Posted on the Wealthy Boomer Forum by Chevalier: Daniel-Kingsley: Lear

Re: Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy-Affair:

"I'd unravel every riddle, for every individdle... if I only had a brain..."

Of course, you probably recognize these words from the song the scarecrow sings in the classic movie: Wizard of Oz. I include it for a very good reason; in my view. Hopefully, I will be able to shed some light on this, as we go along here; but, first, is it possible that the real intent for the word "individdle" was "individual"? Hmmm... I wonder?

Read your (Jonathan Chevreau - The National Post, Friday, September 15, 2000) story with great interest. While I anticipate you will not be able to publish this letter, I do hope that you will take into account the veracity of the issue. I have no malice against the judge; I just believe that the only way to assert the jus of the law is when the law is enforced according to the truth and not merely based upon some ignorant opinion/presumption, etc. Face it: would you like it if you were sentenced for some crime that you did not commit - and you knew it - because of some fraud? I think not. I say, if you're going to convict me, or take away my liberties, then you had better damn-well make sure that it is for a fact and not some fiction of law!

According to Black's Law Dictionary: "fiction of law; see LEGAL FICTION."

"LEGAL FICTION: An assumption that something is true even though it may be untrue, made esp. in judicial reasoning to alter how legal rule operates." Says it all, wouldn't you say?

According to Morris R. Cohen, Law and the Social Order (1933): " Legal fiction is the mask that progress must wear to pass the faithful but blear-eyed watchers of our ancient legal treasures. But though legal fictions are useful in thus mitigating or absorbing the shock of innovation, they work havoc in the form of intellectual confusion." How true.

Now, we all know that Thomas: Kennedy was, once upon a time, a child. Thus, we can assume, because he came down the birth-canal of his Mother's Womb that he was considered a natural-child, no? According to Lexicom's Law Dictionary: Natural children; In the phraseology of the English or American law, natural children are children born out of wedlock, or bastards, and are distinguished from legitimate children; but in the language of the civil law, natural are distinguished from adoptive children, that is, they are the children of the parents spoken of, by natural procreation. So, there we have it 'but in the language of the civil law, natural are distinguished from adoptive children, that is, they are the children of the parents spoken of, by natural procreation.

"Verbis standum ubi nulla ambiguitas" Latin for "One must abide by the words where this is no ambiguity." While it is may appear, on the surface that Thomas: Kennedy lost; he has not. Why? Because the judge's decision is based upon a fraud. I am speaking of the precise-use of the English-language here. When we understand the purity of the language, we can come to no other conclusion than the judge is an ignorant man; not from his apparent knowledge for law, but from the evidence that he knows little (or cares not to exercise his knowledge) of the precisions of the English-language or even of the French-language. Why do we know this to be fact? I shall get to this all-important-question; momentarily.

Now, we all know that the words "ignorant" and "ignoramus" have some sort of relationship, correct? That being the case, isn't it ironic that the word "Ignoramus" comes from the title of a play called "Ignoramus", in the 1600s, and the play was all about lawyers? I find it amusing that even though the judge is supposedly a learned man, he fails to recognize that the word person is not a Noun and since it is not a Noun, how, on Earth, could this particular subject-matter for the case be valid? I assure you; it cannot. Therefore, if the subject-matter is not a Noun, then the word in the fore of the word "person" cannot be an adjective; for we all know that an adjective is to add "colour" to the subject-matter (Noun) and since there is no Noun; there is no adjective; so, I fear the judge's decision; though made by the strange/foreign-language of the courts is not valid. Why? Because the only other grammatic the word "person" can be [if not a noun] is a verb. And since the only thing that modifies a verb is an adverb, then the 'finding' by the judge is based upon fiction. And, what is another word for fiction? Fraud. Is this not true?

While the judge, in the Thomas: Kennedy affair may think his ruling is correct; it can only mean that the judge is quite-comfortable with the fact that the sentence he imposed is okay, since the sentence was against a verb and not a Noun. The results? Once again the judicial system of this place, Canada, rears its ugly head in disrepute. Why? Because the findings, in the Thomas: Kennedy affair, are based upon the use of the language of the law to the benefit of the Crown and not to the benefit of the natural-person. Notice the hyphen? This is to demonstrate that the person is connected with the natural and vice-versa. Where there is no hypen there is no joinder; thus the fraud that: Thomas: Kennedy is a natural by the association with the word "person" or that Thomas: Kennedy is a person by the association with the word "natural" is based upon the legal-fiction-language and not the authentic English language. Without the hyphen there is no connection... period.

Furthermore, a clear-cut comprehension of the English-language [before the introduction of the newspeak], clearly indicates the fraud. How? Remember when you were in grammar school? Remember that the English Teacher taught you how to construct a sentence; all the parts? Was not one of the most-important things to remember that in order to have a P.N.P.
(prepositional noun phrase) that you always have to have an article and a preposition in front of the subject in order to have a Noun? And, what is the purpose for the Noun? Is it not to confirm the existence of a fact? So, if this be the case, then how is it possible to have the words" natural person" be for the evidence of a fact? Where is the preposition and the article? Therefore, the opinion of the judge is based upon the omission of the truth, by the insertion of a little-know thing - well, at least as far as the general-populace is concerned - called a fiction of law. Anybody that can prove to me that a fiction is evidence of the truth/fact is a liar; plain and simple.

On the Rosenberg situation: it is unfortunate, for the Rosenbergs that they appear not to comprehend the meaning of the word "sovereign"; for then they would know that one cannot claim to be a "Sovereign Canadian". In fact, the concept is an oxymoron. Why? Because the claim of being a Canadian means you are nothing more than a "minion" of the "Do" [short for Latin: "dominium"]; hence, the word "Dominion". Conversely, the claim for being a Sovereign is based upon the Maxim of Law: "sine alieni juris"; in other words, "not subject to the power or authority of another."

Were I in Tom's shoes, I would recommend that he sues the judge, in the natural-person-capacity; in other words, sue the Man wearing the robes for contempt of the Maxim of Law: " Contra veritatem lex nunquam aliquid permittit." Why? Because then we would all get a chance to see what decisions, findings, cites, etc. the judge will try to use to claim he is not a "natural-person" when the Man [judge] attempts to get the case thrown out for vexation or frivolity based upon a fiction of law.

It promises to be entertaining when the court discovers that the succinct of the two Maxims are most-powerful: "A person must abide by the words where there is no ambiguity." and " The law never allows anything contrary to truth." Besides, there is also another Maxim of Law: Nemo judex in causa sua" Loose translation: a man cannot be a judge in his own affair. Surely there must be more people out there, than I, that are curious to find out how a judge, working for the Crown, in the province, can adjudicate on a matter for the employer: Her Majesty, in right of Canada". I, for one, find it more than just a little one-sided; especially, when you take into consideration that the pledge of the bench [judge] is to pay homage to the Queen of Canada.
Hmmm... seeing as how there is no preposition or article; it can only mean that the pledge of the allegiance is to some legal-fiction-person, right? Absolutely.

"For the Queen of the Canada is with the authority for the rule by de jure in the contrary for the rule of the people, by de facto; for the rule by de facto is with the veto of the rule by de jure. In the consequence of de facto-rule is with the evidence for the vassalhood of the subjects, by the regina. For the servants of the regina are with the obligation for the servitude of the ambitions/whims/pecuniary-interests of the legal-fiction-regina: Her Majesty by the statutes for the control of the legal-fiction-persons by the legal-fiction-state. "

In closing; if HM had the right to rule Canada by the de jure, in the stead of by de facto means, then Thomas: Kennedy would never have come before the vassal for the fiction: MR JUSTICE SEDGWICK, GORDON G(sic) and neither would the 10s of 1000s of people, that deserve to know the truth, be under the false-impression that Thomas: Kennedy lost. The shame... or is it sham?.... of it all, is that these people lose because they do not understand the settled line of demarcation between fact and fiction. But, just as Dorothy did; you can 'click your heels three times' and get back to Kansas.

-Chevalier: Daniel-Kingsley: Lear, K.L.J.(J), G.C.S.F., V.C.S. in
rerum-natura, sine-alieni-juris, in-gremio-religionis-et-legis