Posted January 21st 2026
From: Paraclete Edward Jay Robin <owlmon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 3:23 PM
Subject: Emergency Alert of securities fraud by illicit use of names and value
of life
To: <inquiries@osc.gov.on.ca>,
<grant.vingoe@acvm-csa.ca>,
<peter.routledge@osfi-bsif.gc.ca>,
<sarah.pauquet@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca>,
<tiff.macklem@bankofcanada.ca>,
<inquiries@astfinancial.com>,
<fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>,
<lawrence.ritchie@osler.com>,
<gregory.tsagouris@pimco.com>,
<generalplanenquiries@computershare.com>,
<cdsrelationshipmgmt@tmx.com>,
<kevin.sampson@cds.ca>,
<info@osfi-bsif.gc.ca>,
<auditor@ontario.ca>,
<shelley.spence@ontario.ca>,
<media@osc.ca>, <city.clerk@mississauga.ca>,
<postoffice@principlesintegrity.org>,
<amy.truong@mississauga.ca>,
<joe.horneck@mississauga.ca>,
<mkhoushnood@kpmg.ca>,
<F2R@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca>,
<francois-philippe.champagne@parl.gc.ca>,
<csa-acvm-secretariat@acvm-csa.ca>,
<dtcccompliancehotline@dtcc.com>,
<GCOContractNotices@dtcc.com>,
<blysyk@osc.gov.on.ca>,
<info@auditor.ar.gov>,
<corporateactions@computershare.com>,
<general_info@sos.arkansas.gov>,
<joseph.brady@nasaa.org>,
<finraoperations@finra.org>,
<lrichie@osler.com>,
<fadi.el-abdallah@icc-cpi.irrt>, <cdcrelationshipmgmt@tmx.com>,
<paul.atkins@aol.com>,
<guidelines-linesdirectrices@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca>, <info@bankofcanada.ca>,
<kandia.aird@justice.gc.ca>,
<lynn.axmith@justice.gc.ca>,
<oag@arkansasag.gov>,
<TimGriffin@arkansasag.gov>,
<consumer@arkansasag.gov>,
<t.hahn@abderdeenplc.com>,
<tracey.hahn@abdereenplc.com>,
president@whitehouse.gov
<president@whitehouse.gov>,
erica@knoxstrats.com
<erica@knoxstrats.com>,
<mike.duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
<CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov>
Greetings in Christ's name
Yahushuwah,
This approach to you in private is
of an emergency situation requiring integrity honor and a truly equitable exam
of the facts. It means that an honest exam of law and faith is required to see
if legal fiction fraud on 2-dimensional paper can overpower life. What I’m
about to share is not theory, imagination, rumor, or hallucination but just
basic history and common sense. Please read the attached "Rachel Annuity
Letter" below and the extensive info therein for the relevant CUSIP
numbers this emergent. fraud relates to.
Any mention of secular code
herein is in my fulfillment of duty as an Ezekiel 33 watchman warning all of
the private jeopardy that falls upon those who fail to heed the warnings
herein.
A)
CUSIP
315910307 (associated with “Timothy Olumuyiwa Balogun”) — ACCT [A]8607349 [CAN
CITIZENSHIP]
• Net Assets: $1,083,96.00 USD
• Connected to: Fidelity series Canada Fund
TIMOTHY BALOGUN
(ACCT [A]8607349 [CAN
CITIZENSHIP])
• Bernstein International Strategic
Equities Portfolio
- CUSIP: 085567808
- ISIN: US0855678084
- Net Assets:
$8,864,201,000.00
• Symbol: STEZX
RACHEL ANN O'CONNOR (BC 05-86-008855 [CAN])
- International growth and income
fund
- CUSIP: 45956T600
- ISIN: US45956T6001
- Net Assets:
$17,008,728,000.00
• Symbol: CGIAX
B)
Court Case CUSIP — Joint Name Association (Material Evidence)
This is the court case CUSIP. The CUSIP Results are as follows:
TIMOTHY BALOGUN, RACHEL O'CONNOR, & ADEYANJU OLANIYAN (CC 23-CR-50037-TLB
[CASE])
Fund: abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Fund
Symbol: ATOIX
CUSIP: 003022324 and further
ISIN: US0030223244
Net Assets: $1,046,559,000.00
It has come to my flock's awareness
that commerce, as we know it in North America, has been since 1933 without Gold
backing the paper's value. Now our paper money is using the value of life of
men and women to offer surety for the multitudes of securities derived from
that value.. Now as this practice has been common for over 90 years no one that
I know of has ever brought it up or much less complained of the practice of
being registered as the pledged beneficially owned property of the creditor.
That registered life was valued and used for surety which is today called fiat
currency. Title 15 ss 1127 of USC defines persons and regulatable commerce.
Canada's Interpretations Act defines a James 2:9 KJVB person as being a
corporation, which has no life or soul. Corporations engage commerce as persons
in law masks to limit the liability of the men and women directing that
corporation's actions .
Now with that in mind,
please review the Canadian Ownership Control Determination Act of 1982, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-20/FullText.html April 17th 49 years 7 days grace after the gold seizure surety
,
That's Leviticus 25 Jubilee, AKA Determination
,and it is interesting to see it offers us a view of persons owning persons up
front in the interpretation of that Act. direct equity percentage means, with respect to formal equity owned by
a person in any particular person,
·
(a) where the particular person does not
have more than one class of formal equity within the meaning of the
regulations, the percentage of the formal equity of the particular person that
is owned by the person,
·
Leviticus
25:44-46 KJV
·
Both thy bondmen, and
thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round
about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children
of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their
families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be
your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children
after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for
ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over
another with rigour.
No
where does it say that the forever free labour was stopped.
·
We can see that those owned
persons are deemed beneficially owned in the interpretation. Just like Title 31
ss 363.6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/363.6 speaks to the accessible audit of the minor
whole life cestui que trust account spoken of in schedule 2 of the COCADA 1984
regulations. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-84-431/page-8.html#h-883459
It is of beneficial notation to
observe schedule 3,4 and 5 of the 1984 regulations of the COCADA as it offers
you a lawful route in equitable corrective accounting to effect remedy to
correct the fraud. The valuable security is referred to in Canada's
Criminal Code section 2
valuable security includes
·
(a) an order, exchequer acquittance or other
security that entitles or evidences the title of any person
- (i) to
a share or interest in a public stock or fund or in any fund of a body
corporate, company or society, or
- (ii) to
a deposit in a financial institution,
·
(b) any debenture, deed, bond, bill, note,
warrant, order or other security for money or for payment of money,
·
(c) a document of title to lands or goods
wherever situated,
·
(d) a stamp or writing that secures or
evidences title to or an interest in a chattel personal, or that evidences
delivery of a chattel personal, and
·
(e) a release, receipt, discharge or other
instrument evidencing payment of money; (valeur ou effet appréciable)
victim means a person against whom an offence has been committed, or
is alleged to have been committed, who has suffered, or is alleged to have
suffered, physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the
result of the commission or alleged commission of the offence and includes, for
the purposes of sections 672.5, 722 and 745.63, a person who has suffered
physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of
the commission of an offence against any other person.
Let’s look at Fraud as that is what is being exposed here
and complained of.
Fraud is defined in
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 6th Edition on page 660
"
An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in
reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to
surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by
words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that
which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive
another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated
to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by the suppression of
truth, or by suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or
innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look, or gesture. Delanty v.
First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa. Super. 90, 464 A. 2nd 1243, 1251. A
generic term, embracing all maltofarious means which human ingenuity can
devise, and which are resorted to by one Individual to get advantage over
another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all
surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and UNFAIR way by which another is
cheated. Johnson v. McDonald[i][u], 170 Okl. 117, 39 P.2nd 150 "
Bad Faith " and " Fraud " are synonymous, and also
synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, unfairness, ect."
Lets see what the courts have to say about Silence?
"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... " U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F2d 297, 299-300.
What does Fraud Do?
“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even
judgments." See: U.S. vs. Throckmorton[i][u], 98 U.S. 61. &
Fritts v. Krugh, 92 N.W. 2d 604, 626, Delanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A.,
318 Pa. Super. 90, 464 A. 2nd 1243, 1251, (PLEASE NOTE) there is no statute of
limitations on fraud.
Peso Silver Mines Ltd. v. Cropper, 1966 CanLII 75 (SCC),
[1966] SCR 673
Supreme Court of Canada — Canada (Federal)
1966-06-20 | 15 pages | cited by 152 documents
directors — shares — fiduciary — company — profit
Viscount Sankey said, at p. 381:
In my view, the respondents were in a fiduciary position and their liability
to account does not depend upon proof of mala fides.
The general rule of equity is that no one who has duties of a fiduciary
nature to perform is allowed to enter into engagements in which he has or can
have a personal interest conflicting with the interests of those whom he is
bound to protect.
This is a vital precedent confirming:
- Fiduciary
liability exists regardless of intent
- Duty
to account and protect applies regardless of subjective good faith
- Equity
prevails where conflict of interest exists
This observation I bring to your
attention is to ensure a cease of all of the trading on the accounts presently
being selectively applied on behalf of the legal fiction of ARKANSAS and
ONTARIO to lay a claim against the minor accounts. This minor account is
billed for various services administered by the various custodians and
securities transfer agents in fiduciary trust obligation to the primary owner
of the minor account. Now since my parishioners' discovery of the word person
in the 1611 KJVB James 2:9, prohibiting the respect of persons and of being
held for surety, they seek emergent relief remedial action and
settlement. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-4.4/fulltext.html
Order in council April 10th 1933 as
noted above suspended section 4 of the Dominion Notes Act, authorizing gold to
give value to the paper currency. As of that date in 1933 Canada as a federal
juristic unit went into receivership. All of the property of the corp listed in
it's registries became the assets of the creditor. The military name of
the operation is "SILENT DEFENDER." As noted in 4.13 of the
Canadian Style Manual.
Mothers registering their children into the registries of the in-receivership corporation called Canada
received purchase money noted in the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act as consideration for the Leviticus 25:44-50 indenture of pledged property assumed as a constitutor. The purchase money noted in Canada's Bills of Exchange Act, mirroring Leviticus 25:44-50, was in the form of family allowance payments till the minor was 18 years old.. The registrar of vital statistics of all the book entry securities is the custodian of the parens patriae property forming the cestui que trust so pledged by the mother. The Birth Certificate is a revenue receipt
of a treasury purchase. 
My parishioners and I are
compelled to let you know that we as the many members' body of Christ as his
peoples can no longer consent to the trafficking of our flesh’s value and our name,
engaging billions of dollars of transactions upon the assumption that a legal
fiction has authority over a man. All capital names are reserved for tombstones
and obituary columns and is an extreme offense to affiliate a living man with
the dead.
This unique claim
is coming before you in the unusual aspect of exposing this spectacular
fraud of various legal fiction entities posing as Arkansas and
Ontario Government trading entities. They, the men and women behind the
corporate mask, are living men and women, and are engaged in a willfully
blind securities fraud that the commissioners for the SEC have been informed of
and the whistleblower dept for the SEC also has been served notice of.
I want you, as
living men and women receiving this, to take special notation to the fact
that Ontario is a corporate legal fiction capital "P" Province
undefined in Canada's Interpretation Act or as recognized by any act of
Parliament. As such Ontario sits defacto having no valid oath in conformity
with federal law and SEC authentication rules. Men and women poising as defacto
government lawyers are using the private names of men and women, and the value
of life thereof listed in the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act
and Regulations, as surety to offer value to the paper currency. They use
non-grammatical tombstone alterations of names unsupported neither in law nor
with the consent of those who bear those names. Names in all caps are reserved
for department of defence military exercises as noted in the Canadian Style
Manual 4.13. They reap substantial profits in the billions of dollars for
those claiming to be beneficial owners and custodians while trading in flesh
based securities like jail bonds court orders and the various certificates
listed as being used for the source of various investments as the screen shot
evidences
.
This
personation, violating USC title 18 ss 241,242,245 and 247 is reflected
in 402.2 of Canada's criminal code.
Identity theft
- 402.2 (1) Every
person commits an offence who obtains or possesses another person’s
identity information with intent to use it to commit an indictable offence
that includes fraud, deceit or falsehood as an element of the offence.
- Marginal note:Trafficking in identity information
(2) Everyone
commits an offence who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells or offers
for sale another person’s identity information, or has it in their possession
for any of those purposes, knowing that or being reckless as to whether the
information will be used to commit an indictable offence that includes fraud,
deceit or falsehood as an element of the offence.
- Marginal note:Clarification
(3) For
the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), an indictable offence referred to in
either of those subsections includes an offence under any of the following
sections:
- (a) section 57 (forgery of or uttering forged
passport);
- (b) section 58 (fraudulent use of certificate of
citizenship);
- (c) section 130 (impersonating peace officer);
- (d) section 131 (perjury);
- (e) section 342 (theft, forgery, etc., of credit
card);
- (f) section 362 (false pretence or false
statement);
- (g) section 366 (forgery);
- (h) section 368 (use, trafficking or possession
of forged document);
- (i) section 380 (fraud); and
- (j) section 403 (identity fraud).
- Marginal note:Jurisdiction
(4) An
accused who is charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (2) may be tried
and punished by any court having jurisdiction to try that offence in the place
where the offence is alleged to have been committed or in the place where the
accused is found, is arrested or is in custody. However, no proceeding in
respect of the offence shall be commenced in a province without the consent of
the Attorney General of that province if the offence is alleged to have been
committed outside that province.
- Marginal note:Punishment
(5) Everyone
who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
- (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
- (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary
conviction.
- 2009, c. 28, s. 10
- 2018, c. 29, s. 45
This is observed as
active in US and Canada being listed prima fascia on the CUSIP search
done on an extradition court case https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67492928/united-states-v-balogun/. As can be seen and is evidenced, wherein
Arkansas is listed as a legal fiction state is in League with an impersonating false oath overbearing Province Calling itself Ontario,
'
and is engaged in trading securities in the nature of over
1 billion dollars noted in the CUSIP search report. The value of this report
is based in the flesh of a man and woman. Our faith in Christ cannot in
any ethical or legitimate basis be ignored to allow such slavery in servitude
to continue and we do demand an immediate stop trade be issued and flagged upon
this account. Ontario as a trading entity has no validity when the Oath is
examined.
Ontario has a quite obvious fake oath and is in
reality with no way to excuse itself running a largely successful defacto
fraud. Now the fact no one else has complained regarding the name alteration
and use for surety does not negate the facts nor the ability of men and women
to deny and emphatically oppose being used for surety...In the FTC’s own words
it is said complaints about fake government were common. 
How many men and women of faith in Christ offer
vivid proof of the fake oath and what the word person means? person,
or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation; (personne)
proclamation means
a proclamation under the Great Seal; (proclamation)
province means
a province of Canada, and includes Yukon, the Northwest Territories and
Nunavut; (province)note
section 24 of Canada’s Land Surveys Act confirms upper case “P” Provinces are
not part of Canada’s land mass as they are undefined corporate franchises created in 1905 noting
only small case “p” provincial Attorney Generals may use the Criminal code as
noted in section 2 of Canada’s criminal code.
security means sufficient security, and sureties means sufficient sureties, and when those words are used one person is sufficient
therefor, unless otherwise expressly required; (caution ou cautionnement)
Ontario is violating the Federal oath of Allegiance Act and it's
regulations clearly articulated and concisely restrictive words?
From the Interpretation Act
Imperative and Permissive Construction
Marginal note:“Shall”
and “may”
11 The expression
“shall” is to be construed as imperative and the expression “may” as permissive.
So here’s
what the Oath says using the imperitive word shall: Oath of
Allegiance
Marginal note:Oath of
allegiance
Oath of Allegiance Notation: it has not been upgraded to reflect
the King
Oath
of allegiance
·
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.
Demise of the Crown
(2) Where
there is a demise of the Crown, there shall be substituted in the oath of
allegiance the name of the Sovereign for the time being.
And pay special notation to the attempts of deceitful lawyers advising
the false oath government who will try to convince you that Federal enactment
is only for Federal Government officers as we have the Oath of Allegiance Act regulations
referring to Mayors and JP’s not found in federal government. I think those facsimile lawyers may be reliant
on AI like ChatGPT which is of a recorded worldwide history of being a notorious
dedicated liar and is being pushed by the Privy Council Policy Horizons Canada,
to take over all of Canada’s computers. I do Believe Sean Frazer got deceived
by either those lawyers or them using AI
as denying that birth Certificates are listed with a value of life and are
traded securities. Sean was fervent in his willfully blind denial with intent
to harm and discomfort my Parishioners when the common law expectation of a claiming
damaged man or woman has never been presented as a lawful claim.
There is quite literally no damaged party as a man
or woman bringing forth this claim against
my parishioners but there is the pretense of a legal fiction dead corporate
person of law engaging securities fraud.
Those
words in the Oath of Allegiance are unalienable and mandatory upon those taking
a Provincial public office by those reflecting honor integrity and seeking to
protect men and women of faith in Christ from fake oath government slavery
style fraud and racketeering in interstate commerce.
Ontario’s Oath of Allegiance is woefully
deficient not even being close to what
the law requires 3. The short title of this
Act is the Legislative Assembly Oath of Allegiance Act, 1995. Schedule…Notice the extreme
deficiency!
I, (full
name of member) do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be loyal
and bear true allegiance to Canada and that I will perform the duties of Member
honestly and justly in conformity with the Constitution of Canada.
And the one for all
public servants ONTARIO REGULATION 373/07
made under the
PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO ACT, 2006
Made: June 27, 2007
Filed: July 25, 2007
Published on e-Laws: July 27, 2007
Printed in The Ontario Gazette: August
11, 2007
OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS
Oath or
affirmation of allegiance
1. (1) The following oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Crown
is prescribed for the purposes of subsection 5 (1) of the Act:
“I swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be faithful and
bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (or the reigning sovereign for the time being),
her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God. (Omit this
phrase in an affirmation.)”
Without a valid Oath ONTARIO the trading
corporation sits defacto and is running a securities fraud using my
Parishioners names in an altered version not provided for in law with the all
capital letter legal fiction ARKANSAS corporation of a huge nature. Staufen of BCSC 2001 reflects on legal
fictions.
[9] Whilst there is no evidence before the Court that Mr. Staufen was born in Vancouver or, for that matter, where he was born, the law is riddled with legal fictions, it is said. The Court may do so here, Mr. Azevedo suggests, and create a legal fiction with respect to Mr. Staufen's name and place and date of birth.
[10] As defined by the Oxford Canadian Dictionary a “legal fiction” is “an assertion accepted as true (though probably fictitious) to achieve a useful purpose, esp. in legal matters”. In An Historical Introduction to English Law and Its Institutions (3rd ed.) by Harold Potter, the learned author, at p. 302, groups the fictions used into three classes: (1) fictions used to increase the jurisdiction of Courts; (2) fictions designed to avoid cumbersome and archaic forms of action; (c) fictions having a false assumption of fact in order to extend the remedy the Court could grant. Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law (2nd ed.), at p. 787, provides two examples in order to illustrate how the former practice and jurisdiction of the courts rested largely on fictions. Thus, the king’s Bench acquired jurisdiction in actions for debt by “surmising” or “feigning” that the defendant had been arrested for a trespass which he had never committed and then allowing the plaintiff to proceed against him for debt. In the second example the Court of Exchequer acquired jurisdiction by permitting the plaintiff in certain actions to plead that he was a debtor to the king and that by reason of the cause of action pleaded he had become less able to pay his wholly fictitious debt to the king.
[11] Although fictions have been used extensively over the centuries to expand the jurisdiction of the courts and the nature of the relief they can grant, I have not been referred to, and have not in my own research found, an instance where a fiction has been used by a court to invent the facts necessary to decide the very issue before it. Judges are frequently told by appellate courts not to speculate on the evidence. What is sought here would require the Court to do more than speculate.
Blessings from my position as the Ezekiel 33 watchman
