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.