2 Comments

Trevor Holsworth is a criminal narcissistic projectionist and conspiracy theorist in his fifties funded by his mommy and daddy.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong for you to STFU?

Not sure why Trevor Holsworth is not in prison for tax and business fraud. In 2023 a Judge sentenced him to 80 days in prison for attempting to rearrange his finances to avoid paying child support. His business fraud is related to that prison sentence but its a much bigger issue of criminality. The FMEP finally acted in court against Holsworth but its time the CRA got their ducks in a row and imposed their mandate with this creep.

Expand full comment

Why dont you publish your real name instead of hiding. You are correct that the BC Court of Appeal labelled me a conspiracy theorist and my claims as not reflecting reality although they did have in their hands evidence from the Canadian Judicial Council claiming that Judges have discretion to protect a lawyer committing fraud on a court order by rejecting my evidence, the official record of trial, the transcript.

And when I attempted to question the CRA Agent at trial regarding his opinion on the fairness of a trial conducted under these circumstances the Judge refused to allow him to answer.

And that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada dropped their prosecution of me on failing to file income tax statements, (my initial protest against an abusive and unconstitutional administration) "in the public interest" after an examination of prosecutorial discretion and another matter is currently held up at the BC Court of Appeal waiting for the Nelson Registry to comply with a court order to provide the court audio which discloses the corruption. It's been over a year now. I doubt they will ever comply.

And given that the Judge who sentenced me declared that there were no miscarriages of justice despite evidence of fraud and judicial corruption protecting the fraud but when the Judiciary can ignore all the evidence that any Canadian could provide then such miscarriages of justice will be guaranteed to occur.

But they are trying to shut me up because legally the courts are conducting themselves unconstitutionally and refusing to allow their discretion to be examined by the only court of competent jurisdiction to do so, which is Parliament. It is obvious to anyone that the Judiciary is in conflict with their constitutional requirement to provide a "fair and impartial trial" and so legally their decisions are of "no force or effect" until they rectify the situation. They are obviously biased towards lawyers as they will reject the best evidence any canadian could provide to protect fraud committed by a lawyer which is obviously unfair.

Who do you work for? Are you a lawyer, or an otherwise biased Party? Why would anyone defend such conduct and project their guilt onto another...

Expand full comment