Legal Action against Canada’s Attorney General

Masjoody v. Virani

Federal Court of Canada to hear application concerning corruption of BC Courts and Canadian Judicial Council in favour of Islamic Terrorists and Enablers in Canadian Academia

Notice of Application filed on Nov 20, 2023

Following the Canadian Judicial Council’s failure to consider the misconduct of three judges of the BC Court of Appeal (Peter G. Voith, Fenlon, and Newbury) as per CJC File 23-0233, a notice of application was filed with the Federal Court to review the decision of the Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”) and order the CJC to invetigate the conduct of pro-terrorism judges. In the Federal Court, the CJC is represented by the Attorney General of Canada, Arif Virani.

[Masjoody] makes application for:

an order of the [Federal] Court that the decision [of the CJC] be set aside, and the complaint be remitted to the Canadian Judicial Council for a proper consideration of, and addressing, each of the matters raised and pieces of evidence provided to the Canadian Judicial Council since the commencement of the complaint on June 16, 2023, until September 1, 2023.

Notice of Application, Nov 20, 2023, against the Attorney General of Canada

The grounds for the application includes:

1. Lack of procedural fairness by, among other things, wholesome and evasive disregard of the evidence and supporting material provided by the applicant and by exhibiting bias; amounting to depriving the applicant of the right to be heard
2. Failure to consider relevant factors; including arguments and supporting evidence for the following allegations against the respondent judges:
   • a. lack of diligence in performing general judicial duties;
   • b. absolute lack of diligence in reading the text of the judgment under the appeal;
   • c. 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;
   • d. lack of any attempt to read the documents filed with the court (thereby missing out on all basic facts of the appeal);
   • e. 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;
   • f. pretending their fabricated statements made in the absence of any genuine fact-finding, to constitute the facts of the case;
   • g. 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;
   • h. multiple failures in providing the appellant with an opportunity for a fair hearing;
   • i. hoaxing the public through lies and deceptive conduct in a matter of high public interest;
   • j. engaging in overall conduct prone to obstructing justice through conspiracy among the judges to cover up for a terrorist regime’s enablers and agents on Canadian soil;
   • k. lack of integrity;
   • l. lack of impartiality; and, overall,
   • m. conducting themselves in a way that embarrasses the Canadian justice system and fails it as the ultimate protector of democracy.
3. Failure to respect the principles of natural justice
4. Abuse of discretion in favour of a predisposed decision to screen out a meritorious complaint and substantiated allegations of judicial misconduct thereby undermining the accountability of the Council and the integrity of the judicial proceedings in Canada
5. Normalization of dishonesty and lack of integrity on the adjudicators’ part in the guise of discretion and by failing to consider the complaint; which normalizations are manifestly against the mandates of the Canadian Judicial Council
6. Unreasonableness through a wholesome denial of the issues raised combined with the lack of any consideration of, and reference to, an abundance of supporting evidence
7. Unreasonableness through a wholesome denial of allegations raised whereas any reasonable and informed decision-maker would have found the allegation to be substantiated by evidence, including but not limited to the respondent judges’ intentionally and persistently lying, particularly, in the face of the courts’ public records
8. Lying and dishonesty, to the level of calling out the raised issues as “unsupported by any evidence”, while in reality, it was the Council that decided to turn a blind eye to all of the supporting material and evidence and failed to address them
9. Breaching the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector in handling CJC Complaint 23-0233
10. Helping to cover up and protect enablers, agents, and affiliates of a terrorist regime on Canadian soil thereby undermining national and international security, by evasively denying the respondent judges’ blatantly lying and engaging in egregious misconduct towards obstructing justice
11. Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector
12. Judges Act
13. Ethical Principles for Judges

Documents to be relied on include:

• Complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”), CJC File 23-0233, and supporting evidence submitted to the CJC on June 16, 2023;
• Set 1 of additional documents in support of CJC Complaint 2023-0233, submitted to the CJC on July 4, 2023;
• Set 2 of additional documents in support of CJC Complaint 2023-0233, submitted to the CJC on July 26, 2023;
• Set 3 of additional documents in support of CJC complaint 2023-0233, submitted to the CJC on September 1, 2023;
• Disqualification Application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in action Masjoody v. Trotignon, SFU, VLC-S-S-204587, filed on Oct 16, 2023, and served on the CJC as a respondent;
• Letter of CJC, dated October 23, 2023, RE: CJC File 23-0233; and
• Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, action: Masjoody v. SFU, CA 49479, filed: Nov 17, 2023

Notice of Application: Masjoody v. Virani

---