|
|
|
CRITICISM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO IS NO LONGER ALLOWED |
CLICK HERE TO VIEW---->
"NEWSPAPER
ADD"
The Burkos
discovered that the Credit
Valley Conservation Authority
{ a PUBLIC AUTHORITY
part of the Government of Ontario } had bought
the Burkos Property
and home from the former owner who had no title and
registered a
false Deed. It was LAND
FRAUD plain and simple, proven
on CERTIFIED
LAND REGISTRY DOCUMENTS. The Burkos hold
title
by Judicial
Vesting Order they are the Absolute owners of their home
and
land. The Credit
Valley Conservation Authority caught Red Handed could
not legally explain
what they have done, Public Exposure
would reveal
what this PUBLIC
AUTHORITY HAD DONE was criminal.
On June 23,
1999 the Credit Valley Conservation
Authority (part of the
Government of Ontario )
filed a Statement of Claim alleging
Defamation,
from the Burko's call
for a "Public Inquiry" Advertisements. They are seeking
a Permanent
Injunction Prohibiting the Burkos from Speaking, Publishing,
Broadcasting,
or Publishing about
what the CREDIT
VALLEY
CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY has done to them, and
$150,000.00 in
damages.
This is Part of the Government
of Ontario trying to Silence a
Citizen from
making public what
this Public Authority has Done. UNABLE TO EXPLAIN
WHAT THEY HAD DONE
the Credit Valley Conservation Authority had to
Shut the Burkos
Up, a Public Inquiry would Expose
Them. IN A FREE
AND DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY IT IS A CITIZENS RIGHT TO CRITICIZE
THE GOVERNMENT
WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL.
IN CANADA
THAT RIGHT IS
GUARANTEED BY THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
AND
FREEDOMS ( THE
SUPREME LAW OF CANADA ) TO
WHICH ALL
PARTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT WITHOUT EXCEPTION ARE BOUND.
INCLUDING THE
CREDIT VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY.
CREDIT
VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY PULLS
A SECOND
FRAUD
they lied about being incorporated on Court Document
to pretend
they
had the Legal Capacity to launch this Action.
On July
4th 2000 the Burkos have
a Corporate Search done by the
Ministry of
Consumer and Commercial Relations.
Guess what ?
There was no
record of any Credit Valley Conservation
Authority as a
Corporation or Incorporated
in Ontario.
The Corporations
Act provides that all Corporations must be
Registered
to be in effect.
Click Here---> "CERTIFICATE
OF NO RECORD"
to
view this document
In the
Credit Valley Statement of Claim
page 2 they state that they are
" Incorporated
pursuant to the Laws
of Ontario " it was
as lie,
a lie
for a specific purpose, as The
Legislature of Ontario Creates
Conservation Authorities
as " BODIES CORPORATE" and these
Bodies
Corporate
are not Corporations and
have restricted Legal Capacity.
Click Here---> "
BODY CORPORATE " to
view the definition of
Body Corporate as used by the LEGISLATURE
OF ONTARIO.
This Definition is
taken from Carswells Words and Phrases
Judicially investigated,
as
used in Canadian Courts.
Proof:
that the Credit Valley Conservation Authority Created
by an
Order in Council
and Specifically made a "
Body Corporate " as all
Conservation
Authorities are in
the Conservation Authorities
Act.
is Fraudulently
Misrepresenting itself as an "
Incorporation " in order to
give itself Legal
Capacity it doesn't have.
A Misrepresentation relied
upon to secure an advantage is FRAUD
Section 3 subsection
(4) of the Conservation Authorities Act R.S.O.1990
Provides that
" Every authority is a body
corporate."
Click Here--->"
CONSERVATION
AUTHORITIES ACT R.S.O.1990 3 (4) "
to view this spelled out in
the actual statute
that created only a " body
corporate " and not an
" Incorporation "
Click Here--->"
PAGE 2 OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM "to
view this page
of the Credit Valley Conservation
Conservation Statement of Claim
-Showing
the following:
-Credit Valley Conservation Authority Lied
about being " Incorporated "
-Credit
Valley Conservation Authority states it is " a PUBLIC
AUTHORITY "
-Credit
Valley Conservation Authority seeks " to prohibit the
Burkos from
" speaking,
writing, broadcasting, and publishing "
# These Rights
Guaranteed all Canadians
under the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
This public authority has something to Hide
and is afraid of the TRUTH.
The Credit Valley Conservation
Authority was Formed by an Order in Council
of the Lieutenant
Governor of Ontario on May 13th 1954.
Click
Here---> "
ORDER IN COUNCIL CREATING CREDIT VALLEY
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY "
to view the actual Order in
Council 1324/1954 Dated May 13th 1954
-Showing the following:
-that no where in
this Order in Council is a Corporation
or Incorporation Created
-that no where
in this Order in Council are Letters Patent
Granted as are
required for a corporation.
-that all that is formed is a "
Public Conservation Authority " pursuant to
the Conservation Authorities Act R.S.O.
EVIDENCE
FABRICATED
Caught
lying about being " Incorporated " on
their Statement of Claim by the
"Burkos,
the Credit Valley Conservation could provide No Proof
to Refute
the
"Certificate of No Record ". The
Evidence Act provides that Certified
Documents
issued by the Government Ministry are conclusive Proof in Court.
The
Credit Valley Conservation Authority was caught in a lie
with no way out.
On
March 2O th 2001 the Burkos again had a record
search of the Credit
Valley
Conservation Authority at the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial
Relations.
Here is what was discovered:
On
December 8th 2000 the Credit Valley Conservation
Authority
filed
with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relation
FIRST
REGISTRATION
-registration
of a Corporation for the FIRST TIME
-upon
being processed for the First Time on December 21st 2000 they were
assigned
a Corporation Number # 1454870
this
number did not exist prior!
and
should not have been assigned as no Letters Patent were ever
created
by
the Lieutenant Governor or Granted.
Click
Here to view----> "
First Registration December 2000 "
-these
are the actual forms taken from Certified
micro fiche records of what
the
Credit Valley Conservation Filed with the ministry on December 8th 2000
to
create a phony record of incorporation.
PART
OF
THE
GOVERNMENT
OF
ONTARIO
The
Credit Valley Conservation Authority
Created
by Order in Council by the Lieutenant
Governor of Ontario and
Operating
under Jurisdiction of the Legislature of Ontario, under
and Act of
the
Provincial Legislature " the Conservation
Authorities Act R.S.O.
The
Credit Valley Conservation Authority exerts power over
the People of
Ontario
under its jurisdiction granting and refusing approvals
and permits
from
its Statutory Powers (a government service it charges for).
This Public
Authority
receives funding from the Federal,
Provincial, and Municipal
Government
revenues collected as taxes, it imposes a per capita fee yearly
(
an apportionment ) on the municipalities within
its jurisdiction which they
must
pay. The Credit Valley Conservation Authority
is Administered by a
Board
made up of Ontario Elected municipal
politicians appointed by
Regional
Council all sworn to abide by the Laws of the Province of Ontario.
The
Credit Valley Conservation Authority
is responsible directly to the
Minister
of Natural Resources and requires his approval for all projects
and
the
sale of conservation land.
The
Credit Valley Conservation Authority is listed
in the Queens Printers
Book
listing the agencies of the Government
of Ontario to which the
"
Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Applies.
This
Act provides the public with access to Government Records,
Government
records of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.
Click
Here to View---> "
Freedom of Information and Privacy "
The
Credit Valley Conservation Authority is listed in
the Queens Printers
Book
" Boards Agencies and Commission of the Government of
Ontario"
Click
Here to View---> "Boards
Agencies and Commissions of the
Government of Ontario "
This
is conclusive proof admissible as Evidence under the Evidence Act.
in
a Court of Law that the Credit Valley Conservation Authority is part
of
the
Government of Ontario.
LACK
of
LEGAL
CAPACITY
Not
only did the Credit Valley Conservation Authority as a Body Corporate
with
only the Powers the Ontario Legislature gave it does not
have the Legal
Capacity
to Commence this Defamation Action Against us,
the Attorney
Generals
Act P rovides under 5(h) of that
Act that he must conduct it.
Functions
5.
The Attorney General,
(a)
is the Law Officer of the Executive Council;
(b)
shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with
the law;
(c)
shall superintend all matters connected
with the administration of justice in
Ontario;
(d)
shall perform the duties and
have the powers that belong to the Attorney
General
and Solicitor General of England by law or usage, so far as those
duties
and
powers are applicable to Ontario, and also shall perform the duties
and have
the
powers that, until the Constitution Act, 1867 came into effect, belonged
to the
offices
of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in the provinces
of Canada
and
Upper Canada and which, under the provisions of tha t
Act, are within the
scope
of the powers of the Legislature;
(e)
shall advise the Government upon all matters of law connected with legislative
enactments
and upon all matters of law referred to him or her by the Government;
(f)
shall advise the Government upon all matters
of a legislative nature and
superintend
all Government measures of a legislative nature;
(g)
shall advise the heads of the ministries and agencies of Government
upon all
matters
of law connected with such ministries and agencies;
(h)
shall conduct and regulate all litigation for
and against the Crown or any
ministry
or agency of Government in respect of any subject within the authority
or
jurisdiction
of the Legislature;
(i)
shall superintend all matters connected with judicial offices;
(j)
shall perform such other functions
as are assigned to him or her by the
Legislature
or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.17, s.
5.
NO
CAUSE OF ACTION
Relevant
Case Law provides
THAT a Public Authority
has
No
Cause of Action against
a Private Citizen for Defamation.
In
England in 1993 this was determined when a Local Public Authority
Launched
a Defamation Action Against a Private
Citizen, the matter
was
appealed to the Highest Court in England, the House
of Lords.
It
was found that a Public Authority has No Cause of Action
against a
Private
Citizen for Defamation as no Purpose would
be served by
inhibiting
the right to Criticize the Government.
COMMON LAW of
Ontario is Based on Just Such Case Law.
The Ontario
Justice System would have to Close its Eyes to this
Decision in order to
Rule infavour of a Public Authority and violate
the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
Derbyshire
County Council vs. the Times
Newspapers & others
1993
Al l England Law Reports
march 26th 1993 page 1011
CLICK HERE TO VIEW---->" an Abridgment of this Case "
You decide if a Public Authority part of the Government can do this?
TO
VIEW
THE COURT
DOCUMENTS
FILLED IN
THIS
COURT CASE
and
see the Pleadings
and
Exhibits for your self.
CLICK
ON THE COLOURED LINKS BELOW
(Hit
Return on your Browser to come back)
(FILED BY CREDIT VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY)
2 STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND COUNTER CLAIM
( FILED BY Mr. & Mrs. Burko)
3 REPLY TO DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
( FILED BY CREDIT VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY)
4 REPLY TO REPLY OF DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
(FILED BY Mr. & Mrs. Burko )
(FILED BY Mr. & Mrs. Burko )
6 NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
(FILED BY Mr. & Mrs. Burko )
7 FACTUM (statement of Law and Fact)
(FILED BY Mr. & Mrs. Burko )
8 JUDGMENTS
AND ORAL REASONS OF JUSTICE WILLIAM P. SOMERS
J.
(FILED BY Mr. & Mrs. Burko )
(FILED BY Mr. & Mrs. Burko )
>>>>>NEW SEPTEMBER 2001<<<<<
CLICK HERE----->>
EXTORTION
IN ONTARIO
how it has been set in place
see for yourself what's going on and being covered up !!!
CONTACT
Michael and Kathy Burko
Terra
Cotta Ontario Canada
BY PHONE AND MSG. AT
1-
905- 866-8525
BY
E- MAIL CLICK HERE---->> landfraud@netscape.net
THIS
MATTER GOES BEFORE 3 JUSTICES OF THE
APPEAL
COURT OF ONTARIO (Ontario's highest court)
AT
OSGOODE HALL
SEE JUSTICE FIRST HAND
On
Monday the 17th of September 2001
OSGOODE
HALL TORONTO
at
10:30 A.M.
It
is open to the Public
Your
support is welcome.
DOES
THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
OF ONTARIO
KNOW
WHAT
THIS PUBLIC
AUTHORITY
IS DOING?
Mr.
and Mrs. Burko served upon the Office of the Attorney
General
CIVIL
LAW Division and Constitutional Law Division
8th floor
at
720 Bay St. in Toronto.
all court documents filed in Court Files #99-bn-2945
filed in the main court file in Brampton Court House.
all court documents filed in the Motion Court
at 363 University Avenue Court File
#99-ct-2945
Court of Appeal for Ontario file
# c36261
all appeal documents and Notice of a Constitutional Question.
Michael
and Kathy Burko wrote the Attorney General Mr. Young
Directly
and had delivered their letter to his 11th floor
office
and
obtained a receipt of delivery.
On
July 6th 2001 Attorney General Honourable Mr. Young gave
his offical
response
in a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Burko.
Honourable
Mr. Young has chosen to participate in the Cover-up of
Fraud
by
this Public Authority and further Honourable Mr. Young
in his position as
the
" Guardian of Public Right " for the People of Ontario has
chosen to
stand
back and let a Public Authority sue a Private Citizens
for Defamation.
Mr.
Young in doing this is sending a WARNING TO ALL
CITIZENS
OF ONTARIO.
CRITICISM
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO WILL
NOT
BE TOLERATE
If
you find corruption or injustice like Walkerton
you better
shut
up or we will let them sue you.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS LETTER
---->"
Letter From Attorney General Honourable Mr. Young "
CONTACT
Michael and Kathy Burko BY
Terra
Cotta Ontario Canada
BY PHONE AND MSG. AT
1-
905- 866-8525
BY
E-MAIL CLICK HERE---->> landfraud@netscape.net
THIS
MATTER GOES BEFORE 3 JUSTICES OF THE
COURT OF
APPEAL FOR ONTARIO (Ontario's highest court)
AT
OSGOODE HALL
SEE JUSTICE FIRST HAND
On
Monday the 17th of September 2001
COURT HOUSE FRAUD
Case History Report
from the Motions Clerk
in Civil Motions at 393 University Ave. 10th floor Toronto.
At Your Request they
must Print it out, and Certify it if you want for an additional
$3.50 a page. A Case History
Report shows in chronological order all documents
filed including the date filed ,
events scheduled (motions) and monies paid in a
legal action. It is
used by Judges as proof of what Events have taken place
(such as motions) and is used in
their determination of their Judgments
( IT IS RELIED
UPON TO BE A TRUTHFUL COURT RECORD )
A Case History Report
Can be Certified and Relied upon as Conclusive
Evidence of the Facts it contains
under the Evidence Act.
IN COURT.
Below is an actual Certified Copy
of page 4 of 6 of Case History Report
printed
and Certified on September 24th
2001 at 3:57 P.M. at the Civil Motions Counter
10th floor 393 University
Ave. Pay SPECIAL ATTENTION to the two
entries
on April 23, 2001
they are marked out by ---> arrows
on the Original and
shown below as they appear
on the CASE HISTORY REPORT:
" April 23, 2001
Event
Ordered: Conservation Authority has right to sue.
Leave is granted to the
NO Motion to
Strike Jury Notice was ever
Done as is shown here on the Record
it is a Deliberate
Fraud set in Place to Deprive the Burkos of their
Right to A Jury Trial.
No Order
was ever given on the Endorsement Granting the Right To Sue.
It was Never included
in the Orders of Justice Somers.
This Fraudulent Entries
is an attempt to gain a Right that the Credit Valley
Conservation Authority can only
get from an Act of the Provincial Legislature
( Not a JUDGE ) NO
JUDGE HAS THE POWER TO CREATE A CORPORATION
WITHOUT LETTERS PATENT
FROM THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF ONTARIO.
SEE
THE CASE HISTORY REPORT FOR YOURSELF
CLICK
Here --------> to view CASE HISTORY REPORT
The Computer System
is supposed to be Secure and should not be open to the
tampering of Court Staff.
Here we have Conclusive Proof that Court Records
have been Changed, altered
to secure an advantage the Plaintiffs were not entitled to.
( that
is Fraud plain and Simple )
No Jury Notice was ever
Stuck out or a motion done to Strike it Out.
No Order giving Right
to Sue was ever Given by Justice Somers,
he didn't have the Power to GIVE
THEY THAT RIGHT.
Its all FRAUD
to cover the FRAUD
They had to Falsify Court
Records in Order to Gain an Advantage and Shut the Burkos
up!
This was done with the Help
of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FOR ONTARIO.
CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS
DON'T LIE AND HERE THEY ARE AS PROOF!!
COURT
OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
The
Following Facts have been sworn to on Affidavits
that form part
On
March 3th 2001 Michael and Kathleen Burko Filed
Material and Scheduled
a
Motion
# M2732 and filed the
Required Materials and paid the $110.00 fee
to
go before a Justice of the Court of Appeal for Ontario on March
4th 2001.
The
purpose was to Stay of Proceedings Pending the
Appeal
they
had filed and would later Perfect.( file all documentation)
The
Rules of the Court The court provide for a
Right to a STAY to prevent
Prejudice
to you pending your Appeal.
Michael
and Kathleen Burko were first told by the Court Clerk
that the Justice
refused
to hear their Motion. The Burkos insisted
and were directed to go to a
COURT
ROOM before JUSTICE XXXXXXXXX.
Associate Chief Justice
XXXXXXXX
Refused to Hear the Motion, He also Refused to grant
an abridgment
of
time so that the Burkos could Schedule another Motion.
The
Justice Refused to Endorse or Sign the Endorsement or
render a Judgment.
Justice
XXXXXX directed the Court Registrar to tell us:
"
They are not to go before any other JUSTICE OF THE COURT
OF APPEAL,
OR
BEFORE THE PANEL"
The
Court Clerk tried to get us to Take Back the Documents we had filed
with the
Court
as part of the Motion. (they wanted us to take it back???)
We
Waited for the Judges Clerk to Return to the Court Office
with the Motion that
we
had Filed. We Demanded a Certified Copy of
the the Notice of Motion that
was
Before JUSTICE XXXXXXXXXX. First we were
Refused, informing them
that
it was our Right to under the Courts of Justice Act., they
agreed to make a
Certified
copy. Two Hours passed and the Office Manager
informed us the
Document
had been lost, and they had called the Police.
When the Police arrived
we
informed them how Documents in their Possession that were Evidence
under
the
Evidence Act had Disappeared.
The
Police directed them to continue the search and find them or they
would
have
to do an occurance report.
One
Clerk said "Oh give them to them" and another went to
a Drawer and
got
the Document which they later Certified for us.
BELOW
IS A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF MOTION FILED WITH THE COURT.
That
we finally had Certified and Subsequently served to all parties.
MISSING
IS THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE JUSTICE.
He Refused and denied Michael and Kathleen Burko
Justice and also ordered that we have no Right of
appeal of his decision to do nothing. He barred us from
from going before another Justice or the Panel of 3 Justices
TAKE
A LOOK AT THIS NOTICE OF MOTION --->
CLICK HERE
The
Burkos were Denied Justice and forced to Go to
Discovery with a
Non
Existing Corporation without legal Capacity. All
to cover the Fraud
of
the Credit Valley Conservation Authority part of the Government of
Ontario.
There
is no Justification for what was done to the
Burkos. It is a matter of
Public
Record and can be brought to the attention of All
Citizens of Ontario.
EVERY CITIZEN OF ONTARIO HAS A RIGHT TO
WE WERE DENIED THAT HEARING AND JUSTICE.!!!
at
10:30
It
is open to the Public
We have witnessed
a lot of POLITICAL STRING PULLING,
to alter the Course of JUSTICE
Your Watching will stop this from happening,
your support and help is welcome.
We will post all developements
as they occur!
Thank you
>>>> UPDATE SEPTEMBER 17TH 2001 <<<<
THIS MATTER WAS ADJOURNED BY THE COURT OF
APPEAL TILL THE 9TH OF OCTOBER 2001
AT 10.30 OSGOODE HALL (WE WILL BE ADDING
A DETAILED STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED SOON
UP DATE OCTOBER 2001
More Fraud used
against the Burkos
by Ministry of Attorney General
SUPERIOR COURT OF
JUSTICE
Case History Report
is a Printed out Product available to anyone who request it
Motion - Strike out Jury
Notice
10:a.m. Est. Dur.: 2:00 Hour(s)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Somers
Date Scheduled: April 18, 2001
Result Date: April 25, 2001
Fees Paid: Not Applicable
Plaintiff nunc pro tunc to commence and maintain this action.
"
pulled
by a PUBLIC AUTHORITY.
part of the Government of
Ontario.
DENIED
>> JUSTICE <<
Judge
refuses to hear PROCEEDINGS
of
the PUBLIC COURT RECORD filed with the Court of
Appeal for Ontario
contained
in COURT OF
APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
FILE # C 36261
MOTION FILE # M 2732
Feel
free to View these Documents at Court of Appeal for Ontario
130
Queen St. West Toronto
A FAIR HEARING BEFORE THE COURT.
>>>> MORE FRAUD UNCOVERED COMING LATE OCTOBER 2001 <<<<
