Subject: (Fogal) ORDER Judge Dube refuses to step aside (fwd)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 054305 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
.......This message may not be of interest to everyone, but we have
MANY readers from Canada on this list. I am forwarding this particularly
for them......guru.....
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:25:53 -0800
From: Connie Fogal
To: mai-not@flora.org
Subject: ORDER Judge Dube refuses to step aside
Jan 20, 1999, Judge Dube in the Federal Court of Canada said in his Reasons for
Judgement:
Quote: For the past 24 years I have dealt with trials, appeals, motions and
judicial reviews in all ten provinces , quite often involving the government.
Never have I been asked to recuse myself. I do not intend to do so now..... I
am not seized with the main application for judicial review nor with any of the
other motions pending in this matter. ... The Associate Chief Judge is free to
assign this matter to any judge, including myself , sitting on the Vancouver
Rota or elsewhere....this motion for recusal is dismissed with costs in any
event of the cause. End of quote
This means Judge Dube may or may not be assigned to the case on its next
date. We have instructed our lawyers to appeal this decison. We consider he is
wrong in law. It is not a personal thing.
We say we fear that any judge would likely be biased against us if he is a
personal friend of Prime Minister Jean Chretien and if he served as a former
cabinet minister simultaneously with Jean Chretien (Judge Dube says in his own
memoirs that he is a good friend to Chretien. Chretien is a defendant in our
proceedings) We say we have an apprehension of bias . THerefore he should not
preside over our case. Nor should any other former MP now turned judge who
served in Cabinet with Chretien. (The federal Court judges are appointed by the
federal government. Many, but not all, Federal Court judges were former Members
of Parliament and /or Cabinet Ministers).
In the meantime, the rest of our case will proceed on track. The next two
applications will deal with whether or not we can force the federal government
to produce documents and answer questions they refuse to answer on the grounds
of Cabinet Privilege. Watch for dates.
The judge ordered us to pay the federal goverment costs of this application
but not until the end of all the proceedings. The amount will be based on a
tariff and will not be prohibitive. On Jan 6,1999,the feds were ordered to pay
us $500.00 right away and they still have not paid up.
What does all this have to do with the MAI?
Our legal challenge strikes at the core of the secrecy in the process by which
someone in control of our nation and destiny is committing us to agreements
without our knowledge, input, information, or consent; without accountability
or representation. We are using the system to fight the systemic destruction of
our right to be informed , to be heard, to be represented- in fairness and
without bias.
This is the bedrock on which our Constitution rests and by which we have the
right to make choices in our own interest as a nation and as citizens in the
interest of us all.
Connie Fogal, Applicant, Action No. T-790-98 Federal Court of Canada
See http://www.canadianliberty.bc.ca
" The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the
Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of
the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled"
Supreme Court of Canada A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R.1951 pp.
32-33
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html