BC Social activist targets judges, lawyers and media in her demand for a parliamentary inquiry into judicial corruption

 Comments Off on BC Social activist targets judges, lawyers and media in her demand for a parliamentary inquiry into judicial corruption
Jul 062012
 

ROADKILL RADIO NEWS RELEASE
July 6, 2012
For immediate release

Letter sent to PM Harper today

BC Social activist targets judges, lawyers and media in her

demand for a parliamentary inquiry into judicial corruption

 

LANGLEY, BC, July 6, 2012 (RoadKillRadio.com)—BC social activist Kari Simpson has asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a parliamentary inquiry into judicial corruption in Canada’s courts.

Charging malfeasance by judges and lawyers in her own defamation lawsuit against broadcaster Rafe Mair, Simpson outlines in a letter to the Prime Minister details about judges who should not have been on the bench, other judges who covered for them, lawyers who failed to follow the rules in drafting her case, and how the Supreme Court changed the rules and then denied Simpson the right to have her case heard in light of the new legal test.

The record of corruption by both judges and lawyers illustrates why the public has lost faith in Canada’s justice system, Simpson says. “When the very people who are supposed to protect the Rule of Law bring the law into disrepute, it’s time for Parliament to act,” she says.

In her letter to the Prime Minister and the accompanying summary brief, Simpson draws attention to Section 101 of the Constitution Act, which gives Parliament the authority to set up a superior court of appeals whenever the justice system falls into disrepute. The 15 pointed questions she asks the Prime Minister to answer bring to light disturbing facts, and reveal a troubled and broken court system.

Simpson states: “I write to apprise you of a serious matter that requires your attention. The information contained herein details a level of corruption and contempt for the Rule of Law within our courts that can no longer be ignored. The egregious conduct blatantly and arrogantly displayed by those who are sworn members of the judiciary warrant, at the very least, a parliamentary inquiry.”

The troubling events detailed in Simpson’s letter and brief to the Prime Minister flow from a lawsuit she initiated in 1999 against former radio talk show host Rafe Mair and his radio station, CKNW.

Beginning in 1997, Mair had launched a two-year campaign of hate and lies about Simpson. He published more than 40 hate-filled editorials on air, in print, and on-line that maligned her, fabricating events that falsely represented her and her motives in her social advocacy work defending parents’ rights within the public school system.

The case eventually went to the Supreme Court of Canada. In its decision the SCC “modified” (i.e., changed) the legal test for a defence of “honest belief”—but failed to order a new trial so the facts of the case could be heard and considered according to the new test. Ironically, the case of WIC v. SIMPSON had been cited in a subsequent trial as a precedent that showed why a new trial should be ordered. But instead, the high court found in favour of Mair and restored the original trial judge’s decision.  However, the original trial judge was not qualified to preside over the case, because at the time she was herself embroiled in scandal that involved two similar defamation suits against her spouse, and her own culpability in the fraudulent conveyance of property in an unlawful attempt to protect the assets from legal claim.

The SCC also repeated from the bench demonstrably false accusations made by Mair against Simpson, thus compounding and bolstering the harm to her reputation.

Simpson names names in her briefing document. She accuses BC Supreme Court Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, Rafe Mair and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada of publishing defamatory lies and violating the law. Simpson’s brief is meticulous in referencing dates and events, including a comparative timeline that demonstrates the illegal activities, bias and conflicts of the trial judge.

Simpson’s letter to the Prime Minister is only the kick-off in her Drive for Justice campaign, which she asserts is “a campaign that will not stop until justice is not only done, but seen to be done.” Simpson’s closing remarks to Harper clearly define the problem. She says, “The events detailed herein depict a constitutional calamity of epic proportions, and should deservedly shake the judicial establishment to its core.”

See a PDF of Kari Simpson’s letter and brief here, and they can also be found at driveforjustice.com

For more information contact Kari Simpson

Tel: 604 514-1614

Email: driveforjustice@gmail.com

 

Drive For Justice 04: Letter to Prime Minister Harper

 Comments Off on Drive For Justice 04: Letter to Prime Minister Harper
Jun 252012
 

Prominent British Columbia social activist Kari Simpson—a spokesperson for you, if you believe, like most civil-minded Canadians, that conventional morality creates and protects social harmony—has written to Prime Minister Harper, asking him to provide the leadership his office demands, in protecting all Canadians’ freedom of expression, and their right to a fair and impartial hearing in our courts. In her letter, she draws to the Prime Minister’s attention, in what RoadKillRadio is calling Drive for Justice, some egregious violations of those rights.

In a defamation lawsuit that worked its way through the BC Supreme Court, the BC Court of Appeals, and finally to the Supreme Court of Canada, those rights were repeatedly violated… with the knowledge and complicity of other judges and lawyers.

Her questions include:

A judge of the BC Supreme Court—who has admitted financially supporting her “spouse” while he was using the Internet for (among other things) promoting hatred and contempt for Jews generally; and vilifying, defaming and libeling several prominent Jewish businessmen—at the same time, this same judge, presided over a defamation suit that involves a high-profile former lawyer—you know: a member of the legal “brethren”—a former MLA and provincial Cabinet Minister, and a member of the media who has publicly stated that he does not want influential Judeo-Christians (as the plaintiff is) to hold public office.

If that judge also transfers property title from her “spouse” to herself, so he escapes payment of a court-awarded judgement after he was found to have defamed the Jewish businessmen, isn’t that called “fraudulent conveyance”? And doesn’t that vitiate the protection afforded judges, which they have only as long as they are “of good behaviour”, according to the Constitution Act?

Question 1 – Don’t the ethical standards of the Canadian Judicial Council require that a judge, when personally embroiled in such conflicts, must disqualify herself from a case that is similar in fact—i.e., defamation involving religious bigotry?

Question 2 – Should the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court, also a member of the Canadian Judicial Council, preside over a legal matter involving one of his own judges?

Question 3 – Doesn’t a party to a legal proceeding have the right to know what legal test they have to meet in court? If the Supreme Court of Canada changes the legal test in mid-trial, as Chief Justice McLachlin did in this case, isn’t there a obligation to allow the parties to the trial to re-state their case, incorporating the new standard?

Question 4 – What gives justices of the high court the right to repeat lies that defame an individual, and to embellish them, as happened in this case?

Question 5 – How can the Canadian Judicial Council be trusted to investigate its own activities? How can the legal “brethren” be trusted to sit in judgement of their own activities?

But the most important question of all in Mrs. Simpson’s letter to the Prime Minister is this:

Will you call for a parliamentary enquiry into this evidence of judicial corruption and mocking of the Rule of Law?

When judicial independence is abused to protect those who violate judicial probity, there must be a venue of appeal and accountability beyond the courts themselves; that is the essence of our Drive for Justice. There is a famous precedent in Canadian law: in 1929, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not “persons” in law. Five spunky women from Alberta appealed that ruling to the Privy Council at Westminster, which at that time had authority to review Supreme Court decisions; Canadians lost that right of appeal in 1947, and it has never been replaced. The loss of that right—to appeal to a body that is accountable to the Constitution—was a deficiency in Prime Minister Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution Act. That deficiency still needs to be corrected today.

Will the Prime Minister act to protect the integrity of the judicial system and the confidence of the Canadian people in the administration of law?

Stay tuned.