Cooking It, with Mandy Aylen

September 19th, 2021


Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to introduce to you, of the Federal Court of Canada, the Honourable Madam Justice Mandy Aylen. 

Justice Aylen was recently appointed the Case Management Judge in the Civil Service’ latest lawsuit against PS Knight, the T-1166-21 litigation.

On September 7th, in a case management call, Justice Aylen Ruled that PS Knight would not be allowed to defend itself in the 1166 lawsuit. 

That’s right, they did it again.  Unlike last time, this time they Ruled to prevent our defences right at the start of the litigation.  This way they don’t need to strike anything from the record, as the Court record in this case is just getting going.  Rather, there just won’t be any opposition allowed at all to what the Civil Service tries to pull.

Naturally then, I wrote Justice Aylen a letter.  Gave her a piece of my mind.  And got her on the record on a few points.

First, I pointed out that the Court has been consistently siding with its Civil Service colleagues in their various duplicated and unlawful cases against PS Knight.  Really, it doesn’t matter what we do, we’re deemed guilty by Ms Aylen and her colleagues because, by dint of identity, their side cannot be in the wrong.  Civil service litigation is therefore as much a product of the Court as the Canadian Standards Association (CSA / Civil Service), in that the dividing lines between the one entity and the other have proven illusory.  And I phrased my letter to reflect this….

“I advised you under Rule 120 that I was exercising my right to defend myself from this latest of your litigations against me.  In a Case Management call on Sept. 7th, you Ruled to deny me the right to defend myself, ensuring that only your own arguments, filings, and claims would be entered on official Court records.”

I reminded her of the Court’s rather sordid reputation in such matters…

“This is the second time that Federal Court officials, in their capacities as fellow civil servants alongside the Canadian Standards Association, have Ruled to deny my right to defend myself against you.  While I concede that striking opposition to your own filing surely makes it easier for your side to get what it wants, the brazenness of your behaviour undermines your authority.”

And then…

“It has now come to my attention, subsequent to the Sept. 7th Case Management call, that you are already disqualified from involvement in this case.”

Uh-oh.  She’s not going to like that line.

Justice Aylen’s massive biases in favour of her co-workers in the Civil Service, especially one particular Agency of the Civil Service (yes, that’s CSA), are already a matter of embarrassing public record.

You see, Justice Aylen was a co-presenter at the Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference of 2017.  Her co-presenter was from the law firm of Gowlings WLG.  That’s CSA’s law firm, folks. 

And it gets worse.

The Gowlings lawyer Justice Aylen co-presented with?  Why, it was Kevin Sartorio. 

See?  That’s worse.

Justice Aylen co-presented with CSA’s own legal counsel at a conference dealing with “developments” in intellectual property law during the 2016 – 2017 year.  And what was the biggest IP development during 2016?  Well, that would be “Manson’s Law,” the massive whopping Ruling that made legislation itself the private property of whomever holds copyright assignment for its text. 

The lawyer who won the Manson’s Law Ruling was Kevin Sartorio.  Naturally then, he was the star attraction of the 2017 IP conference.  Manson’s Law and the CSA v. PS Knight case was the star litigation they dealt with.  And Justice Aylen co-presented on the subject.

And this same Justice Aylen is now presiding over the litigation she’s already presented on at a private conference in collaboration with the Civil Service lawyer representing the Plaintiff during the Manson’s Law Hearing and, indeed, during the hearing before her now.

What do you think?  That scale of conflict of interests?  Does that smack of impartiality or corruption?

Ah, my friends, it gets worse.

From my letter to the honourable Judge…

“Among your other co-presenters at the 2017 Conference was Ms Georgia Danzig of the firm Kestenberg Siegle Lipkus.  As you know, this is the secondary outside law firm to the Plaintiff in 1166, responsible for targeting my vendors with threat letters.”

Caught that?  It’s like they’re all in the same small club or something.

“Further, the firm of Smart & Biggar was on stage with you in that Conference.  This is the firm boasting the multi-decade relationship with the Plaintiff and from which emanated the notoriously dirty Judge; Michael Manson.”

Yeah, same club alright.

“Speaking of Michael Manson, he was another of your co-presenters at the 2017 Conference.  Michael Manson was the Judge who Ruled in favour of the Plaintiff while being personally and directly employed by them.  His Ruling, known as “Manson’s Law,” is the basis for your colleagues’ claim that I am in breach of Alberta Queens’ Printer Copyright law by having complied with it.”

And it’s like the Court itself works so closely with these vested interests that one invariably finds Court officials intertwined with them in their off-hours activities.

“Another of your co-presenters was Justice Janet Fuhrer.  As you know, Justice Fuhrer was the Judge who Ruled in favour of your CSA colleagues earlier this year after having struck all of my defences, affidavits, discovery testimony, and cross-examinations, from the Court record.  Again, I concede that getting what your side wants is much easier when you delete your opposition, but it’s pure lawlessness to conduct yourselves like this.”

And yet it gets worse.  You see, Judges are required to recuse themselves if they’ve been compromised by pre-existing factors.  Newspaper stories for instance, referencing the Judge as an interested party would disqualify that Judge from presiding over the matter covered by that newspaper article.

Well, on December 4th, 2017, an article was published on this website entitled “Kangaroo Crampton,” named in honour of Chief Justice Paul Crampton, famous for his trial rigging activities.  From that article;

“And whom was Manson working with in this process?  Why some CSA friends, of course.  One of CSA’s legal contracts, Smart & Biggar, was a fellow presenter, as was Ms Mandy Aylen, a Prothonotary of the Federal Court, also a direct report to Justice Crampton.  Another of Manson’s co-presenters was Ms Georgina Danzig, of the CSA contracted firm Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus.  These firms have featured on Deep6Project due to their close, and sometimes incestuous, relationship with CSA.  And it goes on like this.  The same players, playing together for their mutual benefit.  And Crampton approved it.  All of it.”

See that?  Three years before Justice Aylen had any Court involvement in the CSA v PS Knight case, she was referenced as an interested party in a public article.  I pointed this out.

“As this article predates the filing of your 1166 case and as it chronologizes the corruption of your Civil Service and Court colleagues, and as it specifically mentions you by name, it is entirely inappropriate and illegal for you to have any involvement with this case.“

I demanded an “immediate written apology for your behaviour on this file” and a confirmation that she has recused herself from the litigation.

I’m not holding my breath for it. 

It’s interesting to note that it was the Office of Paul Crampton that selected Justice Aylen for the Case Management role in this lawsuit, just as it was Crampton that selected Michael Manson to arrange the Manson’s Law result in 2016. 

One is reminded of the infamous backyard BBQ emails between FISA Court judges and the civil servants presenting to them.  Behind the scenes, in private when they think no-one’s looking, the players all know each other, all cavort in the same social scene, all aid each other as they can with the authorities in their control -it’s an inside game.  We’re being ruled.

Sunlight is coming, change may be in the air.  We outnumber them, you know.  As I said in closing….

“I know you think you’ll get away with all this.  [This] demand for apology and recusal is submitted in order to put you on record so that justice, when it comes, may be swift.”

And no, she won’t like that line either.