Monday, January 23, 2012

A WORLD VIEW OF THE CORRUPT CANADIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Paul M. Perell, Superior Court of Justice, Toronto.

What Corrupt Canadian Judges Do When They Think That No One Is Watching.

WHAT THE CORRUPT JUDGE RULED ON: That the legal medical report, signed by a licensed physician, of a self represented defendant, was also inadmissable, in court, and not an excuse for the defendant's absence at a motions hearing, in Toronto, recently. The Judge denied the adjournment based on the medical report, that was also filed with the court beforehand and then proceeded to conduct a full trial, at the motion application hearing. The judge ruled that the self represented defendant should have been present at the hearing despite being ill, a fact that was also confirmed by the medical report. The judge also heard full evidence from the Plaintiffs, Mintz and Partners and Kehilla Residential Program and also their witnesses and then proceeded to also fine the defendant, court cost of almost $17,000.00, as a further insult to this injustice.
The decision of the Judge is also the subject of an appeal.

Judge Paul M. Perell's Actions is a Miscarriage of Justice, Fueled by Racism and Conspiracy. An example of corruption involving the Canadian courts and yet another example of why Blacks are treated differently, by the Canadian courts.

There are too many Canadian Judges Willing To Act Corruptly And To Also Disregard The Law And The Rights Of The Individual In Their Decisions. The United Nations report, on the Canadian Judicial sytem, also viewed the Canadian courts, as practicing racism against marginalized groups, such as Blacks. And this exposure is yet another corrupt decision, by a Canadian judge, which also reinforces why certain individual's rights are also disregarded by the Canadian courts.

There are several glaring problems with the corrupt judge's actions. Not only in terms of the law, itself, but also in regards to the rights of the defendant.
Number one, on the face of it, the trial was an unfair one, and it was in fact a trial, that this judge conducted at a motions application hearing. For those who do not know, a motion hearing and a trial are two completely different processes. A trial exist for the purpose of the hearing of evidence, from both sides and to determine the outcome of the case, based on that evidence. It also means that both sides has to also be present, usually. It is the absolute right of any defendant, to be able to give an answer to any questions and to also give evidence, in their defence. Which also means that the defendant has a rights to be present, at a hearing, in his or her regard and to respond in the manner, which I've just stated.
It is not only fair, it is also the law. The defendant, in this case, was also denied that right, by Judge Paul M. Perell. It should also come as no surprise, either, of who the defendant was in this case, and why the decision was made, to also deny her, this basic right. This should also be made clear, also, that the hearing was also set up beforehand to proceed that way and that the corrupt judge's mind, was also made up to rule in favour of the Plaintiffs, because it was also a conspiracy, against the defendant.

When they want to act corruptly, they will also act corruptly, despite the evidence. The defendant has had a long standing issue, in regards to the Plaintiffs, in this case. And this latest ruling, also reflected the others, that has also been made by the Canadian courts, that shows that any matters involving them and the defendant, was also going to be handled in that manner.

It didn't matter that the Plaintiffs, Mintz & Partner Ltd. and Kehilla Residential Programme, had also committed fraud upon the court, including lying in their sworn evidence, or perjury in giving oral evidence, in regard to that case and others. It was a matter that should have gone to trial, in the proper manner, with the defendant also present and the hearing of evidence, from both sides.

Those two corrupt companies, Mintz & Partners Ltd. and Kehilla Residential Programme, also seem to control the Canadian courts, as well, by the many cases that has also been brought against them, over the years.

In one such case, not unlike the current one, it was also regarded as the "David and Goliath" case. In that case also, the Plaintiff Mintz & Partner Ltd, had been unable to explain, the 1.2 million dollars, in public funding, for repairs, that they had also never provided. The defendant, in this current case, also, has had the Plaintiffs investigated, by the city's Auditor General, in November 2011, for similar offences, concerning her building, where the Plaintiffs, Mintz & Partners and Kehilla Residential Programme, had also failed to provide services, to her building, after receiving public funding to do so. Between 2010 and 2011, about a dozen orders, were issued, against the Plaintiffs, Mintz & Partners Ltd. and Kehilla Residential Programme, in regard to not providing the services, to the residential building, including for lack of repairs, to this building, after they had also received public funding to do so. They were supposed to be investigated for fraud and wasteful spending of public resouces, i.e money, in this case. The Director, Carmelino Dimaggio, of the Auditor General's office, also claimed upon reviewing the initial evidence against them, that they should be audited. It remains to be seen also, if this will actually happen, as there is so much corruption involved, with those two companies.

Once the Plaintiffs, Mintz and Partners and Kehilla Residential Programme, realised that the defendant, was also partially responsible for them being investigated, for fraud and for wasteful spending, of public funds, by the city of Toronto Auditor General's office, they also increased their harassment of the defendant, which also directly contributed to the defendant, being ill and under a physician's care, since. The defendant has also made it clear to the Plaintiffs, Mintz & Partners and Kehilla Residential Programme, that they are also liable, in this case, for injuries sustained by the defendant, as a result of their actions. It is also inevitable that the defendant, Valerie Guillaume, will also be financially compensated, for the actions of the Plaintiffs, against her. And despite what they also believed.