Thursday, January 28, 2010

Saskatchewan minister gets private agreement with the private man man acting as a de facto minister

From: tim debnam
To: r.norrismla@sasktel.net
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 8:41 AM
Subject: good faith agreement

This is a Private ecclesiastical non commercial Assumptive contract/agreement/covenant and understanding between minister Kelly-Marie:Hrycay and the private man Rob Norris,

To the private man Rob Norris January 18, 2010 A.D.

Acting as:

Minister of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour
Minister Responsible for Immigration
Minister Responsible for the Saskatchewan Workers' Compensation Board
Labour Relations Board
Minimum Wage Board
Workers' Advocate
Saskatchewan Apprenticeship and Trade Certification Commission



Hello and Greetings in the name of YHWH and our savior Yehushua the anointed. My Christian baptismal name is Kelly Marie_______ and I am of the Hrycay family of the geographical location called Esterhazy Saskatchewan Canada and have been told verbally that I came into this land on the _27____Day of _______October_____________ in Nineteen Hundred and _____75___ A.D. In the _____Winnipeg Health Science Center______________ also being in the geographical location of ___Manitoba___________.

It is agreed by you ,Rob Norris, the private man ,with no dispute forthcoming from you, that by the action of my sending you this good faith agreement, I do attempt to ascertain all the facts ,herein provided, and having done so in honour, as my main and sincere attempt here, is to diligently making you aware of the facts as pertain to this particular set of circumstances herein delineated and offering you good opportunity to refute these herein offered facts . The covenant /agreement/contract I am offering herein is for your acceptance of these facts and to bring about your awareness of the schedules you may tacitly agree to be submitting to in complying with your contractual obligations. I as bondservant of Christ wish to make you see and know that if by your negligence of standard of care and fairness you bring stress/harm/damages to man or woman or their property you are privately liable for those damages and are bound by this offer and your response or lack thereof. I say bound by the laws of God Leviticus 6:2-5 and nature as if you bring harm to others by gift of life and right to retain it this is an appropriate method of defence as section 39 of the Canadian criminal code so adequately describes. Ezekiel 33:6-10



http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/fr/browseSubjects/roncarelli.asp



It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that first off I wish you to be aware this is a sincere expression of what I know and believe and in no way is intended to be mischievous intimidating or malicious as it is a true expression of my beliefs and faith. This may not, cannot and shall not be construed by any man or woman herein named as a threat of violence, mental instability or an act of terrorism and may, can and shall be solely construed as an innocent, peaceful and loving notice of the facts presented by me minister of Christ Kelly-Marie: Hrycay being a minister of Jesus/Yahushua the Christ..



I have joined a relatively new and International Church that offers redemption from a false god's system of laws. I wish to know if you have any law that can induce me or intimidate me to violate my faith in practicing the laws of the King James Bible of which such faith is founded upon?

So please get back to me with the information if you have it available, as if it is not lawful for me to follow the laws of God then I need to see by whose authority that I can be intimidated to break them.

Before you reply I would like you to review some of your own government’s information.

This is clearly important for you to be aware of before you can grasp the significance of what I am endeavoring to tell you.

First I would like you to know what the word De facto means so you can see the top of the Canadian pyramid and what source it has for authority.



De Facto

De facto. [L.] actually; in fact; existing; as a king de facto, distinguished from a king de jure, or by right.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. I, page 56.

DE FACTO. Actually; in fact; in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done.
A government de facto signifies one completely, through only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful government; Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 2 Am. Rep. 625, Chisholm v. Coleman, 43 Ala. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 677, See De Jure Austin, Jur. Lect. vi. p. 336.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 1, page 761.

de facto (dë fak’tö). In fact, as distinguished from “de jure,” by right.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 344.

de facto government. A government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation,(see below) been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do act in their stead. 30 Am Jur 181.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 345.

De facto. In fact; actually; indeed; in reality. Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 30 S.W.2d 255, 257, 71 A.L.R. 830.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.

De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.

de facto (dë fak’tö, da-, de-). [[L]] existing or being such in actual fact though not by legal establishment, official recognitiont, etc. [de facto government]: cf. de jure.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988), page 360.




Top of Form




















Reference > Usage > The Columbia Guide to Standard American English







CONTENTS · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

Bottom of Form

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.



de jure, de facto










De jure is a Latin phrase meaning “by right” or “legally” that English has taken over first in legal jargon and then adopted into the general language. It usually contrasts with de facto, which means “in fact but not in law.” A de jure government is one legally in place; a de facto government is one effectively in power and operating, but without legal authority. Spell both locutions as two words, and pronounce de either dee, dai, or di, stressing the first syllable of the second word in each phrase, JOOR-ee (or JOOR-uh) and FAK-to. See FOREIGN PHRASES.


1








Usurpation & Usurp

USURP’, v. t. s. as z. [Fr. usurper ; L. usurpo.]
To seize and hold in possession by force or without right; as usurp a throne; to usurp the prerogative of the crown; to usurp power. To usurp the right of a patron, is to oust or dispossess him.
Vice sometimes usurps the place of virtue. Denham.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.

USURPA’TION, n. [supra.]
The act of seizing or occupying and enjoying the property of another, without right; as the usurpation of a throne; the usurpation of supreme power. Usurpation, in a peculiar sense, denotes the absolute ouster and dispossession of the patron of a church, by presenting a clerk to a vacant benefice, who is thereupon admitted and instituted. Cyc.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.

USURP’ER, n.
One who seizes or occupies the property of another, without right; as the usurper of a throne; of power; or of rights of a patron. Shak. Dryden. Cyc.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.

USURPATION. The unlawful assumption of the use of property which belongs to another; an interruption or the disturbing a man in his right and possession. Tomi.
There are two kinds of usurpation: first, when a stranger, without right, presents to a church and his clerk is admitted; and, second, when a subject uses a franchise of the king without lawful authority. Co. Litt. 277 b.
In Governmental Law. The tyrannical assumption of the government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 3, page 3380.

USURPER. One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country. Toul. Droit. Civ, n. 32.
One who intrudes himself into an office which is vacant, and ousts the incumbent without any color of title whatever; his acts are void in every respect; McCraw v. Williams, 33 Gratt. (Va.) 513; Hooper v. Goodwin, 48 Me. 80.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 3, page 3380.

usurpation (ü-zêr-pä’shon). The absolute ouster or dispossession of a patron by a stranger who has no right to do so presented a clerk to a benefice who was thereupon admitted to the living and instituted therein. See. 3 Bl. Comm. 242.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 1324.

usurper (ü-zêr-pêr). A person who assumes possession of an office, who performs the duties, and who neither lawful title nor color of right. See Hamlin v. Kassafer, 15 Ore. 456, 3 Am. St. Rep. 176, 179, 15 Pac. Rep. 778.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 1324.

USURPATION. The unlawful assumption of the use of property which belongs to another; an interruption or the disturbing a man in his right and possession. Tomlins.
The unlawful seizure or assumption of sovereign power; the assumption of the government or supreme power by force or illegally, in derogation of the constitution and of the rights of the lawful ruler.
“Usurpation” for which writ of prohibition may be granted involves attempted exercise of power not possessed by inferior office. Ex parte Wilkinson, 220 Ala. 529, 126 So. 102, 104.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 1713.

USURPER. One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country. Toul. Droit. Civ, n. 32.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 1713.

usurp (yöö zurp’, -surp’) vt. [[ME usurpen < MFr usurper < L usurpare < usus, a use + rapere, to seize: see rape]] to take or assume (power, a position, property, rights, etc.) and hold in possession by force or without right – vi. to practice or commit usurpation (on or upon) – usurp’er n. – usurp’ing|ly adv.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988) page 1470.

usurpation (yöö zer pä’shen, -ser-) n. [[ME usurpacion < L usuparetio]] the act of usurping; esp., the unlawful or violent seizure of a throne, power, etc.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988) page 1470.

This a rendition form the Governor Generals web page. Note the use of the word you have just seen the definition of. De facto

Here is the World Bank's, being Canada's creditor, definition of de facto.

Dealings with De Facto Governments Note:This OP

7.30 replaces OP 7.30, dated November 1994. Questions may be addressed to the Chief Counsel, Operations Policy.

1. A “de facto government” comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country’s constitution, such as a coup d'etat, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.



· Français

· Contact Us

· Help

· Search

· Canada Site

· Honours

· Heraldry

· Media

· Visit us

· Home

Print

Home : Governor General : Role and Responsibilities

· Governor General

§ Biography

§ Speeches

§ Role and Responsibilities

§ A Modern
Governor General

§ Insignias

§ Commander in Chief

§ State Visits

§ His Excellency
Jean-Daniel Lafond

§ Former Governors General

§ Congratulatory Messages

§ Submitting a proposal for vice-regal patronage

· Rideau Hall

· The Office

Top of Form

Quick Search:



Bottom of Form






Governor General


Role and Responsibilities of the Governor General

The Office of the Governor General, Canada's oldest continuing institution, is a thread that ties Canadians together. From Samuel de Champlain in 1608 to Viscount Monck in 1867 to Vincent Massey in 1952 to today’s Governor General, the institution of Governor General dates back nearly 400 years.
What is the Governor General's position in Government?

Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State. Canada's Governor General carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State.

Like many other democracies, Canada has clearly defined the difference between the Head of State and Head of Government.
The Governor General

· represents The Queen who is the Head of State

· is appointed by The Queen on the advice of Canada’s Prime Minister
The Prime Minister

· is the Head of Government

· is the leader of the party with the most support in Parliament
What does the Governor General do?

The Governor General's role is built on four major themes:

· Representing the Crown in Canada

· Representing Canadians and Promoting our Sovereignty

· Celebrating Excellence

· Bringing Canadians together

Created: 2005-09-27
Updated: 2005-12-06

Important Notices


top of page











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defacto is also an excellent source of a definition for the word defacto.

The definition of that one word is a complete demonstration of how a government can act as a false God.

I will also refer you to the repealed section 2 of the British North American Act.

It says there that the Queens heirs will be bound by and inherit the Act as under their authority.



Footnotes to the Constitution Act, 1867
These footnotes are taken from the April 1, 1996 Consolidation of The Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982

(1) The Enacting clause was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.). It read as follows:

Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, as follows:

(2) As enacted by the Constitution Act, 1982, which came into force on April 17, 1982. The section, as originally enacted, read as follows:

1. This Act may be cited as The British North America Act, 1867.

(3) Section 2, repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.), read as follows:

2. The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

(4) The first day of July, 1867, was fixed by proclamation dated May 22, 1867.

(5) Partially repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.). As originally enacted the section read as follows:

4. The subsequent Provisions of this Act, shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the Day appointed for the Union taking effect in the Queen's Proclamation; and in the same Provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

(6) Canada now consists of ten provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia Prince Edward Island, Alberta Saskatchewan and Newfoundland) and three territories (the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut).




Statute Law Revision Act, 1893

56-57 Victoria, c. 14 (U.K.)
[Note: Only parts affecting the Constitution Acts are reproduced here.]

An Act for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing Enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary

[19th June 1893]

Whereas it is expedient that certain enactments, which may be regarded as spent, or have ceased to be in force otherwise than by express specific repeal by Parliament, or have, by lapse of time or otherwise become unnecessary, should be expressly and specifically repealed:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. The enactments described in the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed, subject to the provisions of this Act and subject to the exceptions and qualifications in the schedule mentioned; and every part of a title, preamble, or recital specified after the words "in part, namely," in connexion with an Act mentioned in the said schedule may be omitted from any revised edition of the statutes published by authority after the passing of this Act, and there may be added in the said edition such brief statement of the Acts, officers, persons, and things mentioned in the title, preamble, or recital, as may in consequence of such omission appear necessary:

..........

4. This Act may be cited as the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893.

SCHEDULE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reign and | Title

Chapter |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



......................................

Constitution Act, 1867.

30 & 31 Victoria In part; namely,

c. 3 From "Be it therefore" to "same as follows."

Section two.

Section four to "provisions" where it last occurs .

Section twenty-five.

Sections forty-two and forty-three.

Section fifty-one. from "of the census" to "seventy-one and" and the word 'subsequent ."

Section eighty-one.

Section eighty-eight, from "and the House" to the end of the section.

Sections eighty-nine and one hundred and twenty-seven.

Section one hundred and forty-five.

Repealed as to all Her Majesty's Dominions.



I will also offer you who the Supreme law of the Canadian corporation applies to as per Heritage Canada liberal interpretation.







































Minister's page | Minister of State (Sport) | Minister of State (Multiculturalism)

Location: Home - Human Rights Program


2005/03/12


GUIDE TO THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Part II : The Contents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section 32

Application of Charter

· This Charter applies

o to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

o to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

· Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.

The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.



If the Supreme law of the Canadian debtor corporation is over all the subordinate laws and only applies to the government can you tell me how the subordinate laws apply to me when I am not government nor partners with government?



I offer my apologies that the writers of this law make it so hard to read but I am not the author of that confusion only my own God given freedoms to not bow to a false god



It is agreed with no dispute to the fact that Section 176 of the criminal code , that I make no use of, but bring to your attention for your own benefit, was enacted on behalf of Queen Victoria in 1867 to protect the church and its ministers from harm and to carry out her own Coronation oath in law.



It is agreed in understanding with no dispute from you that The King James Bible has standing in all of her majesty’s’ courts and the lawyers and or allegiance who have taken an oath to her Majesty to be truly allegiant to her are violating their own oath when they intimidate men and women of God like myself.



It is agreed with no dispute to the fact that Saskatchewan is a corporation making corporate law as that is the only law a corporation can make and it only can apply to the members of the corporation! Section 32 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms offers more clarity.



It is agreed with no rebuttal to the fact that all de facto authorities are imposters and have no sanction from the Queen to intimidate any man or woman from practicing their Christian Faith.



It is agreed with no rebuttal to the fact that if you ignore this good faith ecclesiastical agreement and proceed to intimidate me while in your de-facto capacity that you consent to the fact and admit to be actively and irrefutably involved in a conspiracy to violate my faith in the King James Bible!!



It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact you consent to pay me 1 million Dollars $1,000,000.00 in Gold Maple Leaf coin for the damages to my ability to practice my faith unimpeded and that you will, once our agreement is witnessed and published, provide me the name and address of your liability insurance bond agent to pay me for damages due to your intimidation should you choose to break the laws and violate your oath.



It is agreed and with no rebuttal to the fact that the Sikh’s from Quesnel British Columbia sued the RCMP in 1980 and easily recouped $10,000,000.00 for the rejection of one man from RCMP employment as of his faith to wear a turban.



It is agreed with no rebuttal to the fact that I cannot be forced to violate my faith and contract with false god de-facto government or commercial court formed in her majesty’s name!!



Section 32

Application of Charter

1. This Charter applies
1. to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
2. to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all maters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
2. Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.



The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.



A corporation is a Person not a man/woman, and I wish you to know I cannot submit myself to persons or show respect to them shown guidance from my Bible Deuteronomy 1:17;10:17; Acts 10:34 Romans 2:11 and James 2:9 who really sums it up.



If I show respect to persons I will be convinced of the law as a transgressor!



That word comes from Latin and means a mask worn by a player on a stage. I assure you I am no mask and most certainly not an act.

So please get back to me with the information if you have it available, as if it is not lawful for me to follow the laws of God then I need to see by whose authority that I can be intimidated to break them.

If you have no authority to intimidate me to violate Gods first commandment then you have no authority outside of Gods law as God's first commandment is “Do not bow to false Gods nor serve them” .

. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that you Rob, the private man, are aware my intent as a newborn minister of Christ has from the beginning and will stand till I die, in exposing the truth and thereby fulfilling my ministerial duty as watchman as exemplified by Ezekiel 33:6-10.

It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that my efforts to expose lies, fraud and altered documents are not only in defence of the truth but in defence of my rights and freedoms and officially performing my duties as a bond servant for Jesus Christ!



It is agreed by you the private manwith no dispute that a member of my community, Vincent Flaman has been subject to discrimination and harassment from his employer EMW welding and Mosaic Potash and Saskatchewan OH&S for reporting asbestos on or about March 8, 2009 A.D.



1. It is agreed by you the private man that on or about March 8, 2008 Vincent Flaman a member of my community while working at the K2 mine site for contractor EMW welding approached his supervisor Trevor Mack with concerns that he and his fellow co-workers were possibly working with asbestos



2. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Vincent Flaman provided his supervisor for EMW Trevor Mack with a sample of the possible asbestos to be taken for analysis.



3. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Vincent Flaman along with Trevor Mack also provided Mosaics supervisor Clint prior with a sample of the asbestos to be taken for analysis.



4. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Vincent Flaman and Trevor Mack was advised by Mosaics project supervisor Clint Prior that the material provided by Vincent was not asbestos but rather it was fiberglass.



5. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Mosaics project supervisor Clint Prior failed to shut down the job until the material could be tested to see if was in fact asbestos.



6. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that for a period of around six weeks to no avail, Vincent repeatedly inquired to employer EMW and Mosaic about sample and if it was in fact the material was asbestos.



7. It is agreed by you the private man that after Vincent didn’t get a response from either Mosaic or EMW as to whether or not the material Vincent provided was asbestos as he was concerned for himself and fellow workers as to the possibility of being exposed daily to asbestos and took yet another sample to EMW OH&S committee member Joey Duchek.



8. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that after EMWs Joey Duchek failed to respond to Vincent’s concerns about the possible asbestos Vincent was compelled to take his very valid concerns to Mosaics OH&S committee member Ryan Lemique.



9. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that K2 OH&S committee member Ryan Lemique informed EMW to treat the material as it was asbestos until test results returned and EMW and Mosaic continued with the job risking the entire K2 potash mill to be exposed to asbestos!



10. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that my fellow community member Vincent inquired daily to EMW Trevor Mack and mosaic about the asbestos samples that had been sent for analysis and was informed by Trevor Mack that the first two samples had been lost.



11. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that because the first two samples were mysteriously lost Vincent once again provided EMW Joey Duchek with yet another sample to be tested.



12. It is agreed by you the private man that it is of great concern that instead of taking the sample to be tested at the on site lab, EMW Joey Duchek disposed of the sample under the microwave oven in the lunchroom and exposed the entire lunch room where the employees ate to asbestos!



13. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Vincent then took his concerns to K2 mill superintendent Peter Haugen who informed Vincent that the asbestos samples were not a priority!



14. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Vincent then went back to K2 OH&S Ryan Lemique who informed him that he was told by K2 mill superintendent Peter Haugen that Ryan had no fu**ing right to talk to subcontractors!



15. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that it was obvious that both Mosaic and EMW were not taking Vincent’s concerns seriously and Vincent felt he had no choice to protect himself and his fellow co workers and requested the assistance from Saskatchewan OH&S.



16. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that on June 6, 2008 when the job was complete employees of Mosaic and EMW along with Vincent met to have a mock reenactment of the asbestos removal process,



17. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that shockingly it was at this meeting Mosaic advised Vincent and others in attendance that Vincent was correct and it was in fact asbestos they had been working with for the past three months and the employees had been exposed!



18. It is agreed with you the private man with no dispute that it was during this meeting that Mosaic informed Vincent and the others in attendance that two years prior Mosaic had removed the hummer screens from K1 potash mine site and did so then using proper asbestos removal procedures.



19. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Mosaic should have ensured the employees safety as they were aware of the asbestos in the prior screens at K1 they should have been diligent in their inspection of the K2 hummer screens and followed the same asbestos removal procedures on the K2 hummer screens ensuring not to expose anyone to the asbestos.



20. It is agreed to you the private man with no dispute that Mosaic blatantly failed with respects to their own safety policy/procedures and sak OH&S safety procedures set out on asbestos removal.



21. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that by not ensuring their own policy was followed Mosaic put the entire mill at risk for asbestos exposure for a period of three months!



22. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Mosaics failure of due diligence as per the health and safety of their employees, put the entire K2 mill at risk this effecting approximately 200 workers in the K2 Potash Mill, for a period of three months.



23. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that the Sask Mines Inspector Colin Morrish, failed to adequately investigate Vince Flamans asbestos/dismissal complaint.



24. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Mr. Morrish failed to investigate and interview key witnesses with regards to Mr. Flamans asbestos complaint ( K2 OH&S co- chair Ryan Lemieux



25. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Sask OH&S Mr. Morrish based his decision about the incidents regarding Mr. Flamans dismissal/asbestos complaint without interviewing pertinent witnesses or even allowing Mr Flaman a rebuttal as to the information provided to the mines inspector from the employer



26. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Sask OH&S was aware as well as Mosaic was aware that Mosaic required to have a Asbestos control plan developed in consultation w/ OHC- specific plans are required for each job incl. if there are unknown fibers or cementitous material must be treated as if Asbestos until tested)





27. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Sask OH&S knew the seriousness of what Mosaic had done and did not lay a single contravention against Mosaic! Email from Saskatchewan OH&S Colin Morrish to Neil Crocker August 8, 2008 Subject RE: Mosaic K2 as problem, stating;

1. There was asbestos in the gasket material, they failed to identify it& did not take any precautions.

2. 337(1)(2) Mosaic required an Asbestos control plan developed in consultation w/ OHC- specific plans are required for each job incl. if there are unknown fibers or cementitous material( must be treated as if Asbestos until tested)

3. @ First hint, work should have been stopped until testing or treated as asbestos.

4. Mosaic K2 stated that they could not carry out quick analysis because SRC did not have time; there were many other resources that they could have conducted.

5. As per section311, workers must be given letter stating that there is a possibility of worker exposure to Asbestos, the fact that they could not sample the exposure by testing means that they still must acknowledge that workers may have been exposed.

6. Are workers aware of other hidden hazards

7. Mosaic must survey other properties in province.





28. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Colin Morrish Sask OH&S mines inspector stated in a email to Neil Crocker Chief Mines Inspector August 8, 2008 Subject RE: Mosaic K2 as problem, stating;

Expect that they are going to try and pin it on EM Welding & state that they were the service provider. Fact of the matter is that as contractor, Mosaic had responsibility to ensure that their plant was safe & provide the appropriate warnings.



29. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Sask OH&S was collusive with Mosaic and failed to file a contravention against Mosaic after stating that the Sask OH&S agreed that Mosaic had failed in their responsibility to ensure that their plant was safe & provide the appropriate warnings.



30. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that sask OH&S mines inspector Colin Morrish was collusive with Mosaic potash and failed to lay any contraventions against them : (August 28, 2008 Email from Colin Morrish to Al Harrison Regarding K2;

Colin Morrish states that “ I was planning on giving them a NOC because they did not treat the unknown material as if it contained Asbestos as per sub section 334(2)



31. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Sask OH&S mines inspectors knew that Mosaic did not label Asbestos- Gaskets on hummer screens and did not lay any contraventions!

It is agreed by you the private man that sask OH&S was aware that Mosaic has a comprehensive list that is reviewed annually and Sask OH&S still failed to lay any contraventions against Mosaic!



32. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Sask OH&S mines inspector Colin Morrish agreed that this was a dangerous occurrence and still failed in his duty to lay contraventions against Mosaic!



33. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Sask OH&S mines inspector Colin Morrish failed to properly investigate Vincent Flamans harassment complaint for termination for reporting asbestos!



34. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Vincent Flaman was harassed by Mosaic and EMW and was removed from K2 mine site by his employer which caused Mr. Flaman an enormous amount of stress and anxiety.



35.It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that OH&S mine inspector Colin Morrish failed to listen to a taped conversation between Ewen Morrison (EMW ) and Vincent Flaman.



36.It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Ewen Morrison admits to Mr. Flaman in this taped conversation that he removed Vincent from the mine site because Vincent was ranting and raving to much (about asbestos)



37. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Mr. Flaman was under a considerable amount of stress while working for EMW welding at the K2 mine site and was unjustly terminated for reporting asbestos at the K2 mine site and has been without income and has been removed from work from Doctors due to the stress.



38. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Saskatchewan OH&S has failed in respects to protecting the people of my community by allowing Mosaic Potash to get away with contravening the OH&S acts and regulations!



39. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that the five test cassette tapes that had the asbestos sample was lost by the Sask Gov Lab!



40. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that EMW welding placed a pregnant woman on fire watch knowing there was a possibility of asbestos!



41. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that some members that have worked at the k2 mine for years are now showing that they have asbestos cancer!



42. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Glenis Bihun, Jenifer Fabian, Neil Crocker, and Colin Morrish, Herb Wooley, and Al Harrison for sask OH&S failed in their duty to ensure Mosaic complies with safety regulations and acts. (Below find letter written to Sask OH&S Glennis Bihun and sask OH&S mine inspector Colin Morrish)













Mr. Colin Morrish Febuary 4, 2009

Sakatchewan OH&S

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan



Here is my account of the circumstances involving the harassment/discrimination that I have encountered at work. On or about March, 08, 2008 I approached my supervisor Trevor Mack with concerns that me and my fellow co-workers were possibly working with asbestos. I provided Trevor Mack with a sample to be taken for analysis also had provided a sample to Mosaics Project Supervisor Clint Prior. Over a period of around six weeks, I repeatedly inquired to Trevor Mack and EMW OH&S committee member Joey Duchek, about the asbestos and if in fact it had been sent for analysis. After no response, I was forced to take a sample to Mosaics OH&S Ryan Lemieux. I inquired to Trevor Mack daily about the asbestos and was informed that the first two samples were lost .Approximately one month later I gave another sample to EMW OH&S member Joey Duchek. It was of great concern to me that instead of taking the asbestos for analysis, Mr. Duchek put the sample I provided to him under the microwave oven in the lunchroom, where it continued to stay .It became obvious to me that Mr. Joey Duchek might not be qualified to make any sort of decision regarding matters as important as these. He has had no previous training with respects to OH&S, or any education/ training with asbestos removal or with asbestos in general. It was at this time when I took my concerns about the possibility of asbestos to Mosaics Mill Superintendent Peter Haugen. Mr. Haugen response to me about the asbestos was that " It was not a priority". After speaking again to Mosaics OH&S Ryan Lemieux he informed me that Peter Haugen told him " he had no fucking right to talk to sub- contractors!" It became overwhelmingly obvious to me at this point, that Mosaic and EMW were not taking my concerns seriously. I felt that I had no choice but to now contact the Mining Inspector and Saskatchewan OH&S. On June 6, 2008 I attended a meeting with EMW and Mosaic to talk about possible asbestos exposure. After this meeting I was terminated by Ewen Morrision, rehired, put on probation and then removed from probation. I believe that It was at this point that I became a target for termination, in retaliation for reporting the possible asbestos. I returned to work at the K2 mill for EMW.It was obvious to me when I returned to work that I was not welcome.





Because of the above mentioned meeting Mosaic and EMW, the employers and I had a mock re-enactment of the asbestos removal process. Shockingly, it was at this re-enactment that Mosaic advised us that for the past two years at the K1 mill, they were removing similar screens and did so using their proper asbestos removal procedures. Should not have these same procedures been set out for the screen removal at the K2 Mill? By this submission, Mosaic confirmed my concerns and confirmed that the sample was indeed asbestos. It now it became clear that for a period over three months my fellow co-workers and I had been exposed to asbestos, as well as Mosaics Mill employees and other sub-contractors that were performing their work duties for Mosaic in the mill. This was of great concern to me. It is my belief Mosaic blatantly failed with respects to their own polices/procedures on asbestos removal. By not ensuring that this policy was followed, it put the entire mill at risk for asbestos exposure for over a period of three months,. This, affecting some approximately 200 people. It seems as if Mosaic and EMW had a total disregard for our health or safety or the health safety of the other employees working in the mill.. Even when it was brought to their attention they were content to sit back and do nothing. This is unacceptable for any company but more so for a company like Mosaic that prides itself on their safety practices and procedures.



Under the Canada Labour Code; Bill C-45- Due Diligence: Preventing Harm in the Workplace provides that:



Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct, how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm, to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.



Criminal negligence occurs when an act or omission of an accused party shows wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others where the accused is under a legal duty act.



Bill C-45 is similar to the obligations already imposed on employers under OH&S legislation across Canada.



After this mock re-enactment I was informed by Ewen Morrision that Trevor Mack no longer wanted me at the K2 mine site. I was informed by Ewen Morrision That "until things blew over, I would be sent on the road. It was obvious to me at this point I was a target for termination." Even though I did not want to go on the road, I did in order to sustain a income. I was then sent to numerous different locations, Moose Jaw, Fort Sask, Dauphin and the Saltcolts shop. It is my belief that my employer was hoping that I would quit or simply just go away. During this time I started experencing a tremendous about of stress, I was placed on anti-depressants for stress and anxiety. When I questioned my employer about returning to the mine site I was informed by Ken Morrision that Mosaic didn’t want me on the mine site. When I inquired to Ewen Morrision about this, I was told that it was Trevor Mack who didn’t want me there. However, Trevor Mack denied this to me. Trevor, Ewen and Peter Haugen of Mosaic had a meeting about me returning to the mine. It was then that Mosaics OH&S Ryan Lemieux inquired about my situation, he was informed by EMW Trevor Mack, that it was my crew who didn’t want me to return, which is a blatant lie, as I have asked all the members of my crew personally and not one of them had a problem with me returning to the mine site. Instead I was sent to work at the Rocanville mine where I was able to be home every night and happy. I remained at the Rocanville mine until an accident occurred resulting in the death of a fellow co-worker. Because of this unfortunate event, job duties were re-arranged and I was then sent back to the K2 mine site. When I returned to the Esterhazy Mosaic mine site for EMW, I was put on the OH&S committee. Joey Duchek now Foreman for EMW was not happy with my placement on the OH&S committee, his response was that "I would shut down every fucking job-site." Either Mr. Duchek was harboring ill feelings toward me for my previous complaint about the asbestos or he has a blatant disregard for safety.



On October 3, 2008, after receiving a week off with no pay with no explanation I attended at meeting with Ewen Morrision. At this meeting I was praised for my work, was told that my fellow co-workers enjoyed working with me and was told how EMW would like me to retire with them. This newfound solidarity from Mr. Morrison was welcoming. I returned to work under the impression that I would no longer be a target for termination. Unfortunately I was wrong. I was terminated from EMW on November 27, 2008.I had no previous warning of job performance issues and remarkably 3 weeks prior, Ewen Morrision was praising my work, a direct contradiction for his reason for termination.

"Harassment can lead to stress, ill health and sometimes injury. Harassment that adversely affects the workers psychological or physical well being and that the person knows or ought reasonably know would cause a worker to be humiliated or intimidated., the harassment must: Involve a repeated action or display, OR Involve a single, serious occurrence that has been established to have caused a lasting harmful effect on a worker, AND Not be any reasonable action that is taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of the employers workers or the place of employment".



I believe that I have been subjected to this harassment in retaliation for reporting the possible asbestos. My GP placed me on anti- depressants for the stress and anxiety I was and currently continue to suffer with. because of the harassment and treatment I have been subjected to from the employers. I was denied the training that was promised to me by employer Ewen Morrison. I was denied training in the following areas:1st Level Asbestos Training; 2nd Level Tickets and I never got to take my CWB tests. I am seeking all lost time reimbursement, including O.T, and all other privileges I would have been entitled to.



I have contacted the RCMP and from that conversation, I am under the impression that what has taken place is criminal negligence. If the outcome of the OH&S investigation is fruitless, I will then visit the possibility of laying criminal charges against the employers.





Yours Truly, Vince Flaman







Executive Director

Glennis, Bihun

Occupational Health and Safety Division

400-1870 Albert Street,

Regina, Saskatchewan

S4P 4W1







Notice of Intention of Appeal;



My name is Kelly Hrycay. I am Mr. Flamans advocate. and will be assisting Mr. Flaman with his Sask OH&S appeal.



Take this as Mr Vince Flamans written submission, as a citizen of Saskatchewan, to assert his rights to have an appeal through the sask OH&S appeal process. Mr. Flaman feels that the Sask Mines Inspector Colin Morrish, failed to adequately investigate his asbestos/dismissal complaint. Because of his failure to conduct a through investigation, Mr. Flaman is left to question the appropriateness of his decision.

Mr. Morrish failed to investigate and interview key witnesses with regards to Mr. Flamans asbestos complaint ( K2 OH&S co- chair Ryan Lemieux) nor did he interview any co- workers with regards to Mr Flamans claims. From the information provided thus far from Mr. Morrish, (May 19 2009 letter) it seems that Mr. Morrish based his decision about the incidents regarding Mr. Flamans dismissal/asbestos complaint without interviewing pertinent witnesses or even allowing Mr Flaman a rebottle as to the information provided to the mines inspector from the employer (EMW). Mr. Morrish based his decision solely on EMW word which seems totally biased and one sided and in no way allowed Mr. Flaman the opportunity to a fair and impartial investigation.



I believe Mr Flaman has met his obligation to identify his reasons for appeal as per requested by the Sask OH&S Appeal process, they further are as follows';



Mr Morrish failed in respects to investigating his asbestos complaint ( which directly involves his dismissal complaint)

Mr. Colin Morrish's response to Mr Flaman regarding the outcome of the asbestos investigation was to "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie'' How can Mr Flaman adequately prepare for an a appeal when he has yet to receive any information pertaining to his asbestos complaint? The asbestos complaint and the unjust dismissal complaint are one in the same, since it is our belief that after Mr Flaman reported the asbestos he became targeted for termination.



In order to properly develop an appeal for Mr. Flaman I am requesting the following information ASAP; OH&S Investigation report on Mr. Flamans asbestos complaint,( from Mines Inspector Colin Morrish), Information pertaining to why Mr Flaman was fired ( information provided from Employers) and all relevant information pertaining to these issues. I would also request at his time information regarding the total appeal process of Sask OH&S. Previously in late May 2009 I had inquired to Mr. Morrish about the appeal process his response was to me was to GO FIND OUT. A release of information will be sent to you from Mr Flaman ASAP and look forward to a timely response.



Respectfully, Kelly Hrycay

Advocate







Home phone/fax: 1-306-745-3495

e-mail: timdebnam@sasktel.net

Box 27

Esterhazy Saskatchewan

SOA OXO







43. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Jim Taphorn an advocate for injured workers contacted your Deputy Minister Mike Car and Mr., Carr also failed in his duty to ensure Mosaic had contraventions laid upon them for their blatant disregard for the workers safety and not providing a safe working environment!

(Email from Jim Taphorn to myself)

December 1, 2009

Earlier this fall i contacted Mike who is the deputy labour minister,regarding Mosaic k2 mine regarding the mine exposing about 20 employee's for about six months with no protective gear,in asbestos laiden environment, and the mine officals knowing this was happening. Mike assured me the prov.OH&S would take this as a very serious incident, and would make sure it was properly investagated.However the who incident was swept under the rug by the Sask.OH&S. This shows me there is favoritism given to big corporations by the Prov.OH&S when it comes to safety in this prov. maybe that is the reason the reported mine injuries are so low,as OH&S are sweeping these incidents under the rug.
Jim Taphorn



It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute that Sask OH&S has showed obvious favoritism to Mosaic Potash (an American based Company) as sask OH&S has laid charges against a provincial sask gov mining Company for not ensuring a safe working environment!

CHARGES LAID IN PCS LANIGAN WORKPLACE FATALITY

The Ministry of Justice and Attorney General has laid charges against Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan (PCS) and supervisor Garth Gudnason for Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Legislation violations related to the September 2008 death of worker Robert Tkach.

PCS is charged with:

· contravening sections 4(a) and 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failure of its supervisor to take reasonable care to protect the health and safety of a worker;

· contravening section 3(a) of the Act for failure to ensure that the health, safety and welfare at work of all the employer's workers;

· contravening section 17(1)(a) of the OHS Regulations for failure to ensure that all work is sufficiently and competently supervised;

· contravening section 17(1)(c) of the OHS regulations for failure to ensure that a supervisor complies with the OHS Act and regulations; and

· contravening section 25(2) of the Mines Regulations for failure to ensure a direct supervisor record all significant information relevant to the health and safety of a worker.

Supervisor Garth Gudnason is charged with contravening section 4(a) of the Act for failure to take reasonable care to protect the health and safety of a worker who may be affected by his acts or omissions.

The charges were the result of the investigation by Occupational Health Officers into the death of Robert Tkach, who died while working at the Lanigan potash mine.

OHS conducts approximately 4,000 workplace inspections annually and provides training to more than 4,000 employer and worker representatives each year on their safety responsibilities.

-30-

For more information, contact:

Lisa Danyluk
Advanced Education, Employment and Labour
Regina
Phone: 306-787-7791





44.It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that this communication is to perfect a Agreement with you the private man that fraud if evident must and shall be investigated and It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that you presented with the fact of the fraud and taking no action admit to aiding and abetting criminal activity and conspiracy to commit fraud and that your liability bond via risk management is in serious jeopardy as of the unavoidable proof of intent to commit fraud!

45.It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that this request to you is to ensure full unedited disclosure because I have had it come to my attention that there is corruption that exists within the justice system. I don’t know which judges or prosecutors or officers of her majesty’s may be corrupt, so in deserving full defense, I am entitled to inquire as to the lawful oaths of allegiance these men and women may have that would by law give them the authority to act with her majesty’s sanction.

Another matter I wish to address, is concerning your legal counsel's Oath of Allegiance, after much tedious research I have discovered the Oath lawyers swore to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is in fact altered from the original form and invalid, you do realize that in the Federal oath of allegiance Act it states.



2. (1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and The Citizenship Act desires to take an oath of Allegiance shall have administered and take the Oath in the following form, and no other:



I,...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.



Would you care to see what Oath has be implemented in Canada under the Oath of Office Act

I,.................,swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.*



Can you clearly see a difference? I’m sure you realize what this implies, that lawyers for the province being required by law to swear the Oath have taken an Oath contrary to the Federal Oath of Allegiance Act which gives them no authority to advise litigate or draft law to reign over over anyone. That violates section 126 of the C.C.C. You do realize the Queen has taken an Oath to God as well



The Coronation Oath:



The Queen having returned to her Chair (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the fourth day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen, Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?

And the Queen answering, I am willing,

The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and the Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?

Queen: I will.

Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen: All this I promise to do.



Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the promises: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the altar by the Archbishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

The things which I have here promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.

Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath. The Queen having thus taken her Oath, shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.
The Presenting of the Holy Bible

When the Queen is again seated, the Archbishop shall go to her Chair; and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, receiving the Bible from the Dean of Westminster, shall bring it to the Queen and present it to her, the Archbishop saying these words:

Our gracious Queen: to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords. And the Moderator shall continue: Here is Wisdom; This is the royal Law; These are the lively Oracles of God. Then shall the Queen deliver back the Bible to the Moderator, who shall bring it to the Dean of Westminster, to be reverently placed upon the Altar. This done, the Archbishop shall return to the Altar.



I sure do hope that you have read this very carefully, this is prima fascia proof. The Queen is to up hold the Laws of the Bible as God’s Laws are supreme



46.It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that if you or they fail to produce those lawful oaths of allegiance, you & they admit by default that you and they do not have a lawful oath of allegiance, are running de-facto, have no legitimate power what so ever and usurped her majesty’s power and sanction and have done so via fraud as the present oath of office act indicates in Saskatchewan that the Saskatchewan oath of allegiance is indeed deficient and is a violation of section 126 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which would indicate that the federal oaths of allegiance act is the act in question being violated.

47.It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that because of this I am requesting the full unedited disclosure with this case inclusive of and most specific to any bonds, any investments any small business security issuing that has taken place on part of a provincial court in Saskatchewan that is trading on the New York stock exchange as indicated on Dunn and Brad street web site, where it is easily searched. The province of Saskatchewan brings up the provincial courts as trading entities.

48.It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that no one has any authority to intimidate a man or woman to do a thing they have religious freedom not to do like associating with the dead, allowing their name to be altered or a financial purpose, bowing to a provable false god or submitting to the provincial codes and rules of a dead in law legal fiction trading on the stock exchange as a business for profit in violation of God's command of Exodus 20:3-5 and Christs direction of Matthew 6:24

49.It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that my exercising of my faith may conflict with your monetary policies that in fact are not law but corporate rules so by this agreement I am ensuring no false assumptions or process may be engaged in obstructing me or intimidating me from having the ability to practice my faith harmless from reproach.



So please get back to me with the information if you have it available, as if it is not lawful for me to follow the laws of God then I need to see by whose authority that I can be intimidated to break them.

It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that if you have no authority to intimidate me to violate Gods first commandment then you have no authority outside of Gods law as God's first commandment is “Do not bow to false Gods nor serve them”.

Blessings upon your expeditious reply if you have any law regulation court case or other authority that says you can tell me how to practice my faith or obstruct me form the official performance of the functions of my calling. Blessings and sincerely questing for truth and a fair and amicable resolution for all.



Default notice

It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact If you fail to dispute the facts herein within 10 days time and tacitly accept and agree by non reply, nihil dicit, I will assume to have no proof to dispute the facts and our agreement will be internationally witnessed and in due diligence returned to you for verification as per the advise of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-20 and then posted in as many papers and media as possible in order to carry out my duty via Ezekiel 33:6-10. If you, in bad faith, ignore our sincere effort to gain agreement with you and continue with your support of the fraud unlawful intimidation and obstruction of my non commercial ministry under the pretense of applying provincial civil law that you have seen proof of only applies to government agents, I intend to lay a private information against you privately of violating 423 180 and 176 of the criminal code per SCR Duplessis v. Ronccarelli 1959. I will also be challenging your oath of allegiance under 126 of the criminal code if you fail to uphold your duty to defend her majesty’s ability to defend the faith as all true allegiants must do in order for the word true to be accurate and breach of trust being 122 of the criminal code..

You may wish to contact Sergeant John Hanley formerly of Neepawa Manitoba, now stationed in the NWT, regarding this confusion as he knows a breach of 176 of the criminal code upon the pretense of a civil application is not defendable at tax payers expense and those officers charged under that section if proof they were informed of the man or woman’s faith and ministry and ignored them have to pay for their defense privately.

Offered under protest of threat duress and intimidation all freedoms in Gods law reserved non assumpsit without prejudice



minister-Kelly-Marie:Hrycay

No comments:

No proof for existence of virus

https://telegra.ph/Leading-Corona-researchers-admit-that-they-have-no-scientific-proof-for-the-existence-of-a-virus-07-31