A failure of trust.

This story demonstrates a failure of trust in the legal system from the bottom to the top.

How the system protected a lawyer altering a court order and a Judge protecting the lawyer and the Canadian Judicial Council protecting the Judge, and the Politicians protecting the Judges. Resulting in a massive breach of our Charter of Rights affecting the rights of every Canadian.

If you cannot report crimes within a justice system without receiving the outright denial, despite the best evidence possible, and left fearing retribution, then you have state-sanctioned organized crime.


During a divorce back in 2006 a lawyer fudged the writing of a court order. from the Judge’s words, to favor his client, or rather, himself, There was not going to be enough money to pay his bill unless he fudged things, to justify his existence, because the truth wouldn’t. I caught the error/fraud and requested he correct it, and included the clerk’s notes, from the court registry as evidence. I had also obtained a court order for my ex-wife’s lawyer to provide me with monthly trust account statements, which he refused to provide. At trial, the two lawyers ( mine and hers ) deleted evidence from the court file that disclosed the crimes but I brought the transcript from the hearing that the fraudulent court order was based upon.

The Judge merely requested the Plaintiff to the witness stand and solicited perjury from her, to protect her lawyer committing fraud, and preferred that evidence to mine, the official court record, the transcript.

The case went to trial primarily because of the unresolved conflicts with the lawyers rather than any dispute with my ex-wife, the Plaintiff. Lawyers would say, you could appeal the Judges decision, because he made an error. However, the dollar amounts involved did not justify the expense and I was warned by “my lawyer”, that there were “significant downsides” for me if I appealed. However, I was concerned about the conduct of the Judge. I made a written complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) which governs the conduct of Judges. Justice Pigeon, in his role at the CJC, wrote to me, declining to investigate, and claiming that the conduct was within the range acceptable for Judges.
I made complaints to the BC Law Society about the conduct of the lawyers involved as my inspection of the court file revealed that they had worked to fix the trial by removing and redacting evidence. The Law Society closed ranks and despite a letter from the lawyer involved admitting his failure to comply with a court order to produce monthly trust account statements they provided no discipline and abused their examination process by removing evidence. They requested the trust account statement from the lawyer but refused to provide it to me. I asked the Law Society how they were complying with their statutory duty, “to protect the public” which serves as the justification for their monopoly on the provision of legal services. I have never received a response.
During the course of the divorce and a common experience for men, I was subjected to an intense campaign of terror with break and entries, thefts, and demands for more money through the legal system. However, when I reported the criminal activity to the RCMP they essentially ignored me and said they would let the lawyers resolve the issues. When I reported the altering of court records, evidence and the failure to comply with a court order by lawyers, they labelled me paranoid and delusional and refused to investigate.
On March 3rd, 2020 I properly served the Deputy AG of Canada with a Charter complaint, following the enforcement procedure of the Charter.

Section 24(1) of the Charter reads:
“Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”
Since Parliament offers the only method for a removal of a judge I wrote:

“The only Court of competent jurisdiction to judge the judges who judge the judges is Parliament. I have currently lost most of my legal rights except obviously my right to life but I am in fear of losing that. I am hereby applying to Parliament for the protection of my charter of rights. Obviously, urgency is of prime importance.”

The Attorney General’s office signed for the registered letter but has never responded.

In November 2020 I wrote to the office of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who forwarded it to the Minister of Justice in February 2021 where he regretted the delay in his response, claimed he was bound by the decision of the Canadian Judicial Council, told me he is not able to provide legal advice to the public, and to get legal advice from a lawyer.
But on the Ministry of Justice website they state:

“The Minister is not bound by the CJC’s recommendation; the option to seek a judge’s removal by Parliament exists whether or not the CJC recommends that the judge be removed…..If the question of removal is to be put before Parliament, it is the Minister who does so. It is open to the Minister to put the question to Parliament or to decline to do so. Like all acts of an Attorney General, the Minister’s discretion in that regard is constrained by the constitutional obligation to act in good faith, objectively, independently and with a view to safeguarding the public interest.”

I made a complaint to the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner for David Lametti’s failure to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter. The Minister of Justice has a duty to protect the public and to ensure that the administration of government is in accordance with the law. The Ethics Commissioner accepted the complaint but has refused to respond to my further efforts at communication.
I made a complaint to the RCMP anti-corruption squad National Division Intake Unit who have the “mandate to safeguard and investigate significant threats to Canada’s political, economic and social integrity” concerning complaints about “federally elected members of Parliament.” However when I reported that the MOJ was failing to respond to a charter complaint to have judicial conduct examined by Parliament and provided them a copy of my charter complaint, they wrote, “any future communications…unless solicited…will not be reviewed and will be destroyed.”
A complaint to the UN Human Rights Commission was submitted as I had lost any meaningful method of pursuing justice within the Canadian Court system as Judges claimed they could disregard everything that I said, including their own official record, the transcript.
Over the previous few years I had been subjected to full audits of my activities by the Canada Revenue Agency including income, gst, pst and had even denied gst credit for money paid into a lawyers trust account with accompanying documentation from the lawyers office! I was completely broke, post-divorce, and struggling to keep my head above the water, and walking around on crutches from a broken leg, which put me out of work for 3 years. The mother of my children and I split up, our kids were 2 and 5. We created a separation agreement which was essentially what my ex wanted because I couldn’t enforce any rights in court.
Then the RCMP served me with a notice from the CRA, that, in their opinion, I had not filed income tax statements. I did take that opportunity to once again report crimes in the legal system, however the police officer laughed at me and in the next 3 months I was placed with handcuffs in the back of his cruiser outside of my home, by force, though I stated I was concerned for my safety and requested to stay in the public view, and requested reasons for my arrest. The reason provided was that of “making a false statement” but since I had no statements at that time was difficult factually. I tried to attend court on the matter but the crown prosecutor dropped the case on the day of the trial.
I pled not guilty to the CRA charges and asked two constitutional questions. One, was in regards to the constitutionality of the reporting requirement of the Income Tax Act (ITA) s 238 (1) and the Second, was the issue of the MOJ failing to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Constitution, our governing agreement, the Canadians Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
At trial, Crown provided zero argument regarding the constitutionality of the ITA and I made my argument and was correct, however the judge refused to rule against the ITA.
The Judge did listen to my freedom of expression argument regarding my right to protest the failure of the courts to dispense “fundamental justice”, and a “fair and impartial” trial. No Canadian will believe that Judges who claim a right to ignore everything I say despite the best evidence could treat me fairly or impartially. Particularly when I’m reporting criminal activity within the legal system. I was however, yet again, ignored and found guilty.
This was right in the middle of covid of course and I was completely broke and unable to comply with any financial requests. The Judge was sympathetic and provided me with less than the minimum penalty and provided me 5 years to comply. Pretty generous right.
I appealed the decision as my Charter Rights had been largely ignored and the two Constitutional Questions had not been answered correctly. In Nelson on December 3rd I presented my abusive experience in the justice system and requested a writ of mandamus, an order upon the Minister of Justice to comply with his Ministerial Duty – to protect the public and ensure that the affairs of government are in accordance with the law. Which they are not, since he is not responding to the enforcement procedure of our Constitution.

The Judge deferred her decision and claimed she would provide a date for a decision on Valentine’s Day, Feb 14th, 2022 although on that date I was stood up.
Justice delayed is justice denied. On Feb 28th the Judge stated that she would provide a date for a decision, within the assize of April 28th, and then on that date, provided May 10th as the date.
Justice Lyster also directly denied justice. She refused to even discuss the writ of mandamus issue in her verbal decision. There was no judicial resolution to the issue of the failure of the court to provide fundamental justice or a fair and impartial trial and so the case is stalled at the lower court because a mistrial was ordered, despite no party requesting it. The implied threat is that decision is the maximum penalty fine of 7 years and $200,000 in fines, or simply just telling me that I don’t matter. I will be appealing her decision to the BC Court of Appeal.
However she also has not provided written reasons or a signed order two weeks later. In the few days before Justice Lyster was to present her decision, this website was seen by 2-300 per day. All from the Toronto and Ottawa region, up 10 times from regular traffic, which previously was all social media driven. Someone was sharing this website directly, which almost never has happened before. Should we be concerned about the independence of the judiciary, because that principle exists to protect the people, but most often is used to protect judges.
I attempted to notify the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights but a gatekeeper at that Committee has refused to accept my submission.
I wrote to the Prime Minister’s office and informed them that his Minister of Justice is failing to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter. The fact that the Prime Minister’s office subsequently forwarded this problem to the Minister of Public Safety is an acknowledgement that there is a threat to the safety of Canadians. On Appeal I suppose I must request a writ of mandamus on the Minister of Public Safety to respond and deal with the matter, although it really is the duty of the Prime Minister.
In my letter to Justin Trudeau I wrote, “This matter is a failing from a matter of Judge Shaw’s fitness as a Judge that was put before Parliament on February 2nd, 1999. Parliament was determined at that time to respond however based on the pleas from the then Minister of Justice Anne McLellan they permitted the Justice system to resolve the matter internally however the consequence of that is reverberating still and will destroy the integrity of Canada’s Justice System unless immediate steps are taken to restore the integrity of the Charter of Rights, and that involves political leadership.

I submit the following quotes from Parliament from all sides of the political spectrum from 1999

‘It is important for Parliament to reassert its intention both with respect to the Charter and with respect to ….the criminal code’

‘We have a duty to protect citizens.’

‘As legislators we have an obligation to conduct ourselves in a manner that respects the rule of law. This is the highest court in the land.’

‘The people of Canada assume that the House of Commons is the supreme power in the country. Under this Justice Minister…..the government has allowed the courts to become the lawmakers’

‘the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a legal instrument we have given ourselves to guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone. This is an instrument we are proud of, and rightly so. It represents our core values.’

‘In the final analysis who is on the hook if a judge screws up? It is the Prime Minister and the Justice Minister’

‘I believe that in Canada we have a system where we have parliamentary supremacy. That means we have a responsibility. We cannot abdicate it and say that every question has to go to the Supreme Court. We can act here in the House.’

‘The Minister of Justice is not defending the Rule of Law. She is undermining it today by refusing to assert the sovereignty of this Parliament to defend innocent children.’

‘The whole issue of trusting the judicial process to address this tragic situation is wrong’

‘If we are ever going to send a message to the Judiciary that Parliamentary supremacy over legislation is meaningful, and if the public at large is going to receive that message as well, there is no better time to use this than at a time when something so offends the common sensibilities of people’

‘They place greater emphasis on the importance of the authority of judges as opposed to those of us who place greater emphasis on the importance of the authority of Parliament. It is a legitimate debate to have in a democracy.’

‘This is not a political issue. I suspect and hope there are members of all parties who will support this motion this evening.’

‘I call on my colleagues on all sides of the House to not impute motives to one another here but let us assert the sovereignty of this Parliament. We can act. The Constitution gives us the power to act and we must act. To do otherwise is to abdicate our fundamental democratic responsibility.’

‘I point out that what distinguishes our society from non-democratic societies is the rule of law. There is no question that no one in the House today has indicated anything but abhorrence for the decision”

‘Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Based on an earlier decision of a vote in the House, may I recommend we close this place and let the judges and courts run this country.’

The opening lines of our governing agreement between the citizens and our government reads: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of
God and the rule of law” effectively saying that we are all accountable to a higher power and that no-one is above the law.

The Charter: “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” In a Democracy we are all equal before the law and we protect the weak with the power of the majority because we are human beings that care, but also we have a tendency toward abusing power, which is particularly dangerous, combined with the coercive forces of the Government. So, we agree with whoever governs us what the rules are and sets out basic human and legal rights. It’s an extension of the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Unfortunately, Justice Lyster’s conduct leaves Men, and Self Represented Litigants, a very clear display of bias that compromises the public perception that she can judge impartially. Lindsay was part of the team at the LEAF Women’s Center, which was instrumental, in the removal from the bench of Robin Camp, who, in a case, of accusation of rape, incorrectly asked, “can’t you keep your knees together”. But in this case, Lindsay is attempting to prevent Men, the defence of providing the transcript, to prove fraud. In particular the issue of the integrity of the administration of the Family Law Act and the Criminal Code in respect with domestic violence and rape are completely destroyed. A complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council or the MOJ regarding Justice Lyster’s conduct should be initiated in order to bring Judges into line with Canadian values and it would be best to come from a Judge because regular citizens just get ignored, which is wrong.

It is not in the “best interests of the child” for their Father to have no rights and the Mother’s word to be accepted in preference to everything that the father says, particularly when disputes end in court. The number ONE reason men stay in abusive relationships is fear of losing access to their children and that the abuse of the courts in divorce would be worse than marriage. It creates a second class of citizen based on sex, which the Charter explicitly prohibits. The Government and the Courts should clarify this position for all Canadians. But as I said in Court “I dont know if the bias was favoring a lawyer, or the Plaintiff, or a woman. But I know it is wrong. My children know it is wrong. Every Canadian knows that it is wrong.”

No Judge can claim impartiality in regards to the judging of judicial conduct, which is why Parliament has the sole authority to make the decision regarding the removal of a Judge. I also agree that once a debate regarding the conduct of a judge has been initiated it is difficult to remove the stigma of the accusation.
Now you can relate to how every member of the public feels when they are brought before the court. You are guilty unless innocence is proven, no matter what the law about it being “innocent until proven guilty”. Why should it be any different for a judge. We are equal under the law. If it is reasonable conduct for the crown to assert a citizen has committed a crime, it should equally be open for a citizen to assert that a government employee has committed a crime. Failing to provide citizens with a meaningful method to initiate whistleblower protection, citizens arrest, and/or public prosecution is a failure in the application of the rule of law.

Judges are government employees, no matter how much Judges would like to assert independence, fairness and impartiality. The claim of independence is for the benefit of the citizens, not the judge. Justice Lyster refused to address a question of conflict of interest as did the crown prosecution, which are both ridiculous assertions which no Canadian would possibly believe given the circumstance. I noted that all Judges should be recused in hearing this matter but the only legal path forward is through the Court and through the Minister of Justice to Parliament. So much for Parliament being the people’s house, when the gates are locked.
I finished my letter to Trudeau with “I know that your father was instrumental in his efforts to bring the Charter of Rights to the people of Canada. Follow and extend your legacy by protecting your father’s. The people will love you for it. There is much work to be done. I am available and I want to help to restore the integrity of your office, Parliament and the Justice system.

I attach the communication with the Parliamentary Commissioner of Ethics, the United Nations, The Minister of Justice and the brief provided to the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I am currently in the Court system and this situation is compromising the integrity of the RCMP, Crown Prosecution office, Judges, the MOJ, Parliament and your own office. The people are looking for your leadership.

The reality of the situation is that the Charter is a meaningless document if there is no method to enforce the enforcement clause. For the Minister Of Justice to claim that the administration of Government is in accordance with the law is completely false because they are not responding to the enforcement procedure, which is an obstruction of justice. Combined with the claim to be able to plant perjured evidence at trial, it is a claim of absolute power and a refusal to allow the legitimate review of that discretion is undemocratic and the claim of dictators and police states. The intention of Federal Judges must be clarified at this time.

Parliamentary Supremacy overules the Tyranny of Justice.

Go back to the old home page and scroll down for the evidence.


The Short Story

Judge removes my right to approve as to form the court order from a hearing. Lawyer writes court order to his clients benefit and refuses to correct despite being provided with clerk’s notes from hearing. Transcript is presented to Judge demonstrating conclusively that the order created is incorrect. Judge personally calls up the Plaintiff to provide verbal testimony to refute the transcript. After the trial the transcript is used to compel Judge to correct the court order as written by Lawyer. Complaint written to Canadian Judicial Council regarding the conduct of Judge Shaw. Canadian Judicial Council claims that Judges have a discretion to ignore their own transcript. When asked how this works with the Canadian Charter of Rights they do not respond. When presented with evidence regarding their own ignoring of the transcript in their decisions someone alters the court transcript and the complaint is ignored. A complaint regarding the author of the decision that Judges have discretion to ignore transcript results in a reply stating that my complaint is an abuse of process.

Complaints regarding the lawyers conduct made to the BC Law Society. Mr Stacey admits in writing to failing to comply with a court order to produce monthly trust account statements. The two lawyers also lied and did not take matters to court for a judges determination. Simply Mr Stacey would not get his bills paid if he did not pervert the course of justice and my lawyer, Mr Westcott enabled him by not arguing my case. The Law Society does not discipline either lawyer and does not comply with their empowering Statute to provide written reasons for their decision. The Law Society had requested an audit of Mr Stacey’s trust account but refused to follow through on request or refused to provide any information on the trust account to me. Similar reports to police and Obudsman have zero results.

The CRA takes me to Court alleging that I have not filed income tax. When taken to court I request that my Charter of Rights be complied with to provide me with fair and impartial justice and request that the Court order a lawyer to represent me as none will do so voluntarily. An Abuse of Process argument is presented to Court which the Judge ignores and postpones trial. Crown Counsel refuses to respond to my requests for government funding to protect my charter of rights, refuses to provide disclosure and claims that I cant find a lawyer because my case is without merit and if I drop my position then I would have no trouble finding a lawyer to represent me. None of the lawyers and academics that I have contacted make that argument – they simply claim to be not taking new clients, or not in my area of law, or simply do not return my contact.

My ex-wife who witnessed all of the abuse decides to bypass our separation agreement and take issues directly to the court instead of mediation. I have huge problems finding a lawyer to represent me because of the historical problems. A Court Order “without notice” provides my ex-wife with “primary care” over our children for the winter and that my income has increased from $25,000 to $250,000. My lawyer refuses to argue my position but accepts my money. My passport and driver’s licence are declared invalid by the Government through the FMEP. My ex is employed as the ambulance chief in town and works side by side with the RCMP. Twice I am handcuffed outside my home and placed in the back of a police cruiser and threatened. My ex-wife is implicated in the information that the RCMP claim that I am making false statements despite the fact that I didnt make ANY statements. Crown counsel decline to proceed with the case but falsify documents as part of the dismissal. I remain unsure if RCMP actions also taken on behalf of Attorney-General to intimidate me to drop my position. RCMP notified regarding criminal offences committed by lawyers and judges and problems with the administration of justice should result in cessation of all actions by RCMP because their Charter of Rights are being ignored. No response beyond initial contact.

A Charter of Rights complaint and follow up emails sent to the Attorney-General are ignored. Complaint made to the United Nations Human Rights Board but 6 months later still no response. Communications with FMEP regarding child support and lack of legal rights including complaint to the United Nations are all ignored and I am referred back to the Court of Abuse to provide “resolution” to this matter. Recommendations made to Parliamentary committee on Justice and Human Rights are intercepted and not provided to members. Email to Prime Minister Trudeau refers back to Justice Department which ignores it.

You are a member of this class action lawsuit for breaching our Charter of Rights and failing to provide fundamental justice.

Since federal judges maintain that they have a discretion to ignore all evidence including their transcripts they have not been providing fundamental justice.

Since lawyers have been operating within this regime and benefiting personally they are a party to the lawsuit.

Since the Police has been arresting people without the courts providing the protection of fundamental justice they are a party to the abuses.

I have been working for 15 years on providing justice to all Canadians and will continue to do so. I have the written evidence of these breaches of our charter of rights. I will continue to pressure Parliament to providing fundamental justice for Canadians. Your support is essential for two reasons –

  1. to demonstrate the number of people that have been affected by the breach.
  2. For my financial survival and to support this important work on behalf of all Canadians.

What is the mission? Why am I doing this?

The rules and agreements are already in place. The agreement is the charter of rights, the principles of law ( rule of law, etc ) but they are not being ignored.

We want the current rules applied. This will result in a better legal system and a better society. There should be a zero tolerance policy implemented the same way as the law is applied to the citizens applied to the ruler. We have a zero tolerance policy for alcohol behind the wheel and we know it creates safer roads for everyone as well as creates a positive societal message. It is important to our society that we have a zero tolerance policy on corruption and abuses of power. In a democracy and a society based on the rule of law it is essential. The argument that this is a problem with just a few people in the legal system is simply not true. This is a problem that is pervasive throughout the entire legal system from the bottom to the top. It is a problem that the law societies protect lawyers at the expense of their clients. It is a problem that judges rule contrary to fundamental justice for the sole benefit of lawyers. You cannot have a self-serving legal system and call it justice. The legal system has to create value for society and it is simply not doing that at present, particularly for lower income citizens. There are simply no arguments that support an abusive, criminally corrupt legal system. The same arguments against rule breakers has been made against organizations like sports and every time the rules were applied rigorously the game has improved for everyone – the players, the fans and the businesses around them. It is time for the legal system to get out of the past and move quickly into the future. Everyone will benefit.

It is a complete lie the story that we are told by lawyers that it is just a few bad apples amongst them that require discipline. They know the problem and they perpetuate the problem by a culture of mutual protection. It is important to note that not a single person within the legal system made a complaint regarding the conduct of the lawyers or the judges involved. A judge made a mockery of the court by dismissing the evidence of the transcript ( to reveal the fraud perpetrated by a lawyer ) with the evidence of his client on the stand providing a verbal account of what she claimed she heard a judge say 6 months ago AND no-one reported the incident.

The same applies to the conduct of the law society protecting the lawyer that committed the fraud upon the court and failed to comply with a court order. Benchers – other lawyers – within the law society did not even send the investigation further to the disciplinary committee but rejected the investigation to protect the lawyer even though the lawyer admitted in writing to failing to comply with a court order. This is a problem that is pervasive throughout the legal system and it makes the system corrupt, illegal, and fails to do the service that is promised.

The breach of the charter of rights is repaired by repairing the breach. This is the law – exactly the same when you breach a contract you are required to repair the damage.

In our lives we have a few interactions with the legal system if we are lucky. Typically our time with the legal system is at a point in a vulnerability in our lives; an incident best left forgotton, the police might be involved, it might be a divorce or a child custody dispute, a dispute between business partner, or a family will being contested. There is not a lot of good communication going on and lawyers become involved because we are told; by them and accepted by society that it is the right thing to do. We gather our evidence as we are told by our lawyer and assemble a time line of events and follow the money because that is what it is all about.

Sometimes during this process we learn more than we wanted to know and either accept that we may have done something that we wish we had not, or alternatively wish that the other party had not. Sometimes it is also just life and there is no misdeed and just an acceptance of a situation and working towards solutions for the best methods to move forward. In some ways a lawyer could be viewed as a therapist in situations explaining how the law works and how our situation fits into the law. Another view is that it is a war between combatants and our lawyer is our champion and it is kill or be killed.

We are seeking justice, or the truth, or a solution to a problem, or a resolution of what the law means, or a deeper more fundamental issue in our lives. In our society currently we decide this typically by paying for a lawyer to take our facts and mix them with the law and present both to a judge and ask for a decision to be made. We are all human with the faults and failings as well as the spirit and good will that come along with the human condition. We accept that we may be right or wrong, that our lawyer or the judge will see things our way or perhaps not. It is part of life.

Over the centuries our society has evolved systems to better manage our lives. We have built upon the (mis)understandings from the past and continue to work towards creating a better future. Philisophers have studied the way we think and consider ourselves in the world. Rulers have used and abused those they rule over and the citizens have accepted or rejected being ruled over. We have created an understanding of our relationship with government and documented that relationship with laws and dispute resolution systems so that our lives can be as frictionless as possible and there is the maximum benefit for all people. Throughout the centuries it has been discovered this is the best for human kind and our world.

What can you do? Do not feel helpless. Every step counts. There is power in numbers.

Sign the petition

Contribute financially – money talks

Write to the Attorney General

Stop Filing Tax Returns – money talks

Use this Charter of Rights argument every time you have an interaction with the legal system or the Government.

The Long Story

As happens frequently in our society the relationship between my ex-wife and I ends and she decides that going to court is the best resolution to this matter.

I have borrowed quite a bit of money from my parents over the years to establish a business and buy a house and we are living quite a nice life.

However the business is going downhill with increasing competition and I am attempting to diversify.

As the relationship collapses my parents call in part of the loan that they have made and I take steps to return that money to them.

My ex had a two year old boy when we first met and I raised him for almost 10 years as my own. The mother never acknowledged the biological father of the child.

I am served with the legal papers to initiate the divorce and court process begins.

It becomes clear that my ex-wife is disputing the loan from my parents and my parents hire a lawyer to represent their interests.

In my calculations there is not a lot of money left after my parents are paid out and my bank accounts have been drained so I am feeling pretty poor. I briefly consult with a lawyer and for various reasons decide that I will initially represent myself.

Some people may think this unwise but in retrospect I learnt a lot more about the legal system and about my affairs than being represented by a lawyer. My rights were less protected with a lawyer than without a lawyer.

However in my first few appearances at court as I tried to present the facts as I saw them I was attacked personally by the Judge and that she was unfairly trying to come to a predetermined outcome.

My ex-wifes lawyer then attempted to disrupt the proceedings by interrupting me up to the point I felt I was not being given a chance to present my case and I stated to the judge that she had lost control over the hearing. Justice Humphries terminates the hearing without my submissions being heard.

Due to lack of ability to control the physical assets of a retail business and normal requirements to take stock on credit I closed the business as it simply wasnt worth the risk.

I agreed with my ex-wife’s request that she have sole custody of the child. I had hoped that if she got what was hers she would allow me to have what was mine. That was not the case.

My parents are demanding repayment of their loan and interest on the loan as agreed upon. I have no control financially.

Justice Humphries orders all of the rental income to be paid into my ex-wife lawyers trust account and orders spousal and child support, mortgages as well as other expenses to be paid out of that.

I obtain an order that I receive monthly trust account statements to account for these transactions.

In mid 2005 I attend court and the judge Metzger removes my right to approve as to form the court order.

The Plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr Stacey creates a court order which is incorrect. Justice Metzger* states in court that the mortgages on the property are to be paid out of the trust account. The lawyer write that a mortgage ( of approx. $976 ) be paid out of the trust account. There are two mortgages on the property one for $976 and the other for $1000 or so.

I write to Mr. Stacey and notify him of the error.

Mr. Stacey ignores it or corrects another error but not the one I point out.

I go to the court registry and get the clerks notes and attach them to the letter and send it to the lawyer to correct the court order.

Mr. Stacey ignores the letter and continues to operate as if the court order was correct.

This causes my property to go into foreclosure, and no money is paid into the mortgages at all.

At the same time Mr. Stacey refuses to comply with a court order to provide monthly trust account statements.

Things have got too complicated for me to manage on my own and I hire a lawyer, Mr Westcott to correct the court order, amend the child support order and to enforce the court order regarding trust account statements, deal with the ongoing thefts and other issues. None of this is ever done.

Mr Westcott attends court to enforce the court order but mysteriously claims that the judge dismissed the case however the truth is the two lawyer colluded and never presented the case to a judge.

Every month for over 6 months prior to trial I write an email to Mr. Westcott and Mr. Stacey requesting the trust account statement but never receive a thing.

The case goes to trial. I cant believe that Mr Stacey could take a case to trial when he has falsified a court order and not complied with a court order.

I am pretty clear in my mind that Mr. Westcott is not exactly representing my interests. But the case is going to trial.

My parents interests are still being represented well by my parents lawyer and I work with him from time to time.

Since Mr. Westcott is not resolving the issue regarding the incorrect court order I order the transcript of the hearing that resulted in the falsified court order.

At the trial I request Mr. Westcott to present the transcript to the court to refute the false court order. The judge calls up the plaintiff and asks her what she heard the judge say at the hearing 6 months previously. She agrees with her lawyer, Mr Stacey and the judge accepts her testimony over the transcript of hearing and the trial continues.

There is no trust account ever produced but Mr. Stacey states in court that there is less than $1000 in the trust account and the Judge Shaw accepts that despite my protests which are ignored.

After the trial I take the transcript and make an application to court and have the court order corrected. It takes several weeks attending the court registry whilst Justice Metzger claims to be sick twice but eventually signs off on the corrected order.

During this time I examine the contents of the trial documents and see that the lawyers have removed and or redacted all incriminating evidence regarding the non-disclosure of the trust account statements.

I write and letter and attend the police station and request that the Police examine the file for fraud and they laugh at me and call me paranoid.

I write to the BC Law Society to make a complaint regarding the conduct of the lawyers.

The Plaintiffs lawyer admits in writing to not complying with the court order and makes excuses regarding the fraudulent court order.

I request that the law society request that the lawyer provide them with a trust account statement as ordered by the court and the law society does make that request.

A change in staff on my file at the Law Society results in that request being removed and a very different attitude emerges.

The law society closes the case with no disciplinary action taken.

I request a written reason from the law society as provided for by statute. The law society refuses.

A complaint to the BC Ombudsman regarding the conduct of the law society.

The law society refuses to provide the Ombudsman written reasons and state that the complaint was without merit and did not go to the level of a disciplinary hearing which would result in the written reasons being produced as required by statute. After a year of negotiations with the ombudsman office the case is dropped as being unresolvable.

During this time I make a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) regarding the conduct of the judge who called up the plaintiff to refute the transcript of trial. The CJC writes back to me and claim that the matter is not one of conduct but of weighing evidence and the judge exercised his judicial discretion in preferring one evidence over another.

I write back to the CJC and ask how this works with the Canadian Charter of Rights when the transcript of trial is not taken as the best evidence possible.

Fundamental justice requires that justice be NOT arbitrary. The transcript of trial is the best evidence that a Canadian can produce and is the basis of evidence used on appeal. Claiming that judges have a discretion when they actually have a duty is a breach of fundamental justice and is certainly not fair or impartial.

I receive no reply and several years go by and in 2019* I make a subsequent complaint regarding the conduct of the author of the letter claiming that judges can call up the plaintiff to refute the transcript of trial. They respond and claim that my complaint is an abuse of process and would be ignored.

I serve a charter of rights complaint upon the Deputy Attorney-General as required by the Charter of rights and name parliament as the court of competent jurisdiction to hear a case of judges abusing our charter of rights and denying Canadians fundamental justice.

The Charter complaint is ignored. My follow up emails to the Attorney General – Minister of Justice, David Lametti are ignored despite being acknowledged as being received.

The Minister of Justice is tasked by statute to ensuring the integrity of the Judicial system. I write to the Prime Ministers office and they refer me back to the AG and everyone continues to ignores me.

I stop filing taxes in order to bring the issue to court which I do and make an abuse of process claim which has been defined by the courts as where an administrative proceeding has been conducted so unfairly that it is contrary to the interests of justice. I also note that it is impossible for me to receive a fair and impartial trial if the court has the discretion to ignore every piece of evidence that I could produce. The judge refuses to hear my argument and postpones the hearing for a couple of months.

The situation is not unique to me, but can be applied to any Canadian. I can find no lawyer to represent me. There is a full blown breach of the Charter of Rights for all Canadians.

The lawyer for the Crown despite my reminding him that his statutory responsibility is to ensure that justice is done claims that no lawyer would represent me because my claim is without merit and frivolous.

I have attempted to contact numerous lawyers including criminal lawyers, Canadian Civil Rights Association as well as legal scholars. If they respond to me at all they claim that they are not taking on new clients at this time, but mostly they just dont respond at all. There is a cover up of corruption from the bottom to the top of the legal institutions of Canada. It is a complete state of lawlessness with no accountability.

Where do we go from here.

Class action lawsuit against every lawyer, law society, government for breaches of our charter of rights.

Parliament must resolve the issue. Canadians demand that the charter be applied and compensation

We may as well plan to the very end for the justice system that serves us, since the current one is not working. The concepts are all in writing and agreed to by all parties. They just are not being enforced because of a corrupt culture. We could be a model for the world.