An Exceptionable BC Judge Backing Enablers of Islamic Terrorists via Victim-shaming and Suppressing the Pleadings
Background and Overview:
TRUTH v. SFU; Amélie Trotignon.
- Shelley Fitzpatrick is the judge of the Supreme Court of BC who deprived the Plaintiff of his legal right in relation to claims of defamation and retaliatory conspiracy against Simon Fraser University.
- SFU’s conspiracy was in revenge for the disclosure of SFU’s extensive engagement with agents of the regime of the Islamic Republic, which agents are tied with the regime’s leader, Ali Khamenei, Islamic president, Ebrahim Raisi, the terrorist entity Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the regime’s ballistic missile program.
- Prior to the hearing before Fitzpatrick in July 2021, SFU had completely blocked the discovery process and refrained from releasing any of the documents lawfully demanded by the plaintiff.
- Following the blockage of the discovery process, SFU asked the court to decide their jurisdictional challenge before any fact-finding could be made. Fitzpatrick was dealing with that jurisdictional challenge.
- In a jurisdictional challenge, the judge is supposed to presume the truth of the allegations made by the Plaintiff and, based on that presumption, determine whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim, i.e. whether the court is authorized to let the discovery process, including document and witness examinations, move forward and ultimately engage in fact-finding about the truth of allegations during the trial.
- Following the hearing, Fitzpatrick ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. However, to reach her decision, she did not bother to consider the elements of Plaintiff’s claim, i.e. the allegations and the pleaded facts. Indeed, Fitzpatrick admitted that her “decision-making” about the claim did not require reading the claim!
- Furthermore, while Fitzpatrick admitted in her judgment that she was not allowed to comment on the truth of the allegations, she shamelessly engaged in victim-shaming by calling the allegations against SFU “escalated”, “bizarre”, and even “irrational.” Her conduct in that regard was not only unprofessional (as a judge) but utterly disgraceful (as any human being in any position).
- Fitzpatrick further decorated her judgment with fact manipulations, fabrications, and many outright lies, all in support of and to appease the wealthy and politically powerful enablers of terrorists within the SFU administration.
Altogether, Fitzpatrick presented herself not even remotely as a decent judge but as a slave-clown putting out some private performance in the courtroom to appease her presumably generous masters who enabled terrorists and engaged in a subsequent Mafiaesque conspiracy against the Plaintiff.
Whatsmore, besides her baseless ruling on jurisdiction and in spite of her obviously biased, pre-historic, and barbaric conduct, Fitzpatrick also ordered that she would hear any other matter relating to the lawsuit, including deciding later whether the Plaintiff is allowed to write about the conspirators.
In the first part of this article, we will focus on the characteristics of Fitzpatrick, as the author of the Court’s judgment, that can objectively be inferred based on the words of her judgment.
The second part concerns the matter of judicial misconduct of Fitzpatrick as reflected in the Plaintiff’s factum filed with the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. The Court of Appeal conveniently ignored Fitzpatrick‘s misconduct alongside the majority of the Plaintiff’s arguments.
We will then consider how Fitzpatrick could have been possibly compensated for her disgraceful conduct benefitting the terrorists’ enablers within the SFU administration.
1. Fitzpatrick as seen in the mirror of her own words
We will enumerate the characteristics of Fitzpatrick that can be inferred from different parts of her written so-called judgment.
- Fitzpatrick is judicially illiterate:
- She does not understand the core duties of a judge.
- She is negligent of the ethical principles for judges, including fairness and impartiality.
- She does not understand the importance of the discovery process and does not acknowledge its necessity for any fact-finding by the courts.
- She does not understand that claims can be clarified, amended, and extended.
- To her, exercising one’s right to clarify, amend, or extend claims before a court is “bizarre” and “irrational,” when claims are made against a powerful public body.
- She does not understand the law, particularly the laws of defamation and conspiracy.
- She does not understand what a jurisdiction challenge before the court is.
- She does not understand the difference between a trial (where merits of claims are determined based on evidence) and a pre-trial application.
- Fitzpatrick turned a court of LAW into a realm of TYRANNY, where laws and ethics are immaterial.
- Fitzpatrick did not read the material that she had a duty to read and consider.
- Fitzpatrick ignored the allegations while, supposedly, determining the court’s jurisdiction over those very allegations.
- Fitzpatrick copied a big portion of her judgment one-sidedly from SFU’s pleadings while ignoring the claims against SFU.
- Fitzpatrick resorted to fact manipulations.
- Fitzpatrick resorted to manifestly false speculations about the written documents before the court that she was apparently too lazy to read before reporting on them.
- Fitzpatrick resorted to lying when her lies could benefit the SFU administration.
- Fitzpatrick resorted to victim-shaming to appease the wealthy and politically powerful SFU administration and deter others from pursuing justice against the powerful.
- Victim-shaming by Fitzpatrick consisted in using loaded language and words such as “bizarre”, “irrational”, and “escalated” and attaching them pathetically and uninformedly to allegations against supporters of terrorists within the SFU administration.
- Fitzpatrick resorted to loaded language against a plaintiff because the plaintiff dared to seek justice against a powerful public body.
- Fitzpatrick is a tyrant and as such a threat to justice and to the rule of law, not a decent judge upholding the rule of law.
2. Misconduct of Fitzpatrick brought to the Court of Appeal’s Attention
2.1. Plaintiff’s Opening Argument to the Court of Appeal
In the judgment under this appeal, the judge … engaged in disputing facts pleaded by the plaintiff, by the way of dishonest reporting, mockery and calling the facts bizarre and unreasonable.
Opening Argument to the Court of Appeal
The judge allowed the jurisdictional challenge of the defendants regardless of the fact that the defendants were actually asking the Court below to exercise its jurisdiction over the entire dispute by finding the notice of civil claim without merit because of the appellant’s support for conservative ideas and his disagreement with the “left-wing politics.”
Opening Argument to the Court of Appeal
Using loaded language, especially in a jurisdictional challenge, by [Fitzpatrick] not only shows the bias of the judge but also can affect an ultimate jury trial for determining this defamation and conspiracy action.
Opening Argument to the Court of Appeal
I respectfully submit that the orders of the Court below be set aside that (1) dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and (2) ruled that Madam Justice Fitzpatrick will be seized of any other applications in this matter.
Opening Argument to the Court of Appeal
2.2. Plaintiff’s Factum in the Court of Appeal
There is a big question of fact whether Fitzpatrick J. even read the material before her—particularly my ANoCC—prior to reaching her decision. If not, then the factual situation must have been that
Plaintiff’s Factum, paragraph 57
(1) Fitzpatrick J. first made her decision regardless of the pleadings that she had a judicial duty to consider;
(2) then she wrote some 25-page essay filled mostly with irrelevant material and some material copied from the respondents and their “version” of the facts, and
(3) filnally called that essay a judgment; thereby, wrapped up the action arbitrarily rather than judicially.
[Fitzpatrick] makes a false reporting about [the Notice of Claim] by conveniently dropping sexual harassment … as a way of furtherance of conspiracy and by changing “conspiracy” to “conspiracy to defamation.” She falsely reports about my ANoCC that:
‘He seeks significant damages for defamation and “conspiracy to defamation”.’
Plaintiff’s Factum, paragraph 59
This inexcusable negligence of Fitzpatrick J. extends from the introduction, and even more dominantly, to the entire judgement.
Plaintiff’s Factum, paragraphs 60,62
There is only one reference in the judgment to sexual harassment as pleaded in ANoCC — it should be noted that sexual harassment was the original way of furtherance of conspiracy as of April 2019 when SFU coerced Trotignon to limit her relationship with me. That reference was made on page 21 of the judgment and extends only over 3 line of the judgment and inaccurately so.
There is clear evidence that Fitzpatrick simply copied and pasted in the judgment some of what the respondents had written in their application—she did not really care about reading [the material].
Instead of adhering to basic duties of an adjudicator, she uses her imagination—which is often prejudicial against the plaintiff—and as a result, engages in false and dishonest reporting.
An example of such negligence is evident when at para 72 of the judgment she writes about my Affidavit #5. Without bothering to read it, she decides to attach it in her imagination to Trotignon and then astonishingly puts that imagination in the judgment. Ironically, on this very occasion which is evident of her bizarre level of negligence for a judge, her view is that “[the Plaintiff’s] allegation took another bizarre turn.”
Plaintiff’s Factum, paragraphs 68-70
The inescapable conclusion in these circumstances is that either:
1. Fitzpatrick J. did not bother to read the appellant’s pleadings properly and in a way that every adjudicator should do, or
2. otherwise, engaged in dishonest reporting, fact manipulations, and rhetoric.
In either case, the ruling of Fitzpatrick J. represents negligence and has no basis in law- the judgment should be taken as some unprofessional writeups purposefully prepared to rationalize a decision that was reached regardless of ANoCC.
Plaintiff’s Factum, paragraph 91
3. A closer look into some parts of the defected judgement of Fitzpatrick
3.1 Forming the judgment by copying from SFU’s application while ignoring the Plaintiff’s claim
Table 1 below indicates some of the parts in Fitzpatrick‘s judgment that are directly copied from the opposing parties’ material, which copies at times simultaneously include quotes from the defendants or the judge’s baseless, arbitrary, and biased speculations and manifestly false fabrications.
38 out of 100 paragraphs in Fitzpatrick‘s judgment, including the entire “background” were copied directly from SFU’s application, with no reference to the Plaintiff’s claim, which was the only subject of the jurisdictional challenge.
3.2 A typical instance of Fitzpatrick’s pathetic and uninformed use of loaded language while manifestly lying about the contents of documents before the court
[to follow shortly]
Courts protecting Islamic terrorism 