Angel Ronan Entwerfen™ Firm Litigation; Journal, Intellectual Property with the Real George™.

On John Maynard Keynes. Written by Oswald Sussex House-Squatting Click here. Any country that can't figure out the following details on its own and just pay it's citizens the income support is just a jewel of inhumanity. Jamaica is not submissive but unruly economically speaking. In 2025, they are working to ameliorate this. Europe has a benefit for everyone. They argue with the vehemence of any Trench Town or Eastham 1930's ruffian to say life in Jamaica can never be genocide because you can bathe in the ocean and eat a mango in Hope Gardens. We do not agree. That is not dignity. Why does Jamaica "Trench Town" argue? This is changing and it will have an income support program comparable to The Caymans. But, whether you understood how it worked or not, you would have been best to just follow your European forebears instead of deciding to be a sad English upstart from the more uncivilized West( England, Canada or the Caribbean); about how you do it in Trench Town. So, the idea then is to pay a full, life saving benefit to all citizens regardless of what they own or have. It is an unconditional citizens benefit. But, in the UK we have seen a tendency towards cutting the benefits during the greatest upswings in the use of robotics and industrial automation and some how when most countries are increasing benefits, guaranteeing them, you are leaving the European expectation behind in the argument that you are trying to save money. So, the Europeans are not doing this in light of Automation but solidifying the benefit. What are you doing as English; as you are chastened by the radioed fruit technology to tell us who you really are; Samfie man from South Africa maybe and Jamaica. Emotions can be inherited. Jamaica was founded; not by one explorer but a boat load of them (decoyed by the notion of the one Christopher Columbus) that were really on the way to Puerto Rico who were ship wrecked on the island when their captain died and seem to want you, the Lord or Father, if you take that role, to come and feed them; come and do the work yourself? But, its not so difficult. Take the sales tax and pay some as the income support benefit and you will do it. Emotions can be inherited. A "samfie man" is a conman, swindler, or trickster, especially one who claims to have supernatural powers. The term originates from Jamaica and is believed to have West African roots. It's also the title of a song by The Pioneers. Definition & Origin Con Artist/Swindler: A "samfie man" is a confidence trickster or someone who deceives others for personal gain. Supernatural Claims: In Jamaica, the term specifically refers to a conman who pretends to possess magical or supernatural abilities. West African Roots: The word's origins are uncertain but are thought to come from a West African language. They say that John Maynard Keynes is the only individual who won WW2. Before the war, he decided to show submission, submit, and feed back to the country as a theory, in the deeper theory, economically what was being done in practice. That was to "do nothing"; not even imitate the Swiss or the Swedish. He became the de facto power( not the politicians) and chose to live in some tropical Commonwealth country and helped to write the UDHR. The Monarch remains in charge of the heraldic image on the coin or paper currency nonetheless and other notable business of state. But, do not worry about Keynes. You have your authority to run your economy in England or Canada etc and you should "do something" like input the income support numbers necessary as to be paid to every citizen to enjoy your life; not be sad or shameful very happy. In the year 2025, 10 pence a minute($52560.00 pounds annually) in the UK and 20 cents a minute($105,120.00 annually) in Canada is recommended as paid every minute and every hour; 365 days per year. to achieve the yearly income support amount. This calculation helps us understand the comparable kilowatt minute or hour cost for the robotic labor. This fraction compensates the population for the billons of tax dollars given to industries as "no payment" loans etc or grants to robotically automate the work processes. It is the money or energy invested to kind of automate money provided to people as consumers that constitute the "demand" side of the economy with this small fractional amount to purposefully balance out the billions spent on the "supply" side of the economy.

The Three Kings...

They tried to use the Court to hide the fraud against Vandenberg. He who comes to the table of equity must come with clean hands. Warren won. Vandenberg won. She is the owner of the property and still remains the owner. We are concerned about this judgement appearing on Canlii since it is incorrect. We did not appear before the Court in May. Cheek v. Vanden Berg, 2012 ONCA 285 (CanLII) Court of Appeal for Ontario 2012-05-01 | 1 page AI-generated Appeal Practice and procedure Civil procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — Res judicata — Default judgment The Court of Appeal Vandenberg judgement has been updated to ensure no fraud is perpetrated with the assistance of an Appeal Court. Warren A. Lyon is the Barrister and Solicitor on file. The issue with Spence J's judgement is that there is no mortgage to be paid by Vandenberg. She is the owner of the property. Did the Court verify of there was any mortgage registered. So the judgment on March 11, 2011 should not have been a denial. The motion was denied in error by Spence J. on the basis that Ms. Vanden Berg had not moved promptly to set aside the default judgment once she learned about it in October 2010, and in any event, there was no defence on the merits as the mortgages were in default. She says she was self represented and was not sure how to proceed. All Court files are public record. But, you cannot steal them. In this case, "Angel Ronan" was assisting the client in getting a review of an order and nothing further. She was denied a Motion date before a Motions Court scheduling Judge as she sought a date to either appeal or review the order. Why would you deny her a date when you do not know what facts or information she intended to provide to the Court? She probably needed professional assistance but you cannot deny her a date. It is not res judicata. She is providing new facts and information. You can decide if it's Res Judicata after the hearing her new motion. She needed a date either way and as it was denied, she sought a hearing before the Court of Appeal. Default Judgements are customarily set aside due to unfortunate abuses of the process by the Plaintiff with chicanery to defeat genuine service of the original claim. Once brought to the attention of the Defendant that their was an attempt at a default Judgement by the claimant and they still have not seen the claim, the default is set aside and time to enter the statement of defence is provided. It was a FSBO and she still owns the land anyway since the Claimant was really trying to underpay by $90,000.00 on the FSBO agreement of purchase and sale. They filed a claim against her, pretending to be the owner and alleged she was not paying the mortgage; that, instead, the defendant owed them for unpaid mortgage money. The whole claim of the Cheeks was purposed with fraud to facade the written and enforceable agreement between the parties, take the land and attempt to obtain it for $90,000.00 less than what was agreed. She had only asked us to help her with the motion scheduling Court. This other information was not provided. That was the purpose of her request before the Court of Appeal. The date was successful to give air to her situation. Vandenberg, who is still the owner, can order the current, illegal occupants to vacate. Warren and Angel Ronan helps. Click here for more. This brief attendance confirms that an appeal was possible even if it was considered Res Judicata by some. One carrot is worth 300 ms of flight time Prions 2 ENERGY™. But, every order is Res Judicata; right? No; it is not. You can't suggest that leave of the Court to review an order is estopped. We agree to let the Judge decide but let the litigants have their date as requested for an appeal or a Rule 59.06 review. Yet, you can appeal the matter. In addition to an appeal, a review based on new facts and evidence is available to the litigant under rule 59 as this Appeal Court confirmed during the hearing. Rule 59. 06 states as follows: AMENDING, SETTING ASIDE OR VARYING ORDER Amending 59.06 (1) An order that contains an error arising from an accidental slip or omission or requires amendment in any particular on which the court did not adjudicate may be amended on a motion in the proceeding. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.06 (1). Setting Aside or Varying (2) A party who seeks to, (a) have an order set aside or varied on the ground of fraud or of facts arising or discovered after it was made; (b) suspend the operation of an order; (c) carry an order into operation; or (d) obtain other relief than that originally awarded, may make a motion in the proceeding for the relief claimed. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.06 (2). The problem is being denied a date before a trial scheduling court for either an Appeal or your rightfully requested motion under rule 59.06. it's just that before and after the Court of Appeal date in February of 2012, we do not know what new information the litigant intended to bring forward in a rule 59.06 motion if the date was granted by the Trial Scheduling Court Judge. The Court of Appeal on February 13 was set to address a trial/Motion Scheduling issue and not the substantive issue or the new information the client wanted the Court to consider. On the scheduling issue, a date was required and ought to be granted. This is an appealable issue that could be heard and remedied by the Court of Appeal; itself or the Supreme Court of Canada. She would win on appeal. The substantive issue was not heard on February 13th. The new information on a 59.06 motion was not heard either. All Court files are public record. Bit, you cannot steal them. In this case, "Angel Ronan" was assisting the client in getting a review of an order and nothing further. She was denied a date before a trial or Motions Court scheduling Judge as she sought a date to either appeal or review the order. She needed a date either way and as it was denied, she sought a hearing before the Court of Appeal. This brief attendance confirms that an appeal was possible even if it was considered Res Judicata by some. One carrot is worth 300 kms of flight time with Poo Power™. But, every order is Res Judicata; right? You can't suggest that leave of the Court to review an order is estopped. We agree to let the Judge decide but let the litigants have their date as requested for an appeal or a Rule 59.06 review. Yet, you can appeal the matter. In addition to an appeal, a review based on new facts and evidence is available to the litigant under rule 59 as this Appeal Court confirmed during the hearing. Rule 59. 06 states as follows: AMENDING, SETTING ASIDE OR VARYING ORDER Amending 59.06 (1) An order that contains an error arising from an accidental slip or omission or requires amendment in any particular on which the court did not adjudicate may be amended on a motion in the proceeding. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.06 (1). Setting Aside or Varying (2) A party who seeks to, (a) have an order set aside or varied on the ground of fraud or of facts arising or discovered after it was made; (b) suspend the operation of an order; (c) carry an order into operation; or (d) obtain other relief than that originally awarded, may make a motion in the proceeding for the relief claimed. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.06 (2). The problem is being denied a date before a trial scheduling court for either an Appeal or your rightfully requested motion under rule 59.06. For instance, in a similar case I have from Welwyn Garden City, there was the owner of the farm falsely sued as the debtor by the fraudster buyer refusing to pay the last sum but no one would really hear her as the real owner so she was forced to respond in what was really a fraud on the Court. She was the owner but being sued by a potential buyer as if the owner was the mortgagee who failed to pay. Would the Courts aid and abet a fraud by refusing to hear the woman in Court and refusing a rule 59.06 motion date? instance, in a similar case I have from Welwyn Garden City, was the the debtor or the owner of the farm falsely sued as the debtor by the hopeful buyer refusing to pay the last sum but no one would really hear her as the real owner so she was forced to respond in what was really a fraud on the Court. Would the Courts aid and abet a fraud by refusing to hear the woman in Court and refusing a rule 59.06 motion date? The Court of Appeal Vandenberg judgement has been updated to ensure no fraud is perpetrated with the assistance of an Appeal Court. Warren A. Lyon is the Barrister and Solicitor on file. On the facts before the court that are few without full filings and affidavits of documents, as stated before the learned judges in an analogous case, granting default judgment in the main action would be unjust without a purposeful consideration of the defendant’s triable defence with reasons. Nobosoft Corporation v. No Borders, Inc., 2007 ONCA 444 Nobosoft Corporation v. No Borders, Inc., 2007 ONCA 444. There is nothing Res Judicata if it's a default judgement except whether the Defendant was truly served with the Claim. We only have affidavits of service. This is the real issue. The statement of claim and also the statement of defence fail to provide all the facts. The Court has no facts yet except affidavits of service. There is no evidence for a a Res Judicata ruling at the administrative stage except to say she was not served or that she was served. Genuinely, the facts indicate she was not served. There are too many fraudulent motives circulating around this matter. See MOKHTAR CHEIKH v. DESJARDINS SÉCURITÉ FINANCIÈR also in the summary judgement cases where it says, even at summary judgement, On the facts before us, granting summary judgment in the main action without trial in cases involving a mortgage would be unjust. The Court's only agenda is justice; not racial hegemony or class hegemony. The Court should not be used to perpetrate a property speculation fraud, asserting the false ownership of the persons who filed the Statement of Claim. Again, it was not served. She first heard of the Claim at the default judgement hearing. If there are new facts that will help, the Court wants and needs to hear them and all the information. This does not happen until we have facts. A properly convened Court able to adjudicate the new facts will decide how and if the new facts impinge on the matter. For instance, you have new information that says a Chisolom drunk driver was really driving the vehicle as there was a dashboard camera confirming he was in care and control at the time of the accident or when he was pulled over. The camera indicates instead that he was not in the driver's seat when pulled over but that he was driving that day when seen swerving across lanes. There is no such camera evidence; however. This will mean he is not only indictable for DUI but he may be liable in Tort for the related car accident or maybe he really wasn't driving. He really wasn't driving. But, the trial scheduling Court cannot decide you have no new facts when the full motion with affidavit is not filed yet. The motions Judge will adjudicate the evidence and subject matter of the motion; not the Trial Scheduling Court Judge. This is our concern here under filing 40683. You cannot brush all of It under a rug and the aspects of justice by saying something Latin. If there are no new facts after hearing the motion, then it is Res Judicata. The only issue before the Court at this stage was whether she was duly served but insufficient information to satisfy the triable issue as to the debt and the payment. The plaintiff attempted to make themself owner in the Court Filing. We helped her get another appearance before the Court and find the appropriate forum. The real issue was heard again by the Court to also ensure the litigant understood the nature of her dealings with the respondent. It was a mortgage in default and if it took another Court date to hear this plainly from a Senior Court, it was our pleasure to help the litigant obtain her requested and additional Court date; the date she requested to hear the Court confirm the details of the contractual mortgage arrangement again. The litigant insisted that she should have a right to understand her circumstance and the claim made against her. This is clear on the evidence of the Judgement you read here as set out below. We were happy to help. It looks like the Court had written another judgment, granting Vandenberg the relief she sought. Click here. Read below.

ASHURST MORRIS CRISP