Sunday, January 7, 2018

12/Private-Agreement-Parry-sound

This post is the result of numerous a good faith attempts by minister David to communicate the facts to various OPP officers, lawyers for the crown, and prosecutors. The following is a synopsis of the facts.

minister david: williams, a man.
Church of the Ecumenical
Redemption International
c/o 15 Forest Street,
Parry Sound, Ontario,
No code non commercial

Non domestic without CANADA

Explicitly Without Prejudice

Friday, January 05, 2018

Steven Scharger, the private man acting as Crown attorney,
Brian Bencze, the private man acting as Crown attorney,
Wesley Beatty, the private man acting as Crown attorney,
89 James Street,
Parry Sound, Ontario,
No code non commercial

Shawn Retzler, the private man acting as OPP officer, and
Dawn Connor, the private man acting as OPP officer 
7 Bay Street, Unit B,
Parry Sound, Ontario,
No code non commercial

 


Re:       Good faith ecclesiastical notice of agreement, contract, covenant, and understanding.


To the private men and women: Steven Scharger, Brian Bencze, Wesley Beatty, Shawn Retzler, and Dawn Connor acting in the de facto capacities of Crown attorneys and OPP officers.

I am seeking to clearly express my position to you in order that your obligations to me can be fulfilled as I am one individual with fundamental rights and freedoms and my legal rights that are being limited and abridged contrary to the principles of justice by everyone involved in these actions of these people.  

I am writing this in concern, I am not being frivolous, malicious, vexatious, insensitive, discriminatory or have any ill will towards anyone; I expect to be treated the same.  I genuinely care for mankind and their souls.  It is a part of my duty and calling to be a watchman and to warn.  I must warn those who trespass against me, and others.  I do not want to see anyone lose their job, be put into prison, jail, or the worst be condemned for eternity.  I am forgiving, but I also must stand up in God’s name, and protect my rights and the rights of others.  

I am Christian minister of the Church Of The Ecumenical Redemption International as called by God Almighty; I greet you in the name of Yahushua the risen Christ and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor defender of the Christian faith.  I do this in accord with the Royal Styles and Titles Act, being an enactment of the Canadian Parliament, in keeping with her majesty’s sworn Coronation oath to defend the Laws of God along with the Churches, the clergy, and ministers therein, with all of her power.

God’s Law forbids us to obey other “law”, just His Laws. Acts 5:29, Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Romans 16:17-18, 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, 

God’s commandment. Deuteronomy 4:2  Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. 

Revelation 22:18-19, 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

"The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions…” The Preamble for the Canadian Bill of Rights (1960).

Ezekiel 33:1-10 notification as a watchman is my duty to warn.  This duty removes any assumption I am making use of man’s corporate law by mentioning it.  Thereby, eliminating any false assumption that I am in submission and thereby leading to any falsely assumed jurisdiction.

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

2 Chronicles 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, 

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons,

Matthew 15:9 and Leviticus 18:3-5 bears evidence.  Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13 Jesus speaking, “No man can serve two masters: … Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”  
Also, Matthew 6:24 “No man can serve two masters: … Ye cannot serve God and mammon”

John 15:16  Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you,…And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

I am not a person as indicated in the King James Bible and am following the private agreement advice of Christ at Matthew 5:25, 18:15-20 eliminating the assumption that I am a commercially active person of law in bed with the dead.

This notice is emergent and in honour diligently effected being served ecclesiastically in performing the functions of my calling as Christ's minister on the 8th day of the month of January in the year of our Lord and Saviour Two-Thousand and Eighteen.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities with no rebuttal to the fact, that I am officiating as God Jehovah’s minister and performing a function of my calling as his steadfast servant in attempting in good faith to gain your simple private agreement to these facts and I do thank you for your humble acceptance of this privately offered covenant, supporting God’s law and freedom to practice it, via your good faith tacit consent of failing to rebut the agreed upon terms with a private reply and proof of error.


It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you are aware that I come before you as the man and minister of Christ known as "David" and in this ecclesiastical effort am officially performing a duty of my calling as a minister of Christ for this emergent instant matter at hand with this communication for you privately in the following with the directions of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ found at Matthew 5:25.   This instant official function is for the being with and in the honour and the agreement and with recognition of the covenant of understanding with the private men or women to the facts specifically so herein stated for the mutual gain and the protection of all concerned.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the man known as David Williams is a minister of Christ and as of that perpetual ordained ministry he is bound by the spiritual baptism to not walk in the ordinance of men making laws.  The man known as David Williams as God's minister is the living flesh and blood man and not a person and cannot be associated with dead legal fiction corporate persons as per his admonishment from God to not sin by respecting persons, King James Authorized Version, Deuteronomy 1; 17, 10:17, 2nd Samuel 14:14, Matthew 22:16, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 complimented by James 2:9 in summation and evidence the ministers inability to show respect for persons. 

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the man known as David Williams is an ordained minister of Jesus Christ and that he is washed clean of the laws and the sin of the world with the blood of Jesus Christ on the cross.  John 15:16 Colossians 2:14-23.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities with no rebuttal to the fact that I officiating as God’s minister, sleeping, waking, and walking on this earth, have standing in God’s Kingdom as I am irrefutably not a created legal fiction, corporate officer, individual person, nor debtor of that ungodly dead corporate body as I am a carnal creation of God. Ezra 7:23-25; James 2:9; Colossians 2:10-20.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you are with the knowledge and awareness according to the faith of the minister known as David Williams, he is not to respect persons nor associate with any labeled obiter dicta called Organized Pseudo Commercial Argument (OPCA), “free man on the land”, or any type of false teaching contrary to the doctrine.  James 2:9, Matthew 15:9, Romans 16:17-20

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that Canada’s Monarch is a Christian Monarch being that of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second.   It is agreed by you in your private capacities that The monarch's style and titles are set out by the Royal Style and Titles Act, passed by the Canadian parliament in 1953, and later amended in 1985 and sets out the sovereign's style and titles as, in English: 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. 

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the faith of which the Queen is a defender of is Christianity and the laws of God. Her reign has been characterised by acknowledgement of her dependence on Jesus Christ and defence of the laws of God.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that no dispute to the fact that relying on lawyers with false oaths that may be member of the Masonic brotherhood or who are Jewish who swear the Kol Nidre once a year is a conflict with your duty to her majesty as their oaths invalidate the sworn oath to the Queen putting them in obvious conflict.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities with no dispute to the fact that  God’s law  in the authorized version of the King James Bible is supreme and is defended by Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor anointed of God who you have sworn an oath to bear true allegiance to.

It is agreed upon by you in your private capacities with no dispute the fact, that you in your public capacities have no authority in any law to intimidate me to violate my faith by suggesting my lawful excuse for nonappearance, so expressively provided and substantiated with facts, is invalid and that an arrest warrant will issue if I the man do not formally submit myself to the jurisdiction of a fraudulent court with a false oath acting as a false god. 

It is agreed upon by you in your private capacities with no dispute to the fact that  the preceding fact if ignored will amount to a treason against the government of her majesty by attempting to overthrow the rule of law and government of the King James Bible.

It is agreed upon by you in your private capacities with no dispute the fact that all the laws in Ontario are applicable only to the government as per section 32 and 52 of the Constitution.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that minister David Williams with witnesses confirming and as of his faith, is doing his duty and officially performing his function as a Christian minister under the Christ's charge and protection of the diligent oath sworn duty of the Christian Monarch.  

It is agreed by you in your private capacities the minister known as David Williams is being obstructed upon the pretence of executing: a civil process, civil code violation, and or civil process and being denied access to truly allegiant justice, by those acting under the oath and office of a sworn Allegiant to a Christian Monarch. 

It is agreed by you that you are aware in your private capacities that the minister known as David Williams is being discriminated against, by those private men and women acting as Crown attorneys and OPP officers executing de facto policies, because of David Williams’ diligent and faithful adherence to his Christian faith and defence of same. 

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you are aware of your international signatory duty as a service provider, that applies to you in your capacities as a Crown attorney and OPP officer of her majesty, and your sworn duty to accommodate a minister’s faith when that accommodation of faith is demanded of you, and that you must go to hardship to provide that accommodation.  

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that I, am a minister of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, you have a duty and are required to accommodate my firmly held beliefs and faith; not to accommodate my freedoms is a Human Rights violation; being discrimination against me.  That despite many demands for accommodation of my faith you all have ignored and refused that accommodation. 

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you have knowledge and awareness that the man known as David Williams is a minister of Christ and that you the private men and women have the knowledge and the awareness that you have the duty to accommodate his faith and failure to accommodate the minister’s faith can and may result in criminal charges against those who had knowledge and awareness of his desire to be accommodated as per Section 176 of the Criminal Code.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that Canada’s Criminal Code Act reads: 

Criminal Code Section 176: Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman
176. (1) Every one who
(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavors 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.

Criminal Code Section 180:  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.

Criminal Code Section 423: Intimidation of a justice system participant or a Journalist
423.1 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority, engage in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in
(a) a group of persons or the general public in order to impede the administration of criminal justice;
(b) a justice system participant in order to impede him or her in the performance of his or her duties; or
(c) a journalist in order to impede him or her in the transmission to the public of information in relation to a criminal organization.

Criminal Code Section 336: Criminal breach of trust
Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Criminal Code Section 337: Public servant refusing to deliver property 
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. 
Ezekiel 33:6-10

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the Canadian Criminal Code applies to all corporate employees of the de facto government and or state of Canada and the Provinces and that the Crown attorneys and the OPP did against minister David Williams with full knowledge of his ministerial capacity knowingly violate sections 179, 180, 423, 336, and 337 of the criminal code and are in lack of any defense.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that minister David Williams did make since Oct. 12, 2017 numerous demands for the return of unlawfully stolen church property from the OPP and Crown attorneys all of which were ignored and the Church property remains under the management and control of the Crown attorneys and the OPP.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that minister David Williams did make since Oct. 12, 2017 numerous communications requiring a response and no response was provided by the OPP or the Crown attorneys and that non-response is your tacit agreement to all those correspondences, details, conditions, and terms as they remain undisputed.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that I and other ministers of our Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, in the geographical Canada, are under threat duress and intimidation causing great discomfort by the various de facto agencies and various godless lawyer’s , of the de facto corporate Canada, to violate our faith and beliefs in the law, being the Commandments of God Jehovah,  as defended by her majesty the anointed of Jehovah.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that any and all attempts by any and all private men and women using commercial de facto incompetent legal fiction law and associated regulations to continue this unlawful intimidation and deliberate violation of our faiths freedoms, as defended by her majesty the Queen the anointed of God, will be seen as irrefutable proof and evidence of your mens rea or to be clear, your guilty mind directed towards the deliberate unlawful actions of Intimidation, nuisance, blasphemy, breach of trust, perjury, obstruction of a minister, treason, sedition, conspiracy, fraud, impersonation, theft, extortion, all being violations of God Jehovah’s law, and as such constitutes your consent to acknowledging full and irrevocable responsibility for your total private liability for any and all damages, consequential discomfort and trauma to our church ministry and it’s ministers .  Please see Leviticus 6:2-5 for the rule the Queen defends as well as Ezra 7:23-26

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that there is no involuntary servitude; if I am requested to come to court, I will be paid and will bill according to my fee schedule.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that you have no jurisdiction over a man and if you create an order or one is created as a result of you actions or inactions you all will be held personally liable.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that: I give notice to anyone that is moving a false claim against me, I will move a claim for answering a false claim and I will require fair and just compensation from all men or women moving their false claims, I give fair and just warning for anyone interfering with my rights that I will require fair and just compensation from all men or women who interfere with any of my rights, I give fair and just warning should anyone make any pleas or decisions on my behalf without my consent and full agreement in writing they and you all will be held fully and personally liable.

It is agreed by you receiving this in your private capacities that you are with knowledge and awareness and are in receipt of numerous communications, notices from living witnesses testifying that they have firsthand knowledge that the man known as David Williams is a minister of Christ called and appointed ordained and anointed as the minister David Williams, bride and bondservant of the only begotten son.  1st Corinthians 7:22-23.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the blatant use of the WILLIAMS, David or WILLIAMS, DAVID persona-appellation as a commercial surety for security is in violation of minister David's faith as the order of style is personation as all caps names are used for the dead, corporations, and classified department of defense military operations, i.e.:"SILENT DEFENDER" and has no statute code or regulation supporting its usage or forced application in nuisance against a man’s faith who cannot respect persons and is endeavouring to minister according to the word of God.  (See the Canadian Style Manual of Grammar and form for all federal ministries to adhere to section 4.13)

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the Crown attorneys and the OPP have by force, violence and threat obstructed, unlawfully arrested, and unlawfully detained the minister known as David Williams and obstructed his divine service and performing of the functions of his calling since October 12, 2017 until present this the 6th day in the month of January, in the year of our Lord and Saviour 2018 and that the harms and grievances continue to mount.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that I have the right not to have any right interfered with, including and not limited to: right to travel from point A to point B, to travel in or with my property, right not to have any man or woman Trespass against me, against my property, or on my property, violate my sanctuary, and obstructing my official function, divine service, and calling as a Christian minister in violation duty to accommodate violations of Canadian Criminal Code section 176, 180, 336, 337 as well as 423.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that obstructing the minister from his divine service, ministerial duties, and performing his functions in connection with his calling as a minister of Christ, is contrary to Section 176 of the Criminal Code that applies to all public officers being persons of law. (As I have stated earlier, I make no use of this law but as part of my ministerial duty and calling must warn you as per Ezekiel 33:1-10)

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the OPP officer known by Shawn Retzler with the badge number being 13542, did on Oct. 12, 2017 at approximately 10:20 am, OPP officer Shawn Retzler acting on his own wit knowingly wronged minister David Williams by way of; lack of accommodation of my firmly held beliefs, faith, divine calling, Parry Sound OPP knowingly and deliberate violated sections 176, 180, 336, 337, 423 of the Criminal Code causing, trespasses, threats, violence, kidnapping, imprisonment, assault, extortion, terrorism, fraud, theft, common nuisance, unlawful arrest, trauma, endangerment of my health and safety, fraudulent conveyance, forged documents, intimidation., and Sean Retzler knowingly and falsely labeled me as a “free man on the land” to exact the maximum of the aforementioned upon minister David Williams and to bring to bear the maximum resources possible of the OPP and the RCMP; bringing to fruition his threat to terrorize/intimidate minister David Williams.  Shawn Retzler’s act on his own wit and stole property belonging to the church to further his violence/intimidation/terrorism. 

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that minister David Williams immediately addressed the matter with Dawn Connor who told minister David, that Shawn Retzler and the men and women under her, Dawn Connor, management are doing as she had instructed them and they, the men and women, will continue to do what she has instructed them.”

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that Sean Retzler, Dawn Connor, and the Parry Sound OPP did acting on their own wit mislabeled minster David as a member of the FMOTL “Free Man On The Land” movement to malign discredit and obstruct David’s ministry and calling; this is akin to defamation by including David’s ministry as joined in the same category as a group of godless, fearful, and angry renegades.  Sean Retzler was clearly informed previously that minister David Williams was a Christian minister and not a FMOTL.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that on Oct. 12, 2017 at approximately 10:20 am, OPP officer Shawn Retzler did act on his own wit and without the service warrant and wronged minister David Williams by way of unlawfully providing the corporate fiction name being that of the WILLIAMS, DAVID and or WILLIAMS, David even though minister David did claim that he was the man, a minister, and not the person.  Shawn Retzler manufacture/made up the name of WILLIAMS, DAVID or WILLIAMS, David.  The man and minister David Williams did NOT provide the fiction name of DAVID WILLIAMS nor was any documentation, as no documentation had been requested. 

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that on Oct. 12, 2017 at approximately 10:20am, OPP officer Shawn Retzler, did by threat, force, violence, intimidation, terrorism, and arrest unlawfully obstruct the minister known as David Williams from performing his divine service and obstruct the minister from performing the function of his calling.  All actions taken against minister David Williams and Church property by Shawn Retzler took place on well signed private property and Shawn Retzler acting in his own wit and without warrant or permission on known the private property.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that Shawn Retzler contrary to the Criminal Code Section 176 did act on his own wit to unlawfully detain the minister known as David Williams upon the pretense of a civil code violation(s) and did commit perjury and discrimination of the minister’s faith saying that the minister was associated or related to “free man on the land”.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the minister known as David Williams has maintained his capacity and standing in God Jehovah’s commandments since Oct. 12, 2017 to all Crown attorneys, OPP officers, and Justice’s of the Peace, and all judicial service members since Oct. 12, 2017 has gone on all ecclesiastical, private and public records stating his faith in Christ and that he would be a sinner if he has respect for the persons according to the King James Version Bible.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that Crown attorneys and the OPP officers continue to commit gross violations of human rights committed against the minister of Christ known as David Williams with the alleged fraudulent civil violations and civil process number being Summons # TC 12890935, TC 12890934, TC 12890933, TC 12890932, TC 12890931, TC 12890930, and TC 12890929.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that these instruments were formed in fraud and intimidation with invoking duress and fear in knowing violation of minister David’s faith.  See sections 55 and 57 of the Canadian Bills of Exchange act that applies to you in your public capacities lest you violate section 126 of the criminal code.  Allowing this to proceed condones the actions of the OPP and involves all of you privately in the fraud.  

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that minister David the man is exercising the duty of minister of the Christian faith and to defend the faith and in the official capacity as Jehovah’s minister having firsthand knowledge of the corruption and failure for the duties of the police, Crown attorneys, and judiciary and various political bodies of this country that I, minister David, the man am lawfully and ministerally compelled to demand of you the private men and women the accommodation of my faith, the immediate return of property with reasonable compensation.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities the Crown attorneys, and the OPP officers that the fees shall be set per the Fee Schedule as distributed by minister David Williams.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the Crown attorneys did ignore the violations of the criminal code by private men and women of the Parry Sound OPP who willfully knowingly violated multiple sections of the; criminal code and provincial legislation.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the Crown attorneys did proceeded with civil charges obviously resulting from assumptions of criminal violations by the OPP and continued to unlawfully apply secular civil process on minister David Williams. 

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the Crown attorneys did continue to: intimidate, obstruct, and nuisance minster David from performing his divine calling, celebrating divine service, and his firmly held faith and beliefs.  

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the Crown attorneys did, do, and are supporting the private men and women of the OPP’s continuing intimidate, obstruct, and nuisance of minister David from performing his calling, celebrating divine service, and his firmly held faith and beliefs since Oct. 12, 2017.  

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the Crown attorneys did bring and furthered a wrongful conviction “a failure of justice in the most fundamental sense.”

It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the Crown attorneys did refuse to recognize that Crown Attorneys are not employed by the departments and agencies to which they provide legal advice and they failed to provide that legal advice.
   
It is agreed by you in your private capacities that the private men and women of the OPP and the Crown attorneys knowingly and deliberately failed to properly and responsibly discharge their duties and especially with regard to the demanded accommodation.  

For it is agreed by all that minster David is a man exercising his faith offers these terms of agreement in quest of honour, upholding God’s law and to prevent untrue assumptions from prevailing, thereby in this good faith contract, ending the deliberate unlawful intimidation and duress by your de facto officials, departmental, principalities and treasons against the minister known as David Williams from having the ability for the practice of his faith harmless from reproach.

For it is agreed that this notice is a sincere, full and complete expression of this man’s and minister’s faith and in no way intended to be mischievous, intimidating or malicious as this notice of agreement is in truth and in fact an expression of minister David’s faith.

For it is agreed that in honour and in truth minster David is performing a function of his calling as a Christian minister in defense of the faith in making this ministerial demand that you deliver to minister David Williams the certified, verified copy of any law code regulation that gives you authority to entice or intimidate the minister known as David Williams to violate his faith in practicing the laws and the commandments of the King James Bible of which such faith is founded upon and it is further agreed that no act of terror nor threat of unlawful action be extrapolated from the demand against minister David.

For it is agreed that you have no authority to intimidate the minister known as David Williams to violate God’s first commandments and you have no authority outside of God’s law as God’s first commandment is “Do not bow to false God’s nor serve them.” Exodus 20:3-5

For it is agreed that according to the King James Bible I minister David Williams would condemn my soul to eternal hell and be a sinner if I am a respecter persons.  Thus, I minister David Williams am writing to you privately.  James 2:1, 9

It is agreed that the facts will be evident that you are not competent to practice law, enforce law, or intimidate men and woman to violate their faith by submitting to a false god’s law.  It is further agreed that you are incompetent if you do not know or comprehend the true lawful meaning of your oath to God to be truly allegiant to the Queen’s duty to defend the faith. Exodus 20: 3-5, Leviticus 6:2

It is agreed that you the private men or women will deliver to me your good faith and honour in stating your intent to uphold your lawful duty to accommodate my faith and you oath as defined by law. 

It is agreed by you the private men or women will uphold your oath to support and aid her majesty to defend the standing law of the King James Bible and that no law of a de facto parliament or principalities can abrogate nor supersede a law of God Jehovah.

It is agreed by you in your private capacities with no rebuttal to the fact that the man known as David Williams is officiating as God’s minister, sleeping, waking, and walking on this earth having standing in God’s Kingdom as he is irrefutably not a created legal fiction, corporate officer, person, nor debtor of that dead corporate body as the man and minister is the carnal creation of God.  Ezra 7:23-25; James 2:9; Colossians 2:10-20

It is agreed by you in your private capacities with no rebuttal to the fact and the truth that I the man officiating as God Jehovah’s minister and performing a function of my calling as His steadfast servant in attempting in good faith to gain your private agreement to these facts and do thank you for your humble acceptance of this privately offered covenant, supporting God’s law and freedom to practice it, via your good faith consent of failing to rebut the agreed upon terms with the private reply and proof of error.  

It is agreed by all of you in your private capacities and understood with no dispute to the fact that you are now privately aware of the man known as David Williams’ Christian faith and know that if you do not privately reply, without expending taxpayer dollars in fraud, to me Jehovah’s minister, to rebut our agreement privately, without using a postal code or public funds, with the Queen as witness, me as Jehovah’s minister, and the members of our faith, being the body of Christ, who will observantly be witness to your collective acceptance of this covenant of good faith, and that you will act as my witness to those facts and terms of agreement should I the woman need you to give private evidence on the Church’s behalf.

It is agreed by you the private men and women that failure to reply in good faith will also be taken as proof positive, with no possible rebuttal, of your covenant and accepted agreement with all points of this irrevocable good faith agreement with me as God’s minister and the members of our faith. 

It is agreed that the failure to privately rebut and dispute this good faith agreement will mean in submission and understanding, by all parties to this private contract, that we have a good faith covenant of terms as indicated above and below but not limited to the agreed upon fact that the Authorized King James Bible is the Supreme rule of law with uncontested standing in  the courts of the  British Commonwealth and that  no intimidation by any man or woman using any law or judgment of men  to violate it’s commands in attempt to sanction their own authority  can be possibly seen as lawful.  Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32

It is agreed and understood by all of you as private men and women in your private capacities, that failure to reply in good faith will also be taken as proof positive, with no possible rebuttal, of your covenant and accepted agreement with all points of this irrevocable good faith agreement with me the man as God’s minister and the members of our faith. 

It is agreed and understood by all of you as private men and women in your private capacities that such rebuttal shall and must be: point by point, with certified copies of law, with proof of all errors, signed with wet ink signatures, and must be received by regular mail no later than by January 15, 2018 5:00pm.

It is agreed by all of you as private men and woman, with no debate, that no law of man can overthrow the laws of God Jehovah or is lawfully sanctioned by anyone to criminalize His gifts as defended by Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor anointed by God Jehovah.

I pray to God Almighty Jehovah with Christ as my spiritual witness to stay in honour of my fellow brothers and sisters to give the private men or women in this matter time to review my notice of agreement.

Blessings upon your expeditious reply if you have any law, regulation, court case, or other authority that says you can tell the minister known as David Williams how to practice his faith or intimidate the minister or entrap or entice the minister or obstruct the minister from the official performance of the functions of his calling as a minister for God Jehovah.

Should you the private men or women have any proof of any error in our collectively mutual agreement and ecclesiastical covenant please contact me immediately as proscribed, lest you be held in default, in your private capacities.  To avoid assumption, the spreading of falsehoods, defamation and unavoidable process as a result of your collective tacit acceptance of our agreement please reply if you have proof that the facts are incorrect or it will be accepted you have agreed that you the private men and women have privately accepted your full liability and private responsibility for your full liability for any and all damages and losses incurred by me the man and minister of God and any of the members of the body of Christ as a result of your negligence to honour and respect my faith and to provide the true allegiance you promised.

These oaths of fealty and allegiance being imposed upon all of her majesty’s agents by her majesty’s royal law as proclaimed upon all of her majesty’s ministers, judges governors, and agency servants sworn to be allegiant to her majesty in duty to uphold and defend God’s laws are absolutely sacred in the order of maintaining the rule of law forever as supreme. Those who would flagrantly or in clandestine repose endeavour to disrespect and dissolve that honour rebels against God. 

We agree that if you have any questions please bring them up to me the man minister and advocate of Jesus the Christ now and forever the reigning King in heaven.

God bless you.

Autograph of the flesh and blood man; ::David:: with the capacity as God Jehovah’s minister:

Witness Autograph; being a living witness


Witness Autograph; being a living witness
Cc: 























Thursday, December 28, 2017

Amselem

Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court of Canada Hearing: Argued January 19, 2004 Judgment: June 30, 2004 Full case name Moïse Amselem, Gladys Bouhadana, Antal Klein and Gabriel Fonfeder v Syndicat Northcrest; League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada v Syndicat Northcrest Citations [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII); (2004), 241 D.L.R. (4th) 1; (2004), 121 C.R.R. (2d) 189 Prior history Judgment for Syndicat Northcrest in the Court of Appeal for Quebec. Holding Succahs may be built if connected to the religious beliefs of individuals; conflicting property and security rights were marginally impaired and thus do not outweigh freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Court Membership Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish Reasons given Majority Iacobucci J., joined by McLachlin, Major, Arbour and Fish JJ. Dissent Bastarache J., joined by LeBel and Deschamps JJ. Dissent Binnie J. Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that attempted to define freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the Supreme Court split on their definition, the majority advocated tolerating a practice where the individual sincerely feels it is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required by a religious authority. Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 Decision 3 Dissent 3.1 Bastarache 3.2 Binnie 4 See also 5 References 6 External links Background[edit] The case arose after Orthodox Jews in Montreal erected succahs on their balconies in a residential building which they owned. Succahs are small dwellings in which Jews live during Succot, a Jewish holiday, in accordance with the Hebrew Bible. However, those who managed the buildings, Syndicat Northcrest, claimed the succahs violated by-laws forbidding structures to be built on the balconies. The Orthodox Jews had not seen this requirement as applying to religious requirements because Christmas decorations and the like were allowed. Syndicat Northcrest denied all requests that succahs be built, except one to be shared but this did not however meet minimal Jewish Halachic requirements. Consequently, an injunction by Syndicat Northcrest was filed against further succahs. While there was no government action responsible for violating a right, the Quebec Charter is of relevance to personal disputes. As Justice Michel Bastarache wrote, "the first paragraph of s. 9.1 [of the Quebec Charter], insofar as it does not require that the infringement of a right or freedom result from the application of the law, applies only to private law relationships, that is, to infringements of the rights and freedoms of private individuals by other private individuals."[1] Bastarache noted this is what occurred in a previous case, Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc (1998). Decision[edit] The majority decision was written by Justice Frank Iacobucci. He examined whether the by-laws violated the freedom of religion of the Orthodox Jews, and whether Syndicat Northcrest's opposition to the succahs was protected by rights to enjoy property under the Quebec Charter. Iacobucci first attempted to define freedom of religion, and started by giving a legal definition for religion. He decided that religion is a thorough set of beliefs regarding a higher power, tied with a person's view of him or herself and his/her needs to realize spiritual completeness.[2] Iacobucci went on to note that in past freedom of religion cases, such as R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985), the Supreme Court has advocated giving freedom of religion a large and liberal definition emphasizing individual rights. In Big M, it was noted there should be respect for religious diversity and no coercion to do something in violation of one's religion.[3] A journal article was then cited to establish this precedent favoured an individual's view of religion to an organized church's.[4] Thus, anyone who claims rights to freedom of religion does not need to demonstrate that they were denied rights to worship in accordance with the manner required by a religious authority. Following R v Edwards Books Ltd and R v Jones, it was enough to demonstrate an individual religious belief.[5] These arguments were reinforced by a desire that secular governments and courts should not judge which religious practices are needed and which are not; this was to make legal decisions regarding moral beliefs.[6] Still, practices required by a religious authority are also protected; what matters is that the practice is connected to a religious belief.[7] To determine whether an individual belief is sincere, the Court noted US case law, which advocated a minimally intrusive evaluation of an individual's beliefs. Courts must only determine that a belief is not feigned and religious claims are made in good faith.[8] It must be asked whether an individual's testimony can be believed, and how one belief fits in with others held by the individual. In this, the Supreme Court added that courts should tolerate a change in beliefs; the individual's beliefs held in the past are not relevant to those claimed in the present.[9] Next, the court will determine whether a sufficiently large violation of freedom of religion has occurred to raise challenges under the Quebec and Canadian Charters. The gravity of the violations will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.[10] However, in this case the Supreme Court noted freedom of religion should not work to deny the rights of others.[11] Turning back to this case, the Supreme Court observed Syndicat Northcrest had argued freedom of religion was limited here by rights to enjoy property and to personal security. However, the Court found the rights of the Orthodox Jews had been severely infringed, while Syndicat Northcrest's rights were not significantly affected. Thus, freedom of religion would prevail. The trial judge had found at least one of the Orthodox Jews sincerely believed he needed a succah, while the others seemed not to because they did not have succahs in the past. The Supreme Court rejected the latter finding, because it relied on a study of past practice. The Supreme Court also noted the Jews might have wanted succahs for religious reasons, regardless of whether they were necessary; this also undermined the view that past practices should be studied. The Court then decided the violation of religious freedom was serious because the right to an individual succah was not limited but denied completely.[12] Conversely, Syndicat Northcrest claimed that the succahs limited rights to enjoy property because the succahs could take away from the attractiveness of the building and its financial value. Rights to personal security were claimed because the succahs might block off fire escapes. The Court was unconvinced the property value would drop because of lack of evidence, and the attractiveness of the building for nine days every year was held to be a small issue, especially in the context of the importance of multiculturalism. The Court also noted the Jews had offered to mind fire safety. Regarding the argument that the Jews had waived their rights, Iacobucci noted it was still not certain whether constitutional rights can be waived. If they can, the waiver should be more explicit and done under complete free will. The Jews in this case did not have complete free will in their agreement because they wanted to live in those buildings.[13] Dissent[edit] Bastarache[edit] A dissent was written by Justice Bastarache. He interpreted past freedom of religion case law as meaning the right protects religious beliefs and practices that result from those beliefs. Beliefs can be discovered through religious rules; these distinguish religion from personal activities. Thus, a belief is not held individually but is shared. This provided an objective approach to freedom of religion. Expert testimony would be a great help in finding whether a belief is religious. Next, the sincerity of the individual is studied, in a non-intrusive way. Bastarache felt for most of the Jews in this case, the religion required eating in a succah, but an individual succah was not needed. While Bastarache noted one Jew might have a right to an individual succah, this needed to be balanced against "proper regard for democratic values, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec", as required by the Quebec Charter. The property and safety rights thus entered consideration. Bastarache wrote that "it is difficult to imagine how granting a right of way in emergency situations, which is essential to the safety of all the occupants of the co-owned property, could fail to justify the prohibition against setting up succahs, especially in light of the compromise proposed by the respondent."[14] Binnie[edit] Justice Ian Binnie also wrote a dissent. He observed the oddness of the situation, namely that a right was being claimed against other owners of the building and not a government. The owners had made agreements that would prohibit the succahs. Binnie emphasized the importance of this agreement or contract. See also[edit] List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court) History of the Jews in Canada Status of religious freedom in Canada Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys References[edit] Jump up ^ Para. 152. Jump up ^ Para. 39. Jump up ^ Para. 40. Jump up ^ Para. 42. Jump up ^ Para. 43-44. Jump up ^ Para. 50. Jump up ^ Para. 47. Jump up ^ Para. 52. Jump up ^ Para. 53. Jump up ^ Para. 57-50. Jump up ^ Para. 62. Jump up ^ Para. 74. Jump up ^ Para. 98. Jump up ^ Para. 179.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Driving and Cannabis consumption

Reasons Why Marijuana Users Are Safe Drivers
Driving while intoxicated is a well known way to cause an accident on the road. Although not as common, you can be charged with that offense for more than just drinking alcohol. It also includes anything else that causes impairment, such as drugs (whether they are legal ones or not), including marijuana.marijuana and driving However, 20 years of study has concluded that marijuana smokers may actually be getting a bad rap and that they may actually have fewer accidents than other drivers. There have been several studies done over the past 20 years and every one of them has revealed that using marijuana actually has a very minor, if any, effect on the ability of a person to drive a car or other vehicle. Marijuana, Alcohol users Use Products Differently Research studies showed that if a comparison was done between how drivers who had been drinking alcohol and those who had been using marijuana, it showed that the pot users were in fewer crashes. Why is this so? Researchers believe it is because of the way people consume the two products, as alcohol drinkers usually do their drinking out in public and then try to drive home, while pot smokers usually smoke at home and don’t try to drive, meaning fewer are involved in driving accidents in the first place. Research also shows that while drunk drivers usually drive faster and don’t understand that their driving skills are messed up, the drivers that have been smoking marijuana actually tend to drive slower and stay away from risky behavior. These and other tests on marijuana smoking and driving were done in different places all over the world, including Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, the United States, and the UK with the following results: Results of Major Studies on Marijuana and Driving The research that has been done on this phenomenon of marijuana smoking and driving has shown some interesting results: Research studies in the Netherlands at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research that drivers with blood alcohol rates of .5 percent up to .8 percent had accidents five times more than other drivers, and if it was higher amounts of alcohol, the results were accidents happening up to 15 times more often. But, the marijuana smokers actually showed these drivers posed NO risk at all! Top 10 Reasons Marijuana Users Are Safer Drivers When you combine all of the main results of these two decades worth of scientific research studies, the following 10 reasons marijuana drivers are safer than drunk drivers comes out like this: 1. Drivers who had been using marijuana were found to drive slower, according to a 1983 study done by U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). This was seen as a factor in their favor, since drivers who drank alcohol usually drove faster and that is part of the reason they had accidents. 2. Marijuana users were able to drive straight and not have any trouble staying in their own lanes when driving on the highway, according to a NHTSA done in 1993 in the Netherlands. The study determined also that the use of marijuana had very little affect on the person’s overall driving ability. 3. Drivers who had smoked marijuana were shown to be less likely to try to pass other cars and to drive at a consistent speed, according to a University of Adelaide study done in Australia. The study showed no danger unless the drivers had also been drinking alcohol. 4. Drivers high on marijuana were also shown to be less likely to drive in a reckless fashion, according to a study done in 2000 in the UK by the UK Transport Research Lab. The study was done using driver on driving simulators over a period of a month and was actually undertaken to show that pot was a cause for impairment, but instead it showed the opposite and confirmed that these drivers were actually much safer than some of the other drivers on the road. 5. States that allow the legal use of marijuana for medical reasons are noticing less traffic fatalities; for instance, in Colorado and Montana there has been a nine percent drop in traffic fatalities and a five percent drop in beer sales. The conclusion was that using marijuana actually has helped save lives! Medical marijuana is allowed in 16 states in the U.S. 6. Low doses of marijuana in a person’s system was found by tests in Canada in 2002 to have little effect on a person’s ability to drive a car, and that these drivers were in much fewer car crashes than alcohol drinkers. driving stoned 7. Most marijuana smokers have fewer crashes because they don’t even drive in the first place and just stay home thus concluded more than one of these tests on pot smoking and driving. 8. Marijuana smokers are thought to be more sober drivers. Traffic information from 13 states where medical marijuana is legal showed that these drivers were actually safer and more careful than many other drivers on the road. These studies were confirmed by the University of Colorado and the Montana State University when they compared a relationship between legal marijuana use and deaths in traffic accidents in those states. The studies done by a group called the Truth About Cars showed that traffic deaths fell nine percent in states with legal use of medical marijuana. (To view our study on Drunk Driving vs. Alcohol-Related Traffic Deaths, click here.) 9. Multiple studies showed that marijuana smokers were less likely to be risk takers than those that use alcohol. The studies showed that the marijuana calmed them down and made them actually pay more attention to their abilities.All of these tests and research studies showed that while some people think that marijuana is a major cause of traffic problems, in reality it may make the users even safer when they get behind the wheel! 10. Marijuana smoking drivers were shown to drive at prescribed following distances, which made them less likely to cause or have crashes. Every test seemed to come up with these same results in all of the countries they were done in. Even so, insurance companies will still penalize any driver in an accident that has been shown to have been smoking pot, so this doesn’t give drivers free reign to smoke pot and drive. So, the bottom line is that while alcohol has been shown in every single incident to have major problems and to have caused countless traffic crashes and fatalities, pot smoking overall has had none of these issues and in fact may make drivers pay more attention, drive slower and straighter and perhaps even stay home so they can’t be in an accident at all!