Democracy, a work in progress

"Other Nations follow our lead, we share the responsibility to humanity’s journey to get this right."


Requisition Request
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] We the People seek the wisdom of the Appeal Court of British Columbia to weigh-in and clarify the Court’s thoughts, concerning Justice Cole’s closing comments in British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 440, docket: S085226. Justice Cole has acknowledged this aspect of his decision is patently unfair. This is a very special case, and involves the inalienable right of Provincial Democracy to be protected by rule of Federal Law. It is of paramount importance to Canadian Jurisprudence to revisit this.

[2] Requisition Order sought. Require the Court to instruct the Victoria Court Registrar to file my Leave of Appeal documents. The Registrar has refused, saying that since I was not a participant in the Supreme Court file, that I have no standing. It is for the High Court, not the Registrar, to decide the merits of my right to file a Leave to Appeal notification. Please note, that the Registrar did not refuse my application based on the Court of Appeal Rule 54; my documents were in order. Supreme Court Rule 64(9) grants the right make a requisition request. Supreme Court Rule 64(11) grants that a Judge may order a proceeding be registered with the registry. Not restricted by the generality of Rule 64(11).

[3] It is understood that granting this Requisition does not translate that the Appeal Court accepts this appeal. But it does mean the Appeal Court gets the opportunity to decide to hear this matter. I believe it is important to reassure the Court and share that I have been contacted by Mr. David Eby, the executive director of the BCCLA, in the past, and he promised to connect me with a lawyer for my Charter challenge concerning the Single Transferable Vote Referendum’s complete ban on political advertising. Gives me hope that a professional legal team will takeover and handle this Leave to Appeal once it is filed.

[4] The appeal issue is very specific. I am not appealing the main subject matter of the decision, as of course I agree with Justice Cole about the illegality, of the extreme precampaign free speech time limit restriction period -- and the illegality of BC Liberal’s extreme, all encompassing definition of what constitutes political advertising. I am only appealing the last two paragraphs of his decision that establishes the jurisprudence to permit a Justice to make a patently unfair decision concerning our democracy

[5] I strongly disagree with the position that provincial politicians have the authority to enact legislation, which limits and restricts the Court’s jurisdiction, to jealously defend the democratic dreams of the Nation of Canada. It’s a slippery slope to allow the Province to restrict the Court’s access to political justice, based on conditions the Province arbitrarily sets.

[6] Justice Cole’s closing comments: 2009/03/30 Remedy [285]Because there are spending limits for registered political parties and candidates during the 60-day precampaign period (election expenses of $1.1 million for political parties under s. 198(1) (a) and $70,000 for candidates under s. 199(1) (a)) it would be patently unfair to have those restrictions apply when there are none for third parties. [286] The Attorney General takes the position that since there was no notice under the Constitutional Question Act, that I have no jurisdiction to deal with those particular sections of the act. I agree with the Attorney General. I therefore leave it up to the legislature to take the necessary corrective action in respect to this unfairness to the political parties and the candidates during the precampaign period. 2009/03/31 [3] “As I indicated in the last few paragraphs of my judgement, the solution here is straightforward; there is no complex remedy required.”

[7] Appeal summary: And further take notice that the Court of Appeal will be moved at the hearing of this application for an order that: "no further" notice was required under British Columbia's Constitutional Questions Act for the Court to strike down section, 198(1)a 199(1)a. Seek an order that the Court did in fact have jurisdiction to deal with those particular sections of Bill 42.

[8] The grounds of the appeal are: Canadian Charter Section 33 registration, trumps Constitutional Questions Act Section 8.2(b) & 8(3) registration. The British Columbia Constitutional Questions Act is not registered under Section 33 of the Charter; and is therefore, is of no-force-and-effect to limit the Court in matters defending our democracy during critical moments. Democracy demands that Federal Law be supreme and supersede Provincial law in election fraud. Justice Cole's decision to agree that the Court has no jurisdiction is wrong and must not stand.

Appeal time limit issue:
[9] Appeal Court Rule S.10(1) A Justice may extend or shorten the time within which an appeal to the Court or application for Leave to Appeal may be brought. The Appeal Court thus has the discretion to make a judgment call to vary the 30 day file time limit statute. There are several persuasive arguments why the High Court should wish to grant an extension. An election and referendum were occurring during part of the Leave to Appeal time limits, complicating matters. This appeal is of public interest, and therefore it would go against the public interest to halt the appeal based on a time technicality. Political law must not limited by time statues, as political law is a distinct field of law separate from both criminal law and civil law. Civil Appeal Handbook 3.15 Leave is often granted where the proposed appeal raises matters of interest to the public generally or to a large class of People. Civil Appeal Handbook 3.16 states a Leave may be granted if the issue is important to the practice of law. A Lower Court's decision limiting the Court’s power as the defender of our Democracy, is a national security concern, that High Court should have the opportunity to engage.

[10] When the State cheats in the election process to help win an election, time limits should not cover up such corruption. The defendant shut down the political free speech communication transmission notification mechanisms in the Province for an illegal period of time; which therefore, must translate that the defendant has forfeited their right to claim the appeal notification time limit.

[11] Further, the failure of Court to grant an injunction order to stop the Province’s censorship on political free speech; obligates the Court to some give and take. Canadian jurisprudence, Harper v. Canada, demands absolutely that Judges jealously defend democracy, which means in this case granting my right to file regardless of the time elapsed and standing.7

Issue of standing:
[12] The Law is that in exceptional circumstances, that yes a none participant in a Supreme Court action can appeal. See Richard Niebubr Enterprises Ltd. v.Vancouver (City) Board 2007 and Fontaine v. Canada (Atterney General). Therefore, the issue of not being part of the original Supreme Court action, does not stop my right to appeal. The Civil Appeal Handbook S.4.7 states that Parties who did not participate in or have formal standing in the proceeding below do not have standing to appeal other than in exceptional cases. Political law is this exception. The language of Appeal Rule S.3 uses the word, “A person can appeal.” The Interpretation Act does not define a person, as being the plaintiff or the defendant; thus the Appeal Court does have discretion here. It goes against our founding fathers grand design to deny voters the right to appeal Lower Court decisions that harm our Democracy. When the Lower Court opens Pandora’s box, the Higher must be given the opportunity to close it.

[13] The Attorney General is on record as saying that the appeal issue, was not an issue for the plaintiff, that therefore it should not be seized. The Court's authority to interfere and define the political landscape, is premised on the right on none participants to appeal these types of political decisions. Our democracy is faltering, barely more than 50 percent of the electorate voted in this non free speech provincial election -- if one does the math and counts the non registered voters, that more than fifty percent did not vote; therefore BC politics is in an dire situation; and therefore, it would be irresponsible to not help, but ere in lye’s the problem, if I cannot appeal, how can the Court make things right? The Court desperately needs this appeal to save our barely functioning democracy. The Court must assert Canada’s dominance over rouge provincial politicians.

What does the Court get out of the transaction:
[14] Conundrum. Responsibility to safe guard future arbitrators and their decisions from the logic dilemma Justice Cole faced. The argument: can you change A, if you do not have right to change B, but changing A changes B? Justice Cole acknowledges changing B in a patently unfair way. Therefore the Court’s position is untenable; as in fact B was tinkered with. The Court therefore must be equipped with the jurisdiction to change B in the correct way, as again tinkering A, tinkers B. This logic also supports the right of none participants in the original action about A, should have access to the appeal process, as the Court altered B, which it should not have, if the Court bows away from defending the right of voters to appeal B..

[15]. Opportunity to equip future Courts with an analytical tool to stifle election fraud. Justice Cole’s report failed to ask and answer the big question, to whether or not, these election rules were manipulated to intentional provide an illegal advantage in the election process. Being cynical is vital, when politicians can make up the rules to elect themselves, and base election rules not on what is right, but what they can get away with. Judicial review of election wrong doing must include a written component that directly questions and determines the motives behind an election law; as this approach would create worry in the minds of unethical politicians that would violate the Charter to steal an election. The Court is vanguard of Democracy. Failure to question the motives behind these extreme free speech Charter violations diminishes Canada.

[16] Failure to grant an injunction aided and abetted the budget lie. Jurisprudence is now obligated to make it easier to get an injunction the next time, when free speech is restricted for large blocks of time. (Hopefully there is no next time.) This is a good lesson for Jurisprudence that politicians lie. Honourable statesmen do not ban free speech! Wide spread allegations that the BC Liberal Party cooked the books. CBC news quote reporting the financial affairs of the Province and the deficit ballooned to 2.8 billion. ”The minister said two days after the Liberals were elected to a third straight term on May 12, he was told the revenue shortfall would be more than 1.1 billion.” “At no time did finance officials suggest to me that that $495-million deficit was not doable.” Is it believable? Is it true that two days after the election, then and only then did the BC Liberal party realized this fraud? What happened in that one day after the election to change things? The backroom official, that devil, went to bed knowing he was going to inform the government about the change in the budget numbers, the next day -- makes this a Coup! The Attorney General is in a catch 22, as the Attorney General is the one responsible for policing and prosecuting those officials. Duty of the Attorney General to inform Justice Cole about this situation, when advocating to retard the Public’s free speech. [New matters arising on appeal. Fresh evidence. Under Rule 31 a party may adduce evidence that was not before the court appealed from with leave of the Court or a Justice.]

[17] It should concern the High Court that the Lower Court decision, failed to mention the scope of the crack down against political free speech in the Province. Jurisprudence must advocate that in free speech charter challenges that the full extent that free speech is being suppressed be part of the analysis. The government has a limited capital to restrict free speech -- and as the Province choose to completely ban political advertising for the referendum – this in Canadian Jurisprudence should reduce their ability to restrict free speech elsewhere. This case is an excellent learning tool to do this. Interestingly, the complete ban on political advertising for the referendum, created a feed back loop, that Bill 42 without say it, banned election advertising from mentioning the referendum. (Analogy, imagine judging an assault case where two punches are thrown, it would negligent to judge the smaller of the punches, while ignoring and second, more extreme punch.)

[18] I bring to the attention of the Court that I was involved in the STV referendum. I am an advocate for political reform. And as a registered referendum advertiser, my right to political advertise was banned! And, the precampaign time limit for the STV referendum was even longer than Bill 42 precampaign election time restrictions. Political reform advertisers could not mention any subject or topic that is a position of any candidate as that would constitute political advertising. So I do disagree with Justice Cole’s paragraph 253, when he writes “I do not consider that part of the definition of election advertising that refers to an advertising message that directly promotes or opposes a political party or candidate to raise problems.” This phrase was huge disappoint to political reformers.

[19] The onus in Charter examinations, is that the Attorney General must affirm the right to the intrusion. It is not for the individual to prove. Therefore, there is worry when the intervener, one of the public’s super heroes is ignored when the Court is tasked with deciding what democracy’s true face is. Other Nations follow our lead, therefore we all have the responsibility to humanity’s journey to get this right. We need to be reassured that the next time our interveners are heard. Did Justice Cole consider all the intervener's arguments when he refused to grant the injunction, yes or no?

Right of the Supreme Court of Canada to review this matter:
[20] If the Court decides to deny this my right to file with Registrar – or the Appeal Court denies my right to appeal -- it is respectfully asked the Court please provide the reasons in writing. Please appreciate that Court's position on the right of voters to appeal this decision is a defining moment in Canadian democracy. It is requested, that if the time limit or my standing to become a plaintiff in this matter, is a concern, that the Court request that both me and defendant have an opportunity to prepare a written brief to why the Court should accept our positions. I also ask for time to review the defendant’s submission to counter their arguments.

Final comments:
[21] Do you actually really think the Attorney General of Canada was going become included in this and make an appearance? How important is the principle of inclusion, when Justice Cole in paragraph 35-42 says he declined to entertain the intervener’s submissions? How can the State simultaneously demand that the Court has no leeway to adjust the notification rules, when politicians shut up our rights to communicate and make notices? It should trouble the Court, if the British Columbia Attorney General opposes the Court’s authority to revisit this decision, as these individuals working for the Office of the Attorney General represent all of us. Thank you for reading over this legal brief – and thank you for granting the right to file my Leave to Appeal with the Court Registrar.

[22] The Court must always error on the side of Democracy.