University of Lethbridge’s “Certified Record of Proceeding”

Wow Frances. Your dubious friends in the legal profession have taken about 3 months to go from Rule 3.15 (1) to Rule 3.19 (2) of the Alberta Rules of Court. They’re moving along at a “blistering” legal pace, while it is probable that Jodie Gallais and her staff have done most of the work for which at least 3 lawyers are billing the so-called “system” at a hefty hourly rate. I’ve read your Affidavit and I think I saw the Affidavits of Viminitz and “the kid” somewhere. Where would their Affidavits be? At Carpay’s JCCF site? Please answer THE preceding non-controversial questions.

Ms. Gallais and/or staff have provided you and your lawyers with a cornucopia of libels against yourself, in accordance with 319.(2) of The Rules of Court. Those libels constitute criminal libels (contrary to Sect. 301. of Canada’s Criminal Code) because they prove these dolts to be accessories-after [23.(1) C.C.C.] to the fraud of Sinclair, et alia of the TRC, against the Canadian public, in collusion with the AFN Chiefs whose people benefited from the so-called “Day Scholars” suit, in the sum of an approximate 2.8 Billion dollar fraud. The libellers of yourself are, arguably, also concealers and compounders of Sinclair et alia’s indictable fraud offence/s per Sect. 141. (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Lawyers like to dump all this sort of “crap” on individuals in law suits as an attempt to overwhelm them with the mere volume of information/disinformation. The trick is to ignore most of it and pick one stupidly-JUICY libeller of yourself and concentrate all your attention on the mere single libeller. And for your case, there is no one better than Carolyn Hodes. She is as dumb as the proverbial sack of hammers. I love this statement of Ms. Hodes, quote:

HODES: Academic inquiry is dead when academic freedom promotes and protects hatred and psycho-social abuse and when people silence dissenting voices through lawsuits against those they disagree with. -Dr. Carolyn ‘Woke’ Hodes.

ANALYSIS: The only kind of “voice” that one may silence “through lawsuits” is a crook who has the “right to remain silent” and to be “presumed innocent”. Everyone else must prove their cases by means of a lot of talking, put to writing and known as evidence. Thus every “assenting voice” and “dissenting voice” has the RIGHT to quote: “A fair and public hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of their rights and obligations by an independent and impartial tribunal.” [Canadian Bill of Rights 2.(e) and 2.(f) combined], otherwise known as a “Court”.

To win a law case in a criminal matter, one requires both a preponderance of evidence and the sort of evidence which is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil law case, by contrast, one requires only a preponderance of evidence. That means, in short, the one who speaks the most, without lying, is going to win such a law case because of the definition of evidence. According to British Common Law, the definition of “evidence” reads, quote: [118. C.C.C.; “evidence”] ” ‘evidence’ or ‘statement’ means an assertion of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, whether material or not and whether admissible or not;”

Thus, far from silencing either “dissenting” or “assenting” voices, Courts of Law are places where one may literally TALK ONE’S HEAD OFF, as much as one wants. So, Hodes is all wrong on her thinking of law suits being used to silence dissent. Courts encourage the hearing of both dissent and assent. And they are not very good at silencing criminals. They may silence them after 14 – 20 years of Court cases and appeals! That is a lot of yakking before certain types criminals are actually silenced. So, as usual, Hodes is a legal ignoramous as well as other sorts of ignoramous.

AS TO COURT WORKERS (those INDIRECT PARTIES; which include Judges, lawyers and Court Clerks): Of course, the lawyers do not want that (i.e. “talking one’s head off”) by DIRECT PARTIES, from either side of the case, because of the old adage — “Give ’em enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.”, which is often applicable to both DIRECT PARTY sides of any case of law. The lawyers like to do all the talking after a minimal number of facts have been presented. Their talk, as INDIRECT PARTIES to law cases, is of the OPINION or ARGUMENT variety of evidence. Citizens, who have their names on so-called Styles of Cause, as DIRECT PARTIES, provide the “Court” with the statements of “fact, knowledge or belief” kinds of evidence. Expert witnesses may also provide OPINIONS based on their knowledge of facts and their expert beliefs about those facts. So an expert witness may present all 4 kinds of evidence either verbally under Oath or Sworn in writing upon Affidavit evidence.

Many people think of evidence as fingerprints or DNA or rifling marks on bullets, etc. etc., but do not realize that this sort of MATERIAL EVIDENCE only becomes relevant to a Court case because of the EXPERT EVIDENCE, stated in either writing or “viva voce” (live voice), on a witness stand, by INDIRECT PARTY expert witnesses. That expert evidence and testimony allows lawyers and Judges/Justices to interpret what the physical evidence indicates or “means” with respect to an accused/defendant person.

A guy like Murray Sinclair who has represented liars at Court and then (as Judge) listened to all kinds of DIRECT PARTY liars at Court, after becoming a Justice, does not listen to or trust DIRECT PARTY so-called “eye witnesses” or eye-witness litigants. He doesn’t trust anything they say because people lie under stress. Nor does he trust cops or even the lawyers “beneath” him at Court. But he does trust EXPERT WITNESSES — like Scott Hamilton of Lakehead University who told him [page 15; pgph. 1; “Where are the children Buried?”] that there was a cemetery full of unmarked graves at the Kamloops Residential School and at Cowessess and at St. Eugene’s Residential School at Cranbrook, sometime in 2015.

Sinclair would have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to fruit cakes like Kevin Annett or his drugged up or drunken “informants”. As a judge he’d listen skeptically to pairs or teams of lawyers on opposite sides of a case and agree with a majority decision of lawyers who had argued other lawyers into silence. He’d also listen to, as previously mentioned, the experts who helped silence the losing lawyer or the losing legal team. As a judge, he’d never listen to the litigants on either side, unless some lawyer employed the examined and/or cross-examined Affidavit evidence, or viva voce evidence of either litigant named as a DIRECT PARTY on either side of 2 cases of law [1. The prosecution case; 2. The defense case], in concert with a legal argument [opinion] as to what that evidence means.

In sum and in short, Judges TRUST all the sorts of described evidence of experts, unless expert evidence is contradictory. They are SCEPTICAL of the opinion/argument evidence of lawyers. They are entirely DUBIOUS of the evidence (truth, knowledge belief) of eye-witness litigants or 3rd party eye-witnesses.

HENCE, Sinclair “goofed” by trusting Hamilton’s EXPERT assertion [2015; Where are the Children Buried? Page 15.; pgph 1.; bottom] that the Kamloops School had unmarked graves in a presumed (by Hamilton) cemetery on school grounds. The actual cemetery, at Kamloops, was far away from the school and across the road from St. Joseph’s Church. But for Cowessess, Saskatchewan, and St. Eugene’s, at Cranbrook, the cemetery was close to the Residential School, the Church and a community facility. That was the case for most residential schools in Canada — Church, graveyard, school and community center all placed close to one another for the sake of efficiency. Kamloops, of course, was the exception to the general rule. Thus, when Casimir announced “remains” (May 27, 2021), Sinclair, similarly and confidently, asserted “bodies” (June 1, 2021) on his CBC broadcast and, again, “bodies” in his report to the parliamentary Standing Committee on Indigenous and Norther Affairs (June 3, 2021).

So all your talk of “Billy Remembers” or “moral panics” caused by stories of “Satanic cults”, is a complete and utterly patronizing “red herring”. You “think” that you are smarter than they are [“They” being people like Casimir, Sinclair, Littlechild and the players in the “disrobed” aboriginal industry]. You also think that you are much “smarter” than the general public whom you know they’ve duped. But you’re not that much smarter than they are either. It is not about “smarts”. It is about cunning — knowing the weaknesses of “the enemy” and their strengths as well. They used to be called “dirty lazy Indians”. They now say “abusive privileged settlers”. It’s the same abusive game of promote contempt for the enemy, while stealing him blind or abusing him/her. “They’ve” learned the game and have turned the table/s.

So get used to it, Frances. Sinclair and his ilk are smarter than you are about legal things and also about human nature. You are so Academic, you are almost like Socrates. If only the great gray “they” learn the truth according to Karl Marx [or anybody else — take your pick — Moses, Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Mohammed, Nietzsche, Sartre, Voltaire, Murray Sinclair, Grey Owl, Black Elk, David Suzuki, or even Jordan Peterson — Hell! Even Frances Widdowson is a rational space candidate], then they’ll become “good guys” and we’ll all live happily together hereafter in Academic “bliss”!!! As Plato said/thought:- When philosophers become Kings, or by divine dispensation, Kings become philosophers, then mankind’s troubles will end. He, too, was a naive Academic. Sorry Frances! Some people actually like to be bad guys and “kick the crap” out of their presumed/supposed enemies — JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT!

Murray Sinclair, his stupid child, Niigan, and Niigan’s apple-polishing friend, who gave the counter-lecture to your proposed Lethbridge lecture [Sean Carleton?], are just those kinds of guys. They’re having fun and you’re having a “firing” and a Court case. So quit being so damn “patronizing” and “superior”, having spent way too much time in Plato’s world of Academic “forums”, rather than his so-called “World of the Forms”, and get back down into the old real Cave and get “nasty” yourself — with Carolyn Hodes being a great place to start-on, as your LIBELER among many others libellers of you.

But Hodes is not your REAL TARGET. You are after her (actually the UofL’s) lawyer — the guy who had Ms. Jodie Gallais do all his work for him at the University of Lethbridge. Do you, in your wildest imagination, “think” that Mr. “big shot” lawyer (for an entire University), Tim Jorgenson, would risk his law degree and livelihood “defending” a dip-stick, twit-brained, libeller like Carolyn Hodes from a seriously concentrated attack on her stupid LIBELS of yourself, especially when you “suggest” that the reason Hodes is your libeller is to assist a fraud on the Canadian public as an “accessory after” to Murray Sinclair’s fraud, in collusion with Casimir and that Cowessess “clown”, Cadmus Delorme???

That is your job in a law Court, Frances. You throw the whole law book and everything else that you may [permissive construction of the law] throw at your opponents for anything “nasty” they say about yourself. You don’t try to prove that you’re a nice person, as you clearly did on your Affidavit. You’ve got your whole Curriculum Vitae there, approvals from all your like minded colleagues — I became exhausted at noticing how “great” you are when reading it all — all which is a waste of time and paper because THE LAW decrees that you are INNOCENT and as PURE and righteous as either the driven snow or (exclusive “or”) Archangels, in which you do not believe!

Judges don’t care about nice or good at Court. That is presumed. They are looking for something NASTY about “anyone” at Court. That’s their job. So show a Judge something NASTY against those who are accusing yourself. And there is lots of “nasty” there, because they are not only ignorant of the law, but they are also ignorant of the facts. 000071 is one of my favourites, quote:-

Yaddety “hate speech”… yaddety, yak yak … If your free speech rules at UofL do not allow you to cancel this womans speech, then the solution is simple, change your fucking rules. Yak, yak …

With KINDNESS
blacked out signature of a guess who —–> “black” person! A “KIND” black person (with a foul mouth)!!!

The first question you should have your lawyer ask Tim Jorgenson is:- Why has the University of Lethbridge blacked out the names of so many of the people who have libelled Ms. Widdowson? Lawyers hate to question other lawyers. Lawyers hate to answer questions — So ask questions of lawyers, particularly questions of Tim Jorgenson. I can’t imagine any corporate lawyer being a competent litigator. Litigators are rare birds in the legal profession. Never play defense when the law says that you are innocent. Always attack the libellers and fraud artists. You wrote the book. You know these people are fraud artists. So “disrobe them” at Court.

P.S. You’ve only one more day to assert LIBEL and “accessories” to COLLUSION and FRAUD at your arbitration. You should’ve attacked there too!

Kevin

Frances Widdowson! Did you cut me off from commenting on this fellow’s post??? Quote

COLLIN MAY (former Chief Alberta Human Rights commissioner — for about 10 minutes or so):-

Happy to announce that I have been invited to speak at the University of Lethbridge in January 2024. My working topic is: Political Correctness to Cancel Culture, My Journey Through the Land of Woke. With my experience of cancelation as the background, I’ll be talking about the history, dynamics and tactics of cancel culture, along with larger themes of how it relates to wokeness and democracy generally, the role played by activist academics and the academy, and the response of the legal profession to cancel culture and the weakness of legal remedies to combat cancel culture. And yes, I will be arguing that cancelation does exist and that it’s not simply a matter of “accountability”. I’ll post more on my talk when I have the exact date and venue.

WIDDOWSON (replied):- Frances Widdowson
Excellent. Collin May Have you seen this document – https://wokeacademy.info/university-of-lethbridges…/? University of Lethbridge’s “Certified Record of Proceeding” – The Woke Academy
WOKEACADEMY.INFO University of Lethbridge’s “Certified Record of Proceeding” – The Woke Academy University of Lethbridge’s “Certified Record of Proceeding” – The Woke Academy 2d

Collin May
Frances Widdowson I’ll take a look

So you are willing to ask this fellow a question. But you are apparently not willing to ask Tim Jorgenson a question — or alternatively have your lawyer ask Jorgenson my same suggested question as to who your libeled yourself. What are you doing Frances? How did his lawsuit against the Attorney General, who fired him, turn out?

Kevin

Frances Widdowson! Did you cut me off from commenting on this fellow’s post??? Quote

COLLIN MAY (former Chief Alberta Human Rights commissioner — for about 10 minutes or so):-

Happy to announce that I have been invited to speak at the University of Lethbridge in January 2024. My working topic is: Political Correctness to Cancel Culture, My Journey Through the Land of Woke. With my experience of cancelation as the background, I’ll be talking about the history, dynamics and tactics of cancel culture, along with larger themes of how it relates to wokeness and democracy generally, the role played by activist academics and the academy, and the response of the legal profession to cancel culture and the weakness of legal remedies to combat cancel culture. And yes, I will be arguing that cancelation does exist and that it’s not simply a matter of “accountability”. I’ll post more on my talk when I have the exact date and venue.

WIDDOWSON (replied):- Frances Widdowson
Excellent. Collin May Have you seen this document – https://wokeacademy.info/university-of-lethbridges…/? University of Lethbridge’s “Certified Record of Proceeding” – The Woke Academy
WOKEACADEMY.INFO University of Lethbridge’s “Certified Record of Proceeding” – The Woke Academy University of Lethbridge’s “Certified Record of Proceeding” – The Woke Academy 2d

Collin May
Frances Widdowson I’ll take a look

So you are willing to ask this fellow a question. But you are apparently not willing to ask Tim Jorgenson a question — or alternatively have your lawyer ask Jorgenson my same suggested question as to who libeled yourself. What are you doing Frances? How did his lawsuit against the Attorney General, who fired him, turn out?

Kevin