TORONTO SHERIFF, DAVID USHER CHARGED.
THE IMPENDING CHARGES WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT OF JUSTICE REGARDING THOSE OTHER PERSONS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA WHO WERE ALSO INVOLVED IN THE CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND WHO ALSO OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE IN REGARDS TO THAT CASE.
Charges for corruption against the Supreme Court of Canada: The Applicant was told that: 1. "The same motion was heard twice by the same judge", 2. "This was the proper procedure of the Supreme Court of Canada", 3. Registrar officers of the Supreme Court of Canada, can also makes the decisions in those cases. 4. Registrar officers, of the Supreme Court of Canada, has also stated, officially, that under rule 75, of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, there is no motion to reconsider. 5. Complaints against the registrar officers involved, were also not investigated by the Registrar, of the Supreme Court of Canada. 5. The registrar office has openly interfered with the administration of justice, by personally interfering in the case. 6. Registrar officers of the Supreme Court of Canada, has given out legal advice, to self represented litigants and acting in other ways that goes against the law, including, also, deciding upon cases, and/or personally interfering in those cases.
Criminal charges were laid recently against David Usher, Sheriff at the Toronto Enforcement Office, at 393 University Avenue, 19th floor, for obstructing justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice and counselling to commit an offence, for carrying out the illegal execution of a writ of possession, while the case was still before the court. Two other enforcement officers were also charged as well. They are Shawn Whittingham and Dora Charalham, who were charged with obstructing justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, break and enter, trespassing, theft and cruelty to an animal. The latter charge was from those officers, leaving an animal in an apartment, after they had locked the door and afterwards left instructions with the superintendent of the building, not to let the owner of the animal, have any access to the animal and with the further instructions that the animal should be left alone, in the overheated apartment, in the 33 degrees weather for several days.
Six people were charged with criminal offences regarding that incident. The others included, lawyer Paula Boutis, from Iler Campbell Law Firm, in Toronto, who was charged, also, with obstructing justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice and counselling to commit an offence. The charges against her stems from the fact that she had direct knowledge of the case and was also aware at the time of the execution of the writ of possession, by the sheriff, that both a motion for a stay of execution and an application for leave, was still pending before the court. Under the law, this should have also stayed the actions of the sheriff, David Usher and his enforcement officers, in carrying out the writ of possession. I will include here, also, the sections of the law pertaining to that issue. The Supreme Court Act, section 65.1(1) clearly provided a stay of execution pending the case before that court, when there is a motion that is also filed, asking for that stay, as was also the situation in this case. The other sections of the law, which also prevented the actions of a third party, such as a sheriff, from taking any actions, while an appeal is still pending, is the Court of Justice Act, sections 63.01(1) and also the following subsections, (2), (3) and (4) especially. It is explicit in its detail about the staying of any proceeding, by a third party, while an appeal or motion, is still before the court and has not been decided upon.
That procedure was also not followed in this case and this was because of the conspiracy that was also involved, with regards to the court and the others who
were also involved. There are clear evidence also, that the registrar office of
the Supreme Court of Canada, were involved in trying to prevent the administration of justice in this case as well. Each time that a request was also made that would also protect the right of the applicant it was also denied, even though by doing so that would also cause injury to the person and also interfered with the rights of the applicant. The so called protection of the charter of rights and freedoms also did not apply in this case. And in this case, especially, the right to the equal protection and benefit of law.
Clearly the sheriff, David Usher and his enforcement officers, had also acted inappropriately and also against the law, in this matter. In fact it was no coincidence, either, on the part of the sheriff, to ignore the law, in regards to this case, but also a deliberate attempt by them and the others involved in the conspiracy, to ignore the law, in regards to that case. They did not need to follow the law because they had the court and others backing their actions.
Criminal Charges of obstructing justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, theft, tresspassing, break and enter and cruelty to an animal, were also laid against Lisa Lipowitz and Sandra Thompson, with regards to the same incident.