Defamation Trial Delayed Yet Again

December 20th, 2021

The Civil Service’ defamation case that we’ve been writing about (here, here, here, here, and elsewhere), most recently rescheduled for the week of Nov 29, has been postponed yet again.

In this article, we’ll share some readers’ comments to our last article and we’ll explore the amusing reason for judicial reluctance to conduct the long delayed defamation trial.  Spoiler: it seems the court fears sunlight.  But first, the comments;

“I foresee an armor-plated bulldozer at some point in the future.”

The Small Dead Animals (SDA) news site routinely covers RestoreCSA / Deep6Project articles.  One SDA reader wrote the above comment in response to our Sentencing article.  Some of you may recall Marvin Heemeyer’s 2004 bulldozer rampage in Colorado.

Another commenter summed up Justice Pallotta’s conduct as…

“Hell hath no fury like a red queen scorned.”

It’s become fairly clear that the courts are enforcing Civil Service interests rather than law.

The Civil Service, including those in Court administration, know very well the extent that they’ve strayed from law, from justice, from the basics of civil society.  And they know we know.  And they’re nervous about that.

As Pallotta admitted in her sentencing, she was nervous that our exposure of their behaviour would make it difficult for crooked judges to “maintain their dignity and respect.”

And they’re nervous about that.  How nervous?

Well, as mentioned, the great defamation trial we’ve all been waiting for, first scheduled for June of this year before being cancelled at the last moment, then scheduled for the week of November 29th of this year, has also been cancelled at the last moment, on Nov 27 to be precise.  They couldn’t find a judge willing to conduct the trial.

Judges are selected for hearings, trials, etc. usually in the week prior to the court date.  In that week, they familiarize themselves with the case, the parties, the filings, and the expectations, as it were, of their colleagues.  The selected judge for the June trial evidently got nervous of being associated with this case, so they dropped it at the last moment, forcing a rescheduling of the trial to November 29.  The selected judge for the rescheduled trial in November likewise had occasion to review the file and dropped it at the last moment, indeed the Friday before the Monday of the trial.  By that timing alone, we know the judge had been selected already.  The trial was postponed not for lack of a judge, but because the selected judge got cold feet after reviewing the file.

Alright, why would a judge be nervous about this trial?  Well, members of the judiciary are regular readers of this website (yes, we can track this) and we’ve been reporting on the CSA case for nine years, so a lot of our experience is common knowledge on the bench.  Our filings have also been a bit blockbuster.  The fact is that nine years of malfeasance is pretty well documented.  So, a dirty court, well read on the case already, now reviewing documentation on their dirty conduct.  Intimidating?

For example, from the PS Knight Affidavit to Trial;

“The Judges of the Ontario Court system who have adjudicated on this case [thus far] are Justices Quamina, Nordheimer, and Brown.”

See where we’re going?

“Of these, none of them read the submissions or evidences prior to their Rulings.”

Ok, that’s the first big blow.  As readers will recall, these Judges issued their Rulings on the evidence without looking at the evidence.

“Indeed, at the Pre-Trial on April 28, Justice Brown couldn’t be bothered to read my brief for that Hearing.”

We shouldn’t be surprised at this, really.  If the result is predetermined, there’s no need to waste time reading the pleadings of the intended victim.

Then I pointed out the illegality of Justice Brown’s involvement at all, saying;

“Justice Brown was also the Judge at the anti-SLAPP (Motion to Dismiss) hearing within this same litigation.”

That’s important because we subsequently published on Justice Brown’s peculiar notions of legal interpretation.  In other words, she is conflicted.  Still…

“The Motion to Dismiss argued on the duplication of the cases, not on the [allegedly defamatory] statements at issue.  The Motion did not contain evidences regarding the statements.  Justice Brown Ruled on the accuracy of the statements in the absence of any submitted evidence at all.”

It’s the arrogance of it that astounds me.  Judges of the Court are Civil Servants, happily Ruling in favour of their colleagues elsewhere in the Civil Service, without regard to law, and seemingly pleased to disregard (or “dispense with,” in Court parlance) the rights of the defendant, safe in the knowledge that no prosecutor would ever target the Court for crimes committed by the bench.

Turning to the Pre-Trial Brief submitted to Justice Brown, I included the following therein;

“So, are you just going through the process, skimming these pages, reading only as much as absolutely necessary to claim that you’ve reviewed them?”

Of course, Justice Brown didn’t read those lines, nor any Defence filings at all.  But if law matters, judges would read filings.  And if one reads the filings which detail the Court’s record in the case, then the record of Court conduct on this file is so clearly abhorrent, so Third-World in its slanted behaviour, that the required Ruling is just as clear.

Consider, as quoted from the Pre-Trial Brief to Justice Brown;

“In just this one case, the Courts of Canada have breached the 60-Day Public Review law when the civil service was found in breach of it, declined to enforce the Transparency and Accountability Act and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act when CSA was caught ignoring its legal responsibilities under these Acts, the Court struck Federal Contract Law when adherence to it would have harmed their civil service colleagues, struck Queen’s Printer Copyright law when it impeded civil service profit taking, struck Criminal Code sections 46.2(b) and (e), 46.3(b), 46.4.4, 120, 121(1), and 463 (thereby legalizing the bribery of public and elected officials), and did so to protect the civil service from prosecution when they were caught selling influence over legislation, the Court denied the right to defend one’s self, holding secret Hearings between the Judiciary and Industry Canada (CSA) in which the defendant was not allowed to so much as “speak,” the Court furnished the civil service with a veto over the defenses of their opponent, suppressed evidence of civil service criminality to prevent review of civil service conduct, the Court suppressed exculpatory evidence in a criminal Hearing in order to ensure the result the civil service had requested, the Court violated the anti-SLAPP law to ensure that civil servants could sue the same defendant on the same issue numerous times in the same jurisdiction, then Ruled costs against the defendant when they complained about it, the Court egregiously engaged in trial rigging to attain the Manson’s Law Ruling, in which the Judge was personally and directly employed by the Plaintiff, and the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Paul Crampton, then violated the Judicial Conduct Principles and the Courts Administration Service Act in order to protect Justice Manson from prosecution for trial rigging.  All this, in one case.”

Another SDA commenter put it this way…

“It’s a cunning stunt, to be sure, to ignore the law so openly and without fear of retribution.”

It’s fear of justice, of retribution from an honest court, that’s causing all this trouble in finding judges willing to run the defamation show trial.

Back to the Affidavit to Trial, I then got all chocolatey in my prose.  At this point in the ten-year saga I’m writing as much to get the crooks on record, all well documented, as to satisfy the specifics of legal filing.  So…

“Based on the conduct of the Court on this file over the past decade, it is unlikely that you’re reading this submission either.”

Gutsy, that.  One doesn’t write like that in legal filings.  This next part is also rare;

“Alright, let’s do an experiment together.  For three paragraphs, let’s ponder the process of cooking Moo Goo Gai Pan.”

That’s a Cantonese stir fry.  That’s right, I filed a stir fry recipe.

“In a hot wok, stir in snow peas, broccoli, bamboo shoots, water chestnuts, and carrots, heating for five minutes.  Drain. 

“Reheat wok; add chicken, garlic, oyster sauce, rice wine and chicken broth, stirring constantly for about five minutes. Add vegetables, heating for about a minute, mixing thoroughly.  Plate the Moo Goo Gai Pan, delicious.  Serves four.”

Then I followed with the explanation, a bit of a big bang for a closer…

“What will happen On June 21?  Either you will advise that you received the recipe for Moo Goo Gai Pan, indicated that you actually read the submission, or your colleagues in the Civil Service will tip you off to the presence of the recipe, or it won’t be mentioned at all on that day, in which case I will assume -and publicly report- that you didn’t read the submission.”

What do you think it says that this sort of stunting is needful?  I think it says a lot.  I pointed that out too.

“It says that I have no longer any confidence in the integrity of the Court.  It says that I perceive that this trial, as with the others, will not be anchored in law or focussed on truth or driven by the cause of justice.  It says a lot, and none of it good.

“Time after time in this last decade I have complied massive evidence files, made fulsome submissions, spent countless hours of time trying to comply with the requirements of the Court, only to find that the Court couldn’t care less about my submissions.  They just ignored them or, in some cases, deleted them entirely.  All my time was wasted.

“In this, I’m not terribly motivated to issue forth some grand pronouncement or legal argumentation if all of my work in that regard would be disregarded.  Sorry, ‘dispensed with.’  So I’m not going to bother.

“The information is available if you want to read it, for it’s all been well documented in the attached filings.  But I just don’t believe it will matter. 

“This is a Show Trial.  The Ruling is already known and may already be written.  The Court will once again Rule in favour of its own interests.  For show then, we proceed to Trial.”

My dear friends, any judge who actually reads that Pre-Trial Brief, who actually verifies the hundreds of pages of evidences attached thereto, should cringe at the prospect of conducting the trial itself. 

They’re trapped between the obvious illegality of their conduct and the equally obvious demands of their colleagues that they continue it.  So yes, it’s a show trial, but not the usual Kangaroo Crampton show trial.  What makes this show trial different is that you’re reading about it, in detail, and the court knows that all this will soon be broadcast far and wide.  That’s the coming sunlight. 

In other words, any judge taking this case knows that their conduct will be reported all over God’s green earth, on much more than a website.  Conducting the trial as they’re expected to, as a show trial, would make their name synonymous with judicial corruption. 

Remember “Kangaroo Crampton”?  How many would know of Chief Justice Paul Crampton’s reputation for trial rigging were it not for reporting on this site, had we not deliberately linked his name to his conduct?  How about “Manson’s Law,” likewise linking the name of the Judge to the conduct of the Judge, or the Quamina or Nordheimer Rulings to legalize the bribing of public and elected officials?  How about the antics of Theodora Apostopoulos or Emily Price?  This is accountability, holding officials to public account for their conduct, as contrasted with the requirements for that conduct at law.  If you’re crooked, this site is horrifying, hence all the takedown attempts (two already in 2021; here and here).

The “dignity and respect” for the court that Justice Pallotta and her friends crave, once the product of decades of judicial respect for the rule of law and the cause of justice, is now steadily -and publicly- slipping away through example after example of judicial corruption.

They were too crooked, this case in particular too publicly broadcast.  Too many people have been watching.

As one SDA commenter put it;

“RestoreCSA was my red pill for the Canadian legal system.  I used to think it kinda sorta mostly worked.  Now I know it’s an utterly irredeemable kangaroo system.”