Wednesday, July 17, 2013

My Affidavit to the Appeal Court

Here's the Affidavit I'm working on to go along with my Motion For Directions to the Appeal Court. It's very hard to know what the inner twin world want from me... do I go ahead with the Appeal or do I back down?!





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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. THAT this Affidavit is provided in lieu of the certificate of readiness in support of the motion for directions.

  1. 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:
  1. I certify to the Court, that the Supreme Court appealed from has issued formal orders.
  2. I certify to the Court, that I have a paper copy of written decisions under appeal.
  1. 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)
  1. 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:

Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment
Section 10: right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus

Section 12: right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment

Section 14: rights to an interpreter in a court proceeding

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:

  1. 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.
  1. 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,
Note this excerpt from John Hightower's wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Hightower:
John Brantley Hightower (May 23, 1933 - July 6, 2013)
Note his date of birth information re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_23:
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