Tuesday, April 12, 2011

NO CAMERA OR RECORDING, ALLOWED IN CANADIAN COURTS.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, CANADA.
REGULAR INJUSTICES IN THAT COURT FOR SOME PEOPLE.

CONSPIRACY INVOLVING THOSE THREE JUDGES.

Judge Paul Rouleau

Judge Marc Rosenberg

COURT OF APPEAL JUDGES:
LOCATION, TORONTO ONTARIO.



PAUL S. ROULEAU, MARC ROSENBERG AND
ANDROMAHI KARAKATSANIS,
RULING REGARDING TO MY CASE
.

THEY ARE CANADIAN JUDGES WHO HAS ACTED IN A CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT JUSTICE IN ANY CASES INVOLVING ME.

READ THE EVIDENCE AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF. NONE OF IT
IS MADE UP. THE EVIDENCE IS THERE IN THE COURT FILES FOR PUBLIC VIEW.

HERE IS THE DECISION THAT THEY HAVE MADE:
1. THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE LESLIE PRINGLE DID NOT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW,
BY MAKING THE 12 YEAR OLD WITNESS TAKE AN OATH AND TO BE AFFIRMED,
CONTRARY TO THE CANADA EVIDENCE ACT SECTION 16.1(2), WHICH FORBIDS THIS
ACTION.

2. THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW, BY ALLOWING
THE CROWN ATTORNEY, CAROLINE BOYD, TO AMEND THE NAME ON THE INFORMATION AFTER SHE HAD CLOSED HER CASE AND THE DEFENCE HAD DECIDED TO CALL A WITNESS.

3. THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW, BY THE DELAY
OF THE TRIAL, WHICH WAS EIGHTEEN MONTHS AND WITH THE CROWN ALSO PROVIDING LATE DISCLOSURE, WHICH SHE ALSO ADMITTED AT THE TRIAL. FOR INSTANCE SHE HAS PUT THE BLAME ON THE POLICE IN THE TRANSCRIPTED EVIDENCE OF THE TRIAL FOR PROVIDING THE CROWN WITH THE LATE DISCLOSURE OF THE VIDEO TAPE OF THE WITNESS.

4. THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW, BY MISAPPREHENDING THE FACTS, SUCH AS THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN COURT, WHICH THE JUDGE ALSO POINTED OUT TO THE CROWN AND THE CROWN ALSO ADMITTING TO "ONE MAJOR INCONSISTENCY" AND OTHER "MINOR INCONSISTENCIES" IN THE WITNESSES TESTIMONY OR THAT SHE ALSO ADMITTED ON RECORD TO MAKING A "TECHNICAL ERROR" DURING THE TRIAL.

5. THAT SLAPPING MY 12 AND 13 YEAR OLD DAUGHTERS WITH A MAGAZINE
AT THE LIBRARY WAS EXCESSIVE AND DID NOT FALL UNDER SECTION 43, WHICH PROVIDED PROTECTION TO PARENTS, FOR CORRECTING THEIR CHILD'S BEHAVIOR.
THE WITNESSES ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT THEIR MOTHER WAS DISCIPLINING THEM AND THAT THE SLAP ONLY "HURT FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AND LEFT NO MARK OR BRUISE." THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT FIND THAT IT WAS "TRIFLING" BUT THAT EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS USED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
(THESE ARE ALL TAKEN FROM THE TRANSCRIPT EVIDENCE OF THE TRIAL).

AN IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT AT THE APPEAL AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE THE CROWN HAD MENTION TO THE JUDGE J. BROWN THAT A PAGE OR PART OF THE INFORMATION ON THE PAGE WAS MISSING FROM HIS COPY OF THE DISCLOSURE AND THAT WAS THE ALSO THE SAME PAGE THAT I HAD MENTIONED TO THE JUDGE AT THE TRIAL.

IT TOOK THE THREE CORRUPT JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO LESS THAN ONE MINUTE AND PROBABLY MORE ACCURATELY ABOUT 30 SECONDS TO GIVE THEIR DECISION ON THE CASE. THEY OBVIOUSLY DID NOT WANT TO ELABORATE ON THE REASONS FOR THEIR DECISION. THE ERRORS OF LAW THAT WERE PRESENTED IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRIAL AT THE APPEAL WAS ALSO TOO GLARINGLY OBVIOUS AND THEY WANTED TO AVOID THAT. THAT WAS THE PART THAT GOT ME ANGRY. I AM ENTITLED TO HEAR THE FULL REASONS GIVEN FOR THEIR DECISION ON ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE AT THE HEARING. WHEN THIS MATTER GETS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SOMEONE WILL WONDER WHY THAT PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT WITH THE JUDGES' DECISION IS SO SHORT. THERE IS NOT MUCH TO BE SAID IN ONLY 30 SECONDS OF DELIVERING A VERDICT. THE APPEAL JUDGES JUST CANNOT IGNORE THE EVIDENCE THAT ARE BEFORE THE COURT. THAT WAS ALSO THE MOST CORRUPT PART OF THEIR ACTIONS. I AND THE PUBLIC DESERVED A FULL EXPLANATION FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. THEY ALSO HAD A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DO SO.

THERE IS EVERY REASON TO BELIEVED THAT THE THREE JUDGES ACTIONS WERE ALSO PREMEDITATED AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ONE EXAMPLE IS THE THEIR MANNER AT THE HEARING WHICH WAS DIFFERENTIAL. THEY ACTED AS IF THEY HARDLY WANTED TO HEAR ANY EVIDENCE FROM THE APPELLANT. THEY ALSO DID NOT LET THE CROWN ATTORNEY ADDRESS THE COURT EITHER WITH HER ARGUMENTS TELLING HER THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR HER TO DO SO. THAT THEY HAVE REACHED THEIR DECISION AND DELIVERED THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. THEY ALSO CALLED IN THE SECURITY GUARDS DURING THE HEARING FOR NO APPARENT REASONS WHICH LEFT ME OR ANYONE ELSE TO REASON THAT THEY ALSO BELIEVED THAT THEIR SERVICES WOULD BE NEEDED. AND WHY WOULD THAT BE THE CASE IF THE JUDGES HAD ALSO PLANNED TO CONDUCT A "FAIR" HEARING. WERE THEY CALLED IN BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT I WOULD ALSO GET UPSET ABOUT THEIR DECISION? THEN THAT WOULD ALSO BE A PREMEDITATED ACTION ON THEIR PART. IF THEY HAD DECIDED TO HEAR THE CASE IMPARTIALLY THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT I WOULD ALSO NOT BE ACCEPTABLE WITH THEIR DECISION. THEY MUST HAVE EXPECTED A NEGATIVE RESPONSE FROM ME IN ANTICIPATION TO THE DECISION THAT THEY HAD ALSO PLANNED TO MAKE IN REGARDS TO THE CASE. ONE OF THOSE GUARDS IN FACT MADE A DISPARAGING REMARK BOUT ME AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER.

THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST ME HAS ALSO MADE SURE THAT I WILL NEVER GET ANY JUSTICE IN ANY CANADIAN COURT. IT IS TOO BIG MENTION BUT YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE RESULTS OF IT BY THE ACTIONS OF THOSE SAME PERSONS WHO ARE WILLING TO SHAME THEMSELVES PUBLICLY. THEY SHOULD ALSO KNOW BY NOW THAT I WILL ALSO EXPOSE THEIR ACTIONS. IT IS ALSO A PUBLIC OUTRAGE AND AN AFFRONT TO JUSTICE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD TO SEE THIS KIND OF CORRUPTION BY A GOVERNMENT, IN GOING AFTER THOSE WHO HAS EXPOSED ITS ACTION. THE CONSPIRACY OF THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY IS TO SABOTAGE MY EFFORTS AND TO CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE AGAINST ME. EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF INFORMATION ON MY BLOG CONCERNING ITS ACTIONS, CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED REGARDING THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE AGAINST THEM FOR THE OPEN ABUSE OF MY RIGHTS.

THE EVIDENCE IS SHOCKING AND ALL THAT ONE HAS TO DO IS TO LOOK AT THE RECORDS AVAILABLE AND ESPECIALLY THOSE ONES IN THE CANADIAN COURTS. IN ONE WEEK ALONE, I HAVE HAD TWO APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DISMISSED ON GROUNDS THAT ARE SO OUTRAGEOUS AND WHICH ALSO MAKES SUCH A MOCKERY TO JUSTICE THAT IT CAN'T BE IGNORED. TAKE THIS LATEST ACTION BY THE JUDGES IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. THE CROWN MUST HAVE ALSO KNOWN THAT IT DID NOT HAVE A GOOD CASE REGARDING MY APPEAL BECAUSE COUNSEL TOLD ME THAT THE CROWN WANTED AN ADJOURNMENT TO OF ALL THINGS RECHECK TO SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE MISSING IN THE TRANSCRIPT EVIDENCE OF THE TRIAL.

THE CROWN MUST HAVE FELT THAT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE A CASE AND THAT I COULD WIN THE APPEAL JUST ON THE FACE OF IT ALONE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THERE WERE ERRORS OF LAW MADE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THAT IS WHY THE CROWN ALSO WANTED TO ADJOURN THE APPEAL. I MEAN HOW OFTEN DO YOU HEAR OF AN APPEAL JUDGE RULING THAT A VERY CLEAR ERROR OF LAW AND VIOLATION OF THAT LAW BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, BY IGNORING A STATURE OF LAW, SUCH AS THE ONE IN THE CANADA EVIDENCE ACT SECTION 16.1(2) WHICH SHE ALSO CLEARLY VIOLATED BY MAKING THE 12 YEAR OLD WITNESS TAKE AN OATH AND BE AFFIRMED COULD ALSO BE OVERLOOKED? UNLESS YOU ARE ALSO DEALING WITH MY CASE, WHICH DID NOT MATTER TO ANY OF THEM CONCERNING ANY KINDS OF RIGHTS BEING ABUSED.

ONE OF THE MOST GLARING ERRORS OF LAW COMMITTED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS WHEN SHE ALLOWED THE CROWN TO AMEND THE NAME ON THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE COURT AFTER SHE HAD CLOSED HER CASE. TO BE SURE MY COUNSEL JACQULINE AN ALSO ASKED THE TRIAL JUDGE IF THE CROWN HAS CLOSED HER CASE. THE TRIAL JUDGE RESPONDED. "ALL RIGHT THE CROWN HAS CLOSED ITS CASE". COUNSEL THEN MOVED TO CALL THE WITNESS MY SON WHEN THE CROWN JUMPS UP AND ASKED THE TRIAL JUDGE IF SHE COULD AMEND THE NAME ON THE INFORMATION. WHEN MY COUNSEL OBJECTED SAYING THAT IT WOULD ALSO PREJUDICE HER CLIENT IT FELL ON DEAF EARS. THE TRIAL JUDGE LESLIE PRINGLE ALLOWED THE CROWN TO CHANGE THE NAME ON THE INFORMATION TO FIT THE NAME OF ONE OF THE WITNESSES.
THE TRIAL JUDGE ALSO COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN SHE ALSO ALLOWED THE 12 YEAR OLD WITNESS TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH. THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMENTED "MR CLERK, PLEASE ADMINISTER THE OATH" (TO THE 12 YEAR OLD WITNESS). THE WITNESS IS THEN SWORN IN AND AFFIRMED. THIS IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE CANADA EVIDENCE ACT 16.1 WHICH WAS ALSO AMENDED IN JANUARY 2006 TO INCLUDE SUBSECTION 2, OF THE ACT WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS A WITNESS UNDER THE AGE OF 14 YEARS OLD TO GIVE A SWORN TESTIMONY. THE TRIAL OF COURSE WAS AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF THE CANADA EVIDENCE ACT SECTION 16.1 WHICH ALSO NOW INCLUDED THAT SUBSECTION 2 OF THE CANADA EVIDENCE ACT.

WHEN THE CROWN ADMITTED AT THE TRIAL THAT HER CASE WASN'T THAT AIRTIGHT, IN REGARDS TO THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE WITNESSES EVIDENCE THAT WERE ALSO GLARING. THE 12 YEAR OLD WITNESS REALLY HAD TROUBLE WITH HER TESTIMONY AND THE 13 YEAR OLD WAS ALSO TRAUMATIZED SIMPLY BY BEING ORDERED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HER MOTHER IN COURT. THE CROWN ALSO POINTED THIS OUT TO THE TRIAL JUDGE LESLIE PRINGLE IN COURT THAT THE WITNESSES HAD ACKNOWLEDGED THIS TO THE VICTIM WITNESS COORDINATOR AT THE COURT. THE COURT COULD HAVE ALSO ALLOWED A VIDEO EVIDENCE INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE CHILDREN TO TESTIFY DIRECTLY WHICH WAS ALSO TRAUMATIZING FOR THEM. WHEN THE CROWN ALSO ADMITTED TO MAKING A "TECHNICAL ERROR" ON HER PART, THAT DID NOT MATTER BECAUSE THE JUDGE FOUND THAT SHE HAD PROVEN HER CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THAT IS IF YOU CAN ALSO BELIEVE THIS KIND OF JUSTICE.

MY APPEAL AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS FOR DAMAGES WAS ALSO DISMISSED. THOSE ACTIONS ABOUT THEM GOES BACK FOR YEARS AND THEY ARE NOT SOME ORDINARY JOE ON THE STREET WHO ARE INVOLVED EITHER. I AM TALKING ABOUT MULTIMILLDOLLAR CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS. THEY HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY OFF JUDGES IF THEY WANT TO BUT THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE TO. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS TO JOIN THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST ME THAT IS ALREADY IN OPERATION AND BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT IT IS ALSO A BIG CONSPIRACY.

THE WORLD IS LEARNING ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE IN CANADA INCLUDING THE SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION THAT ARE FACE BY SOME PEOPLE IN THE CANADIAN COURT BY THE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT I HAVE ALSO EXPOSED. I ALSO WONDERED WHY THE OTHER SO-CALLED HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS ARE ALSO SILENT IN THE TREATMENT OF THIS GOVERNMENT AGAINST ME. DO THEY THINK THAT I AM MAKING ALL OF THIS UP?. THEY SHOULD ALSO CHECK THE PUBLIC RECORDS. IT IS TOO SHOCKING INVOLVING ME AND THEM. THE EVIDENCE IS THERE AND YOU MAY ALSO WONDER HOW THESE THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO ANYONE.

IN 2009 THE CANADIAN JUDGE JAMES TURNBULL OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN TORONTO RECOGNIZED IN HIS DECISION IN A SIMILAR CASE TO MINE INVOLVING A MOTHER AND HER SON THAT THE CHILD A 13 YEAR OLD BOY WAS ALSO SUFFERING FROM PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME. LIKE MY CASE THE MOTHER WAS ALSO CHARGED FOR ASSAULT BY HER EX-HUSBAND. MY EX-SPOUSE HAD ALSO LAID A PRIVATE INFORMATION AGAINST ME IN REGARDS TO THE TWO GIRLS IN THE CASE THAT I HAVE JUST MENTIONED THAT WAS ALSO APPEALED. THE JUDGE IN THAT CASE AND UNLIKE THE TRIAL JUDGE IN MINE RECOGNIZED THAT THE PARENT WHO HAD LAID THE CHARGED AGAINST THE OTHER PARENT HAD ALSO BRAINWASH THE 13 YEAR OLD BOY INTO HATING HIS MOTHER AND HE WAS ALSO MADE TO TESTIFY AGAINST HER IN COURT.

THE JUDGE RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOY BE SENT TO A FACILITY IN THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO BE "DEPROGRAMMED" FROM HIS FATHER'S INFLUENCE AND ALSO TO RECEIVE TREATMENT SINCE HE WAS THE REAL VICTIM IN THE CUSTODY BATTLE BETWEEN BOTH OF THE PARENTS. IN CANADA THERE IS NO SUCH PROGRAM OR FACILITY IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THIS SPECIFIC KIND OF SITUATION. THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS ALSO MUCH MORE UNDERSTANDING IN THAT CASE THAN IN MY CASE. IN FACT THE DECISION BY JUDGE TURNBULL ALSO SET A PRECEDENT IN THE CANADIAN COURTS IN REGARDS TO PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME, WHICH WAS VIRTUALLY IGNORED BY ALL JUDGES INCLUDING THE ONE WHO DEALT WITH MY CASE JUDGE LESLIE PRINGLE WHO HAD ALSO IGNORED THIS LEGAL DEFENCE FROM MY COUNSEL AT THE TRIAL.

THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ALSO HAS NO SHAME WHEN IT COMES TO THE OPEN DICRIMINATION THAT ARE FACED BY SOME GROUPS OF PEOPLE IN THE COURTS AND ALSO FOR ADVOCATING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS AROUND THE WORLD WHEN IT IS ALSO GUILTY OF COMMITTING THOSE SAME CRIMES ITSELF. IN REGARDS TO HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD ALSO REPEAL THOSE LAWS THAT ALSO PREVENTS THE PUBLIC FROM MAKING ANY RECORDING OF ITS COURT PROCEEDINGS. IT SHOULD ALLOW CAMERAS AND OTHER RECORDINGS IN THE COURTROOM SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN RECORD AND VIEW THOSE COURT PROCEEDINGS. IT DOES NOT EVEN CURRENTLY ALLOW THE MEDIA TO RECORD COURT PROCEEDING, UNLIKE MANY OTHER COUNTRIES WHICH DOES SO INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES. THIS WOULD ALSO GREATLY CUT DOWN ON THE CORRUPTION THAT IS PRACTICED BY THE CANADIAN JUDGES WHEN THEY THINK THAT NO ONE CAN SEE THEIR ACTIONS. IN THE AGE OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY THAT WE ARE LIVING IN, HARDLY ANYTHING IS A SECRET ABOUT ANYONE. ANYONE CAN READ THE COURT FILES THAT ALSO EXISTS THAT SHOWS THIS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE AGAINST ME AND ALSO THOSE JUDGES DECISIONS AND LEARN THE TRUTH. HOW THOSE JUDGES CAN FACE THE PUBLIC WITH THEIR CORRUPTION IS BEYOND ANY FORM OF DECENCY AND I WOULD NOT EVEN CALL THEM HUMAN BEINGS EITHER.

THEY HAVE A PRIVATE AGENDA IN MY CASE BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT I WILL WIN IN THE END. IT IS VERY FOOLISH OF THEM TO ALSO BELIEVE THAT I WON'T SEEK A CASE AGAINST THEM OR TO HAVE THOSE WRONGS AGAINST ME MADE RIGHT. WHEN I HAVE TO TALK ITS REALLY BECAUSE I WANT TO EXPOSE THEIR ACTIONS. THEY MUST BE EXPOSED LIKE I AM ALREADY DOING. THEY MUST ALSO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME TO ENJOY SEEING THEIR NAMES AND FACES PUBLISHED AROUND THE WORLD FOR ALL TO SEE THEIR DIRTY DEEDS.

Monday, April 11, 2011

ISRAELI MINISTERS, FEARED BEING ARRESTED, IN BRITAIN, FOR WAR CRIMES.

NEWFOUND FEARS, BY ISRAELI CABINET MINISTERS,
HAS MADE THEM CANCELLED THEIR TRIPS TO BRITAIN,
IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING ARRESTED, FOR WAR CRIMES,
AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS.


Israeli cabinet ministers, has been avoiding travel to Britain, for
sometime now, because of the efforts, that has been made, by Palestinian
activists, living in Britain, to have them arrested, for committing war crimes
and other crimes against humanity, against the Palestinians.

The Israeli Defence Force minister, Avi Benayahu, says that he has travelled
to Britain, under a false name, in regards to this. Others has also avoided
Britain, including, the Israeli minister Tzipi Livni, who also cancelled her
trip to London, when an arrest warrant was issued for her, by the British
government, in 2009, because of her involvement, in actions, that were taken
against the Palestinians.

Israli minister, Ehud Barak, also faced an arrest warrant, while in
Britain, as also Avi Dichter, who also cancelled his trip to Britain, in
September of that same year. Brigadiere General, Aviv Kochavi, who was also shceduled to study there, but was warned not to go to Britain, for those same reasons. And Avi Ditcher, former head of Shin Bet, Israeli Security Agency, also cancelled his trip to Britain, when he was public security minister.

Effort were being made by Palestinian activists, living in Britain, against
the Israeli government ministers, to have them arrested, for war crimes, against
the Palestinians, when they entered Britain. The British government, has also changed some of its opinions on this matter. It has told the Israeli government, through its foreign minister, William Hague, that no more attempts will be made,
to arrest any of its ministers, for any war crimes, when they set foot on British soil. This ls also little comfort, to some of them, who do not believe, totally, what the British government is also saying, because of the very serious claused, that they have also used, in the arrest warrants, that were made against some of those Israeli minisers, which, the British government, has also now promised to change, as a result of their "new dialogue" with the Isreali government, to stop this action against that government.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

JUDGE SUSAN G. HIMEL'S DISREPUTABLE ACTIONS,
BRINGS FURTHER DISREPUTE, TO AN ALREADY CORRUPT JUDICAL SYSTEM
.

MAKING A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE.

How can the Ministry of the Attorney General, explain this one? Prosecutorial misconduct, is quite common in Canadian courts. They like to "fix" cases, for their own benefit, not for the administration of jusitce. This one, involving my case, will also reveal, just how far this corruption, really goes. Some days ago, I received a letter, from the Ministry of the Attorney General's office, advising me, that a matter, that I had scheduled in the Ontario Court Of Appeal, on April 11, 2011,was now rescheduled, for April 12,2011. The surprising thing about this, was the fact, that, I also had another matter, scheduled for April 12, 2011, where I have to give evidence, as a witness.

It is impossible for the Attorney general's office, not to have known, when they and the Court of Appeals, changed the date of my hearing, from April 11,2011, which was also scheduled two months in advance, and I had also put that date, on my blog,(read my other article), to the new date, of April 12, at 9.30 a.m. The exact same time, that I must also be at the other hearing, on the other matter. This "oversight" on the part of the prosecutors, for the Ministry of the Attorney general, as well as the court, has also happened before. It was not an oversight, but a deliberate attempt, by the prosecutors and the court, to obstruct justice and to interfere with both of my matters, before the courts.







JUDGE SUSAN G. HIMEL.




Superior Court of Justice, judge, in the civil motions division, in Toronto.
Her direputable conduct, gets her a complaint, for a judicial review and by making a mockery of justice. What her decision really says, is that, "You don't have the same rights, as every one else". Interesting, coming from a judge, who claimed to be interested, in the protection of women's rights. I guess, it is not the case, if you are a Black woman, like I am, but maybe if I was jewish?. I was before that corrupt judge, recently, requesting an injunction, to stop the actions of the respondents, which included Deloitte&Touche, which were injurious to me.

Injunctive relief are often sought, in order to stop some one's actions, who is often breaking the law, in some form or fashion and you want to stop them from abusing your rights, any further. It is a demand upon the court, to grant this relief, especially, when some one's personal safety, is also at risk. The judge, Susan Himel, denied the request, without giving any reasons. All that I was seeking, was a temporary injunctive relief, first, because it would also stop the other party, from continuing with their injurious actions, against me, but also, to bring them back to court, at a later date, to settle the dispute.

Dealing with this kind of corruption in Canadian courts, you can see why no cameras, are also allowed in any Canadian courts. From the media, onwards, absolutely no courts in Canada, allows it proceedings, to be recorded. It has been challenged many times and unsuccessfully. That is why corrupt judges, like S. Himel, can do as they please, because the public cannot observe their actions. They claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protects everyone. As you can also see, that is not the case. For the court and judges like S. Himel, to refuse a request for an injunctive relief, to stop someone's injurious actions, shows the depth and the depravity, of the moral standards of Canadian courts.

The judge's actions, clearly bring disrepute, to the court, and to the issue of justice in this country, by deciding who are entitled, to the protection of the Charter of Rights and who is not. One by one the public should expose those judges who act corruptly and who make decisions, that goes against public interest. Based on their own corruption, and because they often do this behind closed doors. Sometimes with no witnesses, depending on who is also before the court, which is also another charter violation, since the public is also entitled, to view the proceedings of the court. I am not complaining, I am exposing them. I have the opportunity to do so and I'm definitely, using it to my advantage.

By writing about it publicly, the world get to see that I am not making these things up. Better yet, look at the public records that are also available. It is also shocking. Judge Susan G. Himel, did not act alone, I also believe, in my case.
No, she is part of a bigger conspiracy, to deny me any justice and to corrupt moral standards. Of course, her actions also brings irreparable damage and disrepute to the justice system in Canada. It is also based on hypocrisy and lies. And it is a mockery, to human rights, everywhere. Which is why I'm also exposing them.

Friday, April 8, 2011

CONFRONTING JEWISH RACISM

RACIST KEHILLA RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMME AND
DELOITTE&TOUCHE
.

Kehilla is the official housing agency of UJA Federation of Greater Toronto



Mission Statement:
The Kehilla Residential Programme (KRP) identifies and champions affordable housing in the Greater Toronto area and implements housing initiatives for the Jewish community

Investigation Involved Breach of Public Trust, Corruption and Conspiracy.

TAKE YOUR RACISM ELSEWHERE!

Accusations of Racism Against Kehilla Residential Programme,
By Residents Of Some Toronto Public Buildings.

Putting public pressure, on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to heed to public concerns and end Deloitte Touche and Kehilla Residential Programme, long term policy, in managing some public buildings, for the city of Toronto. Deloitte&Touche and Kehilla Residential Programme, has been accused of instigating racist policies, against non-jewish residents, at some of those buildings.

The residents are fed up with them and want them to leave. More importantly, they want them to be investigated, for breach of public trust, concerning their actions, at some of those buildings, like the Moshav Noam Coop.

Deloitte&Touche is one of those companies, that also believes that money and corruption, goes together and for Deloitte it also does. I am talking about the Canadian element, of that international company. And it should also surprise no one that it is being accused, of acting corruptly. As for Kehilla Residential Programme, it has promoted jewish racism at those buildings, it has managed for the city of Toronto.

It is also currently seeking, to managed some of them, on a permanent basis, something that the residents of those buildings, also do not want. I know of Kehilla and Deloitte's actions personally, as a resident, of one of those buildings. But I have also been contacted, by other members of the public, some of them through this blog and my other articles, about those companies and the stories about them, are all too familiar. Open racism on their part, against non-jewish residents and other actions, that also goes against public interest.

Kehilla Residential Programme, employees, such as Lisa Lipowitz, are accused
of openly carrying out racist policies, at some of the buildings. That's not all, she is also accused, of lying, about her activities and carrying out the harassment, of residents, and of course racism, which also included a policy of exclusion, for people who either live in those buildings, or those who want to become a resident, of any of those buildings. Those within the government, and especially those within the Ministry of Municipality Affairs and Housing, who are also to be blamed, for not taking the complaints, of the public about their actions, more seriously.

Public Inquiries are serious affairs, that are also intended, to restore public confidence. That is why I am also relieved, that they are now being investigated, under the Public Inquiries Act, concerning their actions and that they must now, answer to the public, for their corruption.

Monday, April 4, 2011

UPDATES TO BLOG POSTS.

Some Updates To Information Posted On This Blog.


As of April 1st Toronto City Council has reinstated the special dietary supplementary benefits for people on social assistance who needs it.
As you have been told, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has been strongly against
it and had even gone after some of the people who were advocating for it.

According to some new information from residents in the Lawrence Heights
community, the Toronto Community Housing Corporation has also been in
their neighbourhood lately and has sprayed some of the homes for bedbugs
and cockroaches. One of the residents has also complained that she is still
experiencing cockroach infestation and that the problem has not gone
away entirely.

Toronto city and government officials do not like publicity and you
have to exposed them in order for them to clean up their acts.
Posted by Valerie Guillaume

ONTARIO JUDGE, RACHEL GRINBERG AND JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, DIANE MCALEER, UPHOLDS RACISM, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS.

A PUBLIC DEMAND, FOR RECORDINGS, IN CANADIAN COURTROOMS, TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS, OF VULNERABLE PERSONS, APPEARING, BEFORE THE COURT. A To...