The Private Hearing
November 23rd, 2020
As we reported earlier this month, the Civil Service filed with their colleagues in the Federal Court to foreclose on their own lawsuit against PS Knight Co Ltd (that’s us). They wanted the Court to just allocate them a win against us without a trial or a hearing and, of course, without allowing us the right to defend ourselves.
Their Court Hearing to decide the matter was held on Nov 10.
So what happened at the Hearing? God knows. I mean, let’s hope God knows, because we’ve got no idea. We weren’t invited.
According to the Court docket, the Hearing lasted precisely one hour and five minutes. That, my friends, is a pretty quick Hearing. In nine years, we’ve not had a Hearing last anything less than two hours, and most of them consumed the bulk of a day. Just over one hour is just amazing.
Actually, and as noted recently, the Court has suddenly become enthusiastically accommodating to their Civil Service colleagues, moving with a pace we’ve not seen in the nine years to this point. We’ve had Tabib issuing Rulings within 24 hours of CSA application, we’ve had schedulings accommodating CSA’s preferred timelines, and all issued at lightning speed. Whereas the Civil Service spent years delaying everything, now everything moves mighty quick. In California, they’d call this a rocket-docket.
Well, at the Nov 10 private Hearing, both outside Counsel for the Civil Service were there; Kevin Sartorio and James Green. The Court obviously had its representative, a Federal Court Justice named Janet Fuhrer.
Yes, you read that right. It’s a bit comic, I grant you, given the Court’s Roland Freisler-like record on the file but, folks, it’s just a name. We mustn’t read much into it. Anyway….
If this is your first time visiting this site, or if you missed a few articles on the conduct of the Court on this file, we strongly suggest reviewing as many of these articles as you can, (like here and here and here and here) first for context on Civil Service conduct in this Hearing, and more broadly to appreciate the absence of separation between the Civil Servants of the Court and their Civil Service colleagues elsewhere in Government.
Bluntly, the Nov 10 Hearing was a private meeting between two subsets of the same Civil Service convened to decide how best to use the powers of government to take for themselves somebody else’s property while applying a veneer of legality to their conduct.
The sickest part? From the docket, read this;
“Appearances: Kevin Sartorio / James Green […] representing Plaintiff. Comments: No representative for Defendant was in attendance.” [emphasis added]
Readers will recall that the Civil Servants of the Court used their judicial authorities to deny the right to defence. Indeed, these Civil Servants Ruled that Court records be purged of evidence entered against them, that their Civil Service colleagues at CSA be given the right to veto the submissions of PS Knight, and that I, personally, was not allowed to participate -even to speak- in the Hearing between themselves and myself.
It was the Court that Ruled that I could not “attend” the Hearing. The best I could do was watch the proceedings against me as a spectator, and spectators aren’t registered as parties in attendance. In other words, it was the Court that decided I could not attend. Yet now, the Court records its own conduct as my responsibility.
I just didn’t show up, apparently.
Well, Justice Fuhrer didn’t Rule from the bench, she reserved her Ruling. That means the result of the Hearing won’t be known until the Court issues a Ruling in writing, and that could be months away. Or Tuesday. Or anything in between.
The Court knows this is a sensitive file. They know their record on this file. They know all about the Civil Service lobbying on the file -after all, they were the recipients of that lobbying. They know how Manson’s Law was arranged. They know what their colleagues have been caught doing, are still doing, and intend to do going forward. And they know we know.
Justice Fuhrer is likely writing her Ruling with this in mind. She needs to ensure that the Ruling has all the appearances and affectations of legality while still giving her colleagues all they’ve arranged. So the Ruling has to enable one thing while saying the opposite. That’s what makes the writing more difficult. That’s why the wait.
So we wait.