C.A. No 415635
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
May
Ocean Plaintiff
- and –
Economical
Mutual Insurance Company of Canada
And
Raymond Patrick Sullivan Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I May
Ocean of Halifax Co, Nova Scotia, hereby make oath and say as
follows:
- THAT I am the Appellant/ Self Representative in this proceeding, and have personal knowledge of the matters involved except where I specifically state as based upon information and belief.
- THAT I state, in this affidavit, the source of any information that is not based on my own personal knowledge, and I state my belief of the source.
- THAT I am unable to comply with the Civil Procedure Rule which states:
90.26 (1) Except as provided in Rule 90.26(4), an
appellant must file a certificate of readiness in Form 90.26 in
support of the motion for directions no less than four days before
the day the motion is to be heard.
- THAT this Affidavit is filed in accordance Civil Procedure Rule 90.26 (4):
90.26
(4) An appellant who is unable to comply with Rule 90.26 (1) must
file an affidavit in support of the motion for directions,
explaining the omission.
- THAT this Affidavit is provided in lieu of the certificate of readiness in support of the motion for directions.
- THAT I am able to comply with the following sections as found in Civil Procedure Rule 90.26 (2) :
(a) the court appealed from has issued a
formal order
(b) the appellant has paper copies of the
written decisions under appeal,
(f) the appellant will be able to file
the appeal book by a specified date.
As such, I comply as follows:
- I certify to the Court, that the Supreme Court appealed from has issued formal orders.
- I certify to the Court, that I have a paper copy of written decisions under appeal.
- I anticipate being able to file the Appeal Book in this matter no later than January 10, 2014 (this date could change depending on my the information and request in this Affidavit)
- THAT my reasons for not being able to comply as per #6 above is as follows:
The Trial tapes, transcripts, etc… for the Appeal Book
as per Civil Procedure Rule 90.26 (2) (c)(d),
requires the Appellant to foot this bill, which I am unable to do.
The past 13 + years of fighting this battle has drained me physically
and financially. Prior to the motor vehicle accident of 2000, my
company that I started 22 years ago, OceanArt Pewter Canada Limited
(Herein OceanArt) had generated close to $1,000,000 in sales during
1999, and employed up to 20 employees, myself included. Today, I am
the sole employee and I do not take out an income (see
attached as
Exhibit “A”:
Canada Revenue Agency’s Notice of Assessment in regards to my
income in 2012; and
Exhibit “B”,
copies of OceanArts Deposit book.
I have sold all of my personal assets except my flagging
business, as a means of funding my case with the Supreme Court and
subsequent Appeals.
OceanArt’s property-- land/building recently sold in
order to pay off the portion
of existing company debt that threatened bankruptcy. Previous
to this, OceanArt sold its vehicle, leaving my company and I reliant
on others for transportation .
For the record: Associate Chief Justice Deborah K. Smith
refused my request to reset the first trial date so that it would be
just 3 months later, a
move that would have enabled me to tend to my usual Christmas retail
markets. For over 20 years, my company had attended retail Christmas
craft shows held in select Canadian cities. OceanArt bookkeeper
Denise Sooley provided an Affidavit revealing the dire finances and
still, ACJ Smith refused to accommodate my reasonable request. As
such, my company which was already in a triage was dealt another
major blow-- losing a major source of income. This caused OceanArt
to spiral further, to the extent that funds necessary to book into
the upcoming Christmas retail shows were not available.
Presently,
I am in a common law relationship with Cathy E. Bennett (Herein
“Cathy”), who is a self employed carpenter. She does not have
sufficient income to finance this court battle (see
attached as Exhibit “C”,
Canada Revenue Agency’s Notice of Assessment in regards to Cathy’s
income in 2012), and nor is she willing
to finance this Appeal (see attached as
Exhibit “D”
sworn affidavit of Cathy Bennett stating to this affect).
Should
the Appeal Court require more concrete proof as to my financial
status by way of professional/arms length
audit of my business and is willing to fund such an endeavour, I will
gladly assist where I can.
Before
continuing with my proposal as mentioned above, I ask that the Appeal
Court consider the following rights and Freedoms:
Legal
rights: rights of
people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement,
namely:
Equality
rights:
section
15: equal
treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and
benefit of the law without discrimination.
Extenuating
circumstances surround this case, some of which has been broached in
the Notice of Appeal, leaves me with no alternative that I’m aware
of, except to self represent. Because I have no background in
legal/judicial matters, I am at a serious disadvantage, the most
stressful of which is the Courts tendency to speak “another
language”: using typical English words
where “other” meaning is applied, essentially creating a
stumbling block for lay litigants. I have experienced this first
hand, and as documented in the court record by way of my 2009 Appeal
Book. Note the following excerpt from
Citation: Ocean v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 NSCA 81,
where the Appeal Judges state the following:
[22] As
Ms. Ocean explained at the time of those hearings, she had researched
the limitation issue as best she could as a lay litigant and found
law which she understood to say that limitations do not run against
minors and others who are “incapable of advancing a claim
during the relevant time”.
The
“law” as mentioned in [22] above was obtained from a volume set
at Dalhousie University’s Law Library entitled “Halsbury
Canadian Law”. This Legal Text was the
only concise, easy to follow and as a result,
suitable for lay litigants, available
in this library and where I found law
stating that “Limitation Law” could be over ridden if one could
prove that they were “Incapable” at
the time.
Unknowing
to me at the time, the word “incapable” is “Legally” defined
as “insane”?!
The
Legal definition of “incapable” is contrary to how regular
English dictionaries define this word. If “insane” is what legal
texts want to convey, then the word “INSANE” should be used?!
This stumbling block bogs down lay litigants, and it's not the only
one. Given the valuable time; energy and money spent toward my
2009 Appeal, a greater injustice and injury was dealt when the Appeal
Court failed to adequately compensate me for having won this Appeal
and for denying my request for a new Judge to be assigned to my case.
I would
like the Appeal Court to consider a proposal that is in keeping with
justice and democratic process that can remedy this situation.
There is enough proof to be found simply as a matter of Record—
Internet Materials, Documents, Trial Exhibits, sworn Affidavits,
etc., all of which pertains to my case, and adequately proves that
the third party as mentioned in my Notice of Appeal was involved in
the Motor Accident of 2000 (Herein “the MVA”), and that ACJ Smith
refused to allow this third party to come forward in the only way
possible-- via my Expert Report that contains valuable Research down
loaded to my Toumai and Pronoiasecret Blogs that reveal a vast array
of ongoing “pattern-clusters”. ACJ Smith, by denying this
information to come forward has resulted in my case being jeopardized
and justice thwarted. It is not my goal and nor is it necessary to
prove ACJ Smith's motive in
this matter, it's only necessary
that I prove that ACJ Smith acted in a manner contrary to our
Democracy and contrary to Justice.
Circumstances
are such that I fear bringing the truth forward in regards to what I
reference as “inner twin's”
and the “inner twin world”--
who are the third party involved in the MVA. It goes without saying
that the first impulse is to consider that I am a lunatic, however on
examining the evidence it will become clear that I am correct in this
regard, which then brings me to another fear – that the reaction
from the general public will not be favourable and retaliation akin
to “witch hunts” of old may occur among those who perceive this
truth as a threat. On the other hand, my inner twin and the inner
twin world have made it abundantly clear that unless I “cooperate”
with them, they will retaliate by wrecking havoc in my life and those
close to me, and as they have done in the past. If I do not bring
the proof forward that implicates the inner twin world's involvement
in the MVA and revealing to their conspiracy, then they will
retaliate. Under these circumstances, it is within my Legal Rights
to expect that the Appeal Court will make haste in examining the
evidence pertaining to the threat posed by my/our inner twins: aka
the inner twin world (Herein referred to as “the threat”), first
and foremost. Furthermore, it is an injustice to expect me to deal
with the various other aspects relating to this appeal while “the
threat” looms.
Given
the precedent set by ACJ Smith and the previous Appeal Judges (as per
my earlier Appeal), bifurcation and even trifurcation is “allowed”
within the judicial forum. Given this, it is safe for me to assume
that my request as per the above is within my rights and that the
Appeal Book can be produced and examined in sections, with the first
one to deal solely with the most important: “the threat”.
I
believe that it is within my rights to present my case as I see fit
and especially given that it is supported by the Civil Procedure
Rule:
- These Rules are for the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every proceeding.
I ask
that the Appeal Court consider the toll of this legal action that
stems from a motor vehicle accident that occurred 13 years ago and
that the duress and prolonged stress from this understandably has an
affect on my health. Recently, on April 22, 2013, I was admitted to
the Q.E. II Hospital for an emergency appendectomy (diagnosis by Dr.
Livingstone, and Dr. Topp performing the surgery). Since the
operation and while recovering, I’ve been put through a number of
medical tests due to “irregular” cells showing up in test
results. On July 17, 2013 I have another appointment with a medical
Specialist who will then determine “how fast
the irregular cells are multiplying and how to proceed”.
My understanding is that this is a
preliminary
to cancer staging. I’m concerned with
how much longer my body can handle the duress and so am hoping that a
way can be found for this Appeal to precede at a pace that takes into
consideration my health and as such better ensures that justice is
had at the end of the day.
I ask
that the Appeal Court consider Civil Procedure Rule 1.1 in
conjunction with mitigating circumstances, that warrant an immediate
examination of the evidence: “the threat”. This can easily be
done by going to the internet where I have downloaded my
research/evidence on my Blogs. I suggest beginning with my
“Pronoiasecret” blog and in particular my January 30, 2013 post
via the link immediately below, and then continue reading each post
from that point to the present:
It is
essential that the evidence/research as found in this blog be viewed
on the internet in order to easily connect with the links, references
and evidence found in each post. I ask that the Appeal Court
consider this excerpt from my Research as a small example of the
inner twin world's “coming out” and “communication” process
that involves their generating what “appears” to be ordinary
“coincidence” and “accidents” (my MVA included), but which
are purposely generated via inner twins who have the uncanny ability
to influence my/our thoughts and actions without our being aware
hence generating what I refer to as “pattern-clusters”.
The following is just one small example of what I refer to as the
“Top WWI Aces / 111” pattern-cluster:
- The Red Baron (2 May 1892 – 21 April 1918), German pilot and top ace of World War. The Red Baron died on the 111th day of the year.
- Billy" Bishop (8 February 1894 - 11 September 1956), top Canadian ace in World War I, died on the day where 111 days remain until the end of the year.
- Source References for the above statistics:
The date of 9/11 factoring in with
the above, is significant not only because of the pattern-cluster,
but because of the 9/11 connection to the 2001 Terrorist strike on
the “Twin” Towers of New York City. This is significant.
As pertaining my recent blog post
re
http://pronoiasecrets.blogspot.ca/2013/07/john-b-hightower-riip-magdalenes-low.html,
note the following:
Wikipedia's
Deaths
in 2013
site
added under its July 6th list :
John B. Hightower,
John Brantley Hightower (May 23, 1933 - July 6, 2013)
May 23 is the 143rd day of the year (144th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. There are 222 days remaining until the end of the year.
222
days remain in the year at the last stroke of midnight on May 22nd
until the last stroke of midnight on May 23rd!!
Just
prior to the above post, my July 4, 2013 post includes a mention of
the Purdy's Wharf “twin” towers here in Halifax. Note the “twin”
numbers contained in the statistical information pertaining to
Purdy's Wharf re
http://www.emporis.com/statistics/tallest-buildings-halifax-canada:
#
|
Building
|
City
|
Images
|
Floors
|
Height
|
Year
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2
|
22
|
88
m
|
1985
|
||||
Note
as well, both law firms hired by Economical to battle my legal action
are located at Purdy's Wharf, with Stewart
McKelvey at Tower I and McInnis Cooper at Tower II
List
of Attachments:
- Exhibit “A”: Canada Revenue Agency’s Notice of Assessment re income of May Ocean in 2012
- Exhibit “B”, excerpt/copies of OceanArts Deposit book.
- Exhibit “C”, Canada Revenue Agency’s Notice of Assessment in regards to Cathy Bennett's income in 2012)
- Exhibit “D” sworn affidavit of Cathy Bennett
SWORN
TO at Halifax Regional Municipality,
Province
of Nova Scotia, this ________ day of
_________________________, 2013
)
)
)
)
______________________________
_____________________________
Commissioner of Oaths
Applicant and Self Represented Party
May Ocean
No comments:
Post a Comment