“Every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen...officials have been brought before the courts, and made, in their personal capacity, liable for punishment, for acts done in their official capacity but in excess of their lawful authority. 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
I was being threatened with a term of imprisonment by the Judiciary. So I requested a check on the legitimacy of their authority through a constitutional question regarding the Judges Act.
Constitutional Question Act S 8(2)If in a cause, matter or other proceeding (a)the constitutional validity or constitutional applicability of any law is challenged
The Law in question: Judges Act as amended June 22nd 2023
Particulars: 1. The Judges Act provides insufficient procedural protections to protect democracy, the rule of law, fundamental justice and fair and impartial trials for the Public.
Furthermore S 8 (2) (b) an application is made for a constitutional remedy
Particulars: 1. The Canadian Judicial Council claim by their letter to me dated August 28, 2007 that Judges may accept "evidence of your former spouse and her lawyer instead of accepting the transcript" and that "discretion is not a matter of conduct" and that my complaint “falls outside of the mandate of the Council and...to close the file” without conducting an investigation. That decision is in conflict with s 99 of the Constitution where Judges serve during “good behavior” and further refined in s80 of the Judges Act and s 7 of the Charter requiring the judiciary to provide fundamental justice and fair and impartial trials. It cannot be said to be justified in a free and democratic country to refuse to apply the rule of law. 2. I served the Attorney General of Canada / Minister of Justice David Lametti on March 9th 2020 by registered letter through the office of the Deputy Attorney General's office as specified under serving the Crown on the Ministry of Justice website with a charter notice as per s 24(1) of the Charter of Rights. 3. The Charter Notice is attached in Appendix A. 4. No formal response was ever received. 5. No notification to Parliament was ever made. 6. I hereby apply for the constitutional remedy outlined in my Charter Notice to be applied, for the constitutionality of the Courts be checked by Parliament and other such remedies be provided as that court determines.
Appendix A
Attorney General of Canada
Federal Judges through the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) are claiming the right to dispense arbitrary justice contrary to the principles of fundamental justice of which a lack of arbitrariness is the primary factor. The CJC claim that Federal Judges do not have to accept the official transcript of trial as the highest form of evidence possible, that they have the discretion to accept other evidence such as personal testimony in preference. A large number of problems follow from that position and have effected my rights personally and continue to do so. I have requested from the CJC that they explain how they can hold that position with regards to my Charter of Rights or submit my complaint in regards to their position to Parliament to get confirmation of its legality but they have denied both requests.
Section 24 of The Charter of Rights allows me to enforce my rights
"(1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances."
The only Court of competent jurisdiction to judge the judges who judge the judges is Parliament. I have currently lost most of my legal rights except obviously my right to life but I am in fear of losing that. I am hereby applying to Parliament for the protection of my charter of rights. Obviously urgency is of prime importance.
The Provincial and Federal AG’s “declined to participate” in the examination of the constitutionality of the Judges Act. The Judge claimed he had not been provided a copy of the constitutional question but did purport that he could rule on the legitimacy of their own governing document. I made a complaint to the Chief Justice of the Provincial Court regarding that claim as it appears to be a conflict of interest as it is a well established principle of fundamental justice that “no-one can be a judge in their own cause.”
Thanks for reading Fundamental Justice! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
I never received a response.
The Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia Suite 337 - 800 Hornby Street Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaV6Z 2C5 Fax (604) 660-1108. faxed August 25th, 2023
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to make a complaint regarding the conduct of Justice Bohm in the Nakusp Provincial Court on July 13, 2023 and following Senator Cotter's advice to resolve problems in the Judiciary by writing a quick note to the Chief Justice to clear things up.
Justice is purporting that he could legitimately judge me when the AG/MOJ is not responding to the enforcement procedure of the Charter. Justice is purporting that he could legitimately judge the constitutionality of the Judges Act which the AG's office “declined to participate”. I believe that the public would consider this a conflict of interest.
Justice knowing that I cannot access justice either physically, by fax or procedurally and certainly not constitutionally with a lawyer, before a fair and impartial court exercising fundamental justice is threatening me with Jail for the failings of the Judiciary. The matter has been set down for trial on September 7, 2023 in Nakusp. I don’t think that the public will consider this a fair and impartial trial complying with fundamental justice and will certainly bring about the disrepute of the legal system and a continuing lack of trust in our purportedly democratic institutions. I know you understand the problem facing the public trust in the legitimacy of this institution.
I have presented evidence of law societies protecting lawyers committing fraud and failing to comply with court orders to provide monthly trust account statements and judges protecting lawyers committing fraud on court orders and a judge protecting the lawyer by asking the plaintiff what she heard and preferring that to my evidence, the transcript, which he was holding in his hand. The Canadian Judicial Council has refused to investigate and refused to discipline and when I requested a review of that decision claimed I was abusing the process instead of initiating their procedures under 6.1 of their rules and retaining outside counsel to provide an opinion. They are no longer responding to me at all. I requested in the BC Supreme Court a writ of mandamus on the Minister of Justice to protect the public and ensure that the administration was in compliance with the law but was told my request was “irrelevant” and when I appealed the matter to the BC Court of Appeal for a right to appeal they dismissed me claiming my experience, “does not reflect reality”. The matter has been presented before Parliament and I intend to serve the enforcement procedure of the Charter on every single MP in the coming days unless the Judiciary can internally regulate itself as it claims to be capable of doing.
I suggest that this is an abuse of process of the highest order, a Constitutional Crisis.
I understand that a judge is not liable for conduct undertaken within his jurisdiction but is absolutely liable for conduct undertaken outside of his jurisdiction.
I remain committed to assisting in the just resolution of this matter in accordance with the law. The proper resolution of a charter breach is a restoration of the breach. Claiming that a Judge could judge whilst the AG/MOJ is in breach of the enforcement procedure Charter is a constitutional breach of the requirement to provide fair and impartial trials and fundamental justice. I have received nothing but denial that there is a problem and the public must accept “fraud and corruption is always the exception” to the rule of law.
During the period of my incarceration I applied for a writ of habeas corpus on the Supreme Court of Canada. They refused to acknowledge receipt until a complaint was made to the Canadian High Commission in Australia where my parents were of course extremely concerned regarding the legality of my detention. The Court denies habeas corpus but invites me to appeal following their normal procedure where they can deny hearing the appeal and provide no written reasons for that denial.
I did make a complaint regarding the conduct of Judge Sicotte, even though he was just following orders…
The Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia Chief Justice Michelle Gillespie Suite 337 – 800 Hornby St.Vancouver BC V6Z 2C5 Fax (604) 660-1108 December 4th, 2023
I wish to make a complaint regarding the conduct of Justice Sicotte of the Provincial Court of B.C.
Firstly, Justice Sicotte purported that he had the authority to set aside the Constitution, to remove the protections of the Charter, at will; based on the simple argument that it is “a very narrow proceeding.”
Secondly, that Justice Sicotte asserted no conflict of interests to both the recusal argument and the judiciary's conflict of interest in the judging of the Constitutionality of the Judges Act, when it is plain on the basis that, no-one can be a judge in their own cause.
Thirdly, that Justice Sicotte sentenced me to prison knowing that given the precedent provided for by the BCCA that all my arguments and evidence, including an assertion of discretion over the acceptance of the official court record and fraud by lawyers, could be dismissed as a conspiracy theory, leaving me and all British Columbian's with zero rights in the process as Judges contain unlimited discretion over all evidence and acceptance or rejection of all arguments and no requirement to provide meaningful reasons that withstand any type of independent scrutiny.
Judge purports that he is not bound by the Charter.
CNSL T. WILLIAMS: Your Honour, I don't understand that just for the simple fact that this application -- or this hearing has nothing to do with any of the constitutional arguments. It's very narrow. P 7 line 30
Attempts to contact Tiina Williams at FMEP in the days after this exchange were not successful and it looks like she is no longer practicing according the BC Law Society website.
Justice Sicotte “in terms of this proceeding, I agree with Ms. Williams, this is a very narrow proceeding under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act today in terms of what consequences, if any, should flow from your failure to comply with the order...” p 8 line 23
even though the application was for a term of incarceration: “if the debtor is before the court and the court finds that the debtor is capable of complying with the order, order the debtor to be imprisoned...” p3 l40
My concern is obviously if a judge can step outside of constitutional arguments merely by agreeing with the prosecution that the application is “very narrow” then what charter protections exist at all.
Judge declines recusal requests which are clearly valid and acknowledged.
I also made requests for recusal which are valid but denied. I did not bring them up again on September 7th, 2023 as the judge had previously ruled against, but my perception of bias remains.
starting at p 6 line 17 TREVOR HOLSWORTH: Sure, thank you, Justice. Just with no animosity whatsoever, I just wanted to bring up the idea of recusal. There's two matters that I can think of that might come into that. In our previous hearings, I've brought up issues that are going to come up here again, the issue of the writ of mandamus or the problem with the Minister of Justice not complying with the Charter, and the Attorney General, and which you ignored in a previous trial, which is conduct that I'm alleging that the FMEP is also in breach of. I've been communicating with FMEP through Tina, through their case worker, through Chris Beresford and through the Provincial Attorney General David Eby and they are all aware of the facts in this matter. However, no argument has been presented to dispute the facts that I present whatsoever. The second matter in regard to the recusal is FMEP in the previous, my previous experience with FMEP when confronted with fraud by lawyers, their decision was to delay collection of child support for five years, which was the same decision that you came to when you heard my matter about the income tax issue. So I just wanted to bring those two issues up as I feel like that's a pre-judgment of the matter…
THE COURT: If you could just clarify your last argument. You're saying that was the same conclusion I came to when FMEP delayed child support for five years. I don't follow that.
TREVOR HOLSWORTH: ,,,when I presented the problem…here in the hearing back in July 16th…of 2021...I made the same sort of arguments about failures in the rule of law at that time and your decision was to delay collection activities for five years, rather than addressing --
THE COURT: Oh, I see.
TREVOR HOLSWORTH: -- the actual problem that I was addressing. That's -- those are the two matters that I just want to bring up.
THE COURT: All right. Well, let me address that very briefly. Are you then suggesting that I recuse myself because of a perception of bias from yourself with respect to my ability to hear this? Is that where you're going with --
TREVOR HOLSWORTH: …I think that's a fair comment.
And concluded on p8 line 5
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Holsworth, I'm not going to grant your application that I recuse myself. I frankly didn't follow it particularly clearly.
I believe that a reasonable person would perceive a conflict of interest justifying recusal. The fact that a mistrial was ordered on the case discussed regarding “criminal charges...income tax statement” is certainly another consideration which affects a perception of fairness. Unfortunately when incarceration occurs immediately which is what happened on September 7th 2023 there is NO opportunity for a mistrial application or an Appeal at all and the imprisonment occurs whether lawful or not.
Abusive Process
The reality still exists that if, as the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) claims that Federal Judges have a discretion, rather than duty, in their acceptance of the transcript then the appeal itself is arbitrary, but that aside the precedent that BCCA Justice Newbury established that all my submissions and evidence are a “conspiracy theory. That does not reflect reality” effectively removes all my constitutional rights, by simply dismissing them with opinion, unsupported by any facts and ignoring all documentary evidence including letters from the CJC and the transcript, results in Canadians having zero rights in the British Columbia legal system as everything presented up to and including transcript evidence is subject to being ignored at the whim of any judge hearing the matter. If everything can be dismissed as being irrelevant, and argument can be dismissed with, “I frankly didn't follow it particularly clearly”, even after saying “Oh. I see”, which I certainly took as an understanding that my argument had been acknowledged, understood and not requiring any further explanation or clarification.
The quotes from the transcript refer to the hearing on July 13, 2022 in Nakusp.
The same judge subsequently ordered my incarceration on September 7, 2023
That Judge Sicotte who previously had claimed not to be a high enough court to resolve issues of a failure of the legal system to be in compliance with the law or fundamental justice because “it's a very large argument and it may be very serious but it's not one I can address in Provincial Court” ( July 10th 2021, Nakusp ) would also purport to have authority to judge the constitutionality of the Judges Act without seeing a conflict of interest in that regard is difficult to comprehend. Are Judges immune from conflicts of interest, what could be more of a conflict than to judge the constitutionality of their governing Act of Parliament? Other than writing the actual Act of Parliament, of course.
It is also problematic that I communicated a failure of the Court Registries to acknowledge my faxes to attempt to file documents to access justice to dispute the root cause of the hearing occurring and no comment or concern was made by two judges. That I have a court order on another Court Registry to provide court audio that remains unfulfilled almost a year later just compounds the access to justice issue in the British Columbia legal system.
Of course I feel I was unfairly and arbitrarily imprisoned, with bias and potentially malice.
Thank you for your acceptance of this complaint regarding judicial conduct by Justice Sicotte. I look forward to receiving your response. I note that I have not received a response to my complaint regarding the conduct of Justice Bohm faxed to your office on August 25, 2023
The actual trial was pretty short as the evidence was all irrelevant, and I would suggest that the outcome was predetermined. The question for the public to examine is whether the guarantee of a fair and impartial trial has been provided. We are all one. An injustice to one, is an injustice to all as we are guaranteed to be equal under the law.
The Judiciary claim that they are accountable to the public. In response to my previous experience before Justice Sicotte I appealed to the BC Supreme Court where they declared a mistrial. However, when I requested a return of the funds used to purchase a transcript that provided that evidence ,(which was accepted this time) I was denied. Why should the public pay for the errors of the Judiciary?
“One of these goals is the maintenance of public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, which is essential to the effectiveness of the court system. Independence contributes to the perception that justice will be done in individual cases. Another social goal served by judicial independence is the maintenance of the rule of law, one aspect of which is the constitutional principle that the exercise of all public power must find its ultimate source in a legal rule…”
“The Preamble, by its reference to “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom, “points to the nature of the legal order that envelops and sustains Canadian society…the Court explicitly relied on the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, as one basis for holding that the rule of law was a fundamental principle of the Canadian Constitution.” Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, The Provincial Judges Reference
“Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.” Tommy Douglas
This is the prior court hearing that many of the quotes are taken from. https://fundamentaljustice.com/the-child-support-hustle/ Sicotte was also the Judge who Judged my first appearance regarding my income tax protest. This was the article in the local paper prior to the hearing. The trial was declared a mistrial on appeal, but not for any of the reasons I put before the court. But it did give the judiciary another kick at the can.
A lawyer Slansky made this assertion to the Federal Court
