THE PROBLEM, WITH THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, IN THE CANADIAN COURT. THIS SENIOR ONTARIO JUDGE, LEONARD RICCHETTI, HAVE AN ISSUE, WITH ME PUBLICLY REPORTING, ON HIS ACTIONS, AS A JUDGE

THIS SENIOR JUDGE, LEONARD RICCHETTI, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM, WITH ME TALKNG PUBLICLY, ABOUT HIS PERFORMANCE, AS A JUDGE.  I  FIND THAT IT IS, NECESSARY TO DO SO, IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.  DUE TO THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, IN THE COURT.

AND THAT IN MY OPINION, WAS THE REASON, HE ALSO RULED AGAINST ME, TODAY, AT MY MOTIONS HEARING, FOR URGENT RELIEF, TO ALLOW ME BACK INTO THE SHELTER, AFTER I WAS ALSO EVICTED FROM IT LAST WEEK, BUT HE DECLINED. I AM STILL HOMELESS.  THE JUDGE, LEONARD RICCHETTI, ACCEPTED THE STATEMENT, IN THE AFFIDAVIT, OF THE RESPONDENT, LESLEY NAGODA, THAT I WAS STAYING, AT A SHELTER, CALLED SISTERING, IN TORNTO.  THAT WAS A LIE. I WAS NEVER ACCEPTED, AT THAT PLACE, WHICH IS A DROPIN AND NOT A SHELTER, FOR TWO REASONS. THE FIRST, IS THAT THEY HAD NO BEDS AND THE SECOND REASON, WAS THAT I HAD TOO MANY BAGS, WITH ME. ABOUT FOUR BAGS, PLUS A BRIEFCASE AND A HANDBAG AND THEY ONLY ACCEPT PEOPLE, WITH EXACTLY TWO BAGS, OR LESS. SO WHEN I CALLED SHIP AND TOLD THEM MY DILEMA, THE STAFF THEN CLAIMED, THAT HE WAS TOLD, OTHERWISE.  

I WANTED PROOF, SO I HELD THE PHONE NEAR TO, THE SISTERING STAFF, WHO WAS TELLING ME ALL THIS, WHILE THE SHIP'S STAFF, WAS ON THE PHONE WITH ME. HER NAME WAS AFRA, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND SHE CATEGORICALLY SAID, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SHIP WORKER, THAT THEY HAD NO BEDS, NOR DID THEY ACCEPT ANYONE, INCLUDING ME, WITH MORE THAN TWO BAGS.  THEY ONLY HAD CHAIRS, FOR THE DOZENS OF PEOPLE, ALREADY STAYING THERE, TO SIT ALL NIGHT ON AND SLEEP, FOR THE NIGHT.  I ENDED UP TAKING MY BAGS, WITH A TAXI TO MY STORAGE, WHICH COSTS ME, FORTY FIVE DOLLARS CASH, FOR THE TAXI AND THEN WENT TO STAY AT A MOTEL. I HAVE NEVER STAYED, AT THIS DROPIN, CALLED SISTERING, WHICH SHIP ALSO CALLED, A SHELTER.  EVERYONE KNOWS, THAT IT IS A DROP IN CENTER AND THE PEOPLE WHO SLEPT THERE, ON CHAIRS, ALL NIGHT, HAS TO LEAVE IN THE MORNING. THEY CAN O THIS, MAXINUM, FOR TWO DAYS, THE STAFF AT THE DROPIN SAID.  IN FACT, THE STAFF AT THE DROP IN CENTER, NAME AFRA, ALSO TOLD ME, THAT SHIP WAS ONLY TRYING TO GET RID OF ME, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE ALSO KNOWN, THAT THERE WERE NO BEDS AT THE DROP IN AND THAT THEY ALSO DID NOT TAKE ANYONE, WITH MORE THAN TWO BAGS OF LUGGAGE. 

THE JUDGE DID NOT SEEM TO CARE, REGARDING MY URGENT MOTION, AND BELIEVED, THE RESPONDENT, SHIP'S DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT, IN HER AFFIDAVIT. PLUS HE ALSO HAD HIS OWN REASONS, FOR DENYING, MY URGENT MOTION, FOR A MANDATORY ORDER, TO GET BACK INTO THE SHELTER. AND IN MY OPINION, IT WAS ALSO, BASED ON REPRISAL. BASED ON MY ARTICLE, ABOUT THE SAID JUDGE, ON MY BLOG. 

WHEN HE ASKED ME FOR EVIDENCE, I FORGOT TO SHOW HIM, MY MOTEL RECEIPTS, WHICH I STILL HAVE, BY THE WAY. (AND ALSO CANNOT AFFORD, AT THIS TIME). I AM STILL IN THE SAME CRISIS, THAT I WAS IN A WEEK AGO, HOMELESS, WHEN SHIP EVICTED ME, FROM THE SHELTER, WHILE THE MATTER WAS AND STILL IS, BEFORE THE COURT.  AND THE SENIOR JUDGE, L. RICCHETTI,  ALSO HAS NO ISSUES WITH THAT. I STILL HAVE AN ISSUE, WITH PARA [5] OF HIS ENDORSEMENT, WHICH BASICALLY, INSTIGATED SHIP, TO REPLACE ME, WITH SOMEONE ELSE, REGARDING THE OCCUPANCY, OF THE ROOM. HAD HE NOT MENTIONED IT, IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, SHIP WOULD HAVE PROBABLY NOT DONE SO, BUT THIS JUDGE GAVE THEM THE GO AHEAD, TO FILL THE VACANCY, THAT WAS LEFT WITH THEM EVICTING ME, FROM THE SHELTER, AND WHICH DOES NOT ALSO MEAN, THAT THERE WERE NO OTHER ROOM AVAILABLE, THERE AS WELL. BUT THANKS TO THE JUDGE, RICCHETTI'S STATEMENTS, SHIP WILL NOW ALWAYS SAY, THAT THEY HAVE NO SPACE, EVEN WHEN THAT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE. SHIP'S STAFF, ALSO PREVENTED ME, FROM GETTING PRIVATE HOUSING, BECAUSE OF ITS STAFF HARASSMENT. I COULD NOT FOCUS ON THE FINANCIAL ASPECT, OF MY SITUATION, BECAUSE SHIP'S STAFF, FELT THAT I SHOULD SPEND ALL OF MY TIME, LOOKING FOR THEIR KIND OF HOUSING, WHICH ALSO DID NOT FIT, MY SITUATION, PERSONALLY. 

THE SITUATION CREATED BY SHIP, ALSO CRIPPLED ME, FINANCIALLY. FOR INSTANCE, DOING BOOK READINGS, OF MY CHILDREN BOOKS, HAD TO BE PUT ON HOLD, BECAUSE OF THE DEMAND OF SHIP'S STAFF, TO FOCUS ALL OF MY TIME, ON HOUSING SEARCHES. MY OTHER LEGAL MATTERS, ALSO SUFFERED, AS A RESULT, AND I DO ALL MY LEGAL MATTERS, AS A SELF REPRESENTED, LITIGANT, CURRENTLY, WITH AT LEAST SIX OUTSTANDING CASES, THAT I AM CURRENTLY, DEALING WITH, IN ALL THREE COURTS. FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT, TO THE COURT OF APPEAL. INCLUDING, A PANEL REVIEW, REGARDING, MY JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, NEXT MONTH, A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION APPLICATION, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE AND TWO NOTICES OF MOTION FOR LEAVE, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. PLUS SEVERAL CIVIL CLAIMS. SHIP IS GOING TO PAY ME DAMAGES, FOR ALL OF THESE. FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, MENTAL ANGUISH AND LOST INCOME, E.T.C. 

NOW BACK TO THE JUDGE. THIS JUDGE, RICCHETTI, ALSO MENTIONED, AT THE MOTIONS HEARING, TODAY, ABOUT ME, REPORTING ON MY BLOG, REGARDING THE COURT PROCEEDING.  WHAT HE REALLY MEANT, WAS ABOUT ME, REPORTING, ABOUT HIM. HE HAD NO REGARD, FOR EITHER MY HUMAN RIGHTS, OR MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, UNDER THE CHARTER.  WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT?. I DID NOT VIDEO OR AUDIO RECORDED THE HEARING. HE SHOULD BE GLAD, ABOUT THIS FACT. I RESPECTED THE LAW AND DID NOT DO THAT.  ALTHOUGH, IT WAS ALSO NEEDED. THE LAW ACTUALLY, DO PROTECT YOU, IF YOU ARE REPORTING, THE TRUTH. WHAT I DO, IS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND REPORTED ON MY OWN DAMN MATTERS, BEFORE THE CANADIAN COURT, AS A HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE VICTIM. MY STORY NEEDS TO BE OUT THERE, SO PEOPLE CAN KNOW, WHAT IS HAPPENING, TO SOME PEOPLE, IN THE CANADIAN COURT. 

IF I HAD THE CLOUT, I WOULD ALSO PUSH FOR THE UN, TO HOLD CANADA GUILTY, FOR THIS FORM OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE. THE DESTRUCTON OF PEOPLE'S LIVES, BY THE COURTS. NOT ONLY DO I GET THE TRUTH OUT THERE, SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN ALSO GET ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THOSE WHO ARE ENTRUSTED, WITH CERTAIN PUBLIC DUTY, SHOULD BE CARRYING OUT SUCH DUTY, THAT WILL ALSO, BENEFIT THE PUBLIC. AND ONLY THE ONES, WHO ARE DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY, ARE SCARED, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.

ARY, TO REPORT TO THE PUBLIC, WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRES, IN THE CANADIAN COURT.  WITHOUT ACTUALLY, VIDEO, OR AN AUDIO RECORDING, THE HEARING, OF ITS PROCEEDINGS. WHICH THEY SAY, IS ALSO FORBIDDEN.  BUT EXERCISING MY RIGHTS, TO FREE SPEECH AND ALSO, IF IT INVOLVES ME, DIRECTLY, REPORTING ON MY MATTERS BEFORE THE COURT, SINCE IT ALSO ALWAYS, INVOLVED, THE ABUSE OF MY RIGHTS, IN SOME WAY. THAT, I WILL NOT KEEP QUIET ABOUT. 

IMAGINE, HOW MUCH MORE EASIER, MY JOB WOULD BE, IN EXPOSING, CORRUPTION AND OTHER SERIOUS CONCERNS, WITH THE CANADIAN COURTS, IF THIS GOVERNMENT, WHICH CLAIM TO BE A DEFENDER, OF HUMAN RIGHTS, ALSO ALLOW ITS COURT PROCEEDINGS, TO BE VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDED, TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC, HAVE CONFIDENCE, IN ITS PROCEEDINGS. THEN MY JOB WOULD BE DONE. THE JUDGES AND THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, WOULD THINK TWICE, IN SAYING OR DOING ANYTHING, THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE LAW.  BUT WHEN NO ONE CAN SEE THEM, THEY ACT CORRUPT AND 

ANOTHER, CANADIAN JUDGE, LEONARD RICCHETTI, A SENIOR JUDGE, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, NOW INCLUDED, ON MY LIST OF CANADIANS, WHO I HAVE NOW BROUGHT BEFORE, THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. IT'S A CONSPIRACY, TO DESTROY ME AND THEY ARE ALL INVOLVED.

I AM DONE, WITH THE INHUMANE TREATMENT, OF ME, BY THE CANADIAN JUDGES, WHO HAVE NO REGARDS, FOR MY HUMAN RIGHTS, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND THEY MUST ALSO ANSWER, FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

LET THE WORLD WATCH, AS CANADA'S CORRUPTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE,  EXPOSES, ITSELF, TO THE WORLD. WATCH HOW CORRUPT, CANADIAN JUDGES, REALLY ARE.

I AM CHARGING, THIS CANADIAN JUDGE, LEONARD RICCHETTI, BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FOR HIS ACTIONS, AGAINST ME. 

A SENIOR JUDGE, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN ONTARIO, LEONARD RICCHETTI, IS  THE MOST RECENT JUDGE, WHO HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE LIST OF CANADIAN JUDGES, WHO I HAVE INCLUDED, AS DEFENDANTS, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FOR CARRYING OUT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AGAINST ME. 

WHAT THIS SENIOR JUDGE DID, VERY OPENLY, WAS TO MOCK ME, AND MY SITUATION AND TO ALSO SHOW, NO REGARD FOR IT.  HE ALSO VERY OPENLY, SYMPATHIZED, WITH THE DEFENDANT, AND EVEN ASKED THEIR OPINION, ABOUT WHETHER THE UNIT I HAD OCCUPIED, WAS TAKEN AND THE JUDGE'S OBVIOUS RELUCTANCE, IN REVERSNG THAT DECISION, SINCE IT THE DEFENDANT, WHO HAD ALSO CAUSED ME TO BE HOMELESS, BY EVICTING ME, BEFORE THE COURT COULD HEAR THE CASE ON ITS MERITS, AND BEFORE THE COURT HAD ALL OF THE EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS, IN THE MOTIONS OF BOTH MYSELF AND THE DEFENDANT, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.  NO THIS JUDGE, WAS ALREAY SYMPATHETIC, ABOUT DISTURBING, THE SITUATION, IF THE DEFENDANT, HAD ACTED TO GIE AWAY MY SPACE, AT THE SHELTER. MORE THAN WHAT I AM NOW FACING. AND THIS WAS ALSO A DIRECT RESULT, OF THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS, AGAINST ME.

THE CORUPTION OF THIS CANADIAN JUDGE, IS THAT WHILE HE IS MAKING HIS DECISION AND SHOWING CONCERN FOR THE DEFENDANT, HE IS ALSO WELL AWARE OF THE SITUATION, THAT I AM PUT INTO AND SHOWED NO CONCERN, FOR ANY HARM, THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO ME, OR THAT I WOULD STILL FACE. RATHER, HE SHOWED, IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, MORE CONCERN, OVER ANYONE, WHO MAY HAVE REPLACED, MY POSITION, THAT THEY MAY LOSE IT,  IF HE SHOULD CCNSIDER, THE MADATORY ORDER, TO LET ME BACK INTO THE SHELTER AND TO PREVENT ME, FROM BEING HOMELESS. WHILE HE PRETENDS, TO CARRY OUT A COURT HEARING, ON THE MATTER.  NOWHERE, DID HE EVEN MENTIONED, OR TO CONSIDER, MY CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING, MY HUMAN RIGHTS, TO BASIC SHELTER.  IF HE HAD DONE THIS, HE WOULD ALSO NOT BE CONCERNED, ABOUT WHAT THE DEFENDANT, SHIP, MAY THINK ON THE MATTER, SINCE THEY HAD ALSO GONE AGAINST, THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE COURT AND HAD EVICTED ME, WHILE THE MATTER WAS STILL NOT HEARD, OR DECIDED, BY THE COURT.  AND THE SENIOR JUDGE, IS ACTING, LIKE IT WAS OKAY, FOR THEM TO DO WHAT THEY HAD DONE, WHICH WAS TO CIRCUMVENT, THE NORMAL PROCESS OF THE COURT. THIS SENIOR JUDGE, DID NOT SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM, WITH THEIR ACTIONS. NOR DID HE CARED, WHAT KIND OF HARDSHIP, OR OTHER HARM, THAT THEY HAD CREATED FOR ME, BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIONS, AGAINST ME.

THEIR LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, IS PROBABLY GOING TO TELL THE COURT, THAT SHE CANNOT PARTICIPATE, AT THE HEARING TOMORROW, IN TRYING TO DELAY, THE MATTER FURTHER AND TO CAUSED ME HARM.  MORE SO THAN THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE, BY EVICTING ME, WHILE THE MATTER WAS, STILL BEFORE THE COURT. AND BASED ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN SO FAR, THE JUDGE, LEONARD RICHETTI, WILL ALSO ACCEPT THEIR RESPONSE AND ALSO CAUSED ME FURTHER HARM, BY DELAYING THE MATTER, OR NOT GRANTING, THE EQUITABLE RELIEF, THAT I HAVE ALSO SOUUGHT, IN THE URGENT MOTION.  OR THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, MAY SHOW UP AT THE HEARING.  SINCE IT IS ALL  A CIRCUS AND SHE ALSO KNOWS VERY WELL, WHAT THIS JUDGE IS UP TO AND WHAT THEY ARE ALL UP TO.

BUT IT IS ME, WHO WILL ALSO GET THE LAST LAUGH. SINCE I LIVE TO SEE THE DAY, WHEN THEY THEMSELVES, ARE BEFORE, THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, DEFENDING THEMSELVES, AGAINST THE CHARGES. THOSE CHARGES, UNDER THE ROME STATUTE, ARTICEL 15, CRMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

LET ME SEE, IF THEY WILL THINK, IT IS FUNNY THEN. 

WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO, WAS TO HAVE ALL OF THE MOTIONS HEARD, AT ONE TIME. THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVED, WHICH WAS ALSO NOT ALLOWED, UNDER THE LAW. HE WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO HEAR THE MATTER, THAT WAS BEFORE HIM, AT THAT TIME. THE LAW STATES VERY CLEARLY, THAT IT WOULD BE  AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE AND A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, IF A JUDGE HEARS A CASE, (ESPECIALY, SINCE THE DEFENDANT, ALSO DID NOT FILE ANY RESPONDING MOTON MATERIALS), THAT WAS NOT BEFORE HIM. I WILL PROVIDE A CASE LAW: Paladin Labs Inc. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et. al. v His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia et. al. 

" Except re a statute or court rules authorize the court to make an order on its own initiative or where the inherent jurisdiction of the court empowers it to make an order to control its own processes, it is against the principles of nature justice and procedural fairness for a judge to make an order on an application that is not before him or her..."

I HAVE POSTED THE ENDORSEMENT, OF THE JUDGE, LEONARD RICCHETTI, BELOW AND YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF, WHAT HE IS UP TO. PARAGRAPH [5] IS TROUBLING TO ME, BECAUSE I HAD SERVED, THE MOTION, ON THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, ON APRIL 3 AND ON APRIL 11TH. THE FIRST HAD TO DO WITH THE INSTRUTIONS OF THE JUDGE, GERARD DOW, AND THE SECOND SERVICE, WAS MADE ON HER ON PRIL 11TH. ONLY MY MOST RECENT URGENT MOTION, THAT I HAD FILED ON APRIL 22ND, WAS NOT SERVED ON THE LAWYER, BECAUSE IT WAS AN EX-PARTE MOTION. 

HERE IS PROOF, THAT I HAD SERVED, THE DEFENDANT, WITH MY MOTION MATERIALS, ON APRIL 3RD. PLUS, I HAD ALSO SERVED THEM, WITH MY MOTION, TO TRANSFER THE FILE TO BRAMPTON, AS WELL. THAT ONE THE LAWYER, HAS CONSENTED ON AND THE JUDGE ORERED (SEE PARA. [4], IN HIS ENDORSEMENT). 

THE FIRST THING, THAT WAS READ OUT IN THE COURT, WAS TO FORBADE THE RECORDING, OF THE HEARING.  HERE, I HAVE EXPRESSED, MY RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF MY OPINION.  I AM ALSO REPORTING, ON THE TRUTH AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. CANADA, SHOULD NEVER BE REGARDED, AS TELLING THE TRUTH, ABOUT ITS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, UNTIL IT HAS AN OPEN COURTROOM, THAT ALLOWS, A HEARING, TO BE BOTH VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDED AND TO ALSO BE TRANSPARENT, IN THAT WAY, SO THAT THE PUBLIC AND THE WHOLE WORLD, GETS TO SEE, WHAT IS HAPPENING, FOR THEMSELVES.  IN THE MEANTIME, I WILL KEEP ON REPORTING, WHAT I HAVE BOTH SEEN AND HEARD, AND IN MY CASE, AS EVIDENCE, IN REGARDS TO HOW I AM BEING TREATED, BY THE CANADIAN COURTS. UNLESS, YOU HAD SEEN IT FOR YOURSELF, IT WOULD NOT BELIEVED. IT IS STILL UNBELIEVABLE, AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY, IT SHOULD ALSO BE EXPOSED. THIS KIND OF TREATMENT, IS AGAINST, THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, THAT IS ALSO UNIVERSAL. AND WHEN THEY ABUSE MINE, I WILL NOT BE QUIET ABOUT IT.

TORONTO LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, EXPOSED!!!. HOW SHE ACTED CORRUPTLY, AND AGAINST, THE ETHICAL CODE OF CONDUCT, WITH THE LAW SOCIETY, TO CIRCUMVENT, THE COURT'S DECISION, ON A LEGAL CASE, THAT IS BEFORE THE COURT.

THIS IS NOTHING, BUT A JEWISH PLOT, AGAINST ME.  TWO RACIST JEWS, WHO HAVE CONSPIRED, TO CAUSED ME HARM, BY FORCING ME, TO BE EVICTED, IN THEIR CONSPIRACY, TO DO ME HARM. ONE OF WHOM, LESLEY NAGODA, WHO THINKS, THAT I WAS SO MUCH, BENEATH HER, THE FOOL THAT SHE IS, THAT SHE HAS NEVER, ENDEAVERED, TO RETURN MY CALLS. BOY! WAS SHE EVER WRONG. 

TORONTO LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, MUST HAVE BELIEVED, THAT HER CLIENTS, SHIP AND ITS CORRUPT AND INFAMOUS DIRECTOR, LESLEY NAGODA, HAS SO MUCH MONEY, (PUBLIC MONEY, FROM BEING A REGISTERED, PUBLIC CHARITY, AND RECEIVING FUNDING, FROM ALL THREE LEVELS, OF GOVERNMENT AND ALSO FROM, PRIVATE FUNDERS), TO PAY FOR THEIR LEGAL FEES, THAT AS A, GREEDY LAWYER, SHE WAS ALSO WILLING, TO TAKE THE RISK, OF GOING AGAINST, THE LAW SOCIETY'S, ETHICAL AND MORAL, CODE OF CONDUCT,  AND TO GO MISSING IN ACTION, (MIA), OR TO MAKE HERSELF, UNAVAILABLE, AFTER HER CLIENTS SHIP AND LESLEY NAGODA, DIRECTED, THOSE UNDER HER, TO CARRY OUT AN, UNLAWFUL EVICTION, THAT ZOHAR LEVY, AS THEIR LAWYER, ON RECORD, HAD ALSO INSTIGATED, I BELIEVED AND HAS ALSO BEEN SILENT ABOUT IT, EVER SINCE.  ZOHAR LEVY, SHOWED, A LACK OF INTEGRITY, IN DELIBERATELY, AVOIDING, THE ISSUE, WITH ME, EVEN THOSE SHE WAS THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, OR LAWYER.  ZOHAR LEVY, WAS MIA, WHEN NEEDED, TO CLARIFY, THE SITUATION,WITH THOSE WORKING, UNDER THE DIRECTIVES, OF LESLEY NAGODA, TO GO AGAINST, THE ORDER OF THE COURT. ZOHAR LEVY, WENT ALONG WITH THEIR DECISION. SHE CONVENIENTLY FORGETS, AS A LAWYER, THAT SHE IS ALSO SUPPOSE TO NOT DO ANYTHING, THAT WOULD ALSO INTERFERE, IN THE ADMINISTRATION, OF JUSTICE. WHICH ALSO INCLUDED, ACTING WITH INTEGRITY, CONCERNING HER PROFESSION AND ALSO THE LAW.
LAWYER, ZOAR LEVY, WOULD ALSO BE PAID, REALLY WELL, TO AVOID ALL FORMS OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH ME, IN ORDER, TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE. SHE KEPT SILENT, WHILE THOSE OTHERS, WHO NEITHER KNEW THE LAW, AS WELL AS SHE DID, NOR HAD TAKEN ANY OATH, TO NOT INTERFERE, WITH IS ADMINISTRATION, CARRIED OUT THE UNLAWFUL EVICTION, THAT SHE MOST ASSUREDLY, ALSO KNEW ABOUT AND ALSO, AGREED WITH. 

THROW OUT THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES, AND MORAL DILEMA, BECAUSE SHE HAD NONE. AFTER INSTRUCTING HER SECRETARY, OR ASSISTANT, TO TELL ME, THAT SHE WAS IN A MEETING AND HER ASSISTANT CLAIMING, THAT SHE WOULD ALSO BE FREE TO TALK WITH ME, IN HALF AN HOUR, SHE NEVER DID. ZOHAR LEVY, NEVER CALLED ME BACK, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DAY, DESPITE MY MESSAGES TO HER, AS THE LAWYER, REPRESENTING HER CLIENT, SHIP, TO CONTACT THOSE WHO NEEDED CLARIFICATION, ON THE ISSUE, THE SUPERVISOR, AND TO LET HIM KNOW, THAT THE MATTER, WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT, TO BE RESOLVED, BY THE COURT. SHE DID NO SUCH THING. 

LAWYERS SHOULD NOT GO MISSING, OR TO AVOID MEETING, THE OTHER PARTY, TO A DISPUTE, WHO WAS ALSO RELYING, ON THE LAWYER, TO CLEAR UP, ANY LEGAL ISSUES, REGARDING THEIR CLIENT'S ACTIONS, AS A LAWYER. IF THERE WAS SOME LEGAL ISSUES, THAT HER CLIENTS, DID NOT UNDERSTAND, IT WAS THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY'S LEGAL DUTY, TO EXPLAIN, THE LEGAL ISSUE, TO THEM, AND THAT WOULD ALSO, NOT GO AGAINST, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. IN OTHER WORDS, SHE ALSO HAD A DUTY, TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND TO THE LAW. HER ACTIONS MUST ALSO NOT GO AGAINST THE LAW, OR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  

WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE OUTCOME, IF THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, HAD ALSO CONTACTED, THE SUPERVISOR OF THE SHELTER, THAT WAS OPERATED BY SHIP, AND LET HIM KNOW, THAT THE  MATTER WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT, TO DECIDE ON THE ISSUES, BETWEEN SHIP AND THE TENANT AND THAT HE WAS NOT TO ACT IN ANY WAY THAT WOULD CAUSED THE COURT'S FUNCTION OR ROLE IN THE MATTER, TO BE DIMINISHED, BUT TO ALLOW THE LAWYER AND THE COURT TO FOLLOW THE COURT'S PROCESS.  BUT SHE DID NOT DO THAT. SHE KEPT SILENT AND DID NOT CALL ANYONE,NOR DID SHE EVEN RETURNED MY TELEPHONE CALLS TO HER, TO CLARIFY THE SITUATION FOR HER CLIENT.  I MET TORONTO LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ON APRIL 18,2024, WHEN SHE EMAILED ME, ABOUT BEING THE LAWYER, FOR HER CLIENT SHIP AND WANTED ME TO FILL HER IN, ON MY RECENT MOTION, THAT WAS FILED WITH THE COURT ON APRIL 15TH, TO TRANSFER MY CASE FILE, TO ANOTHER REGION. SHE WAS ALSO ASKING ME, ABOUT MY BLOG POST, ABOUT HER CLIENT, LESLEY NAGODA, THAT SEEMED TO HAVE, ALSO, RESONATED WITH HER NEGATIVELY. WOULD I TAKE THE POSTS DOWN, SHE HAD ASKED ME. I SAID NO. THAT THEY WERE WRITTEN, TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST, IN THE MATTER. THAT MY LOYALTY, WAS WITH THE PUBLIC AND NOT HER CLIENT.  THE NEXT DAY, ONHER CLIENT'S DIRECTIVES, THEY STAGED AN UNLAWFUL EVICTION, WHILE THE MATTER WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT, AND DURING WHICH TIME, THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, ALSO WENT MISSING IN ACTION (MIA) AND DID NOT RETURNED MY PHONE CALLS, AFTER HER ALLEGED MEETING, ACCORDING TO HER ASSISTANT.  WHO CLAIMED THAT ZOHAR LEVY, WOULD BE CALLING ME BACK IN HALF AN HOUR, BUT WHICH SHE NEVER DID. THROUGHT THE DAY.  

LAWYERS ACT, ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS, THIS IS THE NORM. SOME LAWYERS GO BEYOND THAT, TO INTERFERE, DELIBERTELY, WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. SOMETHING, THAT THEY ARE ALSO, EXPRESSLY, FORBIDDEN, TO DO SO, BY THE LAW SOCIETY. IN ZOHAR LEVY'S CASE, SHE ACTED CORRUPTLY, AND AIDED HER CLIENT, IN CAUSING AN EVICTION, OF THE TENANT, WHILE THE MATTER,WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT AND THE COURT, HAD ALSO NOT YET HEARD, FROM BOTH PARTIES, TO THE DISPUTE. ZOHAR LEVEY'S ACTION, TO CONSPIRE WITH HER CLIENT, LESLEY NAGODA, THE DIRECTOR OF SHIP, TO CIRCUMVENT, THE COURT PROCEDURE, AND TO CAUSE A PREMATURE EVICTION OF THE TENANT, WAS WHAT SHE ALSO INTENED. SHE ACTED WITH A LACK OF INTEGRITY, BOTH PROFESSIONAL AND OTHERWISE. 

SHE HAS ALSO EARNED HERSELF A COMPLAINT WITH THE LAW SOCIETY.

CANADIAN JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, IS NOT ONLY CORRUPT, BUT SHE IS ALSO WICKED AND EVIL. PERIOD. SHE IS ONE OF THE FIRST, CANADIAN JUDGES, THAT I WILL BE CHARGING, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FOR CARRYING OUT, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AGAINST ME.

I WASTED MY TIME AND EFFORT, ASKING FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, FROM THIS WICKED JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS. SHE NEVER EVEN, CONSIDERED, SUCH A REQUEST.

SHE IS JUST ANOTHER, CORRUPT, CANADIAN JUDGE, NOW BEING EXPOSED. ONTARIO JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, IS RACIST AND UNDESERVING, TO REPRESENT, THE PUBLIC, IN HER ROLE AS A JUDGE.

CANADIAN JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, IS NOT ONLY CORRUPT, BUT SHE IS ALSO WICKED AND EVIL. PERIOD. SHE IS ONE OF THE FIRST, CANADIAN JUDGES, THAT I WILL BE CHARGING, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FOR CARRYING OUT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AGAINST ME. SHE HAS NO REGARD, FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND IS ALSO A RACIST AND AFTER MY DEALINGS WITH HER, I HAVE NO RESPECT, FOR THE CANADIAN COURT.

She is undeserving, as a judge, to represent the Canadian public. She is a disgusting, human being, if I can even consider her as such. I am so disgusted, by her corruption, as a judge, and her lack of regard, for administering the law, that I will also charge her, in the ICC.

I AM USUALLY TEMPERED, IN MY REPORTS, ABOUT CANADIAN JUDGES, GIVING SOME RESPECT, TO THEIR OFFICE, BUT AFTER SEEING HOW, THIS JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, ACT BEHIND CLOSE DOORS, AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC'S VIEW, THAT RESPECT, WAS FOREVER GONE.

I WASTED MY TIME AND EFFORT, ASKING FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, FROM THIS WICKED JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS. SHE NEVER EVEN, CONSIDERED, SUCH A REQUEST. SHE ALSO NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED, THE HARM, THAT WOULD ALSO RESULT, TO ME, BY REFUSING TO GRANT ME, EQUITABLE RELIEF, WHICH UNDER CANADIAN LAW, TAKES PRECEDENCE, AND EVEN PARAMOUNTCY, OVER THE COMMON LAW. THE ONTARIO STATUTE, THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT. R.SO. 1990. c, C-43 STATES, UNDER SECTION 96(1) AND (2), THAT THIS RULE OF LAW, IS TO BE APPLIED, CONCURRENTLY, WITH THE COMMON LAW. AND IF THERE IS A CONFLICT, THEN THE LAW OF EQUITY, MUST ALSO PREVAILED.

THIS WAS NOT SO, WITH THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, WHO EVEN IN HER CORRUPTION, MADE THE SAME DECISION TWICE, IN TWO DIFFERENT URGENT MOTIONS, (FOR WHICH THE SECOND, URGENT MOTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE ALSO, BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE HER, BUT WHICH SHE ACCEPTED, FROM THE EQUALLY, CORRUPT, SUPERVISOR, CHRISTINE DAVIES OLIVERIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, WHO INSISTED, THAT THE SAME JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, MUST HEAR THE SAME URGENT MOTION, SINCE SHE WAS THE JUDGE, WHO HAD HEARD THE FIRST URGENT MOTION. SO THIS SUPERVISOR, BROUGHT THE SECOND, URGENT MOTION, BACK TO THE SAME JUDGE, AFTER SHE HAD RULED, NEGATIVELY, ON THE FIRST URGENT MOTION. BOTH MOTIONS, WAS ASKING FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, ALONG WITH HER ADMINISTRATION, OF THE COMMON LAW. THE WICKED JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, KNEW THAT I WOULD BECOME HOMELESS AND ALSO SUFFER HARM, IF SHE DID NOT MAKE AN ORDER, TO STOP THE RESPONDENT, FROM GOING AGAINST, THE EXISTING ORDER, OR ENDORSEMENT, FROM ANOTHER JUDGE, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, AFTER BEING SERVED, WITH MY EX PARTE MOTION, THAT I HAD FILED IN THE COURT AND ALSO SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT, AND ALSO THE MOTION, THAT I HAD FILED, WITH THE SCJ, IN THE BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE, TO TRANSFER THE FILE, TO THAT COURTHOUSE, WHICH WAS ALSO, THE PROPER JURISDICTION, TO HEAR THE CASE. THE MOTION BEING FILED, ON APRIL 15TH AND TO BE HEARD, BY THE COURT, ON APRIL 23RD, AFTER SERVICE WAS ALSO MADE, ON THE RESPONDENT,SHIP.

WHEN THE RESPONDENT, SHIP'S LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, CONTACTED, ME ON APRIL 18, 2024, CLAIMING, THAT SHE HAD ONLY RECEIVED, THE MOTION AND FACTUM, (FROM HER CLIENT, SHIP) AND NOT THE MOTION RECORD, AND ALSO CLAIMED, THAT SHE HAD ALSO NOT RECEIVED, THE JUDGE'S ENDORSEMENT, FROM THE PREVIOUS JUDGE, FROM THER CLIENT, THIS WAS ALSO LEADING, UP TO SOMETHING, SINISTER, ON HER PART. (SHE IS HERE CLAIMING, THAT SHE DOES NOT KNOW, ABOUT THE ORDER, OR ENDORSEMENT, FROM THE PREVIOUS JUDGE, JUSTICE GRANT DOW AND BY DOING SO, SHE IS NOW FREE TO ACT, IN A CONSPIRACY, WITH HER CLIENT, TO EVICT ME). IT WAS THE COURT'S JOB, TO SEND OUT THE ENDORSEMENT, TO BOTH PARTIES. AND IF THE LAWYER WANTED THE ENDORSEMENT, SHE COULD HAVE ASKED THE COURT, FOR A COPY. THE ENDORSEMENT, CAME FROM THE COURT AND NOT ME. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN MY MOTION, THAT WAS ALSO SERVED ON HER CLIENT, ON APRIL 15TH, TO TRANSFER THE FILE, TO THE BRAMPTON COURT. WHICH WAS ALSO IN MY URGENT MOTION, THE WICKED JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, ALSO KNEW THAT EVERYBODY, WAS ON BOARD, AS FAR AS THE CASE. SHE SHOULD HAVE NOT ALLOWED, THE RESPONDENT SHIP AND THEIR LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, TO EVICT ME, WHILE THE MATTER WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT. AND AFTER I HAD DONE ALL THAT THE COURT, HAD ORDERED ME TO DO. THE PREVIOUS JUDGE, HAD NOT DISMISSED MY URGENT MOTION, BUT HAD PUT CERTAIN CONDITIONS, FOR IT TO BE HEARD, BY THE COURT. WHY DID THE CORRUPT JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, ALSO NOT ALLOWED THE COURT'S PROCESS, TO CONTINUE, UNINTERRUPTED, BY THE RESPONDENT AND TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS, WHILE THE MATTER WAS STILL BEFORE THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE?. I WILL TELL YOU WHY, BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT HAVE CARED LESS, IN HER CORRUPTION, AS A JUDGE, WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, WAS IMPLEMENTED, IN MY CASE. SHE WAS BIAS AND CORRUPT, BY EVEN DECIDING TWICE, ON THE SAME MATTER. RES JUIDICATA. SOMETHING THE PREVIOUS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, HAD ALSO TRIED TO AVOID, IN HIS ENDORSEMENT. THIS JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, TOOK UP WHOLEHEARTEDLY. HAS SHE NOT EVER READ MY BLOG?. I CANNOT WAIT, TO START PROCEDURES AGAINST HER, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

AS A LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED HER CLIENT, TO RESPECT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND TO LET THE COURT DO ITS JOB AND NOT TO ACT IN PLACE OF THE COURT. NOWHERE IN THE ENDORSEMENT, DID IT STATE, THAT THE CASE WAS FINAL. RATHER, IT STATED, THAT THE ORDER WAS MADE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND THAT SERVICE OF MY EX-PARTE MOTION, WAS TO BE MADE, ON THE RESPONDENT AND THAT FINALLY, THAT I SHOULD HAVE THE CASE, TRANSFERRED, TO THE BRAMPTON COURT, FROM TORONTO SCJ, SINCE THAT WAS WHERE BOTH PARTIES, WERE LOCATED. I FIRMLY BELIEVED, THAT ZOHAR LEVY, INSTRUCTED HER CLIENT, TO IGNORE THE COURT PROCESS AND TO EVICT ME, WHILE THE CASE WAS WAITING, TO BE HEARD, BY THE COURT. SINCE NOW, BOTH PARTIES' MOTIONS, WERE NOW TO BE HEARD AND DECIDED BY THE COURT. LAWYER ZOHAR LEVY AND HER CLIENT, TRIED TO CIRCUMVENT THIS PROCESS, AND THE WICKED JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, KNEW THAT THIS WAS THE CASE, AND ALSO ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN. THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, ALSO DID NOT BOTHER TO FILE, HER RESPONDING MOTION, AFTER BEING SERVED, WITH MY EX-PARTE MOTION, AFTER THE JUDGE, GRANT DOW, HAD MADE IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, THAT I SERVED THE RESPONDENT, WITH MY EX-PARTE MOTION.

I WILL BE BACK IN COURT, NEXT WEEK, TO TAKE FURTHER, LEGAL ACTIONS, AGAINST THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY AND THE DIRECTOR OF SHIP, LESLEY LAGODA, WHOSE ACTIONS, BY INSTRUCTING ME, TO FORCIBLY, BREAK AN ORDER OF THE COURT, THE ORDER BEING, THE ENDORSEMENT, OF THE JUDGE, GRANT DOW, WHICH DID NOT TELL ME TO LEAVE, BUT WHICH THEY DID, BY THIS EVICTION, IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. IT IS CALLED, COUNCELLING TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE. CONSPIRACY, CORRUPTION AND BREACH OF TRUST, CHARGES, AGAINST THEM, ARE ALSO PENDING.

AS FAR AS MY CIVIL MATTER, I WILL BE FILING ANOTHER URGENT MOTION IN THE SCJ, TO RECTIFY, WHAT THE WICKED AND EVIL JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, HAD DONE, TO UNDERMINE MY POSITION, REGARDING THIS CIVIL LITIGATION. I WANT THE COURT,

SHOCKING!! JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SANDRA LOPES DAMOTA. LOOK WHAT SHE HAS ...

WHEN A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, LIKE SANDRA L. DAMOTA, SAYS THAT SHE IS BUSY, WITH THE JP'S OFFICE, FULL OF EMPTY CHAIRS, THIS SHOULD ALSO BE, REGARDED, AS BRINGING, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, TO DISREPUTE.

ONTARIO, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SANDRA LOPES, VIERA DAMOTA, A FORMER SOCIAL WORKER, NOW TURNED JUSTICE IF THE PEACE AND HER ACTIONS, IN THE OFFICE, OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, AT THE BRAMPTION COURTHOUSE, IN PEEL REGION.  THIS CORRUPT JP, CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS BUSY, DESPITE ALL OF THE EMPTY CHAIRS, IN THE OFFICE. 

EMPTY CHAIRS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, IN THE BRAMPTON COURT LOCATION, PROVED, THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SANDRA L. DAMOTA, WAS NOT REALLY BUSY.  THE ROOM WAS EMPTY OF PEOPLE, EXCEPT FOR ONE PERSON, ME. 

I HAD TO REPORT THIS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND TO ALSO PROVED, THAT I AM ALSO, TREATED DIFFERENTLY, IN THE CANADIAN COURT.  IT WAS MY PRIVATE INFORMATION, THAT THE JP, SANDRA DAMOTA, DID NOT WANT TO BOTHER, ACCEPTING, AFTER HAVING ME WAITING, FOR ABOUT HALF AN HOUR, AFTER THE INFORMATION, WAS ALSO GIVEN TO HER. AND ME ALSO BELIEVING, THAT SHE WAS GOING TO NOW CALL ME, INTO THE PRIVATE OFFICE AND TO FIND OUT MORE, ABOUT THE INFORMATION.  INSTEAD, SHE TOLD THE CLERK, TO TELL ME, THAT SHE WAS BUSY AND THE CLERK THEN ADVISED ME, TO COME BACK ANOTHER DAY, TO LAY THE PRIVATE INFORMATION.  

AND AS YOU CAN ALSO SEE FROM THE EMPTY CHAIRS IN THE JP'S OFFICE, SHE WAS NOT BUSY, AT ALL.  SHE JUST DID NOT WANT TO BOTHER SERVING ME, AND ENDED UP, DENYING ME THE SERVICE, TO WHICH I WAS ALSO ENTITLED.

 

Today, I was at the Justice of the Peace office, in Brampton, Ontario. I wanted to lay some private information (charges) and after sitting in the general area for about 30 minutes or more and waited to be called in to see the JP, Sandra Lopes Damota, after the clerk had taken my information to her, earlier, she told the clerk in the office, of the Justice of the Peace Office, in the Brampton court, that she was not going to see me, because she was too busy. What!. No other person was in the office of the Justice of the Peace, except myself. The clerk tried to explain, that even though, the Justice of the Peace Office, was empty of people, that they were still busy doing "electronic work", in the office. I didn't buy it. So when she stepped away from the front counter, I decided to record the Justice of the Peace Office, to show that the place was empty of people. And to prove that the JP, Sandra Lopes Damota, was also acting corruptly. Not knowing, that her actions, would also be exposed, such as her bias against me. Why did she claim that she was busy and also obviously lied, since the place was empty?. It may have to do with the fact, that I was at the JP's office, the day before and the previous JP, Sean Michael McKenna, had my private information before him and would also not proceed with laying the information. This was because, when he had mentioned to me, in the private office of the Justice of the Peace, that he had to established, the prima facie evidence of the case, I had to stop him right there and told him, that he could not do that.That he was not the crown attorney, whose job it was to do that. He was not happy with my response and did not accept the information. But not before I also told him, that I was going to order the transcript, of the hearing before him, in the private office. For the purpose of my complaint, with the Judicial Council against him. I kid you not, he wanted to hear full evidence and to established, the prima facie evidence, of the charges, that I wanted to lay, as a private information. I was not having it. While the JP does require some information, relating to the charge, he is definitely not required, to prove any prima facie, evidence, before accepting the information. Just the minimal amount of information, that is required, to lay the private information. So fast forward to today, when I went back to see a different Justice of the Peace, in the Brampton court and I had this encounter, with the JP, Sandra Lopes Damota. She never came out of her office and relayed the information to the clerk, who was also smiling, as if it was all too funny. I asked the clerk why the JP would also say that she was busy, when the office was completely empty. The clerk said that they had, "electronic work", to do in the office and could not accommodate me, as the JP, had also told her. I had to record this in the interest of the public. While I was in the office of the Justice of the Peace, two other persons walked in and now I am wondering, if they had also accommodated her, after I had left the office of the justice of the peace. I am sure that they did.

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SEAN MICHAEL MCKENNA, AND HIS STATEMENT, THAT HE HAD TO "ESTABLISHED THE PRIMA FACIE" EVIDENCE, BEFORE ACCEPTING, THE PRIVATE INFORMATION.

 SHOCKING YES!. BUT THIS WAS ACTUALLY, THE STATEMENT, OF AN ONTARIO JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SEAN MICHAEL MCKENNA, WHO HAD MADE THIS, DISTURBING COMMENT, WHILE HE WAS ACTING, AS A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, IN THE LAYING OF A PRIVATE INFORMATION, AT THE BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE, IN BRAMPTON, ONTARIO. 

THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SEAN MCKENNA, WANTED TO CONDUCT, A FACT FINDING HEARING, AND SAID SO. HE SAID THAT HE HAD TO ESTABLISHED, THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, BEFORE ACCEPTING, THE PRIVATE INFORMATION. 

WHEN HE WAS INFORMED, THAT THIS WAS THE ROLE, OF A CROWN ATTORNEY AND NOT A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, WHO WAS SITTING IN THE OFFICE, OF A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, WHOSE ROLE WAS TO ACCEPT, THE PRIVATE INFORMATION, THIS DID NOT SIT TOO WELL, WITH THE SAID, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.

HE IS BEING EXPOSED HERE, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC, GENERALLY, DO NOT KNOW, WHAT IS BEING SAID, OR DONE, IN THE OFFICE OF, THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. THAT SOME OF THE JPS, WHO ARE COMPETENT AT THE LAW, (MAYBE), WILL ALSO TRY TO ABUSE THAT AUTHORITY AND THAT OTHER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, (SUCH AS SANDRA DAMOTA, ANOTHER JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, IN THE ONTARIO COURTS), MAY NOT BE SO MUCH SO. AT LEAST NOT BY JUDGING OF HER CONDUCT. BOTH OF THOSE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, WORKED AT THE BRAMPTON JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OFFICE, ALTHOUGH, JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, ARE ALSO KNOWN TO WORK AT DIFFERENT, COURT HOUSES, IN ONTARIO. IN ROTATING SHITS, SUCH AS ONE WEEK AT THIS COURTHOUSE AND THEN MOVED TO ANOTHER COURTHOSE. 

SERVICES AND HOUSING IN THE PROVINCE, OR SHIP, CEO LESLEY NAGADO AND CFO, THOMAS DICARLO, ARE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR DISOBEYING AN ORDER OF THE COURT AND FOR BREACH OF TRUST AND CORRUPTION.

SHIP CEO AND BOARD MEMBER, LESLEY NAGADO, IS FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR CORRUPTION, CONSPIRACY, BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST AND FOR DISOBEYING AN ORDER OF THE COURT.

ALSO FACING THE SAME CHARGES, IS SHIP'S CFO, THOMAS DICARLO, WHO AS THE CFO, HE AND LESLEY NEGADO, HAD DECIDED, TO USE THEIR POSITIONS, TO CARRY OUT REPRISAL ACTIONS, AGAINST THE RESIDENT AND TO DISOBEY THE COURT ORDER, IN THE EVICTION OF THE RESIDENT FROM THE SHELTER, AS AN ACT OF REPRISAL, DESPITE BEING SERVED WITH THE ORDER FROM THE COURT,  AND WHILE THE MATTER, WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT AND TO BE DECIDED, BY THE COURT.  

Lesley Nagado, CEO of SHIP

Services and Housing in the Province

and her personal corruption. She is facing criminal 

charges, for breach of public trust, conspiracy, disobeying an order

of the court and corruption. 

THE CEO AND BOARD MEMBER, FOR THE ORGANIZATION, SERVICES IN THE PROVINCEOR SHIP, LESLEY NAGODA AND THOMAS DICARLO, THE CFO, OF SHIP, ARE BOTH FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR CORRUPTION, BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST AND DISOBEYING, AN ORDER OF THE COURT.  

THIS IS IN RELATION, TO A COURT ORDER, THAT WAS MADE LAST WEEK, ON MARCH 28, 2024, DIRECTING SERVICES UPON SHIP, THE ORGANIZATION, THAT THEY ALSO OVERSEES. THE ORDER WAS BASED ON AN EX-PARTE MOTION, THAT WAS FILED BY THE RESIDENT, TO PREVENT THEM FROM EVICTING HER FROM THE SHELTER, IN AN ACT OF REPRISAL AND FOR TAKING LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST THEM, FOR CHARTER RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WHEN THEY AUTHORIZED, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH, OF THE RESIDENT'S PERSONAL PROPERTY, REGULARLY, AS PART OF THEIR PRACTICES, AT THE SHELTER.

Both Lesley Nagoda and Thomas Dicarlo, decided that in giving the staff of the shelter, the directives, to evict the resident, which they have set for April 4, 2024, they can therefore act above the court, which says in the order, for them to be served with the resident's motion document, since it was an ex-parte motion, before the court would hear the resident's motion, about the impending eviction. 

They will now both have the opportunity, to stand before the court and to answer for their actions, regarding the order.  As well for the other charges, that have been made against them.

Also to be put on official notification, about these two persons, Lesley Nagado and Thomas Dicarlo, are the funders for SHIP. And what they also plan to do, about their corrupt actions. If they would continue to fund SHIP, with both of them managing the organization, or to cut their funding, based on their actions and also how they run the organization.