The Purpose of the Committee

The Canadian Committee For Constitutional Courts is dedicated to the creation of an independent and competent justice system in Canada that meets the express and mandatory requirements of the Canadian Constitution, the United Nations Univeral Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Covenant on Political and Civil Rights.

Proposals For Reform

Scroll down to bottom of blog for Proposals For Reform by the Canadian Committee for Constitutional Courts that have been send to Prime Minister Harper and Justice Richard Wagner who recenlty expressed concerns about Canada's system of justice.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Unions and Criminal Gangs Operating Inside Court Administration

Criminal Gangs Have Infiltrated the Courts in Canada
Judicial independence in Canada is heavily compromised by agents of both criminal gangs and the Canadian public sector union movement.

In British Columbia, for example, several judges are known to be associates or members of a secretive criminal gang with an extensive criminal network thoughout the province.  Members of this criminal gang regularly use gang member judges to fix the outcome of law cases involving fellow members.  The gang has infiltrated some of the police agencies in the Province and plays a behind the secenes role in the political corruption that is widespread in British Columbia.  Unlike the notorious Hell's Angels, this criminal gang keeps an extremely low profile and its criminal activities are not openly discussed by the media due to its tactics of fear and intimidation.  Like the Hell's Angels, this criminal gang has affiliates in other provinces and, based on expert reports that are undenied by Canada's Department of Justice, it has infiltrated the operations of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Click here to learn more about Criminal Gangs in the Canadian judiciary.

Click here to learn about criminal gang operations at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Although judges are not part of the general union movement in Canada, clerical and administratiuve staff at the courthouses across Canada are part of the union movement.  As members of the union movement, court staff are often caught interfering in the administration of justice to benefit their brothers and sisters in the movement. This kind of criminal activity is more often seen in the public service unions where unionized staff commit fraud and obstruction of justice in order to assist their colleagues in other government offices.

Click here to read about unionized Court Staff in Vancouver committing fraud and obstruction of justice to benefit union movement operatives.

Click here to read about unionized Court Staff at the Supreme Court of Canada committing other crime to benefit union movement operatives.

Between 1796 and 1799, Imperial Parliament of the British Empire attempted to address the operations of secret criminal organizations that were then operating throughout the British Empire by enacting the Unlawful Oaths Act and the Unlawful Societies Act.

These laws continue to be part of the law of Canada to this very day but they are not enforced and are somethat archaic in their language.  For example, anyone who is a member of a secret society that does not comply with the Unlawful Societies Act is subject to seven years `transportation` which  meant seven years imprisonment in a British penal colony.

The Canadian Committee for Constitutional Courts recommends that the Unlawful Societies Act and Unlawful Oaths Act be  strictly enforced by the Government of Canada among members of the Canadian judiciary, the legal profession, the police and court registry administrastive staff and that the Acts be amemded to replace the word `transportation`with its modern equivalent of ``√¨mprisonment`` .  

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Is Self Insurance A Threat To Judicial Independence

One of the great threats to an independent justice system in Canada is the legal monopoly which is self-insured and self-regulated and from from which all judges are chosen.   

For example, in British Columbia, the legal profession manages its own insurance scheme, while in some provinces with less population the respective legal professions have banded together to manage a similar system that covers their members in the provinces in question. 

So, when a person takes such a claim against his or her former lawyer, the court is no longer independent because the judge and both lawyers may have a sizable financial interest in the outcome.

In the notorious case of Cridge v Harper Grey Easton and others, (2004 BCSC 101 (CanLII)
the plaintiff was denied a jury trial because a judge ruled that a jury would be biased against the lawyers which is another way of saying that the judge will be biased in favour of the lawyer. The plaintiff had hired lawyer after lawyer to pursue her claim and they all delayed taking her case to court.

Eventually, she had to act for herself and proved that the Defendant, a major Canadian law firm, had engaged in a "straightforward case of inexcusable delay, procrastination and neglect of the plaintiff as a client, which did not meet the standard of care of the ordinary, prudent solicitor. A plaintiff’s claim cannot be allowed to languish for 18 years". 

Notwithstanding the obvious mis-conduct by the top drawer law firm, the judge protected her colleagues in the legal profession by refusing to grant aggravated and punitive damages that should have been awarded in such a case and, in convoluted, illogical, reasons, denied compensatory damages which should have been in the range of $1 million.  Instead, the plaintiff was awarded a insulting nominal sum of $100.00 and ordered to pay the costs of law firm. 

The plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia was denied without proper reasons and the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear her appeal.

Having been denied the right to a trial before an independant trubunal and the opportunity for an appropriate appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada, the plaintiff filed a claim with the United Nations Human Rights Commission where her complaint was denied on the basis of representations by the Minister of Justice for Canada, Rob Nicholson, (shown in above photo) that the plaintiff had not exhausted her domestic remedies without identifying what those remedies were. 

To this day, the Minister of Justice for Canada continues to protect the legal profession, of which he is a member, and the judges his Department appointed to the bench by refusing to advise the plaintff what domestic remedies remain available to her.

This is a classic example of how Canada's justice system functions where all the players are part of the same self-insurance schemes and protect each other at the expense of innocent victims with genuine grievances.

The Canadian Committee for Constitutional Courts recommends the following

1. That all claims against lawyers or law firm, the plaintiff be guaranteed the right to a jury trial and that in such claims the plaintiff be entitled to employ lawyers from outside of Canada as her advocates.

Editors Note: The law firm of Harper Grey Easton played a prominent role in one of the greatest legal frauds in Canada that is more fully explained at   

Friday, January 4, 2013

The First Step To Judicial Independence - Reform the Office of the Chief Justice.

Justice John C. Bouck
In his landmark exposee of the role of the Chief Judge or Chief Justice in Canada's various courts, John C. Bouck, a courageous Canadian judge, appealed directly to the public for reform in 1998 with a series of articles appearing in a prominent Canadian newspaper.

Justice Bouck candidly explained that the court system operated like a hockey team.  The Chief Judge, like the hockey coach who decided which players get to play in the game, decided which judges would hear certain cases.  Bouck wrote that there "A- Team" of key players or judges who were favoured by the Chief Justice and "B-Team" of less reliable judges or players.

Bouck wrote that judges from the A-Team were selected by the Chief Justice to handle certain the Chief Justice felt were important while judges from the B-Team were given cases that had no or little importance.  

What Bouck did not write  but what arises as the natural implication from his comments was that the Chief Justice was controlling the outcome of various law cases by the selection of judges he or she could rely on to deliver the verdict that the Chief Justice wished to have delivered.

The implicit conclusion that Chief Justices in Canada manage the outcome of certain law cases is supported by the available data gleaned from many key law cases where certain judges in Canada are regularly observed appearing in certain key cases and then twisting, perverting, bending and breaking the law in order to obtain a certain result. 

Bouck reasoned that one simple way to reform the process was to reform the position of Chief Justice or Chief Judge.

In the case of Canada's superior courts, which include the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Courts of Appeal and superior courts for all Canadian provinces and territories the Chief Justices in Canada are chosen for their positions by the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet with the approval of the Queen or Governor General and they hold that position until they resign or retire.  The retirement age is fixed at age 75 by the Judges Act and Chief Justices in Canada often hold the office for ten years or more giveing rise to complaints of  cronyism and other forms of corruption.

In the case of Provincal Courts, the Chief Judge is appointed by the local provincial Premier and her cabinet with the approval of the Queen's representaitve the Lieutenant Governor.

Bouck aregued that this was wrong.

Bouck argued that the best people to select a Chief Justice was not a politcian who knew nothing about managing a court but instead the judges of the court shold elect one of their members whom they respected and felt was capable and fit for the job, just like a hockey team elects its captain, like the House of Commons elects its speaker or like the Cardinals of Catholic Church elects its Pope.

Bouck also argued that the term of office should be fixed which would enable the judges of the court to control egomaniacal despots from taking over thge system.  Bouck suggested a terms of five years would be reasonable.

The Canadian Committee for Constitutional Courts has carefully reviewed the proposals of Justice John Bouck and advocates that those proposals be adopted, immediately, as a first step towards the establishment of a court system that complies with the requirements of Canadai's Constitution and the provisions of the United Nations Univeral Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Covenant on Political and Civil Rights that mandate an independent and impartial tribunal for the hearing of civil and criminal disputes.

For Chief Justices appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet this would require an appropriate amendment to the Judges Act which sets out the mandatory retirement ages for such judges.

In the case of Provincial Court Chief Judges, a similar amendment would have to be made to the applicable legislation. 

What Justice Bouck did not address was the role the the of the Chief Justice or Chief Judge in matters involving complaints of judicial misconduct.

At the present time, the Chief Justice of Canada, who is also the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, is the Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council, a body made up solely of Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices of Canada's superior courts and courts of appeal. The Canadian Judicial  Council is charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints of mis-conduct by Canada's federally appointed judges.  The obvious problem is that where a Chief Justice selects a member of his "A-Team" of judges to deliver a desired verdict that Chief Justice will naturally use his or her influence to make sure that complaints about judges involved in such verdicts are nre not treated seriously or are rejected on improper grounds.  There are so many well documented cases where this has taken place that Canadians no longer trust the Canadian judiciary as they once did before the Canadian Judicial Council was established in by Canada's, self admitted, communist Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, as part of his long term strategy to turn Canada over to the international elites that intend to establish a one world government controlled by a self-selected oligarchs. 

The Canadian Committee for Constitioional Courts submits that a proper reform of the office of the Chief Justice would require a reform of the system that reviews judicial mis-conduct.  Chief Justices should be completely removed from the process of examining and investigating complaints of judicial misconduct except in cases where their evidence is required to assist a hearing panel in their deliberations.  

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Supreme Court of Canada Building in Ottawa 
The Canadian Committee For Constitutional Courts was initially estblished as an ad hoc committee in 1999 to address the issue of the heightened politicization of the Canadian court sytem and judiciary during the political regime of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien (1993 to 2003) when several politically appointed Chief Justices were observed to be involved in the cover up of crimes by high level political figures in Canada.

Canada's Constitution has adopted the English model for its justice system. 

The English model was established in the 1400's in England and, with some minor modifications, continues as the primary civil and criminal dispute resolution system in the English speaking countries of the world to this very day.

The politicization of the judiciary has been a continuing issue for the countries of the Anglosphere and was a key factor in many historical events including the Magna Carta in 1215, the American Revolution, in 1776, and the Canadian Rebellions of the 1830's.

In addition to undue political influence in Canada's court system there are problems of independence that arise from the nature of Canada's legal profession, the continuing infiltration of the courts by Fremasonry and other organized crime groups and the influence of public sector unions that control many court positions.