In Series-6 we stated we would be tossing Mouthy Mary innuendos and nebulous claims surrounding torture being a product of security certificates in the trash can where they belong.

Her implying Charkaoui and clan have been tortured from the onset by institution of the security certificates, further entailed there was both potential and a real torture of families ongoing by them. Emotional manipulation through negative family conjectures via media to gain public opinion favorable to her terrorist client has been a tactic of her handler Adil from the onset.  He also employed Canadian preconceived ideas of the family to manipulate matters through his Dockets.


The Sudden Songbird and Our Flaws of Noel

Our examination of the Dockets starting under this title shall confirm the introductory facts stated.  

Take note that Justice Noel has a judgmental weakness evidenced through decisions based on his personal feelings of Canadian family which have no relevance to the Islamic view of family life.

Further, Justice Noel’s knowledge with respect to Islamic doctrine surrounding ‘passage of time’, that passage of time is somehow an agency of ‘reduction of terrorist threat’ is forlornly askew. Such idea is an intrinsic Western philosophical concept embedded within his persona that has no applicability to the devout followers of Allah and Muhammad. Lame Brain Lamer has a major mental tumor in this area as well.

At one-point Charkaoui tried to circumvent justice and the legal process by attacking Noel as being biased and prejudiced against him. Noel masterfully handled this with the rendering in 2004-04-28 / 2004 FC 624 / DES-3-03  

 Justice Noel: “If I may be permitted to say so, it seems to me that the real apprehension is that the judge who hears a case in which the same issues of fact arise as have recently been decided in the same court can hardly ignore the existence of the earlier decision for he cannot be unconscious of the possibility of apparently conflicting decisions creating an atmosphere of lack of confidence in the administration of justice. I should have thought, however, that a judge who participates in both of two such matters is more likely to appreciate and explain different results flowing from different bodies of evidence or differences in presentation and argument than a judge who had no part in the earlier case. I do not say this to indicate that I have a view that the same judge should always try two such cases, but to indicate that, in my view, it is not necessarily prejudicial to the party who assumes the burden of producing a result in the second case that is apparently in conflict with the earlier decision.” 

But, what if the earlier decision of a justice, which is obviously wrong is basis for their additional decision in the second case? And, what if their personal characteristics which prejudiced their initial decision were still cemented in their persona? This circumstance surrounds both Justice Noel and Justice Tremblay. In particular, the pair separately declare that National Security is a special area requiring a special approach. And, such in essence is the necessary approach to Security Certificates that must be employed to ensure national security in the light of Islamic extremism underway.

The Justices know this and yet they set aside their own renderings and logic in such manner that it allows Charkaoui to slither out through their legal doorway. The morons simply forgot that the legally entered docket information over the course of time unequivocally branded him a terrorist and the legitimate threat he was being held for.

2004-01-23 / 2004 FC 107 / DES-3-03:  Read as Justice Noel states that National security is a special area that requires a particular approach. Parliament has chosen standards other than the preponderance of evidence standard because this is what national security demands. Cases involving national security must be approached differently from others. In this case, the security of Canada, the safety of its citizens and the protection of its democratic system are at stake. The state must therefore use extraordinary methods of protection and inquiry, as illustrated by the schemes established by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other statutes. Situations and entities that pose a threat to national security are often difficult to detect and are designed to strike where society is most vulnerable. Attacks against national security can have tragic consequences. People who pose a danger to national security are often on a “mission” for which they are prepared to die. They are difficult to identify and their borderless networks are often difficult to infiltrate. They strike when least expected. Where national security is involved, we must do everything possible to avert catastrophe. The emphasis must be on prevention. After all, the security of the state and the public are at stake. Once certain acts are perpetrated, it could be too late. In my opinion, national security is such an important interest that its protection warrants the use of standards other than the preponderance of evidence standard. Having said this, we will see that the “reasonableness” and “reasonable grounds to believe” standards comport requirements come close to the preponderance of evidence standard. (Charkaoui (Re), [2003], December 5, 2003, FC 1419, para. 126)

Further note from this docket: “The explanation of the Court of Appeal applies equally on a review of detention under subsections 83(2) and 83(3) of the IRPA, when assessing whether there is a danger or not and the possibility of a conditional release on bail.

In order to facilitate the task for Mr. Charkaoui, I indicated in Charkaoui, July 15, 2003 the Court’s concerns about the danger to national security. However, the additional evidence presented to the Court does not address these concerns and essentially includes an increase in the amount of the bail, an undertaking by some affiants to ensure that Mr. Charkaoui complies with the conditions of release, and a questioning of the reliability of the information communicated to the Ministers by Mr. Ressam and Mr. Zubaida.

Mr. Charkaoui’s counsel explained the decision not to adduce evidence pertaining to these concerns; such evidence, they said, would go to the very substance of the litigation, i.e. would affect the issue of the reasonableness of the certificate, and should not be presented at the stage of a review of the detention. They also argued that there had been an appeal of Charkaoui, July 15, 2003, and since the appeal was dismissed (on the ground that there is no appeal from a decision concerning detention), an application for leave had been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada.”

Take note: They have already lost an appeal for release under bail but are repeating the request for release because the bail was denied, and thus it should now take place with a view to neutralizing the risk of danger to the greatest possible degree as stipulated by Charkaoui. Judge Noel politely but effectively commented on the stupidity of such tact. But, it did serve to keep the Charkaoui hunt for means to destroy security certificates front and center.

“Given the presumption of validity of legislation, the scope of the allegations and the importance to Mr. Charkaoui of regaining his freedom, I am surprised at this approach. The danger to national security cannot be assessed in a factual vacuum. By avoiding an answer to the concerns raised by the Court, Mr. Charkaoui is asking that he be released irrespective of the danger that the Ministers associate with his person. When the issue is one of national security or the safety of Canadians, the designated judge has a duty to assess the danger that is posed by a person concerned in light of all the available evidence.

 In the case at bar, this task involves assessing, pursuant to subsection 83(3) of the IRPA, whether the person concerned still constitutes a danger to national security or to the safety of any person or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal. No decision to release on bail and subject to conditions can be made without answering the allegations of the Ministers that the person concerned is a danger.

 In light of the evidence presented by both parties, and even if I were to consider such conditions for Mr. Charkaoui’s release as surrender of a passport, curfews, predetermined meetings, restrictions on his personal relations, a monitor indicating his whereabouts, etc., it is not my opinion at this point that these measures would be adequate to neutralize the danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or the unlikelihood that he would appear at a proceeding or for removal.

I note that this case pertains to immigration law and not the area of criminal law. The appropriate approach, when the Ministers present serious evidence that the person concerned is a danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or that he is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal, is to adduce any possible evidence that would allow the Court to question the Ministers’ conclusion. I am unable, from the evidence adduced, to reach any conclusion other than that Mr. Charkaoui still constitutes a danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or that he is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal.

 As to the disposition as to costs, Mr. Charkaoui’s counsel has asked that I postpone it to a later date. So, I am giving the parties ten days following the receipt of this decision to make their submissions to me on this matter, failing which there will be no award as to costs.”

Take note: At this time Justice Noel clearly stated that Charkaoui still constitutes a danger to national security’.  Noel cited three areas of reference that required Charkaoui give explanations for. No matter the repeated admonishments to do so our ‘ you are not the boss of me Adil’ would never comply. Then suddenly on 2005-02-17 / 2005 FC 248 / DES-3-03 Charkaoui wins his release from jail on strict surveillance conditions. These conditions of release were basically nothing more than what Justice Noel stated in DES-3-03 as totally incapable of reducing the threat to National Security that Charkaoui entailed. Despite this our “legal flap their lips-a-lot crew” set aside sanity and freed Charkaoui on bail.


Surrounding the Release on Bail:  2005-02-17 / 2005 FC 248 / DES-3-03

There are so many holes and contradictions within the Docket from beginning to end that it defies sanity that Charkaoui was ever released. Go through it for yourself. I am simply going to point out a couple blatant facts.

In this docket Charkaoui said he had never committed a crime. However, in March 1999, he pleaded guilty to attempted theft, for which he received an unconditional discharge. He says he was innocent, he had never tried to steal anything and could not defend himself because it cost too much.

It cost too much? Not so for our lying bozo. The fact is that his theft was another kudu with the ‘bad boys’ to brand himself prepared to provide for the pathway to sharia in every fashion possible. It was his method of showing theft as being just another means of provision for sharia.

Further, he had no shortage of cash to take his trips such as to Morocco in 1999 and the rest of his side junkets to Europe. In 1999, he went back to Morocco where his wife was waiting to receive her Canadian permanent residence permit. He stayed in Morocco for a few months, and then left for Europe in order to buy fabrics and clothing for resale in Morocco to finance his return trip to Canada. He went into Turkey, and then to Germany by plane. He then toured France and Spain by bus and train, before returning to Morocco in early January 2000, returning to Canada with his wife in late February 2000.

This was all done by a person that did not have the cash to defend himself as innocent.

He was also able to purchase a laptop computer to take with him to resale at a cheap price to a neighbor who was an information technology consultant in Morocco. All this and he could not afford to defend himself from being branded a thief? The man is just a deceiving lying bastard and shows himself such from beginning to end through the documented evidences.

Our Cash Strapped Adil actually started into his international terrorist travels in 1993 and we will go into this after we introduce Concernable Characters and present the Bad Boys List with highlights of some of the characters surrounding Charkaoui throughout these times. As the saying states: ‘Birds of a Feather Flock Together’.

We shall return to ‘The Sudden Songbird and Our Flaws of Noel’ subsequent in exposing Adil Charkaoui for the manipulating terrorist and liar that he is.



Galatians 4:16    Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.