Hello every One, and welcome to the Witches, Wizards and Warlocks ‘Lucky’ Wednesday Edition, thank King You for being here. Today’s Title was inspired by My own Trust Issues and I have very Good reason to have those Trust Issues, and I was thing King the rest of Us have just as much reason as I do. So I thought that might be something worth tall King about, as resolving those Trust Issues Will very much pave the Way to a more peaceful and prosperous world.
I (of course) have more specific Trust Issues, and the Trust Issue that inspired this Post is My inability to Trust anything defense counsel says they Will do. They allegedly filed a Notice of Intent do defend two hours before the Notice was served upon Me (according to Registrar Steven Pardou), a Notice of default against them was overturned without any Notice to Me, and the city’s defense counsel privately petitioned the Court at least three times in violation of the Rules and without My prior consent. She also seems to have a Magical ability to ‘Motion’ the Court without ever filing any Motion materials with the Court, or Notice [of service] to Me. When I say this is not how things are supposed to be done in Canada’s Courts, it is not an understatement.
This is relevant to Me in My Microcosm because defense counsel has indicated that she Wishes to oppose My Motion to Vacate an Order made by Way of her fraudulent, misleading testimony. I included the email and My reply in yesterday’s Terrific Tuesday Edition. Defense counsel believes the justice’s determination is final, but she does not dispute the fraudulent, misleading testimony she provided to the Justice, nor has she disputed My belief that fraud and perjury are not admissible on a Court of Record and a criminal offence in Canada under penalty of perjury. In My reply, I am very clearly and explicitly as King of defense counsel if she has any other grounds for opposing My Motion, or is she standing on the belief that her fraud and perjury are permissible on a Court of Record. I have the right to know exactly what arguments defense counsel intends to use to oppose the Motion so I can dispute those points or rescind My Motion (if I don’t feel I can dispute her arguments). That’s why (specifically) the parties are encouraged to communicate and resolve as many Issues as they can independently – they may be able to resolve Matters without requiring the Motion. The problem is, I can’t Trust for five seconds that defense counsel is going to be open and transparent with Me. I was expecting a reply today but I only heard the cicada’s.
The reason I am thing King this is worth tall King about because every single law that is legislated in Canada is allegedly (what they are supposed to do, their function in society) Created (legislated) to protect the rights of Canada’s People. It starts with the very first line of Canada’s constitution, which states that Canada is founded upon Principles that recognize the belief in the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law (I’m paraphrasing but encouraging One to look it up to see how close I am).
The Laws on paper Act the very same Way the bureaucratic system does – it’s a Hierarchy. That’s why God is at the top followed immediately by the Rule of Law. The constitution follows, then the federal, provincial and municipal codes, statutes and acts that are legislated to protect the legal principles expressed in the Charter and treaty rights that provide the Foundation for Canadian and international Law. God is at the top of the pyramid because We are all of God first and foremost; We are all Sovereign People in Our natural State of being (regardless what country One is sojourning in).
We ‘Trust’ that the People who Will legislate laws for their People Will never violate the Foundational Principles of Law upon which the legal system is founded, and the Rule of Law is essentially primarily founded on the belief that all of Man is equal – none of Us came to this world with predetermined Masters, and none are above the Law. Our [inherent/God Given] rights Truly are Superior in jurisdiction and authority to any of Man’s laws, especially when We can so openly see how little regard those ‘leading’ most of Our nations have for the rights of their People. We very much do have a Duty and responsibility to let these People know they have violated the Oath of Office and breached Our Trust. That’s what I’m advising the city of Ottawa right now. I’m tired of the city of Ottawa’s legal counsel gaslighting Ottawa and Canada’s legally binding obligations to afford for My inherent rights, and suggesting that government policy has the force of Law to trespass upon My rights.
Genevieve Langlais must prove that she did not commit fraud and perjury on a Court of Record, and she Will not be able to do so (because she did and it’s self evident based on the material facts). The reason she has tried so hard to keep these arguments from being heard, is because they have nothing to do with her ‘opinion’ on the Matter. Officers of the Court (Judges and Justices, Magistrates, Registrar’s et cetera) are legally bound (in their own Civil Law jurisdiction) to the Rules of the Court, or they are abdicating their position of Office and become accountable (because these are commercial courts) to their bond. They are all required to be bonded in the Civil jurisdiction and it is to ensure performance of their Judicial Duties of Office, which is to protect the Sovereign rights of Canada’s People in accordance with its Charter and international treaty agreements binding on Canada. That is the Highest Law and cannot legally or lawfully be ignored or it is a breach of the public Trust in violation of their Oath. The Oath is to Her Majesty and the constitution first.
The Courts are impartial, they can only be moved by the arguments Presented to them. The Courts don’t have choices, they have obligations. I have shared this several times before and used much of the case law cited on this Public facing document published by Canada’s Ministry of Justice. Public facing documents are important because they are the ‘International Public Record’ of Canada’s Common Law obligations. Most People are not lawyers, they Wish to believe they can ‘Trust’ that the Provisions afforded to the Court to ensure the protection of Canada’s Charter Will be granted. Most People do not Wish to believe they Will be arbitrarily ‘tricked’ into some jurisdiction of Law where these rights do not apply. They do not only apply in the Supreme Court of Canada, they apply everywhere continuously.
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.
We already reviewed the legal definition of the Word ‘Provision’ in a previous Post, but it is an obligation within a contract. More specifically, it is defined as a ‘stipulation’. Legally, stipulation means more or less exactly the same thing One Will presume it to mean in English. It means that things can only be done provided (provision) this stipulation has been met. These are the contractual obligations of Canada’s Courts and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, regardless what Genevieve’s ‘opinion’ on the Matter may be, these are the Rules that define what the Courts can and cannot do.
The Common Law is a superior jurisdiction of Law to that of Civil Law, and the Civil (commercial) system of Law is obliged to recognize it, which is why case Law examples are so Powerful – it is the ‘Supreme’ Law of the Courts (as example and precedence). Because the Civil Courts are commercial and accountable to the Common Law if civil codes trespass upon Common Law (inherent/God Given) rights, provisions have been made to protect the Common Law and hold the Civil law jurisdiction accountable.
(ii) Civil/administrative remedies
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). In response to a Charter damages claim, the government may establish that other considerations render a pecuniary award inappropriate or unjust in the circumstances, e.g., double compensation or duplicative remedies; or concerns that an award of damages would interfere with “good governance” and the rule of law (Ward, supra, at paragraphs 32-45). The quantum will be determined based on evidence of pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss, as well as in light of the other functional purposes of section 24(1), i.e., vindication and deterrence (at paragraphs 46-57).
Notice how it specifically states ‘Civil’ and administrative remedies? That’s because Judges are Acting as ‘administers’ of the Rule of Law, are bound to their position of Office by the Rules of the Court, and if Acting in a commercial (Civil Law) capacity, they are empowered (and obliged) to provide financial remedy for Common Law rights violations. The Common Law never disappears, One must simply be as King of the Courts for it – and a King’s Wish is his Command.
Thank You all so much for being here. It does feel like a ‘Lucky’ Wednesday, even though I was hoping to hear back from defense counsel today, My belief is that she has no defense to any of My legal and lawful arguments and she never has. She only has beliefs.
What is interesting for Me now and why this feels a little Magical, is because this is the big rumour, the ‘conspiracy theory’, if You Will. It is rumoured that the courts trap People into this ‘Civil Law’ jurisdiction where the Common Law jurisdiction and Charter obligations no longer apply. That can only happen if People allow it to happen. The jurisdiction of the Courts are determined by the subject Matter before them (the parties to the Action, and the facts Presented). I’m very clear in My Motion to the Court that We are in a Common Law jurisdiction and on a Common Law Court of Record.
We Trust the ‘administers’ of Justice in Our Court system to recognize the Highest Law first and to provide remedy of Charter violations so that We may restrict the overreach of government in all capacities; administrative, judicial, or legislative. So We must Show the Courts they have these obligations and Trust that these People Will Honour their position of Office. This is Our collective Duty as People – to Hold those who’ve been Trusted to protect Our rights accountable for their Actions.
I’ll have more for You on this in the future but I have to Sign off or I Will not get this Published in time. I have big plans moving forward because more than ever We need to hold both government and corporations accountable for their trespasses.
Love and Blessings,