FORM CC1

(Subrule 5(1) and rule 14)

COURT FILE NUMBER 130163405Q101

COURT COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL CENTRE Lethbridge AB,

CROWN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

ACCUSED David Robert Stephan / Collet Dawn Stephan

DOCUMENT Application for the Recusal of ACJ J.D. Rooke of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta from
any and all matters that come before the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta in
relation to David Robert Stephan / Collet Dawn Stephan

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AND

CONTACT INFORMATION OF
PARTY FILING THIS DOCUMENT

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT(S) *Name and status of Respondent(s)

This application is made for the purpose of obtaining an order or direction against you for your immediate
recusal in respect to any and all matters regarding David Robert Stephan and Collet Dawn Stephan. As the
Respondent, you have the right to state your side of this matter before the Judge. To do so, you must be
present in Court when the application is heard on the date and at the time and place indicated below:

Date:

Time:

Place: Lethbridge Alberta

Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice JD Rooke

(Please see the end of this document for information on additional measures and their applicable time limits.)

Page 1 of 16 Updated December 2017

An Order granting the following Relief, including but not limited to:
1. That Associate Chief Justice Rooke recuse himself from this case and any other cases and all other proceedings
involving David Robert Stephan and Collet Dawn Stephan as a result of his established bias against the Defendants.​ In
the event that ACJ Rooke fails to see the efficacy of recusing himself from the current proceedings, that this
application be immediately referred to the appropriate judicial body to appeal ACJ Rooke’s decision.

2. An order to adjourn the current trial until such time as this this application is heard in full before a court of competent
jurisdiction, to ensure the prevention of further biased actions and charter violations ​as well as putting inappropriate
restrictions on the evidence that the Defendants may present in trial thereby limiting the ability of trial judge at make
a fair and unbiased decision as a result of the bias by the current court as composed with Justice J.D. Rooke, even if
that court is located in another Province.

3. That all of the current applications and judicial proceedings to date, that have been heard by Justice Rooke, which in
the opinion of the Defense have appropriate grounds for appeal, be re-heard without undue delay by an unbiased
judge of competent jurisdiction, that is not subject to the influence of Justice Rooke, even if that court is in another
Province.

4. If, in the view of the Court, there is sufficient grounds to determine that the conduct of the Court warrants a dismissal
of the action, that it be so granted.

5. Such other remedies as the Court may deem as appropriate.

Grounds being relied upon in making this application, include but are not limited to the
following, namely:

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CRITERION FOR THE DISQUALIFICATION OF A JUDGE

6. In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged from the Supreme Court of Canada as the primary criterion for the
disqualification of a judge in citing and adopting the criterion, as expressed by de Grandpré J. in ​Committee for Justice
and Liberty v. National Energy Board​, ​supra,​ at p. 394, is the reasonable apprehension of bias:

7. “​. . . the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying
themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that
test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically — and having thought the
matter through — conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether
consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.”

(Wewaykum Indian Band ​v.​ Canada, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259, 2003 SCC 45, Para 60)

STRONG APPEARANCE OF BIAS

JUSTICE ROOKE - POLITICAL ACTIVITY

8. Justice Rooke has gained a degree of notoriety across Canada and internationally for his political views against
self-litigants and individuals who have been labelled by the system as detaxers, sovereign citizens, freemen and
groups or individuals for which Justice Rooke has coined the term “OPCA Litigants” (Organized Pseudolegal
Commercial Argument Litigants). A Globe and Mail article describing his active pursuit of these individuals in the
Courts is as follows:

Page 2 of 16 Updated December 2017

 9. “​He dubbed them Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants, and gave them further classifications
such as De-Taxers, Freemen-on-the-Land, Sovereign Citizens, Strawmen and adherents of Moorish Law. Judge Rooke said
he is determined "to uncover, expose, collage and publish" their tactics to send an unmistakable message to the "gurus"
who inspire them.”​

The Globe and Mail, September 28, 2012, Alberta Judge fights to take back Legal System

10. Although some of these litigants are not affiliated with a group, Judge Rooke said, others have bought tracts or DVDs
from other frequent users of the court system that explain their methods. The belief systems are typically based on a
highly conspiratorial sense that they are being cheated or deceived by the "hidden hand" of the state, the judge said.
His strong views and legal biases towards individuals that could fall under this classification have been widely
disseminated in the national and international press including by not limited to: The National Post, The Globe and
Mail, The Edmonton Sun, etc…, and in legal circles via periodicals such as the Canadian Lawyer Magazine and
Macleans Magazine.

11. (The National Post, September 28, 2012, Judge’s scathing ruling against Alberta “freeman” could signal clampdown on
anti-government movement, The Globe and Mail, September 28, 2012, Alberta Judge fights to take back Legal System,
The Edmonton Sun, September 25, 2012, Alberta Court of Queen’s Associate Chief Justice, John Rooke takes aim at
Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants, The Canadian Lawyer Magazine, January 7, 2013, The “Scourge”
of Unrepresented Litigants, Macleans Magazine, October 19, 2012, The Boissoin Human-Rights Case 10 Years In)

12. Justice Rooke’s unilateral appointment of himself on December 12, 2018 as "Case Management Judge" (hereinafter
referred to as “CMJ”) is viewed by the Defense as an opportunistic maneuver to advance his own personal agenda
with respect to self litigants and how they should be treated by the Court in this high profile case. If Justice Rooke
wants to advance his political agenda and philosophies, he should step down from the bench and seek a post at a
university. An actual court case is no place for a judge to muse and advance his personal philosophies from the bench.
Neither should a judge attempt to legislate from the bench during the course of court proceedings but correctly and
faithfully apply the law as established.

JUSTICE ROOKE - BIASED ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

ITEM - A. ​JUSTICE ROOKE ADJUDICATES WITH SELECTIVE JURISDICTION IN IMPORTANT CHARTER APPLICATION

13. He refused to adjudicate​ o ​ n matters he claimed were from the last trial, claiming an inability to act on certain matters
as he was only the "CMJ" and not the trial judge, yet his biased decisions throughout his version of case management
have had the result of, in many cases, limiting the scope of the trial judge and the evidence that could be heard at
trial. The Defendant’s Application for Costs is an example of many where Justice Rooke claimed that he did not have
the jurisdiction of a trial judge to rule on evidence or that he did not want to hear the evidence. In this are of law
Justice Rooke lays out his position as follows:

14. “​… we are in a case management hearing where I, as the case management justice for a [criminal] retrial, have
jurisdiction to make decisions on voir dires relating to the new trial and relevant to the new trial. I do not, in this context,
have jurisdiction to deal with arguments that relate to the last trial and costs flowing from the last trial.”

Transcript of Court Proceedings January 18, 2019 Page 54 lines 2-6

15. The following citation from The Alberta Rules of Court: Rule 4.14 Authority of "CMJ" items (c) and (g), clarifies the
ability of Justice Rooke in his role to adjudicate:

16. “​(c) make an order to facilitate an application, proceeding, questioning or pre-trial proceeding,

(g) as a "CMJ", exercise the powers that a trial judge has by adjudicating any issues that can be decided before
commencement of the trial, including those related to
(i) the admissibility of evidence,
(ii) expert witnesses,
(iii) admissions, and

Page 3 of 16 Updated December 2017

 (iv) adverse inferences”

Alberta Rules of Court: Rule 4.14, (c), (g)

17. The Defendants clearly had a right to bring this application before the court in this pretrial setting and that as the
"CMJ", Justice Rooke had authority to rule in this matter. Please also see the following quote where this point of law
was also acknowledged by the Crown:

18. “​It would be the Crown's position that as the "CMJ", you can hear pre-trial Charter applications and --

THE COURT: And I intend to.

MS. KRISTENSEN: Correct, and that a costs application brought under the Charter would qualify as such and so you would
have jurisdiction to hear a Charter costs application.”

Transcript of Court Proceedings January 18, 2019 Page 45 line 36 to Page 46 line 2

19. Justice Rooke also indicates that the Defense’s application for costs is a civil matter as follows:

20. “...Your application for costs for past misdeeds as alleged is not matters that are before me. Those are civil matters and if
you want to -- and let’s just get it on the table right now.”
Transcript of Court Proceedings January 18, 2019 Page 7 lines 7-9

21. The Alberta Rules of Court state the considerations in determining costs awards and at no point do these rules place a
restriction limiting costs awarding to a civil court. As a point of clarification costs are indeed appropriate in criminal
proceedings in cases where the Crown is in error, such as the present case. Please refer to the COURT
CONSIDERATIONS IN MAKING COSTS AWARD:

22. “​Alberta Rules of Court Rule 10.33(1)​ In making a costs award, the Court may consider all or any of the following:
(a) the result of the action and the degree of success of each party;
(b) the amount claimed and the amount recovered;
(c) the importance of the issues;
(d) the complexity of the action;
(e) the apportionment of liability;
(f) the conduct of a party that tended to shorten the action;
(g) any other matter related to the question of reasonable and proper costs that the Court considers appropriate.

Alberta Rules of Court Rule 10.33(2)​ In deciding whether to impose, deny or vary an amount in a costs award, the Court
may consider all or any of the following:
(a) the conduct of a party that was unnecessary or that unnecessarily lengthened or delayed the action or any stage or
step of the action;
(b) a party’s denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted;
(c) whether a party started separate actions for claims that should have been filed in one action or whether a party
unnecessarily separated that party’s defence from that of another party;
(d) whether any application, proceeding or step in an action was unnecessary, improper or a mistake;
(e) an irregularity in a commencement document, pleading, affidavit, notice, prescribed form or document;
(f) a contravention of or non-compliance with these rules or an order;
(g) whether a party has engaged in misconduct.”

Alberta Rules of Court: Rule 10.33(1), 10.33(2)

23. Justice Rooke also showed his disdain when the Crown failed to support his biased view on his supposed lack of
jurisdiction of the costs application. The Crown also recognized that this pre-trial hearing was a continuation of past

Page 4 of 16 Updated December 2017

 events and did not have the degree of separation implied by the Justice. Court Transcripts are as follows:

24. “THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. I don’t want to get into the merits.​ I'm talking about the jurisdiction. So, I'll leave it to you
to try and be helpful because you haven't been so far.

MS. KRISTENSEN: It appears from the Curragh case --

THE COURT: ​Sorry?

MS. KRISTENSEN: Well, I guess what the Court's point is that the Curragh case is an appeal of the original award of costs
as opposed to a subsequent case, but it's just a later proceeding.

THE COURT: Well., I'll just let you tell me what you're going to tell me because y​ ou're not helping me much, frankly.​”

Transcript of Court Proceedings January 18, 2019 Page 44 lines 28-41

25. ​ ell, I'm not the trial justice. I'm the case management justice.
“​THE COURT: W

MS. KRISTENSEN: It is -- as a pre-trial application I think you have jurisdiction to hear the same.

THE COURT: kay, but not -- well, go ahead.​ I'm not getting any help,​ so I'll just let you finish.”

Transcript of Court Proceedings January 18, 2019 Page 45 lines 7-14

26. In spite of the Crown indicating that he has clear jurisdiction to rule in this pre-trial application Justice Rooke
concludes by putting the Defendant’s application for costs in a “civil” category to push away any opportunity for
these “self litigants” to receive financial assistance and refuses to make any findings. He is not willing to make any
effort or grant any court remedy to at least show some small degree of willingness on behalf of the court to appear
unbiased or create a fair hearing in the retrial directed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

27. “I​ will not go through each of the arguments made by Mr. Stephan, either in writing, or implicit or explicit in
affidavits, or to go through each of the issues raised.​ Most of those are issues could be a basis for a trial in a civil
context it appears and a Court could rule and provide a remedy. The Court has broad jurisdiction to provide remedies.
The only matter that I am dealing with is [that] this is not the right procedure to do that ​and therefore, on that context,
the application is dismissed,​ I say it in "that context" because​ I am not making any findings,​ ​as I have said more than
once,​ on the merits and so i​ f the Applicants want to follow the proper procedure and sue​ the police or somebody else
for damages, including damages under the Charter, they have the right to try and do that.​ I am not making any rulings
on that,​ i​ t is just not happening in this proceeding​.”

Transcript of Court Proceedings January 18, 2019 Page 55 lines 2-13

ITEM - B.​ JUSTICE ROOKE REFUSES TO GIVE WEIGHT OR BE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF A JUDGE OF EQUAL STANDING IN THE
SAME COURT AND INSTEAD SHOWS BIAS, DENYING CHARTER APPLICATION AND FORCING ACCUSED TO BE SELF LITIGANTS

28. The previous "CMJ", Justice Hughes discussed the options for financial relief with the Accused. It was determined that
there were three possible avenues. The first option was a Fisher/Rowbotham Application for court assisted financing.
The second was a civil claim for damages or additional costs. The third was charter application for allowable costs in a
criminal proceeding.

29. The first option, a Fisher/Rowbotham Application, which only allows for reduced rates but does not provide any
reimbursement of costs due to them by virtue of Crown error, would leave them without the possibility of obtaining
appropriate representation. With only a portion of the costs being covered, the Defendants would still be in a
financially deficient position, ultimately leaving them unable to retain council.

Page 5 of 16 Updated December 2017

 30. The second option, a civil claim was not available in a criminal proceeding and would not assist the Accused of
retaining counsel for the criminal proceedings that were pending, considering the time frame required to have a civil
claim heard by the courts.

31. The third option of a charter application for costs during a criminal trial was found to be the only viable option that
would potentially provide immediate funding. The choice was made to proceed with the charter application, later
titled a Curragh Application, as it was realistically the only option that would provide them with adequate funds and
thereby allow them the ability to have some semblance of a fair and impartial hearing.

32. Instead, the defendants find themselves looking down the barrel of a loaded gun, without the viable ability of legal
aid or legal representation of any kind. If the Crown and the court operated within the purview of the law and if such
proper actions had been taken by the crown in the first trial the Defendants assert that they would have been
exonerated or the charges would have been dismissed prior to the trial beginning.

33. Justice Rooke, of his own accord and not because he was legally obligated to do otherwise, has refused to consider
that the legal system should take responsibility for the costs of the first trial when it is clear that all of the expenses
incurred by the Defendants have essentially become throw away costs for the Defendants in the eyes of the court.
One can only assume that because there are no costs to any members of the Crown for their improper actions
resulting in a new trial and little or no concern is shown towards defendants who must bear the sole financial burden
of their defense while the Crown reaches into the deep pocket of taxpayers dollars. The direction for a new trial has
no financial consequences to the Crown because, again, it is the legal system’s money that is being spent by the
Crown (tax dollars) in prosecuting this matter, while the direction of a new trial is devastating to the Defendants in
that they now find themselves at square one in mounting a defense when all of their financial resources have been
spent. This is tantamount to a cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself by placing the defendants in financial
hardship which has occurred solely as a result of the improper charges being proffered, the actions of the Court of
Queen’s Bench and the Crown in the first trial. The Supreme Court of Canada in a unanimous decision made it clear
that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and it’s errors in law were the reason a new trial was necessary.

34. Justice Rooke upon taking over the file as "CMJ" simply advised the Defendants that by not pursuing a
Fisher/Rowbotham application they of their own accord had rejected funding, stating:

35. “Well, y​ ou’ve got no future application​, as I said and you’ve just acknowledged it again, for a Rowbotham or Fisher. So
I’m not going to be getting into those arguments. ​Your application for costs for past misdeeds as alleged is not matters
that are before me. Those are civil matters​ and if you want to -- and let’s just get it on the table right now. Having read
your brief it’s clear to me that​ if you want to pursue those matters you can sue​ the Attorney General, y​ ou can sue​ the
hospital, y​ ou can sue​ the ambulance, y​ ou can sue everybody except the judge​ -- and I’ll tell you why in a minute -- and
you can prove your allegations, if you can, on the proper standard and at the end of that time you may or may not be
entitled to some remedy. But I’m not here dealing with the new trial to deal with that matter. So ​that’s the problem
throughout with your application.​ Y ​ ou’re in the wrong procedure and at the wrong place.​ ”

Transcript of Court Proceedings January 18, 2019 Page 7 lines 6-16

36. He ignored the ruling of the previous "CMJ" who recognised the need for financial assistance and the Crown’s role in
creating in creating financial hardship for the Defendants. Justice Hughes was prepare to allow a charter application
for funding in a criminal trial to be made although the degree to which funding would be made available was yet to
be adjudicated. Even the Crown recognized the accused’s right to seek charter relief in a criminal proceeding. The
Court of Queen’s Bench under Justice Hughes was prepared to consider a remedy, however ,as indicated by his
statements from the bench, Justice Rooke was unwilling to make any findings nor was he willing to recognise the
prior position of the Court under Justice Hughes. Justice Rooke had the ability to order a portion of this
reimbursement and then additional requests as appropriate. The judge, through his biased actions, effectively
removed that remedy as a possibility. He completely rejected the application instead of hearing the matter in a
serious way to make an appropriate determination. This in direct opposition to the position taken by the Court under
the direction of Justice Hughes. While Justice Hughes was willing to entertain the and recognized the need for the
defense in making application for costs in relation to previous proceedings, this enlightened position was ignored by
Justice Rooke, who by acting outside of judicial norm, failed to give weight to and refused to be bound by the

Page 6 of 16 Updated December 2017

 decision of a judge of equal standing in the same court.

37. It is a tragedy that he neglected his duty as a representative of the Crown to provide even some of the reimbursement
portion of the charter application (the throw away costs due to Crown error), an obligation that a reasonable and
right minded person would act upon to ensure that justice was done. The opportunity for the Accused to have
representation was effectively removed through the biased actions of Justice Rooke. In a somewhat condescending
manner Justice Rooke suggested how he could have been persuaded to be generous from the bench in assisting the
Defendants:

38. “​Well, let me just be very clear there. If you’re telling me that if you had brought a Rowbotham application or a Fisher
application or had submitted to me in one of those applications that you require costs going forward that wouldn’t be
covered by each of those and you don’t have the ability to fund themselves, ​I may have discretion to award something
for future conduct, not for past conduct​. So if you said, I need to hire an expert and Legal Aid, who is the agency that
funds a Rowbotham right or a Fisher and an expanded right -- and Legal Aid administering that won’t give me the funds
to hire an expert on potassium, I’m all ears. We’ll talk about that i​ f you bring such an application in February​. So t​ hat is
within my jurisdiction,​ without me getting too precise about it. I’m sure the Crown might have some submissions on
that. So let’s be very clear. But t​ hat’s much different than awarding you something for alleged past misconduct.”​

Transcript of Court Proceedings January 18, 2019 Page 21 lines 30-40

39. Here, Justice Rooke is using his version of proper court procedure to punish those that he views as politically
incorrect, claiming potential generosity of the Crown while, in the same breath, denying the immediate need to
facilitate funding to hire counsel to ensure a competent defense. In spite of the Justice’s claims about his
jurisdictional inability to award costs for past misconduct, it is far from the truth. Costs can be awarded at anytime
during a proceeding, especially in circumstances where the primary action has failed with the Supreme Court of
Canada directing a retrial as a result of the errors of the Judge at trial. If there is any doubt concerning Justice Rooke’s
motives to punish the Defendants, the Court need only consider the fact that at the end of the January 18th, 2019
proceedings the Justice asked the Crown if they wanted costs. Here is a Judge that roams the halls of Justice with an
extra degree of unacceptable impunity.

40. Even though the entire problem of financial shortfall is a result of Crown actions Justice Rooke had no interest in
pursuing justice, but was simply advancing his political agenda to the detriment of the people he views as self
litigants, detaxers, sovereign citizens, freemen or groups and individuals termed by himself as “OPCA Litigants”
(Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants). This kind of bias has no place on the bench. One of the
biggest problems with this biased mentality of Justice Rooke is that there is no “Commercial Litigant”. This is a
criminal proceeding. This is not a Defendant who is tried to exact money from the government as the result of a
vexatious lawsuit, but rather a criminal defendant who finds himself solely at the whims of the Crown in a criminal
proceeding. This proceeding not instigated by the Defendants, but by the Crown. It might even be said that these are
improper proceedings, now that the Defense has received new disclosure that totally exonerates them.

ITEM C. ​JUSTICE ROOKE HAS UNLAWFULLY AND BIASEDLY LIMITED THE WITNESSES OF THE DEFENSE

41. Justice Rooke has unlawfully limited the defense’s witness list. He has refused to allow the defense to call material
witnesses who can provide direct exculpatory evidence for the Defense, which they are entitled to call in profferring
their defense at the trial in this matter. He used his position of judicial immunity to advance his political position and
berate the unrepresented defendant in open court for what one can only assume is his own amusant through flippant
comments such as “it’s not my problem”, “ I don’t care”, and “that’s your choice” only adding to the confusion and
stress of the Defendants. It would appear from review of other courts in dealing with unrepresented defendants, that
they make sure that the defendants are at least pointed in the right direction to make sure a fair trial.

42. Mr Justice Rooke has, in his court, dealt in a very heavy handed manner in his court, with the Defendants in such a
manner that makes it impossible for evidence to be presented. Apparently the Court is OK with that, rather than
doing what he can to as "CMJ" to ensure that a fair and unbiased new trial occurs. He has, by his inappropriate and
biased actions limited the defense’s ability to call material evidence of an exculpatory nature as well as orchestrated
his court’s position to ensure that the Defendants were unable to make the appropriate applications for financial
relief as allowed at law. The previous "CMJ" was willing to entertain such an application and considered it to be a live

Page 7 of 16 Updated December 2017

 issue before her court. The end result being that if you are not a wealthy defendant in Justice Rooke’s court, you are
treated with derision and in such a manner that would indicate to all observers the apparent guilt with which the
judge views the Defendants. The biased handling of defense subpoenas is as follows:

43. “​As Case Management Justice of pre-trial matters before the Court, I directed that the Court would issue no subpoena to
bring witnesses forward, on behalf of the Accused, without affidavit evidence as to the ​prima facie​ likelihood any
proposed witness to provide relevant and material evidence for full answer and defence. With this in place, but to assist
the Accused to give notice to potential witnesses to attend, depending on their election, I directed that the Accused could
provide to me confidentially (to protect any secrecy and confidentiality of the identity of potential witnesses) an
affidavit(s) for this purpose whereby the Accused would list any such proposed witnesses(es), and I would approve
subpoena(s) as and if appropriate.”

Memorandum of Decision issued by Justice J. D. Rooke - April 18, 2019, par. 5.

44. Justice Rooke has effectively attempted to limit the evidence to be heard at trial by setting himself up as the
gatekeeper of what evidence can be presented by the defense. He has on more than one occasion demanded that the
defense present to him what evidence, that may be presented by any given defense witness, the purpose for such
requirement is that Judge Rooke, in his own mind, has positioned himself to hear all evidence rather than the trier of
fact. In particular Justice Rooke has eliminated witnesses, including but limited to:

44.1. Dr. Jaime Blackwood, an attending physician, ​who could have provided evidence which supports the Defenses
claim of a lack of bacterial meningitis.

44.2. Valerie Wallace, a Crown Paralegal,​ who talked to personnel at the OCME to ostensibly direct the OCME what
they should include in their disclosure as opposed to ensuring that full and complete disclosure was made.

44.3. Clayton Giles, a Crown Prosecutor,​ who in direct examination in the first trial directed, what could have been a
critical witness to limit their testimony in such a nature as to ensure that the full evidence of what occured
would not reach the jury.

44.4. Anthony Stephan, Ezekiel’s grandfather,​ who would have been able to provide essential evidence to
understanding the development of any health issues in the deceased. He had first hand interactions with the
child only days prior to his extremis and untimely death, yet his evidence as to how this illness presented itself
in the developmental stage leading up to Ezekiel’s death. This evidence is essential in determining whether the
actions of these young parents were appropriate or not.

45. The end result is that Justice Rooke, intentionally or unintentionally, has unlawfully usurped the position of the trier
of facts in the first instance, by ostensibly making a determination as “CMJ”, what evidence is material and what
weight if any should be given to evidence presented by the Defence. Those are matters solely in the purview of the
trier of facts (the trial Judge) without limitation by the "CMJ". It is solely the purview of the trial judge to determine
what evidence is material to the trial and what weight is to be given such evidence. It is not the role of the "CMJ" to
do anything that would limit the defenses ability to call relevant exculpatory evidence so that the fairness of the
process is maintained. These are issues for the trier of facts, namely the trial judge in trial.

46. It is apparent that Justice Rooke is doing all within his power, lawfully or otherwise, to ensure that at trial by limiting
the defenses ability to call material evidence, that would exonerate them, in full in this matter. Such limiting actions
directed to the Defense by Judge Rooke to purportedly review and approve all evidence of the defense first, is
nothing more than a veiled attempt to interfere with the defendant's ability to call complete evidence. Screening
evidence before it is heard is wrong and eliminates the possibility of a fair trial. Again, this is judicial interference.

47. It is interesting to note that such limiting evidence that may be called by the defense was not applied universally in
these proceedings, as no such requirements were made tupon the Crown in calling their witnesses and issuing their
subpoenas. The normal course with respect to calling witnesses is that the Crown who is required to give full
disclosure, to the Defense of their witness list with some variations to that requirement if they are looking to call a
witness to provide rebuttal evidence that may wish to call during the trial or a material witness whose existence was
unknown when the Crown’s initial witness list was provided and whose evidence is clearly material to case being

Page 8 of 16 Updated December 2017

 considered by the Courts.

48. The conduct of Justice Rooke’s court deviated from this normal course of conduct by engaging in and interfering with
the defenses witness list prior to the matter coming before the trier of fact, effectively hamstringing the defense.

ITEM D. ​JUSTICE ROOKE HAS BIASEDLY AND UNLAWFULLY LIMITED INFORMATION BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT

49. Justice Rooke, as the "CMJ", has demanded and is continuing to propose the review of all information that the
Defense is proposing to call in the trial of the matter and demands to heard in open court for any semblance of a fair
trial to the Court before allowing documents to filed with the court. Again, the Justice has not required the Crown to
be held the same standard as the Defense with respect to information being brought before the Court. Such biased
conduct by Justice Rooke has the effect of him directing the Defense in the direction of his choosing and peremptorily
limiting, as the "CMJ", and not as the trier of fact, information that is filed with the Court. One can only deduce that
when the Court applies a double standard in relation to these matters, clearly Justice Rooke must appreciate that the
intended or unintended results of his biased actions in this case. We have a self represented Defendant because of
financial hardship that Justice Rooke in his untouchable position as a judge is taking steps to insure that the
defendants have no possibility of a fair trial whether it be before him or before the trier of facts in this matter.

50. The improper actions of Judge Rooke has had the effect of depriving the trial judge of the opportunity of hearing all
relevant evidence to the detriment of the Defense. In particular Judge Rooke is not allowing any information to be
brought before the court that addresses the inappropriate conduct by the Crown or it’s agents or conduct that is
occuring in this case that may address improper conduct by the Crown, or that show wrongdoing by government
agencies, claiming that his court will not be used for an inquiry. Yet it is clear that Judge Rooke is willing to utilize his
court to limit the Accused’s ability to present a full defense. Instead of applying the law to insure a full and fair
defense, by refusing the Defense the ability to call appropriate witnesses, he is using his role as a "CMJ" to limit
evidence to be called to their detriment.

51. If the accused are prevented from bringing evidence before the court to show their innocence and wrong doing on
behalf of the accusers, the question remains where and how can justice be served in Alberta courts? It is clear that
the effects of Justice Rooke’s actions have not only been to the detriment of any defendant in a Canadian court, as a
result of his improper conduct and should the application of his philosophies and musings as presented in this case
were to be adopted in any measure, the clear result is a miscarriage of justice with the basic rights of any defendant
in his court being trampled upon. This must be called what it is, unmitigated judicial interference in the trial process
to the extent of making it impossible for a self represented litigant to have fair and unbiased representation in his
court.

ITEM E. ​JUSTICE ROOKE BIASEDLY INCREASES DEFENSE WORKLOAD, AND FAILS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION WITH DISCLOSURE STILL
INCOMPLETE

52. Justice Rooke’s decisions and refusal to give any kind of constructive direction to the Defense, as "CMJ", have been
the real cause that the Defense has found themselves in the position of having to bring additional applications to
address the bias that has been occuring. Sometimes, the Defendants technically brought the wrong applications as a
result of this Court refusing to treat the Defendants with any modicum of respect by at a minimum failing to pointing
out the potential proper actions by the Defendants. From the Defendants observations it appears that Justice Rooke
seems to enjoy watching the Defense twist in the wind instead of giving clear direction that would ensure a fair and
timely hearing of this matter. The result of this additional workload for an inexperienced couple has been very
burdensome, disconcerting and created additional financial and family hardship, leaving little to no time for trial
preparation. Throughout the entirety of pre-trial activities including hearings, applications, disclosure requests,
voir-dires, etc., the judge created extremely tight deadlines with onerous burdens on the self-litigants. The Crown had
the full resources of the government to deal with these deadlines as opposed to inexperienced self litigants. As a
matter of fact the deadlines imposed on the Accused in many instances were more onerous than deadlines that
would have been imposed on members of the Alberta Bar.

53. Justice Rooke continually refers to the June, 2018 time frame when a partial disclosure was given to the Stephan’s
legal counsel as the time when the Accused received disclosure. At that time the Stephans had no access to the partial

Page 9 of 16 Updated December 2017

 disclosure and their legal counsel was not acting on their behalf due to outstanding legal bills. This partial disclosure
was finally available on November 29, 2018. To exacerbate these matters, to this very day disclosure is still
incomplete. Justice Rooke, in spite of this disclosure nightmare is insisting on a June 3, 2019 trial. Under these
circumstances contrary to natural justice to maintain a trial date when disclosure is still incomplete.

54. There has been no assistance from the court in any degree, however the following phrases are often repeated and left
ringing in the ears of the Defense: “that’s your choice”, “it’s not my problem” and “I don’t care”. These continual
expressions of what is supposed to be recognized as language of impartiality are nothing more than condescending.
Justice Rooke’s restrictive and extremely biased procedural actions have limited the ability of the defense to a fair
trial. These actions highlight corrupt activities within a system void of consequences to those who by their very
stewardship should have the greatest measure of public accountability.

ITEM F. ​JUSTICE ROOKE DENIES FUNDING THEN CASTGATES THE ACCUSED FOR BEING SELF LITIGANTS

55. Justice Rooke, as previously indicated, refused to give a considered hearing with respect to applications by the
defense to alleviate the financial burdens of the defense by this improper charge making it impossible for the
defendants to retain counsel. From that point on Justice Rooke has castigated the defense for being self litigants at
every opportunity and openly displayed his bias towards them at every opportunity.

56. Given that the defendants are self litigants in this matter one would think that appropriate steps would be taken by
the Justice Rooke to at least point the self litigants in the proper direction when procedural questions arose, yet Judge
Rooke in an almost flippant and routine manner . Some examples are as follows:

57. Justice Rooke’s obligatory actions as a "CMJ" “to assist” the Defendants with procedure was not evident, in fact the
opposite was apparent. Comments like “​if you’re going to be self litigants, learn the rules of court”​ , were part of his
marching orders. For the Accused, representing themselves, a leisurely read of some 2,000 pages, not to mention the
training and experience required to apply the rules correctly.

58. The Justice and the Crown conferred back and forth to assist the other in determining correct procedure, yet very
little courtesy was extended to the self litigants. Feigning the authority to hear evidence or to make a particular ruling
as he was only the "CMJ" is applying the rules to suit one’s fancy. The Justices ability to reach over the walls of
regulatory boundaries has done nothing more than expose the extreme bias of the judge. There is little doubt that
members of the Alberta Bar would have been given fairer treatment. To think that self-litigants with no formal
training, to whom the court by its own laws is required to show a degree of leniency, were subjected to these
conditions again puts the court in a bad light.

59. If the defenses experience is universal for self litigants in Alberta, it is clear that the legal system, as operated in
Alberta, is being hand-crafted by erroneous and biased decisions of the Court taking steps to ensure that
representation in the legal system is the sole purview of the members of said legal system (members of the Alberta
Bar, appointed judges and police). There is no emphasis on truth or justice, only on how one is able to maneuver the
system if one can afford a seasoned lawyer. Unfortunately, the only conclusion that can be drawn from Justice
Rooke’s biased decisions is that he is orchestrating a situation which severely limits the defense and unlawfully makes
decisions as the "CMJ" which make it impossible for the trial judge to conduct a fair trial and even have access to
appropriate evidence to make a proper decision.

60. “The motions brought by the parties require that we examine the circumstances of this case in light of the well-settled,
foundational principle of impartiality of courts of justice. There is no need to reaffirm here the importance of this
principle, which has been a matter of renewed attention across the common law world over the past decade. Simply put,
public confidence in our legal system is rooted in the fundamental belief that those who adjudicate in law must always
do so without bias or prejudice and must be perceived to do so.”
Wewaykum Indian Band ​v.​ Canada, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259, 2003 SCC 45, para 57

61. The underlying tone of these activities would imply that the circumstances that the defense find themselves in, of
being self litigants was of their own choosing. The only reason that the Accused found themselves in such a position
on December 12, 2018 (the date of Justice Rooke’s self appointed case management) was the following: It is a matter
of record that the costs incurred were due to the number of trials and appeals involved going all the way to the

Page 10 of 16 Updated December 2017

 Supreme Court of Canada to correct errors in law of the Alberta Queen’s Bench. After December 12, 2018, the only
reason the Accused are still in the position of being self litigants is due to the biased actions of Justice Rooke, who
wants to keep them in the position of who he really believes they are, another one of his political targets.

ITEM G. ​JUSTICE ROOKE UNDULY RESTRICTED DISCLOSURE FROM BEING PUBLIC

62. Justice Rooke has also restricted the disclosure from being published or made public. This is, in the view of the
Defense, is a pointed attempt to keep information from the public. The information in the disclosure concerns the
Accused and their deceased son and as such it’s privacy is their domain. The choice of the accused to share this
information does not belong to the court. This is a controversial case where a disclosure ban is in the interest of
government agencies, such as Alberta Health Services, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, the Police and the
Courts not to come under the scrutiny of the public eye. This is precisely why it is essential to have an open and
honest record of public agencies, especially where the information contained in the disclosure has the approval of the
individuals whose privacy it may contravene.

ITEM H. ​JUSTICE ROOKE HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY EXECUTE HIS DUTIES AS “CMJ”

63. The following list are some additional ways in which Justice Rook has either ignored the Alberta Rules of Court or
failed to properly execute his duties as “CMJ”:

63.1. In procedural matters on charter applications, Justice Rooke stated that the time for “such applications” is past.
A ruling of this nature is contrary to to rules governing charter applications. Although Alberta courts have
guidelines for deadlines, the Court is not required to strictly maintain those deadlines, especially in
consideration of a self litigant.

63.2. When Dr. Jennifer D’Mello swore that a particular document had not been altered, the Defense objected,
requesting that the Judge examine both documents for differences. Justice Rooke dismissed the request
suggesting that it was probably a formatting issue and refused to examine the documents in any detail.

63.3. Justice Rooke has supported the Crown in their failure to provide lawfully required disclosure to the Defense
instead of directing adverse inferences towards the Crown.

63.4. Justice Rooke has made no attempts to facilitate appropriate applications advanced by the defense. In fact, the
Defense has met resistance in bringing applications to the Court.

63.5. During the course of these proceedings, Justice Rooke has allowed the Crown to enter evidence that should
have been inadmissible and will be the subject of appeal. By stark contrast, Justice Rooke has done everything
in his power to limit admissible, probative evidence on behalf of the defense.

64. It is clear in retrospect that the actions of Justice Rooke, as the “CMJ” are self serving, in that they advance his
personal philosophies as set out herein. His efforts to control the course of justice in this manner are completely
contrary to the role of a Justice as set out by the standards espoused by the Canadian Judicial Council for federally
appointed judges.

ITEM I. ​JUSTICE ROOKE HAS UNILATERALLY APPLIED THE LAW DIFFERENTLY BETWEEN THE CROWN AND THE ACCUSED

65. Justice Rooke has limited the ability of the accused to mount a full and proper defense by doing such things as
unilaterally applying the law differently between the Crown and the accused, instances of which are set out below.

66. On one occasion, in response to the Crown’s application with respect to the Voluntariness of the accused’s
statements, Justice Rooke chose to ignore a well established precedent in the case law, which was listed in the
Defendant’s book of authorities. As justification for ignoring binding case law, Justice Rooke deferred to the fact that
the case law contained “charter” references. To be clear on procedure, this was not a charter application by the
Defense that required charter notice, but simply a response to the Crown’s application where the case law referenced

Page 11 of 16 Updated December 2017

 the charter.

67. Never at any time was instruction given to the defense that a response to an application that was initiated by the
Crown required notice if the response contained any charter references. The only instruction given the accused
relating to the charter was that a “charter” application required notice. Also other arguments presented by the
Defense in response to Voluntariness contained charter arguments, in particular R. v. Oickle, [2000] 2 SCR 3, 2000 SCC
38 (CanLII) and R. v. Broyles , [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595. When these “charter referencing arguments” were used, no
objection was invoked by the Justice. One can only assume that these “charter referencing arguments” were weak
enough to be ruled in favor of the Crown. The only time that Justice Rooke came unglued and pulled out his “charter
objection” trump card, was when an argument that had true merit was used and threatened to undermine the
Crown’s case.

68. In this circumstance the case law was clear. The judge ignored the law and again clearly disadvantaged the Defence.
Justice Rooke, in what can only be termed as judicial overreach, biasedly allowed the improperly elicited statements
of the accused to be admitted into evidence. The Defense suggests. that since the they have not been able to obtain
the transcripts of this court proceeding due to financial constraints, of which the Court is well aware, that the Court
listen to the audio recording, available from the clerk’s office, to verify the veracity of the Defendants clear
recollection of these events. If the Court is unwilling to again take any steps to assist the Defense in placing probative
evidence before the Court, that this Court make a finding against itself for adverse inference.

69. Another example Justice Rooke unilaterally applying the law selectively to the detriment of the Defense is: that the
defendants wished to subpoena key witnesses with material exculpatory evidence, they were required to file
additional paperwork, without a reasonable explanation by the court as to why the material evidence was not
appropriate for the trial judge to hear in the adjudication of this matter, Justice Rooke, would then supercede the
duties of the trier of fact by denying any witness of his choosing the ability to provide existing exculpatory evidence
on behalf of the defense. These highly unusual and highly suspect demands were not imposed on the Crown.

70. The Court also required an additional procedural process for any materials other than that the Defense wished to file
with the Court. The Court required that the Justice review any documents to determine if the information contained
therein was worthy of going before the trier of fact, before it could be submitted by the Defense. It cannot be
understated that all of these actions undertaken by Justice Rooke are coloured by his well established bias against
unrepresented litigants. The normal process for a subpoena is that the subpoena document is to be filled out, filed
with the clerk of the court and then served upon the witness with appropriate conduct money according to the rules
of court, to ensure the attendance of said witness at trial. In short Judge Rooke’s actions fly in the face of natural
justice and make impossible for a fair hearing before an unbiased Court.

71. The result, in the view of Defense, is that Justice Rooke’s biased approach has wrongfully restricted the scope of the
Defense. Justice Rooke’s wholly inappropriate biased positions as set out herein also places inappropriate limitations
upon the trier of fact, by restricting the trial judges ability to hear all relevant probative evidence and the ability to
weigh the same in trial in full context of the proceedings. By his biased and inappropriate actions and improper
procedures, Justice Rooke as the "CMJ" proposes to hamstring the trier of facts, the trial judge, by disallowing
evidence that may fully be germain to the case in trial and by limiting the trial judges scope of power as the trier of
fact to ensure that a fair trial is not only achieved but seen to be achieved. The law allows anyone with material
evidence, the opportunity to provide the same in open court. The actions of Justice Rooke fly in the face of the
principles of natural justice by seeking to limit the scope, ability and power of the trier of fact to fairly assess the case.
This is a biased action by Justice Rooke and tears at the heart of the administration of Justice.

72. As a result of the improper conduct of Justice Rooke with these proceedings, the Defendants find themselves in this
position due to the bias, misdirection and improper application of the law by this Court, whereas an unrepresented
litigants they are in essence chasing their tails in an attempt to satisfy the inappropriate and unlawful demands of the
“CMJ” instead of being able to concentrate their limited resources toward legitimate trial preparation, which is
afforded to most defendants. On the one hand the court castigates the Defendants for being self-represented while
on the other hand is shrouding the legal process in secrecy and making it as complex as possible for the defendants to
effectively respond or defend themselves.

Page 12 of 16 Updated December 2017

 73. The Defense submits to the Court that the actions of Justice Rooke has effectively wasted the Courts time and set
back the legal process by six months as now all of the pretrial work would have to be redone by a judge who is
unbiased in these matters. That more harm than good has been done, that the only possible outcome of continuing
these proceedings in the Province of Alberta will be the continued embarrassment of the Courts in this Province and
the continued prejudice and hardship experienced by the accused.

ITEM J. ​JUSTICE ROOKE IMPROPERLY APPLIES COURT PROCEDURE WRONGFULLY LIMITING THE ACCUSED’S DEFENSE

74. The Defendants have had numerous pretrial applications that have been improperly dealt with by the Court. One
example of many of these is the following:

75. The Defense had scheduled an application that was returnable before the Court on January 18, 2019 to deal with
funding issues. The Defense had also filed a Charter Notice for an application that was returnable on February 25,
2019. On January 17, 2019 the defense by way of email at ostensibly the end of the day at approximately 3:40 pm
attached hereto and marked wherein she indicates the Crown’s desire to bring some matters before the Court prior to
the application returnable February 25, 2019. There is no indication that the Crown is seeking to have the February 25
application brought forward on the 18th of January, 2019, nor is there any indication whatsoever in that
correspondance, that the Court had directed that the matter from the 25th brought forward to the 18th nor had the
Court asked the Crown to advise the Defense of the same. The improper conduct of the Court in allowing this kind of
shoddy procedure had the result that:

76. All parties involved are aware that the defendants live in Grande Prairie , AB and that the Court appearances
requiring the attendance of the Defendants will take place in Calgary Alberta. I believe that even this Court would be
proper in taking judicial notice that the Defendant’s financial difficulties are such that they can not afford to fly to
Calgary but must drive, yet the Crown has no compunction with ostensibly ambushing the Defendants with this
cryptic email sent to them after their departure for Calgary. Again one must note that this email makes no indication
of the Crown requesting that the application returnable on February 25, 2019 be brought forward to the 18 of
January, 2019. It should be noted that given the Crown and the Courts lack of respect for the Defendants is such that
there is little or no concern with ensuring that the unrepresented Defendants are aware of the processes being
applied to their court proceedings from time to time or assuring that they understand the consequences of many of
the things that are being discussed between the Crown and the Court. To top off this egregious conduct, even though
the Court nor the Crown notified the Defense that their application returnable on the 25th of February was being
brought forward, Justice Rooke took it upon himself to strike a good portion of the Defenses application returnable
on February 25 as per the Crowns musings from the January 17th email. This was done despite the fact that the
Defense informed the Court that they were not prepared to proceed nor were they given notice by the Court that the
application returnable on the February 25, 2019 was being brought forward on the 18th of January, 2019. The Court
of Justice Rooke again unilaterally robbed the Defense’s ability to present their full reasoned argument.

77. “THE COURT: We're here to talk about some matters relevant to the voir dires that are going to be held in Lethbridge in
February. Ms. Kristensen, you said you wanted to raise some matters?

MS. KRISTENSEN: Sir, they're the ones that are in my letter to you from yesterday's date, one that the Crown would like
to strike -- make a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the Charter notice; and (2) with respect to the -- one of the
reasons the voir dires were set initially is because the Crown intends to conduct a voluntariness voir dire with respect to
three statements given to police and one to a doctor. There's a number of witnesses which will be called in the course of
​ y intention wasn't to pursue those
that voir dire and the Crown is seeking to have several of them testify by video link. M
today,​ but rather to flag for the Court that there's probably some time that needs to be set aside before February --

THE COURT: Probably which? I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Okay. So you want -- your first application is to strike certain items of the Charter notice. Do you want to
address me on that? Submissions by Ms. Kristensen (Strike Items in Charter Notice)

MS. KRISTENSEN: Certainly, Sir. I'm just -- I just want to make sure I have --

THE COURT: And I've looked at them. Is the so-called Dwernychuk notice that was provided by Mr. and Mrs. Stephan filed

Page 13 of 16 Updated December 2017

 January 15th and there's a number of items on there, and then the grounds for those. There's items and the grounds for
those items and you want 2 through 10 struck?”
Transcript of Court Proceedings January 18, 2019 Page 66 line 22 to page 67 line 11

78. “THE ACCUSED D. STEPHAN: The case that, well, I apologize, I haven't given much thought to the email. I guess I should
put the Court on notice of that, that I have not yet had a chance to really go into that in depth and take that into
consideration. And so I'm not in a position that I can really speak to all the elements surrounding that -- that Charter
application.”

Transcript of Court Proceedings January 18, 2019 Page 67 lines 37-41

REASONS FOR BELIEF OF BIAS FROM THE ACCUSED

79. Since the father of one of the Accused, Anthony Stephan, took on the Canada Revenue Agency (hereinafter referred
to as “CRA”) in one of the most publicized incidents of CRA abuse in Canadian history and affected a change in public
policy, there has been an internal identity flag which has created animosity from government agencies. This identity
flag, placed on Tony Stephan and his immediate family, including the Defendants, located in CPIC, and other database
systems used for public identification within government agencies, has resulted in the continual harassment and
unfair treatment of the Stephan family by CRA, Health Canada and Police agencies.

80. For no good reason the children and other relatives of Anthony Stephan have been subjected to this abuse for over 20
years, sporting labels like detaxers, armed and dangerous, freemen, sovereign citizens, etc. This is a factual and
documented situation, with the family being the target of raids on their business, being denied child health benefits,
being denied public services, as well as being the targets of border delays, etc. We do not believe it a coincidence that
Justice Rooke would assign himself to this case where the accused have been falsely flagged, given his widely
disseminated personal philosophies, clearly showing his disdain for de-taxers, sovereign citizens, freemen, etc.. As an
aside it is absolutely perplexing that Justice Rooke is on the record castigating de-taxers, sovereign citizens, and
freemen, considering them a detriment to society, while most reasonable people in Canada would view those who
are concerned about runaway taxes and personal freedom the cornerstone of guarding and maintaining the laws that
were designed to uphold the ideals and democratic principles upon which our society is based. Yet with Justice Rooke
in his position as a Supreme Court Judge, advancing his personal philosophies from the bench will have great weight
to many in society who do not have the ability to think critically, even though those philosophies hold little
intellectual merit and as far as the Defense is aware have little traction in the legal or intellectual community. Yet the
Defendants find themselves at the mercy of Justice Rooke’s philosophical whims, as opposed to correctly applying the
law, which is in fact the heart of his judicial responsibilities.

81. The Accused have acted in good faith throughout this matter. They brought their concerns of bias to the Justice Rooke
by way of letter filed December 21, 2019, prior to the commencement of the voir-dire process. In spite of their
concerns over the judges appearance of bias and their past dealings with government agencies, including the courts
(paragraphs 78 & 79), they decided not to file an application for recusal at that time, but to allow the judge an
opportunity to show impartiality. Justice Rooke’s actions were carefully considered. The Defense was of the
understanding that the proof was in the pudding and that they would have to give Justice Rooke an opportunity to
perform his duties from the bench appropriately. For the last 5 months the Accused have been in the courtroom and
in communication with Justice Rooke and have seen and experienced the biased treatment in his court and then
some, which they feared, at the hands of his court as listed in items A (para 13) to J (para 78), herein.

82. As outlined in the Ethical Principles for Judges published by the Canadian Judicial Council and attached hereto as
Exhibit 1, there is an established separation between the political and the judicial. It is the belief of the Accused that
Justice Rooke has through his positions is trying to legislate from the bench when everyone understands that it is our
elected representatives to make the law and the duties of the appointed judges to correctly interpret and apply the
law with partiality and without applying their own personal beliefs. The application of law by the courts is supposed
to be an objective endeavour untainted by personal bias of the judiciary. It is the observation of the Defendants that
Justice Rooke intends to harm or punish them and their children in spite of his statements of “it’s not my problem”
and “I don’t care”, his actions through the application of his personal bias indicate the contrary.

Page 14 of 16 Updated December 2017

 83. The observable fact of the matter is that in application of the Justice’s restrictive and extremely biased philosophies
towards individuals that his court regards as unrepresented litigants, freemen or sovereign citizens, that his intent is
to limit the ability of the defense to a fair trial and to punish the Defendants for their personal political views that
clash with Justice Rooke’s. These actions taint the ability to obtain justice in Alberta, and highlight the corrupt
activities within a system void of consequences to those appointed as judges in our court system.

84. Justice Rooke’s actions speak for themselves. It has come to the point where it is necessary for the Accused to file this
application in order to protect themselves and their children from the very people who have the greatest
responsibility to apply principles of Justice and protect the innocent.

RISK OF HARM AND FURTHER VIOLATION OF CHARTER RIGHTS

85. The restrictive actions of the judge are clearly i making it impossible for the Defense to obtain a fair and unbiased
hearing in this matter. It is interesting to note that is in fact the bias and inability of Alberta justices to apply the law
correctly. The very reason that this matter was sent back for retrial by the Supreme Court of Canada was the
improper application of the law in the jury instructions from the bench, which restricted the jury to consider all of the
evidence provided at the first trial. The Defendants find it devastating to once again find actions of the current judge
through misapplication of the law is ostensibly denying them the opportunity of having a fair and impartial trial. If
this trend continues it will leave the respect for the legal system in tatters, with charter violations being ignored by
those in authority. This kind of egregious conduct not only has clear impact on the Defendants, but every freedom
loving Canadian who respects the truth.

Material relied on:

1. Court Transcripts R. v. Stephan (selected portions from relevant proceedings)
2. Communications between the Court, the Crown, Alberta Health Services, the Defense (letters, emails)
3. Applications to the court
4. Newspaper articles as cited
5. Journal articles as cited
6. Applicable documents from disclosure
7. Wewaykum Indian Band ​v.​ Canada, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259, 2003 SCC 45
8. Conduct/misconduct of Justice Rooke in open court towards the Defendants
9. Canadian Judicial Council - Ethical Principles for Judges
Applicable rules:
1. The Alberta Rules of Court

Applicable Acts and Regulations:

1. Constitution Act, 1982 and any amendments thereto
2. Judicature Act (Province of Alberta) and any amendments thereto
3. Court of Queen’s Bench Act - Alberta and any amendments thereto

WARNING ​If you do not attend the hearing either in person or through your lawyer, the Court may grant
the application in your absence. You will be bound by any order that the Court makes. If you wish to take
part in this application, you or your lawyer must attend Court on the date and at the time shown at the
beginning of this form. If you intend to rely on an affidavit or other evidence when the application is heard
or considered, you must give reasonable notice of the evidence to the applicant.

Page 15 of 16 Updated December 2017

Page 16 of 16 Updated December 2017