The legality of the decision to prorogue Parliament
My notice of motion for leave to intervene at the Federal Court of Appeal
From my Written Representations regarding my application for leave to intervene in the legality of the Prorogation debate before the Federal Court of Appeal. The first problem is the conflict of interest for the Attorney General & Judiciary given their own Charter breaches.
The PM wanted to interfere in the administration of justice for political purposes and fired the MOJ until he got one that would do what they were told. The Attorney General's were also refusing to respond to constitutional questions regarding the accountability of the Judiciary.
The Prime Minister's Office was fully informed of the Charter breaches by the Judiciary and the Federal Attorney General at all times. The PMO acknowledged the emails and the failures of the MOJ and forwarded the matter to the Mendocino MPS acknowledging the Public Safety concern.
The obvious conflict of interest at the Attorney General's Office. As lawyers would say, the purpose of the court is to determine the truth behind the allegations. Would it be justice if we could all dismiss lawsuits because we believe the allegations were false? Or just the AG?
[25] On September 9, 2024 I wrote to all of the members of the House of Commons regarding my intention to serve them directly with the enforcement procedure of the Charter s 24(1) due to the failure of the Minister of Justice David Lametti to do his duty to protect Canadians and see that the administration is in compliance with the law. I provided evidence and argument for the consideration of the Members of Parliament to permit informal conversation and resolution prior to taking the more formal and constitutional request for accountability.
The PM proroguing Parliament was not "merely political" but an obstruction of justice, therefore illegal, and cannot be justified in a free and democratic State. "No public official has the authority to make a decision that is arbitrary, improper or in bad faith" Roncarelli v Dupleiss
"...It would be a miscarriage of justice to provide the same possibility for illegal and unconstitutional conduct to escape accountability. Canada deserves better."
[74] The Attorney General's should reflect on their code of conduct and remember that the judging of judicial conduct is from the perspective of the public, not the judges.
The lawyers legal ethics state, “Judges, not being free to defend themselves, are entitled to receive the support of the legal profession against unjust criticism and complaint. Whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer, it is proper for a lawyer to submit the grievance to the appropriate authorities.”
It is not unjust criticism of a judge to complain that a judge protected a lawyer committing fraud on a court order by rejecting the transcript and preferring the recollection of the Plaintiff instead.
It is a massive conflict of interest for lawyers to claim otherwise just because the bias is so clearly in their favor.
If you want the full pdf file of the application it is here. It’s a pretty hefty document and includes my notice of motion in support of providing leave to intervene, letter to Members of Parliament in support of a non-confidence motion in the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau along with my communications to his office and other relevant officials and the written submissions.
Obviously there is a strong conflict of interest in the Judges preventing Parliament from an examination of their constitutional requirement of “good behavior” s 99 but it is a duty that they should submit to, for the public, whom they purport to serve.
We shall see. But now you know.
I informed Mark Carney
Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 1:17 PM
To: Prime Minister | Premier Ministre <pm@pm.gc.ca>
March 26, 2025
Letter to the Office of the Prime Minister
Mark Carney,
I am forwarding this letter [of September 11, 2024] which was written to every member of the House of Commons in support of a non-confidence motion in the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Now that Justin Trudeau has stepped down and you have replaced him as leader of the Liberal Party and assumed the role of Prime Minister this duty becomes yours in order to protect Canadians and ensure that the constitutional imperative of peace, order and good government is maintained. The conduct alleged cannot be justified in a free and democratic State which is why there has been no argument presented by the Attorney General's Office to defend their conduct.
I have presented the additional evidence before the BC Ombudsperson's Office that the BC Law Society is protecting lawyers committing extortion and that the allegation was known to Minister of Justice David Lametti who made false and misleading statements to avoid doing his duty and improperly protecting lawyers and judges abusing Canadians.
In addition the office of the PMO forwarded those details on to your current Chief of Staff Marco Mendocino who never responded. The evidence was presented before the court with a request for a writ of mandamus on the Minister of Justice with a decision due on Feb 14, 2022 when the judge failed to do her duty to even show up at the court house and the Emergencies Act was enforced.
I do not know if you were privy to this information although it appears that you were in communication at the time with Mendocino, Lametti and Trudeau according to the evidence presented at POEC. In light of this evidence the legal opinion presented by the Attorney General's Office should be made public and you have the authority and duty to do that.
The evidence has also been presented before the Special Joint Committee into the Declaration of an Emergency and before the Federal Court of Appeal from the decision of Justice Mosely which stated that the conduct of the Executive was unreasonable, illegal and unconstitutional.
The further evidence indicates that the Minister of Justice's conduct was not in good faith and was an abuse of the public trust, malfeasance in office. This is an election issue. Given the evidence can the Public trust your administration to do it's duty?
The conduct of using the legal system to intimidate your political opponents using fear and extortion to silence dissent is reprehensible in a purported democracy.
Oh Canada I stand on guard for thee.
P.S. The prorogation of Parliament was illegal since the purpose was illegal. To prevent the legitimate judging of the Judiciary and the conduct of the Executive during the enforcement of the Emergencies Act.
"All tyrannies rule based on fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed must rely exclusively on force" George Orwell
