SUPPORT THIS BLOG AND MAKE A DONATION.

Friday, April 15, 2016

A CASE FOR, AN URGENT INTERVENTION, TO PROTECT THE DIGNITY, OF A PERSON.

THE TARGETING AND ABUSE, OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND ALSO LEGAL RIGHTS, OF VALERIE GUILLAUME, HUMAN RIGHTS BLOGGER.

THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION WAS CONTACTED ON APRIL 15, 2016, ON THE ISSUE OF AN URGENT APPEAL, TO PROTECT THE HUMAN RIGHTS, OF THE PETITIONER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, IN REGARDS TO TAKING PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES, AGAINST CANADA.  

THE PROBLEM EXIST, NOT WITH JUST THE CANADIAN COURTS, BUT WITH ITS POLICE AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, DENYING MY RIGHTS, OR BY FAILING TO CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES, IN MY REGARD, THAT HAS SO NEGATIVELY AFFECTED ME. ALL OF WHICH HAS ALSO LED TO THE DETERIORATION, OF MY HEALTH AND WELL BEING, AND PRESENT A DANGER, ALSO, THAT HAS ALWAYS SURROUNDED ME, DUE TO THOSE ACTIONS.  

The level of abuse in the Canadian courts, against this writer is extraordinary. There is absolutely no regards for any kind of rights, that are suppose to be protected under the Canadian constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under Article 15, guaranteed the legal protection of persons. However, this is not the general practice of the Canadian courts, due to systematic racism and other factors. 
IT IS TO BE STRESSED, HERE, THAT THIS KIND OF ABUSE IS NOT JUST DIRECTED AT ME, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT IS ALSO PART OF A SYSTEMATIC PROBLEM, THAT EXIST, WITH THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM. WHICH RACISM, POVERTY, AND MANY OTHER SOCIAL FACTORS, ALSO PLAY A ROLE.

The Court of Appeal, for example, has specific ideas about dealing with arbitrary boards, such as the Landlord and Tenant Board. This leave the persons who wants to seek protection of their rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, without the protection of the court, in regards to their appeal. It is a system which also need to be exposed. (I am also, currently, waiting to hear from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, regarding my motion for leave, to that court). In the meantime, I am also dealing with other motions in that court, dealing with the same issues. For instance, against the Landlord and Tenant Board, for having a hearing of the matters, while both of the motions (to stay that hearing and a motion for leave, was also undecided by the Court of Appeal). Which also prejudice me significantly, (and for which I was also in court, on April 15, 2016, at the Court of Appeal). (That is, to ask the court to make an interlocutory order, staying any proceedings of the Landlord and Tenant Board, or the Divisional court, until that court has also decided, on my motions before the Court of Appeal). The Landlord and Tenant Board, has had a hearing on February 29, 2016, knowing full well that Court of Appeal has also scheduled a motion hearing, for April 5, 2016 (later adjourned to April 15, 2016), to decide on the matter of staying all of the proceedings, until the Motion for Leave to Appeal, was heard by the Court of Appeal. (The proceeding of the Landlord and Tenant Board, that was heard on February 29, 2016 and an order made against the tenant, (the tenant did not attend due to the fact that the tenant had also filed a motion with the Court of Appeal, to stay the hearing of February 29, 2016, for the reasons stated earlier). Later, the tenant (me) then appealed the decision of the Board, which the lawyer, David S. Strashin, has also filed a motion in the Divisional Court to quash, on April 18, 2016. However, as with my motion that was before the Court of Appeal, the question of service, is also a major point for the court to consider, regarding the actions of David S. Strashin, which usually mean that the motion, will not proceed, until both parties has also confirmed the date with the court, as far as their availability. It is to save both the court's time and also the parties involved. The difference in the two matters,is that though the Court of Appeal, had the confirmation that the lawyer, David S. Strashin was served, with all of the materials, including the confirmation document, which he should have also sent to the court, when he was served by me (via fax on April 4, 2016) he did not do so, AND MY MOTION WAS ADJOURNED, BECAUSE OF THIS ACTION. Yet, when the court has had no proof that the lawyer, David S. Strashin, has confirmed with me, the date of his motion in the Divisional Court, set for April 18, 2016, the indication of the court, IS THAT HIS MOTION WILL NOT BE ADJOURNED, BUT WILL PROCEED ON THAT DAY, WHETHER I WAS AVAILABLE OR NOT. OR WHETHER I HAD BEEN SERVED OR NOT. It appears to be a simple matter, but it is not. It is not only unfair, but it is also unjust. It is a clear violation of the Rules. It is also more serious than that, for any decisions that are made by the court, in the hearing of any case where there is also a clear bias, in not only the procedures, but also in the administration of justice, will also have a dire, or harmful effect, on the individual's rights, under the Charter. (So many things may play a factor in those decisions of the court, including race, corruption, social class, and even the personal vendetta against the person, by persons involved with the case). 

Listen to my upcoming podcast this weekend, that I will also be broadcasting, on The Valerie Guillaume Show, on Podbean.com. It will be an expose on the illegal practice of the court, in routinely, disregarding the rights of the poor, visible minorities and other individuals, who has also erroneously believed, that their rights are always protected under the Canadian constitution.  

On this week's radio show, I will be discussing some persons, with the administrative staff at the Divisional Court, such as Sobey Baweja, a coordinator, who is in charge of scheduling the motions that goes before the court. The Registrar, of the Divisional court and some of the other staff, whose conduct, should really be reevaluated based on their interaction, with the public. One of those staff, who goes by the name of 'Samantha', also need to seriously come under some form of discipline, for her unprofessional behavior towards the public. And more seriously, in what I also believe to be her personal interference, in cases before the court. It may seem inadvertent, or some minor oversight, at first glance, but if you look deeper into the matter, you will see a clear attempt, to interfere with the way that the matter is proceeding before the court. And she is also not the only staff, in the Divisional court, to do so. What seem apparent to me, is that they definitely treat self represented litigants, differently, from lawyers. And that is how the abuse of the process takes place. Information may be withheld, or divulged at their whim, (though they're not suppose to give legal advice, for instance, they love doing so. Even when asked not to do so by the client). Self represented litigants are supposed to be stupid and ignorant of the law, in their opinion. And that is also how they are treated in many cases. It borders on abuse of those persons. Court staff, like Samantha are disrespectful and there is also the worry some relationships, that they also have with the lawyers, some of them. In other words, if you should ask me if the lawyers also has privilege with them, the answer would be a resounding Yes!. I don't think that the Registrar, keeps a good enough eye, on how much they can also influence, cases that are scheduled before the court. The previous registrar certainly did, but the new registrar, with the Divisional court in Toronto, seem to be ignorant of the conduct of the staff in that office. Which basically do not benefit some of the clients, or the litigants, who are there to conduct their business with the court. Perhaps they don't get fired too often. 

I will also be discussing the conduct of some others as well, including the Judge who heard my motion on April 15, 2016, at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, (which she has adjourned to April 22, 2016, based on the question of service to the other party). Though she also had the proof in her hand that the lawyer was served by fax, on April 4, 2016, nevertheless, she has still adjourned the matter (peremptory to him) for April 22, 2016.  I believe it is also part of a much bigger conspiracy, to interfere with 'natural justice', or the administration of justice, and in my case in particular. You see, the matter is also tied up with another motion in the Divisional court, that was commenced by the lawyer for the respondents, David S. Strashin, for April 18, 2016. And for which I will also not be able to attend, since he has also not provided me with any confirmation of that date, as he should have also done under the rules. So the court has no confirmation, by both parties of that date and when I spoke with Sobey Baweja, on April 14, 2016, when he called me to find out about my availability, for April 18, 2016, based on the motion that was filed by David S. Strashin, he was also well aware that the issue of service, was also a problem, in regard to the up coming matter. I also found out on April 15, 2016, from the court staff at the Divisional court, (the same staff by the name of Samantha), that the motion that was filed by the respondents lawyer, David Strashin, was in the 'scheduling book' for the date of April 18, 2016, although it was also not scheduled on the system, meaning in the computer, for that date. And she also claimed that Sobey baweja, was away on April 15, 2016. 

Lawyer, David S. Strashin, who was required in be in the Court of Appeal on April 15, 2016, in regards to my motion in that court and who simply did not show up, though I also provided to the Judge, indisputable proof by way of the confirmation, that was also sent to that lawyer, by fax (which was also received ) that he was served. (In this case the judge had just decided to adjourned the matter over to April 22, 2016, peremptorily, on  the part of the lawyer, David S. Strashin, on whether he decide to show up or not. Essentially, my matter did not go ahead because the court had concerns about the service to him. (Did I say that the court had a copy of my confirmation form, that was faxed to the lawyer on April 4, 2016, and also the confirmation that the fax was also received on his end, in regards to the court date of my motion on April 15, 2016?. I did right?)

I WILL EXPOSED ON MY SHOW, THE REAL REASONS WHY LAWYER, DAVID S. STRASHIN, DID NOT SHOW UP AT THE MOTION HEARING, in my broadcast. AND IT ALSO HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIS OWN MOTION, WHICH HE HAS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 18, 2016, TO QUASH MY APPEAL. Motions dates are to be confirmed with the court at least two days in advance of the hearing, to make sure that both parties are agreeable and can attend on that date). Sobey Baweja, knew that confirmation is also required by both parties, for the matter to proceed. Will the court administrative staff, or even the judge respect the rules in regards to that lawyer?. So far it has not, so I will wait and see what will happen next week.