Law in Canada Part 3

The Attorney General

Jun 22, 2023

On May 12, 2023, I filed a lawsuit against Magistrate Grant C. Taylor and the Supreme Court of British Columbia after finding out from my 8 year old son in March that he had been double vaxed. He said to me during our facebook messenger conversation that he didn't like it and he got both shots before his birthday.

Interestingly my lawsuit made the mainstream news at:

Mainstream Vancouver News Blog

Vancouverisawesome.com is a part of the Glacier media group that also owns the popular news and posting site for the interior of British Columbia called Castanet. I sent them a number of emails instructing them to correct errors in their article where they misquoted my court filing. So far they have not corrected their article.

The vancouverisawesome.com article appeared to ridicule my selection of maritime law as the jurisdiction of my filing. (My choice of maritime was made given the absence of any option to choose a court of chancery or court of equity. Had I written in the option by hand to have my suit heard in chancery or equity, it may have given the court cause to reject my filing if such a court did not exist in British Columbia.)

On June 6th, I amended my filing with clarified and specific language to maritime law (as opposed to court of equity language that I used in my initial filing). The next afternoon I received an email from the attorney general's office of British Columbia. (I wonder if my amendment kept that office up late on the evening of June 6th, because the pdf letter, though dated June 6th, arrived in my inbox at 13:02 on June 7th with glaring typos.)

My suit sought relief from Master Grant Taylor and the Supreme Court of British Columbia for harm to my children from medical experimentation arising from the wrongful orders from Master Grant Taylor that were enforced by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

(On November 10, 2021, Magistrate Grant Taylor, before the Supreme Court of British Columbia made a 1 year no contact order preventing me from seeing or communicating with my two children, aged 7 and 9 at that time. This was due to my estranged wife's claim that I was a danger to my children for my stance on the dangers of the experimental COVID injections and her allegation that I planned to kidnap my children because I own a travel trailer and rural property.)

In March of 2023, when my children finally found and contacted me through facebook messenger, my son told me he got injected before his birthday last year. He said he got both shots and that he didn’t like it.

For the known mRNA COVID injection harms of cancer, infertility, myocarditis and autoimmune disease, I filed a claim against Magistrate Grant C. Taylor and the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The rights I claimed were:

Right to restitution.
Right to protection and preservation of the vessels of my bloodline.
Right to protection and preservation of the vessels of the souls of my children.

On the Afternoon of June 7th I received my first letter from the attorney general's office of British Columbia.

Here is an archive of the pdf file.

Letter from Attorney General Lawyer

Lets break down the letter from the Attorney General lawyer Michael Kleisinger. He states:

"I am a lawyer with the Ministry of the Attorney General. The Attorney General
superintends the administration of justice in British Columbia. In my view, the Notice of Civil Claim you filed on May 12, 2023 is misguided and threatens the proper administration of justice. As such, I intend to apply to the court to strike your claim."

In “his view”, I am “misguided” and I am a threat to the “proper administration of justice” because I am seeking restitution for genetic damage to my children?

M. Kleisinger continues:

"You seek damages against Master Taylor and the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a decision you say Master Taylor made on or about November 10, 2021. You do not agree with that decision. A person who does not agree with a decision of the court has the option of appealing that decision to a higher court."

Would anyone who stood against a man protecting his children from a medical experiment be in the right? Of course not.

What is the point of this ministry lawyer stating I have the “option of appealing that decision to a higher court”?

The wrongful order has already expired and the damage already done.

Does Attorney M. Kleissinger think “proper administration justice” is an appeal of an expired decision that already caused bodily harm?

Who in their right mind would think causing harm to children is “JUSTICE”?

My email response to the first 7 sentences of Kleisinger's letter was this:

THE MATTER OF THIS CIVIL SUIT IS RESTITUTION FOR DAMAGE ARISING FROM ACTION OF THE COURT BEFORE MASTER TAYLOR.

AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT BEFORE MASTER TAYLOR HAS NO BEARING ON MY CIVIL SUIT AS DAMAGE HAS OCCURRED.

WANT OF APPEAL IS IRRELEVANT AND THUS YOUR STATEMENTS THEREUPON ARE EJECTED.

Next Kleisinger says:

"Suing court officials for their decisions is simply not an option. In Canada, a judicial decision maker – including Masters of the Supreme Court – are immune to lawsuits brought against them for the decisions they make in court. This is a foundational principle of our democracy as it ensures judicial independence."

Really? Are Judicial decision makers immune? Does that sound like justice?

Is there any supporting reference to his claim "This is a foundational principle of our democracy as it ensures judicial independence."?

I, myself, cannot find any Canadian legislation that grants members of the judiciary immunity for harm they do unto others. Maybe a lawyer can show me what “law” grants such immunity from justice. (above and beyond a legal “case” where a member of the judiciary got away with crime using “legal” immuunity).

Is immunity from justice for some people right? Or is it the very definition of injustice? A foundation for tyranny?

Is the taxpayer funded Attorney General counsel Michael Kleisinger a lawyer or a liar? Does the Canadian judiciary really have “immunity” from Justice? (And what sitting of Parliament gave them that? Leave your thoughts in the comments)

Michael Kleisinger makes more claims:

"Similarly, disappointed litigants cannot claim damages against judicial institutions such as the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In my view, your lawsuit has no chance of success. Without any legal foundation, it is a collateral attack of the Master’s decision and an abuse of the court’s process."

This was my response to his claims of immunity and his accusation I had a lack of legal foundation:

UNDER THE FIRST LAW OF THE LAND EVIDENCED BY 50,000 YEARS OF PRIOR HABITATION ON THIS CONTINENT, AND SUBSEQUENTLY MAXIMS OF EQUITY BROUGHT TO THIS LAND, ANY CLAIM FOR WANT OF LEGAL FOUNDATION IS DENIED UNDER THE TWO SAID HIGHER BODIES OF LAW.

I DEMAND THE ACCUSATORY STATEMENT QUOTED BELOW BE RECANTED:

"In my view, your lawsuit has no chance of success. Without any legal foundation, it is a collateral attack of the Master’s decision and an abuse of the court’s process."

Michael Kleissinger of Ministry of the Attorney General of British Columbia then says:

"I enclose a consent dismissal order for you to review, sign and return to me on or before June 16, 2023. If you return the order by that date, the Attorney General will file the order at her expense and provide you with a copy in due course.”
“If you do not provide me with a signed copy of the order on or before that date, I intend to bring an application to dismiss your action at the earliest opportunity and seek costs for having to do so. doing so."

My response:

MAKING DEFAMATORY CLAIM THAT I HAVE SOMEHOW ATTACKED THE MASTER AND ABUSED THE COURT PROCESS WILL RESULT IN CAPITAL CHARGE WITHOUT IMMEDIATE RECANT.

DEFAMATORY ACCUSATION COMBINED WITH THREAT TO SEEK COSTS AS QUOTED BELOW ARE EXHORTATIVE:

"If you do not provide me with a signed copy of the order on or before that date, I intend to bring an application to dismiss your action at the earliest opportunity and seek costs. for having to do so. doing so."

CHARGE WILL BE FORGIVEN WITH IMMEDIATE RECANT.

My speculation that the lawyer for the Attorney General was up late on June the 6th after reading my amended civil claim comes from it’s late arrival the next day and the unusual typo “…seek costs. for having to do so. doing so.”

Despite the typo, the Attorney General lawyer closes with:

“I strongly recommend you seek legal advice regarding this letter, the consent
order, and your action generally.
“I look forward to hearing from you or your lawyer at your earliest opportunity, but no later than June 16, 2023.”

With emphasis he put in bold his “recommendation” that I seek legal advice about my “action generally”.

For all the legal cases in BC, Covid related injustices being dragged on for months through the courts, what makes my case such a priority that the Ministry of the Attorney General is trying to strike my case with such urgency?

What about my “action generally” in seeking justice for my children does the Ministry of the Attorney General think needs a lawyer’s advice?

The response I gave to the ending of the Ministry of Attorney General’s letter was:

YOUR LEGAL OPINION IS REJECTED. YOUR CLAIM FOR WANT OF LEGAL BASIS IS REFUTED. YOUR LETTER IN ITS ENTIRETY IS REFUSED.

NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT INTERFERENCE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE MADE UNDER A COLOR OF THE LAW, CONFLICT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST, AND PREJUDICE BY INTERFERENCE PRIOR TO VIEW OF EXHIBIT(S) WILL COME WITH CAPITAL CHARGE.

FAILURE TO HEED IDEAS, NOTICES AND DEMANDS OF THIS CAPITALIZED LETTER WILL RESULT IN CAPITAL CHARGE.

Acute Regards,

I wrote about a color of the law and prejudice due to the fact that the Ministry of the Attorney General threatened to strike my case prior to seeing any evidence.

That’s right, the Ministry of the Attorney General was trying to dismiss a case before seeing any evidence! My exhibits were filed on July 9th!

Does prejudice sound like “proper administration of justice”?

These were two of my exhibits that the Attorney General failed to see prior to threatening an obstruction of justice by striking my case:

Pediatric Harm Article

This article from the Journal of the American Medical Association showed harms over the first 21 days after Pfizer’s mRNA injection. Highlights from the pharmacy CVS data are a 4.78 times increase in relative risk of anaphylaxis, over 3 times the risk of thrombosis, and a 22 - 29 times risk of myocarditis depending on age.

Pfizer Clinical Protocol

This second article showed that by Pfizer’s own admission, the Pfizer injection was an experiment for 24 months, making most of 2022 still within their experimental “trial” period.

UPDATE from this WEEK!

Yesterday I received this email from the same Lawyer for the Attorney General.

“Dear Dr. Nagase,

Given you do not agree to resolve this matter through a consent dismissal order, the Attorney General will now apply to strike your claim.

Please provide me dates within the month of July that you are available to attend the Vancouver Courthouse for our application. Once we have your dates, we will file and serve our application on you. You will then have an opportunity to file and serve your response materials in advance of the hearing date.

Please provide me with all your available dates in July at your earliest opportunity, but no later than this Friday. If you do not provide me with your dates, I will set the application in accordance with my schedule.

Again, I recommend you seek legal advice from a practising lawyer.

Yours truly,

Michael J. Kleisinger
Lawyer

Ministry of Attorney General
Legal Services Branch
1301 - 865 Hornby Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2G3
Tel: (604) 660-3001”

How do you think I should respond? (Leave your thoughts in the comments!)

So far it looks like the Ministry has ignored my capitalized warnings to recant defamatory accusations they made in their first letter.
Given that I’ve already warned (in capital letters) the Ministry of the Attorney General of charges if they interfere with my suit seeking restitution for genetic damage to my children, how much should I charge?
What should I do if the Attorney General carries through an act of obstructing justice by striking a case before it is heard?