The March 1st Hearing

February 18th, 2018

As a child I was an absolute darling, obviously, and rarely caused trouble.  But, boy, when I did it was troubling.

I had a series of tree forts, for instance.  To my mind, they were superb in every way.  One day however, I stumbled upon something that was perfect fort material;  a WWII bomb shelter.

Very few children have forts with rubber floors and twelve inch concrete walls, but I did (it still stands, you can see it here).  I wasn’t terribly concerned at the time that the bomb shelter was by this point RCMP property.  There may have been some trouble.

Anyway, my fort had an enormous steel door on the front of it which, for safety, had its lock removed.  It was plenty secure alright, provided nobody walked through the front door.  I spent ages with friends there, trying to gerry-rig a lock onto that door, all to no avail.  The removed lock was, in our view, a design flaw.  Still, for a few glorious months we had a seriously cool hangout.

The Federal Court system is a bit like that bomb shelter.  It’s very secure and very safe, it’s designed to protect people from various villainy.  All the protection of the Court amounts to nothing though, if the locks on Court integrity have been removed.

We have a big Court hearing on March 1st.  This is the Hearing in which the Federal Court of Appeal will Rule to either retain Manson’s Law or overturn it.

Recall that Justice Michael Manson Ruled in March, 2016 that legislation in Canada is privately owned, that for all laws in Canada “copyright does not belong to the Crown”.  No matter how surreal such a Ruling may be, nor how hopelessly, laughably unworkable, nor how everyone is ignoring it, including the Courts themselves, Manson’s Ruling is still technically the law of the land. 

Recall that we also know the background to Manson’s Ruling.  It turns out that when he issued his Ruling, Michael Manson was a former Canadian Standards Association [CSA] employee, did interviews on their behalf, pitched CSA products and services, partnered with CSA for conferences and co-presented with CSA in numerous forums -this guy was a CSA guy when he Ruled for his friends at CSA.  That’s illegal, folks, its a massive violation of Court rules governing conflicts of interest.  And that massive illegality was perpetrated by a Judge of the Federal Court.  That’s a big deal.

We also noted that it was the Chief Justice of the Federal Court who was responsible for handing this case to Manson, after what we understand to have been a number of phone calls with Ottawa.  Recall that we contacted the Chief Justice, Paul Crampton, asking if he planned to rectify the matter and discipline the errant Judge.  But no, apparently, Kangaroo Crampton thinks his Kangaroo Court is just spiffy as-is.

This is what we’re trying to correct on March 1st.  It could be a tall order, depending on how much Crampton-like conduct is found at the Court of Appeals.  That Court’s outside Crampton’s control, so it remains to be seen what influence he or his friends in Ottawa may have with this Bench.

The irony is that PS Knight has been the only party to actually adhere to Manson’s Law.  The CSA however, hasn’t.

Ark Tsisserev was CSA’s Chair of the Canadian Electrical Code Committee, the body that amends Canada’s electrical laws.  He’s a CSA heavy, about as high on the standards pole as one can get.  He also writes columns in his role as Committee Chair for Electrical Line Magazine.  As we pointed out last June, his articles include extensive quotation from electrical law, and without any attribution whatsoever.  Likewise, Electrical Line Magazine doesn’t attribute their quotations to CSA either, they don’t seem to have bothered to get CSA’s permission to reproduce legislative extracts.

Under Manson’s Law, that’s illegal.  Under the Ruling, nobody can quote the law without permission, attribution and payment of royalty.  And let’s not forget, Manson’s Law is what CSA engineered.  The CSA is ignoring their own Ruling.

Their argument in Court is somewhat undermined -and I’m being charitable here- by their own conduct in defiance of their own Ruling.

The CSA is also defying the Ruling in their submissions to Court, for they haven’t bothered to attribute their quotations of other laws or other Rulings found therein.  They are violating Manson’s Law in their arguments to retain Manson’s Law.  How’s that for irony?

Court submissions are well researched documents, often quoting extensively from previous decisions, as arguments of precedent.  There are a lot of legal books to help in this process.  Martin’s Code, for instance, is quite like Knight’s Code, in that it reproduces an entire body of law in compliance with Queen’s Printer copyright, and without permission, attribution or payment of royalty to whomever drafted it.  Martin’s Code is used by lawyers in their submissions and Judges in their Rulings.  It’s a research tool.  And Martin’s Code is just one such legal resource.  There’s Tremear’s Code too, and Golds’ Code for instance, both covering criminal law.  The list of Codes is really long, I’ll not itemize the lot of them, save to point out the ubiquity of these Codes, their routine use by lawyers and Judges, their reproduction of legislation identical in practice to that of PS Knight and, of course, the reality that parties to the March 1st Hearing are almost certain to have used one of these Codes in their preparation. 

As all these Codes are all illegal under Manson’s Law, their usage in relation to the March 1st hearing makes a bit of mockery of the CSA argument that all such use is illegal and punishable by a thorough smiting.

Worse for CSA, the governments of Canada aren’t taking Manson’s Law seriously either.  All governments, at all levels, are defying Manson’s Law on a daily basis, usually on the argument that compliance would make the effective and coordinated governance of the land pretty much impossible.  Seriously, how can any government enforce any law if they have to seek permission from the “owner” of that law at each instance, then pay royalties for that action, and only then actually enforce that law?  It would turn a routine roadside traffic stop into a month-long sojourn.

Governments are also happily ignoring the royalty requirement.  Recall that PS Knight Co had registered copyright over our contributions to electrical law.  Well, we’ve been invoicing governments for their use of “our” laws since the Ruling, totalling 336 invoices, and all of these invoices have been ignored entirely.

The CSA argument in Court is therefore badly impaired by the fact that every government in the land is happily defying Manson’s Law.

Of course, the Court will make it’s own determination.  Or will it?

You see, when a session of Court is opened, a formulaic entrance is followed.  A door at the front opens, an officer of Court stands to announce “All Rise!”, and the Judge enters Court, proceeds to the bench and sits down, then those before the bench may be seated.  Then the hearing may commence. 

All of this entrance is choreographed, it’s all part of Court protocol, and it’s all written into regulations binding the conduct of the Court.  But nearly none of these regulations was drafted by a government employee.  Under Manson’s Law, nearly all Court regulations are therefore privately owned.  The Court needs to secure permission from the “owners” of these laws for their use on March 1st, then attribute usage to those owners at the start of the Hearing, then advise of payment of royalty for each use to each owner.  This process of permission / attribution / royalty must be followed for each usage of the Rules of Court -every Ruling, every Hearing, every objection or admission, every single thing covered by the Rules of Court are subject to Manson’s Law.

Ponder this example;  Kevin Sartorio is CSA’s lead councel.  That is, he’s their lead counsel on paper, though in practice he’s AWOL most of the time.  Regardless, on March 1st Sartorio will address the Court to argue for his client.  In doing so, Sartorio is using the Rules of Court which permit him to speak.  Yet I’m fairly confident that he’ll be doing so without permission / attribution / royalty paid to the “owners” of the laws that he’ll be using.  Under Manson’s Law, Kevin Sartorio cannot utter a syllable in Court.  But he’ll do so anyway, in defiance of Manson’s Law.

Indeed, every Court Hearing since the issuance of Manson’s Law has been conducted in defiance of Manson’s Law.  And there have been hundreds of Hearings since Manson’s Law was issued.  The fact that the Court so consistently and so routinely ignores it’s own Ruling, and the fact that CSA likewise ignores that Ruling, both in day-to-day practice and in Court itself, tends to undermine the solidity of that Ruling. 

The whole conflict centres on the wording of Queen’s Printer Copyright;  Manson ignored it, and we haven’t.  I have complied completely with that law.  Consider the wording:

“Alberta Queen’s Printer permits any person to reproduce Alberta’s statutes and regulations without seeking permission and without charge”

So, I ask you, what did we do wrong?  How did we break this law? 

Let’s be blunt;  Manson’s Ruling was borne of corruption, in what may have been a rigged process, by a hopelessly conflicted Judge, and is in defiance of Queen’s Printer copyright, it has been ignored entirely by every authority in the land, including Courts at every level, in every jurisdiction, including the Appeals Court, and has likewise been repeatedly defied by CSA, the party who fought so hard to get it in the first place. 

The law is clear, the conduct of the Court and the governments are clear.  The Ruling from the March 1st Hearing should likewise be clear.

The Courts should be for citizens as a bomb shelter against corruption.  But just as Kangaroo Crampton pulled the lock from the door to let Michael Manson walk in, the Court of Appeal may have also had its integrity compromised.  That’s the worry.  For all the solidity of the Court of Appeal, and all its storied past, the security and integrity of the place may have been as badly breached as Crampton’s Court.

An honest Court will Rule on the law and we’ll be fine, for we’ve not broken the law.  A crooked Court will Rule in contradiction and hypocrisy, and we’ll be wiped out.  It comes to the Court then, to judge us, and themselves.

Friends, the CSA’s war is nearly through.  Thank you for your continued support in these closing battles.