Motion Reconsideration
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Motion Reconsideration

on

  • 1,246 views

Motion before the Federal Court;...

Motion before the Federal Court;
Bill of Costs as award of the Federal Court of Canada to the Right Honorable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi who won a case against three Crown lawyer
File T-1020-07

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,246
Views on SlideShare
1,246
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Motion Reconsideration Document Transcript

  • 1. 6 File No. T-1020-07 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Responding Party (Applicant) -and- KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI Moving Party (Respondent) MOVING PARTY’S SUBMISSIONS 1. The Moving Party asking for the reconsideration of the order O’Keefe J dated November 6, 2008, at the last term of the order that: the respondent shall have his costs of this motion and such costs shall be assessed by an assessment officer (“Order”) by amending the term to a lump sum awards of costs that may deem just; and the time be extended to the date of hearing of this motion by O’Keefe J. He is asking costs of this motion be fixed in amount of $1500.00 be paid forthwith in any event of the cause. COURT’S FILE O’Keefe Order, dated November 6, 2007, and Correction to the order dated December 21, 2007 2. The Moving Party disclosed evidence under the Oath indicating the Assessment Officer did not comply with the Order, forcing him to file a motion for compliance. At the hearing of the motion, the Crown had private meeting with Kelen J who violated the basic principle of impartiality as a judge contrary to section 11(d) of the Charter; and unlawfully obstructed his full answer and defence that is clear violation of Section 7 of the Charter. Kelen J unlawfully have made indirect order to the assessment officer to not consider the “Self represented Respondent” claims of $60,000.00 for costs, and follow Tariff B pursuant to Rule 400(4); where none of party “officially” asked for such oppressive Order and purely made pursuant to unlawful agreement between Judge and the Crown. Thus the Moving Party moved before MacTavish J to se aside the Kelen Order pursuant to Rule 399(2)(b) that the Crown Obtained Order by FRAUD. MacTavish J paid full attention to the parties’ arguments and reserved her judgment. MOTION RECORD AFFIDAVIT OF MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI SWORN February 27, 2008 COURT’S FILE AFFIDAVITS OF MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI SWORN February 5 & 20, 2008
  • 2. CROWN MOTION RECORD dated February 6, 2008 Kelen Order dated February 11, 2008 7 2 3. It is important to take the judiciary note that did not comply with O’Keefe Order and denied to file a response why should not be condemned before Kelen and MacTavish JJ. Furthermore the Crown did not represent any defence on behalf of the assessment officer. IN PARTICULAR: On February 13, 2008, the Moving Party moved to set aside Kelen Order. However, the transmission of Notice of Motion was maliciously interrupted, and there are 17 fax records as the proofs. On February 14, 2008, the assessment officer issued a direction for March 4, 3008 On February 15, 2008, the Registry put a note on the record indicating rejecting to file Notice of Motion dated February 13, 2008. Therefore, The Moving Party honestly believes that the assessment officer constructed the aforesaid to escape the liability. MOTION RECORD AFFIDAVIT OF MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI SWORN February 27, 2008 COURT INDEX All notes between February 14 and 15, 2008 4. It is respectfully submitted that the principle of impartiality of the assessment officer were violated by Kelen Order and the fact that the Moving Party accused the assessment officer for conspiracy is grounds for bias. MOTION RECORD AFFIDAVIT OF MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI SWORN February 27, 2008 5. The Order does not clearly address that the times of self represented respondent be considered for award of costs. Having considered submissions it is just that the Honourable Mr. Justice O’Keefe himself reconsider his order in the term of costs a lump sum awards of costs, on His Honour discretion be awarded to the Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi, pursuant to Rule 397(1)(a)(b) of the Federal Courts Rules. 6. Rule 397 (1) instructed:” Within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other times that the Court may allow, party may serve and file a notice of motion to request that the Court, as constituted at the time the order was made, reconsider its terms…”; and Rule 8 allowing the time be extended from November 16, 2007 to a date that this motion be heard by O’Keefe J. ALL WHICH RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED DATED IN TORONTO THIS February 27, 2008
  • 3. MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI File No. T-1020-07 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Responding Party (Applicant) -and- KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI Moving Party (Respondent) NOTICE OF MOTION TAKE NOTICE THAT the Moving Party will make a motion to Honourable Mr. Justice John O’Keefe (“O’Keefe J”) on Monday, March 3rd, 2008, at 9:30 AM, or as soon as thereafter the motion can be heard, at 180 Queen Street West, Toronto. The Moving party requires two hours for the hearing of this motion. THE MOTION IS FOR: a. The reconsideration of the order O’Keefe J dated November 6, 2008, at the last term of the order that: the respondent shall have his costs of this motion and such costs shall be assessed by an assessment officer (“Order”) by amending the term to a lump sum awards of costs that may deem just; and the time be extended to the date of hearing of this motion by O’Keefe J. b. The costs of this motion be fixed in amount of $1500.00 to be paid forthwith. c. Such other relief that the Moving Party may ask and may be permitted. THE GROUNDS OF THE MOTION ARE: 1. On November 6, 2007 O’Keefe J struck out the Notice of Application and ordered an Assessment Officer (“Stinson AO”) assesses Major’s costs. Major informed the Court that the Order had clerical mistakes. On December 21, 2007, the correction was made. 2. In sudden the Crown increased wrongdoing against Major and revenge by asking hackers to target all his banking and credits’ accounts ended to enormous errors and torts. The Crown trespassed the Federal Court’s Index data and facsimile; and obstructed his access to the correction made for the Order on December 21, 2007. 3. On December 3, 2007, Major filed the Bill of Costs claimed $60000.00, for his times spent. However, Stinson AO intentionally did not comply with the Order and did not issue the Notice of Appointment for Assessment. On February 5, 2008, Major filed a Motion returnable February 11, asking the Court condemn Stinson AO for not complying with the Order, and accused Stinson for conspiracy with the Crown against the Order, and filed affidavit indicating sample of ample crimes and wrongdoing against him.
  • 4. 2 4. On February 6, 2008, Counsel Porteous signed a written submissions in which confirmed the order and made no opposition to the Bill of Costs. However, disclosed her letter addressed to the Administrator dated January 25, 2008 [mistyped 2007] and misrepresented many facts inter alia falsely emphasized that at least 17 Orders of costs were outstanding against Major. Major in Reply asked the Court strike out the letter. 5. On February 11, 2008, the Crown held a private communication with Kelen J prior to the hearing of Motion; and went through details of the Bill of Costs, and asked Kelen J accept a draft Order prepared by the Crown, that Porteous brought with herself to the courtroom, prior Kelen J entering to the courtroom at 9:38AM. Kelen J did not allow Major’s submission and commenced cross-examining Major for his Bill of Costs and demanded answers. Major saw that there were court reporter, and two clerks, in which a black female clerk was writing almost each words of Kelen J who has objection to the Bill of Costs and stated that Major should not be compensated for his times spent, and Stinson AO must only follow Tariff B. Kelen J stated having power to award his costs, if he removes claims for his times, Major submitted that he was before the court to get compliance of Stinson AO with the Order. Kelen J unlawfully gave indirect direction to Stinson AO pursuant to Rule 400(3) to not compensate “self represented” times spent and relied asked Porteous to bring a case of law with herself “Turner v. Canada” to the court and disclosed to the file. 6. On February 13, 2008, Major served a motion that the Crown obtained Kelen Order by FRAUD, where MacTavish J heard on February 25, where Major submitted inter alia Porteous entered to the courtroom with draft Order and case of law, where she neither objected to Bill of Costs on her written submission nor referred to any authority, and concluded that Kelen J made his decision. Porteous did not deny that had the draft order etc. MacTavish J reserved her judgment. 7. On February 14, 2008, Stinson AO issued a direction that on March 4, 2008 he would hold the assessment process. Major honestly believes that Stinson AO planned and the Crown planned: a) to make the issue moot before MacTavish J; b) Stinson AO will follow certain objects of the Crown and direction of Kelen J, and he would be prejudiced. In particular there are a reasonable grounds of conflict of interest and bias that it is just O’Keefe J reconsider the last term of his order and a lump sum awards of costs that consider the times that Major spent since June 5, 2007. Furthermore the evidence on the Court Index indicating Major had continuous contact with the Court to enforce the Order that justifying the extension of time for hearing of this motion. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY evidence will be used ar the hearing of the motion: 1. Affidavit of Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi and the Exhibits thereto; 2. Court File & Rules 397(1), 400 of Federal Courts Rules; ss.7, 11d of Charter. Dated in Toronto, February 25, 2008 MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI 608-456 College Street, Toronto, ON, M6G 4A3 File No. T-1020-07
  • 5. FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Responding Party (Applicant) -and- KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI Moving Party (Respondent) ______________________________________________________________________ MOTION RECORD Rules 397(1)(a)(b) of the Federal Court Rules Motion Before Honourable Mr. Justice O’Keefe for Reconsideration of Order made on November 6, 2007 Moving Party His Own Attorney: Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi 608-456 College Street Dated February 27, 2008 Toronto, ON M6G 4A3 Responding Party: Amy Porteous, Deputy Attorney General of Canada 3400-130 King Street West, Toronto, ON Fax: 416 973 0809 Administrator: Federal Court, Toronto Office Fax 416 954 5068 Administrator shall use caution in filing Affidavit of Service by the Crown where Personal Service alleged to reduce the Courts’ loads and save the judiciary resources File No. T-1020-07 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN:
  • 6. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Responding Party (Applicant) -and- KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI Moving Party (Respondent) AFFIDAVIT OF MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI I, Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi, the resident of 608-456 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, SWEAR THAT: 1. I am pro se as such have a personal knowledge of facts deposed to. 2. Since 1993 I am party in many civil proceedings in all courts. However, in none of cases an order made that the assessment officer assesses my costs. Thus, in this part I have no experience. 3. On June 4, 2007, the Crown filed this vexatious application against me. I filed immediately a Motion to strike out the Notice of Application, returnable June 11. But, the Department of Justice intentionally delayed admission of service; as a result, I changed the date to June 25; because on June 18, The Ontario Crown had a motion against my Charter Application SM31-06. I honestly believe that the Crown on June 11 had private meeting with Ontario Justice Nordheimer and has shown Nine Volumes of Application Record in this file in T-1020-07 that had intention to declare me as vexatious litigant asking Nordheimer J issues the same Order against me, who unlawfully accepted. Therefore, the Crown was successful in it first object of conspiracy against the Judiciary and me. On June 25 I brought it to attention of Mr. Justice O’Keefe, where Porteous for the Crown entered into the courtroom with two boxes of said Application Record and asked from O’Keefe J to serve it to me that the learned judge order: “I think you have to follow the rules” and in fact denied the Crown’s unlawful request. 4. O’Keefe J reserved his judgment. I had a lot of worries and I could not plan. Finally in November 2007 I wrote a letter to O’Keefe J and asked his order be released and I also asked for a lump sum awards of costs $10,000.00 5. On November 6, 2007, O’Keefe J dismissed the Crown’s application and awarded costs to me to be assessed by the assessment officer (“Order”). There is no doubt that my family and I became very happy and we celebrated the wining as self represented Iranian Muslim against Three Oppressive Lawyers of the Department of Justice who with bad faith and dishonestly on JANUARY 26, 2006 have obtained the consent of Attorney General to file this application of JUNE 4, 2007. 2 In 2006 the Crown had misleading information that I would file two judicial review applications against RCMP Commission and SIRC for rejecting the part of my complaints that they were involved in a conspiracy with the Crown against me. Although
  • 7. bought federal tribunal found part of my complaints against their staffs had merits. 6. I found few typing errors and asked the Order O’Keefe J and I asked to be corrected. I had knowledge that would not effect the enforcement of the Order. Thus, on December 3, 2007, I served and filed the Bill of Costs and an affidavit in it support. I claimed $60,000.00, which was claim for my times, for drafting all my submissions. Since June 2007; I had seven personal services of documents to the Crown, in which the costs of personal service of documents in Toronto is between $50 to $100. According to my affidavits at least, I had 21 attendances at the Federal Court solely for purpose of this file. I traveled numerously from my home to Canada Post Office to receive the registered mails sent by the Crown and the Court. I have numerous records of sending documents and letter by fax to the Crown and the Registry. 7. Since June 2007 I am victim of countless wrongdoings by the Crown and its agents. The Crown targeted me with malice and crimes to win. The particular of all said crimes are disclosed in my affidavit that I filed on December 3, 2007, February 5 & 20, 2008. I rely on them in this affidavit to. They are part of record; I am not disclosing them. 8. On February 6, 2008, Counsel Porteous signed a written submissions in which confirmed the order and made no opposition to the Bill of Costs. However, disclosed her letter addressed to the Administrator dated January 25, 2008 [mistyped 2007] and misrepresented many facts inter alia falsely emphasized that at least 17 Orders of costs were outstanding against me. I in Reply asked the Court strike out the letter. However Kelen J with high handed manner return my Reply and harassed me to charge me with costs, where Porteous in written and oral submissions did not ask. Kelen J rejected my Reply dated February 11, 2008, because he already outside the courtroom had made his judgment, and was not ready to not sign the draft order that unlawfully agreed on it. 9. On February 11, 2008, the Crown held a private communication with Kelen J prior to the hearing of Motion; and went through details of the Bill of Costs, and asked Kelen J accept a draft Order prepared by the Crown, that Porteous brought with herself to the courtroom, prior Kelen J entering to the courtroom at 9:38AM. Kelen J did not allow my submission and commenced cross-examining me on my Bill of Costs and demanded answers. I saw that there were court reporter, and two clerks, in which a black female clerk was writing almost each words of Kelen J who has objection to the Bill of Costs and stated that Major should not be compensated for his times spent, and Stinson AO must only follow Tariff B. Kelen J asked Porteous open a book and show me the Rule and Tariff B, and she did, and stated having power to award my costs, if I remove my claim for my times. I submitted that I was before the court to get compliance of Stinson AO with the Order of O’Keefe J. I did not consent Kelen J to proceed in award of my costs, as he has already have proven to me he was biased. 3 10. Kelen J unlawfully gave indirect direction to Stinson AO pursuant to Rule 400(3) to not compensate “self represented” times spent and relied asked Porteous to bring a case of law with herself “Turner v. Canada” to the court and disclosed to the file.
  • 8. 11. On February 13, 2008, I served a motion that the Crown obtained Kelen Order by FRAUD, where MacTavish J heard on February 25, where Major submitted inter alia Porteous entered to the courtroom with draft Order and case of law, where she neither objected to Bill of Costs on her written submission nor referred to any authority, and concluded that Kelen J made his decision. Porteous did not deny that had the draft order etc. MacTavish J reserved her judgment. 12. While I was trying to serve my Notice of Motion dated February 13, 2007, which usually takes 30 minutes of my time. I saw that all transmissions were failed. Therefore, I attempted 17 times until I got confirmations of transmissions. Shockingly, John DOE and I have seen that the Federal Court’s Fax number was automatically redirecting to another number that I did NOT find on the Federal Court’s record of fax numbers, which was Fax 416 954 5066, instead of Fax 416 954 5068. I had knowledge that the Registry would alleged that I entered by mistake the figure of “6” instead of “8” in the last number, thus I tried several times to prove that there was interference. Soon I discovered that they said wrongdoing has committed solely to moot the issue in my motion, because on next day Stinson issued a direction and o February 15, 2008, the Registry put a note and rejected my Notice of Motion. However, as far as I was 100% sure that there was a fraud & conspiracy thus I filed served my Motion Record on February 20, 2008. 13. On February 14, 2008, Stinson AO issued a direction that on March 4, 2008 he would hold the assessment process. I honestly believes that Stinson AO and the Crown planned against O’Keefe J, the following are sample of my reasons: a) to make the issue moot before MacTavish J; as the learned judge referred to; b) Stinson AO will follow certain objects of the Crown and direction of Kelen J, and he would be prejudiced. In particular there are a reasonable grounds of conflict of interest and bias that it is just O’Keefe J reconsider the last term of his order and a lump sum awards of costs that consider the times that I spent since June 5, 2007. Furthermore the evidence on the Court Index indicating I had continuous contact with the Court to enforce the Order that justifying the extension of time for hearing of this motion. Therefore. There was no negligence on my part whatsoever, allowing the Court to grant my request for extension of time from November 16, 2007 to a day that my motion be heard by O’Keefe J. SWORN before me at the ) City of Toronto, Ontario ) MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI On this February 27, 2008 ) TABLE No. Description Date Page 1. Notice of Motion February 25, 2008 1 2. Affidavit of Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi, sworn February 27, 2008 3
  • 9. 3. Moving Party Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi’ Submissions February 27, 2008