“STRANGE ANOMALIES” IN BC HYDRO BILLING STATEMENTS · PDF file"You are the...

"You are the resistance!"

“STRANGE ANOMALIES” IN BC HYDRO BILLING STATEMENTS

This question is frequently asked in regard to the “Refusal Statement”:

First, let us ask ourselves a few questions:

• Did we all do an individual “COR” demanding BC Hydro/Crown/government rebut

our “Statements of Truth”?

• Did your “Statements of Truth” identify BC Hydro/Crown/government's failure to

fulfill a duty of care – by omissions and violations in the performance of their

contractual promises, agreements and obligations to you?

“Strange Anomalies” on BC Hydro Billing Statements 1 of 20

• Did BC Hydro/Crown/government fail to rebut your lawful “Statements of Truth”?

• Did BC Hydro/Crown/government by default – estoppel acquiescence, agree that

all of your COR(s) “Statements of Truth” are true and that your resultant “Terms

and Conditions” are the new agreement of the parties?

• If we already possess a LAWFUL “CLAIM OF RIGHT” to our individual electro-

mechanical or digital meter(s) – and if that “CLAIM” is the highest “RIGHT”

in “LAW”, how then, can we be required to make an alleged “CHOICE”?

• Did we all do individual “NOFD-BCH(s)” and “NOFD-LGIC(s)” demanding the

respective parties rebut our FATAL DEFECT “Statements of Truth”?

• Did your “Statements of Truth” identify BC Hydro/Crown/government's failure to

fulfill a duty of care – by fatal defects in the absence of legal requisites, omissions

of essentials facts and substance in statutory law, common law and contract

obligations to you?

• Did BC Hydro/Crown/government fail to rebut your lawful “Statements of Truth”?

• Did BC Hydro/Crown/government by default – estoppel acquiescence, agree that

all of your NOFD-BCH(s) and NOFD-LGIC(s) “Statements of Truth” are true and

that your resultant “Terms and Conditions” are the new agreement of the parties?

• Did we all do individual “Refusal Statement(s)” for an alleged Legacy Meter Charge

and its alleged GST for our own BC Hydro billing statement(s)?

• Has (Hydro? Government? BCUC?) provided any proof to any customer, that your

"Refusal Statement(s)" or attached "Notices" were not lawful and legal?

• Have they provided any proof that their alleged Legacy Meter Charge and its

alleged GST are either lawful or legal?

• Who is violating whom – by continuing to list such unlawful and illegal alleged

charges on customer billing statements?


• What proof does BC Hydro possess, that any one who completed the COR, NOD,

NOFD-BCH, NOFD-LGIC and “Refusal Statement”, owes an alleged Legacy Meter

Charge and its alleged GST?

• Clearly one need only look at BC Hydro/Crown/government's desperation

through illegal/unlawful notice(s) and accounting trickery to see the

sheer lengths they are prepared to go unlawfully/illegally to obtain your

signature – and in its absence – their bluffs for your presumed consent!

MAXIM: “A MANDATE OF AN ILLEGAL THING IS VOID.”

THIS MAXIM OF LAW was contained in both your NOFD-BCH and your NOFD-LGIC along

with many other maxims – documents which each and every party, including the British

Columbia Lieutenant Governor, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General or any

member of the Executive Council, has failed to dispute.

So what exactly is it which indeed renders the alleged Smart Metering Program, the

alleged Meter Choices Program, the alleged Order in Council 391 Directive No.4, and the

alleged Legacy Meter Charge and its alleged GST – ILLEGAL AND VOID?

YOUR NOTICES DO!

Each and every one of your “Notices” was

LAWFULLY initiated by you, in accordance with:

• Common Law (“maxims of law”) written on both the NOFD-BCH and NOFD-LGIC; and

• Commercial Law (“law of contracts”) as identified in the COR:1 full disclosure;2 duty of care;3 good faith action;4 clean hands doctrine;5 fair business practices;


6 just compensation;7 equal protection of the law; and8 mercy and grace.

Common Law Federal Interpretation Act, S.8.1 states, both the “common law” and

the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and

civil rights in Canada. Source: canlii.com

ACQUIESCENCE: Once any party in receipt of your “Notices” has failed to respond to

you, and has made no rebuttal to your “Statements of Truth”, in law this means that

they have acquiesced to (accepted) terms of your “Notices”.

YOUR INITIAL COR STATES:

27. “Equitable estoppel” is the species of estoppel which equity puts upon a person who has made a false representation or a concealment of material facts, with knowledge of the facts, to a party ignorant of the truth of the matter, with the intention that the other party should act upon it, and with the result that such party is actually induced to act upon it to his damage.

28. “Estoppel by deed” is when parties, by deed or solemn act agree on a state of facts, and act on it, neither shall ever afterwards be allowed to gainsay a fact so agreed on, or be heard to dispute it; in other words, his mouth is shut, and he shall not say that is not true which he had before in a solemn manner asserted to be true.


29. “Acquiescence” is where a person who knows that he/she is entitled to enforce a right neglects to do so for such a length of time that, under the circumstances of the case, the other party may fairly infer that he/she has waived or abandoned his/her right.

ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE: By means of their own failure to respond as well as

by their failure to rebut, each and every one of the parties in receipt of your “Notices”

has thereby agreed to your LAWFUL STATEMENTS OF TRUTH, and each party is now

at default, in fact, at several DEFAULTS – which in law is called, at default – estoppel

by acquiescence.

IT WAS BY EACH RECIPIENT'S "AGREEMENT AT DEFAULT", THAT YOUR LAWFUL

NOTICE(S) BECAME LEGAL NOTICE(S).

In other words, by their own failure to respond and

failure to rebut your "Notices", they have agreed

that your Notice(s) are both LAWFUL and LEGAL.

WHY?

MAXIMS OF LAW:

• In default of the law, the maxim rules.

• Consent makes the law.

• A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only

by consent.

• The agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law.

• When the common law and statute law concur, the common law is to

be preferred.

• The law is not to be violated by those in government.


The truthfulness of the above MAXIMS, were confirmed on June 2012 by Cindy Verschoor,

BC Hydro Smart Meter Spokesperson, during a presentation to the Mayor and Council of

the City of Enderby, wherein she stated...

“BC Hydro has to work with each customer on an individual basis . . .

We can only work with the individual customer when it comes to making decisions

about their account.”

TO CLARIFY:

Those at www.bc-freedom.com are not a party to any contract with BC Hydro

other than our own individual contracts – and as such, we can not tell you, or

any one else, what to do, or not do, within your own private contract.

That said, once your documents are completed, it still holds that you have lawfully and

legally put all parties in receipt of your “Notices” into default with your own COR, NOD,

NOFD-BCH and NOFD-LGIC documents. At which point, any recipient(s) of your notice

documents, have each agreed by their own acquiescence that your “Statements of Truth”

are true – because they did not dispute any of these “Notices” when given the opportunity.

They have agreed (written in your NOFD-BCH and NOFD-LGIC) that they have

NO AUTHORITY under the “CONSTITUTION" to do what they are doing to you:

The Constitution Act, 1867 to 1982, Section 92A

(1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to

(c) development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the

province for the GENERATION and PRODUCTION of electrical energy.

(4) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of

money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of

(b) sites and facilities in the province for the GENERATION of electrical energy

and the PRODUCTION therefrom.

Source: canlii.com


http://www.bc-freedom.com/

Section 92A (above) does not state the transmission or distribution of electrical

energy, nor does it state the conveyance or transmission of information, messages

or communications by guided or unguided electromagnetic waves, including systems

of cable, microwave, optical fibre, radiocommunications (as alleged under Section 1 of

the Utilities Commission Act), or telecommunication links (as alleged under Section 3 (3)

of the Clean Energy Act Regulation, Smart Meter and Smart Grid).

They have agreed (written in your NOFD-BCH and NOFD-LGIC) that they have

NO AUTHORITY under the “CHARTER” to do what they are doing to you:

The Constitution Act, 1982, Charter

Section 7, Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and

the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of

fundamental justice.

Section 26, The guarantee of this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall

not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that

exist in Canada.

Section 52, (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and

any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent

of the inconsistency, OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT.

Source: canlii.com


They have agreed (written in your NOFD-LGIC) that they have NO AUTHORITY

under the “CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS” to do what they are doing to you:

Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms, (a) the right of the individual

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; (b) the right of the individual

to equality before the law and the protection of the law.

Source: canlii.com

They have agreed (written in your NOFD-LGIC) that they have NO AUTHORITY

under the “INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS” (of which Canada is a signatory) to

do what they are doing to you:

ICCPR | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 5, Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any

State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act

aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at

their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

Source: www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html

ICESCR | International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights

Article 4, The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the

enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present

Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are

determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of

these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a

democratic society.

Source: wwww.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html


They have also accepted 1000's of CN-BCUC(s), which state the Smart Metering

Program, Meter Choices Program and Order in Council 391 also violate all ten

points of the Nuremberg Code:

The Nuremberg Code

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent;

should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the

intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other

ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and

comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to

make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that,

before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there

should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment;

the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and

hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person,

which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon

each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal

duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society,

unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and

unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation

and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under

study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and

mental suffering and injury.


5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is a prior reason to believe that

death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where

the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the

humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the

experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The

highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the

experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to

bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state,

where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to

terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the

exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him,

that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death

to the experimental subject.

Source: cwww.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html

WE KNOW THAT:

• The Constitution Act, Section 92A, Charter Sections 26, 52(1), Bill of Rights and

International Covenants (see above), and a reference to the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights – were all identified in your NOFD-LGIC.

• 1000's of NOFD-LGIC were accepted by the Lieutenant Governor, and then

forwarded to the acceptance of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General –

without any rebuttal;


• The Constitution Act, Section 92A, and Charter Sections 7, 26 and 52(1) (see

above) – were identified in your NOFD-BCH;

• 1000's of NOFD-BCH were accepted by the executive level of British Columbia Hydro

and Power Authority (and attention Crown/Government) – without any rebuttal.

• The Nuremberg Code (see above) – was identified in your CN-BCUC by

confirmation of original Registered Mail Letter RW 641 728 611 CA, posted at

www.bc-freedom.com; and

• 1000's of CN-BCUC were accepted by the British Columbia Utilities Commission –

without any response and or refusal.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DEFAULT & DEFECT?

DEFAULT – is the omission or failure to fulfill a duty of care.

Default in contract law implies failure to perform a contractual obligation:

1) to observe a promise,

2) to perform an agreement, and or

3) to discharge an obligation.

DEFECT – is the want or absence of some LEGAL requisite.

A fatal defect is one that, due to its serious nature, serves to nullify a contract:

1) the absence of a legal requisite,

2) the omission of an essential fact, and or

3) the defect of a substance.

DEFECT and DEFAULT are two ways in which commerce operates within Canada.

“ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE” is the agreement between of the parties, “THE LAW” as

it were – used in business, between governments, courts, banks, corporations and the

populous every day.



Example, if you get a speeding ticket and you don't dispute it, you will be charged a fine.

This is no different. They received your “Notices” and they did nothing. They did not

rebut your “Statements of Truth”. They acquiesced. They are now at default – estoppel

by acquiescence.

They have abandoned their alleged right and claim.

That leaves you holding the only lawful claim of right.

WHAT IS A LAWFUL CLAIM OF RIGHT?

THERE IS NOTHING HIGHER IN LAW THAN A RIGHT – NOTHING.

THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF RIGHT IN LAW IS A CLAIM.

What is CLAIM?

Claim means a right or title, actual or supposed, to a debt, privilege, or other thing in

the possession of another; not the possession, but the means by or through which the

claimant obtains the possession or enjoyment. A claim is, in a just, juridical sense, a

demand of some matter as of right made by one person upon another, to do or to

forbear to do some act or thing as a matter of duty.

Source: Black's Law Dictionary 2nd ed.

What is LAWFUL?

That which is not forbidden by law. To be valid a contract must be lawful.

Source: Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary

What is RULE OF LAW?

A legal principle, of general application, sanctioned by the recognition of authorities, and

usually expressed in the form of a MAXIM or logical proposition. Called a “rule” because

in doubtful or unforeseen cases it is a guide or norm for their decision.



What is MAXIM?

An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being

just and consonant With reason. They are principles and authorities, and part of the

general customs or COMMON LAW of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of

parliament, when the judges have determined what is a MAXIM; which belongs to the

judges and not the jury. MAXIMS of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that

may be applied to them shall be taken for granted.


MAXIMS FOR “LAWFUL” / “UNLAWFUL”

• A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good

morals, is null.

• One who commands lawfully must be obeyed.

• Lawful commands receive a strict interpretation, but unlawful, a wode or

broad construction.

• Necessity makes that lawful which otherwise is unlawful.

• Nothing against reason is lawful.

• Nothing inconvenient is lawful.

• What is necessary is lawful.

• What is lawful in the less, is lawful in the greater.

SO WHAT IS IT THAT BC HYDRO IS DOING,

IF THEY HAVE NO LAWFUL CLAIM OF RIGHT?

Good question.

It would appear that BC Hydro is

attempting to use what is called in law,

“COLOUR OF RIGHT”.


TRESPASS ACT[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 462

Defences to trespass4.1 A person may not be convicted of an offence under section 4 in relation to

premises if the person's action or inaction, as applicable to the offence, was with(a) the consent of an occupier of the premises or an authorized person,(b) other lawful authority, or(c) colour of right. Source: bclaws.ca

PRIVACY ACT[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER373

Violation of Privacy Actionable 1 (1) It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person, willfully and

without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another.(4) Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by

eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass.

Source: bclaws.ca

IMPORTANT: Has BC Hydro, the Lieutenant Governor, BC Legislative Assembly, Premier,

Executive Council, Minister of Justice & Attorney General, BC Utilities Commission, Corix,

and or any other alleged authority, ever disproved to you in writing, that your lawful

claim of right is not valid? No! Did you ever consider why? Did you know, in Canada,

PROPERTY RIGHTS are protected by the “Common Law”, and this TRUTH is of such

importance, that when “You” are in peaceable possession under a lawful claim of

right, it is “You” that the “Law” MUST protect:

CRIMINAL CODER.S.C., 1985, c. C-46

Defence — property35. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;

No defence(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who believes on reasonable

grounds that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession of the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is entitled to its possession by law.

Source: justice.gc.ca


Here is the “judicial precedent” that all courts in Canada use today, to describe

“without a claim of right”, also called in Canada “colour of right”.

“Without Claim of Right. An honest belief in a state of facts which, if it

existed, would be a legal justification or excuse.” Davis v. McArthur

(1969), 10 D.L.R. (3d) 250 (B.C.S.C.)

What is COLOR OF LAW?

• An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, without the substance, of legal right.


What is COLOR?

• An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is

real. A prima facie or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible,

assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext.


What is LEGAL?

• “Legal” contemplates the form-of-law, the legal or technical manner. To say of an

act that it is 'legal' implies that it is done or performed in accordance with forms

and usages of law. In this sense 'legal' approaches the meaning of invalid.


MAXIM for "COLOR"

• Error artfully colored is in many things more probable than naked truth; and

frequently error conquers truth and reasoning.

Here is the Statutory law currently on the books, which the British Columbia

Legislative Assembly has enacted:


BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

[SBC 2004] CHAPTER 2

Deceptive acts or practices

4 (1) In this Division:

“deceptive act or practice” means, in relation to a consumer transaction,

(a) an oral, written, visual, descriptive or other representation by a supplier, or

(b) any conduct by a supplier that has the capability, tendency or effect of

deceiving or misleading a consumer or guarantor;

“representation” includes any term or form of a contract, notice or other

document used or relied on by a supplier in connection with a consumer

transaction.

(2) A deceptive act or practice by a supplier may occur before, during or after

the consumer transaction.

Prohibition and burden of proof

5 (1) A supplier must not commit or engage in a deceptive act or practice in

respect of a consumer transaction.

(2) If it is alleged that a supplier committed or engaged in a deceptive act or

practice, the burden of proof that the deceptive act or practice was not

committed or engaged in is on the supplier.

Division 2 — Unconscionable Acts or Practices

Unconscionable acts or practices

8 (1) An unconscionable act or practice by a supplier may occur before, during or

after the consumer transaction.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the circumstances that the court must

consider include the following:

(a) that the supplier subjected the consumer or guarantor to undue

pressure to enter into the consumer transaction;


Prohibition and burden of proof

9 (1) A supplier must not commit or engage in an unconscionable act or practice

in respect of a consumer transaction.

(2) If it is alleged that a supplier committed or engaged in an unconscionable

act or practice, the burden of proof that the unconscionable act or practice

was not committed or engaged in is on the supplier.

Remedy for an unconscionable act or practice

10 (1) Subject to subsection (2), if an unconscionable act or practice occurred

in respect of a consumer transaction, that consumer transaction is not

binding on the consumer or guarantor.

Source: bclaws.ca

Let's take one final look at the issues, but this time, we'll view them from a

reverse perspective:

• If “Common Law” is not valid – how can “Statutory Law” be valid?

• If “Claim of Right” is not valid – how can “Colour of Right” be valid?

• If “Lawful” is not valid – how can “Legal” be valid?

Clearly, one can not exist without the other. If one is invalid – so too is the

other invalid – meaning ALL LAW would be VOID.

The Constitution Act, 1982, Charter

Section 15, (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the

right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...

Source: canlii.com

So, based on all of the above, is it necessary to continue to keep on repeatedly

informing the other party (BC Hydro) that the alleged Legacy Meter Charge and

its alleged GST are VOID?


If you ensure that BC Hydro is paid all electrical usage charges, less the alleged Legacy

Meter Charge and its alleged GST, is it necessary to continue to revise each and every

monthly statement from here on in and to mail each one in turn back to them? Or did

your “Refusal Statement”, in conjunction with all of your other lawful and legal

processes, prove that the alleged Legacy Meter Charge and its alleged GST are VOID?

Let's let the same MAXIM OF LAW, to which all recipients of your “Notices” agreed,

answer that question for us...since those who received such “Notices” have provided

absolutely no proof to the contrary.

MAXIM: “A MANDATE OF AN ILLEGAL THING IS VOID.” Period.

IMPORTANT: Some have asked if the alleged “Failed Installation Charges” are also

a “Fatal Defect”. These alleged charges first appeared in the alleged Order in Council

391, Direction No. 4. with the alleged Legacy Meter Charges. Both are “Fatal Defects”

and both were made “VOID” by non-response to your COR, NOFD-LGIC and NOFD-BCH

@ default – estoppel by acquiescence.

Does the Lieutenant Governor in Council have a statutory law on the books

to remedy these alleged Legacy Meter Charges and alleged Failed Installation

Charges? It would appear by the following, that the answer is YES:

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 138

Extinguishment of debts

18 (1) All or part of a debt or obligation to the government may be forgiven in

accordance with the regulations made under subsection (2), and to the extent it is

forgiven, the liability for it is extinguished.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation,

(a) designate persons by whom a debt or obligation to the government may be forgiven,


(b) specify circumstances in which, before a debt or obligation is forgiven,

approval must be obtained from the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the

Treasury Board, a minister or another person,

(c) require that, in specified circumstances, the maximum amount of a debt or

obligation that may be forgiven with the approval of the Treasury Board,

minister or other person is limited to a prescribed amount, not to exceed

$100 000, and

(d) place those constraints, conditions and limitations on the forgiving of debts

or obligations, and on the exercise of the power of approval referred to in

paragraph (b) or (c), that are considered desirable.

(3) A debt or obligation to the government may not be forgiven without the approval

of the Lieutenant Governor in Council if the amount forgiven is $100 000 or more.

Remissions

19 (1) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers it in the public interest to

do so in a case or class of cases where great public inconvenience, great injustice

or great hardship to a person has occurred or is likely to occur, the Lieutenant

Governor in Council may, by a regulation of general application or applicable to a

class of persons or by order related to a specific case, authorize the remission of

(a) any tax, royalty, fee or other sum that is paid or payable to the government

and that is imposed or authorized to be imposed by an enactment, or

(b) any forfeiture, fine or pecuniary penalty imposed or authorized to be imposed

by an enactment, even though all or part of it is payable to another person.

(2) A remission authorized under subsection (1) may be total or partial,

conditional or unconditional, and a remission of an item referred to in

subsection (1) (a) may be granted before, during or after the course of any

proceeding for the recovery of the money and either before or after any

payment of it has been made or has been enforced by process or execution.

(4) Money required to be paid by the government under this section may be paid

out of the consolidated revenue fund.

Source: bclaws.ca


We strongly recommend you “KEEP” all of your original

BC Hydro billing statements.

If you have not completed your “Refusal Template” as yet, you can find all the details at:

http://bc-freedom.com/2014/02/11/legacyfeedocs/

Or visit:

www.bc-freedom.com

Also included in this post @ www.bc-freedom.com are:

(pdf) EXAMPLE BILLING STATEMENTS: We have included two separate “EXAMPLE

BILLING STATEMENTS” which create two separate scenarios while using examples of two

separate anonymous customers of BC Hydro. Each one shows their billing statements as

well as illustrating what each customer has had to endure since the onset of the

implementation of this alleged Legacy Meter Charge and its alleged GST.

(pdf) REFUSAL RECORD-KEEPING SHEET: Some people asked if we could develop a

way for people to keep track of their billing statement payments vs alleged legacy meter

charges/GST. The “REFUSAL RECORD-KEEPING SHEET” will allow you to fill in all of the

important details from your own BC Hydro billing statements.

The “REFUSAL RECORD-KEEPING SHEET” has editable text boxes. You can type directly

into the text boxes and then save a working copy on your hard-drive; print out a copy

for your files; or print out a copy to fill in by hand.

Disclaimer: To All Fighters for Freedom against Wireless ‘smart meters’ “These are the times that try men’s souls,” Thomas Paine. We live in a world of commerce. From time to time, circumstances arise, where we seek remedies to resolve our commercial problems. The notices and /or commercial remedies offered, are given freely, but they come with a warning. The contents are for educational purposes only. The author is not an attorney and can not give legal advice. If you require legal advice, by all means find a competent attorney. Please accept these offerings as given – for some, these materials may offer assistance in finding viable solutions.




http://bc-freedom.com/2014/02/11/legacyfeedocs/

“STRANGE ANOMALIES” IN BC HYDRO BILLING STATEMENTS · PDF file"You are the...

Documents

Transcript of “STRANGE ANOMALIES” IN BC HYDRO BILLING STATEMENTS · PDF file"You are the...