The organization of Canada’s judicial system is a
function of Canada’s "Constitution", and particularly of the Constitution
Act, 1867. By virtue of that Act, authority for the judicial system
in Canada is divided between the federal, or national, government and the ten
provincial governments. The latter are given jurisdiction over "the
administration of justice" in the provinces, which includes "the constitution,
organization and maintenance" of the courts, both civil and criminal, in the
province, as well as civil procedure in those courts. However, this jurisdiction
does not extend to the appointment of the judges of all of these courts. The
power to appoint the judges of the superior courts in the provinces - which
includes the provincial courts of appeal as well as the trial courts of general
jurisdiction - is given to the federal government, as is the obligation to
provide for the remuneration of those judges and the authority to remove them.
This latter authority is a limited one and, in fact, has never been
exercised.
The Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada was constituted in 1875 by
an act of Parliament and is now governed by the Supreme Court Act. It is
comprised of a Chief Justice and eight puisne judges (puisne meaning ranked
after), all
appointed by the Governor-in-Council
for terms of "good behaviour", with a minimum of three judges coming from
Quebec. Supreme Court judges must live within forty kilometres of the National
Capital Region.
The Judiciary
All members of the judiciary in Canada, regardless
of the court, are drawn from the "legal" profession.
In the case of those judges appointed by the federal government, which includes
the judges of all of the courts apart from those at the bottom of the hierarchy
and described generally as provincial courts, are required by federal statute to
have been a member of a provincial or territorial bar for at least ten years.
Lawyers wishing to become judges must apply to do so and their applications are
vetted initially by committees established within the various jurisdictions for
that purpose, with the ultimate power of decision residing with the federal
cabinet. Analogous systems operate within the respective provinces for
appointments to the provincial courts.
The independence of the judiciary in
Canada is guaranteed both explicitly and implicitly by different parts of the
Constitution of Canada. This independence is understood to consist in
security of tenure, security of financial remuneration and institutional
administrative independence.
The Kaptain's Log
Soviet Canada: Trotsky's Triumph
by Kaptain Kanada
a.k.a. Manuel Miles
Exclusive to TLE
Back in November of 1975, a lawyer in Newfoundland told me of his recent
trip to the USSR. One of his observations startled me: "The Soviet Union,"
he said, "is becoming more like us in the West, and we are becoming more
like them. In a few decades, we'll have become Marxist and they'll have gone
capitalist." Naturally, I humoured him... I avoided making sudden moves. You
never know what can set one of those wacko lawyers off.
Today, 28 years later, history has proven him right. Canada and the United
States are thoroughly Sovietised, and Russia and the former Soviet Republics
have become showcases of "wild west" entrepreneurial capitalism, complete
with organised crime gangs. The symptoms of sovietisation are manifesting
themselves in all aspects of Canadian society.
As in the USA, for example, government agents swarm in Canadian airports,where they harass and intimidate travellers in the name of "safety" and "anti-terrorism". Everywhere, one is constantly being asked to produce
identification, and for no better reason than to verify that, "Your papers
seem to be in order..."
In an increasing number of businesses, employees are required to wear
special identification cards on belt-like ribbons round their necks. It
reminds one of nothing so much as the ear tags which replaced the branding
of cattle.
I remember when one could walk into any newspaper, radio or television
station and speak directly to any of its employees. Now, entrances are
locked and guarded by legions of "security" police, in order to protect
these businesses from... what, exactly? There was never a series of attacks
on the media (more's the pity), so it's difficult to imagine why they all
decided to barricade their hind quarters in their headquarters.
One now has to make an appointment to even talk on an intercom phone with a
mainstream media hack. I suppose it makes them feel important. Perhaps they
expect that their lies and distortions will eventually incite someone to
attack them, but I don't know why this would be a concern, for they have got
away with their propaganda for two centuries. In any case, these mouthpieces
of the various organs of the State have turned their offices into bunkers.
So, too, have a variety of other enterprises, especially the monopoly phone
company. Just as in the old USSR, it is an ordeal to get them to do anything
for their "valued customers", their lousy equipment and inferior service are
forever failing, and their "employees" spend most of their time standing
about and chatting with one another.
I recently went to the central telephone "boutique" to get answers to a
couple of simple questions. I was first ignored, then rudely redirected to
another department and, finally, curtly answered. It was obvious that I was
an odious intrusion, but what I was interrupting, I'll never know. The one
broad was simply doing nothing, while the other was chatting with a male
co-employee (I won't use the term "co-worker", as I doubt that either one of
them could work up a sweat in a pressure cooker). Their attitude resembles
that of Air Canada's fat stewardesses, uh, I mean "flight attendant
persons"; you need them, but they don't need you, and would you kindly
bugger off. This is exactly the way people were treated in shops and
restaurants in the Soviet Union.
The schools are an infamous disaster; the little comrades are being
propagandised, not taught, and can not read, write, nor properly speak their
native language. They have been deliberately detoured from activities which
require analytical thought, and their written work, such as it is, is
composed, in the words of a university professor friend of mine, by means of
"cut-n-paste". They know nothing but the mindless repetition of "politically
correct" sound bites about tolerance and sensitivity and the rest of that
litany of New Age psycho-babble nonsense.
This is no accident, either, as the universities were taken over by a
coalition of Marxists and feministas way back in the 1970s. Now the
once-rowdy campuses are sterile tundras upon which graze droves of
cyber-cattle and gender geldings. Feminist ideologues, after taking over
faculty after faculty, have finally seized the presidency of our local
miserable excuse for a university. This is seen as a great victory, as the
important thing, comrades, is not ability; rather it is whether or not the
appointee is a politically correct female person, i.e. "one of us", or not.
Fred Coleman, writing in The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Empire, points
out that in soviet universities, "[Staffing decisions] ...were invariably
based on Party loyalty, rather than... ability. The whole process encouraged
the time-servers and herd-followers. Researchers with individual initiative
or the guts to challenge establishment views, just the sort of people to
make any progress, often got weeded out first..." No fooling, eh, comrade?
And the Canadian federal government?! There surely has never been a more
brainless, incompetent bureaucracy in history. The vast hallways of all
levels of government are lined with offices which are empty except for
9:30 - 11:45 in the morning and 1:30 - 3:15 in the afternoon, except on
Fridays, when it's impossible to find any of the taxpayer financed memo
writers after 1:00 p.m.
In Canada, the people sheepishly accept all this crap, and we never even had
a Stalin to terrorise us into submission. But then you don't have to train
sheep to be sheep. People here like the "nanny state", as it saves them from
having to think for themselves. A highly educated friend of mine (in
response to my contention that a truly free market in insurance would result
in lower rates than government mandated and controlled insurance) had this
to say, "But I don't want to have to investigate and compare companies; it's
way easier for me just to pay the government."
I fear that we have the answer to the following question, posed by Mr Sergei
Hoff in a recent article online: "Do we desire to be cradled, and then
carried throughout life to our graves by this partisan propelled
bureaucratic monstrosity? ...as individuals of sovereign dignity, are we now
so terrified, bewildered, and impotent that our main purpose is to seek
asylum from the potential hazards of freedom? Have we no faith in our
natural strengths and abilities?" ...and I fear that the answer is the
affirmative; you know, like in "affirmative action".
I no longer believe that a significant number of Canadians are at all
interested in living in...
...Peace and Liberty. http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2004/tle299-20041128-04.html [link now
broken]
voted for
has an obligation to those who voted for him/her? Boy are you ever
deceived...... Read what the court said about the relationship between an
elected
member of the legislature, and those that "sent them there to serve
their
interests"....
Justice E.A. Marshall, Justice of
The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
[MP Wilton Littlechild v.
Citizens of Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta Docket No. 9012000725,
Dec 10, 1990]
"I know of no legal duty on an
elected representative at any level of government
to consult with his
constituents or determine their views. While such an obligation
may generally be considered
desirable, there is no legal requirement."
Translation: You are voting a person
to a membership in a Roman Club called the
"Ottawa Legislature".... that is ALL.
These people do not have permission
or authority to wave the rights of ANY citizen of
Canada, any more than Wal-Mart or
Canadian Tire members have such authority.
Something to remember the next time
you hear some goofy police constable, or
other government SERVANT, tell you
the Members of Parliament speak for the
whole people of Canada, and have
universal proxy consent to wave or modify
your individual rights...... Your
rights are YOUR property.
You can't eat your cake AND have it
too.... MP's can only speak for themselves,
and THEY ALONE consent to the
statutes they place themselves under - anything else
is what we commonly call a Tyranny or
Dictatorship. End of Story.....
Here is an official reproduction of the aforementioned case law.....
Docket No. 9012000725
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WETASKIWIN
BETWEEN:
ERIN WALL, PIETER BROER, IRENE LOVELL, JOE KURTA
JAMES MANN, KEITH BEEBE, LYLE LINK, and DALE HATALA
as and for the constituency of Wetaskiwin and the
Citizens of Canada
PLAINTIFFS
- and -
J. WILTON LITTLECHILD, M.P.
DEFENDANT
REASONS F .0 R J U D G M E N T
Wetaskiwin, Alberta
10th December, A.D. 1990
Proceedings taken in The Court of Queen's Bench, Law Courts
Wetaskiwin, Alberta.
10th December, 1990
The Honourable Mr. Justice, E.A. Marshall Justice of The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
E. Molstad, Esq. For the Defendant
E. Wall For the Plaintiffs
Official Court Recorder
THE COURT: Thank you. Well as you suggested and conceded Ms. Wall, it appears clear to me that the Statement of Claim must be struck out -- that legal proceedings are not the correct forum to seek the relief which has been sought. Counsel for Mr. Littlechild have outlined the law. The Statement of Claim alleges a failure on the part of Mr. Littlechild to consult with the constituency members and a failure on his part to account to them, further failing to ascertain their views in voting f6r the government's goods and services tax and failing to adequately represent their views in his voting for the government's goods and services tax. It appears that the action is a claim of a breach of duty on the part of the M.P. of the Plaintiffs. It seems clear on the authorities and I note in Roman Corporation which has been cited, that if I have any doubt on this application, as to whether the Plaintiffs have a cause of action, I must givethe benefit of that doubt to the Plaintiffs and refuse the application and leave the matter to be decided at a trial. However I am satisfied the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the Defendant. I know of no legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an obligation may generally be considered desirable,there is no legal requirement. I adopt the quotation from the trial in the Roman Corporation case, where he said:
"It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of Canada, free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in parliament.”
So it appears to me that the only remedy existing for the Plaintiffs is the remedy provided by our Constitution in the right to vote in a future election. I note also that the prayer for relief gives some difficulty. They request an Order of the Court recalling the Defendant to account to the Plaintiffs in his constituency for his actions in parliament. I would be inclined to strike the Statement of Claim on that paragraph as well. But, I note they do make a prayer for such other relief as the Court shall deem just which probably is general enough that the action could not be struck out on that account alone. So I am satisfied that no court can compel the Defendant to account to his constituents and just to show you what really occurs in this application, Ms. Wall, what I am really assuming for the moment is that everything you have said in the Statement of Claim is correct. Even if that is all true the Court can't give you assistance because in the drafting and the exercise in the use of our constitution through the decades, it has been the wisdom of our Fathers of Confederation and others that M.P.'s must be given a right to carry out their duties without any worry about being called to account during their term of office. That is the way our constitution was drafted and I must take judicial notice of the Act – which relates to Members of Parliament, the Parliament of Canada Act, that the members of the House of Commons enjoy all the privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament, Parliament of the United Kingdom. So under the circumstances I am dismissing -- or I am allowing the application to strike out the Statement of Claim and it will be struck out accordingly.
To the surprise of at least one legal expert, the Supreme Court of Canada
last week unanimously gave the provinces incredible powers to seize assets
allegedly connected to crime.
For a country that has gained the reputation, whether deserved or not, of
protecting the rights of the accused over the rights of victims, it's quite
an about-face. [Full story here]
[Canwest article published October 18, 2006]
Under our
Constitution as described in Magna Carta, we have an INHERENT AND
IMMUTABLE
RIGHT to Habeas Corpus... Violation of this RIGHT against the people
Now even the mighty US
Constitution, which was constructed from the rights and liberties found in Magna
Carta has become the victim of terrorists. Terrorists who wear Armani suits, and
who took an oath before GOD ALMIGHTY to preserve the rights therein... These
crooks have hijacked our nations common law, and have made an act of war against
the free people of the West.
Critics of Canada's security certificate law are asking why the Senate is rushing to push through controversial changes to the law, while at the same time refusing to move quickly on another matter, the government's new anti-crime bill.
So what "changes" can you expect? Well since the law was deemed unconstitutional due to its "race specific" nature, the only way this law can be made "constitutional" [as they see it] is by making the certificates applicable to EVERYONE.
And you thought the court was protecting your constitutional rights? The court has already said the constitution doesn't apply "in the interests of parliament" or something they often refer to as "parliamentary supremacy".... A concept that has no basis in law, nor is it supported by the constitution - which is the supreme law. You can only have one supreme law, but don't tell that to the politicians and supreme court clowns, the goal here is consolidation of power, absolutely.
Thank goodness Canada's healthcare system can rely on private US healthcare.... ?
Everywhere we come upon the ease
with which people passed from Communism
to what were in theory its most virulent
enemies Fascism and Nazism".--Robert Conquest
You are being manipulated by media and government.
An American friend of mine once observed, after returning from a trip
to Canada, that Canadians are a different breed from Americans. My
friend noticed a passivity about them, feeling as though he could walk
up to a table in a Canadian restaurant and eat someone's meal in front
of them without so much as a whimper of protest, or initiate a
romantic encounter with a Canadian woman while her partner looked on
with utter indifference.
While that may be hyperbolic, he did have a point. Canadians do seem
to be more passive than their American brothers and sisters, perhaps
because the U.S.A was founded on revolution and Canada was not.
Perhaps Americans still have that fighting spirit in their souls that
Canadians have lost, or never even possessed to begin with. That
American fighting spirit that makes them attempt to move mountains, or
be willing fight and die to protect their constitutionally protected
rights.
When southern states decided to secede from the union, America found
itself plunged into a civil war, pitting American against American.
When Quebec wished to leave Canada, they held a referendum, quite a
startling difference in mentality.
It is readily apparent to me that Canada is done, unless by some
miracle her decline can be turned around, which I seriously doubt at
this point. Canadians really have no one to blame but themselves, as
they allowed rights to be stripped away from them by an increasingly
totalitarian government that provides no guaranteed right to private
property and no right to bear arms.
They also threw away the right to free speech with the advent of hate
crime legislation, laws that have nothing to do with "hate crimes" per
se and everything to do with silencing the critics of specially
protected groups, most notably Jews and homosexuals.
Why was there not more of an outcry in Canada when this legislation
was proposed? While I'm sure there had to be some opposition, it would
appear that Canadians simply rolled over and played dead, allowing the
government to take away free speech, something guaranteed to all
Canadians in The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms.
Being charged with a hate crime and appearing before the Human Rights
Tribunal is an exercise in futility, since, unbelievably, the truth is
no defense in this "kangaroo court" where justice is perverted or
denied altogether. This body of "thought prosecutors" essentially
punish those who dare to have an unpopular opinion or a criticism of a
protected group and choose to share it. It is nothing short of a
complete travesty of justice that should not be allowed in a
supposedly free country.
The charter itself is a source of many of the problems. It contains no
guaranteed right to private property, nor does it allow for the
populace to take up arms to defend itself against a government bent on
tyranny.
Most Canadians mock Americans for their perceived "love affair with
the gun," unable to understand why the founding fathers in the U.S.
had the good sense and foresight to see that the right to bear arms
was the only way for a citizen to protect himself from a tyrannical
government. Why Canadians allowed such a document to be forced on them
is simpy beyond my ken.
What's even more disturbing is that the Canadian lemmings actually use
their abhorrence of firearms to claim moral primacy over their
American counterparts, as though refusal to recognize the importance
of lawful citizens being allowed to own guns is a sure sign of moral
superiority.
Canadians were forced to accept gay marriage despite opposition and
without a vote. While the vast majority of Canadians supposedly
support gay marriage, most of them are too shortsighted to see the far
reaching implications of the radical homosexual agenda of trying to
bring about the destruction of marriage and the traditional family.
They are too busy congratulating themselves for being more progressive
and tolerant than their American neighbours to the south who, at least
in part, have the good sense to fight for the preservation of the
institution of marriage and the traditional family. Canadians see the
legalization of gay marriage as empirical evidence that the Canadian
people are far more broad minded and enlightened than Americans, to
their own detriment.
Not only do they not always see what's being done to them, they most
assuredly don't understand who's doing it to them, and why. Even if
they did understand the Jewish supremacist hand in all of this, they
no longer have the right to name the enemy, at least publicly, unless
they want to invite prosecution for a hate crime.
Canadians are famous for their reserve, possibly a trait handed down
by their mostly British ancestors. They are quieter than Americans,
less boisterous and obnoxious, more passive, more submissive and more
easily swayed towards the left side of the political spectrum. While
there certainly are conservative people in Canada, they are not as
vocal as Americans on the right, probably because a Canadian with
paleo-conservative values and political views stands out in Canada
like a big purple elephant in the middle of a living room carpeted in
white shag.
All of those traits are admirable to a degree, but it is a given that
Canadians have been so easily brainwashed by the Jewish controlled
media in Canada that they accept multiculturalism, diversity,
pluralism and inclusion in the name of tolerance while being totally
ignorant and unaware of the cost they will all have to pay ultimately
when Canada becomes a country they no longer recognize and one in
which they no longer feel welcome.
They actively celebrate multiculturalism and welcome third world
invaders, totally ignorant as to why such actions go against their
best interests. By embracing the unfettered immigration of third world
dreck, these Canadian bleeding hearts can feel morally superior and
congratulate themselves for being not only tolerant of the influx of
third worlders, but welcoming.
Canada is no longer the country I knew and was proud of growing up and
in forty years, when the balance of population is tipped in favour of
immigrants it will be a country that no one recognizes.
Already Toronto has a 50% visible minority population as well as a
growing problem with black crime. Vancouver now has a 50% Asian
population and an increasingly serious problem with asian gangs. While
the crime rate in Canada remains lower than that in the US, it is only
a matter of time before her inner cities begin to resemble the
cesspools of crime, drugs, poverty and squalor found in large American
cities.
But Canadians, on the whole, while they might be alarmed at the
increase in crime in Canada, are not outraged at the policies that
created the problem, namely the immigration policies that discouraged
immigration from Europe while promoting the influx of third worlders.
They love that Canada is so diverse and multicultural and are either
too stupid or too deliberately obtuse to realize that their country is
being stolen from them right under their noses.
They don't know that immigration policies were changed by Canadian
politicians at the behest of the Jewish lobby, and in fact, even if
they knew that fact, speaking about it openly is taboo in Canada,
under penalty of fines or imprisonment thanks to the Jewish-inspired
hate crime legislation, since Jews are one of the few "special" groups
afforded complete immunity from criticism.
Canadians stood by and let the Canadian Jewish Congress overturn the
Lord's Day Act which removed prayer from Canadian schools and allowed
businesses to remain open on Sundays, despite a large number of
Canadians who personally opposed it.
Like American schools, those in Canada are producing an increasingly
poorly educated product as Education programs in Canadian universities
turn out badly prepared teachers who are taught to care more about a
child's feelings than his education. And it's deliberate. A dumbed
down population is more malleable and easy to control and it has paid
off in dividends for those who enact the policies that are bringing
about Canada's decline.
The useful Canadian idiots support everything that will bring about
their eventual demise, believing that being so inclusive and welcoming
diversity with open arms is a good thing, instead of what it actually
is, an attempt to destroy them. Smiling and feeling self-righteous for
being so supportive of these destructive policies allows them to feel
smug and holier-than-thou.
While it is hard to understand why Canadians have just accepted it all
instead of fighting back, eventually they will stop patting themselves
on the back for being so progressive and tolerant as they watch the
Canada they knew slip away from them and find their once proud
heritage gone.
Even as a former Canadian it's hard for me to work up a lot of
sympathy for the average Canadians who are too apathetic and too fond
of feeling self-satisfied and complacent to become politically
involved in trying to save their country, but, it is they who will pay
the price and they will truly have no one to blame but themselves.
A population with the fighting spirit and the soul of an American
revolutionary might have been able to stop the destruction of Canada
before it was too late.
But the people of Canada, by and large, are too ignorant, too
trusting, too brainwashed, too hooked on feeling morally superior and
too apathetic to fight, and now any window of opportunity to fight
back is long gone.
It's already too late.
Canada is dead, they just don't know it yet.
They're too busy feeling smug.
Signs of a police state? Imagine being pulled over for having the "wrong colour" on your license plates...
Government wants more time to mold impressionable minds at most crucial time of development.....
Ontario to bring in full-day learning for 4 and 5-year-olds The Canadian Press November 27, 2007
TORONTO — Ontario will start to phase in full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds in 2010, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday, seven years after he first promised to introduce full-time junior and senior kindergarten.
Mr. McGuinty visited Bruce Junior Public School Tuesday to re-announce his promise to study full-day learning for about 250,000 of Ontario's youngest students and start phasing it in with a $200-million budget in 2010, increasing to $300-million the next year.
"Now you're telling them they can't smoke in cars. At some point somebody's going to snap along the way here."
But they couldn't care less about the lives of children...
below scan: October 19/08 Times Colonist
Under the current law, a child born underwater is not human, until it takes a breath... What does breathing have to do with being human? Don't plants and other animals breath air?
But these people do know how to line the pockets of their friends.... This 'out of court' settlement [referred below] is 10 TIMES LARGER than the largest defamation payout by Canadian courts, at the time it was offered.
Out-of-court settlement paid to Mulroney should be reviewed, Dion says Juliet O’Neill, CanWest News Service, November 11, 2007
OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says a proposed inquiry should examine whether a $2.1 million out-of-court settlementpaid by the federal government to former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney a decade ago was obtained “under false representation.” [full report]
Census Boycotter Willingly Faces $500 Fine, Jail Time
At least one Canadian who refused to fill out the 2006 census forms in
protest against U.S. military giant Lockheed Martin's involvement is being
called to court, and may face a $500 fine and up to six months in jail.
Canadian government printing MORE paper money than US government!
Why do you think your dollar went from $1:09 to 77 cents in just a few months, against a US currency that was being printed in excess of 5 TRILLION at the SAME TIME?? Did they teach you economics in public school? Because when you print money without increasing assets (like compiling gold or silver) the value of the paper goes DOWN.... So how much money did the bankers and their government lackeys steal from you?
November 20/08
There it is folks..... They stole half your money in less than six months. They're not done yet either...
Ask yourself why they didn't just give the money to the public? The mortgages get paid, the economy gets a boost via consumer spending, and the employment rate stabilizes after an adjustment for inflation. At least this way you'd get some asset out of the deal. However, by the government giving this money to the banks... the banks can now wait for the stocks to crash from a lack of liquidity and cash flow, and come in and buy up all the assets.
NOW you should be able to figure out why the bankers and corporate fascists want a low Canadian dollar?? Your federal government... ALONG WITH the opposition parties have given this their full support.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket. IF you want to fund sites that help expose the New World Order and their plans, then please don't just give money to the BIG sites... Many sites are better than a few.. so please kindly consider donating to our non profit site.
If these issues matter to you, please help us with a donation of your
choosing... Click 'make a donation'
button below. Your donations are
used to continue our work to expose the truth, and defend your