Drive For Justice 08: Rafe Mair Begins His Campaign of Hate and Vilification

 Video  Comments Off on Drive For Justice 08: Rafe Mair Begins His Campaign of Hate and Vilification
Jul 232012
 

No one can say for sure what sank the Titanic of BC broadcasting, the Dynamic Duo of Rafe Mair and Kari Simpson; but we can observe some of the events that ran the ship aground.

Remember that Kari’s appearances on Rafe Mair’s radio talk show were only a small part of her work in the 1990s; the vast majority of her time was spent running the Citizens’ Research Institute, defending families before provincial bureaucrats, and speaking at public rallies.

Some of those rallies got so rambunctious, the managers of the venues where Kari spoke required her to hire police. It wasn’t that Kari riled up or incited the crowds; but the International Socialists—who had made death threats against Kari and her family—were always a danger to the public peace. So Kari complied, and hired off-duty cops to keep the peace.

One of the families Kari defended had expressed concern that their son’s Kindergarten and Grade One teacher, one James Chamberlain, was violating the provincial Education Ministry’s requirement that parents were to be advised if sensitive matters, such as sexual orientation, were to be discussed in the classroom. These particular parents felt that sexual orientation was no appropriate for Kindergarten and Grade One students. Furthermore, they were Christians who objected to the fact that Chamberlain required students to, in his words, “leave their religious beliefs at the classroom door.”

Chamberlain was an outspoken homosexual activist, and he brought his ideas into the classroom, to present them to his 5- and 6-year-old pupils. Kari agreed with the parents who wanted to pull their son out of range of his indoctrination.

Chamberlain was also the teacher at the centre of a high-profile cause celebre called the “Surrey Books Case”, in which he introduced three books into his classroom—books that extolled homosexual households as “normal”.

Let me digress here to add a word of personal witness: in 2009, I attended a “conference” to teach teachers how to make their classrooms more ‘gay’-friendly. James Chamberlain was one of the teachers’ instructors. In the session I participated in, Chamberlain explained to the teachers his theory of how the word “faggot” came to be applied to homosexual men. It’s a wild fantasy!

In the Middle Ages, said Chamberlain, when witches were being burned at the stake, the bodies of homosexual men were used as kindling to start the fire.

If you consult the proprietor of a crematorium, you’ll learn that the human body, which is more than 70% water, is very, very hard to burn; crematoria have to use natural gas or oil to generate a temperature of about 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

In short: you cannot use corpses as kindling to start a fire; but in James Chamberlain’s fantasy world, that illusion has become a “fact” he can teach. You have to wonder what he teachers Grade One and Kindergarten students, once he has them under his autonomous control?!?

An important distinction has to be made here: Kari Simpson was never involved in the “Surrey Books” Case; but she did help parents defend their decision to take their son out of Chamberlain’s class. However, Rafe Mair, in several broadcasts, accused Kari of not only being involved in the book case, but insisted that her motivation for helping the parents withdraw their son was—not that the teachers was violating the parents rights; but that the teacher was gay.

That’s ironic, because Kari is on record as saying that the books should be allowed in schools, as long as parents’ right to be informed was respected. But Rafe continued to confuse the issues, and—astonishingly—later on the courts would compound the error by citing as “fact” the very accusation that was at issue in a defamation lawsuit!

Rafe was wrong; Kari wrote to him and to the radio station to inform them that he was wrong. But Rafe’s tirades continued—and they worsened. Eventually, he was comparing Kari to skin-heads, to the Ku Klux Klan, to Nazis—even to Adolf Hitler!

His campaign of hate went on for two years, comprising more than 40 editorials. By re-using material to get maximum mileage out of his writing, Rafe broadcast them, ran them in print, and posted them on various Internet blogs.

Finally, to stop the stream of hatred and defamation, Kari sued.

And just wait until you hear how Canada’s so-called “justice” system handled that case! But we’ll get into that next week.

Drive For Justice 07: Simpson & Mair – The Happy Years

 Video  Comments Off on Drive For Justice 07: Simpson & Mair – The Happy Years
Jul 162012
 

Rafe Mair and Kari Simpson worked together for more than a decade to let the public know how government bureaucrats were sometimes abusing families in BC, and indeed, often actually putting children at risk by their abuses of the government’s enormous power.

Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin acknowleged, in a speech she made in January of this year, the important role media play in our justice system, quoting 19th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who said, “Where there is no publicity, there is no justice.”

The media, in short, are the public’s watchdog: if the media are covering the courts, they are the public’s eyes and ears.

And in those years, broadcasters like Rafe Mair were sustaining that role; he was a worthy successor to my old boss, the late, great Jack Webster.

But sometimes, when the members of the judicial club get too close, the watchdog can turn into a lap-dog.

You know, I’ve long contended that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so beloved by our Left-Liberal media, is wrongly constructed, on two counts:

First, it should be a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities; we all have an obligation to protect the freedoms our ancestors won for us. As someone has said, “Freedom is not free; it must be won and defended anew in every generation.”

Second, the primary purpose of such a Charter should be to defend citizens from the abuse of power by their government. The criminal law protects us from each other; but an old Latin proverb asks, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies”—“who will keep watch over the watchers themselves?”

For more than ten years, and in cases that numbered into the thousands, Rafe and Kari let the public know that abuses were taking place. Rafe had the Number One radio talk show in the Lower Mainland of BC, and Kari had organized the Citizens Research Institute to give citizens a place to air their grievances. Together, they were a real-life “dynamic duo”. And the public really responded: Kari’s work was a ratings-booster for Rafe.

At one point, Kari was nominated for an award as British Columbia’s “Woman of Distinction”, and Rafe wrote fulsome praise: his only objection to the proposed award, he said, was that it was too limiting—“When one considers what she has accomplished—and forced, by dint of her commitment and dedication, others to accomplish—she is a distinguished British Columbian and Canadian, who has truly been an inspiration to all she has come in contact with.”

In a later broadcast—we have it on tape—he actually proposed that Kari Simpson should be awarded the once-prestigious Order of Canada.

Together, the Dynamic Duo tackled more than the government bureaucracy; they also brought to light some weaknesses in the closed club of the professions, challenging the Law Society of BC and the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons. Self-regulating professions, they said, because they are empowered by law to sit in judgement of themselves, have an obligation to operate openly, so that the public can see that they discipline their own professions properly. Such openness is the sine qua non of public trust. Rafe Mair, as a former lawyer, knew that very well; and he was sometimes very hard on the members of the legal brotherhood. In general, however, he was usually circumspect about the judiciary; in those days, judges kept their personal opinions to themselves, and the media respected their privacy because of the importance of the independence of the judiciary.

Those days, alas, have passed into history; and today, many judges, all the way up to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, make public speeches about political matters, even declaring—as Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin did in New Zealand in December 2005 and again earlier this year—that judges ought to be even more aggressive in inserting their own “core values” into the legal system—regardless of what the law or the constitution might say.

Here on the table before me are hours and hours of audio tape of broadcasts done by Rafe Mair and Kari Simpson, and some of the many memoes, letters and lunch date appointments that their work together involved.

At one point, another radio host wanted to get Kari Simpson of his talk show; but Rafe insisted that Kari was his broadcast property. She was, after all, a very, very valuable asset to the ratings of his program, where she appeared each week.

Those were the good years; next week, we’ll all watch as things unravel.

Drive For Justice 06: Rafe Mair, a Biography

 Video  No Responses »
Jul 092012
 

 

“I don’t want Christian principles,” says Rafe Mair. “I want decent decisions, based upon justice for all and sound judgement in the public interest.

“But does that, for my vote, exclude the deeply religious?” He asks. Then he answers his own question:
“Yes. I don’t want criminal law or social laws or human rights based upon fundamentalists’ notion of Christian principles. Indeed, I don’t want government by people who, in order to get political support, must pander to the religious right…”

Note that in these statements, Mr. Mair makes some questionable assumptions:
• that Christian principles are incompatible with decent decisions or equal justice for all;
• that “Christian” equals “fundamentalist”;
• that Christians in politics “must pander to the religious right”—a term liberally used by Leftists to malign people of faith.

Rafe Mair similarly criticized Kari Simpson, actually comparing her to Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, and alleging that she had written him a letter in which she accused him of defending pedophiles (which she denies).

But in an on-line Tyee opinion piece October 22, 2007, Mair himself wrote, “When oh when are we going to understand that pedophiles are sick people, and should be treated as patients and quarantined until doctors can state that it’s safe to release them? Putting them through the justice system merely ensures that they will be back on the street uncured.”

In short, he does not believe pedophiles should be prosecuted for their crimes, but should be medically treated—although psychological and psychiatric professionals state emphatically that a very low percentage of pedophiles will respond to such therapy.

Rafe Mair is a lawyer, former politician, political commentator and broadcast personality in British Columbia. He often labels his own opinions as “facts”, even though sometimes they are diametrically opposed to the real facts. And sometimes, to back up his so-called “facts”, he lies.

His political career began in 1975, when he was elected as Social Credit MLA for Kamloops. He held that seat, and also served as Minister of Health and then Education, until he retired from politics in 1981. During the patriation of the Constitution of Canada in 1981-82, he was BC’s chief delegate on constitutional matters.

In 1981, he left government to become a talk show host. Rafe soon landed the coveted morning commute time slot on CKNW radio. Despite high ratings, he was fired in June of 2003 after scandalous allegations were made public involving a female producer also employed at CKNW. Rafe then moved to CKBD, an oldies music station; his morning talk show ended in late 2005, after which he became a regular commentary guest on Omni Television‘s current affairs program, The Standard. Mair contributed three commentaries a week until January 2006, when the commentary segment of the program was deleted. However, he has continued his relationship with The Standard, guest-hosting the program from time to time. He remains active as a regular columnist for a chain of community newspapers and for the on-line magazine The Tyee, and he often appears as a political commentator for several broadcast outlets, including CBC Radio.

An avid fisherman, he has been an outspoken critic of salmon farming in BC. Although he has usually been considered politically conservative, Mair’s views have been very liberal on environmental and social issues.
Disillusioned with the three biggest federal parties, he has supported the Green Party; but he more commonly supports individual candidates, rather than parties—including Svend Robinson, NDP MP, who was convicted of stealing an expensive diamond ring for his “partner”.

Rafe Mair was the principal spokesperson for Save Our Rivers, a group organized to fight private run-of-river hydroelectric development. He is currently a contributor to The Common Sense Canadian, a news and opinion Internet site; and he also hosts a quasi-religious television program called The Search.

BC Social activist targets judges, lawyers and media in her demand for a parliamentary inquiry into judicial corruption

 Releases  No Responses »
Jul 062012
 

ROADKILL RADIO NEWS RELEASE
July 6, 2012
For immediate release

Letter sent to PM Harper today

BC Social activist targets judges, lawyers and media in her

demand for a parliamentary inquiry into judicial corruption

 

LANGLEY, BC, July 6, 2012 (RoadKillRadio.com)—BC social activist Kari Simpson has asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a parliamentary inquiry into judicial corruption in Canada’s courts.

Charging malfeasance by judges and lawyers in her own defamation lawsuit against broadcaster Rafe Mair, Simpson outlines in a letter to the Prime Minister details about judges who should not have been on the bench, other judges who covered for them, lawyers who failed to follow the rules in drafting her case, and how the Supreme Court changed the rules and then denied Simpson the right to have her case heard in light of the new legal test.

The record of corruption by both judges and lawyers illustrates why the public has lost faith in Canada’s justice system, Simpson says. “When the very people who are supposed to protect the Rule of Law bring the law into disrepute, it’s time for Parliament to act,” she says.

In her letter to the Prime Minister and the accompanying summary brief, Simpson draws attention to Section 101 of the Constitution Act, which gives Parliament the authority to set up a superior court of appeals whenever the justice system falls into disrepute. The 15 pointed questions she asks the Prime Minister to answer bring to light disturbing facts, and reveal a troubled and broken court system.

Simpson states: “I write to apprise you of a serious matter that requires your attention. The information contained herein details a level of corruption and contempt for the Rule of Law within our courts that can no longer be ignored. The egregious conduct blatantly and arrogantly displayed by those who are sworn members of the judiciary warrant, at the very least, a parliamentary inquiry.”

The troubling events detailed in Simpson’s letter and brief to the Prime Minister flow from a lawsuit she initiated in 1999 against former radio talk show host Rafe Mair and his radio station, CKNW.

Beginning in 1997, Mair had launched a two-year campaign of hate and lies about Simpson. He published more than 40 hate-filled editorials on air, in print, and on-line that maligned her, fabricating events that falsely represented her and her motives in her social advocacy work defending parents’ rights within the public school system.

The case eventually went to the Supreme Court of Canada. In its decision the SCC “modified” (i.e., changed) the legal test for a defence of “honest belief”—but failed to order a new trial so the facts of the case could be heard and considered according to the new test. Ironically, the case of WIC v. SIMPSON had been cited in a subsequent trial as a precedent that showed why a new trial should be ordered. But instead, the high court found in favour of Mair and restored the original trial judge’s decision.  However, the original trial judge was not qualified to preside over the case, because at the time she was herself embroiled in scandal that involved two similar defamation suits against her spouse, and her own culpability in the fraudulent conveyance of property in an unlawful attempt to protect the assets from legal claim.

The SCC also repeated from the bench demonstrably false accusations made by Mair against Simpson, thus compounding and bolstering the harm to her reputation.

Simpson names names in her briefing document. She accuses BC Supreme Court Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, Rafe Mair and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada of publishing defamatory lies and violating the law. Simpson’s brief is meticulous in referencing dates and events, including a comparative timeline that demonstrates the illegal activities, bias and conflicts of the trial judge.

Simpson’s letter to the Prime Minister is only the kick-off in her Drive for Justice campaign, which she asserts is “a campaign that will not stop until justice is not only done, but seen to be done.” Simpson’s closing remarks to Harper clearly define the problem. She says, “The events detailed herein depict a constitutional calamity of epic proportions, and should deservedly shake the judicial establishment to its core.”

See a PDF of Kari Simpson’s letter and brief here, and they can also be found at driveforjustice.com.

For more information contact Kari Simpson

Tel: 604 514-1614

Email: driveforjustice@gmail.com

 

Letter to Prime Minister Harper, July 6, 2012

 Letters, Reference  No Responses »
Jul 062012
 

Click here to see the entire Letter to Prime Minister Harper in PDF format, including additional Summary Brief and Reference Material.

 

Kari D. Simpson
PO Box 12014
Murrayville Square
Langley, BC V3A 9J5
Email: driveforjustice@gmail.com
Tel: 604.514.1614/Fax:604.514.1669

The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper,
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca

July 6, 2012

Re: Judicial Corruption

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

I write to apprise you of a serious matter that requires your attention. The information
contained herein details a level of corruption and contempt for the Rule of Law within
our courts that can no longer be ignored. The egregious conduct blatantly and
arrogantly displayed by those who are sworn members of the judiciary warrant, at the
very least, a Parliamentary inquiry.

My name is Kari Simpson. I am an ordinary citizen. I, like all Canadians, am cloaked in
the armour of our Constitution and bound by the Rule of Law. My status is one of
equality. I am neither master nor slave, but (ostensibly) a free citizen in a democratic
society. I am a lover of truth and fierce defender and protector of those Rights and
Freedoms assigned to all; and I embrace dutifully my civic responsibility to guard
against tyranny and any other acts that weaken, defile or threaten the foundations upon
which our liberties and freedoms rest.

When, as it does in this case, the level of judicial arrogance and corruption clearly
displays a contemptuous disregard for the Rule of Law, and the rights of an ordinary
citizen are consequently violated, there must be parliamentary redress. Those who
have made a mockery of the law and brought the administration of justice into disrepute
must be held to account. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
Following this correspondence is a brief outline of the events that give rise to these 15
constitutionally imperative questions. I look forward to your responses.

1. Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg, a justice of the BC Supreme Court, admits
to financially supporting her spouse while he was engaged in “non-remunerative”
activities which included promoting religious hatred, cultivating contempt for
Jews, and vilifying, defaming and libeling prominent Jewish businessmen —
among other related endeavours. According to court records, Justice
Koenigsberg’s spouse, a man known in the court record as Lubomyr Prytulak
(and several other aliases), was being sued for defamation in two seperate
lawsuits in the United States, as well as being investigated by the Canadian
Human Rights Commission for his activities in 2002 – 2004.

My question: Should Justice Koenigsberg have been permitted to preside over a
defamation suit at the same time she and her spouse were personally embroiled
in legal proceedings that involve a nearly identical fact pattern: the promotion of
religious hatred, contempt, libel and slander?

2. The Canadian Judicial Council’s (“CJC”) Ethical Principles For Judges
states, among numerous other related directives, that:
Judges should disqualify themselves in any case
in which they believe that a reasonable, fairminded and informed person would have a
reasoned suspicion of conflict between a judge’s
personal interest (or that of a judge’s immediate
family or close friends or associates) and a
judge’s duty.

My question: Shouldn’t Justice Koenigsberg have disqualified herself from
presiding over a case where she could be viewed as being biased and having a
real, potential or perceived conflict of interest?

3. The troubling situation involving Justice Koenigsberg is made worse by the
fact that she and her spouse engaged in the fraudulent conveyance of a
personal asset in an attempt to protect their joint interests in a property worth
close to a million dollars from the legal claim of an American plaintiff who was
awarded a judgement against her spouse. Section 99 (1) of the Constitution Act
states:

Subject to subsection two of this section, the
Judges of the Superior Courts shall hold office
during good behaviour, but shall be removable
by the Governor General on Address of the
2Senate and House of Commons [emphasis
added].

My question: Can Justice Koenigsberg be considered to be a judge of “good
behaviour”, as required by section 99 (1) of the Constitution Act, when she
engages in wilfully obstructing justice by the fraudulent conveyance of personal
assets to thwart a legal claim, while presiding over a case from which she clearly
should have disqualified herself?

Note: A comparative timeline between Koenigsberg’s personal legal problems and
the case she presided over at the same time is included with this brief.

4. Question: Should a judge who has knowingly breached section 99 (1) of the
Constitution Act be permitted to continue to act in any judicial capacity?

5. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the late Donald
Brenner, was responsible for the assignment of judges to specific cases, and
also is required by law to be a member of the Canadian Judicial Council —the
supposed guardian of the public’s confidence that judges act lawfully.
It should be noted here that the defendant in the legal matters central
to this correspondence and the following brief, Rafe Mair, is a lawyer; that he was
at the time an influential member of the media and was very well known to
Justice Brenner. A scandalous and disturbing fact (that is now known) in this Tale
of Two Cases is that Justice Brenner was responsible for the assignment of
Koenigsberg to preside over a lawsuit involving Rafe Mair; a case known as
Simpson v. Mair & WIC Radio Ltd. The crafty Chief Justice Brenner also
assigned himself to preside over, and seized himself thereof, another BC civil
lawsuit that named, as a defendant, Justice Koenigsberg—and identified her as
a fraudulent conveyor. This serious matter arose from events that flowed from
Justice Koenigsberg’s spouse’s aforementioned campaigns of hate and
defamation.

My question: Did Justice Koenigsberg have a duty to inform the Chief Justice,
and/or the parties in Simpson v. Mair et al, of her personal legal problems and
that there would be an obvious perceived bias and/or outright bias if she
presided over the case without their consent?

6. I wrote to Chief Justice Brenner in 2009, a short time before he resigned, (on
June 11, 2009, the day after I made an application to appear in front of him) and
asked him if the assertions that Justice Koenigsberg’s spouse made in a posting
on the vile and hate-filled website called Vanguard News Network were true (a
copy of this letter follows the brief). Justice Brenner never confirmed or denied
the troubling assertion. Justice Koenigsberg’s spouse made this statement about
one of his lawsuits:

What is Steven Rambam aiming for in his defamation
suit against me… He has no hope of seeing one dollar
of the $1.55 million that he’s asking for….

…And if the California Court of Appeal should change
its mind and accept jurisdiction, he would still have to
bring his judgement to Canada, and get Canadian courts
to enforce it, which might not be easy.

As you can appreciate, Mr. Prime Minister, Prytulak’s assertions beg these
questions:

(a) Does Mr. Prytulak know something the rest of us don’t? Do the
spouses of Supreme Court Justices get preferential
treatment or protection in our B.C. Courts?

(b) Does this same protection apply to a lawyer and influential media
personality who is chummy with a judge or two – like the
Defendant in Simpson v. Mair, hate-monger Rafe Mair?

(c) Is it lawful for this implied protection to manifest itself with the
convenient assignment of a like-minded, sympathetic judge who is
decidedly unfit to preside?

(d) Is it appropriate for the Chief Justice to preside over a matter
involving one of his own judges? Or should a judge from another
province have been brought in to preside over the matter?

7. Let’s pretend that in 2004 Justice Koenigsberg had failed to inform Chief
Justice Brenner about her personal legal problems, and that he was truly
ignorant to the facts. Court records prove that the Chief Justice would
nevertheless have had full knowledge of Koenigsberg’s antics when the court
documents naming Justice Koenigsberg and her spouse were filed in the BC
Supreme Court on December 5th, 2005.

My questions:

(a) As Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court, Justice Brenner was
responsible for the administration of the courts, including case-flow
management. Further, he was at the time a member of the
Canadian Judicial Council, a statutory body that is duty-bound to
uphold the integrity of the judiciary. Did the Chief Justice have a
duty to inform me or my legal counsel that my trial had been fatally
compromised by the assignment of Koenigsberg J. to preside?

(b) Chief Justice Brenner ought to have known Koenigsberg should
have been disqualified from sitting on my case prior to my appeal of
the Koenigsberg decision being heard by the BC Court of Appeal,
and certainly before they handed down their decision. Did Chief
Justice Brenner have a duty to protect the integrity of the
administration of justice, the integrity of the higher courts, and the
interests of tax-payers by making known the fact that there would
be a perceived bias in the Simpson v. WIC matter if the information
about Koenigsberg became known?

(c) In the discharge of his duities both as Chief Justice and a member
of the CJC, did the Chief Justice have a legal obligation to make
known the unlawful conduct of Koenigsberg J. to the CJC, as the
“Ethical Principles for Judges” demands? And if so, what is the
CJC required to do to ensure that the public’s interests were being
served?

8. Mr. Justice Binnie, in writing the Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”)
decision in my case, WIC v Simpson, and concurred with by the majority, stated:

It is therefore appropriate to modify the
“honest belief” element of the fair comment
defence so that the test, as modified,
consists of the following elements…
(emphasis mine)

My questions:

(a) Does a plaintiff have the right to know the legal test she has to
meet so that she may competently structure her case accordingly?

(b) If so, how does this right manifest itself when the court “modifies”
the law, as the Supreme Court of Canada did in WIC v. Simpson,
and the legal test changes?

9. I am advised that when a legal test is modified, the court sends the case back
to the trial judge to be considered under the “new” legal test or orders a new trial.
(We can pretend, for the purpose of this query, that the judge was qualified in my
case.) Ironically, we are provided with an excellent example of this right
involving another defamation suit that was then before the BC Court of Appeal:
In Creative Salmon Company Ltd. v. Staniford, 2009 BCCA 61, The Honourable Mr.
Justice Tysoe, in writing the reasons, concurred in by The Honourable Madam Justice
Levine and The Honourable Mr. Justice Frankel, states, in reference to my case—
WIC v. Simpson—the following:

Introduction
[1] The defendant, Don Staniford, appeals from the order dated
January 15, 2007, awarding the plaintiff, Creative Salmon Company
Ltd. (“Creative Salmon”), $10,000 general damages and $5,000
aggravated damages for defamatory comments made by Mr.
Staniford about Creative Salmon in two press releases issued in
June 2005.
[2] In her reasons for judgment, indexed as 2007 BCSC 62, the trial
judge found that the press releases defamed Creative Salmon and
the defence of fair comment was not available to Mr. Staniford.
Since the release of the reasons for judgment, the
Supreme Court of Canada has modified the test for
the defence of fair comment in its decision in the
case of WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, 293
D.L.R. (4th) 513 (sub. nom. Simpson v. Mair, 2006
BCCA 287, 55 B.C.L.R. (4th) 30).
[3] For the reasons that follow, I would allow the
appeal and order a new trial.
(emphases mine)

My questions:

(a) Should the SCC have sent my case back to the trial judge to
be considered in the light of the new modified legal test, or
alternatively have ordered a new trial?

(b) Why do the justices of the BC Court of Appeal appear to more
honourably and lawfully protect the rights of Canadians to a fair and
just hearing than the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada?

(c) Why does Mr. Staniford have the right to a new trial as a result of
the modified test in my case, if I do not?

(d) Are there different rules for different people? I thought “everyone”
was equal.

(e) If so, who—or what statute—authorized the Supreme Court of
Canada to ignore this right in adjudicating WIC Radio Ltd. & Mair v.
Kari Simpson?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who will watch the watchers themselves?

10. Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin is Chairperson of the CJC, and also (as
shown above) provably culpable for unlawfully denying Kari Simpson her right to
a fair and unbiased hearing.

My question: How can the public trust this matter to be properly investigated by
the CJC when those implicated are also those responsible for the CJC, thus “in
charge” of the investigation of their own behaviour?

11. Following are a few examples of the lies and deceptions the Supreme
Court of Canada manufactured and/or repeated and published:

“Simpson was a leading public figure in the debate and that
she had a public reputation as a leader of those opposed to
any positive portrayal of a gay lifestyle.”
Untrue.

“Mair’s commentary provided for the factual basis of the
controversy that was indicated in the editorial and widely
known to his listeners.”
Untrue.

“Simpson had earlier opposed three books placed in Surrey
schools which portrayed family units with same-sex parents.”
Untrue.

My question: Three courts agreed that Rafe Mair defamed me. Is it acceptable
that the SCC compound and bolster the harm done to my reputation by relying
on his defamatory statements, embellishing them, and finally publishing such
outrages under the fraudenlent guise of a proper, fact-based adjudicated
decision? Where is it written that the Supreme Court of Canada has any right to
violate a Canadian’s right to a fair hearing and then perpetuate the hate,
vilification and lies of the defendent?

12. Question: How can the people of Canada have any confidence in the courts
and in the Rule of Law while Chief Justice McLachlin, who is demonstrated to be
provably a liar and corrupter of the law, sits on the bench of the highest court in
the land, and responsible for the defilement of the administration of justice in
Canada, as plainly demonstrated in WIC v. Simpson?

13. I have another lawsuit pending against Rafe Mair for defamation (he
continued to publish his lies on his website, only ceasing when I sued him again),
and also one against Eric Rice, the lawyer whom the Court of Appeal
reprimanded for neglecting to follow the rules of the court in properly drafting my
pleadings.

My question: If you were me, would you have any confidence that the courts will
uphold the Rule of Law, and administer it fairly and justly?

14. Judges of “good behaviour” in Canada are immune from prosection and/or
lawsuits for wrong-minded judgement. This immunity flows from the acceptance
that judges are human, and thus imperfect; from the need for them to be able to
adjuticate without fear of reprisal; and the assumption that judges come to the
court with clean hands—among other criteria. But the case I have placed before
you strips away the wrappings of judicial immunity that cover and protect judges
from civil and criminal prosecution. The trial judge, Justice Koenigsberg, was a
judge of “bad behaviour”, with unclean hands and an agenda of judicial
defilement, who fraudulantly presided over a case she was demonstrably
unqualified to adjudicate; a judge who engaged in conduct designed to obstruct
justice and violate the Charter rights of those seeking justice.

My question: Mr. Prime Minister; whether the Attorney General pursues this
matter in the courts or I pursue it independently, can there be any confidence that
the matter would be heard fairly, lawfully, and decided upon justly?

Sublato fundamento, cadit opus –
The foundation being removed, the structure falls.

15. Judicial independence cannot be preserved for those who pervert the Rule of
Law and/or with deliberate intent seek to deconstruct the structure upon which
this nation stands. The case before you exposes judges and lawyers dismantling
the juridical foundation of our civil, free and democratic society. The case
detailed herein plainly portrays a broken court.

I have consulted with many lawyers and other informed and reasonable-
minded Canadians; the consensus is that some activist judges (and thus our
courts) have breached their democratic and lawful appointment, and in doing so
have compromised the public’s trust in the courts’ judicial independence. It is
inarguable; the facts of this case alone demonstrate that the privileged role given
such judges to maintain the integrity of the administration of justice cannot be
justified. Contrary to the hollow words so often promulgated by Chief Justice
McLachlin and others about the need for judicial independence, it is plain why
some fear scrutiny, as it is sure to discover and expose their capricious and
flagrant disregard for the Rule of Law and the rights of ordinary Canadians like
me. This observation, regrettably, is not merely a perception, but is supported
by the glaring facts of this case alone—actions that demand remedy.

My question: Will you call a Parliamentary inquiry into this matter—an obvious
case of systemic judicial corruption of the Rule of Law—and set into motion a
process that will establish a forum of accountability that will ultimately allow
Canadians to regain confidence in the conduct of their judges, and result in the
better administration of justice by rebuilding and strengthening the unstable
foundations of our Courts and better the administration of the Law in Canada?

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat –
Impunity always leads to greater crimes.

In Closing –

It is important to note that there appears to be a widespread “circle the wagons” mindset
within the legal community regarding this case. At no time—prior to the trial, during it, or
during the appeal processes— was I ever advised by any officer of the court that my
trial had been fatally compromised by a judge who was obviously unfit to preside. I am
very thankful to the principled stranger who cared enough about the integrity of the
courts to seek me out in 2009 and inform me of crucial events I would otherwise not
have discovered.

Mr. Prime Minister, I have now spent close to $1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) on this
lawsuit—a lawsuit that was rigged from the onset. I mortgaged my home, and I
borrowed money to pay my legal bills. I had a right to fair and impartial jurists. I had
(and still have) a right to justice—and those rights remain unfulfilled. You have a
responsibility to ensure that those who are duty-bound to uphold the law, do so. I have
presented you with a case so compelling, so disconcerting in its display of judicial
contempt for the Rule of Law, and so shocking in its disdain for my rights as a
Canadian, that it behooves you to act.

Section 101 of the Constitution Act clearly appoints Parliament as the lawful guardian of
the courts. Section 101 demands, by its very existence, parliamentary vigilance in
matters of the administration of Canadian Law. Section 101 also entrusts Parliament
with the ability—and the responsibility— to address and remedy any circumstances
that compromise civil confidence and/or undermine the public’s trust in the courts.
Section 101 anticipates that, like all evolving institutions, flaws will be revealed that may
bring the administration of justice into disrepute; or violate, as in this case, the rights of
a Canadian citizen. The words of Section 101 assign to Parliament the duty, from time
to time, to defend the integrity and independence of our courts; and this duty compels
you to act. Section 101 states:

The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in
this Act, from time to time provide for the constitution,
maintenance, and organization of a General Court of Appeal
for Canada, and for the establishment of any additional
courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada.

Clearly, the courts’ administration of the law, as it exists today, is deeply flawed.
As you are surely aware, the case presented herein is only one blatant example,
representative of many. The voices and the learned criticisms of those whose scholarly
and objective insights have long proclaimed the unlawful perversion of the law by a few,
cloaked in judicial robes, are growing louder and more numerous. These few judges,
who engage in acts that mock the Rule of Law and offend the civil sensibilities of
9Canadians, must be held to account. The patterns of abuse have undermined our
democracy and require remedy; their conduct taints the whole of the court, and brings
the administration of justice into disrepute. No legal matter before the Supreme Court
of Canada can be perceived as lawful or just while this matter remains
uninvestigated.

On behalf of all Canadians, I ask that you establish a process to investigate, review and
initiate a remedy that nourishes the better (and more lawful) administration of the laws
of Canada. The events detailed herein dipict a constitutional calamity of epic
proportion and should deservedly shake the judicial establishment to its core.

Following this correspondence is a briefing document. It is not an exhaustive account of
the crucial events related to this matter, but should suffice to inform you of the pertinent
and compelling facts that relate to this obscene charade of so-called “justice”, and to
assist you in determining the proper course of action to be taken to remedy the grievous
nature of the disclosed facts.

This matter cannot be ignored.

Sincerely yours,

Original signed by
Kari D. Simpson

Copied to Canadians, including: elected representatives, legal associations and
published globally at www.driveforjustice.com

Click here to see the entire Letter to Prime Minister Harper in PDF format, including additional Summary Brief and Reference Material.

Drive For Justice 05: Kari Simpson, a Biography

 Video  No Responses »
Jul 022012
 

Kari Simpson, a middle child, was born in Southern California to Canadian parents who were then living and doing business in USA. She says her mother reminded her often about her earlier-than-normal talents for talking, walking—and determination.  Kari’s family lived in the exclusive upper-middle-class community of Rolling Hills, she spent her childhood days playing in the ocean and riding horses. Her parents, like so many other trendy Californians, divorced when she was seven.

Her mother remarried, and the family grew by two more kids—an older step-brother and sister—and her life’s adventures grew as well, to now include winter fun skiing at Mammoth, and week-ends sailing to Catalina.  

At around age 10 her mother decided to sell the family home and move into a house still owned by her stepfather.  It was quite a departure from the life she had grown up with thus far.  Gone were the open spaces of the sprawling canyon playground that was her backyard, gone was the security of a community where law and order prevailed, gone were the lively parties.

“We moved to Carson, CA,” she recalls, “I was enrolled in Annalee Elementary, where we were three among only about ten white kids. I had never seen a metal detector at school, until we went there.” In Grade 5, she recalls her friend, Sam, packing a gun for protection while she rode on the handlebars of his bicycle. “It wasn’t boring; I learned a lot.”

This experiment ended soon after step-father’s new Cadillac was stolen from their garage. The family moved close to previous their location, to the coastal community of Palos Verdes.

In the summer of 1974 they returned to Canada on a holiday to Vancouver Island; her Mom, deciding to “get back to nature”, bought a small farm near Qualicum Beach. Kari and her siblings were soon milking goats, keeping chickens and learning all the other aspects of a pretty primitive farm lifestyle.

Because she was ahead of the other students in her grade at school, Kari was placed on half-days, and spent the rest of her time working on earning her private pilot’s license; a quick study, she completed that program at age 15, but had to wait another year to obtain her license. In the meantime, she completed her multi-engine and IFR certifications.
She qualified for her commercial license, but once again had to wait until she was 18 to get the papers. At that point, she became one of the youngest commercial pilots in Canada.

Engaged and living with her fiancé Sean, an aircraft maintenance engineer, she continued to fly commercially until she became pregnant. Her doctor recommended an abortion to protect her career; Kari tells me she just about decked the doc!  
It was also a pivotal moment for Kari in the politics of life, one that would grow into Kari becoming a formidable and fierce defender of life and protecting the rights of the unborn.

Now happily pregnant, Kari and Sean did what trendy parents do: they planned their careers to now include a nanny.  Kari says, laughing, “It made perfect sense,  stay home with baby for three months, and then get a nanny so I could carry on with MY self-focused life. That plan only lasted until a beautiful miracle named Katherine was placed in my arms, it took less than instant to realize  that nobody else was going to raise our baby!”

Life progressed, and soon there were four happy children in the busy Simpson household.  One morning, while they were living in Richmond, BC, in 1987, Kari got a frantic phone call from a friend. Her husband was being investigated and social workers wanted to apprehend their children. The father had been accused of touching his daughter in the area covered by her bathing suit, a disclosure reported by a teacher.

Kari began checking the “child protection program” (called CARE), offered at her friend’s school; she was given details by a psychologist at the University of Alberta; she was also informed that school principal Allan Garneau knew about the program.

Looking for more information, Kari also called CKNW and talked to Rafe Mair’s producer; she asked “Have you had anyone on your broadcast to talk about this school program?” The producer said, “No; what do you know about it?” The producer’s own daughter had been through the program, Kari learned, and grew so afraid of her father that she slept with a baseball bat.

“Will you come do the show?” asked Mair’s producer.
“The principal would be better,” said Kari.
“We’ll get him too; but we’d like a parent,” said Rafe’s producer.
“If the principal will do it, I will, too.”

Allan Garneau had done research on the “child protection program”, and refused to have it in his school.

The day before they were both to appear on the Rafe Mair broadcast, Allan Garneau called to say that he’d been told that if he did the show there would be “consequences.” He subsequently left the public system and started a successful private school.

Kari did the show, and began to get phone calls from people whose children had been apprehended. Kari phoned the school of social work and asked, “What are you teaching in this program?”

CKNW kept getting calls, and asked Kari to come back and do another show… and another, then another. Soon she was a regular weekly guest on the Rafe Mair program. Other program hosts also wanted Kari as a guest, but Rafe insisted she was his “property”.

As a result of the programs Kari did with Rafe Mair, the Social Credit government of the day became rather upset.  Finally, Social Services Minister Norm Jacobson challenged Kari to a public inquiry. Ombudsman Stephen Owen conducted the inquiry, and in 1991 his Public Report #24 showed there was, indeed, a serious problem.

Jacobson apologized to Kari, and set in motion better laws to protect families from government abuse. Regrettably, the Social Credit government was defeated by the anti-family, pro big union, pro big government NDP

In 1993 the new NDP government brought in the Infants Act, which ignored parental rights, overstepped boundaries and in effect made parents irrelevant.

“The Infants Act was amended  to treat all minors the same way,” claimed Health Minister Elizabeth Cull. “Under the old law, people between the ages of 16 and 18 needed parental consent before getting medical treatment. For those under 16, Common Law applied, which meant doctors could treat them without consulting parents or guardians.”

“That was not true,” says Kari. “Obviously, the government was hell-bent on violating the rights of parents, so we took them to court. In March of 1993, we petitioned the court for a declaration that Sec 16 violates Sec 2 (a) & (b) and Sec 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But a radical, pro-choice judge and the Attorney-General’s lawyer (an NDP hack who is now a provincial judge) ruled that a doctor can decide, as long as child agrees and the doctor believes that the proposed treatment is “in the best interest of child”.  

Parents became irrelevant.

A key point at issue in the case was whether adolescent girls could get abortions without their parents’ consent—or even informing the parents. The NDP and court officials sympathetic to the Left let it happen. Rafe Mair and Kari did many shows on the Infants Act.

In March, 1993, Rafe Mair endorsed Kari’s nomination for ‘Woman of Distinction Award’, saying he was “110% behind her.”

In the mid 1990’s, as a result of the respect Kari had earned for her work protecting children and families, she was appointed to serve in a quasi judicial capacity on the BC Child and Family Review Board. During this time Kari got a call from an Aboriginal woman whose five children had been apprehended, after which the baby died. Child Protection Services wouldn’t tell her what happened. Kari, as a member of Child and Family Review Board, demanded review—and finally, after much political outrage, the Minister ordered it.

Late in 1996, Kari began to get numerous calls from teachers who were concerned about a BCTF convention resolution to promote, through curricular changes, favorable recognition of homosexuality.

When she responded to the concerns of those teachers, Rafe Mair suddenly turned on her; she was dropped from his broadcasts, and instead he began a series of radio and print editorials—more than 40—in which he maligned her by comparing her to Nazis, skinheads, and the Ku Klux Klan.

Kari wanted Rafe charged with criminal defamation and hatred (under Section 318 of the Criminal Code); but Crown refused to charge Rafe.

So Kari sued Mair and CKNW for defamation in civil court. And this is where our story starts to unfold—a story that exposes judicial corruption, the denying of rights, a multitude of lies, and great mischief!  A story that will enable you to better understand one determined individual’s drive for justice.

There are so many more good works Kari has done on behalf of you and me, and the protection of our families.  In my opinion, Kari Simpson is a warrior, defending families, and parents’ and children’s rights. But don’t just take my word for it; listen to what a prominent BC lawyer wrote in support of her nomination for ‘Woman of Distinction’ in 1993:

I cannot start an appraisal of Kari Simpson as a person without saying immediately that she is one if the people in this world I admire most. I say this for several reasons, which I will outline below.

I first met Kari Simpson several years ago when she began expressing concern about how misuse of power in alleged child abuse cases was sideswiping innocent families. This was a most unfashionable thing to be concerned about, since the “political correctness” of the day (which largely continues” held that there was no such thing as innocence in such matters. It was, largely, an unpopular cause which Kari took up, and together we used my radio show to attract attention to injustice. It was my radio show—but the issue and the energy belonged to Kari. It was she who formed the Citizens Research Institute, and enormous undertaking. It was she who bore the financial and emotional burdens of being “den mother”, counsel to and advocate for the unpopular, yet badly oppressed minority.

Kari is an activist in the very best sense of the word. It was because of her that the Ombudsman was instructed by the then minister if Social Services to investigate her concerns and it was as a direct result o that, that a task force was set u, and that legislative changes have been proposed and made; from a courageous stand on an unpopular side of an emotional issue, Kari’s efforts brought about real change.

When you think about it, it is remarkable that one person has gained such huge credibility with such a large audience as I am fortunate to possess. After all, Kari has been up against the establishment on the “wrong” side of a highly emotional issu. That she has obviously touched a nerve is clear from the response she gets.

In my vocation, I meet all manner of activists. Most of them have a political agenda of some sort of other. Kari’s inspiration comes instead from a deep commitment to the principles of democracy, fair play, and the worth of the family. My only hesitation in supporting Kari’s nomination as “Woman of Distinction” is that this is too limiting. When one considers what she has accomplished—and forced, by dint of her commitment and dedication, others to accomplish—she is a distinguished British Columbian and Canadian, who has truly been an inspiration to all she has come in contact with.

What was the name of the lawyer who painted this glowing picture of Kari Simpson?

Hold onto your hats: it was Rafe Mair! And you’ll learn more about him—much more—next week.

Drive For Justice 04: Letter to Prime Minister Harper

 Video  No Responses »
Jun 252012
 

Prominent British Columbia social activist Kari Simpson—a spokesperson for you, if you believe, like most civil-minded Canadians, that conventional morality creates and protects social harmony—has written to Prime Minister Harper, asking him to provide the leadership his office demands, in protecting all Canadians’ freedom of expression, and their right to a fair and impartial hearing in our courts. In her letter, she draws to the Prime Minister’s attention, in what RoadKillRadio is calling Drive for Justice, some egregious violations of those rights.

In a defamation lawsuit that worked its way through the BC Supreme Court, the BC Court of Appeals, and finally to the Supreme Court of Canada, those rights were repeatedly violated… with the knowledge and complicity of other judges and lawyers.

Her questions include:

A judge of the BC Supreme Court—who has admitted financially supporting her “spouse” while he was using the Internet for (among other things) promoting hatred and contempt for Jews generally; and vilifying, defaming and libeling several prominent Jewish businessmen—at the same time, this same judge, presided over a defamation suit that involves a high-profile former lawyer—you know: a member of the legal “brethren”—a former MLA and provincial Cabinet Minister, and a member of the media who has publicly stated that he does not want influential Judeo-Christians (as the plaintiff is) to hold public office.

If that judge also transfers property title from her “spouse” to herself, so he escapes payment of a court-awarded judgement after he was found to have defamed the Jewish businessmen, isn’t that called “fraudulent conveyance”? And doesn’t that vitiate the protection afforded judges, which they have only as long as they are “of good behaviour”, according to the Constitution Act?

Question 1 – Don’t the ethical standards of the Canadian Judicial Council require that a judge, when personally embroiled in such conflicts, must disqualify herself from a case that is similar in fact—i.e., defamation involving religious bigotry?

Question 2 – Should the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court, also a member of the Canadian Judicial Council, preside over a legal matter involving one of his own judges?

Question 3 – Doesn’t a party to a legal proceeding have the right to know what legal test they have to meet in court? If the Supreme Court of Canada changes the legal test in mid-trial, as Chief Justice McLachlin did in this case, isn’t there a obligation to allow the parties to the trial to re-state their case, incorporating the new standard?

Question 4 – What gives justices of the high court the right to repeat lies that defame an individual, and to embellish them, as happened in this case?

Question 5 – How can the Canadian Judicial Council be trusted to investigate its own activities? How can the legal “brethren” be trusted to sit in judgement of their own activities?

But the most important question of all in Mrs. Simpson’s letter to the Prime Minister is this:

Will you call for a parliamentary enquiry into this evidence of judicial corruption and mocking of the Rule of Law?

When judicial independence is abused to protect those who violate judicial probity, there must be a venue of appeal and accountability beyond the courts themselves; that is the essence of our Drive for Justice. There is a famous precedent in Canadian law: in 1929, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not “persons” in law. Five spunky women from Alberta appealed that ruling to the Privy Council at Westminster, which at that time had authority to review Supreme Court decisions; Canadians lost that right of appeal in 1947, and it has never been replaced. The loss of that right—to appeal to a body that is accountable to the Constitution—was a deficiency in Prime Minister Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution Act. That deficiency still needs to be corrected today.

Will the Prime Minister act to protect the integrity of the judicial system and the confidence of the Canadian people in the administration of law?

Stay tuned.

Drive For Justice 03: The Players

 Video  No Responses »
Jun 112012
 

Drive For Justice host Ron Gray runs down the list of players in this unfolding saga; the perpetrators, the victims, the lawyers, and the judges who have roles in a legal case that exposes corruption in Canadian courts.

Drive For Justice 02: Synopsis

 Video  No Responses »
Jun 062012
 


Our new Monday night series, Drive For Justice, continues with a clear description of judicial corruption throughout Canada's court system. This explosive series will focus on RoadKill Radio’s own Kari Simpson as she drives her campaign for justice to the Prime Minister's office.

Yes, we will name names, provide pictures and documents that will expose the corruption and cover-up within our courts and how some judges mock the Rule of Law and others become complicit by their silence. This expose of “Judges Gone Wild” will leave you asking only one question: How many will be forced to resign?

Buckle-up for this one! This RoadKill Radio road trip is going to be fast and furious! Here’s Kari’s opening salvo, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin is a liar, a cheat and a deceiver. Log on and find out why!

Drive For Justice 01: Prologue

 Video  No Responses »
May 242012
 


Prologue

Enough is Enough
 
Judicial corruption has made the Rule of Law into a fool's toy.

Mockery of the law is the voice that now echoes loudly in the courtrooms of a once honourable nation. It is the voice of the Supreme Court’s High Priestess, Chief Justice McLachlin.

It is a voice that will lie, deceive and cheat. Her defilement of the Law is brazen. She is feared by some, but there is talk of a revolution and those voices of revolt are growing.

Among those voices is the voice of an ordinary person, one who is duty bound by birth, citizenship and truth to restore the Rule of Law to Canada and to expose and cast out those who abuse their power on the seat of justice. It is the voice of …

Kari Simpson

… and this is the story of Roadkill Radio’s …

DRIVE FOR JUSTICE

 Newer Entries