A Fair and Impartial Trial

reading out the text below.

My involvement began when I witnessed criminal acts by lawyers and judges. A lawyer created a fraudulent court order. I requested that he correct his error but he refused. I presented the matter with the transcript at Trial to prove the fraud.

The judge called the Plaintiff to the stand, requested perjury to protect the lawyer’s fraud, and preferred that testimony, over the transcript.

If you would like more context for this statement please click this link for more details.

The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) was established in 1971 following the Landreville inquiry where criminal activity by a Judge was alleged. The CJC’s role was to improve the system of justice and ensure that improper conduct met with proper discipline. In my complaint to the CJC the Chief Justice of the Quebec Supreme Court found nothing wrong with the conduct of the Judge, and dismissed the matter. I requested that the decision be reviewed by Parliament and they refused.

The CJC claims that its word is above the law. We have the Rule of Law and the Charter of Rights to prevent this abuse of power historically claimed by dictators. Their decision contradicts the rules that the CJC determined for their own conduct.

Is the conduct alleged 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 ”Judicial independence exists for the benefit of the judged, not the judges. It is therefore to be assessed from the perspective of the reasonable observer and in light of the public interests it is meant to serve.”

A Judge that cannot determine the priority of evidence when presented with the transcript cannot be trusted with our rights, our finances, our lives, and our children. The Charter of Rights is an empty promise, our right to Appeal is arbitrary, and the foundation of Democracy is destroyed.

I made the appropriate complaints to the BC Law Society about the conduct of the lawyers involved in the case. In addition to fraud, a lawyer refused to comply with a court order to provide monthly trust account statements, admitted the crime in writing, and requested mercy. The complaint was dismissed, but written reasons for their decision were refused, contravening their governing statute.

I made a Charter of Rights claim in March 2020

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.

In November 2020 I wrote to the office of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and received a reply from the Minister of Justice in February 2021 where he regretted the delay in his response, claimed he was bound by the decision of the CJC, 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 attempted to get legal advice on the matter from lawyers but received few replies. The alternate to silence was “we are not taking on new clients at this time”, “it is not my area of expertise”, and “Given the information in your email I am not able to assist you now or in the future.”

The Canada Revenue Service through the RCMP served me with a notification alleging that I had not complied with the Income Tax Act and threatened imprisonment unless I attended court. I informed the court of the problem presented by the CJC’s letter as it affected my security of the person and pled Not Guilty.

I reported the conduct of the Minister of Justice to the RCMP anti corruption squad in early 2020 failing in his duty to protect the public and the charter. Their response was “we will destroy evidence”. I requested that the RCMP stop arresting the public whilst our rights were not being respected by the Courts. No reply.

I was reminded of the presence of the Commissioner of Parliamentary Ethics by the SNC-Lavelin corruption scandal. I presented the evidence to the Commissioner demonstrating that the Minister of Justice is attempting to improperly protect the investigation of lawyers and judges and in April 2021 they accepted the complaint.

At the pre-trial hearing on May 20th 2021 I requested protection of my right to life. My driver’s license and passport had been removed by the government. I had presented evidence to Court and been financially punished for the reporting of the crime. In this time of business closures by Covid and without the CERB benefits, I needed food to eat so that I could survive to trial. DENIED. The Judge made it clear he was not interested in legal rights and intended to deny everything. I face the possibility of being incarcerated for up to 7 years as well as two hundred thousand dollars in fines. The stress of course is intolerable and abusive. In the CRA’s notes on my file they include statements like “non-cap losses will reduce this to NIL, leaving no tax potential”

Judges claim a right to ignore everything we say, to solicit perjury and plant that evidence at trial to protect lawyers. The BC Law Society does not discipline lawyers for criminal conduct. The Canadian Judicial Council refuses to submit complaints to Parliament. The Minister of Justice is protecting lawyers and judges breaking the law.

In 1999 the conduct of Judge Shaw was debated in Parliament after he dismissed the accused of possession of child pornography. The Judge protected him by claiming he had a “freedom of expression”. The Minister of Justice argued in Parliament for the justice system to self-regulate and Judge Shaw was not disciplined but left on the bench where three years later in my case he destroyed the Charter. Shaw did “retire” soon after but not before the Canadian Judicial Council protected and approved his conduct.

Quotes from the debate in Parliament:

“We want people like Mr. Shaw to know that Canadians do not respect him, that parliament does not respect him,”

“Our citizens, men and women and children, are at risk because of this judge’s decision.”

“the courts are already dismissing charges as a result of the present ruling.”

“who is on the hook if a judge screws up? It is the Prime Minister and the justice minister”

“we see the ultimate consequences of a completely unencumbered, unaccountable judiciary.”

“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.”

If you would like to read more quotes from Parliament and links to the full Parliamentary debates click here.

Please write a letter of support to [email protected]

On December 3rd I attended the BC Supreme Court to appeal the decision of the BC Provincial Court. Click here for more details on the appeal and the communications with the crown prosecution. The Judge delayed providing a decision on the matter but promised to provide a date for a decision on February 14th.

On February 14th I attended court as Judge had promised that she would provide a date for a decision in this matter on appeal at the BC Supreme Court. Unfortunately, she was a no show. In 2007 when a Judge requests that I attend court at 10am to set a date for a hearing and I do but Registrar says Judge wont be available until 2pm. I am arrested and jailed for failing to attend court! I had to depart to pick up 10 skiers waiting for me in the middle of BC wilderness. What’s your excuse Judge? Equal under the law?

On February 28th I attended court by videoconference and Judge was in attendance and delayed providing an exact date for the decision but promised to provide a decision within the assize of April 25th and that she would set the date on April 25th at 2pm. I did once again report the threat upon my life by a member of the public who has 3 lawyers in his family and I also inquired as to why she was not in attendance at court on February 14th and she told me that she was on vacation. I reminded the Judge once again that in my experience I had a warrant for my arrest for failing to attend court. I also informed the court of ongoing actions in the provincial court and my responses which was to request a delay of those proceedings until the matter before this court was resolved and Justice Lyster nodded her head as to that being the proper course of action. My argument of course is that Canadians are not being provided a fair and impartial trial at this time and the Judges know it.

In light of the petition to the Governor General’s office for the removal of the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his recent visit to our Monarch, the Queen, it is important that I share the email that I sent the Governor General’s office on the day of her inauguration. I did not receive a response.

I received an email from the Prime Minister’s office today March 4th 2022 in response to my last email of Nov 2021 and they acknowledge my correspondence, which is of course the first step in communication.

Decision on Appeal at Nelson Supreme Court by Justice Lyster

On May 10th at 9am the Judge essentially went blah blah blah and ordered a mistrial, the decision to do so which was obviously prearranged with crown counsel as he was fully informed of what her decision was to be as his responses indicated that they both were co-ordinated. She decided to ignore all of my evidence and said so and refused to respond to the appeal request of a writ of mandamus on the minister of justice to present the problems to Parliament. If a Judge can ignore a matter on appeal and refuse to present an argument or decision on that matter do you really have a right to appeal? At trial the judge ignored the constitutional question of the ITA but read in the constitutional question of the Minister of Justice refusing to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter and at appeal they reversed that focus.

The decision is a blatant abuse of process in of itself, for the sole purpose of re-threatening me with a new trial with the implicit threat of a maximum of 7 years jail and $200,000 in fines and demonstrating that they are not bound by their own rules, because who will stop them.
I expected something more sophisticated but why bother when Judges can use brute display of power instead.
I was intrigued however to examine my website traffic on the 3 days before the trial when over 300 people suddenly examined my website all from Toronto and Ottawa, none of them coming from my social media campaign – they were all direct hits – meaning someone was examing this site and sharing extensively and they were not supporters, meaning generally feminists and lawyers, and the combination of both, of which Justice Lyster is a member. The question becomes, was pressure applied, contrary to judicial independence, which exists to protect the public, not as judges tend to think, to protect themselves.
The question still hangs – can I get a fair and impartial trial?

Obstructing justice
139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding.

Judge refuses to respond whatsoever to a request for a writ of mandamus on the MOJ to perform his duty to protect Canadians. Is that a crime? Who would enforce it? Is that conduct which would tend to bring the justice system into disrepute? or should lawyers and judges hide evidence which would bring the justice system into disrepute. Canadians want to know. Only Parliament has the constitutional authority to answer these questions.

Please share my story on social media.

Twitter – My twitter feed – fundamental justice @ruleoflawCanada

Facebook – Fundamental Justice facebook page.

In the May 6th, 2021 edition of the Valley Voice I wrote a letter to the editor regarding a petition to Parliament to improve the accountability of judges. This petition might disappear and never be presented to Parliament as the sponsor of the petition recently crossed the floor and joined the Liberal Party. Let that be a lesson for you.

On September 22nd, 2021 I wrote a follow up letter to the editor regarding accountability of lawyers and judges and ultimately Parliament.

Information on the Appeal from the Provincial Court to the BC Supreme Court
Statement to Court on September 13th

Letter from Judicial Council

Charter of Rights Complaint

Complaint to United Nations

Submission to Parliament Committee on Law and Ethics

Requisition correcting Court Order

Letter from Ombudsman giving up investigation into Law Society allowing Lawyer to not comply with court order

Email Communications with PM’s office, Ministry of Justice Office and David Lametti

Communication with RCMP Corruption Division “we will destroy evidence”

Complaint to Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner Dion regarding Minister of Justice
subsequent email requesting update on investigation sent in March 2022 but no response received.

Notice of Constitutional Question – regarding legality of s 238 of the Income Tax Act AND fact that Minister of Justice obstructing justice and failing to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter. Judge Sicotte tried very hard to avoid ruling on the 1st constitutional question preferring instead to skip that question even at the expense of bringing up the 2nd question.

Appeal Notice
Crown’s Cross Appeal
My Appeal Argument
Crown’s Defense to my Appeal
My speech to court on Dec 3rd, 2021 or pdf
Ruling at Supreme Court in Nelson on May 10th, 2022

I’m still compiling more evidence including communications with FMEP, Passport office, Driver’s License Office, Crown Attorney, BC Law Society, and much more. ALL Government employees disregard the Charter of Rights. No Justification EVER made.

Charter Breaches
Judges are supposed to enforce the Charter
By Lawyers
By Law Societies
RCMP cancel arrests due to the charter breach
Corruption: The Damage:
Financial Costs
Societal Costs
Personal and Family Costs
Business Costs
International Reputation

Abuse creates Abuse
Love generates Love.
Alternate Legal Systems.

Ex Ministry of Justice Lawyer whistleblower demonstrates that Legislation NOT COMPLIANT with CHARTER is being PASSED BY PARLIAMENT

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Charter of Rights Chapter 7.

Appeal To Supreme Court – If federal judges have a discretion to accept or reject the transcript then doesnt that make the Appeal arbitrary and contrary to the Charter of Rights?

Letter to the Valley Voice July 31st Post Provincial Court Trial

My Personal Story

The Fundamental Justice @RuleofLawCanada Twitter Files – PDF Summary of an assortment of Tweets following an analysis of the Canadian Legal System to resolve the Rule of Law in a Democracy.

Thank you for taking the time to read.
I am doing this for me, for you and, our children.

Please write a letter of support to [email protected]

“The red pill” on the problem of the men/women rights conflict – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ulBQt8DmU&t=1s

“Erasing Family” – the family law system seen from the perspective of the child.

Divorce Court and solutions

The cure for divorce culture