The Koenigsberg Affair/L'Affaire Koenigsberg - How say you Stephen Harper?

British Columbia Superior Court Justice Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg

Good Day Readers:

Kari Simpson, Founder RoadKillRadio.com

As we delve deeper into this story it's starting to look more and more like it has the potential to be another Douglas Inquiry minus the "pictures." Over the coming days, weeks and months CyberSmokeBlog will be posting more documentation on what can only be described as a beyond fascinating journey.

Ms Simpson is seeking the following relief:

1. The judgement in her case (Simpson versus Mair & WIC) be voided

2. Some form of inquiry, preferably a Parliamentary Inquiry, be convened

3. A public apology issued

4. Safe guards are put in place so others seeking access to their right to a fair hearing will not have to first "fix" the system

5. Justice is not only done but seen to be done

Shortly, CSB will post Ms Simpson's letter (October 6, 2012) to Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Kari D. Simpson
PO Box 12014
Murrayville Square
Langley, BC V3A 9J5
Email: driveforjustice@gmail.com
Telephone: (604) 514.1614/Facsimile: (604) 514-1669

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper,
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A2
Facsimile: (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 B C 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 Senate 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. My 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 duties 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. My 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 prosecution 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 (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 Canadians, 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