Volume LXXV: The Common Law and the House Rules

Hello every One, and welcome to the Tuesday ‘Tell A Vision’ Edition of The Good News Journal.  I’ve been considering another film to review for the Tell A Vision Edition, The Truman Show, continuing with the Matrix Trilogy, ‘V’ for Vendetta (in greater detail), the Legend of King Arthur (of which there are many films dedicated to the theme), and there are many more, those are just the ones that come to Mind straight away.  Unfortunately, I’m having a difficult time deciding which works best (or would be the most Fun to Write about).  So today’s Tuesday ‘Tell A Vision’ Edition is a window into My Microcosm.

I’m also Writing today because I feel like it and did not Wish to be discouraged by the fact I had hoped to dedicate Tuesday’s to film reviews in an effort to add some variety to My Blog.  I had mentioned that the city’s legal council, Geneviève Langlais would be returning from vacation on the 28th of July and had as King of Me to discuss the [city and Salvation Army’s] response to My Letter of Demand.  Last week was also the first week in a long time that I didn’t Write a single entry; I figure I’m entitled to a vacation, too!

However, just because I’m not posting new content to My Blog, does not mean I’m not busy with something.  I’ve been volunteering for just a couple of hours every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and so far I am enjoying it.  It is not entirely selfless, either.  I have an opportunity to connect with individuals in the community, and the center deals specifically with mental health and addiction issues, provides free counselling and rehabilitation/detox programs, as well as legal council and free representation for those who may not qualify for legal aid.  These are all issues I’ve discussed on this Blog previously, and all are causes I am deeply passionate about, so for now it feels like a Good ‘fit’.

Geneviève got back to Me on the Thursday of last week, August 1st, and suggested We meet to discuss the Matter sometime this week – I suggested Thursday.  My next meeting with the city Will be this Thursday at 11:00, and We Will once again meet at City Hall (which is Good because they have a comfortable and appropriate conference room).  So although I may not have been doing much Writing lately, I have been doing a lot of thing King.  Here’s one of the first Superior Court decisions I came across while researching tort claims.

Bradley v. Groves, 2010 BCCA 361
Indivisible injuries – injuries sustained by plaintiff by one or more parties, the plaintiff can seek damages from any of the tortfeasors.

This is a very important court decision, and a Good one (in My humble opinion).  Once again, the ‘Common Man’ is not required to know the intricacies of man’s legal fiction, that is the Duty and responsibility of lawyers, attorneys, judges and justices.  The Common Man only needs to complain of the injuries sustained, the ‘accused’ party has a responsibility to respond to the complaint.  If all goes well, the party responsible for the injury makes the complainant whole by appropriate compensation – a man breaks another man’s window, man complains of his broken window, guilty party responds, admits his error, and offers to pay to repair the window.  That’s the ‘Common Law’, what most People would commonly agree to be the correct and reasonable resolution.  Only when this does not happen, does there become the need for legal action and courts.

The problem with man’s legal fiction being governed by commercial codes, statutes and acts, is that it would likely cost the man far more in legal fees to sue the guilty party for the broken window than it would cost to repair it.  Presuming the man wins his claim for damages, the ‘guilty’ (dis-Honourable) party would also be responsible for the man’s court fees – but that’s not the end of it.  If the man still refuses to pay, the injured party has to pursue further legal action to have the judgment enforced (garnish wages, a lien or whatever).  Finally, all of this can take years!  For a broken window?  In most cases, it really isn’t worth the time unless the injured party has plenty of disposable income to pay a lawyer through the entire process.  Big corporations usually have this freedom, the ‘Common Man’ would likely go broke before he would ever be compensated.  Ask virtually any lawyer, they Will tell You that this is the biggest problem with man’s legal fiction – the ‘little guy’ always has more to lose and money is used like poker chips, often forcing the injured party to fold.

The reason the Bradley vs. Groves decision is so Good for Me, is because it means that I can ask any of the responsible tortfeasors (Salvation Army) to compensate Me for the injuries I sustained as a client of the shelter – the assault, physical injury and unlawful arrest by police, My time spent in court (surely they don’t presume My time is worth nothing – equal pay for equal work is recognized as a basic right), the deplorable living conditions, the interference of My entrepreneurial ventures, the unlawful use and publication of My intellectual property, and the [Willful] abuse and trespass of My Spiritual right to Self determination (which is recognized as one of the Highest fundamental rights of the Sovereign by the Law of Nations).

You can check out the Canadian Encyclopedia on tort claims by clicking on this sentence.

I’ve also been making use of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.  One of the ‘Issues’ I have with Canada’s Charter of rights (or any charter of rights), is that Charters and constitutions cannot provide rights, they can only [endeavor to] protect whatever rights the People have already declared and established in Man’s legal fiction by their elected officials responsible for their legislation.  That’s why a Canadian Will have different ‘rights’ in Canada than they Will in China (for example), or virtually any other country they visit.

A Sovereign, on the other Hand, retains all rights Given by God.  The downside, is that only the Sovereign can declare and defend those rights.  The upside, is that the Sovereign is recognized as Supreme authority in any Common Law court (which is most every court in the Common Wealth), and why the Court is often referred to as ‘the Crown’.  The Crown represents the Sovereign, not just the Queen!!!

Those living as citizens of a country are like children to the State.  The State assumes parentis patria (the role of the Father) and all citizens must abide by the House Rules.  For this reason, very few People actually know their rights, which is precisely why the Duty and responsibility of creating charters and constitutions is handled by elected officials who are presumed to be Acting in the People’s best interest to protect the Sovereign rights of the People.  That is also precisely why every Common Wealth country has a Governor General (or similar) whos Duty and responsibility is to ensure that no bill made legal in Man’s fiction ever trespasses on the inherent, Sovereign rights of the People.  Needless to say, if the Governor General doesn’t know and understand the rights of Man any better than the People do, then their position is not going to be very effective (and yes, that is specifically for You, Miss Julie Payette).

Anyway, I just Wished to let You know that I’m still here and I’m still war King hard at determining exactly what I Will do and say in My meeting this Thursday.  I don’t believe for one moment that Geneviève Will refuse to acknowledge I was harmed by My experience at the shelter, I believe the only thing left to discuss is liability (or in this case, the lie-ability of Shelley VanBuskirk and Jason Prevost).  With the Bradley vs. Groves Superior Court decision, whom is liable is not really My concern.  I was a client of the shelter, I sustained all My injuries as a client of the shelter, and they (the city) are liable for the harm that was done to Me for contracting with them to provide those services.  I have shown the city how they can be compensated for any amount they offer Me in compensation up to $5,000,000.00; whether or not they choose to hold the Salvation Army to their contractual agreements is entirely up to Housing Services.

“The guide can also be a resource for organizations and advocates who are working with municipalities to advance human rights in housing.” The Ontario Human Rights Commission

1437.

Love and Blessings!