Submission to POEC involving PM & MOJ
Allegations of a failure in the Rule of Law throughout Legal System
October 22, 2022
Thank you for the opportunity to submit evidence regarding the constitutional validity for the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
I believe that these communications played a role in the Government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.
The PM's office knows that his AG / MOJ David Lametti is refusing to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Canadian Charter s 24(1).
The Parliamentary Ethics Commission has been informed and has accepted the complaint, although now refuses to respond to further inquiries as to the progress of their investigation.
The PM's office when informed of the breach forwarded my email to the Minister of Justice, who, in his response, made false and misleading statements regarding his duties to the public and has refused further communication. When the PM's office was informed of this situation they forwarded the email to the Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino, who has not responded.
When I reported the situation to the RCMP anti-corruption squad National Division Intake Unit which has the "mandate to safeguard and investigate significant threats to Canada's political, economic and social integrity" concerning complaints about "federally elected members of Parliament". However when I reported that the MOJ was failing to respond to a Charter complaint to have judicial conduct examined by Parliament and provided them a copy of my Charter complaint, they wrote "any future communications...unless solicited...will not be reviewed and will be destroyed"
I attempted to communicate the situation to the House of Commons committee on Justice and Human Rights but a clerk at that committee saw fit to delete the comments from being submitted which is decidedly undemocratic. A single public servant preventing the legitimate debate before the People's House is an affront to Canadians and Parliament and effects the integrity of the Public Service, Ministerial and MP responsibilities. It is also probably illegal as an obstruction of justice.
When I presented this evidence before the Judiciary and requested a writ of mandamus for the MOJ to comply with his duty to enforce the law and ensure that the administration of Government is in compliance with the law, they refused to respond and refused to allow debate on the matter.
Attachments:
1. The brief for the Parliamentary Justice and Human Rights Committee
2. Complaint submitted to the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner
3. Emails Communications with the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner
4. Communications with the PM's office March 4th, 2022
including within previous communications and this longer one Nov 21, 2021 included in a separate substack with extensive quotes from Parliament and David Johnston’s book “Trust”
5. Communications with the PM's office July 28th, 2022
6.Communications with the PM's office August 22nd, 2022
7. Notice of Constitutional Question presented to Court July 16th, 2021
I did get a formal personal confirmation of that receipt on Dec 26th, 2022 at 3:43 PM. Boxing day is a strange date for an acknowledgement by a public servant.
The POEC Public hearings began on Thursday, October 13 and ran until Friday, December 2, 2022
Lawyers say, “since the evidence was before the judge presumably he considered them in his decision”, The five volumes of the Report of the Public Inquiry into the 2022 Public Order Emergency were released on February 17, 2023
”On November 16, the inquiry heard summaries of the 9,500 submissions made by the general public who had replied to the request for submissions from August through October 31”.
There was no mention of my submissions. Perhaps they were removed, but by who?
Justice Lyster in the Supreme Court in Nelson opinion delayed from Feb 14, 2022, the day the Emergencies Act was invoked was, that they were “irrelevant”. I had requested a writ of mandamus, an order for a Minister to comply with his duty. The duty of the MOJ is to protect the public, and ensure that the administration of justice is in compliance with the law. It wasn’t, because David Lametti was not responding to s 24(1), the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter, for Parliament to properly check the powers of Judges, in a free and democratic state.
When I appealed to the BC Court of Appeal on August 30, 2022,
Justice Newbury’s decision on September 29, 2022 was that I was presenting a “conspiracy theory. This does not reflect reality.”
A denial of the constitutional principal of the rule of law for British Columbia, but confirming that Judges can ignore the transcript, if they want. The denial of habeas corpus by the SCC effectively determined that the Court does not see itself bound by the Charter, to protect their integrity, by denying access to the Court.
The question of compliance with the Constitution is still outstanding. Federal Public Prosecution stating in writing that they would not be responding.
The same letter with the same evidence was also sent to:
Subsequently something similar was also sent to the Speaker of the House Anthony Rota which he responded to in acknowledgement - which I believe ultimately led to the set-up for his removal.
The Parliamentary Committee on Procedure and the House Affairs was also sent something similar, requesting advice on the correct procedure to follow to inform Parliament as to the problem of a Ministry of Justice and a Judiciary not in compliance with the Constitution and refusing to submit the problem to Parliament to properly check their claim of legitimacy.
Interim Police Chief Bell
“Unlawful Protest…by working together we strengthen our democracy…we have several criminal investigations ongoing that relate to the seizure of weapons…one of the tactics that the protestors and demonstrators are using is misinformation…
If you are involved in this protest, we will actively look to identify you and follow up with financial sanctions and criminal charges, absolutely. This investigation will go on for months to come…it has many many different streams…”
Feb 19th, 2022 Video
Canadian Constitutional Foundation
In a judicial review decision released Tuesday Jan 23rd 2024,
Justice Mosley agreed with the CCF that Cabinet’s invocation of the Act in February 2022 was not reasonable for two reasons.
First, Cabinet did not properly account for the requirement under section 3 of the Act that emergencies only be declared where a situation cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
“Due to its nature and to the broad powers it grants the Federal Executive, the Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort,” Justice Mosley wrote. “The GIC cannot invoke the Emergencies Act because it is convenient, or because it may work better than other tools at their disposal or available to the provinces.”
Second, the requirement of reasonable grounds to believe that Canada faced “threats to the security of Canada” had not been met. Section 17 of the Act states that “threats to the security of Canada” has the same meaning as it has under section 2(c) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (the “CSIS Act”), which includes threats like terrorism, espionage and attempts to overthrow the government. Justice Mosley said that this does not include the “economic disruption that resulted from the border crossing blockades, troubling as they were.”
My communications with the RCMP National Division
On January 6th 2021 as the Capitol Building in Washington was being stormed…
and followed with
Clarification was required.
The RCMP concluded their “investigation” January 11th, 2021
I concluded on January 12th 2022 with,
“Thank you once again for your communication.
I understand that we have a difference of opinion regarding your mandate and what comprises significant threats to Canadas political, economic and social integrity.
I thought it important to communicate to the very best of my ability my concerns to all appropriate persons. I understand that this will be our last communication and although we have difference of opinions I remain open to re-establishing a connection in the future.”
