The Defamation Trial
June 27th, 2021
The five-day defamation trial was scheduled to begin on the morning of June 21 (last Monday).
The courtroom was decorated for Christmas, with bows and wreaths throughout and the wafting scent of festive candles everyplace. The Judge was wearing a bathrobe, as the judicial robes were out for laundering. Counsel for the Canadian Standards Association (“CSA” / “Civil Service”) arrived in sedan chairs, carried aloft by naked, greased members of the Department of Finance Men’s Choir and Chicken Rotisserie Association, save for Kevin Sartorio, who arrived by wheelchair fitted with an Intravenous rig hooked up to a bottle of Heineken.
Well folks, truth to be told, I have no idea what happened in Court last Monday morning. I wasn’t invited to attend.
I am the Defendant, yet I wasn’t allowed to know when or where the Trial was taking place. I have no idea who attended or how long they were in session. The Civil Service didn’t want any defences to their preferred outcome.
While it remains a mystery what happened in the meeting between the civil servants of the Court and the representatives of their colleagues at Industry Canada, I do know that on Monday afternoon the Court agreed to reschedule the five-day trial to late November of this year. They said so. And I was told about it. And there was much rejoicing.
I shouldn’t have to report that I was told of a rescheduling but, as I’m locked out of most processes in the Civil Service litigation against me, it actually feels like news when they advise me of something.
In this, my patience is wearing thin with these people. So I wrote them a letter.
“The above referenced Show Trial originally scheduled to start on June 21, now rescheduled to November 29, is suffering from process deficiencies. […] This letter identifies the most pressing deficiencies already evident and is submitted for the benefit of the Judge. We have not been advised of the identity of the Judge as yet.”
Stay with me here, it gets feisty.
“The Canadian Standards Association (“CSA” / “Civil Service”), is an agency of the Federal Government. As such, the CSA and the Court are different branches of the same Civil Service.”
With this letter, I’m putting in writing the record of the Court in such a way as to be referenceable in future. That is, they won’t be able to deny knowledge of what they’re presently up to.
“Canadian courts have been working to arrange Rulings favourable to shared Civil Service interests, as has been well evidenced throughout this litigation. As noted in our April 14, 2021 letter to the Privy Counsel of the United Kingdom…”
And then I excerpted this enormous -and enormously damning- paragraph from that document;
“In just this one case, the Courts of Canada have breached the 60-Day Public Review law when the civil service was found in breach of it, declined to enforce the Transparency and Accountability Act and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act when CSA was caught ignoring its legal responsibilities under these Acts, the Court struck Federal Contract Law when adherence to it would have harmed their civil service colleagues, struck Queen’s Printer Copyright law when it impeded civil service profit taking, struck Criminal Code sections 46.2(b) and (e), 46.3(b), 46.4.4, 120, 121(1), and 463 (thereby legalizing the bribery of public and elected officials), and did so to protect the civil service from prosecution when they were caught selling influence over legislation, the Court denied the right to defend one’s self, holding secret Hearings between the Judiciary and Industry Canada (CSA) in which the defendant was not allowed to so much as “speak,” the Court furnished the civil service with a veto over the defenses of their opponent, suppressed evidence of civil service criminality to prevent review of civil service conduct, the Court suppressed exculpatory evidence in a criminal Hearing in order to ensure the result the civil service had requested, the Court violated the anti-SLAPP law to ensure that civil servants could sue the same defendant on the same issue numerous times in the same jurisdiction, then Ruled costs against the defendant when they complained about it, the Court egregiously engaged in trial rigging to attain the Manson’s Law Ruling, in which the Judge was personally and directly employed by the Plaintiff, and the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Paul Crampton, then violated the Judicial Conduct Principles and the Courts Administration Service Act in order to protect Justice Manson from prosecution for trial rigging. All this, in one case.” [sources here]
Therefore, I bombasted, “the experience of the last ten years of conduct of the Court, coordinating with their colleagues elsewhere in the Civil Service, leads to the conclusion that you, as Judge in this case, are of a common understanding with your colleagues to ensure a result favourable to your side. A Show Trial, in other words.”
Alright folks, that’s feisty. The Court considers itself above reproach. They are our betters, you see.
I explained myself thusly;
“[The] Defence filings uploaded to Caselines earlier this year were deleted by this Court. The entire Caselines account for the Defence was deleted just prior to the deadline for Defence filing. Obviously, we cannot file if we have no access to do so. Nearly a month after the Defence filing deadline, your office relented, granting access to Caselines but only to view the flings of your colleagues at CSA. In other words, we were granted a read-only account. As to the other Court filing system, the Ontario Civil Claim Online, your security code numbers are only accessible within Ontario. As we are not in Ontario, we cannot access this system. Having tried repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, to file the Defence Affidavit bundle, we sent the filing by WeTransfer to your colleagues at CSA and to your office directly. Your colleagues downloaded our filing without difficulty. We have verified that your office made no attempt to download our filing.”
Thus, by the decisions made by the Court, the Court has no Defence filings on its system.
Next, I lambasted on their non-efforts to resolve the impasses they’d introduced;
“Your office was contacted about the deleted Defence filings and the deleted Defence account. Unfortunately, your office declined to offer explanation, to restore the filings they had deleted, to restore the account they had deleted, or to accept our inquiry as valid in the first place. Instead, your office, in a single line email, advised us to contact your colleagues at CSA. Likewise, various of the staff at your office declined to respond to any of our several inquires on uploading our files. The Court has chosen to delete our filings and ignore our inquires.”
What would they have us conclude? That all of this, occurring spontaneously and concurrently in multiple areas, by multiple staff, throughout the offices of the Court, consistently displayed in this Trial as in all the other litigations their side started and compelled us into -all this is all innocence; one gigantic series of improbable incompetencies? Is that plausible?
There’s more than a hint of coordination.
Then I got pointy…
“Who ordered the deletion of our Defence filings? Who ordered the deletion of our account? Who executed on these orders? On what dates? On whose request were these orders issued?”
The answers to these questions are undeliverable, for they’re the evidence of corruption. But then so much of this experience is transparently corruption, yet just as gallingly denied by the Courts as glaringly obvious to the rest of us.
Then, said I; “Your Civil Service colleagues made multiple filings late last week, at the last minute, all after their June 4 submission deadline, and all in the knowledge that your office had arranged the deletion of our Caselines account. That is, your side filed in the knowledge that you were preventing objections to your own filings.”
See how this was phrased? On March 21 of this year I wrote that “the make-believe separation between the branches of the Civil Service as taking a beating.” And I was beating it pretty good in this letter also. Quite deliberately, I referred to both of the branches of the Civil Service -both Industry Canada (CSA) and the Court- as a single party, as; “your side” and “your own filings.”
Truth, folks, is lacking in Court. Swearing-in for testimony is now just an “affirmation,” hardly intimidating. Perjury isn’t prosecuted, it just goes to cost. If civil servants commit perjury, they’re fined, and the payment is made from the Treasury. That is, you pay the penalty for Civil Service perjury. In practical terms then, there is no penalty for Civil Service perjury at all. I mean, we can’t even get the Civil Service to admit that they’re part of the Government! How basic is that? Calling them out on their own record is fair game -and long overdue, hence the references to “your side” and “your own filings.”
So how should I handle all the antics of the Court in this case? Well, the mechanics of it part pretty simple;
“Going forward, we are not going to chase you. If you allow Defence filings, we will file. From here on, we will hands-off the process, leaving it to you to allow filings, schedulings, and the like, and to advise as you will. If you or your office choose to frustrate the process further with more dead-ends, read-only accesses, wild-goose-chases through your office for the right staff, right location, right program -this sort of pedantic obstructionism, already well evidenced, will not be legitimized with participation.”
In this letter I bound them to their own conduct. I was respectful, professional, just without legitimizing the Court’s self-serving and mostly baseless claims of objectivity and their increasingly nonsensical fantasies of commitment to the Rule of Law.
“Your conduct” I said, “has been unacceptable.”
And so it has. And they’re still smarting from the letter. We’ve heard nothing from them in return.
Well folks, next week we’ll return you to regularly scheduled articles, including the promised second coming of Bonnie Rose and a regalement of some financially interesting developments earlier this month. And if the Court gets ‘round to responding with anything even peripherally noteworthy, we’ll report that too.
Oh, and I’d bet you five bucks the Sartorio Heinecken reference that started this article will be the talk of Gowlings by lunchtime.