Hello every One, and thank King You for being here. I do have a Thoroughly Thrilling Thursday Edition for You today as I Will be going over dis-Honourable Justice Sally A. Gomery’s recent determination to find out just how many times the Justice commits perjury on the Court of Record. So I suppose it might not be a Thrilling Thursday for Sally A. Gomery, but I believe it is going to be thoroughly satisfying for My international jury of peers. And if it isn’t ‘Thrilling’, I am thing King You Will at least find it astounding. Let’s get started!
I’m going to start with the very first line of the endorsement and work My Way through to the end. I Will start with Sally A. Gomery’s version of facts, then present the Truth as it is Presented in My Statement of Claim.
- “On June 22nd, 2021, the defendants requested the dismissal of the action under Rule 2.01.1(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.” – False.
On June 22nd, 2021, the defendants requested the dismissal of the action in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure by privately petitioning the court. The Court of Record Will show that no Motion was filed with the Registrar in accordance with Rule 2.01.1(6).
- “They contend that the action, commenced by the issuance of a statement of claim on June 21, 2021, appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the Court’s process.” – False
The Court of Record and Statement of Claim show that the action was commenced on June 18th, 2021.
- “Mr. von Dehn‘s lawsuit follows his recent interactions with the individual defendants, who are city of Ottawa employees working in the Housing Services department. – False
There is no “Mr. von Dehn” in the Statement of Claim. The only “Mr.” von Dehn I know is My brother.
- “On April 27, 2021, Mr. von Dehn received a renewal package sent by Sana Abou-Arraf. It was addressed to “VONDEHN, Sean” – false
Again, there is no Mr. von Dehn in the claim, nor is there any defendant named Sana Abou-Arraf. We could consider this a spelling mistake, but the Justice claims to have read the Statement of Claim ‘as generously as possible’, I would suggest this indicates she was not even referencing the Statement of Claim when making her determination. The names of the parties is a pretty important detail, and it is simply incorrect (false).
- “Mr. von Dehn emailed Ms. Abou-Arraf to tell her that he would not accept the renewal package because his legal name is Sean von Dehn.” – True, but incomplete and misleading
(17. SoC) “Sean advised Sana Abou-Arraj of her error and why he was returning the package to her by Way of email.” The Judge negates to mention that the package had been returned to sender.
- “Furthermore, as city employees know, he prefers to be addressed as “King Sean, House of von Dehn, Hand of Stephen, Kingdom of God”. – false
This statement is made nowhere in My Claim and it is absolutely untrue. I prefer to be addressed by the proper name Given Me by God, ‘Sean von Dehn’. The Statement of Claim reads:
9. The defendants know the plaintiff goes by ‘King Sean, House of von Dehn, Hand of Stephen, Kingdom of God’.
10. Sean von Dehn is the plaintiff’s proper legal and lawful name, Given him by God.
12. ‘VONDEHN, Sean’ is distinctly different from the plaintiff’s proper legal name, Sean von Dehn.
The statement is untrue and irrelevant to the claim. It is an attack on My Character, suggesting I am pretentious and making unreasonable demands. I am as King of them to spell My name as it was Given Me by God, nothing more, and that is very clear in the claim.
- “Ms. Sana Abou-Arraf’s supervisor, Christine Amaro, send an email back to Mr. von Dehn, advising him that, if he did not accept the package, his housing subsidy would be revoked. – false
16. “Sean is offended to be addressed as an artificial person defined in Canada as a legal entity with no rights of citizenship or family, so he returned the package to sender ‘wrong person’.
The Judge conveniently leaves out the fact that the package was returned to sender and allows the reader to believe I have the package but am refusing to fill it out because I don’t like how it was addressed. Again, this attacks My character, makes Me sound disagreeable. They threatened to revoke My subsidy for failing to accept the package when they return it to Me in the same Style of address, ‘VONDEHN, Sean’. At which time…
23. Sean agreed to accept the package under duress and without prejudice.
- “Mr. von Dehn responded by telling Ms. Abou-Arraf and Christine Amara that he was accepting the renewal package under duress and with prejudice.” – false
This time, none of the parties names are spelled correctly, and it is ‘without prejudice’, not with prejudice!
- He also advised them he was entitled to a fine of $100,000.00 each time the city addressed him as ‘VONDEHN, Sean’. There was no response from the City, which Mr. von Dehn took to signal acceptance of his claim of entitlement to a penalty. – mostly True
Again, it’s subtle, but I do not say that I am entitled to a fine of $100,000.00, I say I Will charge them $100,000.00 per offence to My Sacred Calling under God. I had no Idea how to deter further attacks upon the Sacred Magic of My name, so I told them I would be as King for $100,000.00 per offence and would file a claim against them into the Superior Court if the offence is repeated. Well, as it turns out, that is what One is supposed to do to deter further violations of One’s inherent rights in accordance with Canada’s Department of Justice Remedies for international rights violations under 24(1)
“Damages are available in appropriate cases where they would serve a “functional” purpose in remedying a Charter violation. This requires a claimant to demonstrate that damages would further one or more of the general objects of the Charter, including those of section 24(1), namely: compensation (remedying any personal loss the claimant has suffered); vindication (importance of upholding Charter rights); and/or deterrence (of further breaches by state actors) (Ward, supra, at paragraphs 25-31)”
Clearly, they do not Wish to pay the $200,000.00, so I would say the fine was appropriate. They were Given fair notice and did it anyway. They are liable, they knew what I would be as King for in court.
- On June 8th, 2021, Mr. von Dehn received a ‘Final Notice’ by mail sent by the defendant Celia North. She advised him that, if he failed to complete and return the renewal package sent to him earlier by June 18th, he would lose his housing subsidy effective July 1, 2021. – false and misleading
The Justice is clearly implying that I have the renewal package and have not returned it because I don’t feel like it. She completely leaves out the fact that they have not returned a renewal package to Me since the original was returned to sender. I am unable to comply with this Final Notice as a result of their negligence and failure to return the package. This is very clear in the Statement of Claim and completely omitted from the Justice’s determination and probably the most relevant aspect of the claim. I am being threatened with undue economic hardship, and even after advising them I don’t have this package, they continued to ignore My email request for the package and did not finally send a renewal package out to Me until June 16th, just two days before the deadline. I did not receive the package until June 21st, and genuinely believe that they would have revoked My subsidy and not returned the package at all if I had not filed this claim.
- “In response, Mr. von Dehn sent an email to the defendants placing them on “Notice of Criminal and Civil liability by Way of email for uttering threats, Willful defamation of his Character with deliberate intent to offend and reduce his legal standing, for which he Claimed $200,000.00.” – True (aside from the ‘Mr.’)
- “Reading the statement of claim as generously as possible, and assuming all facts are true, Mr. von Dehn asserts no justiciable claim” – false
The Justice has already asserted that all facts in My statement of Claim are true, and 45. reads “The defendants continually show Willful disregard for their legally binding obligations to the U.N.C.C.P.R., continually trespassing upon Sean’s right of self determination and his right to freely dispose of his natural wealth without prejudice to foreign obligations.”
A trespass or violation of a right is a form of harm/tort and is absolutely a justiciable claim, especially when the Justice has already indicated that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the harm of trespass.
- [This is the best one] “An individual has no right to receive communications from their local government using the particular form of their name that they prefer. Mail may be legally and appropriate addressed to a person using that person’s surname, followed by a comma, then their given name. There is no legal or equitable basis on which Mr. von Dehn could require the city to address him as ‘Sean von Dehn’ or ‘King Sean, House of von Dehn, Hand of Stephen, Kingdom of God’. – absolutely false
The only Way the Justice can make this assertion, is if she can prove to hold a superior claim of right to My name.
- “He cannot claim damages as a result of the way the housing subsidy renewal package was addressed to him, nor can he obtain an order requiring the City to fire municipal employees because they have not apologized to him for the Way the communications were addressed. – false
My name was Given Me by God. It is only Spelled (correctly) One Way. I believe that name is Sacred, it is My Spiritual belief and My right to insist that it be properly spelled by any One who communicates with Me. If I can correct grade school teachers, I can correct a state actor.
- “In the statement of claim, Mr. von Dehn suggests that it is unreasonable for the City to require that he complete a renewal form at all, since he has told housing services that his income has not changed over the past year.” – false
Nowhere in My statement of claim do I suggest I should not be required to fill out forms at all. When I did not have the forms and was being threatened with the loss of My subsidy for failing to return documents I didn’t have, I advised them by Way of email that My income has not changed, and suggested they could update the forms manually to ensure My subsidy is not revoked in the event I am unable to return the forms (I don’t yet have) by their deadline. This is a complete mischaracterization of the events and what is stated in the claim. FRAUD
- “It is perhaps understandable that Mr. von Dehn is irritated by being required to comply with what he perceives to be unnecessary bureaucratic process. This does not mean, however, he has a legal right to compensation.” – false, fraud, defamation of Character
Nowhere do I state that I am irritated by bureaucratic process, but it is clear and obvious what kind of picture the Justice is trying to paint of My Character. She is making it sound like I just don’t Wish to fill out forms, and that I am as King for compensation for being required to do so. No. I am being threatened with revocation of subsidy for failing to return forms that were never returned to Me, and city staff who are refusing to return My emails or provide the necessary materials to ensure I am not arbitrarily deprived of My subsidy as a result of their negligence (or Willful intent to deprive Me of the forms I need).
- “Mr. von Dehn’s claim regarding the “bill of exchange” is unintelligible. It is impossible to understand what he intended to accomplish by sending the City this document, or what happened to it after it was received. It does not appear, in any event, that Mr. von Dehn has suffered any compromise to his legal rights or status or any form of injury as a result of what happened.” – false, trespass upon My inherent rights, clearly stated in the claim
Well, this directly relates to not being dependent upon the City for My subsistence (subsidy), in accordance with U.N.C.C.P.R. I am free to dispose of My natural wealth without prejudice to foreign obligations (City of Ottawa), and that is specifically one of the Ways the City is trespassing upon that right. “In no Case Shall a People be deprived of its own means of subsistence.” U.N.C.C.P.R., Part 1, Article 1(2). Refusing acceptance is refusing to allow Me dispose of My natural wealth, and a violation of My inherent rights.
- “Mr. von Dehn also asserts that the defendants have violated his fundamental rights under the U.N.C.C.P.R., because he considers himself a People.” – False, nowhere do I make that statement in the Claim.
Once again, completely mischaracterizing the claim. I am very clear about the rights I Wish to enjoy, and which rights under the UNCCPR are being consistently violated by City employees.
- On point number 11, Sally makes fraudulent and self defeating arguments such as:
“references to unparticularized violations of the plaintiff’s rights under the UNCCPR” – false
Failing to address Me by My proper legal name OR ‘King Sean, House of von Dehn, Hand of Stephen, Kingdom of God” is a trespass upon My right of self determination, which “by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status (King), and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. Furthermore, I actually state the rights very clearly that are routinely trespassed upon and use the Words ‘in particular’ specifically to identify and ‘particularize’ those rights (SoC, 56.).
- “Use of obscure legal concepts such as ‘capitus diminutio maxima or media’ and ‘the public trust’. – self defeating to Justice’s previous arguments
Self defeating because previously the Justice asserts that I may be threatened with revocation of My subsidy for failure to allow state actors to address Me by these obscure legal terms. I don’t disagree that they are obscure, that is precisely why I do not Wish to be addressed that Way, it’s NOT My name or Calling under God.
- “repetitive and rambling allegations and the use of many unnecessarily capitalized words” – ad hominem, irrelevant.
The justice does not provide examples so I don’t know what she considers rambling, repetitive allegations, so it is ‘unparticularized’ and irrelevant, as is the use of capital letters, especially considering that I can at least spell Words properly and name the defendants accurately. The Justice makes several spelling mistakes and misquotes many of My statements that completely alter the context of the claim (fraud).
- “allegations that the plaintiff has unilaterally declared himself to have a status that releases him from any obligation to comply with Canadian law and that, as a result, any request made by a government official is a trespass upon him and a violation of his Sovereignty.” – false
This is the most infuriating, fraudulent statement made in the determination and One Will not find any evidence to support this wildly imagined belief in My Statement of Claim. What is more infuriating, is a Justice committing fraud and perjury on the Court of Record to make this false allegation regarding My Character, suggesting that she believes herself to be above the law and not subject to criminal prosecution for her Willful act of perjury. Ironic, no?
- For her twelfth point, the Justice suggests that typically, I Will have an opportunity to provide defense materials to oppose the motion to dismiss under 2.01.1(6) but that the Justice can choose not to strictly comply with the Rules and while ‘exceptional’, she suggests it is appropriate in this case because I have already responded to the requistion. – false
We all know that the Court told Me specifically that because defense had not filed with the registrar, no motion materials had been presented to the Court as of June 25th, including mine. This statement is fraud and was unknown to the Justice because the information was withheld from her by defense counsel.
- “Mr. von Dehn has still not articulated any legal basis on which the Court could grant the remedies he seeks.” – false
Again, pretty clear there are several violations of My right of Self determination, twenty made by the Justice by the use of “Mr.” because that is a different status than the One I have Claimed, and a violation of Part 1, Article 1(1) of the UNCCPR, which the Ontario Superior Court is to provide relief and remedy under 24(1) of the Department of Justice of Canada website.
“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“
Of the above review, 22 of the 24 numbered points are fraudulent on their face, or fraudulent for failing to provide all the information (misleading). There are also twenty (20) instances of “Mr.” which is defamation of My Character and a reduction in legal standing insulting to My Character. One claim that I believe I’m above the law, one claim that I do not believe I should have to fill out renewal forms, neither of which is stated in the Claim and both serious insults to My Character on a Court of Record.
By failing to acknowledge the violations of My rights under the UNCCPR and suggesting that state actors may continue to address Me by Way of ‘obscure legal concepts’, the Justice is actually causing Me more harm and potentially subjecting Me to further violations and trespass that ‘state actors’ now believe they are within their rights to threaten Me with financial duress for failing to allow. It is absolutely an abdication of the Justice’s duties associated with her position of Office to guarantee the protection of My rights under the UNCCPR. No Man should appeal to a Court for relief of trespass and violations of his rights and be turned away with further harm done to him than when he commenced the Action. The fact that the further trespasses upon My inherent rights were perpetrated by the Justice only makes this that much more concerning.
Do YOU believe You are above the law, Ms. Sally A. Gomery?
For twenty instances of defamation of My legal person (Mr. rather than King), and three instances of defamation of My Character, I am charging Sally A. Gomery the same $100,000.00 per instance as stated in My Claim, and also holding Sally A. Gomery liable for failing to provide remedy for the trespasses against Me by state actors in the amount of $210,800.00 for dismissing this Action as frivolous and vexatious. My inherent rights are not a frivolous and I am not being vexatious for demanding My inherent rights be Honoured. It is a LEGALLY BINDING OBLIGATION ON ALL STATE ACTORS – Justices are not above the law, You are to be an example of moral justice, and this determination was void of morality, compassion, or Good judgment.
$2,510,800 is the total amount I Will be claiming against Sally A. Gomery’s bond if she fails to Vacate the Order in 30 days. If the Order is Vacated, all trespasses are forgiven and all International Public Notices against Sally A. Gomery Will be removed from the International Court of Record.