Requesting Recusal

from Judge who claimed my request for writ of mandamus on Lametti was irrelevant following a disclosure of a failure in the rule of law throughout Canadian legal system.

This is part of an application broken into a couple of substacks.
This link is for the home page for this stack of subs.

26418-2 Nelson Registry
Lower Court File No. 26418-1 Nelson Registry
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE LYSTER)
Nelson, B.C. January 11 & 13, 2023
REX v. TREVOR RUSSELL HOLSWORTH
SUBMISSIONS FOR APPELLANT BY TREVOR HOLSWORTH:

THE APPELLANT: I probably should bring up the idea of recusal again, Justice Lyster...given that I did suggest that you should be removed from the Bench...
THE COURT: I didn’t know that you had suggested that, Mr. Holsworth.
THE APPELLANT: ...in my appeal document that I suggested that your ruling should lead to a dismissal...that might influence your decisions...the fact that...I’m alleging that your employer and the person that promoted you is obstructing justice, the Minister of Justice --
THE COURT: The Ministry of Justice is not my employer.
THE APPELLANT: I appreciate that’s your perspective.
THE COURT: Well, it’s also a matter of law. The Minister of Justice is not my employer.
[The MOJ hires and the MOJ could apply to Parliament to fire, and given that the ruling party has a majority of the seats in the House it is a forgone conclusion, given party loyalty, even the opposition party generally falls into line before the MOJ, see what happened in Parliament with the debate regarding Justice Shaw]

THE COURT: Wouldn’t that mean that there could be no judge that could hear your matter?
THE APPELLANT: that is a problem, and that’s the matter that I did bring up to you the prior time we talked on December 3rd. 2021
THE COURT: Right, but if I were to accept that that was a basis for me to recuse myself, you would be unable to bring this application in any court in Canada.
THE APPELLANT: ...I have presented it to the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Ethics. It is before the Senate as well. I’ve written to the Senate on the matter, just for your information, and it’s also being presented on the [Parliamentary Ethics Committee] as well as the Emergencies Act inquiry, and I have received confirmation they have received that communication.

So I have attempted to communicate with the court of competent jurisdiction in this matter.
I’m still waiting for an actual response from anyone.

THE COURT: So when you say the court of competent jurisdiction, do you mean Parliament?
THE APPELLANT: Correct...the reality is that you didn’t rule on the writ of mandamus in my prior hearing. You didn’t rule for or against it. You just declined to rule on it at all. That, to me, gives me a perception of bias that you won’t rule against, well, yourself or your brethren I suppose would be the logical conclusion to that matter. So that brings up that element of partiality and bias. So that question hasn’t been resolved. It wasn’t resolved at the Court of Appeal. It wasn’t even discussed. I brought it up, but it was ignored in Justice Newbury’s decision.

So I’m left with this void that judges can just ignore anything that they want that they don’t want to bring up, and obviously that affects my rights completely. If you can just arbitrarily decide to ignore something that I bring up, then I don’t have rights here in this forum....

Did you think my evidence was insufficient or that my legal argument was incorrect, or were you trying to protect lawyers and judges breaking the Canadian Criminal Code, or what was the reason?...I think the public has a right to know....It is appropriate in a free and democratic country.

...If everything is okay, like Justice Newbury says that it is, then shouldn’t it be okay to have a hearing, same as we’re having a hearing here? Here the Crown is accusing me of a crime, and I have a right to have this conversation in this forum, same as judges would have the same rights in a forum. To deny that procedure is fundamentally wrong. It’s against the rule of law,

THE COURT: All right. So what I understand you to be saying, Mr. Holsworth, is that really I would characterize your argument as in two parts. There’s an institutional bias argument because you would say that no judge can hear your cases because they’ve been appointed by the government, and secondly, you say that I am biased, and you say that because you suggested that I should be removed from the bench and because in your view I refused to rule on your mandamus application. Have I got it fairly?

CNSL M. ERINA: Do you need response on this from the Crown?
THE COURT: I would love to hear from you. Thank you.

SUBMISSIONS FOR CROWN/RESPONDENT BY CNSL M. ERINA:
CNSL M. ERINA: Well, there’s no basis in law whatsoever for Justice to be recused. You’re perfectly, in a matter of law facts, in a position to hear Mr. Holsworth’s appeal. Justice says she’s correctly noted much of Mr. Holsworth’s complaints go beyond Your Ladyship - pardon me, old habits die hard - but go to every judge in the entire judicial system. Of course, he’s foreshadowing what is to -- the flavour of his entire appeal and his applications. You know, Mr. Holsworth wants to put the entire system on trial and doesn’t appreciate the difference between what’s relevant to the narrow issues of his prosecution versus his broader complaints, whether they’re valid or not, and of course Crown says they’re not valid. He mixes those two together and sees the entire system as broken... Mr. Holsworth’s submissions, in my respectful submission, have no merit. There’s no basis in law for Your Lady to be recused in this matter.

[REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON RECUSAL APPLICATION] :
DENIED. NO CONFLICT.

This is part of an application broken into a couple of substacks.
This link is for the home page for this stack of subs.