Vancouver; Nov 16, 2023

TRUTH v. TERRORISM

After a 37-day delay, on Oct 5, 2023, the pro-terrorism judge Shelley Fitzpatrick eventually had to declare available for hearing the application for her disqualification (“Disqualification Application”). However, Fitzpatrick refused to allocate the requested time of two days and limited the time of hearing to one day.

The notice of the Disqualification Application was filed on Oct 16, for a one-day hearing at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC, V8Z2E1, on Thursday 16/Nov/2023 at 10 a.m.

The notice has three parts:

• Part 1: Orders Sought
• Part 2: Factual Basis
• Part 3: Legal Basis
• Part 4: Material To Be Relied On

Part 1: Orders Sought

1– Judge Shelley Colleen Fitzpatrick should be recused, and pronounced disqualified, from any involvement in these proceedings due to actual bias against the plaintiff;

2– In the alternative to Order 1, Judge Shelley Colleen Fitzpatrick should be recused, and pronounced disqualified, from any involvement in these proceedings due to a reasonable apprehension of bias against the plaintiff;

3– Judge Shelley Colleen Fitzpatrick should be pronounced to have had no jurisdiction to determine any legal matter related to the plaintiff since July 14, 2021, due to bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias,

4– Any other order already pronounced by Judge Shelley Colleen Fitzpatrick in these proceedings should be voided and without effect.

5– The Court of Appeal for British Columbia (“BCCA”) provide the Court with any documents and records,

–excluding those legally filed and duly placed before the BCCA; and

–including but not limited to such documents and records related to any extrajudicial recommendation, influence, interference, compensation, bribery, incentive, and coercion by elements within the justice system in British Columbia, the Vancouver-based law firms Hunter Litigation Chambers and Farris, the Provincial Government of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, and the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or by any of the departments, affiliates, agents or lobbyists of the aforementioned governments,

that (1) the BCCA or its officers have possessed; and (2) caused the BCCA in Masjoody v. Trotignon, 2023 BCCA 220 to include false reports about Masjoody v Trotignon, 2021 BCSC 1502, in the face of the text of the latter judgment of Judge Shelley Colleen Fitzpatrick of the Court.

6– The Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”) provide the Court with any documents and records that the CJC has found so far in the course of handling CJC Complaint 23-0233—against the division of the BCCA that determined Masjoody v. Trotignon, 2023 BCCA 220,

–excluding those documents and records legally filed and duly placed before the BCCA; and

–including but not limited to such documents and records related to any extrajudicial recommendation, influence, interference, compensation, bribery, incentive, and coercion by elements within the justice system in British Columbia, the Vancouver-based law firms Hunter Litigation Chambers and Farris, the Provincial Government of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, and the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or by any of the departments, affiliates, agents or lobbyists of the aforementioned governments,

that the CJC has found (1) to have been possessed by the BCCA or its officers and (2) to be related to the BCCA’s including false reports in Masjoody v. Trotignon, 2023 BCCA 220 about Masjoody v Trotignon, 2021 BCSC 1502, in the face of the text of the latter judgment of Judge Shelley Colleen Fitzpatrick of the Court.

7– Costs.

Part 2- Factual Basis

1– Judge Shelley Colleen Fitzpatrick (“Fitzpatrick”) is a judge of the Court who heard an application in this matter on July 14-16, 2021, adjourned another application, deferred addressing the issue of costs to further application by the parties, and ordered that she is seized of these proceedings. Her judgment (the “Judgment”) was issued on August 3, 2021, and published by the Court on September 15, 2021.

2– There have been two causes of action in these proceedings: defamation and conspiracy. The conspiracy occurred in retaliation to a report I produced in April 2019 that discloses the extensive engagement of Simon Fraser University with a state supporter of terrorism, officially known as the Islamic Republic of Iran (the “Regime“).

3– SFU engaged with the Regime through agents affiliated with the Regime’s leader, the Regime’s president, a terrorist organization called the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the “IRGC”), the ballistic missile program of the Regime, and members of a so-called student club at SFU, called Shiite Muslim Society and tied to the Regime and its affiliated institutions in Canada, including the Vancouver-based Ghadir Cultural and Educational Centre.

4–  Immediately following my report, the SFU administration started a conspiracy campaign against me and furthered that campaign by way of sexual harassment and defamation, both in the realm of my personal life and by interfering in my relationship with Trotignon.

5– Prominently among the co-conspirators who were directed, supported, and covered up by SFU are Marni Julie Mishna (“Mishna“) and Mary Catherine Kropinski (“Kropinski“). Since the commencement of SFU’s conspiracy, SFU has constantly put Mishna and Kropinski in leadership positions related to the Radical Leftist and Cultural Marxist notion of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (“D.I.E.”).

6– The defendants begged the Court in their application heard by Fitzpatrick to strike the claims against them because of the plaintiff’s cultural and political views’ being inconsistent with the “left-wing politics”, because of the plaintiff’s “professing admiration for [Dr.] Jordan Peterson, [President] Donald Trump, [Mr.] Tucker Carlson, [the late] Ruch Limbaugh”, and because of the plaintiff’s “having difficulty with [L]iberalism, [F]eminism, and affiliates or supporters of the [Regime].” Fitzpatrick seems to have understood, and delivered on, the instructions by the enablers of the Radical Islamic terrorism that is embodied in the Regime.

7– The publication of the Judgment was immediately followed by defamatory online publications at the beginning hours of September 17 (at or about 3 AM) against the plaintiff by the affiliates of the cult of Karim Aga Khan, a.k.a Nizari Ismailis (the “Cult”). The named author of these publications is Dustin Godfrey (“Godfrey”). He is a supporter of Islamic terrorism and has repeatedly participated in the pro-Hamas rallies in Vancouver proudly cheering for the mass murder of Israeli civilians in October 2023. While acknowledging that Fitzpatrick “arguably could not have done [factual findings] on the pleadings application before [her],” the Court says that the “likely defamatory” statements by the Cult’s affiliates could be “honestly expressed” based on Fitzpatrick’s words against the plaintiff as expressed in the Judgment (Brongers J., July 15, 2023, in the matter of Masjoody v. Burnaby Beacon).

8– The Cult is an unofficial yet highly influential lobby of the terrorist regime of the Islamic Republic in Canada that has even bribed Prime Minister Trudeau, for which the Ethics Commissioner found the Prime Minister guilty of breaking several sections of the Conflict of Interest Act. The Prime Minister has recently appointed a member of the Cult to be the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

9– The Judgment renders the conduct of Fitzpatrick as dishonest, deceitful, bizarre, lazy, shockingly irrational, and egregiously biased against the plaintiff including, and amounting among other things to:

(a) favouring the enablers of a terrorist regime in Canada over the Court’s ethical and professional principles, the facts of the case and the rule of law, and protecting those enablers by blocking the long overdue discovery process in these proceedings and attacking the plaintiff for daring to raise allegations against Fitzpatrick’s favourite criminals; 

(b) pathetically shaming the plaintiff—who is a victim of conspiratorial defamation and sexual harassment by the enablers of the terrorist regime of the Islamic Republic— through mockery, loaded language, fabrications, and outright lies, all combined with suppressing the plaintiff’s pleadings and blocking the discovery process; and

(c) paving the way for the Cult— and others— to maliciously engage in the character assassination of the plaintiff.

10– Fitzpatrick’s conduct has been brought to the attention of the Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC), which has the authority to remove her from office upon appropriate consideration of my complaint and supporting evidence (CJC file 22-0316).

11– The issues with Fitzpatrick’s bias and her lack of qualification were brought before, but never considered and adjudicated by, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (“BCCA”), which resorted to, firstly, conveniently ignoring those issues and, ultimately and in a text-book kangaroo court style in Masjoody v. Trotignon, 2023 BCCA 220, egregiously lying, to the end of not adjudicating the duly raised issues with Fitzpatrick’s conduct. The latter has also been brought to the attention of the CJC in a complaint seeking the removal from office of judges Voith, Fenlon, and Newbury of the BCCA (CJC file 23-0233). The judgment of BCCA indexed as 2023 BCCA 220 was supposedly authored by Peter G. Voith, who cofounded Hunter Litigation Chambers with Justice John Hunter of BCCA—as he now is—who is a close relative of SFU’s counsel from Hunter Litigation Chambers Clair Hunter. Claire Hunter has represented Mishna and Kropinski in these proceedings.

12– Fitzpatrick heard the jurisdictional challenge of the defendants after the defendants persistently refrained from complying with the plaintiff’s demand for documents dated November 18, 2020, and had contested all of the several subsequent applications by the plaintiff for the discovery of documents and examination for discovery. By the time of the hearing in July 2021, the Court had adjourned all of the applications of the plaintiff made for the purpose of discovery.

Victim-shaming the plaintiff through mockery and loaded language:

13– While the discovery was blocked, in the Judgment Fitzpatrick made every effort to embarrass the plaintiff by baselessly expressing her disbelief in the allegations made against SFU, which allegations were the subject of the jurisdictional challenge in a pre-trial application, not the subject of fact-finding on the merits.

14– In the absence of discovery and despite acknowledging that fact-finding about the plaintiff’s allegations was not [at] issue before her, Fitzpatrick extensively and pathetically engaged in using loaded language and in baselessly calling out the allegations against the wealthy and politically powerful SFU administration as “escalated”, “bizarre”,  “irrational”, and “escalated irrationally”.

Suppression of the plaintiff’s pleadings that were the subject of the jurisdictional challenge and replacing them with the judge’s fabrications, lies, and decidedly false speculations:

15– While shaming a victim of conspiratorial defamation and sexual harassment by SFU, Fitzpatrick disregarded the actual notice of claim (the “ANoCC”) that was before her and arrogantly stated that she did not need to read the ANoCC in reaching her jurisdictional decision about ANoCC. Indeed, the judge engaged heavily in blanket mockery of the allegations that she does not appear to have bothered to read and properly report on.

16– Notably, 38 paragraphs in the judge’s 100-paragraph judgment, including but not limited to the entire background, are copied directly and one-sidedly from the defendants’ notice of application.

17– Fitzpatrick had a minimum of 21 days to read the material before her and make informed comments and judgments instead of resorting to lies, fabrications, and speculations all one-sidedly in support of the enablers of the terrorists within Simon Fraser University management.

Further victim-shaming and unfair conduct through the judge’s fabrications, lies, and manifestly false speculations

18– Following the hearing, in the Judgment, Fitzpatrick decidedly engaged in fact-manipulations, fabrications, outright lies, and manifestly false speculations about the plaintiff’s pleadings and affidavits that she appears not to have bothered to read.

19– While Fitzpatrick appears to have been too lazy to read the plaintiff’s material, including pleadings and affidavits, at the same time, she was too eager to blatantly mock them and engage in fabrications and false speculations about them.

20– Just to give an example, one can compare, on the one hand, the actual contents of the plaintiff’s affidavit 5 concerning a presumably compromised faculty member of SFU (due to his known history of sexual misconduct in 2013 and 2016) and, on the other hand, Fitzpatrick’s false and fully manipulated and speculated report on it. Ironically, on that very occasion which is evidence of her bizarre level of bias and negligence for a judge, Fitzpatrick once more resorts to loaded language and pathetically and (seemingly) uninformedly writes that: “Dr. Masjoody’s allegation took another bizarre turn.”

21– Likewise, Fitzpatrick’s lies and fabrications extended to the facts surrounding a consent order that was reached between the lawyers (without a hearing) to adjourn a hearing scheduled for April 2021 only to allow the plaintiff’s then-newly hired lawyer to have time to review the court material. The judge, however, once more used her fabrications and fact-distortions about a simple matter of scheduling to show her bias against the plaintiff, as is evident from paragraphs 77-78, among other places, in the Judgment.

Discrimination against the plaintiff based on race, the plaintiff’s place of origin, and political beliefs and activities

22– The egregiously unfair conduct of the judge—including but not limited to her words in the Judgment, indifference to disposing of basic judicial duties, lack of diligence, resorting to lies, speculations and fabrications to abuse the plaintiff, etc.—is seen to be caused in part by the discriminatory approach of Fitzpatrick towards the plaintiff because of the plaintiff’s race, origin, and political beliefs and activities. This discriminatory approach was expressly encouraged and instructed by the defendants.

23– Moreover, Fitzpatrick’s conduct over her judicial tenure, particularly in repeatedly attacking litigants from Indigenous communities and those whose opposing parties are wealthy and politically powerful institutions and corporations suggests that the plaintiff is not the only victim of discrimination by Fitzpatrick on prohibited grounds.

24– By reviewing some other instances of controversial conduct by Fitzpatrick in other matters, it appears that this judge has frequently been tasked with adjudicating “inconvenient” legal matters for powerful bodies and corporations facing First Nation litigants. One of the latest of these instances entails Fitzpatrick’s decision in Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC v Mivasair, 2023 BCSC 410, which was appealed on several grounds including the bias of the judge, in that the appellant is seeking to “challenge … the unfair and unjust sentences that have been the bread and butter of Fitzpatrick’s long and storied career protecting corporate interests against the health and well being of Indigenous and Black communities.”

Paving the way by her heavily biased conduct for other supporters and agents of the terrorist regime of the Islamic Republic for assassinating the character of the plaintiff

25– Barely a day after the publication of Fitzpatrick’s judgment, the affiliates and members of the Cult published several defamatory contents against the plaintiff apparently penned by a supporter of Islamic terrorism, i.e., Dustin Godfrey. While conceding that those publications were “likely defamatory”, the Court has decided that “a person could honestly express” such defamatory statements based on Fitzpatrick’s words.

Part 3- Legal Basis

1– Fitzpatrick’s conduct as exhibited in the Judgment establishes actual bias on her part.

2– The Judgment reveals Fitzpatrick’s state of mind in favour of the defendants in that she objectively violated the principle of impartiality through the actual words of the Judgment. As presented above, the Judgment serves as evidence of her leaning, inclination, or bent towards one side of the dispute, and represents a predisposition to decide the issue or issues before the judge in a way that favours the defendants.

3– Even in a situation where Fitzpatrick declined the Court’s jurisdiction to determine the merits of the plaintiff’s allegations and in a situation where the Court had blocked witness examination and the plaintiff’s demand for documents made several months prior in Nov 2020, Fitzpatrick viciously took the plaintiff under attack for daring to raise allegations against Fitzpatrick’s apparent favourites and called out allegations against her favourite side as “escalated”, “bizarre”,  “irrational”, and “escalated irrationally”. This inhumane conduct was not only baseless and unnecessary but was clearly crafted to benefit the enablers of the terrorist regime of the Islamic Republic within the SFU administration and beyond.

4– In Simon Fraser University (Re), 2023 BCIPC 15, the Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner of BC (“OIPC”) has acknowledged the existence of records indicative of SFU’s conspiracy against the plaintiff, particularly Mishna and Kropinski’s involvement. While the OIPC decided that such records are “necessary to ensure a fair hearing of the applicant’s claims” (including claims against Mishna and Kropinski), yet, the OIPC withheld all of such records (e.g. at paras.153-164) admittedly based on the Judgment! In the OIPC decision, Third Party A and Third Party B are Kropinski and Mishna, respectively, who are two of the prominent co-conspirators, sexual harassers, defamers, and enablers of Islamic terrorist agents at SFU.

5– By viciously using loaded language against a victim of a conspiracy, sexual harassment, and defamation—which in itself is evidence of actual bias—Fitzpatrick also paved the way for further victimization of the plaintiff.

6– Objectively, Fitzpatrick has lacked impartiality with regard to the plaintiff and the issues before her to decide. In particular, it is also plain and obvious that Fitzpatrick lacks the judicial mind perfectly open to conviction. Her inability to consider the issues with a perfectly open mind establishes prejudice or bias, due to which she should inevitably be declared disqualified from hearing and determining any matter in these proceedings as well as any other legal matter involving the plaintiff.

7– Indeed, the reasonable apprehension of bias on Fitzpatrick’s part is sufficient ground for her disqualification and is established through the objective test that a reasonable and properly informed person viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through would think that it is more likely than not that Fitzpatrick would not decide fairly, whether consciously or unconsciously.

8– Even if she had not acted biasedly, the standard of reasonable apprehension of bias would still apply in that “justice must be seen to be done.” Therefore, regardless of actual bias, since in light of the words of the Judgment described herein justice is not seen to be done, Fitzpatrick must be disqualified from hearing and determining any matter in these proceedings as well as any other legal matter involving the plaintiff.

9– Fitzpatrick is seen to have discriminated against the plaintiff on the prohibited grounds of race and political beliefs. This, in itself, establishes a reasonable apprehension of bias.

10– This racist approach of Fitzpatrick is not only pathetic and a sign of her disqualifying arrogance and bigotry as a judge but also rooted in her ignorance of one of the world’s finest and richest cultures. Fitzpatrick represents, among others, a dishonest and corruption-infested block of the justice system that has crossed all lines of integrity and ethics to obstruct justice and favour international terrorists, whereas the plaintiff whom Fitzpatrick seems to have racially discriminated against comes from a nation that thousands of years ago built an empire based on justice and human rights enjoyed by mankind regardless of race, place of origin, and system of beliefs. While fairness and impartiality of courts are substantially undermined and easily ignored in today’s Canada of PM Trudeau, in Iran those values have always been seen as indisputably crucial since that country was established by Cyrus The Great—the founder of the Archimedean Dynasty—more than 2,500 years ago. I can note the exemplary punishment Shah Cambyses (the successor and son of Cyrus the Great) imposed on Sisamnes, a corrupt royal judge who had accepted a bribe to influence a verdict. To highlight the importance of judicial integrity, the type of integrity that several currently active top judges in British Columbia are decidedly lacking, Shah Cambyses had Sisamnes skinned alive and his skin cut into leather strips to drape the chair of Sisamnes’ judicial successor (the Judgment of Cambyses).

11– The lack of any words from Fitzpatrick against the defendant’s thuggish suggestion that the Court discriminate against the plaintiff on the prohibited ground of political views and activities is in itself evidence of bias and reasonable apprehension of bias. Fitzpatrick, who inhumanely throws loaded words at the justice-seeking plaintiff, suddenly decides to shut her mouth on this outright attack on the integrity of the justice system by the defendants and their counsel. A decent, fair-minded, and impartial judge would have condemned the counsel’s conduct and inevitably reported the counsel to the Law Society for a conduct investigation.

12– It alone established not only a reasonable apprehension of bias but indeed the actual bias of the judge and decidedly her being ethically corrupt when Fitzpatrick’s conduct and words in a jurisdictional challenge regarding a plaintiff who is a victim of conspiratorial defamation and sexual harassment could in any sense not only encourage but, according to the Court, even justify further victimization of the plaintiff, as Brongers J. has acknowledged in Masjoody v. Burnaby Beacon.

---

Application in PDF format

---

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

Upcoming 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