimate basis for another such petition. The only issue is whether 10 people would join for such a petition. That is not my concern. It might be Councillor Bond's concern.

The issue of counsel representing Bond was only one of several particulars. The judge erred in addressing that particular, certainly based on the judgement and written decisions of his colleagues.

The judge's remarks about words I used being unrelated to the petition were ironically related to this web site. I had taken great exception to Bond finding humour in the use of the phrase trail Nazi and swastikas drawn the locations of Monica Craver's home on a map posted on nsmb.com. Counsel for Bond tried to hoodwink the judge into thinking by position on the swastika matter was related to the petition. The judge would have none of it.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 12:09 p.m.
Posts: 951
Joined: Nov. 18, 2015

In fact Bond's actions on behalf of the NSMBA in the No Trespassing signs matter with CMHC is a legitimate basis for another such petition.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

I thought that you rode bikes and are a member of NSMBA? Maybe that was Scrooge - this is getting difficult to keep track of who said what. What possibly could you have to complain about Bonds actions re CMHC?

Nov. 1, 2016, 12:13 p.m.
Posts: 351
Joined: March 4, 2013

way to go Hazel!

keep wasting our tax dollars on frivolous court cases that have no merit

that's a sure fire way to get yourself elected next time

Nov. 1, 2016, 12:25 p.m.
Posts: 141
Joined: July 31, 2009

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/03026_04#section104

Exceptions from conflict restrictions
104 (1) Sections 100 to 103 do not apply if one or more of the following circumstances applies:

(a) the pecuniary interest of the council member is a pecuniary interest in common with electors of the municipality generally;

Councillor Bond was acting on behalf of myself and other electors of the DNV.

Nov. 1, 2016, 12:33 p.m.
Posts: 549
Joined: Sept. 2, 2010

There are so many errors in your analysis I have but no choice to respond.

There were four hearings. The ones on June 8 and 9, 2016 were decided in my favour. The one on June 28, 2016 was adjourned generally. The one on August 18, 2016 was decided in Bond's favour. There is a considerable cost to have an oral decision (the 3 decisions were all oral) transcribed and published, very considerable. I saw no reason to have the first 2 transcribed and published, so I elected not to pay the cost. The DNV paid the cost to have the 4th hearing transcribed so that either the DNV or their lawyer could then send it to the Vancouver Sun and the North Shore News for publication likely for some type of consideration, certainly from the North Shore News. Both outlets conveniently did not report on the first two hearings decided in my favour. The North Shore News had known all along that the first two decisions were in my favour and made a decision not to publish anything about the matter unless it concluded with a dismissal. Some time ago the North Shore News cut a deal with DNV Council not to ever write anything negative about a sitting councilor else Council would pass a resolution banning North Shore News boxes from the streets of the DNV. I challenge anyone to find, ever, a negative word about a member of DNV Council in the North Shore News. Even when disgraced ex-Councillor Alan Nixon was twice found offisde to rules of the BC Real Estate Council, the North Shore News refused to acknowledge the matter.

The decision of the court was based on a technical detail, not merit in law. As such, the entire question of law, but with different particlars, can be returned to the court. It is absolutely NOT "finito." In fact Bond's actions on behalf of the NSMBA in the No Trespassing signs matter with CMHC is a legitimate basis for another such petition. The issue is whether 10 people would join for such a petition. That is not my concern. It might be Councillor Bond's concern.

The issue of counsel representing Bond was only one of several particulars. The judge erred in the matter, certainly based on the judgement and written decisions of his colleagues.

The judge's remarks about words I used being unrelated to the petition were ironically related to this web site. I had taken great exception to Bond finding humour in the use of the phrase trail Nazi and swastikas drawn the locations of Monica Craver's home on a map posted on nsmb.com. Counsel for Bond tried to hoodwink the judge into thinking by position on the swastika matter was related to the petition. The judge would have none of it.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

So much winning with you.

I think I will take Bruce's views on the law over yours. After all having "legal acumen" involves the ability to convince the judge you are right. Which HC clearly failed to do. Plus if he was wrong - given Ducky's vast resources I am sure someone would fund the appeal. Also, if he was wrong you wouldn't be looking for "10 others" to join the petition.

So what did HC "win" in the previous hearing prey tell?

Judges, courts and court reporting companies can decide if a decision will be published - although they rarely do unless it is a "final decision". Believe me the court case referenced as Docket S164441 Vancouver Registry is certainly at an end as the petition was struck. Everything before that was likely just preliminary.

If there was another petition that was "adjourned generally" please post it. So far very little of what you have said is independently verifiable so it is hard to take you at your word.

Nov. 1, 2016, 12:59 p.m.
Posts: 549
Joined: Sept. 2, 2010

So for completeness: The order from Aug 18, 2016
"OM PARA 1 - Strike Petition
OM Para 3 Each party bear own costs this proceeding
OM PARA 3 Mr. Colbert's NOA dated June 16, 2016 - NO ORDER MADE
OM PARA 3 Mr. Colbert's NOA dated June 16, 2016 seeking Order prohibiting Counsel for the Respondent to continue acting in the capacity as counsel as she is a material witness for the Petitioner in the original Petition is denied.
Rejected 07-OCT-2016 ea - term #2 is not in the Clerk's notes and missing a term of order"

The June 8 - the order was for short leave - basically the definition of a "procedural order" as it describes the procedure that will be followed. So if that was his big win - congrats.

The June 9th big win was to have the case adjourned to a date certain - again the definition of procedural.

The only application that was adjourned generally was HC's attempt to stop exactly what happened - the petition was struck. If HC is waiting for that to come back on - he may have to wait a bit yet.

I would publish the documents from Court Services Online - but as I believe someone objected to doing similar work for other parties - I will take the same stance here. Luckily HC is not the only one with a rich uncle.

Look - I get that some people like to play lawyer (Just as I do - but just on the internet). They may even think your motives are pure. They might be. But one shouldn't pretend that doing so is other than what it is. An ineffective waste of expensive court time and resources to further their own particular political agenda. There are productive ways to promote your vision. Like running for office (or board appointment). I again applaud HC for that part of his strategy.

Nov. 1, 2016, 1 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016

So much winning with you.

I think I will take Bruce's views on the law over yours. After all having "legal acumen" involves the ability to convince the judge you are right. Which HC clearly failed to do. Plus if he was wrong - given Ducky's vast resources I am sure someone would fund the appeal. Also, if he was wrong you wouldn't be looking for "10 others" to join the petition.

So what did HC "win" in the previous hearing prey tell?

Judges, courts and court reporting companies can decide if a decision will be published - although they rarely do unless it is a "final decision". Believe me the court case referenced as Docket S164441 Vancouver Registry is certainly at an end as the petition was struck. Everything before that was likely just preliminary.

If there was another petition that was "adjourned generally" please post it. So far very little of what you have said is independently verifiable so it is hard to take you at your word.

Perhaps you could have quoted from my entire post not just the parts that suited you.

Indeed S-164441 is struck. Nothing prevents another Section 16 Petition from being brought forward. I am not a lawyer so I cannot advise others on what would be contained in the Petition and who must bring it forward. As such it is not my concern.

Everything I have stated is absolutely independently verifiable. All you have to do is go to the Vancouver Registry and ask for the docket lists for June 8, 9 and 28. Then you can make a request for a court transcript service to prepare a transcript for the June 8 and 9 hearings. I was there you were not. So until you have your own evidence to challenge me, my position is the official outcome.

BTW, written decisions are published as routine. Oral decisions are published only upon a request. The transcript service does not unilaterlly publish a document.

P.S. Yes I erred once with using "your honour." It is not an uncommon error by lay people and lawyers, particularly those coming from other provinces.

Regards

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 1:10 p.m.
Posts: 549
Joined: Sept. 2, 2010

Perhaps you could have quoted from my entire post not just

Everything I have stated is absolutely independently verifiable. All you have to do is go to the Vancouver Registry and ask for the docket lists for June 8, 9 and 28. Then you can make a request for a court transcript service to prepare a transcript for the June 8 and 9 hearings. I was there you were not. So until you have your own evidence to challenge me, my position is the official outcome.

As I did. Except I used the interwebs - cost me $12.00 I'll never get back. (Thanks Uncle)

HC got a couple preliminary orders. Nothing more, nothing less. He very much lost on the petition. I doubt that there are many reported decisions on setting a date certain. There is no reason to get the transcripts as these types of decisions are mundane and of no concern in the overall picture. The actual official outcome was the petition was struck. He can claim he won the battles along the way - but we know to whom the war went.

Nov. 1, 2016, 1:43 p.m.
Posts: 951
Joined: Nov. 18, 2015

I was there you were not. So until you have your own evidence to challenge me, my position is the official outcome.

I would like to put the above forward as an official NSMB.com rule. If you were there and have a view, your view is defaulted to the "official outcome".

All in favour say Yay

[all of the Shore erupts in a thunder of Yay's]

All opposed say Nay

[silence]

The motion is carried.

So last night I was doing shuttles up and down Cypress. It was just me, but I was ripping 200ft airs off of these brand new lines that I built earlier in the day. I would say that it was like Rampage but Rampage would have to up its game significantly to match my skills.

Official outcome. There you have it.

Nov. 1, 2016, 1:48 p.m.
Posts: 16818
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

So last night I was doing shuttles up and down Cypress. It was just me, but I was ripping 200ft airs off of these brand new lines that I built earlier in the day. I would say that it was like Rampage but Rampage would have to up its game significantly to match my skills.

Official outcome. There you have it.

Sounds legit. I'm convinced!

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.

When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.

Nov. 1, 2016, 1:51 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016

As I did. Except I used the interwebs - cost me $12.00 I'll never get back. (Thanks Uncle)

HC got a couple preliminary orders. Nothing more, nothing less. He very much lost on the petition. I doubt that there are many reported decisions on setting a date certain. There is no reason to get the transcripts as these types of decisions are mundane and of no concern in the overall picture. The actual official outcome was the petition was struck. He can claim he won the battles along the way - but we know to whom the war went.

Thank for confirming what I stated.

Hazen Colbert got a couple of preliminary orders.

As for the war, again you were not in court. If you had been in court, what you have seen at the conclusion of Justice Greyall's decision was Bond's lawyer, slamming her paraphernalia into a briefcase, and storming out of the courtroom with such a display of venom that one would have thought she was one of the false accusers of Jam Ghomeshi. She left only two other two people in the room, the Clerk and I, aghast. I had never seen such a display of wrath and anger. The Clerk and I were left to ponder between us, "how do we decide who is to write the order, get it vetted and then get the judge to sign." That process began a litany of screw ups by opposing counsel that would have filled a law text. Had I not informed counsel that the matter does not close, until I had also signed the order, there likely would have been no order complete. A soul would perish with the knowledge of how much money the DNV paid for counsel's foul up.

I like to think the war is over. Counsel for Bond definitely does not think it is over. According to a third part neither does Bond. I do not know what vexes him, and frankly I don't care.

There is a need for substantive changes at municipal hall, a broom taken to all of a very long-in-the-tooth and ineffective council and a handshake to several senior staff. That is why I ran in the last municipal election.

Yogi Berra said, "You do not win every game."

I agree. Will I run for office at the NSMBA AGM or in the next municipal election. If I believe I can represent the electorate in either case, I might give it a shot. In the meantime I am doing what I think is best for the North Shore.

Regards

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 2:30 p.m.
Posts: 549
Joined: Sept. 2, 2010

Thank for confirming what I stated.

Hazen Colbert got a couple of preliminary orders.

Regards

Hazen Colbert

It's sweet that you think that makes a bit of difference. Or that anyone should care enough about such orders to requests transcripts- or that the media should report on such orders.

I can see it now….
[Anchor] We interrupt this late breaking story for an even bigger late breaking story.
[Reporter in front of 800 Smithe] - Yes Kent, we have just gotten word that, in an amazing display of legal acumen, HC has just convinced the judge that a thing that should happen in a court proceeding should happen on a specific date certain.
[Anchor] That is amazing. Tell me sir - has this ever happened before?
[RiF800S] Yes Kent, every day. In fact probably a hundred times a day in court rooms across the province.
[Anchor] Amazing
[RiF800S] Yes indeed, I also hear HC has been just as successful against political opponents that refer to his schooling inaccurately, dog catchers and students abusing bus passes.
[Anchor] God Bless That Man. What a great use of the court's time and energy. Why has no one voted this man into office.
[RiF800S] I have no idea Kent, I have no idea.

But seriously - I do hope HC runs again. I am not a constituent so I couldn't vote for him. But he has my moral support if that means anything (probably not- but he has it anyway)

edit to add - I am going to keep referring to the Mr. Colbert that ran for office differently (usually as HC or Mr. Colbert) than to the individual using the HazenColbert handle here as I am not convinced they are one and the same.

edit, edit to add - I am not actually a Simpsons Cartoon character - I just play one on the internet.

Nov. 1, 2016, 2:53 p.m.
Posts: 16818
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

edit, edit to add - I am not actually a Simpsons Cartoon character - I just play one on the internet.

You're not? Well, shit … my whole world is upside down now. HC for president!!

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.

When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.

Nov. 1, 2016, 3:14 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 29, 2016

It's sweet that you think that makes a bit of difference. Or that anyone should care enough about such orders to requests transcripts- or that the media should report on such orders.

I can see it now….
[Anchor] We interrupt this late breaking story for an even bigger late breaking story.
[Reporter in front of 800 Smithe] - Yes Kent, we have just gotten word that, in an amazing display of legal acumen, HC has just convinced the judge that a thing that should happen in a court proceeding should happen on a specific date certain.
[Anchor] That is amazing. Tell me sir - has this ever happened before?
[RiF800S] Yes Kent, every day. In fact probably a hundred times a day in court rooms across the province.
[Anchor] Amazing
[RiF800S] Yes indeed, I also hear HC has been just as successful against political opponents that refer to his schooling inaccurately, dog catchers and students abusing bus passes.
[Anchor] God Bless That Man. What a great use of the court's time and energy. Why has no one voted this man into office.
[RiF800S] I have no idea Kent, I have no idea.

But seriously - I do hope HC runs again. I am not a constituent so I couldn't vote for him. But he has my moral support if that means anything (probably not- but he has it anyway)

edit to add - I am going to keep referring to the Mr. Colbert that ran for office differently (usually as HC or Mr. Colbert) than to the individual using the HazenColbert handle here as I am not convinced they are one and the same.

edit, edit to add - I am not actually a Simpsons Cartoon character - I just play one on the internet.

If you would like to continue the discussion on the conflict of interest matter, there is a thread for that matter and we can move there.

I am however not interested in drama and commentary about the merits of other cases or a discussion regarding the Constitutional right of Canadians to access the court system. That matter was decided by the legislators and the courts in the past millennium. If you disagree with the decision of the courts, take it up with the Supreme Court of Canada and also lobby your MP for a change to the Canadian Constitution.

Let us keep this thread focused on the CMHC lands. The new signs have yet to go up, and the particulars of the conditions upon which CMHC will provide access have not been set down.

Regards

Hazen Colbert

Nov. 1, 2016, 3:21 p.m.
Posts: 497
Joined: Nov. 11, 2004

We will now break for a moment so that i can celebrate this awesome exchange and applaud you both.

I have not laughed so hard in a while.

Bravo!

welcome to the bottom of my post.

Forum jump: