The Criminal Trial

March 21st, 2021

“Are you trying to threaten me?”

“No, absolutely not!”

“It sounded like a threat.”

“Well, it isn’t.  It’s more of an advertisement.”

We experienced the long-awaited criminal proceeding last Wednesday, it was the Canadian Standards Association’s (CSA’s) sixth lawsuit and their first attempt at imprisoning their competition.

That’s right, this was the five-years-in-prison litigation we’ve been waiting for, a full-on criminal trial.  And it was full-on nasty.  The above exchange, between the Judge and the affable defendant (that’s me), is a pretty good barometer of how things went.

What follows is a rough overview of the events of the day from presentation records and notes made during the trial.  Some readers want a two-paragraph summary and others want the full grisly details exposition.  This is the full thing.

Previous articles explaining the background to the trial are here and here and here.

The first order of Court business was getting everybody logged onto Zoom.  Everybody’s distancing these days, it’s a health thing.  The Court is diseased.

Anyway, it turns out there were twelve people in attendance on Wednesday, including Court officials.  The CSA had the usual suspects, Kevin Sartorio and Uriah Heep from Gowlings, plus another two CSA lawyers listening in from Mississauga HQ, plus two witnesses; Doug Morton, BA, and Mr. Junior Williams. 

The CSA went first, calling Morton to the stand.  He was affable, superficial and mostly meaningless, spouting the usual pablum noises about how terrific they are and how much good they do.  I offered no objections to CSA’s questioning of their witness and the Judge didn’t interrupt either.

Then, my turn.  I asked Morton to confirm the date of the issuance of Manson’s Law.  He did so.  I asked Morton to confirm the date of the Stay Agreement (more on this in a moment), and he did so.  I asked the same for the Supreme Court Decision on Manson’s Law and the date that PS Knight halted sales in compliance with it.

Quick background.  The injunctive portion of Manson’s Law (the application of it) applied specifically to PS Knight and dealt only with the 2015 Knight’s Code.  The Ruling is explicit about that.  So, when CSA released a new Code in 2018, we published it.  Why wouldn’t we?  There was no injunction against the 2018 Code and the private ownership of legislation was at that time under appeal.  The CSA responded by dragging us into Court in early 2018 for another injunction.  The Court suggested that both parties agree to stay the application of Manson’s Law until the appeals were through.  So we did.  We signed the Stay Agreement in good faith; the CSA signed it, apparently in bad faith.  This criminal trial last week was CSA suing me for selling the 2018 Knight’s Code as permitted in the Stay Agreement.  That is, they want me punished for complying with that Court agreement.  Ok, back to the action…

I was walking Morton through the dates to demonstrate that the Stay Agreement indeed “paused” application of Manson’s Law throughout the range of dates they were prosecuting me for.  But then it seems I got too close for comfort.

I asked; “What do the Latin words in the first line mean?”  They were “Sine die,” which in Court mean “open-ended.”  That’s key, because it means the Agreement was valid through the sum of appeals. 

Sartorio objected to my question, saying that it was too much to expect that Doug Morton would understand the legal concepts involved.  The Judge agreed and my question was disallowed.

Then I asked if the Stay Agreement had been violated.  Sartorio objected again.  I pointed out that CSA was prosecuting me on this issue, so surely their star witness had an opinion on the question of my guilt.  But no, the Judge wouldn’t allow this either.

There’s a reason for this, folks.  You see, the answers to those questions make the Stay Agreement valid and CSA’s prosecution against me baseless, so the Civil Service could not possibly allow the answers onto the record.

Then CSA called their second witness, Mr. Junior Williams.  This guy is a private investigator hired by CSA to verify that PS Knight was indeed selling Knight’s Code books.  Why this was needed is a mystery, as we announced the book sales, had a website actively selling them, and were mailing them to a lot of folks on CSA’s roster. 

Regular readers will recall that this isn’t the first time CSA’s hired a private investigator on me.  The first time, their PI accidentally used his real name when emailing for an update on his order.  Unravelling his identify, home address, workplace, etc. was, you know, easy as cake.  The CSA doesn’t hire the best and brightest. 

Their latest PI hire is pretty similar.  He bragged on the stand about how he used multiple aliases to secretly purchase Knight’s Code books.  Again, why “secretly” purchase from us when what we’re doing is public?  Daft.  Anyway, this PI used two different aliases from two different addresses, both owned by the same family, to make two nearly identical purchases.  That is, one order under one name was used to buy the Knight’s Code and have it shipped to him.  The other order under the other name was used to buy the PDF version of Knight’s Code.  Each version is $80.  Had the guy bought the bundle he would’ve saved nearly half of what he spent.  No matter; it’s only taxpayers money.

Evidently this Junior Williams fellow isn’t the best PI money can buy.  He paid for his orders using PayPal, apparently unaware that his real account information, including his real name, is included in the PayPal records sent to the seller (that’s us) for both of his orders.  Well, let’s not belabor it.

I asked no questions of him.

Next, I entered my evidence in defence.  Or rather, I tried to. 

While the Judge allowed the entirety of CSA’s evidence, indeed without questioning any of it, every single item on my evidence list was questioned by the Judge and, in the end, over half of it was disallowed. 

Critically, the items accepted were uncontroversial, they were already agreed by the Civil Service, but the items disallowed were the ones most damning to the Civil Service and their case.

For instance, fifty-three pages of original source evidence of CSA’s legal status as part of the Civil Service was struck. Yes, all of it.  That’s dangerous stuff folks, the Court can’t let that onto the record.

We also had evidence of past and ongoing reproduction of electrical laws by other companies, all of which is outside the Stay Agreement, which CSA has taken no issue with at all.  And all of that was disallowed as well.  All one hundred and twenty-five pages of it.  Again, that’s damning stuff, for how could the Court put me in prison for publishing with permission while ignoring so many others publishing without permission?  So, to protect CSA, the Court ensured that none of that evidence would be considered.

The Judge also disallowed PS Knight Americas’ US copyright, even though this company was also a litigant last week, charged with publishing in the US without a copyright.  So, no copyright in evidence means there’s no defence against CSA’s accusations that we published without a copyright. 

Then the Judge disallowed PS Knight’s copyright assignment documentation.  Then she disallowed evidence of CSA’s legal team in breach of Manson’s Law, themselves.  And so on.  Yes folks, it was a pretty one-sided affair.

One is reminded of the quote, that “railway trains are impartial, but if you lay down the lines for them, that’s the way they go.”  Well, the Court was framing the evidence such that only one outcome was possible.

Next, CSA gave their main arguments.  And it went on, and pointlessly.  You see, their whole argument was that PS Knight was in breach of Manson’s Law and should be punished.  The fact that the Stay Agreement signed at the urging of the Court specifically authorized us to do what we’re now accused of doing wasn’t strongly featured in their presentation.  Neither, incidentally, was the Ruling of Justice Barnes, responding to one of CSA’s many Motions in Court, that the Stay Agreement “allowed Knight to continue to sell the Knight’s Code” and he noted that the Agreement “has been honoured.”  There.  That should end it, right?

Not so, as CSA spent nearly two hours nattering on how horrid I was as a human being, how badly I deserved incarceration, and how all of the weight of legal precedent mandates my jailing.

Through it all, the Judge interrupted CSA only once, to ask what page Sartorio was on.

Amazingly, CSA even entered a study they’d done, comparing our reproduction of electrical law with theirs.  They had a side-by-side graphic done, showing that the documents are word-for-word identical.  This, they said, was overwhelming evidence of the guilt of PS Knight.  We’d not merely copied the law, we’d copied it accurately. 

But, at law, we’re required to copy it accurately.  I mean, who are we to alter the text of legislation?  Alberta Queen’s Printer Copyright specifically authorizes reproduction of laws and regulations “provided due diligence is exercised to ensure the accuracy of the materials produced”.  Let that sink in.

The CSA says that we are “guilty” of complying with copyright law.

Sartorio also started a series of contradictions.  First, he argued that the injunctive within Manson’s Law, though specific to only the 2015 Code, actually applied to every Code because each new Code is just an iteration of the one before it.  Sartorio also reversed himself about an hour later, arguing that the Stay Agreement only applied to the 2018 Code.  Why?  Because each new Code is unique and stand-alone. 

Friends, the CSA claimed that each iteration of electrical law is unique and stand-alone, and that each iteration is definitely not unique or stand-alone.  They argued both positions on the same issue in the same trial, within an hour of each other.  Surreal.

I should note here, for your amusement, that CSA counsel and the Judge herself were forced to refer to the Court Ruling on private law using the term “Manson’s Law.”  This is a term used fairly widely now but is absolutely loathed in Court.  You see, the Rulings of a Judge are supposed to be Rulings of “the Court,” so there’s no direct accountability to any Judge for any Ruling they make.  I dislike this, so right from the issuance of Manson’s Law I referred to it as such, forcing the term into the public record.  To read that record, the Civil Service lawyers had to refer to the Ruling as Manson’s Law.  Repeatedly.  And boy, that irked CSA counsel, and the Judge.

Alright, then I got my go.

I really had only one legal argument to make, that the Stay Agreement says what it says and should be respected.  I pointed out that Justice Barnes has already Ruled that PS Knight was not in breach.  I reminded the Court that PS Knight halted sales of Knight’s Code immediately upon Supreme Court Decision on the matter, as there were no further appeals possible, and that we’d even published an article announcing the halt of sales. 

Then I uttered a line that I’d come back to repeatedly that day, much to the irritation of the Court.  It characterised the CSA’s, and the Court’s, approach to the Stay Agreement, that in their view;

“What the Stay Agreement says it means is the opposite of what it really means.”

Then I let that steep for a bit.  I said that I next intended to give some context to trial, to “give you a brief overview of how we got here.” 

And I knew they weren’t going to like this much.

“First, CSA is part of Government.”  Establishing the legal status of a litigant is basic, it’s expected.  Well, officially anyway.  I noted that the Court had blocked my evidence on this and that it wasn’t the first time the Court had supressed evidence of CSA’s civil service status.  I noted CSA’s government charter, immunities from litigation, their legislative authorities, the running of legislative committees, their operations from government offices, their listings as government through decades of phone books, etc.  Then I came back to my sum line, that in this, as in so much else, the Court believes that;

“What the law says it means is the opposite of what it really means.”

The Judge was getting upset.  You could see it.  You’re not supposed to point this out in Court.  Judges want the power to Rule however they like, without regard to law, but they write their Rulings to reference the laws they purport to apply, so that their Rulings have all the affectations of legitimacy without actually conforming to the laws they’re supposed to uphold.  My pointing out the disconnect between what the law requires vs what the Courts have Ruled was, shall we say, unwelcome.

Next I noted the 1969 License, the contract between PS Knight and CSA allowing us to reproduce as much of the Code as we want prior to governments passing that Code into law.  Then I reminded the Judge that she had already refused to allow the License into evidence and noted how incredibly self-serving that was.  In other words, I was pointing out that the Court was allying with CSA to prevent exculpatory evidence from consideration on the Court record.  That of course, is embarrassing for the Court.  The Judge was getting quite upset now.  Still, I finished the point, saying with reference to Court Rulings on the matter, that;

“What the License says it means is the opposite of what it really means.”

Then I reminded the Court that in 2012, when all this started, I and my company had been complying with Alberta Queen’s Printer Copyright and Federal Contract laws.  That is, we are being punished for complying with law.  Why?

“Because what the law says it means is the opposite of what it really means.”

At this point the Judge started interrupting my presentation.  She didn’t interrupt her colleagues at CSA; she only interrupted me.  The Judge was trying to throw me off course, trying to stop my recitation of Court conduct and refocus on CSA’s arguments.  But recall that CSA’s arguments ignored the Stay Agreement, so by focussing only on their arguments I would effectively concede that by complying with the Stay Agreement I was violating the law. 

Well, I restated the points I’d made earlier about the Stay Agreement and returned to course. 

I told the Judge I “won’t get into the weeds with this,” but I needed to touch on the Manson’s Law Ruling.  I reminded the Judge that Manson’s Law was “a radical declaration of private ownership of legislation” and was the opposite of what Queen’s Printer laws state and the opposite of hundreds of years of legal precedent.  Then the Judge interrupted again.

“It would be helpful if you would refer to that Ruling as ‘the Judgement,’ so we know what you’re referring to.”

Ha!  No chance.  The Judge herself had used that term already and her CSA colleagues had used it repeatedly.  Besides, what she was trying for was anonymity on the Bench.  Judges prefer to have their Rulings considered as the “Rulings of the Court,” not mentioning the Judges’ names.  By referring to the ‘judgement’ as Manson’s Law, I was putting responsibility for that Ruling on the Judge that issued it.  Accountability; can’t have that.

In this, I referred to the Ruling as the “Manson’s Law Judgement.”  That’s not what she wanted.  Seriously, you should’ve seen her facial expression.  Almost worth it just for that.

Then I pointed out that Justice Manson was a CSA employee Ruling in favour of his own employer.  Bit of a conflict of interest, that.  Of course, this Judge already knew that, even if she’d not spoken with Manson about it.  In my written submissions ahead of the Trial, I’d put it on record thusly;

“The Plaintiff’s employee and sometime Judge of the Federal Court, Mr. Michael Manson, issued a Ruling in favour of his employer on March 8, 2016.” 

Bold, yes?

Then, in point form;

- Manson Ruled that Defendants had infringed the copyright of Manson’s employer by reproducing their registered 8% of electrical law, and;
- Manson Ruled that Defendants were enjoined from any competition with Manson’s employer with respect to his employer’s 8% of registered text, and;
- Manson Ruled that Defendants had to pay Manson’s employer $5,000 in penalties.

And to hammer the point….

“Acting in his capacity of Federal Judge, Michael Manson then re-opened his Judgement on April 7, 2016, issuing a Supplemental Judgement against the Defendants to increase the amount payable to Manson’s employer to the sum of $96,336.”

Back to the trial, and in the context of my submissions on Manson, I noted that Michael Manson acting as Judge between myself and his employer wasn’t merely unethical; it was illegal.  I noted that we’d contacted Chief Justice Paul Crampton about it and that Crampton chose to do nothing.  I noted that Crampton’s tacit acceptance was a violation of the Judicial Conduct Principles and the Courts Administration Service Act. 

Then I noted that in practice; “what these laws mean is the opposite of what they say they mean.”

Then the Judge interrupted again.  In my presentation to the Judge, I’d been referring throughout to CSA counsel as “your colleagues” and her patience with this was wearing thin.  I replied by pointing out that Judges aren’t privately employed, they’re civil servants in the same way that CSA employees are civil servants, they’re just a different branch of the same civil service. 

Ooooo, she didn’t like that one.  Judges want us to accept that they’re independent of government influence.  But that only works if in practice they’re actually independent of government influence.  And as Manson and Crampton had demonstrated, the Courts were clearly doing Civil Service bidding.

When that hubbub died down, I then noted the large number of other companies quoting electrical laws without risking CSA litigation, noting also that the Judge had chosen to disallow all of the evidence for this.  As I was unable to reference this evidence, I changed tactics, asking the Judge some rhetorical questions, as;

“Have you personally complied with Manson’s Law?  Do you have anything by LexisNexis or Thompson Reuters at home, in your office?  How about Martin’s Code?  Any legal commentaries which quote the law?”

Look, either Manson’s Law exists or it doesn’t.  As the Court has Ruled that quotation of private law is unlawful, then the Judge’s personal library contains contraband publications if she’s in defiance of Manson’s Law.  Well, I got a pretty hard glare from her when I asked the question. 

So I pressed on.

“Are you aware that every Court library in Canada is in breach of Manson’s Law?”  That’s been confirmed, by the way.  No Court library has removed any publication for unlawful quotation from legislation in the wake of Manson’s Law.  So Manson’s Law means one thing for me but means the opposite for others, just as Queen’s Printer law means one things for me but the opposite for others.  So I said, evidently;

“What the law says it means is the opposite of what it really means.”

That got another glare from the Bench.

I then reminded her of the Ruling of Justice Quamina in 2016, that the bribing of public and elected officials is now legal.  Readers will recall that this Ruling was made in order to protect the Civil Service from prosecution after they’d been caught taking bribes for influence over the drafting of legislation.  In this case then, the law was deemed to mean the opposite of what it said.  And I said so.

Then I reminded the Judge that I’d appealed the Quamina Ruling on bribery and that Justice Nordheimer had upheld Quamina, affirming that bribing of public and elected officials is indeed legal in Canada.

I noted that in the context of these Rulings, it would be perfectly legal for me to offer this Judge a bribe, quickly adding that I wasn’t doing so.  No.  I said I was saving that for their big Defamation trial against me in June of this year.

Speaking of which, I then drew her attention to her colleagues’ next trial against me in June, this time for the crime of reporting CSA conduct to the RCMP.  That is, reporting what CSA was caught doing, accurately, to the proper lawful authorities was, itself, unlawful.  The crime wasn’t the crime; the real crime is reporting the crime -that is, if the criminal is the civil service. 

I noted that a myriad of laws authorize the citizen to report criminal conduct but, you know, in Court “what the law says it means is the opposite of what it really means.”

Ok, by this point the Judge was interrupting me every few lines.  She was aggressive, not even trying for objectivity.  She was working to impede my reading into the Court record the conduct of the Court in this case. 

Look folks, people who are confident of their conduct don’t react like that. 

Navigating the interruptions, I then noted our Motion to Dismiss the Defamation case on the grounds that it was CSA’s fifth duplicate lawsuit, that you’re not supposed to be able to sue the same person on the same issue multiple times concurrently, in the same jurisdiction.  I noted that the Judge in that case declined to uphold those laws.  I noted that according to this Judge’s Ruling, what the law said it meant was the opposite of what it really meant.

As you may recall, after that Motion the Province of Ontario passed an anti-SLAPP law.  It’s designed to give defences to the little guy when some big guy is using the Court as a weapon to silence dissenting voices.  It’s designed for cases like these, actually.  You’ll recall that we filed for dismissal on the basis of the anti-SLAPP law.  You’ll recall that the Judge ignored the law saying that “it might be interesting” to allow the CSA case to continue.  Then she ordered me to pay CSA’s costs in that Hearing, even though the anti-SLAPP legislation specifically prohibits such costs. 

“What the law says it means,” I said, “is the opposite of what it really means.”

Remember the 60-day public review law?  Well, that’s what I highlighted next.  I reminded the Judge that in 2017, her colleague Justice Bell had found CSA in material breach of the 60-day public review law but declined to enforce compliance with it.  Indeed, in 2021, CSA was again in breach of that law.  So, said I….

“What the 60-day public review law says it means is the opposite of what it really means.”

That brought more interruptions.  The Judge was quite upset, things weren’t going the way she wanted. 

She asked me to stop referring to CSA as “the Civil Service.”  They’re called “CSA” and, after all, Justice Manson had Ruled that they were not part of Government.  I didn’t take the bait on Manson’s Law (you can read the background here, if you like), but I respectfully said that I was under obligation to be honest in Court and would therefore refer to the Civil Service as the Civil Service throughout. 

The fact is that this Judge knew the record of her colleagues at CSA and her colleagues on the Bench.  She knew that the one was working with the other to mutual benefit.  She was getting heated that all this was being read into record.

I got into even more trouble when I mentioned that CSA was suing PS Knight (and me personally) in US Court as well.  That’s awkward, because in this trial CSA was arguing that this was a purely Canadian matter, that it didn’t belong in US Courts.  And that’s ironic, because in the US they’re arguing the opposite.  I asked the Judge; “Are you sensing a pattern here?”

“Notice how your colleagues’ statements change based on circumstance?  The law, the facts and truth, mean whatever they want them to mean.”

And that’s true.  It’s hard to get one’s head wrapped around this, that laws don’t matter in Canada.  Civil Servants see themselves as elites, above reproach.  To them, law is a means to an end, and their ends are getting what they want.  In this, if the law gets them what they want, then that law means what it says.  If the law doesn’t get them what they want, then obviously the law means something other than what it says.  See?  Truth then, doesn’t matter.  What matters is what they want.

Of course, at this point what she wanted, quite badly, was for me to stop talking.

I next spoke about the Secret Hearing.  You may recall that Prothonotary Tabib Ruled that I was not allowed to defend my company against her CSA colleagues.  Then Tabib Ruled that my own personal filing should have all its evidences removed.  Then, on the basis that my filing had no evidences anymore, the rest of it should be struck as baseless argument.  Thus, the Court completely eliminated any defences offered against their CSA colleagues from my company and from myself. 

With this safety in place, the Court held a secret Hearing on November 10th.  I reminded the Judge that this was “a secret hearing between two branches of the same civil service, the judiciary and Industry Canada [for CSA]” to decide between them how they would use the powers of Government to take for themselves what belongs to me.

There are laws to prevent this, right?  But I observed that “what the law says it means is the opposite of what it really means.”

Then I asked the Judge, rhetorically; “What of my right to a fair hearing -or a hearing at all?  What of my right to defend myself?”

At this, the Judge interrupted yet again, visibly riled at the situation.  She was getting very abrasive, her interjections more frequent and forceful.  I should point out that these exchanges were respectful, just incredibly, and increasingly, strained.  The Judge was just barely containing her anger.

At one point in the back-and-forth with the Judge, and on only one occasion, I referred to CSA Counsel not as “your colleagues” but as “your co-workers.”  She didn’t catch it or just didn’t respond.  Either way, the make-believe separation between the branches of the Civil Service was taking a beating.

Finally, I was free to continue.  I commented that my experience in the Judicial System hasn’t been unique.  Rather, for a couple of decades now the Canadian Judicial System has been pretty consistent in such matters.

Namely, I said, “the Trinity Western Ruling on religious freedom affirmed that we do indeed have religious freedom guaranteed in law, provided the Court happens to agree with the religion being practiced.”  Then I mentioned the Interprovincial Trade case, that “unimpeded trade is guaranteed at law, unless the Court wishes to protect the political interests of one Province against another.”  Then I was interrupted again.

When the dust settled, I continued, nicely but relentlessly; “The Law Society of Ontario issued its Compelled Speech regulations in defiance of free speech laws, but they didn’t matter.”  Then I mentioned that “former Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlan…” 

The Judge interrupted, this time in mid-sentence.  By this point, I could hardly get more than a line or two before interruptions.  The Judge was clearly miffed that I would bring up McLachlan, and likely knew very well how compromised the former Chief Justice was, and is.

For the uninitiated, Beverly McLachlan was once regarded very highly as the first female Chief Justice in Canada and one of the first in the western world.  But her record is one of breaching whatever law she likes to get whatever result she wants. 

Look folks, the Court needs the image of impartiality and legality, it just doesn’t want to behave that way.  So the image must be protected, and all the more vigorously as Judges, of all people, know how false that image is.  And that’s why this Judge was feverishly interrupting me.

After several tries and several interruptions, I managed to get the sentence onto the record, that; “former Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlan was caught last year agreeing to give the PMO a legal opinion to their liking -custom legal opinions- in trade for money.”  This was the infamous Review and Legal Opinion done to pressure the Attorney General on SNC Lavalin.  Then, I noted that McLachlan had also publicly “decided a case before hearing the evidence, this being the infamous rape shield Ruling.” 

Then I mentioned the High River crimes of 2013, and that all of the perpetrators of those hundreds of break-and-enters and all the stealing of private property, and all done without a warrant, resulted in no prosecution at all because the participants were RCMP, they were Civil Servants.

“In all this, what the law says it means is the opposite of what it really means.”

Then, I said, “let’s close the circle.”  I went to my concluding remarks.

I committed to accepting the Court’s Ruling no matter what that Ruling may be.  I will not appeal the Ruling.

I reminded the Judge that the Stay Agreement was duly signed by “her colleagues,” that I believe that it means what it says and that it should be respected.

Then I asked the Judge, rhetorically;

“What would you have me do?  I mean, if the Ruling requires payment of a fine, for instance, should I pay it?”

See?  I’m putting her in a box. 

“I’m on trial for complying with the Stay Agreement.  I’ve been in this nine-year saga for complying with Queen’s Printer and Federal contract law.  So what happens if I comply with this Ruling?”

She was agitated, fidgeting, glaring at me.

“If the Ruling means the opposite of what it says, then by complying I’m actually defying the Court.”  That would bring another contempt charge. 

Oh, she reacted poorly here.  I got the full two-barrel response.  She was very upset that all this had come out, and worse; that the Court’s dirty record made any Ruling she might make quite meaningless. 

I complained that this time she’s judging me for five years in prison for complying with law; next time it might be ten years, or fifteen.

“I just can’t afford to be caught complying with law.”

Again, near meltdown.  She was livid.  When things settled…

“If I comply, I am punished; if I defy it, I am punished; it really doesn’t matter what I do, the punishment is the same.”

Laws, you see, don’t actually matter.  It’s what the Civil Service wants that matters.  Law is just a veneer.

“I’m advising you right now that when the Ruling is issued, I will receipt it, I will print it out, I will put it in a manilla folder, and I will file it.  I will neither comply with, nor defy the Ruling.  I will ignore it entirely.”

The glaring -people!  The glaring!  I swear, you could fry an egg on her head, it was that bad.

Well, there were a couple of other items right at the end but I’ll save those for another article.  The thing wrapped up.  The CSA’s counsel said a few things of no particular importance and the Judge closed the session, signing off.

I have now been in front of many Judges but this was the most hostile judge in the whole nine-year saga.  It’s also the first time my side went for broke, confronting on matters of public record.  That record has been that we’ll be punished no matter what we do because it’s not a matter of law, it’s about what the Civil Service wants.  And because they want what I have, I will be in breach no matter that I comply, and laws will mean whatever they need to mean to deliver on the desires of the bureaucrats.

I just pointed that out.  In Court.  And they’re not pleased about that.

I am very likely to lose this case.  There’s likely no more than a 5% chance of pulling a win, frankly. 

And that means the Court will find me in criminal contempt.  I might get jail time.

And that the basis for it is bunkum won’t matter, the conviction is what counts.

But we’ve hinted that sunlight is coming, my friends, and this sunlight will be brighter than you know.  Sunlight exposes all and elucidates all it exposes internationally, place to place, around the world, and in bold colour.  Yes friends, it’s a bright sun, this one.