The Supreme Court of Canada

– The Last Mile

Going forward…
The other considerations in going forward were this: what amount of preparation was needed, how much time and energy would it take and my ability to put a cohesive argument. Then there was the MOUNTING cost to continue with this process. So far it wasn’t going very well.

I read on the web about the thousands of Notices to Take Leave to Appeal that are rejected each year and the ones that were granted an appeal was in the hundreds and an even smaller number were successful.

Problematic were the ever increasing number of self-litigants, putting a ‘burden’ on the system.

I thought I may have a chance of an appeal if the justices read everything, noting as well the questionable and/or illegal actions of certain parties of the judiciary, in addition to the defendants.

There was Mr. Brown advising me to remove the public servants on my amended claim and sign a Consent Order which he wrote.  He had the lawyers sign it to advantage his clients, these public servants removed from my amended claim.

When I realized that this government lawyer ‘hood-winked’ me in agreeing to this Consent Order to remove these public servants and that I could have kept them on the amended claim as Justice Chicoine pointed out in his decision, I then recognized that all of these lawyers committed an illegal act with the intent to undermine and obstruct justice for me.

The following explains what obstruction of justice is: “Obstruction of justice is a broad concept that extends to any effort to prevent the execution of lawful process or the administration of justice in either a criminal or civil matter.
Obstructive conduct may include the destruction of evidence, the intimidation of potential witnesses or retaliation against actual witnesses, the preparation of false testimony or other evidence, or the interference with jurors or other court personnel.”

Then there are the two Saskatchewan registrars’ actions that are questionable:

One registrar back dated the stamped filing date on the decision to limit the number of days I would have to appeal.  He sent back various documents I’d already filed and had delivered to the defendants’ lawyers, which the registrar requested I deliver to them.

• The appeal registrar denied me the opportunity to do my Appeal Book commissioning Mr. R. Watson, Q.C. (lawyer for his client, the clinical psychologist), to do it for me. For sure they all had that figured out.

Throw-out the Lawsuit and None of The Above will Matter  (It Will be Moot!)

I thought surely the SCC justices would consider all of this.

Yet, I thought maybe there was a very slim chance that the judges at the SCC level would be convinced of the credibility of this lawsuit and/or  they’d see that various actions were done to disadvantage me and obstruct justice for me. Did any of this matter

I had to try as I had gone this far and hopefully success was just around the corner.

To be at the best possible vantage point I wanted to be familiar with the SCC justices. In particular I thought it best to study the SCC Chief Justice, as her influence may be key to a decision to allow me to appeal.

So it was the Right Honorable Madame Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin whom I read about.

What became most important to me was how she viewed self-litigants.

She addressed the issue of self-litigants in the courts as a frustration to judges. These views were documented in her speeches and posted on the internet.

Her opinion and those of her colleagues whom she quotes, reflects their collective frustration with us.

I concluded that this overall prejudicial attitude would prove insurmountable.

Therefore I formally requested in my submission that she not be one of the 5 judges to adjudicate my proposal for an appeal.

In one speech Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin reports a colleague’s comments concerning self-litigants in which she quotes her colleague’s critique of self-litigants trying to navigate the legal system: “it is like their trying to administer their own anesthetic for surgery”.

In my case certain actions of the judiciary ensured the oxygen and anesthetic ‘were turned off’.

Yet, Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin would have us believe that the judicial system is (always) fair, impartial and non-partisan and that we Canadians can be confident of that. 

This  Canadian is far from confident and you can see why.

• This attitude towards self-litigants’ inability to be able to present a legal case as described in these speeches can be found at the following link (with my comments):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/231081938/Excerpts-From-Full-Text-of-Speeches

In the end I determined that I had a ‘Conflict of Interest’ with this Chief Justice being one of the judges to decide if I could have an appeal.

She was also the head of the Canadian Judicial Committee (CJC) and I had lodged a complaint to the CJC. against Justice G. Chicoine.  Everything they do is ‘in house’ so that the courts can be IN CONTROL of their own processes-outcomes.  It was my position that he demonstrated preferential treatment towards the defendants, and was indignant and rude towards me.

I did not want the Chief Justice to decide the strength of my application to appeal even though I knew it would likely make no difference anyway – and it didn’t!

Please follow this link to view this document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/232747529/APPLICATION-to-Take-Leave-to-Appeal

Exhibits to Application
* Follow these links to view:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/229927952/Case-Law-to-Support-Counsel-Had-to-File-New-or-Amended-no-Affidavits

Affidavit to SCC… in support of Notice of Motion To Take Leave:
* Follow this link to view:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/230897521/Scc-Affidavit-of-Arlene-Lowery

Exhibit to Affidavit:
* Follow this link to view:

 

To view follow the link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/232747352/Memorandum-Scc

 

The defendants’ lawyers gave Replies to my filed application to appeal and I in turn sent them Responses – the same Response.

When you read my Response you will understand that their Replies were moot for all the reasons already documented.

   I have attached my Response at this link:

When I read the above summary I could hardly believe my ‘EYES’- that is ‘the spin’ they put on the amended claim. Everything that was documented here was trivialized and minimized the gravity of the pleadings, ignored my/our pain and suffering as a continuum.

‘can’t believe this!’

Even Mr. Brown’s advising me to remove defendants from my amended claim was seen as moot (that is it does not matter) because the claim was struck.

In Justice Chicoine’s decision he was even upset with how I numbered my paragraphs.* Certainly seemed petty to me in comparison to the magnitude of the pleadings.

Yet if you’re determined to strike my claim you’ll put whatever you can down and even throw in the original claim for ‘good measure’. So when it comes to government, lawyers and judges they can pretty much do whatever they want to but not self-litigants. We are to follow the court rules and the laws. Obviously there is a ‘DOUBLE-STANDARD!

So we as self-litigants have ‘a hope in hell’ of getting justice’ in this life as they, politicians (who pass the laws) and judges (who are there to apply the laws) are ‘THE LAW’.

The link below is an Exhibit in which I rewrote my version of their Decision (summary). I did this since the ‘spin’ on the AMENDED CLAIM (FRESH COPY) served to trivialize the pleadings within it, Further it excused the actions of others that I considered illegal and/or irregular:

These 2 Exhibits are the two medical reports of Charlene and Jonathan

on April 14, 1997 is at these links:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/229924476/Part-Two-Exhibit-1secret_password=dyjtYtRdZm0DG0fqJb1R

ii. Jonathan’s medical report on April 14, 1997 is at this link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/229924836/Part-Two-Exhibit-2secret_password=9UUtxwpp2ZnQp9u0ntlX

I wanted to bring these medical reports forward since it was these findings that needed to be underlined and were missed being added to the Memorandum.

They (certain defendants) lied about photographs being taken, continued to put my daughter’s babies with her, Leslie and Lyle (not their real names) who were traumatized and abused.

In filing an application for these justices to RECONSIDER the validity of my claim I did not think anything would change their minds, as it likely would NEVER even get back to them but decided I did want to respond to their Decision.

Blind Justice in Canada:

Madame Justice depicted here has cut a hole in her blindfold and therefore she is not blind or impartial nor does she judge fairly with balanced scales –
at least that’s the experience she afforded my grandchildren and I.

‘Not Blind because…’

My Appeal Book was commissioned by the Court of Appeal’s registrar for Mr. Watson to do that disadvantaged me and advantaged the defendants, since I would NEVER have included any of their previous filed substantive materials in it as the original claim had been set aside as had their earlier materials.

This was the only way that these lawyers could have their substantive materials before the appeal court because they had NO substantive materials not even an Application to the Court, served on me that they even intended to strike my Statement of Claim (Amended-Fresh Copy).  So they had no application to strike my amended claim.  

These lawyers did not file new or amended a Statement of Defence (individually or collectively).

Mr. Watson Q.C. lawyer for the psychologist and Ms. Lian Schwann Q.C., SK Court of Appeal Registrar knew that-they ALL knew that but none of this mattered.

The Rule 174 should have been implemented in the SK Court of Queen’s Bench where the matter would go for judgment on this fact or failure alone, but not so.

It did not matter that the New Democratic Party ministers threw a party for Justice Chicoine in Estevan, SK after he was appointed to the bench in just days after I told these public servants I’d litigate them. This certainly was a Conflict of Interest for me.

The lawyers for the defendants were not following the Court Rules which would benefit me in knowing what the heck they were doing like planning to strike my amended claim but instead they were IGNORING and/or BREAKING THE RULES.

After reading these documents ‘you can be the judge’ if there were breaches and if anyone should have been charged, prosecuted and gone to jail. Send me an email to comment:

Email: thedemandsofjustice@yahoo.com

The letter that I received from the Supreme Court of Canada in January, 2012, put an end to my ‘journey for justice’ and the Last Mile came to a ‘Dead-end’.

This letter is at link: https://www.scribd.com/doc/232746987/DEAD-   attached below:

 

‘Right is Wrong’ and ‘Wrong is Right’

Food for thought:

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”
Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

“What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.” –Isaiah 5:20 New Living Translation

The cult activities of my daughter along with her group of friends and acquaintances was horrific and criminal.  They were mentally ill (not treated), addicted and ‘just out of it’, but what excuse do the politicians and judges have who are apparently of ‘sound mind’ make laws to legalize abortions of unborn babies (endorsing murder) and where doctors simply give patients a slip to get an abortion if the woman wants one.  * The blood of these innocent babies will be on their hands-that is on everyone’s hands who assisted with these (murders) in any way.  Sadly, that can be even my hands since I voted this year.  

The Ten Commandments once used to form the basis of our laws, are now ignored and dishonored.

No wonder we need a Savior to save us, redeem us and sanctify us (that is change us into His likeness).

How for one second would I think that the lives of my daughter’s babies would be important enough for the Saskatchewan Government to provide them Coroner’s Inquests.

See http://www.voicesofthebruised-reeds.com for more on the deaths of the babies: Autumn and Lily.

 

 

 

 

Enjoy this song and remember when you reach ‘the last mile’ of what He’s had you do-Surrender All