X. Y., Member of Parliament/ Senator
House of Commons or The Senate of Canada
September 10, 2017
Honourable Sir or Madam:
Re: A large-scale lawsuit against Crown corruption that could be most important
one in Canadian history. I am sending you and to many outstanding authorities in Parliament the copy of my message originally written for lawyers. At the very end, I conclude it with my brief and respectful suggestions (A to H) towards Members of
Parliament and some Ministers. Should your honourable person be of the opinion that the federal government and some its policies are beyond repair please ignore this humble message.
In magnitude, it is similar to the cases of Senator
Mike Duffy, Omar Khadr, Mr. Henry (in 2016, see below), Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., [2002] 1 SCR 595, 2002 SCC 18, or Young v. Bella, [2006] 1 SCR 108, 2006 SCC 3 (CanLII). In short, my wife and I got married almost eleven years ago
but we have been separated by force. Our claims were originally related to immigration and the IRPA, but later (in 2014) shifted to damage claims in tort since the ministers of immigration were adamant in refusing visas to my wife
and stepson. Thus, I am in the position of Mr. Henry* to whom The Honourable Chief Justice Hinkson granted a total amount of $8,086,691.80 in Henry v. British Columbia, 2016 BCSC 1038 (CanLII), or that of Mr. Omar Khadr to whom PM Trudeau
granted $10.5 million. (Note for the *: a person imprisoned for 27 years enjoyed better quality meals than, say, a prison guard that supported three children.)
Our claim areas are as follow: constitutional, Charter, tort (the largest money
extortion scheme since 1867), civil, quasi-criminal, access to justice, and class action. With a proper lawyer, our chances to succeed are practically 100% if the laws of Canada (and British Columbia) have any power. The solutions include a possible settlement
with the Crown (BC and Canada). In 2007, the case was related to immigration. Today, since a ministers had the power to make unlawful decisions and separated us from each other for over a decade, we accept such decision but challenge it on many other grounds. The
Respondents have no valid defence such as res judicata, collateral attack or abuse of process. Governing cases like Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., [2010] 3 SCR 585, 2010 SCC 62, or Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies
Inc., [2001] 2 SCR 460, 2001 SCC 44 support our claims.
At the moment it is an appeal (stuck in the stage of filing) from a decision of the Supreme Court (BC), file No. 5675 (Golden Registry). The total amount of tort claims exceeds
$10M. On 5 September 2017, the Vancouver Registry of the BC Court of Appeal received my Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal to be treated as Notice of Appeal with our Notice of Motion for Application to be heard by 3 or more justices,
with the prescribed filing fees. So far the Registry is silent. We try to appeal the 16 August 2017 decision of Mr. Justice Ball, made in the Supreme Court of BC in Cranbrook (BC). The procedure was civil, not criminal. It seems that
he exceeded his jurisdiction and declared me vexations litigant that is not allowed "to institute or commence legal proceedings in any British Columbia court, or file applications in any existing legal proceedings in any British Columbia court" that includes
the CA. [However, my wife and stepson have not been declared vexatious litigants so a lawyer could file a new claim under their name, or that of the class of re-victimized sponsors in the family class. We do not know the number of the victims. It
may be less than, say, ten thousand persons Canada-wide.]
If our family could not find any expert lawyer within a few months, I would act as self-represented litigant at the courts but, after that, our prospective lawyer could initiate
a brand new claim as a class action or as a claim based on the criminal rules. With high (99%) probability the case would eventually be decided by the nine judges of the SCC. Good lawyers often undertake cases with low chances to succeed. Here we have
the opposite: 20 to 70 paragraphs of the laws have been contravened by the public servants so our cards are too good. Our opponents have a single strategy to follow since 2012: the systemic misleading of the courts by fraud or false testimonies, perfect
silence and lack of disclosure of the facts.
The real saga began in 2006 when the Genius of the Nation [i.e., Stephen Harper] started to install his new system where the federal ministers gave more power to simple administrators than to any
Court. He placed those administrators, including those of the court registries, over the courts. By doing that trick, he and his ministers managed to get many decisions done without the involvement of the courts. Thus, between 2006 and 2015, the
power structure of the country was in a short circuit situation and the government was comparable to an airplane flying upside down just before landing. The ministers of the present Liberal Government either do not know about the problems or simply
give free hands to their lawyers.
Since 2006 or so, the nine SCC judges are comparable to a head severed from the body: the rest of Canada. Mr. Bilodeau, the Registrar, is usurping their power in cases where a party alleges
errors of law at the lower court(s), habitually contravening s. 61 of the Supreme Court Act (of Canada). The panel of three SCC judges receives about 1,000 applications for leave to appeal in each year. Since many of those consist
of files containing thousands of pages, it is humanely impossible for those three judges to read through every document. In my case of 2012, those three impartial judges had to rely on the Crown Counsel's submission (who falsely stated for
the SCC that my claim was against the Province of BC and not against Canada, so it was an abuse of process). She succeeded by misleading the Court, and my application was dismissed.
If a single legal expert in Canada would have the
ability [and why not?] to restore the rule of law in this country while defending the powers of the nine judges of the SCC that legal expert would be the lawyer we would like to contact. (We try to avoid lawyers that have no confidence in themselves,
or, in the laws.) The future of Canada is partly in that lawyer's hands: he or she could achieve Canada's return to a democratic state where to powers of the SCC are restored, and the laws of Canada are respected again. (That good
old system worked well from 1867 to 2006.) Also, a lawyer having some contacts with one or more politicians and the media (and as its result, could imagine himself or herself as a future minister of justice) would be an ideal lawyer for us.
If no such brilliant lawyer exists in the country, Canada could remain on the path designed by Mr. Harper and his ministers, passing from a "soft fascism" of a "one-member party" towards a total dictatorship. Thus, a future extremist dictator
could lead Canada to any suicidal direction or chaos. Our country is comparable to a wonderful chariot drawn by two teams of excellent horses into two opposite directions. Namely, a group of federal ministers - including the public servants obeying them,
some judges and the AGC - combine all their forces and unlawful policies to drag Canada in one direction, while the SCC, the rest of the judges, the Charter, and the laws of Canada draw the chariot in the opposite direction. It's only a
question of time when the chariot will break up into two or more parts. Now the enemies of the laws have the upper hand because the government of the neutral and sympathetic PM Trudeau sits back and automatically continues many unlawful policies
of Mr. Harper.
The government's situation can be compared to the following: Say, a major car dealership under new ownership receives many complains from the public and the police. All of the allegations claim that a high percentage of their vehicles
on sale have been stolen previously. The new owners of the firm cover up the crimes of the previous owners in order to keep the profits. Or, as another comparison, a chocolate factory receives complaints that their Easter bunnies contain arsenic or cyanide,
killing thousands of consumers. The new owner or manager ignores the claims and continues to produce and distribute the poisonous products. The present AGC has inherited such "poisonous" past from the previous government. She may have instructed her Crown
lawyers to "stop that man (Z.A. Simon) by any means". Her words may have meant to Counsel that fraud on the courts or misleading the courts was included into those means allowed. (In 2014/4, 2016, and 2017 four Crown Counsel have deposited fraudulent and
misleading statements against us so the court decisions have been obtained by fraud on the courts.
Some of our honourable politicians assume that the Crown's crimes, quasi-crimes, or money extortion schemes would always remain hidden. Leaders
of the Third Reich pursued similar illusions but the Nuremberg Trials revealed their secrets, without Internet. Although such comparison would be improper, our governments follow their old inhuman strategies including the cruel punishment of a vulnerable group
and a minority: the re-victimized sponsors in the family class.
The previous courts have not settled "any right, question, or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction." There were
two exceptions where the FCA settled two factual questions for our favour but the Crown keeps ignoring those decisions. The final decision was always Mr. Bilodeau's personal decision but he was not a judge or a Court. Between 2007 and 2017, the plaintiff(s)
have never been given a chance to be heard on the merits of their case, and have not been allowed to show evidence. They have lost their cases always due to empty formalities. (For example, their lack of a "concise" pleadings but such word has never been
defined in law: there are "concise" dictionaries of 300 pages, etc.) This reminds on to Mr. Duffy's situation and successful defence.
The SC BC has not yet declared my wife and stepson vexatious litigants. Thus, a lawyer of your firm could
convert the case to either a criminal procedure against the Crown, or, into a class action. Those would be new categories so a claim for our abuse of process could not fly. My main concern is Counsel's potential motion demanding a security deposit
of maybe 5,000 or 10,000 dollars from us. I am eating less and less so I would be unable to comply with such decision. Perhaps your firm could take that financial risk in light of a potential gain of millions of dollars, or simply defeat such possible
motion by legal arguments. Also, you or a colleague of yours could successfully negotiate a settlement between the Crown (BC and Canada) and my family. I need a good lawyer because my wife would never get a visa so I would need to spend the rest of my life
in China. Thus, that participating lawyer could keep representing the interests of my wife and stepson even after my death. (In the Soviet Union, the whistleblowers were not tortured for a decade. The state found a "more human" solution: a dark car of the
government, without a licence plate, simply hit the unwanted citizen in the night, and the police was ordered not to investigate the death. If Canada wants to become a hard fascist dictatorship for good, our leaders must learn more tricks.
Whatever
your decision would be, you already have an advantage compared to other lawyers that have deleted this message without reading it. You or one of your friends or colleagues may be in an exceptional position to find workable solutions for
each party or person involved. So why not let a friend or yourself get a great reward by fair constitutional means and by solving a decade-long headache for the Crown? For en extremely talented judge everything is possible, even saving Canada. The
Court expressed in R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 SCR 333, 1993 CanLII 44 (SCC): "Procedure cannot govern substance ‑‑ an order so erroneous that it results in a fundamentally flawed trial process cannot be allowed to stand."
Once a friend
told me, "A person who is representing himself in a Court is representing a fool."** I arrived to the point of expecting his saying. The more I try to help innocent victims or protect the laws of Canada the more damage I do for the people. The "Tremblay-Lamer
principle" (I cannot find a better name for it) is a good example. In it, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer concluded in the FC that a future hypothetical administrative decision cannot be challenged in the courts. Now, this may sound acceptable at the first glance
but soon becomes a "Trojan horse" for the use of tortfeasors. It means that a minister in Canada may exhibit a memo in a Court Registry written in the following words: "If any employee or administrator of the Court, a Registrar, or a Judge would accept
for filing any document that may contain a claim against the Crown, or would make a decision against the Crown, that person may lose his or her job immediately, and his or her severance monies as well." Crown Counsel could claim that such FC decision is a
final judgment since the FCA has supported it, and Z. Simon has not filed an Application for Leave to Appeal in the SCC. [They would not mention that he filed a Notice of Appeal but the Registrar refused its filing.] Returning to the Tremblay-Lamer principle,
the web pages of the Canadian Judicial Council display a sample for a similar threatening document that is unacceptable in Canada. So which side is right and which one is wrong? Why would the Canadian Judicial Council be wrong? As for the **
above, a decade ago our legal issues were only immigration-related, with little chance to succeed. When I emailed 150 lawyers in Eastern Ontario, only one of them replied, asking for a retainer of $2,000 without any guarantee or promise.
Worse for my profiling by the courts, I pleaded in 2014 that I sent letters asking some ambassadors of Canada abroad to help me settle there as a Canadian refugee but none of them replied to me. Also, I pleaded that some administrators in the court registries
in certain cities were under pressure and tried to stop me by unlawful procedural tricks***. Madam Justice Donegan has "translated" my words such as my complaints against "wrongs committed" by "... a number of ambassadors." (Ambassadors are not obliged
to answer any letter so I did not attack them.) She continued, "Overall, the plaintiffs seem to allege a complex conspiratorial web, woven between most courts and government officials with whom Mr. Simon has come into contact." So far five BC judges share
such "character assassination" against me but my pleadings have never contained anything like that. I always respected every judge or lawyer very much. I have never sued any lawyer representing my opposing party at a Court. Madam Justice Donegan and Mr.
Justice Ball consider that administrators of a court registry belong to that Court but I follow the Court Rules that include only the judges in the word "Court." (As a note for the above ***, a decision of the Hon. Justice Nadon against me in
the FCA used a generic wording, without specifying my submissions or motion number or date in an appeal where seven motions have been on file. As the result, the administrators discarded more than one of my motions. When I read in the news that Mr. Nadon's
appointment to the SCC has been challenged by Quebec, I sent the PDF file of Mr. Nadon's vague decision to several Quebec lawyers and ministers. I showed that a judge failing to identify the exact matter or issue in a decision should not qualify
for becoming a SCC judge. Whether Quebec has used my argument or not, eight SCC judges disagreed with that appointment by Mr. Harper. It was a great feeling for me that justice has been served on that day.)
We have never been allowed to have a first bite at that "proverbial cherry" in the Courts: I was allowed to feel its bad smell only. Both Counsel claims, by knowingly misleading the Court(s) that my previous cases in the FC and FCA constitute res
judicata in the SC BC. Their Affidavit contains hundreds of pages listing the courts' decisions against me. However, none of those decisions since 2007 contain "any right, question, or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined" related
to our current (2017) claim. While a volume of affidavits containing hundreds of pages, Crown Counsel are in a position comparable to a man's in an anecdote (from a book published in Hungary in the 1930's) as follows:
A man buys some
meat products in the market and goes home with his bag. He puts down the bag while he is searching for his keys. When he turns around he is realizing that the bag with the meat has gone missing. He observes the neighbour's happy tomcat nearby so he grabs the
cat and takes it to the neighbour lady, complaining bitterly. He demands that the cat to be weighed. They do that and get the reading: the cat's weight is 5.17 pounds. The lady signs a paper admitting that her cat's weight was 5.17 pounds on that date
and in that given hour. The man sues the lady at the Court. At the hearing, he shows his dated receipt proving that he bought 1 pound of salami, 2 pounds of ham, 1 pound of pastrami, and 1.17 pound of sausage, the total of which is matching with the cat's
weight just after the "crime". For his great surprise, the judge looks at his "perfect evidence" and asks him: "You say you have found your meat. But, then, where is the cat?"
In my previous court cases, the missing keys are two sheets of paper. So
far the Crown has never been able to prove that it has had any contract with me, and cannot produce the required "ministerial certificate" of debt against me. [Please refer to s. 146 of the IRPA.] Such certificate supposed to
be kept in the registry of the Federal Court, let alone in two federal and two provincial ministries. Even if one would accept a theory that acts of God (or Mother Nature) like flood or lightning have destroyed such documents simultaneously in every ministry,
the Crown's insurance company would be responsible for the huge damages caused by the disappearance of such documents. (It is possible that in most of the countries the public servants' general duty is to invent "credible lies" to protect their governments.
In our case, no explanation has ever been provided to us. Also, I am unable to believe that Mr. Harper or/and his ministers created their unconstitutional policies (IP 2 and MOU) in order to punish only me and my family. Their cruel and inhuman
plot is still in effect and alive in every province (although I cannot really prove that.) A few days ago I found a shocking web site "revealing" some "secrets" about judges: www.waterwarcrimes.com/14-justice-carolyn-layden-stevenson---murder-victim.html. In any case, my website www.correctingworldhistory.com is more encouraging than that
one although not too updated. As for judges and lawyers, I respect them equally but try the defend the reputation of the good ones that obey the laws of Canada and her provinces.
Shortly after our marriage, my Chinese wife
wanted a baby from me but due to the Crown's cruel conduct, I could not see any hope and we have lost that chance forever. Now she is 54 and I am 68 years old.
I am sending you the relevant PDF files so you can see the outline of
our legal issues. Our partial representation (say, at a certain stage or in a certain province only) may be convenient if no lawyer has the time and energy to handle the whole case. My present concern is how to appeal a decision of a "Court" - say, the BC
Court of Appeal - if the Registry would simply deny to file our documents so the final decision would be issued by the Registrar. It is possible that soon I need a lawyer to attend a less-than-30-minute long hearing in Vancouver of my application for
leave to appeal (that would be an abuse of process since such step is not required by law). Perhaps that could be done by teleconference.
I would be thankful to you for the acknowledgment of this message. Hopefully, the substance of our case is
clear from this humble introduction. Should you be interested, I could send you a second or third message with some PDF documents attached. In case if you would write a book in the future, you can mention anything freely from this
message, my documents attached, or my website.
Please forgive me for having taken your precious time by these legal issues. I am looking forward to your advice and kind assistance in this matter regarding your plans and possibilities. If
you have dozens of parallel minor cases, you are obviously too busy to undertake this major one. Since there are many avenues and solutions, I would be interested in lawyers living in any province. The probabilities to have hearings or trials in BC and eventually
in Ottawa are the highest. Finally, I am sending you a list of 78 constitutional questions. No Court has ever answered any of them: they are not easy. Many of those questions are not relevant to the tort claim in BC so they could be filed in the Federal
Court of any Province at your convenience. Please forgive me for sending this message to some of your colleagues as well. Such extra communication means better chances for all of us.
I wish you the best in your professional and private
life, whatever your response may be. I am looking forward to your reply at your convenience. Have a great weekend.
Sincerely yours, and best regards
Zoltan Andrew SIMON, 68 (historian, originally geologist and land surveyor)
72 Best Crescent, Red Deer, AB T4R 1H6
E-mail: zasimon@hotmail.com
Encl.: I am sending you nine relevant PDF documents and two Word 2013 documents
To: Ministers and MPs who aspire to be members of the next government (Cabinet)
Should your honourable person wish to become an influential member of the next Cabinet, perhaps you would consider one of the next few options.
(A) Submit a proposal to Parliament to vote on the status and powers of the federal legislation including the Constitution, the Charter, the enactments, laws, rules, and regulations. Perhaps the majority of the votes would decide that
all those enactments and the rule of law in Canada would mean only a guideline and they would not need to be obeyed strictly, at least not for the Crown. Therefore, public servants would have free hand in every legal issue, and the court system would
hardly be needed anymore. Similarly, if the importance of Parliament's decisions would decrease, the man-hours of the MPs and the related budget could dramatically be reduced. All MPs would have much more free time, etc. This would be a great solution
for any future dictator. Such proposed bill may pass in Parliament without any difficulty.
(B) Submit the draft of a bill to appoint a parliamentary committee that would investigate or supervise the unlawful activities of certain federal authorities
like CIC, CRA, FINTRAC, and AGC or Deputy AGC (within the Department of Justice). Presently those departments are continuing the quasi-criminal activities of their predecessors under the Harper dictatorship. As we have demonstrated above, a
cruel money extortion and laundering scheme exists under federal control. If the rule of law could become only an optional guidelines in Canada, those new ministers could simply continue their torts, errors and omissions (inherited from the conservative
ministers) without facing any punishment. Thus, a harmony would be achieved between theory and practice: law and policies. Also, the Crown could find further social groups to punish: if a visa officer decides that a Canadian and a foreigner married but they
had an age gap and different cultural or social backgrounds, after a decade of silence the Crown could punish and garnishee the Canadian spouse. Or, a minister of finance could agree with any provincial minister of finance, allowing him/her to start printing billions
of Canadian dollars. The persons involved could share half of the profit while both Canada and the province would have more money so [they may say] it would not be a crime [since everybody would have more money and not a single citizen could prove that
he or she lose a single dollar by the Crown's action]. Simply, if the Crown does not need to observe any law from now on, the possibilities are endless.
(C) Should you have any friend or colleague in Parliament or the media that try to restore
Canada as a country honestly built on the rule of law, you could file a common motion or propose a bill towards a practical solution. Namely, you could suggest the appointment of a new Registrar to the Supreme Court of Canada who would oblige himself or herself
to obey section 61 of the Supreme Court Act. Mr. Bilodeau has prevented the application of that section habitually, placing himself above the nine SCC judges in cases where a party alleged error in law (in the lower courts).
(D) You and your colleagues could propose the creation of a new ministry and the appointment of a new minister. PM Trudeau made a similar move recently and, generally, he was praised for it. In our case, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney
General is a single person. She has inherited a quasi-criminal tort system related to immigration and garnishment. 99.9% of her energy is spent on covering up the torts, crimes, or quasi-crimes. The lawyers representing her (or the Deputy AGC) are actually
covering up the crimes of the Harper era. The AGC or her Deputy has zero energy left to defend the laws of Canada. The Crown's counsel - so far five of them - habitually submit false statements in the Courts. Your proposed bill to investigate such
crimes committed under the name of the AGC would increase the popularity of the Liberal Government. Such investigation by a Committee could reveal whether those counsel have been instructed by their superiors to mislead the courts by fraud, or counsel
acted on their own, without AGC's orders. Instead of having a Minister of Justice and an AGC in a single person (whose right hand needs to fight against her left hand perpetually) Canada could afford two separate ministers: A Minister of Justice, and
a Minister of Attorney General. One of them could defend the laws of Canada, while the other one may defend the public servants that had contravened those laws. Other countries would praise PM Trudeau for the introduction of such unique and fair
system.
(E) You may consider a bill to modify the text of the oath to be taken by any judge. Presently the judges swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and not to the Constitution or the laws of Canada. Certain judges may see a Crown counsel
as the true representative or image of the Queen but a counsel may act for his or her own interests and against the laws. If the laws of Canada are in conflict with the personal interests of counsel, judges should not be forced to consider the
misleading words of a lawyer but rather the laws of this country. "Allegiance to Her Majesty" cannot be interpreted as "allegiance to a crooked or corrupt counsel."
(F) You, perhaps with your colleagues, may consider some improvement or harmonization
between different laws as follow:
Section 6 (4) of the Provincial Court Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 379 goes: Before entering on the duties of the office, a judge appointed under any provision of this Act must swear an oath as follows:
I, ......................................., do swear that I will truly and faithfully, according to my skill and knowledge, execute the duties, powers and trusts placed in me as a judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia and that I will be faithful
and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors.
Section 3. of the Court of Appeal Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 77 is basically the same.
For comparison, SCHEDULE (Section
24) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 goes, “Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship(:)
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and
Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”
[Thus, a Canadian citizen is required to faithfully observe the laws of Canada (plus bear true allegiance to H.M. the Queen), a judge
or justice of a BC Court does not need to observe the laws (of Canada or BC), only bear true allegiance to the Queen. The following picture emerges: Her Majesty the Queen relies on the Governor General who relies on the Prime Minister who relies on the Minister
of Justice who relies on the Deputy Minister of Justice who relies on a Counsel who is often a crook disobeying several laws of Canada. A Judge of the Supreme Court of BC may consider a crooked Counsel to be the mirror image of Her Majesty. A BC Judge is not
required to observe any law, as the BC oath formulas reveal. This odd situation may exist in many provinces.]
(G) I kept searching for a good Liberal strategist since 2015 but I was unable reach any including PM Trudeau. The media is a swamp just
like in the US, so Crown crimes are hardly published anywhere. In such poisonous environment PM Trudeau is not allowed to learn of the serious problems so he is unable to find any remedy. In the moment the media would reveal some of the Crown's crimes, PM
Trudeau could appear immediately to defend us and slay that dragon of red tape or corruption. He would be celebrated as the slayer of a monster that is the enemy of Canadians. But if the existence of such dragon remains hidden he could not become
a popular hero, a modern Saint George.
(H) You or your group of MPs may consider a bill allowing Canadian citizens to learn the addresses of citizenship courts and solemnly revoke their citizenships there if the Crown massively contravenes its
laws and the Constitution. Citizens should have the option to express their discontent as a protest, and they should be able to receive back their status previous to the Canadian citizenship. In my case, I had a "Canadian Landed Immigrant" status before becoming
a citizen in September 1979. If Canada is cruelly and knowingly terrorizing vulnerable minorities - the sponsors - that have a crucial role for healthy immigration I would not like to keep my Canadian citizenship. Once Service Canada told me that
I would not receive any pension benefit if I would revoke my Canadian citizenship. Since CIC is not allowing my wife to enter Canada, I would like to settle in China, perhaps as a Canadian political refugee. There is no other choice for our family's reunification
in the courts cannot find a civilized solution. If a Citizenship Court (that is not listed on the Internet) could order CIC to issue a copy of my "Landed Immigrant Document" to me so I could receive my pension benefits while living in China.
All these
humble suggestions are on your table. It is your choice and that of your political party to utilize some of them for a better Canada. The next government - perhaps formed by the NDP if the Liberals have no time and energy to do such improvements - could
bring a better future for all of us.
Thank you for your precious time and kind attention.
Sincerely,
Zoltan Andrew Simon (68, historian)
P.S.: As on September 20, 2017, the
Vancouver Registrar still has not filed or reacted to my proper appeal documents. Thus, he sumerimposed himself above the Court of Appeal, preventing any CA judge to learn of the Crown's constitutional (and quasi-criminal) issues.