Volume CCXLI: The Thoroughly Thrilling Thing King Edition; The Rule 21 Motion Hearing on the International Court of Record

Hello every One, and welcome to the Thoroughly Thrilling Thing King Edition, thank King or Queen You for joining Me. It is always a Pleasure to have You in My House and it is an especially Thrilling Thursday In Deed because We have the International Public Record of the Motion Hearing today!!! I am thing King You Will enjoy it very much, and I anticipate it Will soon become My most downloaded document. I enjoy watching My Words Magically Manifest! šŸ˜‰

Okay, so right off the start You may as well know that no decision was made today! That is a big surprise for Me. I was anticipating that the Judge Will wait to hear what Jenny Bogod has to say in response to My Reply Factum, and that if she doesn’t have anything to say in defense of the statements (state/ment, ment=mind, a statement is a State of Mind) made in My Reply Factum, the Judge Will dismiss the Rule 21 request and convert the Hearing to a Motion for Judgment. I thought it Will be pretty much automatic.

Keep in Mind, there is no Court of Record for this Estate!!! That’s really the Key because the Courts Will know this!!! And all any Judge has to do to know, is look up the CV number on the documents (or run the last name or any other appropriate case search for this Estate). I know for a fact that the Ottawa Courthouse has no Record of this Estate whatsoever, so obviously the Ottawa Courthouse Will know that, too, right? It’s hard for Me to believe that the Judge hearing this Motion would not be advised that there is no Court of Record for the Estate ahead of the Motion. In fact, I daresay it is unreasonable to presume the Judge Will not know there is no Court of Record for the Estate ‘processed with the Court’.

Jenny Bogod only reviews points already made in her original Motion materials which have all been rebut by My Reply Factum, while failing to explain any of the inconsistencies in her client’s story, or why her client, Hala, is presenting objections to the Court for Me without My prior knowledge or consent?! That’s absolutely direct liability and something her lawyer Jenny Bogod asserts she has no legal right to do, as well as a very big violation of Rule 1.09.

I mention several instances of Hala’s breach of Rule 1.09 to obtain her private meetings with Court officials without My prior knowledge or consent. Again, this is very serious Rule! If only One party has an opportunity to Present all arguments without any opposition or even Notice to the opposition of the private meeting and rulings made against them, that’s a pretty serious advantage for a party to have, right?

Now, before I share the Court of Record, there a Courts of Justice Act that was cited stating that there can be no recordings of the proceedings. I requested a Zoom link to make the Motion available to the public and did not receive a reply to My request or a Zoom link, and I have the right to a public hearing before My Jury of Peers, which are the People of the world – You! šŸ™‚

So I’m advising the Courts and the People that I am able to Present audio of the Motion for You today by Way of the Provisions afforded to the Ontario Superior Court under Section 24.(1).

“The Charter contains three provisions that govern the granting of remedies where there is a finding of unconstitutionality. Section 24(1) provides remedies against unconstitutional governmentĀ action; section 24(2) provides for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Charter; and section 52(1) of theĀ Constitution Act, 1982Ā provides that aĀ lawĀ that is inconsistent with the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Section 24.1 – Remedies

Just in case providing public access to a public recording of the Official Court of Record is not considered ‘unconstitutional’, it has been defined as an indispensable Principle of Justice (Rule of Law) in any Common Law society.

“Open court is a venerated ideal of justice in common law systems, and a principle that is regarded as indispensable. Generally, the principle requires that court proceedings be open to the public, and that publicity as to those proceedings be uninhibited. No less than the legitimacy of criminal justices depends on it; the fairness of criminal process and public confidence in the system are at stake. Of signal importance as well, a free flow of information encourages feedback and debate among members of the public, thereby promoting the accountability of institutions which exercise coercive powers against individuals.”

Victim Privacy and the Open Court Principle

Having a public Record holds State Actors in any capacity accountable to the public. Now the International Community Will know what took place in that Courtroom today, and whether or not the Judge is Honouring their Oath to the Court and Principles of Justice.

Everything that takes place in this Motion is an Official Court of Record. Any statements made that are not rebut are presumed to be fact. Consider those details carefully, and be careful to listen to every Word I say. One of the very first thing the Judge addresses, is My Title, King Sean…

The Kingdom of Heaven Found a Sean and Hala Tabl et al, Rule 21 Motion Hearing, November 3rd

Alright, I’ll be back to comment on the day’s events and share My thoughts on the Motion hearing with You later. For now I Wish to watch My Words Magically Manifest as this becomes My most downloaded document!!!

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s