As some of you know I have launched a lawsuit against CSIS and the RCMP. In Canadian Federal Law I am required to list my actions against the government, I did so laying out my points of contention, including the employment interference and flagging at the U.S border by the Canadian government. I am seeking damages and more importantly accountability for the persecution for lack of a better word which I have experienced over the last 6 years (and beyond).
Surprisingly (though not to me), the government did NOT deny my accusations, which would send a strong message to the courts, instead the Crown sent me multiple pages of requests designed to delay and avoid any courtroom proceedings, and of course to threaten me with costs. This is the standard attempt to deny clients access to justice without directly stating so, (see the breach of contract launched by John Farrell against CSIS as an example), while an innocent party would simply deny the allegations and await the plantiffs' response, the Crown decided to play legal games with their citizens in an attempt to start a "war of attrition"; their unlimited budget versus the average Joes. This is much worse in Canada where we have very limited organizations who will assist financially during a human rights cause.
The standard response to an accusations is one of the following:
1. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs _____ of the statement of claim.
2. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs _____ of the statement of claim.
Even in some odd cases (such as one which I read about where the Plantiff accused CSIS of implanting a device into his brain), the Crown simply denies the allegation and then in the courtroom a judge either sides or doesn't. In my case, the Crown did NOT deny my allegations (as is the norm). This lack of denial is extremely important as it at the very least acknowledges the merit of the lawsuit, and furthermore it essentially admits some guilt. CSIS and the RCMP obviously have something to hide (some detractors on the site have suggested otherwise).
It is early in the process, but the obvious question anyone would ask is, "why wouldn't they deny the allegations?" If no employment interference occurred, than why wouldn't they simple plead innocence?
I had a massively redacted file sent to me when I requested it with a great deal denied access to due to "National Security". The all powerful (in Canada) National Security claim is invoked against a man who has no criminal record and have not been charged or even accused of anything? How much guilt can a party infer without even stepping into a courtroom?
I will keep people posted..