Hello every One, and welcome to the Fabulous Free Lance Friday Edition of the Good News Journal, thank King or Queen You for being here. Yesterday I Writ a Post tall King about My ‘Pro Vision’ [finally] being in Focus. I was really only beginning to get into the Magic of the Post when I hit the thousand Word threshold, which is typically the most information People are Willing to digest in one sitting. So today, I Will be expanding on some of the Ideas I was tall King about yesterday and their significance moving for-Ward.
Most Will know that My Story is essentially My ‘niche’ as a Blogger, My ‘claim to fame’, so to speak. It was the Post that clearly defined My Character on the world Stage and the Role I am destined to Play. It is also the number one ‘Google God’ search result for ‘Sean von Dehn’ (no coincidences). Perhaps most importantly, this is an international public [Court of] Record, so all of My Deeds are considered a legal and lawful Record of facts concerning the Matter.
Why is this relevant? Because I have said that I don’t really Wish to be compelled to file any lawsuits against the Canadian government, yet I have been compelled to file lawsuits on a couple of occasions to protect My own inherent rights. At the same time, [technically] I have not commenced any [legal] action against the Canadian government.
Although all of the agents I have been dealing with at organizations like Ontario Works and Housing Services represent the Canadian government, they are all Acting under provincial (Ontario Works) or municipal (Housing Services) codes, statutes and acts. They are operating within their respective jurisdiction without providing for My inherent rights in accordance with federal Law. They are essentially ignoring the superior jurisdiction of the federal (Canadian) government which guarantees the protection of constitutional and treaty obligations.
The reason I placed the Word ‘providing’ in italics in the last paragraph is because I am tall King about the Provisions of the Courts themselves.
A contract provision is a stipulation within a contract, legal document, or a law.Investopedia, legal terms
[Obviously] the ‘Courts’ are not a People. The Courts have no Will to do anything other than what the Courts are empowered to do by Way of the Rules of Courts themselves. This is why they must be ‘Motioned’ to take an Action as provided to the Court by the established Rules of the Court. They are without prejudice, they have no conscience at all and have no Will to oppose any Rule that is provided for by the Court. Only an opposing Motion can stop a Motion by Showing the Court why a Rule does not apply (by Way of another Rule). This is what is meant by the ‘Rule of Law’; the Rule of Law applies to the obligations of the Court in the administration of Justice.
Today I placed the Word ‘stipulation’ in italics to Give an example of what it means to ‘follow the white rabbit’. Pro Vision and the determination to define the legal term ‘provision’ is the ‘white rabbit’ that leads Us down the rabbit hole to ‘stipulation’. We already know by Our first definition that a Provision is a stipulation within a contractual obligation. So what is a stipulation?
1) An agreement between the parties to a lawsuit. For example, if the parties enter into a stipulation of facts, neither party will have to prove those facts: The stipulation will be presented to the jury, who will be told to accept them as undisputed evidence in the case.Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute (LII)
I could not have expressed this any better My Self. My Wish was to prove to You that the Courts cannot dispute My legal arguments because of the Provisions afforded to Me as a party to the Court. This is also why the jurisdiction of the Court is determined by the parties to the Action, or the ‘subject Matter’ at Hand. What jurisdiction are the parties ‘subject’ to? All parties in any Action are subject to the Provisions of the Court which stipulate the undisputed evidence of the Court’s obligation to the Claimant. It is presumed that all parties to a Court proceeding have already agreed to be subject to these contractual obligations (of the [non-partisan] Courts), so there is nothing to dispute! This not only includes the Judge, but it is in fact the contractual obligation binding upon the magistrate of the Court in their administrative capacity. A judge can only administer as provided for (Provisions) by the Rules of the Court.
It is also worth noting that I not only believe this is precisely why the Courts have not responded to My Motion (because I have already asserted legally that they have violated the Rule of Law/Rules of the Court with an undisputed, established fact), it is an admission of guilt and wrongdoing. Consider that it was not only the Superior Court of Justice that received My Motion, but also the Justice Council of Canada, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (David Lametti), and the Sheriff’s department of the Ministry of the Attorney General. They have not responded to say that the Provision does not apply because there is no legal loophole for a provision in a contract. Yesterday it was described as the ‘fine print’ – there is no getting around it. ‘Canada’ is in zugzwang (that’s a teaser, look it up).
I think I’m down about twenty points since I last shared My chess stats with My readers. My greatest shortcoming in chess is not My ability to Play, (I have won three games in My Life against masters), but My focus. I tend to lose most often against weaker opponents which significantly harms My rating because I don’t take the time necessary to fully analyze the board – like Life, I can get distracted with My own plan and fail to Give My opponent the respect they deserve (and often to My detriment). I should win the game pictured above, but if I take the pawn on c6 My opponent Will win back the pawn. I think the right move here is Rc3 but I could still easily be bested by a player almost 500 points My senior. Yet, most often, it’s games like this that Give My rating a huge boost (providing I win).
At any rate, People, the point to today’s Post is that the Courts legitimately have no legal excuse or rebuttal and that is why they remain silent. Also keep in Mind, they also knowing I’m telling You all of this and would probably LOVE to prove Me wrong if they can – don’t hold Your breath or You’ll be as blue faced and dead in the water as every other CAPSIZED vessel on the seas of commercial admiralty.
Love and Blessings, more to come on this still…