abdur kull Saayuaat by wah saamus temt-ta
Begin All Things By First Using The All
Canadian Judicial CouncilOttawa, OnK1A OW8
Complaint against Justice D.L. Shelley – Edmonton Law CourtsRe: Alberta Court of Queens Bench Justice D. L. Shelley September 1 2010, Court Room 316, Edmonton LawCourts.On September 1 2010, in court room 316 of the Edmonton Law Courts, Justice D.L. Shelley Presided over casenumber: 1003 001152. I asked Justice Shelley if she would be signing any orders in which she replied “itdepends on whether we are proceeding” ( see page 9 line 4 of attached court transcript). When it was obviousthat Justice had a Judicial Bias in favor of the Defendants( who were noted In Default back on March 1 2010), Iasked Justice Shelley “why she was sitting on the bench without her Gown and Red Scarf as required byAlberta Court Rules” ( see: Queens Bench Notes to the Profession page 30 – requiring Justices in all civilproceedings to be gowned).According to court rule 142 (1) (a) (b) ( Refer to attached Court transcript) once no demand notice and nostatement of defense has been filed, and upon proof of affidavit which was not only filed in the case, I also hadpresent with me in court that day, the Plaintiff can note the Defendant in Default. The Defendants did notanswer affidavits sent to them and have stayed silent since March 1 2010. Justice D.L. Shelley not onlyconsistently cut me off from speaking every time I tried to tender evidence to the clerk ( court TranscriptsAttached) – privation of rights and denial of due process – she ruled in favor of the Defendants who were put inDefault and had been in Default for six months(her order was appealed and is currently in Appeals Court of Alberta).The Defendants did not respond and by Alberta Court Rules we had a right for the orders to either be signed byJustice Shelley that day or since she was not qualified to sit on the bench and did not deny nor object to mepresenting that fact to the clerk of the court, that I was correct in pointing that out to her requiring her to recuseherself immeadiately from adjudicating that day. Justice Shelley’s conduct on the bench, knowing she was notproperly gowned and her belligerent attitude to toward me, by obstructing my opportunity to speak – numeroustimes – in court that day when bringing up points of law, speaks to her complicity in deliberately beinginstructed to removing the Praecipe to Note in Default off of Starwood Hotels et. Al, knowing the Defendantswere in default for six months, contrary to Alberta Rules of Court, and said nothing to dispute the fact, therebygiving tacit consent to the fact that Starwood Hotels is in-fact, Default. Starwood Hotels, stayed silent and filedno objection within the time allowed by Alberta Rules of Court thereby giving tacit consent to their losing thelawsuit.Justice Shelley should have recognized that, or she did know that and deliberately refused to obey the law, andthe fact she was not in proper attire and should have recused herself instanter from the bench. Justice Shelley’sconduct speaks to deliberately conducting a fraudulent court proceeding and a deliberate miscarriage of justice.