Message #100      Next      Previous
Letter to RCMP compaints Commission September10 2002 A.D.
  -  The following letters demonstrate irrefutably

that there is a an fatal flaw in the Alberta system of Justice that overflows into the Federal system by the men and women not only taking the wrong invalid form of oath according to the federal statute but not having any awareness or knowing what the allegiance means anyways. No man or woman can be truly allegiant if they do not know what the allegiance means. This is a point of logic as simple as no glass can spill water until it has water in it.

The RCMP refuse to be truly allegiant violating their oath! They do not know what that allegiance means and as such refuse to provide it as they cannot provide that which they do not know are understand. This is violating 126 of the code!

You may contact Wayne Hatt Alberta Justice of the peace for proof of what the oath means if you wish professional cooperation

Unless we are reduced to the state of animal farm "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others! I see a serious conflict that has arisen and will escalate as a result of this intentional oversight.

I cannot of faith be compelled to accept imposters as legitimate, please ask serious questions regarding this issue as I am afraid for the lives and sanctity of my family.

The justice minister is acting quite arrogant about this as it exposes the whole system formed on fraud. As usual per history one soul is easily ignored, until blood is spilled because of it then the embarrassment begins!! This is Golden Jubilee for the Queen and she has been notified.

I will not back down I will stand my ground as it is God's church!

Please raise your voice to question this unethical immoral activity!

I thankyou in God's light and spirit

Minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger

P.s If you inquire of Justice you will hear innuendo and false accusations against me, I welcome any test as to my sincerity and pure form of source for my quest. I am not a trouble maker just a sincere man of faith

To RCMP Complaints Commission September10 2002 A.D.
Vasncouver. British Columbia

Attention LB
Dear Lorraine Blommaert

I hope you find these facts provided below startling enough to concede there is some thing wrong when a minister such as myself go's to jail because of defending a woman who wished to be parishioner of mine so I would speak for her regarding her failure to file Taxes. She was so shaken by the whole affair that she renounced her belief that taxes are against the wish of god as they are not founded on scriptural advise nor law as she was intimidated with jail and a bogus judge. She was arrested at the instigation of a man named Bradley (I have included the transcript )with one of these false oaths and in ignorance he had no power to cause someone to violate his or her religious beliefs.
I was in front of him as a minister of God on June 6th and 14th 2001 and so announced under 176 of the CCC.

I cannot achieve relief or process and am being denied due process and right to full defense in the provincial courts that I must go to defend my Church and sanctuary from an unlawful foreclosure proceeding on the part of the TD bank and collusion with Alberta Judicial agents as they not only deny their oaths but have not got a valid one according to the Federal enactment re oaths. Neil Skinner of Alberta Justice will coroborate that and the fact that I can only accept judges masters justices etc. that understand the meaning of their oaths of allegiance as I as a Christian Minster am of duty and right to demand that true allegiance and integrity exist in the court. I am rebuked for that by the prosecution if there is one and the judge as if I do not have the right to ask. The arrogance is amazing. In a system where you do not have the right to question authority it is called a dictatorship. The only way we have maintained vestiges of freedom in this country is by that right being exercised. I am being told I cannot do that. They are wrong and traitors to their oaths and her majesty. The Queen is a Christian monarch head of the Church of England she is contractually sworn to uphold the laws of God with all of her power. The KJV letters patent version Bible must by royal proclamation be in all of her majesty's courts as adherence to that contract! The coronation Ceremony of 1953 and act of 1688 exhibit the irrefutable law and fact revealing the Bible as the rule of law under her majesty's dominions until such time as her majesty would be abdicated from the throne by the assent of all of the commonw4ealth countries or her choice.

Do you see that the only tie we have legally to that Bible is by her status as Christian monarch defending it and those who swore they would bear true allegiance to her!

What else could they be allegiant to? Magna Carta ? Yes as long as it does not transend the contractually protected and defended rule of law being the Bible.

Do you not believe unto the laws of God?? Deuteronomy 4:1-2;12:32 Matthew 6:24 Acts 5:29 Romans 16:17-20 Numbers 15:15

All lawyers in the province have a false oath under the legal profession act directing us to the Alberta oaths of office act which is obviously deficient as well so I cannot get true lawful advise and true justice to proceed. I cannot as a minister or a man accept a court that not only despises the idea that the Coronation oath puts the Bible in the Queen's protection and all of her allegiants are to help her do that but does not believe in God's laws . What else could the allegiance be to lest uphold what is right and founded in the word of God. Read the ceremony this is a good year to understand why the Queen and all of her allegiants are sworn to uphold the laws of God.

To protect us from corruption that is why! Long ago the people figured out why they were being ripped off and raped.
The king was not following God's law. They, the Church, Barons and people, imposed it upon him in Runnymede in 1215 and before in history many times.

I need to seek redress in the courts over this but have no provincial judge or justice that is not in a conflict on this as they all have taken a false oath. I cannot find a lawyer who understands his oath is to uphold the laws of God except a provincial justice of the peace at the Edmonton law courts, Wayne Hatt who immediately said his oath was to uphold the laws of the King James Bible.

I have been to the RCMP at K divisions and Stony Plain with this to try and get them to enforce the appropriate section of the criminal code in obvious breach. Sections 126,176, 423,366, 403 etc. They refuse to even begin to investigate saying Judges are different. Breach of the oath of allegiance act is a breach of an act of parliament 126. Breach of 176 is obstructing a member of the clergy in performing any function related to his calling.
I act as the watchman Ezekial 33:6
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet
to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of
them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold
the watchman accountable for his blood." -
I cannot of my religious faith as defended by her majesty accept nor be compelled to accept,courts that not only have a false oath but do not understand the meaning of it as a primary prerequisite to it having any sanction. They say they will be faithful and bear true allegiance. Is it illogical to assume for them to be able to do that they must know what the allegiance is to and what it means? Do we run the risk of frauds and imposters running our country if the words and meaning of the law do not matter?? How can lawyers who do not have a valid oath and do not believe the Bible is the rule of law as per the words of the Coronation Ceremony nor even believe in God get any say at all in whether it is necessary or not? They are in a monumental conflict of interest and totally biased

All the oaths of allegiance below are all different Which one has priority and if all why does the Federal one say shall be in the following form and no other? Can one really be allegiant if they do not know what the allegiance is? Read the Coronation oath to understand.

The RCMP are refusing to explain why section 176 will not be respected and the Oath is not important and why the courts do not have to be allegiant as per 126 of the CCC and the oath of allegiance ACT and the Preamble to the Canadian Constitution that the courts also refuse to acknowledge.

I cannot go before any more Judges for orders for whatever as they are all imposters and do not respect their oaths. I have stood in front of over fifty judges who refused to acknowledge their allegiance or would not offer the meaning of their oaths upon my rightful demand for them to provide it.and have been ordered by an Edmonton Woman acting as a Judge Lawrie Smith to not appear as a Christian minister to speak for anyone ever again. This alone is a violation of freedom of speech and discrimination based upon the religious test I put to the court. It immediately points out if the one asked understands the allegiance to the Christian monarch she promised to be truly allegiant to. If they do not they are imposters!

I cannot be convicted by an imposter yet the record reflects that I was. The RCMP refuse to do their duty in enforcing the law especially 176 and 423 of the CCC with no explanation as to why.

You may contactRCMP Staff Sergeant Irving Englehart, SGt. Vatimaniuk, Constable Keith Hardy, RCMP NSI member Rodger Piper fore more information regarding this case.

NSI has been tracking me for over a year now as they seem to think I have some affiliation with a group that they think has links to some US militant groups. I have no such links nor affiliations but they are paid to assume and file reports and failing info or proof as to why their assumptions are wrong they leave those assumptions sit as they are regardless of how untrue they may be.

They are also concerned as my allegations upon the TD bank expose the fraud the whole of the banking industry has unlawfully imposed upon us. False witness and usury are violations of Gods law. I cannot be forced to partake of such crimes and upon discovery of them must part ways with such actions. I cannot be bound by those who lied to get me to sign. This is international contract law.
Rodger Piper has refused to enforce the law and has been witness to many of these incursions. He has openly discriminated against me and said I am making threats on the internet. This is false and defamatory and unethical for him to do so.

The bank lied ! The lawyer that will read this will have to extract himself from his profession for a moment and ask if he really meant he would be truly allegiant when they took that OATH.

I am a man of God and no need of militant yahoos that do not follow the path of our Lord.
I am not an Canadian resident but was born in this geographical location, as I am a creation of God and cannot of faith have association with dead fictional entities such as the corporate body of Canada composed of Canadians members of the body corporate known as persons.

I am as a flesh and blood man am not related to nor attached by assignment to an all capital reversed name nor indeed to any alteration of my Birth name as correct English grammer dictates is to be in upper lower case first middle and last. All other unauthorized attempts at establishing a corporate relationship upon my flesh by such bifurcation of my name is done in fraud and with out lawful authority. I as a freeman am not a debtor listed in a Birfurcated manner as in the consolidated revenue fund under a number registered in a legal fictions name as a surety for the debt since my birth as such registry was done in fraud and deceit.

No gold in the bank means we need sureties to give value to the paper that is used as money . Gold used to do that and now it is flesh. This is slavery and a violation of God's law. .

Locally-Engaged Staff Employment Regulations SOR/95-152 (Public Service Employment Act)
I, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second,
Her Heirs and Successors according to law. So help me God.

Signature of Employee

this day of...........

Sworn and subscribed before me

Signature of Person Administering Oath

From the Federal Act
From the Federal Oath of Allegiance Act 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. ( Notice no according to law)



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.
RSA 1970 c266 ss2,5,Form A

Official oath
2 When by a statute of Alberta a person is required to take an official
Oath on

(a) Being appointed to an office other than that of judge or
Justice of the peace, or

(b) Being admitted to a profession or calling,

the oath shall be taken in the following form:

I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will
diligently, faithfully and to the best of my ability execute according to
law the office of . . . . . . . . . . .

So help me God.

RSA 1970 c266 s3,Form B

Judicial oath
3 When by a statute of Alberta a person is required to take a judicial
Oath on his appointment as a judge or as a justice of the peace, the oath
Shall be taken in the following form:

I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will honestly
and faithfully and to the best of my ability exercise the powers and duties
of a . . . . . . . . . . . .

So help me God.

RSA 1970 c266 s4,Form C;1975(2) c43 s5

Affirmation or declaration
4(1) A person who is required by a statute of Alberta to take an oath
prescribed by this Act may make a solemn affirmation or declaration instead
of taking the oath.

(2) When on the administering of an oath prescribed by this Act the person
about to take the oath is permitted by law to make a solemn affirmation or
declaration instead of taking an oath, the person may make a solemn
affirmation in the prescribed form of the oath, substituting the words
"solemnly swear and truly declare and affirm" for the word "swear", and
omitting the words "So help me God".
RSA 1980 cO-1 s4;1990 c29 s19

Section 128 of the BNA
128. Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person Authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; and every Member of the Senate of Canada and every Member of the Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his Seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General, or some other Person authorized by him, the Declaration of Qualification contained in the same Schedule.

I, A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.
Note.--The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with Proper Terms of Reference thereto.

Note the word "do" is essential. You cannot alter the Constitution. Does the federal Oath enactment do that ? No as it is for 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
Shall being the imperitive!

Which oath is correct? I say the federal one as the constitutional one only applies to the politicians!

The other applies to all federal servants so the public service employment act and the Alberta form are void!

John please correct me if I am wrong but I believe you are in possession of evidence of a violation of 126 of the Criminal code
Disobeying a statute

126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament
by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do
anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly
provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding two years.

Attorney General of Canada may act

(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene
an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at
the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).
And obstructing a member of the clergy from performing a function of his calling namely pointing out the fraud!! 176 of the code
Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman

176. (1) Every one who

(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to
obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or
performing any other function in connection with his calling, or

(b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to
perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions
mentioned in paragraph (a)

(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or

(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years.

Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings

(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met
for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of
an offence punishable on summary conviction.


(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully
does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of
an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 172.

I hope you can find out why these section of the law are being ignored as I was not the one to break the law and I was wrongfully convicted by a woman who was aware her oath was invalid as she was shown the preceding before I entered her court room and declared "I am ignoring this and will not allow it" Conflict of interest. I cannot appeal in a provincial court as none of them have valid oaths.

This is not allowable John I am entitled to full redress and defense and I am being denied a valid court . This is not opinion it is words in black and white with chiseling lawyers with no valid oath looking for an excuse as to why we do not need a valid oath .

You cannot get advise from a lawyer on this one as according to this discovery there are no valid lawyers oath allegiant to a Christian monarch in Canada only private smiths of mans law !

What a disgrace to her majesty in this her Golden Jubilee and her own Coronation oath of truth and world proclamation.

Will you bring this up John before Jean who has already been made aware of this and ignored it, or will you to ignore the truth of the evidence because of the pride lost of having to admit this Christian Minister is right?

What will the priority be, to your honor and duty in light of such evidence, or to pride ego and arrogance in reluctance to admit the truth and to hide it from all the rest of your fellow MP's for fear of being labeled the can of worms opener..

Please ask the RCMP to examine this as coming from you they may actually do it!

Sincerely hoping you do know what your oath of allegiance means to the retention of God's law as supreme in Canada. This is not me stating that as fact John, it is the words of the Coronation oath that do.

God bless the expediency you can provide or may he forgive you for your deceit in duty failing to acknowledge such a glaring evidential example of bogus oaths and treason.

Minister of Christ in his service

Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger

Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
Heatherdown ecclesia

June 18th 2002 A.D.
To: Douglas Hughes the private man who Works as a non allegiant Lawyer for the unlawfully formed Corporate legal fiction firm, Bishop and Mackenzie within the Corporate legal Fiction known as Edmonton , in Corporate legal fiction of Alberta and is acting as counsel for the unlawful Corporate legal fiction the Toronto Dominion Bank purporting they have an assignment of debt with unlawful legal fiction of Canada Trust.
Fax: 1-780-426-1305
From the lawful man and minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International Heatherdown Ecclesia. Near the village of Onoway, Alberta no code non commercial.
Dear Douglas Hughes,
This letter to you as a man is in the performance of a function of my calling namely teaching the principles of our Lord and saviour and noticing those of crimes against his law and her majesty's Crown in defense of his law.
As you are aware your code of ethics prevents you from encouraging me to participate in a crime or to break one of God's laws. You are also bound by your code of ethics to have integrity, which is an unimpaired condition with firm adherence to the moral code of incorruptibility. You are also bound to show where you get your authority
Chapter 15 of the Code, The Lawyer in Activities Other than the Practice of Law, Rule 1 states:
Where there may be confusion as to the capacity in which a lawyer is acting, the lawyer must ensure that such capacity is made as clear as possible to anyone with whom the lawyer deals.I am confused as to what capacity you are acting Douglas and I endure you to ensure and prove to me that you are indeed acting in the capacity of a true allegiant to her majesty and sanctioned under that true allegiance to proceed as a lawfully endured and empowered agent of her majesty..
You must make it clear as possible that you are indeed a bonafide sanctioned lawyer of her majesty's BAR and in that tell me the meaning of your allegiance to her majesty the Christian Monarch of the Commonwealth of Great Britain overseas defender of the faith, as I have presented you evidence that is extremely powerful and persuasive, by lay or professional standards alike, that you are not a legitimate truly authorized and sanctioned agent of her majesty. If you refuse to honor your oath to her majesty with a short recognition to myself as God's minister performing a function of my calling in that ministry, of purpose in defense of the faith, in asking of your allegiance and what that allegiance means you void all sanction of the Christian Monarch and dishonor your oath. If you do not know what the meaning of the allegiance is you are a perjurer and an imposter.
If you refuse by your own choice you dishonor your oath and the entire purpose of maintaining integrity.
When a man of integrity is asked to provide proof of that integrity the integral man will do so immediately. The imposter will waffle and make excuses or refuse flat out as you did. If you do not like it that I referred to you as an imposter then prove me wrong embarrass me all the way to jail!
If you cannot do that you will have to admit I am right and you do not have a valid oath and you are indeed an imposter and traitor to her honor in oath bound duty to defend the laws of God with all of her power. Will you stain her majesty's Golden Jubilee and royal style Doug? Are you sanctioned by her majesty to do that Douglas?? Do you know what royal sanction is Doug???
I would love to have a real lawyer tackle your arrogance in ignoring what I have shown you as you seem quite content in conspiring and planning treason to overthrow her majesty's government of the King James Bible as the rule of law.
This is not my surmise Douglas but are the words from the Coronation Ceremony itself read for your self
When the Queen is again seated, the Archbishop shall go to her Chair; and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, receiving the Bible from the Dean of Westminster, shall bring it to the Queen and present it to her, the Archbishop saying these words:
Our gracious Queen:
to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the law and the Gospel of God
as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes,
we present you with this Book,
the most valuable thing that this world affords.
And the Moderator shall continue:
Here is Wisdom;
This is the royal Law;
These are the lively Oracles of God.
Then shall the Queen deliver back the Bible to the Moderator, who shall bring it to the Dean of Westminster, to be reverently placed upon the Altar. This done, the Archbishop shall return to the Altar.
I as a Christian minister cannot be compelled to accept imposters and have given you ample time to prove in good faith and not under duress that you indeed do have her majesty's sanction and full authority in defending God's law that may be encroached upon by mans law.
I am not vindictive nor assuming in this repose for I am following the commands of the holy Scripture performing the functions of my calling and attempt no escape from God's law.
I do decline to accept and honor any unlawful order or arrangement or illegitimate contract achieved in deceit and in violation of God's laws as once I am aware I am in violation of those laws with others who have intent on that proceeding in that continuance of that violation such as usury and coveting and I continue to participate, I violate my own repentance and oath to the laws of God in knowledge and awareness and in willingness and as a result am dammed of my heretical actions and sinful challenge of God's laws. I would by such actions show all of my parishioners that I do not practice what God preaches nor do I defend God's laws and as such renounce my ministry. I cannot be compelled to do that by any lawfully convened court of her majesty nor by any lawfully sworn true allegiant of her majesty as such action by such alleged royal agent would cause her majesty to violate her Coronation oath.
I must act as the watchman and report all threats to God's men and women of creation "
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet
to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of
them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold
the watchman accountable for his blood." - Eze 33:6

I cannot be compelled by you or any other secular unauthorized court that is in violation of God's laws and are not sanctioned to practice law as they do not have a valid understood oath to be allegiant to her majesty's duty to uphold God's law's.. to depart from my ministry nor aid you by my tacit consent, in violating God's law's, by doing what you wish without refusal of your offer.
I do so refuse your invalid unlawful offer as it is a breach of the laws of God and natural justice to compel a man to violate his religious faith in God's law the King James Bible and to persist to encourage him to violate it's laws in prejudice to the man or woman's religious beliefs.
I am Minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger performing In God's service an ongoing function of my calling under the corporate protection of the Queens law 176 of the Criminal code protecting private clerics and noting you are in violation of 126 of the code as well by violating the federal oath of allegiance act that has power over fictitious corporate entities of the body corporate of Canada and respective Corporate fiction provinces which they act for.
Cease and desist your unlawful procession against this Church of Christ in failing to provide a reasonable explanation why I cannot lawfully resist your unlawfully ordered attempts at taking possession of my Sanctuary and temple the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International Heatherdown ecclesia near Onoway Alberta founded in holy reverence and by notice to the Alberta Registries of such formation and intent of the Church and it's men and women as participants in God's plan as directed, under threat duress and intimidation. The Alberta Government acting as "Napoleon" of corporate fictional capacity is without lawful and legal sanction evidenced by the words of it's own devised oath and then in hilarious attempts to sanction itself, has advised, as in Animal farm dictate, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." They say this to establish they have a higher equality than the rest of those who are compelled by any law in Canada that they shall swear said allegiance in said form and no other. These , who fall under the Federal enactment are all "persons" except the provincial persons as they are more equal! Why ? No one is saying. ..
If you are in a non favorable position of law remain silent it is your only defense!
This appears to be the practice in most case in civil or criminal law but is contrary to the advise of "Love your brother" . If you hear the truth it is the Biblical duty to accept it and not argue. If you do argue and do so for a financial purpose you are violating God's law. You cannot compel another to join you in that breaking of God's commandments and ordinance of passage. It would be damming my soul to hell to cooperate with you in your unlawful procession and conspiracy with a criminal fictional corporate enterprise as the TDCT affiliates as is proved easily, and it would breach my vows to God.
If I list my sanctuary and temple of God for sale at your insistence I accept your offer and am worshipping false god's and commit sin.
If I allow you to offer me false orders from false courts with false oaths of men that do not understand that an oath of allegiance to a Christian monarch is an oath to aid her to uphold God's laws I allow you in willingness to breach God's temple and again I am in breach of God's law.
I must resist the law of Satan that is commercial in nature and attempted upon some commercial creation of your client and the Court in a bifurcated form of my name against my wishes and violating my religious belief.
The devious methods of word smiths and men of the Kraft has been of notice for centuries by laymen pursuant to reading for grasp of knowledge.
It is because of this reputation that I ask of all professed allegiants of your profession and connection if they understand the meaning of their oaths .
This is in defense of the laws of God Douglas that I do this in function of performing the vows of my ministry of Christ's teachings.
I cannot do that in performing my ministry if the one I ask refuses to reply, rebukes me for asking, or does not know. They are not true allegiant's providing what they swore they would as by their own reluctance to reply they violate the oath. The oath is to aid her majesty to uphold the laws of the King James Bible.
Are you doing that Doug ? Can you show me where it says the oath means something other than the whole purpose of the Coronation Ceremony to defend the laws of God??? Mans law cannot supercede God's laws! Duet:4:2:12:32; Matthew 6:24
Please Doug it would be ethically correct of you to do so and I would eliminate all the intimidation threat and duress you have brought upon this house of God.and would eliminate the purposeful in defense of faith resistance and reluctance that has caused a declination of your offers upon reason of my religious faith and beliefs, founded in the King James Bible.

I expect you to not ignore your ethical duty to not intimidate another to break a law . If I have evidence you have no authority to adjudicate nor do those of no oath capacity it is outside your jurisdiction to proceed and in violation of your ethical conduct. You know a federal statute such as the one in Question has prime authority in this matter and it is only Federal Law that can declare if it is in breach. The conflict arises when you realize that the words of precision are not of the importance but the understanding of the meaning of the allegiance so the oath taker can be equipped to carry out his promise and be truly allegiant to the Christian Monarch in this her Golden Jubilee.
If you are indeed practicing law as sanctioned by her majesty as you purport, why have you taken a false oath and refuse to offer me the meaning of that allegiance? If the oath was insincere, and you have no knowledge of it's meaning or can offer proof of another meaning, you appear in poor ethical standard and who other than a true allegiant can authorize you to proceed with out a true allegiance to her majesty. To be truly allegiant to a Christian monarch you must aid her in all ways to fulfill her Coronation promise. This is not debatable Douglas otherwise you challenge God.

I have sent you evidence that you have not ever taken a true oath of allegiance and the evidence is damming and irrefutable as those taking the oath are not in a position to say we do not like the form so we changed it or we do not think the form is important so we will do nothing to establish our integrity is ensured.
I cannot of faith nor law contribute to your association with criminal enterprise as I have proof that your client is a corporate criminal and has committed a fraud upon my sanctuary church and family. You have seen some of that fraud and are aware you cannot lend what you do not have nor purport to have it to lent when you do not. The actions of the Bank of Canada in league with other corporate fictions is massive in it's fraudulent implications and has been for over 70 years.
I cannot deal with the dead Doug, and corporations are dead Roman fictions under admiralty law that does not recognise the King James Bible as the rule of law as per our constitutional preamble and supported by the text of the Coronation ceremony and the Act itself but rather recognizes commercial equity is the rule.
The Crown in Chauncery and Fleet Street has long been a parasite of those who had no knowledge of the purpose behind the defender of the faith and why the Bible is in all court proceedings.
I am allegiant to God and need neither King nor Queen but you are by your alleged oath allegiant to the Queen who is defender of the faith. If that is true then you have a duty to that true allegiance and that is to ensure that when mans law comes up against God's law God's law shall prevail. To ensure that when your oath is in question your pride in defense of God's law is shown in your immediate reply "to Uphold the laws of God" just like the Justice of the peace at the Edmonton law courts, Wayne Hatt, immediately responded to me with.
What else is your allegiance about Douglas? Show me where it is written that you are allegiant to something else that is supercedent and precedent to upholding God's laws.
You shame her majesty in this her Golden Jubilee for you are in violation of your own ethical guidelines and in danger of losing your connection to the BAR.
It is, as I have told you, against my religious beliefs to participate in an illegitimate court unsanctioned by true allegiance to her majesty under God's rule of law.
It is also against my religious belief to participate in a banking scheme based upon a violation of God's law of Usury. Usury according to God is the increase of your holdings by the charging of interest to your brother on a loan of something that you already had in your possession and were willing to loan your brother.. He specifically said "thou shall not commit a usury upon thy brother". God also forbids coveting as the actions of the Toronto Dominion intercourse with Canada Trust upon my Church and sanctuary. God also forbids false witness as you have done to me by altering my name and portraying me as a commercial entity. I am a minister of God and a subject of a Christian monarch. I accept no benefit from the illegitimate government and own no number nor accept such assignment duties or taxation of any kind as my ministerial duty in the procession and defense of the house of God
The origin or that fraud is against my faith and belief and if you wish to proceed find a clerk who understands their oath's meaning and a judge of the same capacity. I think you did not err in that fraudulent entry as you say, as I believe you did that of intent as you has three prior notices one by a fellow lawyer Jennifer Oakes, not to alter my name as it was against my religious beliefs and you did so anyways.
Negligence is punishable and even Wayne Hat agreed off duty that Capitalizing my name like you did against my wishes of multiple notice and to enter it into the commercial record in that bifurcated state is fraud!!
When was a transfer of indebtedness from a trust company under that act to a chartered bank of the TD name related to me or did I offer my permission?
False witness is also one of the Sins you and the mentioned bank are committing. I never signed any contract as to be a bonafide contract all the details of the loan must have been made clear and of course you did not tell us that the promissory note or equivalent financial instrument was the original funds that your client used to fund the loan and equally exchange the value of for cash. You have not only witnessed me into the court as a corporate legal fiction which is a false hood but you have spoken as if I owed the institution this money when I do not as it was achieved in fraud and deceit as I have proved via my unrebutted letter to the T.D. and affidavits and notices to the Canada Trustco Mortgage Company re their financial practices of questionable lawful and ethical existence
The lack of exposing my wife and I to this essential information of truth how you need our value first was deliberately done to deceive us and to provide you with our valuable note and energy so your client could proceed with the swindle. Your client never had neither permission nor contract to alter our name in bifurcated manner to achieve this commercialization of our names to be seen by the record as commercial entities and treated under commercial law as legal entities rather than under God's law as lawful creations of God….. men and women.
It is a violation of my faith for you to have done this and you were warned of not altering my name in excess and in due diligence as per my notice in the December 19th edition of the Edmonton Journal and per my notices to you and your client and the info that you first received from Jennifer French the first law firm that had the TDCT as it's client but had to drop it as per conflict of interest having a relative of mine working for their firm as a lawyer.
I have contacted the Federal courts and they are refusing to hear my case and they do not seem to know what the oath of allegiance means either. This is unprecedented in Canadian history of law as I am being denied process and true justice by truly sworn allegiant's. I cannot be compelled to accept their false jurisdiction in light of the evidence I have discovered as I cannot aid and abet a crime. If the evidence if incorrect then you have a duty to ensure me of that with authoritive proof of your conclusions as I have provide you faithfully in proof of mine. Failing that good faith and ethical recourse you proceed in bad faith unlawfully acting in a malicious manner and detrimental to the best interests of your client by your actions of advising your client that you can and will to cause a Minister of God to violate his faith and God's law as per provide copy of the letter sent to your client making them aware of my faith and beliefs.
If you are bluffing I am not, I stand by God's law and you stand by mans contrary to God's. Whose do you think has precedence? Whose does the Queen defend??
I am literally prejudiced from receiving her majesty's justice as per the whole of the legal profession in Alberta seems to have taken these false oaths and thereby spoiled their integrity and impartiality and sanction of her majesty to be given authority.
The minister of Justice has instructed his staff to hang up on this Christian Minister effectively obstructing me in the performance of my duties as a minister of God, which is a clear violation of section 176 of the criminal code.
It appears that I am being denied process and justice in the corrupt system of non-allegiant men and women you partake of daily. I need proof of the integrity Doug just like Wayne Hatt justice of the peace Edmonton Law courts in that the men or women that are acting as Royal allegiants to the Christian monarch in integral fashion.
So far I have seen proof that you and the rest of the justice system in Alberta have no respect for your oaths of sacred allegiance and are arrogant enough to believe that you can dictate what the oath means after you have taken the wrong one and lied when you did it.
By this proof I am commanded in moral and ethical cause not to contribute to your crimes by conspiring with you in your commercial fraud of international proportions as I have a letter from Canada Trust's Walter Oliveri that passes the buck to the World Bank our Canadian creditor. He never denied my allegations but referred the perpetrator to being above the CT trust company in the World Bank. This amounts to complicit actions with a known fraud taking place with out denial.
If you intend to violate my religious beliefs and tarnish the reputation of her majesty in this her Coronation Year you can expect it to happen in a big way.
I am lawfully empowered to defend my sanctuary against unlawful process and fraud actions of an unallegiant court with you as a non allegiant lawyer with both parties having not only no idea what your integrity demands of you but having no intention of maintaining integrity in your activities.
The Canadian BAR and provincial BAR have been notified and in the OL boys club fashion as par for centuries have rallied around their revealed corruption and noted that only one Christian has stepped into the arena. In true Roman form they have decreed "release the Lions" The Lions Doug are toothless against God.
You in knowledge and awareness unlawfully and outside the sanction of the Queen cause stress upon my family and Church you violate God's law of Usury bear false witness against me and commit a sacrilege against God's temple of worship and life as you attempt to aid this non sanctioned entity in coveting my labor and property.
You by your actions are in process of stealing God's property the Church and all of it's allodial lands and possessions and have conspired with others to defraud our sanctuary from our possession.
I cannot achieve process that is sanctioned by her majesty so I am prevented from having as recourse against your frauds except by protecting my property to the death.
Blood of a martyr always looks good and I have instructed my Church members to continue the story after my demise on the internet and public webservers of news and events concerning the Coronation Ceremony.
I have drafted a letter to the Queen of your unlawful activities and how embarrassing a death or spilling of blood of a minister trying to alert the world to the phenomenal fraud the BAR has brought upon the world and her majesty.
I will only be deterred by a good faith intentional attempt to convince of your integrity in true oath and that the courts are going to uphold God's law as supreme as per the Coronation Promise that you do understand that usury according to God's definition is the increasing of your worth by charging others interest on what you loan them

I can only use God's book as rule of law Doug so if you wish to quote a law please ensure it is in accord with God's law as per Deuteronomy 4:1-2;12:32 Acts 5:29 Matthew 6:24, Numbers 15:15 ;Romans 16:17-20 etc .
I am not merchandise Doug and I know that all transactions through the court get billed via a Bifurcated version of my name so it can be passed on to treasury for payment. They hold the value of my bond via my registration of a live birth in the consolidated revenue fund under a number they created, placing me unaware and as a surety for the debt pursuant to the bankruptcy of the Corporation known as Canada by Governors orders in council on April 10th 1933. This was similar to what FDR did in the united states in the same year by abrogating the gold from the peoples control. This was of course unconstitutional
Thing is it cannot proceed unless it is a bifurcated name as per commercial entity demanded of in the Bank Act and that is why you are strongly encouraged to commit fraud and Bifurcate my name on all court documents. I am not a commercial entity Douglas and am not subject to tax nor duty nor tribute. You cannot show me a lawful document that says you have authority to alter my name without my permission unless you own me. I am not a slave Douglas I will not be ordered by a man of no allegiance or self described allegiance without lawfully formed courts of God's integrity
I quote "E) Colonial Tax Repeal Act (1778)
An act for removing all doubts and apprehensions concerning taxation by the parliament of Great Britain in any of the colonies, provinces, and plantations in North America and the West Indies.... Whereas taxation by the parliament of Great Britain for the purpose of raising a revenue in his majesty's colonies, provinces, and plantations in North America has been found by experience to occasion great uneasiness and disorders among his majesty's faithful subjects, who may nevertheless be disposed to acknowledge the justice of contributing to the common defense of the empire, provided such contribution should be raised under the authority of the general court or general assembly of each respective colony ...: it is hereby declared and enacted ... that, from and after the passing of this act, the king and parliament of Great Britain will not impose any duty, tax, or assessment whatever, payable in any of his majesty's colonies ... in North America or the West Indies, except only such duties as it may be expedient to impose for the regulation of commerce; the net produce of such duties to be always paid and applied to and for the use of the colony ... in which the same shall be ... levied.
This enactment is still in force and is imperial law. The laws regarding usury are clear in the letter I sent the TD board of directors. Do you in God's law have proof that God wishes the whole of the world to be enslaved to money changers and in perpetual debt and that it is God's wish to cooperate with this fraud he has declared to be unlawful and as being usury, as laid out by his own definition?
I have communicated your fraud to the RCMP and because of the history of the RCMP in helping banks foreclose on men and women who incidentally have no authority in attempting to aid and abet a crime by proceeding in civil matters against God's clergy, they are reluctant to cooperate as they are in a monumental conflict of interest.
They are a bit puzzled at the proof of Coronation promise being violated and by purpose of oath as they are supposed to be allegiant to her in upholding her promise to uphold the laws of God and protect the clergy as per 176 of the Criminal code. I believe they are being instructed from non allegiant members of Provincial or federal Justice all in lack of a understanding of their oaths, meaning they are void ab initio of any sanction of the Queen and as such instruction is in error and not in allegiance to her majesty.
If you, in good faith and ethical form knowing how important that is to my faith and belief in the King James Bible, can tell me how you and the courts are acting in that allegiance to the defense of God's law and not outside of it, I will be quite submissive and go along with the true sanction of her majesty's defense of the faith.
This is in good faith a request of another professing to be allegiant to her majesty but to whom has been presented a goodly portion of irrefutable evidence that says that he is not by a man who is dedicated to God's law as you are to man's law. Where the two differ God's law shall be taken as supreme. If you can show me how that is not correct then I will be apologetic and immediately run to pay you in humble repose and embarrassed fashion. I will also be publicly and privately posting wide statement and recant of my error and misinterpretation of God's law and what it means to be allegiant to a Christian monarch in oath to God as described in the 1646 Westminster confession of faith
Lawful Oaths
A lawful oath is part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears.
II. 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. 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. 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 so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.
III. Whosoever takes 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: neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.
IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt. Nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.
V. 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.
VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: 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 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.
VII. No man may vow to do any thing 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 has no promise of ability from God.[16] In which respects, 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.[17]
I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.[1]
II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto:[2] in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;[3] so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.[4]
III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7]
IV. It is the duty of people(* Note below)(also known as persons from the Latin for masked player on stage) to pray for magistrates,[8] to(Note James 2:9; Acts 10:34; Deuteronomy 10:17) honor their persons,[9] to pay them tribute or other dues,(Note Ezra 7:23-24)[10] to obey their lawful (Lawful is from God)commands, and to be subject to their authority(coming from God Romans 13 as his ministers), for conscience' sake.[11] Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them:[12] from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted,[13] much less has the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.[14]
From section 19 the Law of God
4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.a
a. Gen 49:10 with 1 Pet 2:13-14; Exod 21 throughout; 22:1-29; Mat 5:17 with 5:38-39; 1 Cor 9:8-10.
5. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;a and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it.b Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.c
a. Rom 13:8-10; Eph 6:2; 1 John 2:3-4, 7-8. o b. James 2:10-11. o c. Mat 5:17-19; Rom 3:31; James 2:8.
*BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES Page 123 The Rights Book, 1 Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations or bodies politic.
I am not a "person" as that is an imprecise commercial term …I am a man!
I am not a member of any body politic as I am not a artificial commercial fictional Canadian I am a Subject of a Christian monarch a Christian man living in the geographical area of North America with woman as wife and adolescent children professing the gospel of Jesus Christ within my declared Church and sanctuary of Ecumenical Redemption International Heatherdown Ecclesia near the town of Onoway in the fictional corporation of Alberta.
I am prevented from filing any documents into the courts in Canada as I have proof they are not allegiant to her majesty and do not hold the King James Bible as the rule of law.
As a Christian minister and a morally upright man I cannot be compelled to participate in a crime of fraud , perjury and conspiracy to commit and force usury upon God's children and in my view to overthrow her majesty's government by refusing to enforce the section of the Criminal code that protects the clergy and offer truly allegiant courts for our protection and sanctity.
You may wish to read more on the history of this parliament accepted form at
I have contacted the armed forces in Namao this morning and have not been able as of yet to talk to the Commander regarding this affair. Today I talked with Captain Van Diepen of the Edmonton Garrison and as she has asked me to write about this unprecedented and crucial affair of staining her majesty's royal style in this her Coronation year. I am cc'ing her this letter as proof of my intent and goodwill in God's law as well as other correspondence regarding this and other matters of this in theistic violation
I did notice Lynn Varty of that fact and religious contraindications with a letter of last June 6th 2001 A.D. I told her that I forbade the use of my name in that fashion as it was a violation of my faith and incorrect and include that letter here for your perusal
To: Lynn Varty, Registrar Amended Copy June 6th 2001A.D.
Clerk of the Court of Appeal of Alberta.
From: Minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
1-780-967-3915 c/o general delivery near Onoway, Alberta [T0E1V0]
Dear Ms. Varty,

Your communications with Mr. WILLIAM W. BARCLAY of the law firm REYNOLD'S MIRTH RICHARDS AND FARMER is hereby noticed to you as registrar that such actions by yourself or your employee's is in commission of a treasonous act and may be viewed as a conspiracy to commit treason against her majesty Queen Elizabeth II defender of the faith as this man has conspired with a Mr. Costigan who was on the day I stood in front of him, May 8th 2001 in courtroom 513 not acting as an allegiant to her majesty and did so disavow his allegiance to one with authority to ask and with provision of good reason, and did so in vanity and arrogance in front of over thirty people. This man was given fair judicial Notice of my intent and the reasons I would come before him and ask for his allegiance, as he was by me verbally, to great extent on that day. He in bad faith and contempt of court ignored my reasonable request of an affirmative answer to the question "Is this court allegiant to her majesty the Queen Elizabeth II Defender of the faith? He failed to acknowledge the question, did disavow his allegiance to her majesty committed perjury and fraud upon the court and contempt for her majesty's court which is founded on that allegiance and the supremacy of God. This knowledge may not sit well with you Mrs. Varty but it is documented in the provinces own Court Act, rules and Oath of Allegiance Act that an officer of the court shall be allegiant via the oath of allegiance act and swearing in ceremony to have jurisdiction and standing . I did not write this law or interpret is inaccurately. It is there for the integrity of the justice system to remain just that, integral to God's word and rule of law.
I gave no permission for Mr. Costigan to proceed against me on that day, as my name is on the record as the only named party, and Mr. Costigan did communicate to an unnamed party to the action and then directed the decision and the reasons thereof to someone else also not named on the action!. I, the named party to the action have yet to receive to my attention and address, notice of such decision ,contrary to the rules and code of ethics this man Mr. Barclay is bound by. These two along with a host of other officers of the court are inviting others daily to partake in the treason they are a part of. Will you to put your name on the list of those that have feigned allegiance to her majesty so they could control others for gain?? Will you involve yourself in a conspiracy to commit treason, fraud and contempt for her majesty's court and perjury upon disavowing your allegiance???.Even if you are not allegiant if you conspire with this man it is still treason. Section 46 criminal code
No allegiance to the Queen = no court=no judge but acting like one= traitor and trespasser.
If I am wrong arrest me for slander or defamation of character, please prove if I am wrong so you can have an excuse for ignoring the truth as you have been trained to do and ask that I be arrested!
This is better than you being arrested!
No permission is or ever has been granted to alter my name, this notice was inside my judicial notice filed under case # 00030494AC. Mr. Costigan committed fraud intentionally when he rendered my name in an all capital version EJR BELANGER in person, on his decision. This was done for a financial purpose and that is fraud!! I absolutely forbid you to allow any use of an altered version of my name on any forms or documents relating to this case or any other matter, in perpetuity, this is inclusive of all letter capitalization or reversal of my name. I have transcripts stating that no permission is granted to alter my name and yet your agents the court recorders have been instructed to capitalize my name. Who is giving this instruction to commit a fraud against me and her majesty's court? This is not recognized grammar, form or style in Canada. If you want to see the authoritative Treasury board of Canada federal dictate see the "Canadian Style".an authoritative internationally recognized document of form grammar and style. It says an all capital version of a name is only to be used in a department of defense operation as in operation SILENT DEFENDER,
I have challenged the registrar of Alberta Laurie Beveridge with this irrefutable logic and the indisputable fact is they have no law that says they, you, any fictitious corporation or any man or woman can render my name in a method not acceptable to me or without my permission. Think about what you are being asked to do Lynn! Treason is very serious and the senate is looking at it as we speak so is the house of commons. The coronation oath is clear and if you do not think for yourself you will have all the judges in Alberta thinking for you.
Lynn can you see the harm in asking them if they have an oath of allegiance before you do what they ask. You the court registrar can do that. You have that authority and there is no contempt asking that question. The contempt starts when they refuse to reply or disavow that oath.
Please read the Coronation ceremony anyone that does can see in plain English the Queen is bound to uphold the laws of God the royal rule of law the same law spoken of in the preamble to the Canadian Constitution.
So I ask you to act in integrity and your allegiance to the Queen to refuse to accept any documents from this man William W.Barclay that is committing conspiracy to commit treason.
Imagine I am so bold to accuse widely these traitors and yet am still a free man with no suit against me for slander or defamation of character. They know that in order to win a suit like that they must produce their oath and they cannot do that because they have disavowed allegiance to the Queen and if they had it still would act accordingly and in defense of the faith. Most lawyers are non believers in God, if that is true and it is then we have a bunch of perjurious lawyers out there. How can one become allegiant to a Christian Monarch defender of the faith world wide and not believe in God. They can lie!!! That is treason!!! That is contempt of court !That is fraud! How can they defend the faith if they scoff at the Bible and God and disavow their allegiance?

For example Master Quinn late last year, so bold was he, that he said "What do I care about the Queen and treason I'm Irish I've got a tough neck!!" Do you see the constructive treason and contemptuous attitude in that statement. He without acknowledging jurisdiction and allegiance trespassed against myself and the man I