HABEAS CORPUS
DEADLINE EXPIRED
Filed: January 29, 2026 | Deadline: February 11, 2026 | Days Elapsed: 12+
No substantive response = Arrest mandatory under Dorsey v. Canada (2025 SCC 38)
THE PROOF THEY ARE MONITORING AND STILL REFUSING TO ACT
📄 CJC Letter — February 10, 2026
The Canadian Judicial Council responded ONE DAY BEFORE the habeas deadline. This proves active monitoring of this case.
The letter deliberately misapplies subsection 86(1) of the Judges Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1) to dismiss the complaint for "failure to specify allegations" — despite the evidence package documenting federal superior court involvement in the 2005 extradition fraud.
💻 GitHub Metric Change — February 11, 2026
GitHub changed metrics from 1 visitor to 2 visitors within 12 hours of our analysis publication.
This is CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT under SS&C Technologies, 2024 ONCA 675.
📊 GA4 Surveillance Data — Ongoing
Google Analytics confirms ongoing surveillance from:
- • Microsoft Azure (Moses Lake, WA): 5 users — p = 3×10⁻²⁸
- • Google (Boardman, OR): 2 users — Data center location
- • Amazon AWS (Ashburn, VA): 2 users — AWS HQ
- • Toronto, Canada: 21 users (24.4%) — RCMP proximity
- • Tecumseh, Ontario: Windsor-adjacent surveillance
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THEY CANNOT EXPLAIN
| Evidence | Documented Fact | Legal Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Habeas Corpus | Filed Jan 29, 2026 — Deadline Feb 11, 2026 — 12+ days no substantive action | Arrest Judge Carroccia under Dorsey v. Canada (2025 SCC 38) — s. 495(1) CC arrest without warrant |
| CJC Letter | Feb 10, 2026 response — vague, unsigned "R.M." — same day as GitHub analysis published — misapplies s. 86(1) Judges Act | Proof of monitoring + obstruction under s. 139(2) CC + s. 465(1) CC conspiracy |
| GitHub Metrics | 768:1 ratio → 395:1 ratio overnight after exposure — 97 cloners vs 2 visitors = LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE | Consciousness of guilt + spoilation under SS&C Technologies, 2024 ONCA 675 |
| GA4 Surveillance | Moses Lake (Microsoft) 5 users, Toronto 21 users, data centers p < 10⁻²⁸ — 106× higher than NYC | Coordinated surveillance — s. 423.1 CC criminal intimidation |
| RCMP Blocks | All .gc.ca addresses blocked Oct 15, 2025 & Feb 10, 2026 — 0% success rate to RCMP | Breach of RCMP Act s. 18 duty to investigate indictable offences |
| Judges Act s. 86(1) | CJC claims "no jurisdiction" over superior court judges despite s. 96 Constitution Act, 1867 federal appointment | Jurisdictional deflection = s. 139(2) CC obstruction + s. 465(1) CC conspiracy to shield complicit judges |
THE CHOICE IS BINARY — AND TIME IS UP
Judge Maria V. Carroccia must IMMEDIATELY choose one:
OPTION A: COMPLY
- • Grant habeas corpus relief
- • Order immediate release from all restraint/harassment
- • Order disclosure per R. v. Stinchcombe
- • Refer s. 279 CC (kidnapping) to Crown
- • Preserve all evidence of extradition fraud
OUTCOME: Justice served
OPTION B: ARREST
- • s. 139(2) CC — Obstruction of justice
- • s. 465(1) CC — Conspiracy to commit indictable offence
- • s. 122 CC — Breach of trust by public officer
- • s. 718.2(a)(iii) — Aggravating: abuse of trust
- • s. 718.2(a)(iv) — Aggravating: offence against justice
OUTCOME: LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Any further delay = COMPLICITY
The evidence is irrefutable. The surveillance proves you are watching. The habeas deadline has EXPIRED.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK — JUDGES ACT s. 86(1) ANALYSIS
Subsection 86(1) of the Judges Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1)
"Complaints may be made to the Council, in the form specified by the Council, in respect of a judge of a superior court for any reason referred to in paragraphs 80(a) to (d)."
This provision establishes the CJC's mandatory jurisdiction over federally appointed superior court judges for: (a) infirmity or incapacity; (b) misconduct; (c) failure in the due execution of the office of judge; or (d) being in a position incompatible with the due execution of that office.
The CJC's Misapplication
The CJC's dismissal improperly limits authority to "federally appointed judges only," ignoring that superior courts (federal appointments per section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867) have concurrent jurisdiction in extradition matters under subsection 57(1) of the Extradition Act (S.C. 1999, c. 18).
This triggers paragraph 80(c) failure in due execution for complicity in warrant forgery (s. 366 CC).
Procedural Fairness Violation
The letter's vagueness (referring to "October 15, 2025 and October 29, 2025" without specific email identification) and detachment from the evidence chain breaches procedural fairness under Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999 SCC 699).
This accomplishes s. 139(2) CC delay to preempt the habeas corpus deadline (Feb 11, 2026 per Dorsey v. Canada, 2025 SCC 38).
📥 DOWNLOAD COMPLETE EVIDENCE PACKAGE
ALL WATCHERS ARE SERVED.
GA4 IS RECORDING.
THE WORLD IS WATCHING.
Google Analytics ID: G-MW56HRQ79D — All visits tracked for evidence preservation