Hello every One and welcome to Thursday’s Thoroughly Thrilling Thing King Edition, thank King You for being here. As today’s Title Will suggest, although this Post may be a little shorter than usual, I Will be continuing to Write about Our collective Trust in government until I have covered all of the main Issues.
We can believe or laugh and joke that every son is Secretly in Love with his mother and that every daughter has daddy ‘Issues’, but how often do We really talk about the Issues We have with those Trusted to perform particular functions in society? If the government is Acting under the premise of ‘parentis patria’ (and they are), and the People have invested their Trust in government to protect a particular belief system, the government are Acting as parental guardians of the [public] Trust. If a minor gets in trouble with the Law, who is liable for the minor’s Actions? The legal or lawful guardian (government), otherwise referred to by Canada’s Department of Justice as ‘State Actors’. I couldn’t Characterize it better My Self. There are no coincidences, Ladies and Gents, fellow Queens and Kings.
I decided to start Writing about this because it’s very difficult for Me to Trust the People who have been Trusted to care for Canada’s People, and it’s equally difficult for Me to Trust their legal representative because she continually breaks her Word. She has never responded to any of My legal arguments and has gone to great lengths to keep those arguments from being Presented to a Court. Most recently, fraudulent, misleading testimony made under penalty of perjury in a private pleading to a justice for an Order to dismiss. Not only are these facts ‘self evident’ by Way of the material facts (documents) evidenced by the email correspondences, it is clear that it was done with intent (Mens Rae, of guilty Mind) to unfairly influence the justice. I don’t believe that defense counsel can dispute any of these facts, and I don’t believe there is any Rule of the Court that allows for fraud and perjury on a Court of Record. Those are the arguments I Presented in My Motion to the Court, and I advised Genevieve on Tuesday afternoon that those Will remain My standing arguments if she has nothing to say in defense of her fraudulent testimony.
I heard nothing yesterday which was a bit of surprise, though nothing should surprise Me anymore. Defense counsel did respond this morning, however.
I confirm receipt of your below email. We will get back to you early next week.
So I’m very curious what defense counsel is going to come up with, though it is difficult for Me to Trust that she is trying to come up with anything at all. Time is of the essence, here. It is something of a ‘yes or no’ sort of situation. Either she disputes that she commit fraud on the Court of Record in a private pleading to a justice, or she doesn’t and the Order is Vacated. It’s pretty much that simple. She knows she did, she knows she’s been caught. The Quest-Ion is Will she try to do something similar again?
It may seem optimistic for Me to believe that Canada’s Courts are Honourable when I have so many Trust Issues with those who have been Trusted to protect Justice. But see, that’s because the Courts are not People, a Court cannot be inherently corrupt, it requires the Will of a Man to do that, regardless her kind (sex). Corruption can certainly happen under the veil of a Court if One allows for it to happen. Do People know what the five requirements of a legal and lawful Common Law Court are? Today I’m going to tell You what I believe they are, tomorrow I Will research the official definition. I’m not even sure why I believe there are five but this is what I am thing King they are:
Five Requirements of a Common Law Court:
- A Sovereign is required to Hold Court
- The Sovereign’s flag or Logos
- The Seal of the Sovereign
- Must maintain a [public] Record
- Power to fine or jail for contempt of Court
Most of the time I am thing King there is also a requirement for public access but that may be limited to more specific types of Courts. But even quasi-courts Will follow the same principles; corporation, company logo, CEO’s stamp or autograph, a record of invoices, power to fine or prosecute. See how that works? Contract law follows the same principles because all commerce is governed by the Sovereign. The Sovereign is the source of the wealth. In Canada, this concept is mimicked in Canada’s currency with Her Majesty’s Portrait (for traits) on the face of every coin.
The intent of the coin was to simplify trade, or at least that is the Common belief. So would it not make sense for the Sovereign to put something on the face of the coin they’ve created to remind People whom they Will answer to if that coin is ever used to cause harm? To remind those who are as King to borrow it that it is to fulfill a Trust obligation to the People? Is Canada thing King that Canada’s People Will Promise to pay back money Canada Gives to corporations? How much does One Wish to bet that Justin Trudeau (just as an example of many) doesn’t have the slightest clue how the economy actually works and why he’s able to borrow the money he does?
In her determination, Sally A. Gomery describes the ‘public Trust’ as an obscure legal concept. That’s the real reason I’m Writing about it. Someone far more knowledgeable than I suggested that the remark was made because it hit a nerve, justice’s don’t like to be reminded of their obligations to the public Trust. I’m not so sure, maybe they really believe there is no public Trust anymore because the Trust has been abandoned for so long.
But I’m going to Show You how that Trust is very real and how some of the People I have Writ letters to are very wrong. Most of these incorrect individuals are not lawyers or high ranking service representatives of Canada’s government, so it isn’t entirely surprising but it is significant. If We Wish to make a difference in the world, I believe We have an equal duty (or greater) to that of elected officials to ensure that public servants in all sectors of government do not violate their oath of Office.
Tomorrow I Will reply to defense counsel’s email with a very brief statement indicating that if she does not clearly state whether or not she has any intent to provide a defense for her Actions, she Will be perceived to have tacitly agreed to have Presented fraudulent, misleading testimony under penalty of perjury on a Court of Record with intent to unfairly influence justice, and I Will stand on My argument that fraud and perjury are not admissible on a Court of Record.
Tomorrow I Will be tall King about how the economic system in Canada does work and why Canada is able to borrow the money it does; and it’s all derived by Way of the Trust Canada’s People have placed in government.
Love and Blessings,