THE REPORT OF CORRUPTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
6. The lawyers have an obligation to provide legal service to
the PUBLIC. (11-13)
In hopes of resolving this issue, I got in touch with the Law Society of British Columbia. After seven months of
communication, the Law Society Executive Director, Timothy E. McGee confirmed that the lawyers of British Columbia have no obligation
to provide legal service to the victims of crime, in his letter dated January 8, 2013, contradicting with the Canons of Legal Ethics
and common sense.(14-17)
7. I was obliged to file a legal action against Timothy E. McGee, April 4, 2013.
To find out,
officially, who has a legal obligation to provide legal service to the Public, I filed a legal action against Timothy E. McGee, Executive
Director of the Law Society, S132382 (18-22). Nevertheless, his legal representative, Michael G. Armstrong filed a court application
to abort my legal action,(23-28) knowing that the lawyers have a legal obligation to provide legal service to the Public, as per the
Canons of Legal Ethics. (11-13)
8. Justice Nathan H. Smith dismissed my case, without an authority and signature.
Justice Smith aborted
my legal action on August 2, 2013, disregarding the two fundamental rules of the COURT: (33-36) (37-58)
1. The DUTY of Justice is to
adjudicate the issue before the Court; NOT to dismiss it, except there is no cause of action. The legal issue before the Court was
that my access to Justice was obstructed due to the lawyers’ failure to provide me with legal service. That was the very serious case;
because, if the victims cannot bring their offenders to JUSTICE, it is impossible to prevent hit and run crime. At the hearing of
the application, Justice Smith pre-empted my following question to the Defendant by responding “All right”: (57)
“Who has the obligation
to provide legal service to the public, if the lawyers have not such an obligation? Please answer this question before the court.”
his oral reasons for judgment, Justice Smith failed to address the issue before the Court. He was comfortable with the lawyers’ failure
to provide legal service to the victims of crime, knowing, their failure was tantamount to obstructing the trial of a criminal case.
2. JUDGMENT must be made according to the applicable LAW and the substantiated FACTS. Applicable Law was the Code of Professional
Conduct for BC that clearly states that the lawyers have a legal obligation to provide legal service to the Public: “A lawyer should
make legal services available to the public in an efficient and convenient manner that will command respect and confidence.” (2.1-5a)(11-13)
Justice Smith failed to discharge his duty to interpret and apply the LAW by stating that: “It is not the function of the court to
interpret that in an individual case.” His statement raises the following questions of LAW: Who has the jurisdiction to interpret
and apply the LAW, the Court or the Law Society? If the Law Society have the authority to interpret and apply the Law, what is the
function of the Courts? Therefore, it is obvious for a reasonable person, why Justice Nathan Smith refused to sign his order, despite
my three written requests.
9. Michael G. Armstrong asked me to sign the decision of Justice Smith, Nov. 22, 2013
Justice Smith’s failure
to sign his order, in compliance with the procedural norms, is conclusive to that he was NOT acting in good faith.(59-60) Since the
order was not signed, Michael Armstrong asked me to sign it, and tried to fool me to believe that signing a legal document does not
mean “consent” (65-66). Furthermore, Michael Armstrong attempted to exact court cost of $5,266.59 from me, knowing that the order
was not properly signed (61-64). For a reasonable person, this is a perfect example of legal chicanery, on the part of a lawyer.
I reported the legal chicanery to the Chief Justice, Nov. 25, 2013-Mar. 25, 2014
The DUTY of the Chief Justice is to ensure that court
services are provided to the Public within the bounds of the LAW. Therefore, I reported this issue to the Chief Justice, Christopher
E. Hinkson and sought help by writing four letters.(67-74) Nevertheless, he failed to respond to my complaint about the legal
chicanery perpetrated in the Supreme Court. Instead, K. Jill Leacock wrote a letter to me, dated January 15, 2014. She interpreted
my complaint as “a request for legal advice” and she stated that: “Chief Justice Hinkson is not able to provide you with any advice.
…. will not respond further to your inquiry.” (75)