Letter to the man Donald Norheim Acting a judge for the Corporation Alberta

July 27th 2011 A.D. Judicial Notice Of challenge to Jurisdiction To the private man Donald Norheim acting as a Justice or Judge in the courts of THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA in the local of Jasper Alberta on July 28th 2011... And to Alan Deslisle the private man acting as Crown Prosecutor on the same date in Jasper Notice none of these enactments or decisions are being mentioned as to make use of them ,or brought to your attention by myself as a bondservant of Christ an Heir of God being his minister for a benefit, but to act as the watchman Ezekiel 33:6-10 in making you aware those laws and decisions apply to you. The charter does not apply to me but to you as the government. Please do not assume I am wrong! http://www.pch.gc.ca/ddp-hrd/canada/guide/appl-eng.cfm Section 32 Application of Charter 1. This Charter applies a. 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 b. to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters 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. And section 52.. http://www.pch.gc.ca/ddp-hrd/canada/guide/cnstn-eng.cfm Section 52 - Constitution Act, 1982 1. The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. This section of the Constitution gives the courts the power to rule that a particular law is not valid if it violates the Charter, which is itself part of the Constitution. While section 52(1) is not part of the Charter, it provides courts with an important power to strike down laws that violate Charter rights. If only part of the law violates the Constitution, only that part will be ruled invalid. I am sending you this notice in officially undertaking the performance of the functions of my calling and to put you on full notice I am not making a consensual appearance but I was and am being intimidated to participate in the Crowns (Not being her Majesty but the Fleet Street Creditor) fictional proceeding whereby they have via bifurcation and without my informed consent altered my name for a financial purpose of the issuance of securities using the all capital reversed name as surety and pledge for the security. The All capital name is a legal fiction entity of no connection to a bondservant of Christ and as such I cannot answer to it...It is my sincere faith based upon Scripture I am not to associate with the dead. If the laws of parliament cannot be contradicted as supported by the interpretation Act as well then the laws of Canada only apply to government employee’s or officers of CANADA. The "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgement, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 [emphasis added]. Definitions: "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'" City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31: "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property. "Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire. TRAVEL The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as: "The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717 "Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309 "Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034 Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right. Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another. Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler. DRIVER The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler," is defined as: "Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940 Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business. OPERATOR Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case. "It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both "operator" and "driver." Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658 To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers. This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain. This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore: 1. Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler. 2. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both. TRAFFIC Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic": "... Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state ... will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear ..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26 Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain." In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business. "Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money ..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307 Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e .., vehicles for hire. Furthermore, the words "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra: "...in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them." The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt: "The word `traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18 Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business. LICENSE It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied: "The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort." People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4 "Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent." Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118 In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent. This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.) In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is: "a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203 This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets. Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the licensor which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the licensor. "A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation." State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487 Included in this Judicial Notice are, 1. The Authorised Version of the King James Bible by his Majesty’s Command of 1611.. 2..the Supreme court of Canada decisions enclosed wherein religious freedoms that existed before the installation of manufacturing of laws are brought into the Equation including the Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489 http://scc.lexum.org/en/1990/1990scr2-489/1990scr2-489.html The Saumur case [Saumur v. City Of Quebec [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299], The Reed decision , R. v. Reed, 1999 CanLII 2518 (BC S.C.) .) R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121 Date: 1959-01-27 3. The Dhillon Decision versus the RCMP 1980 removed from SCC website 4. The Westminster Confession of Faith an Act of the British Parliament from 1648. Chapters: 1. Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: Of the Old Testament Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua. Judges. Ruth. I Samuel. II Samuel. I Kings. II Kings. I Chronicles. II Chronicles. Ezra. Nehemiah. Esther. Job. Psalms. Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. The Song of Songs. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Lamentations. Ezekiel. Daniel. Hosea. Joel. Amos. Obadiah. Jonah. Micah. Nahum. Habakkuk. Zephaniah. Haggai. Zechariah. Malachi. Of the New Testament (10) The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The Acts of the Apostles. (11) Paul's Epistles to the Romans. Corinthians I. Corinthians II. Galatians. Ephesians. Philippians. Colossians. Thessalonians I. Thessalonians II. To Timothy I. To Timothy II. To Titus. To Philemon. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The Epistle of James. The First and Second Epistles of Peter. The First, Second, and Third Epistles of John. The Epistle of Jude. The Revelation.(12) All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.a And 1. 4. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.a a. 1 Thes 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19, 21; 1 John 5:9. And 1. 6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.a Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word;b and (14) that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.c and 9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it (16) must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.a a. Acts 15:15; 2 Pet 1:20-21. And 10. The Supreme Judge, by (17) which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.a a. Mat 22:29, 31; Eph 2:20 with Acts 28:25. Chapter 22. Of Lawful Oaths and Vows. 1. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship,a wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.b a. Deut 10:20. • b. Exod 20:7; Lev 19:12; 2 Chron 6:22-23; 2 Cor 1:23. 2. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence;a therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred.b Yet as, in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament, as well as under the Old,c so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters ought to be taken.d a. Deut 6:13. • b. Exod 20:7; Jer 5:7; Mat 5:34, 37; James 5:12. • c. Isa 65:16; 2 Cor 1:23; Heb 6:16. • d. 1 Kings 8:31; Ezra 10:25; Neh 13:25. 3. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth.a Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.b(91) Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.c a. Exod 20:7; Jer 4:2. • b. Gen 24:2-3, 5-6, 8-9. • c. Exod 22:7-11; Num 5:19, 21; Neh 5:12. 4. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation.a It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt:b nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels.c a. Psa 24:4; Jer 4:2. • b. 1 Sam 25:22, 32-34; Psa 15:4. • c. Ezek 17:16, 18-19; Josh 9:18-19 with 2 Sam 21:1. 5. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.a a. Isa 19:21; Psa 61:8; 66:13-14; Eccl 5:4-6. 6. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone:a and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for (92) the obtaining of what we want; whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties, or to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.b a. Psa 76:11; Jer 44:25-26. • b. Gen 28:20-22; Deut 23:21, 23; 1 Sam 1:11; Psa 50:14; 66:13-14; 132:2-5. 7. No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise (93) or ability from God.a In which (94) respect, (95) Popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.b a. Num 30:5, 8, 12-13; Mark 6:26; Acts 23:12, 14. • b. Mat 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:2, 9, 23; Eph 4:28; 1 Pet 4:2. 5. The 1931 Statute of Westminster The Statute of Westminster, 1931 22 George V, c. 4 (U.K.) An Act to give effect to certain resolutions passed by Imperial Conferences held in the years 1926 and 1930. [11th December, 1931] WHEREAS the delegates to His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at Imperial Conferences holden at Westminster in the years of our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty-six and nineteen hundred and thirty did concur in making the declarations and resolutions set forth in the Reports of the said Conferences: And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion: And whereas it is necessary for the ratifying, confirming and establishing of certain of the said declarations and resolutions of the said Conferences that a law be made and enacted in due form by authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: And whereas the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland have severally requested and consented to the submission of a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom for making such provision with regard to the matters aforesaid as is hereafter in this Act contained: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the King'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. In this Act the expression "Dominion" means any of the following Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland. 2. (1) The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion. (2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion. 3. It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation. 4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof. [Note: As far as Canada is concerned, section 4 was repealed by the Constitution Act, 1982.] 5. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the Legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the Parliament of a Dominion. 6. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (which requires certain laws to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure or to contain a suspending clause), and so much of section seven of that Act as requires the approval of His Majesty in Council to any rules of Court for regulating the practice and procedure of a Colonial Court of Admiralty, shall cease to have effect in any Dominion as from the commencement of this Act. 7. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder. (2) The provisions of section two of this Act shall extend to laws made by any of the Provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such Provinces. (3) The powers conferred by this Act upon the Parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures of the Provinces shall be restricted to the enactment of laws in relation to matters within the competence of the Parliament of Canada or of any of the legislatures of the Provinces respectively. 8. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand otherwise than in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act. 9. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorize the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to make laws on any matter within the authority of the States of Australia, not being a matter within the authority of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. (2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to require the concurrence of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any law made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom with respect to any matter within the authority of the States of Australia, not being a matter within the authority of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any case where it would have been in accordance with the constitutional practice existing before the commencement of this Act that the Parliament of the United Kingdom should make that law without such concurrence. (3) In the application of this Act to the Commonwealth of Australia the request and consent referred to in section four shall mean the request and consent of the Parliament and government of the Commonwealth. 10. (1) None of the following sections of this Act, that is to say, sections two, three, four, five, and six, shall extend to a Dominion to which this section applies as part of the law of that Dominion unless that section is adopted by the Parliament of the Dominion, and any Act of that Parliament adopting any section of this Act may provide that the adoption shall have effect either from the commencement of this Act or from such later date as is specified in the adopting Act. (2) The Parliament of any such Dominion as aforesaid may at any time revoke the adoption of any section referred to in sub-section (1) of this section. (3) The Dominions to which this section applies are the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and Newfoundland. 11. Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretation Act, 1889, the expression "Colony" shall not, in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act, include a Dominion or any Province or State forming part of a Dominion. 12. This Act may be cited as the Statute of Westminster, 1931. 6.The Coronation Oath Act of 1688. Status: Point in time view as at 01/02/1991. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Coronation Oath Act 1688. (See end of Document for details) Coronation Oath Act 1688 1688 CHAPTER 6 An Act for Establishing the Coronation Oath. II Oath hereafter mentioned to be adminstered, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, &c. May it please Your Majesties That the Oath herein Mentioned and hereafter Expressed shall and may be Adminstred to their most Excellent Majestyes King William and Queene Mary (whome God long preserve) at the time of Their Coronation in the presence of all Persons that shall be then and there present at the Solemnizeing thereof by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of Yorke or either of them or any other Bishop of this Realme whome the King’s Majesty shall thereunto appoint and who shall be hereby thereunto respectively Authorized which Oath followeth and shall be Administred in this Manner That is to say, III Form of Oath and Adminstration thereof. The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say, Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same? The King and Queene shall say, 2 Coronation Oath Act 1688 (c. 6) Document Generated: 2011-07-27 Status: Point in time view as at 01/02/1991. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Coronation Oath Act 1688. (See end of Document for details) I solemnly Promise soe to doe. Arch Bishop or Bishop, Will You to Your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements. King and Queene, I will. Arch Bishop or Bishop. Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them. King and Queene. All this I Promise to doe. After this the King and Queene laying His and Her Hand upon the Holy Gospells, shall say, King and Queene The things which I have here before promised I will performe and Keepe Soe help me God. Then the King and Queene shall kisse the Booke. IV Oath to be adminstered to all future Kings and Queens. And the said Oath shall be in like manner Adminstred to every King or Queene who shall Succeede to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme at their respective Coronations by one of the Archbishops or Bishops of this Realme of England for the time being to be thereunto appointed by such King or Queene respectively and in the Presence of all Persons that shall be Attending Assisting or otherwise present at such their respective Coronations Any Law Statute or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding. Coronation Oath Act 1688 (c. 6) Document Generated: 2011-07-27 7. The Royal Style and Titles Act Royal Style and Titles Act R.S.C., 1985, c. R-12 An Act respecting the Royal Style and Titles Preamble WHEREAS the Prime Ministers and other representatives of Commonwealth countries assembled in London in the month of December, in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, considered the form of the Royal Style and Titles, and recognizing that the present form is not in accordance with present constitutional relations within the Commonwealth, concluded that, in the present stage of development of the Commonwealth relationship, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position that each member country should use for its own purposes a form suitable to its own particular circumstances but retaining a substantial element common to all; AND WHEREAS the said representatives of all the Commonwealth countries concerned agreed to take such action as is necessary in each country to secure the appropriate constitutional approval for the changes now envisaged; AND WHEREAS, in order to give effect to the aforesaid conclusions, it is desirable that the Parliament of Canada should assent to the issue of a Royal Proclamation establishing the Royal Style and Titles for Canada: THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Royal Style and Titles Act. Assent to Royal Style and Titles 2. The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. R.S., c. R-12, s. 1. I am Claiming defense of my faith as is her Majesty’s oath sworn duty with you as her representative.. 8.The Canadian Bill of Rights complimented by section 3 of the Interpretation Act Construction of law - Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to (a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person; (b) impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment; (c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained (i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention, (ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or (iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful; (d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards; (e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations; (f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; or (g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted. Section 3 of the Interpretation Act The interpretation clauses to apply to all Acts hereafter passed. 3. This section and the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth sections of this Act, and each provision thereof, shall extend and apply to every Act passed in the Session held in this thirtieth Year of Her Majesty's Reign, and in any future Session of the Parliament of Canada, except in so far as the provision is inconsistent with the intent and object of such Act, or the interpretation which such provision would give to any word, expression or clause is inconsistent with the context,—and except in so far as any provision thereof is in any such Act declared not applicable thereto ;—Nor shall the omission in any Act of a declaration that the "Interpretation Act" shall apply thereto, be construed to prevent its so applying, although such express declaration may be inserted in some other Act or Acts of the same Session. “Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognise the Supremacy of God and the rule of law” No man oath bound to a Christian Monarch is allowed to make an assertion that mans law supersedes God’s rule of law as God’s law was precedential to man’s and to do so would usurp the Queen’s authority to defend the faith as per her Coronation oath duty and would also violate the first and second commandment of the law she swore to defend. 10. sections 126 (Violating Federal Oaths of Allegiance Act), 176 (Obstructing a minister),180 failing to perform his duty, 296 Publishing a Document ,336 (Breach of Trust in Holding a valid oath), 337( lawful demand for certified oath failing to produce),and 423 of the criminal code as applicable upon all officers of her majesties court as I am being intimidated to participate in a fraud and violate my sincerely held and Biblically defended faith. as well as my numerous and historical postings and notices to the head judges regarding my faiths and beliefs.... 10. Notice of Lawful excuse for failure to appear before impostors Ecclesiastical Notice of lawful excuse for non appearance and determination of the account of minister :Edward Jay-Robin: of the Belanger family Dear privately liable men and women so herein ecclesiastically noticed and named accurately as far as I can determine at this juncture: Allan H. LeFever, A.Gail Vicary, Neil C.Wittman, Michelle Doyle, Paul Ayotte, K.E. Tjosvold, Hugh A. Fuller,Michell Doyle,Debra Alford, Alison Redford, Vaugn Myers, Brad Pickering, Ray Bodnarek, Frank Oberle, Lorna Ross, Robert Nicholson, Myles Kirvin, Leona Aglukkak, Glenda Yates,Ted Morton,Tim Willes,Steve Jackson, Michelle Lafrance,Fran Salidas, Adam Halliday,Brian Saunders, Dwayne Weatherall, Donald S. Ethell, Brenda Majeau. I Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger being of a sane mind and soul being aware of my unalienable God granted freedoms and liberties being precedential to mans law, do hereby make this notice that I am not a corporate entity and do so vehemently object to any incorporation of my name formed for the purposes of commerce without my consent. I am aware of , as is the court aware of, the responsibility of the de facto court to know the difference between a legal fiction all capital letter name used to increase the jurisdiction of the court and a living man as my private name is formed and spelled in upper and lower case letters. I do not consent to you or anyone else to alter my name or force it upon me and have for 10 years been proclaiming my faith to many others, international magazine articles, even in Newspaper notices, to make all aware no one has any authority to alter or make money with my name or to make commercial use of my Christian given name or the family name that was by hearsay given to me. I have been extremely diligent in bringing many of you into awareness of my Christian Standing in this matter. Never has anyone demonstrated to me where the authority of a Christian Monarchy is written to alter and add to the laws of God nor where swearing an invalid oath to God is lawful. It is indeed a lawful excuse to refuse to obey unlawful authority and I have produced evidence that I am correct and am sincere in my observations and subsequent belief the authority is totally de facto and formed in fraud as it violate God’s commands. The Oxymoron of having a Christian Monarch Employ agents to intimidate her subjects to violate the commands of God seems quite vivid in light of the proof of a false oath...No liability to her ensues if a private suit is ever laid as the oath is a fabrication not authorised in law. Jean Chretien will attest to my faith as he in 2002 sent Roger Piper of the NSI and Bob Hansen of the City of Edmonton Commercial crimes Unit to Intimidate me from sending factual letters spreading the truth about the fraud to all of the men and women acting as members of parliament in officially performing the functions of my calling. My lawful excuse for failure to appear has standing as my faith and the commandments of God are the points that are under attack by your commercial process that is evidently violating it’s own prime directive. The issue of a false oath is real. Dave Hancock and Neil Skinner, his aid at the time, both admitted I was correct and that the oath is false...several men acting as Alberta judges have from the bench concurred...law professors have, in awe, agreed with me!! My non appearance aforementioned is in observance and in concurrence with Black's law dictionary definition indicating the formal process whereby one submits themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. Once I saw the proof herein provided and I read the scriptures herein provided, I knew I could not appear in the false oathed, commercially registered business of the Alberta Courts...I have Standing in this matter as the law is opposed to my being able to exercise my faith in demanding the laws of the Bible take precedent over mans commercial and profit motivated business. I am so sincere in that I wish you could feel my heart. Is this Africa where men are criminalised for practicing Christianity and providing proof of their beliefs? I have diligently made you aware of the lawless actions of some of your de facto members bearing false oaths such as the man named Caffaro and the man named Pahl and the man named Peter Ayotte and the man named Hugh A. Fuller and a man named Vaughn Myers who has had all record of involvement of ever sitting on the legal fiction case erased from the record so the fact that he sat in conflict of interest would not come to light. None of you so diligently noticed of the facts have commented or contacted me and have indicated silence on these filed administrative complaints I made. (U.S. v. Tweel silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading) Estoppel in private liability is also applicable in line with Tacit consent achieved when a noticed party says nothing in rebuttal to an attestation or asseveration of facts that to avoid and ignore may cause injury to the one providing the facts. They have agreed you are correct by failing in duty to point out the error. All herein mentioned have openly intimidated me to violate the commands of God Jehovah when I faithfully asked them questions, not submitting to their in contractual assumptive style...I cannot lawfully be intimidated to violate the laws of God by those acting as secular tyrants, yet I am being threatened that if I do not appear without a lawful excuse that they will issue a warrant for the all capital fiction you have bonded on paper as a registered security. Can I be forced to participate in an interlocking equity relationship wherein: you as the court represent in right of Her Majesty on the Province’s behalf, the prosecution representing on Her Majesty’s behalf and the Crown, being Her Majesty, brings forth the Charges, with a suggested lawyer also as an officer of the court who is bound by an Oath to Her Majesty? Is that not a conflict of interest and a stacked deck? How can I get a fair deal when you are all in bed with the Complainant?? Can finance connect my registered bonded annual annuity transfer with that registered security via your superannuation pension fund? It will be my intent to herein test the veracity of the court’s jurisdiction via requesting "Aid and Direction" as to where the truly consented to authority to alter my name for the financial purposes of the court resides or exists as it is my contention and truthful revelation that I was under threat duress and intimidation to allow any incorporation of my name to be performed and clearly without informed consent. I print U.D.I. beside my name when I am intimidated to sign then just as I did on June 20th 2010 when I was intimidated into signing a promise to appear...I was told if I wrote Under duress and intimidation on it they would not let me out so I signed it U.D.I. No contract is valid if obtained under duress.. Read section 55 through 57 of your Bills of Exchange act. My religious faith and beliefs are frustrated by that contract which voids it! Amselem SCR 2004 sound familiar? There is not standard of safety or issue of damages to the province if it does not use upper legal fiction case names so the action of the court in doing so with no law to support it is unlawful and fraud. All caps names are dead legal fictions of law and we as Christians are not to affiliate ourselves with dead things. Where did and does the authority lie to alter the form of an oath to God to bear true Allegiance to a Christian Monarch (Canadian Oaths of Allegiance Act) whose style and Title is “Defender of the faith” as contained in the Royal Style and Tiles Act on Justice Canada’s website via lawful oath as defined in the Statute of Westminster of 1648 chapter 22 sworn to defend the laws of God via the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 that has been in place for almost 4 hundred years? Sorry for the length of that question but I am being severely intimidated by your assumptive, admiralty law procession against me, the private bondservant of Christ, to violate my sincerely held faith and beliefs and knowledge of Christ and God’s commands. I have included a brief list of credible references for your aid and perusal. I will be making no representation but to be clear, an honorable presentation once the veracity of the honor of the prosecuting agent for the crown is established, indicating that the court can proceed with jurisdiction represented by competent counsel for the crown...I believe Regina vs McKibbon 1988 SCCR referred to the fact that everyone is entitled to competent council, even the courts and as the Crowns counsel is the Queen's liaison to the court. I feel it expedient and most appropriate to ensure that all appropriate and competent honor is to be seen and heard as well as the justice that results from such honorable application of an oath! It will also be my intent to require the private man acting as the prosecutor to prove the veracity of his oath via subpoena duces takem to ensure it's form is authorized by Her Majesty's law and grammatical form approved by Her Majesty's curriculum and Canadian Style. I will be demanding that such documents of integrity establishing the jurisdiction of the court be produced to ensure honor is upheld as there is so much corruption evident within the system so gratefully guarded by Her Majesty in defence of the faith as to necessitate and verify all due diligence is applied to ensure the proceedings are not stained by fraud, personation or intimidation. If the non- consented to alteration of my name in reverse and all capital letters is produced by the court registrar clerk and officers initiating this process, it will be required that the law allowing them to do so be produced in disclosure. The registrar has no authority to do so as I have not willingly offered it nor was I fully informed as to why it was being done and I went through the diligent effort of putting up a video on youtube channel of owlmon of my agreement with Heather Klimchuk regarding it,....My correct name cannot be offered to a court before the lawful, oath- bound to God jurisdiction of the court is established... It is my honorable intent to inform you of this, my lawful excuse for failure to appear, and require your aid and direction in this sensitive and serious matter. If indeed my lawful excuse of pointing to laws added to God’s law in violation of his dictate and that the facts proving a blatantly visible a false oath does in fact exist, then my failure to appear is indeed justified..Deuteronomy 4:2,12:32 Leviticus 18:3-4 If you have evidence that you do have the Queens sanction to add to and take away from God’s law in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2&12:32 and to fabricate and swear to unlawful oaths unsanctioned by the Monarchy or law then I expect to hear from you to be pointing out my error as, if you do not, my lawful and honorable excuse for not appearing has irrefutable standing and ecclesiastical merit defended by the Queen herself. Does this court comprised of private men acting as officers respect and honor the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act as applicable to them? Can you lawfully intimidate a man being a bondservant of Christ and his minister, to appear before false oathed impostors pushing contract admiralty law? Are all men equal before the law? If you do not take the duty bound opportunity to prove how you can lawfully force me to submit myself before impostors perpetrating a fraud, I will not be making an appearance, as that means submission to jurisdiction of false oathed impostors pushing commercial law upon me the, minister of Christ and heir of God. Reading section 423 of the commercial law, that your false oathed lawyer advisors may be familiar with, tells you that, as well as 180 of your criminal code is total commercial application of admiralty law. Here is the bogus oath from Alberta and it is reflected in every province in Canada aside from Nova Scotia... Note the oath is to God not the Queen!!..From the Federal Oath of Allegiance Act that says ...read carefully and note the word "shall" is an imperative absolute. (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. (Notice no words saying "according to law") Now on to the oath that all of the legislature of Alberta and it's employee's have taken for decades as well as all the lawyers and Judges and police. Alberta >> Statutes and Regulations >> Consolidated Statutes of Alberta >> OATHS OF OFFICE ACT for Alberta CHAPTER O-1 HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows: Oath of allegiance 1(1) When by a statute of Alberta a person is required to take an oath of allegiance it shall be taken in the following form: (Notice there is no word “Do” and no “Queen of Canada” and the words “According to law are not in the federal enactment”. 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. So help me God. (2) Where the name of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is expressed In the form, the name of the Sovereign at the time that the oath is taken shall be substituted therefore if different. The BNAA also in schedule 5 has the specific form for the oath as does section 10 and 11 of the Governor Generals Act of 1947 as well as Chapter 22 from the Westminster Confession of Faith from 1648 to anchor us as to the intent of Parliament to describe the meaning of a lawful oath. One you see the law the Parliament intended to enact clearly states that a lawful oath is an act of religious worship you can see Why God his laws and the Bible have standing! No one has ever repealed that law! I make no use of but bring to your attention as of it’s applicability to you! Ezekiel 33:1-10 Ezekiel 33:1-10 requires me to Notice you that I make no use of your law by bringing it to your attention. It applies to you and the jeopardy it imparts upon you if you ignore it. I cannot make use of a hole in law but as the watchman, can and am commanded to warn you and all those who may be harmed by your fictional actions in mans commercial law. As ecclesiastics being heirs of God, His rule of law applies, not yours. I am sorry if your business interests and commercial profit of the organisations you are interlocking with in equity will be frustrated by the exercising of my faith but no different than the Sikh already knowing, as of cultural training, how to stand up for his beliefs, I intend to stand up for mine. If it is your intent to persecute me and punish me for the actions of my faith and the following of the commands of God Jehovah the queen is sworn to defend and you wish to challenge God’s law by putting out a warrant, I am demanding of you to Notice me formally as to your intent in that de facto and treasonous Action. If I get no notice outlining where the authority to get me to correspond with a fraud comes from I will believe you have accepted my lawful excuse and I have no threat to appear. Corporal Renee Banes has been noticed of this threat and intimidation I am under and I have asked her for protection from the impostors in Stony Plain. She has seen the false Oaths. I will also be demanding in good faith and common sense course by what authority the Authorised version of the King James Bible can be lawfully removed from her Majesty’s court as it is the authorised law by the Queens command that is to be available in her courts throughout all of her realm in order for Her majesty to be able to carry out her Coronation Oath to, with all her power, defend the laws of God in defence of the Christian faith. I thank you in Advance for your respected aid and direction in giving me fair notice if it will be your intent to resort to unlawful intimidation extortion and fraud by putting out a warrant for the arrest of the legal fiction when I do not appear before the false oathed impostors masquerading as judges in Edmonton or Stony Plain minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger, Head minister of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, bondservant and emissary of Christ Dated autographed and witnessed this sixth day of January 2011 A.D. Autograph: Witnesses: Posted by minister Belanger at 12:33 AM 9.Section 2 Interpretation in the criminal code of “person” and “includes” every one”, “person” and “owner” « quiconque », « individu », « personne » et « propriétaire » “every one”, “person” and “owner”, and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization; The definition in law of the word “includes” Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. 11 Co. 58. The legal principle called "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," which simply means "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another." According to Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition), that principle dictates that "where law expressly describes a particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded." (Unless the word “also” is applied in the Statute before the word “Includes”.) Black's Law Dictionary, 8 th ed., sv "Expressio unius est exclusion alterius". ... 11 (Bastarache J. relies on Ruth Sullivan & Elmer A. Driedger, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 4t h ed. (Markham: Butterworths Canada Ltd., 2002) at 395 [Sullivan & Driedger]). Since I am neither her majesty or an organisation I believe the enactment of the criminal code under the justice minster of Canada is non applicable to me as an heir of God and bondservant of Christ but is merely an offer to test the veracity of the ones accused of being sinners. 10. Person: Definition I am not a person as God is no repecter of persons Deuteronomy 1:17,10:17,Acts 10:34,Romans 2:9, and James 2:1-9 Where it is really made clear...and I cannot be assumed to be one of the corporate dead when I by this ecclesiastical Judicial Notice do so state and declare for all living men and women to hear that I do here make irrevocable denial of corporate existence and provide proof I am not a person which is a definition a fiction like a mask worn by a player on a stage a human being or a natural man. Person: In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. ” —Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, citing the National Labor Relations Act, section 2(1). The scriptures Which I printed show God’s position on person in her majesties Royal Rule for the life and Government of Christian Princes. No court of her Majesty can infer that mans law can be forced upon a non consenting Christian minister being an heir of God and bondservant of Christ Genesis 1:26-29 A person is recognized by law as such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person."[20] human is defined as godless... Definition of Human Being Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? *These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.'* This is how the world makes its attachment to you. The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ. Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in Scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the ' *old man*', but not the '*new man*' in Christ (Col 3:9-10). In * Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389* , *Human Being* is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, *Monster* is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal." In *Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880*, a *Monster* is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others." From the *Random House Dictionary of the English Language , 2nd Edition, page 901*, *Human Being* is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or * unregenerate*," and on page 1461, *Unregenerate* means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute." In *Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, page 657*, *Humanitarianism* is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect *without divine aid*." In *Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928 *, *Humanitarian*is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who *rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity*; a perfectionist." And in the *Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653*, * Humanism* is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often *rejects the importance of a belief in God*." Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a 'human being', or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God." "Individuals [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God's law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect ." *Baty v. Sale *, 43 Ill. 351." [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, title 42 "law" suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.] The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only *one time*, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings." "and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of *human beings*, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?" [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)] The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction. The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.' "*The natural man is a spiritual monster*. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; *his heels are lifted up against heaven *, which his heart should be set on. *His face is towards hell*; *his back towards heaven*. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." [*Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584*]*.* And the Word confirms: "But the *natural man* receiveth *not* the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are *spiritually discerned*." [1 Corinthians 2:14,] The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The 'natural man' in Scripture is synonymous with the 'natural person' as defined in man's laws. "*Natural Person* means *human being*, and not an artificial or juristic person." * Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361. * *"Natural Person:* Any *human being* who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a *legal entity* from being recognized so in law. *Natural Child:* The ordinary euphemism for 'bastard' or illegitimate." [*Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin's Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.*] Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin [John 8:34]. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us. I thankyou for this opportunity and do pray you will respect my faith and not intimidate me to violate it. Blessings From minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Formerly of the Belanger Family until I learned that the surname was not in Christ and is of mammon...Matthew 6:24 Ordained minister and founder of the Church of the ecumenical redemption international. Edmonton Ecclesia Local 10733 133rd Street Near Edmonton Alberta No code non Commercial 780-633-7723 or 780-710-6320 Or Owlmon @gmail.com or Owlmon Channel on youtube.

Letter to the woman acting as Head provincial Judge for the Corporation Alberta

Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International Edmonton Ecclesia 10755-133rd Street Edmonton Alberta no code non commercial To: Gail Vickery the private woman acting as the Chief Judge for the Provincial Courts of Alberta 3rd Floor, Bowker Building 9833-109th Street Edmonton, Alberta No Code, Non Commercial From: minister Edward Jay-Robin: Belanger Church office , 10755-133rd Street Edmonton, Alberta No Code, Non Commercial Dear Gail, I have been intimidated to show up for court date settings as put in place by the conflicted and disqualified Vaughn Myers, one of the judges you disqualified for his part in intimidating me to violate the commands of God. I have since 2000 had him in a conflicted position to proceed against me as a Judge as of his prejudice. My publication in an international magazine in 2001 and naming him publically on an international publically viewed website as a suspected cocaine user put him in a position of extreme prejudice. I do not and did not consent to the dates he offered on October 13th in Stony Plain Alberta and on January 26th in Jasper Alberta. He is disqualified and in no position to be setting dates I did not consent to….His offer was and is invalid and affected with prejudice and fraud. On October 5th in Court room # 3 the only judge in Stony Plain not disqualified and stating as such, set me before Vaughn Myers, who he knew to be disqualified, on October 13th 2012, to set a date for trial for a charge instituted in February of 2010 over 2 years ago. That intimidated me to again have my faith violated and breached. I want that unnamed man acting as a judge removed as he intentionally set me before a man who intimidated me to violate the commands of God and in effect committed the same act of intimidation. That is not sanctioned in law in any circumstance and I do not consent to it! I told Vaughn Myers I did not consent to the date of June 6th 2012 3 times as I have a criminal complaint against him. He told the clerk to write down that I did not consent to that date as he is disqualified. He again on January 26th in Jasper Alberta appeared like magic and again I told him in front of witnesses I did not consent to any of his orders or the dates he offered by asking me if the date of May 11th would be acceptable. I asked him if his intent would be to intimidate me to violate the commands of God. I told him I could not accept any of his orders or offers as it violated my faith in obeying the commands of God. He kept offering the date and finally I declined his offer for the third time in front of witnesses indicating I did not accept his offer as he is in conflict as he admitted on the record and he was intimidating me to violate the commands of God and submit to an earthly jurisdiction that has in fraud added to God’s laws. I am a Christian minister not being a corporate entity and I form my name printed first middle last upper lower case as your law form stipulates in 4.2 of the Alberta Curriculum . No law allows you or anyone else to alter my given Christian name for a financial purpose without my express fully informed consent! I have included proof the ALBERTA GOVERNMENT is a dead in law corporate entity for profit business that is a commercial entity subject to commercial law. I am a living man and a minister of Christ who claims the commandments as my law and with to have any action decisions , orders or dates set or made by Vaughn Myers expunged from the record as they have been obtained in fraud in commission of intimidating this minister of Christ to submit to a false Gods codes rules and regulations which are only applicable to “persons” in law or legal fictions. Deuteronomy 1:17, 10:17, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 and James 2:9 in the authorized King James Bible says we are not to show respect for persons like an organization of her majesty as section so simply defines as only being persons , as a person is a mask worn by a player on a stage. See section 2 definitions criminal code for person. Note the lawful definition of the word includes. What is included excludes all else. Ignorance of the letter of the law is no defense. Our ministers have been intentionally intimidated from doing what they have a right to do by your Judges when they try to tell them they are not persons in law. They are accused of being crazy. The Alberta Curriculum Act is the law regarding names in Alberta. Where did the court get the sanction to alter it? I am being intimidated by all of your false oathed judges to consent to their jurisdiction by showing up with the threat that if I do not appear to be further intimidated upon the assumption I am a dead corporate debtor I will be hunted down and arrested so they can perpetrate the crime of treason upon her majesty’s ability to defend the laws of God. I do not consent, waive all perceived and assumed benefits the de facto corporation thinks I accepted and await your decision to invoke an investigation upon Vaughn Myers who was the first judge to hear our case in March of 2010. He was in conflict then as of my publication of a letter to him and other de facto officials in December of 2000 regarding possession of marijuana. The whole case went fwd as of his initiation which jeopardizes the crowns position as of the error in law which speaks to fraud and private liability. I accept a reply on this additional complaint to be in line and connected to my first and second complaint to you regarding the renegade actions of your judges intimidating men and women to violate their faith in obeying the commands of God that her Majesty most dutifully defends. Blessings upon knowing my sincere intent and expressed will to not not be intimidated to submit to the codes rules and regulations of a false god defacto corporate government with a commercial motive and impetus for profit in mind. Matthew 6:24 applies. minister of Christ in his service Edward-Jay-Robi

man stands on faith to not swear oaths and wins civil action against state for unlawful confinement

778 F.2d 1397 3 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1077, 19 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1076 George K. GORDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The STATE OF IDAHO, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 84-3719. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 5, 1985. Decided Dec. 19, 1985. George K. Gordon, pro se. Richard C. Boardman, Scott D. Hess, James J. Davis, Boise, Idaho, for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. Before PREGERSON and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges, and WEIGEL, District Judge.* PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: 1 The district court, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C), dismissed with prejudice George K. Gordon's federal civil rights action for failure to comply with a discovery order that required him to take an oath or affirmation. Gordon appeals pro se. He contends that the district court, by dismissing the action, violated his First Amendment rights because taking an oath or affirmation is repugnant to his religious beliefs. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action, and we reverse. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 George K. Gordon filed a pro se complaint alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against the State of Idaho, Ada County, several state and county officials, and other individuals. In his federal civil rights complaint, Gordon asserts that the defendants violated his First Amendment rights during the course of state civil proceedings by imprisoning him for twelve days for civil contempt for refusal to take an oath or affirmation. 3 The defendants in the instant federal civil rights action served Gordon with a Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum and an Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum requiring him to appear at a deposition and testify under oath. Gordon appeared at the deposition but, because of his religious beliefs, refused to swear under oath or make an alternative affirmation. The defendants thereafter moved the district court to compel discovery. The district court granted that motion and specifically ordered Gordon either to swear or affirm before testifying at the rescheduled deposition. At the second deposition, Gordon again refused both to swear under oath or to affirm before testifying. The defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C)1 for failure to comply with the court's order. Following a hearing on the motion, the district court dismissed Gordon's federal civil rights action with prejudice. Gordon timely filed this appeal. Our jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. DISCUSSION 4 * Standard of Review 5 We review the district court's imposition of sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C) for abuse of discretion. National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642-43, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 2780-81, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976) (per curiam); Rainbow Pioneer No. 44-18-04A v. Hawaii-Nevada Investment Corp., 711 F.2d 902, 905 (9th Cir.1983). II Dismissal Sanction 6 Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C) authorizes district courts to use the sanction of dismissal if a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery under Rule 37(a). It is inappropriate for a district court to use the dismissal sanction, however, unless non-compliance with its discovery order results from the willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the noncomplying party. Professional Seminar Consultants, Inc. v. Sino American Technology Exchange Council, Inc., 727 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir.1984). Where failure to comply with a discovery order results from the disobedient party's inability to comply or from circumstances beyond its control, the dismissal sanction should not be imposed. National Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 640, 96 S.Ct. at 2779; United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1980). 7 In this case, the district court ordered Gordon to take an oath or to make an alternative affirmation before giving his deposition. The court's order specified the precise language that such an oath or alternative affirmation was to take, despite Gordon's religious objection to taking an oath or using the word "affirmation." The court abused its discretion in insisting that Gordon use either the word "swear" or "affirm" in light of Gordon's sincere religious objections.2 8 The First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that our procedural rules be interpreted flexibly to protect sincerely-held religious beliefs and practices. In Callahan v. Woods, 736 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir.1984), we set forth factors that courts must consider in determining whether a neutrally based statute violates the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion. We stated that the "government must shoulder a heavy burden to defend a regulation affecting religious actions." Id. at 1272. And we emphasized that it is "the 'least restrictive means' inquiry which is the critical aspect of the free exercise analysis." Id. The specific verbal formula offered by the district court was not the least restrictive means of assuring that Gordon testify truthfully at his deposition. 9 Courts that have considered issues involving oaths and affirmations have interpreted procedural rules flexibly to accomodate religious objections. In Moore v. United States, 348 U.S. 966, 75 S.Ct. 530, 99 L.Ed. 753 (1955) (per curiam), for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred by refusing to allow a witness to testify because of his refusal to use the word "solemnly" in his affirmation. The Court held that there "is no requirement that the word 'solemnly' be used in the affirmation." Id. at 966, 75 S.Ct. 530, 99 L.Ed. 753. The Fourth Circuit has also noted that "all that the common law requires [of a criminal defendant testifying at trial on his own behalf] is a form of statement which impresses upon the mind and conscience of a witness the necessity for telling the truth." United States v. Looper, 419 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.1969). See also Baynes v. Ossakow, 336 F.Supp. 386, 388 (E.D.N.Y.1972) (plaintiff's hand-written "affirmation" made expressly under penalty of perjury deemed a sufficient affidavit for purposes of defeating summary judgment motion). 10 Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) requires that deponents be placed under oath, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 43(d) allows the substitution of a "solemn affirmation" in lieu of an oath. We have found no authority insisting on the use of the word "affirm" in such alternative affirmations. 11 The Federal Rules of Evidence, which contain a provision parallel to Fed.R.Civ.P. 43(d), are also instructive on the need of the courts to protect minority religious views about oaths and affirmations. Fed.R.Evid. 603 states that every witness "shall be required to declare that he will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken his conscience and impress his mind with his duty to do so." The advisory committee notes to Rule 603 illustrate that an affirmation need take no particular form: "The rule is designed to afford the flexibility required in dealing with religious adults, atheists, conscientious objectors, mental defectives, and children. Affirmation is simply a solemn undertaking to tell the truth; no special verbal formula is required." Fed.R.Evid. 603 advisory committee note. 12 This reasoning should also apply to affirmations at depositions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We therefore conclude that any statement indicating that the deponent is impressed with the duty to tell the truth and understands that he or she can be prosecuted for perjury for failure to do so satisfies the requirement for an oath or affirmation under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) and 43(d). Deponents, furthermore, need not raise their hand when they state the words necessary to satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) and 43(d) if to do so impinges on sincerely-held religious beliefs. This flexible approach is consistent with the constitutional obligation to protect the free exercise of religious beliefs by using the least retrictive means to further compelling state interests that impinge on such free exercise. See Callahan, 736 F.2d at 1273. 13 Gordon has demonstrated that raising his right hand and swearing an oath or making an affirmation violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs. The district court, therefore, should have explored the least restrictive means of assuring that Gordon would testify truthfully at his deposition. At oral argument before our court, Gordon said that before his deposition is taken he is willing to state: "I understand that I must tell the truth. I agree to testify under penalty of perjury. I understand that if I testify falsely I may be subject to criminal prosecution."3 This statement, we believe, would satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) and 43(d). By failing to explore less restrictive means of assuring truthful deposition testimony, the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed Gordon's federal civil rights action. The court, therefore, erred in dismissing the action with prejudice for failure to comply with the discovery order directing Gordon to take an oath or make an affirmation. 14 REVERSED. WEIGEL, District Judge, dissenting: 15 I respectfully dissent. 16 The alternative of affirming testimony (as distinguished from swearing to it) has been provided for all witnesses who, for religious or other reasons, object to oath taking. See United States v. Looper, 419 F.2d 1405, 1406 n. 2, 1407 (4th Cir.1969); Gillars v. United States, 182 F.2d 962, 969-70 (D.C.Cir.1950); Advisory Committee Note to Federal Rule of Evidence 603 ("This rule is designed to afford the flexibility required in dealing with religious adults, athiests, conscientious objectors, mental defectives and children."); 6 Wigmore on Evidence Secs. 1815-1829; Weinstein's Evidence p 603. Cf. Moore v. United States, 348 U.S. 966, 75 S.Ct. 530, 99 L.Ed. 753 (1955) (per curiam) (affirmation need not include the word "solemn" if objected to on religious grounds).1 17 Appellant seeks to assert claimed rights in the federal courts. He should not be permitted to disregard reasonable Federal Rules of Procedure because of his insistence, however sincere, that his esoteric interpretation of one of those rules must prevail over the interpretation established by the federal courts.2 18 Appellant's demand trivializes the vital purposes of the free exercise clause. Moreover, yielding to appellant's demand in this case tends to invite demands for special formulations in future cases and thus cause needless delay in the administration of justice.3 19 The trial court's dismissal of appellant's action should be affirmed. * The Honorable Stanley A. Weigel, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation 1 Rule 37(b)(2)(C) provides in pertinent part as follows: (2) Sanctions by Court in Which Action is Pending. If a party ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, ... the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following: * * * (C) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party .... 2 The district court's order stated: The manner of swearing or affirmation may take one of the two following forms and none other: (1) You do solemly swear that the testimony you will give in this deposition will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. (2) You do affirm upon pain and penalty of perjury that the testimony you will give in this deposition will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 3 Because of his religious beliefs, Gordon also stated at oral argument that he would prefer to say: "I understand that I must accurately state the facts" in place of "I understand that I must tell the truth." That would also suffice, so long as Gordon acknowledges that he understands he is testifying under penalty of perjury 1 The majority's reliance on Callahan v. Woods, 736 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir.1984) is, it seems to me, not well taken. The objection on religious grounds in that case was to the requirement of obtaining a Social Security number in order to receive public assistance benefits. No alternative was provided to that requirement 2 Neither of the statements approved by the majority satisfies an important purpose of requiring oath or affirmation, i.e., to insure that the witness makes a conscious commitment to tell the truth. (See Looper, supra; Wilcoxon v. United States, 231 F.2d 384, at 387 (10th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 943, 76 S.Ct. 834, 100 L.Ed. 1469 (1957); A Reconsideration of the Sworn Testimony Requirement: Securing Truth in the Twentieth Century, 75 Mich.L.R. 1681 (1977).) To say that "I understand that I must tell the truth" or that "I understand I must accurately state the facts" is not a promise to tell the truth nor accurately to state the facts. Appellant was aware of this as shown by his statements at oral argument that ".... Now the scripture says 'Let God be true though every man be a liar.' I'm simply saying that since we've all lied in the past and we've lied once or twice today and we're going to lie in the future, why kid ourselves by saying we tell the truth when in fact we do not. It's my position I would be guilty of perjury the moment I said 'Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God' and I say 'I do' I'm committing a lie." 3 The majority treats the trial court's action as an abuse of discretion relating to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 which provides for sanctions. The question in this case relates to the interpretation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 43(d) which provides for affirmation. Even if the trial court erred, that would be reversible as an error of law, not an abuse of discretion. The majority, by accepting alternative language as complying with Rule 43(d), imposes no sanction. It simply holds there is no basis for any sanction so long as appellant accepts the language approved by the majority