Subject—Proposal for Cooperation (14 February 2003)

From—Bek—To—Senate Leader Carstairs—Proposal for Cooperation—14 Feb 2003

Senate Leader Sharon Carstairs
Senate of Canada
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A4
Dear The Honorable Senator Carstairs,

Subject—Proposal for Cooperation

Canadian Government Manifesto

King Christopher Bek
1004 First Street NW
Office of the King
14 February 2003

Caption
I cannot be defeated by bad faith.
—King Christopher

Introduction
On 28 September 2002 I wrote a letter to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada declaring My Lawful and Rightful of Kingship to Canada.  I did this because it was my right to do so, and because I believe there is a total absence of accountability to higher truth in Canada.  In short, the little Caesars—ie. the politicians, doctors, judges, educators and cops—hold the little people strictly accountable to laws and behavioral conduct imposed from above—but the little Caesars, for their part, act with complete and total impunity to the laws of nature.  Moreover, as I will document in this letter, I believe there is an absence of respect for fundamental human rights such as the right to say no and the right to make a difference.  I assert that nothing ever changes until someone stands up for the truth. That is all I am doing here.  My argument is that all of the problems stem from the psychiatrist’s choice of the behavioralistic psychological model which denies the inward self.  While I apologize for presenting this to you all at once, I can assure you that I have diligently pursued this matter with all forms of government over the past two years and have received nothing but chilling responses.  Whether my theory of one, my unified field theory and my insistence on the need to shift from behaviorism to existentialism are recognized now or in a hundred years from now—you can know with absolute mathematical certainty that they collectively represent the trigger in the turningpoint for the history of mankind.  I hope as you read this letter you can put yourself in my shoes and try to appreciate just how far I have come all by myself.  For reference, I would remind you of the story of Flatland written in 1881 by the Shakespearean scholar Edwin Abbott.  Flatland, it seems, existed in two spatial dimensions rather than the usual three.  Not only were Flatlanders incapable of comprehending the third spatial dimension—but they became totally enraged at the very suggestion of it.  And let us not forget that Shakespeare himself was an existentialist as evidenced by his pronouncement—This above all—to thine own self be true—and it must follow, as night follows day, thou canst not then be false to any man.

Overview
Mathematical Reason simply makes the point that the whole point of doing mathematics is to arrive at certain and infallible knowledge—and that mathematically-valid arguments—like My Declaration of Kingship, my theory of one and unified field theory—cannot go unchallenged.  The Prudent Man Rule is an ancient doctrine whereby the actions and decisions of authorities are held accountable to the standards of a prudent man.  Behaviorism vs Existentialism contrasts the outwardly focusing behavioral psychological model, which denies the existence of consciousness, with the inwardly focusing existential model, which makes consciousness, and thus the soul, primordially important.  The net result of behaviorism is that individuals have no freedom and no responsibility, while the net result of existentialism is that individuals have total freedom and total responsibility.  Imprudent Canadian Governance documents instances of Canadian governmental imprudence by doctors, educators, judges, politicians, governors, religious leaders and police—and argues that the only way for me to truthfully prosecute (ie. bringing to light) government imprudence is to take the situation to the extreme by putting myself in harms way—which in effect means that I am being maliciously prosecuted by the government.  The Canadian Context cites numerous examples of immorality making the point that morality has become so fundamentally localized that we have lost our frame of reference—and that by shifting from bad faith leadership to authentic leadership Canada can begin making a real difference in the world.  Physics and Metaphysicsfollows the evolution of our understanding of physical reality starting from the everyday conception with Newtonian physics to relativistic physics, which accounts for dimensional contractions and warping of Newtonian physics, to quantum physics, which is the theory of matter and is the foundation of all electronics, to singularistic metaphysics with the theory of one, which recognizes the universe as bounded rather than unbounded as Einstein and others have asserted, to the unified field theory, which recognizes electrons as consciousness and realizes the Cartesian duality such that our perception of reality is fundamentally different than the four-dimensional essence of reality.  The Senate of Canada characterizes the Divine Right of Kings and revisits the history of the Senate back to early Rome and argues that, then as now, the proper point of contact for the Sovereign within the Sovereignty of Canada is with the Senate—and furthermore that sovereignty must ultimately reside with individuals and not the government.  Proposal for Cooperation calls the establishment of a relationship between myself and the Senate.  In that, as a Divine Soveriegn, I have no legal or moral obligation to pay my former debt, the proposal calls for the Senate to redirect transfer payments from imprudent government agencies to my former creditors.  In addition the proposal calls for a modest pension of two thousand dollars per month for which I would continue to develop and maintain Philosophymagazine as well as offer consulting services to the Senate of Canada.

Mathematical Reason
Mathematics is the science of drawing conclusions and is the primordial foundation of absolutely all other science.  The whole point of doing mathematics is to arrive at certain and infallible knowledge.  A mathematical argument cannot go unchallenged by a sovereignty that calls itself lawful.  Mathematical reason is the synthesis of faith (ie. simplicity and beauty) and commonsense reason.  Going entirely against the philosophy of his time, The English monk William of Ockham (1285-1349) put forth his now famous principle of economy—which states the plurality of reasons should not be postulated without necessity.  Or in other words, if all things are equal, the simplest theory tends to be the right one.  Paul Dirac (1902-84), who nailed down quantum theory and formulated the relativistic wave equation that integrated Einstein’s relativity into Schrödinger’s wave equation, claimed it is more important to have beautiful theories and equations than to have them fit the data.  The mathematical, actuarial, scientific and writing skill that I have worked all of my life to develop enable me able to solve any problem no matter how difficult or large by finding the one thing that makes all the difference.  I am able to prove mathematically that the key to all the world’s problems lies in the recognition of the Schrödinger’s Cat though problem associated with quantum physics in 1935 which proves that consciousness is real.  Behaviorism is founded on the notion that consciousness does not exist.  Physicists apply quantum theory in the development of electronics without any regard to the philosophical implications of consciousness—which are profound.

The Prudent Man Rule
The Prudent Man Rule is an ancient doctrine whereby the actions and decisions of individuals in position of authority are held accountable to the standards of behavior that a prudent and reasonable person of discretion and intelligence would conduct themselves in similar circumstances.  Socrates (470-399 BC) was the original prudent man for being the first existentialist by claiming—Know thyself, which is equivalent to the Cartesian cogito, ie. I think therefore I exist—and also for radically insisting that we must first answer the question of what X is before we can say anything else about X.

Behaviorism
Behaviorism is a twentieth-century psychological theory based on the work of John Watson (1878-1958) and B.F. Skinner (1904-90) who argued that all human activity can be known through externally visible behavior—based on the underlying belief that consciousness does not exist.  But we know from the Schrödinger’s Cat thought problem in 1935 that conscious does in fact exist—meaning that behaviorism is patently in error.

Skinner wrote in his tellingly entitled 1971 book Beyond Freedom and Dignity—Consciousness?  Can you see it?  Measure it?  Pass it around?  Then how is it different than something that does not exist at all?  Skinner also wrote in the same book that—Many anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists have used their expert knowledge to try and prove that man is free, purposeful and responsible. This escape route is slowly being closed as new evidence of the predictability of human behavior is discovered.  Any personal exemption from complete determinism is being revoked as scientific analysis of individual behavior progresses.

Here Skinner makes another massive mistake by asserting that determinism follows from predictability.  Determinism is the view that every event occurs necessarily.  That is, every event inevitably follows from the events that preceded it—and therefore freedom only exists in such a way as to be compatible with necessity.  While it is certainly true that predictability follows from determinism—to assert that determinism follows from predictability is to make a classic logical error—once again revealing behaviorism to be in error.  The net result of behaviorism is that individuals have no freedom and no responsibility.  And this has been my experience in relation to my theory of one, my unified field theory and My Declaration of Kingship that no one feels as though they have any responsibility at all towards fostering higher truths.

Existentialism
Existentialism is fervently anti-behavioralistic in that it maintains the importance of an inward subjective life that may not necessarily be externalized.  The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-80) defined existentialism as the philosophy for which existence precedes essence.  For manmade things, the idea of the thing comes before the actual thing itself—that is, essence precedes existence.  But for man, who arrives on the scene and then becomes what he is, existence precedes essence.  The difference is that man continually creates his own essence in every moment through his decisions and actions.  The net result of existentialism is that individuals have total freedom and total responsibility.

Sartre wrote in his 1957 Existentialism and Human Emotions that there can be no other truth to take off from this—I think, therefore I exist—ie. the Cartesian cogito.  There we have the absolute truth of consciousness becoming aware of itself.  Every theory which takes man out of the moment in which he becomes aware of himself is, at its very beginning, a theory which confounds the truth, for outside the Cartesian cogito, all views are only probable, and a doctrine of probability which is not bound to a truth dissolves into thin air.  In order to describe the probable, you must have a firm hold on the true.  Therefore, before there can be any truth whatsoever, there must be an absolute truth; and this one is easily arrived at; it is on everyone’s doorstep; it is a matter of grasping it directly.

Bad Faith
The practical difference between behaviorism and existentialism is found in what Sartre calls bad faith, which is any one of a number of forms of human inauthenticity.  It is an attempt at self-deception in which one denies and unsuccessfully tries to flee from freedom and responsibility by pretending to look at oneself and others as things.  Bad faith is a lie to oneself and a lie in the soul.  I recently had a conversation with a psychiatrist at the Peter Lougheed Hospital by the name of Dr J Naylor who claimed that denying a higher truth and lying are not the same thing.  And herein lies the difference between behaviorism and existentialism.  Under the behavioralistic régime, one is only responsible for not lying to others, while the notion of lying to oneself is devoid of meaning as a result of behaviorism denying the existence of the inward self or soul.

I was told recently that I have been diagnosed with schizophrenia—a term that comes from ancient Greece and means divided mind.  Let’s say Dr Naylor and I sat down for an hour and I was able to mathematically convince him of the higher truth that Planck’s constant and lightspeed are the same boundary of the spacetime continuum.  According to his assertion, he could deny the higher truth even though he knew it to be true.  In other words, his mind would be divided and he would thus be schizophrenic.  But how is denying a higher truth at the end of a conversation different than avoiding such a conversation altogether?  The answer is there is no difference—meaning that he, as a psychiatrist, is schizophrenic.  And more to the point, he makes his living implying his schizophrenia on others.  I am accused of being schizophrenic because I refuse to let go of higher truths and thus my mind remains divided from mainstream, schizophrenic, bad-faith thinking—the very seeds of which the psychiatrist Dr Naylor has sewn.

Freudian Cognitive Model
Consider that the Freudian cognitive model makes the reality-based ego the decisionmaker who must choose between the internal values of the inward self or soul and the external authority of the superego—ie. the Man.  Existentialism asserts that morality must be determined inwardly rather than from external authority—while behaviorism asserts that morality is strictly determined by external consensus.  Socrates said—Know Thy Self—from which both he and existentialism assert that good behavior would follow.  Conversely, the behavioralistic mantra is—Know Thy Man—from which the Man believes good behavior will follow.  And whereas Socrates asked the question—What is X?—behaviorism responds with—X is whatever the Man says it is.

What is X of Wisdom?
Utilitarian ethics is the theory that correctness of action is determined by the ability to bring about the most amount of pleasure and happiness for the people involved.  Alternatively, deontological ethics is the theory that correctness of action is determined by the ability to create the greatest amount of universal value.  The deontological mantra is to simply do the right thing—known also as The First Commandment.  Deontological ethics typically fail because holding fast to subjective judgment in a world crazed by objective dominance is hard.  Utilitarian ethics, on the other hand, fall down for the reason of its strict locality—that is, the method lacks a valid prior vision of universal right and wrong.  The deontological argument answers the question of what is the X of wisdom by simply doing the right thing based on mathematical reason.  In effect, utilitarian ethics are congruent with behaviorism while deontological ethics are congruent with existentialism.

Imprudent Doctors and Psychiatrists
I began speaking to doctors and psychiatrists in the fall of 2000 about this Earth-shattering discovery and what I believe to be is an impendingly monumental paradigm shift.  To my dismay, virtually all of the doctors and psychiatrists refused to consider my rational arguments, but instead insisted on treating me as mentally ill.  Over the course of many unpleasant visits during the past two years, I have came to identify the malignant cancer within our healthcare system as the outwardly focusing behavioral psychological model which denies the existence of consciousness.  In connection with quantum physics—the most successful set of ideas ever developed by man—the Schrödinger’s Cat thought problem in 1935 proves that consciousness determines physical reality—meaning that consciousness is real.  Remembering that before becoming a psychiatrist, one must first qualify as a medical doctor—we can see that all psychiatrist patently and spectacularly fail the Prudent Man Rule test for their endorsement of behaviorism. Furthermore, this endorsement of the harmful behavioral model represents an extreme violation of the Hippocratic Oath, which essentially says that doctors shall do no harm.  Remember that doctors are charged with the highest responsibility of looking out for wellbeing of the people.  My former doctor of ten years, Dr. Karim Surani who, like me, holds a math degree, lied to me, betrayed me and repeatedly sent me on wild goose chases just to get me out of his office.

Imprudent Professors

Physics professors (ie. those who publicly profess knowledge of physics) have made the same massive mistake as psychiatrist in denying the existence of consciousness.  Professors teach relativity and quantum theory, yet refuse to let go of their Newtonian detachment as a way of looking at the world.  Newtonian physics rest on the detached study of objective reality based on the clear distinction between mind and matter.  Relativity in 1905 and then quantum theory in 1925 forever eliminated the notion of objective physical reality.  But because physicists deny consciousness—we are locked in a holding pattern—unable to realize the very thing which separates man from animal—the power of self-awareness.

In 1982 Alain Aspect proved that all photons in the universe are instantaneously connected to one another—yet physics professors have astonishing remained silent about this monumental discovery.  The physicist Michio Kaku opens his 1995 book Beyond Einstein by describing the new theory of superstrings that is rocking the foundations of modem phys­ics and overturning cherished but obsolete notions about the universe and replacing them with new mathematics of breathtak­ing beauty and elegance—indicating that we are perhaps finally closing in on the unified field theory.  Kaku quotes the Princeton physicist Edward Witten who claims that the super­string theory is a is a miracle through and through and will dominate the world of physics for the next fifty years.  Kaku goes on to describe how superstring theory is able to predict what happened before the big bang.  But Saint Augustine did the math on that one sixteen hundred years ago by revealing that the universe was created with time and not in time—revealing that there is no before the big bang.

On 28 June 200228 October 2002 and 14 February 2003 I copied the following physics department chairs in letters that I sent out regarding my theory of one and for the most recent letter, my unified field theory—Dr. Hicks, University of Calgary—Dr. Sherif, University of Alberta—Dr. L’Heureux, University of Ottawa—Dr. McKee, University of California at Berkeley—Dr. Pellegrini, University of California at Los Angeles—Dr. Osheroff, Stanford University—Dr. Lepage, Cornell University—Dr. Mincer, New York University—Dr. Marlow, Princeton University—Dr. Gabrielse, Harvard University.  I have not heard anything from them—meaning that they, and in fact all physicists, fail the Prudent Man Rule test.

Imprudent Chief Justice
On 28 September 2002 I made what I believe to be a mathematically valid claim for my Lawful and Rightful Declaration of Kingship to Canada to Chief Justice McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada based on the legitimate doctrine known as the Divine Right of Kings which states that sovereigns represent God and thus derive their right to rule directly from God.  According to the doctrine, sovereigns are only responsible to God and are not subject to secular limitations.  I began the claim by characterizing bad faith with a story about my uncle Edward Lloyd Morris.  I further posted an essay by Jean-Paul Sartre entitled Bad Faith on my philosophymagazine.com site as back up to my claim.  According to Dr J Naylor, in keeping with Canadian values, Chief Justice McLaughlin can go on deny my claim by simply ignoring it forever.  I however assert that such a denial both qualifies as bad behavior and fails the standard of the Prudent Man Rule test.

Imprudent Prime Minister and Premier
On 28 June 2002 I made what I believe to be a reasonable request of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Alberta Premier Ralph Klein for recognition in the achievement of scientific greatness for my theory of one which solves the greatest scientific problem of all time by uniting relativity (1905) and quantum theory (1925).  My hope was that such recognition would make funds available to me from, for example, the Nobel Prize which exists for the very reason of supporting greatness.  In the absence of contravening evidence from professors, a prudent government must move to swiftly and discretely to acknowledge and support the development of such ideas.  In that no such support was forthcoming, I assert that both the prime minister and the premier have acted imprudently.  Furthermore, in that the prime minister claims Knowledge Le Savoir on the 2000 two-dollar coin, he is also guilty of knowing bad faith.  President John F. Kennedy once called for a new world of law where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.  If one accepts Kennedy as a prudent leader, then the premier, by making VLTs available that specifically target the weakest and most vulnerable members of society, is guilty of additional and aggravated imprudence.

Imprudent Governor General
The primary role of the governor general and ten lieutenant governors is to oversee the proper and efficient operation of good government in Canada.  In my letter of 28 September 2002 to the chief justice, for which the governor general was copied, I reasonably asked that the governor general and ten lieutenant governors to oversee the completion and safe return of a Delphi questionnaire by the respective governments.  The Delphi is a questionnaire named after the Socratic inscription at the oracle at Delphi in ancient Greece—and reads Know Thyself.  The purpose of the request was so that the people of Canada could know the values of the government.  In that no such response was forthcoming, I assert that he governor general and ten lieutenant governors have acted imprudently.  Furthermore, the current Parliamentarian model is anything but good in that it does nothing but set one pack of bickering children against another.

Imprudent Religious Leaders
Pascal originated option theory with his famous wager regarding the question of existence and ultimate nature of God.  His argument came in response to the emergence of the Renaissance from those who were unwilling to believe in God strictly on faith and authority.  Pascal argued that living a simple life which seeks to understand God represents the option premium which would then allow for the possibility of salvation should it turn out that God does exist.  Some critics have argued that God might well reserve a special place in Hell for those who believe in Him on the basis of Pascal’s wager.  But if fact the exact opposite is true.  Those who believe in God strictly on the basis of faith are setting themselves up for failure for the reason their conception of God is based on a static snapshot that is, by definition, not subject to reason.  The Devil is the one who seeks out those who blindly follow and are thus easily malleable.  A true God most certainly wants to be constantly challenged by both faith and reason.  Sir James Jeans (1877-1946) once claimed that God is a mathematician.  In that the Church does not represent God as a mathematician and, furthermore, demands blind faith—the Church is actually representing the Devil as God—which is certainly an act of profound imprudence.

Imprudent Teachers
Whereas the Church deals strictly in blind faith, the education system deals strictly in blind reason.  The Keynesian protégé EF Schumacher said it perfectly when he wrote that faith is not in conflict with reason, nor is it a substitute.  The separate notions of faith and reason will soon fade into the past to be replaced by the synthesized notion of mathematical reason or wisdom.  According to the psychologist Piaget, intuition or faith develops between the ages of two and seven—whereas reason develops between the ages of seven and twelve.  All of the great thinkers—Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Bek guessed at the underlying Forms and formulas—and then used reason to verify them—meaning that both intuitive and mathematical reason are necessary for self-actualization.

Einstein said that he developed slower than others and thusly was older than other children when he started thinking about space and time.  The education system rushes children for the purpose of control.  The notion of educating the children comes in a distant second.  The answer to the question of what is X of Education is understanding the basic building blocks like the Pythagorean theorem, Socrates’ Know thyself, Plato’s Forms, Plato’s allegory of the Cave, Ockham’s Razor, Dirac’s principle of aesthetic value, Galileo’s theory of Heliocentricity, the Cartesian cogito, Schrödinger’s Cat, Einstein’s Moon, Bek’s theory of one and Bek’s unified field theory.  Einstein said that when the solution is simple, God has answered.  Descartes, who founded modern philosophy and modern mathematics, slept until noon everyday and said he did his best thinking in a warm bed.  Why hasn’t the educational system produced material like Against PhysicsScientific ManagementTranscending UncertaintyThe Allegory of One and The Great Cosmic Accounting Blunder?  After reading my essay The Great Cosmic Accounting Blunder the psychiatrist Dr J Naylor of the Peter Lougheed Hospital said that children would not understand it and enjoy it.  I believe that they would understand it and they would enjoy tap dancing on the heads of their teachers and professors—which is of course the last thing the teachers, professors and Dr J Naylor want.

Sir James Jeans (1877-1946) once claimed that God is a mathematician—which is a view shared by Pythagoras (582-500 BC), Plato (428-347 BC) Muhammad al-Khwârizmî (780-850), René Descartes (1596-1650), Blaise Pascal (1623-62), Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), George Berkeley (1685-1753), Albert Einstein (1879-1955)—and likely many, many other great thinkers.  Descartes, who slept until noon every day of his life, once claimed that he did his best thinking in a warm bed.  But teaches don’t teach mathematics from the perspective of understanding simple religious (ie. reconnection with reality) truths—instead, they overload children with irreverent mathematical data, which they forget moments after walking out of exams.  The intention of the educational system is to control children so that they seek external rather than internal validation—which I assert is a failure of the Prudent Man Rule test.

Malicious Prosecution—Count One
On 25 February 1997 I was walking my dogs when my neighbor initiated pursuit of me in her car in a crazed attempt to collect a small amount of money that I owed to her.  She had cut into the ally behind me and I was concerned that she might try to hit my dogs as we crossed the street.  I told her repeatedly to break off the pursuit but she was not listening.  She was driving her car on the wrong side of the road and seemed to be totally out of touch.  I remember thinking about the Prudent man Rule from my days as a pension actuary in regard to the prudent management of pension funds.  I stopped and went through the checklist.  My exit strategies were blocked and I had employed the due diligence of a prudent man in exercising My Unconditional Godgiven Right to Say No.  After taking a deep breath, I handed the reigns over to my Shadow thereby invoking the same athletic skills I learned when dunking a basketball in crushing her car door like a beer can.  I took advantage of the opportunity that I had created to make my escape.  The police subsequently denied me My Unconditional Godgiven Right to Say No and arrested me.

Malicious Prosecution—Count Two
The police tell us ignorance of the law is no excuse.  But why is that?  How are we supposed to know the law?  Are we not innocent?  When I responded to this assertion from the Calgary Police Detective Dean on 31 May 2002 by saying—Why not, you’re claiming ignorance of the laws of nature in reference to my theory of one?  He responded by saying—That’s different, I have no interest in the laws of nature. According to the third United States President Thomas Jefferson, Detective Dean violated my natural rights.  Thomas Jefferson’s belief in the social contract came from British political philosopher John Locke, who argued that government existed by consent of the governed and that people should rebel if their natural rights are violated.  Locke said that the natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth—and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man but to have only the laws of nature for his rule.

Malicious Prosecution—Count Three
On 18 October 2002 I was abducted by four government agents (ie. cops and paramedics) from the office of my former doctor’s office, Dr. Karim Surani, and taken to the Peter Lougheed Hospital.  I wrote out a statement saying that I thought my legal rights were being violated and asked the abducting agents to sigh it.  They repeatedly refused thereby violating my natural legal right to have the government acknowledge my objection to being abducted.

Malicious Prosecution—Count Four
On 20 February 2003 I was abducted for the third time in six months by four government agents (ie. Calgary Police) and taken to the Rockyview Hospital.  I told the admitting doctor Dr. Krause that I was the King of Canada and that the government had no right to take action against me.  Dr. Krause told me that at the time I was under the dominion of the Alberta Health Care Act and had no rights at all.  The very basis of my contention is that no one in Canada, myself included, ever has any rights whatsoever.  I base this argument on the definition of the behavioralistic psychological model employed exclusively in Canada that is solely founded on the behavioralistic judgement of the government.  I back up this argument with empirical evidence detailed in Malicious Prosecution—Count One where the Calgary Police denied me My Unconditional Godgiven Right to Say No.  When the government does not like my behavior, it simply declares me mentally ill, strips me of my rights, and forces me into a conversation with the Man—further fortifying my argument that no one in Canada has any rights at all.  I assert that any claim which the legal system makes in upholding individual rights is devoid of meaning in the absence of unconditional support for the Unconditional Godgiven Right to Say No—which, I contend, is also the key difference between the behavioralistic and the existential model.  Each of these four incidents represent fundamental violation of basic human rights that methodically take place in Canada all the time as a result of the behavioralistic model.  Furthermore, they clearly demonstrate flagrant and repeated violations of the Prudent Man Rule by the Calgary Police.

Malicious Prosecution—Count Five
Evariste Galois (1811-32) was a French mathematician who founded modern group theory as well as making significant contributions to the theory of algebraic equations—although virtually nothing he did was understood in his life.  Group theory is a basic structure of modern algebra which consists of a set of elements and an operator—and plays a central role in both relativity and quantum theory.  In 1830 Galois scorned the staff and students of the Ecole for their lack of backbone and was expelled.  A paper on the general solution of equations that is now called Galois theory was sent via Poisson to the Academy but was described as incomprehensible.  In 1831 Galois was arrested for a speech against the king and then for wearing an illegal uniform and carrying arms for which received six months in prison.  Upon his released Galois was seduced by a police-sponsored prostitute and then challenged to a duel by a police agent over the woman.  He spent the night feverishly sketching out as many of his mathematical discoveries as he could—occasionally breaking off to scribble in the margin—I have not enough time.  At dawn he received a pistol shot in the stomach and was left where he fell.  Following his death from peritonitis eight days later he was buried in a common ditch—age twenty.

Malicious Prosecution
According to The First Commandment from The Bible—Thou Shall Have No Other God Before Me—I have not just the right but the obligation to vigorously pursue the truth and expose any false gods standing between me and God.  According to Microsoft Encarta, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was third president of the United States, the author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most brilliant individuals in history.  Jefferson openly swore his hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.  His belief in the social contract came from British political philosopher John Locke who argued that government existed by consent of the governed and that people should rebel if their natural rights are violated.  Locke claimed that the natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man but to have only the laws of nature for his rule.  The definition of the word prosecute is to take legal action and bring to justice.  If one accepts Thomas Jefferson as a prudent leader, then it is my unconditional obligation to prosecute those who stand between me and God.  In that I am confident in saying I have far exceeded the requirements of a prudent man in bringing to justice those who represent themselves as prudent but for which I have clearly demonstrated to be imprudent, I would argue that their bad faith in denying my pursuit of the truth represents malicious prosecution by the Governance of Canada against myself and God.  I would also ask the Senator to take notice of the fact that not only am I being maliciously prosecuted by doctors, judges, police and professors—but that I have absolutely no where to turn for help.

No Exit
Jean-Paul Sartre’s No Exit was first performed on 20 September 1944 as the first play in Paris after the liberation from the German Army.  It has become a classic of the theater ever since.  No Exit has no change of scenery and only three actors—a man and two women.  Each separately walk into a Second Empire drawing room with massive bronze ornaments on the mantelpiece and furnished with only three small chesterfields.  Each of the three knows full well they are dead and have been sent to Hell.  But there are no instruments of torture and no Hell fires to burn them—just other people.  Soon the horrifying truth dawns on them that the lies they told themselves and others when they were alive is their damnation to experience and re-experience for all eternity.  By the end of the play they have agonizingly tortured each other and have come to realize that Hell is other people.

Hell is Canada
The reason that I formulated the theory of one and the unified field theory, and pursued this matter with doctors, politicians, justices, cops, scientists, physicists, educators, celebrities, broadcasters, religious leaders is so that I could know for certain that I have satisfied the due diligence of a prudent man in exposing this wretchedly unconscionable conspiracy against the children.  If you decline my proposal, then I can say with absolute mathematical certainty that nothing matters in this country other than pleasuring the Man.  Everyone lies all the time, and if one tries to live a life without lying, then the government quietly and passively extinguishes you—all the while claiming that you are free.  The Devil is taking us without a fight.  However, if you agree to my reasonable proposal, the politicians will be able to tell the people that anyone can become king or queen, that people can make a real difference in Canada and the world, that the government will yield to a reasonable mathematically valid argument, and that Canada is ultimately about truth and not authority.  Hell or Heaven?  It is all up to you Senator.

Kicking a Man When He is Down
On 17 October 2002 in a hockey game between the Calgary Flames and the Boston Bruins, a drunk twenty-one year-old student took a dare in order to get some money to pay for school books—shed his cloths and hopped over the boards for a would-be streak.  Unfortunately, he fell and knocked himself unconscious on the ice.  Judge Cheryl Daniel ordered the student to donate $2,500 to charity, to perform 35 hours of community service and to get alcohol counselling.  The judge then proceeded to chastise the student for—as she put it—Making a pathetic spectacle of yourself splayed naked on the ice for six minutes until you were covered.  And now you understand absolutely everything there is to know about Canada.  Not only do judges, cops, psychiatrists, premiers and all other governments agents salivate at the opportunity of kicking a man when he is down—but they derive an extra little bit of demented pleasure by doing it openly in the majesty of Provincial Court.

No Exit
Jean-Paul Sartre’s No Exit was first performed on 20 September 1944 as the first play in Paris after the liberation from the German Army.  It has become a classic of the theater ever since.  No Exit has no change of scenery and only three actors—a man and two women.  Each separately walk into a Second Empire drawing room with massive bronze ornaments on the mantelpiece and furnished with only three small chesterfields.  Each of the three knows full well they are dead and have been sent to Hell.  But there are no instruments of torture and no Hell fires to burn them—just other people.  Soon the horrifying truth dawns on them that the lies they told themselves and others when they were alive is their damnation to experience and re-experience for all eternity.  By the end of the play they have agonizingly tortured each other and have come to realize that Hell is other people.