Der Fuhrer Strikes Again
September 26th, 2021
Last week, we reported that Justice Aylen, the Judge presiding over the Civil Service’ 1166 litigation, had co-presented on this file with Kevin Sartorio, the Civil Service lawyer, at an intellectual property conference in 2017.
In other words, Justice Aylen is not legally permitted to judge between PS Knight and her Civil Service colleagues, so long as those colleagues are represented by Mr. Sartorio.
We sent a letter to Justice Aylen noting this conflict, as you’ll recall.
On Monday, September 20th, the Office of Justice Aylen responded. The Madam Justice pointed out that because she had previously Ruled that I am not allowed to defend myself from her or her colleagues, therefore “Mr. Knight’s letter will not be entertained.”
Well, alright then. This is the justice system, folks.
The conflict exists and is well documented. The illegality of Justice Aylen’s behaviour is glaringly obvious; it’s blatant, this one. Refusing to acknowledge it -sorry, “entertain” it- does nothing to make legal her illegal conduct.
Alright, also on Monday, the Civil Service lawyers sent us a letter, demanding that we give them everything that they want with one of their litigations (the 1178 one, judged by Justice Fuhrer) and, if we do, they’ll only (only!) pursue their other five litigations against us. Yeah, um, that would be suicide. Not going to happen.
Of course, the Civil Service lawyer also sent this letter to Justice Fuhrer, the first judge to deny us the right to defend and the one who happily Ruled in her colleagues’ interest in 1178 on every item they then requested. The Civil Service wanted to register with their colleague Justice Fuhrer that they were trying awfully hard to peaceably, amicably resolve matters. It’s just such a pity that Mr. Knight is so unreasonable. You know how it goes.
Well, two days later, the Office of Justice Fuhrer sent us a letter, demanding our response to her colleagues’ thoroughly reasonable offer.
“Mr. Knight shall have until September 29, 2021 to advise […] the Court as to his position as to the proposed” resolution.
Ah, I’m ordered to “advise” the Court. Ah.
Ponder; It has been the pattern of the Court in this case to Rule in their Civil Service colleagues’ interest on matters of procedure, and matters of law, regardless of law. In this, I have been twice denied the right to defend myself against them, I have had my filings purged from Court record, my defence documents edited by the Court to the liking of their Civil Service colleagues, my affidavits, discovery transcripts, and cross-examinations have been deleted by the Court, my Statements of Defence expunged from the record, and my correspondence to the Court, even on purely procedural matters, disregarded and deleted from Court record.
I sent a brief email -not a response- to the Court registrar thusly;
“The Court has made it plain that anything contrary to the preferred result they desire to arrange for their Civil Service colleagues will be in some manner discarded by the Court. As Justice Aylen put it on Sept 20, 2021, any correspondence I submit to Court ‘will not be entertained’. As Justice Fuhrer’s own office Ruled on February 4, 2020, I am specifically precluded from filing anything with the Court.”
Therefore, “by decision of the Civil Service / Court, I am not permitted to respond to your offer of Sept 20, 2021.“
Look folks, they can’t have it both ways. They cannot reasonably demand that I make filings, while holding open the near certitude that they’ll delete them / ignore them / refuse to accept them if those filings don’t say what they want them to say.
Consider the effort it takes to make a Court filing of, say, thirty pages. That’s many hours of work, you know. It’s not like writing personal emails. Once drafted, the evidence pages must be added, in the hundreds usually, and all indexed and all on the right paper, with the right font, and so forth. I’ve had to draft filings of some six-hundred pages, on several occasions, and I can assure you it takes many hours over several days; it’s a lot of work.
When I file, the Court responds by casually editing my filings to their own liking, or deleting the evidence from it, then deleting the arguments themselves, then Ruling that after purging my filing of content there really wasn’t any content in there at all -well, friends, that doesn’t inspire a lot of effort to draft more filings.
It may take days of effort to draft one filing; it takes seconds for the Court to delete it.
In this context, demanding that I draft another such filing, even a brief one, for submission to the same Court, and to the same Judge who disallowed all such filings from me is, you know, a bit rich.
Almost seems like I’m being toyed with. And it wouldn’t surprise me.
Fret not, they’ll get theirs.