起訴加拿大皇家騎警（續3）

 

Federal Court of Appeal

A-301-23

BETWEEN:

Xin Wang

Appellant

and

His Majesty The King

Respondent

—------------------

Appellant Written Representation/Reply

 Appellant: Xin Wang

307 1st Ave W, Climax, SK S0N0N0 

3065102499, benkingfirst@gmail.com 

Respondent:Willemien Kruger

Counsel

Prairie Regional Office (Saskatoon)

410 - 22nd Street East, Suite 410, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 5T6

National Litigation Sector

Department of Justice Canada / Government of Canada

willemien.kruger@justice.gc.ca / Telephone 639-525-0595 / Fax 306-975-4030

A, Overview 

1,It is typical of the Order of Judge Lafrenière October 12,2023 (the Order) and the Respondent (Defendant) to give false conclusions about this case veiled in abstract principle discussions while providing no contents of substance as to how those principles are related to this particular case, without any material fact content and logical reasoning chain of thoughts about how those conclusions are based upon, only name labeling allegations throughout the entire Respondent Written Representation and the whole litigation process so far. The defendant's style of argument is like giving the Statement of Claim (T-918-23 ,the Claims) all the bad names, then hang it, no material facts and reasoning are needed. This is an irresponsible way of litigation because whoever responding to this name labeling job got nothing to work on, there's no fact to examine for relevancy and truthfulness and no chain of thoughts to check the causality. All you have are a bunch of bad name labels with no idea where they come from. The litigation is downgraded to a shouting match in this way.

2,The Respondent is desperate to strike down the Claims because its position is undefendable.

B,Attorney General of Canada (AGC) Materials 

3,The Appellant made no objection to including AGC materials in the Appeal Book. It is not the Appellant's responsibility to present the AGC materials in this motion. 

C,Proposed list of contents of the Appeal Book 

4,"38. The Respondent requests that this Court direct the content of the Appeal Book, Ordering the following documents form the content of the Appeal Book: 

a. Statement of Claim T-918-23;

b. Attorney General of Canada Motion Record and Motion to Strike; 

c. Xin Wang Reply Written Representations; 

d. Attorney General of Canada Reply Written Representations; 

e. The Order of the Honourable Justice Lafrenière dated October 12, 2023; and 

f. Notice of Appeal."(paragraph 38 of Respondent Written Representation)

5,This list is not a fair proposal. It has the AGC Motion Record of T-918-23, but not the Appellant's Motion Record of T-918-23, that will leave the proposed amended Statement of Claim(T-918-23) out of The Appeal Book, this Court would not be able to assess the proposed amended Statement of Claim to see if a leave to amend should be granted.  

6,The A-301-23 Motion Record of both parties and the Appellant's Reply have been strangely left out of the list as well. 

7,Instead of providing a fair coverage of the case for best justice results, It appears the Respondent is seeking to hide certain materials to mislead the Appeal process and result. It is consistent with the style of litigation by the Respondent throughout the entire litigation process, that's selectively to pick elements that suits its agenda and ignore elements that says otherwise and apply rules in the most strigent sense to others while feel free to break the Rules (the Federal Court Rules) when it comes for them to abide. This list is the best example of the Respondent's unfair practice. By the list of contents submitted by the Respondent, not only the Exhibits that the Respondent is trying to exclude from the Appeal Book, the Appellant Motion Record of T-918-23 has been left out of its list as well. This is not about new evidence, this is about to get rid of materials that are against the Respondent agenda. 

8,The Appellant submits the following list of contents of the Appeal Book:

a,Xin Wang Motion Record A-301-23

b,Applicant Written representation/Reply A-301-23

c,Xin Wang Motion Record T-918-23

d,Exhibit 1 Abnormal ultrasound radiation log 

e,Exhibit 2 (also Exhibit 4 for case T-1451-23) Written Representation 1 at detention and treatment hearing before the Mental Health Review Panel, AB

f,Exhibit 3(also Exhibit 5 for case T-1451-23) Written Representation 2 at detention and treatment hearing before the Mental Health Review Panel,AB

g, Exhibit 4 Memorandum of facts and laws T-1451-23

h,Attorney General of Canada (AGC)Motion Record and Motion to Strike T-918-23

i,Attorney General of Canada Written Representation A-301-23

j,Attorney General of Canada Reply Written Representations T-918-23 

C,Limited Contents of the Appeal Book 

9,"20. Respectfully, the Appellant has failed to establish a reasonable basis on which to

include the New Evidence. Similarly, the Appellant failed to demonstrate how or why the New Evidence is required to dispose of the issues on Appeal. The New Evidence amounts to no more than an attempt to re-litigate T-918-23, a matter 

already ruled upon." ( paragraph 20 of Respondent Written Representation)

10,Once again the Respondent declares no reasonable basis for the Exhibits 1-4 (the Exhibits, New Evidence) to be included in the Appeal Book, ignoring the fact that the Appellant has raised the following grounds: the denial of due diligence, the Deviation from procedure rule, Best interest of justice and substantial impact on the false rulings. 

11,All the Exhibits are directly related to the issues of thisAppeal. Exhibit 1 support the fact the Appellant is under ultrasound radiation attacks, which the Order denies. Exhibit 2, 3 and 4 proves the Appellant has no mental health issues that warrant any police actions, contrary to what the Order claims there is no police misconducts. They also proves The Appellant suffered substantial damages, which is denied by the Order as well.

12,All the denials of facts by the Order are tremendous factual errors that have to be corrected by the Appeal process. The Exhibits are the material substance to prove the truthfulness of the facts presented in T-918-23 and denied as true by the Order, therefore the Exhibits are required and useful in the Appeal Book fulfilling the Rule 343(2 )of Federal Court.

13, "c) New Evidence is Not Warranted . 21. The Respondent objects to the admission of the New Evidence on this Appeal. There are no special circumstances to warrant the introduction of fresh evidence, nor do the interests of justice require the New Evidence be admitted. With Respect, 

the Appellant’s bewildering materials are bereft of reason and of no assistance to the Appeal proceedings. 22. It is common practice that an Appeal Book includes only the documents forming 

the record at the Court of first instance.22 New evidence diverts an Appellate Court’s attention from its essential function — determining whether a judge erred on the basis of the material adduced by the parties.The Appeal process is not 

intended to allow the Appellant to prepare and present the record which it ought to have tendered in the first instance."(paragraph 21-22 of the Respondent Written Representation)

14,The Appellant is not appealing for a second chance. The appeal is about a denied first instance. Allowing leave to amend is not granting relitigation, we hardly have had much litigation so far, let alone relitigation. Striking down the Claims with marginal deficiencies at the beginning of the preceding is against the best interest of justice. 

15,The Order diverted itself from The Rules of Federal Court 221(a)(c) of finding cause of action and anything scandalous,frivolous or vexatious into making premature judgments about damages claims, police misconducts, delusional conspiracy ,questioning the existence of ultrasound cannons,etc. The Order did everything else except for what the Rules require it to do. Instead of finding any material fact that is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in the Claims, the Order ends up declaring a delusional conspiracy found. Instead of taking facts as true , the Order did exactly the opposite to deny all the facts presented in T-918-23 as true or as material facts. The Appellant didn't start the diversion and has been forced into presenting evidences in responses to those premature diversion judgments. Not allowing the Exhibits to be included in the Appeal Book is like saying the Order can divert anyway from the Rules while the Appellant is not allowed to respond accordingly. This is also another reason why the Order should be set aside. 

16,"24. While the Appellant requests an Order that the New Evidence be included in the Appeal Book, it was not brought pursuant to Rule 351 of the Federal Courts Rules. Further, the materials fail to address the test for admission of new evidence. Instead, it appears the Appellant suggests the Order of Justice Lafrenière deprived him of the ability to adduce further evidence. Respectfully, that is the purpose of a Motion 

to Strike. The Appellant’s Statement of Claim was struck as it was devoid of the possibility of success, nor could it be saved by amendment. An Appeal is not an opportunity to litigate what the Appellant deems a missed opportunity or a “premature judgment”."(paragraph 24 of the Respondent Written Representation)

17,The Appellant made it clear in the Notice of Motion to seek inclusion of Exhibits 1-4, so it is brought pursuant to Rules 351 of Federal Court Rules in the first place. If this request was not granted, there is no posibility of agreement on the contents, the Court has to decide the contents of the Appeal Book.

18,The Respondent claims the Exhibits can't not stand up to the tests of accepting new evidence but decline to put any of the 4 Exhibits to an actual test to show how those Exhibits fail to pass. Once again bad name labeling without any contents of substance. 

19,The Statement of Claim is struck down on the ground of being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious as the Order suggests, not because of no cause of action or devoid of success. If there were elements of scandalous, frivolous and vexatious nature, they were not fundamental flaws and can be amended or dropped completely. Stating the Statement of Claim cannot be saved by amendment is an exaggerated assessment. Not to mention the Defendant and the Order cannot point out any material fact that is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in the Claims. Any finding coming out of the Rules violating process can not be accepted. Not to mention the conclusion has no material facts to base upon and no reasoning chain of thoughts provided. This ruling is another bad name labeling without any factual and logical reasoning contents. 

20,the Exhibits provide evidence to support the facts presented in the Claims as true and believable, contrary to the claim by the Defendant and by the Order that there are no material facts to support the Claims. 

21,The Exhibits provides the solid factual base for the amended Claims to be acceptable by the Court as well. Therefore it is relevant in disposing the Appeal of granting leave to amend. Contrary to the Order ruling that the Claims are beyond repairable. 

22,"25. Pursuant to Rule 221(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, no evidence shall be heard on 

a motion for an order under Rule 221(1)(a).30 The Motion to Strike for T-918-23 was brought under Rule 221(a) and (c). As such, no evidence was proffered before the Federal Court in T-918-23. 26. The Appellant seemingly fails to understand the parameters of both a Motion to Strike and an Appeal. The Appellant’s position that had this New Evidence been before the Federal Court then the Motion to Strike would not have been granted, fails to appreciate the basis of a Motion to Strike and the governing Rules 221(1)(a) and 221(2).31 This Appeal is not an opportunity to remedy the Appellant’s short-lived litigation."(paragraph 25-26 of the Respondent Written Representation)

23,That is exactly the dilemma the Appellant is facing now. The Order doesn't follow the Motion to strike rules to take facts as true and made judgments that can only be possible after examination for discovery and trial. The appellant is either to adduce evidence in response or suffering from the consequences of other's Rules- breaking practices. 

24,"30. In Sauve, the Appellant’s statement of claim was not struck in its entirety, certain 

paragraphs remained. The Appellant sought to appeal several paragraphs struck by the Federal Court, with leave being granted to amend if necessary.34 For the case at bar, the claim was struck in its entirety, without leave to amend. Now, on Appeal, the Appellant seeks to introduce facts and evidence that did not appear in the record itself. 31. The New Evidence, nor any evidence, was before the Federal Court on the Motion to Strike. The Appellant is seeking this Court to include new facts that were not before the Federal Court. The New Evidence should not be included in the Appeal Book."(paragraph 30-31 of the Respondent Written Representation)

25, All the 4 Exhibits are not new facts, they only add more details to all the facts presented in the original Claims of T-918-23. They are a inherent part of the facts presented in T-918-23. Because the Order denies all facts of T-918-23 as true , like the fact in the Claim that the Appellant has been under ultrasound radiation attacks, which the Order rules that it is not possibly existing in reality, scientific evidence of Exhibit 1 is the best proof that the ruling is wrong. Had the Order had taken that fact as true, the Appellant wouldn't have to include the Exhibit 1 in the Appeal Book. Same for the police misconducts and damages facts presented in the Claims, which the Order refuses to take as true and rules that there's no police misconducts and no credible damage evidence, Exhibit 2-4 provides credible evidence that proves the ruling is wrong. Had the Order had taken these facts in T-918-23 as true, no need for Exhibits 2-4 at this stage of the preceding. It is because the Order deviates from the Motion to Strike rules the Appellant has to respond accordingly to provide evidence to support the truthfulness of the facts in the Claims of T-918-23. 

26,Another big difference is, in the Sauve case the judge followed the Rules of taking facts as true while in this case the Order declares the Rules does not apply.

27,"ii) New Documents are not relevant nor decisive or potentially decisive of an issue on Appeal. 32. The Respondent submits that the New Evidence is unrelated to the Appellant’s case 

and merely corroborates the findings of Justice Lafrenière in T-918-23. An “abnormal ultrasound radiation event log” and pleadings from unrelated hearings and Actions bear no relevance to the determination made on the Motion to Strike

under Rules 221(1)(a) and (c) of the Federal Courts Rules."(paragraph 32 of the Respondent Written Representation)

28,This paragraph self-contradicts. If the "New Evidence " is unrelated to the case, how does "unrelated evidence" corroborate with the findings of this case? T-1451-23 deals with the same set of facts as T-918-23, only for a different purpose of the Employment Insurance Act. If the same facts have no relevance in the determination of T-918-23, then what is the determination of T-918-23 based upon?

29,"iii) Credibility 34. The Respondent disputes the credibility of the New Evidence, particularly “Exhibit 1: Abnormal ultrasound radiation Event logs”. The Respondent submits that concerns with credibility are self-evident upon review of the materials, notably Exhibit 1."(paragraph 34 of the Respondent Written Representation)

30,The Respondent raises the credibility question about the Exhibits, claiming it is "self-evident" that they are not reliable. Whoever claiming a scientific evidence of Exhibit 1 ultrasound radiation log self-evidently incredible needs some sanity check. If we must get into forensic examination of Exhibit 1, it has been sent and preserved by the Google email system, the timing and location and recording can not be altered in any way by the Appellant and the source can be verified by the emailing system. Exhibits 2-3 were before the Mental Health Review Panel hearing and have witnesses and hearing records to back up if needed, Exhibit 2-4 also have the medical records to rely on and can be proved in the Court proceeding. 

31,"iv) The New Evidence, if believed, would not have affected the results of the Lower Court’s decision.35. Again, no evidence was proffered before the Federal Court on the Motion to Strike 

as per the Federal Courts Rules. As such, this evidence would have no effect on the 

decision of Justice Lafrenière in T-918-23. 36. In an alternative where evidence was available to a decision maker in T-918-23 on the Motion to Strike, the Respondent submits the New Evidence would not have affected the outcome."(paragraph 35-36 of the Respondent Written Representation)

32,The big if is that if the Judge had followed the Rules of taking facts as true, then yes, the New Evidence has no effect on the decision. If the Judge has based the decision upon denying the facts as true, then the believable evidence will have decisive effect to prove the decision is a mistake. 

33,If facts of believable evidence won't affect the outcome, then the outcome is made with a factual error. That is what the Appeal Court is made for.

34,"v) Special Circumstances 37. This Court’s residual discretion to admit fresh evidence in the interests of justice should be “exercised only in the clearest of cases and with great care.”37 Respectfully, it would not be in the interest of justice to admit the proposed New Evidence, nor are there are there any special circumstances to warrant the introduction of fresh evidence." (Paragraph 37 of the Respondent Written Representation)

35,It is a pretty special occasion when the Order declares the Rules does not apply because under normal circumstances the Rules apply. Otherwise it will be double standard when the case is special enough to deviate from the Rules but not special enough to allow new evidence in response. The best interest of justice will be eroded by the double standard treatment. 

Appellant: Xin Wang

307 1st Ave W, Climax, SK S0N0N0 

306 510 2499, benkingfirst@gmail.com 

仁義出，有大偽 151

 仁義出，有大偽 151

在平等有公道的社會中，沒人擁有主宰他人地位，對仁義的要求不那麼迫切，即便不仁義，也難造成嚴重損害。只有在沒有公道的不平等社會，才會強調擁有主宰地位的人要有仁義之心。仁義之心不能替代平等利益結構。

起訴加拿大皇家騎警4

 A, Overview 

1,It is typical of the Order of Judge Lafrenière October 12,2023 (the Order) and the Respondent (Defendant) to give false conclusions about this case veiled in abstract principle discussions while providing no contents of substance as to how those principles are related to this particular case, without any material fact content and logical reasoning chain of thoughts about how those conclusions are based upon, only name labeling allegations throughout the entire Respondent Written Representation and the whole litigation process so far. The defendant's style of argument is like giving the Statement of Claim (T-918-23 ,the Claims) all the bad names, then hang it, no material facts and reasoning are needed. This is an irresponsible way of litigation because whoever responding to this name labeling job got nothing to work on, there's no fact to examine for relevancy and truthfulness and no chain of thoughts to check the causality. All you have are a bunch of bad name labels with no idea where they come from. The litigation is downgraded to a shouting match in this way.

2,The Respondent is desperate to strike down the Claims because its position is undefendable.

B,Attorney General of Canada (AGC) Materials 

3,The Appellant made no objection to including AGC materials in the Appeal Book. It is not the Appellant's responsibility to present the AGC materials in this motion. 

C,Proposed list of contents of the Appeal Book 

4,"38. The Respondent requests that this Court direct the content of the Appeal Book, Ordering the following documents form the content of the Appeal Book: 

a. Statement of Claim T-918-23;

b. Attorney General of Canada Motion Record and Motion to Strike; 

c. Xin Wang Reply Written Representations; 

d. Attorney General of Canada Reply Written Representations; 

e. The Order of the Honourable Justice Lafrenière dated October 12, 2023; and 

f. Notice of Appeal."(paragraph 38 of Respondent Written Representation)

5,This list is not a fair proposal. It has the AGC Motion Record of T-918-23, but not the Appellant's Motion Record of T-918-23, that will leave the proposed amended Statement of Claim(T-918-23) out of The Appeal Book, this Court would not be able to assess the proposed amended Statement of Claim to see if a leave to amend should be granted.  

6,The A-301-23 Motion Record of both parties and the Appellant's Reply have been strangely left out of the list as well. 

7,Instead of providing a fair coverage of the case for best justice results, It appears the Respondent is seeking to hide certain materials to mislead the Appeal process and result. It is consistent with the style of litigation by the Respondent throughout the entire litigation process, that's selectively to pick elements that suits its agenda and ignore elements that says otherwise and apply rules in the most strigent sense to others while feel free to break the Rules (the Federal Court Rules) when it comes for them to abide. This list is the best example of the Respondent's unfair practice. By the list of contents submitted by the Respondent, not only the Exhibits that the Respondent is trying to exclude from the Appeal Book, the Appellant Motion Record of T-918-23 has been left out of its list as well. This is not about new evidence, this is about to get rid of materials that are against the Respondent agenda. 

8,The Appellant submits the following list of contents of the Appeal Book:

a,Xin Wang Motion Record A-301-23

b,Applicant Written representation/Reply A-301-23

c,Xin Wang Motion Record T-918-23

d,Exhibit 1 Abnormal ultrasound radiation log 

e,Exhibit 2 (also Exhibit 4 for case T-1451-23) Written Representation 1 at detention and treatment hearing before the Mental Health Review Panel, AB

f,Exhibit 3(also Exhibit 5 for case T-1451-23) Written Representation 2 at detention and treatment hearing before the Mental Health Review Panel,AB

g, Exhibit 4 Memorandum of facts and laws T-1451-23

h,Attorney General of Canada (AGC)Motion Record and Motion to Strike T-918-23

i,Attorney General of Canada Written Representation A-301-23

j,Attorney General of Canada Reply Written Representations T-918-23 

C,Limited Contents of the Appeal Book 

9,"20. Respectfully, the Appellant has failed to establish a reasonable basis on which to

include the New Evidence. Similarly, the Appellant failed to demonstrate how or why the New Evidence is required to dispose of the issues on Appeal. The New Evidence amounts to no more than an attempt to re-litigate T-918-23, a matter 

already ruled upon." ( paragraph 20 of Respondent Written Representation)

10,Once again the Respondent declares no reasonable basis for the Exhibits 1-4 (the Exhibits, New Evidence) to be included in the Appeal Book, ignoring the fact that the Appellant has raised the following grounds: the denial of due diligence, the Deviation from procedure rule, Best interest of justice and substantial impact on the false rulings. 

11,All the Exhibits are directly related to the issues of thisAppeal. Exhibit 1 support the fact the Appellant is under ultrasound radiation attacks, which the Order denies. Exhibit 2, 3 and 4 proves the Appellant has no mental health issues that warrant any police actions, contrary to what the Order claims there is no police misconducts. They also proves The Appellant suffered substantial damages, which is denied by the Order as well.

12,All the denials of facts by the Order are tremendous factual errors that have to be corrected by the Appeal process. The Exhibits are the material substance to prove the truthfulness of the facts presented in T-918-23 and denied as true by the Order, therefore the Exhibits are required and useful in the Appeal Book fulfilling the Rule 343(2 )of Federal Court.

13, "c) New Evidence is Not Warranted . 21. The Respondent objects to the admission of the New Evidence on this Appeal. There are no special circumstances to warrant the introduction of fresh evidence, nor do the interests of justice require the New Evidence be admitted. With Respect, 

the Appellant’s bewildering materials are bereft of reason and of no assistance to the Appeal proceedings. 22. It is common practice that an Appeal Book includes only the documents forming 

the record at the Court of first instance.22 New evidence diverts an Appellate Court’s attention from its essential function — determining whether a judge erred on the basis of the material adduced by the parties.The Appeal process is not 

intended to allow the Appellant to prepare and present the record which it ought to have tendered in the first instance."(paragraph 21-22 of the Respondent Written Representation)

14,The Appellant is not appealing for a second chance. The appeal is about a denied first instance. Allowing leave to amend is not granting relitigation, we hardly have had much litigation so far, let alone relitigation. Striking down the Claims with marginal deficiencies at the beginning of the preceding is against the best interest of justice. 

15,The Order diverted itself from The Rules of Federal Court 221(a)(c) of finding cause of action and anything scandalous,frivolous or vexatious into making premature judgments about damages claims, police misconducts, delusional conspiracy ,questioning the existence of ultrasound cannons,etc. The Order did everything else except for what the Rules require it to do. Instead of finding any material fact that is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in the Claims, the Order ends up declaring a delusional conspiracy found. Instead of taking facts as true , the Order did exactly the opposite to deny all the facts presented in T-918-23 as true or as material facts. The Appellant didn't start the diversion and has been forced into presenting evidences in responses to those premature diversion judgments. Not allowing the Exhibits to be included in the Appeal Book is like saying the Order can divert anyway from the Rules while the Appellant is not allowed to respond accordingly. This is also another reason why the Order should be set aside. 

16,"24. While the Appellant requests an Order that the New Evidence be included in the Appeal Book, it was not brought pursuant to Rule 351 of the Federal Courts Rules. Further, the materials fail to address the test for admission of new evidence. Instead, it appears the Appellant suggests the Order of Justice Lafrenière deprived him of the ability to adduce further evidence. Respectfully, that is the purpose of a Motion 

to Strike. The Appellant’s Statement of Claim was struck as it was devoid of the possibility of success, nor could it be saved by amendment. An Appeal is not an opportunity to litigate what the Appellant deems a missed opportunity or a “premature judgment”."(paragraph 24 of the Respondent Written Representation)

17,The Appellant made it clear in the Notice of Motion to seek inclusion of Exhibits 1-4, so it is brought pursuant to Rules 351 of Federal Court Rules in the first place. If this request was not granted, there is no posibility of agreement on the contents, the Court has to decide the contents of the Appeal Book.

18,The Respondent claims the Exhibits can't not stand up to the tests of accepting new evidence but decline to put any of the 4 Exhibits to an actual test to show how those Exhibits fail to pass. Once again bad name labeling without any contents of substance. 

19,The Statement of Claim is struck down on the ground of being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious as the Order suggests, not because of no cause of action or devoid of success. If there were elements of scandalous, frivolous and vexatious nature, they were not fundamental flaws and can be amended or dropped completely. Stating the Statement of Claim cannot be saved by amendment is an exaggerated assessment. Not to mention the Defendant and the Order cannot point out any material fact that is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in the Claims. Any finding coming out of the Rules violating process can not be accepted. Not to mention the conclusion has no material facts to base upon and no reasoning chain of thoughts provided. This ruling is another bad name labeling without any factual and logical reasoning contents. 

20,the Exhibits provide evidence to support the facts presented in the Claims as true and believable, contrary to the claim by the Defendant and by the Order that there are no material facts to support the Claims. 

21,The Exhibits provides the solid factual base for the amended Claims to be acceptable by the Court as well. Therefore it is relevant in disposing the Appeal of granting leave to amend. Contrary to the Order ruling that the Claims are beyond repairable. 

22,"25. Pursuant to Rule 221(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, no evidence shall be heard on 

a motion for an order under Rule 221(1)(a).30 The Motion to Strike for T-918-23 was brought under Rule 221(a) and (c). As such, no evidence was proffered before the Federal Court in T-918-23. 26. The Appellant seemingly fails to understand the parameters of both a Motion to Strike and an Appeal. The Appellant’s position that had this New Evidence been before the Federal Court then the Motion to Strike would not have been granted, fails to appreciate the basis of a Motion to Strike and the governing Rules 221(1)(a) and 221(2).31 This Appeal is not an opportunity to remedy the Appellant’s short-lived litigation."(paragraph 25-26 of the Respondent Written Representation)

23,That is exactly the dilemma the Appellant is facing now. The Order doesn't follow the Motion to strike rules to take facts as true and made judgments that can only be possible after examination for discovery and trial. The appellant is either to adduce evidence in response or suffering from the consequences of other's Rules- breaking practices. 

24,"30. In Sauve, the Appellant’s statement of claim was not struck in its entirety, certain 

paragraphs remained. The Appellant sought to appeal several paragraphs struck by the Federal Court, with leave being granted to amend if necessary.34 For the case at bar, the claim was struck in its entirety, without leave to amend. Now, on Appeal, the Appellant seeks to introduce facts and evidence that did not appear in the record itself. 31. The New Evidence, nor any evidence, was before the Federal Court on the Motion to Strike. The Appellant is seeking this Court to include new facts that were not before the Federal Court. The New Evidence should not be included in the Appeal Book."(paragraph 30-31 of the Respondent Written Representation)

25, All the 4 Exhibits are not new facts, they only add more details to all the facts presented in the original Claims of T-918-23. They are a inherent part of the facts presented in T-918-23. Because the Order denies all facts of T-918-23 as true , like the fact in the Claim that the Appellant has been under ultrasound radiation attacks, which the Order rules that it is not possibly existing in reality, scientific evidence of Exhibit 1 is the best proof that the ruling is wrong. Had the Order had taken that fact as true, the Appellant wouldn't have to include the Exhibit 1 in the Appeal Book. Same for the police misconducts and damages facts presented in the Claims, which the Order refuses to take as true and rules that there's no police misconducts and no credible damage evidence, Exhibit 2-4 provides credible evidence that proves the ruling is wrong. Had the Order had taken these facts in T-918-23 as true, no need for Exhibits 2-4 at this stage of the preceding. It is because the Order deviates from the Motion to Strike rules the Appellant has to respond accordingly to provide evidence to support the truthfulness of the facts in the Claims of T-918-23. 

26,Another big difference is, in the Sauve case the judge followed the Rules of taking facts as true while in this case the Order declares the Rules does not apply.

27,"ii) New Documents are not relevant nor decisive or potentially decisive of an issue on Appeal. 32. The Respondent submits that the New Evidence is unrelated to the Appellant’s case 

and merely corroborates the findings of Justice Lafrenière in T-918-23. An “abnormal ultrasound radiation event log” and pleadings from unrelated hearings and Actions bear no relevance to the determination made on the Motion to Strike

under Rules 221(1)(a) and (c) of the Federal Courts Rules."(paragraph 32 of the Respondent Written Representation)

28,This paragraph self-contradicts. If the "New Evidence " is unrelated to the case, how does "unrelated evidence" corroborate with the findings of this case? T-1451-23 deals with the same set of facts as T-918-23, only for a different purpose of the Employment Insurance Act. If the same facts have no relevance in the determination of T-918-23, then what is the determination of T-918-23 based upon?

29,"iii) Credibility 34. The Respondent disputes the credibility of the New Evidence, particularly “Exhibit 1: Abnormal ultrasound radiation Event logs”. The Respondent submits that concerns with credibility are self-evident upon review of the materials, notably Exhibit 1."(paragraph 34 of the Respondent Written Representation)

30,The Respondent raises the credibility question about the Exhibits, claiming it is "self-evident" that they are not reliable. Whoever claiming a scientific evidence of Exhibit 1 ultrasound radiation log self-evidently incredible needs some sanity check. If we must get into forensic examination of Exhibit 1, it has been sent and preserved by the Google email system, the timing and location and recording can not be altered in any way by the Appellant and the source can be verified by the emailing system. Exhibits 2-3 were before the Mental Health Review Panel hearing and have witnesses and hearing records to back up if needed, Exhibit 2-4 also have the medical records to rely on and can be proved in the Court proceeding. 

31,"iv) The New Evidence, if believed, would not have affected the results of the Lower Court’s decision.35. Again, no evidence was proffered before the Federal Court on the Motion to Strike 

as per the Federal Courts Rules. As such, this evidence would have no effect on the 

decision of Justice Lafrenière in T-918-23. 36. In an alternative where evidence was available to a decision maker in T-918-23 on the Motion to Strike, the Respondent submits the New Evidence would not have affected the outcome."(paragraph 35-36 of the Respondent Written Representation)

32,The big if is that if the Judge had followed the Rules of taking facts as true, then yes, the New Evidence has no effect on the decision. If the Judge has based the decision upon denying the facts as true, then the believable evidence will have decisive effect to prove the decision is a mistake. 

33,If facts of believable evidence won't affect the outcome, then the outcome is made with a factual error. That is what the Appeal Court is made for.

34,"v) Special Circumstances 37. This Court’s residual discretion to admit fresh evidence in the interests of justice should be “exercised only in the clearest of cases and with great care.”37 Respectfully, it would not be in the interest of justice to admit the proposed New Evidence, nor are there are there any special circumstances to warrant the introduction of fresh evidence." (Paragraph 37 of the Respondent Written Representation)

35,It is a pretty special occasion when the Order declares the Rules does not apply because under normal circumstances the Rules apply. Otherwise it will be double standard when the case is special enough to deviate from the Rules but not special enough to allow new evidence in response. The best interest of justice will be eroded by the double standard treatment. 

Appellant: Xin Wang

307 1st Ave W, Climax, SK S0N0N0 

306 510 2499, benkingfirst@gmail.com 

起訴加拿大皇家騎警3

 我與共產國際黑幫的官司149

共產國際黑幫控制範圍極广，幾乎覆蓋整個社會及政府部門。我起訴加拿大皇家騎警對我違法逮捕，違法將我送精神病院等侵犯人權案。被聯邦法官亂判。雖我已經上訴，但對司法黑暗十分失望。現將我的上訴案附上，供參考。

我與共產國際黑幫的官司150

現在我的被扣工資案被拖延快三年，現在還被扣押在法院，有判決不肯執行。玩弄程序漏洞來否決失業保險金。他們對政府的操控已經達到為所欲為的地步。

Federal Court of Appeal

A-301-23

BETWEEN:

Xin Wang 

                                                   Applicant (Appellant)

and

His Majesty The King 

                                                         Respondent 

—------------------

Applicant Written Representation 

‐—-----------------

Appellant: Xin Wang

307 1st Ave W, Climax, SK S0N0N0 

3065102499, benkingfirst@gmail.com 

Respondent :Willemien Kruger

Counsel

Prairie Regional Office (Saskatoon)

410 - 22nd Street East, Suite 410, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 5T6

National Litigation Sector

Department of Justice Canada / Government of Canada

willemien.kruger@justice.gc.ca / Telephone 639-525-0595 / Fax 306-975-4030

In light of no agreement on the contents of the Appeal Book A-301-23, indicated in the letter (Exhibit 5) sent by the Respondent to the Appellant.

The Appellant is seeking the order to include exhibits 1-4 into the Appeal Book on the following grounds:

1,Denied chance of presenting evidences

Since the Order struck down the Claims at the beginning of the preceding, skipping the examination for discovery stage, the appellant hasn't got the chance to exercise due diligence to present the evidences of exhibits 1-3. As the Appeal argues that:

 "D, Denial of facts and reality

    14,The preceding is still in the early stage, not in the examination for discovery, asking for details

and evidence is premature. Details not present now doesn't mean that they don't exist and cannot be discovered later on."(paragraph 14 of The Appeal)

2,Deviation from procedure rule

At the Motion to strike phase when all the facts are supposed to be taken as true to find out if the Claims presents any cause of action or whether it is scandalous about RCMP as the defendant claims. The Appellant did not expect the Order will go off track, to skip examination for discovery and trial, making premature judgments on presumed facts and/or no fact as the Appeal points out that:

""C,Presumed facts and premature judgements

    8,The Order states "[13] Finally, the Statement of Claim makes a number of allegations in relation

to the detainment of the Plaintiff in Alberta on or about June 20, 2021. Mental Health legislation, such as The Alberta Mental health Act, RSA 2000, c M-13 dictates that when a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person suffering from a mental disorder may cause harm to themselves or others, or should be examined in the interests of their own safety or the safety of others, the peace officer may apprehend the person and convey them to a facility or secure location for assessment and examination. The Statement of Claim does not plead any material facts to support an allegation of unreasonable tortious conduct by the RCMP members, nor a breach of applicable legislation.(paragraph 13 of The Order).

    9,The Order merely reiterates the legislation but does not offer any clue about what reasonable grounds are in this particular case. Not a single fact mentioned and not a single question answered. Simply Assuming police have reasonable grounds to act are presumed. 

    10,The Order claims there are no material facts to support allegations of misconduct. From the facts presented in the Claim, I find the police misconducts as:

     a, The Officer acted on false ground that I drove wearing a helmet and swerved dangerously on the Highway, which could be an intentional lie and breach of trust.

     b,on unreasonable ground to associate any harm with wearing a helmet.

     c, didn't perform any duties of a reasonable officer is supposed to do,to investigate and lay charges if offenses are committed. If the police account of events were true,the plaintiff should be charged with careless or dangerous driving. But the plaintiff wasn't charged for any offense. The bizarre driving allegation could also be the result of alcohol and/or drug use. The officer made no

effort to investigate.

     d, the police actions contradicts itself which is a strong indication of lying about what happened. If there was a danger in the driving, there should be a charge for that offense, if there is no danger, what is the ground to handcuff the plaintiff and send him to the hospital for examination?

     e, didn't disclose to the plaintiff what he had been accused of, violating the right to know.

     f, didn't advise any legal counseling.""(paragraph 8-10 of the Appeal)

3,Best interest of justice 

The Order denies that “under constant 24/7 ultrasound radiation attacks, there are sonic cannons installed around my house, the attackers chase me everywhere I go or stay, using all kinds of vehicles, choppers and airplanes, launching ultrasound bullets towards me.” The Order labels it as "These are bizarre allegations that are not founded on any material facts, let alone reality." (paragraph4 of the Order).

Since the Order has taken such an extreme view to deny any fact presented by the plaintiff as true or as material fact without going through any examination or trial, it is in the best interest of justice to bring in Exhibits 1-4 as evidences to justify the appeal, especially Exhibit 1 as scientific evidence to prove that the appellant is under the constant attack of abnormal ultrasound radiation. Therefore it is justified for the appellant to take protection measures, not because the appellant is delusional and obsessed with conspiracy as the Order suggests and discredit the plaintiff as such. As the Appeal argues that "30,All those actions with no probable cause including two unlawful searches, one unlawful arrest,one unlawful detention and seizure of property, two alcohol sobriety tests get reduced to my delusional conspiracy with one example of my explanation for motives?"(paragraph 30 of the Appeal). It appears that some of the marginal deficiencies have been used to defame the plaintiff as a delusional conspiracist to strike the Claims rather than any fatal flaw found with the Claims to disqualify it.

4,Substantial impact on the result 

The Order states that "There are no material facts pleaded that would support a claim for such substantial damages." (Paragraph 9 of the Order). Exhibit 4 was established in October 2023, much later than the Respondent brought the Motion to strike, and the Appellant has been trying to get the full medical records released but unsuccessful, this evidence proves the fact that the appellant has been detained unlawfully and suffered substantial damages.

November 16,2023

Appellant: Xin Wang

307 1st Ave W, Climax, SK S0N0N0 

3065102499, benkingfirst@gmail.com