November 2nd, 2020

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) filed a Motion against us for Default Judgement on Oct 14.  They also filed to accelerate their program to put me in prison for five years.

It almost seems they’re not pleased with our new US incorporation and our newly minted copyright on the Canadian Electrical Code.

Actually, “not pleased” is an understatement.  They’re awfully angry right now, frustrated and embarrassed that for all their dirty dealings PS Knight is still standing.  Worse, we’ve secured ownership of the Electrical Code in the US; we own copyright.  And even worse than that, the US is a jurisdiction the Canadian Civil Service can’t easily manipulate.

This isn’t how it’s supposed to work, you know.  In the Civil Service, they think they should get everything they want, all the time, regardless of law.  So now, in frustration, they’re squeezing their system, using every rigging they’ve got to finally force their way.

Remember “Tabib’s Hammer,” the one we’ve been waiting for?  Remember the weighty decision taken by Prothonotary Mireille Tabib that PS Knight should not be allowed to defend itself?. 

Well, with CSA filing their Motion for Default Judgement, essentially asking the Court to Rule in their favour without a trial or even a Hearing, they’ve put Tabib in position to drop her hammer.

And she did.  Here’s what happened…

First, we responded to CSA’s Default Judgement filing with a defence filing of our own, and that caused the first of several CSA fits of anger last week.  Apparently we weren’t supposed to defend at all.

Recall that Tabib’s Ruling on Defence was that PS Knight wasn’t allowed to defend itself.  But CSA is suing both the company, PS Knight Co Ltd, and me personally.  So CSA’s Counsel was upset that after they’d arranged for a defenceless company, I was still defending myself personally.

Trying to dissuade my response, the Civil Service counsel, Kevin Sartorio, wrote that “I do not believe there is any response to the [Motion] that you are required to make.”

That didn’t work.  The idea that the right to defend one’s self is inappropriate is, you know, inappropriate itself.

So we did respond, and fulsomely.  Our response as a single filing was 26 pages of formal Response, plus evidence pages taking the total submission to 193 pages in length.

The evidence pages contained, as you might expect, evidence.  What do you think; Is the Civil Service keen on facing evidence?

Evidence, my friends, like law, gets in the way.

A big section of our evidence filing dealt with the legal status of CSA as a Civil Service Agency.  Look folks, the evidence for this is overwhelming, we’ve covered aspects of it repeatedly on this site.  It’s a bit like proving that Transport Canada is part of Government -it’s that clear. 

Very worrying for CSA is that Manson’s Law, the Ruling that laws in Canada can be owned privately, does not apply to civil servants.  Got that?  Only non-government employees can own laws.  That means the CSA, as a Crown Agency, does not enjoy any of the privileges of ownership under Manson’s Law. 

And that means any evidence of CSA’s legal status as a Crown Agency is dangerous to the Civil Service’ legislation money racket.

In this happy context, Tabib issued an “oral direction,” oddly delivered in writing, on Oct 29, saying;

“The 26-page document entitled ‘Defendant’s Response to Notice of Motion’ dated October 20, 2020 may be filed…”

Caught that?  She is allowing me to file a defence. 

The idea that defending one’s self is a privilege bestowed by bureaucrats, in their fine judgement, that can be withdrawn at their own pleasure is, in my view, perverse.

Anyway, Tabib Ruled that I am personally allowed to file a defence.  But, you know, she had to curtail it. 

The Defence filing is only allowed “under reserve of any objection by the Plaintiff [CSA] as to whether Mr. Knight is permitted to respond to a Motion for default judgement…”

That’s right, Tabib just gave a plaintiff the authority to overrule the defence of their opponent.

Think about that! 

The Civil Service which runs both the Court and CSA is granting itself the right to strike defenses it deems unhelpful to its own case.  How third-world is that?

I suppose they wouldn’t strike a feeble filing, right?  But if there were arguments or evidence submitted which could harm them, well, then such filing would be struck. 

It gets worse. 

“The remaining documents [the evidence files] may not be filed as they are not properly filed as evidence or identified as part of a motion record.”

I see.  Of course, an uncharitable mind might note that CSA’s own Motion did not identify their supporting documents as evidences or as previously filed.  The rule of the moment, you see, applies only to me.

In practice then, our Response document of 26 pages is accepted, provided Tabib’s colleagues elsewhere in the Civil Service don’t object, but all of the evidences referenced within our Response are struck from the file.  So now our Response is just argumentation, the documents of evidence against the Civil Service have been removed from our filing by the Civil Service.

The CSA didn’t take long to respond to Tabib.

Said the Civil Service lawyer; the “CSA does not consent to Mr. Knight filing this document or being permitted otherwise to participate at the hearing of CSA’s motion”. 

That would mean CSA would be entirely unopposed at the Hearing.

“Neither the corporate Defendant [PS Knight] nor Mr. Knight is entitled to respond to or contest CSA’s motion.”


“CSA provided a copy of its Motion Record [their filing] to Mr. Knight as a courtesy.” 

Wow.  They file against me, trying to take my family business away from me, without a trial and specifically denying the right to defend myself and then, amazingly, they advise that my even knowing that there was a Court motion to take away my property was a courtesy.  Apparently they could’ve had the Court Hearing without my knowledge, rubber-stamped their conduct, and I’d have found out when they raided my office to take my property. 


And what do you suppose would be the major argument in favour of chucking all our defences?

“The balance of [Knight’s] materials contain bald assertions of fact […] unsupported by any sworn affidavit evidence in Mr. Knight’s responding materials”.

The reason there’s no evidence is because Tabib removed it. 

So, the Civil Service edits Defence documents to remove embarrassing evidence, but they leave the now unsupported filing intact.  Then they point out how unsupported the filing has become, so unsupported in fact, that the filing itself should be struck as mere baseless assertions.

Then, helpfully, the CSA counsel “respectfully submits that Mr. Knight lacks standing to speak to, or otherwise participate either for himself or his company, at the hearing of CSA’s motion against PS Knight.”

And that’s where it landed.  We’re waiting for Tabib to rubber-stamp this one too, and she will, early this coming week.

The Canadian Civil Service genuinely thinks they’re getting away with this.  Nobody knows about all this, save for a vigilant RestoreCSA following, and the media lost interest ages ago.

And with the Civil Service now directly subsidizing the media, they’re pretty sure none of their conduct will see the light of day.

They’re wrong.  Very wrong.

This third-world conduct, this railroading, was expected.  To paraphrase Sun Tsu; “Know your enemy, know yourself.”  We know the enemy, we know their attitude to law and their influence over governmental systems.  We’re not pleased about this, let’s be clear, but we expected their moves and we’ve planned for it, and we’re shortly to execute on those plans.  Fear not, we’re good.

We’ll explain in the coming weeks.  The one thing we can say right now with certainty, and a touch of ambiguity, is that a whole lot of sunlight is shortly to shine on the conduct of Tabib, Manson, Kangaroo Crampton, Odida Quamina, Kathryn Dunning-Kruger, the Gowlings Gongshow, et al. 

Buckle in folks, the ride is about to get bumpy.