Response from AG in FCA re Emergencies Act
requesting that the Court not allow my evidence to be presented.
I received a limited response to my Notice of Motion to apply as an Intervener in the Federal Court of Appeal.
Perhaps the AG has withdrawn their response. Waiting for an update.
The first thing the Attorney General requested was for the Court to dispense with compliance with a rule…
Then just a general denial, because the evidence is “inflammatory” and contain, “spurious [false] allegations” but there is no evidence or argument presented to dispute the allegations. Their word is to be accepted without question, apparently.
Allegations of fraud and corruption are dismissed as “likely to disrupt the orderly progression of this appeal” and not “in the interests of justice”
Summary: We do not want any allegations of fraud and corruption to be heard. They are “irrelevant” BC SC and “conspiracy theories” BCCA
But if one was a gambling man the odds are better than at the Supreme Court of Canada, where the leave to appeal odds are 1 in 400 and chance of a positive result drop to 1 in 1350. Not considering of course if the evidence is relevant.
The perspective from the Federal Attorney General is similar to the Biblical position in the Ten Commandments; Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11 read:
“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain”
In the opinion of Netolitzky SRL are “abusive”, have “mental health” issues, and “do not litigate legal issues” and “focus on charter rights, human rights, allegations of judicial bias and criminality”. A recommendation to label them “abusive” rather than “vexatious”, which means an intention to cause annoyance, because SRL do actually believe in their position.
Summary: Lawyers good. Citizens bad.
An “Abusive litigant is a crusader who misidentifies a minor issue as of public and legal importance” and ”motivated by Ideology…a consequence of beliefs or philosophy…Anti-pandemic activists” and then this is interesting “some SRLs, some represented by politically oriented lawyers. Almost entirely unsuccessful.”
AKA wrong political ideological beliefs…
Who are SRL…“Have identified some way to exploit legal proceedings to make money or obtain other advantages” they initiate “Lawsuits / complaints to extort monetary settlement…” [hmmm. they do what lawyers do…that’s not permitted!] and those dastardly SRL, “Use courts to harm, intimidate, and retaliate because they enjoy that”
Recommendation “Difficult to manage, except to remove the potential benefit.”
Netolitzky
The Solution:
In conclusion. Essentially a presumption that SRL are inherently illegitimate.
”Q: Is self-representation an absolute right? A: Law across Canada inconsistent”
Source: CBA Judges’ Section, October 31, 2023, A Troubling Menagerie: Abusive Litigants and how to manage them.” by Donald Netolitzky, Complex Litigant Management Counsel, ABCA
https://www.cbapd.org/DocViewer.aspx?id=75641®ion=NA
The legal system is a public service, not a publicly funded resource for the sole benefit of lawyers…
Thanks for reading. We shall see. We knew the perspective of the Attorney General already as they refused to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter and refused to answer a constitutional question on the issue. Unfortunately we also know some judicial perspective.
I asked Judge if he was denying my argument by claiming it was "frivolous",
"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"
In the Supreme Court, the writ of mandamus request was ultimately rejected as “irrelevant”.
And at the BC Court of Appeal it was gaslighting with misinformation and disinformation.
"We know they lie, they know we know they lie, and yet they still lie."
Solzhenitzyn
and just a reminder of the purpose outlined in my Notice of Motion to Intervene.
Transparency and Accountability…in the public interest.
11. My assertion is that the Minister of Justice knew that he was failing to do his duty and knew or ought to have known that accountability was being requested and instead denied Canadians their constitutional rights by invoking the Emergencies Act.
Return to my application for intervener status
Continue to my written submission
The Court has suggested that all applications be joined together a-73-24, a-74-24, a-75-24 and a-76-24. All lawyers managing these applications did not respond to requests for submissions to be delivered by email and have otherwise not responded at all.
The fact that the evidence shows a gross failure in the rule of law by lawyers and by judges throughout their discipline regimes is of course a conflict of interest but not one that they will ever admit. I’ve already tried that. But that the AG Office suggests to the judiciary that they dismiss because the evidence contains evidence of judicial misconduct is an appeal to improper motive and bad faith on the part of the Judicary by the AG Office is extremely troubling to their duty as Ministers of Justice to protect the public and their truth seeking function, not to mention upholding the integrity of the constitution.
Enough said.
And I submit your query, request and consideration of the courts time is worthy of a petition and review on behalf of concerned citizens Charter Rights and Freedoms and that jurisprudence is not served by the discretion of those with impunity weighed by the merit of possibility that an outcome which benefits society is in the interests of many versus a handful of those behind closed doors who purport liberal democracy by Constitution. Perhaps, this might be viewed as an obstruction of justice writ large...