|
The Methods of Fraud Within Canadian Courts |
 The Canadian Government methods are such that real evidence is not important. Government importance is given to what has been claimed by Canadian Judicial Council and evidence is not required to support the Council's allegations made. The Government of Canada uses unsupported claims made by the Canadian Judicial Council and its claim of independence to obstruct justice. The Canadian Judicial Council is a method of concealing corruption and fraud.
Although not recognized as a Canadian Court, significant is the Government of Canada recognizing the Canadian Judicial Council as a part of the Governments claim of judicial independence. The Government of Canada has deemed the independence of the Canadian Judicial Council and the issues relating to judges fraud and misconduct as the same. There is absolutely no credible place to present the proof of fraud and corruption in Canada today.
The Government of Canada created the Canadian Judicial Council in 1971, the Prime Minister federally appoints supreme court judges to his choosing. These are all political appointments, they are life long and not elected.
The Government of Canada appoints inquiry members to the Canadian Judicial Council, yet the Prime Minister and Justice Minister claim they are unable to assist in calling any independent inquiry into the courts.
This is the key part of Government involvement within the Courts and the cover up. These are high level, hidden tactics of cover up having the Government of Canada immediately claim independence although evidence of misconduct and fraud has been presented. It is difficult to imagine that Canadian Courts are deemed independent to include "without scrutiny", "fraudulent" and "unable to ask a judge questions when there is fraud". Lucky for the Canadian Government, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of Canada most Ordinary Canadians are greatly focused on what is on television and listening to the fake media rather than what is real and happening around them or in the courts. The evidence does not agree with the Canadian Judicial Council claims of trust. There is fraud. If the Canadian Government was truly independent it would ensure independent questions are asked. Independent questions are not asked. Obstruction of Justice goes to the highest levels of Government and Canadian Courts. Canadian Judicial Council bias is to support judges. The Canadian Government support is for the Canadian Judicial Council with its claim of independence. Evidence of misconduct is secondary for all these people, with the first priority to support each other. There is absolutely no independence of Canadian Courts having full participation of the Government of Canada, Justice Minister, Prime Minister and Chief Justice of Canada in suppressing corruption within the courts. The Canadian Judicial Council is the method for this corruption to happen within the Canadian Courts without the public being informed. The Government of Canada failure to act or ask questions is significant, it has protected Supreme Court Judges ability to allege evidence that does not appear, deny witnesses, construct judgements and have dinner with witnesses.
Read about Fraud within Canadian Courts https://canadianjudicialcouncil.com Click here |
About Canadian Judicial Council - Canadian Judicial Council |
| The Canadian Judicial Council was created in 1971 by the Parliament of Canada following many years of discussion about the need to coordinate professional development and judicial conduct matters for judges, in a way that would respect the judiciary as an independent branch of government. The review of complaints had previously usually been coordinated by Canada's Department of Justice, with the occasional involvement of local Canadian Chief Justices. |
|
The Canadian Judicial Council was granted power under the Judges Act to investigate complaints made by members of the public or the Attorney General about the conduct of federally appointed judges. After its review and investigation of a complaint, the Canadian Judicial Council can make recommendations to Parliament through the Minister of Justice that a judge be removed from office. |
|
Canada is one of the very few countries where a complaint can be made against the Canadian Chief Justice of Canada in the same way as any other judge. The Chief Justice of Canada is not involved in the review of complaints. |
|
In its 40-year history, the Canadian Judicial Council has only ordered 11 public inquiries and only twice recommended that a judge be removed from the bench. In the 145 years since Confederation, only five superior court judges have been recommended for removal from the bench. All but one resigned before being removed. |
|
The Canadian Judicial Council has declined to recommend removal even in cases where there was a finding of inappropriate conduct. In 2008, a Canadian Judicial Council inquiry panel recommended removing Ontario Superior Court Justice Theodore Matlow from the bench, but a majority of the full Canadian Judicial Council overruled the removal recommendation despite agreeing there was misconduct. Rocco Galati criticized the difficulty of removing judges, saying that "it's easier to get a constitutional amendment than to remove a judge." |
|
After a full panel of the Canadian Judicial Council ignored its committee recommendation and recommended that Quebec judge Michel Girouard should remain on the bench, federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée ordered the Canadian Judicial Council to reconsider its decision. |
| The Canadian Judicial Council has said that misconduct should not guarantee the judge's removal, and the gravity of the misconduct must be determined. Osgoode Hall Law School professor Trevor Farrow said that the rarity of removals reflects the high value that is placed on independence for judges in Canada. |
| The Canadian Judicial Council is composed only of judges. Galati criticized the makeup of the Canadian Judicial Council, pointing out that judges are the only truly self-regulating profession in Canada, and has urged public participation in the process. Osgoode Hall Law School professor Allan Hutchison argued that the Canadian Judicial Council should include members of the public, and criticized the hypocrisy of judges calling for natural justice in other professions. University of Calgary Faculty of Law professor and Canadian Association for Legal Ethics president Alice Wooley said including laypersons in the Canadian Judicial Council would ensure that the process is less insular and more transparent. |
| In September 2003, the Canadian Justice Review Board, a non-governmental advocacy group and "coalition of citizens," expressed concern that the Canadian Judicial Council is too secretive. Wooley criticized the Canadian Judicial Council for not clearly articulating what constituted misconduct worthy of sanctions. |
It is falsely claimed by the Judiciary and Government, that the Canadian system of justice is open and transparent to the public. The Canadian judiciary is claimed to be equal in that judgements are being written, filed and available for anyone to read. Yet when there is proof of fraud, judgement construction and judges involvement with the witnesses the Prime Minister's office, the Justice Minister's office and the Chief Justice of Canada prevent a formal examination of evidence effectively concealing this corruption and obstructing justice. This means when reading a judgement it is not very clear what material evidence had been excluded by a judge to provide benefit or what objections had been over-ruled or how the judge was involved with the evidence or what evidence was fraudulently fabricated and constructively manufactured by the Judge. There is fraud within Canadian Courts with full support from the Government of Canada and Canadian Judicial Council. They don't want you to know how corrupt the Canadian Courts are.
The process of looking into evidence of misconduct can include convening a hearing before jurors of ordinary people who would review the evidence of misconduct and agree or disagree that there is evidence of misconduct or whether or not the processes continue. To avoid the appearance of back room deals or a constructive application of law at any formal inquiry, the complainant must have the ability to request a jury or an unbiased panel to hear the evidence. These jurors must not be appointed by Government or the Courts.
A lack of scrutiny fails to permit the Canadian people to define the Canadian Government, Canadian Judges and Courts. While the crooked Canadian politicians and crooked Canadian Courts grow very much stronger and stronger, disturbing is they are able to do anything they please, it is easy for them to pick off Canadians one at a time or as a group. The Courts, Government of Canada and their friends are gaining greater corrupt criminal strength each day. They become able to make fraudulent claims, hand down corrupt judgements and do unlawful acts without explanation. All seem to view themselves as above the law and above the ordinary Canadian. All senior government officials, who are in control of society, each have reasons not to permit evidence of Judicial Fraud to surface in Canada... because this would make the Courts accountable to ordinary people. This is no mistake for these people... Although mistake may be claimed once they are challenged. As in the past an "easily accepted" Government claim of "learning from this" may once again be used in order to gain criminal control over Canadians. Canadian democracy cannot move forward at this time.