Autobiography of the Lord of Law
Major Keyvan NourhaghighiJuly 19, 1990 to January 4, 2019
Major Nourhaghighi Encyclopedia 2019
Down With Queen & Corruption in Canada
William: "You Fucking American Whore! CockSucker!"
British Motherfuckers in Toronto
کانادائیهای بی ارزش ترسوی بی خایه
Corrupt Judge Gibson by malice Order
interfered with the process of application where attack to application was not lawful
Canadian Counter-Dictionary and British Human Rights' Violations in Canada
interfered with the process of application where attack to application was not lawful
Court File No: T-1535-2000
FEDERAL COURT- TRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI, Applicant
-and-
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, MERVIN WITTER, BOB FAGAN;
BELL CANADA, SPRINT CANADA, JENNIFER WILSON,
THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
ROBERT BIRGENEAU, THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO; ROBERT PEARCE,
THE BANK OF MONTREAL, THE CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE,
DENNIS OSBORNE, BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,
THE MBNA CANADA BANK, TORONTO DOMINION BANK, NICOLE BARBE,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CANADA;
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE; RICHARD SHOBESBERGER, TINA SOARES, THE TRANSPORT CANADA; BRUCE PRESTON, MICHEL LORTIE, ORLAND CARRYL, ANNE EDGE, ANNE ROLAND and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Respondents
BELL CANADA, SPRINT CANADA, JENNIFER WILSON,
THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
ROBERT BIRGENEAU, THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO; ROBERT PEARCE,
THE BANK OF MONTREAL, THE CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE,
DENNIS OSBORNE, BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,
THE MBNA CANADA BANK, TORONTO DOMINION BANK, NICOLE BARBE,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CANADA;
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE; RICHARD SHOBESBERGER, TINA SOARES, THE TRANSPORT CANADA; BRUCE PRESTON, MICHEL LORTIE, ORLAND CARRYL, ANNE EDGE, ANNE ROLAND and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Respondents
APPLICATION UNDER Section 18.(1)(a)(b) of the Federal court Act.
The Right Honorable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
TO THE RESPONDENTS:
A PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The relief claimed by the applicant appears on the following page.
THIS APPLICATION will be heard by the Court at a time and place to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. Unless the Court ordered otherwise, the place of hearing will be as requested by the applicant. The applicant requests this application be heard at 330 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1R7.
IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of any step in the application or to be served with any documents in the application, you or a solicitor acting for you must prepare a notice of appearance in From 305 prescribed by the Federal Court Rules, 1998 and serve it on the applicant's solicitor, or where the applicant is self-represented, on the applicant, WITHIN 10 DAYS after being served with this notice of application.
Copies of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 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.
IF YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.
Date: August 18, 2000
Issued by the Registry Officer, in the Toronto Region: (signature) Catherian Chiocchio
Address of local office:
The Registrar
330 University Avenue, 7th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 1R7
Address of local office:
The Registrar
330 University Avenue, 7th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 1R7
TO: The Respondent, the Canadian Human Rights Commission
The Respondent, Mervin Witter, 175 Bloor Street East, Suite 1002,
Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3R8
Fax No: (416) 973 5527
The Respondent, Mervin Witter, 175 Bloor Street East, Suite 1002,
Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3R8
Fax No: (416) 973 5527
The Respondent Bob Fagan 344 Slater Street,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1E1
Fax No: (613) 996 9661
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1E1
Fax No: (613) 996 9661
The Respondent Maureen Ouellette, BELL CANADA,
Legal Department, 483 Bay Street, 8th Floor,
Toronto, Ontario, M5W 1E4;
Fax NO: 1-800-554-5148
Legal Department, 483 Bay Street, 8th Floor,
Toronto, Ontario, M5W 1E4;
Fax NO: 1-800-554-5148
The Respondent SPRINT CANADA,
Legal Department Fax NO: 1-800-269-8143
Legal Department Fax NO: 1-800-269-8143
The Respondent, W. Wilson, the Canadian Radio-Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2
Fax Nos: Ottawa (819) 994 0218, Toronto: (416) 954 6343
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2
Fax Nos: Ottawa (819) 994 0218, Toronto: (416) 954 6343
The Respondent, Robert W. Pearce, the BANK OF MONTREAL:
3300 Bloor Street West, 12th Floor, West Tower,
Toronto, Ontario, M8X 2X2
Fax No: (416) 232 8010
3300 Bloor Street West, 12th Floor, West Tower,
Toronto, Ontario, M8X 2X2
Fax No: (416) 232 8010
The Respondent, the CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE,
Legal department: Commerce Court West, 15th floor,
Toronto, Ontario, M5L 1A2
Legal department: Commerce Court West, 15th floor,
Toronto, Ontario, M5L 1A2
The Respondent, Dennis Osborne, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Toronto, Ontario, M5L 1A3
Scotia Plaza, 44 King Street West,
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 1H1
Fax No: (416) 866 6222
Scotia Plaza, 44 King Street West,
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 1H1
Fax No: (416) 866 6222
The Respondent, the TORONTO DOMINION BANK,
TD Tower, 66 Wellington Street, 12 Floor,
Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1A2
Fax No: (416) 982 6166
TD Tower, 66 Wellington Street, 12 Floor,
Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1A2
Fax No: (416) 982 6166
The Respondent THE MBNA CANADA,
Att : John Lawlop P.O. Box 9614
OTTAWA ON K1G 6E6
Fax. No: 1-800-439 5491; (613) 742 3541
Att : John Lawlop P.O. Box 9614
OTTAWA ON K1G 6E6
Fax. No: 1-800-439 5491; (613) 742 3541
The Respondent, Nicole Barbe and the OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CANADA;
255 Albert Street, Ottawa,
Ontario, K1A, 0H2
FAX No: (613) 990 5591
255 Albert Street, Ottawa,
Ontario, K1A, 0H2
FAX No: (613) 990 5591
The Respondent, ROBERT BIRGENEAU and the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO;
Simcoe Hall, 27 King's College Circle,
Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A1
Fax No: (416) 971 1360
Simcoe Hall, 27 King's College Circle,
Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A1
Fax No: (416) 971 1360
The Respondent The ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE;
FAX No: (905) 953 7376
FAX No: (905) 953 7376
The Respondent RICHARD SCHOBESBERGER, TRANSPORT CANADA;
4900 Yonge Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6A5
Fax No: (416) 952 1096
4900 Yonge Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6A5
Fax No: (416) 952 1096
The Respondent, TINA SOARES, TRANSPORT CANADA
4900 Yonge Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6A5
Fax No: (416) 952 1096
4900 Yonge Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6A5
Fax No: (416) 952 1096
The Respondent MICHEL LORTIE,
330 University Avenue, 7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1R7
Fax No: (416) 954 0647
330 University Avenue, 7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1R7
Fax No: (416) 954 0647
The Respondent ORLAND CARRYL,
330 University Avenue, 7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1R7
Fax No: (416) 954 0647
330 University Avenue, 7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1R7
Fax No: (416) 954 0647
The Respondent BRUCE PRESTON,
330 University Avenue, 7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1R7
Fax No: (416) 954 0647
330 University Avenue, 7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1R7
Fax No: (416) 954 0647
The Respondent ANNE EDGE,
Federal Court of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H9
FAX NO: (613) 952 7226
Federal Court of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H9
FAX NO: (613) 952 7226
The Respondents ANNE ROLAND and the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada
Kent an Wellington Streets,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0J1
FAX No: (613) 996 9138
Kent an Wellington Streets,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0J1
FAX No: (613) 996 9138
The Respondent the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA;
3400 Exchange Tower, Box 36;
First Canadian Place,
Toronto Ontario, M5X 1K6
Fax No. (416) 973 0810
3400 Exchange Tower, Box 36;
First Canadian Place,
Toronto Ontario, M5X 1K6
Fax No. (416) 973 0810
APPLICATION
The applicant makes application to this Honorable Court for the issuance the Writ of Mandamus to compel the respondents to follow the Constitution Law and the ("Act") and allow his due process of law, in accordance to the following Writs:
a. The respondent, the Canadian Human Rights Commission ("Commission") be required to
to investigate the applicant's complaints against the respondents, and appoint three
members to the Human Right Tribunal ("Tribunal") into the applicant's complaints; that
respondents be required to reply by filing affidavits that directly address the issues in the
complaints; and the Tribunal summon witnesses to provide written evidence on oath pursuant to provision Sections 40. (1), 49. (1) (2) 50. (1)(2), 66 of the Act.
to investigate the applicant's complaints against the respondents, and appoint three
members to the Human Right Tribunal ("Tribunal") into the applicant's complaints; that
respondents be required to reply by filing affidavits that directly address the issues in the
complaints; and the Tribunal summon witnesses to provide written evidence on oath pursuant to provision Sections 40. (1), 49. (1) (2) 50. (1)(2), 66 of the Act.
b. The Commission be required to calculate the time against all respondents as a group, since the cause of action raised, on the principle of continuous developing torts; or in accordance to the similar Order that the applicant obtained from the Ontario Court to not be prejudiced for passage of time due to the special condition that exists.
c. The respondents cease and desist discriminatory practices, nuisances, obstructionism, harassments, defective and the non standard services and ambiguous replies, in order that the same or a similar practices not occur in future; make available to the applicant such rights, opportunity and privileges were denied as the result of practices, compensations be awarded with all additional cost of obtaining alternative services and all expenses incurred by the applicant as a result of discriminatory practices, pursuant to provision of Section 53. (2) (a)(b)(c)(d)(3) of the Act.
d. His costs of this application.
The grounds for applicant are:
1. There is a reasonable ground of bias against the applicant where he was plaintiff in two actions in this Court against the Commission, for torts raised out of rejection of his complaints.
2. The applicant honestly believes that the respondents are acting in concert to inhabit his ability to seek and obtain justice, have healthy business and free of obstruction communications, and has been wronged him in a number of ways. He is very frustrated at not having yet gaining an opportunity to have his grievances fully heard, and to have decision rendered on their merits.
3. The respondents with the discriminatory practices denying the applicant's rights of access to the standards of services that are customarily available to the general public, and by acting in concert and repeatedly violated Sections 5, 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act by rendering the non standard services, defects and errors in the services, denial and harassments in providing the services; maliciously and intentionally defected, erred, and denial of services; planed and planted defected, erred, and denial of services, abuse of authorities and office for certain objects in rendering defected, erred, and denial of services; contempt and insulting nuisances in rendering of the said Investigations, the Communications, the Internet, the Banks and the Court's Services.
4. The respondents, Schobesgerger, Soraes and the Transport Canada are accused of covering up the crimes committed against the Airline Transport Pilot License written examination and obstructionism and discriminatory practices in the process of the applicant's aviation licenses.
The respondents are acting in concert to involve the applicant with continuous insulting nuisances that he could not concentrate on proper pursuing his claims against the respondents.
5. The applicant has suffered the considerable amounts of times, energies and nerves, special and general damages in last Eight years to remind to the respondents his rights to allow the professional and standards services be rendered to him, that at all material times the respondents denied with discriminatory practices, high-handed, callous and arrogant attitudes. He was assaulted and tortured numerous times by the police that suffered disabilities.
He was continuously targeted with the malicious prosecutions where the Provincial and Federal Governments get involved; he was successful to obtain Wilkins Order to not be prejudiced with passages of time for all his actions in the Ontario Courts, till condition allows the large number of defendants stand before the trial tribunal for all felonies committed against the applicant.
6. The Commission, repeatedly, is refusing to file and investigated the applicant's complaints against the respondents, contrary to Sections 39, 40. (1) of the Act that instructed any individual having reasonable grounds believing that that a group is engaging or has engaged in a discriminatory practice may file a complaint with the Commission.
7. The Commission's correspondences contain distractive facts, ambiguous, denial and misrepresentation to cover up the respondents' wrongdoing; and acting improperly that encouraged the respondents to increase their discriminatory practices against the applicant, that the obstructions in access to the public offices' services have been caused serious damages and prejudiced to the applicant and numerous complaints and actions were made against Government and its parties in this Court and ample documents indicate the Government has motive to allow wrongs be continued against the applicant and his single parent family.
8. That the applicant, being otherwise remediless, is entitled to a writ of mandamus, requiring and compelling the Commission Respondents to comply with his statutory duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," as mandated under the Canadian Human Rights Act;
R.S., c. 1985, c. H-6; c.31 (1st Supp.) and c.32 (2nd Supp.), January 1989; Sections 1, 6. (3)(b), 7, 12, 15 and 24. (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and the Section 18. (1) (a) (b) of the Federal Court Act, Rules 317(1)(2)the Federal Court Rules contemplated and all other related Codes, Acts, Rules and the Procedures with reference to a particular respondent.
This application will be supported by the following materials:
1. Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi and all documentary exhibits
2. The applicant's actions against the Crown, and the Crown's application against him
3. The Judgments against a number of respondents and their parties, transcripts of Trials
Proceedings against their parties who found all liable, and medical evidences.
4. Such other documents that lead the justice.
2. The applicant's actions against the Crown, and the Crown's application against him
3. The Judgments against a number of respondents and their parties, transcripts of Trials
Proceedings against their parties who found all liable, and medical evidences.
4. Such other documents that lead the justice.
That this court grant such other and further relief as is just and equitable.
The applicant request the Canadian Human Rights Commission send a certified copy of the following material that is not in the possession of the applicant but is in the possession of the tribunal to the applicant and to the Registry; all applicant's files, since 1993.
Date August 18, 2000
Signature ; Keyvan Nourhaghighi
608-456 College Street
Toronto, ON; M6G 4A3
Signature ; Keyvan Nourhaghighi
608-456 College Street
Toronto, ON; M6G 4A3
___________________________________
Corrupt Judge Gibson by malice Order
interfere the process of application where attack to application in not lawful
interfere the process of application where attack to application in not lawful
Major Nourhaghighi Affidavit against Canadian Human Rights # 1
Court File No: T-1535-00;
FEDERAL COURT -TRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI, Applicant
-and-
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, MERVIN WITTER, BOB FAGAN;
BELL CANADA, SPRINT CANADA, WENNIFER WILSON,
THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
ROBERT BIRGENEAU, THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO; ROBERT PEARCE,
THE BANK OF MONTREAL, THE CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE,
DENNIS OSBORNE, BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,
THE MBNA CANADA, TORONTO DOMINION BANK, NICOLE BARBE,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CANADA;
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE; RICHARD SCHOBESBERGER, TINA SOARES, THE TRANSPORT CANADA; BRUCE PRESTON, MICHEL LORTIE, ORLAND CARRYL, ANNE EDGE, ANNE ROLAND and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Respondents
BELL CANADA, SPRINT CANADA, WENNIFER WILSON,
THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
ROBERT BIRGENEAU, THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO; ROBERT PEARCE,
THE BANK OF MONTREAL, THE CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE,
DENNIS OSBORNE, BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,
THE MBNA CANADA, TORONTO DOMINION BANK, NICOLE BARBE,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CANADA;
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE; RICHARD SCHOBESBERGER, TINA SOARES, THE TRANSPORT CANADA; BRUCE PRESTON, MICHEL LORTIE, ORLAND CARRYL, ANNE EDGE, ANNE ROLAND and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
I, Keyvan Nourhaghighi, the Applicant, resident at 608-456 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M6G 4A3, SWEAR THAT: 1. I am the applicant as such brought knowledge of the matters deposed to.
2. I am proud that my race is Aryan, my nationality is Iranian, my religion is Islam, and my culture is Persian, the first ever-multicultural Kingdom that presented the Charter of Rights and Codified Law to this Civilization that the Government of Canada ("Government") has brought it into the contempt. I am the Senior Fighter and Transport Pilot in profession with estimated costs of skills over one hundred millions U.S. dollars. I was holding the permanent residency of Germany, when the Canadian Embassy pleaded to me that Canada severely needs pilots, and twice had issued landed documents for my two children and me. Therefore, the Government, knowingly, has given us permits to live with the equality in Canada. Since 1990 that I landed,
I am chronically unemployed; I know other Iranian Pilots that none of them have a job as a pilot in Canada, while most of Iranian Pilots are flying in many countries, particularly, in the United States of America, which has no relationship with Iran, while Canada has the highest level of diplomatic and business relationships with Iran. The discriminations have made my Complaint.
2
3. Since 1990 that I landed, the respondents, and their parties' respondents, in a planed concert act, by continuous discriminations and retaliations, misconduct themselves with my children and me, I am single parent father. The heroism actions that I commenced against the Government's corruption were not appreciated by the administration of justice whose main mandate is to enforce the criminal and civil laws.
Exhibit "1" Indicate the reply of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
4. It was shocking, when the administrations of justices took parts and with outrageous uncivilized retaliations brought hundreds malicious prosecutions against me in the vexatious continuous complaints made by the police officers, prosecutors lawyers and judges against me ending to the criminal and civil convictions that the words of discrimination and racist do not have capacity to describe how the administration of justice brought into disrepute by destroying whole my life and investments in pass ten years with the darkest possible life for the future.
Exhibit "2" Indicate my complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission ("OHRC")
bring File Number: 13072000JMER-4M7RMN, against the parties respondents, the Attorney General of Ontario et al where its racist judges committed the shameful crimes of thefts of my evidences during trials; its police committed brutal tortures, its dishonest court reporters have changed evidences of trials and reasons for judgments due to the Systemic Racism in the Ontario
Criminal* and Civil Justice Systems that all my facts have been proven in the Commission's Report dated December 19, 1995 who was appointed by the Lieutenant Govern General of Ontario; and 2 witnesses lists
5. The respondents, and the parties' respondents, with intends, calculations and planed have confused the judiciary systems who are trying to maintain their impartiality at the minimum possible standard. Therefore, it is not surprising that numerous contradictory decisions were made against the respondents and me. The said respondents have never been punished for the contempt of court for confusing the judiciary for their misleading and vexatious response.
Exhibit "3" Indicate two contradictory judgments and founding in two similar proceedings: Judgment of Campbell J. against the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada. Canada v. Nourhaghighi T-1237-98; which is the cause of action against the respondents Administration of the Federal Court of Canada "It is not appropriate ... to transfer legal responsibility and practical burden to him to obtain leave for any subsequent actions...Application Dismissed
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "V" Judgment of Wilkins J. against and for the parties Law Society and Attorney General who were in Conflict of Interest with me: " Application granted ...The respondent [Nourhaghighi] should not be prejudiced for passage of time in the event -on later motion for leave- leave is granted in respect of any his presently extant actions "
3
6. The respondents by all kinds of discriminatory practices have tried to inhabit my ability to seek and obtain justice; my grievances never fully heard, and never a decision rendered on their merits. As the result, the respondents, at all material times, retaliated, with high-handed and outrageously, and enforced instantly; when they had links to the system to obstruct the justice.
Exhibit "4" indicate a very small portion of respondents' retaliations against me: 4a: The respondent, the MBNA Canada Bank, terminated immediately my $11,000 Credit, as soon as, I filed this Application; whose Counsel Weisz interpreted as Action without disclosing its terms of contracts that has given right to terminate The customer, who has excellent credit record with the MBNA Canada Bank.
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "C" AFFIDAVIT of Keyvan Nourhaghighi after being Tortured by nine members of Metro Police; after the RCMP and Custom Canada Scandal of Smuggling of in my parcel; lawsuit v. Ontario Judicial Council et al.
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "D"; DR. Klar covering the crimes of the Government
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "E" St. Micheal report that indicate my rib#8 fractured
Due to torture by nine members of Police on December 11, 1996
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "AK" TRIAL against dishonest Court Reporters of the Old City Hall; Note 1: Dated 3rd of December 1996 Note 2: Affidavit of Nourhaghighi, Exhibit C, paragraph 9" Even after aggravated assault on December 11, 1996."Administration of Old City Hall Revenge within a WEEK!
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "F" Judge DAY who Does not allowed sue against Police offender and awarded costs to Police, Disadvantage of Wilkins Order
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "H"12 Charges issued against me after Transport Canada Scandalous Trial, where Schobesberger committed perjury.
4b: A-410-95, appeal in Action against the Chief Judge of Canada, defendant, A. Lamer after ignorance of public interest issues in the ATPL Corruption. Re: Paragraph 215, line 6; line 14: "the RCMP relationship with criminal Police of Iran is the main objection [...] the RCMP requests from [...] Iran to disturb and harass .... my relatives; re the CIBC
4c: Supreme Court of Canada, Retaliations; RE: the Registrar Respondent, Roland Nourhaghighi .v. Ontario C26426 Fraud in process of Notice of Appeal, , Did NOT Reply
4d: Supreme Court of Canada, Retaliations; RE: the Registrar Respondent, Roland Nourhaghighi .v. Ontario C26235 Fraud in process of Notice of Appeal, , Fraudulent & Obstructive Replies
4e: Supreme Court of Canada, Retaliations; RE: the Registrar Respondent, Roland Nourhaghighi .v. Toronto Hospital, Law Society et al C26426 Fraud in process of Notice of Appeal, Did NOT Reply
4
7. The principals of the Conflict of Interest Law is: " A judge shall not be selected among the parties of litigations" all responsibilities is on shoulder of individuals, particularly, the lawyers, managers, decisions makers and judges to avoid the ground of apprehensions of bias.
Exhibit "5" indicate how the most of famous judges on breach of Ethical Codes in my actions:
5a. August 1997; Endorsement Osborne ACJO, adjoined the hearing, due to Conflict of Interest, as Doherty JA, was sued in my action for approving that 10 Km/hr is dangerous for the public, entering a criminal record against me when a police ram to my vehicle and caused me permanent injuries. RE: the respondent, Anne Roland did not filed motion to review the decision, when LAMER CJC was one of the judges: Roland did not file Notice of Appeal, when Weiler JA dissented.
5b. Action T-942-99, TD, pleading against the defendant, Osborne ACJO who did
not wrote the dissent of Goudge JA in his endorsement; RE Roland refused to file
5c. Desjardins JA asking for my consent to hear the appeal in file, A-563-96, when two other judges of the panel, McDonald and Sexton JJA where named Defendants in my action. Does the Conflict of Interest Law work with Consent?
5d. August 11, 2000, the defendant, Osborne ACJO, vindictively abused his power and having knowledge be defendant and I was opposed seriously and made Argument that he hear my motion ever. However Osborne ACJO breached his own ruling and heard dismissed my motion; by violation of Conflict of Interest Law and fraud in judgment. The ground of motion says clearly that a Fine for 1991 enforced in Year 2000 by Suspension of my plate; Osborne ACJO fraudulently stated that: "He just became aware" to make me object of contempt!
8. The Senior Associate Prothonotary, GILES, in proceeding of October 5, 1998, Canada v. Nourhaghighi T-1237-98, after the Crown Counsel, submitted: "Statement of claim struck out and action was dismissed!" the learned judge addressed: "Pleading could not be struck out; the Conflict of Interest exists!". The Canadian Human Rights Commission ("Commission") at Toronto Office is named defendant my action where a numbers of the Ontario servants and businesses were sued for felonies and discrimination. I asked from the Commission, the Quebec Region to investigate my Complaint who interpreted the Conflict of Interest differently.
Exhibit "6" Contains my Complaint and the Quebec Region's Correspondence:
6a. My Complaint dated February 17, 2000, v. Attorney General of Canada et al;
6b. My cover letter of February 21, 2000, relying of Change of Venue principles;
6c: Commission's reply is not clear, but it was covering, ambiguous and contradicting. Letter dated March 21, 2000 signed by the Quebec Regional
Director. In his First Paragraph, Bobeau, intentionally avoiding to writing the word of Complaint and the Names of the Servants and Ministry Complaint
Against; but has used two other words "Your Letter", "Your last Facsimile"; Second Paragraph, Bibeau stated: "We wish to explain" that I am not able to understand his explanations: "We cannot be involved in your file because of the conflict of interest you think there is between our Toronto Office[...] The CHRA interpreted the same way [...]Last Paragraph:"[...] Then, we suggest that you discuss your case again with the officer in charge [...]"
5
9. The Commission did not handle my Complaints appropriately in accordance to standard of services and made arbitrary decisions without assigning a file number, a reference number, or even titles for my complaints; its faults were made with bad faith and dishonestly having intended to confuse the judiciary. It must show cause why should not be cited for the contempt.
Exhibit "7" Indicate the Director respondent, Marvin Witter, Ontario Region, ambiguous letter that could not be traced due to lack of the file number, reference numbers, subject matter, the name of person my Complaint Against, to name of the officer in charge. The Commission is fully aware that the synonyms to word of a Complaint are Grievance and Objection and knows the word a Complaint has administrative negative weight; and is aware that synonyms to word of a Letter are correspondence and note, that synonyms to word of a Correspondence are mail and post and synonyms to word of a Concern are anxiety and worry. I did not file a Letter, a Correspondence, or a Concern with the Commission; I filed a Complaint.
10. The Commission raised lack of jurisdiction over the respondent, the University of Toronto, who is the Internet, the Internet Mail, Computer Software and Hardware providers through the Telephone Line and its libraries for which it is the accused of the discriminatory practices and violations against my electronic mail and web sits; and is obligated to have registered with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission ("CRTC"); when the Commission knew that the Internet, the telephone, the post-mail, the computer and copy rights are all federal properties; the Commission erred in law and fact in this issue.
Exhibit "8" Contains my Complaint, the Commission's reply and related evidence:
8a: My Complaint against the University of Toronto, et al Dated May 31, 2000
8b: The Commission-Sunstrum's letter dated June 2, 2000 [One day evaluations] similar to Bibeau and Witter's replies, contains additional contradictory statements. On the First Paragraph stated: "undated submission" again avoiding to use the word of Complaint and the respondents' names; and then added: "which have been thoroughly reviewed" on Third Paragraph, last sentence: " it would appear that the matters outlines in your submission do fall within the
purview of the Act such that a formal complaint can be filed." Which interpreted Sunstrum read all my complaints and did not find no scintilla of a cause of action, but he did not see the Date May 31, 2000 on the end of page three 8c: Is my complaint address to the Ex-president of the respondent the University of Toronto, is accused by trespassing my telephone line, to discriminate my access to the Internet and the Internet Mail; corrupting and damaging my Personal Computer hardware and software by transmission of the virus and corrupted programs; breaking all my passwords and having access to my Personal Web Site with intend to commit sabotages and denial of services and information available on the Internet for the general public; creating illegal copy from my site and its lists with intend to cause me harm.
6
11. I filed a complaint against the respondent, the university of Toronto, with the CRTC, that fraudulently, alleged my complaint was lost. I talked with several Clerks and Managers and wrote numerous letters until it was admitted that was filed. However, none of the Managers and Clerks raised the Issue of Jurisdiction over my Complain. On September 5th at 3PM and 6th ar 3:30PM I called few times to speak with a supervisor for information in regard of statutes and regulations that no one return my call, while I left my number with Clerk Marten Delanger who said: "We all aware of your Application" soon, I realized that my call was intercepted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") or their agents as the Clerks trying to mislead me; where the RCMP always asks to not provide me with a false information; for example one of clerk said that the Internet is governed by the Ministry of Market and Industry Service Branch Agriculture!
Exhibit "9" Indicate documents that the RCMP main mandate is the theft of communications:
9a: A Letter from my colleague: Senior Fighter Pilot, in Persian, that I translated: [Company Name, Adress, and other information are Protected] " Dear Keyvan, Hello. I hope you be fine?
I tried to contact with you in the Internet that my e-mails was returned. I tried to call you by telephone, all day Monday (May 22,) [2000] that I not could, as it was sending busy signal.
I thought that this letter might reach to you.
I read the matters that you brought in your site; I became very sad from the situations that they have made against you. I do not know how I could be helpful to you? Anyway, I will be happy if you could make contact with me. If they Block your E-mails, you could send me massage via.... and, I will leave massage for you Anyway, if you could, make contact with me (If they do not Block your letters). I will be here up to the end of May, from first of June until end of June I will
Travel. Yours very truly, [signed] Major..."
9b: My AFFIDAVIT, Para 3, that the RCMP put pressure over clerk of the Supreme Court to not provide me with file number for my Notice of Appeal, soon Roland get the chance to clear the system, and refuse to file my Notice of Appeal.Exhibit A, the Sprint Canada Long Distance statement; after I used this document As proof of paragraph 3m, the Sprint Canada, has stolen all material numbers
Exhibit "G" Endorsement of the defendant, Osborne, maliciously did not brought Goudge JA and did not asked the other judges to sign his endorsement
Exhibit "H" My Lawsuit against Ontario Judicial Council and dishonest judges that ended to assault and torture by Charter violations of the Attorney General of Canada, the RCMP and other parties, including Borden & Elliot
9c: Cause of action against, defendant, the Prime Minister of Canada, Chretien. After RCMP has stolen my documents from his office and several and has Installed- 1994- spying devise on my car; Action T-688-95
9d: The CRTC reply May 5, 1994: " It appear that no foreign equipment detected during a complete inspection of you line and telephone sets. "
7
12. Since July 1990 the RCMP interfering with my communications and business; when it tried to mislead the Canadian Air Force and the Transport Canada with systematic racial and creed discriminations against me to obstruct my access to occupational civil aviations and joining with the Canadian Air Force; after I passed all recruiting process a position as a fighter pilot, my employment was denied; even they did not allow me to join to the Persian Gulf War, while the Army was requesting help from all residents. I was disappointed, as I was loved Canada like I my dear Home Iran. I made complaints, no proper answer was given, why my application was approved initially and allowed I enter to the Air Force Bases, which is fully protected area, then rejected, with contempt.
Since September 1990, I am filing complaints against the banks respondents that committed the most outrageous harassments in denial of the provisions of standard of services to me.
Exhibit 10: Contains documents that indicate the racial and poisoned environmental
10a: Colonel Dowle's, fraudulent, reply to my complaint that I sent to General Kinsman denial of facts that I passed all recruiting process.
EXHIBIT "D" Nourhaghighi v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al My complaint against the respondents, the Bank of Nova Scotia ("Scotiabank") did not paid $500 cheque for a rent, while I had over $50,000 in my account. The negative false record registered against me until 1997. My Mailing address and the date is material in this letter.
10b: I. AFFIDAVIT of the Property Manager, Joseph Vero, last Para asking from Ontario Court and Order that I sell my Property :"Mr. Nourhaghighi had some prior involvement with the military in Iran[...] an Order Mr. Nourhaghighi be compelled to list his property for sale and sell it at fair market value." In another Order asking every month my property value be decreased by 10 % II. Solicitor Mark Arnold Signature with RE: FORGERY
10c: Does The Respondent, Nourhaghighi, have right t o keep his property? Condominium 935 v. Nourhaghighi C24450 The Condominium spend over $100,1000, from the budget that I support to get an Order that I sell my property, with this target that after order does not allow the property be sold till y buy it with less than half price, they did this crimes with al large numbers of Immigrants; the cost do not contains over $60, 000 bribe that gave to the Old City Hall and Osgoode Hall Registrars, Keith Gauntlet, John KromKamp, Judge McNish, Clerk, Belanger, Court Report McCarthy, and others NOTE: Crimes of Condo has performed has 14 years Jail, since 1992, the Condo pays bribes to Metro Police 14 Division, to support crimes against my family The OHRC-EXHIBIT "T" TRESPASS by POLICE against his property
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "K" Judge Defendant YOUNG in a glance found the Applicant is Potentially Dangerous, Crown Admitted!
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "L" Provincial Prosecutor, Allen Scott, in a Seatbelt appeal referring to my Occupation as being very dangerous and asking for order more securities to the court in addition to two securities; it was approved!
8
13. I amended my Complaint against the University of Toronto et al as a fresh Complaint, due to the Commission's objection to jurisdiction; and I served it as against the respondents,
the RCMP, the Transport Canada, Richard Schobesberger, the Sprint Canada, the Bell Canada, the CRTC, The Bank of Montreal, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC"),
the Scotiabank, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the MBNA Canada Bank, and the Office of the Superintendent and Financial Institutions Canada ("OSIF"). The Commission misconduct itself with dishonest reply and obstructionism, which is part of the systemic racism discriminatory practice against immigrants to inhibit them from access to the standard of services.
Exhibit "11" Indicate my Complaint v. the RCMP et al. and the Commission's fraudulent reply
and proof that dishonestly is the part of systemic racism discriminatory practice, and provision the amendment is permitted in the standard practices:
11a. Complaint v. the RCMP et al contains Eight Exhibits "A to H" June 14, 2000
11b. Commission respondent, Bob Fagan's letter dated July 20, 2000; same Tricks that
Commission used before and I described The object of Trick is that all clerks practice in the same way, to have fraudulent misrepresentation of standard of practice; if several clerks of one Office, all received bribes, is bribery become standard of conduct that we concluded that this is the standard practice of this Office. Here the trick is that the texts of all Commission's letters are almost having same dishonest texts, tricky and misleading objects, but only the names of staffs are different. It is just like the criminal organization that all members are obligate to have a share in crime, to make the job of the prosecutor harder. Bob Fagan, in Second Paragraph, fraudulently, ignoring that the respondents in all my complaints were different offices, and only in the RCMP et al few banks were same. Fagan three times repeated "Your difficulties" in his letter to escape from his, and his Office statutory duties. Moreover, to prove his Office runs with force and arbitrary discretion, instead of running in accordance to the principle of law and rules of reasonableness and added will not reply to my Complaints. Fagan, in Third Paragraph, has welcomed the challenges before the Court with dishonest intends that may get advantages from the Federal Court of Canada whose staffs are respondents before the Commission
11c Is Motion brought by the Government's parties' respondents at the Ontario Court The judges, prosecutor, court reporter and police officers were accused of Bribery, Forgery, Frauds, Conspiracy, Theft of Evidence by Judge during Trial...
11d A Page of Transcript, October 28, 1994: I, "Prosecutor" give a copy of Cheque to Judge defendant, Ian McNish, who then STEAL the exhibit to acquit the Condo. On December 11, 1996, I gave Three Pages of Police Officer Green as the Exhibit to Judge Vilbert Lampkin, he STEAL the exhibit too. Although, the Crown has perform all kinds of dishonestly to remove all evidence In the said issues, but still the Transcripts have evidences that the Judges McNish and Lampkin be convicted for theft contrary to the Criminal Code.
9
11e. A Page of Transcript, April 23, 1997, Judge defendant, Silverman on hearing of appeal against McNish Order:" Any THEFT on part of the learned Justice!?" It was not a Trial for Theft and what learned Justice got to do with Theft? It is the systematic practice and cultural believe of many Canadian taking goods and services from immigrants without paying to the Costs. RE: Exhibit 3.
11f. Solicitor Mark ARNOLD is defendant in the Ontario Court for FORGERY of the date of Factum by his signature, which was late to be served: re: Exhibit 10bII
11g. Pleadings against several lawyers and defendant ARNOLD for fraudulent misrepresentations in action 96-CU-103292 Gardiner,Blumberg et al.
11h. Three different statements created for 1991 by the Attorney General of Ontario Solicitor defendant, Stephen B. McCann, involved in large amount of Frauds in Condo 935 is defendant for all kinds of serious crimes against my family and me.
11i. ENDORSEMENT Judge-COO J. practice his Oath of Office; then the Law Society and Borden and Elliot conspired against Coo Order-4.
This Action is alive permanently under Wilkins Order, till a date that all dishonest governments' staffs and their parties have severe punishments.
11j. THE COMMISSION'S FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION Letter dated:
March 14, 2000 signed by officer Rambert; The Commission's similar letters by the other officers indicate that there are certain dishonest intents in drafting these kinds of letters, such as covering up the names of the respondents that do not be punished for wrongs; the researches for the respondents' previous misconducts could not end to lead the justice; or other dishonest purpose contrary to the Oath of Office and the Administrative Law.
FIRST PARAGRAPH; same tricks to cover up the names of respondents and used two words of the "Concerns" and "Correspondence" which does not have the weight of the word of Complaint under the Act and Common Law.
SECOND PARAGRAPH has six lines; first four lines are a general reply to all complaints that the staffs simply make a copy and paste; and weighted to arrogant and insulting attitudes: "where a person feels that he/She has been aggrieved."
In the head of letter, Rambert, addressed my Name: Mr. Nourhaghighi; now who is She? The letter must be addressed to me, not to a third person; this is ignorance and insulting manners. In last ten years, everyday, I am under the contempt and tortures of systematic racists and concert discriminatory practices of the Government and its servants and offices: Now what is meaning of: A person feels"? Rambert, in the last word of forth line of Second Paragraph, has made a terminology to change the path of the Complaint process.What is definition of "A Formal Complaint" in Act? Do we have an Informal Complaint? There is nothing in the Act such as the term of "A Formal Complaint" this fabricating term is used in the respondent, Witter's letter too.
The Commission has obligation to file the Complaints, and provide a reference number.
Rambort, in last sentence of Second Paragraph, talks about a criminal wrongdoing.
My Complaint had twenty-one paragraphs: why he did not refer to a specific paragraph and name of person? Is anyone in the Attorney General et al was accused of criminal wrongdoing?
If the answer is the affirmative, must be specified in the Commission's Affidavit. However, the answer is the negative, Rambert for satisfying the Act that obligated him to referred my Complaint to another office, if the Commission does not have solution.
10
The OHRC-EXHIBITS "D, E, F": DR. Klar and Judge Day's [Para 6] Professional misconduct amount to Frauds and Misrepresentations The OHRC-EXHIBITS "S & R" FORGERY in TRANSCRIPT, still has material referring to the THEFT committed by Judge McNish during trial by stealing the Prosecution's Exhibits to acquit the Condo that paid $60,000 bribes to McNish, Scott, Gauntlett, Kromkampt, Belonger et al
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "X" REGISTRAR refusing to provide Endorsement to me; some kind of nuisance amount to dishonestly.
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "Exhibit "AB" OBJECTION against the FORGERY of the REGISTRAR of the Court of Appeal for Ontario
The OHRC- EXHIBIT "Exhibit "AC1" DOCUMENT of tens counts of Irregularity by Law Firms But yet the courts demands perfectPresentations from Unrepresented Applicant; amount to dishonestly
The OHRC-EXHIBIT "Exhibit "AH" FORGERY in the OHIP reports by the Ontario Ministry of Heath The OHRC-EXHIBITS "Exhibit "AG"
The OHRC-EXHIBITS "Exhibit "AK" TRIAL SCHEDULED against dishonest Court Reporters Of the Old City Hall; Note 1: Dated 3rd of December 1996 Note 2: Affidavit of Nourhaghighi, Exhibit C, paragraph 9 "Even after aggravated assault on December 11, 1996 ..."
Administration of Old City Hall Revenge within A WEEK 11k. Memorandum, Transport Canada, Ontario Region, J.H.Scott, Chief of the Aviation Training created fraudulent report for Minister to reply to me
RE1: Keyvan Nourhaghighi SAMRA 005
RE2: Corruptions in the ATPL
RE3: "It appears that it is from SARA 003"
RE4: Motive for Exhibit A2
RE5: Evidence of 2nd Schobesberger's PERJURY
11l. This document indicate that the Respondents, The Scotiabank, with complete dishonestly and fraudulent intend, continuously did not honor my payment; to cause serious harm to my reputation and create record in all my accounts. The letter is from the City of Toronto, dated September 21, 1998, the same day that the Defendant Osborne ACJO covered the crimes of Judge Lampkin RE: EXHIBIT 4d; and I was obligated to have Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; that I was SHOCKED that a Cheque from my Power Line with excellent credit was not paid by the respondent, Scotiabank. On Sept 25, 1998, I asked from the City of Toronto, TAX office, supervisor explains for me what happened- She said: "I do not know! We never had such case that a Cheque from Credit line be returned!" I demand my the NSF Cheuqe; she refused to give by saying it is our property. It was my property and I paid the amount to it, but she even refused to give a cop from the Cheque. I complaint to Scotiabank's Manger, Mr. M.D. (Manny) GONCALVES, at 440 College Street. He was confused too! " We NEVER had such case!" 111m. Indicate Bank of Monteral note that my account was closed without giving me any notice, or reasons. Cheques marked NSF in my Condo Accounts. The Respondents, Robert Pearce, is the Electronic Banking Services Vice President. Master Card Cheques is NOT the electronic Process, and it tried to mislead the facts and not provide a clear answer to the following Questions, amount to frauds, breach of trust and contracts, professional negligence, and certainly the best ample of Fraudulent Misrepresentations that indicate the historical grounds of robbery by the managers of the banks by being so rude and high-handed. Question 1: Why the Bank did not pay my Master Card Cheques?
Question 2: How exactly errors happened? -When the bank noticed? How Noticed? Who Informed? What was the exact fault? Where Ten Cheques have gone during ten months? Which account? What is full name and account information of the customer that my Ten Cheques paid
from his accounts and he did not Notice? And how comes just before Hearing against AGO brought out? Question 3: Did I suffered a great damages by entering two NSF Cheues
On my Condominium Accounts, when there are lawsuits Pending, the credibility is count forme that I am accusing them for ten counts of frauds? RE: Exhibit 11h Question 4: Who asked form Fraud Department of Bank to investigate? 11n. Indicate my Master Card Statement as Exhibit 9 SWORN of February 10 1999, on the Motion 25485 before the Panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal to cite the Minister of the Attorney General of Ontario and two lawyers, Alex Alvaro and McNeil for CONTEMPT of Feldman Order and FRAUDS IN THE TRANSCRIPTS.
Indicate first page of my Factum seeking show cause for Contempt. I have evidence to believe that the Attorney General of Ontario has forward my Master Card information to the Bank of Montreal and asked them to create fabricating record against my credit; the date that the said errors raised in Exhibit 11m, is absolutely the same date. It is material to consider that all noises were raised just at the hearing of Motion on December 16, 1999.
14. On 1992, after few months nuisance finally the Scotiabank, maliciously, approved a mortgage with rate of 91/2% to me, and referred me to, the Solicitor defendant, Lorne Levine, for closing. Then, the mortgage rates drop sharply to about 31/2%; and the Scotiabank frustrated me by continuous errors multiple charging in each months; I asked several times, that ALL my accounts be closed; but the bank at 44 King Street, Toronto, never provided me with the list of my accounts, that I be able to close all.
Exhibit "12" Indicate harms that I suffered from Defendant Levine, and rejections of my requests: 12a. Indicate Subpoenas issued against Levine as the party of criminal conspiracy. 12b. Letter dated Dec 2, 1996 against the NUISANCES of the Scotiabank. -On Dec 11 1996, I was standing before trial for accusation that a police brought against me. Levine got $2000 cash from me and conspired with the Crown
12
15. I was safety officer and systematically inspecting ministries and Arm Forces in Iran to establish standardizations, with the same standards I tried to be responsible to my new Society. As the result, I discovered a large number of very serious and harmful corruptions where the Government was involved. I acted in accordance to the Law by informing all authorities after the direct offices have ignored my complaints and commence severe discriminatory retaliations.
Exhibit "13" contains several documents that indicate how the cause of action raised: 13a. Indicate three pages of my complaints against the discriminatory practice by the the Transport Canada respondents, after three years nuisance and obstruction: "[...] I had a deep worry and anxiety for Exam and much more from personnel Misconducts. Page 1, last line, Page 2, line 1 [...] Its emphatic for her, while pressing ears by her finger said: Listen carefully!- line 4 [...] Ms. Gale Kapetis on my first Exam refused to provide extra time, as English is mySecond language."
Line 9. [...] She called me out with her finger" line 14 [...] I said Thank You, she reply don't say thank you to me say to the Government!" l-16 [...] She called me out again [...] And once more she remind me. Line 17 and 18.[...] She is not receiving overtime and if be later than quarter to 4, I have to ... Line 18. [...] The result was Fail that she shouted; Line 20 [...] What Pilot must do when "Ice" start to avoid Critical Attitude? In all there is no real benefit for Pilots that they can remember Aviation Licensing as a wise adviser in their career but their misconduct is not forgettable." Exhibit 1a, last page and last paragraph 13b. A page, out of hundreds pages of the Airline Transport Pilot License ("ATPL") examination, which were stolen by Schobesberger from safe guard of Transport Canada. NOTE: The large numbers of circles around questions 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64 indicate A large numbers of pilots obtained their highest license by frauds in exams, which have been put the life of public in the serious jeopardy. Reference: Exhibit "A" before the Commission: Page 1: the Minister of Transport's misrepresentation:"[...] they can find no evidence to substantiate your allegations that the Flight Training Units have been told not to provide you with adequate training "."[...] corruption in the ATPL [...] kept under the lock and key and are very closely monitored." Page 2 of Exhibit "A", Soares, Regional Superintendent, Aviation Licensing, are contradicting with the Minister Corbeil's: "[...] appears to be page 5A SAMRA 5 Page 3 [...] It would be interesting to find out how Mr. Nourhaghighi obtained these Photocopies of questions from ATR Inc. Soares admitted to be true
16. The respondent, the Transport Canada, did not considered that my complaint was against the corruption in the Accused the Ontario Region, and asked from the same Accused staff to investigated their own corruption,; while it had power to appoint another Region to complete the investigations; as the result, neither the target of investigations achieved that public gets its benefits, nor my information was protected that the respondent did nor harm me.
13
17. The respondents, the Scotiabank, the CIBC, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Bell Canada, the RCMP, Richard Sochebesbrger, Tina Soares, the Transport Canada, the Employment and the Immigration Canada, the Attorney General of Canada, the Administration of the Supreme Court of Canada and the parties respondents made agreement to injuries me by discriminating practices of denials of all my civil rights. Soon, my access to cash founds in the banks were denied; I was inquired seriously by aggravated assaults of two agents of the RCMP; my access to medical system and unemployment and insurance denied; huge nuisances imposed on my family;
I lost my total income from a self-employed business, my occupational licenses suspended for five years; I suffered permanent injuries by ramming a police car to mine after the respondent, Schobesberger appears before the trail judge-Sidney DJ as a witness for the defendant, the Airline Training Resources, and under the Oath committed perjury against my testimony that the stolen Airline Transport Pilot License ("ATPL") exams were not the current exams of the Ministry.
Exhibit "14" Indicate documents that I got access over them, after released from prosecutions:
14a. Is the Toronto Hospital Emergency report after I was assaulted May 7, 1993
by the RCMP agents, the date of report was removed by the Toronto Hospital.
RE EXHIBIT "1" the date is material; The Attorney General of Canada is guilty
for Forwarding my confidential marked report to Transport Canada and to the
Attorney General of Ontario-the Old City Hall, received and enforced.
14b. Indicate a huge Weight Machine was purchased by the Attorney General Ontario
and installed over my bedroom and operate during 24 hours, when I was suffering head injuries due to said aggravated assault. Date is material
14c. A page of Transcript of the Reasoning by Judge R. F. Donnelly DJ in my action
against Co-Op Taxi who discharge me in accordance to the objects of the
respondents. The judge with Over Fifty Year Experience on the bench of Justice:
"In making a finding for credibility *I have really no hesitation in saying that I
find the evidence of Plaintiff [Nourhaghighi ] much more credible than the
evidence of [...] talking about fraud and conspiracy [...] His manner is in the
witness box is quite good. There is just nothing wrong with the way he gives his
evidence**.[...page 17]and the company, in a very high-handed manner, simply
assigns an arbitrary figure and file it with the Unemployment Insurance
Commission. It is hard to imagine what harm the company must have done to a
Lot of people, a lot of them innocent people, by that callous and arrogant
attitude."
14d. My Letter dated October 30, 1993 to the CIBC who fraudulently hold my found
when I need it to pay for my the ATPL . The CIBC and Scotiabank both were
found liable; therefore they have attacked to my credibility* by false NSF records
14e. False NSF Cheque for $14.94 by the Canada Trust. The Date is material when
on September 22, 1997, I was before the Panel of Ontario Court, Exhibit: 4c
14
14f. Letter indicate y documents for Employment and Insurance benefits were stolen, at same period of times, my insurance suspended, the CIBC also hold my found,
six months later, I found the Thief, Gary Long, after I wrote to Minister and police, 16 months later the Federal Court, Judge Jerome ACJ granted my appeal.
The Date is Material, when I send the confidential reports against the corruption
In the ATPL to the officials. EXHIBIT 13a: indicate at the same time I had
Complaint against the Ontario Region.
14g. My damaged document by Transport Canada, in a complaint against flying clubs, the date and the name of person that complaint was addressed to was removed,
other pages of Complaints were stolen. Still it contains discrimination facts"[...] To obtain Canadian ATPL I faced with severe difficulties; rough; abnormal and impolite, rudeness, carelessness with lack of order in
different Flying Schools and Aviations Licensing. " paragraph 2
'[...] it mix with prejudice and race become Retrogradation." Last second para.
14h. The ATR Counsel, Moseley Thanks letter to Schobesberger:" [...] Judge was
clearly impressed by your testimony and it was important for us to have that in
our case."
EVIDENCE OF PERJURY:
EXHIBIT "11a" Complaint v. the RCMP et al
EXHIBIT "A" Letter, August 4, 1993 from the Minister of Transport.
however the draft was given by the Ontario Region Exhibit 11k
RE: Corruptions in the ATPL and the CASRP
EXHIBIT A1: Memorandum, Transport Canada, dated July 21, 1993
By respondent, Tina Soares, Superintendent, Ontario Aviation Licensing
Support that was aware of corruption but she cover-up the crime. "How Mr. N. obtained these photocopies" p.2
EXHIBIT A2: Memorandum, Transport Canada, December 14, 1993
From: Dr. Haskell Aviation Medical Officer
To: R. Schobesberger, Director, Aviation Licensing
RE: Nourhaghighi; No evidence of psychiatric disorder
This fact malicious intend of Government that continued in the OHIP
14i. My complaint to the Minister of State Transport, dated May 25, 1993:
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
" I was requesting ..meeting with you for presentation of somedocuments which shows corruption in the ATPL Eazms and Violation from CASRP-Confidentail Aviation Safety Report Program
I am regret that this massage has not received to y\ou,; but it has reach to Flying Scholl!"
" You may not believe that many Flying School in Ontario they have been told to not provide adequate flight that I could receive my Licences and many of them are not responding to my concers.
The OHRC-Exhibit "H"12 Charges issued against me after trial against
Transport Canada that suspended my driver license for four yeas
**The RCMP tries to harass judges from me, always few sitting beside me in Federal Court.
15
18. The Commission did not investigate my Complaints against Schobesberger, the Transport Canada, the RCMP and the Bell Canada that I made send its office in Toronto. The record is not in my possession at present time; and I asked in the Notice of Application that a copy from all its records be served on me and filed with the Court.
19. On 1994 I appointed several lawyers and instructed to take legal actions against the respondents and their parties' respondents that soon the Government with improper influences caused my lawyers to act against all my interests. I tried to have access to law libraries, that my access to all libraries were denied by close interception of the respondents' agents, particularly, at the University of Toronto, that I and my children having membership. I pleaded directly to all courts in the province and the federal jurisdictions; with a complexity and technicality of the law and procedures, I had expectation to face with difficulties to establish my claims, however I was shocked when I experienced many judges, clerks, prosecutors and court reporters themselves are the main obstructions for access to the standards of services established in the rules of the courts.
Exhibit "15" Indicate that the Federal Court of Canada has demonstrated the outrageous, callous,
arrogant attitude and severe discriminatory practices among all other courts:
15a. Giles Order: "Upon motion dated the 31st day of May, 1995 on behalf of
defendant HMQ Adjourned to Monday June 12th 1995"
-Until June 12, 1995, the RCMP agents did all possible nuisances that I could not
have rest and concentration for reviewing the most important proceedings that I
had before the province and the federal courts
-On June 12, 1995, the RCMP harassed me in the court before Judge Noel that I
could not have argument, twice the RCMP attempt to arrest me DURING MY
ARGUMENTS for three Actions, that Judge Noel, several times with his hands Ordered to the RCMP Officers DO NOT INTERFERE, Noel J. could not concentrate on my argument, and apparently was uncomfortable.
- Noel J. dismissed all my three Actions, without a single word of REASONING
that why I do not have cause of action against the Government, when its large
numbers of offices and servants are defendants, when the Government policy is
the systematic discriminations, when it is unfair to sue a servant that his boss
asking him to do wrong, when it is not logic to have a large numbers of defendants in the face of Action, when the courts are NOT prepared to commence a civil trials against a large numbers of defendants.
RE: EXHIBITS "11c and 11i" On June 12, 1995, over twenty lawyers were
present before Judge Coo, at Osgoode Hall, where the Ontario Provincial Police
("OPP") harassed me in the courtroom, after all other harassments by the Metro
Toronto Police, and their agents for few days before the hearing. The documents of this Affidavit is proof of this fact that :"TO CAUSE SERIOUS NUISANCES BEFORE EACH IMPORTANT HEARING, IS THE GOVERNMENT 'SOLO" TACTIC TO WIN A CASE" But Late COO J. was not an unintelligent judge.
16
15b. Noel Orders: "The motion in (a) is allowed, statement of claim is struck out in
its entirety." Nourhaghighi v. Canada
RE: T-668-98; A-410-95: Judge has Discretionary Power!
Discretionary Power of Judge is Abuse of Process and
The Principles of Rezoning and Fundamental of Logic
RE: EXHIBIT "14c" a judge has capacity and skill to provide reasons for his/her
Decision; a judge who misconduct with process arbitrary, discretionary with
clear unwarranted exercise of discretion, he/she has acted against the Oath of
Office and the principle of reasonableness, particularly, if the person not be
familiar technicality and complexity of certain proceedings, in this case, the
judges obligated to provide reasons with a clear complete Directions.
ALL FEDERAL JUDGES who dealt with my actions are accused of
discriminatory practices; however the Federal Judges demonstrated well skills
when the party was strong RE: EXHIBIT "3" a complete explanation for the
Crown, whose main mandate and skill is to deal with federal laws; but still is so
Unintelligent that could not present a simple Application to this Court.
15c. MacKAY ORDER: Is the only order that has given a reason, however his Reasoning is not complete, have defects, and errors in law and facts; I appealed.
- I pleaded owing to the Transport Canada's "CORRUPTION in the ATPL my
access to the occupational licenses were DENIED.
Nourhaghighi v. Canada T-2464-95, T-2611-95; A-563-95
MacKAY J. found: Nourhaghighi concerns are Requirements and Testing for licensing or flying crew!! in this country. Page five of judgments
RE: EXHIBITS: "14h.14g14i, et al"
-I pleaded the Attorney General of Ontario, with conspiracy with the Government
obstructing me everywhere, and committed FRAUDS from my Condominium to
cause me injuries and mislead the course of prosecution against the Transport
Canada; police refusing to charge the Condominium for fraud, and torturing me.
MacKAY J. found: Nourhaghighi concern is "Condominium Fee!!!"
The only weight goes to MacKay J Reasoning:" He has not been fairly Treated," but does not say: I found; or the pleadings were not opposed by the
Affidavits of the defendants, or has weight to believe; but say: he believes.
IT IS A DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE TO REFUSE TO USE THE SKILL
In the Criminal Law, constitute the Criminal Professional Negligent
15d. BOLAND ORDER, a federally appointed judge, on a same period of time,
February 1996, on the same case-Condominium, in a court at the same Street;
in an Application brought against me; however she does not play a game on the
Reasoning, or try to cover-up a fact that must put on the record.
15f. Indicate the Notice of Application against me, brought by Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Canada Crown, filed by the Toronto Registry Officer
respondent, Orland CARRYL; on June 18, 1998, when I did NOT* had any
pending Action against the Canada.
17
The Notice of Application, clearly read as: " An Order pursuant to s, 40 of the Federal Court Act that the respondent may not institute further* proceedings... " - Section 40 required the Consent of the Attorney General of Canada - The Attorney General of Canada, since 1993, is accused in my actions; he/she is in the Conflict of Interest and knows that Could NOT give a CONSENT to stay proceeding against himself/herself.
- Section 40 Required CONSENT be given in WRITING - That the CONSENT MUST BE PART OF THE AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE OF APPLICATION to satisfy the Registrar that the proceeding HAS LEGAL PERMIT TO BE COMMENCED which is the filing process. The respondent, Carryl, refused to exercise his skills to find out that the Application Record does NOT have the CONSENT required for filing.
* Campbell J: "does Nourhaghighi had Action when you brought this Application? Crown: Yes! It is before the Court, T-942-99** Nourhaghighi: I did NOT had any action in 1998! Crown: This is right! Campbell: Then why did you brought this Application, to stay what? Nourhaghighi: To discriminate my access to seek the justice in accordance to a Conspiracy with the Law Society and Borden and Elliot. The objects of Conspiracy has been achieved on May 7, 1999*** There the cell of Conspiracy is dead.
15f. **Indicate the pleadings against the respondent, Carryl in action T-942-99 15g. SHARLOW ORDER, who dismissed action T-942-99 in my absent. The dismissal of this Action, in my ABSENT is unbeatable document of the DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
RE: SHARLOW J: Para [3] "I asked the Registrar to check for corrspondance that might have been received in the Toronto registry ot Ottawa registry to explain why the Plaintiff did not appear. NON HAS BEEN FOUND."
15h. AFFIDAVIT OF KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI SWORN JANUARY 27, 2000
The evidence in this affidavit has clear indention that the Federal Court Manager of Toronto respondent, Bruce PRESTON, was involved in the most harmful discriminatory practice against me, and Judge Sharlow, to deny my basic right to be present in the court, and judges' rights to have access to the documents of the Court that was obligated to make judgment based on them.
EXHIBIT "B" to my affidavit is my letter addressed to the respondent Preston marked "EXTREMELY URGENT" objecting to arbitrary setting a date for hearing of my motion, as the moving party, and I clearly stated: "I have full scheduling for next few weeks that will NOT allow me to attend in the hearing of November 1, 1999****; a Copy of this Letter SHALL BE FORWARDED TO A JUDGE FOR ADJOURNMENT THE HEARING.
The other evidence in my affidavit indicate that I was prejudiced several times by the similar obstructionisms of the respondent, Preston.
***Exhibit "4e" v. Toronto Hospital et al; ****Exhibit "11m & 11n" v. bank of
18
15i. Indicate how the group discriminatory practices are a normal practice in the Federal Court of Canada to inhabits immigrants, minorities, and me to have access to the justice system; where the OTTAWA Office committed a FORGERY in my mailing address to mislead and obstruct the justice, and Prohibit my legal right of appeal; where two other Federal Court respondents, Anne EDGE will take a omission to bring the administration into disrepute:
AFFIDAVIT OF KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI SWORN JANUARY 27, 2000
a. On Nov 99, Preston denied to have any information from T-942-99
b. Sharlow Order, that should be mailed urgently, Send Out after 12 days on December 12, 1999, via REGULAR MAIL; the rule Instructed that respondent Edge was obligated to send via Registered Mail
c. The post code, maliciously, has been typed "M5G"; instead of "M6G" and the defendant, the Canada Post, was NOT able to find my address that I live in last TEN years; and has returned to OTTAWA! THE RESULT, the 30 DAYS time to appeal expired. This affidavit was provided with aforesaid reasons, to extend the time to file appeal, Motion was Dismissed.
15j. Indicate my letter dated January 27, 1999, to the Administrator of the Federal Court of Appeal in respect to defects of the Appeal Books against an Introductory Order of OCTOBER 1998! Since 1995, the respondent, Michel LORTIE, was the solo officer of the Federal Appeal Court who was replying to most of my inquires; he was obligated to instruct, pursuant to the Rules and my request the appeal books be ready in NOVEMBER 1998. I was discriminated, severely, in all three appeals that I filed with this court, for the same cause.
15k. Indicate my pleadings in Paras 28 to 32 Action T-942-99 are referring to severe discriminatory practice by the clerks and judges of this court; by enforcing a double standards; ignoring all Rules for the Crown to have perform all kinds of illegality and irregularity; and ignoring my simple rights that has clearly instructed by the Rules; In Para 31 I pleaded that: "Stone JA in less than 24 hours approved Neville's Motion" while I have to waits months that my written motions be replied. In Para 32 I pleaded that MacDonald JA has given me only Five Day-from the date of Order-order received about 30 days later, to file all my documents for the appeal book; but the same judge has give 30 days to Crown to file a submission for a motion.
15l. Indicate my pleadings in Para 75 Action T-942-99 are referring to the respondent LORTIE that called me On May 27, 1999* that Appeal Books against Introductory Order of October 1998 was ready for pickup at the Registry!
a. The was the respondent, Lortie responsibility to SERVE me with the APPEAL BOOK, as the case was against the Crown.
b. *JUNE 2, 1999, was set to hear the main Application T-1237-98! While still its Appeal Books against Introductory Order was not served!
c. The Application was dismissed on June 2, 1999 EXHIBIT "3"
15m. ROTHSTEIN ORDER dated July 5th, 2000 for A-635-98 that I must show cause why the Appeal should NOT be dismissed for delay!!!?
a. I asked extension of time to file Memorandum of Law and Fact!
b. THE COURT ALLOWED MY MOTION AND MADE ORDER THAT IT APPEAR THAT I FILED MEMORANDUM!? therefore has given to respondent time to file its Memorandum till September 15, 2000!?
c. THIS ORDER was prepared to mislead the Commission!? RE: First two lines.
19
20. The respondents know, or out to have been known that it is a discriminatory practice to deny the standard of service to a resident; therefore, with bath faith have created avenues to deny services to me that be hard to prove it; such as not replying to telephone calls by many different tricks, either false busy signal, or transferring the calls to a tape recording massages that says hold the line for ever one is going to reply to you; or by continuous interrupting the conversations and asking to hold and never reply again, or when return asking to hold again. While all respondents are accused for this misconduct, except the office of the respondent, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada ("OFSI"), the discriminatory practices of the respondents, the Sprints Canada, the MBNA CANADA BANK, and the Bank of Montreal are in the level of outrageous and severe contempt.
21. The other type of the discriminatory practices in denial of the standard of services is none logical excuses for denying services to me; such as not opening a basic banking account due to employment condition, or the area of living that the respondent, the Toronto-Dominion Bank is accused of misconduct; while I have GM VISA with it since 1993; in the other hand it does not reply to my other banking requirements such as mortgage and foreign exchange, or even rejecting to accept my monthly payment of GM VISA to its branches.
On 1992, I commenced my business with the Toronto-Dominion Bank by opening two GM VISA accounts; that I was face with numerous errors causing continuous calls and complaints to managers. During the telephone calls I have noted that the clerks without my permission declaring the names of businesses that I was dealing and my accounts information. Soon I was faced serious difficulty with all those businesses, from the flying schools to department stores and stores. There are few branches of the Toronto-Dominion Bank in the area that I am living; I was dealing with a branch at College and Spadina, which was closed; I was dealing the Spadina and Dandas, now I pay my bills at Bloor and Bathrust; where all three branches have caused insulating nuisances for a simple payment that usually takes less than 15 seconds, in other branch of same bank; but in the said branches I must wait, without reason; and still I can not be sure that they are going to serve me, or deny the service. On the College Branch, I asked to open the account; my information was taken, but later was refused to open the account. Several times, I have given a facsimile to be send urgently to the GM VIAS, they did not send.
The Toronto-Dominion Bank-branch at Spadina and Dandas, I was always discriminated with different and ill treatments; this branch has rejected few times opening any kinds of accounts for me, and has never provided e with the receipt for payments, the staffs are very rude and hostile. Once after waiting about one hour in the line, the Clerk refused to accept the GM VISA payment. I asked why? She said this is manger order. I said I have seen that you accept the GM VISA for other customer; she said because she is our customer! I asked to talk with manager; he did not show for a long time, but I wait.
20
Finally, he came; I said the problem; he said: "Go to the other banks, we don't accept the GM VISA payment!" I said then why she accept from other customer; he said:" She made mistake! We are all human, making mistake!" I said why you did not put a note at the door or somewhere that I do not wait one hour in the line! -No reply; but the manger shows me with his finger: " Oh! Look! There is Royal Bank there, Go! Go! Pay there they will accept [the Toronto-Dominion Bank] GM VIAS, we don't!" I said, but they will ask for service charge; he said: "Ok! Pay!" I said your logic is that you are rejecting the free of service charge in accordance to your contract, but I go to the busiest bank and stand another hours to pay the bill; he said: "Yes!" I paid my bills to this branch in last few years, but every time I was served differently. The wrong was committed in accordance to a concert act against my to accuse me mental anguish during appeal hearing before court of Appeal.
Exhibit "16" indicate two payments that I made; P1 indicate Etobicoke Stamp as receipt, that I was served in less than 15 second; P2 is my handwriting Note, in case of dispute, that says:
" March 13, 99, Saturday, 3PM Paid at Spadian and Dandas, Young thin Chains man."
and I left the bank; but it constitute double discriminatory practices, as the victims of the discriminatory practice have rejected services, which is part of contract.
22. The arbitrary and oppressively making rules and conditions are another form of denial of services by all respondents. They do not have any respect for a customer. They know that there are extremely limited market form computations in the market; everyone needs at least one telephone line, and everyone needs at least few banking accounts; either Bell or Sprint for local calls, or these banks defendants for all banking needs in this corrupted and oppressive capitalisms that residents are dying in the streets. The respondents, the Bell Canada, the Sprint Canada, the MBNA Canada Bank, the Scotiabank, the Bank of Montreal and the Toronto-Dominion Bank have shown very high-handed and unusual treatments against me.
The respondent, the MBNA Canada Bank, has offered me a low interest Maple Leaf Master Card, which I accept; soon, I discovered that its solo method of contact is the business via a telephone line; however, their response to my calls were almost immediate, without leaving me on hold. Then, the staff told me the MBNA Canada Bank does not have any branch in its own name in Toronto, and I must go to other banks to pay my monthly statements. In having telephone contacts I found out that few staffs were rude and making fun of my last name: "What kind of nationality it is?" I complained to a supervisor. However, I was faced with the immediate retaliations; impoliteness, denial of services, increase of rate, over charge of the interest, late transfers and false report that have not receive the deposits.
SEVERAL TIMES IT FORCED ME TO ALL MY DEBTS UNTIL THEY RENEW A LOW INTEREST RATE FOR JUST ANOTHER FIVE MONTHS!
RE: Complaints against the Banks of Monteral and the CIBC, December 1999 On December 1999 and January 20000 the MBNA Canada Bank, denied received of $19,827.24 transaction that I paid in cash via the Bank of Montreal; which caused me mental anguish and said it may be lost; that I did research when Ms. Wong-Bank of Montreal, assured me that money was not lost and if the MBNA Canada Bank was not
21
receiving it would be returned; and there was no indicate of the return. August 15, 2000, whenever I called for inquires and transfer of found, it seems that no one ever is going to reply. And after several calls and a long period of time waiting if a staff was replying, apparently did not like to talk, and each few second asking me "Could you hold!" and interrupting our conversation. When I asked from a clerk, Darcy, for reasons, said: "I want pinpoint your account!" however soon brought that was aware of my Complaint to the Commission.
23. It is extremely severe discriminatory practices that the customer not be informed from the details of the technological development of a company that have contract with it. All respondents are accused of misconducts with me in this issue.
Since July 1990 I am the customer of the Bell Canada, only from February to July 2000 I terminated my business due to continuous wire tabbing and theft of communications, interfering with police investigation for wire tabbing to cover up the crime of its agents in my Condominium, abusing communications for gathering information, none standard services, hiding advance teleological telecommunications information, abusing and allowing the respondents and parties respondents to abuse the advance telecommunications information, being extremely dishonest and biased in handling and evaluations of my complaints, being extremely dishonest during repairs inside my property, abusing technical knowledge, arrogant and high-handed attitude, abusing my account for entering the instructions that I never made, or deleting, changing, forgery in the complaints and the instructions that I made, creating forged transcripts of verbal conversation to mislead the justice, trespassing, conspiracy, tracing my calls for employment, businesses and transactions with banks and other accounts, stealing all my accounts numbers with banks, credit companies, Toronto Hydro and parcels, deleting important massages, sending false recorded massages that my telephone is not in the service, harassing calls by its agents and recorded massages during nights and early morning, interfering with police investigation for wire tabbing to cover up the crime, and transmitting false signals that the line is busy in accordance to the objects and worse possible repairs and services. There is not a competition in the local telephone services, and the respondent, the Sprint Canada, was the worst. Therefore, the Bell Canada was obligated to reestablish its services from July, which was in default.
24. One of the historical principles of the capitalism is the customer discretion that made the North America great in last centuries. However, the respondents' discriminatory practices are going to kill this great personality potential. All respondents are accused of misconducts with me.
Since 1996 I am the customer of the Sprint Canada, for long distance telephone calls and I terminated my local telephone call from the end of June 2000 due to continuous wire tabbing and theft of communication, abusing communications for gathering information, none standard services, hiding advance teleological telecommunications information, being dishonest during repairs report, abusing my account for deleting, changing and forged instructions that I never made or made, creating forged transcripts of verbal
22
conversation, tracing my call with Federal Court, the Supreme Court, and other federal offices across Canada, deleting the information of the numbers that I called, causing obstruction in the long distance connections and recording the private conversation, abusing the repairs questionnaire to be able to repair the defects of the spying systems loaded on my line, sending false recorded massages harassing calls by its agents and recorded massages during nights and early morning, worst possible repairs and services.
On Friday September 11, 1998 I received an offer to have Internet services with the Sprint Canada that I accepted. Just after 15 days I asked that the service be terminated due to all kinds of wrongs against my personal computer hardware and software that I have suffered by the racists Sprint Canada's repairs staffs and managers, that clearly were targeted me insults and abuse of trust causing harm and damages to my computer and me. I had very impotent appeal coming up on I was trying to have research in the Interest for my case C26325.
On September 22, 1998 before the Court of Appeal for Ontario that where, the Respondent, Anne Roland gets involved and proved its bad faith by making contradictory Statements by her staffs . In paragraph 3 of my affidavit read as: "A female officer of Registry confirmed that my documents for file C26325 was accepted as the Notice of Appeal; but she refused to give me the file number and other information that I asked; she was clearly under the pressure to not provide information to me. The Attorney General of Ontario, illegally intercepting all my communications with this Court " Exhibit "17" Is my complaint dated October 1, 1998; the pick of my legal proceedings, where the respondent, Roland gets involved in discriminatory practices of denial of my Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and all we knew that how the Crown tried to avoid that.
25. It is severe discriminatory practices to develop the internal groups compressive and unreasonable standards against all customers on certain principles not proved by the Edictal Codes. Since 1990, that I landed, I never the standards expected by the banks but I had always outstanding good records; however the banks have destroyed my reputation with continuous fraudulent NSF records against my accounts.
Since July 20, 1990 I have banking businesses with the respondent, the Bank of Nova Scotia ("Scotiabank") who with continuous discriminatory practices has destroyed my reputation, in my new society. On October 2, 1990, I had $50692.49 cash in my Scotia Powerchequing account, that cheque for $475 for hotel rent was not honored by the Bank and caused sever year a false record of NSF stay against my credit record. I made a complaint to the OSFI.
The Scotiabank retaliated harshly and caused me the highest possible physical and economical damages by its sick racists clerks at 44 King Street, main Branch, in Toronto. I create the term of sick racists, to demonstrate highest level of hate that racists may be affected.
23
On January 1992, the Scotiabank, maliciously, introduced me to the lawyer, Lorne Levine; who then became my counsel and caused me the most harmful damages, who intentionally, lost the strongest case of appeal and caused to be discharged in the middle charge of common assault brought against me by a police complainant ending to two criminal records, torture, and imprisonment that ended to ten proceeding where the respondent, Anne Roland gets involve.
Since 1990, whenever I am attending at the Scotiabank, immediately, security guards are appears around me; with close watch. I suffered strong pain of contempt of all kinds of racist's slur and jokes against my nationality, my profession as a pilot, my livelihood in the taxi industry and my family status. The Clerks always pretended that have difficulties to understand my slang.
On September 12, 1995, I complaint to the OSIF that I tried to open a power attorney account for my brother who was visiting Canada; a clerk, Samantha Robarts, asked me that what was my profession; I said pilot; she said: "Pirate!"; I did not know the meaning of Pirate; I asked her what that means; she in front of all customers and security gauds explained by her hands that a Pirate is a man who hide his face and attack to the people by knife or sword; she started laughing with others. I felt a shame and contempt and without opening the account on that day we left. I wrote these notes with refearnce to my recollections, the original documents are in possession of the OSIF and Scotiabank. The OSIF asked the Scotiabank to investigate; the result of investigation was the respondent, Dennis Osborne, asked me to move my business.
n view of the fact that the respondent, Osborne, officially rejected banking services to me; I attended, several times, to close all my accounts in main Branch at 44 King Street. A clerk refused to give me a complete lists of all my accounts, and stated that all my accounts were closed; however, in another date a clerk told me that I have several accounts still open there, but again refused to provide me with information of my accounts; to best of my recollections, on 1991 I opened a saving account for a mortgage and have deposit on it, I do not have information of that account.
After waiting for a long period of times, without reason, the clerks refused to close all my accounts and provide me.
On April 1993, I was in final exam for the ATPL. I asked for financial assistance from my relative who sent me about $6000 founds from Tehran through my account at the Scotiabank, at 44 King Street, Toronto. For several months the Scotiabank, fraudulently, ignored that the found was received, who the scandal raised, the Scotiabank sent founds to Iran and request to be resent to the CIBC, that I did not had account with it. However the Scotiabank, but the CIBC committed this trick was found liable by the Court for the said cause of action.
AS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS ROBERT PEARCE, THE BANK OF MONTREAL,
Since 1991, I am customer of the respondent, the Bank of Montreal, who attacked to me as a member of a group to prohibit me from my banking businesses. I continuously asked from the Master Card and the Branch's managers, at 568 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M6G 1B3 to cease the discriminations. However, the managers and staffs were
24
always very rude to me and breaching the confidentiality of my accounts by providing the details to the Police; as I was receiving financial helps from my relative in Iran, primarily from the said Brach which was close to my Home. Several times managers contempt me before other by shouting: "We don't want you; take your business elsewhere!" I explained that I am political asylum and with hardship I provided information to my relative in Iran, and if I change my banking then I will not be able to receive financial support.
On or about December 1999, there was a robbery incident in the Branch; on next day
early morning, I went to Branch, to receive about $8000 cash from my Master Card that I
asked a week earlier. There was no one in the line to be served, and no one was ready to
serve me. Suddenly, I have seen two police cars arrived with rush. Soon officers and
staffs had conversations, while most of them were looking at me; then a clerk told me
that the $8000 cash was not ready and I have to wait till Wednesday. The clerk did not
ask apology for breaking bank promise. I need the cash money to pay to the respondent,
the MBNA Canada Bank, who instructed must have whole $10,000 debts, till it renew
my low interest credit for another five months. If the Bank of Montreal was honest in
transfer of founds I did not need to carry $10,000 cash, from one branch to another and
give to Jessica Wong, the Manager at 700 University Branch, Toronto, to be paid to the
MBNA Canada Bank. The Bank of Montreal-Wong still did not pay the cash money to
the MBNA Canada on time, and caused several calls and trace. I obtained Judgment
against the Scotiabank in 1994; it was not handy to put on the Exhibit.
AS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, THE CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF
COMMERCE
Since 1991 I have businesses with the CIBC. I opened a chequing account and I got the
CIBC Ford VISA, but soon I closed my chequing accounts due to overcharges for
services. The CIBC was charged with Judge Donnelly for holding my found for about
three months, when I need for the ATPL.
The CIBC did not honor the Judgment, until I was forced to go through the troubles of
the enforcement; and then did not paid the cost of enforcement.
Soon, the CIBC commenced all kinds of harassing calls with its agents with fraudulent
misrepresentations in the name of banking.
On December 1999 the CIBC created difficulties in transfer of founds from my VISA
account to the MBNA Canada Bank, while both banks were charging me interests from
the day of transactions, and both banks denying the confirmation of transactions.
The CIBC and the Scotiabank continuously changing the Card Holders agreements and
they NEVER EVER respect their own contract with me, and arbitrary raising the interest
rates, assisting fees on the Cards that was agreed to be free and other discriminations.
While, I have never had even once late payment, the CIBC, never has increased my
credits few years, while it is customary that each year the banks increase the credits of the
customers who had a good record. Exhibit "E" v. RCMP et al indicate Judgment against the CIBC after it hold my found without any ground.
26. The respondents, Nicole Barbe and the OSFI are the federal officials respondents for failing in performance of duties to make sure that the investigation processes of my complaints against the banks were handled by them appropriately. The evidence in this my affidavit indicates that none of banks had intent to solve the complaint. Surly, Barbe and the OSFI are proper respondents before the Commission to explain why dud not render and Order against banks.
25
27. The respondents, Jennifer Wilson and the CRTC are the federal officials respondent for failing in performance of duties to make sure that the investigation processes of my complaints against the telephone companies and Internet providers respondents were handled by them appropriately. The evidence in this my affidavit indicates that none of telephone companies and Internet providers' respondents had intent to solve the complaint. Surly, the CRTC is proper respondent before the Commission to explain why in last eight years allows the wrongs be continued by the said respondents; and never rendered a decision against them.
28. The respondents OSFI and the CRTC misconduct themselves with my complaints in worst stages of the discriminatory practices. Owing to their disobediences from performing their statutory duties the banks and telephone companies respondents, at all material times, retaliated in worst possible way against me.
I as a pilot whose social life is the first priority to maintain high moral potential, totally isolated from the WHOLE WORLD! It is a real shame that always my relative in Iran and friends complaining why your telephone is not responding.
I do not have answer; I must make answer; because I cannot tell that the RCMP
intercepting my calls; they would ask: Why?
Do we have any organization more impotent than the CRTC?
Without trust to communications; the OSFI, is dead. How I can provide my password in
the telephone call to the CIBC [cause of complaint] when I trust the RCMP is going to
steal it? What is the honest and professional explanation for all NSF Cheuqes errors when
I saw most of managers SHOCKED when they noticed, and speechless in reply?
Does hacking exist against the banks? Who has stronger motive and unlimited budgets
accept the Government? My evidence in this affidavit indicate that the Government's respondents have shown no respect toward the law, and they have much more stronger
motive than any other respondents; all commissions respondents are the Government's offices, therefore it is logic to demand Writs of Mandamus that the Government could not have improper influences over the commissions respondents.
Exhibit "B" v. RCMP et al in page Two indicate the CRTC without any kind of
investigation or evaluation, has transferred the reply of the respondent Bell Canada to me
while if it had intention to just look to the history of my complaint since 1993, it would
take few weeks to have a proper reply; all commissions respondents are very much same.
29. In my action against the Senior Solicitor, Alfred Kwinter, Judge Donnelly evaluated my poor pleadings. Ron Weinberger representing Kwinter and made racists remakes against me and my Statement of Claim and asked to be struck out. The learned judge, has given him a warning to cite him for contempt in the face of court if he continues to be racists, then addressed:
" I read the entire pleadings very carefully, in second page Nourhaghighi pleaded that:
did not file my claim with commission... this is the professional negligence, even
if he did not pleaded those words. I am not prepare to struck out the pleadings; he has a
cause of action; your motion is dismissed" Nourhaghighi v. Kwniter; Ontario Court
26
30. The Common Law is the standards of conducts set by the judges and the Commission had duty to evaluate my complaints in a way that even one sentence did not had scintilla cause of action for denials in provision good and services; all forms of harassment; differential treatment of an individual or a group of individuals based on prohibited ground and the systemic discrimination. As the result of failure of the Commission directors' respondents, Mervin Witter and Bob Fagan to enforce the Oath of Office, the Humanity and Ethical Codes, principles of the honestly and helpfulness with has been loaded on the Holy Name of Office "HUMAN RIGHTS",
the respondents' extremely severe retaliations caused me highest possible harms and contempt.
Exhibits "18" Indicate that all my rights were breached by the respondents, their parties
respondents and their agents guaranteed under the Human Rights Codes were
oppressively denied and I was, at all material times, object of the worst possible
tortures, cruel and unusual treatments and punishments:
18a. Indicate my permanent injuries after a police- v. Toronto Hospital; Parson et al
rammed to my car RE: the respondent, Schobesberger Perjury.
18b. Indicate the police obstruction in my access to public medical system; Dr. Sehmi is one of Eighteen Physicians defendants in my proceedings for false reports
A. Dr. Sehmi in line 6 says: "I could not see any fracture" but issued Tylenol # 3
B. THE OHRC Exhibits "O & AI", page 7, line 19, Judge Cadsby after four
days trials found police officer with weight 250 pounds, who during torture by
eight other officers sat upon my back and pressed his knees till my ribs were
broken RE: THE OHRC Exhibit "" My Affidavit; in addition, the College
Inspector, GANS, before the Board admitted that there was a fracture
C. The OHRC Exhibit "AH", all kinds of frauds in my OHIP reports which is
a real shame for the Government: Two XX, indicate Best Possible Health
by Aviation Physician, shall be compared with contradictory One X forgery
of all kinds of very serious illnesses such as "EPILEPSY" ; this fraudulent
accusation allows police to stay in the courtroom; while the intend is to
obstruct my presentations: RE all hearing in the province and federal courts
D. THE OHRC Exhibit "G" Police have clearly told me that would not allow me
work, and I never got employment after.
E. Adding Poison to my Drinks, Everywhere: RE THE OHRC Exhibit "AJ" F. Adding Poison to the AIR in my apartment; the Processors who served me with the Notice of Appearances have seen my apartment door was open, when they entered into the building, without my permission, when the building has full security advance system that NO ONE CAN ENTERED, Who in the building Open the main Entrance for over ten Processors? RE: THE OHRC Exhibit "J" POISON Sabotages in my Home has been Refused to be investigated honestly by the defendant, the City of Toronto that is accused of hundreds malicious prosecutions against me by continuous insulting nuisances; this POISON has serious effect in whole nervous systems; I have six fans for circulation in a small one bedroom apartment, living and giving this Affidavit with mask; while Intentional Noise Disturbances is going on at a floor above me! RE THE OHRC, Complaint, Paras 4 and 12 Further References against the Government's Sabotages in my Cars, Home, Airplanes, Bars, Courts and other public places Nourhaghighi v. Canada
27
31. The complaint process is not a rocket science; it was born with civilization. In the poorest village, there are seniors that solving the problems without having any knowledge of the Human Rights Code; as they were born within humanity culture. It is degrading for me to plead to the court for my Mother Nature rights; this custom should not be allowed to become a common practice for the Commission, as its poor records of cases in this Court has an ample indications.
32. The principle of a Complain is similar to Information in a Criminal Proceeding, or a Claim, in Civil Law. In a Claim or Information a short notice will be given to the defendants for the commencement of the proceeding. However, in a Complaint, the procedure is more relax and the target is to solve the cause of complaint, by mediation, if not resolved then the investigator has duty to seat with the complainant help him to give a shape his complaint, and if he has difficulty in writing. Section 40. (3) of the Act, even is more advance that instructed the Commission has duty initiate a Complaint where has reasonable grounds for believing that a person engaged in the discriminatory practices.
Exhibit "19" indicate the handwriting of the Police Complaints Commissioner who kindly highlighted my complaint and wrote for me a Complaint against Officer Brian Beadman; simple and helpful and was not forced me in painful and complex technical legal process to establish an investigation.
33. I make application to this Honorable Court for the issuance the Writ of Mandamus to compel the respondents to follow the Constitution Law and the Canadian Human Rights Act ("Act") and allow my due process of law, in accordance to the following Writs set in the Notice of Application. I am , being otherwise remediless, entitled to a writ of mandamus, requiring and compelling the Commission respondent to comply with its statutory duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," as mandated under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
SWORN before me in the City of )
Toronto, in Province of Ontario ) KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
This day 14th, September 2000 )
MARIO SEPE
Commissioner; Registry Officer of the Federal Court of Canada, Toronto Office
**************************
Major Nourhaghighi Affidavit against Canadian Human Rights number 2
Court File No: T-1535-00 FEDERAL COURT-TRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
FEDERAL COURT- TRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
Applicant
-and-
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, MERVIN WITTER, BOB FAGAN;
BELL CANADA, SPRINT CANADA, WENNIFER WILSON,
THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
ROBERT BIRGENEAU, THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO; ROBERT PEARCE,
THE BANK OF MONTREAL, THE CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE,
DENNIS OSBORNE, BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,
THE MBNA CANADA, TORONTO DOMINION BANK, NICOLE BARBE,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CANADA;
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE; RICHARD SCHOBESBERGER, TINA SOARES, THE TRANSPORT CANADA; BRUCE PRESTON, MICHEL LORTIE, ORLAND CARRYL, ANNE EDGE, ANNE ROLAND and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA;
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
Pursuant to provision of Rule 306 of the Federal Court Rules 1998
TO The Administration
AND TO: RENE DUVAL, Associate General Counsel
Solicitor for the Directors Respondents, Mervin Witter,
Bob Fagan and The Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater Street, 9th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
KIA 1E1
Tel: (613) 943-9156
Fax: (613) 993-3089
* EXERCISE CAUTION: The Crown with Dishonestly and Malicious objects accused
of Theft of all the Applicants' Communications which made
this Application for the Writs of Mandamus before this Court
AND TO: ALLAN ROSENZVEIG, General Counsel, Telecom, Legal Directorate
Solicitor for the Respondent, J. Wilson, the Canadian Radio-television, and Telecommunications Commission
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere
Central Building; 1 Promenade du Protage
Hull Quebec
Telephone: (819) 953 3992
AND TO: MICHAEL G. QUENNEVILLE,
Assistant General Counsel, litigation, Legal Division
Solicitor for the respondent, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
Suite 1501, 199 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario, M5L 1A2
Tel: (416) 980 4291; Fax: (416) 861 3853 & 368 9826
AND TO: STEVEN J. WEISZ, Solicitor for the Respondent, the MBNA Canada Bank,
BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP, Barristers and Solicitors
Box 25, Commerce Court West, 199 Bay Street, 28th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M5L 1A9
Tel: (416) 863 2400; Fax: (416) 863 2653
AND TO: ERICM. ROHER, Solicitor for the respondent, the Bank of Nova Scotia
BORDEN LADNER HERVAIS LLP :
Attention: ESWARD MURPHY, PAT TAYLOR
Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street, West,
Toronto Ontario, M5H 3Y4
Tel: (416) 367 6051; Fax: (416) 361 2444
AND TO: GIULIO D'DLESSANDRO,
Solicitor for the Respondent, BELL CANADA,
Legal Department, 483 Bay Street, Floor 5N
Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2E1
LSUC #34226J
Tel: (416) 353 4220; Fax: (416) 585 2130
AND TO: KATEE BROER,
Solicitor for the Respondents, Sprint Canada, and The Bank of Montreal
FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN
1 First Canadian Place
100 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5X 1B2
Tel: (416) 863 4574; Fax: (416) 863 4592
AND TO: MORRIS ROSENBERG, Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Robert H. Jaworski, Solicitor for Crown
Department of Justice, Exchange Tower
Suite 3400, Box 36
2 First Canadian Place, 130 King Street
Toronto, Ontario, M5X 1K6
Tel: (416) 973-9638; Fax: (416) 973-5004
rt File No: T-1535-00
FEDERAL COURT-TRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
FEDERAL COURT- TRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
Applicant
-and-
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION ET AL
Respondents
__________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
Pursuant to provision of Rule 306 of the Federal Court Rules 1998
__________________________________
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
*608-456 College Street
Toronto ON
M6G 4A3
*Tel: (416) 515 7263
*EXERCISE CAUTION: The Crown with Dishonestly and Malicious objects accused
of Theft of all the Applicants' Communications which made
this Application for the Writs of Mandamus before this Court
No comments:
Post a Comment