REPLY TO MAINSTREAM CENSORSHIP MEDIA

I have struggled with the decision of whether to respond to online falsehoods, my heart is to explain the platform and let the people decide, my head says, mainstream censorship media will seek to profit from the lower credibility of black people by continuing to spread lies, so I decided to accept advise to respond to online publications which are publishing falsehoods by defrauding national and international law rights to publication of rebuttal evidence that their stories are false. I reluctantly decided to take that advice so as pre-empt mainstream censorship media attacks in an election where competence and ethics are the ballot question. In order to keep the focus on the platform, I will not provide a detailed rebuttal to these false allegations, I just want to provide a few reasons why Ottawa voters should ignore these false online publications.

The false online publications relate to my constitutional right to end the theft of over 7 billion democratic rights by educating the courts, governments, universities and other law related organizations. These matters have been pending for about 3 years before the Canadian Supreme Court, US Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights (about 800 million rights), Court of Justice for the European Union “CJEU”, United Nations Human Rights Council “UNHRC” (about 7.5 billion rights) and Organization of American States “OAS” (about 1 billion rights) Inter American Commission On Human Rights. They are legally required to publicly file my applications, the government’s reply and the court or tribunal decision, but for about 3 years they have been illegally silent on a mandatory duty to file the application.

Why Do The Judiciary, Police and Mainstream Censorship Media Want Ade Dead Or In Prison?

Every province or state or country has a different Elections Act or Electoral Act, for 8 years I took the truth to all 10 Canadian provinces, USA, Europe and Oceania continents. Rather than adjudicate the truth, judges acted in bad faith and without jurisdiction to defraud mandatory rights to access a court. This is the alleged crime for which some white judges seek my death or prison, by defrauding a black:

  • a.   s7 Charter right to access a Canada Health Act service despite a risk of death from depression or stress or in the process of an arrest, s9,s10 Charter right to a reason for 3 arrests & 16 threats of arrest, s12 Charter right to a reason why a white police officer closed a criminal investigation (opened by a black police officer) of a media outlet that defrauded rebuttal rights, s15 Charter right to a reason why twice, a white Chief Justice member of the Canadian Judicial Council reassigned the case to a white judge so as to violate a court order by a black judge that denied a government motion to defraud access to court,
  • b.   s8 Charter reason for a white police criminal investigation of a black victim at the request of a white judge who violated s140(1b) Criminal Code by repeating black slave trade historical crimes by threatening his black victim with 5 years prison. Whether or not this alleged judge is successful in his threat of 5 years prison or home seizure or substantial file, my Christian faith teaches me that death or prison should not deter me from defending against the theft of over 7 billion democratic rights. Upon the consideration that USA Congressman John Lewis was arrested over 40 times, Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny escaped death but is still in prison, the youngest Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai also escaped death, the lesson for me is that death will come when it comes, and prison is not the end.

 

The silence of these courts and tribunals, is for facilitating a theft of over 7 billion rights against: the unfettered political party power to exclude anyone from a nomination application for a government job or an elected party caucus without providing a reason or by providing a reason that does not comply with constitutional or international treaty exceptions to freedom of election, association, expression, employment, political opinion AND the unlawful floor crossing practice of changing the election ballot result without voter consent.

There are 3 problem sides of the representative democracy coin; 1) withdraw the nomination whip 2) withdraw the caucus whip 3) floor crossing. Some ECtHR decisions relied on unlawful Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe / Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights “OSCE/ODIHR” Venice Commission guidelines which violate the European Convention, EU / UN / OAS Treaties and Charters. This explains why 21 election results were changed without voter consent when 21 UK Conservative Party MPs lost the whip due to a disagreement with the Prime Minister no deal Brexit threat while negotiating with the EU.

The Canadian Commons Speaker provided a correct interpretation of the Parliament of Canada Act alleged right of the Liberal Political Party to expel 2 MPs due to a policy dispute between a Quebec Prime Minister desire to protect Quebec jobs and the Attorney General desire to enforce the criminal code against a Quebec company, but the Speaker was not asked to rule on if the Parliament of Canada Act is incompatible with Charter and international treaty rights to an s1 Charter test for expulsion from caucus.

Since about 1866 there have been about 200 cases of floor crossing in Canada and about 120 cases in the USA. While the USA courts are likely the only western democracy courts that have accurately interpreted 1) withdraw the nomination whip for political parties, they have not yet adjudicated 2) withdraw the caucus whip 3) floor crossing, which is why the Republican Conference threatened to expel a congress woman for reasons that include voting for the impeachment and investigation of her party leader.

Mainstream Media Evidence Re Mainstream Media Violation of s298 Criminal Code Libel

Media outlets in PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland took down publications about a court order because they received a copy of the record before the judge and realized that the judge lied. That 3 media outlets took down these publications is, in and of itself is evidence that other online media and court online publications are s298 Criminal Code falsehoods. If the content of the court order was true, there would be no need to take it down.

Neither media nor courts have s298 Criminal Code immunity for deliberate falsehoods. A little-known secret is that there is no difference between civil (balance of probabilities) libel and criminal (beyond all reasonable doubt) libel, the only difference is the test for conviction.

Some unethical white mainstream media hypocrites secretly believe that black politicians do not deserve equal benefit of this white politician law, consequently, they ignore s341a Criminal Code fraudulent concealment and s380(1a) Criminal Code rights to a published rebuttal, because the court and police with power to sanction them, are also a beneficiary of their crimes:

R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439…. Defamation is ..like Theft or Battery of the Person.. criminal libel is .. as a deliberate assault or causing damage to property

2016 ABQB 314 ..[9] .. rebuttal offered .. was not published. .. explanation for refusing to publish the rebuttal was “not reasonable” ..122] .. responsible communication on matters of public interest...e. whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported [152] . .journalists must: …(m)ake a genuine effort to contact anyone who is being criticized in a story…. Repeated attempts must be made to contact the target of the story, so that the person has a chance to respond to an allegation or to offer an explanation. ... courts have said a sincere effort must be made to contact the target of an accusation ... If an explanation is offered – even one that appears suspect or self-serving-fairness and the law demand that it be reported and given a prominent place …[156] … in the age of the internet… defamatory material can spread..

S7 Victims Bill of Rights To Outcome Of RCMP Criminal Investigation Of Canadian Judicial Council

Judges that commit crimes also decide whether to file a complaint against themselves this violates the constitutional rule of law against conflict of interest. For example, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who is defrauding the right to file at the Supreme Court is also the Chair of the Canadian Judicial Council who is defrauding a right to complain against his crimes at the Supreme Court.

I recommended different judges, exclusively for criminal misconduct complaints, a lawyer with prior personal interactions with any adjudicative judge should be prohibited from being a misconduct judge. I also recommend that an anonymized copy of complaints and the judicial council decision should be publicly available online.

The reason the OAS and UN are silent about the lack of US and Canadian Supreme Court jurisdiction to defraud the right to file might be linked to an s21b Criminal Code refusal of the Office of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner to seek a court order to: force the RCMP to disclose a copy of the oral interview which lead an Royal Canadian Mounted Police “RCMP” officer to open a criminal investigation of the Canadian Judicial Council “CJC” AND force the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP “CRCC” to disclose what they received from a foreign institution outside Canada which caused CRCC and the Public Safety Minister to endorse RCMP defrauding s7 Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to the investigation outcome.

Here is a little-known secret; morality is in the Canadian constitution preamble and s2e Canadian Bill of Rights to principles of fundamental justice. The legal test requires 1) a legal principle 2) evidence of societal consensus. For example, at the ECtHR, OAS & UN I assert the moral principle of fundamental justice that criminals should not profit from crime, which is also the s16 Canada Victims Bill of Rights to restitution. The former Canada Governor General David Johnston raised concerns that law schools do not teach enough ethics, US Supreme Court Chief Justice Neil Gorsuch said that a judge that likes every decision he writes, is a bad judge. This global problem arises from judges asserting a constitutional right to independence while Attorney Generals do not assert a constitutional right to criminal code enforcement.

Another little-known secret is that; any law or treaty right is an s380(1a) Criminal Code “service” so when a judicial council or Supreme Court or ECtHR or CJEU or OAS or UN or defrauds the right the right to appeal or complain they are committing a crime. They can grant or deny relief without lying and fraudulently concealing the record, they cannot refuse to file. According to s380(1a) Criminal code, when a judge deliberately lies about the content of an application or defrauds a mandatory s24 Charter court “service”, that judge is a criminal.

Rather than disprove this irrefutable legal fact, the alleged judge became unhinged and threatened violence of arrest and jail time which is another Criminal Code offence of extortion and intimidation. The evidence of his guilt is that rather than put me in prison for alleged contempt of court, he sought to prevent an appeal by directing police to intimidate me with a criminal investigation, but the Police and the OIPRD do not want to tell me if what I said to the judge is true. The judge did not need the police, as his accomplices at the Supreme Court are by their silence, defrauding a mandatory s40 Supreme Court Act right to file. This is a first in Canadian history, I am just a black immigrant who is not a lawyer, yet these judges who practice law everyday in the highest court in the land do not have to give reasons, so why are they afraid of filing?

Where the Canadian Judicial Council defrauds a mandatory Judges Act right to make a criminal misconduct complain, that is an s21b s22.2 s23 s122 Criminal Code offence. Breach of trust is engaged because CJC was the respondent in the court application, therefore they are using public power to obtain a personal benefit of avoidance of liability by defrauding the Judges Act.

No one would accuse a white immigrant from the UK of fake degrees or foreign residency skeletons or not being long enough in the country to understand or culture etc. these false allegations continued despite Canadian Government security clearance obtained through a 2-year CSIS investigation of all prior residences in Europe and Africa and a University of Toronto assessment of the degrees. It is not my wish to offend those who will decide whether I can serve as Mayor. Without the caucasian vote and the votes of supporters of federal and provincial political parties, it is impossible to be elected as mayor. Therefore, I cannot say more about why some white judges, white police and white media are so incensed that the black boy does not know his place in a white country. All I can do is hope for people to ignore these online s298 Criminal Code libel offences.

CJC lied to the RCMP, the CRCC lied to the RCMP; judicial immunity is not a constitutional doctrine; judicial independence is a constitutional doctrine, there is no criminal code immunity for judges and civil judicial immunity is a common law doctrine to enable judges adjudicate, therefore judicial crimes to prevent adjudication is a low hanging fruit for the RCMP. The lack of judicial criminal code immunity is another little-known secret, according to the RCMP and CRCC the judges below are lying:

Michel Girouard v Canada 2018 FC 865 “[6] .. Federal Court of Appeal recently recalled, such absolute power has no place within our democracy: .. all public power, even the most powerful of them ---the Governor General, the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Cabinet, Chief Justices and puisne judges, Deputy Ministers, and so on – must obey the law ... [7] Therefore, as per the fundamental principles of our democracy, all those who exercise public power, regardless of their status or the importance of their titles, must be subject to independent review and held accountable as appropriate. This also goes for the CJC and the chief justices ......

Bourbonnais v. Canada [2006] 4 FCR 170 [26]…. Sexton J.A., after reviewing the Canadian authorities on this point and, in particular, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Morier et al. v. Rivard … judicial immunity does not apply where it is shown that a judge knowingly acts beyond his jurisdiction.…[28]…. “Of course, if the judge has …has perverted the course of justice, he can be punished in the criminal courts.” …[30] …. immunity of judges from criminal liability is not total. In this respect the law of England is the same as that of the USA. Excepting the general principles of immunity discussed above, any judicial officer who violates the criminal law would be as liable therefore as any other private person. According to Woodhouse J. of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, “a judge can, of course, be made to answer, and in a proper case, pay dearly, for any criminal misconduct. Like any other citizen criminal proceedings may be brought against him.” This is because “criminal conduct is not part of the necessary functions performed by public official”.

I apologize for all the direct language, but I have only been in Canada for about 24 years, so I am still trying to learn the Canadian polite way of say saying something without saying something. The caucasian people of Ottawa are fair minded to consider that court records are public information, my accusers in the mainstream media can easily verify the facts above, that no media outlet can challenge the facts above, is, in and of itself, evidence that, this black’s defence is true. I hereby ask Ottawa to ignore these false online publications.