allcreatorsgifts
Home
Message #86      Next      Previous
Letter to City of Edmonton Police Chief
  -  February 25th 2002


To: The City of Edmonton' man chosen to act as Chief of police and overseer of security for the people. Bob Wasylyshen.
Tel:1-780-421-3462
Fax: 1-780-421-2187



From: Minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger c/o Heatherdown ecclesia, Church of Ecumenical Redemption International, near Onoway Alberta, Email at owlmon@gmail.org
Tel: -1-306-542-8181

Dear Bob,
I hope you do not resent me calling you by your first name please correct me if it is offensive to you. Bob, a serious unprecedented problem of law has arisen and I am asking you aid me in resolving this unexpected reaction to my faith and lawful questions.

I am 49 and have had my falling down years and skinned knees in life, about four years ago I started to read my bible again after being in God's ministry in my youth, and was enthralled by it's simple truths. I am now of the Anglican faith following the 1646 confession of faith and have started my own Church of Ecumenical Redemption International Near Onoway Alberta. I discovered also that in 1953 the Queen of England and her predecessors since 1688 swore an oath to God to uphold his laws with all of her power. That is why the Bible is in the court rooms, to maintain the integrity of her allegiant servants in that regard, she made them all swear an oath to God of fidelity to her duty to protect the laws of the King James Bible with all of her power. Her majesty's Royal styles is, "Defender of the Faith" or "Fedei Defensor"

The oath is simple and short but overwhelmingly significant in a corrupt system that it is designed to stop and destroy. For your ease I have included a copy of the Confession of faith on oaths and the .........

Oaths of Allegiance Act
CHAPTER O-1
An Act respecting oaths of allegiance
SHORT TITLE
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Oaths of Allegiance Act.
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.
R.S., c. O-1, s. 2; 1974-75-76, c. 108, s. 39.
SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
Solemn affirmation of allegiance may be substituted
3. Every person allowed by law in civil cases to solemnly affirm instead of taking an oath shall be permitted to take a solemn affirmation of allegiance in the like terms, with such modifications as the circumstances require, as the oath of allegiance, and that affirmation, taken before the proper officer, shall in all cases be accepted from the person in lieu of the oath and has the like effect as the oath.
R.S., c. O-1, s. 5.
REGULATIONS
Regulations respecting oath of allegiance and oath of office
4. The Governor in Council may make regulations requiring any person appointed to or holding an office that is under the legislative authority of Parliament
a) to take the oath of allegiance set out in section 2 notwithstanding that the taking of the oath is not required by any other law; and
(b) to take an oath of office in the form prescribed by the regulations for the faithful performance of the duties of that office, in any case in which the form of such oath is not prescribed by any other law.
R.S., c. O-1, s. 2.
GENERAL
No other oath necessary
5. It is not necessary for any person appointed to any public office, for any mayor or other officer or member of any corporation, or for any person admitted, called or received as a barrister, advocate, notary public, attorney, solicitor or proctor, to make any declaration or subscription, or to take or subscribe any oath other than the oath of allegiance set out in section 2 and such other oath for the faithful performance of the duties of the office, or for the due exercise of the profession or calling, as is required by any law.
R.S., c. O-1, s. 3.
6. The oath of allegiance set out in section 2, together with the oath of office or oath for the due exercise of any profession or calling, shall be taken within the period and in the manner, and subject to the disabilities and penalties for the omission thereof, provided by law with respect to such oaths.
By whom administered
7. All justices of the peace and other officers lawfully authorized either by virtue of their office or by special commission from the Crown may administer the oath of allegiance set out in section 2 or receive a solemn affirmation of allegiance.
R.S., c. O-1, s. 6
To further demonstrate the continuance of her majesty's duty to uphold the law of God you will see the protocol of the courts in Canada include her majesty's decree that all Courts of her majesty must have a Royal letters patent version of the King James Bible in the court room available to all those of faith. The Clerk of the court knows that but many of the judges do not.
To additionally emphasize the continuance of the importance of upholding that oath her majesty ensured by an Imperial act of Parliament, "The Oath of Allegiance Act" we observe that all agents and sanctioned members of her majesty's aid are to be faithful and bear true allegiance to her royal style.
This is the Royal styles and tiles act again for your convenience.

Consolidated Statutes and Regulations
Main page on: Royal Style and Titles Act
Disclaimer: These documents are not the official versions (more).
Source: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/R 12/85975.html
Updated to December 31, 2000

Royal Style and Titles Act

CHAPTER R 12

An Act respecting the Royal Style and Titles
Preamble
WHEREAS the Prime Ministers and other representatives of Commonwealth countries assembled in London in the month of December, in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty two, considered the form of the Royal Style and Titles, and recognizing that the present form is not in accordance with present constitutional relations within the Commonwealth, concluded that, in the present stage of development of the Commonwealth relationship, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position that each member country should use for its own purposes a form suitable to its own particular circumstances but retaining a substantial element common to all;
AND WHEREAS the said representatives of all the Commonwealth countries concerned agreed to take such action as is necessary in each country to secure the appropriate constitutional approval for the changes now envisaged;
AND WHEREAS, in order to give effect to the aforesaid conclusions, it is desirable that the Parliament of Canada should assent to the issue of a Royal Proclamation establishing the Royal Style and Titles for Canada:
THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Royal Style and Titles Act.

Assent to Royal Style and Titles
2. The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
R.S., c. R 12, s. 1.

This act and Canada is subject to the Statute of Westminister from 1931outlining that Canada is free of the control of the British crown except for alterations in the law that would challenge the Royal style.
The Statute of Westminster, 1931
22 George V, c. 4 (U.K.)
An Act to give effect to certain resolutions passed by Imperial Conferences held in the years 1926 and 1930. [11th December, 1931]

WHEREAS the delegates to His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the
Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at Imperial Conferences holden at Westminster in
the years of our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty six and nineteen hundred and thirty did concur in making the declarations and resolutions set
forth in the Reports of the said Conferences:
And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of
the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with
the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching
the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of
the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall
extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion:
And whereas it is necessary for the ratifying, confirming and establishing of certain of the said declarations and resolutions of the said
Conferences that a law be made and enacted in due form by authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
And whereas the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free
State and Newfoundland have severally requested and consented to the submission of a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom for
making such provision with regard to the matters aforesaid as is
hereafter in this Act contained:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. In this Act the expression "Dominion" means any of the following Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of
Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.
2. (1) The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a
Dominion.
(2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on
the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to
any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or
amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion.
3. It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra territorial operation.
4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a
Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that Dominion has requested, and consented to,
the enactment thereof.
[Note: As far as Canada is concerned, section 4 was repealed by the Constitution Act, 1982.]
5. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section seven hundred and thirty five and seven hundred and
thirty six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the Legislature of a British possession did not
include reference to the Parliament of a Dominion.
6. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (which
requires certain laws to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure or to contain a suspending clause), and so much of section
seven of that Act as requires the approval of His Majesty in Council to any rules of Court for regulating the practice and procedure of a Colonial Court of Admiralty, shall cease to have effect in any Dominion as from the commencement of this Act.
7. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or
any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.

(2) The provisions of section two of this Act shall extend to laws made by any of the Provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of
such Provinces.
(3) The powers conferred by this Act upon the Parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures of the Provinces shall be restricted to the
enactment of laws in relation to matters within the competence of the Parliament of Canada or of any of the legislatures of the Provinces
respectively.
8. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand otherwise than in accordance with the law existing before the commencement
of this Act.
9. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorize the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to make laws on any matter within the authority of the States of Australia, not being a matter within the authority of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to require the concurrence of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any law made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom with respect to any matter within the authority of the States of Australia, not being a matter within the authority of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any case where it would have been in accordance with the constitutional practice existing before the commencement of this Act that the Parliament of the United Kingdom should make that law without such concurrence.
(3) In the application of this Act to the Commonwealth of Australia the request and consent referred to in section four shall mean the request and consent of the Parliament and government of the Commonwealth.
10. (1) None of the following sections of this Act, that is to say, sections two, three, four, five, and six, shall extend to a Dominion to which this
section applies as part of the law of that Dominion unless that section is adopted by the Parliament of the Dominion, and any Act of that
Parliament adopting any section of this Act may provide that the adoption shall have effect either from the commencement of this Act or from
such later date as is specified in the adopting Act.
(2) The Parliament of any such Dominion as aforesaid may at any time revoke the adoption of any section referred to in sub section (1) of this
section.
(3) The Dominions to which this section applies are the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and Newfoundland.
11. Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretation Act, 1889, the expression "Colony" shall not, in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act, include a Dominion or any Province or State forming part of a Dominion.
12. This Act may be cited as the Statute of Westminster, 1931.
Last HTML revision: 30 June, 1997.
William F. Maton

This section below, of the Criminal code, applied by one of authority (Section 176) is to keep public servants in mind of their duty to produce whatever property in their possession they are requested to produce, such as the property of their signed oath of allegiance proving they did take the oath and do understand it is to uphold God's law. I make this demand in performance of a function of my calling as a minister of God being aware that some of those in power are violating their oaths I am compelled by law and religious defense to ensure Biblical integrity has absolute standing within the system put in place by her majesty to uphold the laws of God in keeping with her Coronation promise and duty.

Public servant refusing to deliver property
337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C 34, s. 297.

I as a minister have a civil, moral, and religious duty to ask if those who are acting as her majesty's servants understand the meaning of their oaths as if they do not they are imposters attempting to overthrow her majesty's government in acts of treason, and I cannot accept them as her majesty's agents or as said allegiant's. If they refuse to answer me or direct that I be removed from the court for asking in duty according to law, then they are in commission of criminal acts of obstruction of a minister and Justice, violating an act of parliament, impersonation of an officer of the court. Perjury, public nuisance, and possibly treason etc.

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
process,
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.
Idem
(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.

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
Government.
R.S., 1985, c. C 46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).

Personating peace officer
130. Every one who
(a) falsely represents himself to be a peace officer or a public officer, or
(b) not being a peace officer or public officer, uses a badge or article of
uniform or equipment in a manner that is likely to cause persons to believe that
he is a peace officer or a public officer, as the case may be,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., c. C 34, s. 119.

Corroboration
133. No person shall be convicted of an offence under section 132 on the
evidence of only one witness unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated
in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.
R.S., 1985, c. C 46, s. 133; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17.
Idem
134. (1) Subject to subsection (2), every one who, not being specially
permitted, authorized or required by law to make a statement under oath or
solemn affirmation, makes such a statement, by affidavit, solemn declaration or
deposition or orally before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be
made before him, knowing that the statement is false, is guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction.
Application
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a statement referred to in that subsection
that is made in the course of a criminal investigation.
R.S., 1985, c. C 46, s. 134; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17.



Common nuisance
180. (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years.
Definition
(2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who
does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or
(b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is
common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.
R.S., c. C 34, s. 176.

Spreading false news

181. Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is
false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public
interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C 34, s. 177.

I hope you will enable me to press charges against those who are indeed obstructing her majesty's justice to transpire. I hope you will remain true to your oath and not be influenced by those in corrupt power who do not understand the meaning of their oaths and are defacto unlawful authorities which is the opposite of dejure and lawful authority.
I know this is unprecedented but in keeping with the whole of the purpose of the oath I hope you will rise to your duty to defend her majesty's government from acts of treason and sedition by the judiciary and staff of the Alberta Law courts.

I went to Wayne Samis and John Bachinski to ensure I was dealing with true allegiants rather than imposters. I discovered they are imposters and so vile that when I went down on Jan23rd to protest and prevent the illegal act of fraud by the pre noticed TD Bank against my temple and sanctuary our Family Church I was told to leave or I would be thrown out by security. The law firm ,Mackenzie Bishop, with the private man the non allegiant Douglas Hughes as the agent for the TD bank, in knowledge and intent deliberately committed fraud against me the private man by altering my name for a financial purpose by unlawfully Capitalizing my name to read as a corporation and entering it into her majesty's record in that altered corporate fiction name which by my pre notice to the courts newspaper and the TD Bank made them all fully aware that I cannot of faith and belief correspond in approval to fraud and usury nor respond to fraud nor those that perpetrate it....

John Bachinshi the head Clerk for court of Queen's bench refused to acknowledge his oath of
allegiance to me as a minster of God compelled and under the authority of 176 and 337 of the criminal code refused to deliver the property of his oath to me and did deny me justice and tell me to leave the court house immediately or I would be assaulted and thrown out. HE did this in the presence of a witness on January 23 at approximately 4pm.

This act has clearly prejudiced me from defending my church and sanctuary from criminal acts by the TD bank. We have all seen the actions of usury take control of our world governments and break any hopes of prosperity as the family's of the worlds head bankers grow fat and more corrupt and vampire like. We have seen whole civilizations fall to these fat blood suckers because they were sneaky enough to not let on what they were doing in offering money that they never had to loan. They told everyone they were offering loans which by definition is something you must already have in your possession to be able to offer to anyone.

When those who wish a loan go into the bank they are offered a piece of a paper a negotiable financial instrument called a promissory note or a mortgage or equivalent negotiable instrument the base and origin of the funds for the loan. Your signature on that paper with a figure at the top say $100,000 dollars is the original funds, you created the promissory note the negotiable instrument .

The bank takes that form of funds and deposits into their bank creating the funds with a book keeping entry then passing the promissory note up the hill to the bank of Canada according to the Bank of Canada act. The Bank of Canada in turn credits that Bank below one hundred thousand dollars in negotiable notes called funds or money. An equal amount of funds are then transferred into your account backed only in a fractional reserve system with less than 5% of the actual funds being in possession of the Bank. The bank of Canada retains the other 95% value of your note then passes it up the hill to the World Bank through the receiver General of Canada the Chief administrative officer of her majesty in all court proceedings as they are commercial enterprises and all the funds go through the registrars office. She can only deal with corporations as commerce and business and has no authority to have any jurisdiction over her majesty's flesh and blood men and women as they are protected against usury by God's law .

The debt to the world Bank in Canada at present is over 1 trillion dollars and ever deepening as time plod's on. This is an artificial debt Bob caused by organized crime. Remember only a few rich at the top really benefit from usury That act only applies to entities And corporations. I am flesh blood and bone am not an entity nor a member of the body corporate known as Canada. . I am God's servant a man nothing more nothing less and certainly not a legal fiction nor bifurcated rendition of my name as a legal fiction or statutory person. I am not a person Bob, as this go's to translation in Latin to understand why we are referred to as persons. Deuteronomy 10:17 Acts 10:34 ; James 2:9 tell me that God is not a respecter of persons and if I do respect persons I am a sinner. I am in submission to God's guidance and will not stray. I am a man flesh blood and bone. Subject only to God's laws as overseen by God's ministers, Romans 13, and those ministers professed who will not answer my question with puffed up pride and honor are immediately in default of providing that allegiance and are ultra vires and void ab initio of any sanction of her majesty.

The only sanction applicable to them is the lawful arrest and detention of them by true allegiants to her majesty's defense of God's law. Imagine Bob if all allegiant's were told at the swearing in ceremony you are bound to do service to her majesty in your allegiance to the defender of the faith being the Christian religion and the laws of the King James Bible/ You are not being told you have to believe in God or any deity just practice the law of do not harm your fellow man or his property. This is the old common law

The all capital name reversed is a requirement of the Canadian Corporations Act and the department of defense military operation SILENT DEFENDER so you the flesh can be dealt with outside of God's laws as in commerce members of the corporate body of Canada a corporate fiction and is not applicable to me nor is it lawful to record it in bifurcated form in any of her majesty's courts or registries without my express permission, as that is fraud.

The debt that was created in 1913 by the unlawful and non imperial law the Bank Act, was of intent to invoke a usury upon the nation so as to bring it into indebtedness and under control of unlawful enforcement of the defacto government run secretly by the private Banks and Usury created debt. The income tax act of 1917 via the War measures act was never approved imperially by her majesty as she would be violating her Coronation promise to uphold God's laws. It is an Ultra Vires act along the Bank Act of contempt and treasonous action against her majesty's government in attempt to overthrow it's defense of the faith and law of the King James Bible by denying the application of the meaning of the oath of allegiance and enforcing God's laws of no bondage, no stealing, no usury, no coveting, no false witness, and no murder. All of these crimes are clearly attributable to the Banks unlawfully free reign of usury and it's continuance. As this is an indisputable fact that usury causes crime and tremendous enslavement of the worlds populations to the advantage of a select few thousand Gluttonous rich bankers we can only wonder and wait for an explanation as to why the law enforcement official will not enforce the laws that say the allegiance is primary and must not be transgressed.

In 1931 we were cut loose by the King of Britain as we as a country were bankrupt after twenty years of the Bank Act invoking a usury and causing an harmful indebtedness of Canada to these criminal Bankers who bribed the politicians of the day to turn their heads violate their sacred oaths of allegiance and ignore God's law regarding usury coveting and false witness. The King was having the palace door knocked on by the Bankers and to save the crown jewels from seizure he had to cut the countries that were bankrupt loose to deal with their own debt created in fraud..

Harm is apparent as having transpired to the common man by this usury and everyone knows the bankers are crooks why is their no enforcement of the provisions in the code to prevent this Bob.
I want an immediate investigation into my Ministerial imposed information and allegation of obstruction of Justice and violating those sections of the criminal code as provided as it goes to the very heart of the system and the corruption that ensnared the people that were put in place to protect us and uphold God's laws.

Please talk to Wayne Hatt an Edmonton Justice of the peace who confirmed that altering my name without my permission, as in all capitals, is fraud. This is what Douglas Hughes of the law firm Bishop and Mackenzie has done in awareness to effect the entry of the all capital fiction so as to effect process through the registered courts that is formed in fraud . He was told not to alter my name as it was of religious conviction and faith that I cannot allow it to be altered. He was made fully and amply aware of that and he deliberately filed a nom de gerre into the court record and the Clerk John Bachinski was aware a non allegiant lawyer filing all capital names for a financial purpose without the permission of the one so bifurcated was against my faith and that I had forbid it.. That is fraud.

Doug Hughes a private man was asked by me as a Christian minister in duty to my oath and performing a function of my calling in good faith, if he understood his oath of allegiance that he took upon becoming a member of the BAR. His indication to me was he would not reply to that question indicating he clearly does not understand his oath nor does he respect it's purpose and sanctity and has committed perjury, fraud, and treason against her majesty in attempting to overthrow her majesty's government of the King James Bible by aiding and abetting in acts of criminal intent against men and women in this country that are having fraud and usury imposed upon them and enslaving and bringing causative harm to millions of men and women.

It is very simple Bob, any man or woman that raised their hand and took an oath before God to be allegiant to the Queen and does not know what that allegiance is or means , is clearly a liar and not sanctioned by the Queen to operate as an allegiant. It is a simple indisputable fact that no man or woman can be allegiant to anything or one if they do not know what the allegiance means and is to. As her majesty has a royal style as Defender of the Faith, and the whole of the purpose of the coronation oath is to uphold God's laws, then that is what the allegiance is to.

It is also against my faith and religious beliefs to allow my name to be bifurcated altered or monetized or attached to a document with other names so fraudulently altered, and I offered no permission to for anyone do so. I did notice the principle the TD Bank, I also noticed Jennifer Oakes of the law firm Field and Perron who dropped the case because of a conflict of interest, Ms. Oaks was very attendant to my name requirements and told me she had notified Douglas Hughes of my Religious beliefs regarding my name. I also repeated that notice to Mr. Hughes to make sure he was aware of my religious requirements of faith, not only that he not alter my name but he decieved me into accepting service by putting the correct rendition of my name on the envelope and the fraudulent one inside on the court registration style and cause. He knew the that I can only accept service from a true allegiant of her majesty in defense of the faith and integrity. I as a Christian minster performing a function of my calling , asked Mr. Hughes if he could tell me the meaning of his oath of allegiance, He failed to reply to my repeated requests of him to deliver to me that meaning. HE Douglas Hughes the private non allegiant man has committed a fraud against me and has conspired to do so with his principle the TD Bank..

Now Bob, with no argument in defense of pride, we can both agree, with the purpose of the oath in mind, that if any man or woman who has taken that oath and does not know what it means is in admission of perjury and all authority and action on their part is void ab initio.
Douglas Hughes was aware and with knowledge my name was a religious issue and was told not to alter it which he did with intent to attach for a financial purpose and to attempt to incorporate my name as the court has no jurisdiction over flesh blood and bone only corporate fictions.

He knew he would be violating my religious beliefs if he did file that all capital name with an un allegiant clerk and he went right ahead and did so in fraud. I am not a person Bob I follow the Bible. Deuteronomy 10:17 Acts:10:34 ;James 2:9. The Latin word persona used in those scriptures in the Latin Vulgate, the predecessor to the King James, is the origin of our word person and means a mask on a player on a stage; a fiction.

This man Douglas Hughes, puffed up in vanity and false pride thinks he can commit fraud and discriminate against my faith as everyone else allows it. I do not. I as a Christian Minister under her majesty's defense of the faith and protection of 176 of the Canadian Criminal code am performing a function of my calling in reporting this crime and am complaining that this lawyer committed fraud and perjury and violated his oath of allegiance(126) that he does not subscribe to.

Bob, if it becomes apparent, in a society that is founded on the principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the rule of law, that those principles are being denied by those entrusted and honored to take the oath to the defender of the faith and promised and oath sworn to God to uphold his laws, then we are to act quickly to restore the order and sanctity of those who took that oath with exposing them to what it means and if necessary reassessing the members eligibility to serve and the willingness to enforce the law, this even against a judge.

Informing all the members of the force that the King James Bible is the rule of law in Canada is not a lie. It is her majesty's proud defense of integrity that has kept us from total vampirism of the likes of the Rothschild family and other effluent of the vampire business of Usury.
To be clear Bob this is although touching on a multi faceted mal administration of justice the main problem is the lack of respect and outright rebuke for the oath that these so called finest have taken.

I have been assaulted in the performance of my duties as a minister in the Edmonton Courts as well as obstructed from performing my function as a minster of Christ and defender of the faith by the law courts security and it seems they do not know that their oath is to respect God's laws ands to uphold them as if they did they sure would not be throwing me out for doing my duty under God's law and yours. Unfortunately for the Judiciary in Alberta waiting to cash in on pensions, this action of faith on my part puts a stain on their image and reputation as they refuse to answer my duty bound in law and good faith question of the meaning of their oaths .

This can lead to no other conclusion Bob. They are imposters and have long ago disavowed their oaths. I do not and will not accept their private attempt at usurping my life and energy. I will be looking forward to an investigation of the private men posing as judges as in Mr. Tilley, Sulley, Ayotte , Brooker, Ray Bradley, Mr.Belzil and the private man acting as the head law clerk , a John Bachinski who threatened me with removal from the courts because I was insistent he be a true allegiant before I could allow him to accept my Asseveration and denial to the fraudulent claim of the agent for the TD bank Mr. Hughes. I also pre noticed the private man Wayne Samis the Manager for the Edmonton Law courts of my faith and beliefs and he to ignored my wishes and was rude to me as well. I have also noticed Katherine Fraser and Ernie Walters of this conspiracy asking that they meet with me. They have failed to reply. The Alberta BAR is very rude and hangs up. The minster of Justice will not reply nor will Ralph Klein.
I have put quite and issue into your lap Bob and I know what you are thinking. To much information. Your mind wants to chuck this out the window. You may do that Bob but your integrity goes with it.

I have been prejudiced from getting justice at those courts Bob because they are a den of thieves and liars. No integral honest man I have ever known would take an oath to God to uphold his agents defense of the faith and not know what they were doing . It only speaks to incompetence other than perjury and the consequence is the same ........no authority or sanction of her majesty with out that true understanding and subscription to that oath.
I need your help Bob an yes I have had a skinned knee or two in my past but that is irrelevant in the wake of what I have exposed you to. God revealed this information to me Bob as you may have noticed no one else has ever done this and as a result of that not being done we have a very corrupt society. I'm sure you would like to see a lot more smiles on peoples faces and less crime so if you can imagine Usury as the root of that crime and look around the world and what the history of Usury has done to the people it is easy to see it has caused harm and not benefit. The money is created out of thin air Bob they have the slickest criminal racket in the world as they have you guys protecting them. I hope as a result of this letter we can start to change that Bob and you will realize that they can only proceed against me as a corporate fiction as the Kings and Queens cannot allow a Usury to be invoked upon their subjects as that would violate their Coronation Oaths to uphold God's laws. Thou shalt not commit a usury upon thy brother. Thou shall not covet. Thou shall not bear false witness.

Remember that King George the Third in 1778 invoked forever that no duty tax or rate would be ever imposed upon his subjects and this is still an active and alive imperial statute. We have been duped into accepting ourselves as corporate fictions Bob. The income tax act and Bank act are ultra vires and void as they are against God's law of usury. Just because I am the first to raise it does not disqualify the truth. It just makes it harder to believe.
I thank you in grace for receiving this letter and information of what has happened and why.

Westminster Confession of faith 1646 Chapter XXII
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows
I. A lawful oath is part of religious worship,[1] wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the 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.[3] 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.[4] 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;[5] so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.[6]
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:[7] 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.[8] [Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.][9]
IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[10] It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt.[11] Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[12]
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.[13]
VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone:[14] 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.[15]
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 hope you will see my motives are with absolute standing and regard for the laws of the King James Bible.

God Bless your Quest Bob and I look forward to meeting with you to discuss this further as there is much more to tell like dates witnesses and more judges and lawyers as criminals.
Minister in Christ's service
Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
Heatherdown Ecclesia Church of Ecumenical Redemption International Near Onoway Alberta


allcreatorsgifts
Home