Der Fuhrer, Continued…
October 3rd, 2021
Hello everyone. This week’s article is more of a briefing. And it will be brief, this briefing.
Last week, we reported that the Court was demanding correspondence from us, a response to their Civil Service colleagues’ hugely self-serving and slightly nutty “offer” to settle things by pretty much binning myself and my company. Our response, apparently, was expected. Of course, this same Court, and indeed the same Justice presiding, had already Ruled that anything filed by PS Knight will not be accepted by the Court because, dear friends, we’re not allowed to defend ourselves.
So, they’ve demanded that we file correspondence with the Court, after Ruling that we absolutely cannot file correspondence with the Court.
Well, we emailed the Clerk of the Court, as reported last week, noting the contradiction and, with rhetorical sighing, accepting that we cannot file correspondence no matter their latest invitation to do so.
What do you suppose the Court did with that?
Yup, they’ dodged it.
The Clerk of the Court wrote to us on Sept 27; “This appears to be correspondence directed to counsel for the Plaintiff and not the Court,” said the Court. “Please refrain from sending me emails directed to counsel for the Plaintiff in this proceeding.”
See? This is how the Court ensures that it doesn’t receive information that it doesn’t want to be on record knowing about. And the Court official who wrote it, Ms Emily Price, followed the above line with; “Should you wish to have correspondence placed before the Court, please submit the same by way of formal letter.”
Ok, let’s review. The correspondence was swearword-invitingly clear as to whom it was addressed. There is no way our email could be confused as one sent to the Civil Service counsel, Mr. Kevin Sartorio. Indeed, the email began with the intro word; “Madam.” Moreover, the decision to deny us the right to correspond with the Court was made by the Court, not Mr. Sartorio. Next, the Court has already denied us the right to file correspondence of any kind, no matter what format its filed in. Yet Ms Price dangles the carrot of receipt of our filing if only we amend the format of the correspondence.
Look folks, it’s year ten of the Civil Service wee war on PS Knight. We’ve already endured a painful, multi-month experience of trying to file one piece of paper with the Court, a process that required twelve trips to the Court Clerk’s office, and each of these pilgrimages failing in filing due to a series of ever-evolving excuses from the Court as to why they absolutely couldn’t accept it. Wrong sized paper, remember? Wrong heading on the paper. Wrong font. And on they went, before reversing themselves. Having changed paper size to their liking for instance, the correct paper size was then said to be as originally filed, not this latest paper. Thus, no matter what format is used to submit, there would be an unending flow of self-serving and pedantic refusals if the Court doesn’t want to deal with the content therein.
So, on the same day, I responded thusly;
“The correspondence [is] a letter directed to the Court.” Simple, yes? And as for Ms Price’ reference to her colleague, the Plaintiff; “You’re at liberty to forward it to your colleagues within the Court or elsewhere in the Civil Service (or their outside legal counsel) as you like.”
But this wasn’t what the Court wanted. Our response was side-stepping the Court’s endless refusals tactic. Can’t have that. So, later that day, the Ms Price wrote;
“This matter is case managed by Case Management Judge Tabib. If you wish to have your correspondence placed before the Court, please provide your correspondence in the form of a letter […]. Your letter will then be entered on the Court’s record and forwarded to the Case Management Judge.”
Hmm. One could note that Mirielle Tabib is not a “Judge” at all; she’s a Prothonotary, but lets not get bogged down with reality.
At first glance, Ms Price’ note seems reasonable, easily workable. But no folks, remember that this requirement, that our correspondence be submitted as a PDF file, is just the first such requirement. With ten years of experience, be assured that there would be no end to these requirements. Better to call her on it than be bested by it.
“Madam,” said I, beginning a rather carefully worded response, “I am fatigued of being toyed with.”
“You have received the correspondence directed to the Court. I have confirmed for you that the correspondence [was] to the Court. You have confirmed that you received it, several times as evidenced [by email] below. I likewise have record of having sent it and record of you having received it. […] You do not need the same text in a PDF to read it.”
Of course, she knows all of this. The recitation is to get the Court on record for having received the explanation and, of course, for use to shine some light (!) with future exposures of corruption in the Canadian Civil Service, including the Court system.
That, and this notion among Civil Servants, that they can deny their way out of anything, needs some serious smackdown. Ms Price and her ilk need to know that denying what is so easily verifiable will come back to bite them. Hence….
“In other words, you did receive it, I can easily prove it, and the world will shortly know it. In this, what you choose to do with correspondence [to the Court] is your responsibility and, in time, your personal and public accountability.”
Naturally then, the Court is refusing to accept our correspondence about the Court refusing to accept our filings in a litigation the Court is refusing to allow us to defend against.
Ok folks, one last thing to think about. Leaving aside for a moment the astounding, decade-long trail of corruption and absurdity that got us here, this week’s back-and-forth with the Court is due to the Court’s Ruling that PS Knight is not allowed to defend itself. The back-and-forth is pure obfuscation; it’s the Court trying to make it look like they’ll accept what they’ve already promised to reject. There is no way for PS Knight to respond to anything from the Court if they’ve already barred everything we send them. This bleedingly obvious conclusion is what the Court is now trying not to know about.
This, folks, is what the Justice system is, in practice, in this century.