Tax, Taxes & the IRS

[BUDDIEE18]

$15,000,000 lien for sale, asking price $600,000 Canadian; price is negotiable.

Lien has been perfected against East Side Marios ?115 Hamilton Street North, Waterdown, ON L0R 2H6 Canada,

Ilona Skeba of 1303 Shaver Rd Ancaster, ON L9G 3L1 Canada,

Hillside Park Residence 35 Arkledun Avenue Hamilton Ontario L8N 2H8, Canada and

CSH WILLOWGROVE RE INC. Subsidiary of Chartwell Seniors Housing Reit of 100 MILVERTON DRIVE SUITE 700 MISSASSAGA ONTARIO for the admission of guilt for crimes against Ivor Barens Of Hamilton, Ontario and Norris Barens of Vancouver, B.C.. Crimes enumerated below.

For further information please contact Norris Barens at [e-mail]



Common law distress on third parties has been filed with PPSA Ontario,UCC New York State and with various financial institutions to the amount of $15,000,000 against

East Side Marios 115 Hamilton Street North, Waterdown, ON L0R 2H6 Canada,

Ilona Skeba of 1303 Shaver Rd Ancaster, ON L9G 3L1 Canada,

Hillside Park Residence 35 Arkledun Avenue Hamilton Ontario L8N 2H8, Canada and

CSH WILLOWGROVE RE INC. Subsidiary of Chartwell Seniors Housing Reit of 100 MILVERTON DRIVE SUITE 700 MISSASSAGA ONTARIO for the admission of guilt for crimes against Ivor Barens Of Hamilton and Norris Barens of vancouver B.C.



(I) NOTICE OF ADMISSIONS BY DEFAULT


IN THE MATTER OF: breach of trust, unjust enrichment, tort of deceit, negligence, breach of duty of care, conspiracy to breach trust, conspiracy to unjustly enrich, conspiracy to deceive, and, conspiracy to neglect.



Between:



Norris Barens

Claimant



and



Ilona Skeba, a.k.a. Lony Skeba

HILLSIDE PARK, A.K.A. CENTRAL PARK LODGE HAMILTON, and

THE WILLOWGROVE, jointly and severally.

Respondent(s)



“Ejus est non nolle, qui potest velle”




Let it be know that Ilona Skeba, a resident of Hamilton, in the province of Ontario, and a Respondent in this matter, knowingly and willingly, jointly and severally, personally and corporately, by her consent, has admitted by Common Law Default process to the following:



1.) She is the daughter of Ivor Barens.

2.) She has committed breach of trust in this matter with regard to lack of information and accuracy of information provided to the claimant regarding my father’s estate.

3.) She has committed breach of trust in this matter with regard to the distribution and liquidation of assets owned by my father and in his estate, and have done such to the detriment of my brother Norris Barens.

4.) By her actions, admitted to herein, she has unjustly enriched herself.

5.) By her actions, admitted to herein, she has deceived the Claimant.

6.) By her actions, admitted to herein, she has breached her duty of care.

7.) By her actions, admitted to herein, she has conspired to breach a trust.

8.) By her actions, admitted to herein, she has conspired to unjustly enrich herself.

9.) By her actions, admitted to herein, she has conspired to deceive the Claimant.

10.) By her action, admitted to herein, she has conspired to commit neglect.





(b.) Let it be known that HILLSIDE PARK, A.K.A. CENTRAL PARK LODGE HAMILTON, of Hamilton, in the Province of Ontario, and a Respondent in this matter, knowingly and willingly, jointly and severally, personally and corporately, by it’s consent, has admitted to following:



1.) To have conspired to interfere with contact between the Claimant and his father, Ivor Barens, to the detriment of the Claimant.

2.) To have obstructed justice by lying about not receiving a power of attorney faxed to us.



(c.) Let it be known that THE WILLOWGROVE, of Ancaster, in the Province of Ontario, and a Respondent in this matter, knowingly and willingly, jointly and severally, personally and corporately, by it’s consent, has admitted to the following:



3.) To have conspired to interfere with contact between the Claimant and his father, Ivor Barens, to the detriment of the Claimant.



(II) OPPORTUNITY TO DENY and REMEDY


1.) Having been given ample opportunity to respond and seek remedy and resolution in this matter with a point by point denial of the assertions/claims enumerated herein in the form of a sworn affidavit with supporting exhibits attached. The Respondent(s) and each of them, have failed to rebut any or all assertions/claims of the Claimant.

2.) Having failed to respond in the time and manner provided for herein meansl invocation of the Doctrine of Acquiescence, tacit consent, Doctrine of Necessity, and is an admission by the Respondent(s) and each of them to, inter alia, the claims of the Claimant and furthermore, and thus has admitted, judgment nihil dicit, to the Claimant’s right to recover in commerce, in any jurisdiction, for damages caused by the Respondent(s) and each of them, including, but not limited to, penalties and costs as outlined herein or as may be determined by any subsequent judicial proceeding.

3.) The Respondent(s) have failed to respond to the Claimants Claim, they are now stipulations between the parties and furthermore, this instrument is now, inter alia, a Bill of Exchange pursuant to the Bills of Exchange Act, R.S., c. B-5, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE and UNCITRAL CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND INTERNATIONAL PROMISSORY NOTES, 1988©, UNITED NATIONS.

4.) This document is actual and constructive notice of DEFAULT NOTICE, PUBLIC NOTICE, DISTRESS ON A BANK, and/or a claim on bond(s)/insurance, and such notice has now been given on an international basis all concerned third parties, including, but not limited to the following:

a. Financial institutions, including:

i. Banks,

ii. Credit Unions,

iii. Merchant banks,

iv. Private lenders, and

v. Corporate lenders,

b. Credit reporting agencies,

c. Government licencing agencies,

d. Bonding agencies, and

e. Insurance companies.



(III) COMMERCIAL GRACE


The Respondent(s) have failed to respond to the Claimant’s Claim and is thus now liable in the full amount of this claim.



“Necessitas inducit privilialegium quod jura privata”



(IV) NOTICE OF NON-JUDICIAL CLAIM IN PERSONAM and IN REM


1.) Failing to respond to the Claimant’s Claim in the time and manner prescribed has been willful disregard and dishonour of the Claimant’s Claim commercial instrument and the Claimant’s Claim, has resulted in perfection of a NON-JUDICIAL COMMON LAW LIEN and CLAIM OF RIGHT, judgment by nihil dicit[1], in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondent(s) and each of them, and in each of their equity in all collateral described herein in the sum certain of $15,000,000.00 (five million dollars, Canadian currency or its equivalent) and all presumptions have been made in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondent(s) in the nature of equitable estoppel[2] and Distress Infinite.





“Necissitas facit licitum quod alisas known set licitum”




(V) FINANCING STATEMENT


1.) The Claimant hereby lays claim to the Respondent’s and each of their assets as recorded in this Financing Statement which covers all present and after acquired personal and real property, including, but not limited to the following types of collateral regardless of jurisdiction or situs:

a. all corporate and personal judgments,

b. all corporate and personal licences,

c. all certificates(s), bonds and insurance,

d. all private and public trusts,

e. all bank accounts,

f. all credit union accounts,

g. all trust accounts,

h. all saving accounts,

i. all current accounts,

j. all personal property,

k. all real property,

l. all vehicles, including cars, trucks, vehicles, boats, aircraft,

m. all land, real estates and buildings,

n. all tools, jigs, fixtures, building structures, trailers, workshops,

o. all stocks, bonds, certificates of deposit, plus assignments of same,

p. all personal signatures,

q. all tangible and intangible property,

r. all authorship rights,

s. all works of art,

t. all inventory,

u. all retirement accounts,

v. all interests in trust(s)[3],

w. all inheritance, presently or after acquired,

x. all accounts receivable,

y. all works of art

z. all trademarks,

aa. all copyright to works of art,

bb. all intellectual property,

cc. all rights to intellectual property,

dd. all franchises,

ee. all franchise agreements, and

ff. all inheritance, present and after acquired,



until satisfaction and accord has been made by the Secured Party pursuant to the facts asserted herein and the claims perfected herein.



(VIII) POUNDBREACH/FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE


Upon perfection, a Claim of Lien exists in and upon the property of the Respondent(s) and each of them. However, if the Respondent(s) commit poundbreach by a sale, transfer, or assignment of any encumbered property, commercial liability attaches to a third party and said transfer/transaction is reversible, being by its nature, a fraudulent/fictitious conveyance.



(IX) ASSIGNMENT/NEGOTIATION


Upon perfection, this instrument may be sold, assigned, negotiated, hypothecated, pledge or otherwise, in any commercial transaction and in any jurisdiction.











I, Norris Barens, of Vancouver B.C. mailing address: Centrapoint P.O. Box 19594 Vancouver B.C. V5T- 4E7, make oath and say as follows:



1.I am the Claimant herein and as such have personal knowledge of the facts hereinafter deposed to, except where same are stated to be made upon information, and where so stated I believe such matters to be true.
2.On, or about, (put date hear) I cause to be served a Non-Judicial Common Law Lien and Claim of Right upon (Fill in name here) See attached Exhibit (A).
3.To date I have received no communication from any of the aforementioned Respondents denying my claims.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] HOKE v. EDWARDS AND OTHERS, 46 N.C. 532 (1854) 2 S.E. 70 “Upon a default or a nihil dicit, on an action of debt, in a Justice’s judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to a final judgment, at the time when the default is made, and need not execute an inquiry before a jury.”
[2] WESTON v. LUMBER CO., 162 N.C. 165 (1913) 77 S.E. 430 “It is, therefore, not necessary, says a great law writer on this subject, that the judgment should have been awarded upon the decision of an issue, for where it is given for a want of a plea, which is judgment by nihil dicit, or were it one by non sum informatus, or by confession, or by default, the conclusiveness of it is the same as if the fact has been actually (203) contested by plea or traverse.”