Justice Fuhrer’s Long Awaited Ruling
August 15th, 2021
A new court Ruling has been delivered in the Canadian Standards Association’s (“CSA’s” / “Civil Service’s”) wee war against the scrappy little family business known as PS Knight.
On Wednesday, Justice Janet Fuhrer issued her Ruling on T-1178-12. Yes, that’s her name. It’s just a name and one shouldn’t read too much into it unless she actually starts acting like a Nazi.
The 1178 litigation was the first lawsuit the Civil Service hit us with, way back in 2012. And, given revelations since then, this is the litigation the bureaucrats are most vulnerable with.
In 1178, the Civil Service argued that the Canadian Electrical Code isn’t the law. Awkwardly for them, that argument was subsequently binned by other judgements and the Civil Service abandoned it in their other filings. But the 1178 litigation was still based on their Code-isn’t-law arguments, making that case, well, baseless.
The Civil Service also claimed in 1178 that CSA isn’t part of government, has never had offices inside government buildings, and so on. It seems that when giving this early testimony, they assumed the case wouldn’t last long enough for false testimony to be revealed as such. Anyway, going forward with all this embarrassing baggage was something the Civil Service definitely didn’t want to endure. They needed to remove the evidence from the record.
Their Court colleagues came to the rescue. First, the Court Ruled in advance of the Hearing that the right of self-defence was being withdrawn from PS Knight Co. That’s right, we weren’t allowed to defend ourselves.
Next, they Ruled that my personal filings and evidences in the case were to be striped of supporting documentation. That is, the Court deleted the evidence in my filing. Then, they Ruled to strike the balance of my filing as it was now without evidence, and therefore baseless. Then, they Ruled to strike all of PS Knight’s defences already filed, years ago, by our previous counsel. They also struck all of the affidavits, the discovery transcripts, all sworn testimonies, all cross-examinations already in the Court record -everything, leaving only CSA’s claim against us unmolested. Everything damning, embarrassing, or inconvenient to the Civil Service was wiped from the record, Soviet style, as though it never existed.
Then, to top it off, they Ruled that I wouldn’t be allowed to so much as “speak” in my own defence at the Hearing.
Then, they held the Hearing just between themselves in the Civil Service. A Secret Hearing, held on Nov 10, 2020.
So, you know, the deck is slanted just a touch, don’t you think?
This is the context for Justice Fuhrer’s Ruling on Wednesday. She Ruled in favour of her Civil Service colleagues. We’re mulling our response.
The Ruling itself is pretty amazing, for the brazenness and yet the dunderheadedness of it all.
For instance, my father, Mr. Peter Knight, is still listed as a defendant. He died five years ago.
Referring to both PS Knight, the company, and Gordon Knight, it’s owner; “The Defendant,” saith the Ruling, “has used the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks.” That is, our advocacy website entitled RestoreCSA uses the three letters “C,” “S,” and “A,” together. And that’s naughty, for nobody else on earth does this. Only the Civil Service uses this letter combination.
Readers will recall that this three-letters nonsense was debunked ages ago. In July, 2013, when CSA first made this argument, we reported 67 current registrations of the term “CSA” with the US Patent and Trademark Office. We reported 164 historical, and legal, registrations for the term “CSA.” We also reported 540 recognized, legal uses of the that acronym, more than 111 websites and domain registrations, more than 57 Twitter identities, more than 36 YouTube identities, more than 28 Facebook identities and, if you can believe it, CSA doesn’t even own the website “CSA.com.” Nope. The “CSA.com” website is actually the site of a Puerto Rican consulting company.
We mocked this part of their claim in 2013, that the CSA acronym “is so exclusive that everyone’s using it.”
But you see, the debunking of CSA’s claim, and all of the supporting evidence, was filed in response to the Civil Service 1178 claim. All of this evidence then, was deleted by the Court.
With all of the evidence struck from the record, the Civil Service is clearly correct. That’s what the Ruling says.
Next, the Ruling declares that the “Defendant has made false or misleading statements that tend to discredit the Plaintiff” and has made “false postings online about the Plaintiff.”
The online statements in question were correct, and they’re still on this site and they’re still correct. But statements without evidence are baseless and the evidence in question, you’ll recall, was struck by the Court. Thus, the Court Rules in CSA’s favour; that what we wrote on this site was false and misleading because there were no defences against CSA’s claim made at the Hearing, nor did we oppose CSA’s claims on the matter in verbal argument. That we were denied the right to file defences or speak in Court doesn’t feature in Justice Fuhrer’s Ruling.
Deleting the evidence for statements they’re now claiming are unsupported by evidence is, um, kind of crooked. Disallowing opposition to their claims, then pointing to our lack of opposition as acknowledgement of guilt is just as crooked. Convicting on this basis is third-world.
And pray tell; on what basis does a Judge decide that a statement was false with zero evidence filed one way or the other? All Justice Fuhrer went by was the claim of her colleagues, submitted by CSA without evidence. Why no evidence? Frankly, because the statements on this site were correct. Naturally then, no evidence exists to prove the falsity of accurate statements.
Then Justice Fuhrer affirmed Manson’s Law and noted that CSA’s copyright assignments afforded them ownership over that text.
She declined to note that PS Knight also holds copyright assignments covering our own portion of Code text. She acknowledged only her own colleagues’ assignment.
She also declined to note that PS Knight holds US copyright over the Code.
She also declined to note that PS Knight holds a license from CSA to do exactly what they sued us for having done.
Then, on this slanted basis, Justice Fuhrer gets ‘round to the judgement portion of her Ruling.
The Defendants, she wrote, are permanently barred from “use of the mark or name ‘RestoreCSA’.”
Ah. Well, that’s self-serving, isn’t it?
Notice how the Civil Service’ first interest is shutting down this website? Almost like they’re fretting its influence. Anyway, moving on….
The Defendants are enjoined from “making false or misleading statements or representations that tend to discredit the Plaintiff.”
Seriously! Any statements that might make the Civil Service look bad, regardless of accuracy, are banned. Think about that! Who defines what is a false statement? Why, the Court of course, in the service of the Civil Service. And they just Ruled that our accurate statements were false and misleading by deleting all of the evidence to support those statements.
“Defendant shall deliver up to the Plaintiff all copies of all current and past editions of ECS […] including the plates or electronic files for the ECS.”
The “ECS” acronym refers to Electrical Code Simplified, Commercial & Industrial. This is our larger, ~1,000 page guidebook for engineers. We’ve been publishing this book since 1974. The CSA happily participated in its publication, continuously, for thirty-two years.
It’s a popular book. We’ve been completely sold out for some time, so there’s nothing to hand over. Future editions will have to be sold from the US and yes, there’s a new edition presently under development.
Next, the “Defendant shall deliver up to the Plaintiff any goods, packages, labels and advertising material […] as well as any equipment used to produce the goods, packaging, labels or advertising material” that refer to CSA or use the three letters “C,” “S,” and “A” (as in RestoreCSA).
“Defendant shall transfer ownership and all rights of access, administration, and control for and over the domain names http://www.restorecsa.ca, and www.restorecsa.com, or any other domain names or related social media accounts consisting of or comprising CSA or ‘RestoreCSA’ to the Plaintiff, [and] shall direct the applicable domain name registrars or social media platforms to transfer ownership and all rights […] to the Plaintiff.”
See? They’re fretting this site a fair bit.
I won’t get into detail here, save that a takedown of RestoreCSA would be more challenging than psknight.com. Don’t get me wrong, the Civil Service may get this site pulled, just not as easily or as quickly as they think. And I’m not terribly upset about it.
You see, we’ve had the whole site cloned, the content is quite secure and, though this is our first mention of it, our plan had been to close this website at the end of the year anyway.
Sunlight my friends, there’s sunlight coming, and to shine that light we knew we’d need to swap the current content of this site for, let’s say, a different kind of content. The transition was slated for Dec / Jan sometime, so even if CSA can shortly kill this website we haven’t lost much broadcast and CSA hasn’t gained any ground.
“Defendant shall pay forthwith to the Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of $20,000.”
Ah, of course. Then….
“Defendant shall pay forthwith to the Plaintiff general damages in the amount of $25,000.”
Again, lovely. Then….
“Defendant shall pay forthwith to the Plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of $20,000.”
Ah. See how this works? Then….
“Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff’s costs of this motion in the lump sum amount of $5,000.”
And all these sums can be upped by the Civil Service at their discretion. Then…
“Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff pre-judgement interest on the statutory and general damages.”
Remember how Justice Manson re-opened his Manson’s Law Ruling to increase the payables to his colleagues? Right, well….
“Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff post-judgement interest on all amounts awarded in this Judgement.”
And on it goes.
Justice Fuhrer’s Ruling is what her Civil Service colleagues wanted. This Ruling is intended to silence an opponent and destroy a family business through use of raw government power; unchecked by ethics, unmolested by process, unimpeded by law.
The 1178 litigation will close without ever having had a trial, without us ever seeing the face of a judge. The Civil Service can just win, without any process at all.
This is why we’re not likely to appeal the Ruling. What would be the point? Seriously, the very act of destroying evidence, depriving a defendant the right of defence, silencing anyone pointing out the illegality of it all, then the Judge Ruling in favour of her own colleagues on the basis that an honest business, in compliance with copyright law, is really in breach of the law by complying with it -well, it’s so crooked what would be the point of appealing to such a compromised Court to reconsider their carefully arranged Ruling?
Folks, we’ve already suffered one rigged trial, the Hearing which gave us Manson’s Law. The Fuhrer Ruling is just the latest in this sad series of Nazi-like, arranged Civil Service wins. They win because of who they are, and in defiance of law.
So we move on.
PS Knight is still publishing from the US. Our books are still available, published under US law, and the Canadian Civil Service will find that US courts are, however imperfect, much less susceptible to corrupt manipulation by Canadian bureaucrats.
We’re still standing, and we’ll stay standing.
One final note.
Friends, we live in worrying times. Law doesn’t mean much anymore. It can be made to mean whatever those in power want it to mean in order to gain for themselves whatever they want. Law is no longer objective or impartial. Law has become the plaything of the powerful.
One is reminded of the musings of Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, that in descent into leftist totalitarianism the bureaucrat “sees himself as […] the living law or highest law itself, effectively combining in [their] persona executive power, judicial power, and legislative power.”
“Living law.” Does that sound familiar?
That’s the notion that law isn’t necessarily what’s written down as law. Rather, the text of law can be reinterpreted to mean something other than what it says it means.
This, friends, is the dominant philosophy in Canadian courts. Living law, or “highest law,” is what the Supreme Court of Canada refers to as the “living tree” doctrine of interpretation. In this, the Constitution itself is malleable to mean whatever they want it to mean. Their desires are therefore above any written law.
What they want is what law is deemed to be. When their desires change, public policy changes. Simple as that.
The Fuhrer’s word is law.