# 2 - Dec. 23, 2015 Response from MCU Mngr L. Bisson to N. Aletkina's 1-st Complaint

Correspondence on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Mailout

Wed 2015-12-23 3:30 PM'This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. '

 Dear Ms. Aletkina:

On behalf of the Honourable Jody Wilson‑Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of November 25, 2015, concerning your personal situation.

I regret that, due to a busy schedule during this period of transition, Minister Wilson‑Raybould is unable to meet with you at this time.

I understand why you have written to the Minister and asked for assistance. However, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Minister Wilson‑Raybould is mandated to provide legal advice only to the federal government. I hope you will understand that, for this reason, she is not able to provide legal advice to members of the public or to become involved in the situation you describe. Similarly, neither departmental officials nor members of her staff are in a position to help resolve the issues you raise.

The most useful suggestion that I can offer, given the situation you describe, is to seek the advice of a lawyer in private practice to determine the course of action that will best serve your needs. In Ontario, the Law Society Referral Service, operated by the Law Society of Upper Canada, can refer you to a lawyer or licensed paralegal who offers a 30‑minute consultation free of charge. The telephone number is 1‑800‑268‑8326. Further information about this service can be found at www.lsuc.on.ca/faq.aspx?id=2147486372. If hiring a lawyer in private practice is not financially possible, you may wish to consult with the legal aid office closest to you to determine whether you qualify for help.

 Thank you for writing.

 Yours sincerely,

 L. Bisson


Ministerial Correspondence Unit


ALETKINA's COMMENTS to MCU Manager L. Bisson’s REPLY dated December 23, 2015

1.  RE: "concerning your personal situation" - False representation.

My concerns are about fundamental public interest in investigating of the criminal offences, committed by the ‘MERGER’ of the state power elite with the corporate elite’ , acting as a ‘criminal organization’ formed by the ’justice system’s participants – judges, registrars, chief justices, senior legal officers, parliamentarians, ministers, etc. –who collectively, in a coordinated professionally managed way make sure that the human, civil and political rights and freedoms of “‘unwanted” Canadians (ill, disabled, native nations’, unwanted age, gender, race, nationality, religion, political views, unwanted witnesses of the elite’s crimes) are effectively de-facto suspended, and that the Rule of Law, the Canadian Statutes and International Covenants, Conventions, Resolutions etc. are effectively de-facto silently suspended. I offered the materials of my investigation, and documentary evidences to support set by me issues of a huge public interest.

2. RE: “asked for assistance". False. I asked for:

a meeting, based on the PM’s Mandate Letter to the MJ and AGC 1 and for a constructive dialog [para. 10], to deliver my evidences to prove every my statement, to contribute to democratic process.

3. RE: "mandated to provide legal advice only to the federal government". I did not ask for advice. I have raised the most serious matters possible and offered to  present evidences. L. Bisson plays a fool, like he/she cannot comprehend what is written in plain English.

4. Para. 13 in the Mandate Latter 1 discloses: (a) that the MINISTER OF JUSTICE is a legal advisor to Cabinet and responsible with the administration of justice, including policy in such areas as criminal law, family law, human rights law, public law and private international law, constitutional law and Aboriginal justice.

 I disclosed the facts and ready to present documentary evidences that the justice system participants massively contravene the Acts of Parliament, destroy the Rule of Law entirely, suspend Canadian Constitution (and Charter) etc. – commit criminal offences against administration of law and justice. These matters, based on the para. 13 of the Mandate Letter, belong to the Minister of Justice.

 Denying me a meeting, a dialog and investigation, the Minister of Justice refused to perform assigned to her public mandate duties of proper administration of law and justice = failure to act.

 What is special about my action? It started as a private civil action involving Statutes (and therefore the orders are subject to the Charter review, denied to me by the SCC) and in a series of pre-trial motions, appeal, applications has transformed by the MERGER into a politically and criminally-cosmetically motivated case against me, because I am a witness of the MERGER’s crimes against Canadians and Canada as a whole, against the Rule of Law, administration of law and justice, against public safety, etc.

 What Statutes are contravened by the courts:

Occupational Health and Safety Act. Proven by the Records of Applicant – Volume X, Tab. D1, para. 41 on page 40 (it also was before Gascon J.in the Hospital’s RESPONSE to application 36521). As a result, will involve sec. 7 of the Charter.                                                                                                                                                        

Employment Standards Act, re: Equal pay and benefits for equal work. Proven implicitly in Rec. of Appl. – Vol. X, Tab. D1 paras. 7- 19 at pages 37 – 40. In para. 17 says “accepted, under protest” – includes protest against ESA violation - unequal pay and benefits.                                                                                           

Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure;

Sec. 105, 106, 107, 121 of the CJA;

Limitations Act – sec. 7;

       Criminal Code: Sec. 79, 80, 81, 83.14, full Part IV – Offences against the administration of Law and Justice, incl. 126, 128, 131, 132, 134, 137, 138, 139,       141, 181, 217, 218, 219, 221, 224, 229, 231, 239, 672.

5. Para. 13 in the Mandate Latter 1 discloses: (a) that the ATTORNEY GENERAL is responsible for conducting all litigation for the federal government and for upholding the Constitution, the rule of law, and respect for the independence of the courts. L. Bisson on behalf of the Attorey Geberal refused to uphold Constitution, the rule of law.

I specifically asked to act based on sec. 126(2) of the Criminal Code 2, 4

Disobeying a statute

126 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Marginal note:Attorney General of Canada may act

(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.


Refusal to investigate = Failure to act to protect the Rule of Law = Acting to favor of elimination of the Rule of Law and subject to punishment under Part IV of the Criminal Code.

6. RE: "not able … to become involved in the situation you describe" – is either: (a) statement of professional unfit to the job, then have to resign or to be dismissed; or (2) directly personally contravening the Acts of Parliament (sec. 126(2) of the CJA and other Statutes); (c) evidencing of belongings to the unconstitutional MERGER, and also acting to eliminate the Rule of Law, committing offences under part IV of the Criminal Act.

7. RE: "seek the advice of a lawyer in private practice" – is smart playing a fool. No-one lawyer (businessmen, caring for career and income primarily) would engage in consulting someone, who is a witness of the judges, the elite’s crimes, exposing them and demanding a criminal investigation. Ex: Mr. Cherniak, Mr. Hogg known as the most respectable successful lawyers, refused to engage under different excuses. The list of contacted lawyers, who retreated fast after learning the political nature of the MERGER’s case against Aletkina, is long.

8. The involved judges-participants (perpetrators) who contravened the Acts of Parliament within non- trial / pre-trial proceedings are: Judges Thomas Albert Cromwell, Rosalie Silberman Abella, Andromache Karakatsanis, Russell Brown, Clement Gascon, Alexandra Hoy (ACJO), Jean L. MacFarland, Peter D. Lauwers, Lois B. Roberts; John I. Laskin, Katherine van Rensburg, David M. Brown; Grant Huscroft; Eleanore A. Cronk; David L. Corbett ; Alison Harvison Young, master Barbara McAfee, master Joan M. Haberman. There were masters and judges who DID NOT contravene the Acts of Parliament, were not biased, not partial: Master Ronald Dash, Judges Susan G. Himel, Charles T. Hackland, Theodore Matlow, Frances P. Kiteley, Harry LaForme (6). The ratio of participants to non-participants is 40:6. The judges Matlov and Hackland resigned/retired immediately after delivering a just and fair decision (forced by the criminal organization to resign / retire? By who?).   Is it an extremely rare circumstance or a regular thing?

9. RE: "Law Society of Upper Canada" – ha-ha. Considering the LSUC dissolving the Paralegals’ competition with the lawyers, to make the legal service absolutely unaffordable for Canadians, and considering the long battle of the LSUC to take away the paralegal’s licence from prominent talented legal servant to the people of Ontario Mr. H. Kopyto, it is a joke to count on the LSUC’s lawyers to assist Aletkina, the witness of the LSUC’a lawyers and the judges’ criminal offences against administration of law and justice. Every time when I was referred by the LSUC to particular lawyers, I was heard excuses “I do not know”, I am nor specialized in this filed”, “cannot advice”, etc. The LSUC is apparently one of the bastions of the MERGER.

10. RE: "legal aid". A joke. As a witness of the elite’s crimes, Aletkina is already sentenced to execution, but formally her case remains being a civil, and formally she is a plaintiff, WHILE in reality, the proceeding is criminal, and the ‘criminal organization’, composed of the ‘justice system’s participants”, pursued a case of a murder of the witness of their crimes against Canada and Canadians. And someone L. Bison says” … sorry, unable to do anyhting...just go to the Legal Aid.. just go away, disappear, vanish... do not make our lives complecated, just let us sit peacefully and get our pay, benefits... Do not disturb!



More Articles...