BC Courts protecting agents and enablers of an Islamic terrorist regime

Since 2020, dealing with my action Masjoody v. Simon Fraser University, the courts of British Columbia (Supreme Court and Court of Appeal) have persistently covered up for agents and enablers of the terrorist Mullahs regime in Iran among which agents is the ballistic missiles expert Shahrokh Jam. The regime’s agents enjoyed the full support of the management of Simon Fraser University (SFU), particularly the former and current presidents of SFU Andrew Petter and Joy Johnson.

See here for the agents of the regime supported by the SFU administration.

Shahrokh Jam, a ballistic missiles expert of the Islamic Republic of Iran, supported and protected by the SFU administration in Burnaby, BC

In the last series of BC Courts’ misconduct, three judges of the BC Court of Appeal decided to substitute blatant lies for the facts from the court’s own documents, only because their pre-determined outcome of the appeal is not supported by the contents of the court’s own documents. Consequently, the judges issued a baseless judgment to the end of keeping a case of interference of the Islamic Republic regime in Canada out of open courts thereby supporting the regime’s agents and their powerful enablers within the government and other public institutions in Canada.

whereas, according to the court’s filings and a previous judgment (which was under appeal),

AS A MATTER OF FACT, the judgment of a biased judge (Shelley Fitzpatrick) had been appealed,
AS A MATTER OF FACT, hers being biased had been raised, and
AS A MATTER OF FACT, that biased judge is seized of several matters listed in her judgment that was under appeal,

the three judges Voith, Fenlon and Newbury of the Court of Appeal presented as the basis for their decision the very opposites of all of these facts as the facts of the case and, based on their anti-facts, dismissed the appeal. They indeed dismissed the appeal without any hearing in open courts. The judges then persisted in defending their judgment on the basis of such obvious lies and refused to make corrections and re-open the appeal on the basis of TRUE facts supported by the courts’ own documents!

The judges’ misconduct has been addressed in a complaint filed with the Canadian Judicial Council on 16 June 2023.

Summary of the claim against SFU

Following my disclosure of SFU management’s political, scientific, and technical support for the terrorist regime of “the Islamic Republic of Iran” (the “Regime”) and three of the Regime’s agents connected with its ballistic missile and nuclear weapon programs, Iran’s dictator and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”), SFU commenced a revengeful conspiracy campaign against me aiming at diverting the issue of its connection with and support for the Regime.

SFU engaged several offices and individuals within the administration and directed them in a conspiracy to sexually harass and defame the whistleblower and subsequently cover up the criminalities. The co-conspirators include among others:

Paul Kench (former dean of SFU faculty of science, now working at the National University of Singapore);
Jennifer Harrington (then-staff member of SFU Human Resources)
Marry Catherine Kropinski (special advisor of SFU vice president of D.I.E., former D.I.E. associate dean of the SFU faculty of science, former chair of the Math Department)
Marni Julie Mishna (D.I.E. associate dean of SFU faculty of science, faculty member of the SFU math dept.)
Andrew Petter (then-president of SFU)
Susanne Stockdill (staff member of the dean of SFU faculty of science office)

At the forefront of advancing SFU’s conspiracy were Mishna and Kropinski, both of acted directly under Kench’s coordination and have occupied several positions related to the cultural Marxist notion of Diversity, Inclusion, Equity (D.I.E.).

Bias and judiocial misconduct of Shelley Fitzpatrick (of BCSC)

I commenced an action in the Supreme Court of BC (“BCSC”) seeking damages for revengful defamation and conspiracy. On August 3, 2021, a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia called Shelley Colleen Fitzpatrick (“Fitzpatrick”) decided to evade the hearing of the action on the merits and block the discovery process, by claiming a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In the same decision, Fitzpatrick exhibited obvious signs of bias and— presumably, to please and entertain the wealthy and politically powerful SFU administration and their governmental supporters by her written judgment— inhumanly and pathetically expressed her disbelief in the allegations raised, mocked the pleadings, and verbally attacked me for daring to raise allegations against her favourite SFU administration in its connections with a terrorist regime.

While Fitzpatrick ruled in her judgment that it was not the issue before her to determine the merits of the allegations, on the very occasion that she aborted the discovery process as a necessary step for fact-finding, she pathetically called out the allegations against her favourite wealthy and politically powerful side as “escalated”, “bizarre”, and “irrational”. Fitzpatrick also decorated her judgement with fact manipulations, fabrications and many outright lies, all amounting to appeasing the Regime and its enablers.

Fitzpatrick then ordered on August 3, 2021, that she would be seized of any applications, including for costs and an injunction application, to be rescheduled in the matter.

See here and here for Fitzpatrick’s judicial misconduct and a complaint gainst her to the CJC.

On August 17, 2021, I appealed Fitzpatrick’s decision only 14 days after it was pronounced and in the subsequent factum, expressly addressed the bias of the judge and sought that the Court set aside the seizure of the matter by Fitzpatrick. However, these matters were not addressed by the Court as a result of which I ended up filing a fresh appeal focusing solely on these ignored issues.

The judicial misconduct of the three named judges of the BC Court of appeal has been addressded in the complaint of 16 June 2023 and includes the following:

lack of diligence in performing general judicial duties;
absolute lack of diligence in reading the text of the judgment under the appeal;
resorting to absolute lies about the text of the judgment under the appeal in a way that embarrasses the justice system and undermines its integrity in the eyes of any reasonable and fair informed person;
lack of any attempt to read the documents filed with the court (thereby missing out on all basic facts of the appeal);
resorting to bald-faced lies and fabrications in the absence of any discernible diligence in learning the basics of the case through reading the materials filed with the Court;
pretending their fabricated statements made in the absence of any genuine fact-finding, to constitute the facts of the case;
lack of diligence by evading a proper response to multiple requests from the appellant for clarification and specification of the issues supposedly before the division;
multiple failures in providing the appellant with an opportunity for a fair hearing;
hoaxing the public through lies and deceptive conduct in a matter of high public interest;
engaging in overall conduct prone to obstructing justice through conspiracy among the judges to cover up for a terrorist regime’s enablers and agents in Canadian soil;
lack of integrity;
lack of impartiality; and, overall,
conducting themselves in a way that embarrasses the Canadian justice system and fails it as the ultimate protector of democracy.