Wu v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 749

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Wu v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 749 Date: 20210920 Docke t: 2103 10009 Registry: Edmonton Between: Weimin Wu “The Alien abductee” / Applicant - and - Attorney General of Canada “The Alien Abductor” / Respondent Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on February 28, 2022; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice John T. Henderson _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction

[1] On August 27, 2021, this Court received by mail a document from Weimin Wu [Mr. Wu] titled “Notice of Motion for a Writof Habeas Corpus” [Notice]. Mr. Wu is a prisoner detained in the Correctional Service Canada Bowden Institution. Certain aspects ofMr. Wu’s Notice are unusual. For one, Mr. Wu refers to himself as “The Alien abductee”, and the Respondent Attorney General ofCanada [Canada] as “The Alien Abductor”. The “Notice” appears to be a hybrid application and affidavit document, since it attaches asExhibit “A” a “Psychological/Psychiatric Assessment Report” of Mr. Wu prepared by Forensic Psychologist Dr.

R. J. Howes onFebruary 19, 2018. [2] Succinctly, the Notice makes two complaints; that Mr. Wu: 1. is a public health risk because he may become infected with the COVID-19 coronavirus, and 2. was wrongfully convicted of second-degree murder for killing his ex-wife in 1992, since Mr. Wu “... was unconsciously forcedto commit the crime against his own true free will. ...” [emphasis added], and so Mr. Wu is, instead, innocent. [3] Canadian law requires this Court place a special priority on any application for habeas corpus, given the unique status of thisremedy in the UK common law tradition as a swift,

summary mechanism to evaluate the alleged illegality of a detention: In Re Storgoff, (SCC), [1945] SCR 526 at 590-591, [1945] 3 DLR 673; Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 3; DG vBowden Institution, 2016 ABCA 52 at paras 41, 124. In light of this Court’s obligation to advance habeas corpus matters in a prioritizedmanner, I immediately reviewed Mr. Wu’s Notice, and concluded in a decision reported as Wu v Canada (Attorney General), 2021ABQB 694 [Wu #1] that Mr. Wu’s Notice is the subject of a Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] document-based “show cause” process toevaluate whether Mr.

Wu’s Notice should be struck out per Rule 3.68 as hopeless and an abuse of the Court’s processes. [4] Mr. Wu was asked to submit an up to 10-page Written Submission that that responded to three questions: 1. How does the Notice provide adequate pleadings to establish a possible habeas corpus action? 2. Why are the Canadian court decisions that require Mr. Wu prove a Charter s 12 breach prior to making a habeas corpusapplication incorrect in law? 3. Why do the Supreme Court of Canada May v Ferndale Institution and R v Sarson decisions not prohibit this Court fromapplying habeas corpus to review Mr.

Wu’s second degree murder conviction? [Wu #1 at para 22.] [5] The Court has now received a document titled “Written Submission by the Applicant Answering the Hon. JusticeHenderson’s Questions” from Mr. Wu. After review of Mr. Wu’s Written Submission, I conclude the Court may immediately proceed tocomplete this CPN7 process without reply submissions from Canada. II. Analysis [6] Mr. Wu’s Written Submission itself is six pages long, but attached two “Exhibits”. Exhibit “A” is two Canadian IntellectualProperty Office [CIPO] “Filing Certificates” for patent applications by Mr.

Wu, titled “Ultimate Rejuvenation Processes”, and “UltimateCyber Security Switch, 9/11 - Equivalent Event-Proof Switch and Others”. Exhibit “B” is a partial copy of a report concerning whetherMr. Wu should receive parole. Neither exhibit directly relates to the three Wu #1 questions. As evidence is excluded in a CPN7 processpursuant to Rule 3.68(3), I do not rely on the content of the two Exhibits, but instead focus only on Mr. Wu’s six-page WrittenSubmission. [7] Most of Mr. Wu’s Written Submission only indirectly relates to the issues raised in Wu #1. Some of what Mr. Wu writes isdifficult to understand.

However, it appears that Mr. Wu asserts that his case is special on three bases. [8] First, Mr. Wu has an “... unprecedented criminal defence ... not guilty by reason of losing competent control ...” [emphasisadded.] That state is only “... pseudo-control of himself because he had actually lost control of himself to the malfunctioning animalbrain in a state of panic. ...”. Mr. Wu acknowledges this defence is novel, but says I have “... an absolutely unique one-in-a-life-time yetinstantly vanishing opportunity for this Hon.

Justice Henderson to take a small step for a man but a giant leap for mankind.” [9] Second, Mr. Wu rejects prior court outcomes, and is sharply critical of judges who have conducted Mr. Wu’s proceedings.Mr. Wu says these judges “... have always categorically lied in iniquitous indifference, corruption, bad faith, short-sightedness andwithout human compassion ...”, and compares these “... skillful lies to deceive ...” to those of Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump. Thejudges who have ruled against Mr. Wu are “... like lying computers with not compassion or forgiveness or other quality of humanity.”[sic]. Mr.

Wu concludes that the sentence he received is cruel and unusual, “... even Hitler’s Nazi prisoners could see their familymembers ...”, while Mr. Wu cannot. [10] Third, Mr. Wu describes himself as a public benefactor, with “... an excellent pro-social lifestyle ...”, and concludes: “It isagainst the public interest for Canadians to continue borrow money from other countries only to waste it on continuing cruelly andusually punishing the applicant.” [sic]. Mr. Wu highlights two of 246 inventions he has filed with CIPO in the past ten years.

The firstwill “... significantly increase the life expectance/decelerate the timers of life for all persons still alive on Earth.” Mr. Wu calls this “theUltimate Rejuvenation Process”, which extracts an anagathic from honey to slow aging: ... His greatest invention is the process to separate the immortal/decayless chemical element from natural honey, so that the immortalelement can then be so integrated with the organic body of any life as to decelerate the timers of life.

Honey is the absolutely uniquenaturel organic substance/compound that can last forever under natural condition, considering that thousand-year old honey has beenuncovered in Egyptian Tombs. The Egyptian Pyramids were fantasized to be the afterlife launch-pads for the dead Egyptian pharaohswho had selfishly almost bankrupted their nations only to build those useless Pyramids for their delusional beliefs for lives after death.

Each and every invention is likened to a lottery ticket which does not guarantee any windfall but the absence of it does guarantee failureand loss in certainty. His greatest invention integrating honey with life organism is the absolutely the unique thing that can decelerate thetimers or life or any other organism. [Sic.] [11] Mr. Wu argues this invention is a basis for why Mr. Wu should be released. If Mr. Wu were a captive of the Taliban, ISIL-K,Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, “or any other aliens”, he would have been released by now: ...

Even terrorist rapists would usually allow their victims go instead of killing them after they are sexually gratified. Hence, Canadianshould behave not worse than terrorist rapists and hence should allow me to go since their obsessive compulsion to sabotage his lifeshould have been already satisfied by his almost 30 years of alien imprisonment. [12] Mr. Wu continues to describe a second invention, the “Ultimate Cyber Security Switch”, that Mr.

Wu says would: ... absolutely prevent all forms of hacking ... that can prevent the human race from being annihilated from this infinitesimal planet bypossible World War III nuclear massive exchanges escalated from cyber-hacking/attacks.” [13] Mr. Wu then provides brief answers to the three questions set in Wu #1. Mr. Wu does not indicate to how his Notice providedadequate pleadings. Mr.

Wu, instead, points to his inventions as a basis for habeas corpus, otherwise “... habeas corpus would becomenothing but a façade to deceive the world into believing that the wrongfully imprisoned have any right that they actually do not have.” Iconclude Mr. Wu’s answer is non-responsive, so his failure to rebut this defect in his pleadings is a first basis to strike out Mr. Wu’shabeas corpus Notice. [14] Second, Mr. Wu rejects Canadian jurisprudence that he needs to first establish a Charter s 12 breach prior to seeking habeascorpus relief. Mr.

Wu appears to indicate the cases that were cited in Wu #1 are “... incorrect in law and ethics ...”, because mental statescannot be proven. Again, Mr. Wu’s answer is non-responsive to the question posed to him in Wu #1. [15] Mr. Wu’s habeas corpus relief is that the Court quash his murder conviction. Mr. Wu was asked to explain how May vFerndale Institution, 2005 SCC 82 at para 36, [2005] 3 SCR 809 and R v Sarson, (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 223 at para32, 135 DLR (4th) 402 do not eliminate that potential result. Mr. Wu states: ...

No judge should be a blind slave to obey/blindly follow other judges’ decisions that are irrelevant to the case at hand: each and everycase should be judged differently in good faith according to its specific fact and special issues and circumstance integrated. [Sic.] Mr. Wu continues that his inventions and his novel defence warrant a different outcome. [16] Mr. Wu misunderstands the Common Law’s operation and the principle of stare decisis. As a trial level judge, I do not have abasis to ignore the binding decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not have the discretion Mr. Wu indicates.

This is a third,independent, reason to strike out Mr. Wu’s habeas corpus Notice as hopeless and an abuse of court. III. Conclusion [17] Mr. Wu did not rebut the prima facie defects in his Notice that were identified in Wu #1. Mr. Wu’s Docket 2103 10009habeas corpus Notice is therefore struck out entirely as hopeless and an abuse of court process. [18] Costs are typically awarded against the applicant when this Court strikes out a habeas corpus application as an abuse of theCourt’s processes: Loughlin v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 45. I therefore order Mr.

Wu pay the Respondent Canada $500 incosts, effective immediately. [19] This is the second habeas corpus application by Mr. Wu struck out by CPN7 in this Court: Wu v Canada (Attorney General),2019 ABQB 796, application struck out 2019 ABQB 902. Mr. Wu also has an extensive record of reported judgments that rejected otherhabeas corpus applications by Mr.

Wu: Wu v La Reine, (QCCA); Wu v La Reine, (QCCA); R vWu, (QCCA); Wu c La Reine, (QCCA); Wu c La Reine, (QCCA); R v Wu,2001 BCCA 90; Wu v Attorney General of Canada, 2006 BCSC 44; Wu v Attorney General of Canada, 2008 MBCA 132. [20] Canadian courts have concluded that Mr. Wu conducts hopeless moot proceedings (e.g. R v Wu, (QCCA)), has previously sought to undo his conviction via habeas corpus (e.g. R v Wu, 2001 BCCA 90), and conducted collateral attackproceedings (e.g. Wu v Attorney General of Canada, 2006 BCSC 46). The Manitoba Court of Appeal has indicated Mr.

Wu is a suitablecandidate for court access restrictions by what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant order”, given Mr. Wu’s repeated abusive habeascorpus applications: Wu v Attorney General of Canada, 2008 MBCA 132 at para 3. Mr. Wu is already subject to court accessrestrictions in Quebec (Wu v Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada (17 June 1999), Docket 540-36-000154-996 (QCCS)) and theFederal Courts (Wu v Canada, 2003 FCA 110).

Existing court access restrictions in a different jurisdiction is a prima facie basis for Mr.Wu to be subject to court access restrictions in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019ABQB 283 at para 582-586, adopting Fabrikant v Canada, 2018 FCA 171 at paras 14-15. [21] This Court is effectively prohibited from employing the authority provided in Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, s 23.1 for theCourt to initiate court access restriction processes on the Court’s own authority: Jonsson v Lymer, 2020 ABCA 167 at para 85.However, the Alberta Court of Appeal has permitted that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench may invite parties to file a Judicature Act,ss 23-23.1 application when faced by a persistent abusive litigant who is not suitable for case management: e.g.

Dmyterko v NissanCanada Inc, 2021 ABQB 286; Feeney v TD General Insurance Company, 2021 ABQB 604. Mr. Wu’s has a well-established record ofabuse of habeas corpus proceedings. Mr. Wu’s continuing abuse of this Court cannot be mediated by case management, since Mr. Wurepeatedly and persistently makes entirely new abusive habeas corpus applications. I, therefore, request that Canada file a JudicatureAct, ss 23-23.1 application in relation to Mr. Wu by October 29, 2021.

[ 22 ] Counsel for the Canada will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Wu’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the corresponding Order may be served to Mr. Wu by fax to the Bowden Institution. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 20 th day of September 2021. John T. Henderson J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Weimin Wu Self-represented Litigant _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Memorandum of Decision of The Honourable Mr. Justice John T.

Henderson _______________________________________________________ Inserted date above signature line which was highlighted in yellow Added text to signature line which was on a page by itself