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

No comments:

Post a Comment