“A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.“
- Mark 3:24
For more on information #991240166: Supreme Court Application for leave to appeal
Categories
Tag: democracy
Date of incident: April 28th, 2025 (45th Federal Election)
Elections Canada complaint: #PBR2Q0SN
There is a common maxim in law that justice is blind. No favouritism should be shown to any party, as each are to be judged impartially:
“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”
- Leviticus 19:15
However, Canada has recently departed from this mandate by prejudicing our national interests in favour of “post-nationalism” – a policy first announced by the Liberals in 2015. Evidently, the Federal Court has followed this call by neglecting to review suspected foreign interference in our democracy (occurrence #2019-919038).
During the 45th Federal Election (April 28th, 2025), I was listed as an independent candidate (as opposed to my political affiliation listed in the nomination papers) because the returning officer for my electoral district of Souris-Moose Mountain could not confirm the registration status of the Canadian Nationalist Party:
“I am running as an ‘Independent’ because, at the discretion of the returning officer, the registration status of the Canadian Nationalist Party could not be determined at the time of nomination.”
However, the complainant in the matter that led to the de-registration of the Canadian Nationalist Party on March 31st, 2022 (Canadian Anti-Hate Network), used Elections Canada’s disclosure of our 2019 registration application to submit criminal complaints to the RCMP under occurrence #2019-919038. This disclosure is governed by the Privacy Act, as are judicial reviews in actions relating to international affairs and defence.
This matter is potentially injurious to national security because we have not received an opportunity under the Privacy Act to answer to the charges while there is suspicion they were laid against the party leader using information obtained from a foreign entity (special operations, section 8 Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act). It also demonstrates that the Government of Canada is failing to maintain our democracy.
By refusing to uphold our right to a judicial review as described by the privacy notice in Elections Canada’s agreement (Section O, EC 20360), the Government of Canada is neglecting our status as a political party:
In 2019, the Elections Canada disclosed to the Canadian Anti-Hate Network ~263 membership declarations contained in this application and used this disclosure in furtherance of de-registering the Canadian Nationalist Party. Both the disclosure of these declarations (Section O) and the disclosure of information used to lay charges under occurrence #2019-919038 are governed by the Privacy Act.
The Canadian Nationalist Party has the right to a judicial review in the matter by the Federal Court. However, we have been denied that right while our candidates are prohibited from standing for election under our ‘Nationalist’ affiliation. This is prejudicial toward our nation interests.
Therefore, the Canadian Nationalist Party, as it was recorded in Elections Canada’s registry on the date of registration (September 15th, 2019), ought to be reinstated pursuant section 70 of the Supreme Court Act (Supreme Court file #41944):
Consent to Reversal of Judgment
A respondent may consent to the reversal of the judgement appealed against by giving to the appellant a notice entitled in the Court and in the cause, and signed by the respondent stating that the respondent consents to the reversal of the judgment, and thereupon the Court shall pronounce judgment of reversal as of course.
- Section 70, Supreme Court Act
These proceedings against our nation have been done in an attempt to transition Canada into the “world’s first post-national country” for the benefit of foreign powers.
This is a serious crime and the appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that it is thoroughly investigated and those responsible prosecuted to the fullest extent of Canadian law.
Because justice is a balancing act, the court of law often conducts a test of proportionality in order to ensure that both parties involved are rewarded/punished fairly.
For every transgression, there is an appropriate remedy. For every wrong, there is a corresponding right. And where the court administering the affair prejudices either side, there is a higher court to which an appeal may be brought.
The law can be thought of as a moving target where the customs of the court follow the particular jurisdiction it operates in. What works in one locale may not work in another.
In Saskatchewan, the Crown can only proceed against citizens in good faith and without deceit (Clause 63, Magna Carta):
Application of Criminal Law of England
“The criminal law of England that was in force in a province immediately before April 1, 1955 continues in force in the province except as altered, varied, modified or affected by this Act or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada.”Section 8(2), Criminal Code
However, they have recently violated this understanding …
On August 2nd, 2023, I was a legal resident of Saskatoon. On that day, the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) attended my apartment claiming they had a warrant for my arrest, and that if I didn’t open the door, they’d “knock it in”:
“We have a warrant for your arrest.”
- SPS Constable Heather Primeau (#727), 241 5th Avenue N in Saskatoon on August 2nd, 2023 9:43 AM
Shortly thereafter, they broke and entered the property, thereby committing a home invasion:
Aggravating circumstance — home invasion
If a person is convicted of 348 in relation to a dwelling-house, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the dwelling-house was occupied at the time of the commission of the offence and that the person, in committing the offence,
(a) knew that the dwelling-house was occupied; and
(b) used threats of violence to property.
- Section 348.1, Criminal Code
SPS Constable Kevin Sanderson (#884) broke and entered my apartment on August 2nd, 2023.
Entrance
“For the purposes of sections 348 and 349, a person enters as soon as any part of his body or any part of an instrument that he uses is within any thing that is being entered; and a person shall be deemed to have broken and entered if he obtained entrance by collusion with a person therein”
– Section 350, Criminal Code
However, during trial conducted voir dire on May 6th, 2024, the Saskatoon Police Service testified that they had no warrant in the matter.
That type of threat to my property, combined with them breaking and entering the apartment, is enough to nullify any claim that my actions were not the result of oppressive circumstances.
Without a warrant, the Saskatoon Police Service had no right to conduct themselves the way they did.
I was led to believe that the SPS was executing an arrest warrant, a warrant that, after hearing testimony from SPS Detective Sergeant Tracy Shepherd (#556, Hate Crimes Unit), didn’t exist.
I surrendered myself into their custody under duress and reserve a common law defense in relation to these proceedings for doing so:
Common law principles continued
“Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse for an act or a defence to the charge continues in force and applies in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament except in so far as they are altered by or are inconsistent with this Act or any other Act of Parliament.”
- Section 8(3), Criminal Code of Canada
On May 6th, 2024, I cross-examined Saskatoon peace officer Heather Primeau about this, who swore an oath to tell the truth, then immediately proceeded to testify falsely against me under that oath. She claimed to have “never” threatened to knock in my door, but I know otherwise …
“Thou shall not testify falsely against thy neighbor”.
- Exodus 20:16
The Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) has proceeded in this matter mala fide (in bad faith).
Therefore, on August 29th, 2024, I made an application before Justice MacMillan-Brown to quash the warrant of committal (order #95300896) in furtherance of my right to a fair trial in the matter. Pursuant section 778(c) of the Criminal Code, a common law writ of certiorari is sufficient to quash the warrant of committal on the grounds that the omission to provide a fair trial in the matter has been the cause of persecution.
The Justice presiding dismissed that application. Instead, their fiat order dated September 2nd, 2024 insults my ability to communicate this grievance …
Because of Saskatchewan’s superior court dismissing this application, the innocent blood of a political party leader has been spilled … and a weapon was used to do it.
That’s the real crime …
The prosecution related to this information was political in nature as none of the allegations were violent. Rather than being about public safety, these proceedings have been adversarial to Canadian nationalism.
There is a war of deception being waged against our nation. The intention is to transition Canada into the “world’s first post-national country”. In order to do so, the Crown is effecting an unwarranted demographic change of our founding population, predominantly through immigration policy to which there exists no democratic mechanism to alter.
As described in section 13 of the Crimes Against Humanity & War Crimes Act, obedience to de facto authority is no justification here …
Conflict with internal law
Despite section 15 of the Criminal Code, it is not a justification with respect to political persecution that the offense was committed in obedience to or in conformity with the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.
- Section 13, Crimes Against Humanity & War Crimes Act