Online

Falsehoods:

REPLY TO MAINSTREAM CENSORSHIP MEDIA

Ade struggled with the decision of whether to respond to online falsehoods, but mainstream censorship media are profiting from the lower credibility of black people by publishing falsehoods by defrauding national and international law rights to the publication of rebuttal evidence that their stories are false. The false online publications are related to a constitutional right to end the theft of over 7 billion democratic rights by educating the courts, governments, universities, and other law-related organizations.

There are election applications pending for about 5 years before the Canadian Supreme Court, the Canadian Judicial Council, the US Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights (about 800 million rights), the Court of Justice for the European Union “CJEU”, the United Nations Human Rights Council “UNHRC” (about 7.5 billion rights) and Organization of American States “OAS” (about 1 billion rights) Inter American Commission On Human Rights. They are legally required to publicly file these applications, the government’s reply, and the court or tribunal decision, but they have been illegally silent on a mandatory duty to file the application.

Judiciary and the Mainstream Censorship Media

Every province or state or country has a different Elections Act or Electoral Act, 8 years ago Ade exercised an s6 Charter Right to practice his political profession subject to Elections Act laws governing his political profession in all 10 Canadian provinces, the USA, and Europe. Rather than adjudicate an irrefutable legal fact; judges acted in bad faith and without jurisdiction to defraud mandatory rights to access a court. This is the alleged crime for which caucasian judges defraud access to court so that caucasian politicians in a caucasian majority country can retain the unconstitutional power to, without providing a reason, prevent blacks from applying for a legislative and executive (cabinet minister) government job through the government registration of political parties that can form a majority government by endorsing candidates on a government election ballot.

A Caucasian judge violated s140(1) Criminal Code diverting suspicion from himself by repeating black slave trade historical crimes by threatening his black victim with 5 years prison for alleged contempt of court. Whether or not this alleged judge is successful in his threat of 5 years in prison or home seizure or substantial file, Ade’s Christian faith teaches that prison should not deter him from defending against the theft of over 7 billion democratic rights. USA Congressman John Lewis was arrested over 40 times, Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny escaped death but is still in prison, the youngest Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai, also escaped death.

Some alleged judges, illegally facilitated the theft of over 7 billion rights against the unfettered political party power to exclude anyone from a nomination application for a government job or an elected party caucus without providing a reason or by providing a reason that does not comply with constitutional or international treaty exceptions to freedom of election, association, expression, employment, political opinion AND the unlawful floor crossing practice of changing the election ballot result without voter consent. 

Some ECtHR case law relied on unlawful Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe / Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights “OSCE/ODIHR” Venice Commission guidelines which violate the European Convention, EU / UN / OAS Treaties and Charters. This explains why 21 election results were changed without voter consent when 21 UK Conservative Party MPs lost the whip due to a disagreement with the Prime Minister’s no-deal Brexit threat while negotiating with the EU.

The Canadian Commons Speaker provided a correct interpretation of the Parliament of Canada Act alleged right of the Liberal Political Party to expel 2 MPs due to a policy dispute between a Quebec Prime Minister’s desire to protect Quebec jobs and the Attorney General’s desire to enforce the criminal code against a Quebec company, but the Speaker was not asked to rule on if the Parliament of Canada Act is incompatible with Charter and international treaty rights to an s1 Charter test for expulsion from the caucus.

Since about 1866 there have been about 200 cases of floor crossing in Canada and about 120 cases in the USA. While the USA courts are likely the only western democracy with courts that have accurately interpreted 1) withdraw the nomination whip for political parties, they have not yet adjudicated 2) withdraw the caucus whip 3) floor crossing, which is why the Republican Conference threatened to expel a congresswoman for reasons that include voting for the impeachment and investigation of her party leader.

Mainstream Media Evidence Re Mainstream Media Violation of s298 Criminal Code Libel

No one could accuse a Caucasian immigrant from the UK of fake degrees or foreign residency skeletons or not being long enough in the country to understand our culture etc. yet these false and baseless allegations continued despite Canadian Government security clearance obtained through a 2-year CSIS investigation of all prior residences in Europe and Africa and a University of Toronto assessment of the degrees.

Media outlets in PEI, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland took down publications about a court order because they received a copy of the record before the judge and realized that the judge deliberately lied about the content of court records. That 3 media outlets took down these publications is, in and of itself evidence that other online media and court online publications are s298 Criminal Code falsehoods. Neither media nor courts have s298 Criminal Code immunity for deliberate falsehoods. 

A little-known secret is that there is no difference between civil (balance of probabilities) libel and criminal (beyond all reasonable doubt) libel, the difference is the test for conviction. Some unethical white mainstream media hypocrites secretly believe that black politicians do not deserve the equal benefits of this white politician law, consequently, they ignore s341a Criminal Code fraudulent concealment and s380(1a) Criminal Code rights to a published rebuttal “service”:

R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439…. Defamation is ..like Theft or Battery of the Person.. criminal libel is .. as a deliberate assault or causing damage to property

Kent v Martin 2016 ABQB 314 “[9] .. rebuttal offered .. was not published. .. explanation for refusing to publish the rebuttal was “not reasonable” ..122] .. responsible communication on matters of public interest…e. whether the plaintiff’s side of the story was sought and accurately reported [152] . .journalists must: …(m)ake a genuine effort to contact anyone who is being criticized in a story…. Repeated attempts must be made to contact the target of the story, so that the person has a chance to respond to an allegation or to offer an explanation. … courts have said a sincere effort must be made to contact the target of an accusation … If an explanation is offered – even one that appears suspect or self-serving-fairness and the law demand that it be reported and given a prominent place …[156] … in the age of the internet… defamatory material can spread”

S7 Victims Bill of Rights To Outcome Of RCMP Criminal Investigation Of Canadian Judicial Council

Judges that commit crimes, also have power to decide whether to file Canadian Judicial Council complaints against themselves; this violates the constitutional rule of law against conflict of interest. For example, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who is defrauding the right to file 20 applications at the Supreme Court is also the Chair of the Canadian Judicial Council who is defrauding a right to complain against his crimes at the Supreme Court. The solution includes different judges, exclusively for criminal misconduct complaints, an anonymized copy of complaints and the judicial council decision should be publicly available online.  

Here is a little-known secret; morality is in the Canadian constitution preamble and the legal test for s2e Canadian Bill of Rights to principles of fundamental justice are 1) a legal principle 2) evidence of societal consensus. For example, at the ECtHR, OAS & UN, Ade asserts the moral principle of fundamental justice that criminals should not profit from crime, evidence of societal consensus is the s16 Canada Victims Bill of Rights to restitution. The former Canada Governor General David Johnston raised concerns that law schools do not teach enough ethics, US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said that a judge that likes every decision he writes is a bad judge. This global problem arises from the fact that judges assert a constitutional right to independence while Attorney Generals do not assert a constitutional right to criminal code enforcement.

Another little-known secret is that; any law or treaty right is an s380(1a) Criminal Code “service” so when a judicial council or Supreme Court or ECtHR or CJEU or OAS or UN or defrauds the right to file, they are committing a crime. They can grant or deny relief without lying about record contents and or fraudulently concealing the record. According to s380(1a) Criminal code, when a judge deliberately lies about the content of an application or defrauds a mandatory s24 Charter court “service”, that judge is a criminal. Rather than disprove an irrefutable legal fact, the alleged judge became unhinged and threatened violence of arrest and jail time which is another Criminal Code offence of extortion and intimidation. 

Where the Canadian Judicial Council defrauds a mandatory Judges Act right to make criminal misconduct complaint, that is an s21b s22.2 s23 s122 Criminal Code offence. Breach of trust is engaged because CJC was the respondent in the court application, therefore CJC used public power to obtain a personal benefit of avoidance of liability by defrauding the Judges Act. A caucasian Royal Canadian Mounted Police “RCMP” officer agreed and opened a criminal investigation of the all caucasian Canadian Judicial Council “CJC”, but the CRCC endorsed RCMP defrauding s7 Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to the investigation outcome. 

CJC lied to the RCMP, the CRCC lied to the RCMP; judicial immunity is not a constitutional doctrine; judicial independence is a constitutional doctrine, there is no criminal code immunity for judges and civil judicial immunity is a common law doctrine to enable judges to adjudicate, therefore judicial crimes to prevent adjudication is a low hanging fruit for the RCMP. The lack of judicial criminal code immunity is another little-known secret, according to the RCMP and CRCC the judges below are lying:

Michel Girouard v Canada 2018 FC 865 “[6] .. Federal Court of Appeal recently recalled, such absolute power has no place within our democracy: .. all public power, even the most powerful of them —the Governor General, the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Cabinet, Chief Justices and puisne judges, Deputy Ministers, and so on – must obey the law … [7] Therefore, as per the fundamental principles of our democracy, all those who exercise public power, regardless of their status or the importance of their titles, must be subject to independent review and held accountable as appropriate. This also goes for the CJC and the chief justices ……

Bourbonnais v. Canada [2006] 4 FCR 170 [26]…. after reviewing the Canadian authorities on this point and, in particular, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Morier … judicial immunity does not apply where it is shown that a judge knowingly acts beyond his jurisdiction.…[28]…. “Of course, if the judge has …has perverted the course of justice, he can be punished in the criminal courts.” …[30] …. immunity of judges from criminal liability is not total. In this respect the law of England is the same as that of the USA. Excepting the general principles of immunity discussed above, any judicial officer who violates the criminal law would be as liable therefore as any other private person. According to Woodhouse J. of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, “a judge can, of course, be made to answer, and in a proper case, pay dearly, for any criminal misconduct. Like any other citizen, criminal proceedings may be brought against him.” This is because “criminal conduct is not part of the necessary functions performed by public official”.