Abuse of Power by Justice Masuhara: Miscarriages of Justice and Fraudulent Denial of Hirji's Rights Approved by the Canadian Judicial Council.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Mohd Ali Hirji
1084 Lillooet Road,
North Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V7J 2H8
(604) 985-9383
________________________________________________________________
Canadian Judicial Council
112 Kent Street,
Suite 450
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0W8
Canada
May 13, 2024
CJC File: 23-0403
AFFIDAVIT OF MOHD ALI HIRJI IN RESPONSE TO CJC LETTER RELATING TO THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MASUHARA DATED 26-04-2024
SECOND ACTION S195308 VANCOUVER REGISTRY.
1. Acknowledgment of Correspondence and Exposition of Judicial Flaws I confirm receipt of your letter, which I have deliberately included verbatim in this affidavit. This action aims to expose the dysfunction within federally established legal bodies such as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Council of Canada (CJC) to the legal profession, the Government of Canada, and international legal institutions. The inclusion highlights how CJC officials distort facts, misleading the public through abuses of power. This situation illustrates that even a pro se litigant can unequivocally discredit these institutions with recorded facts. Below, the evidence substantiates that the CJC's screening officers suppress ALL submissions supporting complaints against the misconduct of federally appointed judges, thus perpetuating corruption and injustice. This suppression has escalated to a billion-dollar lawsuit against the Government of Canada for intentional fraud by abuse of power."
2. Detailed Evidence Submission Below the letter, evidence submitted to the Judicial Council supports the complaint against federally appointed judges for misconduct, including abuse of power, denial of due process, illegal validation of void orders by successive courts, and violation of oath of office. These actions, constituting breaches under Section 65(2)(b) of the Judges Act, have inflicted nearly a billion dollars in irreversible damages due to fraudulent acts and abuse of power by the courts. It is the constitutionally mandated duty of the Judicial Council to address these serious issues."
3. Exposure of Systemic Judicial Oversight Failures "A comprehensive review of court records regarding Honourable Justice Masuhara’s rulings reveals significant failures in judicial oversight. This scrutiny exposes the CJC's systematic disregard for substantial evidence of judicial misconduct, including the validation of void ab initio orders and failure to uphold legal standards. Such negligence by the CJC continues to harm affected parties and suggests potential criminal abuse of power under the Criminal Code. The persistent inaction of the CJC, despite clear and uncontested evidence, signifies a profound breach of trust, severely undermining the integrity and credibility of judicial oversight in Canada. Consequently, appellants are compelled to seek remedies against the Government of Canada in international jurisdictions, highlighting the breakdown in domestic accountability mechanisms."
4. Final Request to the Canadian Judicial Council "This final request compels the CJC to address and refute each allegation of misconduct associated with the judge named in this affidavit, especially regarding orders deemed void ab initio. The CJC’s repeated failure to maintain its oath of office, credibility, integrity, and trustworthiness prompts a necessary response in the form of a detailed affidavit. This document should serve as admissible evidence in any legal forum, including the International Court of Justice. Failure by the CJC to address these issues convincingly will affirm its neglect of constitutional duties and failure to hold judges accountable, as stipulated by Section 65(2)(b) of the Judges Act."
5. Legal and International Precedents Calling for Action "In view of the established void ab initio orders of Honourable Justice Masuhara , it is evident that the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) has failed to uphold foundational legal standards and constitutional mandates, positioning itself against established international legal precedents like Marbury v. Madison. This situation necessitates a reevaluation of CJC’s procedures and a reaffirmation of its commitment to uphold the rule of law to prevent further judicial failures. Below the letter, evidence submitted to the Judicial Council underscores the complaint against federally appointed judges for misconduct, including abuse of power, denial of due process, illegal validation of void orders by successive courts, and violation of oath of office. These actions, constituting breaches under Section 65(2)(b) of the Judges Act, have inflicted nearly a billion dollars in irreversible damages due to fraudulent acts and abuse of power by the courts, prompting considerations of a billion-dollar legal action against the Canadian Judicial Council and the Government of Canada in an international jurisdiction for intentional neglect, fraud deprivation of justice, and abuse of power. It is the constitutionally mandated duty of the Judicial Council to address these serious issues, which it has refused to address, and the CJC’s transparent refusal to address them within the bounds of law has exacerbated the situation."
6. Conclusion and Ultimatum Given these extensive issues, you are hereby given 60 days to respond to and address the detailed evidence within this affidavit. Failure to respond adequately will be seen as an intentional refusal to perform your constitutionally mandated duties, leading to potential legal actions where this affidavit will serve as crucial evidence in any court proceedings. This lack of action will be interpreted as a misuse of power and an abuse of the judicial oversight duties entrusted to you by the constitution.
7. Letter from CJC dated April 26, 2024.
Mohd Ali Hirji
By email: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Ali Hirji:
I am responding to your correspondence dated between March 12, 2024 and April 11, 2024, in which you request a reconsideration of the Council’s decision to dismiss your complaint against the Honourable Justice David M. Masuhara of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Your complaint
Your complaint is related to your civil litigation matter that was before Justice Masuhara, namely Hirji v. Owners Strata Corporation VR44, 2019 BCSC 2356. In your complaint, you alleged that Justice Masuhara erred in his decision. To this end, you alleged that he failed to follow the law, failed to consider relevant facts, abused his judicial discretion, and violated his judicial ethics. You also alleged that he was biased, and further allege that he participated in fraud and criminal conduct.
The Council dismissed your complaint by way of letter dated December 14, 2023. You are now requesting a reconsideration of this decision.
Mandate of council
The mandate of the Canadian Judicial Council (Council) in matters of judicial conduct includes determining whether a recommendation should be made to the Minister of Justice that a judge be removed from office by Parliament.
The reasons for removal are set out in section 80 of the Judges Act, and address infirmity, misconduct, failure in the due execution of judicial office, and when the judge is in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.
Reasons for dismissing your complaint
You have alleged that Justice Masuhara erred in his decision in your legal matter. However, as noted in our previous correspondence, it is not for the Council to review a judge’s decision, nor how they came to findings of fact and law. Indeed, the conclusions and findings made by the judge fall under their judicial decision-making responsibility and are not within Council’s mandate for review. As such, a review of the decision made by Justice Masuhara is within the purview of an appellate court, rather than the Council. Consequently, the Council cannot assist you with this matter.
领英推荐
You have also alleged that Justice Masuhara abused his judicial discretion. However, I find that you have failed to provide sufficient information to substantiate this allegation. Similarly, you have also alleged that Justice Masuhara acted in a fraudulent and criminal manner. However, these are significant allegations for which you have failed to provide sufficient corroborating information or evidence.
You have also alleged that Justice Masuhara was biased. As noted in our previous correspondence to you, Council’s Ethical Principles for Judges, impartiality is a fundamental qualification of a judge and a core attribute of the judiciary (at p. 39). As such, when acting in the course of judicial duties, a judge is presumed to have acted in good faith and with due and proper consideration of the issues before him or her, unless the contrary is demonstrated (see, for example, Cosgrove v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 941, at para 16). Furthermore, the person who alleges bias must be in a position to demonstrate the real or apparent lack of impartiality of the judge.
In this instance, you have failed to provide cogent evidence of a reasonable apprehension of bias. Rather, your allegations seem mainly to rest on your disagreement with Justice Masuhara’s findings. However, it has been established by the case law that a mere disagreement with a judge does not give rise to a valid claim of bias, which needs cogent evidence in support of such claim (Bergey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 30 at para. 65). As such, your complaint on this point cannot succeed.
Conclusion
Paragraph 90(1)(c) of the Judges Act holds that a screening officer may dismiss a complaint if they are of the opinion that it does not meet the screening criteria specified by Council. These screening criteria can be found in Council’s procedures for the Review of Complaints or Allegations About Federally Appointed Judges.
Having reviewed your request for reconsideration, it is my view that it does not warrant further consideration by the Council because it is manifestly unsupported and/or it relates to judicial decision-making pursuant to paragraphs 6.7(2) (a)-(b) of the Review Procedures. Consequently, your complaint is dismissed.
Sincerely,
A.K.
Screening Officer
Mr. Hirjis detailed response in sworn affidavit May 13, 2024
I am compelled to address several serious concerns regarding your recent communication which dismissed my complaint against the Honourable Justices and Honourable Justice Masuhara .
8. Arbitrary Dismissal: Your dismissal of my complaint appears arbitrary and unsupported by the extensive, undisputed evidence documented in the court records. Such a dismissal without due regard for documented evidence undermines the very principles of justice the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) is supposed to uphold.
9. Lack of Credibility and Honesty: The response from your office lacks the expected level of credibility and honesty required of a CJC Screening Officer. The response fails to address the substantive issues raised in the complaint, thereby casting doubt on the integrity of the screening process.
10. Violation of Oath of Office: By providing misleading and demonstrably false responses, there is a palpable violation of the oath of office that mandates honesty and integrity in the execution of judicial administrative duties. This not only misleads the public but also erodes trust in the judicial oversight processes.
11. Non-enforcement by Respondents' Counsels: It is notable that even the counsels for the respondents have refrained from enforcing the fundamentally flawed orders issued by the courts, ranging from the trial judge to the Chief Justice of Canada. This significant detail underscores the inherent issues with the orders that even those expected to benefit from them refuse to uphold.
12. Suppression of Evidence: There has been a deliberate suppression of all critical evidence by the Canadian Judicial Council submitted under the file titled "Comprehensive Analyses of Misconducts: An In-Depth Examination of the Conduct of Federally-Appointed Justices, Derived from Unopposed and Undisputed Court Records in Support of the Official Complaint." This suppression of key evidences directly impacts the fairness and thoroughness of the review process.
13. In view of the established void ab initio orders of Honourable Justices Honourable Justice Masuhara , it is evident that the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) has failed to uphold foundational legal standards and constitutional mandates, positioning itself against established international legal precedents like Marbury v. Madison. This situation necessitates a re-evaluation of CJC’s procedures and a reaffirmation of its commitment to uphold the rule of law to prevent further judicial failures. Below the letter, evidence submitted to the Judicial Council underscores the complaint against federally appointed judges for misconduct, including abuse of power, denial of due process, illegal validation of void orders by successive courts, and violation of oath of office. These actions, constituting breaches under Section 65(2)(b) of the Judges Act, have inflicted nearly a billion dollars in irreversible damages due to fraudulent acts and abuse of power by the state courts, prompting considerations of a billion-dollar legal action against the Canadian Judicial Council and the Government of Canada in an international jurisdiction for intentional neglect and abuse of power. It is the constitutionally mandated duty of the Judicial Council to address these serious issues,and the CJC’s transparent refusal to address them by abuse of power has exacerbated the situation."
Section 1 Final Request to the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC)
14. This final request compels the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) to comprehensively address and refute each allegation of misconduct associated with the judges named in this affidavit, particularly concerning orders deemed void ab initio. In light of the CJC's repeated compromises to its oath of office, credibility, integrity, and trustworthiness—representing a direct challenge to every legal counsel, government, and legislature in Canada dependent on the fidelity of CJC members—it is crucial for the CJC to provide a detailed response in the form of a sworn affidavit.
15. This document must be structured to qualify as admissible evidence in any court of law, including the International Court of Justice or other legal institutions. A critical challenge for the CJC is to substantiate that the orders issued by state courts are not void and that the respondents' counsel's refusal to enforce them does not constitute contempt of court. The precedent set by Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, affirms that such orders are inherently void and require no separate declaration to be recognized as such. Should the CJC fail to satisfactorily address these claims, it will be viewed as definitive proof of its deliberate neglect of constitutional duties and its failure to hold judges accountable for violations of their oaths and Section 65(2) (b) of the Judges Act. (“Canadian Judicial Council: The burden of proof rests with the CJC to counter the allegations with a sworn affidavit with evidence substantiated in court records”.)
OVERVIEW
16. The following contradictions between the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) letter regarding Honourable Justices Honourable Justice Masuhara and the established court records and unopposed affidavit evidence in the Supreme Court of Canada File No. 37420 and in "COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSES OF MISCONDUCTS” filed with Canadian Judicial Council in August 2023.
17. Considering the void ab initio status of orders in Honourable Justices Honourable Justice Masuhara’s rulings, significant misconduct is evident. These include Honourable Justices Honourable Justice Masuhara affirmation of legally non-existent orders, a fundamental oversight undermining the entirety of her judicial decisions. Each assertion in her judgments, and consequently, the CJC's letters dated December 16, 2023, and April 24, 2024, supportive statements, lack credibility and factual and legal validity, rendering them false. The absence of valid orders negates any lawful defense these bodies could provide, casting doubt on the entire judicial and review process managed by the CJC."
See Comprehensive analyses of misconducts Paragraph 244
18. Original Content: "Misconduct and criminal acts committed by justice Masuhara in a case indexed as 2019 BCSC 2356 including acting beyond the court's jurisdiction and validating void orders issued by the Chief Justice of Canada in a case indexed as 2017 CANLII 23876 (SCC) 'Based on State Court's Unopposed Affidavit Evidence in Mohd Ali Hirji Case (August 11, 2021 paragraphs 268 to 280)."
See Comprehensive analyses of misconducts Paragraph 245
19. Original Content: "The information related to Justice Masuhara's violation of the judicial oath and actions that may be seen as neglecting judicial duties and acting above the court's authority can be found in the following evidence from the document."
See Comprehensive analyses of misconducts Paragraph 246
20. Original Content: "Page 144, Paragraphs 278-280: These paragraphs detail Honorable Justice Masuhara's actions as a judicial officer of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, including neglecting judicial duties, validating invalid orders, and acting above the discretion and jurisdiction of the court."