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.
