S-135307: A look at the theft of personal property
If you had NOT actually been there in the court, at the summary trial, where the judge wore no gown and the flag of canada nor the picture of the Queen was to be seen for that day, and high levels of sheriff’s stood during the savage decision, this weblink would make you believe another story but of course, it was a summary trial.
as a gentleman while laughing said to one of the sheriffs after he asked, “are you guys going to riot?”, his response was canadians are to passive to riot and shook his head. it was that kind of a day. the decision is the decision of the court and that is really ok. i do have to add that there were some very clear examples of cause of action regardless of the judge’s decision to base his decision on his “opinion”.
for me, i see all processes as starting at one place and ending at another. like a lot of people, they want to see for themselves what the truth is, and of course, it is always the subjective made real. my reason for the claim(s) are different from the reason why i had to learn a variety of heavy language structures to help clarify and communicate the with attorneys. that language is part “legalese” and part “accounting” and part “history” and part “scripture”…and so on, etc. not all of these language structures are relevant to attorneys but they do paint a kind of picture of this great interaction of cause and effect. of course its always the journey that matters, not necessarily the destination. on your way to a claim or complaint with experience you leave what doesn’t work and use what does. i myself have to emphasis with the above website that theres lots of people mixing information together or using the wrong court procedures or saying (metaphorically) “cheese instead of mozzarella”. of course for today, it seems to be this lay-litigant’s process that seems to be the topic of curiosity and gossip and simple idiotic banter. (allow me to point out its your world, not mine). i am only presumed to be the hostage and part of a chain of associate property. yet, the presumption is a guarantee also found in the name and account and again, that is property of the CROWN (cleverly by ones association with the subject matter jurisdiction to a general understanding of a shade that could apply to any thing, place or noun.). also for accuracy on subject matter jurisdiction check out this link; CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. [australia]
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. the imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. the legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them”.
so, i thank you for putting all that resource ($$) into a short timeline for yours truly. it is a good reality check, and for everyone. today with the courtesy of some esteemed colleagues, the litigious moor is officially the splatter of
FOOTLOOS, the seemingly legal weblink of (place noun here). sometimes i feel like theres no opposition, even when i put up videos of some public officials just behaving badly or maybe i can say, sometimes i feel like no one is paying any attention. people will be people, in a costume or not, whether costumes gives them a sense of superiority or not, people will be people and more often than not, behaving badly.
I began the case with addressing the CROWN’s administration and my dissatisfaction with it, with a listing of events leading to stating the multitude of demands. the world is, what it is and some people get prompter service than others. some of these demands never came. remedy for the initial breaches kept me in a perpetual cycle of asking the same questions over and over about accountability and performance. of course, with a little spirit, i found tools to help express some of my complaints. the particular actions on oct 16th 2013 are for the court records, anyone can get them, dismissed or not. i believe i used all of their laws and also the ones that the public officials are bound by. these laws stated in themselves the torts and they were all dismissed and all this stuff about being a moor and being dead and being a guarantor (which is the PERSON and not the grantor) was brought up on this pseudo legal online site and was also brought up in court. we didn’t even talk about the merits of the case. of course to prove someone vexatious claims, you must slander and ignore the merits of their complaints.
and that was it as the opinion verdict came in and good enough for the case and all the witnesses there, most i have no idea who they were or even how hey came to hear about the case. the trolls on the other hand, (well, theres NOT much to say about trolls), just check out there site… they think and say they know me or have the right to talk slander and libel me behind their facade.
a court process takes a while to put together and cost money and one should always hope to do things right. the odds are normally against the lay(s) in many ways but you do it for many reasons. i made a claim on a human rights matter. we were suppose to look at the Local Government Act as in relation to that and some other statutes. the human and person (juridical person) are two different subject matter entities in law. one normally has to get that out of the way to proceed with a human rights case. (ie. criminal proceedings normally deal with people that have been harmed or injured. so if you hurt someone, criminal proceedings may apply in the common sense/ common law/ common sense or some kind of balanced book – keeping.
so, lets be realistic here, please. less acting for a moment….is that possible?
was i way over-my-head? Sure, probably, the legal system is in depth. Did something positive come out of it? Yes, many things for projects or mapping.
people can help each other but instead you have some questionable negativity like the above link. i get it, it is extreme and whats funny is, it is needed. i’m not saying “negativity” is needed, it is my opinion that it is “negative” which is NOT fact that it is negative. it is needed because it, simply gives perspective and the “taking of that” away from anyone just causes more opposition.
When the order came
a reality check, a death-knel indeed as witnesses and recorded by many vantage points… a lesson well learnt, i’ll never do it again, promise, (lol), i guess i can’t anymore or is that the ‘Person’? What stops people from just using fronts, business, and other commercial vehicles from still addressing the administrative and accounting issues, (with the other side of the account(ledger))? Sorry Im so crass, for you nerds.
thanks, again guys for your honesty and also remember that lay litigants have, in this and most cases, very limited resources ($$) for action in judicial review and are NOT backed by corporate policy to create slander to pass more pernicious statutes. thank god for the lay litigants with there limited resources that dont stand a chance against such a waste of resource management, but, all kidding aside, (with the class wars $$) many people are all really hoping that things are gonna get better and society may turn back into an an open society of trust(s) and account(ability), so whats with the opposition to that?