Monday, July 31, 2017

CANADA, PUTS BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, THROUGH TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT.

SHOULD CANADA'S ACTIONS, BE IGNORED, FOR CARRYING OUT TORTURE AGAINST BLOGGER?.  AND FOR BLOCKING EVERY EFFORT OF THIS BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, TO GET LEGAL PROTECTION, UNDER ITS OWN LAWS, AS WELL AS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS?.


LOUISE HORTON: LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBER, ACCUSED TENANT (AND THIS BLOGGER), OF "ABUSING THE PROCESS", ON TUESDAY JULY 26TH, AFTER THE TENANT TRIED TO GET A HEARING, AT THE L&T BOARD, OVER AN ILLEGAL EVICTION, BY HER LANDLORD, WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, FROM THE L&T BOARD. HORTON, DISMISSED THE MATTER, WITHOUT HAVING A HEARING, LEAVING THE TENANT WITHOUT ANY PROTECTION, UNDER THE ACT.
(The tenant now has to file an application, with the Divisional Court, to have the matter addressed. The Div. Court, can either address the matter, directly, or send it back the L&T Board, to be addressed).





BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY EVICTED AND WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, BEING ISSUED BY THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. THE BLOGGER'S LANDLORD, YINGGUO AI, HAS NEVER APPLIED TO THE BOARD, FOR AN ORDER, TO EVICT THE TENANT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HAS ALSO NEVER ISSUED AN EVICTION ORDER, AGAINST THE TENANT.


YET, THE TENANT AND ALSO BLOGGER, HAS HAD TO FACE INCREDILE HARDSHIP, FROM BEING FORCED OUT OF HER HOME, AS PART OF CANADA'S MKULTA AND OTHER FORMS OF PYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE, TARGETED AGAINST THIS BLOGGER.

THE TENANT'S LEGAL RIGHTS, ARE BEING ABUSED.

THE ACTIONS, OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, IN THIS CASE, HAS DIVERTED SO MUCH, FROM NORAL PRACTICE, IN REGARDS TO FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEDURE, INVOLVING THE TENANT, THAT MORE THAN ONE SECTIONS OF THE LAW, HAS BEEN VIOLATED. THOSE RIGHTS OF THE TENANT, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, THOSE UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AND EVEN THOSE UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE (FOR CORRUPTION, BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS) SHOULD ALSO APPLY HERE, AND IN THIS CASE. (AND AGAINST THOSE ADJUDICATORS INVOLVED).




1. WHY HAS THIS TENANT, BEEN DENIED, A HEARING AT THE BOARD?. THE LATEST EFFORT ON JULY 26TH, WHEN SHE WAS TOLD THAT SHE WAS "ABUSING THE PROCESS", BY FILING AN APPLICATION, TO DEAL WITH THE ILLEGAL EVICTION. THAT WAS CARRIED OUT AGAINST HER, BY THE LANDLORD (WHO ALSO CHANGED THE LOCKS ON THE DOOR, ILLEGALY, ON APRIL 1ST, WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD), AND BY THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES.




2. THE CLEAREST EVIDENCE, OF GOVERNMENT ABUSE, AS ALL EFFORTS BY THE BLOGGER/TENANT, TO GET ANY LEGAL REMEDY FOR HER SITUATUION, HAS ALSO BEEN BLOCKED, BY THOSE CANADIAN AUTHORITIES. BOTH WITHIN CANADA AND ALSO OUTSIDE OF THAT COUNTRY.




3. THE ILLEGAL EVICTION, OF THE TENANT/BLOGGER, WAS THE LATEST EFFORT MADE, BY CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, TO DESTABILIZED THE BLOGGER. AND TO CAUSE DETRIMENTAL HARM, TO THE BLOGGER, BY INFLICTING PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING, UPON THE BLOGGER.




4. THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE, TO SUGGEST, THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD AND BY MEMBER, LOUISE HORTON, ON JULY 26TH TO DENY THE TENANT A HEARING, WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO BLOCK THE TENANT FROM GETTING ANY FINANCIAL COMPENSATION, REGARDING THE ILLEGAL EVICTION. 


5. ONLY THE LANDLORD AND BOARD (AS WELL AS THE COURT), HAS THE LEGAL JURISDICTION TO EVICT A TENANT, IN ONTARIO. NOT THE FIRE SERVICES, NOR ANY LANDLORD. LEGALLY, THE TENANT/BLOGGER , IS ALSO STILL ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTION, AS A TENANT, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT. INCLUDING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE HOUSED, BY THE LANDLORD, UNTIL SUCH A TIME, WHEN AN EVICTION ORDER, IS ISSUED AGAINST THE TENANT.




6. CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO SUCH ORDER, BY THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AGAINST THE TENANT. IN THE EYES OF THE BOARD, THE EVICTION ORDER IS NOT NECESSARY, SINCE IT HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED, THE ILLEGAL EVICTION OF THE TENANT, BY THE LANDLORD.  AND THAT CONTRARY TO THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, THE TENANT'S EFFORTS TO GET REHOUSED, BY THE LANDLORD, OR TO GET ANY COMPENSATION, FOR HIS ACTIONS AGAINST HER, HAS ALSO BEEN
DENIED BY THE BOARD. AND IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT, OF THE TENANT/BLOGGER.




7. THE TENANT ALSO, HAS NEVER RECOVERED, FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, ANY EXPENSES THAT SHE HAS PAID OUT, AS A RESULT OF THE LANDLORD AND/OR FIRE SERVICES ACTIONS, REGARDING THE ILLEGAL EVICTION.




8. BECAUSE THE TENANT'S RENTAL UNIT, WAS DEEMED TO BE UNSAFE, BY THE FIRE SERVICES AND ALSO WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR AND OR RENOVATIONS, TO BRING IT UP TO FIRE CODE STANDARDS, THE TENANT IS ALSO ENTITLED TO RECOVER COMPENSATIONS, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, SECTIONS 37(1), 48-57, INCLUDING 3 MONTHS RENT, UNDER EACH CATEGORY OF THE ACT, WHERE THE TENANT'S RENTAL UNIT WAS CONFISCATED BY THE LANDLORD, (REGARDLESS OF HIS REASONS ON HIS PART), BUT UNDER THE ACT, FOR RENOVATIONS AND OR REPAIRS.


Below are portion of the Residential Tenancies Act 2006, as well as the new law, The Rental Fairness Act, both of which has been ignored, in recognizing the rights of this particular tenant, Valerie Guillaume. And this should be viewed as part of the ongoing AND discriminatory practice against this individual, by the Canadian government, in its effort to destabilized this person.


Residential Tenancies Act
Part V
                         Security of Tenure and Termination of Tenancies


Security of Tenure
Termination only in accordance with the Act
37.(1) A tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with this Act. 2006, c.17, s. 37(1)

(In other words, where there was no order issued by the Board, the tenancy is still in effect).
Termination by notice

(2) If a notice of termination is given in accordance with this Act and the tenant vacates the rental unit in accordance with the notice, the tenancy is terminated on the termination date set out in the notice. 2006, c. 17, s. 37 (2).
Restriction on recovery of possession

39. A landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit subject to a tenancy unless,



(a) the tenant has vacated or abandoned the unit; or


(b) an order of the Board evicting the tenant has authorized the possession.

2006, c. 17, s. 39.

(In other words, where there was no order issued by the Board, the tenancy is still in effect). As in my case, currently. Yet this has also been ignored, by the Board.
Notice of Termination - General
Notice of termination

43. (1) Where this Act permits a landlord or tenant to give a notice of termination, the notice shall be in a form approved by the Board and shall,

(a) identify the rental unit for which the notice is given;

(b) state the date on which the tenancy is to terminate; and

(c) be signed by the person giving the notice, or the person’s agent.

2006, c. 17, s. 43 (1).
Same

(2) If the notice is given by a landlord, it shall also set out the reasons and details respecting the termination and inform the tenant that,

(a) if the tenant vacates the rental unit in accordance with the notice, the tenancy terminates on the date set out in clause (1) (b);

(b) if the tenant does not vacate the rental unit, the landlord may apply to the Board for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant; and

(c) if the landlord applies for an order, the tenant is entitled to dispute the application.

2006, c. 17, s. 43 (2).
Notice, demolition, conversion or repairs

50. (1) A landlord may give notice of termination of a tenancy if the landlord requires possession of the rental unit in order to,

(a) demolish it;

(b) convert it to use for a purpose other than residential premises; or

(c) do repairs or renovations to it that are so extensive that they require a building permit and vacant possession of the rental unit.

2006, c. 17, s. 50 (1). Same


(2) The date for termination specified in the notice shall be at least 120 days after the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term. 2006, c. 17, s. 50 (2).

Same


(3) A notice under clause (1) (c) shall inform the tenant that if he or she wishes to exercise the right of first refusal under section 53 to occupy the premises after the repairs or renovations, he or she must give the landlord notice of that fact in accordance with subsection 53 (2) before vacating the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 50 (3).
Compensation, demolition or conversion

52. A landlord shall compensate a tenant in an amount equal to three months rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) the tenant receives notice of termination of the tenancy for the purposes of demolition or conversion to non-residential use;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) in the case of a demolition, it was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of any other Act.
2006, c. 17, s. 52.

Tenant's right of first refusal, repair or renovation

53. (1) A tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy for the purpose of repairs or renovations may, in accordance with this section, have a right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed. 2006, c. 17, s. 53 (1).

Tenant's right of first refusal, repair or renovation


53. (1) A tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy for the purpose of repairs or renovations may, in accordance with this section, have a right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed. 2006, c. 17, s. 53 (1).


Tenant's right to compensation, repair or renovation

54. (1) A landlord shall compensate a tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy under section 50 for the purpose of repairs or renovations in an amount equal to three months rent or shall offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) the tenant does not give the landlord notice under subsection 53 (2) with respect to the rental unit;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) the repair or renovation was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of this or any other Act.

2006, c. 17, s. 54 (1).

 Same
(2) A landlord shall compensate a tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy under section 50 for the purpose of repairs or renovations in an amount equal to the rent for the lesser of three months and the period the unit is under repair or renovation if,

(a) the tenant gives the landlord notice under subsection 53 (2) with respect to the rental unit;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) the repair or renovation was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of this or any other Act.

2006, c. 17, s. 54 (2).

 Tenant's right to compensation, severance
55. A landlord of a residential complex that is created as a result of a severance shall compensate a tenant of a rental unit in that complex in an amount equal to three months rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) before the severance, the residential complex from which the new residential complex was created had at least five residential units;

(b) the new residential complex has fewer than five residential units; and

(c) the landlord gives the tenant a notice of termination under section 50 less than two years after the date of the severance.

2006, c. 17, s.55.

 Security of tenure, severance, subdivision
56. Where a rental unit becomes separately conveyable property due to a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act or a plan of subdivision under section 51 of that Act, a landlord may not give a notice under section 48 or 49 to a person who was a tenant of the rental unit at the time of the consent or approval. 2006, c. 17, s. 56.

Former tenant's application where notice given in bad faith:
(Note: You have a right as a former tenant, who has been illegally evicted, as I have been, to apply to the board for a hearing and to seek a redress, for this illegal action that was carried out against you. Only in my case, the L&T Board, has regarded it as an "abuse of process", as quoted by the Member, Louise Horton, to me on July 26th, at a hearing, in regards to the said matter. She, also, ceremoniously, dismissed the matter. So I was left without my rental accommodation, and also without any compensation, for the wrong done to me). In the view of the L&T Board, section 57 (see below) did not apply to me, as a tenant.

57. (1) The Board may make an order described in subsection (3) if, on application by a former tenant of a rental unit, the Board determines that,

(a) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 48 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 48 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit;

(b) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 49 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 49 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) or 49 (2) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit; or

(c) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 50 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and the landlord did not demolish, convert or repair or renovate the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit.

2006, c. 17, s. 57 (1).
Time limitation

(2) No application may be made under subsection (1) more than one year after the former tenant vacated the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 57 (2).
 Orders
(3) The orders referred to in subsection (1) are the following:

1. An order that the landlord pay a specified sum to the former tenant for,
i.
all or any portion of any increased rent that the former tenant has
incurred or will incur for a one-year period after vacating the rental unit, and

ii. reasonable out-of-pocket moving, storage and other like expenses that the former tenant has incurred or will incur.

2. An order for an abatement of rent.

3. An order that the landlord pay to the Board an administrative fine not exceeding the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

4. Any other order that the Board considers appropriate.

2006, c. 17, s. 57 (3).  (Note: the Landlord and Tenant Board, did not apply any of these sections, of the Residential Tenancies Act, in my case. What it has done is to dismiss my T2 application and also regarded it as "an abuse of process", on my part (to  reclaim my legal rights under the law). And by doing so has also accomplished two things. 1. To ensure that I never get back into my rental unit. (which was also the aim of the government officials, who started this whole process, against me, back in March 2017). 2. To ensure that I do not get the same treatment as other tenants, in the same situation, including, no financial compensation, to me. Either in recovering the financial loss, I have experienced, as a result of the illegal eviction, by the landlord and the T.O. Fire Services, or in receiving any damages awarded to me, as a result of the illegal actions taken against me, by those mentioned. Either way, it has achieved its goal, in destabilizing me by forcing me out of my home and also in causing me unnecessary hardship and suffering, through its corruption. And also the personal corruption, of those other Canadian government officials, who are also involved.


As A Follow Up, To The Matter, Mentioned Above:  On Friday, July 29th, I held a protest at the Landlord and Tenant Building, (which also housed the Family Court and other government offices). The public response was also encouraging, including, some members of the public, advising me to also get a petition signed, to removed the corrupt L&T Board Members, such as Louise Horton, Sylvia Watson and the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah, from their current positions, with the L&T Board. There will be further protests at the L&T Board, until I either get a hearing, or the Board members mentioned, are removed. There will also be a petition for the public to sign, to be sent to the Premiere of Ontario, and the Society of Adjudicators and Regulators, to get those persons removed, from their current positions. The unbelievable thing about it all, is that those same persons all have a legal background and knows about the law, when it comes to a fair process, involving a hearing. That they could act so corruptly, in my case, is beyond what any rational mind can comprehend, on the matter, beyond the fact that they should also face the worst penalty and consequences for their actions.







 







                           




Tuesday, July 25, 2017

LOUISE HORTON AND THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HAS DENIED ME A HEARING...




I was denied a hearing in order to block me from getting any compensation, by the Landlord and Tenant Board. The conspiracy by the Canadian government, to destroy me and to prevent me from being compensated for wrongs done to me. I want to hear from the UN about it and the IACHR. As well, as I want an update from the International Criminal Court, about the matter before that court, in regards to those Canadian government officials, that I have charged before that court.

Friday, July 21, 2017

CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT, RULED ON BESTIALITY: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, DID NOT REGARD MAN, WHO COMMITTED BESTIALITY, AS A CRIME.

CANADIAN JUDGES, SHOULD JOIN, THE WALK OF SHAME.

CANADIAN LAW HAS FAILED TO PROTECT ANIMALS,WHO HAVE SUFFERED BESTIALITY, FROM HUMANS. IN A RECENT SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULING, BACK IN 2016,  THE S.C.C.  HAS NARROWED THE SCOPE OF THE LAW,
CONCERNING ZOOPHILLIA AND BESTIALITY. IT REFUSED TO CHANGED THE OUTDATED LAW, TO INCLUDE OTHER ACTS, OTHER THAN FULL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH AN ANIMAL. ORAL SEX IS OKAY WITH AN ANIMAL, THE S.C.C. SAYS. ANIMALS ARE ALSO IN NEED OF PROTECTION TOO, AGAINST SEXUAL PREDATORS, UNDER THE LAW.




BLAME THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, JUSTICE THOMAS CROMWELL, FOR UPHELDING, THE CRUEL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, IN THIS CASE FOR BESTIALITY, AFTER NOT RECOGNIZING, THAT FORCING AN ANIMAL TO ENGAGE, IN ANY KIND OF SEXUAL CONDUCT, IS A CRIME AGAINST THAT ANIMAL. WHO CANNOT GIVE ITS CONSENT AND ARE IN FACT ABUSED BY ITS OWNER, AND BY OTHERS PERPETRATING THOSE ACTS.


Former Supreme Court of Canada Judge, Thomas Cromwell,
now a lawyer again, with BLG, Bordon, Ladner and Gervais
law firm, made a legal blunder, in not recognizing the scope of
zoophillia, and specifically, bestiality, in a ruling last year, when he
ruled that oral sex with a dog (or any animal for that matter), was
not bestiality.
B.C. Supreme Court Judge, Arne Silverman, gave a
suspended sentence, to Brian Anthony Cutteridge,
  a notorious zoophilic monster, of having sex with his dogs.
The man had taken videos of himself, having sex with his dogs.
He got no jail time, from Judge Silverman.







  (Picture is Missing) Calgary, Ablerta,
Judge Gordon Wong, acquitted a man of the charge of bestiality. The man was accused of having sex, as well as forcing his stepson to have sex with animals. Including, a calf and a bull. The man had sex with the bull and then forced his stepson to have oral sex with a calf. The Canadian judge, acquitted the man at trial, to the outrage of the family and the public.




CROMWELL'S RULING THAT FORCING A DOG TO ENGAGE IN A SEXUAL ACT IN CANADA, IS NOT BESTIALITY, IF IT DOES NOT INCLUDE PENETRATION. AND YOU WONDER WHY HE "CHOSE" EARLY RETIREMENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CROMWELL IS NOW BACK TO BEING A REGULAR LAWYER, (SO THE EXCUSE OF AN EARLY RESIGNATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT WAS A FARCE. A LANGUAGE USED BY THOSE IN THE PUBLIC, WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THEIR DISMISSAL IS ALSO IMMINENT.
Perhaps he has performed bestiality on his own dog and so does not regard it as a crime and a cruel act against the poor and defenseless animal. This would also de sensitized him, further, on making any ruling on that subject, as he later did. 

Cromwell' infamous words in ruling on the case, "It is not court to expand the criminal liability for this (ancient) offence". His full statement in his ruling on bestiality, Cromwell said, "The term bestiality has a well established legal meaning and refers to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal". " Penetration has always been an essential element of bestiality", says the former Supreme Court of Canada judge. And with that decision the S.C.C. upheld the acquittal, of the man (who cannot be identified, in order to protect his stepdaughters) convicted and then acquitted, of the bestiality charge against his dogs.


CROMWELL WAS HARPER'S CHOICE, TO BE APPOINTED TO THE SURPREME COURT AND THE REST OF THE PROTOCOL FOLLOWED SMOOTHLY, AFTER THAT. AND JUST AS THE FORMER P.M. WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN HAVING CROMWELL APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL, SO TOO THE NEW P.M. JUSTIN TRUDEAU WAS ALSO INSTRUMENTAL, IN BRINGING ABOUT HIS EARLY RETIRMENT AND OR RESIGNATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT. CROMWELL SERVED 8 YEAR ON THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.

TRUDEAU'S COMMONS SENSE APPROACHED HAS CONTINUED, WHEN LAST AUGUST HE PROPOSED SOME NEW CHANGES TO CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT.  The new process will permit any lawyer or judge who fits a specified criteria to apply for a seat on the Supreme Court of Canada, through the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

The more common sense approach by Supreme Court Judge Rosalie Abella ,showed a humane answer to the question of bestiality, as she took a different view from her peers. "“I do not see the absence of a requirement of penetration as broadening the scope of bestiality,” she wrote in her dissenting opinion. “I see it more as a reflection of Parliament’s common sense assumption that, since penetration is physically impossible with most animals and for half the population, requiring it as an element of the offence eliminates from censure most physically exploitative conduct with animals.”

Zoophilia is the more legal term and covers a much broader spectrum concerning humans engaging in sexual acts with animal and includes among those acts, bestiality. Unfortunately, in Canada oral sex with an animal in not considered as bestiality, or as a crime for that matter. Since the SCC made that absolutely clear in its ruling. Satanists and pedophiles are rampant in the courts, social agencies.  And they are also protected by their fraternity as freemasons, which most of them are. All that we can do is to exposed the ones that are caught making decisions that lead us to believe that they are not acting on behalf of the public in regards to their decisions, but "something else". Certainly human rights was far from this judge's mind as well as animal cruelty. He was as unapologetic about his decision, as were all of the other 7 Supreme Court judges who also agreed with him, over what is bestiality, and what is not.
With Justice Rosalie Abella, dissenting on the matter. I wonder if they also owned animal, or would like their animals to be abused in that way?


Former judge, Thomas Cromwell, now a
practicing lawyer. Most lawyers aspire to be
on the Supreme Court. He's had his tenure and now
he is back to being a lawyer, again. You'd think that
he would have been more wise in his decisions,
and to stick around longer. I can't help thinking that
some of his decisions, as a former Supreme Court
judge, also provided his hasty retreat, from Canada's
highest court.


























THE UNFORGIVABLE BLUNDER, OF THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, MAY HAVE LED TO HIS EARLY RESIGNATION, FROM CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT. TRUDEAU REPLACED HIM LAST YEAR AND NO DOUBT IT MAY HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH SOME OF HIS EARLIER CONTROVERSIAL RULINGS. THE ONE THAT STANDS OUT THE MOST HERE, IS CROMWELL'S ACCENTING TO KEEPING THE BEASTIALITY LAWS, FROM INCLUDING ORAL SEX WITH AN ANIMAL, ALONG WITH PENETRATION.  CROMWELL RULED IN 2016, THAT A B.C. MAN DID NOT COMMIT BEASTIALITY UPON HIS DOG, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PENETRATION AND ONLY ORAL SEX. HE ALSO FORCED THE DOG TO PERFORM A SEXUAL ACT UPON A SIXTEEN YEAR OLD AND THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE, also JUDGED WRONG AND DID NOT SEE IT AS AN ABOMINABLE ACT, PERFOMED ON THE ANIMAL.

NO WONDER THAT, THE FORMER SUPREME COURT JUDGE, IS BACK TO BEING A LAWYER AGAIN, AFTER HIS "EARLY RETIREMENT" I.E EXIT FROM THE SUPREME COURT, BY THE NEW P. M. JUSTIN TRUDEAU. (at least he can tell his new clients that he was a former judge on the supreme court of Canada, but he will also left out the part on some of his more controversial rulings, that got him to make an earlier exist, than the norm).



BLAME THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, JUSTICE THOMAS CROMWELL, FOR UPHELDING, THE CRUEL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, IN THIS CASE FOR BESTIALITY.  AFTER NOT RECOGNIZING, THAT FORCING AN ANIMAL TO ENGAGE, IN ANY KIND OF SEXUAL CONDUCT, IS A CRIME AGAINST THAT ANIMAL. WHO CANNOT GIVE ITS CONSENT AND ARE IN FACT ABUSED BY ITS OWNER.

The Supreme Court of Canada Judges.
This should have been an outdated picture, but it is not.
What the f--k are they smiling about?

Take a look at this picture and tell me if there isn't something (fundamentally) wrong with it and also with the legal process in Canada?.
Don't you think that it is time the Supreme Court of Canada changed it's own image from that
of  being snow white and add some diversity to its judges, who are all white? Not one black, or any other minority are represented on Canada's highest court. And if you think that those white judges on the supreme court of Canada, are any different from those at the trial level, you are sadly mistaken. They ruled to uphold the status quo and that is why there are no real changes to any kind of equality, or to any real progress in this country.









Tuesday, June 13, 2017

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, COMPLAINT FROM BLOGGER, TO INVESTIGATE CANADIAN AUTHORITIES, ACCUSED OF COMMITTING CRIMES, UNDER THE ROME STATUTE.

THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, THE COMPLAINTS FROM BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, INVOLVING, THOSE CANADIAN AUTHORITIES, WHO ARE NAMED AS ACCUSED PERSONS, BY THE BLOGGER, BEFORE THE I.C.C. 

Loretta Chandler
Municipal Level, Government
Official. And an accused, before
the International Criminal Court.

Sylvia Watson, a former
local politician, and an
Adjudicator, with the
L&T Board, is facing
criminal charges, in the
I.C.C
Matt Pegg, T.O Fire Chief,
is, also an accused, facing
criminal charges, in the
International Criminal Court

Toronto Deputy Fire Chief
Jim Jessop, is facing criminal
charges, in the International
Criminal Court,
Toronto Fire Captain, Rob Patten,
is facing criminal charges, in the
International Criminal Court
 

A partial list of some Canadian officials, who are currently facing criminal charges, in the International Criminal Court, under Article 7, of the Rome Statute.


AN UPDATE: CANADIAN AUTHORITIES, WHO ARE NOW FACING CHARGES, BEFORE THE I.C.C. SHOULD NOW HAVE MORE TO WORRY ABOUT, OVER THEIR ACTIONS, AS THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, IS ALSO NOW INVOLVED, IN INVESTIGATING, THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM.


Blogger, Valerie Guillaume, has received an official acknowledgement, from the International Criminal Court, and from the Office of the Prosecutor, recently, involving her claim against several Canadian Authorities, for committing Crimes Against Humanity, against her. The Blogger's request, to the Office of the Prosecutor, to begin a proprio motu case, with the I.C.C, on behalf of the Blogger, citing a violation by the State, Canada, in committing human rights abuses against her, has now officially begun. The Office of the Prosecutor, now has the legal obligation to investigate the claims, against the State, Canada.


This Blogger, has also requested from the I.C.C. to participate in the proceedings against Canada. It is also a legal entitlement, of all victims appearing before the International Criminal Court. That request, of course, will be dealt with by the Judges' Chamber of the International Criminal Court, and it is also independent of the Office of the Prosecutor. As both organs of the court, has different functions and operates, independently from one another.


It is now in my best interest to gather, as much evidence against those government officials, who were all acting on behalf of the State and to present those evidence against them, in the International Criminal Court, as I want them to face the penalties, for their crimes against me.


My next move, is to petitioned the United nations, into taking actions on behalf of human rights and have Canada be mandated, to demonstrate more transparency, in its legal proceedings and to allow the televising of its legal proceedings, in order to protect those appearing before its courts.
I will argue, here, that there will be a significant reduction in human rights abuse, that are carried out by Canadian courts and by corrupt judges, justices of the peace and adjudicators, who act corruptly. And because those proceedings are not recorded and thus their actions are also hidden from the public. With cameras in the courtrooms, or hearing rooms, recording their actions, it is unlikely that the rate of human rights abuse, would go up, rather than to go down.

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD'S CORRUPTION.


EGYA SANGMUAH, CAUGHT IN THE ACT, ACTING CORRUPT, AT HEARING.

THE HEARING, BEFORE THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD'S, VICE CHAIR, EGYA SANGMUAH, ON JUNE 5TH, HAS TURNED OUT TO BE, ONE OF THE MOST INCRIMINATING PIECE OF EVIDENCE, AGAINST HIS CORRUPTION, AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD.


Egya Sangmuah, conduct was anything but professional, with this tenant. He first did a number of things which also gave an indication, of how the review hearing, was going to end up with him, concerning the tenant, (and this Blogger). First, he did the usual thing that Canadian officials, in legal proceedings regarding this Blogger, are apt to do. Egya Sangmuah, first cleared the hearing room of all other persons, as to have no other witnesses to his corrupt actions later on. Or so he thought, since the tenant did get evidence of him acting corruptly. By leaving the tenant's review for the last, Sangmuah then felt assured, that he could introduced all manner of illegal practices, concerning the hearing. Including the following evidence against him:


1. Egya Sangmuah, brought previous files of the tenant's former landlords and former addresses, into the hearing room, (and holding those files up as he speak, at the hearing), telling the tenant that her review has been denied, because "She did the same thing (not attend a hearing), regarding her former landlords. Those previous files, of course, has no bearing on the tenant's present matter before the Board, in which she was asking for a review, of a hearing that was dismissed, by Sylvia Watson, on May 15th. The tenant had also informed the Board, before the hearing that she was unable to attend the hearing, due to medical reasons.(This was also the first review of the tenant, in 2017, before the Board and it was also denied by the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah).


2. Egya Sangmuah kept rolling his eyes and looking at the ceiling, each time that the tenant spoke, at the hearing. He also did other gesture, that was intended to insult the tenant. All of which will be brought to his Superior, Michael Gottheil, who is the Executive Chair, at the Social Justice Tribunal, which the Landlord and Tenant Board, is also a part of.


3. Sangmuah was in fact openly mocking the tenant and also the proceeding. He came predisposed to act bias against the tenant. The tenant also recorded the hearing, (being a participant of the hearing directly), by taking notes and audio recording his very words. This will be made available, in order to provide the proof, of this Member's actions, for several reasons. Including, in any other legal proceedings against him. (Which there is at this time). The other reason is for the tenant's own record, to show that there are crimes being committed against her at these legal proceedings, by Canadian government officials. Who all intended for their actions to remain secret. Without this proof, to substantiate her claims, against them, this Blogger, may not be believed. 













Friday, May 19, 2017

EGYA NDAYINANSE SANGMUAH, VICE CHAIR, AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD.

CORRUPTION AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. THE VICE CHAIR, EGYA SANGMUAH, AND A NUMBER OF ADJUDICATORS, INCLUDING, SYLVIA WATSON, LOUISE HORTON AND RUTH CAREY, SHOULD ALL BE RELINQUISHED, FROM THEIR DUTIES. AS WELL AS TO FACE CHARGES, OVER THEIR PERSONAL CORRUPTION, IN THE ADJUDICATING, OF SOME CASES, BEFORE THE BOARD.



I INTEND TO CONTACT THE PREMIER OF ONTARIO, KATHLEEN WIN, OVER THE RE-APPOINTMENT, IN JANUARY OF 2017, OF THE VICE CHAIR OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, EGYA SANGMUAH. IN MY OPINION, HIS PERSONAL CORRUPTION, AS THE VICE CHAIR, OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, MAKES HIM UNFIT TO HOLD THAT POSITION. THERE IS NO TRANSPARENCY, AT THE BOARD. NOR IS THERE ANY TRANSPARENCY ABOUT HIS ACTIONS. HE COVERS UP FOR MEMBERS, LIKE SYLVIA WATSON, WHOSE ACTIONS ARE SO ADVERSE, TO THE AMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND FOR DISREGARDING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF SOME TENANTS, BOTH UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, AS WELL AS UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM. THE LATTER, IN REGARDS TO THE RIGHT TO HAVE A FAIR HEARING. AMONG OTHER PROTECTIONS, UNDER THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION. A FAIR HEARING IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE, WHEN THERE IS ALSO A PRESUMPTION OF BIAS, IN REGARDS TO TH OSE ADMINISTERING JUSTICE. LIKE THOSE ADJUDICATORS AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD.


BECAUSE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD HAS ACTED EXTREMELY CORRUPTED, IN REGARDS TO MY MATTERS, BEFORE THE BOARD, THEY WILL ALSO HAVE TO FACE THE CONSEQUENSES, FOR THEIR ACTIONS. ONE OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES IS THAT THEY CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO DISREGARD THE LAW, AND ALSO THE TENANT'S RIGHTS, WHEN THEY ADJUDICATE THOSE MATTERS, BEFORE THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. THE OTHER CONSEQUENCES, ARE THAT THOSE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBERS, SHOULD ALSO FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR ACTING CORRUPTLY AND FOR INJURING THOSE APPEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, BY THEIR ACTIONS.


Here are some of their actions, which are blatantly a mockery of justice.


* Egya Sangmuach, Vice Chair, at the North Office of the Landlord and Tenant Board, has (in my case) taken more than the 24-48 hours that are usually required, to respond to my reviews. In the last instance, he and the Board, took three weeks to respond. That review, of Member Sylvia Watson's decision, to dismiss my application, because I could not attend a hearing on May 15th. The Vice Chair Egya Sangmuah, had the review request from me, as of May 17th, yet as the Vice Chair, his response was to bring the matter over to June 5th, so that I could have a review hearing, (and I am sure that they also plan to deny the review of that Member's decision, on May 15th), if I also do not do something drastic, about it.  That Member, Sylvia Watson, also denied my right as a tenant, to have summons issued, whereby witnesses (city officials) could be forced to give evidence at the hearing of the tenant's application. (And why the Landlord and Tenant Board, saw it fit, only in my case and not other cases involving those city officials, to allow my tenancy to end, because those city officials wanted it to be so).


* Egya Sangmuah, as the Vice Chair, of the Landlord and Tenant Board, also saw nothing wrong
with a Member, like Sylvia Watson, denying a tenant the right to have witnesses, at a hearing. Yet granting this same privilege to the landlord.  Adjudicator Sylvia Watson, also did not sign the order she made, about that decision. That document was also missing from the tenant's file, along with other documents. The tenant feared that the Vice Chair and those Members, also believed that the documents would be made public, or be a part of other legal proceedings against them. In which they are also right, in that assumption. I wonder what the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah, has done with all of my documents, that has gone missing from my file, at the Landlord and Tenant Board, over the last few weeks. Yesterday, a clerk at the Board, had the time of her life, running around and trying to find them. She wasn't pleased, either, that I had insisted on obtaining those documents, from my file and also insisting that they should also be in my file. Her explanation, is that those documents, "could be sitting on anyone's desk". I wonder why that is the case?. When they should also be kept in the file, where they also belong.


* Denying me the right to a fair hearing. Including, making decisions without giving any reasons, for those decisions. And also not signing their signatures to the documents. As Adjudicator Sylvia Watson, is also apt do to, in my matters.


* Logging documents received by the Board, much later in their system than when they had received it, and then later ruling against it, by pretending those documents did not exist at the time. Again, this was done by Sylvia Watson.


BEING A WRITER, REQUIRES A BALANCING ACT. I CAN DISLIKE SOMEONE, PERSONALLY, BUT STILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT THE FACTS, ABOUT THEM. SUCH IS THE CASE WITH EGYA SANGMUAH. I CAN BE THOROUGHLY OBJECTIVE, IN PRESENTING MY CASE, ABOUT HIM. AND/OR AGAINT HIM. I AM A BLOGGER, TOO AND THAT MEANS THAT I ALSO GIVE MY PERSONAL OPINION, ABOUT ANYTHING, OR ABOUT ANYONE. A BLOG, IS NOT YOUR STANDARD FORM OF JOURNALISM, OR REPORTING. AS LONG AS MY STATEMENTS ARE ACCURATE, THEN I DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE FORMAT USED, TO CONVEY THIS INFORMATION, TO THE PUBLIC. SO JUST BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THIS GUY AND ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE VERY CORRUPT LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ALSO CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE, IN MY REPORTING, ON THEIR ACTIONS. I CAN DO BOTH.





Egya Sangmuah, Vice-Chair, of the Landlord
and Tenant Board. And former member of
the Immigration and Refugee Board. Who
has also shown no real human emotions, nor
any respect for human dignity, in dealing
with those cases, that come before him
and requiring such a response. As for the
law, he is clueless. (Though he holds
a Master's degree in Law). How come he
could not deduce this simple fact? That his
actions, could also lead to criminal charges
against him?. Or that someone, without a
law degree, could also challenge him, legally,
in a court of law?. And that is why he
is also be facing charges, for Committing
Crimes Against Humanity, in the
International Criminal Court. Where he has
also, conspired, to harm this Blogger. The
allegations against him, by this Blogger, is
also grounds for criminal charges against him
in the International Criminal Court, that
also exist, to protect human dignity and to
uphold justice, for crimes committed by the State.
Or by persons, acting, on behalf of the State,
including, those like Egya Sangmuah, 
 Which in this case, is Canada.



I, PERSONALLY, DISLIKE THIS MAN, EGYA SANGMUAH.  HE IS THE KIND OF NIGGER, WHO WILL DO ACCORDING TO WHAT HE IS TOLD. ( I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DEGREES, THAT HE ALSO POSSESSED. THE MAN IS DISPICTABLE AND LACKS A CONSICENCE. HE IS ONE OF THOSE BLACKS WHOSE PERSONAL AMBITION, SUPERCEDES, HIS PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. MEANING, THAT IF HE FINDS THAT HE IS TO ACT, OR MAKE A RULING, BASED ON "SOME OTHER CRITERIA", HE WILL ALSO DO IT. DESPITE THE DEVASTATING EFFECT, THAT MAY ALSO HAVE ON THE CASE. (AND WHETHER THOSE CASES, ARE BASED ONT THE LAW, OR JUST SOUND JUDGMENT). HE HAS NO BUSINESS IN DEALING WITH CASES, THAT ALSO INVOLVE SOCIAL JUSTICE, OR THOSE INVOLVING, HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS.

SUCH AS THOSE REFUGEE CASES WITH THE IMMIGRATION BOARD, BECAUSE HE ALSO LACKS PERSONAL EMPATHY. NOR DOES HE MAKE HIS RULINGS, BASED ON THE LAW, EITHER. I FOUND HIS DECISIONS, AS A MEMBER OF THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD, OVER THOSE PALESTINIANS, SEEKING ASYLUM IN CANADA, REPREHENSIBLE. THOUGH THE STATELESS AND PERSECUTED, THOSE PALESTINIANS, HAD ALSO TAKEN REFUGE IN A CANADIAN CHURCH BASEMENT, EGYA SANGMUAH, AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, STILL FOUND TIME TO FIND THOSE PALESTINIANS, INADMISSIBLE, TO LIVE IN CANADA, BASED ON MEDICAL GROUNDS!
(See the link below, to the article on Egya Sangmuah's decision, by the Globe and Mail https://sec.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/stateless-family-can.../article4167147/). And then also tell me, if this man would do a better job, at the Landlord and Tenant Board?. Which like all legal proceedings, require a delicate balance of administering the law, hopefully, with someone who is also morally upstanding. But at the very minimum, to conduct a fair hearing.  Egya Sangmuah was perfectly at ease, in finding those five disabled Palestinian refugee seekers in Canada, all inadmissible, based on their disability. He ruled that they would be a burden on the Canadian medical system.  I can also tell you that other disabled persons, has also been granted refugee status in Canada, BECAUSE OF THEIR DISABILITY. But not with EGYA SANGMUACH, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD. AS WELL AS BEING, THE VICE CHAIR, OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. ( The Palestinian family, was later allowed to stay in Canada, based on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds. I for one, also believed, that they went through all of this rejection, from the Canadian government, with their initial applications for refugee status, because they were Palestinians).You see, these very ambitious individuals, like Egya Sangmuah, and others who apply to the Office of the Secretariat, which falls under the Premier's office, for those public positions, also seek to advance their own career. And because Canada is also a corrupt government, they also fit right in. In fact, the more corrupt and wicked and evil they are, the better are their chances of getting those appointments. from the government.


EGYA SANGMUAH, IS YET ANOTHER NAME OF AN ACCUSED PERSON, BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.  AND IN REGARDS TO MY MATTER.BEFORE THAT COURT, INVOLVING, HIS PERSONAL CORRUPTION, IN CARRYING OUT THE ABUSE OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS. WHICH HAS ALSO INVOLVED, THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AND HIS ACTIONS DIRECTLY. ALONG WITH ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER, SYLVIA WATSON, HAS NOW LANDED HIM AS AN ACCUSED PERSON, BEFORE THE ICC. ACCUSED, OF COMMITTING ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, IN REGARDS TO ME. HE ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER CANADIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND THOSE IN THE COURT AND OR TRIBUNAL/BOARDS, WHO ARE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES IN THAT COURT FOR THEIR DIRECT ACTIONS, IN CARRYING OUT TORTURE AGAINST ME.









(I intend to rewrite this column and include the pictures of those persons here).
There are some things, that I did not know about the Vice Chair, until today. For one thing, that he was Black, and originally an African national. (Grounds which should also make him more lenient towards other immigrants, or those of his own race. Or of any other marginalized groups, for that matter, living in Canada. For instance, one would not be able to tell this from his actions, as part of the Immigration and Refugee Board, concerning his decisions concerning those people, that he also has so much in common with, individually. He seemed to have acquired the White Canadian's racist views, on some people. An unforgivable sin (or blunder), on his part. That means, of a necessity, also imposing those views, via his decisions, on those same people. Even though he has more in common with them, than with those White racist Canadians, whose views he actually, represents and upholds, as best as he can, as a member of those various Boards, that he sits on. Including, his current position, as the Vice Chair, of the Landlord and Tenant Board. Well, guess what?.


Some of us are not impressed, with your many degrees. What we see based on your actions, is someone acting capriciously, taking advantage of his position and using it to cause harm to others. I would also not have known that Egya Sangmuah had any legal background, based on the kind of stuff, that he allows to happen, at the Landlord and Tenant Board. Take the very basis legal premise, of a fair hearing. I am not the only tenant at the Landlord and Tenant Board, that will tell you, that this also does not exist, by the Members and also under the guidance of the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah. The reason being that most tenants will also settle for their rights being abused, by Board members. They will not take the matter, any further, than the Landlord and Tenant Board. Which makes it all the more easier for Members to act corrupt and to disregard their rights. My accusations against the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah and against those members, like Sylvia Watson, Louise Horton and others at the Landlord and Tenant Board, is that they all conspired to harm me, by dealing corruptly with my matter that is before the Board. That is also grounds for further legal actions against all of them. Including, laying criminal charges against them. In doing so they have also violated my rights under international laws, particularly, those that are designed to protect my dignity, as a human being. Their actions against me, were all calculated to cause me maximum injury.


What they wanted to do was to break my spirit and to destroy me. And that is also why in their decisions involving my case, they also veered so much from the law. Especially, in the case of Adjudicator Sylvia Watson, who as a former lawyer and politician, should be well familiar with the protection offered to the public, via the Constitution and who has also deliberately ignored this fact, and acted corrupt. As a former lawyer, and now Adjudicator with the Landlord and Tenant Board, Sylvia Watson, also knew that I had a right to have witnesses at my hearing, whose testimony were also necessary to established certain facts. She has denied me the three summons that I had requested, requiring those three government officials to attend the hearing. She also believed that one of those witnesses evidence would be sufficient (as she and the Board, has allowed the landlord to have one of those same government officials, summoned, by the Landlord and Tenant Board and to give evidence, on his behalf. What was the evidence to which the Board also granted him the summons?. That the government official (from the fire department),provide the proof that he could no longer rent out the unit. All the landlord had to do, was to bring those same written notices to the Board, instead of requiring a summons for the government official to attend the hearing. He got the summons in less than 48 hours from the Board and the government official, ( T.O. fire inspector, Mark Spedaliere) also showed up at the hearing, because he wanted to assist the landlord, (who had broken the law by the way, and hence the notices against him, by the fire department), to have the upper hand at the hearing, and for the tenant, me, not to be allowed to get back into my home.


The tenant, me, actually had two means of egress. A door and a window, although the dutiful fire inspector, only focused on one exist, during his testimony. The secondary exit (window), also leads directly to the backyard and directly from the tenant's bedroom, should there be a fire.  In fact, the tenant's window is so large, it also covers one third of the room. It could easily provide a means of exist and escape, should there be a fire.  This evidence was also hidden by the T.O. fire officials, in their reports. The law only requires one exist and the tenant had two such exists. The egress from the tenant's window, was also excluded from the testimony of the corrupt fire official, because he wanted THAT tenant, meaning me, not to be able to remain in her home.  At the same time this corrupt T.O. fire officials also allowed the landlord to continue to overcrowd the rental house, allowing him to still have double the occupancy load, than what the Ontario Fire Code allows. Once he was given the two notices by the T.O Fire Services over the overcrowding and lack of working fire systems, the owner, had also decided that it was not profitable to keep the rental property.


He told the tenants that he planned to sell the house in April. That did not happen, because since he was also never charged over his actions and more corruptly, since he was also allowed to keep his other tenants, despite the overcrowding and the continued breaking of the fire code, not to mention knowingly putting the lives of the tenant in danger, he no longer wanted to sell the rental property. We are now into May and the landlord has also continued, just has he had done before. With maintaining a building that was unsafe for all of the tenants, not just the one tenant that they wanted to get out of the building, for complaining about the landlord's illegal actions. And for which the tenant was rewarded by being evicted, illegally. Both by the Fire Services and by the Board, via the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah, who has stated that "even if the Board could reinstate the tenant, it would not, because the fire services deem it unsafe". As far as the law is concerned, the Board has also overturned other cases, where the Fire Services, had taken it upon itself, to evict a tenant, without the Board having a saying in the mater. In those precedents set by the Landlord and Tenant Board, the Board has unequivocally stated, that it is only the Landlord and Tenant Board, which has the right to evict those tenants. And not the Toronto Fire Services. The tenants were also reinstated in their homes and the landlords were also fined heavily by the Board, for those violations. None of that has happened in my case, due to the corruption involved. The question then is, why are those Canadian government officials, including those at the Board, surprised that I am taking this action further?. That they can't just act corrupt and not answer for their actions. Since they had all conspired to destroy me, in that way. AND had also hope to get away scotch free, with their actions. Actually, they had hoped that their deeds would never see the light of day, much less for them to answer in a court of law and facing charges over their actions.













Tuesday, May 9, 2017

THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBER, SYLVIA WATSON'S, PERSONAL CORRUPTION, AS AN ADJUDICATOR.

THE EVIDENCE, FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, CHARGES, AGAINST THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, IS MOUNTING. AND IN REGARDS, TO THE RELENTLESS PERSECUTION, OF BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME.

A FORMER TORONTO LAWYER AND POLITICIAN, SYLVIA WATSON, WHO SHOULD KNOW THE LAW, CONCERNING A FAIR LEGAL PROCESS AND ABOUT GIVING EVIDENCE, HAS BLOCKED A TENANT, (THIS BLOGGER), FROM HAVING WITNESSES AT A LANDLORD AND TENANT HEARING, THAT WOULD SHED LIGHT ON THE FACTS, INVOLVING, THE TENANT'S ILLEGAL EVICTION, CARRIED OUT BY THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES, AND ALSO AGAINST THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, WHICH SHOULD HAVE ALSO PROTECTED THE TENANT, UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.


THE LATEST INCIDENT, INVOLVING, THE CORRUPTION OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBER, SYLVIA WATSON'S DECISION, TO DENY THE TENANT (BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME), THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE LANDLORD, TO HAVE SUMMONS ISSUED TO WITNESSES, WHOSE TESTIMONY IS NECESSARY, FOR ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FACTS, IN REGARDS TO THE LANDLORD'S ACTIONS, OVER FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS, WHICH ALSO LED TO THE TENANT, LOSING HER HOME IN MARCH.  SYLVIA WATSON, HAS PREVIOUSLY ACTED CORRUPTED, IN THE MATTER AND HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE BOARD, TO CONTINUE TO DO SO.

WHAT IS LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBER, SYLVIA WATSON, AFRAID OF, IN REGARDS TO THE EVIDENCE, THAT SHE HAS BLOCKED FROM THE THREE WITNESSES, BY NOT ALLOWING THEM TO TESTIFY, AT THE HEARING OF THE TENANT'S APPLICATION, AT THE BOARD, AGAINST THE LANDLORD?

ADJUDICATOR, SYLVIA WATSON, HAS CONTINUED TO BLOCKED THE TENANT'S REQUEST, TO COMPEL THREE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY, AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT HEARING, SCHEDULED FOR MAY 15TH. SHE HAS DENIED THE TENANT'S REQUEST, TO ISSUE SUMMONS, TO THE THREE TORONTO SERVICES FIRE OFFICERS.  DISTRICT CHIEF, WENDY ROME, CAPTAIN ROB PATTEN AND INSPECTOR MARK SPEDALIERE, WHO HAD CARRIED OUT THE ILLEGAL EVICTION OF THE TENANT, ON MARCH 31ST, CITING AN IMMEDIATE DANGER TO LIFE. THE REAL REASON WAS TO DESTABLIZED THE TEMANT, AS PART OF THE ONGOING PERSECUTION, THAT SHE HAS FACED FROM THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT.

THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HAS DENIED THE REQUEST OF THE TENANT (AND BLOGGER), TO ISSUE SUMMONS,TO THREE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES OFFICERS, TO ATTEND A HEARING ON MONDAY, MAY 15TH. THE SAME BOARD MEMBER, SYLVIA WATSON, HAD ALSO ISSUED A SUMMONS, WITHIN 48 HOURS, THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE LANDLORD, BACK IN MARCH FOR THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES OFFICERS, TO ATTEND A HEARING ON MARCH 30TH. THE REQUEST BY THE LANDLORD, WAS ALSO GRANTED IMMEDIATELY, BY THE BOARD MEMBER, SYLVIA WATSON. DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE WAS THE O NE, THAT WAS ALSO UNDER INVESTIGATION, BY THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES.  AND OVER FIRE CODE VIOLATION, THAT WAS ALSO REPORTED, BY THE TENANT, TO THE T.O. FIRE SERVICES.

AT THAT HEARING ON MARCH 30TH, THE TENANT WAS ALSO NOT ABLE TO FINISH CROSS EXAMINING, THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES OFFICER, MARK SPEDALIERE AND THE HEARING WAS ALSO ADJOURNED. THE TENANT HAD EXPECTED TO CONTINUE WITH THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE OFFICER, AS WELL AS REQUESTING THAT THE OTHER TWO OFFICERS THAT WERE THERE, ALSO GIVE EVIDENCE AT THE NEXT HEARING, ON MAY 15TH. (THE TENANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EARLIER HEARING DATE, WAS ALSO DENIED AND THE BOARD THEN SET THE DATE FOR MAY 15TH, THOUGH THE TENANT WAS ALSO TOLD, FROM BACK IN MARCH THAT THERE WERE EARLIER DATES, FOR MAY 2, 3, 4 AND 5TH.

THE BOARD ALSO PUSHED BACK THE HEARING DATE, TO MAY 15TH, WHICH WAS EXTREMELY PREJUDICED TO THE TENANT, SEEING THAT SHE WAS LEFT HOMELESS AND WITHOUT THE BOARD MEMBER, SYLVIA WATSON, MAKING ANY KINDS OF RECOMMENDATIONS, FOR HER RIGHTS AS A TENANT, TO CONTINUE TO BE PROTECTED, IN THE MEANTIME, SUCH AS ANY COMPENSATION TO THE TENANT AND ALSO INCLUDING, BOTH THE LANDLORD AND THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY, TO HOUSE THE TENANT, SINCE HER RENTAL UNIT WAS DEEMED UNSAFE, BY THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES. THE BOARD MEMBER SYLVIA WATSON, ON MARCH 31ST, ALSO BLOCKED THE TENANT FROM GETTING BACK INTO HER HOME AND ON APRIL 6, 2016, THE VICE CHAIR OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, ALSO ISSUED AN ORDER BLOCKING THE TENANT FROM GETTING BACK INTO HER HOME, THOUGH HE ALSO WORDED THE ORDER AS SAYING. "EVEN IF THE TENANT HAS A (LEGAL) RIGHT, TO GET BACK INTO HER HOME... IT WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE, SINCE THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES DEEM IT AS UNSAFE"..

THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW THAT IT IS THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD,WHICH HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT, TO EVICT TENANTS AND NOT THE TORONTO FIRE SERIVES. AND THAT OTHER DECISIONS OF THE BOARD, OVERTURNING THE DECISIONS OF THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES, IN ILLEGALLY EVICTING TENANTS, HAS ALSO BEEN OVERTURNED, BY THE SAME LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. BUT ACCORDING TO THE VICE CHAIR, THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD WAS NOT GOING TO DO THAT IN MY CASE.

THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD HAS NOW FURTHER BLOCKED MY EFFORTS TO HAVE A FAIR HEARING, BY DENYING THE SUMMONS TO HAVE THE KEY WITNESSES ATTEND THE HEARING ON MAY 15TH, AT THE NORTH OFFICE, IN TORONTO. ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT, IS ALSO TO COVER UP THE ACTIONS OF THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES OFFICERS, WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE COVER-UP, CONCERNING THE LANDLORD'S ACTIONS, OVER THE FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS.  WHICH THOSE SAME FIRE CODE OFFICERS, HAS ALSO ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, AS OF THIS DATE.  ONE OF THE OFFICERS, HAD EARLIER GIVEN A CONFLICTING TESTIMONY, AT THE HEARING ON MARCH 30TH. (THERE WAS REALLY NO HEARING, AS BOTH THE TENANT AND ALSO THE LANDLORD, WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, BY THE BOARD, TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE WAS ONLY HEARD FROM THE ONE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES OFFICER, MARK SPEDALIERE, WHO TESTIFIED EARLIER, ("SO THAT HE COULD LEAVE THE HEARING, AND CARRY OUT HIS DUTY, AS A FIRE INSPECTOR" ACCORDING TO THE ADJUDICATOR, SYLVIA WATSON), BEFORE THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HAS ACTUALLY HAD A FULL HEARING OF THE MATTER.

SYLVIA WATSON AND THE VICE CHAIR, WILL BOTH BE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES, INCLUDING CORRUPTION AND CONSPIRACY, TO CARRY OUT THOSE RACIST AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, AGAINST THIS BLOGGER, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. IT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT, TO SAY THAT THEIR ACTIONS HAS ALSO CAUSED SIGNIFICANT HARM, TO THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

FILING MY CASE, BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, AGAINST CANADIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

PUTTING A STOP TO BEING A TARGETED AND PERSECUTED INDIVIDUAL. AND MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT, TO A GOVERNMENT, THAT IS BENT ON DESTROYING ME, THROUGH ITS SECRET BLACK OPERATION PROGRAMS. 

THE CONTINUATION OF SECRET GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, SUCH AS THOSE EMPLOYED BY THE FORMER NAZI GOVERNMENT, STACI AND THE CIA, AND NOW WHICH ARE ALSO EMPLOYED BY CANADA, AGAINST PERSECUTED PERSONS.

It is about taking back the power that you already owned.

THE CANADIAN CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE, DOES NOT INVESTIGATE ITS OWN COUNTRY, FOR CARRYING OUT TORTURE AND OTHER ACTS OF, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

It should not matter, that Canada has helped to set up the ICC, nor should it matter, that its influence is still far reaching, as far as that international human rights body. What does matter is seeing justice served, and in all cases involving a State, such as Canada, that is also answerable to that court.  Regardless of its influence peddling.

If I were my enemies, those Canadian government officials, who has carried out certain human rights abuse against me, recently, I would also be very nervous. After all, who wants to exposed in their wrong doing?. Or to be charged in the International Criminal Court?.  And over crimes, which they have also assured themselves, would remained secret forever. Well, this is most likely going to be the fate of those criminal and corrupt persons, that have committed crimes against me, disguised as just a "normal part of their duties". That is, until you have collected all of the evidence involved and make a full picture of their actions and also a clear case against them. 

I have been very busy, recently.  Busy, gathering evidence and getting information, on how to go about charging those, who has committed crimes against me, under international human rights laws. Particularly, those under the Rome Statute, of the International Criminal Court. The first thing that I wanted to do, was to exercise my right to participate in the proceedings, against those who has caused me injury. The very Canadian government officials, who are already named on my Blog and in my videos, exposing their actions. Others who will also face legal consequences for allowing them to carry out attacks against me, are also going to be charged over their actions as well. The inhumane and degrading treatment that I have received, such as torture, including both physical and psychological torture, due to the actions of the accused persons, will not go unpunished. Not if I have my day in court, against them. Yet they are also arrogant enough to believe, that they will also get away with their crimes.  But that is not what the International Criminal Court was set up to do.

The Process is surprisingly easy.  First of all, once you have familiarized yourself, with your rights under that statue, including, your rights to participate and to have legal counsel to represent you before the ICC, then everything else falls into place.  If you are a targeted individual and facing persecution, like myself, and in which case no lawyer will also touch your case, at the moment, don't despair. The ICC court will have to appoint you with a counsel, once the ball gets rolling. 

The first thing that you must do, as an individual, who is wishing to proceed in the International Criminal Court, against your attackers, are two main things.  The first is to contact the Office of the Prosecutor, for the ICC and to request that the Prosecutor starts an investigation, into your case, as a proprio motu factor. What that basically means, is that the Prosecutor of the ICC,  will start an investigation on her own, with the International Criminal Court, outside of the State involved, (or anybody else), requesting her to do so.  The second thing to do, is to file an application to participate in the proceedings, and it is also a good idea to do both, simultaneously.  Even though one request goes to the Office of the Prosecutor, for the ICC and the other request, via the Application to Participate, as an Individual, goes to the Registry and or to the Judges chamber, for a review of your request. At this point I would recommend that if you are an individual, that you also get some human rights organization to come on board with you at this time, if you do not have a lawyer. They can help you to fill the documents out properly, as most of those organizations, have either a lawyer, or a legal team, that they work with.  But if you are like me, who has to do the initial work on your own, then don't be intimidated by it, because it can be done.  The point is that if you have to start the process on your own, then do it. In the end you want to get justice for yourself and for your property, if they also caused injury to not just you, but also to your property as well.  The property which I am most concerned about, is of course my animal, who has suffered alongside with me, through their attacks against me. My case is unique, of course, because I am not claiming that they took away any so called "real property", such as houses and businesses and the like.  I am claiming that they nearly took away my life and the life of a small helpless animal, who could not fight back. By inflicting upon us, such physical, psychological and mental suffering, that has caused us injury and to the point of destroying our lives. Now I want to rebuild those lives, mine included, that they had hoped to destroy completely. 

Under Article 7, of the Rome Statute, under Crimes Against Humanity, for which those acts of torture and other  inhumane and degrading treatments were carried out against me, I hope to see justice take place and that the International Criminal Court, also accepts my case and investigate and prosecute those criminals involved. Who also think that they are above the law, due to their personal corruption and the corruption of that State, Canada, in general.  I want to make the statement to all other persecuted persons, that it can be done.  Take hope and learn from my example, to fight back.