Friday, April 27, 2012




The Registrar office of the Supreme Court of Canada has been involved in trying to prevent the administration of justice regarding my appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. And in order to stop the corrupt practices of the Canadian courts against me, the matter is now before the I.C.C.

The Supreme Court of Canada has had the hard copy of my application for leave to appeal to that court since April 11, 2012. However the office of the registrar has yet to asign a file number to my case. This has been a deliberate action on the part of Micheline Alam who is the registrar officer who has also been assigned to my case. The purpose of her actions has been to give the respondent an advantage in regards to my case. As well as to prevent me from appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. The overall purpose of their actions is to prevent the administration of justice involving my case. Something which I am also not prepared to tolerate any longer regarding the abuse of my rights by the Canadian courts.

There are also numerous evidence to support the charge against Micheline Alam and others at the office of the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, involving my case and also of the personal interference on her part concerning my application before the Supreme Court of Canada. Including contacting me on April 12 and 13 and advising me to resubmit my application again, after she had also told me on April 11that she had received directly, the copy of my application for leave to appeal, that was also sent to the Supreme Court of Canada on April 11, 2012.

This action on her part was also intended to cause undue delay regarding the hearing of my motion that I had also sent with my application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and part of this evidence is also to be found in her letter that was sent to me on April 13, in which she also made no mention of the motion that I had also filed with my application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, for a stay of execution of the order of the Court of Appeal.

I had also indicated in my motion that I also wanted the court, to act in an expedited manner in regards to the motion. The letter from the S.C.C. was also sent in an open envelope that also appeared to never have been sealed. I have also kept the envelope for further evidence. Since it has also indicated that this action was from Micheline Alam, directly, as the letter was also from her as well.

Since the motion was also made to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, or to a judge of the court, it could also have been dispensed with by the office of the registrar sooner. In fact Micheline Alam and the office of the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada has also chosen to ignore all of my inquiries about the status of the motion that was file with that court. And after two and a half weeks of waiting to hear back from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the status of the urgent motion, that I had also filed with the S.C.C on April 11, the court has continued to ignore my request regarding that motion. All blame for this delay also point to the office of the registrar with the Supreme Court of Canada and also to the personal actions of Micheline Alam directly.

The obstruction of justice charges with the International Criminal Court
of Justice is the least that I can do to protect my rights against such abuse by the Canadian courts.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012




Instead of carrying out her administrative duties, for the coop, Sandra Thompson, was caught recently, in the boardroom of the Moshav Noam Coop, with the part time superintendent of the building, and without any plausible explanation, of what the two of them were also doing, in a room without the lights on, when they were supposed to be looking after the building. The incident happened on April 18 and the residents of the building, has since been notified of the firing of the part time superintendent, but not of the on site property manager, Sandra Thompson, who is also the central figure in all of this drama.

It is a case that also has the residents of the building, wanting to see her fired immediately, for her actions. The incident has also been reported to the city of Toronto, because the city also funds the building and Philip Abrahams, Director of the Toronto Social Housing Unit, is also supposed to be investigating the incident. Sandra Thompson also works for Kehilla Residential Programme and also manages several of the buildings around the city for them.

The incident began when a resident, knocked on the door of the office, of the coop recently, but no one answered and as the resident walked off, the adjourning door, was opened by the superintendent of building, who is also a part time staff and the resident also witnessed, the office manager, Sandra Thompson, inside of the room, with the lights off and also "pulling the superintendent back into the room". She was also seen walking in the room as if she also did not care if anyone saw her as well.

Kehilla Residential Programme has also been up to no good in the building, since taking over the coop, in 2010 and cares nothing about what the residents also wants. It is also a very contentious issue with some of the residents of the building, in particular, who is also tired of their actions, including the lack of services to the building, regularly, that they should also be providing for the residents.

I have also been personally contacted on my facebook page, regarding Sandra Thompson, who is also black and her other actions at the other buildings, that she also manages for Kehilla. But none of them are as scandalous as her latest action, at the Moshav Noam Coop. It is also now up to Kehilla to fire her, and for the city of Toronto, to make sure that it also carry this out, because her actions at the Moshav Noam Coop building, especially, is also one that goes against the very policy of the coop and also what the residents wants directly.

I am also a resident of the bulding and Sandra Thompson has also carried out attacks against me, personally, at the coop. She is also very brazen in her approach, regarding those attacks against me and also has the police backing her actions as well. With this support from them, she is also able to act with immunity, regarding her other actions at the building. Except of course for this latest incident, which I am also predicting, will also get her out of building, once and for all. Even if she has no moral standards, personally, or when it comes to the carrying out her duties, regarding the coop, the residents will also not stand for her actions, as well. She should also be fired, directly, or else have to endure the shame, of having to face the residents of the coop, after knowing also that her actions has been exposed. But Sandra Thompson also has no shame either. If she did, she would not have done, what she is also now accused of doing and so openly.

I have recently spoken with one of the neighbours who has also been having some problems with the management of the coop and he like so many of the other residents, would also like to see Sandra Thompson and her employer Kehilla Residential Programme, also stop managing the building. He began by also telling me that the building used to be worth 23 million dollars, back when he also just moved into the coop, seventeen years ago, but I had to also correct him, on that, based on the latest information that I have, which are also from the court records that the Receiver Manager had also filed with the court, which has also indicated that the building, is now worth only 11 million dollars. The Receiver Manager, Mintz and Partners, has also done a lousy job in managing the coop, which has also been in receivership for the last several years, prior to Kehilla it taking over in 2010. The residents were also never consulted about this take over as well.

The coop is also still funded by the city of Toronto, with some of the units being subsidized, as well. In other words, the incident, involving the onsite property manager, Sandra Thompson, is also one of public interest as well, because she has also managed a building, that is also partially funded by tax payors and she must also give an account regarding her personal actions, while carryng out her duties in managing the coop.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012



The fiasco that is called The Summit of the Americas, that is put on by the OAS, an organization that is also inclined, to favour both Canada and the United States, for their policies, and whether those are good or bad, is also open to conjecture, but I believe that it is bad, since they are also not held accountable, for any violations, in regards to their actions, by the OAS. The summit, which is held for the last 18 years, with the first one held in 1994 and this summit being the sixth of those Summits of the Americas, and where Cuba has also been excluded, from the summits, ever since then. The Summit of the Americas runs, from April 14-15, 2012, in Cartagena, Columbia.

Canada and the United States, were the only two countries, among the 34 others, at the summit, that has openly rejected Cuba, from becoming a member of the summit. Canada's objection was even stronger than the US. Both countries, however, has cited Cuba's lack of democratic ideal, as their reasons for excluding the Latin American country. Who are they kidding?

Let it be known that I am against the Canadian government, for its international policies, one of which is also Cuba and the others, in pertaining to its self interests, in other countries, where it also has no business to be there, besides exploiting those countries and making profits off of the labour of the people.

There are many things that I admire about Cuba. First you have to accept that country for what it is. It does not hide what it is about. It is a communist country, but so what? So are many others. The real issues here, are about how that government, takes care of its citizens and whether is it a prosperous country, or not. In my opinion, Cuba is a very prosperous country, as far as its GDP, and other factors. The GDP, per capita, of Cuba, has also increased dramtically, over the last few years, from 2006 to 2012, compared to that of either Canada, or the United States. Cubans has a standard of living, that is far above those of other Caribbean and Latin American countries. In fact, it is even better than Canada, in many ways.

The people has free health care, that is also in no danger, of becoming privatized and the government also provides, free education and free homes, for the people to live in. They are also protected from outsiders, like the overbearing US and Canada, as that government tries to maintain its independence, from the both of them. And successfully, I might also add. In my judgement, also, Cuba is not the worst, as far as human rights abuse and if I should also compare its actions, with those two other countries, that government, will also come out on top. Why? It has given sanctuary, to political refugees, who has faced open persecution, by those two other countries and in Cuba they have also been able to live a normal life. Had they remained in the other countries, they probably would not be alive at all.

So what is Canada's beef with Cuba? Maybe one of those reasons, also, is because Canada is kind of stuck with Cubans, living in Canada, and who also cannot be repatriated, or extradited back to Cuba. Cuba has no extradiction laws with Canada and will not take back its citizens, who has been living in Canada, and has also broken the laws of that country. The other reasons are perhaps economical. Canada wants to have a role, in exploiting that country, as it also did, with other Latin American and Caribbean countries, of the region. For one very important reason, Canada's free trade agreement, with the other Latin American countries, also does not include Cuba.

This is also a big deal, despite what the Canadian government, might also say on that issue. Cuba's independence, from the influence of Canada, the US, or even some of its other Latin American and Caribbean neighbouring countries, is also what makes it different and what has also demonized that country, in the eyes of those two governments. It is not because Cuba is a communist country, it is simply because they cannot exploit it, the way that they also do, with other countries, of that region. That is the basic truth. Cuba can still trade with them and especially Canada, and also not be influenced greatly, by that government. To me that's a big deal. Corruption by the Cuban government, is also less than in Canada.

It was also apparent, that the other Latin American countries, were also in an open consensus, on admitting Cuba as one their members, despite the objection from Canada and the United States. It also became obvious that not all of the Latin American countries, were also in agreement with the summit, or with the OAS. Some countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Nicarauga and Equador, were in some serious disagreement with some of the issues of the summit. All of the Latin American and Caribbean countries all agreed on one issue, in particular and that was including Cuba among them. But for obvious reasons, Canada and the US has also won, on keeping Cuba out of the Summit of the Americas.

I think those reasons, could also be based, on those two countries subversive actions, in the region and in Columbia, in particular. I don't really believe that the American government, is really that interested, in putting a lid on the drug trade, of which Columbia plays a central part and as for Canada, it is also not ready, to give up its mining interests, in any of those Latin American countries. Neither Canada, nor the United States, should point the finger at Cuba, as far as I am concerned. And as for the latter of the two, the recent scandal involving the United States secret service agents, at the Summit of the Americas, with the Coumbian prostitues, should also make my point very clear, in regards to the actions of that government.

How did the US secret service agents, and its military personnel, also managed to accommodate, the Columbian prostitutes, while at the same time, carrying out their duties? And who knows what else, those prostitues, were able to derived from them, besides sex? The whole thing puts the US in further bad light, as far as its criticism, of Cuba, which seem to diminished, in proportion, to its own actions, concerning the bahaviour, of its own citizens at the summit.

As for Canada, it is hardly likely that its opinion, will also count, in the long run, concerning Cuba becoming a member of the summit. It is outvoted and out numbered, as far as the other countries are concerned. And even though it is of importance, to the OAS organization, its role at the Summit of the Americas, does not take preeminence, over that of the other countries, who I believed, will also include, their fellow country from that region, into the summit. The next one of which is to be held in 3 years, in 2015.

Thursday, April 12, 2012





It also has the following: A Lower standard of protection for the individual rights and freedom of individuals.

Discriminatory practices and unfair treatment against self represented
litigants, where most of the human rights violations, are also visible,
concerning those cases.

Unknowlegable, or disrespectful staff, who gives out inaccurate
information, about the law to the public, sometimes deliberately.

Unequal treatment, of lawyers and self represented applicants.

An unrepentant attitude about its policies and procedures.

I have made some inquiries, to the Supreme Court of Canada and was shocked at the answers, that I have received, from the "registrar officers", of Canada's highest court, regarding not only my application, that is also currently before that court, but also some other general questions, about the operations, of the court as well. And particularly those questions, around the self represented litigants, before the Supreme Court of Canada. Which is also important information to know, because we are also talking, about the legal protection, of the individual rights and freedom of those persons.

It is information, that I was also prepared, to share with the rest of the public and indeed the entire world, because it also shows the level of human rights standards in Canada, compared with other modern, or democratic countries. The following information, is also what I was given, recently, by the administrative staff, of the Supreme Court of Canada. Perhaps it was also intended for me only, but they did not say so, directly. However, at some point in the conversation, they also realised, that I was not, one of those "uneducated" litigants and began to change their positions. I also wanted some specific answers, to my questions, about the procedures, of the Supreme Court of Canada, from their perspective, in order to share this information, with the public and I was going to keep on digging, for the answers, until I get it. Even if it wasn't also, what I had expected to hear, from the court's administrative staff.

The information that I have received from that court included the following: That the Supreme Court of Canada, takes 30 days to review the application, of unrepresented applicants, before the Supreme Court of Canada and that after that time, the applicants are contacted, by mail, if their "application is in order". It is then given to the legal team, after that, to be further reviewed and that this is the same procedure, whether the application is urgent or not. I was told that this was the procedure, of the court, because self represented litigants are "uneducated" in the law and it takes time, to also review those applications, by the "registrar officers" of the Supreme Court. This is an unfair treatment, on the face of it, because often when people file an application, for leave to appeal, or regarding their appeal, it is also because they have a judgement, against them, from the lower court, such as the court of appeal, that is unfair and to further face this kind of discrimination, for an undue delay, of their appeal, from the highest court, is also another attack on their rights. However, in this case, I was later contacted, by a staff, of the Supreme Court of Canada, named Micheline Alam, who at first advised me, regarding my application, before the supreme court, that, I should try to get my motion heard before the lower court, if it is of an urgent nature.

When I also advised her, on what she should have already known, that my matter before the lower court, which is the court of appeal, was also finished, and that I also expected, to proceed in the Supreme court of Canada, in the manner, in which I am also allowed to do, under the law, of that country, she also recounted her statements and said, that, of course I could file my motion, with the supreme court of Canada. I also made it clear to her that it was an urgent motion and needed to be heard "before the thirty days". She then responded, that, she would also forward, my notice of application for leave to appeal and my motion, to the Director, and that someone would get back to me soon, regarding that matter.

Why would the Supreme Court of Canada do that? Would the same action be done to a lawyer, who has requested an urgent motion, to be heard before that court? The answer is not. So then why should the court, also regard, unrepresented litigants, in that manner? Is this fair and equal treatment under the law? Of course not. I also planned to have a lawyer for this appeal, before that court, simply because I don't want to endure any more bull s--t, from that court, or from any other judiciary bodies, in Canada. I have lost my respect for the courts, from what I have also witnessed, personally.

I usually do not like to discuss, a case, that is also currently, before the court, since it is also one of the rules not to do so, if you're also a party to the proceeding and I certainly do not want to be penalized, as far as my appeal goes, and have it go in a direction, that I also do not want it to go. However, in this case, I believe that it is also in the public best interest, to discuss some of the details, of the proceedings, before that court. Since it would also benefit me, to do so, as well. After all, as a journalist, it is my public duty, to also disclosed this information and especially since there is also, no public ban, in regards to it. I've also in the past, asked for others, to be penalized, for violating this rule, concerning the case, so I'm kind of putting myself, in the same position, as well. But it is also necessary, in this case, in order to protect my interest and the interest of the public. When I say my interest, in the matter, I also mean, specifically, against the corrupt practices, of the court. And I mean all of them. From the Supreme Court of Canada, downwards. I have seen corruption, in all of them so far.

I am going to take the position, also, that the Supreme Court of Canada, is evidently, predisposed to corruption, as well as the lower courts, as far as its procedures, based on the information, that is also available, on that and it is also based, on what I have seen so far. That there should be a review, of some of its policies, that are also, openly openly discriminatory, in nature, against some individuals, before that court. In fact, those very same practices, should also be compared, based on the practices, of that court, with other countries, as well and as far as the international standards, for human rights violations. Only then, will there be, any kind of fair, or equal treatment, under the law and for all persons, who has appeared before Canada's highest court and also its lower courts, who has also tried to make their cases, before those courts. As Canada's highest court, it should also set the example, for the other courts to follow, but this also remains to be seen, from the Supreme Court of Canada. It has also gained international recognition, but that should hardly be the case, when only about ten percent, of all cases, are also heard before that court.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012



About the Court of Appeals: It is especially mandated, to protect those rights, of the individual, under the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

It is the Court of Appeal, which is also supposed to set the moral, or ethical standards, that other courts has to follow and yet has acted even more corruptly. This corruption, involved both the administrative staff, of the court, as well as the judges. And combined, their personal actions, has also interfered, with the cases that are before that court.

Closed Door Hearings: The Court of Appeal, does any, or all of
these four things during my hearings
1. It either conducts the hearing, in a courtroom, where
no other members of the public are present, or
2. Leave the case for the very last, when the courtroom
is totally empty of people, both lawyers, or members of the public.
3. If lawyers are present, but no other members of the public,
the judge, or judges, will also delay his ruling and make no decisions
at the time of the hearing.
4. Dismisses all of my cases.
And other Canadian courts, in regards to my hearings, even
go so far as to lock the door, entirely, keeping the public out. For this
I also have proof from witnesses, who has tried to sit in, on those
proceedings, involving my case.

The Deputy Registrar: Sandra Theroulde's personal influence regarding my case. "You cannot file your motion, it would be too many motions before the court". It was my second motion and also in response, to the respondent's motion.

Judge Susan Lang: who has led the panel of Judges, regarding my appeal case and also acted corruptly. She did "everything that a judge should not do", at the hearing.

The others Judges of the panel, also included, Judges Gloria Epstein and Alexanda Hoy. The Single Judge of the Court of Appeal who also acted corruptly, in his decision regarding my case, is J.A. Doherty, and whose decision I was also reviewing, before the panel, of likewise corrupt judges.

How the Individual Rights and Freedom, were further violated by the Court of Appeal In This Case..

Concerning The Issues That Were Relevant To The Case And Also What The Court of Appeal Also Ruled On: (a)Whether or not the court of appeal, or the divisional court, had the jurisdiction to hear my appeal, which was from a final order of the superior court of justice. To make it also clear, the divisional court only hears cases involving matters of law only, while the court of appeal, hear those cases involving errors of law, fact and of mix fact and law, which are also the grounds of my appeal and therefore it should not be heard in the divisional court, which has no jurisdiction to hear the case. (b) And further to this fact, I was also seeking the relief from the court of appeal, based on the equitable jurisdiction of the court of appeal, which it also has the power to do and should the jurisdiction of that court, concerning my appeal, comes into question.

What the Court of Appeal did not do in my case:
- It did not grant me any relief, that I had also requested, under the equitable jurisdiction, of the court, to do so and against all penalties and forfeitures, in regards to my case.

- It ignored the precedents that were set by earlier cases, in the court of appeal, that were also similar to my case, before the court of appeal.

- This request was also made because the Respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, of Iler Campbell Law Firm, in Toronto, had also claimed, in her motion to quash my appeal, in the court of appeal, that the court also had no jurisdiction, to hear my appeal and that it should be heard in the Divisional court instead. Something which the panel of corrupt judges, also agreed upon and more importantly, in regards to their decision on that matter, to also overlook, in regards to the other precedents, that were also set, in the court of appeal, regarding other similar cases, to mine, that were also heard by the court of appeal. I also mentioned two cases in particular, at the hearing, as a case law reference. The McBride verses Comfort Housing Cooperative and the Eckrit verses the Mckay case, as well as others.
All of these precedents in the court of appeal, were also overlooked by the panel of judges, regarding my case.

- The first sign of degeneracy, in regards to my case and also on the part of the court, has to do with the panel of judges. It began with one of my motion record documents, that was also filed with the court of appeal and to be heard, was also mising and the panel acknowledging, that it only had 2 copies, of the 3 copies, I had also filed, for each of my two motions, to be heard that day. It also became apparent by their statements, that that the judges of the panel, had also not read the motion records, containing my factum and affidavit and other materials, before the hearing, making inferences, or other statements, to such.

- The third matter that was also filed, involved the respondent's motion to quash my appeal and I was also contesting that motion, due to lack of service, on the part of their lawyer, Paula Boutis. According to the the Deputy Registrar Sandra Theroulde, she had added the respondent's motion, on the list, to be heard with my motion, even though the respondent's lawyer, had also made no such requests, to the court of appeal, to have her motion heard sooner. My original motion was to set aside the order of the single judge, to which the administrative staff, also added the respondent's motion, to quash my appeal. The court then sent me the confirmation copies, of both motions, to be heard on the same day and at the same time, as sheduled by the court of appeal.

- Initially, also, the Deputy Registrar, of the Court of Appeal, Sandra Theroulde, had also refused, to allow me to file a motion, in the court of appeal, for lack of service, by the respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, because she also feared, that, it would also prevent the respondent's motion, which was to quash my appeal, from going forward in the court. Sandra Theroulde also instructed, the court of appeal staff, to not file my motion, for several days and commented, also, that she had to get further legal advise, if I could file that motion. She also commented, at the time, that, "It would be too many motions before the court". The court later changed its mind and allowed me to file my motion, with my evidence, in response the the respondent's motion, that was already in the court and which the court's administrative staff, was also pushing to be heard before the usual time.

The Deputy Registrar Sandra Theroulde, to which the respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, had also sent several letters, via emails, and concerning my appeal, without also the consent of either the judge, or me, had also commented, in regards to adding the respondent's motion to my matter, that was to be heard at the same time, that, "Should the respondent's motion be heard before yours, then there would be no point in hearing your motion". Which I also felt was bias on her part. This is also exactly what has happened. In my opinion, both the Deputy Registrar and the panel of judges, had arranged it to be so. Their personal influence was that obvious.

In my motion record, as well, which the court had also prevented me from filing and later also was never read, by the panel of judges, at the hearing of the motion, for which they also convened, briefly, to respond to that evidence, that was also filed beforehand, mind you and in which I also provided, documentary evidence, concerning the actions of the respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, in regards to the motion, for lack of service to me, regarding that motion and also on others. One of which was a letter, from a dispatcher, Jim Priestman, of Away Courier service, whose letter to me, also contained, contradictory evidence, about the methods of service, that was also done and that was also based, on the instructions, of Paula Boutis, the respondent's lawyer. Paula Boutis then later commented to me, on March 5, 2012, at the court, in regards to those discrepancies, that, "It was no big deal". None of those evidence, were also taken into consideration, by the panel of judges. For instance, Paula Boutis's written statements, in her letter to me, also contradicted, the written statements, in the letter of Jim Priestman, who also stated otherwise, concerning an earlier service, that was provided by him and also on her behalf.

The panel also did not respond, to questions put by me, when I asked the court and also the lawyer, Paula Boutis, why she did not mentioned, when she was served with my notice of appeal, on February 15, 2012, that it was also, according to her, filed in the "wrong" court and not even in her letter to me dated February 16, 2012, in which she also acknowledged, the notice of appeal. She only mentioned this "error", of filing in the so-called "wrong court", after the time to appeal in the divisional court had expired, on February 21, 2012 and in her letter to me, dated February 23, 2012. Again the court of appeal overlooked her moral obligation and her actions to act properly in regards to this.

- There was also an apparent apprehension of bias, on the part of the panel of judges and especially, by Susan Lang, who also led the panel, where she has overlooked both the rights of the Appellant, in this case, as well as to overlook some other crucial factors, concerning the case. Not the least of which were also the precedents of that court and also the actions of the Respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, of Iler Campbell Law Firm, in her attempts to frustrate, the proceedings of the court, including, by stating that the Court of Appeal, had no jurisdiction, to hear my appeal and that it should be heard in the Divisional Court instead. Something which she could also not back up by law, as I have also done, at the motion to quash my appeal, in the court of appeal and that was also heard by the panel of judges, also mentioned. Nevertheless, the panel of corrupt judges, also sided with her, in regards to that matter.

Susan Lang's apprehension of bias, was also evident, when she allowed: (1)The respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, to present evidence to the court, at the hearing and also without serving the other party a copy. (2)Allowed the respondent's lawyer to serve her motion materials, on me at the hearing and then adjourned the hearing for 30 minutes, so that I could read the material, and then resumed the hearing, so that she could proceed with her motion to quash my appeal. (3) Acted openly bias and even going so far, as to ignore questions, put to her and the court, in regards to the respondent's lawyer's actions. Judge Susan Lang commented, that, it is up to the respondent's lawyer Paula Boutis, if she wanted to answer the questions, put to her and the court by me. (4) Kept whispering, repeatedly, to one of the other judges sitting beside her and also apparently discussing the case, openly, with her in the courtroom. (5) Left no doubt in my mind, that, she had a predisposed position, in regards to the case, which would also explain some of her actions, as well and was also proceeding, with the hearing in that manner, which was also bias against me and also commented, in regards to the lack of service, by the respondent's lawyer Paula Boutis, to me, that, "I argued my case very well, which means also that I was served by the respondent's lawyer", and disregarding the fact, that, I had also filed more than one motion record material, with the court of appeal and was forced to quote the case law references, from the books of authorities, for both motions, before the court. One of them and also the most important one, in regards to my motion, for a review, of the single judge's order, that was also filed much earlier and from which I also quoted from mostly.

It is not a small matter, when someone bring those kinds of accussations, against one of the highest courts of Canada. This should also show the level of corruption, and systematic bias, that the Canadian courts, seem to also dole out to some people and not others. Which is also a documented fact. It is also extremely important, for this kind of corruption, by one of Canada's highest court, to also be exposed, due to the detrimental effect, that it also has on the people, who has to appear before that court and whose lives are further destroyed, by the actions on the part of the judges, of the court of appeal. Who also cares nothing about the rights of the person, or appellant in this case, but only in furthering their own personal agendas, and at the expense of the personal rights and freedom of the individual, according to human rights standards everywhere.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Toronto Police Surveillance Video

Toronto 13 Division police cruiser, parked in one of their favourite spot and carying out surveillance of me. They usually drives off, as I approached the police cruiser. And always with this scene, is also another police car, parked several streets, behind this one and literally following me.

Toronto Police Surveillance Video

The Toronto police cruiser, is parked on the "back" street, following the intended target. Which would be me, in this case. Here I am going eastward and the police cruiser, is also following me, on the street south of me and also parallel to the one that I was walking on, when I also took this video.