Volume CLXXX: The Terrific Tuesday Edition; The City Responds to Notice of Motion

Hello every One, welcome to the Good News Journal and thank King You for joining Me. I do have a Terrific Tuesday Edition for You today because ‘the city’ has responded to My Notice of Motion and I feel the reply beautifully emulates the arrogance of the city of Ottawa’s defense counsel.

Unfortunately, I Will not have a new V for Vendetta tell a Vision Edition for You today because My sleep has been a little wonky. I would like to get a new Edition published for tomorrow but I’m not making any Promises because that never seems to work out for some reason. However, it is on the agenda for if all goes as planned.

The other reason I’m sharing these correspondences is to let You know that this is not really how things should go in either a common law or civil proceeding. Typically, there is to be transparency between the parties and One should not have to worry that the other party is running around behind the other’s back, privately petitioning the Courts for a favourable, partisan response. There should be no single sided communication with the Courts whatsoever unless the opposing party has Given prior consent. I sent the Notice of Motion to defense counsel this morning advising her that I require a reply before Friday.

Dear Geneviève and Tasha,

Notice of Motion to Vacate the Order by Justice Sally A. Gomery is attached.  Please advise Me if You Wish to oppose this Motion.  If You do not respond before Friday, September 3rd, it Will be presumed this Motion is unopposed and this email Will be included in My Motion Record as affidavit of Service upon You.

Thank You,

Have a Blessed day,

Sean von Dehn,
King Sean,
House von Dehn,
Hand of Stephen,
Kingdom of God,
On Her Majesty’s Service

The intent was to let her know that if she continues to delay or fails to respond, I am not going to be waiting to hear from her indefinitely. Somewhat surprisingly, she did respond late this morning.

Good morning, 

we acknowledge receipt of your draft Order sent yesterday and your Notice of Motion sent today, August 31, 2021.  Both documents are attached for ease of reference.  We will be opposing this Motion. 

We are of the view that, pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, the Ruling made by Justice S. Gomery, on July 19, 2021 and attached hereto, is final. 

We recommend you seek legal advice on this matter including the appropriate forum for any motion or appeal of the Ruling.  I have attached potential legal resources that may be available to you.  


Geneviève Langlais

What I find interesting about this is that I obviously do not have the experience in Court that defense counsel for the city Will have, but I have extensively researched motions filings for Ottawa and how a Motion should be heard, and the appropriate forum for the hearing is generally something that should be openly discussed between the two parties. The process is further complicated now as a result of all the covid precautions.

So if Genevieve feels this requires a virtual hearing by Way of conference call (for example), she is free to let Me know what she thinks the best forum is. I’ve already presented My arguments in Writing, so (as far as I’m concerned), she should be indicating to Me how (orally, in Writing, whatever) she Wishes to oppose the Motion. We Will both have to prepare a Motion Record to file with the Court and arrange a time We are both available if she Wishes for a virtual Motion hearing. She should also be open with Me about her arguments opposing the Motion before the Motion is Presented to the Court so that no party is ‘ambushed’ by surprise information. This also serves the purpose of not wasting the Court’s time unnecessarily, as a party may Wish to rescind a Motion if they know of information damaging enough to make their arguments futile. I’m very clear about My position on the Matter and why I believe Vacating the Order is in the best interest of Justice and all parties concerned. Genevieve has not presented any counter to these arguments, other than her belief that the Judge’s decision is final. Is it? Even when the Courts know defense counsel presented misleading testimony to the Justice? What is more cost effective for the Courts – to Vacate the Order now for fraud and perjury on the Record, or to have the Order overturned in an appellate court for the same reason? And what’s in the best interest of Justice and the reputation of the Courts themselves? I’m not saying I have the answer, but I do believe these are valid questions that a [Good] Judge Will be interested to hear.

I also found the reply to be more than a little condescending, seeing as she has not disputed any of the allegations of fraud and perjury – she’s implying that fraud and perjury are irrelevant, if the fraud and perjury is successful in misleading a justice to make a determination in her favour, it is binding and irreversible. Typically, an Order is only Vacated when a Justice has been unfairly influenced – I feel fraud and perjury qualify.

Here’s My reply:

Good afternoon,

Thank You for Your prompt response.  As much as I appreciate the condescending tone of Your email, it seems to Me that if Sally A. Gomery’s decision were final, there would be no Motion for Me to Give You Notice of, and no Motion for You to oppose.  The Motion was filed with the Court in Writing on Wednesday, July 28.  I think what the Courts really Wish to know, is if You have anything to say in defense of your action.  You commit fraud on a Court of Record with intent to unfairly influence justice, in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and under penalty of perjury.  I strongly recommend reading the Motion received by the Court.  Those are the arguments You Will be opposing.


Fraud and perjury are not admissible on a Court of Record in any jurisdiction.  We are in a Common Law jurisdiction, and this Matter is before a Common Law Court on an International Court of Record.  In Canada, false, misleading testimony on a Court of Record is also criminal offence.  I’m not sure what the code or statute would be, but I’m confident a Judge Will.  If the Order is Vacated, it all disappears – no harm, no foul.  My opinion and belief, is that the Courts are Giving You an opportunity to undo what You did, which also absolves Sally.  Otherwise, it Will appear as though Ashley Moniz Andrade was deliberately trying to deceive Me because she assured Me (on behalf of the Court) that no Motion materials had been filed as of June 25th.  

The Court of Record Will show that You didn’t file any Motion materials with the Court on June 22nd.  So how did Sally get the Idea that You did?  And how did she get the Idea that the Action was commenced on the 21st when the Court of Record and Statement of Claim show the Action was commenced on the 18th?  You Will have to explain these things to a Court and these are the material facts. You Will certainly not be able to provide an affidavit of service of any intent to Motion the Court served upon Me.  You continually violate Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and I’m of the opinion that both as a lawyer and as a representative of the city of Ottawa, You should be aiming to set a better example.  Canada’s Courts are supposed to be all about transparency and fairness, and I was under the impression that the Rules of Civil Procedure were Created to protect that principle in Law and why Rule 1.09 stands alone.  It’s an important one.

You’re the lawyer, My belief is that We are to come to an agreement as to how the Motion should be heard.  I’m open to suggestions.  Do We require a virtual conference call for the Motion hearing?  Or do You Wish to Present a Written rebuttal to My [email] Motion (and as provided in the link)?  And is Your only argument that You believe the decision is final?  Frankly, the irony of Your argument astounds Me.

My belief is that fraudulent, misleading testimony on a Court of Record is a criminal offence and is not admissible under any circumstance, and that the Order must be Vacated in the interest of Justice and the reputation of the Courts.  You’re correct, typically, a Judge’s decision would be final because a Judge does not typically commit fraud and perjury on a Court of Record.  The Court can’t Vacate the Order until someone Motions the Court to let them know there is fraud and perjury on the Court of Record.  So I would like to know if You are disputing the charge of false, misleading testimony and what material evidence You have to support Your arguments.

You are correct, however.  If fraud, perjury and privately petitioning the Court in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not considered interfering with Justice and My opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing, I am confident it Will be more than reasonable grounds for an appeal.  I’m just trying to save the Courts unnecessary time and resources.

If the order is not Vacated, I Will also be fling a complaint with the bar regarding Your conduct, and Sally A. Gomery becomes liable for the wrongdoing done to Me by the Court by Way of Your influence, and You become liable for the harm You have caused to Sally A. Gomery and the reputation of the Court.  I legitimately think it is in the best interest of both the Justice and the reputation of the Courts to Vacate the Order rather than risk the reputation and integrity of both.  But I’m not a lawyer, what do I know?

I look forward to hearing Your suggestions and how You Wish to proceed.  A little honesty and transparency from this point forward Will be most appreciated.


Sean von Dehn,
King Sean,
House of von Dehn,
Hand of Stephen,
Kingdom of God
On Her Majesty’s Service

Now, I can’t say what defense counsel Will do, but I can assert that every statement in My reply is True. So whether it be that the Order is overturned now or somewhere down the road in an appellate Court, or in a final Claim as an exhibit evidencing the corruption and unfair practice in Canada’s courts is irrelevant to Me. One Way or another, somewhere down the road this Order Will be Vacated and stricken from the Record, and there is no statute of limitations in a Common Law jurisdiction. That’s a statute to protect state actors.

Wow, well this was longer than I was anticipating it would be, this was intended to be a short one. I’m very curious to see how this Motion proceeds because defense counsel does not seem to be very Good at transparency and or communicating her intentions and she is required to work with Me to discuss an appropriate forum and present to Me her opposing arguments. I don’t believe ‘the decision is final’ is a valid excuse for fraud and misleading testimony on the Court of Record, but We’ll soon see what the Courts have to say.

Love and Blessings,

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s