Derek Thompson
207, 10305 116 Street.
Edmonton , Alberta.
T5K 1W5
780 249 3621.
October 2 ,2014 .
Registered Mail
Canadian Judicial Council
I am Making a complaint About a Justice K.G. Nielsen here in Edmonton Alberta .Here is why the back ground to the Complaint .
I Derek Thompson of above address have being going to A case management Justice K.G. Nielsen from the Alberta Queens Bench for a little over 2 years now . Here In Edmonton, Alberta. Court Action numbers : 1003 19708 and 1003 21570 .
I have many different complaints about him as you will see below .I am sure An investigation will show that Justice K.G. Nielsen has not met the high standard of personal conduct for Justices on many occasions along with a large amount of other infractions/breaches , which I am showing you below .
I give this to you first so you will have knowledge/proof of this complaint . That way you will can read this copy this, then copy it for your department and send it the CJC to see how they handle complaint . I am sure you will find more problems with CJC and how they handle this complaint . Which should help in your up coming changes and additions , which I seen from the website that you are going to do . Thank you .
I Derek Thompson am alleging that That Justice K. Nielsen acted in a manner on many occasions that might/HAS, weaken public respect for law and the Justice system and that such conduct is deserving of sanction.
I am alleging that Justice K. Nielsen failed to serve me a self represented person in a professional and fair way.
Page 2
That on many occasions Justice K. Nielsen favored a Lawyer over a self represented Person . Proof to follow below
I am alleging that Justice K. Nielsen has FAILED to do His duties and responsibilities as spelled out the Associated Chief Justice J.D. Rooke , notice to the Profession, ( Copy Enclosed )before and even after he was reminded of his duties and responsibilities on many occasions .
I am alleged that Justice K. Nielsen failed to be candid in his Fiats, and did not follow the Alberta rules of court 9.5 filed them without an application , that he also failed to supply me proof of such fiats after I requested them in the court room on a couple of occasions .
I am alleging , that Justice K.G Nielsen permitted funds/costs to a Lawyer even after, he was informed Union can not collect monies from Members according to their Local Bylaws until after the action is finalized and the Union Has won !!
It is alleged that Justice K.G. Nielsen engaged in conduct that brings discredit to the profession and that such conduct is conduct deserving of sanction.
It is alleged that Justice K.G. Nielsen improperly delegated his duties and responsibilities
I am alleging that Justice K.G. Nielsen has failed to serve me an self represented person in an equal and fair manner .
I am alleging that Justice K.G. Nielsen acted in a manner(s) , that might/HAS, weaken public respect for the law or justice system or in a manner that brought discredit to the profession and that such conduct is conduct deserving of sanction.
Page 3.
Justice K. Nielsen was in my opinion of making untruthful or misleading statements to me a self represented person . See proof in transcripts when you get themand from the dates and pages I have supplied below with this letter .
I am alleging that Justice Nielsen repeatedly failed to comply with the foundational rules of Court of the province of Alberta . even when the rules ( Part 1 ) were brought to his attention.
Justice K.Nielsen assisted Murray. Mcgown in related entities in an improper purpose, and that such conduct is conduct deserving of sanction.( 1). Giving me shit for actions Peggy Fryer ( Other Lawyers assistant ) purposely done (Other Lawyers Assistant.) against me. In a Court of Law , also communicating with the other Party without communicating /involving me in said communications about this problem .
That Justice K.Nielsen has failed to conduct himself with integrity and candour, and that such conduct is conduct deserving of sanction.
That Justice K.G. Nielsen engaged in conduct that impaired his capacity or motivation to provide competent services, and such conduct is conduct deserving of sanction/removal!
Lets look at the Foundational Rules of Court . the very beginning of the rules of court here in Alberta. Part 1 and 4:13 and 4 :14 !! Yet Justice Nielsen , Does not get it his duties or the meaning of the foundational rules of court or what he is to do to make this be timely , fair ,efficient and/ or ,he shows that his loyalty is with the lawyer , any you look at it this Justice K.G. Nielsen MUST BE FIRED AND THE GOLDEN HAND SHAKE HOLE PLUGGED ! What is the Golden Hand shake ? A lawyer , that goes to the Law Society dedicates part of his/her life to the loyalty and betterment of /for, the rest of the Lawyers here in Alberta . Then after years of working for the Law Society becomes the President of the Society . So now because his/her, loyalty to the Law
Page 2
Society and Lawyers in it there are giving a position as a Judge /Justice not because they have lots of court room experience with , procedures/trials and Filing of documents at the Court house but because their where good to the other LAWYERS AND THE Law Society
You will see what I mean, in this followingcomplaint , with Lots of PROOF !
How come Justice K.G. Nielsen Not get it ? And /or is his Loyalty too strong to let his Society brother down !!?? ( Remember he is a Past president of the Law Society of Alberta .!) I will show you/ prove to you , from the Official Transcripts as we go on what I mean .
I am alleging that Justice K.G. Nielsen has brought the administration of justice into disrepute on many of occasion’s .
I am alleged ( Among other complaints ) that Justice K.G. Nielsen used his position to take/create an unfair advantage over a self represented person .
I did not enclose Transcripts as I know you would want to get these your self to ensure they are accurate .
So To start with!
On January 20 , 2012 . I was in front Of Justice Nielsen with an application to set dates for theJudicial Dispute Resolutions . The other Lawyer did not serve me , his affidavits on time and tried to serve them to me at the court room just before court ! See page 6 , Ll.15 to 16 , Justice Nielsen tries to twist this around by saying I have to oblige by the same rules as Mr. Mcgown ( Like I am in the wrong ! This is BIG and just the start as you will see other Justices doing the same thing to self represented persons . Trying to make you think that you are the one that has done this part wrong ( In my opinion Straight out Liars!) Exposure may be the only way to get this changed ! ) Because when you see this is true that , the Justice should of denied Mcgowns affidavits , for not proper service to me
Page 3
andthere fore has nothing to rely on ! So what every I was requesting should have went through!
Further down ,page 15 ll. 32 to 41 . Justice Nielsen knows the unions are bond by theUnion By Laws andcan not change any thing . Still orders this part to be done .
Page 21 . Ll. 4 to 6 . Justice Nielsen own words : No application before him . Yet he proceeds ; breaking the rules of court in Alberta . Which is in Fact puts Justice Nielsen in Contempt of court . Now look at the bottom of
thepage 21 Ll. 36 to 39. Justice Nielsen does not even now what kind of action this is .and tries to mislead me into thinking I have done some thing wrong . But the fact is Justice Nielsen is wrong and must be terminated forthwith for trying to deceive a member of the public .
Page 26 . Justice Nielsen states on Ll. 36 to 38. “When a undertaking is given on an examination or questing like this , if it not objected to , by and large the case law says it must be complied with”. Yet in the very next breath / statements, of the Justice he makes me do undertakings I have complained about , even though the Defendants counsel has access to all this information through his client/ my employer . All the Defendants counsel has to do is ask his client for the information and he would have it all information on record at Union Hall. So now Justice K. Nielsen makes me supply this information .Now I have to write to Defense counsels to get copies to send to the Defendants counsel /Lawyer . Justice Nielsen Does not have a clue !and proves once again that the Lawyer wins in his court room no matter how plain and obvious things/ solutions are .
Then Justice Nielsen contradicts him self . On page 30 Ll. 10 to 18 . Now that I complain even more Justice Nielsen States “..it does sound to me to be a bit circular to have him write to the union or write to you to ask …” Yet that is what Justice Nielsen made me do with the other undertakings !? I had to get most of this information from
Page 4
the union and send it to the unions Lawyers !? This is just more facts of “ proof” that Justice Nielsen just makes it up as we go ! andcan not/ is not , correct in his rulings.
Now on page 29 Ll. 22 to 29 . Justice Nielsen lies to us , or does not know how the steps in a court trial go ! As any/all , Justices MUST KNOW THE BASICS ! See rules of Court . After the reply to the Defense is filed and served the Pleadings are close /over/ DONE !. You can not Amend your Statement of Defense after pleadings are closed ! Let me remind you that this Justice K. Nielsen was a past president of the Alberta Law Society and received the GOLDEN HAND SHAKE ! ,To become a Justice he was not a practicing Lawyer for quite some time when he receive this position ?
Look more proof .Page 32. Even though the documents The defense Lawyer wants, are in the affidavit of records which I have with me and can prove right there and then. Justice K. Nielsen says Ll. 28, 29.That if you have provide it already , so be it , then it is a duplication !!! This does not and should not have being directed , with proof in front of the Justice like that , only proving that Justice Nielsen shows and prove that he favors a Lawyer over a self represented person no matter what.
Page 33, 34, 35, same thing is in affidavit of records will not let me prove this then and there , but orders me to produce it twice !
Next issue same time and DatePage 38. . the Defendants want to know how much damages they will have to pay when they lose I ( Lose wages ) , so the defendants Lawyer wants to get copies of my income tax return for 2009 to 2011. To prove how much I would lost in wages . LL. 25 to 28 . Justice K. Nielsen states , that Mr. Mcgown and the union is entitled to know that so they can properly assess the damages. Well if their Lawyer and union is entitled to this information then aself represented person MUST be entitled also. I asked for the same income tax records I was to supply from the business Manger , (defendant ) and was refused . I mean really, how else can you find out how much lost monies there is if you don’t have both parties records . How can we know how much monies lost unless we both exchange income Tax Receipts =
Page 5
Example : Plaintiff makes $80,000. And the business manager makes $150,000. So the loss of that year is $70,000.
This complaint amongst other complaints with in is about the ability or non-ability , of Justice Nielsen to know what has to be done to be fair and to get the answer they/we, are looking for . You can not find out the lose in wages/differencewith only one set of figures .!! Major Warning Signs !! And you at the Canada Judicial Council must respond to this kind of complaint(S) To insure Justices are accountable.
If they do not know meaning of words , procedures rules of court , Justices bring the Law system in to Disrepute and to insure the people get a fair turn in court every day . To uphold a level of excellence and to NOT put the Judicial system into disrepute you must investigate to the fullest .
December 11 , 2012
Page 13 of transcript of same date Ll. 26 to 29 . I try to have Justice Nielsen establish some common ground , so we can shorten this action as per , part 1 of the rules of court in Alberta. Then Justice Nielsen answers for the other party !?( Why Is Justice Nielsen defending them ?) Page 14. Ll. 9 to 14 .
Page 28 .Ll. 20 to 29 . The other party/Lawyer , does not send me any letter stating they wanted something else so Justice Nielsen defends the Lawyer . Justice Nielsen is not the other parties Lawyer and should not defend them in any way . Any Justice that shows these loyalty and defends a Lawyer must be removed from his position/duties immediately .
Again on May 2 2013 . Page 19 Ll. 40,41, of transcript try to shorten this for trial .
January 28 ,2013.
I sent copies of my affidavits to Defendants Lawyer registered mail , but for some postal reason they did not get there on time . So I just did the same thing that same
Page 6
Lawyer did to me before in front of Justice Nielsen . . ( See January 20 2012. Above ) I served filed affidavits to him outside of the court room and he had time to read them . But with a different outcome this time but if you look at page 2 , Mr. Mcgown says he ,gets served just that morning and Ll. 11,12. I don’t know exactly how I am going to deal with this .( Page 9 ) Justice Nielsen said , Mr. Mcgown is seeking an adjournment He helps out the Lawyer on what to do but never a self represented person . I reminded Justice Nielsen about the other time it was reversed January 20, 2012 . Page 9 Ll. 20 to 25 .. Justice Nielsen replies Ll. 27,28. You didn’t ask for an adjournment to examine on those affidavits at that time did you . ( As you will read neither did Murray
Mcgown the defendants Lawyer ) Justice Nielsen does this for him like he is his Lawyer !!? I even noted to Justice Nielsen Ll. 34 to 37. The option wasn’t given to me …is/ was part of procedures ? , he should of asked me if I wanted to Adjourn like he did for other Lawyer. Justice Nielsen then through’s this into my face Ll. 39. I am not your Lawyer .Even though it is plain and obvious Justice Nielsen had just acted like he was Mr. Mcgowns Lawyer. It is Plain and obvious that Justice Nielsen DOES NOT let any self represented person win any thing in his court room or knows how to be fair and equal to both parties in an action ! What is good for one side must be good for the other side . Look at page 10 Ll. 2 to 4 By his own admission, Justice Nielsen is not following the Duties as described by Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke ( Enclosed ) or the Foundational rules of Court Part 1 ( Enclosed ) In fact he states “… To make sure the that the proceedings are fair to you” If the proceedings were fair to me then when Mr. Mcgown never served me with his defendants affidavits in the morning before court the last time and I had to deal with them , then It is only fair that when Murray Mcgown got served in the morning he should of had to deal with them also . OR I should of being
Page 7
informed by the Justice that the affidavits not served properly and I had the option of getting an adjournment to address them properly . Then to be fair Justice Nielsen could give that same option to Mr. Mcgown , To Adjourn if any documents were not served to him with in the prescribe time limits of the rules of court . .
I brought this information toJustice Nielsen attention, (In his Own Words ) Very , Very, serious Allegations . Why did the Justice not look into this allegations further ? Because it is a Lawyer that is in trouble !!.
Here is more .Page 23 to26 Justice Nielsen does not under stand whom the defendant is in the action number 1003 21570. Is . Justice Nielsen tries to tell me it is a corporation , but it is not ! He tries to mislead me and say a Lawyer is the defendant. The LAWYER IS THE DEFENDANTS COUNSEL NOT THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE . there fore the one questioned; will be the head of the union . The head person with the union that made the calls on the appeal process .The one that makes all the decisions . Justice Nielsen Does not know what is going on and is justMaking this up as he goes ! This demands termination!
See also Page 27 L. 37 and page 28 L. 11 . Justice Nielsen states he has an application before him to adjourn. There is no application before him ?!
Look at page 29 . Ll. 26 to 41 Justice Nielsen states You have an right to examine on an affidavit but when I say I will look that up in the rules of court , he changes his view Ll. 41 page 30 Ll.1 to41 Now it is a matter of practise . Nothing , no information on a matter of Practise for self represented persons .
Now look at Page 31 L, 6 Justice Nielsen tries to kill my case by adjourning Sine Die ( No one has made mention to sine die but Justice Nielsen tries to slide this through ??.) Truly more proof of unfair tactics from Justice Nielsen!
Page 8
Page 41 . In my opinion Justice Nielsen is miss leading me to sign orders that I don’t agree with and I am think about appealing?( so my appeal fails)