Click here to get to the original 2-page Word Document

Nov 26, 2010 - NOTICE OF LIABILITY TO REGISTRAR OF SCC

The reason for this NOTICE is that I charge this Registry with malfeasance due to the flagrant abuse of power displayed by whoever answered the phone yesterday at about 4;15 PM [your time] and consequently slammed it within 3 minutes of conversation by a liar who said she would call me back
when she did not have my number.

The behavior of the one who answered the phone was not that of a qualified member of the Office and so brazen that she must not have an oath or is in total disrespect of it.

- Due to this abuse, under Sec 24 of the Charter, I demand to have this matter of my Mandamus filing be handled by the Registrar and that I communicate with this Registrar. By communicate, I mean not just talk to or mail to or e-mail to him; communicate means I get an in-kind timely response.

First issue this raises is: The SCC has no business using contract employees in the position of answering the phone to the Registry of the SCC.
When I walk up to a Registry, I am to be addressed by an employee with an oath.
As to Blackstone’s law: This Registry must have at least 2 JPs in attendance in order to uphold them to their oath that my Mandamus must be delivered to a court date on short leave

[ 2 ] This matter brings up an issue that I mention briefly in the OUTLINE [in point #1] namely the importance of your oath of office:

The liability of converting the oath to the BAR in 1993 was brought up in the minutes of that motion: “There may be a conflict between the oath of Office and the oath to the BAR” and since then this matter has been ignored [under Sec 16 CCC - LEGAL: INSANITY]

[A] The issue brought up before Chief Judge Brenner in my SC BC Claim of Right filed on April 20, 2005] against file #157479-1:
“Who do you love? Your oath to the Office [or] your oath to the Bar? Because, there’s a conflict here.”
This out-bust and the lack of having an answer was a mitigating reason for getting my Appeals case CA033602 in the 1st place.
The de-facto answer is destroying civilized life.

[B] An oath to the office is for a term and territory and an oath to the BAR is for life
and apparently Masons uphold their oath to their secret societies as being their most important oath, and In so doing, the form has been perverted, by imposing
de-facto rule to their secret oath and occult agenda over all others.

[ 3 ] Apparently this receptionist doesn’t even know what it says on your own website http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/ef-de/intro-eng.asp
“If you have any questions, please contact the Registry office by phone at 613-996-8666 or by e-mail at registry-greffe@scc-csc.gc.ca. “
Please note these Guidelines apply only to appeals and does not apply to applications for leave to appeal.”

[A] A Mandamus is not an Appeal.
Therefore your guidelines do not apply,

[B] a MANDAMUS IS A MOTION OF LAST RESORT and it was made with the court of last resort.

[C] The e-mail is not referred to as a quasi-registry and clearly must be the real SCC Registry as it says it is now a Mandatory requirement to
1ST to do an e-filing – which I did, as prescribed by law.

I sent this e-mail: <increationwetrust@gmail.com >to registry-greffe@scc-csc.gc.ca - date Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:00 AM subject
TITLE - RE: Serving of a mandamus electronically
[D]
This e-mail says: unless told otherwise consider you and the SCC Registry as being served

[E] I waited a full 2-days then called, and to say the least I’m alarmed because there was ignorance of the law, by this unnamed receptionist who committed the crime of obstructing Justice and her oath
[if she even has one] and it’s this if that makes me demand intervention by the Registrar under Sec 336 CCC and under Sec 337 CCC: to deliver my person to a court date on SHORT LEAVE in order to avoid further harm.

[ 4 ] I started the conversation with this receptionist with “Did you receive my email of 2-days ago?” Her immediate attitude was she was the boss and in so doing
[due to the nature of this Mandamus] did obstruct Justice by slamming the phone on me, by repeatedly not answering the question with a yes or no

[A] She refused to acknowledge having received anything, and then she panicked, when I gave notice that I have also filed this mandamus with the Black Rod, and this caused her to slam the phone.

[ 5 ] My mandamus simply demands a hearing on short leave at a SCC court session to address 1-issue and 1-matter on SHORT LEAVE.
The reasoning behind this motion was explained to my fraudulently self-appointed probation officer, yesterday, who simply ignores that I signed “under duress” and has no authority but to act on anything other than my demand for a new hearing
[aside from that]

[A] This mandamus is not submitted by a lawyer,
it is being pressed by a Loyal Opposition Party Officer of the Marijuana Party of Canada. In law, [since this 1993 oath conversion] a lawyer must be submissive to the Crown, and this means no lawyer could ever file a mandamus [due to this new oath]

[B] Under the Supremacy of Parliament, I’m a private individual and a loyal opposition, who must defend our RUBRIC from a direct assault of the rule of law

- Under Sec 1 of the Charter, and the oath of Office, the Registrar of the SCC must submit to the fact that under Sec 337 CC he must deliver me to a hearing in order to comply with this mandamus, because my birth issue cannot be ignored, and that the AG of BC cannot be the last word on the matter of resolving the fact that he rigged my trial in file # 157479

[C] Frankly the reason for serving the Instrument holders is that that
the least that can happen from filing with them is that they, as the police of the SCC, Parliament the Legislate and the City must investigate my claims and act, in the event that I must take flight or disappear or get arrested.

[ 6 ] As expressed to my self-appointed SG agent,
who is acting under direct orders of the Sheriffs,

[A] This mandamus contains all the Essential Elements for the SCC to act, because the claims of abuse on my issue and the matter before the courts cannot be ignored and are so repugnant in law.

[B] In form, I need to show grace, which is what I’m doing with this e-filing of my mandamus. The reason this matter is so repugnant is because it never should have gotten to the SCC in the first place.

[C] The SG, the Sheriffs and the Instrument Holders must understand their oath and respect that my intention with this mandamus is to throw a cannon ball across the bow [so to speak]

[D] It really is disgusting for the fact that this matter was not resolved by the SG and or the AG and especially his Deputy, when the only solution in the SCC holds far greater liability than if BC provided the remedy, and
if this ENTITY of BC fails to deliver this case to the SCC,
then that’s just the way it is..

[ 7 ] The BOTTOM LINE reason for filing with this SCC mandamus
is to file the bare minimum before some fictitious barrier to hear anything at the SCC expires. These crimes of state have a statute of limitation of 18 years
BUT frankly it only took 5-years to exhaust all lawful means to seek remedy, in Canada and the USA,
since the offense of rigging my trial took place on Nov 18th 2005.
.
[A] If the entire form insists that it can trample on the messenger,
because it must preserve this perverted form,
then that’s just the way it is.

Without the SCC or the Province picking up this case file means
I have no business staying in Canada [period]
Failure to produce documents to do so constitutes a crime unknown to man.
The Affidavit in my mandamus is self explanatory,
and remains as a clear warning.

- It’s not my fault if it was all done for hate
- and - he who calls me evil for testing you is evil