I’m disclosing crimes of Obstruction of Justice from Minister of Justice David Lametti, through Judges down to some schmuck lawyer, in front of a judge and crown prosecutor. September 13th, 2021
The reason this appeal is occurring, is Judge Sicotte failed to take into consideration, the freedom of expression argument, that I made in Nakusp, on July 15.
Due to the successive failures of every institution within the legal system to remedy the wrong perpetrated upon me, the only method left for me to communicate was by direct protest, and that is being treated as a crime, like I’m guilty unless I prove my innocence, which is wrong.
Crown has avoided making a single actual argument in defense to my charter complaint. Crown had two weeks’ notice, of the constitutional question, before the hearing on July 15th, to present ANY actual argument but would only claim it was a frivolous and vexatious argument and that the rulings of the Canadian Judicial Council do not apply to Judges of the BC Provincial Court.
It is simply not a sustainable argument that this court is providing “fundamental justice” and operating in a “fair and impartial” manner in reality, and in the public perception, when your governing body, the Canadian Judicial Council claims federal judges can legitimately call upon the Plaintiff, and incite her, to commit perjury, to refute the transcript, which was brought to court, to conclusively establish fraud, by the Plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr. Stacey.
There was absolutely no questioning, or investigation, of Judge Shaw’s conduct, or his ability to act judicially by Justice Pigeon of the Canadian Judicial Council. That is an obstruction of justice. The same can be said for the BC Law Society, as Mr. Stacey also refused to comply with a court order, to provide monthly trust account statements, and when the BC Law Society requested those trust account statements from Mr Stacey, they refused to provide copies for me, and refused to provide written reasons for their decisions, in conflict, with their governing statute.
Unfortunately, Judge Shaw was also the subject of debates in Parliament, as to his ability to perform his judicial duties, when he claimed the law protecting child pornography was unconstitutional, in order for him to release a self-represented litigant from trial, claiming the Act of Parliament breached the defendant’s freedom of expression. This is a problem for Parliament, The Executive, the Judiciary, and the citizens of Canada, that upon his release back into the court system, he abused me, and the Canadian Charter of Rights.
I have come to this court to report crimes in the legal system, and the crown has taken the position to attempt to punish me, by requesting an increase in the penalty provided in the provincial court and attempt to remove my rights as protected by the rules of this court, the decision in Pintea, and the Canadian Judicial Council’s Statement of Principles for Judges dealing with self-represented litigants.
I have made abuse of process arguments numerous times but been ignored, every time, in a continuation of the abuse of process. However, I’m thinking that perhaps this time we can communicate positively and I remain hopeful that you will help uncover a path forward.
I suggest that if you feel the court system can help resolve this situation it is important at this point to shift away from the adversarial system in order to resolve this problem.
A staff lawyer from the Ministry Of Justice should be well qualified and trained to present a balanced discussion of the charter as it applies to this situation, as should have occurred upon receipt of service of my Charter complaint filed in March 2020 with the Deputy Attorney General’s Office. Following a lack of response to my complaint, I requested the assistance of the United Nations as further meaningful methods to resolve the issue within Canada had been exhausted.
To involve me in the court system any further is abusive. Since both the BC Law Society Act and the Crown Prosecution Rules and Code of Conduct stipulate the seeking of the truth, the protection of the public, and upholding the rule of law, as their governing duties, it should be a straightforward exercise and one that the Crown Prosecution staff have years and years of experience.
It’s all on your website at www.justice.gc.ca
I’ve only been in a courtroom less than a dozen times in my life, as a victim of the family law system, with no experience of appeals, and no idea of the process whatsoever. All lawyers have refused to represent me or to provide legal advice except for what is available online. I have been refused by lawyers, my charter right, to a lawyer.
I have previously requested and been denied an amicus curiae, to better inform the court, and ensure the protections of the Charter are provided, which is, all of our responsibilities here.
A writ of mandamus is required, for the Minister of Justice to provide my charter complaint to Parliament to perform the necessary checks and balances upon the powers of the Judiciary, as constitutionally guaranteed. It’s the only lawful path forward. It will look better coming from you, with compassion, the rule of law, with a view to seeking the truth, and reconciliation, and to restore Canada’s faith in their legal system.
I am available to help with further investigations and to present a victim impact statement. I should be properly paid for my work contributing to the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in a Democracy, with a robust rule of law, as Canada claims.
Perhaps Canadians individually should also have the protection of a body like the Canadian Judicial Council or the BC Law Society that would protect us and provide practical immunity for criminal wrongdoing? Are we equal under the law here in Canada?
The Acts of Government in a Democracy are in service to the people. I am serving the people, reporting crimes in the justice system, and protecting the Charter. I should be paid and protected. The same as you would expect. You wouldn’t want to create a sense that you Rule over me, and the Charter, that would be wrong.
I need to be paid so I can feed my family, This is required to ensure even a basic sense of fairness and impartiality. I need this to start the process of restoring this breach in the Charter. I should be paid for my work, the same as you all are here.
The Crown is still withholding evidence required to provide me a fair and impartial trial including my right to a full answer and defense. I have sent emails and a Freedom of Information Act request for my personal files, held at the Canadian Judicial Council. They have refused, contrary to the open court principle, and an accountable judiciary in a Democracy. Those records should be ordered by this court.
I have requested on several occasions, for the Executive arm of Government to protect me, and to confirm their commitment for my safety, however, they have refused to respond and refused to refute that they might lay false charges against me in some kind of weird vengeance, or retribution. The RCMP, when made aware of my case, threatened me by email that they would “destroy evidence”. I am asking now for this Court to protect the Charter of Rights as it applies to me, and all Canadians.
It would be proactive if Government disciplinary bodies such as FMEP and the RCMP voluntarily stand down as I have requested that they do, whilst this court is not protecting our Charter of Rights and they are threatening me and other Canadians. This Court should also acknowledge that and Order that today.
The BC Supreme Court is not a Court of competent jurisdiction to provide the charter remedy required in this case, which is the dismissal of a judge, for breaching the judges act, and not acting judicially. The administration of justice is failing to apply the rule of law. This court is proven to be biased and partial in this regard and based on the information before the court, no Canadian would believe otherwise.
I am willing to testify in support of the evidence that I present to this court and at www.fundamentaljustice.com and I seek an immunity agreement in this prosecution.
I also seek informer privilege, a request for resolution discussions and the possibility for Alternate measures of dispute resolutions, as specified in the Public Prosecution Service of Canada Desk book.
“Compelling an accused to stand trial would violate those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community’s sense of fair play and decency” and “would tarnish the reputation of the court”, as stated in Conway, or where the proceedings are, “oppressive or vexatious” as in Nixon.
The Canadian Judicial Council states that their rule, for the test of judicial conduct, is to ask if “the conduct is so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role, that public confidence would be sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office?” and that test is seen from the perspective of the public not the judge.
In regards to my right to a recusal, the law states that “a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded observer, might reasonably apprehend, that the judge MIGHT not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question that the judge is required to decide. That principle gives effect to the requirement that justice should both be done and be seen to be done, a requirement which reflects the fundamental importance of the principle that the tribunal be independent and impartial…..lest the integrity of the judicial system be undermined and the question is one of possibility, not probability.”
The court should be presented with “overwhelming evidence that the proceeding under scrutiny are unfair” as discussed in Power.
In regards to the availability of dates. Brenda in the scheduling office told me that there is availability this week and October 12th week. I am available. If you are going to persist in this argument that you can disregard the transcript and prefer any random piece of evidence then my right to appeal is absolutely arbitrary and the word of a judge overrules precedents, Acts of Parliament, the Charter of Rights, and the Rule of Law.
That is the evidence before the court. If you are not going to listen to a word I say?
Why wait? Justice delayed is justice denied.