The Letter to the Privy Council
April 18th, 2021
Ham sandwich, though I’m sure you knew that already.
We are two weeks from the Ontario Pretrial Hearing for the next of the series of trials arranged by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA / the Civil Service). The next one promises to be a belter. It’ll be five days long, after all.
The problem is that whatever I say or how I say it, what I file, when or in what order, it won’t matter; the Civil Service gets what it wants. Ham sandwich, as you know.
Actually, the almost full quote, from Rutland Weekend Television goes as follows;
“Ham sandwich, bucket and water plastic duralex rubber McFisheries underwear. Plugged rabbit emulsion, zinc custard without sustenance in kippling-duff geriatric scenery, maximizes press insulating government…”
See? It flows, it sounds interesting but it’s meaningless. The words don’t matter.
The coming show trial in June is the fifth or sixth (I forget which) of the Civil Service litigations against me.
Remember what I did wrong? That’s right, I was in business, obeying the law, but in a business that the civil service wanted for itself. It was therefore criminal of me to obey the law like that! I really should be ashamed of myself.
As you may recall, I got the stern lecture and finger wagging from a glaring Judge last month. Given her attitudes, and the fact that she refused to allow the introduction of any evidence inconvenient to her colleagues, I think I’ve got no more than a 5% chance of winning that one.
So, I await the Rulings from both the Secret Hearing and the Criminal Trial, as I look forward to the five-day trial in June. Facing down such a serious bias and with nothing really to lose, on April 14th I decided to write a letter to the Court, it’s Departmental Managers, and the Privy Council of the United Kingdom.
“Notwithstanding Canada’s Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act, 1949 (the Act), we are writing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) and the Office of the Attorney General for Canada regarding widespread judicial malpractice of grave and dangerous character in Canada….”
That’s how it began. You see, prior to 1949 the Courts of Canada were supervised by the Privy Counsel of the United Kingdom. So….
“….and to request that the JCPC and Attorney General for Canada immediately commence dialogue to amend the Act on an interim basis in order to introduce outside supervision and authority over the Canadian Court system.”
See where we’re going?
Canada’s Courts are increasingly kangaroo courts. Indeed, we just finished a Hearing organized by the Civil Service to put my fine self in prison for having complied with the law.
And that was the basis for the letter; the erosion of judicial independence. Asking the Governments of Canada and the United Kingdom to agree to put once again the Canadian Courts under supervision would grant time and stability to clean the place up. For if the Courts are just another arm of authority for the Civil Service, then laws don’t really matter anymore.
Well, citing evidence, my letter gave a recitation of Court conduct in the CSA case. Take a deep breath, then….
“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]
Then I noted that the CSA v. PS Knight case has been underway for nearly ten years. Then I noted that the Court has worked in close concert with their colleagues in the civil service throughout. Then, in sick irony, the basis for this decade of depravity is that PS Knight had complied with all the laws applicable to its operations, this being unexpected and inconvenient to the civil service. Compliance with law was therefore deemed a breach of law. And, to cap it off, I noted that the Federal Court is presently considering the civil service request that the CEO of PS Knight be imprisoned for five years for having complied with a Court-requested Stay Agreement.
Having made my pitch and presented my evidences, I went for the close, as;
“In practice, laws do not exist in Canada. Civil Servants, including those in the judiciary, see themselves as above the law, exempted from law yet empowered to enforce law over others. To Civil Servants, 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. Law then, doesn’t matter; thus, Canadian Courts are no recourse. What matters is what the Civil Service wants, as lex est quod dico.”
That’s Latin, an obscure language everywhere except the Courtroom. The phrase means “The law is what I say it is.” Then I warned of the consequences of lawlessness with the bluntest language yet seen on this site, as;
“This is dangerous. If what is lawful is defined not within law but by the greatest power, then all options for resolution, including paramilitary activity, are lawful when practiced in power. Further, removing objective recourse through the Courts encourages and legitimizes the application of Court precedents in the exercise of lawfully unconstrained force by citizens -a legal might-makes-right.”
I know, it sounds sanitized, but read through the nuance fetishes of Civil Service parlance, that’s powerful stuff.
This situation, I said, is unacceptable in civil society. The time has come for intervention. And that brought me back to the request of the British and Canadian Governments.
“Therefore,” I said, “in the context of Canadian civil service conduct in the judiciary in recent years in general and in their various cases against PS Knight in particular, and in the recognition that neither the Canadian Court system nor the governments in whose authority they operate have demonstrated willingness or ability to reassert the supremacy of law, nor to re-establish the independence of the judiciary, nor to introduce accountability for criminal conduct by the Court itself, it appears that the Canadian Court system would benefit from outside supervision.
“We request and recommend that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Office of the Attorney General for Canada begin immediate discussion to coordinate the amendment of the Act to reintroduce within a reasonable time JCPC oversight of, and authority over, the Canadian Court system until that system and its personnel may be restored to conformity with its legal purpose.”
I sent the letter on April 14th, copied to the various Civil Service judges on the file and to Kangaroo Crampton and his Departmental oversight.
I also sent separate letters to the Civil Service judges on the file, requesting that they recuse themselves, that the British Government “may assume responsibility for objective review of the record to date.”
So yes, these were assertive letters, pointing out those things that aren’t usually pointed out, and the whole exercise was a longshot. But, when you’ve got nothing left to lose, you go for broke. That, and it puts them on record.
We have nothing solid yet from either Government but the judges on the file have already sent their responses. And their responses are everything you’ve come to expect from the Court.
From the Office of Justice Fuhrer (the Secret Hearing case), “A request for recusal must be made by way of Motion, in accordance with Federal Court Rules.”
In other words, she’s ignoring the request because it wasn’t filed properly. But on January 8th of this year, the Court Ruled that, in this case anyway, “The requirement [for filing according to] Federal Court Rules is hereby dispensed with.”
So, they’re demanding compliance with Rules they’ve already dispensed with. Folks, the difference between Court conduct in January and in April is that the Civil Service was inconvenienced by the Rules back then, but inconvenienced by their January Ruling today. Thus, the Rules of Court are both waved (for CSA) and retrenched (for me).
It’s like we live in Somalia or something.
Anyway, Justice Fuhrer’s response wasn’t the weakest response we received. No, that award goes to Prothonotary Mirielle Tabib.
“The letters dated April 14, 2021 do not pertain to the litigation in this matter and are not documents which are contemplated by the Federal Court Rules.”
So, Justice Fuhrer ignores the filing because it doesn’t comply with those specific Federal Court Rules that the Court has already dispensed with, while Prothonotary Tabib ignores the filing because there aren’t any Court Rules to cover this sort of thing at all; the Court Rules referenced by her colleague Justice Fuhrer don’t exist.
And what do you make of the claim that the subject of the filing doesn’t pertain to the litigation? It doesn’t? Then what does it pertain to?
This, my friends, is a small sampling of what I’ve got coming in June. It’s a show trial folks, five days’ worth.
Nothing I file or say will matter, there’s nothing I can do but ride it out and await the coming sunlight (will announce some sunlight soon).
Until then, in the spirit of the Civil Service; Ham sandwich!