The Right Honourable Justin P.J. Trudeau, P.C., M.P., Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
October 4, 2016
Dear Prime Minister,
Re: The largest tort – a money extortion scheme – in Canadian history involving three federal ministries since 2006. Canadians’ lack of access to justice.
Excuse me please for disturbing you
by this humble letter. I am informing you again about an old agreement between the CIC, CRA and the Office of AGC since 2006 in order to contravene the laws of Canada by quasi-criminal federal policies.
In short, the CIC policy named “IP
2 – Processing Applications to Sponsor Members of the Family Class” states that the sponsors sign a contract with the Minister. Its text falsely refers five times to such contract. This is a misrepresentation of the IRPA since section
132 (4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 is silent of any contract. Each Canadian public servant is pressured to obey the IP 2 and, therefore, disobey the IRPA (Immigration and
Refugee protection Act). The so-called sponsorship debts are automatically recovered by the Crown based on “torts in contract” without any court hearing or colour of right. Such recovery often happens after the end of the 6-year limitation period
following the default while the provincial governments charge compound interests well above the prescribed 5% annual rate. Counsel for Mr. Rob Nicholson, in 2011, deposited a false statement for the SCC claiming that each sponsor had signed a contract with
the Crown. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held (and stated seven times) that the Crown was obliged to file a ministerial certificate in the Federal Court before garnishment, pursuant to section 146 of the IRPA. (Since 2006,
the Crown has always disobeyed that enactment.) The AGC, Mr. Nicholson, has simply ignored and disobeyed the SCC order expressed in Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi,  2 SCR 504, 2011 SCC 30 (CanLII). The next Attorneys General have just copied
and maintained his unlawful and quasi-criminal policies. Our public servants – including IRB/IAD tribunals and Canadian visa officers abroad – have been pressured to apply the IRPA retroactively despite of s. 145 of the
IRPA that states “under this Act”. My previous sponsorship had a “default” in 2000, under the old Immigration Act, and no immigration issue was pending in 2000. Another policy named MoU or Memorandum
of Understanding (2006) extends the CIC’s non-existing rights (to garnishee such debt claims by the exclusion of the courts) to the CRA. The MoU is tortious because it omits the heading of section 145 of the IRPA.
The aim is to mislead every civil servant by suggesting them that the certification of sponsorship debts and the sponsors’ notification are optional for the Minister. As a result, the federal Crown simply shifts the monies of the re-victimized sponsors
in the family class to the provincial governments as gifts. This is a sophisticated money extortion and laundering scheme unheard of during Canada’s 150 years. The provinces take advantage of this federal tort and compete in inviting more and more Syrian
or other refugees because several years later they could collect huge amounts of money with compound interest from the defaulting sponsors’ tax accounts.
Here we arrived to a critical constitutional issue. Typists of the Ministry
of Justice are zealously re-writing every enactment by removing the marginal notes and shifting them above the texts as headings, subtitles or preambles. Parliament has not approved such arbitrary and massive overhaul of the legislation. Section 14
of the Interpretation Act, RSC 1985, c I-21 states, “Marginal notes and references to former enactments that appear after the end of a section or other division in an enactment form no part of the enactment, but are inserted for convenience
of reference only.” Section 13 adds, “The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment…”
Thus, the arbitrary “beautification movement” done by busy typists cripples
many enactments. For instance, the original bilingual version of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Annexe B – Loi constitutionelle de 1982) overrides the beautified modern English version as follows. “Proceedings in
criminal and penal matters” or “Affaires criminelles et pénales” are only informative and not binding marginal notes that cannot be changed into “preambles” of section 11 of the Charter. In other
words, the criminals do not have any privilege above other innocent Canadians that is supported by s. 15 of the Charter as well. Parliament’s original intent was to allow the accused persons – whether criminals or innocent
victims of torts like the re-victimized sponsors – to be informed without unreasonable delay, to be tried within a reasonable time, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing, or, not to be found guilty
on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal…, pursuant to subsections 11 (a), (b), (d) and (g)
of the Charter. Please refer to an official UK web site entitled http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/11/pdfs/ukpga_19820011_en.pdf
. I.e., the French version of our Charter is not available in Canada online – what a degradation of Francophones!
Another main issue is the access of Canadians to justice. Since 2012, the administrators of the SCC
Registry in Ottawa have blocked three times the filing of my Notices of Appeals under section 61. of the Supreme Court Act. They have obeyed the instructions of Mr. Roger Bilideau, the Registrar. Registry administrators are not judges
and cannot arbitrarily contravene a clear provision of the Act in cases when error in law is alleged in the lower courts.
Similarly, Mr. Roger Lafrenière, Prothonotary of the Federal Court, keeps preventing Canadians from
filing their proper pleadings in the Federal Court system. In 2016, he directed the FC Registry to block unlawfully the filing of my several submissions. (Prothonotaries are not even judges.)
Canadians have inherited these two agents of
the Crown’s “honourable tortfeasors” from the Harper dictatorship, placed in key positions. Therefore, the real and impartial judges of the country have less and less “breathing room” between the “Empires of the Two Rogers”,
so to speak. They were appointed by the Harpies in order to control the access of Canadians to justice and, indirectly, impose their power and control above the powers of the honourable judges.
On September 26, the FC Registry in Calgary
sent out my 14-page Notice of Appeal to the FCA for direction. Obviously, the Crown or the “honourable tortfeasors” are trying to block my appeal. So far there is no direction at all because the judges involved are not allowed to make a decision.
Three federal departments have inherited a quasi-criminal or criminal money extortion scheme from Mr. Harper. The three honourable ministers involved are in a situation like, say, a car dealership that took over the business from a previous crooked owner
whose stock had included many stolen cars. The new managers innocently assumed that the previous owners have been honest so now everything is rosy. If they ignore the complaints from the public and prevent any criminal investigation or court case it gradually
becomes evident that they behave as criminals and money launderers as well. Such dealership with stolen cars and cover-ups is a good comparison.
Now, my dilemma is about the integrity of our three federal ministers. In early November 2015,
I watched their swearing-in ceremony on TV. They appeared as honest Canadians that wanted to act in good faith during their mandates. On the other hand, an increasing number of Counsel of the Crown are acting quite differently in the courts. They tend to mislead
the courts and the federal ministers by giving them unlawful advices. Those Counsel display an attitude which automatically assumes that the three federal ministers involved have zero integrity and no interest to harmonize the operation of their departments
with the laws of Canada. Thus, Counsel keep sweeping the new ministers to the “garbage heap” of the so-called “honourable tortfeasors” of the Harper regime that have committed many indictable offences against the country. Of course,
each federal minister has the right to move in any direction. If they forget their oaths and want to become quasi-criminals or criminals it is their private business. But if three members of Mr. Trudeau’s Cabinet step on the same unconstitutional “banana
peel” that may eventually destroy their chances for a second term it also comes to the Prime Minister’s own long term interests and those of the Liberal Party.
My understanding is that some of the new ministers are totally
relying on their old deputy ministers that had been appointed by Harper and still represent his interests and his “soft fascism.” In other words, I visualized the Harper regime as a squadron of airplanes flying upside down just before landing.
(The judge of BC in January 2015 did not like my description.) Now, on 19 October 2016 Mr. Trudeau has managed to turn his own airplane back to normal position. However, many of the other airplanes are still under the control of the second pilot whose aim
is to destroy the Liberal Party of Canada forever. Their plan seems to work because the new Liberal ministers do not suspect any danger. And when Mr. Trudeau is flying around in the word and shaking the hands of rulers and prime ministers there is no one on
duty in Canada that represents his spirit of “change.” When our P.M. is abroad, no change is taking place in Ottawa, only cover-ups. Are the Liberals keen to copy Mr. Harper’s fatal strategy of a “one man party”? Even if Mr. Trudeau
is the most popular leader in the world, if he is the only person to fight for real changes and improvements, he may not succeed. Many languages say that “One swallow does not make a summer.” It seems that typical Canadian public servants (or ministers)
hate any whistle blower or a squeaking wheel. Instead of putting some grease on it, or get it fixed by a mechanic, they conveniently put a muffler on that squeaking wheel in order to silence it. (In the Soviet Union, a black government car without license
plate just hit the whistle blower in the night and the police did not investigate it. If that solution worked there, it may work in Canada. I’ve survived the Harper dictatorship though.) While Canada’s champions of red tape spend millions of hours
to cover up their errors, a good leader could save them such wasted work by a single efficient word, letter or phone call. As Parkinson’s Law says, “If you wait until the last minute, it only takes a minute to do.” The three federal ministries
involved have arrived to such magic moment. Or, as columnist Chantal Hébert wrote about two months ago, “Ignoring the elephant in your room does not make it go away.”
The ministers may consider me a silly whistle blower,
a crazy bird that never gives up calling the attention of the government (that usually has a hasty attitude to “shoot the messenger”). The old story of a Persian king comes into my mind since the Crown and its counsels try to depict me as a “squeaking
wheel” or an annoying “crazy bird.”
So, an ancient king of Persia went to a hunting trip with a few of his ministers. They climbed many mountains in a hot summer day. They were very thirsty. Finally, they arrived to a
creek. The king pulled out his golden cup, immersed it into the water and lifted it to his lips while his faithful hunting falcon was flopping its wings excitedly after circling above a spot and shrieking. Then it flew to the king and kicked out the cup from
the king’s hand by its wing. The king bent down again for water but the same thing happened. The falcon prevented him from drinking. The king became angry but forgave the falcon for his strange and rebellious behavior because the bird has been his favourite
companion for many years. The king tried to quench his thirst for the third time and the same thing repeated itself. The king finally took his bow and arrow and shot the crazy bird.
The dead body of the falcon fell in the shallow creek, next to the
rotten carcass of a large animal laying in the creek upstream nearby. The bird has prevented the king and his ministers to get a deadly poisoning or disease. The king was very sad for losing his old friend but he learned a truth. The animal was unable to communicate
its care and concern by human words so it was considered an annoying enemy that was eventually sacrificed without any reason.
We are living in the 21st century when the multitude of Canadians may tweet and retweet their political experiences.
The new Government’s usual one year of “honeymoon” or “grace period” is almost over. Serious signs like the recent resignation of Mr. Wayne Smith, chief of Statistics Canada, indicate for millions of voters that the Liberal Party
has no time, energy, or willingness to implement any major change: they simply copy and continue Mr. Harper’s dictatorship. Hundreds of politicians including senators and MPs are aware of the unsolved problems of the re-victimized sponsors. They heard
of the tragedy of my family due to endless Crown torts. At one point some of them may remind the Liberals to such lack of essential change that you promised us a year ago. Even if they are still silent today, after two or three years of inactivity on behalf
of the Liberal Government those political opinions may open the bottle and the spirit of opposition may get the upper hand. A year ago, I sacrificed a few months of my life, sending out messages endlessly by social media, in order to achieve a Liberal victory
on October 19, 2015. It worked for me and the country. However, four Crown Counsel kept depositing false testimonies at the courts against me. Also, in 2016, my wife’s application for Canadian immigration was refused again: the visa officer in Hong Kong
guessed that my Chinese wife was “incompatible” with me due to different languages and cultural differences or the age gap of 13 years. She concluded that our marriage (after 9.5 years of happy years after our wedding) was not genuine. (The first
refusal took place in 2007, based on the IRPA, despite that the IRPA did not yet exist at the time of my previous sponsorship and my alleged default in 2000.) The IRB/IAD and some visa officers represent opposite opinions. Namely, as in my
wife’s case, the visa officers refer to “incompatible” couples as the main reason to refuse a visa where the Charter grants rights to every Canadian to marry a person of any age, nationality, language, culture, or religion. In other
words, those visa officers knowingly contravene the Charter. In our case the Crown’s reason was only revenge. I send almost half of my Canadian income to my wife so my monies support China, the greatest competitor of Canada. Since 2006, those
monies do not support Canada’s economy, local businesses or services.
I believe that social media and the real media eventually makes my stories fully available for the wide readership. Or, instead of wasting my
time at the courts, I could approach each newspaper and law publisher in the country or the world. But why should the Liberal Party of Canada ignore such brilliant possibility of improvements and rather join the ranks of Mr. Harper’s camp of quasi-criminal
“honourable tortfeasons”? I sincerely hope that the Liberal Party has at least one great strategist, you, who agrees with me. Choosing the right side for three federal ministers is a simple thing that would result in their win-win situation at
the next elections at no cost. Otherwise, their expensive negative attitude against the laws of Canada may result in Mr. Trudeau’s losing face two or three years from now and/or the end of a Liberal domination. Remember, the previous Liberal government
fell because of a Sponsorship Scandal #1 so the present one may have a Sponsorship Scandal #2, now about immigration torts. If red tape keeps dominating over law, I am very concerned about the future of the Liberal Party of Canada. So why not to act today?
Finally, if your government is not serious about any major change or improvement – let alone issues like assisted suicide that divides Canadians by a ratio of 60 to 40% or so – I have a specific request to the ministers involved.
Namely, I landed in Canada in April 1976 as a political refugee from Hungary, fleeing Soviet oppression. Canada’s consulate in Milan issued me a Travel Document but it was taken from me after I became a Canadian citizen in 1979. After my long search,
I was unable to find a contact address for any Citizenship Court in this country. I wonder about the official way how to revoke my Canadian citizenship publicly as my protest against the Government’s torts against the laws of Canada. Also, I would surrender
my Canadian passport, one of my most valuable assets. Now I have a Hungarian passport since I am a dual citizen of Canada and Hungary. However, the People’s Republic of China would not accept me with dual citizenship if my only solution would be to settle
in China and live there with my wife and stepson until I die. In order to get my pension benefits from Canada, I would need at least a replacement Canadian Travel Document. (My Chinese stepson was 15 years old – an ideal immigrant as a humble and educated
boy – when I sponsored them in 2007 and now he is 25. Due to the pressure of the Harper fascism over the IRB/IAD and the courts, with his unconstitutional torts and money extortion schemes, now he is too old to qualify for immigration.) We need more
good immigrants to work and earn the pension benefits for Harper’s old stock Canadians. Canada accepts criminals by the hundreds and the RCMP notified the CIC only in two cases out of 50 or so. Also, as the Auditor General reported, our Government
has granted citizenship and passports to about fifty persons that falsely claimed the same reference address in Canada. Further, Senators Baker and Batters say a shortage of judges, including 44 federally appointed positions that remain empty, is an important
factor in the delays producing unprosecuted criminals. The innocent are left in limbo.
95% of voters would find you more popular if you could urge your ministers to respect the laws.
My Notice of 77+1 Constitutional Questions and
Notice of Claim are on file in the Federal Court in Calgary. One of my proposals is for a statutory declaration stating that the laws of Canada are optional and only guidelines for the Crown. A majority Parliament may confirm such declaration of the Court
so the governments of Canada – including any future extremist dictator – may get free hand in everything. Such legislation would end Canada as a free and democratic society for good.
I sincerely hope that your Right Honourable
person understood the essence and concerns of this humble and sincere letter. Its photocopies would be sent to federal ministers, MPs, the Honourable Governor General of Canada, the Canadian Judicial Council and some of the media. Thank you for your precious
time and kind attention. Best regards and thank you for being our leader.
Zoltan Andrew Simon (67), historian and security officer
72 Best Crescent, Red Deer, AB T4R 1H6
URL: www.correctingworldhistory.com (with more related material)
Encl.: Notice of Appeal (14 pages) + 1 page extract from the Notice of Claim