Court Ruling on the Right of Defence

March 9th, 2020

Two months ago, we reported that the civil service (CSA) was “arguing to the Court that I personally, Gordon Knight, Captain of Industry, am so incompetent, incorrigible, so wholly unprepared and unworthy to be basking in their enlightened presence, that the Court should really disallow me of the right to defend myself against them.”

That’s right, rather than actually fighting the various cases they started, the civil service asked the Court to strip me of my right to defence.  PS Knight Co, they said, should not be allowed to defend itself.  We’re that bad. 

Of course, making such a transparently self-serving Ruling would be to pre-judge in their own favour all of the issues the civil service raised without a Court Hearing, without opposing arguments, and without the fuss and bother of following legal processes clearly defined at law. 

And that’s what they did.

On February 4th, Prothonotary of the Federal Court, Ms Mireille Tabib, Ruled that I am disallowed the right of defence in the various CSA litigations against PS Knight Co. 

She had her reasons.  And here they are;

First, Tabib Ruled that previous Court Rulings did not apply to her.  She is free to Rule however she likes without regard to law or legal precedent.  From her own Ruling;  “However, [Mireille Tabib] is not bound by the finding […] made by another Court, at another time, and on a different matter.” 

Swell.  But if I behaved like this, unilaterally disregarding a prior Court Ruling because it was a year or two old, “at another time and on a different matter,” then I’d be locked up.

Ms Tabib believes herself to be a law unto herself. 

Next;  “The record before the Court indicates that Mr. Knight is prone to intemperate language”. 

Is this an ok reason to deny the right of defence?  I mean, if someone swore constantly, intemperate language on steroids, would that mean they’re not entitled to defence?  Really?

I can see why Tabib first gave herself the right to ignore previous Court Rulings.

Beyond this, her statement assumes that the act of reporting on illicit conduct is at least equal to, if not worse than, the conduct being reported.  You know, reporting a crime is, itself, a crime.  But only if the perpetrator is a civil servant.

Moreover, we have not been “intemperate”.  The RestoreCSA site has reported accurately and faithfully since it began in 2014.  When we found credible evidence of violations of law, we reported them as such and included specific evidences to support the reporting.  That’s a crime now?

Tabib isn’t finished.  Another of her reasons for denying the right of defence is that I personally have demonstrated “a disrespectful attitude towards the Court.” 

Again, is this a basis for denying the right of defence?  Really?

It’s also entirely untrue.  The disrespectful attitude Tabib refers to is the RestoreCSA reporting on the conduct of certain of her colleagues.

In 2017, we pointed out that having a CSA employee (Michael Manson) assigned as a Judge between ourselves and CSA is a massive breach of law.  Indeed, we cited specific evidences of this breach, quoting extensively from the Court Administration Service Act and the Judicial Conduct Principles regulations, demonstrating the massive scale of violations by Justice Manson.  This was unpopular with Tabib.  Our habit of noticing corruption on the Bench and worse, accurately reporting it, was disrespectful of the Court.  The crime wasn’t the crime, it was the calling them on it.

We’ve witnessed this attitude throughout this saga.  One of the CSA’s litigations, for instance, is in Ontario Provincial Court, citing us for defamation.  Among the nasty defamatory things they claim we did was reporting CSA’s counterfeiting activities to the RCMP.  We legally filed an RCMP report.  Again, as far as the civil service is concerned the reporting of crime is the crime, not the crime itself.  At least, not if the criminal is a civil servant.

Anyway, Tabib continues thusly;  “For example [of disrespect of Court], an order requiring both the company and Mr. Knight personally to appear before the Court to show cause why they should not be found in contempt of Court remains [uncompleted].”

This non-action on our part was Court ordered.  As we reported in January, “the CSA has bogged everything down to a standstill, halting all progress on all of their cases against us” in order to pursue the attempt to deny us a defence. 

In other words, part of Tabib’s reason for denying the right of defence was that we complied with Court processes. 

One should also note, by the way, Tabib’s attitude in that last quotation.  We were supposed to appear in Court to demonstrate why we shouldn’t be found in contempt.  We’re supposed to prove our innocence?  The presumption of innocence is also thrown out the window? 

In her third-world attitude, Tabib closes with this surreal statement;

“The Court is not at all satisfied that this matter can proceed in an efficient and expeditious fashion” if PS Knight is allowed to defend itself.

Actually, wouldn’t most Court cases go more quickly if we just dispensed with the Hearings entirely?  If we just presumed everyone dragged into Court was guilty and denied them a defence, well, that would speed things up nicely. 

The Court (ie: Mireille Tabib) will shortly foreclose on all of the civil service’ claims against PS Knight because we didn’t show up to defend ourselves, because we weren’t allowed to show up.  So we lose by default.  That we didn’t show up to defend because we weren’t allowed to is beside the point. 

After all this folks, and you may find this hard to believe, it gets worse.

You see, the civil service launched all of these litigations against both PS Knight Co and myself personally.  When Tabib forecloses on CSA’s litigations against PS Knight, she ensures that all of CSA’s litigations against me personally will continue.  It’s sickening, really.

I have endured, and the Court has colluded in, wave after wave of attacks against my small business, myself personally, and my elderly father, stretching out for nearly nine years now, and all on the pretense that obeying the law is punishable at law, then stealing everything I own and threatening to put me in prison if I complain about it.

So what happens now?

Well, we knew how badly compromised the Court has become folks, so we expected this result and we’ve prepared for it.  While I can’t get into full detail (as CSA readers are the most interested in that bit), we have structured for certain recoveries and will maintain business operations throughout.

PS Knight is not going anywere.  We’re still standing, albeit angerly, and we’re still serving our customers.  That’s not changing.

Otherwise, we will await Tabib’s hammer to fall, the engineered “win” for the civil service, likely in the next month.  And then we’ll engage our next defensive stance.  We’ll report her hammer when it happens.

Oh, one more thing.  Tabib is nothing if not thoughtful for the comfort of her civil service colleagues.  She awarded costs to CSA for their inconvenience.

That’s right, we have to pay them for their trouble in stripping us of our right to defence. 

It’s not a clean Court.  It’s a dirty Court.