I’ll be back with a more typical Post and continuation to ‘Cold War with Canada?’ later this evening. For now, I Wish to share My follow up email to the Court and Notice of Criminal Negligence and Liability:
Motion Follow up and Notice of Criminal Negligence and Liability CV-21-86803 Sean von Dehn and the city of Ottawa, Sana Abou-Arraj, Christine Amaro and Celia North
|vonDehnVision <firstname.lastname@example.org>||5:56 PM (18 minutes ago)|
|to Ottawa, Derrick.Bert, info, mcu|
Dear Madam or Sir,
This email Will be considerably easier to Write than My email Motion to Vacate the Order to dismiss under Rule 2.01.1 made by dis-Honourable Justice, Sally A. Gomery, and to suspend the Justice from further adjudication regarding the Matter.
This email is to let You know that I do require a reply to My Motion made to this Court on July 28. I also need confirmation that the Notice of Motion and Motion of Order to Vacate the Order of Sally A. Gomery are officially filed on the Court of Record.
Please note that I Will also require a reply to this email regarding the same Matter, CV-21-86803.
I Wish to be clear about the fact that I am making this Motion to the Court, not to any particular Judge or Justice of the Court, though I do require that the endorsement of My Order to this Court be provided by the highest and most competent authority of this Court.
The Superior Court of Ontario represents the Crown and the Crown represents Her Majesty, Elizabeth II. We have already clearly established that I am a Sworn representative of Her Majesty in My Sovereign State of being. Her Majesty is the Authority of these Courts, not the government of Canada or any of their ‘State Actors’ such as Sally A. Gomery.
I am making this point clear and distinct because the Court has no Will to do anything but what I Wish for the Court to do in accordance with the Rule of Law and the Rules of the Court. Any determination to not do what the Courts have the Power to do in the best interest of Justice requires the Will of a Man (of either kind/sex), and is an abdication of the duties of the Court itself as an anonymous body of Justice representing the Crown.
Would Her Majesty endorse private pleadings made to a Judge of this Court made by defense counsel in violation of the Rules? I think not. Will Her Majesty endorse fraud and perjury on a Court of Record made by a Judge allegedly representing Her Majesty’s Honour and Crown? Again, I think not.
But those are not My considerations, they are Yours. I can only tell You what the Court has the Power to do in a situation like this to restore Honour to Her Majesty and the reputation of Her Crown Courts.
The fact is that Judge Sally A. Gomery violated the Rules of Civil Procedure and entertained private Motions pleadings made by defense counsel. The Court of Record Will Show that no Motion materials were ever filed with the Court on June 22nd. The Court of Record Will Show that no Motion materials were filed with the Court by defense counsel at any time, the first filing made by defense counsel was a Notice of Intent to defend allegedly filed onto the Court of Record at 10:40:09 on Monday, July 12th (according to Steven Pardou).
If it isn’t on the Court of Record, it didn’t happen because it isn’t fair for One party to petition the court privately without the other party’s knowledge. That’s precisely why Rule 1.09 exists.
So the Court of Record Will Show irrefutably that the very first statement made by Sally A. Gomery, “On June 22nd, 2021,, the defendants requested the dismissal of this action under Rule 2.01.1(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.”, is a statement of fraud and perjury on the Court of Record. There are no Motion materials on the Court of Record, so the only Way the Judge could believe that there was a Motion filed, was if she were accepting someone on their Word in a private pleading – and it was a lie made by defense counsel in that private pleading. We know all these facts, they are clearly evidenced by the email correspondences provided with the original Motion and the ignorance of the Justice with respect to the email reply I received to that invalid request that specifically stated defense would be required to file with the Court and Give Me Notice. If the defendants had made a request for summary judgment under Rule 2.01.1(6), there Will be a Record of that filing, as the defendants are required to file their request with the registrar in accordance with 2.01.1(6).
The second sentence in her determination continues the fraud as the Court of Record Will Show the Statement of Claim was commenced on June 18th, 2021, not June 21st, 2021, further evidencing that the Judge did not even review the Court of Record before making the determination and was acting entirely on the testimony of events as they were communicated (fraudulently) to her by defense counsel.
The Judge then continues to reference the plaintiff as ‘Mr.’ von Dehn (at least) twenty times after asserting that she recognizes the same plaintiff and individual, Sean von Dehn, has Sworn an Oath to God and the Queen and is Holding a position of Office as King in God’s Kingdom, and Governor General to Her Majesty in any Common Law jurisdiction or constitutional democratic Monarchy. Did I forget to inform the Judge that Canada is a Commonwealth, Common Law country and a constitutional democratic Monarchy? Does the Judge not know and understand that a King and a Governor General are both superior in jurisdiction and authority to that of a Court Judge or Justice? Does Sally A. Gomery not understand that the prefix Mr. determines a Man’s position of office? Whether by ignorance and negligence or with intent, the Judge commits another twenty counts of fraud and perjury on the Court of Record, as the Court of Record Will Show that there is no ‘Mr.’ von Dehn in the Statement of Claim, it is a complete fabrication.
We already know that the Courts “may grant all necessary amendments or other relief, on such terms as are just. to secure the just determination of the real matters in dispute”. And further to that, Rule 2.01(2) states that the Courts “shall not set aside an originating process on the grounds that it should have been commenced by an originating process other than the one that was employed.”
So I am no longer speaking of Sally A. Gomery’s fraudulent Order and Acts of perjury, or defense counsel’s consistent private pleadings with the Court in violation of Rule 1.09, I am simply Showing You the legal obligations of the Court, to provide remedy when necessary, and to remind these Courts that You have a legal obligation to provide Me with relief and remedy for violations of My inherent rights by ‘state actors’, and a Judge is a state actor.
“The Court shall not set aside an originating process…” I am Showing You where Sally A. Gomery was in fact once again violating the Rules of the Court by Way of her endorsement.
She asserts that every point made in the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim is True and factual, and that,
“The defendants have demonstrated intent and Willful determination to offend, antagonize and reduce the plaintiff’s legal status in Law.”
Even where an administrative tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant the precise remedy sought, if it nonetheless has sufficient authority to appropriately remedy the alleged breach, it is a court of competent jurisdiction and a claimant will be required to proceed before it (Okwuobi, supra, at paragraphs 45-48).
The court cannot claim it does not have the jurisdiction or is not ‘competent’ to hear this Matter, and the Rules are clear that even if the Matter should have been originated by an alternate originating process, “the Court Shall not (Will not, must not) set aside (or dismiss) an originating process…” Rule 2.01(2).
Of course, it is Provision 24(1) that allows this Court to hear this claim and asserts that My Charter rights are guaranteed by these Courts.
24.(1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
No relief has been provided for the trespasses upon My inherent rights by state actors of the city of Ottawa, though the Judge acknowledges that the plaintiff’s rights are continuously trespassed upon by city service employees, and now the integrity of My Character has been further assassinated by the very state Actor who’s Role on the world stage is to provide relief and remedy for precisely those violations.
Similar or related provisions are found in the following international instruments binding on Canada: article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
I am a Sovereign Man Acting in My natural, Sovereign State (Mind, Body and Soul) and am legally a foreign nation to Canada. The Courts of Canada MUST provide remedy by Way of the competent Judicial bodies. This is not ‘may’, shall is a legal obligation, a thing the Court MUST do, an obligation the Court has to the world’s Sovereign People, including the People of Canada. It is an extension of the powers of these Courts that can only be granted by the subject Matter at Hand.
Section 24(1) does not extend the basic jurisdiction of the courts and tribunals; its applicability depends on a jurisdictional basis external to the Charter itself (Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration),  1 S.C.R. 177 at page 222).
Courts are to approach Charter remedies purposively and give vitality to the maxim, “where there is a right, there must be a remedy” (Doucet-Boudreau, supra, at paragraph 25). This purposive approach consists of two specific requirements: 1) the remedy must be “responsive” and promote “the purpose of the right being protected”; 2) the remedy must be effective (Doucet-Boudreau, supra, at paragraph 25; PHS Community Services Society, supra, at paragraph 142).
A remedy that is “appropriate and just” fulfils the following requirements:
- The remedy is meaningful, in that it is
“relevant to the experience of the claimant and must address the circumstances in which the right was infringed or denied”(Doucet-Boudreau, supra, at paragraph 55).
- The remedy must respect basic constitutional principles, such as the principle of separation of powers, although it is permissible for a Charter remedy to
“touch on functions that are principally assigned to the executive”(at paragraph 56).
- The remedy does not exceed the judiciary’s power and competence by involving it in
“the kinds of decisions and functions for which its design and expertise are manifestly unsuited”(at paragraph 57).
- The remedy must be fair to the party against which it is imposed in that it
“should not impose substantial hardships that are unrelated to securing the right”(at paragraph 58).
Now, You tell Me if any of the above were addressed or even considered. Please, tell Me why a Claimant is coming before these courts as King for relief and remedy for trespasses upon My inherent rights, acknowledged by this Court to have taken place and perpetrated Willfully by the defendants, and leaving with no consideration for the violations of My inherent rights, no remedy or deterrent to further trespasses, and am instead subject to further Character attacks and clearly fraudulent statement designed to demoralize and impune My Character’s integrity made by a Court Judge on a Court of Record? How shameful is this, really?
I Wish to hear from You soon. And if You need guidance regarding this Motion, maybe go and be as King of Her Majesty what the Courts obligations are to provide Me with relief and remedy for trespasses upon My inherent (God Given) rights by state actors? I did not just provide Canada’s Minister of Justice, Attorney General and Registrar General with My Claim of right upon My God Given estate, I did also advise Her Majesty I would be war King very hard to defend Her Honour and the inherent rights of Canada’s People in Canada’s Court. I Trust she Will be waiting to hear how You respond every bit as much as I am and the rest of the world.
There is no Good reason why the Courts would not Wish to endorse this Order because it is clearly in the best interest of justice and the fairness of all parties concerned, and removes a criminal offence from the Court of Record. The Judge accused Me of believing I am above the Law, is the Judge above the Law? Why is the Judge not already being charged with perjury and abdication of her duty as an officer of the Court? Why have criminal charges not been laid? I require answers to these questions specifically, and I also need to know who is liable for harm done to Me by Way of this Court’s negligence and abdication of their duty and powers to provide relief for My inherent rights? If the Order to Vacate is not Honoured by these Courts, the Courts themselves are liable to Me for the Actions of Sally A. Gomery, and to the tune of over 2.3 million dollars if We count every instance of defamation of My Character. I would prefer to have the Court fulfill its obligations to provide permanent relief and remedy because My Spiritual convictions are not going to change.
If the Judge’s determination stands, then Ashley Moniz Andrade is also guilty of fraud and misleading justice for sending Me an email telling Me that as of June 25th, no Motion materials had been filed with the Court (including My own materials). So if the Judge is not going to be held criminally liable for her lies, I Wish to have Ashley explain to Me why she would send such a deliberately misleading email promising Me opportunity to provide defense materials and assuring Me that no motion materials had been presented to the Court as of June 25th, contrary to what the Judge claims in her determination stating that I had already been Given opportunity to provide defending arguments. I did not, and that is clearly stated in Ashley’s email. It was also clearly expressed that there would still be opportunity to provide motion materials if defense did file any motion materials after the 25th of June. Somebody is lying, so You have to choose who You Wish to protect, if that is what Your silence regarding this Matter is endeavouring to do. You are not absolving anyone from liability, every day You fail to respond is an additional day You are supporting corruption, fraud, perjury and the abuse of Court powers by a Judge on the Court of Record. Your reputation, not mine.
So I don’t really know what’s taking You so long because there is very clearly fraud afoot, which is a very serious criminal offence on a Court of Record, especially when done with intent to offend and diminish My legal standing. If it was not done with intent, it was done with negligence as a result of her incompetence and again, these Courts must be of competent, concurrent jurisdiction.
If You do not endorse My Order, it really does look very much like the Courts and the city of Ottawa are conspiring together to make Claims they don’t like disappear. What other reason could there be for the Courts to allow fraud and perjury to remain on the Court of Record.
I would like to know who holds liability for the harm done to Me by these courts if this Order to Vacate Sally A. Gomery’s order is not vacated. I Will not tolerate libelous statements about My Character to remain on the Court of Record.
I would also like to know who the appropriate authorities are to report Acts of fraud and perjury committed by a Justice on a Court of Record so that I can take action if You Will not.
These Courts have the primary function in society to provide relief and remedy for trespasses upon the Sovereign (inherent) rights of Canada’s People. If state actors Will not acknowledge and Honour My rights, and if these courts choose not to provide relief and remedy for the violations of state actors upon My rights, where is there hope for any competent relief or remedy? I sure can’t find any competent elected officials to do what I have been (kindly and patiently) as King of them to do to Honour their obligations to Me. So if I can’t find anyone competent in Canada’s Courts, where should I hope to find such a competent individual?
Thank You kindly, I look forward to Your reply, and so does the International Court of Record and jury of My peers.
We know You can provide relief and remedy, We know You should, We know it is an obligation and duty of the Court to do so. The only Quest-Ion that remains is how long it Will take You, and/or who is liable if You abdicate Your judicial duties, and how do I go about placing a commercial lien on the bond of Judge Sally A. Gomery until the Order is Vacated or rescinded by her? I require these answers in the name of Justice, fairness and equality in Law, and transparency.
In the further interest of transparency and My right to full disclosure of all action that took place regarding this claim, I would like the master print-out of all filings made to Case file CV-21-86803 to date, a Record of everything related to this Case file on the Court of Record, all of which is within My rights to full disclosure.
If it is not yet been made clear in this email, if the Court fails to Honour My Wish to Vacate Sally A. Gomery’s determination, the Courts are liable for their criminal negligence for endorsing this decision and failing to recognize the obligations of the Court to provide relief and remedy to guaranteed Charter protections and international (inherent) rights, and for subjecting Me to further harm and trespass by State Actors.
House von Dehn,
Hand of Stephen,
Kingdom of God,
(Email addresses are the Superior Court of Justice, Derrick Bert of the Ministry of the Attorney General’s Sheriff’s department, Minister of Justice, David Lametti, and the Justice Council of Canada.)