Met the Test and Passed Readily for the Internet

7/31/2019 Met the Test and Passed Readily for the Internet

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/met-the-test-and-passed-readily-for-the-internet 1/12

Mr. E. J. Krass, SoH

Just Call Me - Galileo II/Founder of the Unified College of MedicineSpokesperson for THE TRUTH BASED FREE Society and Its Realm

May 5, 2012

The Defender of The Faith, Queen of England/the british monarchy

Buckingham PalaceLondon SW1A 1AA

ENGLAND

RE: I met your tests and passed them readily with Fundamental Justice still being withheld by the

Judge Advocate General (Canada)

To Everyone:

1 The provided copy of the April 2, 2012 email on behalf of The Province of British

Columbia/The Confederation of Canada and its consenting to the reality that GREAT HARM was

done to me by order of the rule of law principle and those devoted to this “devil’s advocacy” and to

which I have responded with honesty and forthrightness AFFIRMS my credentials as Spokesperson

for THE FREE Society of Equals and The Mandate of Heaven.

2 In decades past, such individuals would have ready access to the reigning monarch

and the advice would be accepted without question because such individuals only speak when

directed by God and not at any monarch’s insistence or questioning.

3 This morning, the final and only question that can be posed of all persons was

presented to me. Jesus Christ, The Son of God, in Luke 16:13 presented words which can now be

used to formulate the most dominating of all questions.

4 In His Words, Jesus Christ, presented the concept that all mankind are “servants” or

born to serve someone or something.

Therefore, the natural question for all to answer is:

“Whom or what do you serve?”

5 Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms presented 2 distinct and separate

3929 Woodell Road, WESTBANK BC V4T 1E1 1

http://cid-76d01868d933a2ac.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/Summary%20and%20Peremptory%20Order/Title%20bestowed%20upon%20me.pdf

http://bible.cc/luke/16-13.htm







possibilities for the servitude of the people: The Supremacy of God or Ruling through the letter of

the law.

6 The actions and deeds of former premiers Gordon Campbell, Ralph Klein, Ed

Stelmach, Mike Harris as well as Prime Minister Stephen Harper dictate clearly that they are/were

devoted to the rule of law principle where the elected bodies are superior to God!

7 My words and actions affirm that I am devoted to The Truth/The Holy Spirit

and, therefore, The Supremacy of God . I also now accept that, in order to transition back to the

point where everyone will be loyal to The Supremacy of God , the rule of law principle can exist but

where no decision/opinion by a judge or adjudicator or administrator is valid unless the pure

fact Truth known to them, just as It should be to others, will define the decision READILY

because the pure facts and their Truth are The Holy Spirit which will produce its own

understanding of The Universe, both known and unknown. When such evidence is not forthcoming,

then, there can be no decision against the disenfranchised people or any such decision is MOOT.

8 Scientific Logic demanded and still demands that simple Truth based upon the pure

facts was to be the definer of the legitimacy of thought going forward.

9 The system knew this and has circumvented the pure fact Truth through the creation

of new administrative bodies/quasi-judicial entities that only produce lies that also apply to the law

courts but not The Court of Fundamental Justice where these lies, according to the omitted pure fact

Truth/BAD FAITH, are dismissed and The Holy Spirit’s Fundamental Justice MUST be upheld and

is binding on all thought going forward—the world was always round!

10 So, in my case, the law courts would have been forced to confine its thoughts to the

corrupt decision provided by the government agents just like all WCB personnel were bound to the

corruption of the elected bodies having taken over administrative decision making where the pure

fact Truth and knowing how to circumvent it was all that the quasi-judicial bodies as agents of the

governments know and actively told to do through the rule of law principle.








11 In my specific case, the governments’ knew and still know that my job injuries are

ongoing today but if and only if the physical examination of my right elbow and the accompanying

diagnosis from June 1989 are upheld as the pure fact Truth that it is and always was. According to

not just Exhibit “K” on The Petition File No. PO-001 with The Defender of The

Faith but now the April 2, 2012 email of consent – provided at the end of the mandatory 3 week

review period of my Form 34s, Requisitions of an Originating Fundamental Justice (Peremptory)

Order , the system finally acknowledge that it knowingly bore false witness to the events on my

job injuries (as well as other current corruption) thereby outright depriving me and numerous others

of the proper objective diagnosis of my job injuries and the demand of having to reverse these

injuries as well as eliminate future cases of overuse syndrome of the forearm/hand and shoulder -

security of person.

12 It is now cut-and-dried that “devil’s advocacy”/“reverse onus” was applied to me by

order of the rule of law for the purpose that I would have to represent the God’s Honest Truth to The

Court of Fundamental Justice as I have been attempting to do since June 2007 after the corruption

of the pure facts of my WCB file and its consequences for Everyone was fully made known to me.

13 Leah Greathead, according to the April 2, 2012 email, is an agent of The

Confederation of Canada—not just the province of british columbia but all provinces as

Fundamental Justice is the Great Unifier and applies Everywhere equally. With the provincial

government of British Columbia providing consent to the March 4, 16, 22 and 26, 2012 emails and

their attachments, meaning that there is no impediment to complying with the provided contracts,

why has Leah Greathead and The Court of Fundamental Justice refused to comply with

Fundamental Justice and sign and fulfill the contracts thereby allowing me to fulfill my destiny in

servitude to God Almighty and Jesus Christ?

14 Since April 17, 1982, the system has imposed, quietly, “devil’s advocacy” as a test

to see if The Comforter is here. Well, I can assure you, that reality is beyond question now!



http://www.scribd.com/doc/70969601/September-2011-Exhibits-K-and-Q










15 I passed your tests and produced The Supremacy of God Due Corrective Process

document where the new set of laws will have to have a Fundamental Justice Dictate in order keep

any and all given schemes which includes democracy; or else the law for the scheme and the

resulting scheme is dismissed once and for all and forevermore across The New British Empire.

16 Yes, it is going to take me 6 years not only to recover from my ongoing job injuries

but also to plant the seed of The Supremacy of God back in everyone’s minds.

17 By having been made loyal to mammon through the rule of law principle, many will

have to amend their ways because there is only one lifestyle for all mankind and what mankind has

wrought under democracy and the rule of law principle has DEFILED the natural order of this

planet and universe which God created— the prophecy of Luke 16:17 fulfilled.

18 S. 52(1) and s. 7 along with s. 24 (1) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms

DEMAND loyalty and devotion to The Principles of Fundamental Justice for all including the

elected bodies and the ultimate set of the rules of law. By creating and ordering the quasi-judicial

tribunals to play “devil’s advocate”, the entire society of Canada was destroyed since 1982 so that

God would send his final agent, prophet— The Comforter .

19 God has done as demanded by the corruption of the administrative decision making

imposed by the Confederation of Canada: the system that mankind created is meaningless and, as

been demonstrated numerous times, will fail and then needs to be cradled and nurtured by the

administration. Now, though, the system is dead and on life support—stagflation has set in on the

global economy as the final consequence of this corruption/moral hazard.

20 Thus, the devotion to mammon and its consequences are exposed and demands that

everyone including Christians now be asked:

“Whom or what do you serve?”










21 Everyone KNOWS where my loyalty lies.

22 But, clearly, there is a problem with The Court of Fundamental Justice because there

has been no contact with me from Leah Greathead concerning finalizing everything according to the

rules of the current system and its imposed contracts.

23 I have not done anything corrupt but, for some strange reason, the corrective approach

to the corruption remains to be brought to bear in this matter.

24 There is not doubt as to the ultimate outcome for democracy and the rule of law

principle without correction by The Holy Spirit within 6 years but there is also no doubt of the

current unreasonable outcome of DENIAL of The Truth and the GREAT HARM imposed upon me

by the corrupt policies of today while this GREAT HARM needs to be removed so as to allow me

my God Given Right to Fundamental Justice, finally, and my starting down the path towards my cure

and full recovery of my mature, healthy and kinetic human body.

25 The real problem for the rule of law principle in Canada is that it abolished

Everyone’s right to have their person’s injuries diagnosed PROPERLY and then cured when possible

and across all time while using this information to change work standards!

26 When Everyone finds out about this reality and how it DENIES Everyone their God

Given Legal Rights, there is going to be a lot of problems for the current system and those devoted

to abusing of the rule of law principle to fulfill their twisted agendas and how pure facts and its

evidence has been withheld from all thought so as to continue democracy all the while knowing full

well that democracy can only exist through the dismissal of The Supremacy of God and His Holy

Spirit concerning administrative decision making.

27 I am sick and tired of the run around that has arisen from the administrations’

DENIAL of not just Everyone’s Legal Rights but also the reality of Fundamental Justice where

simple correctness/incorrectness is grounds for dismissal of not just the corrupt administrative

decision but also the advisors to The Monarchy as has happened in the past and by The Defender of








The Faith where The Holy Spirit supports or repudiates the current advisors or the demand for their

being replaced with the proper Fundamental Justice Due Process.

28 With all the pure fact evidence RESOUNDINGLY SCREAMING that injustice has

been imposed on me through an administrative web of lies, deceit and deception and, on April 2,

2012, the administration consented to this Truth, why is Leah Greathead, the agent of the province

of British Columbia at The Court of Fundamental Justice, STILL refusing to comply with The

Principles of Fundamental Justice and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Constitution

because it has been thoroughly proven that, indeed, a monumental GREAT HARM befell me that

has originated from the rule of law principle and its reliance on The Supremacy of God Due

Corrective Process as the only means to correct this mess?

29 I did as was required by The Supremacy of God Due Corrective Process and made

the corruption known to The Judge Advocate General (Canada), the Confederation has relied by

admitting to its corruption (provided consent to the Form 34s, Requisitions for Originating

Fundamental Justice (Peremptory) Orders) and, yet, The Court of Fundamental Justice has now

made itself an impediment to the only appropriate and JUST REMEDY in the circumstances.

30 So, what is the purpose of The Court of Fundamental Justice in my circumstances

and nothing gets done: wrong is wrong while right is right, correct?

In The Name of Jesus Christ,

(signed copy sent and received by Buckingham Palace and copy sent to the Judge Advocate General CA)


Author of The Treatise on The Petition to the Court Due Legal ProcessGalileo II/Spokesperson for THE TRUTH BASED FREE SOCIETY Founder of the Unified College of Medicine

Petitioner on File No. PO-001 with The Defender of The Faith










PS The world has always been round, yet, in spite of the evidence many who are educated still don’t

know that the world is indeed round and any contention of flatness is a lie. I saw just how bad

the education system is in Los Angeles on Jay Leno’s Jaywalking All-stars a few years back

where the 2 youths in post-secondary education actually still believed that the world was flat

regardless of the accumulated objective evidence and it not being known to them, like the

pictures of the earth from the moon.

There is absolutely no difference between this frightening reality and the fact that tennis

elbow/lateral epicondylitis since the 1970's was firmly established objectively to be a serious and

significant physiological injury rather than the medical lie where the pain is not speaking and is

just your mind playing games with you so just work through it.

Countless times beyond my studies among the medical community have affirmed objectively that

lateral epicondylitis is due to the abnormal mental forced contraction of the mislabeled pronator

teres muscle whose sole responsibility is to contradict the motion of the radius placed upon it bycontraction of the biceps muscles, i.e. to return the bicipital tuberosity to where it resides on top

of the ulna.

In spite of all the evidence found in the medical journals since 2003, the administration is still

not allowing The Truth to be known to the world just so that mammon can be maintained as the

expense of Everyone’s Legal Rights especially those defined by The Principles of Fundamental

Justice where wrong is wrong and right supplants all that is wrong.

PPS After reflecting on these matters and who has the authority to withhold Fundamental Justice

at this point in time (with a consent email for the Confederation of Canada, i.e. admission of

checkmate) and the answer is Queen Elizabeth II. Leah Greathead and the Judge Advocate

General get their orders from the reigning Monarch who is Queen Elizabeth II which bydeduction and definition makes Queen Elizabeth II the current “devil’s advocate” just as Henry

VIII was to Sir Thomas More and his being loyal to God first and the king second or King

Edward I of England to his serfs under Quo Warranto where nobody has any God Given Rights

except if The Monarch accepts this/permits it. Without this acceptance, under Quo Warranto,

nobody has any God Given Legal Rights as established by The Magna Carta and s. 7 of

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which automatically dismisses Canada’s Charter

of Rights and Freedoms along with The Supremacy of God and which has been fully

established with The Supremacy of God Due Corrective Process that is now necessary because

the rule of law principle is being held as “divine” and “beyond reproach”.

As already presented, The Supremacy of God Due Corrective Process provides for utter cruel

and harsh treatment of all persons throughout the realms just as is ONGOING in my casewhere, although there is no opposition to finally Doing Right in my matters, Queen Elizabeth

has withheld her approval of compensation for my suffrage through this GREAT HARM

thereby extending it—NOT ending it.

I can make this deduction known without fear of reprisal because I’m already dead inside from

all this abuse and DENIAL of the authority of The Holy Spirit!






[email protected]

From: "AG LSB CSD Mail AG:EX" <[email protected]>Date: Monday, April 02, 2012 4:17 PMTo: <[email protected]>Subject: Your emails of March 4, 16, 22 and 26, 2012

Page 1 of 1

4/4/2012

Ernst Krass

Email: [email protected]

Your emails dated March 16, 22 and 26, 2012, addressed to the Minister of Justice andAttorney General, have been forwarded to me for response. I have also received a copy ofyour March 4, 2012 email to the Premier, and I am responding on behalf of both the Premierand the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

I note your views and concerns regarding a legal action that you have started against theGovernment of British Columbia. It would not be appropriate for the Minister of Justice andAttorney General to comment on a matter that is presently before the court.

Please send any further communications regarding this matter to Leah Greathead, a lawyer inthe Legal Services Branch who has conduct of this matter for the Province. She can bereached at the following address:

Leah GreatheadBarrister and SolicitorMinistry of Attorney GeneralLegal Services BranchPO Box 9280 Stn Prov GovtVictoria BC V8W 9J7

Sincerely,

Richard J. M. Fyfe, Q.C.Assistant Deputy Attorney General

pc: The Honourable Christy ClarkLeah Greathead



Donald Martin Appellant

v.

Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia and

Attorney General of Nova Scotia Respondents

and

Nova Scotia Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal,

Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups,

Canadian Labour Congress,Attorney General of Ontario,

Attorney General of British Columbia and

Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta Interveners

and between

Ruth A. Laseur Appellant

v.

Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia and

Attorney General of Nova Scotia Respondents

and

Nova Scotia Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal,

Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups,

Canadian Labour Congress,

Attorney General of Ontario,Attorney General of British Columbia andWorkers' Compensation Board of Alberta Interveners

Indexed as: Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers'

Compensation Board) v. Laseur

Neutral citation: 2003 SCC 54.

File Nos.: 28372, 28370.

2002: December 9; 2003: October 3.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and

Deschamps JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR NOVA SCOTIA

1

Exhibit "AA"



pain provisions did not demean the human dignity of the claimants and thus did not violate s.

15(1) of the Charter.

Held: The appeals should be allowed. Section 10B of the Act and the Regulations in their

entirety infringe s. 15(1) of the Charter and the infringement is not justified under s. 1. The

challenged provisions are of no force or effect by operation of s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act,

1982. The general declaration of invalidity is postponed for six months from the date of this judgment. In M's case, the decision rendered by the Appeals Tribunal is reinstated. L's case is

returned to the Board.

The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and, by virtue of s. 52(1) of the Constitution

Act, 1982, the question of constitutional validity inheres in every legislative enactment. From this principle of constitutional supremacy flows, as a practical corollary, the idea that Canadians

should be entitled to assert the rights and freedoms that the Constitution guarantees them in the

most accessible forum available, without the need for parallel proceedings before the courts. To

allow an administrative tribunal to decide Charter issues does not undermine the role of the courts

as final arbiters of constitutionality in Canada. Administrative tribunal decisions based on the

Charter are subject to judicial review on a correctness standard. In addition, the constitutional

remedies available to administrative tribunals are limited and do not include general declarationsof invalidity. A determination by a tribunal that a provision of its enabling statute is invalid

pursuant to the Charter is not binding on future decision-makers, within or outside the tribunal's

administrative scheme. Only by obtaining a formal declaration of invalidity by a court can alitigant establish the general invalidity of a legislative provision for all future cases.

The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Appeals Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to

consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Act and the Regulations.

Administrative tribunals which have jurisdiction, explicit or implied, to decide questions of law

arising under a legislative provision are presumed to have concomitant jurisdiction to decide the

constitutional validity of that provision. In applying this approach, there is no need to draw any

distinction between "general" and "limited" questions of law. Explicit jurisdiction must be found

in the terms of the statutory grant of authority. Implied jurisdiction must be discerned by lookingat the statute as a whole. Relevant factors will include the statutory mandate of the tribunal inissue and whether deciding questions of law is necessary to fulfilling this mandate effectively; the

interaction of the tribunal in question with other elements of the administrative system; whether

the tribunal is adjudicative in nature; and practical considerations, including the tribunal's

capacity to consider questions of law. Practical considerations, however, cannot override a

clear implication from the statute itself. The party alleging that the tribunal lacks

jurisdiction to apply the Charter may rebut the presumption by pointing to an explicit

withdrawal of authority to consider the Charter; or by convincing the court that an

examination of the statutory scheme clearly leads to the conclusion that the legislature

intended to exclude the Charter (or a category of questions that would include the Charter,

such as constitutional questions generally) from the scope of the questions of law to be

addressed by the tribunal. Such an implication should generally arise from the statute itself,rather than from external considerations. To the extent that Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights

Commission), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, is inconsistent with this approach, it should no longer be

relied upon.

The Appeals Tribunal could properly consider and decide the Charter issue raised in this case.

The legislature expressly conferred on the Appeals Tribunal the authority to decide questions of

3



Freedoms?

2 If the answer to question # 1 is yes, does such infringement constitute a reasonable limit

prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1 of

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

V. Analysis

A. Jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal to Apply the Charter

1. The Policy Adopted by this Court in the Trilogy

27 This Court has examined the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals to consider the

constitutional validity of a provision of their enabling statute in Douglas College, supra, Cuddy

Chicks, supra, and Tétreault-Gadoury, supra (together, the "trilogy"). On each occasion, the Court

emphasized the strong reasons, of principle as well as policy, for allowing administrative

tribunals to make such determinations and to refuse to apply a challenged provision found to

violate the Constitution.

28 First, and most importantly, the Constitution is, under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act,

1982, "the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the

Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect". The invalidity of alegislative provision inconsistent with the Charter does not arise from the fact of its being

declared unconstitutional by a court, but from the operation of s. 52(1). Thus, in principle, such a

provision is invalid from the moment it is enacted, and a judicial declaration to this effect is but

one remedy amongst others to protect those whom it adversely affects. In that sense, by virtue of

s. 52(1), the question of constitutional validity inheres in every legislative enactment. Courts may

not apply invalid laws, and the same obligation applies to every level and branch of government,

including the administrative organs of the state. Obviously, it cannot be the case that every

government official has to consider and decide for herself the constitutional validity of every

provision she is called upon to apply. If, however, she is endowed with the power to consider questions of law relating to a provision, that power will normally extend to assessing theconstitutional validity of that provision. This is because the consistency of a provision with the

Constitution is a question of law arising under that provision. It is, indeed, the most fundamental

question of law one could conceive, as it will determine whether the enactment is in fact valid

law, and thus whether it ought to be interpreted and applied as such or disregarded.

29 From this principle of constitutional supremacy also flows, as a practical corollary, the idea

that Canadians should be entitled to assert the rights and freedoms that the Constitution

guarantees them in the most accessible forum available, without the need for parallel proceedings

before the courts: see Douglas College, supra, at pp. 603-604. In La Forest J.'s words, "there

cannot be a Constitution for arbitrators and another for the courts" (Douglas College, supra, at p.

597) This accessibility concern is particularly pressing given that many administrative tribunalshave exclusive initial jurisdiction over disputes relating to their enabling legislation, so that

forcing litigants to refer Charter issues to the courts would result in costly and time-consuming

bifurcation of proceedings. As McLachlin J. (as she then was) stated in her dissent in Cooper,supra, at para. 70:

15

D FAITH/ vil's

vocacy"



119 As the appellants point out, the policies that used to provide for individualized assessment

of impairment in chronic pain cases have been repealed following the enactment of the

challenged provisions of the Act and the FPR Regulations. Therefore, giving immediate effect to

the declaration of invalidity of these provisions could result in prejudice to injured workers

affected by chronic pain, as the Board would then have no specific policies or provisions to rely

on in such cases. While some default or residuary provisions of the Act and of the regulations as

well as policies of the Board might apply, the results would likely be inconsistent, given theconsiderable discretion which would be left to the Board in chronic pain cases. The default rules

might even prevent certain chronic pain sufferers from receiving any benefits, as was the case for

Ms. Laseur. Allowing the challenged provisions to remain in force for a limited period of time

would preserve the limited benefits of the current program until an appropriate legislative

response to chronic pain can be implemented. Therefore, as the appellants requested, it isreasonable to postpone the general declaration of invalidity for six months from the date of this

judgment: see Schachter, supra.

120 This postponement, of course, does not affect the appellants' cases. Mr. Martin is clearly

entitled to the benefits he has been claiming, as the challenged provisions stood as the only

obstacle to his claims. I would thus reinstate the judgment rendered by the Appeals Tribunal in

the Martin case on January 31, 2000.

121 The Appeals Tribunal, however, refused to grant permanent impairment benefits to Ms.

Laseur because she did not challenge the constitutionality of the applicable guidelines, whichattributed a permanent impairment rating of 0% to her injuries. In my view, it is appropriate to

return Ms. Laseur's case to the Board for reconsideration on the basis of the subsisting provisions

of the Act and the applicable regulations and policies. I note that, if Ms. Laseur elects to raise the

constitutionality of the permanent impairment guidelines, the Board will be obliged to consider

and decide the issue in accordance with the present reasons.

122 I would answer the constitutional questions as follows:

1 Do s. 10B of the Workers' Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10, as amended, and theFunctional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services) Program Regulations, N.S. Reg. 57/96infringe the equality rights guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms?

Yes.

2 If the answer to question # 1 is yes, does such infringement constitute a reasonable limit

prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1 of

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

No.

ANNEX: RELEVANT LEGISLATION

Workers' Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10

10A In this Act, "chronic pain" means pain

41

DENIAL of Everyone's God Given LEGAL Rightsapplies to THE FREE Society of Equals and The

Supremacy of God which is the sole appropriateand JUST standard! Everything else is fictionused TO DENY The Truth/The Holy Spirit.

s. 24 (1) of The Charter presents bothinfringement and DENIAL that nobodybut me knows applies to all provisionsof all enactments and also themandates of all schemes/agencieswith DENIAL being the only legitimate

t d d f t !

Documents

Met the Test and Passed Readily for the Internet