Friday, April 1, 2011

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

1. SUMMARY

Based on 8 years of evidence, only a solemn, cumbersome, public inquiry address, to both Houses of Parliament, will be sufficient to restore public confidence in the collective administrative, judicial and surrogate branches of the judiciary, and restate the right for a citizen to be fairly heard, where sadly, the Canadian judicial system has been called into disrepute, citing 10 federally appointed judges, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Justice Minister of Canada and the executive director of the Canadian Judicial Council, for Misconduct and removal from their posts, by act of the Governor General, something which has never happened in Canada since the beginning of Confederation.

2. ISSUE

Systematically, through to the highest court in the land, and beyond to the triple surrogate safeguard mechanisms of the extended judicial system, the Doctrine of Estoppel, established since the 1800’s, as set out in Danyluk v Ainsworth Technologies, and the Rules of Pleading, established since the time of Caesar, as recorded in Acts 19:38, have been made to no longer apply. The issue therefore can be presented in the form of 1, 2, 3, where either; (1) the right of a citizen to be fairly heard in matters against government and others had been unlawfully denied, and (2) ten federally appointed judges in a row, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Justice Minister of Canada and the executive director of the Canadian Judicial Council, took part to unlawfully side with government, where there had been no separation of judges and government, or (3) no citizen has unabridged access to the fundamental tenets of justice and the right to be fairly heard, for which the process dates back to at least December 3, 2002.

3. BACKGROUND

In 2 separate civil proceedings since December 3, 2002 and counting, both primarily against government and both indexed as Andy Harabulya v Ontario Ministry of Labour et al, the first seeking $23M, the second, $31M, (1) unabridged access to the fundamental tenets of justice have been unlawfully denied, (2) there had been no separation of judges and government, (3) the right of a citizen and by way of precedent, all citizens, to be fairly heard in matters against government and others, had been unlawfully denied, (4) making it impossible under any reasonable person test or otherwise, to continue the matters through the courts with expectations for fairness, and (5) the right to compel surrogate agency redress was unlawfully denied.







BRIEF



4. RATIONALE

The grounds for the removals are not based on judge errors subject to appeal. Rather, the grounds are based on non-discretionary Doctrine and Rules, the same by which every court room door must open every day. Where the officials have both a personal and collective duty to maintain public confidence in the rule of law, and preserve the strength of our democratic institutions, both personally and collectively, they declined, and their ability to properly discharge their judicial duties in the future cannot be restored. The abuses give rise to a reasonable and irremediable apprehension of bias which cannot be offset from the serious harm done to the public confidence. Direct petitions to the Harper government PMO for the same Public Inquiry sought herein, failed to elicit a response. In addition, direct petitions to the Clerk of the Privy Council failed to lift a formal blanket media ban on the matters.



5. RECOMMENDATION

The right to petition for redress of grievance is the cornerstone of Parliament Assembled, giving every commoner inherent right to prepare and present petitions to Parliament, designed to bring government to account to the governed, under the law of the land. Law without it, is law without justice. In a letter dated November 9, 2010, Rideau Hall has stated that pursuing this petition is the appropriate step to take. In seeking this domestic remedy, Justice is Justice, and no heightened standard is contemplated.

CONTACT

Andy Harabulya, principal petitioner, tel 416-272-9845

10 top judges

10 TOP JUDGES


-andy harabulya-



News Release: 10 top judges andy harabulya



10 TOP JUDGES – 2, CANADIAN PETITIONERS – 0



As first reported on Wire Service Canada dated August 9, 2010, Canada’s pivotal case for free speech and the right for a citizen to be fairly heard, which followers claim has been sidestepped at every turn for over 8 years now, has taken a new twist, this time for the party mode, calling the event a petition shuffle and by no means the last dance.



The case which is actually 2 separate and ongoing civil cases since December 3, 2002 and counting, the first, Employment Standards based, the second, Labour Relations Board, both primarily against government and both commenced at Brampton, Ontario, has Canadian citizens of all ages in Brampton engaging the Prime Minister, leader of the opposition and the elected member for Brampton West, the riding where the matters began.



In 2 previous petition signings and looking to a third because evidently the first 2 didn’t count, the surreal call for the heads of 10 federally appointed judges in a row between the 2 cases, is mounting toward a national call for 10M signatures.



A good cause perhaps? And where might you too sign? Plus, what could be more refreshing, especially now as an election issue? But not so fast maybe. It just might be that you don’t have that inherent right anyhow. It has already been denied twice and we all know the 3 time loser law.



The first time, a completed petition regarding the 10 judges was sent to the local MP who had offered to present the petition to Parliament – which is how it must be done – through an elected Member of Parliament. However, and there are no details, the petition was evidently lost en route to Ottawa.



Queries to the MP went unanswered and with months passing by and the petitioners wanting and entitled to answers, the principal petitioner, Andy Harabulya, wrote a scathing but formal letter of complaint to the party leader of the MP.



The letter dated December 2, 2010, was faxed to Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal opposition leader, with notice of his responsibility for his member, Andrew Kania, a first time elected Liberal representative for the riding of Brampton West.



There was no response from the opposition leader, but in a letter postmarked only 4 days later, Mr. Kania wrote, again offering to present the petition, now for the second time.



In consultation with the Clerk of Petitions in Ottawa by fax, a new petition was prepared toward certification, completed with signatures and hand delivered to Mr. Kania’s riding office for presentation, receiving proof of service dated February 4, 2011.



Parliament reopened February 15 and on February 17, Mr. Harabulya called the riding office and was assured that the petition had been presented in Ottawa and that it was now up to the government to contact the principal petitioner, Mr. Harabulya.



In petitioning Parliament, a response is required within 45 days. On March 22, Mr. Harabulya faxed the petition office in Ottawa to check the status of the petition. In a return fax of the same date, the petition office replied that the petition had not been presented for the certification, and consequently, had not been presented to the House of Commons. In another fax of the same date to Mr. Kania’s riding office, Mr. Harabulya gave notice that the petition got disappeared again – please call.



In a fax dated the next day, March 23, to Mr. Ignatieff, with copy to Mr. Kania by fax, Mr. Harabulya provided notice that Parliamentary Trust had been seriously compromised for over a year now – as serious and consequential as the grounds for the petition itself, and that in fact, the 2 cannot be separated for one without the other at this point, both aught to being subject for the same Public Inquiry, and for Mr. Ignatieff to please be the judge.



Parliamentary Petitions once presented, go to Committee made up of elected governing and opposition Members. Both parties however, are clearly hostile to the petition and in essence, to the petitioners and the rights seeking to be restated. At this point and no matter if every citizen in the country were a signatory, the Committee by nature must be considered hostile. In any event, the governing party declines to respond and the opposition party declined to force a response – twice.



The text of the prayer part of the petition approved toward certification states; “Therefore, we petitioners, ask the Government of Canada to create a public inquiry to look into the administration of Justice in Canada, initiate required redress and restate the right for a citizen to be fairly heard.” From the grievance part; “with 10 federally appointed judges in a row at odds in the essential neutrality required for fairness in resolving the issues – cited For Judicial Misconduct and removal from the bench.”



From the Brief in Support of the Petition; “This is something which has never happened in Canada since the beginning of Confederation.” And indeed by the sheer number of judicial heads called for, is a world record. Continuing from the Brief; “Where personally and collectively, the judges are duty bound to maintain public confidence in the rule of law, and preserve the strength of our democratic institutions, chose instead to personally and collectively decline. As such, their ability to properly discharge their judicial duties in the future cannot be restored. The abuses give rise to a reasonable and irremediable apprehension of bias which cannot be offset from the serious harm done to the public confidence.” This aught also, go double for the governing and opposition parties declining to pursue the complaint.



In a letter dated November 9, 2010, Rideau Hall, when asked for the Governor General to intervene by Mr. Harabulya, did respond that pursuing the matter by way of Parliamentary Petition was an appropriate step to take. Recent developments considered however, justice by Parliamentary Committee is not representative of petitioner’s rights, and there now has to be a more reasonable solution.



Again from the Brief; “The right to petition for redress of grievance is the cornerstone of Parliament Assembled, giving every commoner inherent right to prepare and present petitions to Parliament, designed to bring government to account to the governed, under the law of the land. Law without it is law without justice.”



Clearly, there needs be a third petition and plans are underway. If there are, say, 10M Canadian citizens across the country `that can read and understand and sign – from student to the incarcerated to the dying, and all of us in between in all walks of life, with no “category” excluded as it has been since the 1500’s for petitioning, barring those of course, who represent the 308 elected officials who took an oath to represent us, but declined, Guiness can always verify the count. There is no age limitation or other restrictions as for voting, and the former government requirement to set out complete name and address and other personal information has been ruled intimidating, and a violation of our right to sign a petition.



There are 100,000 Canadian citizens with special organizational abilities who each alone can make it happen. Barring that and actually, the 100,000 each picking up 100 signatures is just as good. There will always be the girl guide/boy scout cookie sales stars who take personal commitments to the extreme, but mostly, it can all be done in a day or so, and yet automatically include a bonus of declaring an annual national Petition Rights Day, and making the same 308 who would deny us the right to petition, legislate the day.



So have a ball. Your signature, even if you only send in one, goes toward that never before seen, “look into the administration of Justice in Canada” by way of Public Inquiry. Heaven knows we need it. Surely you will see the King, first hand, from “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” making up rules as he goes along, and a glimpse of the Queen’s grand entrance into Dear Alice’s trial, to demand “Sentence first, Trial later! – Sentence first, Trial later! – only to disappear and later deny it all. But you will have seen it, and it will have been real.



There are no fees or charges, only a stamp when you are done. Unfortunately, Parliamentary Petitions cannot be conducted electronically. Parliamentary Petitions need ink. But then again, this is exactly how it has been done for 500 years now. It is all part of that long standing tradition that gave us – Do not bend, fold, staple or mutilate. And try to keep the signatures between the lines, or they might not count. Download, enjoy and good luck. You are making documented Canadian Public Inquiry history. The petition kits are available on google; 10topjudges.blogspot.com

Thursday, July 22, 2010

10 Top Judges Cited for Wilful Judicial Misconduct as Spotlight for Canadian Public Inquiry Shines Bright.

In unprecedented levels of Canadian judicial intrigue, 10 federally appointed judges have been cited for willful judicial misconduct, public inquiry and removal from the bench, in an apparent series of unlawful decisions coordinated through to the highest court in the land – effectively removing the right for a citizen to be fairly heard – coinciding directly with Prime Minister Harper’s G-20 closing statement that our sovereignty has been relinquished.

Citing national emergency, Prime Minister Stephen Harper had already been directly petitioned twice in the matter, the Privy Council Clerk Wayne Weuters twice in requests for assistance, and most recently, the Governor General, Michaelle Jean, for monarch level intervention – all without response. In addition, a signatures petition to the House of Commons was “lost” en route and Office of Petitions certification for a replacement was mysteriously and abruptly abandoned by the office mid way in the process.

Shrouded in secrecy and supported by absolute media blackout, the Brampton Guardian, Toronto Star and Toronto Sun, were recently faxed Notices of Petition to oblige news coverage where the media is a public trust. In addition, the Globe and the Financial Post were then faxed copies of the notices – again all without response.

The last government communication was from the Office of Petitions on House of Commons letterhead dated June 1, 2010 in regards to replacing the lost signatures petition. This last letter gave every indication that the certification process was well on way to completion, concluding;

Based on the draft prayer you provided, and pending the proper wording of the grievance, a revised prayer could read as follows:

THEREFORE, we, petitioners, ask the Government of Canada to create a public inquiry to look into the administration of Justice in Canada, initiate required redress, and restate the right for a citizen to be fairly heard.

On June 14, 2010, a revised petition was faxed to the officer with a cover letter of thanks and hopes that the revised draft enclosed might assist further in completing the remaining 3 paragraphs of the petition.

Where there was no response, a second letter dated June 23, 2010, resubmitting the previous packet, was faxed to the officer. Where there was no response again, a direct petition was faxed to the petitions officer for Redress of Grievance, dated July 9, 2010, stating among other things that;

This petition is the first step to remove your bond where otherwise, there is no effective reason to proceed by way of petition.

There is a very special significance to having petitioned the petitions officer. The right to petition is inalienable, having been recognized since the 1500’s under Edward 1, when the king could do no wrong, even in parts of the Commonwealth that only much later, would come to be known as Canada.

Parliamentary signatures petitions are last resort instruments outside of tribunal and court jurisdictions. Once certified for jurisdiction and parliamentary language, the completed petition is presented to the appropriate minister, government or the House of Commons as in this case, and a response with reasons returned.

In ceasing to proceed further for a lawful petition to the House of Commons in Parliament Assembled, the officer provided the first instance on record, which records do date back to the 1500’s, that the right to petition had been unlawfully denied.

Where the reason for petition was to remove 10 top judges from their appointed posts and restate the right for a citizen to be fairly heard, which right the judges had unlawfully removed, the only route remaining was to petition Parliament. It must be remembered that previously, the Prime Minister and Privy Council had already been directly petitioned twice each with no response. By blocking the right to petition Parliament, the right to challenge the judges was effectively and forever blocked. And all they needed was a clerk in the petitions office to complete their coup.

A direct petition dated July 12, 2010, was then faxed to Michaelle Jean, the Queen’s representative in Canada, the Right Honourable Governor General, stating among other things that –

If just the least esteemed of your Fellows would make just one call, a certifiable petition would be right at my door – adding –

In the alternative, the issue of the petition office refusal is consistent with the previous abuses in the matters and aught to be included in the mandate for the public inquiry being sought – asking that Jean recommend the entire matter be forwarded for public inquiry to Parliament directly without petition. After all, Jean does represent the Queen’s interests for ensuring fairness in the country. There was no response.

Briefly, the issues stem from 2 separate but consecutive civil proceedings since December 3, 2002 and counting, both primarily against government, both commenced at Brampton, Ontario and both indexed as Andy Harabulya v Ontario Ministry of Labour et al – to include 3 labour ministers in a row as defendants between the 2 cases and 10 federally appointed judges in a row cited for willful judicial misconduct, public inquiry and removal from the bench WHERE;

(1) The right of a citizen and by way of precedent, all citizens, to be fairly heard in matters against government and others, had been unlawfully denied. (2) There had been no separation of judges and government to (3) make it impossible under any reasonable person test or otherwise, to continue the matters through the courts with expectations for fairness.

The grounds for the judge removals are not based on judge errors subject to appeal, but rather, on non-discretionary Doctrine and Rules, the same by which the court room doors swing open every day, specifically violated to align with government, specifically the Doctrine of Estoppel, established since the 1800’s as set out in Danyluk, supra, and the Rules of Pleading, established since the time of Caesar, as recorded in Acts 19:38.

In addition, the remedies from Surrogate Safeguards entrusted to the Attorney General for Ontario, the Premier of Ontario, the Canadian Judicial Council and the Justice Department of Canada for Redress, proved subsequently to all be at odds in the essential neutrality required for fairness in resolving the issues.

The Prime Minister has been directly petitioned twice in the matters since October 13, 2009. The above all reflects 16 unlawful decisions in the matters. A most recent precedent in the matter of the 10 judges and surrogate agency principals for removal is set out in a Canadian Judicial Council decision dated March 30, 2009, in the matter of Justice Paul Cosgrove and in the factum of the Attorney General for Ontario in the same matter.

Once our rights are gone, then the sovereignty goes and that is exactly the way it has happened, between December 3, 2002 and the Close of the Toronto G20.

NEXT - PART 2

THE TEN TOP JUDGES

IDEAS, SITE SUGGESTIONS, PROMO DESIGNS, ADVICE, COMMENTS, UPDATES WILL BE POSTED. THANK YOU. 
PETITION


TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED



We, the undersigned Citizens of Canada, affirm and



DRAW ATTENTION TO THE HOUSE THAT;



In 2 separate and consecutive civil proceedings since December 3, 2002 and counting, both primarily against government, both commenced at Brampton and both indexed as Andy Harabulya v Ontario Ministry of Labour et al to include 3 labour ministers in a row as defendants between the 2 cases and 10 federally appointed judges in a row at odds in the essential neutrality required for fairness in resolving the issues, the Doctrine of Res Judicata and the Rules of Pleading have been made to no longer apply, which in well known law, apply to both civil and criminal proceedings, to make it impossible under any reasonable person test or otherwise, to continue the matters through the courts with expectations for fairness, reflecting to compromise the entire Judicial System.



In addition, the remedies from Surrogate Safeguards entrusted to the Attorney General for Ontario, the Canadian Judicial Council and the Justice Department of Canada for redress, proved subsequently to also be at odds in the essential neutrality required for fairness in resolving the issues. The PMO has been made aware of all the above in detail since October 13, 2009. Recent precedent for the matters is the Canadian Judicial Council decision re: Justice Paul Cosgrove dated March 30, 2009, and the related factum of the Attorney General for Ontario.



THEREFORE, we petitioners, ask the Government of Canada to create a public inquiry to look into the administration of Justice in Canada, initiate required redress and restate the right for a citizen to be fairly heard.



Andy Harabulya, principal petitioner

2 David Street

Brampton, Ontario, L6X 1J1

Tel 416-272-9845

Addresses

Signatures Give your full home address OR your

Sign your own name. Do not print. City and province OR province and

Postal code.