Volume CLXXXIII: The Witches, Wizards and Warlocks ‘Lucky’ Wednesday Update; Keep on as King – I Receive the City’s Factum and Motion Record!!!

Hello every One, and welcome to the Witches, Wizards and Warlocks ‘Lucky’ Wednesday Update, thank King Your moral Highness for being here. Wouldn’t You know, I Published My Post after tall King about how tired I am waiting for the city to respond but don’t really Wish to have to continually follow up with them, either. Makes Me feel like I’m harassing them when I really just Wish to get this thing done.

After hitting ‘Publish’ and re-reading the Post one last time as it appears online to see if I can catch any last edits, I open My email to check on other News and the city’s reply is on the new messages inbox list. I open it to find it is complete with their Motion Factum and Motion Record. The other thing I have in common with V, is that I don’t believe in coincidences.

Thankfully, I am happy to tell You that defense counsel has not made any effort to attack My Character directly with their opposing arguments. I’m going to include defense counsel’s Motion Factum and Motion Record today, and I’m also going to include My original email Motion to the Court to Vacate the Order. Keep in Mind, this is the document defense counsel is officially opposing. In My previous email correspondences with defense counsel I advised them that if they Wish to oppose this Motion, they must address every point of Law I have already Presented in My Motion materials. Failure to oppose any of the points of authority in My Motion, effectively determines those authorities to be unopposed by defense counsel – and there are a lot of them.

A Motion is basically a mini-trial. Defense counsel is suggesting that Rule 2.1.01(6) does not require any official application or motion to the Court, and that Rule 2.1.01(6) allows for defense counsel to send a private letter request to the Registrar without any formal filing of an application with the Court. That is simply not True. It isn’t even close to True. Rule 1.09 makes this very clear:

Communications out of Court

1.09 When a proceeding is pending before the court, no party to the proceeding and no party’s lawyer shall communicate about the proceeding with a judge or associate judge out of court, directly or indirectly, unless,

(a)  all the parties consent, in advance, to the out-of-court communication; or

(b)  the court directs otherwise.  O. Reg. 132/04, s. 2; O. Reg. 438/08, s. 66; O. Reg. 711/20, s. 2; O. Reg. 383/21, s. 15.

The city of Ottawa is doing what is called ‘legal gaslighting’. They are not Presenting any new information, they are only asserting that what they did was in compliance with Rule 2.1.01(6), and that the proper procedural process for Me is an application to an appellate Court.

Here’s what Rule 2.1.01(6) actually says.

Request for Order

(6) Any party to the proceeding may file with the registrar a written request for an order under subrule (1). O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

First thing to point out here, is that if a Rule does not specifically state an exemption from other Rules of the Court (like 1.09), they are presumed to apply. Why would they not? I would also suggest that to some extent, the Rules are Presented in a particular Order and hierarchy, even if only for psychological purposes. There is a logical Order to the Rules of the Court. Each Rule builds upon the Foundations Established by the previous Rules, and they are all Created with the intent to preserve the Rule of Law; primarily fairness and equality in law, at law, and before the Law, as these are well established foundational principles of Justice.

Now We have to look at what subrule (1) has to say.

(2) The court may make a determination under subrule (1) in a summary manner, subject to the procedures set out in this rule. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

(3) Unless the court orders otherwise, an order under subrule (1) shall be made on the basis of written submissions, if any, in accordance with the following procedures:

Before I continue, Shall means must. Also keep in Mind that the Court may dispense with any Rule at any time (to preserve the Real Matters at Hand in the Interest of Justice). But ‘the Court’ is not defense counsel. The Court may dispense with any Rule at any time, but parties before the Court do not have that luxury, ‘unless the Court orders otherwise, in accordance with the following procedures:’.

Okay, so what are the ‘following procedures that defense counsel must follow’ unless they can Show they have been directed otherwise by the Court?

1.  The court shall direct the registrar to give notice (Form 2.1A) to the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, that the court is considering making the order.

So if defense counsel followed the Rules and filed a request with the Registrar, then I Will receive Notice of the Motion – this is not a maybe. This is a shall. The Court is not going to not tell Me that defense counsel has made a request. The Courts do not endorse private pleadings to the Court in any Way as a general Rule, this I assure You.

Ashley Moniz Andrade’s email reply to Me is stating the exact same information more diplomatically. She’s telling Me that if the Court is considering making an Order, I Will receive Notice (Form 2.1A) and have an opportunity to respond. If that’s not how this Order was made, then there Will be a directive from the Court to indicate why the Rules do not apply in this case. Here’s the Notice I would have received from the Court if the Court were making a consideration to dismiss. Like I said, this decision was not Issued by the Court, it was done entirely outside of the Court process.

The most Magical thing about today is that I don’t know what I was expecting but what they came up with is… Disappointing. I mean, there’s still not telling how it Will go but I was expecting a better fight. Even in the city’s affidavit of facts they got the date of commencement wrong.

There is a stamp on the front page that shows ‘received, city of Ottawa’ on the 21st of June, but if You scroll to the bottom, You can see that I am correct. I know because I delivered it by Hand and do not think that Yanick Goddard would lie to My face after watching Me Write his name down asserting that he Swears he is an agent of the city of Ottawa who is legally able to accept service of documents upon the city – he assured Me it would be delivered to their legal department immediately. He kept his Word.

So even the city of Ottawa’s official copy of the Statement of Claim with the date of filing indicates they were in fact served on the 18th of June, the city of Ottawa can no longer claim they were not served until the 21st. So the first statement in defense counsel’s Motion Factum is false. Maybe the Courts define fraud and perjury differently but as far as I’m concerned, if it is not a ‘fact’ – it is fiction and fraud, and fraud on a Court of Record is perjury.

The reason I call this legal gaslighting is because any lawyer who is reading this Will know that everything I am telling You is absolutely True. I legitimately think they believe I am too stupid to know that every process of the Court requires some kind of filing of materials with the Registrar. If there is no Record of a request on the Court of Record (which is Record of all documents filed with the Court), it didn’t happen.

The best Part of this Story, is that now I get to prepare My reply Factum. You Will Notice I also advised defense counsel a second time about the Title of the proceeding and the Style (how the names of the parties are ‘Spelled’ in all capital letters like a tombstone) of the parties to this proceeding. It is a Rule of the Court that all Matters in a proceeding should conform with the Style of originating process – one cannot change the Way names are Styled in the original proceeding because it does mean something. If it doesn’t, then there should be no reason not to comply.

Once I’m done, I’ll serve My reply Factum on the defendants to see if they Wish to respond, then I Will prepare My Motion Record including all the information along with My concluding arguments. I was expecting something better, so unless the Courts really are corrupt, I’m pretty sure the Motion Ruling Will be in My favour. I am thing King the chances are especially Good if the Motion materials I Present to the Court are impressive and I’m confident they Will be.

At least I have something to be war King on and the end (of this Motion) is in Sight.

I Will keep You Posted.

Love and Blessings,