REPORT - ethicsfirst

Go to content

Main menu:

REPORT

Ron Korkut                         December 18, 2016
5249 Laurel Street
Burnaby BC V5G 1N1
778 378 9009, ron@ethicsfirst.ca     

PUBLIC NOTICE


THE REPORT OF CORRUPTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA


SUBSTANTIATED FACTS  [Click on the links to see EVIDENCE]
1.
I am a victim of potentially fatal hit and run crime perpetrated under the liability of ICBC
I am a 66 years old, electrical engineer teaching how power is controlled and used safely, at BCIT. On March 31, 2009, someone hit my car with his work-van and ran away, on the Pattullo Bridge. I lost control of my car, after three impacts, it was totally destroyed. My offender was caught and admitted his guilt. (OFFENDER'S STATEMENT) Even though, hit and run is a criminal offence under the section 252 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the RCMP did not prosecute him; because, ICBC assumed the liability of the hit and run crime.  ICBC paid the replacement cost of my car, on behalf of my offender; another word, provided insurance benefits to a hit and run criminal under cover of "accident insurance benefits." Even though, it is impossible NOT TO SUFFER from a potentially fatal hit and run crime, ICBC denied my suffering and refused to pay my intangible damages.
2. ICBC provides insurance to hit and run criminals and criminally negligent drivers.
Afterward, I discovered that I was NOT the only victim of such an unusual business practice. ICBC assumes the liability of 49,000 hit and run crimes that kill 7, injure and maim 2,100 innocent citizens of British Columbia, every year; including the cases where the criminal offenders are identified. ICBC statistics shows that criminally negligent drivers (speeding, impaired, distracted) who benefit from "accident insurance" kill 216 peoples every year.
3. ICBC FORCES diligent drivers to PAY all the damage hit and run criminals and criminally negligent drivers.
Selling compulsory insurance under duress is a UNLAWFUL BUSINESS practice; because it violates the fundamental RIGHT NOT TO BUY a product. Nevertheless, ICBC blatantly sells insurance under the threat of taking driver’s licence. Obviously, if a third party is liable for the damage the drivers may cause, and protect them in the Courts, there no reason for driving MORE CAREFULLY. That is the OBVIOUS REASON for hit and run crime and driving with criminal negligence are so RAMPANT.
4. As a victim of crime, it is my DUTY is to bring my offender-in-law to JUSTICE
Since ICBC assumed the liability of the potentially fatal hit and run crime, from the point of LAW, my offender is ICBC. As a victim, I have a civic DUTY and LEGAL OBLIGATION to bring my offender-in-Law, ICBC to JUSTICE. Otherwise, it is impossible to prevent hit and run crime.
5. I was not allowed to file A CRIMINAL LEGAL ACTION against ICBC, and the lawyers declined to help me.
Since criminal-case application-forms are NOT available for the Public, I needed legal advice to file a criminal legal action against ICBC. Therefore, I consulted with 10 lawyers referred by the Lawyer Referral Service. All of the 10 lawyers declined to provide me with the legal advice I needed for filing my case; although, I was willing to pay for their services.
6. The lawyers have an obligation to provide legal service to the PUBLIC.
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.  

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 . Nevertheless, his legal representative, Michael G. Armstrong filed a court application to abort my legal action, knowing that the lawyers have a legal obligation to provide legal service to the Public, as per the Canons of Legal Ethics.
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:
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":
"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."
In 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". Furthermore, Michael Armstrong attempted to exact court cost of $5,266.59 from me, knowing that the order was not properly signed . For a reasonable person, this is a perfect example of legal chicanery, on the part of a lawyer.
10. 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.  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."
11. I was obliged to file a legal action against the Chief Justice,  April 22, 2014
Therefore, I filed a legal action against the Chief Justice,  S143080 , on the grounds of breach of duty, relying on the incontrovertible evidence of it.
12. Justice Austin F. Cullen dismissed my case, June 24, 2014
John D. Waddell, the representative of the Chief Justice, filed an application and aborted my legal action, without citing any authority that relaxes the Chief Justice’s duty to pay attention to improper court procedures. Certainly, dismissing legal actions originating from a criminal offence, failure to sign court orders and exacting money from the plaintiffs, by using unsigned court orders are not proper procedures. Like, Justice Nathan Smith, Justice Austin Cullen failed to sign his dismissal order; because, the dismissal of the case was tantamount to declaring that: "the Chief Justice had NO obligation to supervise court services". Obviously, an Honourable person who acts in good faith, NEVER hesitates to sign his own decision.
13. I was obliged to file a legal action against Austin F. Cullen, et al. S150231
I filed the second Notice of Civil Claim, on January 12, 2015 against Austin F. Cullen . To prevent the trial of the case, Richard S. Margetts filed a court application, scheduled on March 19, 2015 (102-108). I did not attend the hearing of the application; because, it is impossible to serve Justice in a Court where:
1. The judges disregard the substantiated FACTS and the applicable LAW,
2. The judges fail to sign their decisions in compliance with the procedural norms,
3. The lawyers willfully file court applications to abort the legal actions of the victims of crime,
4. The lawyers argue irrelevant FACTS and principles of LAW, to mislead the Court.
14. Justice Janice R. Dillon dismissed my legal action, March 19, 2015
Justice Janice R. Dillon declared me "vexatious litigant", knowing that all the legal actions I filed were absolutely necessary for discharging my DUTY to bring my offender to JUSTICE (109-111). She restricted my right to use Court Services and, like her predecessors, she refused to sign her own order, in compliance with the procedural norms, despite my numerous requests.
15. I was obliged to file a legal action against Justice Dillon: S155390, July  2, 2015
The court registry accepted my Notice of Civil Claim; because, Justice Dillon’s order was not signed. Nevertheless, the Chief Justice, Christopher E. Hinkson issued an orderstating that no person was obliged to respond to my Notice of Civil Claim (127). Again, he failed to confirm the validity of the order.
16. The Chief Justice’s conduct is a perfect example of CORRUPTION in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
The Chief Justice’s conduct was an intentional WRONG, because:
1. He was aware of the fact that as a victim of a potentially fatal hit and run crime, I had a legal obligation to bring my offender to JUSTICE; otherwise, it is impossible to prevent hit and run crimes.
2. He was aware of the fact that all my civil legal actions were NECESSARY to bring my offender-in-Law, ICBC to Justice.
3. He was aware of the fact that ICBC assumes the liability of 49,000 hit and run crimes that kill 7, injure and maim 2,100 innocent citizens of British Columbia, every year; including the cases where the criminal offenders are identified.
4. He was aware of the fact that he had no authority to override my RIGHT and DUTY to bring my offender to JUSTICE.
5. He had NO reason for NOT SIGNING his court order. Therefore, the Chief Justice’s failure to sign his order in compliance with the procedural norms is the conclusive evidence of his intentional WRONG. An Honourable person never hesitates to sign his own decision.
It is not necessary to have a law degree to CONCLUDE - beyond any doubt - that, aborting the legal actions of the victims of crime, is tantamount to aiding and abetting hit and run criminals, because, it is impossible to prevent crime, where the victims cannot bring their offenders to JUSTICE.
17. A person who is implicated in CORRUPTION cannot act as a CHIEF JUSTICE.
Obviously, a Justice who protects hit and run criminals by way of aborting the legal actions of the victims of hit and run crime, has no more credibility than the OFFENDERS who actually commit hit and run crimes. Therefore, Christopher E. Hinkson must be removed from the office of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court to maintain THE DIGNITY OF THE COURTS and THE HONOUR OF LEGAL PROFESSION.
18. Everyone have A NATURAL DUTY TO FIGHT CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION IS A CRIME AGAINST THE PUBLIC. JUDGES and LAWYERS who protect criminals by dismissing the legal actions of the victims of crime are MORE DANGEROUS OFFENDERS than the persons who actually commit the crimes.
Nevertheless, if the Public stays silent, it is impossible to PREVENT CORRUPTION. Silence to CRIME is an encouragement for the CRIMINALS.
REMEMBER: RAPE is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE; nevertheless, if the victim stays silent, it is NOT A CRIME anymore, and the RAPE will continue until the rapist is satisfied.  The same principle of the LAW applies to CORRUPTION, as well. If we stay silent to the corruption now, it will - certainly – continue to grow, and it will get out of control. Therefore, PLEASE, HELP to STOP the  CORRUPTION.
Here is a list of actions you may take to prevent CORRUPTION in the COURTS:
Forward this Report of Corruption to everyone on your mailing list. Publicize it, on the line, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Linkedin, etc. or through your professional organization.
Send a copy of the "Letter to the Chief Justice Hinkson" or your own.

You may also question the RESPONSIBLE PERSONS who ignored this issue.
(The list will be published at the websites below.)
Refrain from using the Court Services, until the corruption issue is resolved; because, it is impossible to serve JUSTICE in the Law Courts where the Judges do not hesitate to dismiss the legal actions of the victims of crime and refuse to sign their orders.
For complete legal documents use LEGAL DOCUMENTS menu. Other links: www.ethicsfirst.ca or www.justsociety.info.
Ron Korkut
Ethics First          

 
Justice always prevails
Back to content | Back to main menu