From—Bek—To—Senate Leader Carstairs—Proposal for Public Court—21 Feb 2003

Senate Leader Sharon Carstairs

King Christopher Bek

Senate of Canada

Office of the King

Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A4

1004 First Street NW

Calgary Canada T2M 2S1

Dear The Honorable Senator Carstairs,


21 February 2003

Subject—Proposal for Public Court


In pursuant to the enclosed articles below, I would like to propose that the public debate which I have proposed for Friday 28 March 2003 at the CBC in Calgary be turned into a televised public court for my Declaration of Kingship as well as matters relating to my Declaration.  I propose that you or another senator or senators preside over the debate after which the presiding senator or senators would rule on these matters—for which I would then accept the binding decision.  I would also ask that the format remain essentially the same as the original proposal.


I was abducted again last night 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 the Malicious Prosecution—Count One section of my 14 February 2003 letter to you in which the Calgary Police denied me My Unconditional Godgiven Right to Say No.  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 is also the key difference between the behavioralistic and the existential model.


I had spoken to the nurse who had partitioned a provincial court judge to authorize my abduction.  She had previously said that I could possibly get funds but that I would have to work within the system.  I declined for the reasons that I have decided, because of my achievements, that I will no longer allow myself to be seen through the eyes of the government—and because I spent the two years between October 2000 and October 2002 fruitlessly working through my former doctor Dr. Surani to get recognition and funds for my achievements.  On 18 October 2002 Dr. Surani promised me that I could get financial help if I went to the hospital.  Upon meeting with Dr. J. Naylor at the hospital he told me that no such funds were available and that Dr. Surani had lied to me, but that he did so because he cares.  As a result of this violation of the Hippocratic Oath, in which I was harmed by both Dr. Surani for lying and by Dr. Naylor for validating Dr. Surani’s lie, I can no longer trust doctors.


In addition, both the nurse who had partitioned the provincial court and the four abducting agents on 20 February 2003 were aware of my legitimate Declaration of Kingship in which I am above the law—but nonetheless chose to uphold provincial law over divine law.  In all three cases in which I have been abducted by the government over the past six months (17 September 2002, 18 October 2002 and 20 February 2003), I have been released within a few hours for the simple reason that anyone who speaks with me knows immediately that I am a man of unshakable sanity.  I say this with some trepidation knowing full well that the next time the government abducts me they will likely hold me for a longer period just to try and prove me wrong.  The nurse Camille at the hospital last night told me upon release that it was all a big misunderstanding.  But I believe that each successive incident has simply been increasingly choreographed acts of malicious prosecution.  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.


As a result of my writing, my work in scientific management, my lifelong studies and my constant sole-searching for the simple truth, I have gained an undivided mind.  The behavioralistic model, by denying an inward self, demands that everyone have a divided mind (ie. schizophrenia)—one part for the inward self and one for outward authority.  The problem in such cases is that the inward self has been so overwhelmed by outward authority that the end result is our current omnipresent state of crazed feeding frenzy as can be seen with your morally and financially bankrupt Ottawa Senators hockey club.  I believe that the essence of the government’s attacks on me stem from their unrelenting attempts to divide my mind so that I sell my soul to the false god of behavioralism.  In that I have clearly satisfied the due diligence of a prudent man in bringing these profoundly important issues to light, I would assert that the government is morally obligated to provide for me between now and the proposed Public Court on 28 March 2003.  And in fact regardless of the outcome of the hearing, I would assert that I have provided an immense service and that it behoves the government to help me get back on my feet without forcing me to subscribe to the behavioralisticaly-oriented support system—which is totally foreign to my undivided mind.  I would ask the senator to make sufficient funds available to me immediately and to make sure that the services to my house are uninterrupted.


I believe that I am Christ for the simple reason that, as The Strange Story of the Quantum written by Einstein’s friend Hoffman in 1958 argues, the salvation of our civilization depends on uniting quantum theory with relativity—which I have clearly done as can be seen in my essay The Great Cosmic Accounting Blunder.  Who is capable of delivering the planet into salvation?  Christ.  For your reference to my situation, I would invite the Senator to read Franz Kafka’s 1937 existential masterpiece The Trial in which two nameless government agents one day arrive on the scene, accuse Joseph K of an unspecified crime and slowly start taking his freedom away.  Joseph K eventually begins working within the system and, initially, his situation improves.  At the end, though, two well-dressed government agents take him out back and plunge a knife into his heart.  He willingly accepts the knife because he knows that he has capitulated and therefore sees himself through the eyes of the government—thereby accepting their unquestionable decision to execute him.  Alternatively, the Senator might wish to read Albert Camus’ 1942 existential masterpiece The Outsider in which Meursault, alone and courageously, faces the indifference of the universe—ultimately choosing to die for the truth.  I would ask that you respond to my proposal for Public Court at your earliest convenience.  In addition, I would note my plans to rework my 14 February 2003 Proposal for Cooperation letter to the Senator, which I will then email to you on Monday.



King Christopher



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

From—Bek—To—McLachlin—Declaration of Kingship—28 Sep 2002

From—Bek—To—Virtual Creditors—Notice of Debt Redirection—14 Feb 2003

From—Bek—To—Mansbridge—Proposal for Public Debate—14 Feb 2003

From—Bek—To—Beaton—Proposal for Cooperation—14 Feb 2003

PM—The Great Cosmic Accounting Blunder

PM—The Unified Field Theory

The Strange Story of the Quantum