Sentencing for the Fictitious Crime

December 5th, 2021

In March, we suffered the criminal contempt trial at the heavy hand of Justice Pallotta. 

In August, she Ruled in favour of her Civil Service colleagues.

Last week, the honourable Madam Justice issued her sentence against me.  It’s a wild ride.

From her Ruling; “Mr. Knight and PS Knight Co” had already been found “guilty on three counts of contempt of court for breaching the [Manson’s Law] terms of judgement.”  That is, we’d been found guilty by her already.

As readers well know, the only way Pallotta could find us guilty was by ignoring the Stay Agreement which specifically authorized the actions that she Ruled were unauthorized.

To furnish plausible basis for Ruling in favour of her colleagues, Pallotta chose to strike the evidences we relied upon for defence.  She struck PS Knight Americas’ US copyright on the Code for instance, even though it’s fully registered and authorizes the actions she Ruled were unauthorized.  So, no copyright in evidence means there’s no defence against her colleagues’ accusations that we published without copyright.  She also struck our copyright assignment documentation, so there’d be no record of our lawful ownership of the Code.  Then she disallowed evidence of CSA’s own legal team in breach of Manson’s Law.  Then she ignored the fact that her own colleague on the bench, Justice Barnes, had already Ruled that we hadn’t breached the Agreement at all. 

A bit of a railroading, then.

Well, in her sentencing Order Justice Pallotta goes full petulant on us. “The Knight Parties did not appear at the penalty hearing,” for instance.  Of course not.  We had already committed to this during the Trial itself.  “They did not file written submissions”.  Alright, but what good would they do?  The courts just delete what we send for filing.  “Despite being aware of the [Ruling] which stated that the Court would set a date for the penalty hearing…”. Again, she’s upset that we didn’t show up.  “The Knight Parties ceased communicating with the Court.”  Again, what’s the point?  They refuse to “acknowledge” our communications.  “Mr. Knight did not join” in the proceedings.  See how she has trouble letting this go?  “Despite the contemnor’s failure to attend before the Court…”.

You see folks, a crooked judge knows they’re crooked.  In quiet moments, when there’s no one around to hear denials, when they’re alone in front of a mirror; they know they’re illegitimate.  My no-show, already committed to during the trial, served to highlight her illegitimate behaviour.  What these sorts of people want, more than anything else, is that their victims should participate in their own destruction; that the victims should be compelled to agree that the treatment they receive is legitimate.

And what people like Pallotta want to avoid, more than anything else, is facing the character of their conduct.

The Civil Service “submits that in view of the nature of the acts of contempt, which represent flagrant, serious, and intentional violations of the Judgement, an appropriate penalty in this case would include both a fine and imprisonment.”

See?  Nevermind that the unauthorized actions were fully authorized, or that the evidences to the fact were struck from the record, or that the entire fetid farce of this ten-year morass is based on the Civil Service notion that obeying the law is a punishable, criminal offense.  No, my friends.  What really jags them is that I pointed it out. 

The Civil Service “submits that it is appropriate [for] the Court retaining the power to impose additional sanctions” at some later date.

See?  Whatever this sentencing says, the Court should be allowed to increase the punishment as much as it wishes at any point in the future to their own convenience.  Or pleasure.  Or entertainment.

Also, you know, it’s hardly worth mentioning, really, but the original Manson’s Law Ruling did specifically state that I, Gordon Knight, your affable correspondent, cannot be held personally liable for actions of my corporation.  Yeah, well, that was inconvenient to Pallotta, so she violated that portion of her colleague’s Ruling.

The Ruling, you see, meant the opposite of what it said it meant.  I digress…

“Contempt of court is a serious matter,” Ruled Pallotta, “It is a challenge to the judicial authority whose credibility and efficiency it undermines”

And again;

“The rule of law is directly dependent on the ability of the courts to […] maintain their dignity and respect.”

Remember that bit about desiring legitimacy more than anything else?  Well, right.

Pallotta then outlines the basis for her sentencing.  Her first argument…

Apparently PS Knight “publicly states” that we sell electrical guidebooks “for the purpose of retaliation.”  Seriously, she wrote that.

Next, we “failed to deliver up all copies of the publication as required by the judgement”.  Hmm.  But the Judgement (by which she means Manson’s Law) did not require anything like that.  In fact, the Manson’s Law Ruling doesn’t even mention the 2018 Code which was supposed to be the subject of Pallotta’s Ruling.  She is conflating the 2015 and 2018 Codes and just hoping nobody notices.

Then, even more farcical really, the Civil Service “made repeated efforts to resolve the matter without resorting to contempt proceedings.”  It’s just that PS Knight is so horridly unreasonable.

People!  Consider the context that brought us to this point.  I remind you; the Civil Service attacked PS Knight, not the other way around.  By Pallotta’s standards, assassinating JFK was reasonable.  After all, the President hadn’t adequately responded to Lee Harvey Oswald’s efforts to resolve the differences between them.

There’s no way she actually thinks like this, folks.  As I noted before, in her quiet moments, facing herself in the mirror…

Anyway, then Justice Pallotta returns once again to her angst at our exposing Civil Service corruption, Ruling that our doing so was “disrespecting the CSA, its counsel, and the Court.”

“Mr. Knight openly and publicly details his activities, attempting to justify them by alleging that the Court and CSA are corrupt and engaged in a conspiracy to harm his business.”

Well, are we making all this up then?  Are we in year-ten of Civil Service lawsuits or not?  I mean, if what we’re saying is all so baseless, then why the need to delete our filings, supress our evidences, or to Rule contrary to the plain reading of law and previous Rulings? 

As to “conspiracy to harm his business,” I recall the declaration of Pallotta’s colleague, Ash Sahi, at the time the CEO of CSA and in negotiations with me, at the Palliser Hotel in Calgary, saying; “We’re going to keep on hurting your father until you give us what we want.”  And then he laughed at me.

So, they’re not trying to harm us, just hurt us? 

My father was 88 years old and on his hospital deathbed, and Pallotta’s colleagues kept attacking him.  They worked together to hurt him in order to harm me.  But, says Pallotta, there’s no conspiracy.

Her Ruling continues; ““Mr. Knight made statements [at trial] that no matter what the Court decided, he would ignore the order.”

Not an especially honest lady, Pallotta.  You can read the statement in its context here.  You’ll note that the bit she’s omitting is the qualifier she doesn’t want to admit.

Then she writes that the Stay Agreement, which she still can’t quite bring herself to quote from (I mean, how could she?), was “dismissed in 2019.”  Really?  Was it?  Funny, the Agreement itself doesn’t say that, doesn’t provide for it, and its own provisions define its termination which we entirely complied with.  She’s deciding that the document at the core of her case doesn’t mean what it says it means. 

Well, she gets ready to land her Ruling, complaining that “the Knight Parties have never apologised or shown remorse.”  Wow.  Apparently, we should be apologising for obeying the law. 

Wild stuff, folks.  But the punishment she meted out is wilder still.  Behold:

The “Knight Parties” are fined the princely sum of $100,000 in punishment for complying with the Stay Agreement.

Next, your affable correspondent, the Rt. Hon. Gordon Knight, is to be imprisoned for five years, less a day.  The maximum penalty possible is five years, so Pallotta lops off one day to claim that she never Ruled a maximum sentence.  A warrant for the arrest of Gordon Knight is to be issued ten days from issuance of the sentence, being December 16th.  The “Knight Parties” will also pay the Civil Service’ for their fuss and bother in trying to harm me, this time with an additional payment of $50,000. 

But Ms Pallotta is not without charity.  She asserts that if only Gordon Knight would make these ruinous payments, presumably in addition to the other ruinous payments set elsewhere by her colleagues of the Court, in sums already mathematically impossible by even the most intellectually challenged of accountants, and if only Gordon Knight were to entirely collapse his family business to the liking and profit of her Civil Service colleagues, then would Pallotta, in grace and dignity, consider the prospect of potentially pondering a possible reduction in punishment for obeying the law to a mere six months of incarceration.

Oh joy!  What resounding happiness surrounds me! 

According to Pallotta, these punishments “match the gravity of the contempt.”  They are “necessary in the view of the gravity of the offence.”  And so forth.

Recall the points about what people like Pallotta want more than anything else?  Well folks, there are guilty people sentenced to four-hour smoke breaks in a sweat lodge for actual murders of actual people.  So, five years’ incarceration for fictitious crimes?  For obeying laws?  For exposing corruption in the Civil Service? 

Oh… -hang on.  That last one, that’s the real crime, isn’t it?

A couple further notes, just a pondering.  My lawyer isn’t being punished.  He isn’t mentioned, actually.  Yet the entirety of the Stay Agreement was complied with through my lawyer’s office.  So how is my compliance such a horrendous crime but my lawyer, who actually executed on these supposed crimes, advised on them, approved them (etc.) is not punished at all?  Sort of looks like Pallotta knows full well what she’s doing.  She just doesn’t want to risk targeting a member of her own profession.

And as for paying the punishments and doing the time, I plan to do neither.  I saw this coming.  It’s why I fled the Country last year. 

Canada’s courts are badly corrupted, they’ve essentially become the authoritarian enforcers of the Civil Service, advancing their interests.  That much was clear by 2020.  Where this would lead became clear when the courts started denying me the right to defend myself from them.  I fled the Country at the right time.

Courts of the United States have their issues, it’s true, but they’ve not fallen so far as Canada’s courts, at least not yet.  American courts still know corruption when they see it.  And when Canada’s Civil Service files for extradition and foreign enforcement, as they surely will, America’s courts will have their chance to stand before their own judicial mirror, making marks reflected upon in quiet moments, when there’s no one to see them, and no one else to blame.

Out of options, and reminiscing the sunlit City on a Hill, I have placed my faith in the US judicial system.  Their system is imperfect.  So is my faith.

“The eyes of all people are upon us.”