The Attorney General of British Columbia

Justice or Injustice?

Here is the latest letter from the office of the Attorney General of British Columbia written by one of their Attorneys Michael Kleissinger. The first letter is analyzed here:

Unsurprisingly, when I met their demand to dismiss my own case with a firm rejection of their motion to strike, Attorney Michael Kleissinger followed up with a second letter.

Here it is:

---

What I’ve written below is a point by point analysis of his claims:

Attorney Michael Kleissinger starts with:

“Part 1: ORDER(S) SOUGHT

1. The Court strike the Amended Notice of Civil Claim, without leave to

further amend, and dismiss the action against all defendants pursuant to

Rule 9-1(5) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

2. The Court award costs to the Attorney General.

3. Until it pronounces judgment on this application, the Court stay the action

with respect to all steps unrelated to this application including the filing of

statements of defence to this action.

4. If it dismisses this application, the Court permit the defendants to file their

statements of defence 21 days after the Court pronounces its judgment.”

So does the Attorney Michael Kleissinger want an order to strike my claim without giving me any opportunity to amend or file evidence?

But if that was not extreme enough, does what does he mean when he asks the court to stay / stop “all steps unrelated to this application including the filing of statements of defence to this action”.

Does this mean that the court will REFUSE to let me take any steps?

Is this fair? Asking the court to stop the filing of statements to defend my case?

Is the attorney general out of her mind? (Or just her lawyer Michael Kleissinger?)

---

Next there is a mostly correct “Statement of Facts”.

I say mostly because Attorney Michael Kleissinger states in his second “Factual” point, “In the Attorney General’s view, this claim is an attempt to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court and it process”.

“the Attorney General’s view” is an OPINION, not a FACT. Putting an allegation that my quest to restitute harm to my children is an “…attempt to undermine…” is DEFAMATORY.

However, thanks to Attorney Michael Kleissinger, I can directly implicate the Attorney General herself, without giving leeway for her to make the excuse that the defamation was just an “Errant” lawyer working for her office. (For an example of Attorney Michael Kleissinger being “Errant”, observe his writing, “the Supreme Court and it process”)

---

Reason or a lack thereof?

Attorney Michael Kleissinger then goes on to try and justify why he is asking for these orders. He starts with:

“1. Pursuant to Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, at any stage of the proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading on the ground that.”

“…any stage of the proceeding…” Isn’t it convenient that the “Supreme Court Civil Rules” are so heavily biased towards the court. The question should be, “Is this Right?”. And if it is wrong, how can any court claim to stand for Justice when its own rules are unfair, uneven, and a violation of the spirit of the Law?

The Attorney General’s office is seeking to have the court use its own rules to end my suit before any evidence has been heard, effectively stopping Justice before it starts.

“ a. it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,”

Have I no reasonable claim? Restitution for a genetic mRNA experiment on my children is not a reasonable claim?

“ b. it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,”

Is it “unnecessary” to stop courts that cause harm to children? Is it “scandalous” and “frivolous” for parents to exert their right to protect their children?

Who is “vexatious”, me or the Attorney General?

“ c. it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or…”

Prejudice? Isn’t the Attorney General herself acting on prejudice to prejudge the harm resulting from the infringement of my rights? Isn’t attempting to silence my case before any EVIDENCE is heard pre judgment?

“ d. it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,”

Who is abusing court process? Michael Kleissinger of the Attorney General's office? Would applying to strike a case before any testimony is heard be exemplary of an abuse of process?

Is stopping the presentment of FACTS fair?

Is violatingting a fairness justice?

"and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs."

What kind of special cost comes with myocarditis? Heart failure? Death?

What is the “special cost” of a shortened life?

---

Case Law?

Attorney Michael Kleisinger continues by citing a Case:

“2. In Willow v. Chong, 2013 BCSC 1083, Madam Justice Fisher (then of this Court) outlined the law with respect to applications brought pursuant to Rule 9-5(1):

a. Rule 9-5(1)(a) permits the court to strike a pleading on the basis that it discloses no reasonable claim if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded are true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action...”

So according to a case decided by Madam Justice Fisher, a judge BEFORE HEARING A CASE may "decide" there's no "reasonable cause of action" and thereby strike a case. Does Attorney Kleissinger cite this case of a judge endorsing PREJUDICE as support for further prejudice?

Does this sound at all reasonable?

“b. Under Rule 9-5(1)(b), a pleading is unnecessary or vexatious if it does not go to establishing the plaintiff’s cause of action ...”

My cause of action is Genetic Damage to the bodies of my childrens' souls. The action I seek is restitution. Considering the magnitude of the damage the court and its actors have caused, the amount I ask for in restitution is lenient.

“c. Rule 9-5(1)(d) allows the court to prevent a claim from proceeding where to do so would violate principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality, and the integrity of the administration of justice. A claim may be struck where it is an attempt to re-litigate an issue that has already been decided. (para. 21)”

I don’t know from where the lawyer for the Attorney General is imagining there is some kind of re-litigation. My issue of damage has not been heard, nevermind decided. This is a new litigation where I seek justice for harms against my family.

3. Relying on the doctrine of judicial immunity found in the common law and as codified in statute, the court should strike the amended notice of civil claim under Rule 9-5(1) (a), (b) and (d).

"doctrine of judicial immunity found in the common law…". Does the Magna Carta as a foundational body of law grant the BC Supreme Court and Master Taylor immunity? (Please cite any foundational source of law dear Attorney General...)

Two higher bodies of law that make no mention of any immunity for a judiciary are Ecclesiastical Law and Equity Law. All men are equal under the eyes of God.

Nevertheless, we have to thank Attorney Kleisinger for bringing up common law.

The Magna Carta would allow for a common law Grand Jury to be convened in court. An initial 4 members of a Grand Jury would need to attend on July 7th 2023 to ascertain whether a wrong has been committed, and if so report to a full Grand Jury of 12 or 25 members on whether to proceed with indictment(s).

“4. Given the absolute nature of the immunity, no further amendment can save this action.”

Pray tell, what primary document of Law (e.g. the Magna Carta, the Bible or other religious text) grants any man or actor “absolute immunity”?

"Judicial immunity prohibits this action"

Attorney Kleissinger emphasizes this statement by placing it in bold. It appears to be Michael Kleissinger’s attempt to make contract “law” simply by making a statement that, when uncontested, becomes consented to by non-resistance. If that is the case, I have bad news for the Attorney General. Here is my rebuttal also in bold and with emphasis:

There is no Judicial immunity in EQUITY, nor is there any LAW that prohibits my “action" seeking restitution.

---

The Attorney General’s Michael Kleissinger continues saying:

“5. The plaintiff says that Master Taylor made the wrong decision based on hearsay evidence in granting an order of the court. The plaintiff says $66 million in damages will arise from Master Taylor’s order.”

Actually, it is 33.3 million per child who suffered genetic experimentation is my claim of damage. Neither Master Taylor nor the court produced proof of ownership of my children. As such none had right to infringe upon my right under the highest law to protect my children.

“6. Section 11.3 of the Supreme Court Rules outlines the duties and powers of a master:”

Supreme Court Rules stand below Maxims of Equity when harm has occurred.

"(5) An action must not be brought against a master for damages for anything done or omitted in good faith by the master

(a)in the performance or intended performance of any duty, or

(b)in the exercise or intended exercise of any power.

(6) Subsection (5) does not absolve the government from vicarious liability for an act or omission for which the government would be vicariously liable if subsection (5) were not in force."

I repeat, when harm has been done, Supreme Court Rules stand below all higher laws. Under higher bodies of Law a "Master" has liability for wrongdoing regardless of any claims of "good faith". The spirit of Law and principles of Justice stand above “Supreme Court Rules” and exist for EVERY man and woman. For my case, the master took wrongful action against me based on hearsay, without any opportunity for presentation of facts on my behalf. This hardly constitutes “good faith”.

“7. Section 11.3(5) is a complete answer to this claim. It – and the principle of judicial immunity on which it is framed – allows masters to make decisions without fear of reprisal and thereby assert their constitutionally protected independence.

Walter v. British Columbia (Attorney General),”

Any Master or Judge possessed by fear is unfit for the position.

---

Defamation:

With the Attorney General’s next point comes defamation of my good nameby false accusation.

“8. Simply, disgruntled litigants must appeal decisions they do not like. They cannot sue masters (or other judicial decision-makers) for judicial acts and decisions. Actions like this have no prospect of success in the face of judicial immunity and are appropriately struck under Rule 9-5(1)(a)(b) and(d).

Hokhold v. Attorney General, 2021 BCCA 475

at paras. 35 and 36- 6 -”

Suggestion that I am a “disgruntled litigant” is false.

I am litigating restitution for harm to my children. I act only in fairness under Equity. If Michael Kleissinger imagines my comport as “disgruntled”, then he is of unsound mind for imagining a slight of my character despite never having met me.

In fairness and equality, I reserve the right to make charge against the Attorney General for this defamation, that has still not been recanted despite being given generous warning in my first reply to his letter.

---

Is the Attorney General or her lawyer of sound mind?

“9. As Master Taylor’s decision triggered his absolute immunity to this action, further amendments would serve no purpose.

I see no trigger for “absolute immunity” since first principles of justice provide no provision of immunity for selected persons.

"The claim against the Supreme Court has no legal basis 10."

This last statement is written in Bold, but may be missing a period at the end of “legal basis”. If I were to take his statement as it is written, I have to ask what he means by “no legal basis 10.”

If intentional, this is non-sense. This written non-sequitr may be indicative of an unsound mind lacking reason.

"The Supreme Court of British Columbia is not an entity that can be sued. Even if one could maintain an action against the Supreme Court, the court – at large - must enjoy the same or greater protections afforded to its individual decision-makers."

The statement "The Supreme Court of British Columbia is not an entity that can be sued." leads me to question, Why can't the Supreme Court of British Columbia be sued?

On this basis alone I reject such a claim for having an abject lack of reason.

"Even if one could maintain an action against the Supreme Court..."

So we go from, “… not an entity that can be sued.” to “Even if one could maintain an action…”. Is Attorney Michael Kleisssinger admitting that an action against the court could be “maintained”, i.e. it is possible?

Well given that Attorney Michael Kleisssinger admits to my action’s feasibility, by giving this response, I am “maintaining an action against the Supreme Court”.

I do so evenly, in equity, and with reason.

"the court (dash) at large (hyphen) must enjoy the same or greater protections afforded to its individual decision-makers."

Why?

Over and above Attorney Michael Kleissinger's letter lacking sound construct, it appears to lack reason as well. If the Attorney General’s implication is that protections must be afforded to courts without reason, justice or equity, then this statement must be rejected by all sane individuals.

---

More Defamation?

“11. To the extent the Court’s inclusion in this matter represents the plaintiff’s search for vicarious liability, the appropriate party, if any, would be the Province (Supreme Court Act, s. 11.3(6)).”

I am not in “search for vicarious liability”. I seek restitution for damage. I have said this from the beginning.

To make such a claim of “vicarious liability” is false.

(The Province as a separate party may be subject of a separate suit in the near future within reason.)

“12. However, even if the plaintiff named the Province to this action, s. 3(2)(a) of the Crown Proceeding Act immunizes the Province against the acts or omissions of masters and justices of the Supreme Court. Similarly, the Attorney General cannot be vicariously liable for judicial officers.

Gadsby v. British Columbia, 2019 BCSC 2503 at para. 19

Hokhold at paras. 17, 44 - 49”

I stand in equity, not case law. Whereas the Crown Proceeding Act, may be relevant charter law standing above case law, there is no provision of “immunity” for performance of restitution under laws of equity. By right of higher standing, Laws of Equity exceed acts and / or pretenses presented by charter laws.

---

Who has the Right to Conclude?

The letter from the Attorney General’s office ends with:

“Conclusion

13. There is no claim here. Judicial immunity - at common law and in the statutory forms discussed above - leaves no room for this claim to succeed.

14. The sheer breadth of the immunity doctrine means there are no further amendments the plaintiff can make to create a viable claim on these facts.

15. The court should dismiss this claim without leave to further amend and grant the Attorney General her costs.-7 -”

What are your thoughts? Should all 3 conclusions from the Attorney General be rejected?

Leave your thoughts in the comments.