Sunday, September 30, 2012


By ,Edmonton Sun Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Law court
Law Court sign on the east side of the Edmonton Law Courts at 1A Sir Winston Churchill Square. (TOM BRAID/EDMONTON SUN)
This is your traditional hit piece from a conservative tabloid. It is designed to scare the ignorant and fearful. It will not seek to be either objective or fair. It will not tell you that Brian Mulrooney, former C.E.O/Prime Minister is one of the board of directors for this paper. For those of you who don't know, Mulrooney introduced a G.S.T, had their own "terrorist attack" with the Air India 182 bombing, negotiated a free trade agreement with his good mate Ronald Reagan, established the AMEX Bank of Canada on an election day, ratified legislation on climate change, was involved in accepting government bribes in a scandal involving Thyssen industries, and after his popularity dropped so low that his party became almost non existant due to voter rage, he took a tax payer funded holiday DURING the election campaign itself. 
To quote Wikipedia, "Mulroney has served as an international business consultant and remains a partner with the law firm Ogilvy Renault. He currently sits on the board of directors of multiple corporations, including Barrick Gold, Quebecor Inc. -who owns the Edmonton Sun-, Archer Daniels Midland, TrizecHahn Corp. (Toronto), Cendant Corp. (New York), AOL Latin America, Inc. (New York) and Cognicase Inc. (Montreal). He is a senior counselor to Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, a global private equity fund in Dallas, chairman of Forbes Global (New York), and was a paid consultant and lobbyist for Karl-Heinz Schreiber beginning in 1993. He is also chairman of various international advisory boards and councils for many international companies, including Power Corp. (Montreal), Bombardier (Montreal), the China International Trust and Investment Corp. (Beijing), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (New York), Violy, Byorum and Partners (New York), VS&A Communications Partners (New York), Independent Newspapers (Dublin) and General Enterprise Management Services Limited (British Virgin Islands)" 
So Mulrooney is your garden variety elitist scum who happily raped the Canadian people on behalf of the elitist New World Order agenda of of global slavery. So we can expect a fair and balanced article from this criminal, oops, I meant newspaper, can't we? ;)
A top-according to who? this newspaper? Do you think that the Canadian rape victim that Rooke called "stupid" would agree? Alberta judge-appointed by the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE in 2009- has exposed-opinion, expressed without proof- a group of "vexatious litigants" he says are abusing the legal system and is warning them-using an individual matter to fire off unsubstantiated threats to arbitrary people not involved in the matter being determined appears to be an abuse of process, but, Rooke does have form-that their misconduct-opinion, expressed without proof-will not be tolerated.-nor, will due process, or presumption of innocence it seems, but, unsurprisingly, this newspaper appears not to be interested in these key components of our natural, unlienable, and unalienable rights, nor the consequential slide into slavery that this inevetibably constitutes.
In a recent decision -- slated to be released Wednesday -- Court of Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke takes on the group-as opposed to adjucating court cases which is what a judge is supposed to do in a free and just society- he is calling Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants.-Don't be surprised if this becomes the corporate media description of choice.
In the decision, which stems from an Edmonton divorce case, Rooke says OPCA court strategies are "disruptive" -to their attempts at fleecing you, NOT to the appropriate transmission of law and justice in an environment that presumes justice- and are "invariably unsuccessful"-due to corporate/judicial/government corruption, but, notice the employment of the word "invariably", as opposed to 'always'. When an honest judge presides, justice is swift and in our favour- and typically dismissed by judges due to the "nonsense" -no verification of his claim presented at this point, but, even if one or three people poorly presented their matters,  it does not justify lumping every specific matter in the same basket- that is argued.
"Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes," said Rooke in the decision. only a Alberta judge because he was appointed-by the company that profits of people's ignorance and therefore gives rise to a genuine belief that Rooke has arbitrated on a matter that he has a personal involvement in this matter that is in fact a perversion of the course of justice.
"Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues," says Rooke,-who may be guilty of the crime that he baselessly accuses others of- adding that the "growing volume" of such cases calls for "a strong response to curb this misconduct."-Actually it means that we are absolutely correct, we are successful, we only lose when they pervert the course of justice, we are growing powerful, they are losing debt currency hand over fist, and they are going to resort to naked violence to try to reassert their dominance. That said, this, of course is more about controlling and shepharding the herd, rather than the money which is of no value whatsoever.
We always knew that they would respond savagely to our massive awakening. They have form. Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Vietnam War Protests, the worldwide Occupy movement, Melbourne S11, Davos, Seattle, and so on, and so on, whenever we violate the conditional freedom that they feel that we as their cattle deserve.  

An executive summary of the case says the group call themselves various names, including Detaxers, Freemen, Sovereign Men and the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, and notes they base their activities on a common collection of "conspiratorial, legally incorrect and spurious beliefs."-how many cases can a judge hear simultaneously? Can I presume that they were heard ex-parte?
The summary states OPCA litigants -Who? That is their creation, did you ever agree to join? It is their way of reducing you down to a simplistic identity for the purposes of exploitation- deny they have obligations to honour government, courts, -does any such obligation exist? Notice they did not employ any trick words that obligate anyone to anything such as 'require' or 'must''? contracts and laws-this is a complete and absolute lie which is a libellous assault on innocent people that may result in a series of tort actions being placed against Rooke, not to mention criminal proceedings, but, maybe there is a Canadian law that allows their judiciary to lie about and threaten innocent people arbitrarily while adjudicating other matters- and says they often follow so-called OPCA gurus, whom Rooke calls "parasites," and put forward "bizarre" ideas. -As opposed to Rooke who appears to be a parasite putting forward bizarre ideas himself. Double Standard?
Some of those ideas include arguing-provocative word designed to imply meaning where it does not exist, otherwise known as lying, but, also, a description of what they do to all of us-  that spelling their names with irrelevant punctuation or only in lower case letters makes them immune to court and state actions. What is a state action?
The summary says the group -further reduction of a made up group with no members-also claims that they can declare themselves exempt from the law -the same lie restated for those who don't know what an obligation is, as well as a repetitive programming tool and and attempt to enjoin the following choices as being lawful obligations- and can opt out of things like being governed, paying taxes or having motor vehicle licences or insurance.
It also says OPCA litigants have proven to be "highly disruptive"-opinion, expressed without proof- in and out of court and have been in confrontations with police, court security and other authorities. Confrontations that are always initiated by them, but, an elitist paper like this is never going to confront the government about their violence on the people that it was "elected"-nudge nudge, wink, wink-to serve. Just as importantly, did you notice that the previous sentence tried to group private security guards alongside police and the vague term "other authorities"? Precisely which of these groups exist between any of you and the Divine Creator?
In his decision, Rooke speaks about an OPCA guru who was ejected from the annual Law Day event at the Law Courts Building in April for disrupting things-opinion, expressed without proof- and then tried to press charges against the sheriff involved.-if the sheriff can't be charged for an alleged crime then it means that s/he is above the law. Who else is above the law in this corporate Canadian farm?
Another recent related Edmonton case, reported by Sun Media, involved a city woman who launched a constitutional challenge against three traffic tickets she'd got, claiming her religious beliefs exempt her from the law. -opinion, expressed without proof, but this time done deliberately trying to prey upon your ignorance of who you are, and the difference between law of staute. Statute is a word you will never read about in a hit piece such as this-
The woman had argued she could drive her "pursuit chariot" without a licence, registration or insurance because the provincial civil laws did not apply to her because she is a Christian minister bound only by God, the Queen of England and the Constitution Act of 1982.
Her argument was rejected and her case was tossed.
In another case involving an Edmonton minister charged with assault for spanking his daughter with a belt, the man stood in court wrapped in a Canada flag and refused to give his name or accept the judge's jurisdiction. -The main thing here is to see that they are trying use what they would sway as 'kooky' cases to keep you from straying from their herd. The first gave a result, but, rather tellingly, the second, involving, a criminal charge, albeit within a family gave no result. Does this mean that the fellow is allowed to raise and discipline his own daughter and his refusal to enter into contract accepted? Certainly appears that way, doesn't it?
The bigger problem is that good Canadian people are now likely to be violently assaulted and tortured unlawfully for living a political belief. This is not just a breach of every just and reasonable law, but, is political persecution and oppression. 
What happens to one of us happens to all of us, so we all need to warily watch how this matter will be replicated as this decision is consumed by the corporate judiciary all around the world.
I don't include polls as a rule, but this is important because it illustrates how we are being manipulated 24/7, 365 days a year. It tries to create an enjoinder between good, innocent, aware people, and those who abuse, which is insidious enough, but, does so after MANIPULATING THE READER with a piece  of propaganda that would make Geobbels himself proud.


Do you think judges should be harder on legal system abusers?


No comments:

Post a Comment