Privately Employed by the Courts, Corruptly Keeping SFU Criminals Out of the Courts
Yun Li-Reilly has been continuously working for the BC courts since 2016. She was hired by the Court of Appeal for BC as the counsel for one of the main committees of the court comprising of judges and the court’s registrar.
While working for the BC Courts, Li-Reilly was hired by Johnson‘s administration to join forces with Robert Kennedy in obstructing justice and ultimately taking a legitimate legal action against supporters of a terrorist regime out of the courts and away from the public eye.
Li-Reilly is the SFU’s lawyer who was bizarrely given a chance to have a “mid-hearing” private conversation with a judge of the Supreme Court of BC when the court deceptively directed the Plaintiff to go to a different courtroom. The plaintiff was allowed back only after that private conversation had finished and essentially formed the judgment
The Registrar of the Court of Appeal refrained from disqualifying himself from a hearing where his colleague in the court, i.e., Li-Reilly, represented SFU in the same court. The Court later ignored the undisputed evidence of bias put forward by Plaintiff and conveniently engaged in misrepresenting the evidence and downplaying it as an insufficient indication of bias!
(1) An SFU Lawyer Employed by the Courts since 2016
Exhibits and affidavit evidence were provided to the Court of Appeal regarding Yun Li-Reilly’s work for the court since 2016.
- The Court of Appeal’s annual report for the year 2016, when Li-Reilly was hired by the court;
- Li-Reilly’s page on LinkedIn indicating that she’s been working for the court of appeal since 2016;
- Li-Reilly’s page on the website of Farris, including corroborating evidence for Li-Reilly’s work for the Court of Appeal
- Abrioux, who heard a related application of the Plaintiff chose to give a false and fully manipulated description of the evidence in his judgment, presumably to save the face of the court and its officials through lying and also to help the wealthy and powerful administration of SFU in their cover-up attempt.
- The division of the Court, consisting of judges Marchand, Fitch, and Fisher, decided to fully ignore the evidence, claiming that they, among several arguments put forward by the Plaintiff were not necessary for the court to consider, apparently because they would make it virtually impossible for them to reach their predetermined decision in favour of the supporter of Islamic terrorism within the SFU administration.
Evidence conveniently “ignored” by the Court of Appeal
(2) Li-Reilly’s private conversation with a judge in the middle of a hearing, and the subsequent ruling by the coached judge, favouring SFU’s cover-up
This troubling incident occurred during a hearing in February 2021 for a Plaintiff’s application seeking to compel the defendants to disclose some 30 pages of relevant documents. The presiding judge was Karen Douglas.
Here is the Plaintiff’s concise brief account of the incident from his factum (timeline):
The details of the incident were presented to both courts in sworn affidavits.