Canadian Judicial Conspiracy Case
Back in Court
A Notice of Appeal was filed with the Court of Appeal for British Columbia on September 25, 2014.
According to knowledgeable sources, it is a relatively easy thing to influence by bribery or blackmail a single judge in a single case but it is far more difficult to bribe or blackmail 3, 5 or more judges.
The general consensus among observers is that Justice Heather Holmes was assigned to the case because she could be relied on to protect her former co-workers at the Department of Justice and Ministry of the Attorney General who engaged in criminal misconduct and adopted the legal strategy that led to the murder of Canadian Federal Court of Appeal Justice Carolyn Layden Stevenson on June 27, 2012 and possibly murder / execution of Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada Chief Justice Edmund Blanchard on June 27, 2014 - exactly two years later - like a mark or something telling us that the two events were related but with no other explanation - one chance in 365 but far more connected than that.
Lawyer John Waddell, Q.C., acting for Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson made a ridiculous argument before Justice Holmes when he argued that "Mr. Carten should be ashamed of himself because he asked me if I was a Freemason".
Editors Note: Prior to the hearing before Justice Holmes, John Waddell refused to disclose whether or not he was a Freemason.
When a lawyer refuses to admit whether or not he is a Freemason, it can be safely assumed that he is ashamed to admit he is a member.
Why is this?
Generally speaking, there is nothing shameful in being a Freemason, or it there ...?
Freemasonry appears to be a valid fraternal order dedicated to the self improvement of its members and general societal benevolence so why was John Waddell and three other government lawyers ashamed to admit they were member?
Well, when members of Freemasonry, lawyers judges or others, engage in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice in order to benefit brothers and sisters in Freemasonry they have something to be ashamed of because they know they are violating the very profession they chose to follow, they know they are violating the fundamental ethical principle they live by, they know they are guilty of criminal acts, seditious acts, acts that undermine the independence of the courts, one of the fundamental institutions of a free and democratic state and they wish to hide that fact.