With the reputation of the Canada's Federal Court at stake and the stench of corruption by court officers, Mr. Carten & Ms. Gibbs of WaterWarCrimes has asked Federal Court Chief Justice, the Honourable Alan Lutfy, (shown here to the right) to allow their contempt application to proceed against Themis Program Management and Consulting Ltd., a subsidiary of the giant American corporation, Maximus Inc.
The following is a transcription of Mr. Carten's letter to Chief Justice Lutfy and all concerned legal counsel.
January 19, 2009
Registry of the Federal Court
Thomas D'Arcy MaGee Building
90 Sparks Street,
5th floorOttawa,
Ontario
K1A 0H9 Fax Number 613 943 xxxx
Attention: The Honourable Chief Justice Lutfy
Dear Mr. Justice Lutfy:
Re: Federal Court Action T-95-08
Carten & Gibbs v. HMTQ and others,
On behalf of the Plaintiffs, I am writing to suggest that you order the Plaintiffs' contempt application against Themis Program Management and Consulting Ltd., herein Themis, proceed to a hearing prior to the hearing or the Plaintiffs appeal of the decision of the prothonotary made December 1, 2009.
The Plaintiffs believe that this recommendation will, greatly assist to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of this proceeding on its merits and at the same time preserve and protect the integrity, authority and dignity of your Court. Two issues that should be your foremost consideration.
Federal Court Rule 3
Federal Court Rule 466 (c )
I had just completed the process of serving the Motion Records, for the contempt Motion to be heard January 25, 2010, when I returned to my office, opened my computer, reviewed the prothonotary's direction and realized the matter was now in your capable hands. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are now in a position to proceed quickly with the contempt application.
The Motion, in our Motion Record, specifically asks for leave to proceed, in compliance with the prothonotary's direction of April 11, 2008, and in compliance with the most recent direction of January 18, 2010.
The conduct of Themis was so scandalous and so unprecedented that the reputation, integrity, authority and dignity of your Court is now at risk unless the issue is resolved. Please consider the following:
1. The contemptuous act was carried out by a senior employee of Themis, a party to Action T-95-08. The Plaintiffs do not yet know whether Themis was acting alone or in league with the other Defendants. There may have been a generalized criminal conspiracy among one or more of the Defendants, all of whom are represented by prominent legal counsel. The contempt process should assist to identify if there are any co-conspirators among the remaining Defendants.
2. The contemptuous act was carried out by a lawyer that is a stranger to this proceeding, T-95-08, but , who is a long term employee of Themis. Therefore, it is probable she was taking directions from some unidentified person or persons.
3. The contempt proceeding will elicit evidence that will be useful to the appellants on appeal to assist to prove a criminal conspiracy against them by insiders with the Governments of British Columbia and Canada.
4. The issue goes to the integrity, dignity and authority of the Court in respect which you are the Chief Justice. One of your Officers carried out a criminal act, namely, obstruction of justice. The act was observed by at least two witnesses who have provided sworn evidence to that effect. Your Officer engaged in a criminal act that was, most probably, intended to assist a party to Federal Court Action T-95-08. The most probable suspect is her employer, Themis, which is why we are bringing the application against Themis.
5. The conduct of the Court Officer in question must be investigated. Ms. Platt has probably done this kind of thing more than once. From the perspective of the Plaintiffs, as litigants, if Ms. Platt and her unidentified colleagues were prepared to secretly persuade Mr. Justice Leask to breach his Oath of Office why would she and her colleagues not do the same with the prothonotary who rendered his decision against the Plaintiffs on December 1, 2009 and who is, by his direction of January 18. 2010, shileding them from investigation? The whole matter reeks of corruption.
6. The Plaintiffs remind the Court that a contempt application may be brought ex parte but, in this case, all parties were served and, shortly afterward, the prothonotary issued his directive of January 18, 2010. Was this another attempt to obstruct justice through secret communication to a judicial officer?
Federal Court Rule 467 (2)
7. The Plaintiffs submit that the issue merits the involvement of the Canadian Judicial Council's investigative arm that may wish to review this matter directly with Mr. Justice Leask and get his evidence before Ms. Platt and her colleagues are able to threaten Mr. Justice Leask should he blow the whistle on them. As you know, there have been some sudden deaths of other judges in a similar position who were linked to this case.
There is some speculation that Mr. Justice Leask is a Freemason and that Ms. Platt used Freemasonic signals and gestures to communicate with him. At this time, we have been unable to verify this information but, if Mr. Leask or Ms. Platt are associated with Freemasonry, then Mr. Leask may be in a very, very, difficult situation when asked to give evidence against “a sister” due to the Masonic Oath. I will leave this vexing issue in your capable hands.
Finally, on the issue of the whether or not the appeal of the decision of the prothonotary should be by way of an oral hearing or in writing, the Plaintiffs submit, with respect, that the Federal Court Rules do not confer any discretion upon the Court to order the matter be resolved solely by written submissions unless the moving party makes a motion to that effect.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Yours very truly,
John Frederick Carten
Telephone number 509 590 xxxx
PO Box 20227
RPO Towne Centre
Kelowna, B.C.
V1Y 9H2
E-mail johnfcarten@yahoo.com
Follow current events by visiting our Blog http://waterwarcrimes.blogspot.com/
Learn the background by visiting our Web Site http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/
cc: John Sims, solicitor for HMTQ(Can) and others
cc: Hugh Gwillim, solicitor for HMTQ (BC) and others
cc: Bruce Comba, solicitor for LSA
cc: Michael Armstrong, solicitor for LSBC and others
cc: James Sullivan, solicitor for Themis
cc: Eric Williams, solicitor for Lang Michener
cc: Martin Mason, solicitor for CJC and others
cc: David Frances, legal counsel, Maximus Inc. owner of Themis.
The following is a transcription of Mr. Carten's letter to Chief Justice Lutfy and all concerned legal counsel.
January 19, 2009
Registry of the Federal Court
Thomas D'Arcy MaGee Building
90 Sparks Street,
5th floorOttawa,
Ontario
K1A 0H9 Fax Number 613 943 xxxx
Attention: The Honourable Chief Justice Lutfy
Dear Mr. Justice Lutfy:
Re: Federal Court Action T-95-08
Carten & Gibbs v. HMTQ and others,
On behalf of the Plaintiffs, I am writing to suggest that you order the Plaintiffs' contempt application against Themis Program Management and Consulting Ltd., herein Themis, proceed to a hearing prior to the hearing or the Plaintiffs appeal of the decision of the prothonotary made December 1, 2009.
The Plaintiffs believe that this recommendation will, greatly assist to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of this proceeding on its merits and at the same time preserve and protect the integrity, authority and dignity of your Court. Two issues that should be your foremost consideration.
Federal Court Rule 3
Federal Court Rule 466 (c )
I had just completed the process of serving the Motion Records, for the contempt Motion to be heard January 25, 2010, when I returned to my office, opened my computer, reviewed the prothonotary's direction and realized the matter was now in your capable hands. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are now in a position to proceed quickly with the contempt application.
The Motion, in our Motion Record, specifically asks for leave to proceed, in compliance with the prothonotary's direction of April 11, 2008, and in compliance with the most recent direction of January 18, 2010.
The conduct of Themis was so scandalous and so unprecedented that the reputation, integrity, authority and dignity of your Court is now at risk unless the issue is resolved. Please consider the following:
1. The contemptuous act was carried out by a senior employee of Themis, a party to Action T-95-08. The Plaintiffs do not yet know whether Themis was acting alone or in league with the other Defendants. There may have been a generalized criminal conspiracy among one or more of the Defendants, all of whom are represented by prominent legal counsel. The contempt process should assist to identify if there are any co-conspirators among the remaining Defendants.
2. The contemptuous act was carried out by a lawyer that is a stranger to this proceeding, T-95-08, but , who is a long term employee of Themis. Therefore, it is probable she was taking directions from some unidentified person or persons.
3. The contempt proceeding will elicit evidence that will be useful to the appellants on appeal to assist to prove a criminal conspiracy against them by insiders with the Governments of British Columbia and Canada.
4. The issue goes to the integrity, dignity and authority of the Court in respect which you are the Chief Justice. One of your Officers carried out a criminal act, namely, obstruction of justice. The act was observed by at least two witnesses who have provided sworn evidence to that effect. Your Officer engaged in a criminal act that was, most probably, intended to assist a party to Federal Court Action T-95-08. The most probable suspect is her employer, Themis, which is why we are bringing the application against Themis.
5. The conduct of the Court Officer in question must be investigated. Ms. Platt has probably done this kind of thing more than once. From the perspective of the Plaintiffs, as litigants, if Ms. Platt and her unidentified colleagues were prepared to secretly persuade Mr. Justice Leask to breach his Oath of Office why would she and her colleagues not do the same with the prothonotary who rendered his decision against the Plaintiffs on December 1, 2009 and who is, by his direction of January 18. 2010, shileding them from investigation? The whole matter reeks of corruption.
6. The Plaintiffs remind the Court that a contempt application may be brought ex parte but, in this case, all parties were served and, shortly afterward, the prothonotary issued his directive of January 18, 2010. Was this another attempt to obstruct justice through secret communication to a judicial officer?
Federal Court Rule 467 (2)
7. The Plaintiffs submit that the issue merits the involvement of the Canadian Judicial Council's investigative arm that may wish to review this matter directly with Mr. Justice Leask and get his evidence before Ms. Platt and her colleagues are able to threaten Mr. Justice Leask should he blow the whistle on them. As you know, there have been some sudden deaths of other judges in a similar position who were linked to this case.
There is some speculation that Mr. Justice Leask is a Freemason and that Ms. Platt used Freemasonic signals and gestures to communicate with him. At this time, we have been unable to verify this information but, if Mr. Leask or Ms. Platt are associated with Freemasonry, then Mr. Leask may be in a very, very, difficult situation when asked to give evidence against “a sister” due to the Masonic Oath. I will leave this vexing issue in your capable hands.
Finally, on the issue of the whether or not the appeal of the decision of the prothonotary should be by way of an oral hearing or in writing, the Plaintiffs submit, with respect, that the Federal Court Rules do not confer any discretion upon the Court to order the matter be resolved solely by written submissions unless the moving party makes a motion to that effect.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Yours very truly,
John Frederick Carten
Telephone number 509 590 xxxx
PO Box 20227
RPO Towne Centre
Kelowna, B.C.
V1Y 9H2
E-mail johnfcarten@yahoo.com
Follow current events by visiting our Blog http://waterwarcrimes.blogspot.com/
Learn the background by visiting our Web Site http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/
cc: John Sims, solicitor for HMTQ(Can) and others
cc: Hugh Gwillim, solicitor for HMTQ (BC) and others
cc: Bruce Comba, solicitor for LSA
cc: Michael Armstrong, solicitor for LSBC and others
cc: James Sullivan, solicitor for Themis
cc: Eric Williams, solicitor for Lang Michener
cc: Martin Mason, solicitor for CJC and others
cc: David Frances, legal counsel, Maximus Inc. owner of Themis.
No comments:
Post a Comment