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Perhaps the AG has withdrawn their response.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
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...