January 19th, 2020
When I was wee, I was dragged by parents to a lecture of some sort, to benefit the adults in some fashion, on a subject apparently forgettable and by now entirely forgotten. But the speaker had a great opener. I’ve no idea what his subject was, but the opener has stayed with me.
“When I was wee,” he began, “I was dragged by my parents to church. Sometimes we’d have a guest speaker, and I could always tell right away if the speaker would be interesting or boring based on the first few lines of their sermon.” See where he’s going? “If the speaker started with a story I knew the sermon would probably be alright. But if he started with ‘now open your bulletins to page two we’ll get going,’ well, then the sermon was likely to be tediously boring..” Then he closed the circle; “…And so, my friends, I hope you’ll note that today I started with a story.” Pause. “Now if you’ll open your bulletins to page two we’ll get going.”
This is a litigation update. These are usually pretty dull affairs, I grant you, but they’re important to keep all of you up to speed on all the agonizingly slow legal machinations of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and they’re wearying war against the little guy. That, and a few of you asked for an update. I’ll try to keep it interesting and, of course, I started with a story.
Right now, the CSA has bogged everything down to a standstill, halting all progress on all of their cases against us, by 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. Seriously, they’re arguing this.
The right of defence is pretty basic but, it’s true, the Court has the authority to disallow a party that right if they feel that the party is ill-equipped to reasonably offer a reasonable defence. The idea is that some parties just eat up Court time and resources on baseless argumentation or a publicly subsidized ego trip, and that such parties should be denied the opportunity to bog down the Court and harm their opponent in this manner. The CSA is essentially arguing that CSA’s position is correct in its entirety, and intrinsically so, and therefore any disagreement with CSA is baseless argumentation and ego-tripping. Defending one’s self against CSA is therefore inappropriate and should be disallowed.
Well, we’ve filed our response and are waiting for CSA’s affidavits (etc.), after which the Prothonotary of the Federal Court will decide if we’re allowed to defend ourselves or if CSA will be allowed to “win” all points by default in the absence of defence. Dirty pool, folks.
The 646 case was CSA’s successful effort to gain private ownership of legislation. This is the case that brought us Manson’s Law. Most recently, readers may recall that the Supreme Court declined to hear our appeal but subsequently affirmed nearly all of our positions in the Keatley Decision.
Left unfinished in the 646 docket was CSA’s appeal of their Federal Court loss from 2018, when the Federal Court Ruled that the 180 errors in Knight’s Code did not exist and CSA’s accusation in this regard was baseless. You may recall that these 180 errors were apparently a public safety menace, a risk of personal injury or even death. Yeah, the Judge said bunk to that.
Late last year, the CSA dropped their appeal in this case. They gave no reason and they’re not required to, but methinks the reason is fairly clear. Exposing their claim of 180 errors in Knight’s Code to even more scrutiny would be embarrassing and could expose CSA to even greater risk than they’ve already got for having made the spurious claim in the first place.
Folks, the CSA’s public safety warning about 180 non-existent errors is still on the Government website. Court Rulings be damned, they’re not complying.
Anyway, CSA’s decision to drop the appeal pretty much closes the 646 file.
Readers will recall CSA’s attempt to put me personally in prison for five years for the high crime of complying with Court agreements.
Specifically, we were required by Court agreement to do such-and-such, and did so, complying completely. The CSA however, has decided to interpret the text of this Court agreement to mean the opposite of what is says it means. In this inverted interpretation, complying with the Court agreement is violating the Court agreement. And I should be smote for it, obviously.
Well, this is one of the items now on hold due to CSA’s Court antics.
This is the first of CSA’s multiple lawsuits (I’m not listing all of the litigations here, as they’re voluminous, I’m just noting the active ones). This is also the lawsuit that has made the least progress. Seriously, it was filed against us in 2012 and we haven’t seen the inside of a Court room on the file.
I recently met with an MP. I noted that we’re in year number eight, trying to defend against the civil service. He laughed and said we’re not doing too bad, and then he regaled me on the attitude of the civil service as a serial litigator.
One of this MP’s constituents is in year fourteen trying to defend against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Apparently, as far as the MP can tell, this guy’s done nothing wrong, has never been charged with anything by CRA, has never had a Court rule against him, and yet CRA continues rolling audits of his company and maintains a freeze on his financial assets. Freezing someone’s finances is deadly. And CRA knows it. That’s why they’re doing it.
You see, they have the power, and you’re supposed to respect it, submit to it unquestioningly no matter the circumstance. That means when CRA makes a move and is proven wrong it’s not their fault; it’s your fault for not having respected the correctness of their decisions. You should be punished. So they use their Government powers to punish the people they’re supposed to be serving. Sound familiar?
Civil servants are not used to losing. In Tax Court, CRA wins over 90% of the time. Is that reasonable? I used to work in the corporate tax office of a major multinational corporation. We were routinely audited, had filings to sort -lots of dealings with CRA. I had to interact with endless CRA auditors, managers, etc., and I can assure you that CRA doesn’t hire the best and the brightest. Like any civil service gambit, the CRA hires at lower wages but offers unbreakable job security and unlimited power over ordinary people. This appeals to a certain sort of person. Having dealt with CRA for ages, I find it wholly implausible that they win >90% of their cases because they’re in the right >90% of the time. Their win record is more likely the result of institutional bias in the Court.
Well, the 1178 litigation is still in the starting gate and will remain there until CSA’s current antics, described above, have been Ruled on. Then we can start this latest (this earliest) of CSA’s baseless litigations. Then we’ll have the opportunity to be smote by CSA yet again for not being sufficiently willing to make protection payments to them. Swell, aint it?
The CSA’s duplicate litigation in Ontario Provincial Court is just as stuck as the rest of CSA’s cases. Nothing to report and nothing on the horizon.
Recall that the purpose of litigation, from the civil service’ perspective, is to punish a person they don’t like very much. As opportunities abound in Court for motions upon motions, filings upon filings, and as each costs a mound of money, they can sort-of bank litigations for when they think restarting them will be the most damaging. And recall that by Court order the CSA has our financials. So they can time this perfectly.
And by the way, we don’t get their financials. That would be fair and just, and silly of you for having thought the Courts work that way. No, only the civil service gets the financials of their adversaries and, as you may recall, they get to conceal their own financials even in their public filings.
This, my dear friends, is our 400th article on RestoreCSA. Sorry it’s not a belter.
That’s the way bureaucracy behaves though. I’ve often thought it would be easier to deal with if civil servants just assaulted their victims, or tried to accost them or kill them or something. At least you’ve got something tangible to defend against. But will civil servants it’s all a shadow war, all machinations and money and dirty deals made by those with power against those without.
We actually predicted this sense of battle in one of the earliest videos we produced on this site. We declared that bureaucrats don’t look evil, they look boring.
With all the powers of the state in the hands of civil servants, trying to defend one’s self against their onslaught is a mighty challenge.
It has now taken eight years, countless meetings with MPs, journalists, bloggers, activists and the like, and seven years of producing this online newsfeed to chronicle civil service abuses, running now four-hundred articles in total.
That’s what it takes to defend when those vested with power for the purpose of justice switch sides for their own advancement and wield that power against the rest of us in the cause of self-enrichment, in debasement of law, in perversion of justice, in the absence of accountability, and without recourse to the victim and, thus far, without end.
But we’re still standing. You see, however bleak and however long the odds, sometimes the little guy wins. Yes, it’s rare. And our record in Court is mixed. But in a gamed system, that we have any wins on our record is impressive, and that we’re still fighting is fabulously frustrating to CSA. That warms me somehow.
We’re still standing.