May 23, 2013 9:55 PM

Kelleran Holman

"property standards" officer, calls to inform me that my yard has "car parts" in it, contrary to some by-law, and he will be coming to take pictures, i tell him to stay the fuck off the property, he can take pictures from the fence line if he likes, but DO NOT TRESPASS!...He informs me that he has a badge that says he can come onto the property when ever he feels like it...I tell him again to stay the fuck of the property, he says "I'll bring police, I say good you will have to, he says fine .....I'm out, he apparently not only comes onto the property, he also goes into my enclosed trailer as well, and placards my house with an "order to remedy"....I have rough drafted a notice to send with his "order to remedy" ...for class review, and commentary...and of course to point out "and/or" remove stupid "pulled out of ass" stuff:NOTICE

re:"ORDER TO REMEDY NON-CONFORMITY WITH STANDARDS FOR MAINTANANCE AND OCCUPANCY" DATED:inspection MAY 14,2013

To, xxx xxxx: Property Standards Officer, and all agents of THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX

Regarding your offer of May 16, 2013 (original attached).

RETURNED, NO CONSENT, NO CONTRACT

I am unable to "COMPLY" with your "ORDER" at this time, as I do NOT understand how I as a MAN, with a COMMON LAW CLAIM OF RIGHT to ALL the property at the location known as 9577 Walker rd Mcgregor, have ANY obligation to, and/or contracts with the CORPORATION OF ESSEX. I have read the cited by-laws, and all references are for "PERSONS". The defintition section of the by-law and/or codes cited, does NOT properly identify "PERSON" as a man, woman, human being, nor does it even mention "NATURAL PERSON" for that matter!

PERSON. 1. The scope of "person" as set out in s.2 of the Criminal Code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 extends somewhat beyond the individual, covering additionally public bodies, corporations, societies and companies, but, groups having common characteristics such as race, religion, colour and ethnic origin ARE NOT included in the definition (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697)

"Persons are of two classes only - natural persons and legal persons. A natural person is a human being, that has the capacity for rights or duties. A legal person is anything to which the law gives a legal or fictitious existence and personality, with capacity for rights and duties. The ONLY legal person known to our law is the CORPORATION - the BODY CORPORATE" (Hague v. Cancer Relief & Research Institute, [1939] 4 D.L.?*blurry* (Man. K.B.)).

The phone conversation on or about May 10, 2013, with xxxx xxxxx, I was very clear with regard to "TRESPASSING"and "PRIVATE PROPERTY" (the signs posted should have also been sufficient notice), and you xxxx xxxxx, arrogantly referred to your BADGE as allowing you to do whatever you wanted,and it appears, trespassed on TWO occasions, LEGALLY, you may be correct, however, I LIVE in a COMMON LAW jurisdiction, I do NOT RESIDE in the CORPORATION OF ESSEX, nor am I a PERSON within the defintion of the "codes" or "by-laws" you have cited. Therefore I am unclear, and do NOT understand how I or the man known as Grant xxxx, have ANY obligation to the CORPORATION OF ESSEX and/or to it's agents/officers, as we are unaware of any SIGNED contracts that suggest we are.

Please provide the EVIDENCE you are relying on that I, or the MAN known as Grant xxxx are in fact obligated to COMPLY with ANY codes or by-laws of THE CORPORATION OF ESSEX, as we are of the understanding that none exist.

What EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE and/or an EMPLOYEE of the CROWN? What EVIDENCE do you have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the PRINCIPAL? What EVIDENCE do you have that there has been any MEETING OF THE MINDS, any PROPER NOTICE GIVEN, any CONSIDERATION OFFERED, or that I have ANY INTENT TO CONTRACT with the CORPORATION OF ESSEX in this matter? As such, I am returning your offer, DECLINED, for IMMEDIATE discharge and closure.

NOTICE OF WAIVER OF PUBLIC BENEFITS (ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O 1990, CHAPTER C.7] WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT/OFFICIAL, do NOT have the right, and/or AUTHORITY, to attach SURETY and/or JOINDER, to ANY NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, and attach such NAME and/or JOINDER to ME , and

WHEREAS YOU, being a PUBLIC SERVANT and/or an OFFICER for a PUBLIC TRUST, and/or A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT/OFFICIAL, are BOUND BY OATH, I THEREFORE, ACCEPT YOUR OATH OF OFFICE, and respectfully GIVE NOTICE that I, in fact waive ALL benefits of the ONTARIO CHANGE OF NAME ACT [R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7], and as such I MUST DECLINE any such benefits.

If Iand/or such other parties who act in my interest, have caused YOU to believe that my PRIVATE NAME is derived from ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT, then that would be a MISTAKE, and please forgive me.~end

I have used some "in lieu of ID" with "notice of mistake", and a few snippets from Derek Morans police manual post on "person" ... the definition of "person" in the essex by-law begins "PERSON, means a person," a corporation etc, etc...I thought it funny they would use the very word they are defining, to define the word to be defined. ok Scott ...I asked for it ...*holding breath*.....

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 1, page 697

Printed copy of this post — Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 1, page 697 (printed 14 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Read Comments 31

Scott Duncan

May 23, 2013 9:58 PM

Nope. You have it pretty much covered.

Now ask if you are an OWNER or a TENNANT. :D

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 1, page 697

Printed copy of this comment — Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 1, page 697 (printed 14 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Kelleran Holman

May 23, 2013 10:00 PM

lol, damn that was fast, I really could have held my breath after all ! ha ha they have named an owner (Grant), and tenant Kelleran Holman

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 1, page 697

Kelleran Holman

May 23, 2013 10:05 PM

now it says if an "owner or occupant" is not satisfied with the terms of this order...blah blah, to send to appeal to property standards committee by registered mail...I would much rather deliver it fastened to a "car part" to this fuckers office as if I have no binding contract what would I have to appeal!?

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 1, page 697

Derek Moran

May 23, 2013 10:05 PM

Dealing with the same thing here in Toronto, Kelleran. The definition for PERSON in the City of Toronto Act is: INCLUDES a Municipality, Local Board AND The Crown. You should ask them- WHICH ONE AM I?