The Lawsuit Continues

On December 1, 2009, a prothonotary of the Federal Court dismissed the WaterWarCimes lawsuit after five applications to dismiss were filed by five different law firms. We are including Canada's Ministry of Justice and British Columbia's Ministry of the Attorney General under the phrase "law firms".

Two other large Canadian "law firms", with close linkages to the Canadian and British Columbia governments, were hoping to join the battle on behalf of various clients, all of whom work either for the Canadian or British Columbia governments, to try to get the WaterWarCrimes lawsuit thrown out of court, but, they missed the filing deadline so there were only five applications that the Court was considering or, we should say, "that the Court should have considered" because the prothonotary, improperly, considered the application by Ottawa lawyer Martin Mason, with the law firm of Gowlings, an application that was initially rejected because it filed outside the time limit set by the Court. Mr. Mason represents the Canadian Judicial Council and a group of judges who we believe were part of the judicial conspiracy against us. On one level, we were surprised the prothonotary would do this because Mr. Mason clearly did not have any status in the Court at that time. On another level, we were not surprised because there are some very influential and powerful people who are very desperate to stop our lawsuit from proceeding because it will expose their participation in the WaterWarCrimes.

We don't mind a fight. The bad guys can hire a hundred big law firms and, if we are allowed to get to court we, two average citizens, will beat them into the dirt because they have no case.

We have already destroyed eight judges (crooked lawyers in robes) who committed criminal offences in order to harm us.

Those judges thought there were protected by "the doctrine of judicial immunity". Well, did they ever learn a lesson. They are dead and "the doctrine of judicial immunity" didn't protect them one little bit, did it?

You can read about how those judges suddenly dropped dead when we exposed their criminal misconduct on the bench by visiting our web site http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/ on the page entitled "The Story - Caught in the Cross Fire"

Our allegations of the misconduct by some of the judges represented by Mr. Mason are set out on the Defendants page on our website http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/ The reader can look at the information filed under the names of Alberta Judges Barbara Romaine, Adele Kent, Sal Lovecchio and Donald Wilkins. Mr. Mason represents some other clients, such as the Canadian Judicial Council and its present and past executive directors, Norman Sabourin and Jeannnie Thomas, respectively. Mr. Maslon also represents Canada's Chief Justice, Beverly McLachlin whom we regard as an accomplice in these events.

We were fully anticipating that the prothonotary assigned to the WaterWarCrimes lawsuit would dismiss it. So, the prothonotary's decision was no surprise to us.

We had objected when the prothonotary, Mr. Roger Lafreniere, intervened and took over conduct of the case back in April, 2008, and asked for "a real judge". However, Federal Court Chief Justice, Alan Lutfy, would not permit "a real judge" to handle the case and, instead, appointed the prothonotary to be the case management judge.

We filed an appeal of the Chief Justice's Order, in May 2008, and sat back and watched to see how the prothonotary would do his job. Not surprisingly, the prothonotary delayed making a decision for 17 months and, then, dismissed our case, exactly as we anticipated he would.

The law regarding as application to dismiss a claim before a trial is not rocket science, so the case should have been decided in a matter of weeks.

Instead, we waited for 17 months. Was the delay intentional? We think so.

The prothonotary wrote in his decision that he waited until the appeal was over out of "deference" to the Federal Court of Appeal that was hearing our appeal of Chief Justice Lutfy's decision to appoint a prothonotary to handle the case.

We think that the comment is simply a face saving excuse by the prothonotary but we won't dwell on that issue here.

Incidentally, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed our appeal and said it was not-illegal for Chief Justice Lutfy to appoint a prothonotary to a case like the WaterWarCrimes lawsuit. We disagreed with the decision but accepted it and, after it was delivered, we wrote Chief Justice Lutfy requesting he direct the prothonotary "to sh-t or get off the pot". Well, to be truthful, we were more polite than that and about two months later the prothonotary delivered his decision against us.

A prothonotary is a lawyer who is, essentially, a well trained court clerk. He may know the law better than most court clerks and he probably knows the law of procedure better than most lawyers but, on nasty cases against the government, like the WaterWarCrimes case, a prothonotary is in very bad position because he has no job security.

If the prothonotary offends the people on the inside who are trying to hide the facts of this case he could lose his job tomorrow.

So, we will be kind to prothonotary Lafreniere and just say that we understand that he was in a very tough position, his career and job were on the line and "he did the best he could in the circumstances".

On December 7, 2009, we filed a Notice of Motion appealing the decision of the prothonotary and the appeal will be heard by a single judge of the Federal Court.

Today, January 7, 2010, we filed a 262 page Motion Record to follow up on that appeal and delivered copies to opposing legal counsel. In that Motion Record there is documentary evidence proving some very serious criminal misconduct by one or more of the Defendants in the WaterWarCrimes lawsuit.

The Governments of Canada and British Columbia are deathly afraid the Canadian people will learn the truth about the political corruption behind the WaterWarCrimes.

All opposing legal counsel are so concerned about possible media coverage for this case that that they have approached the Federal Court asking that the Appellants be required to argue their appeal in writing so that no one can listen to or report on the legal arguments presented to the Court.