Home
Up

 

A little History shall we?

The Canadian Judicial System:

Who is minding the chicken coop? Three guesses!

 

The "Constitutional" Framework [Which friggin Constitution????]

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.

 

Soviet Canada: Trotsky's Triumph

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]
 

 

Think you know what a democracy is? Think the Member of Parliament you

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 style Club" called

the "Ottawa Legislature".... that is ALL. There is NO contract or relationship established

by your "private" vote toward a member of a legislative club. Therefore they hold

no legal authority in issuing consent toward the infringement of your rights. In other

words these people do not have expressed or implied 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, and the courts do not

agree with their "universal proxy" fallacy.

 

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, and is a fraud. 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.  

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The remainder of the transcript has to do with a discussion and awarding of costs...

 

 

 

Cops can now 'take all your stuff' - Toronto Sun, April 21/09
 

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

of Canada is an act of war.... What are we to do?

 

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.

 

What will your response be?

 

Senate too hasty on security bill, some critics say - February 10, 2008

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.... ?