Why Robin Camp Must Be Removed from the Bench

Why Robin Camp Must Be Removed from the Bench


Over the past few weeks I have watched with a growing sense of unreality as leading members of the legal establishment have stepped forward to defend Robin Camp, and argue for him to remain a member of the Canadian judiciary.

In case you missed it, Robin Camp (whom I shall not call Justice Camp) is the judge who displayed complete ignorance of Canadian law on sexual consent in a rape case in which he asked the rape victim (whom he referred to as “the accused” on several occasions) why she hadn’t just kept her knees together, or sunk down into the basin she was being forced against, in order to avoid being penetrated.

I have been shocked – almost, but not quite beyond words – at the defence mounted by the establishment, including some leading feminist icons, of Robin Camp. This is yet another depressing reminder to me of the enormous chasm of understanding and awareness between the public, and even the progressive forces of the legal establishment.

22 establishment figures have testified in support of Robin Camp. On the other side, just one witness – the rape victim whom Camp traumatized and insulted at the trial – has testified in support of his removal from the Bench.

How is this type of completely uneven process even possible in our country?

Why the CJC process has no credibility with the public

I have for several years criticized the toothless and downright embarrassing protectionist procedures of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). Based on my knowledge of what happens to complaints, I feel a responsibility to advise members of the public to not to bother wasting their time making a complaint.

Why? A brief review of the statistics (and see https://representingyourselfcanada.com/2015/11/24/beyond-the-justice-camp-debacle-when-the-public-asks-judges-to-be-accountable).

The CJC receives approximately 500 complaints from members of the public each year.

One third of these are immediately dismissed as falling outside the CJC “mandate” (that is, they implicate the decision-making of the judge).

  • A further one third of the complaints received are deemed either “irrational”, or classified as unnecessary to respond to.
  • Of those complaints that remain – 176 Panel Reviews (considering disciplinary action but not removal) were conducted from 2011-2014, and just 2 upheld the complaint against the judge.
  • And of 11 Inquiry Committees (struck to consider serious complaints that might result in the judge’s removal) since 1971, only 2 have recommended removal of a judge for misconduct.

In this blog I shall set out the real reasons why Robin Camp must be removed from the Bench, and expose the decoy reasoning being deployed by his defenders.

  1. Judges must treat all parties including victims with respect

This is a minimal requirement for those whom we elevate to the Bench.

The victim in the 2014 rape case was a 19-year old homeless First Nations woman. Camp himself admits that he was “rude and facetious” to her. She says he made her feel like a slut. For example,

  • He called the young woman “the accused” several times (and unbelievably, repeated this during the CJC hearing)
  • He asked her why she could not have just kept her knees together to avoid the rape?
  • He told the accused man that he should tell his friends to be “more gentle” with women in order to “protect themselves”
  • In addition Camp remarked to the female Crown attorney who was concerned about his manifest ignorance of the law, “I hope you don’t live too long, Ms. Mograbee.”

How is it even possible that a judge can speak to participants in a trial like this, let alone a rape victim?

  1. Judges need to know the law in the area in which they make decisions

A radical notion?

Apparently so in the case of Robin Camp, who it is acknowledged (by one of his defenders and private tutors, Professor Brenda Cossman) was unaware of either the purpose or the history of Canadian law-reform efforts meant to overcome discrimination against women (including the rape shield law and changes to the law on sexual consent).

But apparently, say his defenders, he gets all this now, so not to worry….

It’s too late for Robin Camp to be taking private tutoring in sexual assault law from one of Canada’s experts.

  1. Robin Camp’s prejudice against the rape victim has nothing to do with his ignorance of the law

There has been an intentional conflation – or perhaps a deliberate distraction – in the enquiry that has suggested that Robin Camp’s remarks and treatment of the woman in his court were due to his ignorance of the law. And so if he learns the law now, the misogyny and bigotry displayed in his remarks does not matter.

Nice try, but no.

Victim-blaming, slut shaming and rape myth (all in evidence in the case of Robin Camp) have nothing to do with whether or not the same person can take and pass a test on the law of sexual assault.

They flow from fundamental attitudes and bigotry and an abject failure to understand what it means (in this case) to be poor, vulnerable, and subject to sexual violence.

  1. Public confidence in the legal system and the judiciary is at an all-time low

What amazes me the most of all about this case is that the CJC and the legal establishment appear to imagine that they can get away with exonerating Robin Camp. They cannot.

The Canadian public – those struggling to represent themselves in the courts because they cannot afford legal counsel, those being treated rudely by judges and lawyers, those making complaints to law societies and the CJC which are dismissed summarily – will not stand for this much longer.

I am not alone in finding surreal the tolerance of this level of disrespect and its impact on public confidence.

n the recent Deziel case (in which a judge who had admitted to committing election fraud was exonerated and permitted to remain on the Bench: see https://representingyourselfcanada.com/2015/12/08/public-confidence-in-canadian-justice-a-rough-week), Chief Justice Derek Green of Newfoundland and Labrador in a remarkable dissent wrote about “judicial integrity”, describing it as:

“…(T)he central judicial quality, more important than wisdom, learning, experience, diligence or intelligence. Without integrity, no other judicial qualities are even significant ….” He continued: “There is thus a direct connection between public confidence in the judicial system and the image of the integrity of the judge.”


I am grateful to some of my colleagues (for example, http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/the-case-of-justice-robert-camp-bigotry-does-not-belong-on-the-bench) who have been making the same, entirely obvious points over the last few weeks.

But we need to be shouting this from the rooftops.

Share this post

Comments (50)

  • Ferrel Christensen

    Without undertaking the too-long process of discussing this essay’s reasoning, I will just say that it smacks of a specific ideology on steroids in its singling out the Camp case from countless others that are far worse, of which I have seen many close up (in the same province as Camp). In your ideology, victims in certain categories are far, far “more equal” than others. Of course, it’s the same ideology that has resulted in the grotesquely disproportionate media coverage of the case.

    September 19, 2016 at 6:36 pm
  • Derek Thompson

    YES . FROM THE ROOF TOPS ! We in Alberta at the Judicial Reform Association have being spreading the word for change now . It is great to hear from others that know we need change now. You have started a list of why & how Judges should be fired . I will give you my additional reasons they should be fired in a Little while . Thanks for speaking up .

    September 19, 2016 at 6:41 pm
  • sandra olson

    way to go. the judicial review boards everywhere do nothing to protect the public, i admire your list of things expected of a judge, i can say my experiences with the courts have shown that most judges are incredibly rude, no respect at all for the public, and this idea of a judge needing to be familiar with the subject matter of the cases they hear, MAYBE YOU COULD LET ME KNOW WHO REALLY KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT HOW TO READ THE EVIDENCE IN DNA CASES? from my observation, no one.. all of the judges who oversaw my case could not even really read the report. just the line at the bottom,.. the same thing applies to most lawyers. if you cannot tell what the evidence is saying except for a line at the bottom saying included or excluded. if you do NOT know what might be important to be included in the file. then what is the point of this case proceeding? the fact that the courts permitted dna evidence into ANY court of law, without conforming to the evidence act, then refuse to follow proper evidence examination rules. is just a disgrace. i called it a judicial gong show. i was not wrong.

    September 19, 2016 at 7:24 pm
  • Donald Best

    Prof. Macfarlane says, “What amazes me the most of all about this case is that the CJC and the legal establishment appear to imagine that they can get away with exonerating Robin Camp. They cannot.”

    Previously I would have replied “Why shouldn’t the CJC and the legal establishment believe they can get away with exonerating Robin Camp? They have been successful in whitewashing and covering up all manner of judicial misconduct for decades.”

    But things are changing thanks to the internet’s free flow of information and the fact that the number of Canadians who have be abused and denied justice has reached a critical mass. Everyone has a story to tell and the stories aren’t pretty when it comes to the views of ordinary Canadians about the courts and legal profession.

    Even if the legal establishment does the right thing with Justice Robin Camp, it will in no way slow down what has become a movement for the reform of Canada’s legal profession and justice system.

    September 19, 2016 at 7:25 pm
    • Derek Thompson

      Well Put . This has to carry on even if Camp does get fired .

      September 19, 2016 at 11:09 pm
  • jackiebyrn

    My understanding was that LEAF(Legal Education Action Fund)Legal Director Ms. Kim Stanton had a role in the hearing. Certainly she was a face in media coverage. Is there a witness list that readers of this blog could review?

    September 19, 2016 at 7:58 pm
    • Roberta Cook

      Thank you. Please clarify what specific role on the part of the Legal Director Ms. Kim Stanton did she play in the hearing of Mr. Robin Camp?

      September 19, 2016 at 11:00 pm
    • nsrlp

      Jackie – I am trying to find this. There are many different reports on this issue and I would like to get it clarified. I too had thought that Kim Stanton was going to testify but I think she only spoke to the press. I shall follow up

      September 21, 2016 at 10:43 pm
      • nsrlp

        Jackie I think I can clarify now. A number of organizations – including LEAF and also the Schlifer clinic, the Women Against Violence Against Women Rape Crisis Centre and a coalition that includes the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, the Avalon Sexual Assault Centre and the Institute for the Advancement of Aboriginal Women – were granted INTERVENOR status at the enquiry. This means they could make WRITTEN submissions. The only witness who gave oral evidence against Camp was the orginal rape victim from the trial.

        September 21, 2016 at 11:03 pm
        • Derek Thompson

          DARN . Perhaps they can send it any way you never know .

          September 22, 2016 at 1:09 am
  • The truth nothing but the truth

    judge assignments to the cases should be central computerized auto system so ,no one can interfere ,bribe or make changes judges assignments to the cases.

    September 19, 2016 at 9:01 pm
    • tom

      you are all talk and no action-what can we do? they have spent $1 billion+since 1971 to take 12 complaints.i am an SRL/you are experts-what can we do-the decision to do something would have to be made final by scc appeal,so they wont hurt themselves.i complained to the cjc over nsca judge farrar’s involvement in organized crime-cjc ignored my complaint.in 2014-5 I was insulted for being disabled because they knew the cjc would ignor it.
      law societies also protect lawyers-our nsbs said I cant appeal a lawyer complain to the courts-I tried it an became the first to do judicial review of a law society decision.
      the big picture is judges protect judges/lawyers protect lawyers/male judges protect male rapists/judges protect organized crime which is why you cant stop o.c..
      the real reason rapists are protected is 10% of the male pop would be in jail so the police are ordered to discourage 450,000 women per year from reporting rape,and the other 50,000 women lose in court because lawyers/judges wrote the rape laws to prevent convictions.you all vote for this-why don’t women fight back with their own party?why don’t you pass a law that forces women to have a contract with their date making it clear when they agree to sex so their rapist have no defence?one third of women will be raped in their lifetime but those 10 million women wont even create their own party to stop rape-why??
      because the gov. is so evil the would stop it-just like the stop cjc complaints-the gov doesn’t sit around hoping no one stops them-they stop all who seek justice and don’t think they go to hell-hitler thought the same way because he had mental problems-our gov protects rapist/pedophiles etc because they have mental problems which causes them to not realize that.the earth is hell not heaven and we all will never make it heaven.we all spend our entire lives trying to create heaven on earth and in doing so cause sin.when you vote all the sins of the gov are yours so we all deserve this hell.i don’t ever vote.

      September 20, 2016 at 7:41 am
    • Derek Thompson

      I totally agree.

      September 22, 2016 at 1:24 am
  • R. Maxine Collins

    While I certainly cannot compare my experience with that of the complaining witness in this case, I was informed by Justice Lauwers of the Ontario Court of Appeal that he preferred to talk to lawyers because they understand the processes and procedures. I complained to the CJO regarding this comment but the result was the CJO upheld the decision of Justice Lauwers who apparently can’t or won’t read statutory law. Yes, vulnerability leads to abuse and the integrity of judges is a fairy tale but the Canadian public is growing up.

    September 19, 2016 at 11:17 pm
    • Derek Thompson

      Expose and share and gather together is the next step .

      September 21, 2016 at 5:46 pm
  • shannon makuk

    Well said..those of us that are not lawyers or judges could only say this in private and no one would hear or pay attention to us…good for you!!!

    September 19, 2016 at 11:57 pm
    • The truth nothing but the truth

      I disagree with you,I have been fighting against these corruption for long time and my voice is heard from all over the world,i am not depend on Canadian citizens,they are busy with paying mortgage and working like a donkey.The World interests over this issue outstanding.This is the only way that we can put these bastards under pressure.I am sharing stats of my web page twice a year ,if you want you can check from my web page ,embassies are r tweeting my tweets,I have been getting comments from every where,New Zealand to Australia,USA to EU,Colombia to Kenya.I will keep fighting until I die.Some of my comments or article may hurt Canadian business ,politicians or Canadian citizens,I am not responsible for this mess , I am only putting the truth in the middle.Let them keep ignoring or let them sleep tight ,neither I nor World is sleeping.We don’t need an ambalaj country ,if the reputation is everything ,instead of fixing us ,government should be fixing themselves,government is not serving citizens,even Rob Ford is murdered because he did not support the casino and unfortunately I am the only one who scream this.
      Who ever we vote to bring on government no matter what political party is they became puppets of paralel government.What we see as a government is just a picture ,behind these there is an organisation governs Canadian government.

      September 22, 2016 at 6:46 pm
  • MESA

    The following is a brief synopsis of certain elements that relate to an Individual vs the power of an Attorney General, when filling a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council. Prior to filing the complaint against a judge (name withheld, judge deceased) with the CJC, who presided over my case, I consulted with a lawyer on how and what is needed to be done, at that stage of the case my legal expertise was basic, the lawyer flatly refused to help me. I believed that there was something flawed with our judges and the process. I had to depend upon myself to bring attention and justice to a system that lost all senses of accountability and respect due to a particular segment of Canadian citizens. I became a SRL, I researched the process of the CJC and the law. I filed my complaint, the judge replied and offered a kind of apology and the complaint was closed. Another complaint filed against another judge, Justice Paul Cosgrove, who also presided over my case was filed with the CJC, the judge refused to disclose his response to me, case dismissed. About a year later a complaint filed by the then Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant against Justice Cosgrove, that complaint automatically triggered a hearing, I attended that hearing, to me it was the most memorable hearing I ever attended in a court. Eventually Justice Cosgrove was forced to resign, saving himself the humiliation to be removed by the Canadian Parliament.

    September 20, 2016 at 5:12 am
    • Derek Thompson

      You are one of the lucky ones as the rest go nowhere . Good Job.

      September 21, 2016 at 5:45 pm
  • Dianne Bond

    Judges are the strongest – and weakest – links in society.

    September 20, 2016 at 7:46 am
  • twechar

    What lunatic asylum is responsible for appointing this utterly DISGUSTING man to be a Judge at any level?

    Robin Camp and those 22 establishment figures you speak of, who some were seen in attendance shaking his clammy hand and patting him on the back as though to say “good job” “hang in there old boy” in support of this man, are as every bit as bad as Camp himself! (you know who you are, and so do we)

    How is it possible in today’s Canada that this outrage is happening? There exists an incestuous culture between a large compliment of judges protecting judges “errors of law” “errors of judgment” “misapprehension of evidence” and blatant “misstatement of that evidence” along with no regard for “Legislation” and “Binding Case Law” and absolute INSENSITIVITY to Human dignity.

    THAT MUST BE STOPPED, or the public will rise before it’s too late to restore the trust and confidence that once existed in this great country. Deceit, dishonesty, and gaming the Rules of Court for the benefit of spin!

    Alberta seems to be a breeding ground for these judicial bullies where certain lawyers hold sway over these bullies, where no matter how strong the evidence is, it is ignored and a deliberate deafness and willful blindness are the tools of their trade!

    That’s my cry “FROM THE ROOFTOPS”




    September 20, 2016 at 8:43 am
  • One Canadian

    I had a couple of questions about this, hope you don’t mind, thanks for the material, again! 🙂 Barb Kueber-SRL https://barbkueber.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/bigotry-and-an-abject-failure/

    September 20, 2016 at 11:43 am
    • nsrlp

      Thank you Barb!

      September 21, 2016 at 10:41 pm
      • One Canadian

        Thanks again for the material National Self-Represented Litigants Project! Keep up the great work! 🙂

        September 22, 2016 at 12:07 pm
      • Adelaide

        Oh, and before anyone criticizes me for criticizing their codebase and API…. here is the error message I was served when writing the 09:21pm comment…Previous CommentsMT::App::Comments=HASH(0x8069ed8) Use of uninitialized value in sprintf at /wwetandrbe/cgi/MT-2.63-full-lib/lib/MT/Template/Con/ext

        November 17, 2016 at 7:52 am
  • Purley Quirt

    what about the ” rule” FOR judges…..of determining what is “unconscionable” … applied TO judges ( includes penalty)

    September 20, 2016 at 5:15 pm
  • Chris Budgell

    I am pleased to see another strong statement from Professor Macfarlane.

    At the risk of being labeled a cynic I’ll share my view that it is unlikely that the inquiry committee will recommend Robin Camp’s removal. What I predicted before the hearing began was that the entire process would unfold in a manner that would signal to Mr. Camp and his counsel that he would not face removal. I felt that signal would be made readily apparent in order to ensure that they would not prepare for the kind of battle Associate Chief Justice Douglas and her counsel waged.

    One reason for that is that there does not appear to be any prospect of offering Robin Camp anything like the arrangement – early retirement – that finally brought the Douglas inquiry to a close. Furthermore, Robin Camp left the provincially appointed bench to join a federally appointed one, so I would expect him to make some sort of claim to be reinstated to his previous position, which would mean the involvement of the provincial minister who triggered the CJC inquiry.

    The reality is that the whole arrangement with the CJC is simply unworkable. But they – the legal and political establishments – are now perched on the top of a mountain of bullshit from which vantage point they can’t see any way down.

    Stand by for the spectacle of the Girouard II inquiry.

    September 20, 2016 at 6:39 pm
  • Jack Holliston

    Was Robin Camp involved at all as an attorney for the native people that were raped/ molested at residential schools. Believe the girl he took a cheap shot at was another native girl. Would he have made the same remarks if the girl was white ? Quite a few judges are void of principals . He should be removed . The judicial system in Canada is at an all time low because of people like him and his supporters.

    September 21, 2016 at 2:40 am
    • twechar

      You nailed it to a T Jack! You were very kind and generous with “at an all time low” it’s much deeper than that.

      September 21, 2016 at 2:33 pm
  • Karin Litzcke

    What if Justice Camp is exactly the kind of judge that we in the SRL community wishes there were more of?

    Clary Jaxon does an outstanding analysis of the Justice Camp case in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbObqf35_5Q. She links to many of the documents from the inquiry, which people can read to form their own opinion.

    My own view after reviewing it is that Justice Camp is either the ideal judge, or if he has flaws, is still far better on the bench for the cause of justice than at least every other judge that has been referred to as problematic in the NSRLP project.
    Removing him, rather than a dozen or a hundred others, would be a travesty.

    This inquiry is about a radical feminist takeover of the rule of law. Additional insight into this phenomenon can be gained from the videos of Diana Davison, in her reviews of the work of Elizabeth Sheehy, and her series of video commentaries about the Ghomeshi accusers and the Ururyar case. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVRQqUgDRBevsDGOeE1DL3A/videos.

    My own blog post about the Ururyar case, and the judge who heard it, Justice Marvin Zuker, is here: http://ctjester.blogspot.ca/2016/07/scottsboro-boys-canada-2016.html, on my blog where I write about the judiciary and the courts in general.
    Given a choice between appearing before Mr. Justice Camp and Mr. Justice Zuker, I would pick Justice Camp every time.

    This is a witchunt, to the extent that a lawyer who presented to the inquiry has already written and had published – in the law literature, no less – an article that seems to be an attempt to prime the audience to express outrage in the event that the good judge is not removed as the extreme feminist community wishes: http://canadianlawyermag.com/6173/Judging-the-judges-%E2%80%93-the-publics-right-to-an-impartial-judiciary-is-paramount.html. Remember the judge who jailed an SRL? Did any legal scholars complain to the CJC about him?

    Janice Fiamengo of U. Ottawa says that “feminist law would be the West’s mirror image version of Sharia Law — a man’s word worth half the word of a woman. A man would need to prove his innocence.” One of her videos (about Ururyar) is here so you can get a general idea of the quality of her analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPYmh5qNY4o.

    Fiamengo’s comment nails the similarity between SRLs who are falsely viewed as vexatious, and men who are falsely accused of rape, and often convicted based on radical feminist theory (in which all intercourse is rape). Justice, and confidence in the courts, comes from the fair and impartial application of the law, not from its application in keeping with a belief system about the inherent superior believability of one of the parties before the judge.

    Under the access to justice rubric, self-represented litigants, men accused of rape, and judges accused of misconduct are on the same side: that of getting a fair hearing regardless of what the preconceived outcome might be.

    The only point in the blog post above that is thought-provoking is that the only person speaking against the judge was the complainant herself. This suggests, however, not that there is a problem with insufficient support in the legal community, but that the complaint should not have been processed in the first place. Indeed, the inquiry has now, to my mind, irretrievably tainted the appeal/retrial that this case is to undergo. I think the feminist legal scholars who mounted the complaint failed to filter their feelings through the rule of law and legal doctrine but rather did the reverse, and the same may have been true of the Attorney General who precipitated the inquiry. It may well be that they, not Justice Camp, are the ones to blame for having put the complainant/accuser in this indeed very awkward position.

    That the judiciary is in a state well past a need for self-critique and renewal is something I have pondered at length on my blog, and I plan to continue with recommendations for moving forward, because the techniques needed are outside the expertise of the judiciary itself. But the idea that removing Justice Camp from office will go any distance toward judicial renewal is not just a faint hope but a delusion; it would be, rather, evidence of continued decline.

    September 21, 2016 at 7:09 pm
    • nsrlp

      I entirely disagree with the premises of this comment, but this is not en echo chamber so thank you Karin!

      September 21, 2016 at 10:40 pm
      • Karin Litzcke

        In the interest of bridging the divide, Julie, I’m curious as to where you feel that Clary Jaxon has it wrong. Pardon the grammatical errors in the text above, by the way; I was rushing.

        September 23, 2016 at 4:13 am
      • Karin Litzcke

        Diana Davison has done a 15 minute video about the Robin Camp case:

        September 27, 2016 at 3:10 am

    why wont you post my comment-don’t I have free speech?

    September 22, 2016 at 5:43 am
    • nsrlp

      Hi Tom,

      This is the only comment of yours that we’ve seen. Perhaps try again.



      September 22, 2016 at 6:09 pm
      • tom tupper

        still wont post my comment-I tried twice-all you post is that you wont post my comment-yet that will go through.

        September 28, 2016 at 5:44 am
    • Karin Litzcke

      I guess this is as good a spot as any to clarify that as far as I understand it, the free speech guarantee is owed us under the Charter only by government organizations. Private spaces don’t have the same obligation, so they are quite within their rights to edit – in fact, I think court cases have determined a duty to edit/moderate blog comments to ensure no hateful speech is disseminated. Universities aren’t bound by the Charter, I don’t think. As I’m not a lawyer, you can take all this as being speculative 🙂

      September 23, 2016 at 4:19 am
      • tom tupper

        we the people own the justice system-why cant we take it back from the judges-if all the slr’s-justice system victims etc did a class action lawsuit against the CJC to stop them from protecting judge corruption judges would do a better job-the cjc system violates the charter-security of person etc-so get 1 million people in on this lawsuit.in 1971 trudeau created the CJC to protect judge corruption-we never voted for that.the cjc has spent $1 billion since 71 to take 12 complaints!
        you cant sue judges-so robin camp should prove he is sorry by giving his victim cash.
        the big picture is all complaints are ignored-CJC,human rights,450,000 rape victims who wont go to the police due to distrust,lawyer complaints-all done because the gov knows we will give up our fight.
        the real reason rapists are protected is 10% of the male pop would be in jail ruining our economy-so the police are ordered to discourage rape reports=hate crimes/obstruction of justice= I in 1000 rapists are punished-wht cant there be a law of a sex contract making it 100% when a women when a women agrees to sex so there can be no defence-that would stop a lot of rape.
        the earth is hell not heaven,but we waste our lives trying to make it heaven and committing a lot of sin-when you vote you tell the gov you want all the above sin and all other sin-and the churches then lie to you about going to heaven because of tax brakes-so they don’t say if you vote for sin done by the CJC/cops/judges/the gov you go to hell.
        so lets get 1 million people to sue the CJC rules that prevent complaints-I made a complaint about a judge involved in organized crime and it was ignored!!!! there have been NO judges removed from the bench for organized crime so they protect that.i made another judge {J. NUNN}quit his job after going to the rcmp-i put out 50,000 flyers about his involvement in organized crime case fixing and he called the police on me-a poor disabled person-the rcmp said I never lied in my flyers so NUNN quit his job-want to know what revenge his fellow judges got on me?try a 30 yr now drivers licence suspension-a ban for life use of the courts etc.but the cjc protect revenge so we need to change their rules.i wish the nsrlp would post my entire story.

        September 27, 2016 at 7:18 am
    • nsrlp

      Tom – we have limited staff time to monitor comments and approve them and sometimes this takes a few days. Please be patient with us.

      October 8, 2016 at 1:03 am
      • tom tupper

        I wish part of your website had a way to link all SRL’s to each other and we could post questions to be answered by SRL’s and put our knowledge to good use.how to fight being vexatious/how to use the SCC etc.i fought and won against Canada’s best law firm/lawyers-pink/larkin in Halifax-I won the right to do judicial review of a law society lawyer complaint decision.
        legal questions I post on the web are never answered.

        October 13, 2016 at 5:51 am
  • J Malton

    So what are we to believe? Have the comments of this judge been taken out of context?

    Is the media lying to us? Or could it be that some “officers of the court” (lawyers) lie to advance their own agenda?

    In our case as SRL’s (Malton v Attia) we fought the brutal battle against “officers of the court” to get in front of a judge, won our case but it was overturned on appeal because the defence “officers of the court” accused the judge of being biased. A retrial has been ordered.

    Recently cameras were allowed in court for a criminal trial so the public could observe the process.

    I would like to see cameras allowed for the retrying of our case (yet to be scheduled). I believe it would be very informative for the public in showing;
    – what being an SRL is like
    – what does and does not constitute negligence by a lawyer in the view of the Law Society and ALIA
    – who the Law Society is protecting (the public interest or?)
    – whether the judge in our case was justly or falsely accused of bias and what will be done about it either way

    Could anyone advise how this request could be made?
    Thanks in advance for your input and thank you all for a very thought provoking conversation.

    September 28, 2016 at 3:37 pm
    • Derek Thompson

      I would love to see that also . Lets start dissecting these situations and see what is really true .

      September 28, 2016 at 6:22 pm
    • tom tupper

      my case as a SRL was webcast-tupper v nsag 2015 nsca 92 and can be seen at the n.s. court website-I sued a group of lawyers who then used legal SLAPP tactics to make me Canada’s most vexatious litigant-me a poor disabled person who by way of an insurance fraud scam have had my drivers license suspended 30 years now.lawyers in Ontario cant use SLAPP tactics since the law was changed there.
      so if you want to see how lawyers make us vexatious watch my case at the ns court website-hearing was april 9,2015-i am still in SCC appealing it.

      September 29, 2016 at 5:42 am
      • J Malton

        Thanks Tom. That is interesting. Do you know how or who set up the web cast?

        September 30, 2016 at 8:56 pm
        • tom tupper

          the Halifax n.s. cbc went to nsca court for the right to put their camera’s in court but the chief justice decided to web cast it with the courts own camera for the april 9 2015 hearing.then the cbc went live with it.
          In court the n.s. attorney general called me Canada’s most vexatious litigant.the used SLAPP tactics to prevent SRL crown lawsuits.My drivers license has been suspended 30 yrs now due to an insurance fraud scam against me-the dui driver in Ontario who murdered 3 children/grandfather was suspended 10yrs !!!!
          I got a 30 suspension because as a poor disabled person I couldn’t pay a $33,000 claim against me.Its a real long story-a dui driver left me permanently disabled and poor.

          October 4, 2016 at 5:56 am
    • Vina

      I found your comment about the costumes in the Social Network to be interesting. I watched that film with a keen eye and while the detail was exceptional, I noticed a few things that were anorhcanistic ( girls wearing leggings, epaulets on jackets stuck out like a sore thumb to me). I know it’s a nitpick which I doubt anyone even noticed and while doesn’t affect the overall quality of the film, as silly as it sounds, it took me out of the film for a moment. Just my two cents…

      November 17, 2016 at 7:49 am
  • sandra olson

    the cry to remove justice camp is not in my opinion rampant feminism, it is an eye opening moment for the judicial system at how prejudiced, disrespectful and rude the “officers of the court” have always been toward women. it has always been so. we, women of canada are just finally getting fed up. and about time, i have never heard any such comments directed at any man in any situation. blaming them for being victimized. and this discrimination is coming not just from male members of the courts, but the females as well. it seems that once they “join the group” women officers of the court seem determined to be even more vicious. likely to prove to their co horts how NOT FEMINIST they are. they are turning their backs on themselves when they do this. i had one woman lawyer in my case actually say in open court, that i probably didn;t even know who my childs father was. i was speechless at this. i continue to be. This statement was made in open court, in front of a woman judge, who said nothing. i remain speechless at this sort of behavior. lets hope one day this comes back to those two clearly deranged “officers of the court”.

    September 30, 2016 at 3:51 pm
  • sandra olson

    did anyone get a chance to see the documentary on tv last night on the corruption of the judicial system? it was set in the usa, but with the exception of the judges there being elected, and ours being appointed by the political system of the day FOR LIFE!!! the tactics were shockingly similar to what i went through and continue to go through with the judicial sytem. i posted a story about it on my web site sandra olson dna fraud errors on youtube, it is really something to watch, if you missed it, maybe see if you can get the name of it and track it down.

    October 3, 2016 at 6:02 pm
  • twechar

    Good idea Tom!
    One suggestion is to go on Google and search “judicial misconduct” and/or “judicial reform” a lot of regional SRL’S have formed associations and you can hook up that way.

    There is a groundswell happening due the appalling treatment by judges towards SRL’S.

    October 13, 2016 at 12:44 pm

Comments are closed.

Font Resize
Background Color