a judge’s conduct/behaviour - canadian government conspiracies

Go to content

a judge’s conduct/behaviour

Our Human Rights > Canadian social safety net
Canadian Judicial Council
Last revised on Sunday, July 16, 2017 Last reviewed 2017-09-07

see "Important"  in the Recent Reveision section above

As agreed, there are 4 national tribunals mentioned in the British North America Act? Section 96 has the Superior, District, and County Courts which are to be found in each Province and section 101 has General Court of Appeal for Canada.
a)    Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. All juristic governments are elected by enumerated classes of subject which have no authority to merge or stream line the above mentioned courts to include private individuals under their jurisdiction without violating Charter s31 which triggers Charter s52 2017-07-13
 
As agreed, any self-represented woman or man according to the Canadian Judicial Council should have the following expectations when seeking court remedies:
 
a)    Ottawa, 12 December 2006 – The Canadian Judicial Council issued a statement of principles today on self-represented persons, to foster equal access to justice and equal treatment under the law.
i)      These principles will assist key participants in the justice system to ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal treatment in the bijural courts and receive a fair trial.
ii)     Judges and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote opportunities for everyone to understand and meaningfully present their case, whether or not they have legal representation." To make sure that people are standing in an inherent jurisdiction courts seeking the administration of justice not a statutory court!
iii)    "After a detailed examination of the issue, the Committee concluded that self-represented persons are generally uninformed about their rights and about the consequences of the options they choose like agreeing to enter statutory courts," said Chief Justice Monnin.
iv)   Woman or man will find court procedures deliberately complex, confusing and intimidating in violation of charter s26, s27 and s31 and they are not given or provided with the knowledge or skills to participate actively and effectively in their own litigation."
v)    This unanimous high bench endorsed the Canadian Judicial Council’s 2006 statement of principles on self-represented litigants that judges “should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.”
vi)  As agreed, many of the CJC Statement of Principles (Highlights) are in reality actually inalienable human rights and fundamental freedoms?
vii)   The Canadian Judicial Council is a federal body created under the Judges Act with the mandate to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve the quality of judicial service in the superior courts of Canada constitution Act s96, that deals with the non-enumerated classes of subjects. These are not the courts under legislate codes, rules, regulations, statutes, policies, or procedures. 2017-07-13
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
R v Duncan was heard by Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice.
A minor alleged Highway Traffic Act offence — an unsignalled turn — led to an altercation with a police officer in the parking lot of Duncan’s apartment building. A request that Duncan produce his licence led to an alleged refusal to do so, an attempt to arrest him, a struggle, and the arrest of Duncan for allegedly assaulting a police officer. Justice O’Donnell acquitted Duncan of the charge because there was no lawful basis for the stop and thus no lawful basis for the demand for identification and thus no lawful basis for the arrest for failing to produce identification. As the arrest was unlawful, even if Duncan resisted, he was entitled to do so. The acquittal was entered as the result of something equivalent to a motion for non-suit that was made at the conclusion of the Crown’s case by the Court on Duncan’s behalf. It was a happy outcome for Duncan, but it came at a large cost to his dignity.
There is no doubt these Highway Traffic Act proceedings did include a number of the indicia of OPCA litigation that were listed by Justice Rooke in Meads. Duncan talked about being a split person, with both natural person and administrator aspects (footnote 1); he provided an “affidavit of truth” objecting to the court’s jurisdiction over him and denying he was a citizen of the country or province, a “person,” or someone with a contract with the court (at para 9); he produced a “fee schedule” just before his altercation with the police (at para 12); etc. In Meads Justice Rooke describes the uses of these concepts and tactics (and more) in other cases (at paras 199-253).
Mr. Duncan proclaimed that he had no obligation to produce identification to the police officers. In that moment Mr. Duncan momentarily hit upon the concept that would ultimately lead to his acquittal!

An unrebutted “affidavit of truth” is the law!
No consent to this statutory courts jurisdiction
No contract
not an enumerated class of subject of the province
a judge’s conduct/behaviour

How do I complain about the conduct--as opposed to the ruling--of a judge or judicial justice?

The Judicial Council of the Provincial Court of British Columbia conducts inquiries regarding the conduct of provincially appointed judges and judicial justices.  Information about how to file a complaint about the conduct of a provincial court judge or judicial justice can be found on the Provincial Court of British Columbia website.

The Canadian Judicial Council conducts inquiries regarding the conduct of federally appointed judges.  Information about how to file a complaint about the conduct of a Supreme Court judge can be found on the Canadian Judicial Council website.

Recent Revisions - Published Notices - Our Human Rights
Judicial conduct

Federal appointed judges

Below is an introduction to some general principles of judicial conduct that may give you some added insight into the very high standards to which judges strive.
  • Perhaps     the most important qualification of a judge is the ability to make     independent and impartial decisions. Indeed, an independent judiciary is     the right of every Canadian and is carefully protected. Judges strive to     reject any outside influence that may impact on their ability to make     independent decisions.
  • Judges     should, at all times, exhibit and promote high standards of conduct so as     to reinforce public confidence. Judges should strive to conduct themselves     in a way that will sustain and contribute to public respect and confidence     in their integrity, impartiality and good judgment.
  • Judges     should perform their duties with diligence while treating everyone before     the court with courtesy and equality, being careful to avoid stereotyping     or discrimination. Judges should avoid comments, expressions, gestures or     behaviour which may be interpreted as showing insensitivity or disrespect.
  • In     making their decisions, judges must be and must appear to be impartial at     all times. Judges must be mindful of how inappropriate comments, improper     remarks or unjustified reprimands can undermine the appearance of     impartiality and actively work to avoid them.
Visitors are encouraged to refer to Ethical Principles for Judges pdf for a more detailed discussion on these general principles. [http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_judicialconduct_Principles_en.pdf]
Making A Complaint


Who can make a complaint? Any member of the public can make a complaint to the Council provided the complaint is about judicial conduct, is made in writing, and is about a specific federally appointed judge, the Council will review the matter.

CONTACT US

Questions and comments about the Council can be sent by e-mail at info@cjc-ccm.gc.ca or by mail to:

Canadian Judicial Council
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0W8

tel. (613) 288-1566; fax (613) 288-1575

How do I make a complaint?

The Canadian Judicial Council seeks to ensure a fair process when a complaint is made against a judge. Every complaint is considered seriously and conscientiously.

You do not have to be represented by a lawyer if you want to make a complaint about a judge. You do not need to use a special form to make a complaint to the Council although one is offered here for your convenience. There is no fee charged and no deadline for making a complaint. The Council requires only that a complaint be:

in writing;
about a named, federally appointed judge; and
about the conduct of a judge and not their decision.
You can write a letter to the Canadian Judicial Council, and send it by regular mail (Canadian Judicial Council, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0W8) or by email. Your letter should include:

your name and address;
the name of the judge you are making a complaint against; and
a description of the judge’s conduct that you believe was inappropriate.

Checklist for making a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council
  • no deadline
  • no fee
  • no need for legal representation
  • no special form required
  • complaint must:
    • be about a federally appointed judge
    • be about a judge’s conduct (not a decision the judge made in court)
    • be in writing
    • be sent by mail or email
    • include your name and address
    • give the judge’ s name
    • provide the date, court, and circumstances of the judge’s conduct in question
    • describe the judge’s conduct in question
  • You can also use the optional COMPLAINT FORM if you prefer. http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/conduct_en.asp?selMenu=conduct_frm_en.asp

First Name

Last Name

Email

Address

Telephone

Background info:

Name of judge

Name of Court and location

Court case number

Date of actions that led to complaint

Description of your complaint:

In your own words, describe the conduct of the judge.
Please be as specific as possible in describing the instances of potential misconduct you wish to complain about.
In considering whether you wish to submit a complaint, please remember that that the Canadian Judicial Council is not a court and cannot change the decision of a judge.  If you wish to challenge a judge’s decision, the proper recourse is for you to seek an appeal to a higher court.
By Summary Agreement

Any government agent or representative who has any problems with any of the points listed, bring them forward under your full commercial liability and complete contact information and we can discuss the issue here and if needed in a common law court.

  1. Human rights must themselves be protected by the rule of law;  
Copyright 2015-2019 - all Human Rights Reserved
Blog
Site Map
Back to content