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
This is part of my autobiography that indicates thousands of Canadians were involved in the most serious felonies against my children and I. If you honestly believe that your name should not be listed here, you may have all your reasons in writing and paying $500 administration fees for
its removal from all my sites
its removal from all my sites
For these reasons, this Court orders that:
1. In respect of the relief sought against the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee;s decision of march 15, 2004, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Committee who shall, in accordance with law, investigate the applicant's complaint of December 11, 2003;
2. The balance of the application is struck with the proviso that if applicant chooses, he shall be at liberty to institute separate and appropriate proceedings seeking appropriate relief in compliance with the Rules;
3. There shall be no order as to costs
"Francois LEMIEUX" Judge
1. In respect of the relief sought against the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee;s decision of march 15, 2004, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Committee who shall, in accordance with law, investigate the applicant's complaint of December 11, 2003;
2. The balance of the application is struck with the proviso that if applicant chooses, he shall be at liberty to institute separate and appropriate proceedings seeking appropriate relief in compliance with the Rules;
3. There shall be no order as to costs
"Francois LEMIEUX" Judge
In accordance to this great success, for the first time in the History of British Justice System an Iranian was granted an Order to hold trial and prosecute several agents of Canada Spying Agency and successfully convicted the agents ended to additional Order that the Canada Spying Agency MUST ASK APOLOGY from our Lord of Law the Right Honorable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi
The Story in Brif
After September 11, 2001 in USA, the Canadian Spying agency had made a series of forged documents, and trespassed the Minister of Citizenship Data and unlawfully removed Immigration documents of Major Nourhaghighi and planned to deport him to Iran, without giving him a chance to defend himself. Major was successful to discover the Conspiracy and in May 7, 2003 IN SUDDEN MOVED BEFORE FEDERAL COURT asking An Order that the Minister of Citizenship and Spying Agency MUST be cited for CONTEMPT OF THE COURT for disregarding the Federal Court's Authority to here MAJOR Nourhaghighi.
The Minister resigned and the Court Order that Canada Spying Agency CommitteeCSIR,entation and Data.Finally in May 7, 2006, the Spying Committee convicted both agents and the Canada Spying Agency and asked them to get on the knees and apology from Major Nouraghighi and both were discharged from Canada Spying Agency.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Now see the details of the first Order
The Story in Brif
After September 11, 2001 in USA, the Canadian Spying agency had made a series of forged documents, and trespassed the Minister of Citizenship Data and unlawfully removed Immigration documents of Major Nourhaghighi and planned to deport him to Iran, without giving him a chance to defend himself. Major was successful to discover the Conspiracy and in May 7, 2003 IN SUDDEN MOVED BEFORE FEDERAL COURT asking An Order that the Minister of Citizenship and Spying Agency MUST be cited for CONTEMPT OF THE COURT for disregarding the Federal Court's Authority to here MAJOR Nourhaghighi.
The Minister resigned and the Court Order that Canada Spying Agency CommitteeCSIR,entation and Data.Finally in May 7, 2006, the Spying Committee convicted both agents and the Canada Spying Agency and asked them to get on the knees and apology from Major Nouraghighi and both were discharged from Canada Spying Agency.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Now see the details of the first Order
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
September 10, 2002
CONFIDENTIAL; SERVED; URGENT
[ This Document is marked as Secret in CSIS' Documentary!}
Warning: For CSIS use Only, to be used Only for Citizenship Process
The Canadian Security Intelligence Services
ATT: Richard Stewart, and Mary Mardalliran ( Canada Spying Agents acted against Major)
Dear Sir, and Madam:
RE: Citizenship, File # 1989747
I am writing in regard meeting with you on September 5, 2002. I got chance to meet the CSIS personal for the first time. I wish that I had access to the rules, procedures, and regulations of your office to be able to have a true judgment for your professionalism. I commenced legal research for jurisdiction of your office. I may forward a submission to the Director of the CSIS with certain guidelines to protect the Nation Security Canada, in future, in new National Plan. Twelve years continuous conduct with police, and tricks that police is using to mislead the courts has given me a wisdom that there is possibility that fabricating evidence from banks and other may be forwarded to you to mislead you from my reply to the Question of my source on Income. Since 1997, I posted all my Income Tax in the Internet at following address: http://www.geocities.com/nourhaghighi/income.html [Note: CSIS deleted this Website on November 2002. Now SIRC is investigating the CSIS' misconduct]
I am a man of perfection. Surprised meeting with you, without any notice, left me a bad feeling soon I left you. Therefore this presentation indicates documents in the Chronological Order, as
a review of our conversations that shall be consider as the evidence under the Oath. Most of the documents removed from Motion Record of the Respondents in file T-1535-00, at Federal Court
:
:
1- I stated that frauds in my Condo was/is the main root of all misleading information.
On August 1991, I objected to frauds in my Condo, and since that time, I am targeted with malice
PAGE "5" indicate three different Statement of Expenses for my Condo where the board of directory were mostly lawyers, and few hired by Attorney General of Ontario. …Plumbing in A is $24,578; in B is $29,118; and in C is $42,837 for Dec 1990 to Dec 1991.
2- I stated that Constable Yu, maliciously, told me that police will not let me work in Toronto, and by interception up to today obstructing me. PAGE "6" is my complaint against Yu dated Nov 7, 1991: "I am going to have your driver license suspended….you will never work…"
(a) On November 1991, Zaks Taxi committed wrongful dismissal, court convicted Zaks.
(b) On June 3, 1992, Co-Op Taxi committed wrongful dismissal, court convicted Co-Op.
(c) On November 1993, Maple Leaf Taxi committed wrongful dismissal, court convicted it.
(d) On January 1994, Metro Taxi committed wrongful dismissal, court convicted Metro Taxi.
(e) On February 1994, ANS Taxi Taxi committed Sabotages, and wrongful dismissal, court three times convicted ANS, the Attorney General of Ontario, three times helped ANS to
set aside the Judgments. The case of ANS still is before the court.
I have presented to you five judgments, as support of credibility before the Ontario Provincial Court, Ontario Court of Appeal and Federal Court of Canada. Please add these five judgments.
PAGE "7"Is Judgment against Co-Op Taxi: " In making a finding of credibility I have really no hesitation in saying that I find the evidence of the Plaintiff much more than Miss L…
3- I said that Police and Crown were involved in frauds and bribery in my Condominium.
PAGE "10" is my report dated June 3, 1992, that Toronto Police 14 Division, Fraud Squad, commenced investigation for fraud against Condo; however, soon received bribe and ceased charging the members of boards for ten counts of frauds. Detective A. Field is accused of bribery.
Page Two; Confidential; Warning For CSIS Only; to be used Only for Citizenship Process
NOTE # 1: As documents indicate date that Co-Op Taxi fired me is the same day that I forwarded the Attorney General of Ontario's fraud to police; June 3, 1992!
4- The corruption in the Airline Transport Pilot License ("ATPL") examination was an issue that I raised as proof against Federal Government. On January 1993, I raised that issue. Immediately, the Unemployment and Immigration, maliciously, suspended my benefits.
You have to consider I was single father, and how it was cruel to my two children.
NOTE # 2: I complained against the Unemployment and Immigration. On September 1994, I got Judgment from the Umpire. This is number Eleven Judgments, as proof of my credibility.
NOTE # 3: part of my Income in 1994, 1995, 1996 came from Judgments, against Government, and its parties. On December 11, 1996 nine members of police tortured me [Cadsby Judgment that I explain there was forgery] that ended to five years continuous medical cares and exercise. PAGE "11" indicate trial scheduled for three corrupt court reporters in my action. As I stated that the Crowns are defendants for committing forgery in the transcripts, and judgments.
PAGE "12A" is forged Order by Federal Court that indicate Minister of Citizenship is defendant, while the action was against judges, lawyers and mostly court clerks. It was my action against Government that posted at my web site: http://www.geocities.com/nourhaghighi/conflict.html
5- Mr. Stewart asked me: Did you fly solo? Herein I correct my answer. My Logbook indicate on March 25, 1993, I flew Solo with Cessna 150 at Toronto Airway Ltd.
6- Mr. Stewart asked me: What was the type of twin engines you flew? This is full info:
March 26, 1993, PA- 44, GPHJ, Brampton Flight Center; April 6, 1993, PA- 44, GGSY, Toronto Airway, Buttonvill; Sept 1, 7, 1993, PA-4, GBNU. Aviation International, Guelph
7- On or about March 1993, the Transport Canada, by breach of the confidentially of my report against corruption in the ATPL; illegally notified to flying clubs to reject services to me.
On 1995, I discovered that Richard Schobesberger, the Transport Canada, Aviation Licensing in Ontario has given such order. This is the main reason that each flying school by having misconduct with me during flight, causing that I change to another school.
PAGE "12" is Letter of Minister of Transport dated August 4, 1993 who wrote to me that his officials [Schobesberger] told him that the corruption in the ATPL was not correct.
PAGE "13" is Memorandum dated July 21, 1993 signed by Tina Soares, the Regional Superintendent Aviation Licensing Support. In page one Soares confirmed that photocopy that I send as Exhibit 5, was correct. In Second page Soares asks: "How Mr. Nourhaghighi obtained these photocopies." This is my master document that the Soares and Schobesberger http://www.geocities.com/nourhaghighi/conflict.html - Paragraph 70 at Internet.
PAGE "15" is my Judgment against CIBC. I have got Judgment against Scotiabank too!
NOTE # 4: on March 1993, I asked financial assistant from my brother Mr. Mustafa, businessman in Tehran, telephone 011212061220. Scotiabank and the CIBC, until September 1993 alleged that no fund was transferred. As the result, I was not able to pay for my aviation expenses for ATPL.
CAUTION # 1: Mustafa's name is in my GM Visa Account. We are Attorneys for each other.
I have evidence to believe that the corrupt members of police have created fabricating documents that Scotiabank, TD Canada Trust, GM Visa… trying to mislead the CSIS. Mardalliran's pressure for my brother business may be related to a new conspiracy of police against me to mislead you.
Page Three; Confidential; Warning For CSIS Only; to be used Only for Citizenship Process
PAGE "16" is my complaint against TD Canada Trust. I was forced to cash all my GIC.
From October 2001 to July 2002, said Banks committed all types of frauds to mislead the CSIS.
NOTE # 5: the Attorney General of Ontario, by illegal interception of my telephone conversation was able to find my banks accounts, and by computer hacking removed founds from the CIBC.
Ms. Mardalliran, main concern was about my visits in Ottawa. I searched in my Diary, I find the following answers for my visits to the City of Ottawa; and I am also forwarding documents related to raised issues.
8- I said on April 5, 1994 there was a trial against corrupt pilot. I was harassed that police will strike me. On April 9, five traffic tickets issued and on April 16, 1996 six, a drunk police hit my car and broken my neck and back bones. I said that I was convicted for dangerous driving.
PAGE "17" is police investigation report my vehicle speed 10/km is highlighted.
PAGE "18" indicate eleven tickets issued against me by Toronto Police on April 9, and 16, 1994.
9- On September 6, 1994 I went to Ottawa to file Complaints against police, judges, lawyers corruptions in the ATPL, and violations of my rights under the Bills Human Rights.
Particulars of visit at Ottawa, which was main concern of Ms. Mardalliran:
At 9 AM, I visited Iranian Embassy. I saw the RCMP marked vehicle standing before the Iranian Embassy. I was seating in my car. I saw a Constable of RCMP have spoken with Iranian Official, before he goes to Embassy. I saw a tall male white Canadian was speaking with the officer at the desk, inside the embassy. Then the Embassy clerk was very rude with me, I left immediately.
In March 1995, I charged Government for conspiracy of the RCMP, and Iranian Police in action T-668-95 at the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Paragraph 90 of the Statement of Claim says all facts that I told you to which offices I gave my complaint: It says clearly that the defendant installed spying devise on his car. None of offices respond to my complaints. Therefore The United Nations did not reply to this particular complaint, I correct my answer in this part.
NOTE # 6: The RCMP is main defendant in my actions, and complaints for fraud, theft, assault, bribery, abuse of power, acting out of jurisdiction, false arrest, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and the contempt of court. Since January 2002, the RCMP Commission, at the Province of B.C., is currently, investigating the said issues. From 1994 to 2001, the RCMP, illegally obstructed me.
At 11 AM, I served my letter to the Minister of Justice office.
At 12:00, I served my letter to the Prime Minister office.
At 12:00, I served my letter to the Prime Minister office.
Recollection #2: I saw two male civilians approached to Mail Room Staff and got my envelope addressed to the PM. The civilians intercepted me by their unmarked vehicle up to 5 PM in all streets. There was/is a police bug installed in my car. At 2:00 PM I served my letter to the United Nations Office
Recollection #3: I saw male civilians approached left elevator and spoken with staff of the UN when all of them looked at me, when I was waiting for elevator. Recollection #4: At 3 PM I served my complaint to Minister of Solicitor General, Harb Gary
NOTE # 7: Appeal Book in file A-410-95, at the Federal Court of Appeal, at page 104, lines 1-4 says that: "On September 15, 1994 the Plaintiff-me has send two letters by Fax to Ottawa to Defendants Chretien and Rock, Prime Minister and Minister of Justice; on the letter the Plaintiff wrote: "On September 6, 1994 I have given some documents to your office in regard of conspiracy…." . This facts indicate that my main business in Ottawa, as I said, was complaint against malicious prosecution and report of the corruption in the ATPL, to Minister of Transport. Page Four; Confidential; Warning For CSIS Only; to be used for Citizenship Process
10- On October 2001, I charged Five Lawyers, for contempt in the face of court, in my Motion at file T-1535-00. The lawyers who mostly were representing Banks Respondents have
given bribe to certain officials that obstruct my prosecutions against them. My Affidavit and names of Banks Lawyers accused of Contempt can be find in the following Internet address:
http://www.geocities.com/nourhaghighi/contempt.html
PAGE "19" is my Affidavit sworn on September 18, 2000, in my application against Banks, Bell Canada, Transport Canada, and many other respondents, in file T-1535-00, at Federal Court-TD.
http://www.geocities.com/nourhaghighi/1535.html
Note #6 indicate my complaints were stolen from Offices at Ottawa. My Affidavit, indicate that as soon as I commence application T-1535-00, series of thefts committed by agents at the Print Shop of Business Dept, for which master documents against Banks were stolen from file.
My Affidavit indicates how numerous NSF documents filed, fraudulently, against me to attack to my credibility. I developed my computer skill and I discovered that Banks' Computers are hacked and I provided evidence in my web site: http://www.geocities.com/nourhaghighi/scotiabank.html
CAUTION # 2 Ms. Mardalliran's question in regard of my Income, may be related to fabricating documents that Banks created. Please consider Caution #1 with these facts.
11- I visited Ottawa on February 15, 2002. I arrived at about 3 PM, left Ottawa at about 6 PM I filed Application 29085 with Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"). NOTE # 8 From 1997 to 2002, my documents to the SCC were stolen, I was forced to proceed in this expensive way.
On May 14, 2002 I visited Ottawa at about 4 PM, left Ottawa, next day at 3 PM. I filed document for Application 26982 with the SCC Registry.
Recollection #5: The RCMP, and Ottawa Police vehicles with numbers: 2508, 2640, 2626, 2606 were intercepted me, without any lawful reason, as a police bug in my car confused everyone.
NOTE # 9: My Affidavit sworn on May 7, 2002 for file 26982 was the most important documents that I ever filed with Courts that contain 13 Exhibits of Forgery, Conspiracy, Fraud, and Abuse of Process against the Attorney General of Ontario and Toronto Police. These two my Applications contain important documents that the CSIS can have a copy of them, if demand, by meeting only.
NOTE # 10: Since February 2002, Police in Ottawa, Montreal, and Toronto, suddenly increased its harassments due to My Affidavits sworn of February 6, and May 7, 2002 for the SCC. Series of new traffic and parking charged, by abuse of power issued against me by the said Police.
12- Since 1990, I investigated ample cells of Conspiracies against police and governments.
I discovered ample evidence of Thefts by judges that in entire history no one had such success.
I discovered ample evidence of Forgeries in Judgments, Orders, and Transcripts that shocked many honest judges, lawyers, and police. I have reasonable ground to be worry of improper influences for my right to the Citizenship. I am pray that you be able to respect your Oath of Office and handling my case with good faith and honestly to the best of your skill, to protect the dignity of your office, from a scandal that corrupt servants, may planned for you.
PAGE "23" indicate my last complaint against Police, to ON-Human Rights Commission, filed Sept/6/02, a day after meeting with you. Police, without any lawful ground, suddenly, from few days before meeting with you, commenced harassing calls, to have fabricating telephone interception record to mislead CSIS, and mislead me to not have proper presentation on Sept/5/02
NOTE # 11; TODAY, at 11 AM I called your office at 277 Front Street, I noticed that my call was intercepted, and the CSIS male officers were mislead, and I did not serve professionally.
Sincerely
Keyvan Nourhaghighi
September 3, 2003 CONFIDENTIAL; SERVED
The Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Services
Mr. Ward Elcock
Ottawa, On. VIA FAX (613) 231 0612
M6G 4A3
Mr. Ward Elcock
Ottawa, On. VIA FAX (613) 231 0612
M6G 4A3
SIR:
I am writing in regard of difficulties in finding the correct spelling of the Director and his fax number, and telephone numbers.
Today at 3 PM I had a suspicious call from a man introduced himself as the member of the CSIS and given me the fax number of (613) 842 1271 for the Director, were, I send the attached complaint to him, at 3:13 PM.
Then I called the Canada Information at 1-800-622-6232, where again a man that his voice was similar to the first caller said: "It is hard to find the CSIS, I need to know why you are calling the CSIS that I be able to direct you" I said that I just want the name and fax number of the director, again he put me five minutes on hold and then said we do not have a fax number for the Director.
I called telephone number (613) 231 0100, where a lady has given me the following fax numbers: (613) 231 0612, and (613) 231 0672. Will you kindly confirm in writing that you have got my complaint, which is attached, and your correct contact telephone and fax numbers.
Sincerely; Keyvan Nourhaghighi
December 11 2003
The Security Intelligence Review Committee
122 Bank Street, 4th floor; Jackson Building
Ottawa Ontario Toronto, Ontario; K1P 5N6 M6G 4A3
122 Bank Street, 4th floor; Jackson Building
Ottawa Ontario Toronto, Ontario; K1P 5N6 M6G 4A3
VIA FACSIMILE: 613 990 5230
SIR:
Since October 2002, I am trying to find a correct mailing address and telephone and fax numbers of your office to file a complaint against your agents Richard Stewart and Mary Mardalliran.
I called many times the CSIS number 1-800-564-0866; and Information number for Government of Canada 1-800-622-6232 to get your office mailing address and telephone and fax numbers.
However, never the actual operators replied to me; instead, several CSIS' agents who were in position to intercept my telephone made ridiculous replied and given me false information.
Finally, today, I got a fax number of your office, but I was told that your address is changed:
Will you please provide me with you correct address and telephone and fax number ASAP.
Will you please provide me with you correct address and telephone and fax number ASAP.
I wish to file a proper Complaint against the members of the CSIS Richard Steward and Mary Mardalliran who misconduct themselves with the process and me.
On September 3, 2003, I sent a brief of my complaint to attention of the Director; with hope that the Director helps me to file a proper complaint that my complaint be investigated properly.
ATTACHMENT # 1 is copy of my complaint dated September 3, 2003; I have given better particular of my complaint against Steward and Mardalliran in my Affidavits of June 10, 2003 filed with the Federal Court, Trial Division, in file T-768-03, against Minister of Citizenship.
I wish to file that Affidavit with your office too, for investigation of my complaint.
On November 13, 2003, I filed a second complaint against the CSIS for continuing their surveillances against me, while the police has rendered a decision on May 2003 that my file was closed and they did not find any evidence to continue the surveillance.
ATTACHMENT # 2 is copy of my complaint dated November 3, 2003.
On November 24, 2003, the Assistant Director, Marcoux sent me a letter that the Service is not responsible for surveillance activities against me; while the CSIS' investigation alerts the police in provincial level in Ontario and Quebec against me, since 2001.
ATTACHMENT # 3 is copy of my complaint dated November 24, 2003, signed by Marcoux.
ATTACHMENT # 2 is copy of my complaint dated November 3, 2003.
On November 24, 2003, the Assistant Director, Marcoux sent me a letter that the Service is not responsible for surveillance activities against me; while the CSIS' investigation alerts the police in provincial level in Ontario and Quebec against me, since 2001.
ATTACHMENT # 3 is copy of my complaint dated November 24, 2003, signed by Marcoux.
On November 26, 2003, the office of Professional Standards Bureau of the Ontario Provincial Police released the names of three officers who intercepted me to the USA border and arrested and assaulted me there. However the OPP is rejected to investigate my complaint professionally with good faith and honestly and supported the crimes of its members.
ATTACHMENT # 4 is copy of my appeal dated December 11, 2003, against the OPP.
ATTACHMENT # 4 is copy of my appeal dated December 11, 2003, against the OPP.
The actual file is over one thousand pages where Stewart and Mardalliran misconducts are the main cause for interfering with all my businesses. I AM UNABLE TO HAVE A SIMPLE TRANSACTION WITH BANKS, TO SHOP IN A MALL, TO HAVE A SIMPLE TELEPHONE CALL, TO SENT A DOCUMENT VIA FAX, and other normal text of life without interference of the police. MY LIFE IS IN A SERIOUS DANGER BY THE POLICE, who aggressively intercepting me in all streets and cities. Please reply ASAP.
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
June 29, 2004 URGENT
The Judicial Administrator;
Federal Court of Appeal; Ottawa, Office Toronto, On M6G 4A3
Federal Court of Appeal; Ottawa, Office Toronto, On M6G 4A3
VIA FACSIMILE 416 973 2154 Tel: (416) 513 0672; Sent Ok on June 29, 2004, at 1006AM; Confirmation sent Ok on June 29, 2004, at 1012AM
RE: Nourhaghighi v. Canada (CSIS et al) File no. T-762-04
I am writing in regard of "Certified copy of the Records" that the Respondent was obligated to serve and file it with the Court, as I mentioned in the 'Notice of Application'; yet the
Respondent is in default. Will you ask for a direction in this issue?
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
CC The Respondents' council Roger FLAIM; Via Fax: 416 974 0809; Sent Ok on June 29, 2004, at 1009AM
Court File No: T-762-04
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN: MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI; Applicant
-and-
THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE,
T.R.W. FARR, MARIAN McGRATH; THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE,
WARD ELCOCK, R. MARCOUX, MARY MARDALLIRAN, RICHARD STEWART,
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Respondents
THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE,
T.R.W. FARR, MARIAN McGRATH; THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE,
WARD ELCOCK, R. MARCOUX, MARY MARDALLIRAN, RICHARD STEWART,
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Respondents
APPLICANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Pursuant to Oral Order of Honorable Mr. Justice LEMIEUX on Hearing of August 30, 2004
______________________________________________________________________________
The Applicant on his own behalf: Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi; 608-456 College Street; Dated August 31, 2004 Toronto, Ontario M6G 4A3; Telephone: (416) 515 7263
TO: The Registry of the Federal Court, Toronto; 330 University Avenue, 7th Floor; Toronto, Ontario; M5G 1R7
Tel: (416) 973 3356; Fax: (416) 973 2154
AND TO: The Counsel for the Respondents, Alleged Vexatious Litigant Roger FLAIM
The Department of Justice Canada; Ontario Regional Office; 3400-130 King Street West ; The Exchange Tower Toronto, Ontario; Tel: (416) 952 6889; Fax: (416) 973-0809; File: ORO#2-530820
THE APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE FLAIM'S MISREPRESENTATIONS
1. On August 30th, 2004, the Court made an oral order that the Applicant presents his reaming argument in writing within a week, and the session was closed. Then, the Applicant in the presence of the clerk and the court reporter approached the Crown's Counsel Flaim and showed a notice of application returnable on last week of October 2004 in the Ontario Court and told him: "This is an important proceeding related to my property that I have to search for filing the application record in Ontario Court; therefore, I do not have any time to reply to your further motions, or any other documents that be filed in this period by you that needs my reply."
2. On August 30, 2004, about 11:30AM, the Applicant in the opening of his presentations as a response to the Flaim's misrepresentations submitted: "I deny each and every allegations that made by the Respondents Counsel Flaim"; he applies the same denial herein. The response to the Flaim's misrepresentations is much more difficult in comparing with a presentation.
The Applicant in first instant has proved the destructive facts exits in the Flaim's written and oral submissions by referring to many documents, then he lead the Court to the productive facts. About 1:20PM, the Court addressed Flaim: "This was a motion that required a special setting. Now I cannot hold clerk and court reporter more than this, and at 2 PM I have to hear other motions. Why you did not obtain a special setting?" Flaim replied: "I apologized."
3. The Court puts a question upon Flaim: "Is the CSIS have given a report of its interview to the Applicant?" Flaim response was affirmative, and stated: "Nourhaghighi in relied upon the CSIS' report o his affidavit." The Applicant denies that the CSIS has mailed the Respondent Mardalliran to him, after the interview on September 2002. However, on October 14, 2003, the CSIS' Access Information and Privacy Coordinator, L. Dugury, sent him part of his file that contained
the said report. There are at least seven points of law in this issue. First, the Citizenship has requested an investigation against the Applicant under Section 19 (1) and (2) of the Citizenship Act by the Respondent, the Canadian Security Intelligent Review Committee ("Review Committee"), not by CSIS. Second, the Review Committee was obligated in law to conduct the investigation under Section 38(c)(ii), not the Constables Respondents Mardalliran and Steward. Third, Section 19(4) of the Citizenship Act instructed that the Review Committee must investigate upon the grounds on which the report is based and for that purpose subsections 39(2)(3) and sections 43, 44, and 48 to 51 of the CSIS Act applies; in which in regard of section 48(2) of the CSIS Act the Applicant had oral presentation that the Court took the judicial notice of that point.
Forth, Section 19(4) of the Citizenship Act instructed that the Review Committee must send a report pursuant to Section 19(2) to the Applicant allowing him to be fully informed with the allegation where the Review Committee failed, as in fact the CSIS conducted the investigation, which is a double jeopardy. Fifth, Section 19(4) of the Citizenship Act instructed that the Review Committee must provide to the Applicant the Conclusion of the report.
4. Sixth, the Applicant drew the attention of the Court to the Citizenship Counselor Buday's letter of August 5, 2002, which is contrary to ten days limit on Section 19(3) of the Citizenship Act and he has given explanations in his affidavit at paragraphs 26-Exhibit V, that ten expires on March 6th 2002 not on August 5th, 2002; and Buday should mentioned that the report is made against him under subsection 19(2) an stating that the following of the invitation by the Review Committee the declaration with respect to Applicant would be made to the Governor in Council under Section 20. Seventh, Section 20(1)(2) of the Citizenship Act instructed that the after consideration of the report made by the Review Committee pursuant to subsection 19(6), the Governor in Council declares that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person with respect to whom the report was made will engage in an activities described on paragraph 19(2) (a) or (b); where a person is the subject of a declaration made under subsection (1), ANY application that has been made by that person under section 5 …. IS DEEMED TO NOT APPROVED and ANY APPEAL MADE UNDER SECTION 14(5) IS DEEMED TO BE DISMISSED. And this was one of the objects of the conspiracy made between the Respondents, and the Citizenship, the Crown, the Federal Court of Canada, and other parties, that the Applicant loses his right of the citizenship, and not having right to the appeal; as in many files the said parties committed similar crimes by obstructing his right o appeal in this Court and the Quebec and the Ontario Courts.
ALLOCATION RECORD, copies of Citizenship Act and CSIS Act pages 172-188
5. In response to the issue of the contempt proceedings against the Respondents Mardalliran and Steward and its relation with the proceeding under Section 18.4(2) of the Federal Court Act; the Applicant is submitting that violation of sections 5(4), 19(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6), and 20(1)(2) of the Citizenship Act; with respect to section 38(c)(ii) of the CSIS Act contrary to Rule 466 (c) of the Federal Court Rules shall be read in such that the trial judge be able to allow the testimonies of the said Respondent in the contempt proceedings that without any right have acted in such a way to interfere with administration of justice to impaired the authority of the Court under section 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, and Section 21 of the Federal court Act.
6. The Court demands the proof on surveillances. The Applicant has shown a series of blank legal pages that the CSIS' Access Information sent him. However, a few blank pages contains only 'date' the rest are blank that contains this information "DATE 2001 10 15". The Applicant, on August 30, 2004, at 7PM, researched on dairy of year 2001, for November 15 and find notes I Persian that the translation to English are: "In the morning, I went to the bank in the corner of interception [The respondent Scotiabank, SCC#30350; I got Judgment against Scotiabank from Ontario Court] and I purchased $800 US Dollars for my daughter. At 1PM Mohammad [My daughter fiance] came to my home. Then all of us, we went to his home; he took his languages. Then with Co-Op Taxi [The Co-Op Taxi was defendant; I got Judgment against it from Ontario Court, see page of Application Record]. The driver was a man from Ghana [African]; he was good driver, I paid $35. Then we had chat. At 5PM my daughter left the airport with Mohammad to Teheran". Then, I with my son returned. The other blank page had information related to December 8, 2002, that my dairy had notes: "…..At 4:30PM I went to airport with my son, Mohammad and my daughter they return from Iran. With KLM flight 691." These facts are proving that the CSIS' agents intercepted me in both occasions that I was at Pearson Airport.
7. The Applicant is asking an Order that the Federal Court of Canada ceases and deceases fraud and abuse of process, misleading and obstructing of justice… as brought in para "c", p 2; and para 3, in p 7 of the Application Record. Since 1995 the Toronto Department of Justice and the Federal Court of Canada-Toronto 1995 are interfering with his proceedings in Ontario Courts where since July 6th 2004, the said parties, maliciously, dragging a simple motion to July 26th then to August 23rd, 30th, solely to obstruct the justice as the said parties have committed the similar wrong in few files against the Ontario Judiciary System, by a similar tricks.
Lammmle's Western Wear Ltd v. Redneck Hean Co. (Jan 5, 2001)
Doc T-572-00, 2001 Carswell Nat 44 (Fed. T.D.)
Lammmle's Western Wear Ltd v. Redneck Hean Co. (Jan 5, 2001)
Doc T-572-00, 2001 Carswell Nat 44 (Fed. T.D.)
A solicitor's certificate swearing that a document to be served was given to a courier for service is insufficient. [As against allegation of Flaim is service of Motion Record] Jelin Investments Ltd v. Signtech Inc (1984), 79 C.P.R. (2d) 245, 9 D.L.R. (4th) 197 (Fed. T.D.) An affidavit of service neither is proof that the service was proper and valid, nor is either a waiver of any irregularity [Flaim's allegations in this file, and files A-50-01, and SCC 30350]
8. The Applicant is objecting to any further motion by Flaim as he mentioned in his Cross- Motion originally returnable on August 23rd that without his consent, arbitrary, and with bad faith was adjourned to August 30th 2004. The Court erred in fact and law by accepting Flaim's excuse that he did not had time to file a reply to the Cross-Motion to strike out the Respondents' Motion. The Applicant was seriously prejudiced and discriminated in hearing of his Cross Motion.
On October 2000, there were eight motions before GIBSON J in file no. T-1535-00 [A-50-01; SCC #30350]. The Respondents filed 'Cross-Motions' to strike out the 'Notice of Application' and the Applicant had motions for the 'show-cause for contempt' against five lawyers, and other relives. Gibson J adjourned all motions; then allowed the Cross-Motion be heard first. As the result, the Applicant's motion for 'show cause was adjourned to February 5th in which on January 19, the RCMP assaulted and arrested the Applicant on the Toronto Registry; as the result his motion was dismissed in absentia. RESPONDENTS' MOTION RECORD dated July 20, 2004, para 56, page 23
In addition, a justice did not hear the Applicant's motion-August 28, 2003 in file T-768-03 where 'Prothonotaries' Lafreniere and Milczynski disobeyed 'Justices' Pinard and Gauthier Directions and Order; dismissed without hearing by Prothonotary Lafreniere. RESPONDENTS' MOTION RECORD dated July 20, 2004, TAB 9, pages 141-48
9. This 'Application for Judicial Review' is perfected on August 5th and must be set for hearing within 90 days by the judicial administrator, pursuant to the Requisition for Hearing. Therefore, the issue in the Respondents' Motion is moot, as there is no provision in law to attack to 'Application for Judicial Review'. In file T-768-03, Prothonotary Lafreniere erred in law and arbitrary has set a new timetable after the Crown to file Respondent's Record; the Crown disobeyed the Lafreniere Order that ended to over twenty Directions and Orders. Justice O'Reilly found: "In respect to the alleged violation of a court order, it is clear that the respondent failed to comply with an order requiring it to serve and file its records in Mr. Nourhaghighi application"
RESPONDENTS' MOTION RECORD dated July 20, 2004, TAB 11, page 155, paragraph [4]
10. In addition, it is a clear error in law and fact that if the Respondents be given an opportunity to file any document in reply to the Applicant's 'perfected Application for Judicial Review'; "It is clear that the Rule 419 does not directly authorize the striking out a 'notice of motion" Bull Laboratories para 8, p. 33; "Thus, the direct and proper way of contest an originating notice of motion which the respondent thinks to be without merit is to appear and argue at the hearing of motion itself. This case will illustrate the waste of resources and time… " para 10; lines 32-34; p. 38; "The contrast between actions and motions in this Court is even more marked where motion involved is for judicial review … unlike …actions… judicial review provide strict timetable for preparation for hearing and a role for the Court is ensuring these is no undue delay" para 11, p. 38; "This ensures that objections to the originating notice can be dealt with promptly in the context of consideration of the merits of the case." lines 5,6; p 39; RESPONDENTS' MOTION RECORD dated July 20, 2004, TAB 1; Bull Laboratories
As submitted orally, the stage to attack to the 'Notice of Application" is well expired and there is no provision in law to attack to the "Application for Judicial Review'; and if the Court applies the wrong principle (of reversal confusion doctrine) of law; then it would seriously prejudice the
Applicant: Northwest Marine Serving Ltd. v. Atlantic Pilotage. The issue in the Applicant's Cross Motion and affidavits thereto, perjury and forgery by Flaim and the Toronto Registry must be considered in fact findings, before the exercise of reasonableness in discretion.
11. Flaim alleged that the Applicant did not had any success in all proceedings that he filed with the Court, the Applicant presented a copy of Campbell Judgment which is part of the Application Record in page 96 to 99: The following are very small samples of the Applicant's success over the Attorneys General of Ontario and Canada:
(a) Richard Order in file T-1900-96, Nourhaghighi v. R (Custom Canada) where Richard J allowed the Plaintiff-Nourhaghighi, file a fresh statement of claim, by filing a new action. This was the action that allegations of smuggling of heroin from Iran by Government's agents raised by the Plaintiff.
(b) Campbell Order in file T-1237-00, R v. Nourhaghighi that denied the Crown's allegations against Nourhaghighi, who was a respondent. Campbell J, clearly, referred to mental health of Nourhaghighi as identifying him as 'intelligent and articulated'. The Crown and the clerks of Federal Court in Toronto who where not satisfied by Campbell Judgment, in year 2001 have mislead the RCMP and the Citizenship that the Applicant is suffering mental illness; which is a slander and liable pursuant to the Proceedings against the Crown Act-[Section 18.4(2) of FCA][…]
1. The respondent [Major Nourhaghighi] is an intelligent and articulated who honestly believes that he has been wronged in number of ways, including by agents of the Government and the Courts;
EXHIBIT "A": …They [Federal Court] assessed subject [Nourhaghighi] to be "Mentally
Disturbed"; last paragraph; before last line;
EXHIBIT "C": …Respondent Mardalliran: … Nourhaghighi's sanity, the possibility that he
is mentally unstable should not be overlooked.
APPLICATION RECORD; Affidavit of Nourhaghighi, dated May 13, 2004
Campbell J, clearly, referred to the conspiracy between the Government and the Courts that in none of Judgments of Federal Court of Canada has such direct attack to a conspiracy between the Government and the Courts against an individual. In other word, this victory and success of the Applicant has much more value than all Orders that the Crown have obtained by frauds; such as Orders that McClenaghan and Flaim obtained that the Applicant is able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the said orders were obtained by frauds and improper influences: […]
2. The respondent honestly believes that a conspiracy exists between the Government and the Courts to inhibit his ability to seek and obtain justice;
3. The respondent is very frustrated at not having yet gaining an opportunity to have his grievances fully heard, and to have a decision rendered on their merits;
4. The respondent does response to reasonable procedural requests when treated is a respectful manner. […]
[6] Accordingly, this application [by the Applicant, the Attorney General of Canada] is dismissed…
R. v. Nourhaghighi (June 2, 1999) Doc T-1237-98, CarswellNat
APPLICATION RECORD; Affidavit of Nourhaghighi; Campbell Judgment pages 96-99
(c) Gibson Order in shifting the onus to the Court for setting a date for filing an Application
Record, in which the Federal Court, Toronto Office clerk Das breached the said Order in file no.
T-1535-00, which is one of the grounds of application for leave before Supreme Court of Canada that Flaim has refused to reply to this ground; and setting a date for contempt proceedings against five lawyers K. Boer, A. Hamilton, S. Weisz, Armstrong and Crown's lawyer Robert Jaworski.
EXHIBIT "O" APPLICATION RECORD; Affidavit of Nourhaghighi; pages 61-62
(d) von Finckenstein Order in file T-768-03 that set aside all Orders of Costs against the Applicant that were obtained by frauds by the Crown's lawyer, the Contemnor McClenaghan.
EXHIBIT "M" APPLICATION RECORD; Affidavit of Nourhaghighi; page 58
EXHIBIT "M" APPLICATION RECORD; Affidavit of Nourhaghighi; page 58
TAB 11, RESPONDENTS' MOTION RECORD dated July 20, 2004, pages 155-58
(e) O'Reilly Order is referred to in the Application Record and the Respondents Record.
In the O'Reilly Order the Crown for the first time has been found as a vexatious litigant upon request of the Applicant, which is the greatest success for an individual that ever presented himself before the Federal Court of Canada. On 1997, the Applicant seeks the similar remedy against the Attorney General of Ontario, in which since 1997 no proceedings brought by the Attorney General of Ontario, while from1991 to 1996 countless malicious prosecutions brought by the Attorney General of Ontario against the Applicant. The Court has all ability to control its process; the vexatious motions brought by the Flaim should be dismissed, by clearly condemn Flaim for misrepresentation.
EXHIBIT "H" APPLICATION RECORD; Affidavit of Nourhaghighi; pages 47-51
TAB 11, RESPONDENTS' MOTION RECORD dated July 20, 2004, pages 155-58
EXHIBIT "H" APPLICATION RECORD; Affidavit of Nourhaghighi; pages 47-51
TAB 11, RESPONDENTS' MOTION RECORD dated July 20, 2004, pages 155-58
12. In addition, the said Orders obtained by the Applicant against the Crown are a proper reply to the relief that the Applicant is asking against the Federal Court of Canada to cease and decease fraud and abuse of process, misleading and obstructing the justice… The Crown and the Courts must learn to obey the Judgments, with respect and good faith, honestly and faithfulness toward the judiciary; not if the Judgments were not made on their favor, then move before the other judges or other offices of the Government to get the same relief, which is a vexatious in nature, as the Crown, the Federal Court-Toronto, the Citizenship and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service ("CSIS"), in attempting to deny the Applicant's application for citizenship by the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee ("CSIRC") that the Applicant loses his chance of appeal to the Federal Court.
13. Flaim's misrepresentation was: "Nourhaghighi' allegation is bold against the Federal Court of Canada"; and stated on paragraph 60 of his submissions: "The relief claimed against this Court is vexatious and should be stuck out" instead of replying honesty and professionally to said Exhibit 'A' in page 32 of Application Record, and other documents that how the name of 'Federal Court' has appeared as a main authority for investigation of CSIS against the Applicant; and what were the grounds of the RCMP for collecting ample information against the Applicant. And how comes, as soon as, the Applicant filed a mandamus application in file T-768-03, all serious allegations, in sudden set aside. The Applicant has in possession ample documents that have credibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Toronto Department of Justice-since 1994 and the Federal Court of Canada-Toronto-since 1995 have committed countless crimes and wrongdoings against the administration of justice and him. The groundless denial, neither is
helping the judiciary to discover their own clerks' wrongdoings, nor helping the Government and citizens to get maximum benefits of the judiciary resources. However, a good judgment upon a criticism reasoning against wrongdoers, and proper presentations of judges to the chief judges, certainly will be much more helpful, and indicating a mature attitude of the Federal Court of Canada to listen to criticism against its own faults, the Crown's faults by the officials. […]
4. The respondent does response to reasonable procedural requests when treated is a respectful manner. […]
R. v. Nourhaghighi (June 2, 1999) Doc T-1237-98, CarswellNat
4. The respondent does response to reasonable procedural requests when treated is a respectful manner. […]
R. v. Nourhaghighi (June 2, 1999) Doc T-1237-98, CarswellNat
APPLICATION RECORD; Affidavit of Nourhaghighi; Campbell Judgment pages 96-99
On June 16, 1995, the Applicant complained against the Ontario Courts' clerks to Honorable Mr. Justice D. N. COO. The learned judge, without any hesitation, on spot, has condemned the clerks and addressed that all citizens are entitle to enjoy the professional services of the courts, with the respectful manner toward the citizens.
Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Hospital, Law Society, et al; file#95-CU-84058; Ont. Gen
Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Hospital, Law Society, et al; file#95-CU-84058; Ont. Gen
On November 24-27, 1997, Honorable Mr. Provincial Judge Cadsby tried ample evidence of assaults and torture by Toronto Police against the Applicant, and clearly, on his Judgment attacked to the Constable of Police who violated the law an directly call them as 'Stupid'. However, the Attorney General of Ontario, has committed forgery in the said Judgment and omitted many facts, such as: " I find that Judge Lampkin was involved in conspiracy with Toronto Police to Torture Nourhaghighi".
APPLICATION RECORD; Cadsby Judgment and Forgery in Judgment pages 81-94
14. Finally, The contrast between actions and motions in this Court is even more marked where motion involved is for judicial review … unlike …actions… judicial review provide strict timetable for preparation for hearing and a role for the Court is ensuring these is no undue delay" " Bull Laboratories para 11, p. 38. The Respondents' motion should be dismissed with costs fixed in amount of $2000 [same amount asked by Flaim], in any event of the cause.
DATED August 31, 2004; Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20050131
Docket: T-762-04
Citation: 2005 FC 148
Ottawa, Ontario, January 31, 2005
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lemieux
Docket: T-762-04
Citation: 2005 FC 148
Ottawa, Ontario, January 31, 2005
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lemieux
BETWEEN:
MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI; Applicant
-and-
THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE,
T.R.W. FARR, MARIAN McGRATH; THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE,
WARD ELCOCK, R. MARCOUX, MARY MARDALLIRAN, RICHARD STEWART,
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Respondents
THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE,
T.R.W. FARR, MARIAN McGRATH; THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE,
WARD ELCOCK, R. MARCOUX, MARY MARDALLIRAN, RICHARD STEWART,
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
1.
2.
3. Those Service employees should also be required to show cause for contempt of Court
4. Finally, he asks the Federal Court of Canada to "cease and desist fraud and abuse of process..."
5. As Appendix "A" to these reasons, attach a summary of the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the relief he is seeking
6. Stripped of its redundancies, the essence of the applicant's application relates to two decisions.
7.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. Although the Crown's motion was scheduled for hearing for a total time of less than two hours on a regular motions day, the proceeding before me largely exceeded that time limit. I permitted the parties to complete their submissions in writing.
14. The Attorney General's submissions were filed on September 14, 2004; those written representations contained a startling admission, namely that the Committee's review of Mr. Nourhaghighi's complaint under subsection 41 of the CSIS ACT had been defective because the Committee's investigation of that complaint was not conducted in compliance with subsection 48 (2) of that Act because the applicant had not been provided with an opportunity to be heard personally.
15. Paragraph 6 of the Attorney General's written representations reads:
" 6. In preparing its reply to this argument, which had previously not been raised by Mr. Nourhaghighi despite his extensive written materials, the Security Intelligence Review Committee...has determined that its investigation did not fully comply with the requirements of the CSIS Act in that, for example, it did not provide an opportunity to be heard personally to Mr. Nourhaghighi, the deputy head or the Director as required by section 48(2). For this reason, the Crown, consents to an Order setting aside the Committee's investigation and returning the complaint for review in accordance with the various provisions of CSIS ACT and Committee's Rules of Procedure. [emphasis mine]
" 6. In preparing its reply to this argument, which had previously not been raised by Mr. Nourhaghighi despite his extensive written materials, the Security Intelligence Review Committee...has determined that its investigation did not fully comply with the requirements of the CSIS Act in that, for example, it did not provide an opportunity to be heard personally to Mr. Nourhaghighi, the deputy head or the Director as required by section 48(2). For this reason, the Crown, consents to an Order setting aside the Committee's investigation and returning the complaint for review in accordance with the various provisions of CSIS ACT and Committee's Rules of Procedure. [emphasis mine]
16.
17. Rule 302 provides unless the Court orders otherwise, an application for judicial review shall be limited to a single order in respect of which relief is sought.
18.
19.
20. What further complicates matters is he applicant wants two CSIS employees to be cited for contempt.
21. The applicant's request for contempt citations does not follow the scheme set out in sections 446 to 472 of the Rules.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26. In the circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to allow the judicial review application in respect of the Committee's decision but to strike the balance of it for the reasons set out above.
For these reasons, this Court orders that:
1. In respect of the relief sought against the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee;s decision of march 15, 2004, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Committee who shall, in accordance with law, investigate the applicant's complaint of December 11, 2003;
2. The balance of the application is struck with the proviso that if applicant chooses, he shall be at liberty to institute separate and appropriate proceedings seeking appropriate relief in compliance with the Rules;
3. There shall be no order as to costs
"Francois LEMIEUX" Judge
1. In respect of the relief sought against the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee;s decision of march 15, 2004, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Committee who shall, in accordance with law, investigate the applicant's complaint of December 11, 2003;
2. The balance of the application is struck with the proviso that if applicant chooses, he shall be at liberty to institute separate and appropriate proceedings seeking appropriate relief in compliance with the Rules;
3. There shall be no order as to costs
"Francois LEMIEUX" Judge
Certified by A. L. DICKENSON
Registry Officer March 2, 2005
Registry Officer March 2, 2005
ANNEX "A"
Mr. Nourhaghighi's application lists several grounds as follows:
1.
2.
3. ......file T-1535-00 and T-768-03 are master evidence having capabilities to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that fraud and conspiracy are the standard of practice, not the rule of law; however,poor citizens do not have any other choose"
4.
5. ....the"Contemnors intent to reject his application in such that the Court loses its authority to hear his appeal against the decision of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada" He states "On the same day the Supreme Court of Canada, rejected his application for leave to appeal as the Service was investigating against him. The Toronto and Montreal Police were active in ample malicious actions and harassments to make sure that the Service would reject his application too."
1.
2.
3. ......file T-1535-00 and T-768-03 are master evidence having capabilities to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that fraud and conspiracy are the standard of practice, not the rule of law; however,poor citizens do not have any other choose"
4.
5. ....the"Contemnors intent to reject his application in such that the Court loses its authority to hear his appeal against the decision of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada" He states "On the same day the Supreme Court of Canada, rejected his application for leave to appeal as the Service was investigating against him. The Toronto and Montreal Police were active in ample malicious actions and harassments to make sure that the Service would reject his application too."
6. Ground (6) states the "The Contemnors during three hours and half have tried their best to accuse the Applicant for being the follower of Osam-Ben Laden who is accused of September 11, attack...".
7. ...Contemnors Mardalliran, unlawfully made comments related to his health and her report was dishonest and omitted all facts related to the interview and torture by police. In fact she inverted the facts in such that the Applicant told him many facts, which are not true."
7. ...Contemnors Mardalliran, unlawfully made comments related to his health and her report was dishonest and omitted all facts related to the interview and torture by police. In fact she inverted the facts in such that the Applicant told him many facts, which are not true."
8.
INTERNET FREE EXPRESSION ALLIANCE
The Internet is a powerful and positive forum for free expression.
It is the place where "any person can become a town crier with
a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox,"
House Committee to Consider Censorship Bills
January 1996 to MAY 2016
Author the Right Honourable, the Lord of Law
Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi
Iranian Fighter Pilot
The Internet is a powerful and positive forum for free expression.
It is the place where "any person can become a town crier with
a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox,"
House Committee to Consider Censorship Bills
January 1996 to MAY 2016
Author the Right Honourable, the Lord of Law
Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi
Iranian Fighter Pilot
No comments:
Post a Comment