This story demonstrates a failure of trust in the legal system from the bottom to the top.
How the system protected a lawyer creating a fraudulent 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 outright denial, despite the best evidence possible, and are 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 crimes with the lawyers rather than any dispute with my ex-wife, the Plaintiff. Lawyers would say, you could appeal the Judge’s 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 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 an answer to that question from anyone. Communication with several Attorney General’s provided this response, “I do not have jurisdiction…against lawyers…that responsibility falls to the Law Society…is self-governing and operates independently of government” which appears to be a claim that lawyers are above the law.
During the course of the divorce and a common experience for men, I was subjected to an intense campaign of terror with break-ins, 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 labeled 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 the 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, and 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.”
Refusing to respond can hardly be claimed to be in “good faith”. A constitutional question on the refusal to respond was presented to Court after being served to both Federal and Provincial Attorney General’s. No Comment was the response from the Province. No response was the Federal response. A further constitutional question on the constitutionality of refusing to respond to a constitutional question received no response.
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 which has 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 (CRA) including income, GST, PST, and had even denied GST credit for money paid into a lawyer’s trust account with accompanying documentation from a lawyer’s office! I was completely broke, post-divorce, 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. A separation agreement with exactly what my ex requested was signed 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 Minister Of Justice failing to respond to s 24(1) The Enforcement Procedure of the Constitution, our Governing agreement, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
At trial, the 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, the transcript, would treat me fairly or impartially. Particularly when I’m reporting criminal activity within the legal system. I was ignored and found guilty.
This was right in the middle of Covid 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 at all.
In Nelson on December 3rd, 2021, I presented the story of 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 but 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.
However, Justice Lyster denied justice. She refused to even discuss the writ of mandamus issue in her decision and called it “irrelevant”. There was no judicial resolution to the issue of the failure of the court to provide fundamental justice or a fair and impartial trial. Justice Lyster ordered a mistrial and so the case is stalled at the Provincial Court since the issue of the Constitutionality of the Court system is unresolved. That problem affects every single court in Canada.
The implied threat of the decision is for a Judge to apply the maximum penalty fine of 7 years and $200,000 in fines, despite the fact that the ITA s 238(1) is unconstitutional as it is written by Parliament and other similar laws have been struck down. I appealed the decision to the BC Court of Appeal, where once again, Judges claim a right to ignore everything I say, including what is in the transcript, which is arbitrary, overly broad for sure and disproportionate. But as Peter Hogg, author of the gold standard book on Constitutional Law writes “unreviewable discretion in a democracy is a contradiction in terms” and “corruption and fraud are always the exception”
In the few days before Justice Lyster was to present her decision, this website was seen by 2-300 people 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. Should we be concerned about the independence of the judiciary? The principle exists to protect the people, but most often is used to protect judges.
In 2021 I attempted to notify the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights but a gatekeeper at that Committee has refused to accept my submission. The Parliamentary Committee on Women generously did accept my submission where I did explain the lack of power that men experience in the court system and how that impacts their relationships particularly when their female partners threaten divorce. But mostly I wanted to establish that the reasons provided by the gatekeeper at the Justice and Human Rights Committee were false.
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 acknowledgment that there is a threat to the safety of Canadians. I suppose, on Appeal, 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”, 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 humans 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 defense 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. Refusing to allow men the right to rely on the strength of the integrity of the transcript 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. 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.
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, 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 attached 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.
“Hearsay, evidence of what one has heard rather than what one knows from first-hand knowledge to be true, is generally inadmissible in civil proceedings on the basis that its probative value is limited. There are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule, and one of these exceptions permits the introduction of such evidence, not for the purpose of establishing the truth of that evidence but for establishing the hearer’s state of mind.”
Bad Judgement. The case of Leo Landreville, William Kaplan from Landreville v R. (1980) page 180
The question remains, when Judge Shaw asked my ex-wife, the Plaintiff, for hearsay evidence, to counter my evidence, the transcript – what did he establish about her state of mind? That she would lie no matter what the evidence was against her?
Unfortunately, we also learned more about the Judge’s mind, that he even asked the question. A Judge using hearsay against the transcript to protect a lawyer, committing fraud, and using that hearsay evidence, for the purpose of establishing truth, is of course, appalling.
The Canadian Judicial Council approving of the conduct of a judge preferring to solicit perjury from the Plaintiff to defeat the transcript to protect a lawyer committing fraud is an obstruction of justice. The Minister of Justice refusing to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter is an obstruction of Justice. Justice Lyster refusing to respond to a constitutional question and a writ of mandamus is an obstruction of Justice.
The Courts are operating outside of their Constitutional constraints and are refusing to have that discretion properly checked by Parliament.
It is a Constitutional Crisis.
Judges are claiming absolute power.
The Courts are operating illegitimately and do not have the force of law, but only the power of “Might is Right.”
The Court system is the pinnacle of the Public Service and a failing of the Courts affects the integrity of the entire Public Service.
Parliamentary Supremacy overules the Tyranny of Justice. Ministerial Responsibility in a Parliamentary Democracy represents the power of the people. The People of Canada have the ultimate power in a Democracy.
The resolution of a Charter breach is the restoration of the integrity of the Charter.
The Canadian Judicial Council simply cannot have it in their official position that Judges can ignore all the evidence that any Canadian could provide in their defense.
Following the refusal of the Supreme Court to even make a ruling on the request for a writ of mandamus on the Minister of Justice I appealed to the BC Court of Appeal. Failing to respond to a request is a failure to act judicially, to resolve the matter before the court completely.
Link to BC Court of Appeal Originating Document
Transcript from Court of Appeal Right to Appeal Hearing before Justice Newbury
BC Court of Appeal – Justice Newbury’s decision
The decision of Justice Newbury can be summarized, “ It is unclear to me whether Mr. Holsworth is intentionally ignoring the clear rule that judges must exercise their discretion judicially and is doing so in order to obfuscate and delay the fact of his convictions under the ITA; or whether he actually believes he was unfairly treated in 2006 and is therefore somehow not bound by court orders or by the duty of all Canadians to file income tax returns. In any event, his leap from the fact that his evidence was not accepted in 2006 to the existence of a vast failure of the justice system and of judges and lawyers to comply with their oaths of office and codes of ethics seems to indicate a disturbing world view rife with conspiracies and corruption. This does not reflect reality.”
It is important to note that no evidence was presented to contradict the reality of the evidence that I presented. The verdict is an opinion of a judge, backed by no evidence, and contradicted by the law but the request for a right to appeal is not subject to appeal so once again the judge’s opinion is absolute, even if completely contrary to the facts and to the law.
Complying with the Order of the BC Supreme Court the matter is back in the Provincial Court where they claim that all my arguments have been resolved and may not be argued again, including the inherent abuse of process. But I found a vast number of new problems including that every court hearing is ultimately subject to the unreviewable discretion of a judge, and the Court refuses to acknowledge the protest element which clearly indicates a complete lack of a guilty mind which is a critical component in making a determination of guilt and essential for the principles of punishment to fit the crime.
1st Mistrial, looking for another mistrial…
Of course I knew that the Court was not going to find itself guilty which is why the legal maxim exists of “no-one can be a judge in their own cause” and why I had requested Parliament address the issue. Fortunately the Judges Act was being debated in the House of Commons so I submitted this brief which was completely ignored by the Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I had also corresponded directly with the Shadow Minister of Justice Rob Moore, my local MP and numerous others but received no response. Parliament subsequently passed the Judges Act with unanimously despite the fact that it affords Canadians zero rights in the process and judges are provided complete control over the process and zero transparency or accountability.
I also submitted the evidence to the Emergencies Act Inquiry Commission as well as the Parliamentary Committee but the evidence was not entered into evidence. The matter is now before the Senate as well as presented to the Provincial Premiers in this letter, which led to their requesting a meeting with PM Trudeau for “health care funding”. My submissions have been acknowledged as received but a conspicuous absence of further communication. In late December 2022 I notified CSIS of the threat to Canada.
in late January 2023 Crown Prosecution decided to drop the 2nd mistrial in the “public interest”. I have a feeling that their definition of public interest means that they dont want to be exposed further.
in February I wrote to the House of Commons Committee on House Rules and Procedures declaring my intention to serve Parliament with the enforcement procedure for the protection of the public and requested any preliminary comments on a procedure to follow but received no response. Then the Enquiry into Chinese interference eclipsed Parliamentary debate.
Knowing that merely complaining without any solutions is hardly constructive I prepared a package with my proposal for the reform of the Judicial conduct process which I feel protects the public interest as well addresses the other legitimate constitutional concerns like judicial independence, fair and impartial hearings and the rule of law. I used the principles outline by Richard Devlin in his well respected book on principles of judicial discipline. The brief was submitted to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and posted on May 15th after a reminder and the fact that my earlier brief which disclosed the problems outlined on this page in more detail and the reality that the Executive and Judiciary are in conflict with the Charter and the major political parties are very much aware but choosing to ignore the problem because they dont want to deal with it and hoping that it will just go away.
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.
Follow on facebook at fundamental justice and on twitter at @ruleoflawcanada or email me at [email protected]
I do understand our need for a functioning justice system and our desire to trust our most trusted of institutions and why would you believe my experience and my perspective on the law, over say a lawyer, the MOJ, or a judge. We are all predisposed to trust authority and I did too until proven categorically otherwise. We are all biased in the protection of our own interests for sure. As human beings we are tribal in nature – we value group conformity and dislike people who speak out against the group. I know this story confronts our perceptions of reality and truth and is the opposite of everything we have been educated about how our system of government works. The oldest legal tactic in the book for discovering the truth is to follow the money. I have nothing to gain but everything to lose. Those on the other side have everything to gain and it is a betrayal of the public trust, the most heinous of crimes.
It is going to be important for the citizens of this country to mobilize and express their concerns about this abuse of power. That time is now. There are many people that are dissatisfied with the actions of the government in recent times for many different reasons.
The problem that I outline here requires unity by all Canadians for a common purpose. It is a simple matter of ensuring that our government remains bound to its constitutional duties and remain, servants of the people.
I will be serving the House of Commons with these allegations directly with the enforcement procedure of the Charter to bring the Executive and Judiciary into line with their Constitutional constraints. I am waiting for the right time. I welcome your communications at [email protected] or @ruleoflawcanada on twitter.
Thank you for your time.