• Competence of a pro-terrorism Judge on a Two-day Trial (based on an application of Aug 30, 2023)

Update: Warning BC Supreme Court’s Chief Justice against a new cover-up scheme in and by the Court regarding the disqualification hearing, Sep 13, 2023,

• Application of Masjoody for disqualifying Shelley Fitzpatrick for bias and judicial misconduct is to be scheduled for September or October 2023, based on Fitzpatrick’s “availability”
• A third set of supplementary evidence was filed against three corrupt judges of the BC Court of Appeal who refrained from considering Fitzppatrick’s bias and covered up for terrorists (submissions of September 1, 2023)

Background: On two consecutive appeals raising the bias and judicial misconduct of a pro-terrorism judge, the Court of Appeal (judges: Marchand, Fisher, and Fitch) first decided to turn a blind eye to the judge’s conduct and then shamelessly resorted to fabrication of bald-faced lies to get away from dealing with Fitzpatrick’s conduct once more, and to ultimately obstruct justice in a textbook kangaroo court style (judges: Voith, Newbury, and Fenlon). It was on May 30 of 2023 when “Judges” Voith, Fenlon, and Newbury dismissed the second appeal SOLELY based on several absolute lies they crafted in the face of the courts’ own documents, due to which lies and overall conduct they could, and should, be removed from office by the Canadian Judicial Council (Complaint of Masjoody, CJC File: 23-0233, 16 June 2023; see also here and down here).

Following: (1) the Court of Appeal’s three judges’ refusal to re-open the appeal they had dismissed on the basis of blatant lies; (2) the same judges’ deafening silence about an application for correcting one of the many absolute falsehoods in their published judgement; and, (3) the defendant’s inadvertent yielding on Aug 25 to the undeniable fact that these judges had deliberately lied out of nowhere in their obstruction of justice scheme, on August 28, 2023, I applied to these judges to introduce as supporting evident the defendant’s inadvertent admission of the judges’ dishonesty, and require that they recuse themselves from any matter relating to me (including an application seeking to correct the text of their judgment), due to bias and lack of qualifications for a fair administration of justice.

And then, came the next two moves: (1) another application for self-recusal, submitted on Aug 30, 2023, this time in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and to Shelley Fitzpatrick for her bias and overall judicial misconduct; and (2) submission of the third set of my supplementary material in the matter of the CJC complaint against the three above-mentioned corrupt judges of the BC Court of Appeal.

---

---

A pro-terrorism Judge will preside over a hearing questioning her fitness and qualification following egregiously biased conduct favouring state Islamic terrorism

Now that the Court of Appeal is paralyzed in disposing of its most basic duties to consider the bias of Shelley Fitzpatrick and until such time as the Court of Appeal acquires the minimum required integrity of a functioning judicial forum, more emphasis will be put on other avenues toward justice and transparency.

Accordingly and in this regard, on August 30, I made an application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia requiring Judge Fitzpatrick’s time for a two-day hearing to address Fitzpatrick’s bias and seeking her order recusing herself from any matter related to me based on her required self-admission of being unfit and disqualified due to bias and extensive judicial misconduct favouring state radical Islamic terrorists and their enablers in Canadian academia and other bodies:

Upcoming Two-day Hearing RE: Bias of the Pro-IRGC Judge SHelley Fitzpatrick

Shelley Fitzpatrick–VA VLC-S-S-204587; two days –CONF#831238510705
Case Type: Civil

Type of hearing: Application for recusal of the judge

Time estimate: two days

Court location of previous hearing: Vancouver

Date of the previous hearing: 2021/07/14

Available dates: two full days, not necessarily consecutive, between Sep 18 and Oct 25, 2023, or after Nov 15, 2023

Nature of Application: According to the judge’s order of Aug 3, 2021, this judge will be seized of any further applications in this proceeding.  However, the plaintiff’s application will require that Shelley Fitzpatrick recuse herself from this matter for lack of impartiality, lack of integrity for a fair administration of justice, and having trampled the rule of law, the Court’s integrity, and values of ethics and judicial professionalism through- among other things- lying, fabrications, victim-shaming, misusing the Court to cover up agents and enablers of Islamic terrorists, laziness and lack of diligence to consider evidence and applicable law, amounting to bias and reasonable apprehension of bias. The plaintiff strongly oppose any format of proceeding that does not enjoy full transparency and does not provide for real-time scrutiny for the public. I require courtrooms be assigned that can accommodate more than 50 people in the gallery on hearing days.

Reason why this must be heard by (Shelley Fitzpatrick): This judge is seized of this proceeding. Therefore, this application should be heard by her. Also, there are at least two active matters awaiting hearing and determination by this judge, including an injunction application and the costs. The injunction application was adjourned and is still before Fitzpatrick pending hearing. The terms of an order of Jul 16, 2021, which directly affect the plaintiff’s right to free speech, depend on the determination of that injunction application. Also, the costs of two applications (including the yet-to-be-heard injunction application) are yet to be addressed and should be heard by Shelley Fitzpatrick. As per email communications from the Court, the Chief Justice would not unilaterally disqualify this judge, and the plaintiff should apply to the judge requiring her recusal. Based on the BC courts’ overall conduct, it is highly predictable that this judge will constantly report unavailable only to avoid hearing this application in open court.

Opponent’s position regarding this application/request: N/A

Applicant’s name: Masood Masjoody

Opposing counsel(s)/Litigant(s):
Name: Yun Li-Reilly
Email address:yli-reilly@farris.com
Phone number: 6046619353

Name: Claire E. Hunter
Email address:chunter@litigationchambers.com
Phone number: 6048912403

A Two-day hearing to address Fitzpatrick’s bias

Update (Sep 13, 2023):

On the evening of Sep 12, 2023, the enablers of terrorists asked the Court to limit the time of the disqualification hearing to no more than one hour. In response, I sent an email to the Court warning the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court against another embarrassment for the Court as a result of what seems to be a new cover-up scheme instructed by the terrorists’ enablers (Counsel” Yun Li-Reilly) to be carried out by corrupt adjudicators.

The Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court is Warned against a new Cover-up Scheme by Pro-terrorism elements in the Court, Sept 13, 2023

RE: Shelley Fitzpatrick–VA VLC-S-S-204587; two days –CONF#831238510705
Case Type: Civil

Type of hearing: Application for recusal of the judge

Time estimate: two days

I require the Scheduling forward the following to the Chief Justice.

My time estimation of 2 days was suggested based on the assumption that the respondents naturally would not have any standing regarding the judge’s lack of qualification arising from bias, as this is simply a matter between the applicant and the challenged judge.

As such, I required a two-day hearing only to argue my case and present the extensive evidence for the disqualification of the judge for bias and a reasonable apprehension of bias. If the Court were to decide that the defendants would be entitled to any amount of time to defend the judge’s qualification, then that amount of time must be added to the initially requested time of 2 days.

The Court is advised that as of now the contents of supporting evidence are more extensive, and broader in nature, than those of CJC Complaint 22-0316 (which amounted to 128 pages excluding the amendments). In addition, the notice of the disqualification application will be filed in 10 full pages supplemented by a separate written argument. The documents will be filed in due course once the hearing dates are fixed by the Court.

Also, the Court is reminded that the defendant university has a history of successfully influencing judges extrajudicially the last examples of which were exhibited in the conduct of a judge (Peter G. Voith), who co-founded SFU counsel’s law firm, Hunter Litigation Chambers, to the extent that Voith premeditatedly resorted to absolute lies and obstructing justice to keep the matters in the dark and protect the interests of terrorists’ enablers (CJC File 23-0233).

On SFU’s demand, Hunter’s daughter has been representing two of the main actors (M. Mishna and MC Kropinski) in SFU’s enabling terrorist agents and conspiring against the whistleblowers by sexual harassment and defamation. Therefore, I would not be surprised if it turns out that the latest response of Li-Reilly (who has been employed by the BCCA and continues to represent terrorists’ enablers within the SFU management) is a reflection of an already negotiated deal for another obstruction of justice scheme.

All things considered, it is not only appropriate but also necessary that the matter of my application and the minimum required time of two days be brought to the attention of the Chief Justice who has a responsibility to protect the Court from the likes of the embarrassing situation of obstruction of justice instructed by the SFU administration and carried out by certain decidedly corrupt judges within the upper court.

Respectfully,

Masood Masjoody

Sept 13, 2023

delivered at: 6 AM

Letter of Sep 13, 2023, to the Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Third set of Supplementary Evidence on three Court of Appeal Judges’ obstructing justice by lying and other judicial misconduct favouring State Islamic Terrorists and their Enablers; CJC File 23-0233

On September 1, 2023, four documents, all already reported and published on this webpage, were submitted to the CJC in the matter of my complaint seeking the removal from office of Voith, Fenlon, and Newbury of the BC Court of Appeal (CJC 23-0233). The newly submitted documents are accompanied by the following description:

PDF Format, CJC 23-0233, Set 3 of Aditional Evidence, Sep 1, 2023