Waiting on Tabib
July 6th, 2020
You may have noticed that RestoreCSA articles have slowed lately. Why so? Corona, my friends, hasn’t slowed Court processes so much as halted them. Nothing’s happening.
Tabib’s next move, to foreclose on her colleague’s litigation against PS Knight, has yet to happen. Until she moves, the floodgates of litigation activity, and the mighty mighty reporting thereon, won’t happen.
The Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the civil service outfit behind all of this, wrote a letter to the Prothonotary, Mirielle Tabib, a few days after our last article, and helpfully referenced that article, to ask their colleague for a favour.
Specifically, the civil service asked Tabib for an exemption to Court regulations, naturally. And they’re quite likely to get one, naturally.
They want Tabib to foreclose more quickly than Court regulations permit. They know very well that foreclosing doesn’t close the body of litigation, and they suspect that Tabib thinks it might. That is, they don’t want her to think too much about the ramifications of foreclosure. So, you know, go go go, get her speedy.
But Kevin Sartorio, the civil service’ outside counsel, may have boobed it. In his pleading to be exempted from regulation, he referenced our Tabib’s Folly article. That article, written quite deliberately with an acid pen, is now in Court reference. It was written quite aggressively to send the Court a message that couldn’t legally be penned to them directly. And now that article is referenced in CSA’s own filings.
In other words, thanks to her colleague Kevin, Tabib has lost plausible deniability.
Recall that the Tabib’s Folly article outlined the consequences of foreclosing on CSA’s case. We noted that this is hardly the end of their litigations, and denying one party the right to defend itself will become awfully awkward in future filings. Thanks to Kevin, Tabib now officially knows this.
You know, it consistently amazes me how civil servants struggle to anticipate their adversaries’ moves. It comes from the artificial nature of their employment, the absence of competition or need for productivity, responsibility, accountability, or the need to respect the law -any real struggle in their professional lives. They get weak. At least that’s been my assumption.
Their general counsel, RJ Falconi, was flat footed from day-one. His successor, Kathryn Yung, hasn’t really improved things. When she nods her head it makes the sound of a spray-paint can shaking, you know that noise? Exaggeration; yes, but the theme is pretty accurate.
I’ve compared the Canadian civil service to that satirized in the British sitcom Yes Minister. That is, a clump of Sir Humphrey-like bureaucrats, thinking themselves the absolute apex of society, basically running everything as they please, without regard to law or democratic legitimacy, safe in the assumption that the public doesn’t know the extent of civil service corruption.
One clever RestoreCSA reader wrote to draw a distinction, saying that “in the current governments these bureaucrats do not have the education or intelligence of Sir Humphrey and are basically stupid. Thus, in defending their scams they run around like children, having legal tantrums, throwing the first thing that pops into their heads at the courts, only to have to deny and contradict it later. ie: CSA gov’t vs private. Safe in the knowledge their counterparts in the courts will cover for and facilitate them, just like the FBI figured President Hillary would for them, they make more and more absurd claims hoping a corrupt judge will finally rid them of their meddlesome pest.”
Yeah, that’s about right. The civil service may still have all the trappings of sophistication, but in practice it’s just a thuggery.
So, anyway, Tabib will make her foreclosure decision sometime this month, the decision date based on whether she’ll exempt, or not exempt, her colleagues from Court regulations regarding the timing of her foreclosure.
And to think; all this is wrapped in the affectation of legality and in the name of justice.
I was reading an article today in the Times of Israel, it had a lovely line, I think, applicable in describing the Canadian judicial system; “If the powerful need not obey, then demanding obedience from the weak isn’t ‘law,’ it’s servitude.”
Yes, and that’s where we are.