Monday, September 30, 2013

The Canadian judicial system: "To serve and protect" ..... but who?



Sunday, September 29, 2013


Saturday, September 28, 2013

"Pasquale, where's the plenty of documents with lots of salacious details?"



Friday, September 27, 2013

Shut your face Pat Martin!

Good Day Readers:

It boggles the mind why anyone would contribute to Pat Martin's legal bill. Here's someone who is one of only 308 Canadians immune from defamation and libel as long as it's said in the House of Commons. His actions were whatever the descriptive is for beyond stupid.

He must have really got whacked if the monthly service charge on his debt is $2,700!

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Unions help pay legal debt
Martin insists trust fund donations are ethical

By Larry Kurch
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
"Mr. Beyond Stupid"

Winnipeg MP Pat Martin is counting heavily on his friends in organized labour to help dig him out of a big financial hole after he settled a $5-million defamation suit last year filed by an Edmonton-based company.

The federal Ethics Commissioner's website says about two dozen organizations (mainly unions) and individuals have contributed $500 or more to a trust fund established to pay off Martin's legal debts. The website does not state how much each donor contributed.

Although union donations to federal political parties are prohibited, Martin has been scrupulous in ensuring the union gifts are legally on the up and up.

In an interview Tuesday, he said the fund's trustees sought the advice of the Ethics Commissioner, as well as that of Elections Canada and Revenue Canada, before establishing it.

Edmonton-based automated calls firm RackNine sued Martin for comments directed at the company during the robocalls controversy that erupted following the 2011 federal election. Martin later apologized, but his mea culpa did not stop the lawsuit.

Martin, 57, won't say how much he had to pay to end the lawsuit. A non-disclosure clause was part of the settlement.

But he said Tuesday the cost of servicing the debt alone is $2,700 a month.

"It's a massive amount of money. We've raised a massive amount of money to date and there's still a massive amount outstanding," the former journeyman carpenter and Manitoba Carpenters Union Business Manager said.

Unions and union leaders have not been the only contributors, Martin said. "There's been literally hundreds of personal donations."

University of Manitoba political scientist Royce Koop says while Martin appears to have covered himself from a legal standpoint, the optics are a different matter.

"I don't think it looks good," Koop said Tuesday, adding Martin must have been in "an extremely difficult situation."

The Winnipeg Centre MP borrowed money from the federal New Democratic Party to pay off RackNine and his legal debts. The trust fund is helping him repay the party.

"This is a guy who is very critical not only of any impropriety on the part of the government but any appearance of impropriety. So he knows that it doesn't look good to have unions giving him a gift," Koop said.

He said it will be up to Winnipeg Centre voters to judge Martin in the next election, which is slated for the fall of 2015. Martin, first elected in 1997, received 6,755 more votes than his nearest rival in 2011.

Several unions and union leaders listed as large donors on the Ethics Commissioner's website declined comment Tuesday.

Martin laughed off the notion he would be beholden to organized labour for their financial support. "That's an absurd notion to anybody that knows me ... If anybody thinks that I could be any more friendly to unions because of a donation they don't know me very well," he said.

He said every donation received by the trust fund is scrutinized. He noted the Ethics Commissioner's Office has directed he return more than $20,000 worth of donations so far. He would not say why the Office felt some donations were inappropriate.

larry.kusch@freepress.mb.ca

How problematic is Pat Martin’s use of union donations to deal with the costs of his defamation case? Join the conversation in the comments below.

Labour lines up to help MP

Groups and individuals who have donated $500 or more to a trust fund set up to pay off MP Pat Martin's legal debts:
  • The Alberta and NWT Building Trades Council
  • The Canada Labour Congress
  • The Millwrights Union Local 2736
  • The United Steelworkers
  • The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades
  • The British Columbia Regional Council of Carpenters
  • The Canadian Union of Public Employees
  • The Canadian Machinist Political League
  • The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Canada (Western Canadian Boilermakers)
  • The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Local 739
  • Susan Atherton
  • The Atlantic Canada Regional Council of Carpenters and Millwrights and Allied Workers
  • The Prairie Arctic Regional Council of Canada
  • The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
  • The United Food and Commercial Workers ch. 19
  • The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2085
  • The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2038
  • Jean-François Larose
  • Hélène Leblanc
  • The Canadian Union of Public Employees
  • The CAW-Canada
  • Paul Moist
  • The Federal NDP Caucus Fund
Source: Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner website

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition September 25, 2013 A12

But where's Mountie Ken ..... eh?


The two sides of Steinbach, Manitoba!

Good Day Readers:

Had to smile after watching the video. Steinbach a predominately Mennonite town of approximately 13,000 located in the heart of Manitoba's bible belt remained dry until October of 2011 despite numerous plebiscites dating back to the 1970s. Locals would tell visitors of a hotel on the town's outskirts where everyone flocked to do their drinking. It was also rumoured many Steinbachians had well stocked private bars.

Perhaps Mr. Trudeau should have asked the lady how many grow ops have been busted in the area by the police over the past few years?

Sincerely,.
Clare L. Pieuk


Justin Trudeau confronted on pot stance, but does woman have ties to Vic Toews?

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and a Manitoba food bank manager got into a somewhat tense exchange Thursday over the issue of marijuana legalization.

But there may be a twist — the woman is said to be married to the executive assistant to former public safety minister Vic Toews.

Trudeau, who announced in January that he backs pot legalization and told HuffPost Canada this summer that he smoked marijuana since becoming an MP in 2008, is currently in Manitoba as part of a nationwide tour. He was confronted by the woman in a Steinbach, Manitoba.

A nearly five-minute clip was posted to YouTube by the website, Steinbachonline.com.

In the video, the woman says addiction is something she deals with on a daily basis and that the issue isn't about keeping pot away from kids since many in their 30s, 40s and 50s lose their lives to drugs.

Trudeau says that while he agrees pot isn't a health food supplement, Canada is currently losing the war on drugs.

"We're funneling billions of dollars into criminal organizations and gangs," he says."We're having our kids access pot easier than they're accessing alcohol and we need to realize the current prohibition just isn't working."

"So, the 50-year-old man that's life is broken, you think that it's easier for me to say to him the government supports the broken life that you have?" she asks, adding that more access will further the problem.

"And their lives are broken because of pot?" Trudeau asks.

When the woman says that weed is a gateway drug, Trudeau says that is why more needs to be done to regulate and keep it away from kids.

"So, my 16-year-old should have more access than what she already has?" the woman asks.

At this point, Trudeau seems to become frustrated, placing his hand on her shoulder and saying, "I've been listening to you, you need to listen to what I’m saying.

"You found your 16-year-old with marijuana? So the current approach isn't working to keep marijuana out of the hands of your teenager. And what I'm saying is if we control it, if we regulate it the same way we regulate or even maybe slightly tougher than alcohol, your 16-year-old won't have easy access to marijuana and that's what we both want."

After the woman says her daughter is also drinking alcohol provided by people of legal age, the Liberal leader says it sounds like an issue that goes beyond access.

Trudeau then states that $500 million is spent each year going after pot crimes, and that money would be better spent on addiction programs.

Toward the end of the clip, a man points out that the woman is married to Toews' assistant.

"Then your husband knows how the approach, being tough on crime in the wrong way, just doesn’t work," Trudeau says.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Canadian blogger enters prestigious American "Titillating tales from the Bar" contest!

Good Day Readers:

As sometimes happens CyberSmokeBlog can find itself scratching around looking for "postbles." When that happens it usually checks out New York-based Above the Law ranked the second most popular United States legal blog founded by Harvard educated lawyer Elie Mystal.

Currently it running it's Tittilating tales from the Bar! contest. Our entry is Simpson versus Mair. Not only is it tittilating it's beyond weird. Above the Law has a Canadian link that's been following the Douglas Inquiry - now that's tittilation at mega taxpayer expense! Wish us well.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
British Columbia judge's partner hit with libel penalty of $250,000

Lawyer asks court to overturn transfer of assets into the name of the Supreme Court judge

Matthew Ramsey
Sunday, July 9, 2006
Lubomyr Prytulak answers a Province reporter's knock on the door of the home he shares with British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg yesterday. He declined comment on proceedings against him set to unfold in a Vancouver court this week. (Credit: Les Bazso, The Province)

A man who lives with a British Columbia Supreme Court judge is alleged to have transferred assets into her name while facing defamation proceedings in the United States.

Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg who lives in a west-side Vancouber house with Lubomyr Prytulak, a self-described "educational consultant" whose writings were the subject of a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigation into a hate-speech complaint.

In a writ of summons filed in British Columbia Supreme Court but not yet formally served on the couple, attorney Gary Kurtz of Los Angeres alleges Prytulak's conveyance of his interest in the $903,000 home to Koenigsberg in 2004 shold be declared void so Prytulak can pay the U S defamtion judgment, now more than $250,000 US.

A court action on the allegation, in which Koenigsberg is named as a co-defendant is pending.

Kurtz has filed a certificate of pending litigation against the property, essentially freezing it until the issue is resolved.

In the meantime, Kurtz is expected to be in a Vancouver courtroom Monday to argue that the Los Angeles Superior Court judgment against Prytulak stands in British Columbia because of reciprocal enforcement legislation between the province and the State of California.

Kurtz successfully sued Prytulak in 2004 after Prytulak, the writer behind the ukar.org website, sent a series of defamatory letters to California judges, lawyers and legal organizations.

Reached at his Los Angeles office, Kurtz told The Province Koenigsberg's relationship with Prytulak and her position with the court could be of concern to British Columbians.

Kurtz said he anticipated that the people of British Columbia could be distressed to see the connection between a British Columbia Supreme Court justice and a person who has created, maintained and updated a website that resulted in a hate-speech complaint.

Steve Rambam, a U S-based investigator who has unearthed Nazi war criminals, has also squared off against Prytulak in a separate defamation case. Represented by Kurtz, Rambam won the case but the ruling was thrown out on appeal due to jurisdictional concerns. Prytulak began sending his letters defaming Kurtz during the Rambam case.

Rambam says he is "extremely concerned" about what may happen in the court tomorrow, though he has faith in the Canadian judicial System.

Prytulak's website (which is no longer online) was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2003 on the basis of a Canadian Jewish Congress complaint. Prytulak launched the site in 1994 in response to a CBC 60 Minutes report that outlined anti-Semitism in the Ukraine, his birthplace. A CJC investigation in 2005 requested that Prytulak respond to concerns that the site engaged in Holocaust denial, promoted anti-Semitism and was likely to expose Jews to hate. The CJC and Prytulak settled before the file made it to the the tribunal stage. CJC Pacific Region chair Mark Weintraub declined to comment this week on the latest allegations.

In April of this year on an online discussion forum called the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust," a segment of an e-mail Prytulak wrote to Paul Fromm was posted explaining the removal of ukar.org from the Internet. Fromm is a far-right political and former school teacher who founded the Canadian Association for free Expression, an organization active in the defence of Holocaust deniers.

In the e-mail, Prytulak insisted the website removal was the result of a "non-agressact pact" between himself and the Jewish Congress.

"I decided that 10 years on the front lines, without pay, had brought me to the limit of my contribution to writing on Ukrainian issues," he wrote. "As the objected-to materials constitute only a small proportion of UKAR ... I am free to leave most of it up, but decided to remove the entire site so as to leave me unencumbered and undistracted to pursue other interests, mainly education and scientific method."

Prytulak answered the door of his home yesterday, but declined to comment.

"I won't be answering any questions," he said.

Rambam said he would like to purchase Prytulak's website and use it to post information about Ukrainian war criminals.

Prytulak's brief biography states he received a BA in experimental psychology form the University of Toronto in 1966, a PhD from Stanford in 1969 and worked as an assistant and associate professor in the department of psychology at the University of Western from 1969 until his retirement in 1980,

Koenigsberg was called to the bar in Ontario in 1976 and in British Columbia in 1981. She represented the attorney-general of Canada in the high-profile native-rights Delgamuukwcase in 1991 before she was appointed to the British Columbia Court in 1992. In recent years, Koenigsberg dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought against broadcaster Rafe Mair but her ruling was overturned by the British Court of Appeal. Koenigsberg came under fire in 2001 over her decision to release an alleged terrorist on bail.

Speaking in 2005 about Koenigsberg's ruling that the legal-services tax was unconstitutional as it pertained to low-income people, Attorney-General Wally Oppal, a British Columbia Court of Appeal Justice at the time, said he had the "highest respect" for the judge, referring to her as a "stellar jurist, well-experienced in the law."

Oppal declined comment yesterday, saying it would be inappropriate as the case in now before the courts.
Steve Rambam (left) and Gary Kurtz

CyberSmokeBlog: Honourable boys and girls of the court, can you spell f-r-a-u-d-u-l-e-n-t  co-n-v-e-y-a-n-c-e?

Down Big Guy down and wipe that smirk off your face ..... now you know why baboons like grapes so much!

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

"Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry .....!"

"Heretofore, herein, not forthcoming and notwithstanding .... this is not a armed robbery it's an illegal fraudulent conveyance!

Caveman: WTF, I've heard of bank robbers becoming lawyers but lawyers becoming bank robbers?
Wentzville man charged in trooper shooting, bank robbery

DeniseHollingshed@post-dispatch.com
Sunday, September 22, 2013
A Wentzville man was charged Saturday with robbing a bank in Dutzow and shooting a Missouri state trooper during his getaway Friday.

Warren Gladders, 64, was charged in Warren County with first-degree assault against a law enforcement officer, armed criminal action, robbery in the first degree and possession of an illegal firearm — a sawed-off shotgun. Bail has been set at $500,000.

Police said a bulletproof vest saved the trooper. Gladders was shot in both legs.

Gladders had no criminal record except for traffic offenses. He is accused of robbing the First Bank of Dutzow on Friday morning.

A man who answered the door at Gladder’s home Saturday declined to comment, referring all questions to attorney Brad Kessler. Kessler said Gladders remained hospitalized Saturday but said he didn’t know anything about Gladders’ background.

According to several legal websites, though, Gladders received a law degree from Washington University (emphasis ours). Gladders got his undergraduate degree at Colgate University and is a 1967 graduate of John Burroughs School.

Gladders was wounded in a shootout with the trooper near New Melle in St. Charles County. A bullet lodged in the bulletproof vest of the trooper. The 26-year-old trooper, who was not identified, was treated for bruising of the chest.

Gladders drove away on Highway 94 after robbing the bank, police said. When the trooper pulled him over, he shot at the trooper, who returned fire, authorities said.

“He should be fine, maybe a little bruising,” Patrol Sergeant. Al Nothum said of the trooper.

Authorities said Gladders had walked into the bank and pulled out a handgun. Warren County Sheriff Kevin T. Harrison said Gladders told tellers not to put dye packs in the cash, forcing the employees to fan the bills at the counter to make sure.

He then ordered the tellers to go to the bank vault and bring him $100 and $50 bills. He put the money into a duffel bag and ran out of the bank.

“He said if anybody did anything, he would kill everyone in the bank,” Harrison said.

A customer’s wife was waiting in a car outside. She saw the robbery and called for help. Her description of the getaway car and information from another motorist helped authorities spot Gladders, police said.

Denise Hollinshed is a crime reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Jeezus, why don't you cut to the chase and just smell armpits?

"Sniff, sniff, sniff ... darling I think I just fell in love. Why you nasty little pervert f..k off!"
Phermone parties a new trend among singles in Los Angeles and New York

Amy Taxin
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Konstantin Bakhurin, left, and Martina Desalvo smell shirts during a phermone party, Friday, June 15, 2012 in Los Angeles. The get togethers which have been held in New York and Los Angeles and are planned for other cities require guests to submit a slept-in T-shirt that well be sniffed by other participants. Then you can pick your partner based on scent. (American Press photo/Mark J. Terill)

LOS ANGELES — Sniff your way to love? Singles who have attended so-called pheromone parties haven't ruled it out.

The get-togethers – which have been held in New York and Los Angeles and are planned for other cities – ask guests to submit a slept-in T-shirt that will be smelled by other participants.

Then, voila! You can pick your partner based on scent, or so the theory goes.

The parties started out as an experimental matchmaking fest by a California woman weary of online dating, but it turns out they also have a root in science. Researchers have shown that humans can use scent to sort out genetic combinations that could lead to weaker offspring.

At a dimly lit art gallery in Los Angeles on a recent night, partygoers huddled around several tables covered with plastic freezer bags stuffed with shirts and an index card bearing a number. Once they found one they liked, a photographer snapped a picture of them holding the bag and projected it onto a wall so the shirt's rightful owner could step forward and meet his or her odor's admirer.

Konstantin Bakhurin, a 25-year-old neuroscience graduate student, said he bypassed the bags that smelled like baby powder or laundry detergent or perfume in search of something more unique: the owner of a distinctive yellow-T-shirt whose fragrance he described as "spicy."

"I think it's probably a bit more pseudoscience," said Bakhurin, who attended with two fellow graduate students from University of California, Los Angeles. "I just kind of came here for kicks to see what would happen."

The parties are a marked contrast to the proliferation of online dating sites, which demand countless details from singles, and in some ways are taking romance back to its most primal beginnings.

Judith Prays, a web developer who now lives in Atlanta, said she came up with the idea for pheromone parties after she failed to find a match online. Prays said she'd date men for a month or so before things soured until she started seeing a man who wasn't what she was looking for and wound up in a two-year relationship.

What she remembered was his smell.

"Even when he smelled objectively bad, I thought he smelled really good," the 25-year-old said. "And so I thought, OK, maybe I should be dating based on smell?"

At first, it was an experiment. Prays invited 40 friends to a party in New York and asked them to sleep in a T-shirt for three nights, put it in a plastic bag and freeze it, then bring it to the party. Bags were coded with blue cards for men and pink for women and numbered so the shirts' owners could pinpoint their admirers.

The night was a hit, Prays said, adding that half a dozen couples hooked up and one pair formed a relationship. Since then, she has held similar parties in New York and Los Angeles and is planning others for Atlanta, San Francisco and perhaps elsewhere.

Many partygoers chuckled at the idea of finding a match in a smelly T-shirt. But that's not to say there isn't some science supporting the idea.

Research studies using similar T-shirt experiments have shown that people prefer different human scents. But whose smell they prefer is dictated by a set of genes that influence our immune response – which researchers say is nature's way of preventing inbreeding and preserving genetic adaptations developed over time.

"Humans can pick up this incredibly small chemical difference with their noses," said Martha McClintock, founder of the Institute for Mind and Biology at the University of Chicago. "It is like an initial screen."

In one such study, McClintock and her colleagues had participants sniff inside a covered box without knowing that in some cases they were smelling worn T-shirts. What they found was people preferred the odors of those who had different genetic makeups from their own, but not radically different.

In Los Angeles, several dozen 20-somethings headed to the gallery at night in search of romance – or at least out of curiosity. They posed playfully for the photographer with shirts they liked, hoping the owner might step forward and say hello.

Few did. Some admitted they had seen their number flashed on the wall but were too shy to identify themselves.

But there was still plenty of chatter as beer-sipping singles turned up their noses at bags that smelled like hiker's sweat and their aunt's old carpet and took a second whiff of sweet and musky fragrances they liked but couldn't peg – a playful exercise that served as an icebreaker to what otherwise could have been an awkward gathering of strangers.

Karen Arellano threw back her head and laughed after trying a handful of bags that reeked of sweat, coffee and even weed – but said she didn't really come to the party in search of love.

"I don't think I'm going to find anything more than, `Hi, how are you,' a conversation," the 29-year-old baker said. "That's expectation enough."

Prays said she's also learned from the experience that while scent is powerful, it isn't enough to detect a good match.

"Animals have babies and they move on, and that's what the pheromone party is," said Prays, who may start including a few pertinent details on the index cards, like a person's relationship expectations. "The most successful thing about it is it opens up conversation."
"These are gross you men are all alike. Your socks and knickers smell like .... When did you last take a shower? And I suppose you don't pick up after yourself, as well as, snoar! You freakin loser eff off!"
"Ummm ..... how to say this with delicatesse ... well, you know do you perfume your thing?"

Monday, September 23, 2013

"The Noose" and CyberSmokeBlog's "15 seconds" of fame!


NEWS RELEASE
From RoadKill Radio News
September 23, 2013

For immediate release

Chief Justice McLachlin judicially noosed
British Columbia activist Kari Simpson’s ‘Drive for Justice’

VANCOUVER, September 22, 2013 (RKRNews) — The judicial noose is getting tighter around Canada’s top judge, and BC social activist Kari Simpson appears to be pulling most of the ropes. But she’s also finding support from within the legal fraternity. Several lawyers from across Canada have written to express similar concerns about judicial corruption.

“This saga is destined for Hollywood—and so it should be,” says Simpson. “Confidence in Canada’s judicial system has become a joke.”

The decade-old defamation case Simpson v Mair and WIC has become a vivid example of why public confidence in Canada’s courts is declining.

Simpson’s latest letter to Beverley McLachlin was not written to her as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, but in her alternate capacity as chair of the Canadian Judicial Council. It underscores the judicial crisis in Canada. The letter (linked here), contained in a tabbed binder, exposes shenanigans and cover-up that has transpired in Simpson’s quest for simple justice.

When Simpson earlier asked Chief Justice McLachlin and CJC’s Executive Director, Norman Sabourin, to answer questions about alleged improprieties by the Chief Justice and Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, both refused, and Mr. Sabourin instead accused Simpson of abusing the process! (Simpson’s response to Mr. Sabourin is available here.)

In her closing comments of September 16, 2013 to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, in her capacity as CJC Chair, Simpson states:

You know that judicially, this matter is not going to end well for you, Madam Chair. You are complicit, for not only did you allow a judge to continue to sit who had no business being on the bench; but you upheld her decisions, knowing full well that she is unqualified. By continuing in this charade of justice, you only succeed in justifying contemptuous cynicism for your office and for the administration of justice as a whole.

Lying, bullying and gatekeeper defensive strategies by bureaucrats like the CJC’s Executive Director don’t faze Simpson; instead, she says, “they tend to backfire—which is helpful to those of us working to restore justice to Canadians.”

Simpson’s knack for exposing judicial antics has been featured in a video series available on the Internet at DriveForJustice.com. The series, narrated by veteran journalist Ron Gray, explores this remarkably corrupt case of injustice—and it has developed a faithful following, including many members of the legal fraternity.

One of those followers is the popular Winnipeg-based CyberSmokeBlog. CyberSmoke’s blogmaster, Clare L. Pieuk, is no stranger to judicial shenanigans—and he has given a lot of publicity to the Simpson case. In a recent blog featuring Simpson’s latest bombshell, he writes:

CyberSmokeBlog, in its posting about the case, observed when Kari Simpson “dropped” her latest “package” on Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin that it must have landed with a thud, “Doink ….. ouch, that hurt; dammit to hell!”

... CyberSmokeBlog noted the judicial system’s gross mishandling of the case has the potential to make the Douglas Inquiry look like a piker…

In reference to one of the most popular Drive For Justice episodes, entitled “Our Ermine-Clad Masters”—an episode in which you can hear exactly what Simpson said, and can compare it to what the SCC justices said—Pieuk in his September 19, 2013 blog (http://cybersmokeblog.blogspot.ca), entitled The mother of all defamation lawsuits versus judicial corruption in Canada! makes this appropriate observation:

... Supreme Court Justices’ ceremonial robes, such as those formerly worn by Ian “RoadKill” Binnie, who wrote the [Simpson] decision, are lined with ermine, which comes from the Canadian Arctic weasel…

Kari Simpson has given Chief Justice McLachlin 14 days to respond to her 12-page letter and tabbed case history. The “package” has been confirmed as having been delivered to the Chief Justice. It was also sent to Prime Minister Harper; Justice Minister Peter MacKay; Ambassador for Religious Freedom Dr. Andrew Bennett; Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs William Brooks; and all members of the Canadian Judicial Council—among other interested recipients.

More to come!

Contact: Kari Simpson (604) 514-1614
Email: driveforjustice@gmail.com

All documents referred to in Simpson’s letter are hyperlinked for the convenience of all readers.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

The mother of all defamation lawsuits versus judicial corruption in Canada!

Good Day Reads:

This case is over 10-years old with so many twists and turns it's hard to know where to begin. It has everything you could ever possibly want in a legal proceeding (including the kitchen sink) save for a first degree murder ... that is, at least not yet. Yikes! It's a real eye opener.
If you Google Drive for Justice you will find over 30 videos hosted by former Vancouver Sun court reporter Ron Gray (CyberSmokeBlog affectionately likes to refer to him as "Judge Ron" especially now that Judge Joe Brown no longer has his television show) that are an excellent video history of the case bringing you to where it sits today, that is, until Kari Simpson dropped her latest "package" (12-pages reproduced below plus another 75 pages worth of tabs contained in a binder) on Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin ..... "Doink - ouch that hurt damnit to hell!"



Ron Gray brings us to the point in this story when having been through 3 levels of court with a seemingly inexplicable outcome - Kari Simpson is approached by an unidentified man who exposes the lies and corruption behind it all. Tune in and learn how this came about and how "Justice" M. Marvyn Koenigsberg's stonewalling continued.

This case has the potential to make the Douglas Inquiry look like a piker. The latest document drop on McLachlin, C J raises several legal precedents the likes of which you won't find in the annals of Canadian  Jurisprudence. CSB is not a Philadelphia lawyer but here are the issues it sees:

(1) Justices/Judges enjoy immunity from prosecution presumably because their conduct is always above reproach and they forever act in the best public interest. But what if they don't is that protection stripped away? Does it extend after they retire or the old buggers croak whichever comes first? Has an attempt ever been made to sue a Judge?

(2) Does the same also apply to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada?

(3) Can the Canadian Judicial Council be sued?

(4) If Ms Simpson is blocked from moving forward with a lawsuit, under The Constitution and/or Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will her right to a fair and speedy trial as guaranteed in The Charter be violated?

(5) Will The Judges Act play any role in her ability to litigate?

(6) Will Simpson versus Mair end up back in the Supreme Court of Canada minus Beverley McLachlin - could happen

Kari Simpson has been lobbying for a Parliamentary Inquiry not only to look into her particular case but how justice is or is not administered in Canada. If there is some form of public inquiry CybersmokeBlog's fantasy is that it be held in a courtroom adjacent to the Douglas Inquiry so live coverage is facilitated.

As you read the following documentation like CSB you too will appreciate what a truly remarkable lady Ms Simpson really is for taking on a system that all too often prides itself as being above reproach!

The following graphic appropriately entitled Courting Bull says it all don't you think?
That's Beverley McLachlin depicted at the bottom holding her pet 2,000 pound BULL ("RoadKill") on a lead and saying, "WAIT! ADD THIS!"

Last word to McLachlin, C J belongs to Sergeant Joe Friday, Los Angeles Police Department badge number 714.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Postscript
Laugh as you will but the ceremonial robes Canadian Supreme Court Justices wear are lined with ermine that comes from the Canadian Arctic weasel.
Will the Supreme Court in its penchant for style over substance force this great Canadian heritage onto the endangered species list?

Pictured above is former Justice Ian "RoadKill" Bennie who wrote the decision in Simpson versus Mair. To paraphrase, he said too bad so sad but Ms Simpson was a victim of "roadkill" which subsequently gave rise to the immensely popular Drive for Justice series and it's companion site RoadKill Radio News

After retiring from the SCC, Mr. Binnie has subsequently gone on to fame and fortune. Just ask New Zealand's federal Minister of Justice Judith "Crusher" Collins.

Kari D. Simpson
P O Box 12014
Murrayville Square
Langley, BC V3A 9J5
E-mail: driveforjustice@gmail.com
Telephone: (604) 514-1614/Fax (604) 516-1669
_______________________________________________

Canadian Judicial Council
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0W8

Attention: Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
Chair, Canadian Judicial Council
Via Courier, signature required

September 16, 2013

Re: Canadian Judicial Council, Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg

Dear Madam Chairperson,

I write to you again in your capacity as Chairman of the Canadian Judicial Council, as prescribed by statute and the lawful obligations contained therein.

I have previously written to the CJC on August 24, 2012. That correspondence was sent to the published email address of the CJC and also sent via the CJC’s published facsimile number. A copy of this correspondence is found at Tab 1.

I received no response from the CJC; so I wrote to you directly, in your capacity as Chair of the CJC, on October 6, 2012. That correspondence was sent by courier, and required a signature of receipt. A signature establishing delivery was confirmed on October 12th, 2013. To date you have not answered my simple questions about a judge, namely Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, who engaged in judicially scandalous activities that cannot be considered “good behaviour”. However, it appears that you and/or your staff have chosen to engage in a game of hide and frustrate, employing the services of your SCC Executive Legal Council and the Executive Director of the CJC in an attempt to circle your increasingly rickety wagons. This is by no means acceptable conduct for the Chair of the CJC, whose mandate is judicial accountability, transparency—and, most importantly—to instil and uphold the public’s trust and confidence in Canada’s judiciary.

Page 1 of 12

Tab 2, and confirmation of your receipt of the October 6, 2012 correspondence is at Tab 3. At Tabs 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 you will find the documents that were enclosed with the October 6, 2012 correspondence, including:

Tab 1 — August 24, 2012 correspondence to the CJC
Tab 4 — Correspondence to the Prime Minister, dated July 6, 2012
Tab 5 — A Summary Brief of Simpson vs Mair et al WIC Radio vs Simpson
Tab 6 — Correspondence to Hon. Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice, dated October 6, 2012
Tab 7 — Correspondence to the late (then B.C. Chief Justice) Donald Brenner February. 20, 2009 (a correspondence to which he refused to respond).

Having had no response from you or anyone else associated with the CJC, I sent another letter on October 26, 2012—this time to the attention of CJC Executive Director Norman For your information, and to convenience the record of these events, I have included a copy of the October 6, 2012 correspondence I sent to you; it is found at Sabourin. This correspondence proffered a solution to the serious dilemma you face, as Chair of the CJC, in dealing with my pending complaint.

Now, I appreciate that the last thing you want is a full investigation into these matters; but as you know, I have a right to make a complaint, and to have the merits of such a complaint considered by a fair and unbiased arbiter. You also know that this is impossible, since the legal scheme and administrative structure of the CJC either failed to contemplate the possibility of your culpability as a judge in matters that may present themselves before the CJC, or they were deliberately designed to thwart such action being taken against you.

A copy of my October 26, 2012 letter is found at Tab 8. It was sent by email and facsimile to the contact information published on the CJC website, and to Mr. Sabourin’s personal JUDICOM email address.

Madam Chair, please do not attempt to frustrate this process any longer. You are the only one who can answer my questions, as they now pertain directly to your knowledge—as Chair of the CJC—about events involving Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, her spouse, their fraudulent conveyance of property, and other scandalous matters that are part of the Supreme Court of BC’s record, beginning in 2005 and continuing until 2008—a record details of which are found at Tab 9.

It may prompt your recollection, if need be, to be advised that this scandal made front page news in British Columbia. It may also help your recollection to be informed that your fellow CJC Board member (now deceased), Donald Brenner, former Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court, assigned himself to preside over

Page 2 of 12

Tab 2, and confirmation of your receipt of the October 6, 2012 correspondence is at Tab 3. At Tabs 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 you will find the documents that were enclosed with the October 6, 2012 correspondence, including:

Tab 1 — August 24, 2012 correspondence to the CJC
Tab 4 — Correspondence to the Prime Minister, dated July 6, 2012
Tab 5 — A Summary Brief of Simpson vs Mair et al &  WIC Radio vs Simpson
Tab 6 — Correspondence to Hon. Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice, dated Oct 6, 2012
Tab 7 — Correspondence to the late (then B.C. Chief Justice) Donald Brenner Feb. 20, 2009 (a correspondence to which he refused to respond).

Having had no response from you or anyone else associated with the CJC, I sent another letter on October 26, 2012—this time to the attention of CJC Executive Director Norman For your information, and to convenience the record of these events, I have included a copy of the October 6, 2012 correspondence I sent to you; it is found at Sabourin. This correspondence proffered a solution to the serious dilemma you face, as Chair of the CJC, in dealing with my pending complaint.

Now, I appreciate that the last thing you want is a full investigation into these matters; but as you know, I have a right to make a complaint, and to have the merits of such a complaint considered by a fair and unbiased arbiter. You also know that this is impossible, since the legal scheme and administrative structure of the CJC either failed to contemplate the possibility of your culpability as a judge in matters that may present themselves before the CJC, or they were deliberately designed to thwart such action being taken against you.

A copy of my October 26, 2012 letter is found at Tab 8. It was sent by email and facsimile to the contact information published on the CJC website, and to Mr. Sabourin’s personal JUDICOM email address.

Madam Chair, please do not attempt to frustrate this process any longer. You are the only one who can answer my questions, as they now pertain directly to your knowledge—as Chair of the CJC—about events involving Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, her spouse, their fraudulent conveyance of property, and other scandalous matters that are part of the Supreme Court of BC’s record, beginning in 2005 and continuing until 2008—a record details of which are found at Tab 9.

It may prompt your recollection, if need be, to be advised that this scandal made front page news in British Columbia. It may also help your recollection to be informed that your fellow CJC Board member (now deceased), Donald Brenner, former Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court, assigned himself to preside over

Page 3 of 12

the matter involving Koenigsberg J. (one of his own judges)—another disturbing fact in this sordid scandal.

CJ Brenner was certainly aware of all the details, including Koenigsberg’s financial support of her spouse while he engaged in his “non-remunerative” activities, which included defamation of a prominent Jewish businessman; promotion of hate and vilification; and fraudulent conveyance—activities that, most would agree, demanded her removal from the bench; yet there she still sits. I am including for your information, at Tab 10, a copy of the 1996 news article about this scandal that occupied the entire front page of the Vancouver Province newspaper. It was also reported elsewhere, including Canada.com.

I am also providing you with this excerpt of a letter written to David Radler, then head of Hollinger Inc, by Justice Koenigsberg’s spouse, Lubomyr Prytulak. As you well know, I believe in the right of individuals to freely express their opinions (provided such public opinion is not defamatory); but what is not acceptable is to fix a trial by assigning a judge, who finances her spouse so he can indulge in expressing such opined contempt, in a matter over which she is therefore not qualified to preside. I believe this is worth your reading. I should also remind you that I have a considerable portfolio on Mr. Prytulak; this text is only one of too many examples as to why Justice Koenigsberg should not preside over defamation cases involving influential Judeo-Christians who support Israel… among other criteria. Justice Koenigsberg’s spouse states:

Had the American press been free of Jewish control, then Americans would have known of Israeli crimes and would have stopped them, and thus America today would enjoy good relations with the world's one billion Muslims instead of being execrated by them, and the World Trade Center would still be standing.

However, under Jewish control of the press, Jewish crimes were hidden or whitewashed — with the result that Jews found themselves enjoying impunity to commit whatever atrocities seemed expedient, and with the further result that the victims' injuries accumulated, and their righteous indignation at Jewish injustice deepened and broadened, and in the absence of any recourse exploded in retaliation.

Were a man of integrity and foresight running Hollinger International, a man who did not put the Tab 2, and confirmation of your receipt of the October 6, 2012 correspondence is at Tab 3. At Tabs 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 you will find the documents that were enclosed with the October 6, 2012 correspondence, including:

Tab 1 — August 24, 2012 correspondence to the CJC
Tab 4 — Correspondence to the Prime Minister, dated July 6, 2012
Tab 5 — A Summary Brief of Simpson v Mair et al & WIC Radio v Simpson
Tab 6 — Correspondence to Hon. Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice, dated October 6, 2012
Tab 7 — Correspondence to the late (then B.C. Chief Justice) Donald Brenner February 20, 2009 (a correspondence to which he

Page 4 of 12

refused to respond).

Having had no response from you or anyone else associated with the CJC, I sent another letter on October 26, 2012—this time to the attention of CJC Executive Director Norman For your information, and to convenience the record of these events, I have included a copy of the October 6, 2012 correspondence I sent to you; it is found at Sabourin. This correspondence proffered a solution to the serious dilemma you face, as Chair of the CJC, in dealing with my pending complaint.

Now, I appreciate that the last thing you want is a full investigation into these matters; but as you know, I have a right to make a complaint, and to have the merits of such a complaint considered by a fair and unbiased arbiter. You also know that this is impossible, since the legal scheme and administrative structure of the CJC either failed to contemplate the possibility of your culpability as a judge in matters that may present themselves before the CJC, or they were deliberately designed to thwart such action being taken against you.
A copy of my October 26, 2012 letter is found at Tab 8. It was sent by email and facsimile to the contact information published on the CJC website, and to Mr. Sabourin’s personal JUDICOM email address.

Madam Chair, please do not attempt to frustrate this process any longer. You are the only one who can answer my questions, as they now pertain directly to your knowledge—as Chair of the CJC—about events involving Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, her spouse, their fraudulent conveyance of property, and other scandalous matters that are part of the Supreme Court of BC’s record, beginning in 2005 and continuing until 2008—a record details of which are found at Tab 9.

It may prompt your recollection, if need be, to be advised that this scandal made front page news in British Columbia. It may also help your recollection to be informed that your fellow CJC Board member (now deceased), Donald Brenner, former Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court, assigned himself to preside over world's biggest newspaper company at the service of the criminal enterprise which is Israel, a man with the wisdom to encourage Jews to return some of the real estate that they claim their Talmud has bidden them steal and to encourage Jews to cleanse themselves of the sadism to which they have become addicted, then the attack upon the United States of 11-September-2001 would never have taken place. Thus it is that you are among those who rank high in responsibility for bringing the rain of destruction of 11-September-2001 upon the United States. You are among those who are today pushing the United States, and the whole world, to the brink of destruction. It will be a safer world when the power that has been placed in your hands is removed, and you are put to work that falls within your capacity.

Page 5 of 12

Lubomyr Prytulak

With regard to the legal problems involving Justice Koenigsberg’s spouse (as detailed in the Court record of the BCSC found at Tab 9), I now ask you directly: What knowledge do you have, and when did you obtain such knowledge, of the aforementioned matters involving Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg?

There is another matter I would like to have clarified. According to the Office of Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, CJC Executive Director Norman Sabourin is accountable to you. This is clearly stated in the Reports on Plans and Priorities going back as far as 2007. I have bolded the troublesome words. The 2012-2013 report states:

The Canadian Judicial Council is made up of the Chief Justices, Senior Judges and Associate Chief Justices of Canada. The Council acts independently in the pursuit of its mandate to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve the quality of judicial service in all superior courts in Canada. The Council is served by a small office which reports to the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs but is accountable to the Chief Justice of Canada in serving the needs of the Council. FJA provides administrative and financial support and advice to the Council in support of its mandate.

My question Madam Chair: What if someone has a complaint against you? As an example, let’s say you, in your capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, engaged in unlawful conduct while presiding over a case—conduct that exceeded your authority as a judge by violating the right of a party to know the legal test she had to meet and acted with flagrant disregard for the facts, among other wrongdoings. Specifically, what if you and your cohorts changed the game—that is, you modified the legal test by assigning new criteria to the determining factors pertinent to the “honest belief” defence, in defamation cases? In the case I will cite, the high court was blatant in its advertisement of this fact. Justice Binnie, writing on your behalf (as well as on behalf of the High Court), stated:

It is therefore appropriate to modify the “honest belief” element of the fair comment defence so that the test, as modified, consists of the following elements…

Now we are both very familiar with this case, and as I stated in my application for a Re-hearing, I believe in some matters the High Court can modify the legal test but what it cannot do is apply the new rule/test to the case at bar; and it cannot stomp on the right of a party to know the legal test they had to meet, by making a finding based on a test nobody knew about.

Page 6 of 12

‘Absurd’ and ‘unlawful’ are the most common words uttered by lawyers when discussing this case—followed by “what bullshit.” You know that the lawful course—the course you did have authority to travel upon—was to send the matter back to the trial judge, to be heard under the new test.

But you didn’t do that.

Of course, at this point your troubles aren’t limited to this unlawful transgression; you made matters worse for yourself: you made “findings of fact” that weren’t in evidence; you lied about me; and then you deliberately vilified me. This has resulted in a proliferation of lies and mischaracterizations about me and my work—lies that continue to irreparably harm my reputation—including false references about me in books, a judge who refers to me as being homophobic, future lawyers being misinformed (as they are required to study the case); and a recent incident when I met a high profile civil rights lawyer who referred to me as “a person who would condone violence against gays.” There are numerous other examples, but you appreciate the seriousness of your transgressions, one that must be, and will be, remedied. Needless to say, the harm you have inflicted by your unlawful conducts merits a full investigation.

Most troubling, though, is that you knowingly upheld a decision by a judge whom you knew was not qualified to preside over the case—a judge who had engaged in activities that demanded, at least, contemplation of her removal from the bench. What is it? Is Madam Justice Koenigsberg a friend of yours? Do you share a mutual distain for Judeo Christians? Why the special protection? Or are you just reluctant to admit that another female judge screwed up? As you well know, her conduct demands a full public investigation by the CJC.

As Chair of the CJC, you are well informed of the guidelines, found in the CJC publication Ethical Principles for Judges, and the breach of these principles by Koenigsberg J.

My question, Madam Chair: How would such a citizen, knowing that Mr. Sabourin is accountable to you, have any confidence that Mr. Sabourin wouldn’t be biased in his decision-making concerning the process of determining whether or not the complaint about you had merit?

In keeping with the growing public criticisms about judges covering up for each other—and other well-founded complaints that are growing about problems the public has with unaccountable judges—it seems we might already have the answer to that question.

Ironically, it seems your underling, Mr. Sabourin himself, provides us with the answer, in a very extreme and disturbing form of obvious bias—perhaps “hysterical bias” would best describe the desperately incriminating conduct of

Page 7 of 12

your Executive Director. I refer to Mr. Sabourin’s letter of November 26, 2012 (Tab 11). Mr. Sabourin appears to have written to me, in part, at the behest of your executive legal council and in response to my October 26th, 2012 (Tab 8) correspondence to him. Here is where the troubling aspects of your conflicting roles as both Chair of the CJC—Mr. Sabourin’s boss—and Chief Justice run into trouble.

Mr. Sabourin’s gatekeeper loyalty might possibly be admirable in other circumstances; he attempted to deflect your refusal to answer my questions, found in my October 6, 2012 correspondence to you, by suggesting that such matters could present themselves before the Supreme Court of Canada. I agree. And I suspect that the matters involving Koenigsberg J., and your knowledge about those matters as Chair of the CJC, will form a legal record—a very public record; but I highly doubt that you would preside over such a case in any judicial capacity. I suspect the role you would play in such a circumstance will be a new one for you.

Mr. Sabourin references three correspondences to which he is responding: My correspondence dated October 6, 2012 to you; the August 24, 2012 correspondence to the CJC that was enclosed therein; and lastly, my correspondence of October 26, 2012 to Mr. Sabourin himself. Rather than answer my questions directly, he instead engages in a most amusing form of retort.

Mr. Sabourin rambles on about matters unrelated to my request; engages in weasel-word-play, instead of simply answering my questions—which makes you and the CJC look even guiltier in covering up this scandal; and then, disconcertingly, he makes this assertion:

I also note that some of your accompanying materials contain broad statements of “judicial corruption” and “unlawful conduct by judges.” For example, you say that “Clearly Justice Koenigsberg, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin…. are liars and judicial cheats…” These grave allegations appear to me to have no foundation whatsoever.

Now, we both know that my assertions are true; otherwise you would have sued me by now. Judges are not above the law, and maintain no right of protection to lie about a person, to fabricate evidence, or to deny (cheat) the right of a party to a fair and just hearing. Conduct such as this is to be investigated by the CJC.

The troubling part is that Mr. Sabourin makes a conclusion that is clearly biased, and seemingly wilfully ignores the facts. But Mr. Sabourin doesn’t stop there. Mr. Sabourin states unequivocally that the power to propel a complaint from the public through the CJC process belongs to him and him alone—the man “accountable” to you. He states:

Page 8 of 12

One of my key duties under the Complaints Procedures of Council is to decide whether or not to open a file when a complaint or allegation against a federally appointed judge is received at the Council Office.

How can Mr. Sabourin be considered impartial in determining the merits of a complaint against you in your capacity as Chief Justice, when he is accountable to you as Chair of the CJC? He can’t be, and his conduct in this matter proves it. Mr. Sabourin then goes on to make this bizarre assertion:

Having considered all available information, I come to the view that your correspondence constitutes an obvious abuse of the complaint process and therefore falls within the scope of that provision. Accordingly, I will not be opening a complaint file.

I must admit that I laughed when I read this bit of hissy-fit bravado. Here’s the problem: Firstly, as you know, my correspondence to Mr. Sabourin was not a complaint. Secondly, if it had been a complaint, a complaint that involved you, he could not be involved in any capacity in determining the merits of such a complaint, due to the administrative structure of the CJC as clearly defined by Commissioner William Brooks, the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs Canada. Commissioner Brooks clearly states that Mr. Sabourin is accountable to you—unless, of course, everyone ignores legal precedent, believes that bias or the appearance of bias is a matter of frivolous triviality, and smashes their ethical/moral compass—if they have one.

It might interest you to know that I did attempt to resolve these serious matters in a more judicially respectable fashion—one that would have saved you a considerable amount of embarrassment. I invited Rafe Mair and his legal council, Dan Burnett, to jointly petition the court to void the trial, citing the insurmountable problems that result from the Koenigsberg scandal and the absence of her qualification to preside over a matter involving religious hatred, vilification and defamation—not to mention her engagement in the fraudulent conveyance of her asset.

Prudence would have valued the opportunity I offered; but instead, Mr. Burnett foolishly wrote back, retorting “old news!” in reference to the Koenigsberg scandal—thus implicating him, by demonstrating his willingness to advertise the fact that he had knowledge of her antics of bad behaviour, and is willing to breach his own oath.

It seems that the blinding effect of corrupted arrogance does, in fact, illuminate the fool.

Page 9 of 12

It might also interest you to know that I offered a $10,000.00 reward, during a web-cast episode of the Drive For Justice series, for anyone with evidence that could support the lie you told about my supposed involvement in the Surrey Book Case. No one has attempted to collect that reward—not even Rafe Mair or Dan Burnett.

It appears that the lie Dan Burnett told the high court, during his opening salvo, fell upon wilfully gullible ears—ears that wanted to assume facts that were not in evidence. To make matters worse for you, the evidence actually proved otherwise. But you were also made aware of this in my application for a Re-hearing; so you already know this, but have chosen instead to shamefully allow your lies to stand. You might want to take a few minutes and watch that episode of Drive for Justice, if you haven’t already done so. Here is the link for your convenience: http://roadkillradio.com/2012/12/17/drive-for-justice-26-our-ermine-clad-masters-decide/

As you can appreciate, since launching my very public campaign, I have been inundated with information about other cases of alleged judicial misconduct. As I stated in my correspondence to Mr. Sabourin, there appears to be a mammoth squatting upon the bench. The funny thing is that the longer is sits, the more trouble is found.

You should also be aware that I wrote to Ms. Barbara Kincaid, senior legal counsel to the Supreme Court, as I understand she is responsible for the publication of the high court’s decisions—or in my case, a defamatory publication manufactured to incite hatred and contempt against me. I am beginning to wonder why we pay her and the 22 or so lawyers who work for her. Do they, like Mr. Sabourin, fear to speak the truth to you? Or do you simply use them as legal shields? Certainly there is a moral obligation for someone within your court to do their due diligence, and to review the materials before the court. You have publicly set a threshold for reporters to attain a standard of responsible journalism; at a minimum, one would think this standard should be employed by the High Court, too. Perhaps you just allow your yearly crops of law clerks to form your decisions—the clerks manufactured by university law faculties that publicly reject Christian values and beliefs, and have been deprived of the ability to hone any skill akin to critical thinking. A copy of my letter to Ms. Kincaid is found at Tab 12.

It has also been brought to my attention that certain judges of the high court manufactured evidence and lied about Mr. Bill Whatcott in their decision—a disturbing pattern, when one considers the impact of decisions of the high court in matters relating to the rights of Christians, and what disturbingly appears to be systematic judicial bias against Christians.

Christian-bashing seems to be a tolerated activity within the purview of the High Court; lying, cheating and destroying honourable reputations are acceptable

Page 10 of 12

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. It is with these broader objectives in mind that these reasons, and the disposition of these appeals, must be understood.

I wonder, Madam Chair: how is the goal of maintaining public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary realized, when a judge who finances the activities of her spouse—activities that include defamation, hate, and vilification of a prominent Jewish businessman—is assigned by the BCSC Chief Justice to preside over a case that involves a media friend of his, a friend that happens to be a very influential member of the media, and a lawyer to boot, who has engaged in activities that include defamation, hate, and vilification of a prominent Judeo-Christian? I suggest that it is not served, it is mocked.

How is the societal goal of judicial independence served in maintaining the rule of law when this same judge engages in the fraudulent conveyance of a personal asset in order to thwart a legal claim on said asset? How is the societal goal of judicial independence served in maintaining the rule of law when this same judge manufactures evidence in her decision? It is not served; it is scorned—isn’t it?

How is the societal goal of judicial independence served in maintaining the rule of law when the justices of the high court flagrantly disregard the rule of law by denying a party before them the right to know the legal test she has to meet? It is not served, it becomes a joke—doesn’t it?

How is the societal goal of judicial independence served—that is, the perception that justice will be done in individual cases—when the Chief Justice of Canada’s High Court knowingly upholds the decision of a judge whom she knows full well had no business presiding over the trial? It is not served; and the weight of your wrong-doing has undermined the very foundation upon which our judicial system once stood.

Please attend to the following:

1. With the above considerations in mind, please instruct me on how I might have my complaint, and others, reviewed by the CJC without the institutionally biased eyes of Norman Sabourin making “determinations of merit”?

2. Please also respond to my simple questions regarding your knowledge, as Chair of the CJC, about the events involving Koenigsberg J. I appreciate that it is a simple question with serious repercussions; but you need to answer them.

3. And also please instruct Mr. Sabourin—who reports to you—to respond to my letter of December 20, 2013, a copy is found at Tab 13— a must read. At Tab 14

Page 11 of 12

Tab 14 you will find confirmation that my December 20, 2013 correspondence was received by the CJC.

4. I have one last question that needs to be answered. On page 11 of the CJC’s 2012 – 2013 Annual Report, specific attention is drawn to the number of complaints received by the CJC. The section’s title reads: “Abuse of process.” The report states:

There has been an increase in the number of files deemed by the Executive Director to be an abuse of the complaints process or “clearly irrational,” pursuant to the Complaints Procedures. In this reporting period (to 21 March 2013), 34 such letters were sent as compared to 28 in 2011-12, 8 in 2010-11 and 9 in 2009-10.

My last question, Madam Chair: Were any of my letters to you and/or to Norman Sabourin included in the “34 such letters” referenced in the report, deemed either an “abuse of the complaint process” or “clearly irrational”? If so, please identify the letter, and whether or not—and if so, how—it was abusive or irrational? If not categorized there, where are my letters accounted for within the report?

I am sure you understand that this is a very serious matter that cannot be ignored, nor a matter that will go away any time soon.

On a more positive note: during my last meeting with my advisors, it was suggested that you should consider the actions of Richard Nixon. Canadians are fed up with those who occupy once-honourable positions tainting and mocking those institutions with conduct that is not only unbecoming, but worthy of criminal investigations. If certain senators truly valued the stations they were assigned, they would resign. ACJ Lori Douglas is another example—the CJC proceedings in that matter make a joke of the judiciary, and mock the sensibilities of Canadians.

You will recall President Nixon’s resignation. I was a young girl that day—a day when my mother summoned me from the yard to watch on TV what was certain to be an historic event—but an event that left the integrity of the office of the United States Presidency intact, and the responsibility of wrongdoing squarely on the shoulders on the man accountable. There is no greater example of taking responsibility for one’s actions, and making the nation’s interest the highest consideration. Nixon, because he acted honourably in resigning, later gained a significant measure of respect.

You know that judicially, this matter is not going to end well for you, Madam Chair. You are complicit, for not only did you allow a judge to continue to sit who had no business being on the bench; but you upheld her decisions, knowing full well that she is unqualified. By continuing in this charade of justice, you only

Page 12 of 12

succeed in justifying contemptuous cynicism for your office and for the administration of justice as a whole. The question that now begs an answer is To knowingly pervert the course of justice is to pave a sordid path where ultimately, conspiring fools will stumble, and the unjust will fall. Truth always prevails eventually—something worth thinking about, Madam Chair.

whether or not you place the interest of this nation and of our judicial system—especially those who honourably and justly administer justice—above your own self-serving interests.

I require your answers, as Chair of the CJC, within 14 days of receipt of this correspondence.

Sincerely,

Original signed by
Kari D. Simpson

Copied and/or distributed generally to:

Ø The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, via courier with a signature requirement upon delivery.

Ø The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, via courier with a signature requirement upon delivery.

Ø Dr. Andrew Bennett, Ambassador for Religious Freedom

Ø William Brooks, Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, via courier with signature requirement upon delivery.

Ø Canadian Judicial Council members, additional package included with this correspondence and sent via courier with signature requirement upon delivery for distribution to Council members.

Ø Canadians, public interest groups and associations

Ø National and international Judicial and other legal associations and their members

Ø Elected representatives, Members of the Senate

Ø Various Media Outlets

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Is Stephen Harper losing his hair over the senate scandal?


Was he a nob back then who didn't drink or toke?

Cynthia Williams, Stephen Harper's ex fiancee, opens up about relationship in e-book

Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The woman who first stole Stephen Harper's heart and later introduced him to his wife remembers her former flame as funny, loyal, and driven. (Canadian Press)

The woman who first stole Stephen Harper's heart — and later introduced him to his wife — remembers her former flame as funny, loyal, and driven.

Cynthia Williams opened up about her relationship with Harper in a new, five-part series and e-book on the prime minster by Postmedia's Mark Kennedy, titled "From Rebel To Realist."

DOWNLOAD THE FULL E-BOOK

Williams, who was engaged to Harper for a year in the 1980s, described her former beau as a bit of an introvert and a strong student at the University of Calgary who transformed into a Tory activist with a keen interest in policy.

"He's very honest, and he's very, very loyal," she told Kennedy. "You can never question that. If you are somebody that he cares about, he will be there for you."

Williams said she and Harper liked reading, going to movies, watching hockey (though she says he supported the Edmonton Oilers, not the Calgary Flames, back in the day) and going to the Calgary Zoo.
Harper broke up with her in 1986.

"We were growing apart," she said. "We kept in touch a little bit. It wasn’t a bad breakup."

Evidently not.

In a 2007 Maclean's profile of Laureen Harper, Williams said she introduced Laureen to her ex in the early '90s, thinking the two may hit it off.

Williams worked with the future Mrs. Harper at GTO Printing and asked Laureen to join her and Harper for lunch. The rest is history.

"I like Laureen a lot," she told the magazine.

But it appears Williams' breakup with Harper wasn't entirely smooth.

In an expansive, CBC profile of Harper in advance of the 2004 election, Williams spoke of how, in the early '80s, she took Harper to meet then-Tory MP Jim Hawkes in Calgary. The popular politician would eventually bring Harper to Ottawa to work as his assistant, but he quit Hawkes' office about a year later.
In 1988, Harper, then just 27, ran against Hawkes in Calgary West as a Reform candidate.

Williams was unhappy that her ex-fiancée was taking on his old mentor and volunteered for Hawkes' successful campaign.

"That stunned me quite a bit," she told CBC. "I thought that Jim had been really great to us, taken us into his family – we used to be over at his family's house with all of his family."

Kennedy told The Hill Times this week that Williams, like many others he interviewed, didn't see Harper as a man focused on making it to the top in Canadian politics.

"They were engaged to be married for about a year, and the interesting thing about them is they discovered politics together. One of the fascinating things that many people told me over and over and over, including her, is that if you look at his career, which is what I've done in this e-book, decade by decade, is that he does not have that thirst for being a politician that many politicians have and that many segments of his career, he almost just accidentally stepped into the profession," Kennedy said. "Many people described him to me as, 'the reluctant politician.' He had to be pulled into the job."

Harper and his wife were married in 1993. They have two children, Ben, 17, and Rachel, 14.

Laureen Harper was married in 1985 to Neil Fenton, but the couple split in 1988.