The 1166 Ruling Arrives
November 29th, 2021
On November 5, the Federal Court issued its Ruling in the Civil Service’ 1166 litigation against PS Knight. This was their latest litigation, begun in July of this year, so the Ruling was mighty quick.
And the quick summary? We lost.
This shouldn’t be a shocker. Justice Mandy Aylen Ruled in September that she wouldn’t tolerate opposition to her colleagues demands. We were not allowed to file a defence.
Thus, in this hugely slanted playing field created by Justice Aylen, Justice Richard Southcott presided over another Secret Hearing between himself, representing the Department of Justice, and Mr. Sartorio, representing the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), an Agency of Industry Canada. Between them, these two branches of the Civil Service used governmental authority to take for themselves what belongs to others.
And the Ruling reads just like that.
“Upon reviewing the Applicant’s Application Record, filed, including the Applicant’s supporting and documentary exhibits…”
Note how it’s only the Applicant’s filing that’s reviewed?
“And upon reviewing written submissions and hearing oral submission from Counsel for the Applicant…”
The Applicant of course, is the Civil Service.
And upon concluding, for the reasons expressed in the Applicant’s submissions, that the Applicant is entitled…”
The Ruling contains no mention of any filing by the Respondent, being PS Knight, and the word “Defendant” isn’t used at all. Look folks, no defence filing was allowed, no correspondence to the Court was reviewed, and no oral submissions were permitted.
PS Knight wasn’t allowed to defend itself. At all.
Let that sink in.
Alright, in that happy context, let’s ponder the penalties that the Court, in its wisdom, included in its Ruling.
First, the Respondent -yes they called us that, even though we weren’t allowed to respond- is prohibited from “possessing the infringing works.”
What are infringing works? Why, the rule of law, of course. Electrical laws in Canada are the subject of the Civil Service’ various litigations against PS Knight. We’re not allowed to be in possession of law. The law, my friends, is now contraband. Like heroin or something.
Next, we’re banned from “importing into Canada the infringing works”. No problem. We saw that one coming. Fret not, we’ve already got plans in place.
Then, we’re banned from “authorizing anyone else to do any of the foregoing prohibited acts.” Got that? The prohibited acts are being in unlawful possession of the law. We are therefore not allowed to allow you, the reader, access to the law.
I’m sure you’ll take that as seriously as we will.
Also, we are ordered to “disclose the identity and contact particulars for any persons” to whom the law was provided.
Here we go again. The Civil Service wants to know who to target for retribution. In the past, they’ve targeted our vendors, our institutional customers, our contractors, trying to get these scared or harmed or fired. We have never colluded in the Civil Service’ retribution projects and we’re not going to now. No, our customers are safe with us.
Moving on, we’re also required to “provide a sworn statement [which] further describes or identifies the nature, value, and location [of] assets, funds or accounts” within five days of the Ruling.
Then the Civil Service Ruled for itself some more money. PS Knight is to pay CSA statutory damages of $100,000. Then PS Knight will pay punitive damages of $75,000. This is in addition to the >$70,000 Justice Fuhrer Ruled we were to pay her colleagues. That was the other Hearing, also held in secret, in which nine years’ of our affidavits, filings, testimony, discoveries, and evidences -thousands of pages of filings- were all deleted to the convenience of the Civil Service. And that was in addition to the remedies portion of the Manson’s Law Ruling, in which PS Knight was to pay just over $100,000 to that Judge’s co-workers at the Civil Service.
That’s ballpark $350,000 in punishment.
Punishment for what, you ask?
Well, we quoted from Canada’s electrical laws in our electrical books. And we had the legal right to do so. Quoting from Alberta Queen’s Printer (the Government entity which copyrights all Provincial legislation);
“Alberta Queen’s Printer permits any person to reproduce Alberta’s statutes and regulations without seeking permission and without charge”
In other words, a Federal Agency sued us for a decade for having done what we were allowed to do. Worse, as we properly attributed to Queen’s Printer Copyright in our books, we have been found “guilty” of obeying the law and punished with $350,000 in fines for behaving honourably.
But the Judge wasn’t done with us. You see, the Civil Service takes all this personally. They’re as upset at the specifics of our defences as with our choice to defend ourselves at all. As far as they’re concerned, it is inappropriate for mere ordinary people to oppose them, hence the Rulings that we’re not allowed to oppose their stealing our stuff.
Justice Southcott therefore included in his Ruling the provision that his colleagues in the Civil Service “shall have their costs of this Application payable by the Respondents.” Ain’t that great? Charitably, the Judge limited the Civil Service, saying their cost claims are “not to exceed five pages” of money demands.
Oh, and finally, “any requirement to personally serve this Judgement or any other documents or things in connection herewith on the Respondents is hereby dispensed with.”
There’s that “dispensed with” phrase again. It’s impressive to read how casually the Court itself dispenses with legal requirements. It’s also impressive to read of Justice Southcott’s background.
For instance, Southcott was appointed to the Bench in 2015. Before that, he was General Counsel to Irving Shipbuilding, the maritime equivalent of Bombardier, a sort of leaching operation of other people’s money. Regular access to the Treasury requires regular, and pretty close ties with the Civil Service. Remember how Bombardier routinely receives tens of millions of dollars in handouts before the approvals meetings for those sums even take place? Yeah. Well, life’s like that when you’re tight with the Civil Service.
Before his gig at Irving, Southcott was a lawyer with Stewart McKelvey in Halifax. He wasn’t a cog either, Southcott was a Managing Partner there. And that’s interesting, because Stewart McKelvey is pretty tight with the Civil Service too.
I’ll not get into the weeds with this, you’ve seen this sort of thing a fair bit in Canada’s courts. The practice of appointing Judges from the ranks of well connected, Civil Service friendly lawyers, particularly in the less populous Maritimes, is notorious and quite well documented.
So where do we land with this?
Well, for starters, the Ruling’s requirement that we provide the Court with a list of assets conflicts with a previous Ruling. Recall that this same Court, on this same litigation, has already Ruled that anything we submit to the Court “will not be entertained.” I can’t even acknowledge having received the Ruling.
They’ve already Ruled that we cannot comply with parts of their latest Ruling. Methinks they’re beclowning themselves.
Regardless, the Court’s practice of Ruling that laws, and indeed previous Court Rulings, mean the opposite of what they say they mean, well, that makes it awfully hard to know what this Ruling means.
If it means what it says, then not complying is breaching the law. But if their precedents mean what they say (admittedly, another wild assumption), then the Ruling means the opposite of what it says it means, thus by complying with what it says I’d be breaching the law. I’ve already been found in contempt for complying with one Court requirement, I can hardly afford another contempt charge for another compliance. As I told Justice Palotta during the Criminal Trial; “I just can’t afford to be caught complying with law.”
“If I comply, I am punished; if I defy it, I am punished; it really doesn’t matter what I do, the punishment is the same.”
And that’s true. It doesn’t matter what I file or submit or testify to, what I say in Court or decline to say, whether I am allowed to participate or if my evidences are destroyed by the Court; the result is the same. A foregone conclusion.
In Canada the law doesn’t matter. What matters is what the Civil Service wants.
Might makes right.
Until the sunlight.
Be brave, my friends; evil deeds of evil people in good time will come to dust.