Is AG of BC Against or For Terrorism-Backing Judges?

Letter of Masood Masjoody to Attorney General Niki Sharma:

AG Must compel the Canadian Judicial Council to initiate an inquiry for the potential removal of corrupted Judges:

Peter G. Voith

Lauri Ann Fenlon

Mary V. Newbury

Subject: 

request to compel the Canadian Judicial Council to commence an inquiry into the conduct of Court of Appeal judges against the rule of law and integrity of the justice system and in favour of foreign terrorist agents and their enablers

In the matter of Masjoody v. Simon Fraser University, CA 48922

subject line of the letter of July 19 to AG Sharma

Today, a 263-page letter was sent to Attorney General Niki Sharma of the Province of British Columbia suggesting that the AG should compel the Canadian Judicial Council to commence an inquiry into the misconduct of three judges of the BC Court of Appeal who were involved in an obstruction of justice scheme favouring the agents and enablers of the terrorist Islamic Regime in Iran in Canadian public bodies and government.

The request for the AG’s intervention was made pursuant to section 63(1) of the Judges Act:

Inquiries concerning Judges Inquiries 

63 (1) The Council shall, at the request of the Minister or the attorney general of a province, commence an inquiry as to whether a judge of a superior court should be removed from office for any of the reasons set out in paragraphs 65(2)(a) to (d).

Judges Act, RSC 1985, c J-1

The letter reads:

The Honourable Niki Sharma

Attorney General of British Columbia 

I hope this letter finds you well. 

I am writing to request that, under section 63(1) of the Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, the Honourable Attorney General compel the Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”) to commence an inquiry into the highly disturbing judicial misconduct of three judges of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (referred herein to as the “respondent judges”), which misconduct has amounted- among other things- to resorting to absolute lies, lack of diligence in performing basic judicial duties, and conspiracy among judges to obstruct justice, with the ultimate outcome of protecting a terrorist regime’s agents and their powerful enablers within the public and governmental bodies in Canada.

The respondent judges are:

• Peter G. Voith
• Mary V. Newbury; and
• Lauri Ann Fenlon.

Whereas I have already filed a complaint against these judges,i.e, CJC File 23-0233, it is by no means unlikely for the obvious obstruction of justice in the BC courts to extend to some elements within the CJC thereby causing a potential baseless dismissal of the complaint by a low-ranked CJC employee in the screening phase absent of due consideration of the undisputable evidence put before the CJC.

Any reasonable fair and informed person will recognize on reviewing the complaint and supporting evidence that there has been a very stubborn resistance in this matter by the BC court officers against the rule of law and principles of fairness and justice which resistance may not simply end at the courts’ level and could continue with some, possibly already installed, “insurance policy” in the CJC or any reviewing forum.

On the other hand, given the unique role of the Attorney General in protecting the rule of law in the province, which rule has been egregiously trampled as a result of the respondent judges’ misconduct, the intervention of the Attorney General is not only appropriate but also a necessary step toward mending the damages caused to the integrity of the courts and public’s trust in the justice system in British Columbia.

Moreover and of particular interest is that the intervention of the Attorney General will eliminate an otherwise convenient, however baseless, dismissal of the complaint in the screening phase in the CJC, which phase, as explained above, is prone to be abused to delay, or even block, a much-deserved urgent inquiry into the conduct of the respondent judges.

For maximum clarity, this request is made under section 63(1) of the Judges Act, copied below:

Inquiries concerning Judges Inquiries 

63 (1) The Council shall, at the request of the Minister or the attorney general of a province, commence an inquiry as to whether a judge of a superior court should be removed from office for any of the reasons set out in paragraphs 65(2)(a) to (d).

Judges Act, RSC 1985, c J-1

The types of misconduct enumerated in CJC Complaint 23-0233 are captured by at least three, and arguably all four, of the reasons outlined in paragraphs 65(2)(2) to (d) in the Act, and include:

1. lack of diligence in performing general judicial duties;
2. absolute lack of diligence in reading the text of the judgment under the appeal;
3. 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;
4. lack of any attempt to read the documents filed with the court (thereby missing out on all basic facts of the appeal);
5. 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;
6. pretending their fabricated statements made in the absence of any genuine fact-finding, to constitute the facts of the case;
7. 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;
8. multiple failures in providing the appellant with an opportunity for a fair hearing;
9. hoaxing the public through lies and deceptive conduct in a matter of high public interest;
10. 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;
11. lack of integrity;
12.  lack of impartiality; and, overall,
13. conducting themselves in a way that embarrasses the Canadian justice system and fails it as the ultimate protector of democracy.

Attached to this letter are the original CJC complaint and evidence, filed on 16 June 2023, and the supplementary argument and evidence, filed on 4 July 2023.

It is expected that your request for an inquiry, which, as per the Judges Act, the CJC cannot evade, will hugely trouble the terrorists and their enablers in their collaboration with judicial thugs and charlatans who have shown zero care for ethics and the rule of law and whose presence in a superior court of the province is a mockery of justice and slap in the face of fairness and basic ethics. 

I look forward to hearing about your concrete actions toward re-establishing integrity and ethics in the BC justice system through a request for the removal of judges Voith, Newbury, and Fenlon from the BC Court of Appeal.

Yours sincerely,

Masood Masjoody, Ph.D.

July 19, 2023

Enclosed:

1. Appendix 1: CJC Complaint 23-0233,           16 June 2023          (13 pgs, 4-16)
2. Appendix 2: Supporting evidence,           16 June 2023          (216 pgs, 17-232)
3. Appendix 3: Additional submissions,           4 July 2023             (31 pgs, 233-263)

Letter of 19 July 2023 to Attorney General Niki Sharma