Hello every One and welcome to the Fabulous Free Lance Friday Edition, thank King You for being here. And before I get this Fabulous Free Lance Friday started, I Wish to remind You how much I appreciate You, all of You; even those who consider Me their adversary. One of the reasons this Will be a Fabulous Free Lance Friday is because I really just Wish to share My thoughts with You. It may sound strange but I legitimately feel better after sharing My thoughts with You, especially if there is something on My Mind. This is One of those times.
It was only about an hour ago I finished Writing My Post for Thursday. I was tall King about a Letter I received as an attachment in an email titled, ‘Letter noting restrictions on communications’. It was sent by Clara Freire, Director of Ontario Works. So I’m guessing Chris Tuck has been promoted to regional something or other and Clara is Chris’s replacement. Before I get into some of the things I Wish to be tall King about, let Me share the Letter in question.
I have discussed ‘gaslighting’ recently and this is probably the perfect example of both narcissistic behaviour and gaslighting. To summarize, ‘gaslighting’ is undermining another individual’s experience of reality, ‘suck it up, it doesn’t hurt that much!’, would be a common example.
What bothers Me about this and what motivated Me to sit down and Write another Post about it, is that the Letter itself is antagonistic in nature. She mentions that it was ‘recommended’ that I obtain a birth certificate to assist in the application of a health card so that I can have access to medical services and have the form signed. She does not mention that My objection was the result of a breach of Trust, a promise made to Me directly by Orsi acknowledging that I do not need to consult a doctor to determine My medical needs, and that compelling Me to do so under threat of revocation of a benefit necessary for My health is a violation of My rights under Canada’s Charter. I guess they are hoping I am going to forget I made that claim and that they are trespassing upon My rights?
Then she goes on to talk about the Cestui Que Vie (which she Spells incorrectly) and defines it to mean:
“Its legal definition is “The person for whose life any lands, tenements, or hereditaments are
Quest-Ion is, does she understand what that means? What it means is that (legally) a Man can have no lands, tenements or hereditaments if they do not have One. It is proof of Life, proof there is a Living Man ‘connected’ to the Land, Tenements or Hereditaments (inheritance of Father) that exist. Any owned land Will be ‘registered’ with the Man Holding the Cestui Que Vie. The Cestui Que Vie verifies the Man, the Deed connects the property to the Man by Way of the Man’s Hand (Signature/Print). The birth certificate is the same Idea, only it is the modern day example and refers exclusively to ownership of property. A registration is a transfer of ownership. A Man cannot be owned (legally) but abandoned property is fair game. Only a Living Man can engage in commerce, so they decided it would be best to ensure that everyone is legally dead.
So parents leave the afterbirth material behind at the hospital, they register a live birth with Canada’s government and they think they have just registered the birth of their child. No. In fact, the government takes the afterbirth material (or some portion of it) which is ‘legally’ live birth material, a decedent (because it Will not be ‘live’ for long) and Give it a name and a title. We have just Created a corpus-ration, or corporation known as the certified person. The name on the birth certificate matches Your own so You say, “Yeah, that’s Me” and become liable for all the money Your dead sibling is borrowing from private banks.
That’s why I say the birth certificate doesn’t actually have anything to do with Me, it represents the afterbirth material left behind at the hospital and was Given My name and used by the government as surety for Canada’s debt. When We claim to be that ‘person’ We claim liability for the debt and are debtors which have no right to Land, Tenements or Hereditaments – they also have no right to their father’s [last] name, no ‘birthright’.
The Cestui Que Vie shows the Man is Living and the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 (no coincidences) has never been revoked. The Act has been amended several times since then, so it’s not like it’s no longer relevant, either (though it mostly is irrelevant because so few People claim their birthright). Proof of Life should always stay with the House Hold – it is One’s claim of right to rights themselves!!! I would be the first to suggest One should really only be required to recognize a Living Soul to have all rights Given by God but Our world does not work that Way! In Our world, the paper You carry around with You means everything. Generally, I would also suggest that typically less is more.
I specifically chose to Create a Cestui Que Vie for exactly the Purpose Clara cited as its legal definition. So long as I have that document, nobody can ever claim I am the certificated person because the courts understand the difference between the two legal entities. The legal person is dead and My Cestui Que Vie ‘evidences’ the Life of a Man and his consciousness. The courts only have authority over dead things.
So the entire economic system We ‘enjoy’ today is thanks to printing money not out of air, but from a promise to pay pledged by a wasteland of afterbirth material. If the People don’t pay, that’s what the banks get to collect on – a landfill of biological waste material. Now do You see how ingenious their plan was? All these People thing King they are rich, go cash in that million and see what they get in exchange for it when they ask for the Goods (collateral) the promise (loan) was Founded upon.
I was actually waiting for the day someone comments on the ‘legal’ application of a Cestui Que Vie. I’m thankful Clara got it right, it does represent, “The person for whose life any lands, tenements, or hereditaments are held.”
The funny thing is, she was determined to prove that it is not an acceptable form of identification when instead confirmed that it is. She should probably have checked to see when the Act was revoked before making fun of the law being archaic and medieval. I specifically used the Words ‘Cestui Que Vie’ because I knew any Crown representative would know what it means and what it is.
It also does something more than that. It identifies that the person is a Living Man! This is Key because it is also one of the ‘tricks’ they have played. Typically, person refers specifically to a legal personality, ‘personage’. The government and economic system have commercialized the person and turned it into a business franchise for the state. So typically when One says they are a ‘person’ they are referring to the certified person, the citizen, which has been incorporated. It does not have right to land, tenements or hereditaments and is specifically identified in law by the use of ALL CAPS. Anyone who tries to tell You the ‘Style’ of a name on an information is irrelevant is lying to You. Just ask to have the style of the name on any information expressed exclusively in “capitus diminutia minimus” which directly translates to mean, ‘Minimum loss of status by capitalization’. The court Will try to find every reason not to but insist on it because they don’t make it difficult for no reason.
By contrast, capitus diminutia maximus refers to the ALL CAPS Spelling and is the maximum degradation of status a Man can have in court. Yeah, I know – pretty sneaky and underhanded, right? Most lawyers don’t even know this stuff, Trust Me.
Wow, so many other things I still Wish to say. With respect to the Letter and gaslighting, they reiterate that they are not forcing Me to file for documents, I can choose not to but benefits Will be revoked if I don’t. It’s not a choice if there is a threat of harm attached to it and honestly, government try to get away with this nonsense ALL the time because they are never called out on it. I’m filing for the documents under duress because there is a threat of harm attached.
Clara states that My arguments and objections are noted but does not respond to them. They have still not provided any lawful excuse for the trespasses they are moving ahead with, despite being Given Notice that federal and international obligations of Canada are superior in jurisdiction and authority to the Ontario Works Act. “We’ll just ignore that argument and the case law he presented to defend the position, the Ontario Works Act has the power to enslave People under threat of economic duress – it’s right in the Act!”
The worst and most infuriating part of the letter is also the ‘narcissistic’ element to it. While she appreciates My concerns, she also needs to look out for her staff and My emails have been inappropriate. According to Clara, I have broken the policies of etiquette by:
Making excessive demands on the time and resources of staff with lengthy
phone calls, emails to numerous staff, or detailed letters every few days, and
expecting immediate responses;
• Refusing to accept the decision/repeatedly arguing points with no new evidence;
• Causing distress to staff, which could include use of hostile, abusive or offensive
language, or an unreasonable fixation on an individual member of staff; and
• Making unjustified complaints about staff who are trying to deal with the issues
and seeking to have them replaced.
Now excessive demands? Really? I require only one reply, but I would like to know My arguments and objections are both heard and being responded to. When I say they are accusing Me of what they themselves are doing, this is what I am tall King about! If they would respond I wouldn’t have to Write more than one letter. I gave Kristine 15 days to review the complaint and did not email anyone at the office once while she was doing so. Several of My arguments and objections were completely ignored, no resolution or apology from Anne Charette for her belligerence and incompetence, and it is the second complaint to Ontario Works about the same employee. I have NEVER used hostile, abusive or offensive language, they are simply offended that I am exposing their incompetence and making them look stupid – I haven’t called any of them stupid or made any ‘ad hominin’ remarks ever. Finally, there’s the ‘making unjustified complaints’ about staff who are trying to deal with the issues and seeking to have them replaced.
I’m not going to lie, I think Anne Charette, Christopher Tuck, Clara Freire, and Kristine Haines-Chiarello should all be fired because none of them seem to have any respect for the rights of Canada’s People; if they do, they certainly don’t have any respect for Canada’s charter rights when it comes to People in receipt of their services. At the same time, I’m pretty confident I have never suggested that someone should be fired, I simply asked to know what disciplinary measures were being taken to ensure clients are treated with dignity and respect.
See, what they’ve done is create an Issue when there was no Issue by compelling Me to visit a doctor against My Will. Whatever, I can deal with that. But I also absolutely have the right to ask why they feel the Act has the force of law to trespass upon My rights, however I Wish to phrase it. In fact, I have a Duty to My fellow Man to ensure they are not trespassing upon the rights of Canada’s People. They are demanding to be treated with courtesy and respect while they ignore and undermine superior (jurisdiction) arguments. If they have a legal right to trespass upon the Charter rights of Canada’s People, One would think there Will be a provision in the Act for it.
Anyway, they Will not admit any guilt, ever. Regardless how poorly they treat People, everything is ‘resolved’ internally and there is no effort to resolve the Issue whatsoever. To them, a resolution is telling someone “We don’t care about Your complaint, We have the right to treat People this Way and if You continue to complain, We’re going to characterize Your behaviour as confrontational and aggressive.”
Oh, the final point I Wish to make is the arrogance of Ontario Works. Notice how many times they use the phrase ‘the city does not support…’. I find it very interesting that Kristine Haines-Chiarello and Clara Freire now speak for the mayor and Ottawa’s city council. I’m curious to know if there was a council meeting regarding this Issue and why I wasn’t invited. So I guess the city of Ottawa Will have to be added to My statement of claim. And does this also mean that if I Wish to Write the mayor or an Ottawa MP I can only contact Orsi Vancsody? Clara doesn’t say that I can only contact Orsi when dealing with Ontario Works matters, Clara says that all communication with the city must now come through Orsi. I guess I’ll have to be as King of Orsi about that.
Okay, I’ve gone Way longer than I intended to today but to summarize the title of today’s Post, it’s all about just finding out who the criminals are. Every Man knows that bondage and slavery are serious, international crimes. ‘The city’ has stated on the record that I am in fact a bonded slave and indentured servant and as far as I am concerned, anyone in government supporting or endorsing this belief is guilty of treason against Canada’s People.
I’ll share My response to this email tomorrow.
Love and Blessings,