Arbitrary Imprisonment & Justice Sicotte

from compassion to blindness

Prior to taking his seat, Justice Sicotte had been provided by the Sherriff of the Nakusp Courthouse, a copy of my Valley Voice article of July 1st, 2021 protesting abuse of power.

TREVOR: The threat of imprisonment....coupled with my experiences with the court system.....a judge disregarded the transcript.....I had lawyers not comply with court orders....falsifying court orders....meant I had an intense fear of attending court, because I felt my rights were not going to be respected.
(page 37)

COURT: So just to clarify then, your concern is, with respect to this trial today, is that you're not going to get a fair trial because you didn't get one in the past. Have I got that right?
ACCUSED: that is correct and the Judicial Council has approved of the conduct…

THE COURT: All right. And again, sir, I appreciate you may have concerns, valid or not, from what happened. I wasn't present, I don't know anything about that hearing. I can tell you today that I do not have any misgivings about you getting a fair trial in this court…so with respect to your notice of constitutional question, I am not prepared to adjourn the proceeding or strike this proceeding based on the concerns that you have raised in your notice of constitutional question. I do not find that there is any validity to those concerns as applying to this trial today. I am not saying there is no validity to your concerns about what happened in the past. But it does not affect what needs to happen today with respect to these charges. All right?
I do not find that there is any realistic prospect of success to your Charter argument with respect to what has been filed before this court in terms of the charges that are before you today.
THE ACCUSED: What evidence can I present that would be better than the transcript?
THE COURT: From 2007?
THE ACCUSED: For now. What evidence can I present that I can have confidence is going to be looked at or examined under this situation? It is clearly abusive to say that you can disregard all the evidence or you have a discretion, because a discretion is bounded by the law, correct?
THE COURT: Sure.
THE ACCUSED: Okay. So I'm trying to find…a legal reason why a judge would disregard the transcript and…I'm not seeing a legal reason why that could possibly happen.
(page 11)

THE COURT: There's going to be a live witness who's going to testify about some events and the onus is on the Crown to call sufficient evidence to prove all the counts before you beyond a reasonable doubt…is there any transcripts the Crown will be relying on?
CNSL D. WILSON: No, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right. So there's no issue with respect to transcripts. This is a live witness who's going to give testimony. Crown can ask them questions, you can cross-examine them. And then it's your choice whether you give evidence or not.
THE ACCUSED: …the situation in the past has been yes, we had a live witness and they preferred her evidence over the transcript. So how can I possibly get a fair trial when…the judicial council has claimed that you can disregard all the evidence that any Canadian could ever produce? To me that says you're dispensing arbitrary justice…unfortunately that's my feeling. And it causes a problem. I think you're aware of the problem.
THE COURT: Well, I'm sympathetic, sir, but I don't know there's anything I can do about that.
(page 12)

THE ACCUSED: I lost my passport. I lost my driver's license. I don't have a bank account. I don't have food to feed my children. I need some help. I can't move, I can't get legal advice. I can't function in this society. I can't work with a government that the highest tribunal believes that they can disregard all the evidence. How can I protect my children? How can I feed them? How can I be a father to them?
(page 13)

THE COURT: I'm not saying it's frivolous or vexatious. It's a very large argument and it may be very serious but it's not one I can address in Provincial Court with respect to the charges that are before you today.
(page 14)

THE COURT: I can hear the evidence and make a determination in terms of whether the Crown proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all I can do today.
THE ACCUSED: What about helping enforce my Charter of Rights…
THE COURT: If I see that the Crown is breaching your Charter of Rights in some fashion as the evidence comes out, sir, I will absolutely stop the proceedings and give you an opportunity to address that. All right? I am very conscious and you very much have your Charter rights secure. And if I hear anything in the evidence that smacks of a violation of those rights in any way, I will absolutely address that. All right?
THE ACCUSED: I guess my concern is the integrity of the Crown prosecution, given that the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Justice is not complying with the Charter.
THE COURT: I appreciate that's your argument. All right? But I've dismissed it with respect to this trial today. And I would ask the Crown to call their first witness, please.
THE ACCUSED: I don't know how I can get a fair [trial]
(page 15)

THE ACCUSED: Just on a point of order there, I think there's another constitutional question before --
THE COURT: Have you filed it in writing, Mr. Holsworth?
THE ACCUSED: It's on the same document that I provided to you. It's the constitutionality of the Income Tax Act .
THE ACCUSED: [an absolute] liability offence that has a term of imprisonment attached to it.
THE COURT: Yes?
THE ACCUSED: And I believe that's unconstitutional according to Re: Reference Motor Vehicle.
THE COURT: All right, sir. Response from the Crown?
CNSL D. WILSON: Uh, sorry, can you say that again?
THE ACCUSED: The Income Tax Act that we're dealing with is [an absolute] liability offence and it has a term of imprisonment attached to it with no possible excuses for it.
CNSL D. WILSON: At this point the Crown is not in a position to make a comment on the Income Tax Act.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Holsworth, have a seat, please. We're going to commence this trial, all right? We can address that later on if in fact there's some validity to your concerns. But I do want to look at the notice that you filed because it certainly doesn't address that issue, all right?
THE ACCUSED: I believe my notice does.
THE COURT: We'll address that later, sir. I don't want to put this hearing off any longer.
(page 16)

THE ACCUSED: I'm just kind of questioning…the voluntariness aspect here…the term of imprisonment was weighing heavily on me at the time and I was trying to communicate with the administration of the CRA and government…
THE COURT: Well, sir, that's a valid point and in fact, I think we should go back and address the issue in the voir dire. Because I don't want Mr. Holsworth to feel like we steamrolled the whole process --
(page 32)

CNSL D. WILSON: …from the case of Oickle from 2000, that when looking at admissions, the court would consider if there was any threats or promises. They would consider if the accused had an operating mind, if there was any degree of trickery…
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Holsworth, any argument you want to make about the voluntariness of those phone calls?
THE ACCUSED: …imprisonment and…the concept of trickery...The threat of imprisonment coupled with my experiences with the court system, where not only had I had a judge disregard the transcript, I had lawyers not comply with court orders to produce trust account statements, monthly trust account statements and failed completely. And as I mentioned before, I had experience with a lawyer falsifying a court order and allowing that to be permitted meant that I had an intense fear of attending court, because I felt like my rights were not going to be respected in court.
THE COURT: All right.
(pager 37)

THE COURT: Please. We're just doing this for your benefit, Mr. Holsworth. Business records typically can be filed as exhibits if they're kept in the regular course of business without somebody personally testifying to the veracity of the actual document. So that's a standard process that happens. But for your benefit I'm asking that it be read into the record, all right?
THE ACCUSED: Okay, thank you.
CNSL D. WILSON: So, Your Honour, s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act , it's: Business records to be admitted in evidence 30 (1) Where oral evidence in respect of a matter would be admissible in a legal proceeding, a record made in the usual and ordinary course of business that contains information in respect of that matter is admissible in evidence under this section in the legal proceeding on production of the record.
[I’m not sure if the COURT ever understood the irony, reading this into Court whilst the Canadian Judicial Council maintains that Judges have discretion regarding the acceptance of their own official record, the transcript, and claim they can legitimately prefer the Plaintiff’s recollection instead…]
(page 42)

THE ACCUSED: I just want to have it on record that what the notes say. [as read in]: The officer's recommendation to down-screen T2 as low potential. The tax potential is estimated at…the loss carry back when applied would reduce the tax owing to nil.
(page 45)

ACCUSED, (Trevor cross-examining CRA agent): As a Canadian citizen, how do you feel about the fairness of a trial......
COURT: This is way outside the purview of this trial.....I'm not going to allow the witness to answer the question.
(page 50)

THE ACCUSED: I'm…still very concerned about the issue of…the threat of imprisonment…In this trial, where I'm…imprisoned here. I don't have an option not to be here. I attempted to resolve things with the CRA as best as I was able…I didn't have any money in order to accomplish anything and now I'm being threatened with imprisonment if I don't turn up to this court and if I do turn up to this court…of course that affects my security of the person.

THE COURT: Mr. Holsworth, other than the documentation that you received saying that there's always a potential for imprisonment for breaking the law, was it ever communicated to you that Crown was asking for a jail sentence or there was a possibility of jail here?…
THE ACCUSED: …the letter does state there quite clearly and I can see it in the…
THE COURT: No, no, I appreciate it's in the letter and it's in the legislation…
THE ACCUSED: And I have requested that the constitutionality of the Act be questioned...I'm not sure when that process is going to happen.
(pager 52)

THE COURT: In terms of what fundamental principles you say were violated? I mean, you've had a trial. So you're presumed innocent.
THE COURT: At least in the process as such you have the right to have a lawyer. Practically it may not have happened.
THE COURT: You're saying that the constitutionality of the Income Tax Act , you're saying it's invalid because there's a risk of imprisonment and there's not proper fundamental justice principles in place to protect you against that risk of imprisonment?
(page 57)

THE ACCUSED: Well, my understanding is through reference Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, where it says that the Act creates an absolute liability offence and to obtain a conviction the Crown needed only to establish proof of driving regardless…of anything. It's just they need to prove it and if they proved it, then he was guilty and then it carried a prison term and that was held to be unconstitutional.
THE COURT: All right. And I understand that…

THE ACCUSED: Ultimately this case is about freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression for democratic purposes. A regulatory requirement to file information and reports may amount to a restriction on freedom of expression where failure to comply is backed by sanctions such as fines or imprisonment, in Harper… the judge that heard my divorce case was Judge Shaw, who claimed that freedom of expression to hold child pornography was unconstitutional. And in my case, he decided that [the] transcript wasn't as valid as the opinion or the hearsay evidence of the plaintiff and…his appropriateness as a judge was debated in Parliament. I can read out the comments from Parliament about Judge Shaw.
THE COURT: I don't want you to do that.
THE ACCUSED: I know you don't.
(page 58)

THE ACCUSED: thank you very much for listening to me. I appreciate it. It's been a long time that I've been trying to resolve some of these issues. Um, unfortunately, as you kind of get the gist of, the problem is far larger than that. I'm currently being sued by the mother of my children and…she's changed my child support obligations from $200 to $2,500 per month…I have attempted to hire a lawyer…but he refuses to represent me now. I paid him pretty much everything that I had in order to protect my children. I don't have a driver's license. I don't have a passport…
THE COURT: Are these documents that were taken from you by FMEP --
THE ACCUSED: Exactly.
THE COURT: -- for not paying your child support?
THE ACCUSED: Exactly.
THE COURT: It makes it a little difficult to get a job, doesn't it?
THE ACCUSED: It does. I've been without my driver's license and my passport for a year and a half. I have not received any CERB benefits throughout the entire coronavirus situation…from my previous divorce I was left with about a half a million dollars in debt, with a company that had a share value of zero but was valued for the purpose of the divorce at $295,000, which was the value of the shareholder's loan. So the company owed me the money. And I spent five years pretty much in post-traumatic stress syndrome as a result of that court order, or that judgment. I then broke my leg and spent three years without being able to walk. I ultimately got a hip replacement. So thankful for the Canadian system of healthcare where I was able to recover completely. I was rescued out of the bush by helicopter and can't say enough about how thankful I am that I'm walking here and I'm alive here today.
(page 60)

THE ACCUSED: I can't even get legal advice.
THE COURT: Right.
THE ACCUSED: I can't. I go to a lawyer and I present the evidence that I have and they go, "We don't want to talk to you." ...it's not fair.
THE COURT: All right…
THE ACCUSED: Thank you.
THE COURT: I'm sorry I couldn't do more for you. All right, sir.
THE ACCUSED: Thank you.
(page 66)

THE COURT: …When they told you to file tax returns, you have to file tax returns. You've probably seen things where people file incomplete tax returns and it's followed by a thousand demands for further documentation and amendments and all the rest of it. File a tax return, sir. Get the ball rolling, all right? If you can't afford to do -- hire an accountant so that they're perfectly accurate, give your best estimate but file tax returns. At least get that ball rolling and deal with the amendments and corrections after the fact.
THE ACCUSED: I hear that. The problem is in…the conduct of the audits…I don't have any legal rights when the audits are done...when I don't use an accountant, they audit me.
THE COURT: Yes?
THE ACCUSED: And I tried that for five years and they audited me every single year.
THE COURT: Yeah.
THE ACCUSED: …Then I'm spending months working for no pay and --
THE COURT: To comply with the audit requirements.
THE ACCUSED: …then it's completely arbitrary anyhow because I don't have any rights to dispute anything.
THE COURT: Yes, I understand.
(page 66)

THE COURT: …I will file your Charter notice as part of the court file. I want it part of the court record.
THE ACCUSED: Thank you.
THE COURT: …in case you do choose to appeal, so it will be there on the record, all right, sir?
(page 67)

The matter was subsequently appealed to the BC Supreme Court on December 1st, 2021 along with a request for a writ of mandamus ( an order for a Minister to do his duty) on the Minister of Justice to respond to my constitutional question regarding failing to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter s 24(1). The request was denied as “irrelevant” but a mistrial was called, largely due to the Crown not responding to the constitutional question regarding the constitutionality of the income tax act s 238(1) and so Judge Sicotte read the Act as it was written by Parliament - an absolute liability offence and unconstitutional, as written, although Judges had previously “read in” a due diligence defense precedent to avoid that problem but a pretty hidden law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse…even for judges.

I subsequently appealed the BC Supreme Court decision to the BC Court of Appeal for a right to Appeal, which was denied, with a claim that my perspective was “a conspiracy theory…does not reflect reality”. Allegations of lawyer or judicial misconduct compromising the legitimacy of their rule could be ignored by ALL lower courts that are bound to follow the BC Court of Appeal precedent and not allow further argument, res judicata, the matter is settled, for EVERYONE in B.C.

The next time I would run into Justice Sicotte it would be regarding FMEP attempting to send me to jail and their counsel attempted to defeat my arguments by requesting that the Charter not apply because it was “a narrow issue” and the Judge agreed with her… Easy. Questions about fair and impartial trials, fundamental justice, and a right to a lawyer are “irrelevant”. Suspend the Charter to remove any difficulties. Bring the Charter back? But just for those represented by lawyers? Who pays for justice?

I wrote to the Chief Justice of the Provincial Court when another Judge purported that he could legitimately hear a constitutional question regarding the legitimacy of the Judges Act, and then again after Justice Sicotte incarcerated me for 80 days.

Judicial Conduct Complaint to Chief Justice of BC Provincial Court
December 4th 2023

“…Firstly, Justice Sicotte purported that he had the authority to set aside the Constitution, to remove the protections of the Charter, at will; based on the simple argument that it is “a very narrow proceeding.”
Secondly, that Justice Sicotte asserted no conflict of interests to both the recusal argument and the judiciary's conflict of interest in the judging of the Constitutionality of the Judges Act, when it is plain on the basis that, no-one can be a judge in their own cause.
Thirdly, that Justice Sicotte sentenced me to prison knowing that given the precedent provided for by the BCCA that all my arguments and evidence, including an assertion of discretion over the acceptance of the official court record and fraud by lawyers, could be dismissed as a conspiracy theory, leaving me and all British Columbian's with zero rights in the process as Judges contain unlimited discretion over all evidence and acceptance or rejection of all arguments and no requirement to provide meaningful reasons that withstand any type of independent scrutiny.

Judge purports that he is not bound by the Charter.
CNSL T. WILLIAMS: Your Honour, I don't understand that just for the simple fact that this application -- or this hearing has nothing to do with any of the constitutional arguments. It's very narrow. P 7 line 30
JUSTICE SICOTTE: “in terms of this proceeding, I agree with Ms. Williams, this is a very narrow proceeding under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act today in terms of what consequences, if any, should flow from your failure to comply with the order...” p 8 line 23

even though the application was for a term of incarceration:
“if the debtor is before the court and the court finds that the debtor is capable of complying with the order, order the debtor to be imprisoned...” p3 l40

My concern is obviously if a judge can step outside of constitutional arguments merely by agreeing with the prosecution that the application is “very narrow” then what charter protections exist at all.

Judge declines recusal requests which are clearly valid and acknowledged.
I also made requests for recusal which are valid but denied. I did not bring them up again on September 7^th, 2023 as the judge had previously ruled against, but my perception of bias remains

starting at p 6 line 17
TREVOR HOLSWORTH: Sure, thank you, Justice. Just with no animosity whatsoever, I just wanted to bring up the idea of recusal. There's two matters that I can think of that might come into that. In our previous hearings, I've brought up issues that are going to come up here again, the issue of the writ of mandamus or the problem with the Minister of Justice not complying with the Charter, and the Attorney General, and which you ignored in a previous trial, which is conduct that I'm alleging that the FMEP is also in breach of. I've been communicating with FMEP through Tina, through their case worker, through Chris Beresford and through the Provincial Attorney General David Eby and they are all aware of the facts in this matter. However, no argument has been presented to dispute the facts that I present whatsoever. The second matter in regard to the recusal is FMEP in the previous, my previous experience with FMEP when confronted with fraud by lawyers, their decision was to delay collection of child support for five years, which was the same decision that you came to when you heard my matter about the income tax issue. So I just wanted to bring those two issues up as I feel like that's a pre-judgment of the matter. I am totally open to your consideration on that.
THE COURT: If you could just clarify your last argument. You're saying that was the same conclusion I came to when FMEP --
THE COURT: -- delayed child support for five years. I don't follow that.
TREVOR HOLSWORTH: …When I was…here in the hearing back in July 16th…2021, for failing to comply with the income tax statement.
THE COURT: Oh, you're talking about the criminal trial?…
TREVOR HOLSWORTH: I made the same sort of arguments about failures in the rule of law at that time and your decision was to delay collection activities for five years, rather than addressing --
THE COURT: Oh, I see.
TREVOR HOLSWORTH: -- the actual problem that I was addressing. Those are the two matters that I just want to bring up.

THE COURT: All right. Well, let me address that very briefly. Are you then suggesting that I recuse myself because of a perception of bias from yourself with respect to my ability to hear this? Is that where you're going with --
TREVOR HOLSWORTH: …I think that's a fair comment.
And concluded on p8 line 5
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Holsworth, I'm not going to grant your application that I recuse myself. I frankly didn't follow it particularly clearly.

I believe that a reasonable person would perceive a conflict of interest justifying recusal. The fact that a mistrial was ordered on the case discussed regarding “criminal charges...income tax statement” is certainly another consideration which affects a perception of fairness. Unfortunately when incarceration occurs immediately which is what happened on September 7^th 2023 there is NO opportunity for a mistrial application or an Appeal at all and the imprisonment occurs whether lawful or not.

Abusive Process
The reality still exists that if, as the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) claims that Federal Judges have a discretion, rather than duty, in their acceptance of the transcript then the appeal itself is arbitrary, but that aside the precedent that BCCA Justice Newbury established that all my submissions and evidence are a “conspiracy theory. That does not reflect reality” effectively removes all my constitutional rights, by simply dismissing them with opinion, unsupported by any facts and ignoring all documentary evidence including letters from the CJC and the transcript, results in Canadians having zero rights in the British Columbia legal system as everything presented up to and including transcript evidence is subject to being ignored at the whim of any judge hearing the matter. If everything can be dismissed as being irrelevant, and argument can be dismissed with, “I frankly didn't follow it particularly clearly”, even after saying “Oh. I see”, which I certainly took as an understanding that my argument had been acknowledged, understood and not requiring any further explanation or clarification.

The quotes from the transcript refer to the hearing on July 13, 2022 in Nakusp.

The same judge subsequently ordered my incarceration on September 7, 2023

That Judge Sicotte who previously had claimed not to be a high enough court to resolve issues of a failure of the legal system to be in compliance with the law or fundamental justice because “it's a very large argument and it may be very serious but it's not one I can address in Provincial Court” ( July 10^th 2021, Nakusp ) would also purport to have authority to judge the constitutionality of the Judges Act without seeing a conflict of interest in that regard is difficult to comprehend. Are Judges immune from conflicts of interest, what could be more of a conflict than to judge the constitutionality of their governing Act of Parliament? Other than writing the actual Act of Parliament, of course.

It is also problematic that I communicated a failure of the Court Registries to acknowledge my faxes to attempt to file documents to access justice to dispute the root cause of the hearing occurring and no comment or concern was made by two judges. That I have a court order on another Court Registry to provide court audio that remains unfulfilled almost a year later just compounds the access to justice issue in the British Columbia legal system.

Of course I feel I was unfairly and arbitrarily imprisoned, with bias and potentially malice.”

Complaints to Provincial Court Judges are not dealt with by the Canadian Judicial Council but provincially and in a similar unaccountable process. A response is supposed to be provided within 2 weeks.

During my stay in BC Correctional Services I filed a writ of habeas corpus on the SCC which was ignored until a letter of complaint was sent to the Canadian High Commission in Canberra, Australia by my parents and the Registrar responded calling the writ, a letter and declining to respond further effectively suspending habeas corpus in their unlimited discretion…

And then this exchange from the hearing on July 13, 2022 in Nakusp.

I very much admire the legal system. I want it to work. It’s not working. I’m here trying to fix it…

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: You’re threatening me with jail?

THE COURT: I’m not threatening you with jail, sir. I’m promising you, I’m sentencing you to jail if you don’t comply with my order

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: And you’re refusing all my Charter rights?

THE COURT: I’m refusing all of your Charter arguments, sir, that from my perspective look like they’re Swiss cheese…They are full of incredibly large holes, sir.

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: Then tell me the argument against them. ‘Cause I have not heard a single one…why isn’t there a constitutional question answered?

THE COURT: The only issue before me today is whether you could and did comply with the financial disclosure and you raised many Charter arguments that you’ve raised in every legal proceeding that you claim to respect, sir. But you’re the one who’s breaking it. You’re breaking the justice system, sir, by taking up multiple, multiple court days to make the same arguments over and over again that nobody gives any credence to. You believe them, I accept that sir, but you’re not complying with court orders.

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: you’re obviously biased…

THE COURT: Sir, because I don’t accept your argument doesn’t make me biased. It means I don’t accept your argument.

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: For sure, but then why is there not a response to the constitutional question that’s been presented?