Captain Deryl Zeleny: Update 14 July 2013
Hi Everybody,
This is the next installment in Deryl’s up-close and personal investigation of the corruption inside the Canadian legal and financial systems.
When we last spoke to Deryl he had just been released from jail where he was being held in an attempt to coerce him into accepting a severe suppression order to silence him.
This update covers his success in the subsequent hearing where the charges against him were dismissed bar one very minor infraction, and also granted the right to challenge the banks over their claim of ownership for his property. .
Enjoy!
Chris Hales
Could a techy person check this out please? I’ve tried to listen on two separate sites already, and Chris sounds like a transformer in slomo, which is great for taking notes (if time allows, that is). This recording appears to be compromised… (NOT surprisingly),on this particular site (i-uv.com), i’m getting no sound @ all from this Zeleny interview. Checked my speakers, etc., works fine on everything else…thx again,
Deryl Zeleny, I admire, Respect and Love you. Thank you for what you are doing. God bless you and keep you protected. You are a true hero among men and a great role model. With Gratitude.
Ditto, Go Deryl. You da man!!!
Thank you so very much for your update Captain Zeleny! Many of us have been eagerly awaiting news about you and your matter, in part, because most of the freedom stories are from folks in the USA and not from Ontario, Canada. I wish to add my voice of appreciation and gratitude for what you have done and are doing. I am in Ontario, Canada and aware of a number of people who have been invited into court by the banks regarding the sale and eviction from their homes. I personally have a matter with the TD Bank regarding a property they want to secure, inspect and sell. Additionally, I was served a statement of claim for a line of credit from the same bank on Friday. Courtesy Notices have been sent to the two separate lawyers but only one has been invoiced. So, I eagerly await the next steps of this process.
In your interview, you indicated filings to be made to the “Registry” kindly elaborate on which “Registry” you are referring to please.
We know that all the courts are commercial. As someone with some legal knowledge, I wish to assist those in Ontario who may not understand that we have 2 separate courts at the provincial level. Criminal and quasi-criminal (e.g. highway traffic offences and municipal by-laws violations which go to the Provincial Offences Act (POA) Courts) matters go into the Ontario Court of Justice. You know you are in the Ontario Court of Justice when the ‘person’ on the other side is called a “Crown Attorney.” A Crown Attorney is hired by the Ministry of the Attorney-General of Ontario or federally by the Ministry of the Attorney-General of Canada.
The other court is the Superior Court of Justice. There is no “Crown Attorney” on the other side, but a lawyer who is representing the party who invited you into court or who you invited into court. The matters in this court are usually ‘civil’ in nature. Under this branch we have the Commercial List, the Estates, Bankruptcy, etc.
I hope this was helpful.
With eternal love and blessings to all.
Daryl and Chris, thank you for sharing as there are still so many people going thru the ropes of dealing with or trying to deal with the courts… understanding the importance of common sense and research, standing in one’s truth and being polite is key. I hope this may help others understand how they may go about defending themselves as it was quite interesting to note the before Court meetings of attorneys and judge and their intentions. Makes one wonder if they can truly trust anyone other than SELF~
Respects and appreciation, Deryl !
It is very important for THE ONE PEOPLE to support and stand in solidarity with one another – esp in this first stage of the movement .
Indeed much respect and thanks to you Deryl
Thank You Deryl! tghe World Is a Better Place For You Being And Doing Here!
Thanks Deryl… Great to hear your update!!
-Ben from Ontario
Thanks for being there for not only yourself Deryl but for all of us who are going to need to follow in your footsteps. I wish you had a clear date set for your next court procedure because I cant wait, we all need this victory to prove our bankers are committing fraud from one contract to another. I also would like to suggest if it’s at all possible to have an outline of the procedures you took in order to get to the point of where your at now on a website that we can download and learn how to approach our banks who will try to do this to us. Keep safe Deryl, and watch your back brother.
Captain Deryl Zeleny UPDATE – July 14, 2013
[?] = unintelligible word
[…?] unintelligible words
Chris Hales (CH): (speaking regarding Deryl Zeleny): “[…?] one of his properties deliberately through foreclosure process in Canada in the courts and if you’ve been following the updates, you’ll remember last time we spoke to him, he had actually been arrested and jailed for three (3) days, and in those three days, they moved him 3 times because they were nervous that a crowd might form and give them some trouble. But he was ultimately released, and that was the point where we left the last update.
Since that time he has another court case, which we’ll be talking about in this update, and in between his release and the last court case, Deryl did quite a lot of research in Canada with a particular approach which seems to have been successful. And that’s what we’ll talk about now, so how are you Deryl?
Deryl Zeleny (DZ): [unintelligible…]. Thank you very much.
CH: Now, last time we left you, you’d just got sprung out of the big house as it were, and [?] you’re staying with friends, and [?] what’s going on with the property, and between being released and actually going back to court, you did quite a bit of research about your particular position, the sequence of events [?]…
DZ: Well, what they had done was restrict me from going back into the house, [?] had to check in with the police department basically every Monday, and I was restricted from [?] and going traveling anywhere, so [?] and studied various aspects of law, I studied admiralty law and contract law. And I just wanna thank everyone out there who helped me with information on the […?] and judicial system and other pointers [?] me; it really [?] extremely helpful.
CH: There is a massive(?) amount of support out there actually. There’s a lot of good information.
DZ: Yes, so [?] people [?] gathered all throughout the years [?] private court system that [?]…Dun & Bradstreet […?] number […?] also(?) SEC(?)/UCC(?) court records for three months of transactions, money(?) […?] and of credits(?), everything is filed, when/and(?) you start looking at the docket numbers, ticket numbers, you see that they get entered into the system through your strawman, then sold […?] Bank of Canada and then winds up on the Stock Exchange, and it’s monetized there.
CH: The other thing […?] each(?) court case is monetized.
DZ: Yes, and the court – that specific court – would get a percentage of that docket number. [Here, DZ is saying something about [?] bondage(?)…] whether it be $1000, or $10,000, […very muddled], bond or performance bond if he fails to show up, that bond is also monetized […?] court case, and they also insure that bond. And then the courts get into prison bonds.
CH: [muddled]: prison bonds. So what you’re saying is, they’re taking your signature, monetizing it on the [?] Stock Exchange, trading it in the system, and the courts are getting a cut of that.
DZ; Yes, they are.
CH: Do you think it’s the [?] point of the income stream of the company that is the court, or do you think it’s being pocketed directly by the people involved?
DZ: It is part of the company, now the court system, where the Crown(?) operation [?] corporation [?] in 1789(?), and it’s based on […?] UCC system [?] would sell bonds on the market to foreign investors […?].
CH: And, so the bonds themselves are actually monetized too, don’t you think?
DZ: Yes, because I now when someone is in jail right now, they call it a [?] court, because it’s not a private court, and you are ini jail because you entered into a contract with them, you’ve agreed with them and […?] charges [?], but what is a charge?
CH: Hmmm, sounds like a […?].
DZ: [?], so they’re going to [?] because they know they’re going to get revenue from that individual if they put him in prison. and, if that individual fails to show up for his hearing, he has a bond; they will make money on that bond if he fails to show up. In addition, there’s an underwriter for some(?) insurance company that underwrites that bonded individual, so either way, they win. The [?] make more money if the individual gets incarcerated. Because now you’re look at 3, 5, 10 years, depends on the […?] sentence(?).
CH: So, do you think when they talk about sentence(?), when they’re referring to the setence, that that is the contract? […?] What is your sense/sentence(?). [?] So you actually form a contract to say in that building for, say, 10 years.
DZ: That’s right, they coerce you. If you fail to agree with their terms, they just throw you back into a holding cell, until such time as you capitulate. You agree to some restriction(s)(?) or you agree to a fine, or something like that.
CH: Hmmm, extraordinary. And you’re actually tracking this through the system using the SEC/UCC(?) numbers to track the progress of […?] thing(s)(?) through the system?
DZ: And also the docket numbers stand for ticket numbers. Last time, I showed you the financial management system of the U.S. Treasury, which shows the insurers and the amount of money that they have underwritten. Remember, we’re talking about […?]
[DZ/CH speaking simultaneously…?]
CH: Hundreds and hundreds […?].
DZ: [unintelligible]
CH: That’s a lot of money, so that would be the sum total of underwriting […?] that point in time, [?] things like bail bonds, sentences, jails, etc. [?] very big business. Extremely big business.
DZ: And those numbers are only a percentage, maybe like 10 cents on the dollar, 5 cents on the dollar, so they’re only underwriting a percentage […?] now, […?] it’s nominal, and that’s why you’re seeing governments […;?] and these so-called “tough on crime” bills that they’re passing in Parliament and legislation right now.
CH: OK, it just increases the revenue.
DZ: Yes.
CH: What a wonderful system. And how did this play into the way your court case actually evolved the day you were there? Did you use any of this information in your court case? I know it’s a great indicator of how corrupt the system is, but did it play into the actual, you know, the court exchanges on that day?
DZ: No, it didn’t. What did play into it was the facts. Basically, the facts that I saw, and I filed a motion to have the charges dismissed. And what I did was ask for the police officers’ notebooks, […?] any tape recordings, and of course, the evidence that the Crown had gathered. And it was basically going through the officers’ notebooks that I was able to determine that they had basically colluded with the [?] at/of(?) the Bank of Nova Scotia in order to force the charges. And, in the notebook, he had called up several people and tried to get them to make a complaint; of course you can’t […?] if there’s no victim, if there’s no complaint, then there’s no charges. So he called two(?) individuals […?] to get them to complain; called the lawyer back according to his own notes,and what he/they(?) had done was call another person from the property management to file a complaint. Of course, this individual does not have an interest in the property. They’re just an agent for an actor with the Bank, and through their own statements what they had done is lied and […?] account(?) for that,so… […long unintelligible sentence…]. And, I also had the statements of the officers that were in control of the […?].
CH: [?] court live or was it done afterwards (the research)?
DZ: They were done before the research, and of course, […?] must be an oath taken, but the statement is through(?) […?] and complete, in order to have it be an actual statement. None of this procedure was done with respect to the Constitution. By(?) [?] the police officers because the courts [?] there was no victim.
CH: When you say none of this was done in respect to the police officers, does that mean that you didn’t interview them or they didn’t do any interviewing?
DZ: They did not do any interviews, what they’ve asked for was statements from people; some gave statements; the ones that did, did not have a sworn affidavit with their statement. So that was not evidence.
CH: When they [?] charges, did they try and present that as evidence?
DZ: Well, yes, the basis of the charges was that I had threatened a mover, and I had committed a crime of some sort. But – however, there is no victim in this case. There is no complaint from a victim.
CH: Indeed, in fact, they had no ability to prove that you’d threatened anybody, from the sound of it.
DZ: Well, I actually had a witness to – one of the other witnesses countered(?) the so-called complaint that was not signed. And this evidence was presented in the courtroom.
CH: So, the complaint that they had which was a fabrication, wasn’t signed anyway.
DZ: That’s correct. And you can see from the notebook, there’s telephone conversations going back and forth that they actually colluded with the Bank in order to make this, […?] to force these charges. I believe […?].
CH: So […?] what was the charge on that day?
DZ: That was an interesting one. Did a lot of research. I know I am walking into an admiralty court, I know what they’re going to do is give you an offer to contract. And I/you(?) have to counter it. So (here, DZ describes making his personal appearance very status-quo-presentable). […?] case. And what happens in the morning is largely done(?) in the Judge’s chambers. Discuss the case. So I showed up in time for that. [unintelligible sentence]. And they/we(?) discussed (the various)(?) docket numbers and other(?) [?] information. Terms of the sentence, and so forth. And [?] I spoke up and said “[?] morning, I’m here to answer to this/these(?) charge(s).” And I said, “I’m sorry(?), and who are you?” And he said, “I’m Justice Stone(?), and I’m basically here to discuss the motions to these charges we have here.” He asked me if I had a lawyer and I said, “No, I don’t. I’m here to represent myself.” Upon answering that question, he politely asked me, […?] chambers, [?] discussing my case and how(?) [?] determine [?].
CH: Now when they’re asking these questions before the session, it sounds to me like they are actually pre-determining the outcome. That’s what it sounds like they’re actually doing.
DZ: Normally, what will happen, is a lawyer or an individual person by a lawyer, he will […?] and he will prove what happened […?] that he’s in default on X-amount of dollars. So that determines what happens. And that’s what they discussed anyway. […?] The courts are represented by lawyers […?].
[CH & DZ speaking simultaneously].
CH: Is this in cases where you’ve pled guilty to something and they’ve pre-arranged everything [?]?
DZ: Yes, that’s correct.
CH: And what if you’re actually contesting the charges?
DZ: I’m sorry, say that again.
CH: What if you were contesting the charges? So [?] really ____ed? by pre-determining anything? Because you’re [?] and pre-defending them and there’s a hearing and evidence and discussion, and so forth? What I’m asking, are they pre-determining your case even if you’re contesting?
DZ: Yes, they do, but what they do is keep you, uh, if you’re contesting, then they roll it over to another day.
CH: Mm-hmm
DZ: Right, and that keeps you in jail longer, and also makes them more money.
CH: I suppose it would. So you’re asked to leave out of that particular meeting and you then are presumed not to go back to wait in court until your case actually came up.
DZ: And at that point, you discuss the case. You never want to argue the case. When you argue a case, it gets into debate, and when you debate, then it gives the judge the opportunity to referee.
CH: Mm-hmm, he starts…
DZ: So basically, the judge will ask you how you came to this case, and so I/you(?) say, “Thank you, Your Honor, for the offer to contract, however, we must first determine who the actual owner is, and who the victim is.” So, he offers a contract. I counter: “I conditionally accept your offer …”, and I put my own conditions in there. So what it is, is like a tennis match going back and forth.
CH: So, you’re actually offering you’re bringing conditional terms(?) to the Bank, proving that they own the property.
DZ: That’s right.
[CH & DZ speaking simultaneously].
DZ: Well, it/they(?) bounce(s) this back & forth so what I’ve done, is I’ve prepared a memorandum beforehand that’s part of my case […?] so they have made some charges to my conditions(?) against me, and I have countered with the same sort of thing. And this is a Declaration of Facts, much like a Declaration of Facts in a true commercial bill you would find in a UCC filing, and No.1 is: the Crown failed to produce a sworn and signed Affidavit and a sworn and signed Complaint from the victim in this matter, that is true and correct and true and correct and materially complete, and they have failed to define who the injured party is that has a claim of right(s).
CH: Mm-hmm.
DZ: In other words, a legal fiction cannot have a claim of right on a property, because it is not a real person.
CH: Mm-hmm.
DZ: […?] No. 2: the Crown has failed to show or provide proof of claim to show clear title to the property. I actually went to the Land Record Registry and obtained copies of those a few days before the hearing, and showed that I was the one with title. And then, the numbers. The agent for the Bank, the property manager, was acting on behalf of the lawyer of the Bank of Nova Scotia, and that’s when they brought accusations in their unsworn statement and unsworn Oath and Affidavit or attested to the document or to the filed complaint.
CH: So if you had an objection, the Judge would have accepted the police version of the story?
DZ: That’s right. If you don’t show the facts there, because what they did, they don’t go into the truth, they don’t disclose all the facts, what they do is just present what they want in order to get the verdict that they want, to fulfill the charges that they need in order to keep the money coming in.
CH: But, given that they had an unsworn statement, an unsworn, unsigned statement as, literally, their only complaint, would the Judge have accepted that as being a legitimate complaint had you not said anything?
DZ: Yes.
CH: Well, isn’t that fraud from the bench? Or miscarriage of justice?
DZ: It is miscarriage of justice, but if you don’t speak up, then it is presumed as fact. […?].
CH: Mm-hmm, so it’s unchallenged, so it’s presumed as fact.
DZ: It’s unchallenged, that’s right, and we know that from the UCC filings, don’t we?
CH: Hmm, we certainly do. Fascinating.
DZ: Yes.
CH: So, how did the argument you had, well, let’s not call it an argument; how did the exchange with the Judge proceed once you realized that you were going to not contract with him, unless you got the terms that you wanted?
DZ: Well, what they’d done is basically, there were four (4) charges and through the exchange back and forth, evidence was presented and the evidence was the memorandum here which I had sworn out the […for my part(?)] that countered the allegations put forth by the Crown. So what they were asking for was basically the court had these ___(?) ____(?) criminal charges, and the offer/counter-offer basically was taken down to be much less; they wanted to give me a ticket for trespassing, which is what the first thing should have been. However, I was able to show Section 35 of the Criminal Code that I am, because I have an interest in the property, my private property, it was stolen, costing me $40,000 in equipment that was supposed to be protected by the property management company, and that was entered into evidence and that I also entered into evidence Section 35 of the Criminal Code that states that I have every right in this […?] criminal code to defend my property peacefully, which is what I was doing, which the officers’ notes stated as such. The officers’ notes also stated that they were giving copies of the U.C.C. filings in order [?] and that they contained/continued _____(?) it and that they were kidnapping me against my consent. And that was also included in the Declaration of Facts.
CH: Hmm.
DZ: So what we have done is basically whittled away the charges down to trespassing and been offered […?] in contract what I agreed to was the ticket, which is a provincial offense, which is, you get a ticket, basically with the caveat in there that I can challenge the superior court to determine who the actual owner of the property is. Because the Judge was quite forthcoming; he said that it was not within his purview to determine at that stage, […?] and he could not rule on that.
CH: So he gave you the right to challenge the …
DZ: Yes, challenge the Banks in the superior court by Proof of Claim, so basically […?] back into the other court.
CH: So, how […?] what was the Judge’s attitude to you during this exchange?
DZ: He was polite; we are getting evidence on the record which is important, and it goes to the point he knew what I was trying to do. He knew it operated within his powers to accept these certain things, so therefore, at the very end, he said, “The court has conceded on all these things; will you accept the ticket with the option to [?] challenge the superior court to present your Proof of Claim? And at that point, I accepted the contract, and all restrictions were lifted and I accepted what I had agreed upon.
CH: Which was the fine?
DZ: No, there was no fine, just the ticket, and it says that I can challenge, and the option to challenge the superior court with my Proof of Claim as actual owner of the property.
CH: So with that option available, what will your actual challenge be? How will it be framed?
DZ: It will be a civil lawsuit [?] if I choose to enter that court system, because we know it’s an admiralty court, and to basically sue them and have them provide proof of claim. Because the first time, what they do is [?] practices is administrative procedure, so you do not get to present evidence. So here, what we do, now we have a Criminal Code, Criminal Court [?] that we can now challenge the Bank and the superior court would have them actually provide the documents, because the Crown was not able to show Proof of Claim in the criminal matter.
CH: Can they sell your property in the time between now and when you get them into court again? Can they turn around and sell your property lawfully?
DZ: Yes, they could. So as a stop-gap measure, what you would file is a Certificate of Pending Litigation, which means I have an action against the Bank, and basically, that is like a lien against the property, so anyone who would buy it would see it had pending litigation against it, and someone might say, “I don’t suggest you purchase this property because you may not get it for 10 or 20 years, something like that.
CH: Yeah, but you have to genuinely have some pending litigation. I believe that pending litigation had to be issued by a judge.
DZ: That’s right, so you’ve got to go back into the system, you have to show that there is an action against the Bank, and that you have just cause because the Bank has committed fraud, and that was actually part of the evidence that was presented, that I had withdrawn my contract with the Bank of Nova Scotia because they had committed fraud. And, of course, as we all know, fraud vitiates contracts.
CH: Indeed, so in order to use this Certificate of Pending Litigation to stop them from selling your property, you will have to initiate the court case.
DZ: You have to initiate the court case, that’s correct, and, in addition, what we can do, because they have committed fraud, we can file a UCC Declaration of Facts against the Banks.
CH: Mm-hmm, and go after the money anyway.
DZ: That’s right.
CH: And, what with all the payments you made fraudulently in a fraudulent contract, you could claim from them, plus triple damages, no doubt.
DZ: Triple damages and, in addition to that, there’s more than one [?] we have to [?]. Of course, remember there’s the Libor that funded London inter-bank offered(?), right?, where all these banks agreed to raise the interest rate, so that is a fraud. And, of course, they do not have the authority to coin money, and that is fraud #3.
CH: Which they are doing whenever they monetize your signature and create a loan.
DZ: That’s right. So that is […?] well, all the laws that they are breaking here, and, unless you bring it to their attention, they are not going to rule on them and they will go and favor the Banks because that is the easy way. Because they get a portion of whatever is monetized to that docket number, so that ticket to that […?] to that prisoner’s bond, etc…
CH: Yep, that is just a ridiculously criminal system when you’re looking at it in its true light.
DZ: Yes.
CH: How is the Crown Solicitor through all this? […?].
DZ: Quiet.
CH: Really?
DZ: Yes.
CH: No particular objections?
DZ: No, actually when he was presented with this Declaration of Facts, he basically conceded and actually he was quite accommodatijng at the end and when I refused the ticket I said, “We haven’t determined yet whose the property is,” and actually made the suggestion that he didn’t need these court filings to challenge the superior court.
CH: That is a very interesting […?].
DZ: Well, Chris, if you think about it, they wanted it in this other court.
CH: So the Crown Solicitor wouldn’t actually be involved in what you did next, so basically, just pushing it out the door.
DZ: Right, getting it out the door, “off my plate”, “I don’t have to deal with it any more.” Now the Crown actually refused to meet with me and it was a couple of times I requested a meeting and he refused. Well, of course he has the right to refuse, but he should have talked to me about the case, in case we could resolve it before going to court, right? There’s no reason for an arbitrator in this matter, because there’s no victim.
CH: Are you actually going to challenge the fact that they [?] loan you money, in addition to all the other aspects you are going to challenge?
DZ: Yes, in addition to all of these […?] already been filed with the UCC against the Banks. Regarding the Crown – about contracts – a contract was presented to the Crown on April 4th if you to ABC, or if you [?] through 16, you will have engaged in contract with me, if you take my house or if you incarcerate me. […?] if you […?] all these things have a value, and I am 100 or 99% sure you are [?], so what they have done on that by incarcerating me for three (3) days, whichever individual(s) was/were responsible(?) will now get an invoice. I just haven’t had time to do that. So the Crown has entered into it, the Judge has entered into it, the police officers have entered into it – with me. So they have their contract and I have my contract. I have my charges and fee schedule and they have theirs. Right now, the one, which is up to $20 million.
CH: I wonder how nervous that makes them?
DZ: Well, they don’t know yet. Well, they will now, after this interview, won’t they?
CH: Will if they are paying attention to it. Maybe you should send them a link. If the judge is Courtesy Noticed, he knows he [?] a contract, he might think I (meaning Deryl??) can’t enforce things, but I can. But, I wonder how much doubt there is in his mind [?]. It might be an enforcement that might be around the corner.
DZ: Just around the corner – and they know this by documents before provided to them. Whether they read them or not, it’s not my fault. When you talk about law, international law and treaties; a treaty is higher than the country or state laws. You can never […?] and that must be resolved. They might choose to ignore things, certain laws, but there’s truth(?) […?].
CH: Well they certainly ignore their own rules at their own convenience; it’s been going on for a very long time, so…
DZ: [?].
CH: Yes, it’s, so, your next step is to(?) instigate the next part of the court action and […?] Certificate of Pending Litigation?
DZ: That’s right [?]. Action against the Bank, Proof of Claim and parallel that with UCC Declaration of Facts.
CH: Keep the pressure on.
DZ: […?] my memo to the Judge when I requested that this matter be dealt with in the Commercial Registry and not in this court […?] with respect to the charges is to dismiss this matter with prejudice, which he did.
CH: Good, but it didn’t get resolved in the Commercial Registry then, it was actually dealt with in the court.
DZ: Well no, that question was dealt with in court, I also filed…
CH: You are referring to the actions you are going to take in the Commercial Registry.
DZ: I’ve already taken.
CH: You’re actually filing one against the Sheriff, I believe.
DZ: Against the Sheriff, against the CEO of the Bank, and there was also one more, I can’t remember his name.
CH: So the CEO of the Bank now has a problem with his credit rating.
DZ: Yes, you bet, I believe I sent you a copy of that […?].
CH: The Sheriff, I saw the document and how that applied(?) as a note on the individual’s credit rating. So it causes a problem if they try to do any business with the Banks at this point.
DZ: That’s true.
CH: Very interesting. Anything else you want to comment on, Deryl?
DZ: No, I think that’s […?] working […?] apologize to the people, we haven’t got the instruction thing up [?] and signed it on the register. Then once you have that, and once you have everything perfected, you can now go back into their equity/admiralty courts and have the judge arbitrate on who […?][ on these charges they present […?] come to some sort of agreement in the court.
CH: Would you do that in the equity court or in the admiralty court?
DZ: They’re one and the same here.
CH: Was the court you were in a court of equity or just a commercial court?
DZ: Just a commercial court.
CH: So you go to a higher court to have that arbitrated?
DZ: Yes.
CH: [?].
DZ: [?]
CH: […?] keeping everyone extremely busy with [?] lots of really important stuff if the new bond documents come through from Canada sometime this week, we are going to be extremely busy this week. In fact, create another ripple in the force, speaking of which, and was a huge moment(?) characterized by the conversation you had with the Judge and it/there(?) was a nice little – go to youtube – deathstar canteen – very funny comedy routine based on the Star Wars character Darth Vader trying to get lunch in a canteen. Very interesting conversation with the guy who is serving up the food – extremely amusing.
DZ: Use logic and you say, well, it’s only a [?]. That’s all I used was basic logic and their evidence against me.
CH: Way to go! It’s a really insidious system they have got going. They would have let all that fake evidence stand, had you not called their attention to it, that it was fake, and that means it’s fundamentally corrupt; […?], not interested in anything morally correct. All they are doing is collecting the money on the charges.
DZ: You have to have charges that are far superior to [?] and not BS.
CH: Well, it’s actually commercial court, so that is what you are actually(?) there for though […?].
DZ: [?]
CH: That’s the way it works. Deryl, again on behalf of everybody, for your time and for your amazing work that you have been doing for months now, proving that the system is as corrupt as it is, and […?} another chapter in this story, Unless we can get some interesting evidence that might turn our attention greatly away from this nonsense that would be more useful, like building a new planet, that would be good. But on behalf of everybody, thank you for everything you do.
DZ: Thank you […?].
CH: Till next time, cheers.
DZ: Bye-bye.
END
Great to finally hear an update that you are OK Deryl. and better to hear you are making so much progress…You are a courageous and brilliant guy and a great role model for all Canadians that want truth and our country and freedom back. I’m sure you are aware of Wally Dove, he is another man in the trenches with you and its about to hit the fan on his front soon. Thanks to you both, there are many other Canadians becoming aware of the scam that has been perpetrated on us for so long.
This guy owes me a lot of money and is affecting my life greatly. I am not a big bank I am simply another little guy who lent him money and he has stopped paying me and he is not paying me any interest on the money he borrowed. He is no Hero people.
Hi Daryl,
I’ve been thinking about you. Just want you to know that it was an honour to serve with you, you’re one of the finest officers I have met, and I will always have you back brother.
Cheers,
Rick
Hey Daryl you now owe me over $200,000 YOU NOT SETTING A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE HERE.