Source: http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/notice-of-appeal---first-ever-interactive---legal-page.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:54:04+00:00

Document:
and others, a.k.a. "The Bad Guys"
THIS APPEAL will be heard by the Court at a time and place to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. Unless the Court directs otherwise, the place of hearing will be as requested by the appellant. The appellant requests that this appeal be heard where Federal Court of Appeal usually sits.
IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, to receive notice of any step in the appeal or to be served with any documents in the appeal, you or a solicitor acting for you must prepare a notice of appearance in Form 341 prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules and serve it on the appellant's solicitor, or where the appellant is self-represented, on the appellant, WITHIN 10 DAYS of being served with this notice of appeal.
IF YOU INTEND TO SEEK A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION of the order appealed from, you must serve and file a notice of cross-appeal in Form 341 prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules instead of serving and filing a notice of appearance.
Copies of the Federal Courts Rules information concerning the local offices of the Court and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any local office.
THE APPELLANTS APPEAL to the Federal Court of Appeal from the Order Justice Johanne Gauthier of the Federal Court made August 27, 2010, in Action T-95-08, by which the appeal from the Order of a prothonotary, made December 1st, 2009, was dismissed.
THE APPELLANT ASKS that the Order of Federal Court Justice Johanne Gauthier made 27th, day of August, 2010, be set aside and that the Order a prothonotary, made the 1st day of December, 2009, be set aside, that the applications to dismiss brought by the several defendants be dismissed with costs and that judgment in default of defence be entered against the Defendant, Themis Program Management and Consulting Ltd.
THE APPELLANT ASKS for an Order that the Respondents pay special costs to the APPELLANTS forthwith, in any event of the cause, in an amount to be determined by the Court.
THE APPELLANTS APPEAL to the Federal Court of Appeal from the Order of Justice Johanne Gauthier of the Federal Court made August 27, 2010, in Action T-95-08, by which the appeal from the Order of a prothonotary, made December 1st, 2009, was dismissed.
The Reasons for Judgment are not the reasons for judgment of the judge who presided at the hearing of the applications in the Federal Court and in respect of which this appeal is filed but were written for her, by someone other than the hearing judge.
Footnote number 2 contains an incomplete description of submissions of the Plaintiffs who urged a quick resolution of the case because other insiders linked to the alleged conspiracy would soon die if the case were not resolved and, since that time, at least two other insiders linked to the conspiracy have suddenly and unexpectedly died and former Prime Mnister Jean Chretien had a near death experience. The statement is also evidence of bias.
Footnote number 3 contains an incomplete description of the submissions of the Plaintiffs and the case law on the issues which are adequately and completely governed by the principles outlined the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Hunt v. Carey et al. 1990, 2 SCR, 959, which is a complete statement of the law and is binding on the Federal Court and by the plain meaning of the language of the Federal Court Act which confers clear and unambiguous jurisdiction of the Federal Court in cases involving agents of the Crown. The footnote also fails to mention that the Court restricted the Plaintiff's submission to an hour and one half. The footnote is also evidence of bias.
Paragraph 8 contains a mis-description of the Plaintiffs position with respect to the “reasons” contained in the “Order” of the prothonotary and is contrary to the law that holds that reviews of an “Order” by the prothonotary dismissing a case under Rule 221 must proceed “de novo”. It is also evidence of bias.
Paragraph 9 contains a statement about “allegations made in family proceedings involving Ms. Gibbs”. This information was not provided to the court, is untrue and is evidence of bias and that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge.
Footnote 5 contains a misleading description of the facts that attempts to minimize the illegal and outrageous imprisonment of Mr. Carten that was part of the Defendants strategy used against Sun Belt Water Inc. and, incorrectly, relies upon “a hearsay statement of fact” contained in document allegedly written by James Taylor, a Defendant, in action T-95-08, and a former long term employee of, Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia, another defendant in action T-95-08, and who is alleged to have been a party to the conspiracy outlined in the Statement of Claim Action T-95-08. It was an error in law to rely upon a hearsay statement made by a party who is adverse in interest and whose evidence has not been tested in cross examination and where the opposing party was not given the opportunity to rebut that evidence. This is especially the case where there are un-denied allegations in the affidavits that James Taylor was a criminal.
Footnote 6 contains a false and misleading description of the facts of the disclosure provided to Snowcap Waters Ltd. It is evidence of bias and is evidence that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge.
Footnnote 7 contains a false description of facts because the Plaintiffs did not provide information about the nationality of the shareholders of W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd. The statement is evidence of bias and evidence that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge.
Footnote 10 is a false description of the actions of the Canadian Judicial Council which investigated only one of the complaints filed and refused to take any actions on the other complaints. The statement is evidence of bias and that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge.
Footnote 11 is evidence of bias because it falsely suggests there were “genuine mental health issues” when the mental health issue was simply a tactic used by a State Agency to attempt to destroy a critic. The Statement is evidence that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge.
Footnote 12 is evidence of bias that attempts to minimize the fact the criminal proceedings were dismissed because the Defendant, Brenda Edwards, accused of fraud in this proceeding was found not to be credible in the criminal proceedings. The Statement is also evidence that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge.
Paragraph 11, makes an incorrect conclusion of fact regarding “time allocation” based upon “a hearsay statement of fact” contained in a document allegedly written by James Taylor, a defendant in action T-95-08, and a former long term employee of, Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia, another defendant in action T-95-08, and who is alleged to have been a party to the conspiracy outlined in the Statement of Claim in Action T-95-08. It was an error in law to rely upon a hearsay statement made by a party who is adverse in interest, whose evidence has not been tested in cross examination and where the opposing party was not given the opportunity to rebut that evidence. It was also an error in logic to extrapolate from the four year period described in the document the subsequent nine years. The reference to the alleged statement by James Taylor is also evidence of bias.
Paragraph 12 contains a speculative conclusion that is an allegation about the Plaintiff, Mr. Carten, but it is based on an “assumption” contrary to the guiding principle set out in paragraph  of the “Reasons for judgment” that, specifically, rejects “allegations based on assumptions and speculations” and is, therefore, further evidence of bias.
Paragraph 17 and the supporting footnote 13 incorrectly suggests that the Judicial Defendants served their Notice of Motion within the time provided by the Order of the prothonotary and the conclusion of the Court deeming the Motion to have been filed and served, “proprio motu”, at this stage of the proceedings, is also evidence of bias.
Paragraph 18 contains an incorrect description of the nature of the alleged “permission” granted by the court “to file additional material in respect of the relationship between the judges and the federal Crown”. The filing of the additional material was the result of a “request” by the hearing judge for legal information to relieve her of her own ignorance of the fact that, in the Canadian judicial system, judges are “officers of the Crown” a fact that the hearing judge was, surprisingly, not previously aware of, although, that has been the nature of the “relationship” from time immemorial. The statement is evidence of bias and that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge.
Paragraph 20 contains an incorrect description of the allegations about the use of Freemasonry sign language by British Columbia lawyer, Joanne Platt, an employees of Themis, who attempted to covertly influence a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, sitting as a Provincial Court judge, in proceedings involving the Plaintiff, Mr. Carten, and, incorrectly, describes the gender of the said judge. The incorrect description of these events is evidence of bias and that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge.
Paragraph 20 also contains an incorrect “allegation” of an “insinuation by Mr. Carten” based on the facts that were alleged, in the affidavits, to have preceded the sudden death of Chief Judge Hugh Stansfield who was alleged to have been a pedofile and who suddenly dropped dead when the facts of his activities were revealed in private e-mail communications. The “allegation” of an “insinuation' based on a “speculative allegation” is contrary to the principles of law set out in paragraph  of the “Reasons for Judgment” that, specifically, rejects “allegations based on assumptions and speculations”. The “incorrect allegation” is also evidence of bias and that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge because this issue was specifically raised at the oral hearing on April 20, 2010.
Paragraph 20 contains an incorrect conclusion that Mr. Carten was attempting to link Chief Judge Hugh Stansfield to disappearance of Michael Duanhee, age 7, in 1991, based on the un-denied statements of independent witnesses who claimed that Judge Stansfield regularly rented a “white van” to use in connection with his child sexual molestation activities and the unusual co-incidence that a “white van” was also seen in the vicinity of Mindy Tran, age 9, when she was savagely murdered in August 1994. While it is possible that Judge Stansfield may have been involved in the disappearance and assumed murder of Michael Dunahee and the murder of Mindy Tran the purpose of the reference to these e-mails and the affidavits referring to these facts was to prove to the Court that Mr. Carten's private email communications were being spied upon by the Government officials as part of a high level conspiracy against him. The incorrect conclusion and mis-description of the events is also evidence of bias.
Footnote 16 is also evidence of bias because it fails to describe that Judge Stansfield was destroyed by legal means because he was a monstrous criminal and that the Themis was threatened with a similar fate, unless it repented and it has not repented.
Paragraph 22 contains the incorrect conclusion of fact that the purpose of the new evidence filed by the plaintiffs was solely pertinent to the issue of jurisdiction when that evidence was also pertinent to the issues related to the various applications to dismiss brought by the several groups of Defendants and that evidence was pertinent to the issue of the Plaintiffs' application for a Judgment in Default of Defence that was brought against Themis.
Paragraph 24 contains an incorrect conclusion at law that the new evidence could not have any impact whatsoever on the merits of the appeal when the new evidence was pertinent to the matters in issue and any demonstrated proof of an ongoing conspiracy by agents of the Governments of Canada and British Columbia against the Plaintiff.
Paragraph 24 contains an error in law because the court has refused to admit new evidence that is relevant to proving a conspiracy that is continuing and has, in part, relied on the evidence sought to be admitted to dismiss the appeal.
Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37, are evidence of bias making reference to pejorative statements that a veiled attempt to put prejudicial verbiage in the Reasons for Judgment for propaganda purposes.
Paragraph 39 contains an incorrect statement of the Plaintiffs argument with respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The Plaintiffs did not suggest the Federal Court “should assume jurisdiction”. The Plaintiffs position is that the Federal Court has clear, unambiguous and unfettered jurisdiction to hear claims against persons who are “officers servants or agents of the Crown” pursuant to section 17 (5) (b) of the Federal Court Act.
Paragraph 39 contains an incomplete statement of the Plaintiffs submission respecting why they selected the Federal Court as venue for the hearing of their claims against “officers, servants or agents” of the Crown which did not arise from simply from a loss of faith in the British Columbia court system but also because the courts of British Columbia have an inherent and unresolvable conflict of interest in respect to the claims of the Plaintiffs and the Federal Court has a clear jurisdiction conferred by statute.
The leaned justice erred, in law, when she ruled in paragraph 40 of the Reasons for Judgment “The jurisdiction of the Court must be assessed for each defendant as if he or she had been sued independently of the Federal Crown”. This is not the case where those Defendants are sued as party to a criminal conspiracy with the Federal Crown as is alleged in the Statement of Claim.
Paragraph 41 contains an implicit error that fails to acknowledge that “assertions that the Non-Federal Crown Defendants acted as agents or sub-agents of the Canadian government” are facts that are capable of being proved if the Plaintiffs are given the opportunity to use the usual court procedures available to all litigants.
Paragraph 44, contains an incomplete statement of the argument of the Plaintiffs with respect to the case of Crowe v. Canada, 2008, FCA, 298, a case that was wrongly decided” and is “bad law” to the extent that it stands for the principle that federally appointed judges who participate in a criminal conspiracy and who agree to use the powers of their office to advance that criminal conspiracy are immune from civil suit.
Paragraph 45 contains an incomplete statement of the Plaintiffs submission on how the Canadian Government could intervene in a case of interest that refers only to the chain of command and not clandestine methods that are also used.
Paragraph 46 incorrectly describes the Government of British Columbia as having a “Prime Minister” when under the Constitution Act, 1867, British Columbia, like all provinces, except Quebec, has a “Premier”.
Paragraph 46 incorrectly placed a legal burden upon the Plaintiffs of providing a “real explanation or detailed theory” of how the Canadian Government could “control” various provincial Government officers or private law firms when no such burden exists “at law” in an application under Rule 221 when, according to the law set out in Hunt v. Carey et all. allegations in the Statement of Claim are assumed to be true. The control mechanisms, whether they be fee agreements, bribery, influence peddling, blackmail or extortion, are largely irrelevant to the claim that Provincial Government or private law firms worked co-operatively as “agents” of the Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada. The court erred by holding these are “assumptions” or “speculations” when they are “facts that are capable of bring proved” and must be assumed to be true.
Paragraph 47 contains an incorrect interpretation of the principle of law to be discerned from the case of Northern Pipeline Agency v. Perehinec,  2 S.C.R, 513.
Paragraph 47 contains a further error in law by failing to consider that the “control test”, set out in Hogg's book, is met by legislation that designates that Attorney General of British Columbia is a “bencher” of the Law Society of British Columbia, that legislation also allows judges who are also ”officers of the federal Crown” to be “benchers” of the Law Society of British Columbia, and that all lawyers take an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen of Canada – the Federal Crown.
Paragraph 47 contains an error of law attempting to use a jurisdictional argument to rebut a substantive issue. The fact that certain Defendants were “agents of the crown” is “a fact that is capable of being proved” and must be deemed to be proved for the purposes of an application under Rule 221 pursuant to the binding case law in Hunt v Carey.
Paragraph 48 incorrectly places on the Plaintiffs the burden of providing evidence to support the allegation that several of the Defendants were acting as “de facto, common law or contractual agents” of the Crown when, under the binding authority of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Hunt v. Carey, factual allegations, such as various forms of agency relationship, are deemed to be proven for the purposes of an application under Rule 221 (a) of the Federal Court Rules.
Paragraph 49 is incorrect at law due to the erroneous interpretation by the Court of the meaning of the word “agent” set out in section 17 (5) of the Federal Court Act. If Parliament had intended to use the restricted meaning of the word “agent” that the Court has now invented Parliament would have employed restrictive language which it did not do. The Court's invention of this restricted interpretation is evidence of bias.
Footnote 20 contains an incorrect statement of the facts and fails to make mention the interest of the Federal Government in keeping secret the fact that several federal politicians were investors in W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd. Including an un-denied allegation that Prime Minister Jean Chretien was one of those investors.
Paragraph 51 is incorrect when it suggests that the Plaintiffs are making a “collateral attack” on the the allegedly fraudulent decisions made against them by “officers of the Crown” as part of a conspiracy directed by Canada's Government. Those decisions are part of the evidence that will assist the Plaintiffs to prove their case that corruption of the vilest form exists throughout parts of the Canadian judicial, legal and political establishment.
Paragraph 51 is also incorrect because the unidentified cases referred to in paragraph 51 were either incorrectly decided or their ambit and authority does not apply in a case, such as that brought by the Plaintiffs, that alleges systematic political corruption of the Canadian judiciary under the regime of Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
Paragraph 52 incorrectly imposes on the Plaintiffs a burden of proving the facts of improper influence or inter-meddling with the judiciary contrary to the binding law set out in Hunt v. Carey that requires the Court to assume all facts pleaded are true and then consider whether or not the Plaintiffs have a “triable case” not necessarily a case that is “certain to win” if some or all of the facts pleaded are proved to be true.
Paragraph 52 incorrectly describes the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiffs as “conjecture” when a plain reading of the Statement of Claim shows that the Plaintiffs have, in many paragraphs, pleaded specific facts that occurred on specific days and that can be verified by reference to existing documents and witnesses.
Paragraph 53 is wrong at law and every person in Canada has a right at law to bring an action, in law, claiming damages from a judge who took a bribe or pay off in exchange for rendering a perverse and hurtful ruling against that person.
Paragraph 54 is incorrect because the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs were seeking to “bypass” various judgments “on the ground that the result or reasons are contrary to the law” when, in fact, the Statement of Claim makes no request that any of the allegedly fraudulent judgments be set aside.
Paragraphs 56 is incorrect because the claim of Sun Belt Water Inc.has not been “stayed” but it was dismissed, illegally, with the some of the BC Crown Defendants, Richard Meyers and Lisa Shendroff, acting contrary to the Order of Madam Justice Downs, who is not a party, assisted by the judicial defendants, James Shabbits, Howard Skipp and Bryan Williams and some unidentified persons in the sheriffs office who were eagerly awaiting for Mr. Carten to show up so they imprison him, without a fair trial, like they did in Courtenay, in 1998, for forty days, in Kelowna, in 2008, for six hours and attempted to do, in Victoria, in 2008, for an indeterminate period.
Paragraph 57 is wrong in law because the Court failed to follow the binding legal precedent of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hunt v. Carey which holds that Plaintiffs are not required, at law, to present even a so-called “scintilla of evidence” to support of the allegations made in the Statement of Claim in reply to a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 221 of the Federal Court Rules. Legally the Court is required to presume that allegations of fact set out in the Statement of Claim are correct and permit the Plaintiffs to prove those facts using the usual litigation procedures available to all litigants.
Paragraph 57 is wrong in fact because the Plaintiffs provided several affidavits that contained hundreds of pages of documentary evidence that supported their claims the Federal Crown Defendants had acted as part of an illegal conspiracy carried out knowing it would cause harm to the Plaintiffs and further the Plaintiffs provided a wealth of evidence, by affidavit, proving at least some of the allegations in the Statement of Claim and the Plaintiffs provided the compelling rational argument explaining the motivation of the Federal Defendants, namely, a desire to cover up and conceal the involvement of state officers in a conspiracy to violate the the Canada US - Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, the Water Act (a Statute of British Columbia) and various criminal sanctions against monopolistic activities both in Canada and the United States.
The Reasons for Judgment are incorrect because there are no reasons explaining the dismissal of the claim made against the law firms of McCarthy Tetrault, L.L.P. and Lang Michener, L.L.P., that were alleged in the Statement of Claim to have acted as agents, of the Government of Canada, a fact that is capable of being proved if the Plaintiffs are permitted to use the usual procedures of discovery available to all litigants..
The Reasons for Judgment fail to consider the astonishing evidence that, at the time of the hearing, in April 2010, nine judges, alleged to have participated in alleged perverse rulings against the Plaintiffs, and three other individuals, alleged to have been involved in the violations of the aforesaid treaties and laws, suddenly died in the course of less than four years many of whom were in excellent health all of which supported the Plaintiffs conspiracy claim.
The Reasons for Judgment fail to consider the astonishing resignation of legal counsel for the Crown, Deputy Minister, Mr. John Sims Q.C. and legal counsel, Melanie Chartier, a mere three weeks prior to the hearing date, after accusations of a criminal conspiracy to mislead the court were published online and circulated into the Prime Minister's office which although not pleaded in the Statement of Claim is evidence that was referred to at the oral hearing and corroborates the allegation of an ongoing criminal collaboration between the Federal Crown and the Provincial Crown to mislead the court and obstruct justice.
The Reasons for Judgment incorrectly and inappropriately award costs in favour of the Crown Federal and the Crown Provincial when the Crown Federal and Provincial mis-conducted themselves by conspiring to present false and intentionally fraudulent arguments with intent to deny the Plaintiffs access to justice. Costs should have been awarded to the Plaintiffs for the time wasted proving the allegations were false and exposing this wrongdoing so that Mr. Sims and Ms. Chartier would be removed from his position. The Court's decision on costs is also evidence of bias and that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge.
The Reasons for Judgment incorrectly awarded costs in favour of Themis when the Plaintiffs presented un-denied evidence that Themis had been party to a conspiracy to obstruct justice. It is an improper exercise of the Court's discretionary power over costs award costs when it rewards a litigant that has engaged in un-denied criminal misconduct in an attempt to obstruct justice. The Court should have awarded punitive costs against Themis. The decision on costs in favour of Themis is also evidence of bias and that the Reasons for Judgment were not written by the hearing judge.
The Reasons for Judgment fail to address the claims of the Plaintiffs that they have sustained systemic and systematic violations of their fundamental rights and freedoms that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Plaintiffs' allegation that one of the causes of those violations is the natural and structural tendency of actors in a state's administration to act in the perceived interests of the state at the expense of the rights and freedoms of individuals who may be in conflict with the state's interest in a case where the state has secretly and corruptly violated treaty agreements exposing itself to retaliation by a more powerful neighbouring state and internal political disruption if those violations of treaty agreements by corrupt state actors become more widely known.
The Reasons for Judgment are the the result of systemic bias by the judicial officers of the Federal Court who were specifically selected for their tasks and positions because of their close linkage to the political regime of Prime Minister Jean Chretien under whose leadership many of the abuses outlined in the Statement of Claim took place and should therefore be rejected.
The Reasons for Judgment are the result of systemic bias created by the Canadian State that has established a system of publicly funded tribunals ostensibly for the purpose of resolving disputes between the State and the Citizen but has, at the same time, methodically and systematically reserved for the State the power of the appointment of judges who preside at hearings before those tribunals thereby insuring that the judges selected are systemically biased in favour of those who appoint them, pay their salaries and have the power to remove them from office.
The Reasons for Judgment fail to address the Plaintiffs allegations that the judicial officers of the Federal Court and Superior Courts of the Provinces of British Columbia are so closely linked to the Governments of Canada and British Columbia that the Plaintiffs have been denied their right to have their civil dispute with the Canadian State, including both the Government of the Province of British Columbia and Canada's Federal Government, heard before an independent trier of fact, a right guaranteed by the constitution of Canada and by international treaty agreement.
Such other grounds as legal counsel and the Appellants may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.