Thursday, November 17, 2016
Jerymy.Brownridge@gov.bc.ca; email@example.com; Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca; firstname.lastname@example.org; suzanne.anton.MLA@leg.bc.ca; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Notice Regarding Indigent Status
1. As agreed, the state’s public servants and service providers have a primary duty to protect the right of the public to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law that at all times is protecting human rights;
2. As agreed, Charter Section 26 guarantees that the certain rights and freedoms found within shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. Canadians have rights under laws other than the Charter. For example, rights may also be created under federal, provincial and international law.
3. As agreed, documents must meet the standard "AS ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD UNDERSTAND" and that is all! A "REASONABLE PERSON" does not speak or understand legal jargon! The fraudulent use of the all caps name and the meaning behind it is not understood by ANY REASONABLE PERSON.
4. Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx]. Why is it that only some people are required to beg for the remedy they are entitled to?
5. Article 9 1. everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to benefit from an effective remedy and to be protected in the event of the violation of those rights. Declaration on the Right and Responsibility [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RightAndResponsibility.aspx] Why is it that only some people are required to beg for the protection they are entitled to?
6. It has become very clear that there can be no “indigent status” without human rights violations originating with the state, hasn’t it?
a. Human beings have no reason to pay! To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. Magna Carta - http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translationb. Article 11 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent. [International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx]c. Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. [Universal Declaration of Human Rights - http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html]
7. Therefore the indigent status is an official acknowledgement by the state of the state’s own human rights violations, is it not? Article 10 - No one shall participate, by act or by failure to act where required, in violating human rights and fundamental freedoms and no one shall be subjected to punishment or adverse action of any kind for refusing to do so. Declaration on the Right and Responsibility [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RightAndResponsibility.aspx]
8. So the reason for the state’s official acknowledgement of human rights violations comes down to getting people who do not get that their human rights are being violated by the state to surrender their “security of the person” and submit to an administrative court system that actually has no authority over the living just “classes of subjects”. Stressing that the prime responsibility and duty to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms lie with the State and the state simply ignores that prime responsibility and duty so it can trick everyone into being “classes of subjects” and totally ignore inherent rights and fundamental freedoms. Declaration on the Right and Responsibility [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RightAndResponsibility.aspx]
9. “Classes of subjects” are non-human entities lacking the physical capacity to do anything including breaking any law and are subservient to state legislation and regulations are they not?
10. “Classes of subjects” would be the only ones require to submit the required private information found on the application without violating human rights are they not?
11. So a "REASONABLE PERSON" who has not been taught about human rights and freedoms by the state as is required, would not see the fraud and deception or understand the ramification of “I make this affidavit in support of my application for an order that I be declared indigent [a class of subject] with respect to the payment of fees set out in Schedule 1 of Appendix C of the Supreme Court Civil Rules”. Would they?
12. As agreed, the internal operating procedures of the state’s public servants and service providers have no application to the public other than when doing their primary duty.
13. The public has no reason to hear or think about the Civil law Democratic Societies “Statutes, Enactments, Regulations”, because they are only applicable to “classes of subjects”.
14. As agreed, any of the state’s public servants and service providers’ persons who knew about or should have known about the intentional trespass are personally and professionally liable, are they not? Their lack of that knowledge also lies at your feet;
15. As agreed, Silence comprises agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy;
16. i: man; claim “there is no answering evidence which is true”;
17. As agreed, all words and phrases herein are as the Affiant defines them;
Claimant, private individual
Indigent - http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/Indigent.aspx - last revised 2016-11-21
A poor person; not penniless but in need and who has no financial support from any other. [a human right violattion]
Related Terms: Pauper's Oath http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PaupersOath.aspx
In People v Algeni, Justice Roy of the Colorado Court of Appeals iterated one of two common descriptions of indigent for the purposes of assigning state-paid counsel:
"[T]he term indigent for purposes of appointment of counsel is a term of art, that is, it has a very specific and highly technical meaning. Therefore, the fact that defendant and her husband said they were not indigent is, in our view, of very little or no consequence.
"A defendant does not have to be destitute; it is sufficient that he or she lack the necessary funds, on a practical basis, to retain competent counsel. The trial judge must consider the defendant's complete financial situation by balancing assets against liabilities and income against basic living expenses. Factors to be considered include whether the defendant has any dependents, whether he is employed, income from all sources, real and personal property owned, extent of any indebtedness (and) necessary living expenses...."
In Mathews v Mathews, another American appointment of a state-paid lawyer case, Justice John Gerrard of the Supreme Court of Nebraska wrote:
"[A] person is indigent if he or she is unable to pay ... attorney fees without prejudicing, in a meaningful way, his or her financial ability to provide the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for himself or herself or his or her legal dependents.
"(An) indigent person is a person who, at the time need is determined, does not have sufficient assets, credit, or other means to provide payment of an attorney and all other necessary expenses of representation without depriving the party or the party's dependents of food, clothing, or shelter. [I]ndigent is a person who would be unable to employ counsel without prejudicing his financial ability to provide economic necessities for himself or his family."
In Canada, indigency is not (yet, anyway!, as of 2011) a qualifier for legal aid but it is referred to often in Canadian Rules of Court as a litigant tries to avoid having to pay filing fees because of, as she or he must allege, his or her state of indigency.
In Tan v Yukon, a case before the Yukon Supreme Court, Mr. Sa Tan applied to be exempted from paying Court fees related to filing a claim, an exemption which the Court rules extend to persons as follows:
"If the court, on summary application before or after the commencement of a proceeding, finds that a person is indigent, the court may order that no fee is payable to the Crown by the person to commence, defend or continue the whole or any part of the proceeding unless the court considers that the claim or defence discloses no reasonable claim or defence as the case may be, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court."
Justice Gower accepted the plaintiff Tan's application for indigency status as follows, adopting some wording from other cases:
"Indigent is not further defined in the Rules of Court, but its meaning has been considered in a number of cases. Generally, it means a person who is not penniless, but who has such few resources that they may be considered needy ... possessed of some means but such scanty means that he is needy or poor.
" The purpose of granting indigency status is to ensure that those with arguable cases, but inadequate finances, have access to justice.
"As I see it, the underlying rationale for the granting of indigent status is to ensure that no litigant will be denied access to the courts by reason of impecuniosity. … As I observed earlier, the concern of the court must be that no arguably meritorious case should be prevented from getting a hearing merely because a person is without the financial resources to carry on with the litigation.
"While the courts should not be overly rigorous in approaching such an application, it must be recognized that giving a litigant indigent status may be affording an unfair advantage to that litigant vis-à-vis the other party.
"As for Mr. Tan’s claim for indigency, I note that his affidavit material discloses a monthly income of $800, of which he nets approximately $750 after taxes. His stated monthly expenses equal his gross monthly income. He claims to have no assets and $2,000 in loans outstanding to friends. He has also affirmed that he does not have the ability to borrow money for the filing fees under the Rules of Court. Those fees would be $140 per claim. Thus, although Mr. Tan may not be totally destitute, he does appear to be a person of such scanty means that he is needy or poor and that the total of $280 in filing fees for both claims (indeed, even the fee for one claim) would effectively deny him access to justice."
By Summary Agreement
Any government agent or representative who has any problems with any of the points listed, bring them forward under your full commercial liability and complete contact information and we can discuss the issue here and if needed in a common law court.
- Human rights must themselves be protected by the rule of law;