Hello every One, and welcome to Part III of My Magical Meet with the city of Ottawa. To simplify, the first fifteen to twenty minutes were basically the city’s legal council’s best efforts to assure Me that ‘the city’ does not Wish for Me to perceive them as My adversary. And when the phrase ‘the city’ was used, parenthesis were mimed.
It is also important for Me to point out and emphasize that the legal dynamic of this meeting makes it very cryptic in nature. Even if the city Wishes to, they can’t really apologize to Me because an apology is a legal admission of guilt (tort). The same goes for the Word harm or injury. The city can’t concede that I was injured or harmed, otherwise it’s an admission that entitles Me to compensation, virtually without question.
I did use one tactic that I feel is worth mentioning because it’s actually a sales technique. I asked a Quest-Ion that I knew We would both know the answer to that strengthens My position.
“Is the city claiming that a man is not harmed by the loss of his rights?”
“The city acknowledges that Your time at the shelter was extremely unpleasant and challenging.”
Now, that’s a Good lawyer!
When I left off part II, the city had asked what they could do to resolve this matter in lieu of financial compensation. This is something I had Given some thought to because for Me this really isn’t about money, it’s just an unfortunate element of man’s legal fiction. But the city also made it clear leading into this Quest-Ion that they would prefer to have Me as an ally. So I addressed the King thing and explained that the title means something, and it would be nice if I didn’t have to file paperwork into Canada’s courts before People take Me seriously. Geneviève offered her continued oversight with respect to any future Letters I may Wish to send to members of council to ensure I receive a reply.
I addressed My ‘Plan’, the entrepreneurial venture that the Salvation Army had determined to be ‘unworkable’. I explained that My Plan is an educational art campaign designed to inform the People of the duties and responsibilities of Our elected officials to the People of Canada. I suggested that Canada’s government and legal system is one of the best in the world, but it can only be effective if the People actively participate in government and the elected officials respond to Letters from the People. I even said that failing to respond to a Letter from the People is something I consider to be a breach of the public Trust.
I swear I was Gifted with a gracious smile and a nod of agreement. I got a very strong sense of assurance that future Letters I Write to elected officials Will not be ignored. I told Geneviève that a Written letter of apology clearly rescinding statements regarding My character from Shelley VanBuskirk would be appreciated, but by the end of the meeting I was actually reasonably satisfied that there was no ill intention, and I had sincerely believed there was. If Shelley is just communicating the Words of the Salvation Army, that’s a different story, though I do stand on the assertion that it was incorrect to accept that statement from the Salvation Army without demanding they provide evidence to support the allegation. Once again, when I said that, the city offered to request a Letter from the Salvation Army to support their allegation and clearly define what actions were a risk to clients and/or staff of the facility. “Would that be helpful?”
And it was in that moment I felt I [finally] understood what the city has been trying to get Me to see from the beginning. Again, just My interpretation and I could be wrong, but I mentioned several times that the determinations of the investigation didn’t really make any sense to Me. Sure, they fixed a number of issues, but the fact that they were required to fix so many issues is an admission that the standards were not being met at the time I was a client. I asserted this point in the meeting, emphasizing that I already have an admission of guilt by the Act of having to remedy issues I had raised, update applications to social programs and potentially city subsidy, and now they are also re-Writing the emergency shelter standards with city council oversight?!
“The city acknowledges that My time at the shelter was extremely unpleasant and challenging.” – the city.
I even said to Geneviève that it is going to be very hard to just ‘let this go’ because constable Jenkyn’s actually broke one of My ribs and the break is still visible to the naked eye (and probably always Will be). If the city is liable for all the organizations they contract with, I presume they are also liable for the actions of their municipal police. Jenkyn’s should be reminded his first priority is to protect and Honour the Common Law and the rights of the People, not his ‘agent’ status with the Salvation Army. When I said that, Geneviève looked genuinely concerned. I told her that if she could get a hand Writ letter of apology worthy for framing from constable Jenkyn, that would certainly go a long way – because if he doesn’t apologize, I can’t let that go.
Geneviève seemed so concerned when I asked if the city was liable for his actions, that I felt I should follow up by reminding her that Bradley vs. Groves 2010 says that I can ask any of My tortfeasors for compensation for My injury. “Maybe it would be easier for Me to just take all of the wonderful information provided to Me by the Housing Services branch and file My tort claim against the Salvation Army for the damages I sustained as a result of their negligence and failure to maintain the emergency shelter standards. Everything that happened to Me was a result of My being subject to their facility for shelter.”
Now, on this final part, I may be Way off and under no circumstances do I Wish to suggest that the city is as King Me directly to sue the Salvation Army. However, I believe if I rescind My application to the Divisional Court and file a tort claim against the Salvation Army using the information provided by Housing Services, it Will appear as if the city has done everything in its power to protect and uphold the standards, investigate the complaint in a non-partisan Way, and the Salvation Army refused to accept or acknowledge accountability for its negligence. After all, that’s really what’s going on, isn’t it?
Anyway, that’s My ‘big news’. I honestly left My meeting feeling as though the city actually Wishes to have Me as their ally. Problem is, they can’t exactly tell Me that so long as there is an application before the Divisional Court.
I’ll be tall King more about why this is My interpretation of My recent meeting very soon, but as One might guess, it primarily has to do with money and liability. Thank You all so much for being here!
Love and Blessings,