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.
Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 2:01 PM
To: "AG CSB WEBMAIL AG:EX" <JAGCSBWEBMAIL@gov.bc.ca>
For the purposes of clarity in our understanding of my perception of bias.
I have an actual perception of bias that the Attorney General will not comply with constitutional requirements as your office is aware that the Federal AG is refusing to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter s 24(1) requesting accountability of the Judiciary be presented to Parliament. Furthermore, your office's position on that question was requested in a constitutional question properly served to your office and presented before the Provincial Court before Justice Sicotte on July 16, 2021. The response was "no comment" which resulted in a mistrial because your office did not comment on the constitutional question regarding the constitutionality of the Income Tax Act s 238(1) which would have aided the court in its determination. Instead Justice Sicotte ruled against my application despite my argument, the precedent from Re: Reference BC Motor Vehicle regarding the unconstitutional nature of imprisonment in absolute liability offences because he claimed he just knew the law but could not point to any law to justify his decision. Your office's failure to respond to the constitutional question created the mistrial.
The AG of BC through the Nelson Court Registry is refusing to comply with a court order for court audio and refusing to provide any evidence of their efforts to comply with the court order. I allege that the missing court audio contains evidence of a judge altering the transcript subsequent to a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council to remove the evidence of her losing control over a hearing and the conduct of Justice Shaw refuting the contents of the transcript by calling upon the Plaintiff to protect her lawyer committing fraud on a court order and preferring her recollection of a hearing 6 months prior, to my evidence, the transcript. What better evidence of unfairness and bias and a failing to protect the public can there be? The investigation by the Judicial Council was limited to reading my letter and dismissing it as judicial discretion as if discretion is unbounded by duty.
The AG of BC through the Kelowna Court Registry is refusing to file an application to court because of disclosure of significant access to justice issues contained therein. This problem was presented before the Court on two separate occasions, once before Deputy Chief Justice of the Provincial Court Justice Dohm and Provincial Court Justice Sicotte asan access to justice issue but was ignored. Presumably because the BCCA has ruled that everything that I say alleging corruption is a, "conspiracy theory. this does not reflect reality." which was a decision generated by pure judicial opinion unsupported by any evidence whatsoever and against a significant body of evidence including a letter from the Judicial Council claiming that Judges could protect a lawyer committing fraud by ignoring the transcript and asking the Plaintiff for her recollection of what a judge said in a hearing 6 months previously. And direct claims by Justice Newbury of the BC CA that judges could do that. A failure of fairness and impartiality by the Judiciary. There is no evidence that I can present to the court to protect myself from fraud by lawyers. An appeal at the BC CA has been stalled until that evidence that the Court of Appeal stated was "relevant" is delivered.
Furthermore the BC Law Society refuses to comply with their statutory duty of the Legal Profession Act to provide written reasons for their decision to not discipline two lawyers I allege were involved in trial fixing and judge shopping. The protection of the public being the statutory purpose from the Legislature. So of course I have an actual perception of bias that the BC Law Society will not protect the public from fraud by lawyers and failures to comply with court orders and that impacts my ability to access a court complying with its constitutional imperative to provide fair and impartial trials. The BC Law Society is currently refusing to investigate a lawyer, who presumably is a reasonable and well informed person and according to the Affidavit of the Plaintiff told her client, the mother of my children that I would be unlikely to attend a court under these circumstances so they purposefully avoided all efforts to mediate as required by the separation agreement and by the Family Law Act and the Judiciary increased my child support obligations from the agreed upon $200 per month to $2500 per month in an uncontested hearing that did not comply with fundamental justice, is unconstitutional and therefore of no force or effect. But being enforced regardless.
The Judiciary's position from the Canadian Judicial Council is that they can ignore all my evidence and prefer fraud by lawyers instead and the confirmation of that position from the BC Court of Appeal combined with the deliberate gaslighting by Justice Newbury to make the dispute appear as merely a "he said, she said" argument. Justice Newbury removed the words "the transcript" from her written decision in an effort to control the narrative and dismiss my allegations of fraud and corruption but the conduct merely proves the lack of good faith in the Judiciary.
"He actually believes he was unfairly treated...The fact that his evidence [the transcript] was not accepted...to the existence of a vast failure of...judges and lawyers to comply with their oaths of office...seems to indicate a disturbing world view rife with conspiracies and corruption. This does not reflect reality."
There was no evidence whatsoever presented to the court to refute my allegations.
"Frequent use of unbridled judicial power contains the seeds of its own destruction because it will erode the perceived legitimacy of the judiciary."
Lord Dicey
Subsequent to my appeal on the PPSC's prosecution of me on the ITA s 238(1), requirement to file and the hearing of my request for examination of prosecutorial discretion the PPSC dropped their charges, "in the public interest" but would not clarify their position in any further detail.
In September 2023 requested a check on the constitutionality of the Judges Act through a constitutional question and your office responded, "we decline to participate". The judge then ignored the constitutional question and provided no explanation as to how that could be justified in a free and democratic state, refused to accept the evidence of my efforts to access the court in Kelowna into the court record and sentenced me to 80 days in prison and claimed that there was no miscarriages of justice.
From prison the Supreme Court of Canada refused to respond to a writ of habeas corpus. A judicial conduct complaint regarding the conduct of a provincial court judge was not carried out in accordance with the statutory requirement of the Legislature. The Chief Justice did not respond but some lawyer did as if the judge was represented by a lawyer. How does a lawyer judge judicial conduct if the AG's Office asserts that they have no authority to judge judicial conduct? But the lawyer did protect Justice Sicotte, who agreed with a lawyer that he could step outside the constraints of the Charter if she made the argument that, "this was a narrow issue"(including a request for incarceration)and the Judge agreed with her. The lawyer quit work the next day and quit as a member of the BC Law Society within the week.
The evidence that I presented to the BC Supreme Court on Dec 3, 2021 before Justice Lyster included an email from the Minister of Justice David Lametti making false and misleading statements as to his duties in order to avoid doing them. Justice Lyster just didn't show up to Court on Feb 14, 2022 to provide a decision on my application for a writ of mandamus on the Minister of Justice and the Emergencies Act was enforced upon Canadians in full knowledge by both the Federal and Provincial AG's office that David Lametti's personal accountability was being requested as well as that of the Judiciary and the administration of the BC legal system. I presented that evidence as an application as an Intervener in the Federal Court of Appeal. A judicial conduct complaint was presented to the Judicial Council on July 18, 2024 regarding the conduct of Justice Lyster but no response has been received.
Your office claims that the conduct of the Judiciary is not reviewable by your office or by the Legislature,
"the Ministry of Attorney General cannot appropriately take any action with regard to the conduct of a judge, as it exercises no authority over the judiciary. 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.".
In response I sent the authority provided by the Judges Act, the precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada in Cosgrove and the Constitution Act s 99(1). I received no response. Your office is failing in its constitutional duties because your office is similarly implicated in constitutional violations. Your duties are outlined in the BNA 1867 jurisdiction of the Provinces s 13 Property and Civil Rights and 14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
Cosgrove v. Canadian Judicial Council, 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”
Under this regime I cannot access a fair and impartial tribunal for the determination of my rights and freedoms. A constitutional failure. I have been suffering under this injustice since 2005 when I was first demanded that I defend myself against a claim of contempt of court for failure to pay child support and my successful defence. The Judge stated that given the evidence I had, "no reasonable prospects for success" and urged me to retain a lawyer to change the child support order. I followed the Judge's instructions and retained a lawyer who then colluded with the opposing lawyer and in two years including a mysteriously adjourned application to court for the opposing lawyer to comply within 24 hours with a previous court order for disclosure of monthly trust account statements, concluding with a ten day trial but did nothing to alter the terms of the child support order despite my desperate pleas, and then told me at the end I could hire another lawyer to resolve the matter. I never could as lawyers refused to represent me when I told them of my experience. I do have a legal aid lawyer at present but we are stuck at my allegation of an actual apprehension of bias and he has not responded further.
A breach in the Charter requires a restoration of the breach. The only effort to restore the breach occurred back in 2008when a lawyer at FMEP delayed collection for five years after being presented with the evidence that I presented to the
BC Law Society. An admission of a problem but an inadequate remedy.
But your office claims they could find no evidence of any problems. Willful blindness, misfeasance of public office and an obstruction of justice. But given that the Judiciary are just as guilty I can only access justice through anappeal to the Legislature to check the powers of the Executive and Judiciary for Charter breaches. The Executive and the Judiciary have denied my right to access the only court of competent jurisdiction to provide a remedy to properly resolve this matter. No reasons from either the Provincial or Federal AG's or the Judiciary have been provided because the conduct cannot be justified in a free and democratic State. Unless the AG's Office does its duty and protects Canadians and ensures that the administration is in compliance with the law. We do not accept unresolveable fraud and corruption as a condition of our access to justice.
Your reply should not be anonymous. Personal accountability is required.
Still waiting for a response…
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.