P.M. Harper's fraud to destroy Canada
WHITE COLLAR CRIME: MONEY EXTORTION AND LAUNDERING SCHEME, TORTS AND FRAUD
under sections 583, 462.31(1) [and many other paragraphs listed on the attached page entitled “238 Relevant enactments] of the Criminal Code, s. 61 of the Supreme Court Act, s. 2, 73.1 (1) and (2)
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, sections 126 through 129 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, etc.
Reported by Zoltan Andrew
Simon in Red Deer, on September 19, 2015
The ongoing torts against Zoltan A. Simon and his wife Zuan Hao Zhong took place in Ottawa (Ontario), Greater Vancouver and Victoria
(British Columbia). The reported crimes have actually taken place from 2006 to 2015 although the misleading CIC forms were used since January 1999. (Ms. Zhong lives in China and has signed an affidavit authorizing Z. Simon to represent her in any legal matter.)
The two victims named above hereby file a complaint against a large group of conspiring public servants, including ministers that are and have been employees of the governments of Canada and/or British Columbia in all material times.
The complaints and requests for an impartial investigation belong to three distinct areas of government policies. However, these three areas somewhat overlap and their torts serve a common purpose: to defraud the public by systemic violations of the laws of
Canada by pyramid schemes of power, intimidation, money extortion, and money laundering.
As for the first area, many of the unlawful actions and omissions of the ministers and their administrators qualify as a “terrorist
activity” of the state with the aim of ruining the lives of re-victimized sponsors of immigrants in the family class. Since 2007, the public servants – at least the ministers – involved have been aware of the continuous violations of the
laws of Canada and British Columbia. Zoltan A. Simon collected between 40 and 60 paragraphs of the legislation that they have contravened knowingly. On the other hand, the frauds and money extortion or laundering schemes of the governments’ administrators
keep causing huge financial losses for victims nationwide while generate unjust enrichment for the Crown. The two victims in this case married in 2006 and the two Canadian governments are separating them by force and fraud. They do not claim that any of the
public servants involved in their civil, quasi-criminal, or criminal activities or omissions have stolen or kept any proceeds of crime directly for their pockets. However, they kept enjoying their high salaries in their lucrative positions by participating
in such crimes while honest civil servants that were unwilling to break the law may have been lost their jobs. The majority of public servants apparently choose to keep their jobs (and their mouths shut) by ignoring the laws and blindly obeying the unlawful
policies of their superiors. They simply became prostituted.
In this first complex area of torts related to immigration the Crown (or the PMO) has designed an ingenious solution for “streamlining” as follows. The
Cabinet in Ottawa realized that the (then quite new) Immigration and refugee Protection Act or IRPA and its Regulations did not grant them automatically any money from the defaulting sponsors. Therefore, the leaders of the CRA [Canada
Revenue Agency] and the CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] signed an agreement in 2006 with the illegal intention to override the IRPA. [Such agreement to override the legislation is a conspiracy.] It was called MoU, or Memorandum
of Understanding. Another federal policy was called “IP 2.” The two federal ministers (with the approval of the Minister of Justice) started to enforce these two illegal policies strictly in 2006. (Policy is not law.) Another Crown
policy was to prevent the involvement of any court, or/and pressure every judge to deny jurisdiction or declare every such claim vexatious.
The MoU determined that in 100% of the cases the sponsors should be financially
responsible for any default (and the sponsored persons or the Crown’s administrators involved had always zero responsibility). Also, the MoU cited a paragraph of the IRPA out of context, without its heading – that should form
part of the legislation based on the Interpretation Act. Thus, the MoU misrepresented the IRPA by giving the illusion that the required step of ministerial certification of a debt claim is not compulsory for any minister but rather
completely the minister’s discretion, or for fun. Note: a “default” begins when a sponsored immigrant in the family class receives social assistance of the prescribed nature from a ministry of any province or territory “under the IRPA.”
Thousands of sponsors nationwide signed their sponsorship documents before the IRPA and did not have any pending issues so the ministers’ automatic application of the IRPA to them is fraudulent. Our legislation is consistent about the
6-year limitation periods and the IRPA is not an exemption.
As for the “IP 2” policy of the CIC, its text contains false statements five times, claiming that every sponsor has a contract
with the Minister [of the CIC]. The truth is that paragraph 132. (4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, under the IRPA, clearly indicates that the family class sponsors do not have any contract with any
minister, only an agreement that includes two statements and a declaration. Vague agreements like the Sponsorship Agreement and Undertaking cannot be enforced as contracts without a procedure at a Court. Agreements are not contracts. The
“IP 2” and the “MoU” have been created by the ministers with the aim of misleading their administrators and misrepresent the IRPA (that is punishable upon indictment by a penalty of $100,000 plus imprisonment,
pursuant to sections 126. through 129. of the IRPA.
As for the second area of torts, it has a tragic effect on the structure of Canada as an originally
free and democratic society. The Registrar, Mr. Roger Bilodeau, instructs every administrator of the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada to ignore and disobey section 61. of the Supreme Court Act [of Canada], R.S.C., 1985, c.
S-26. Section 61. goes, “Whenever error in law is alleged, the proceedings in the Court shall be in the form of an appeal.” Mr. Bilodeau and his administrators openly contravene the Act which forms an indictable criminal
offence, pursuant to subsection 126. (1) of the Criminal Code. It is immaterial whether they follow an order of their superiors or they act independently. (They may follow a verbal instruction although the Prime Minister may swear
under oath that he has never heard about this problem.) Such attitude in an extremely high position as Registrar of the SCC is simply unacceptable. It appears as a criminal act or omission, particularly in the light of the Registrar’s two policies named
“Guidelines for Preparing Documents to be Filed with the Supreme Court of Canada (Print and Electronic)” and “Representing Yourself in the Supreme Court of Canada, Volume I.” Both policies are inconsistent with s.
61. of the Supreme Court Act since they purposefully and maliciously silent about that extremely important section. Mr. Bilodeau’s aim is to get more personal power for himself and the P.M. while snatch away powers from the
panel of the nine SCC judges. Stealing power is like stealing gold.
The third issue is the stealing of power from the Information Commissioner of Canada. A non-minister and non-commissioner named Eric Murphy, in his letter of
5 August 2014 to Zoltan A. Simon, falsely stated that the Information Commissioner had no mandate in investigating public complaints in cases where the CIC refused access to a simple record within the given period of time under section 7.
of the Access to Information Act. Previously, Service Canada delayed my first OAS payments from January to November 2014. At first, Service Canada sent me a letter claiming that CIC may need up to six months to confirm the fact that I arrived in Canada
as a landed immigrant on 6 April 1976. (A few years ago the Passport Office kept my original pink document of landing and I have never received it back in the mail. Canadian red tape often requests two originals of any document but in other countries only
one original exists.)
The letter of Sandra George, Director of the Intake and Early Resolution Unit (of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada) supported the false claim of Mr. Murphy. The letter is a kind of b.s.
that does not substantiate the claim that the Commissioner had no mandate “under this Act.” My request for investigation was under section 7. of the Access to Information Act, “An Act to extend the present laws of
Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government of Canada” in its preamble. As its ss. 2. (2) goes, “…is not intended to limit in any way access to the type of government information that is normally available
to the general public.” The date of landing of an immigrant in Canada is normally available to that immigrant. Section 7. goes, “Where access to a record is requested under this Act, the head of the government institution to which
the request is made shall, subject to sections 8, 9 and 11, within thirty days after the request is received,…” The essence is that the Minister responsible for the CIC has no right to deny or delay basic information towards Service Canada by
a timely manner. The deadline for issuing info about my date of landing in Canada should take a maximum of 30 days, not 6 months “under this Act.”
The said two administrators claim that investigating the violation
of the Access to Information Act by the CIC does not belong to the mandate of the Information Commissioner. Such conclusion is wrong and the attitude is unlawful. Under ss. 77., SCHEDULE I (Section 3) – GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS it is clearly
listed “under this ACT”: Department of Citizenship and Immigration - Ministère de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration Mr. Murphy and Ms. George shall prove
that the “Department of Citizenship and Immigration” is not the same government institution as “Citizenship and Immigration Canada.” In the humble opinion of the instant complainer, the two names refer to the same authority so the Information
Commissioner should have right to investigate. The untold reason of Mr. Murphy and Ms. George is the circumstance that they have taken away the powers of the Commissioner and usurp her rights. Or, rather, they surrendered her rights directly for the Prime
Minister. This way, the PMO and any federal minister have escaped the legislation: they can sit on the monies of any citizen forever, without any criticism. Zoltan A. Simon’s rightful pension benefits have been withheld for almost a year without any
explanation. As a result, he was unable to visit his family in China. He met three other persons in Red Deer with similar problems: the Crown was sitting on their pension benefit monies. This is a trick of the Harper government by withholding the Crown’s
due payments for seniors or others and simply shift that debt obligation to the next government.
In short, the instant dictatorship is applying “smart tricks” everywhere but most of those are really torts and fraudulent means
for unjust enrichment, punishable by the laws of Canada. Z.A. Simon explains more issues on his website www.correctingworldhistory.com with tabs dedicated to the instant
crimes: the largest torts & cover-up in Canada’s history.
Your Office probably would not accept any criticism regarding the decisions of any court. Regardless this rule, it is my obligation to call your legal experts’
attention to an unpublished Order of Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer at the Federal Court about three years ago. She concludes that a “future hypothetical administrative decision” [say, of Service Canada] cannot give rise to a claim. This superficial
judgment and conclusion have been supported by an SCC decision [signed by the C.J. of Canada that is under the P.M.’s pressure] but the Registrar blocked it from the panel of the nine SCC judges. This principle means that intimidation and bullying have
become officially and legally accepted on the Crown’s behalf. If means that a P.M. or any minister in any province can legally threaten his public servants in any form, without any punishment. He or she can post an open letter for every employee of any
Court registry of the province stating, “If any of the Registry’s administrators would accept any document or pleadings for filing where the Crown is the Defendant or Respondent the employee may lose his or her job immediately.” Despite of
Runcer v. Gould, 2000 ABQB 25 (CanLII) or R. v. McCraw,  3 SCR 72, 1991 CanLII 29 (SCC), both condemning threatening, it is clear that the “Principle of Tremblay-Lamer” would apply: none of the employees could sue the minister
for intimidation or threatening. Such claim would be vexatious, frivolous, and abuse of process. The Minister would have all rights to issue or post such “future hypothetical administrative decision.” This is the end of a Canada that used to be
called a “free and democratic society.” For a single person’s sake, Canada has become a “pharaonic” country where we all rely on His grace for survival.
- This complaint mentioned only two governments: that of
Canada and BC. However, any reasonable person can see that the same issues exist nationwide, from coast to coast. Every province and territory accepts the torts originating from Ottawa. Gladly, or reluctantly, their governments participate in the money laundering
scheme. Greed is above Canadian law.
14. Respectfully submitted by Zoltan Andrew Simon (66) on this September 19th, 2015.
material, arguments, relevant legislation and case law precedents are
available for you.
Zoltan Andrew Simon Email: email@example.com
[END OF SUBMISSION]
The secret of Prime Minister Harper's pyramid of power by which he converted Canada into a monarchy or dictatorship. We would appreciate your comment. (He can outsmart 35 million Canadians three times while they brush their teeth.)
Roger Bilodeau, with the approval or encouragement of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, snatched the power of the nine SCC judges and gave it to Mr. Harper and his Cabinet. This unlawful policy constitutes the end of a free and democratic Canada and the formal introduction of a dictatorship.
The conspiracy of Prime Minister Harper, Eric Murphy, and Sandra George to steal the power of the Information Commissioner of Canada by violating section 7. of the Access to Information Act is a criminal step to remove any control over the Harper dictatorship. It means that the ministers have no obligations to give timely information to the public and can sit on the Crown's due payments infinitely. The Commissioner should investigate violations of the Act by the CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) that is listed under the Act.
Does telling the truth harm the economy?
Jerome Sutherland (Sept
18 in the Red Deer Advocate) would like to read a syrupy sweet article defending Stephen Harper daily. Maybe he is right for time is running out. Canada missed the chance
to issue a banknote or coin bearing Harper’s image though he is more powerful in Canada than Her Majesty the Queen in the UK.
Mr. Sutherland stands on the extreme right so he
finds Greg Neiman, Tim Harper and Chantal Hébert on his left, with 35 million Canadians. Are we all leftists, democrats, socialists or communists? Mr. Neiman just pointed out that Harper claimed a small surplus for selling a large company at a loss.
It is like if you must redeem your RRSP after years of unemployment. It shows up as a surplus on your tax return but it is your loss. Or, could a P.M. claim a surplus by leasing or selling Yukon Territory to Russia? By similar accounting, Michael Sona may
produce 112% of the votes for the Tories while each of the four opposition parties would get minus 4% on October 19. They would add up to 100%.
Harper’s second stronghold is our security
and experience. A few month ago a man entered Parliament with a handgun and a rifle and started to fire. There was no guard at the entrance and Mr. Harper hid in a cupboard. This incident happened only once under his term. He did not have much experience.
Did Prime Ministers Mulroney, Chrétien or Martin need to hide more often from terrorists?
Canada’s “lost decade” is separating me from my Chinese wife since 2006,
without any legally acceptable explanation. I resisted the money extortion scheme at the courts since the Crown violated 40 to 60 paragraphs of Parliament’s will. The secret of Mr. Harper is the creation of many policies that override the laws of Canada.
He and his ministers are lifted above the powers of the Supreme Court. I am thankful for Mr. Harper only for my spiritual development as a Christian. Before 2006 I did not believe in the devil at all.
Mr. Sutherland is free to cast a golden statue of Mr. Harper in his backyard and adore it. It could represent him as Santa Claus carrying free cupboards to each Canadian for security while throwing Rudolph under the bus, I mean sleigh. As he invented
“Christmas in July,” he may grant us a Christmas in mid-October. Canada’s future is a function of His grace.
The elections in October are not about Red Deer’s bike
paths or David Suzuki. It is whether Canadians wish five years of even stricter monarchy – dictatorship is a bad word – where a single person runs Canada on his own terms. The pyramid of power is ready for the next monarch to take full control.
So far none of the opposition parties, or ABC parties that is "Anything But Conservative" had the courage to reveal the criminal nature of the Harper government and the massive violations of Canada's
laws. Only a few weeks before the October 19 elections it seems more and more obvious that without such public revelation none of the political parties could take the lead. Sooner or later one has to slay the head of the evil dragon, so to speak. Otherwise,
the voters may assume that their political party would simply inherit #Harper's criminal-political pyramid scheme and continue the strategy of oppression.
In the age of the
social media, publishers that try to block the whole truth from a nation will suffer great financial losses on the long run. Regardless the results in October, the Toronto Star and the Red Deer Advocate should be proud that their editors have always remained impartial and unbiased during a stormy period. That is why the latter’s
name is not Red Rabbit (or Red Chicken) Advocate.
Zoltan Andrew SIMON (66, historian)