Volume CLXXIV: The Fabulous Free Lance Friday Edition; The Powers that be are Ordained by God

Hello every One, welcome to the Fabulous Free Lance Friday Edition, My Favourite day for Writing because I Truly Wield My Words fearlessly. Welcome to the House of von Dehn, Kingdom of God, and thank King You for being here (or Queen You if You prefer). Today I Will be tall King about the ridiculous, scandalous, uninformed determination made by Sally A. Gomery on Monday of this week. I Will be going over the determination in detail today, so it may be a longer than usual Post. The most Fabulous Part about it though, is that this is also the rough draft of a very real Motion I Will make to the Court to have this order to dismiss Vacated, and to Suspend the Justice from any further adjudication regarding this Matter. I Will also suggest (Motion) that it be stricken from the Record altogether.

Before I begin, I was thing King of a clever Title for today’s Post and started thing King about the ‘state actors’. Later in the Post You Will recognize its relevance to the Rule of Law but for now I thought it may be Fun to remind My readers that all the world really is a Stage, and each of Us are Playing Our Part. The use of Words like ‘state Actors’ is not a coincidence (those don’t exist here).

Romans 13:1-7

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

² Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

⁴ For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

⁵ Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

⁶ For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

⁷ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Yes, Ladies and Lords, Dames and Sirs, Queens and Kings. Who are the ‘Powers that be‘? Did I not say that all the answers Will always be in the Bible somewhere? The Bible is a Book of Law. Why do People think I Publish everything here? Because the ‘Powers that be’, whomever they are, are the Ministers of God to thee for Good. Whomever they are, they Will be watching. God sees everything!!! The ‘Powers that be’ are like God in that Way. Trust Me, they know what’s really going on with this Case, and I don’t believe they are very happy about it – You’ll have to Trust My intuition on that one. But You see, they Will not actually do anything about it because… Well, because of what Matthew teaches Us.

Matthew 7:7

⁷ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Some of You may also know I have translated that little section into some Magic of My own.

“Keep on as King, and it is Present, keep on see King, and You are Found, keep on know King, and it is Open to You.” Matthew 7:7, House von Dehn Version

I think instead of officially changing My last name, I’m just going to remove the ‘of’ from House. That Way it means the same thing (von = of), carries the same Honour, and ‘Dehn’ is the legitimate, ‘real’ name of My family’s ‘House’. I’m also Honouring the German tradition by keeping the ‘von’. Yeah, I like it. House von Dehn. It’s Official from this day forward.

Alright, before I get into this, I Wish to say that I not only believe this Motion Will succeed, I believe it must. The more time I’ve spent thing King about it, the worse it is for the Courts if they don’t. I also Wish to make it clear that I really do Trust My intuition, and I legitimately believe this decision was a mistake. Keep in Mind, I was at the Courthouse when this determination was made. I had just handed over all of the information regarding the out of Court communication by the defendants, and (more importantly), the Courts reply to that Letter of requisition!!! It does not say the same thing as what the Justice is asserting in her determination, and it Will have been crystal clear to everyone at the Courthouse that this information was not known to the Judge at the time of the decision. Defense counsel deliberately presented the Judge with partial information to influence the decision without telling the whole story. I believe this was immediately evident to the Courts (which is bad enough) but the ‘endorsement’ makes it even worse because the Judge chooses to provide her own interpretation of both the events and the law, and further attacks My Character as well!

There is fraud and perjury on the Court of Record, I believe they Will have to Vacate the order and strike it from the Record. Here are the supporting facts.

Before I continue, I Wish to remind My readers that both the Statement of Claim and the endorsement are now considered to be Established Facts on the Court of Record; My Statement of Claim is accepted as a document of Fact in order to qualify for consideration of the endorsement, and the Judge is Holding a position of Office that subjects her to penalty of perjury if she makes any false statements in her endorsement. There are many.

The endorsement begins with the Title “RULING IN RESPONSE TO A REQUISITION UNDER RULE 2.1.01”. The author then goes on to clarify that she is responding to the private email defense counsel sent to the Court on June 22nd. She does not know that this requisition letter was not being heard by the Court because it had been made in violation of Rule 1.09 and without My prior consent. Nothing in the Rules provides for defense counsel to Motion to the Court without My knowledge.

“Please note that as of today, there is no motion materials filed”. (June 25th, 2021)

This letter request was not being considered a ‘motion’ by the Court and their intention was to take no action in response to it until motion materials were filed with the Court. That never happened. This response letter was not provided to defense counsel (for violating the Rules), and defense counsel did not tell the Judge I had received an answer. Defense counsel also neglected to mention to the Justice that they were still waiting for a response to this requisition and had prepared no defense materials on the day they were to be Noted in Default.

And it’s very clear to see that this second Letter to the Court was also made without My prior consent, and I was not ‘cc’d on it. This is a second violation of Rule 1.09 by defense counsel. It was provided to Me to explain why she had not prepared any defense materials.

The really unfortunate part of the Judge’s endorsement begins with her second point.

“Mr. von Dehn’s lawsuit…”. It is well known I take offense to being addressed as ‘Mr.’ because it identifies a very specific position of Office and I am Holding a position of Office as King in God’s Kingdom. This is not unintentional, this is deliberate because a Judge Will understand what the prefix to a Man’s name means, and she is deliberately trying to determine My position and status in society. It is in fact, a fraudulent, false statement because there is no ‘Mr. von Dehn’ in the Claim. It is also an insult to My Character as a King in God’s Kingdom.

Point number three is equally important because it’s subtle but it continues to set the same, false narrative the author was trying to establish with the previous ‘Mr.’ offence.

“As city employees know, he prefers to be addressed as ‘King Sean, House of von Dehn, Hand of Stephen, Kingdom of God.”

That’s the second fraudulent statement made by the Judge under penalty of perjury. She also claims to be quoting Me, but notice the difference between what the Judge says I say, and what I actually say.

9. The defendants know the plaintiff goes by ‘King Sean, House of von Dehn, Hand of Stephen, Kingdom of God’,

Her statement is false. I do not prefer to be addressed as ‘King Sean, House of von Dehn, Hand of Stephen, Kingdom of God.’ Point 10 clarifies.

10. Sean von Dehn is the plaintiff’s proper legal and lawful name, Given him by God.

And My God Given name is how I prefer to be addressed. It is only when a state actor cannot tell the difference between Sean von Dehn, and ‘VONDEHN, Sean’, or ‘SEAN VONDEHN’ that I get a little agitated because I would never Spell My name in all capital letters and do not understand why any One would Wish to address Me that Way for no Good reason.

The Judge also begins to tell a completely different version of the Story based on her own imagination, starting at her third point where she states that I refuse to accept a package addressed to ‘VONDEHN, Sean’. She negates to mention a few additional and critical details that change the Story considerably. She does not mention that I returned the package to sender and sent an email to Sana explaining to her why it had been returned, and why I find the style of address insulting. Sana said she would be resending the package to Me in the same name and style she knows I find offensive, and if I refuse to accept it, My subsidy would be revoked.

In point number four, the Judge says I refuse to accept the package and am told My subsidy Will be revoked if I refuse to accept it. She confirms I am being threatened with economic duress for failing to accept a package in a Style of My name I find deeply offensive. She confirms that when threatened I agree to accept the package under duress and without prejudice (which the Judge mis-Spells as ‘with prejudice’) and tell them I Will ‘fine’ them $100,000.00 per offence. The city did not respond and I took this to be an acceptance of My Claim of entitlement to penalty. (It is – clearly, if they Wish to send Me something in a name I find deeply offensive and they know I Will be as King for $100,000.00, then it must be very important to them if they choose to do so again, otherwise they Will just Write My name the proper Way, as I am entitled to be addressed like any other Man).

Point 5 is where the Judge clearly begins to tell her own version of the story. She claims that I received a final notice explaining that if I do not return the renewal package sent earlier by June 18th, My housing subsidy would be revoked. Notice how she leaves out the part that I don’t have a renewal package to return to them? Housing services know this because they failed to return one to Me after I sent the original back! The email correspondences did not begin until AFTER I had already returned the renewal package and explained to them why. They said they would resend the renewal package in the same name and never did.

The Judge tells the story in a Way that allows the reader to believe I am failing to return a renewal package because I’m stubborn and I don’t Wish to. Even after placing the defendants on Notice of Criminal and Civil liability for threatening Me with economic duress and imposing demands upon Me without providing Me with the resources to meet them. Even AFTER they were emailed and Given Notice that I do not have the materials they are as King of Me for, they continued to ignore My emails entirely until three days AFTER I filed this Statement of Claim, allowing Me to believe My subsidy had already been revoked effective July 1st. I did not find out that a package had finally been sent out to Me on June 16th until June 21st!

In the 6th point the Judge asserts that I provided a bill of exchange, that it was defaced, and that I am demanding compensation for the face value of My intellectual, private property. This is one point she is correct on, and there is very much a legal foundation for it. She concedes that they destroyed My property, and I am entitled to compensation if it is not returned to Me in the condition it was Given.

In the next section she grasps at case law without referencing any examples from My case that fit the description she’s providing. She’s simply ‘injecting’ ideas into the determination without qualifying them. Finally, she concludes her case law examples with, “this is not for close calls.”

She is trying to imply that this is clear but doesn’t qualify why or how this applies to this case – they are just random, irrelevant insertions in the determination.

Number seven is where the Judge really begins to go off the rails. She asserts that she is reading the claim ‘as generously as possible and assuming all facts are true, Mr. von Dehn asserts no justifiable claim.’ (Justificable claim in the Judge’s endorsement).

Before We go on, let’s consider some of the Facts now on the Court of Record if what Sally says is True (and of course, I assert that it is).

32. The defendants have demonstrated intent and Willful determination to offend, antagonize and to diminish the plaintiff’s legal status in law.

If it is evident in any claim that harm or loss has been suffered by the plaintiff for which the defendants are liable, it is a justifiable claim and does not qualify for Rule 2.01.1. She’s already proven that this Claim does not qualify because there is a legitimate injured party seeking relief.

Let’s go over some of the other points that would make NOT vacating and striking this Claim from the Record truly scandalous.

54. It is well known by the defendants that the plaintiff has claimed a Spiritual, non commercial Life,

58. The plaintiff, Sean von Dehn has revoked his Trust in Canada’s government and placed his Trust in God.

59. The plaintiff, Sean von Dehn, has Sworn allegiance to God and the Queen (in that Order),

60. A Man who Swears an Oath to God and the Queen is Holding a position of Office as a King in His Kingdom, the Holy Temple of Man’s, Mind, Body and Soul,

61. A Man who Swears an Oath of allegiance to God and the Queen is also Holding a Position of Office as Governor General to Her Majesty is his Sovereign State of being,

62. A trespass upon a Governor General in a constitutional democratic Monarchy is an Act of High Treason,

Pretty sure high treason counts as a ‘justifiable’ action. By her own determination, the Judge is claiming that a Governor General to Her Majesty or a King in his own right do not have the right to determine how their name Will be expressed? Sally asserts that the ‘State Actors’ can impose a name upon Me that is not My own and has nothing to do with Me? It is not just Sean von Dehn in reverse – that would be ‘von Dehn, Sean’. It’s ‘VONDEHN, Sean’. My last name is NOT ‘VONDEHN’ – never has been, never Will be. And no, the Justice is absolutely wrong, they do NOT have any supreme right upon My name or how I Will be addressed and in Order to claim they do have that right, they must produce that claim of right.

It is also justifiable because Canada’s own Justice Department has determined that imposing fines on ‘State Actors’ is an effective means of deterring future trespasses upon One’s rights:

(ii) Civil/administrative remedies

Damages are available in appropriate cases where they would serve a “functional” purpose in remedying a Charter violation. This requires a claimant to demonstrate that damages would further one or more of the general objects of the Charter, including those of section 24(1), namely: compensation (remedying any personal loss the claimant has suffered); vindication (importance of upholding Charter rights); and/or deterrence (of further breaches by state actors) (Ward, supra, at paragraphs 25-31).

So that’s another justifiable Claim that the Courts have the authority and Power to remedy.

But let’s address how much fraud and perjury is committed on the Court of Record by the Judge in her ‘analysis’ (she has a creative imagination of events compared to the True story).

“In the statement of Claim, Mr. von Dehn suggests that it is unreasonable for the City to require that he complete a renewal form at all, since he has told housing services that his income has not changed over the last year.”

The statement is FRAUD. It does NOT state anywhere in the claim that I believe it is unreasonable to require Me to fill out a renewal form, this is a complete fabrication or deliberate intent to miscommunicate the Truth of the Claim.

In the real Story (True Story), I am responding to the Final Notice to terminate My subsidy and letting them know I don’t have a renewal package because they haven’t sent Me one. I indicate that

37. In the email, Sean advised the defendants a second time that there has been no change to his living situation since last year that would affect his eligibility.

I’m letting them know these details frantically and hoping they Will Trust My Word in email because I can’t otherwise comply with their demand and they are threatening Me with the loss of My housing for failing to provide this information. Nowhere does it state that I don’t believe I should have to fill out a renewal form at all – complete fabrication. The Judge is completely mischaracterizing the events that took place and this is quite literally fraud and perjury on the Court of Record, made by a Judge. It is dis-Grace-Full.

38. It is unreasonable that the defendants could not update the file manually when they know there has been no change to Sean’s living situation.

This statement is made because housing services continues to gaslight Me and there is nothing more I can do if I don’t have the renewal forms than provide as much information as possible by Way of email. I am entirely unable to meet their demands either by Way of their negligence, or Willful intent. I am entirely acting ‘under duress’. Perhaps I could have Writ the statement better by stating “It is unreasonable that the defendants could not update the file manually and continue to threaten him with the loss of his subsidy when they know he does not have the renewal materials to return to them and was happy to provide any information by Way of email or other means.”

I’ll be more specific next time I draft a Claim but You can clearly see that the Judge is not being objective, she is telling her own story. She summarizes by saying, “It is perhaps understandable that Sean is irritated by being required to comply with what he perceives to be an unnecessary bureaucratic process. This does not mean, however, that he is entitled to financial compensation.”

Once again, another fraudulent statement. She is entirely re-characterizing the claim to suggest that I am as King for compensation because I did not Wish to fill out a renewal form that was right in front of Me. That is not at ALL the nature of the claim! This is pure FRAUD!

How ridiculous is that interpretation? It is a complete fabrication. It has NOTHING to do with being frustrated with bureaucratic processes and nowhere do I state such a sentiment in My Claim. I am complaining because I am being threatened with undue economic hardship by service representative who Will not even communicate with Me to assist Me in meeting their demands, or provide Me with the materials I need.

She also goes on to say that the claim has many typical hallmarks of frivolous and vexatious litigation.

“references to unparticularized violations of the plaintiff’s rights under international law and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”

Well, I cite Canada’s Department of Justice Remedies for both International Rights violations and Canada’s Charter violations under Remedies, 24(1) which states that the Ontario Superior Courts are of competent jurisdiction, and I actually provide several examples and references to the UNCCPR violations, and article 2(3) states that all articles of the UNCCPR are binding on Canada, and the Department of Justice of Canada website says all Superior Courts in Ontario are able to provide Relief and Remedy, and provide several suggestions for providing such remedy for Matters much like this one.

Similar or related provisions are found in the following international instruments binding on Canada: article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Then the Judge makes one of My favourite statements

“use of obscure legal concepts such as ‘capitus diminutio maxima or media’ and the ‘public Trust”

Well, I’ve got news for the Judge. If the ‘Idea’ of a public Trust is obscure to You, You have no business on the bench because everything involves the public Trust. The Judge is paid by the public Trust. The public Trusts that when We go to Court Our Court Judges and Officers of the Court Will ensure the protection of Our Sovereign, inherent rights. I would also like to point out that the Judge describes the Way she insists I must allow state actors to address Me as ‘obscure legal language’. I could not agree with her more on this point, that is precisely why I do not Wish to be addressed by ‘obscure legal concepts’, especially if they mean nothing. She is asserting the Way I’m addressed by housing services is an ‘obscure legal concept’, and yet insists I may be compelled under threat of economic duress to comply with these ‘obscure legal concepts’? Is she out of her Mind?

“repetitive and rambling allegations and the use of many unnecessarily capitalized words.”

I don’t believe I repeat a single allegation but the Judge doesn’t Give an example, she’s hoping You’ll take her at her Word, despite how she’s tried to mislead You from the facts regarding this Matter already. The unusual capitalization of My Words does not, however, change their meaning. The Judge mis-Spells several Words in her determination and each instance completely changes the meaning of the Word. Like Sana Abou-Arraf (several times). There is no such person, that is an entirely fictitious legal entity, as is ‘Mr. von Dehn’ who does not exist anywhere in the Claim. Unless the Judge has committed perjury on the Court of Record, she has asserted that I am a King, not a ‘mister’. She’s also asserted that I’m a Governor General to Her Majesty. Each of those positions of Office is superior to that of a Court Judge. So if her Order stands as fact, I can arrest her and charge her with High Treason by Way of Her own testimony.

Okay, People, I’ll pick this up tomorrow, lots more still to come. I know it’s long, but I still think it’s well under ten pages.

Love and Blessings,