Hello every One, and welcome to the Magical Monday Motive A Sean Edition and thank King or Queen You for being here, it is a Blessing to have You. Today I am Magically motivated because I have been war King on the completion of My Motion materials and Reply Factum to defense counsel’s opposition of My Motion to Vacate an order made by Sally Gomery. I Will be sharing some of that Magic with You this Monday.
Do You remember all the times I have said that one of the greatest skills to develop when reading legal documents is to pay attention to what is not said? Lawyers like to distract with legal jargon and get One caught up in details that may have little or nothing to do with the real Issues at Hand. A lawyer Wishes to Keep their adversary tuned into their points of argument. Defense counsel’s Motion Record is an excellent example, even though it doesn’t really say very much (to distract), the intention is the same.
Defense counsel Wishes for Me to be distracted by their assertion that a request was made in compliance with Rule 2.1.01(6), that the ruling was made in their favour, and that’s the end of the Story. The Idea (I am thing King), is to make it appear as though I am entirely incompetent, have no Idea what the Rules mean, and have no respect for the ‘authority’ of the justice who made the determination. On the last point, they are correct. If it were a real determination sanctioned by the Court, I would respect the determination even if I didn’t agree with it – there are other avenues to pursue. This was clearly a partisan decision motivated by the city’s biases (and very likely paid for by the city of Ottawa as a special favour to make something they don’t Wish to deal with disappear).
However, when One is opposing any Action whether it be a Statement of Claim or any other Court procedure (like this Motion), it is imperative to dispute all points One does not agree with. I advised defense counsel when they were as King of Me if My Motion materials were complete that My materials Will not be complete until I know which points and authorities they are opposing. I also advised them that I Will be expecting a reply (opposition) to every point made in My email letter to the Court. Ironically, I shouldn’t need to explain this to a lawyer but I did so as a precaution – I’m never going to be chastised by the Court for Giving fair warning of My expectations.
Three weeks and one day it took defense counsel to ‘oppose’ My motion materials, yet the only point they chose to oppose, was their violation of Rule 2.1.01(6), which they assert was all done fully in compliance with the Rules. Suggesting that the justice’s determination is final really is a mute and irrelevant point because if it were True, the Court would not have instructed Me to serve the Notice of Motion upon them, and they would not have been compelled to Present opposition materials.
The trick here is that if I don’t respond with a very Good and well put together Reply Factum, the judge presiding over this Matter may well be equally distracted by defense counsel’s simple, seemingly innocent opposing arguments – they may perceive the email to be a ‘real’, official filing with the Court if I don’t say anything to counter. The judge may ‘forget’ that I had already received a reply to that email letter request and was very clearly and explicitly told by the Court that if defense counsel Wishes to have the case dismissed,
“According to the rules of civil proceedings, the defendants can file a motion. You can reply to this motion by filing your response materials.
Please note that as of today, there is no motion materials filed.”
Right there, We have the official Word from the Court that a request to dismiss under Rule 2.1.01(6) requires Motion materials to be filed with the Court, and no materials were filed as of June 25th. Does defense counsel really think that a Judge is going to review this differently or ignore the direction that was provided to Me by the Court? That’s only what I have to dispute the single opposition point that might stand to make a difference (if it were True). Today, I am motivated by the points and authorities defense counsel has opted not to oppose, as these Will go into My Reply Factum as unopposed facts regarding the Matter. Here’s a list of the points We are in agreement on:
- Rule 2.01.1 (a,b) – Court may take any action necessary to preserve the real Matters at hand in the interest of Justice if there has been a violation of the Rules (including setting aside or vacating an Order).
- 1.09 – Absolutely no out of Court communication of any kind without the prior consent of all parties.
- The justice is not responding to the letter request. Defense counsel was instructed by the Court to file a Motion if they Wish to dismiss under Rule 2.1.01(6).
- Rule 1.09 was violated at least two times that We know of.
- These facts alone Give the Court the Power and authority to Vacate in accordance with Rule 2.01.1(a and b).
- Plaintiff is a Spiritual Man, and non commercial (Court filing fees are waived)
- Sean von Dehn is the proper Style and spelling of the plaintiff’s legal person
- Sean von Dehn is a natural, private person
- Plaintiff has Sworn an Oath of Office to Serve God and the Queen (in that Order).
- The plaintiff holds a position of office as King in his Sovereign state of being.
- As a Sworn representative of Her Majesty (on the Court of Record), the plaintiff also holds a position of office as Governor General to Her Majesty in any common law jurisdiction.
- A servant of Her Majesty is also a representative of ‘the Crown’.
- Trespass or interference with a Governor General or a King Acting in an official capacity is an Act of High Treason in a constitutional democratic monarchy.
- The defendants demonstrated willful intent to offend, antagonize and diminish the plaintiff’s legal status in Law.
- Legitimate rights binding on Canada were violated by the city of Ottawa.
- The Superior Courts of Ontario must be of concurrent, competent jurisdiction to provide relief and remedy for Canada’s Charter and international treaty obligations.
- If it is clear that legitimate rights have been violated, Rule 2.1.01 does not apply.
- Mr. is a distinctly different position of office to that of a Governor General or King, and a serious diminution of legal status.
- Sally’s abdication of her duties and obligations as an officer of the Court are Acts of High Treason.
- The statement of Claim was commenced on the 18th of June, not the 21st as claimed by defense counsel (fraud/perjury).
- The judge has committed fraud and perjury in her determination.
- The Order is not legally or lawfully binding because it contains fraud and perjury.
- The plaintiff’s claim is most certainly a justiciable action.
- ‘von’ is a title of nobility and Honour granted to My family in 1540 Germany by the Crown and neither the city of Ottawa or the justice have any ‘right’ to take that Title of Honour from Me.
- The city most certainly cannot threaten Me with economic harm for failing to allow them to insult the Honour of My family’s name granted Me by the Crown.
- Jurisdiction of the Court is determined by the subject Matter at Hand.
- The justice does not have the authority to dismiss a Claim brought forward by a Sworn representative of Her Majesty (Crown representative).
- Nothing in Rule 2.1.01.(6) provides any exemption from Rule 1.09.
- Defense counsel failed to advise the justice that the Courts had already responded to defense counsel’s unfiled email letter request (and not in their favour).
- If the Order is not Vacated, the Courts become liable under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and to the tune of $2,510,800.00.
Okay, so that’s it. Only thirty unopposed arguments. Only thirty reasons the Court should Vacate the Order, and only one false, fraudulent testimony entered onto the Court of Record by defense counsel in an official filing. I’m starting to have Fun with this, can You tell? (I’ll share My Motion materials with You when I have them completed and ready for filing.)
Love and Blessings,