Communication with BC AG Niki Sharma
Following up on the registered mail sent to Premier David Eby regarding failures in the administration of justice.
Niki Sharma
Attorney General
PO Box 9044 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC V8W 9E2
COPY SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL RN 623 044 156 CA
26th February 2024
Dear Niki Sharma,
I note in your mandate letter, "As Attorney General, part of your unique role is to ensure the rule of law is protected as a foundational principle in British Columbia"
I have some concerns.
Firstly I understand that the BC Law Society is not protecting the public. I understand that your office purports that the Law Society is self-governing and the AG has no authority over their conduct. However that simply is not true. The BC Law Society is a creation of the BC Legislature and that body has the duty to ensure that the Law Society is complying with its statutory obligations. The BC Law Society refuses to discipline lawyers not complying with court orders and creating fraudulent court orders and refuses to provide written reasons as they are required by statute of the BC Legislature. I also note that recently a lawyer who was disciplined by the BC Law Society for money laundering has received no criminal charges, apparent to the public, due to his status as a lawyer.
If it is not your duty to report breaches of the Law Society Act to the Legislature then whose duty is it?
I note that you have received communications from the Office of the Premier, David Eby with evidence that the administration of government is not in compliance with the law. A Charter breach requires restoration of the breach. The Federal MOJ is refusing to respond to s 24(1) the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter, improperly protecting Federal Judges. The Canadian Judicial Council claims that judges have discretion to reject the transcript and prefer to call upon the Plaintiff to protect her lawyer committing fraud. Discretion implies choice between two or more legally permissible options, otherwise it is a Duty. Compelling British Columbians to attend a Court that does not respect the law and does not protect the public is abusive, and unconstitutional. This represents a failure in the rule of law throughout the legal system and cannot be justified in a free and democratic state. A Constitutional Question has been presented to your office but "no comment" is the only response provided in Court and a statement by Prosecution that Provincial Court Judges are not governed by the Canadian Judicial Council.
There is a Court Order on the Nelson Registry to provide Access to Court Audio that remains unfulfilled. Requests for accountability in the form of evidence of efforts to comply with the Order were rejected, "I will not be providing evidence of our efforts to look for the tapes."
I provided evidence to two judges regarding my efforts to access the Kelowna Registry to file and the denial of the Registry to acknowledge receipt and file, were ignored without comment. The conduct of the Registries is the responsibility of the Attorney General's office. I cannot access justice through the Court Registry given this evidence.
I have made two judicial conduct complaints regarding Provincial Court Judges to the Chief Justice Michelle Gillespie, acknowledged by fax receipt but no response from their office acknowledging receipt. The dates are August 25th and Dec 4th 2023. An online complaint was made and receipt acknowledged on February 22nd, 2024.
I cannot access justice as I cannot access the Court Registry. If I could, I can not assert or defend myself given that judges claim they can ignore all the evidence that I provide, including the transcript. A Federal Judge in the Supreme Court deemed this problem "irrelevant" and on appeal to the BC Court of Appeal my lived experience was characterized to be a "conspiracy theory. This does not reflect reality". The reality of this decision, relying on judicial deference, but supported by zero evidence, by the highest Provincial Court in British Columbia is a denial of the constitutional principle of the rule of law. The Judiciary is asserting that allegations of failures in the administration of justice by lawyers, judges, police and registries will never be admitted no matter what the evidence, including the transcript and denial of access to court audio. This is the state of justice in British Columbia, and the Supreme Court of Canada has denied access to the constitutional right of habeas corpus to resolve the matter.
The evidence is irrefutable. I was imprisoned arbitrarily by a Provincial Court Judge, denied a fair and impartial trial, all my evidence was ignored, no right to appeal and with the full knowledge of the Provincial Prosecutor of the abusive nature of the Trial, including denial of service to me, by all lawyers BECAUSE I made allegations of misconduct in the legal system.
The judge did not show up to render her decision on the writ of mandamus on David Lametti on Feb 14th 2022. Instead the Minister of Justice invoked the Emergencies Act.
Your mandate letter from David Eby includes the following,
"Federal partnerships and resources will be particularly important and, on behalf of our government, you will engage with the federal government on advancing priorities to improve the lives of British Columbians. As a Cabinet, we will uphold the highest standards of ethics, collaboration, and good conduct in service of the public, and as a Minister of the Crown, you are expected to review, understand, and act according to the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. You will establish a collaborative working relationship with your Deputy Minister, and the public servants under their direction, who provide the professional, non-partisan advice that is fundamental to delivering on our government's priorities. Your Minister's Office must meet the highest standards for integrity and provide a respectful, rewarding environment for all..."
I look forward to your response knowing that protection of the Public and Constitutionality is your core responsibility. Failing a response I will serve the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter directly upon the BC Legislative Assembly as the Court of Competent Jurisdiction to resolve matters of the BC Law Society failing to protect the public.
Thank you for your attention to this matter that concerns all British Columbians.
Trevor Holsworth
Instead of responding to my email and letter, on March 9th X/Twitter gets, “women leading the way”
Freedom of Information Act Request on BC Premier David Eby regarding letter sent to the Office of the Premier by registered mail on the 30th of November 2022 informing David Eby of the failure of the Federal Minister of Justice and AG to comply with the enforcement procedure of the Charter, improperly protecting lawyers and judges.
David Eby was the previous AG and so had a few previous communications from me in that capacity so quite well informed. To be fair to Niki Sharma, she is doing what they all do, obstruct justice and call it administration.
Niki Sharma
Attorney General
PO Box 9044 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC V8W 9E2
COPY SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL RW 785 102 510 CAJune 14, 2024
Dear Niki Sharma,
In addition to not having received a response to my last registered letter RN 623 044 156 sent on 26th February 2024 I have more disturbing news to bring you.
I made a complaint regarding the conduct of a Provincial court judge who agreed with the Crown lawyer that he could ignore the charter if it was “a narrow issue” including one for incarceration. I have been in correspondence with a lawyer at the office of the Provincial Chief Justice and he claims that there is nothing wrong with that but I have requested that confirmation occur at the level of the Chief Justice as required under Statute. I have not received a response and they are not responding to further communications because they are in breach of their constitutional and statutory requirements. A similar problem is occurring at the Canadian Judicial Council.
I understand that you will respond with a claim that judicial independence requires that you not get involved but that isn't at all true. The Executive has a duty to check the Judiciary, alongside the Legislature. The principles of fundamental justice apply as they do with every Canadian. The Executive has the responsibility for investigation and laying charges and Parliament has the duty to Judge judicial conduct in their ultimate act of responsible government to protect the people from corruption in the Judiciary or other improper individual conduct.
Furthermore you should be made aware that the Judiciary has determined that allegations of lawyer or Judicial or Executive misconduct can all be eliminated at the Supreme Court level as “irrelevant” and in the BCCA as “conspiracy theories” and full denial without evidence or explanation. The fact that their own accountability is being requested at the same time certainly leaves the public with certainty that Judges cannot judge their own conduct with the good faith that their office demands. Any reasonable and well informed person can clearly witness that there is a conflict of interest. The Legislature is the correct body to present this corruption problem and you are the responsible public official whose duty it is to inform the people's representatives to the threat to the public interest.
You are aware of the problem because I informed your office by constitutional question in June of 2021 informing you of the failure of the Federal MOJ to properly protect Canadians according to his duty.
I also communicated with your office more recently in August 2023 on the constitutional question regarding the Judges Act, in which your office, “declined to participate”. The judge at trial did not present any evidence to support the constitutionality of the Judges Act and the Provincial Court has no jurisdiction to do so in any event. But the constitutional question has been asked and no response has been received.
I understand that you have received confirmation that the Federal Minister of Justice failed to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter and that the Premier of BC David Eby have also been informed.
The official position of the BC AG presented to Court on July 16th 2021 to that problem was “no comment” which ultimately led to a mistrial and the subsequent dropping of charges in the “public interest” by the PPSC although with the same evidence the Provincial Crown under your leadership apparently sees no conflict with the public interest.
In my email communication I attach the brief submitted to the Federal Court of Appeal in regards to the enforcement of the Emergencies Act by the Federal Government. The evidence demonstrates that David Lametti's assertion at POEC that his legal advice was presented in “good faith” was false and that he made false and misleading statements to me as to his duties which were intended to obstruct justice to improperly protect judges.
Your duty is the same as the Federal MOJ, to protect the public and ensure that the administration of justice is in compliance with the law. The evidence clearly demonstrates that both is not occurring in British Columbia and in Canada.
As the AG has legislated to assert control over the conduct of the BC Law Society by government controlled actors I can no longer trust the service of lawyers as it is apparent that lawyers that speak out against the government conduct could be disciplined and removed. The judiciary asserts that they can ignore all the evidence that I can provide including the transcript to correct the conduct of lawyers.
Under this regime British Columbian's have no means to protect or assert themselves in the legal system and no reasonable and well informed person could trust that they would be treated fairly and impartially or in accordance with fundamental justice.No defence has ever been presented to dispute these facts or the implications at law.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Richard Wagner spoke on June 3rd 2024 stating that “justice system is not just a service...It is a human need. People need justice and when they recognize that they will not have access to justice, that will jeopardize our democracy and the rule of law and we should not underestimate this possibility. That is why we have to facilitate access to justice. We have to ensure that people in Canada have the chance to be heard, not necessarily to accept the decisions...but to accept the system...if they are convinced that they will be heard by fair and impartial persons whether they win or lose...and if we dont do that...people will lose faith...and when that starts...the beginning of the end for democracy.”
A response is required as the minimum level of good faith to complete a duty. Please email me to acknowledge receipt of this letter at fundamentaljustice@gmail.com
A response to this letter and a response to the matters brought up in the previous letter. I have another court hearing on July 11th 2024 and the Judiciary are claiming they can ignore the Charter if they want and your office is failing to respond to protect Canadians.
Please find attached the (PDF) brief submitted to the Federal Court of Appeal regarding the legality of the enforcement of the Emergencies Act and the allegedly good faith of the Federal MOJ David Lametti.
The BC AG notified me by email that “senior lawyers” were investigating the circumstances. I felt like responding saying I would prefer it if a regular citizen would review it but kept my opinion to myself, until now. On July 8, 2024 they responded denying all problems and claimed,
“Under our system of law, the judicial branch of government is separate and independent from the executive branch of government. The independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative branches of government is a fundamental principle of our democracy.”
I responded,
This statement is not correct."The independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative branches of government is a fundamental principle of our democracy."
Cosgrove CJC 2007 FCA 103, [2007] 4 F.C.R. 714 at paragraph 32"Judicial independence does not require that the conduct of judges be immune from scrutiny by the legislative and executive branches of government. On the contrary, an appropriate regime for the review of judicial conduct is essential to maintain public confidence in the judiciary."
The statute says the Chief Justice or Assistant Chief Justice of the Provincial Court of B.C. is to respond to complaints regarding the conduct of the Judges of the Provincial Court. This has not been done. The Judiciary is in conflict with their governing statute. A failure to respond does not generate the good faith necessary for the public to have confidence in the Judiciary.
The fact that a member of the Judiciary of the BC Provincial Court is stating that they can ignore the Charter if a lawyer employed by the Crown claims that the issue before the court is a "narrow issue" shows the bias that a reasonable well informed person person would conclude, yes to the question,
"is the conduct alleged so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the 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.Your office is stating that Judges could ignore all Canadians evidence including the official court record, the transcript AND Judges could step outside the constraints of the Charter because a member of your staff asks them to do so, against a member of the public and your office considers that fair and impartial justice and your office is not biased merely because the decisions are biased towards the Crown, rather than on principles and the law, which you are not applying as directed by the highest court in Canada.
You are directly saying you do not follow the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I have an open Appeal sitting at the BCCA waiting for the evidence from the Nelson Court Registry which is never going to be produced or if it is produced at this stage nobody could trust it's integrity and the judiciary would certainly rule to exclude any suggestion of tampering despite over a year and a failure of the Registry to provide any evidence as to their efforts to comply with the court order.
I note that your office does not dispute that your office had "no comment" regarding the constitutional question of the Minister of Justice refusing to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter and that the Premier has been informed of that breach. I note that your office has been provided with my brief submitted as evidence before the Federal Court of Appeal which clearly demonstratest that the Minister of Justice David Lametti made false and misleading statements so to avoid his duty, which as it yours, it to protect the public and ensure that the administration of justice is in compliance with the law. Your office has also made false and misleading statements for the same purpose, to improperly protect judges instead of doing your duty, protecting the public.
I note that you do not dispute my assertion,
"Under this regime British Columbians have no means to protect or assert themselves in the legal system and no reasonable and well informed person could trust that they would be treated fairly and impartially or in accordance with fundamental justice"As you know I have made a complaint to the BC Law Society and they protected a lawyer who admitted in writing to not complying with a court order to provide monthly trust account statements and committing fraud on a court order. I asked your office at the time how the AG's could support such conduct but got a similar responses from Wally Oppal, which is once again, not quite true. The Law Society is under a statutory requirement to protect the Public and provide written reasons for their decisions, which they did not do. I did follow the suggestion to make a complaint to the BC Ombudsperson and after a year of being stonewalled by the BC Law Society they dropped the case and the BC Law Society promised to do better in the future, but obviously that has not happened and the problem is getting worse and public confidence in lawyers is in collapse as lawyers being implicated in money laundering schemes still escape prosecution due to their status as lawyers. But you must be used to that.
Your letters do not address this issue at all,
"I provided evidence to two judges regarding my efforts to access the Kelowna Registry to file and the denial of the Registry to acknowledge receipt and file, were ignored without comment. The conduct of the Registries is the responsibility of the Attorney General's office. I cannot access justice through the Court Registry given this evidence."I understand why you did not respond to the problem of the Supreme Court of Canada not responding to the Constitutional right to habeas corpus being outside of your jurisdiction but I felt it important to share as the implications for Canadians are severe.
I understand your advice to seek legal advice from a lawyer in private practice being that as the AG's office effectively controls the Law Society you can have any lawyer that disputes your narrative to be removed from practice. There is a certain chill in the air. No lawyer wants to get off the gravy train and represent someone that the AG's office does not like. Where is fairness and impartiality here? Feels like extortion, which it is. I reported it as such to the RCMP but they refused to investigate because it involves lawyers and the judiciary. They did not deny the validity of the charge, just claimed no authority over the people involved.
No protection for the people of Canada.
The letter of July 8 claimed it was a “final letter”, I suppose to reinforce the perspective that there is no discussion and no appeal from their verdict.
We rule, you comply. We don’t.
The fact that the Judges Act provides an automatic bypass of the screening officer for complaints of the Judiciary made by AG’s compared to the automatic bypass of complaints by the screening officer of complaints made by members of the public…
Judges Act ( as amended 2023)
148 The Minister or the attorney general of a province may request that the Council establish a full hearing panel to determine whether the removal from office of a judge of a superior court is justified.
The statement made by the AG Office doesn’t jib with judicial decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Acts of Parliament and the Constitution.
Q. How can you tell if a lawyer is lying?
A. Their lips are moving.
When Attorney General’s are obstructing justice in order to protect friends and colleagues, including Judges, where is justice?
Now we know more about the #accesstojustice crisis
The quick summary of my legal situation is posted in Parliament:
Submission to Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights BILL C-40 MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE REVIEWS. AKA the wrongfully imprisoned David Milgaard Act that former AG/MOJ Lametti claims as one his proudest achievements. https://ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR12830658/br-external/HolsworthTrevor-e.pdf
or it is available on my substack
My complaints regarding the judges involved but they were just following orders…from justice Lyster in the BC Supreme Court who declared my evidence of a failure in the rule of law throughout the legal system “irrelevant” and denied a writ of mandamus - an order for a Minister to do his duty - which for the MOJ is to protect the public and ensure that the administration is in compliance with the law.
The BC Court of Appeal doubled down on that…
A quick video on the issue
I put together elements of my story to do with judicial conduct together as a ebook available through Amazon. Includes communication with MOJ David Lametti, Governor General, PMO, Parliamentary Committee's and submissions to POEC. $9.99 would help a lot. https://amazon.ca/dp/B0CW1JPPF8
Thank you for reading and thanks for your support. Please feel free to submit a comment.