Communicating to Wendy that you have similar issues regarding the formation your name will help us all..We must unite our efforts..
She is with finances and the issuing of checks...If we get our names corrected there it is the base of the courts issuance of stock bonds etc...
Please step out and communicate with her about your name!! Let her know you know me and that your also being discriminated against with that dead name ...she is on side!!
She wants to help!!!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: minister Belanger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Canada Post letter Mail regs
To: Wendy Joyner <Wendy.Joyner@gov.ab.ca>
Thanks for your input Wendy
Yes if the decision was to be made to benefit the dead corporate entity over the living flesh I could see that...Unfortunately the living flesh has authority over dead entities and not the other way around.. My faith is sincere and I cannot accept a postal code applied to my name no different than altering my name without my express consent...
I do not submit to having that code attached to my name as it designates commercial activity with my name attached...
The Alberta Dairy Pool Decision of the supreme court says my faith cannot be infringed upon and the company must go to a point of harship to accomodate it....The comany is THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA.. type in that name in all caps into the search engine here..http://www.dnb.com/us/ along with country and province and then click sort by company...You will see the proof of the fact the PROVINCE is a business trading value on the stock exchange... I do not submit to a dead ion law corporation trading my value on the stock exchjange for profit...If I accept that postal code being applied I am engaged in commerce if I open it....I decline the offer Wendy.
That decision means that manually a stamp must be applied to my mail with my name upper and lower case...It is not much in the way of harship to lick a stamp so how can any excuse prevail?
Sorry if I am seemingly making this hard for you but I will not be swayed from my faith and no employee of the government has any power consent or authority to do that with intent and knowledge...I do not consent! I hope you respect my firm stand as it is the command of God to not have relations with the dead. The obituary columnist wil confirm that names of dead foplk are printed in all caps...
(1) The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Central Alberta Dairy Pool discriminated against Jim Christie by failing to accommodate his need to be absent from work on April 4, 1983 (Easter Monday) in order to respect his faith in the tenets of the World Wide Church of God. Milk that arrives at the Dairy Pool on weekends must be processed promptly on Mondays to prevent spoilage. When Christie was absent on Monday April 4, without permission, his employment was terminated. The Court found that the defense of bona fide occupational requirement must be approached differently depending on whether the discrimination occurred directly or through adverse effect. The Court found that where an employment rule discriminates directly and where the rule is found to be a bona fide occupational requirement; there is no duty on the employer to accommodate. However, where an employment rule that is a bona fide requirement has an adverse effect on an individual because of his religion or some other ground, then the employer has a duty to accommodate that individual to the point of undue hardship. In proving undue hardship, this case set out factors that might impinge on the operation of a respondent's business. It included financial cost, disruption of the collective agreement, morale of the employees, interchangeability of the workforce and facilities, and safety concerns. Justice Wilson said that the list was not intended to be exhaustive and that the factors must be balanced against the right of the complainant to be free from discrimination.
The judges even stated that a contract was invalid if it infringed on faith and beliefs,,
Chief Justice Dickson offered the following definition of freedom of religion:
"The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination."
Indexed as: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem
Neutral citation: 2004 SCC 47.
File Nos.: 29253, 29252.
2004: January 19; 2004: June 30
McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Arbour and Fish JJ.:
Defined broadly, religion typically involves a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship. In essence, religion is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual's spiritual faith and integrally linked to his or her self-definition and spiritual fulfilment, the practices of which allow individuals to foster a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith.
Freedom of religion under the Quebec (and the Canadian) Charter consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials. This understanding is consistent with a personal or subjective understanding of freedom of religion. As such, a claimant need not show some sort of objective religious obligation, requirement or precept to invoke freedom of religion. It is the religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived-as-mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection. The State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma. Although a court is not qualified to judicially interpret and determine the content of a subjective understanding of a religious requirement, it is qualified to inquire into the sincerity of a claimant's belief, where sincerity is in fact at issue. Sincerity of belief simply implies an honesty of belief and the court's role is to ensure that a presently asserted belief is in good faith, neither fictitious nor capricious, and that it is not an artifice. Assessment of sincerity is a question of fact that can be based on criteria including the credibility of a claimant's testimony, as well as an analysis of whether the alleged belief is consistent with his or her other current religious practices.
Thanks for your help Wendy!
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Wendy Joyner <Wendy.Joyner@gov.ab.ca> wrote: