BC Parliament and inquiry RE: Terrorism-Backing Judges

Letter of Masood Masjoody: Parliament must intervene to bring back the court’s integrity

In a letter of 21 July 2023, all Members of the Legislative Assembly of BC were informed about the overwhelmingly egregious misconduct of three judges of the BC Court of Appeal, Peter G. Voith, Lauri Ann Fenlon, and Mary V. Newbury, who criminally obstructed justice to purposefully cover up for and favour the agents and enablers of the terrorist regime of the Islamic Republic ruling Iran, particularly the regime’s enablers within public and governmental bodies in Canada.

The letter informs the MLAs of an earlier request made to Attorney General Niki Sharma two days earlier. It reminds the MLAs that the judicial misconduct of the judges is not immune from the legislative and executive branches’ scrutiny, as per sec 63(1) of the Judges Act, whose constitutionality has been confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal.

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 to the MLAs contains in the attachment the 263-page request to Attorney General Niki Sharma and points out that:

Any action, or lack thereof, by the Honourable Niki Sharma in this matter will be subject to the oversight of the Legislative Assembly, including questioning the Attorney General of BC by the Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Letter of 21 July 2023 to all Members of BC Legislative Assembly

The letter reads:

Subject:         An overwhelming obstruction of justice scheme in and by the BC Court of Appeal in support of foreign terrorist agents and enablers, reported to Hon. Attorney General on July 19, 2023

I am writing to bring to your attention the serious misconduct of three BC Court of Appeal judges amounting to obstruction of justice and undermining the rule of law and the integrity of the justice system in British Columbia. The judges’ misconduct was purposefully aimed at favouring foreign terrorists and their enablers within BC public bodies, particularly at Simon Fraser University, whose administration has harboured a ballistic missiles expert and several other agents from the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the “IRGC”). 

On July 19, 2023,  I asked Attorney General to compel the Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”) to commence an inquiry into the conduct of three judges of the court, namely,

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

These judges’ misconduct includes, among other things, 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 judges’ misconduct was enumerated under 13 distinct components the establishment of each of which should warrant their removal from office.

My request to the Attorney General has been made pursuant to S. 63(1) of the Judges Act (where the Canadian Judicial Council is referred to as “Council”):

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

As such, any action, or lack thereof, by the Honourable Niki Sharma in this matter will be subject to the oversight of the Legislative Assembly, including questioning the Attorney General of BC by the Members of the Legislative Assembly.

I should point out that there is absolutely no inconsistency between the principle of judicial independence and the right of the Legislative Assembly and the Minister of Attorney General to intervene when there seems to be an instance of judicial misconduct that could warrant the removal of a judge from office. Indeed,  when the constitutionality S. 63(1) of the Judges Act was challenged, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that:

Judicial independence does not require that the conduct of judges be immune from scrutiny by the legislative and executive branches of government. On the contrary, an appropriate regime for the review of judicial conduct is essential to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. […] The guarantee of judicial tenure free from improper interference is essential to judicial independence. But it is equally important to remember that protections for judicial tenure were “not created for the benefit of the judges, but for the benefit of the judged. […] The public interest in an appropriate procedure for the review of the conduct of judges is an aspect of the public interest in the administration of justice. Therefore, it seems to me to be consistent with Canadian constitutional principles for provincial attorneys general to play a part in the review of the conduct of judges of the superior courts of their respective provinces. […] I conclude that subsection 63(1) of the Judges Act is constitutional.

Federal Court of Appeal
Cosgrove v. Canadian Judicial Council, 2007 FCA 103

Please find attached the letter and supporting documents sent on July 19, 2023, to Hon. Niki Sharma, and do not hesitate if you have any questions.

Many thanks in advance for your expected consideration of this matter of high public interest and national and international security against state-sponsored terrorism.

Yours sincerely,

Masood Masjoody, Ph.D.

July 21, 2023

Letter of 19 July 2023 to Attorney General Niki Sharma