QUESTION : Where the Crown has demonstrated a consistent pattern of legislative contempt toward the electorate - who may also be employed persons protected against harm by statute (i.e, right and duty to bargain in good faith); and, the Crown seeks - by evident practise - to maintain dominion of governance by corrupt deceit; then, do these alleged actions then constitute a breach of the coronation oath; which is considered by custom and tradition, to be a criminal breach ? (note standing opinions in England since before the 20th century).
NOTE : The Court has concluded that the government did not negotiate in good faith with the union after the Bill 28 Decision. One of the problems was that the government representatives were pre-occupied by another strategy. Their strategy was to put such pressure on the union that it would provoke a strike by the union. The government representatives thought this would give government the opportunity to gain political support for imposing legislation on the union.
Let us consider what community standard may be applied here; namely, when does an action constitute repugnance to the extent that it creates contempt of the electorate and / or the court ?
And, in the event that contempt is a reasonable probability from evident motives, what should be the consequence ?
Typically, these consequences are meted out at the following election. However, there is the matter of substantial breach of the coronation oath - which according to published opinions since 1828 Butler Letter; may constitute criminal breach upon the monarch and agents.
Note : The Crown British Columbia under the Liberal Party banner has established - by evident standing and previous (HEU) breaches of law; which may be inferred by balance of probabilities (i.e., reasonable conclusion arising out of BC Rail trials and subsequent public opinion on the matters associated with the payment of legal fees of the accused just prior to substantial new evident to be called forward), to have been waged in order to achieve re-election as government a consistent pattern of deceit and neglect of law within the coronation oath and incumbent legislative oath of office therein.
One error may be excused; consistency and evident corrupt benefits may constitute criminal breach and contempt to the reasonable person test.
Opinion By: Goodwin RC / former policy chairperson, Liberal Party in BC : Editor/ Publisher Plus One News Central / UN Security Council accredited international oil trader since 2000; recognized humanitarian and business person.
Errors and omissions excepted
