Wednesday, April 27, 2016

A CORRUPT CANADIAN JUDGE : SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, HARIET SACHS.

JUDGE HARIET SACHS:  SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, TORONTO. ANOTHER CORRUPT, CANADIAN JUDGE.


JUDGE HARIET SACHS J., TOLD THE REGISTRAR , OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, TO SCHEDULE THE URGENT MOTION, FOR TWO WEEKS LATER.  - Regarding, Valerie Guillaume.

The Blogger's accussations against Canada, to the United Nations Committe against Torture. Accusing Canada, as a State Party, to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which it has ratified, but has also never implemented. Canada is guilty in the case of this  Blogger, Valerie Guillaume,  in carrying out Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, or Punishment, against her. Currently, the Blogger has been left homeless, in a consorted effort by the Canadian court, to deprive her of her civil rights and human rights, under its Constitution and under International Human Rights laws. THE INTENTION, OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, THROUGH ITS COURTS, IS TO BRING ABOUT THE INTENSE SUFFERING, INCLUDING, MENTAL SUFFERING, TO THE VICTIM, VALERIE GUILLAUME, AS A MEANS OF PUNISHMENT. - this is against all international human rights laws. And it won't be tolerated.


Judge Hariet Sachs
Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court)
Toronto, Ontario
 
Sachs is the administravtive judge, for the judges at the Divisional Court, which is a part of the Superior Court of Justice. And Judge Hariet Sachs, also authorize hearing dates, that goes before the panel of judges.
(It gets more nauseating). Judge Hariet Sachs, is also the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice and the Regional Suvervisor judge, to the Central East Region.  And on that note, this same judge is also the partner, of Clayton Ruby, a well known lawyer in Toronto.
 
THE ACTIVIST, FEARING A PRESUMPTION OF BIAS, FROM JUDGE HARIET SACHS, AFTER THE SAME JUDGE HAS ALSO RULED, TO QUASH HER OTHER APPEAL, AT THE DIVISIONAL COURT, ON JANUARY 28, 2016, ALSO VOICED THIS CONCERN ,TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, AT THE TIME THAT SHE ALSO FILED HER URGENT MOTION, ON APRIL 22, 2016. SHE WAS TOLD BY THE REGISTRAR, THAT, JUDGE SACHS WOULD BE THE ONE TO AUTHORIZED, THE HEARING OF HER URGENT MOTION. THE JUDGE, HARIET SACHS, THEN INFORMED THE REGISTRAR, TO BOOK THE URGENT MOTION, FOR ALMOST THREE WEEKS LATER, ON MAY 10, 2016.   As for the presumption of bias, on the part of the said judge, in another case, in 2015, this was exactly the charge that was levied at her, after it was disclosed, that she has had a priviledge, lawyer-client relationship, with one of the parties, on an appeal case, before the court.
 
 
Urgent Motion, filed on April 22, 2016, given a hearing date of May 10, 2016 (By Judge Hariet Sachs).
The activist urgent motion that was filed with the Divisional court on April 22, 2016  and also went before the same judge, Sachs, for authorization, from the Registrar of the court and also to be heard on an urgent basis, was instead ignored. Instead, this so called "honorable" judge, saw it fit to schedule an urgent motion hearing date, before a panel of three judges, on an appeal from the order of a single judge, Maria Linhares de Sousa J. on April 18, 2016 against the this Blogger, for May 10, 2016. That is more than two weeks for the motion to be heard.

Keep in mind that it was filed on an urgent basis, to prevent the appelant from suffering irreparable harm. But that was exactly the intention of the judge, Hariet Sachs. She wanted the order of the previous judge, Maria Linhares de Sousa J. to be carried out in this case and so she did not view the motion as being urgent. Nor did she care about the consequense to the appellant. The order of the previous judge, on a motion brought by the lawyer, David S. Strashin, was to quash the appellant's appeal in the Divisional Court and to also instruct the office of the Sheriff, to evict the tenant, "forthwith" and "without notice". The decision of that single motions judge, Maria linhares de Sousa, was on the face of it, "cruel and unusual punishment", And for what action by this Blogger?. Since there was never any indication, that the appellant has posed any danger to anyone. Not in her previous hearings at the Landlord and Tenant Board, or at any other times.

How one human rights activist, Valerie Guillaume, fares under the corruption, of some Canadian judges. 

This is also the reason, that, immediate international intervention, has to be taken to prevent the futher abuse, of the Blogger's human rights and to prevent further irreparable harm form happening.

Who to report to against Canada's acts of torture, including mental suffering and creating situations in its courts that it knows will cause me irreparable harm and the conspiracy of the judges, and justices of the peace and court administrative staff, who are involved in violating my human rights in that manner. ALL REPORTS OF CANADA AS A STATE, COMMITTING ACTS OF TORTURE AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL, CAN BE REPORTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE, AGAINST TORTURE.

Similarly, on April 26, 2016, a Justice of the Peace, Paul Welch, at the Old City Hall Court, in Toronto, "did not even bother, to take the informant's (Valerie Guillaume), information, for an assault, that was committed against her, back in 2015.  He was also overheard, to be commenting, to other justices of the peace, afterwards, saying, "I don't care".  Apparently, the other justices were also advising him, about the informant, clearly. (In fact, the JP, Paul Welch , also had a stack of other informations, on the desk before him, that the informant had also previously tried to commence with at that court. And he also read all of them). The informant then dryly asked him, what the relevance was, in regards to the current charge that she was filing with the same JP, at the time. (He then put the other informantions away, on his desk, but also refused to take the new information). His attitude after rejecting the Blogger's information, on a private charge, was to come out of the room and to "chat it up" with his colleage. And also making the above mentioned comment.  This same Justice of the Peace, Paul A. Welch, had also pleaded guilty to an obstruction of justice charge, previously. And also received an absolute discharge. Justice of the Peace, Paul A. Welch, was also a former police officer, for 32 years, before becoming a justice of the peace.  In this case, the JP Paul Welch, was convicted over "ticket fixing". By lowering the amount of the ticket to be paid, (to half of its original fine), without a court appearance, by the offender.

The JP, also took the time to advise the informant, Valerie Guillaume, that he was also from "out of town" and not a regular JP, at the Old City Hall court. Apparently, this old corrupt JP, (and also former cop) was from Hamilton, Ontario, where had also faced the criminal charge, over his conduct. And also got off scotch free.


Note:  Information on Organizations to report any violations by Canada, as a State Party, to the United Nations Treaties. Including those under the Rome Statutue, of the International Criminal Court, which also has a joint agreement with the United Nations, on carrying out the reprimands against any country, which has ignored its recommendations to implement those treaties, as a State Party. Meaning those countries like Canada, which has also ratified those treaties. But at the same time has also failed to carry out the recommendations by the United Nations, or the International Criminal Court. Or even with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Though Canada did not ratify the treaty with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.  The human rights court for the North America, South America and Caribbean regions.

THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (CAT), IS THE GOVERNING BODY, THAT CANADA IS MANDATED TO REPORT TO ON ITS IMPLEMENTATIONS, OF THAT TREATY. CANADA RATIFIED THAT TREATY WITH THE UNITED NATIONS, ON JUNE 24, 1987. IN 2012 CANADA ALSO REPORTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS, ON ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TREATY ON THE COVENTION AGAINST TORTURE, WHICH IT ALSO IN VIOLATION OF.



Committee Against Torture and others
- (CCPR, CERD, CAT, CEDAW, CRPD, CED, CESCR and CRC (you can go directly to those websites)


Thursday, April 21, 2016

CORRUPTION, IN THE CANADIAN COURT SYSTEM.

CORRUPTION, IN THE CANADIAN COURT SYSTEM. Judge Karen Weiler, Judge Eileen E. Gillese, Judge Maria Linheres de Sousa and other Canadian judges. How they act corrupt in cases before them. And why their actions also need to be exposed. To protect the public.
Judge Karen. Weiler
Court of Appeal for Ontario
in Toronto.


"THE COURT OF APPEAL, HAS NO JURISDICTION, OVER DIVISIONAL COURT MATTERS"; - Toronto Judge Karen Weiler. 

This comment was made by the said judge, in anticipation, of hearing my motion in the Court of Appeal, on April 22, 2016, on a final order from the Divisional Court, which I have also filed a motion for leave to appeal and also a motion to stay the order, until the Court of Appeal also makes a decision regarding my motion for leave, in that court. Because her comment is not true and holds no weight legally, and could only have been said, to prevent me from expecting the court to act in my favour, or to enforce my legal rights under the Canadian Constitution, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I also decided to expose her actions here, not just to protect my rights but to also educate the public.



I can list cases, after cases, that the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in Toronto, has also ruled on, on previous decisions, from the lower court, upon the hearing of a motion by one of the parties, to dismiss an appeal in the Divisional Court. Those cases were heard by the COA and the judges in those cases, either granted the stay or to dismiss it, based on its findings. But yes, a decision from a motions judge, at the Divisional Court, can be heard at the Court of Appeal, by the Appellant, by way of a motion to stay the order of the lower court, until the appeal is heard. Or for any other reasons, that may also be considered just and reasonable, by the court. For litigants such as myself, seeking equitable relief from the Court of Appeal, that is also another reason that it can also grant my request to stay the order of the motions judge in the Divisional Court, which also dismiss my appeal, on a motion filed by the lawyer of the respondents and in my opinion also committed some errors of law in regards to her decision to dismiss my appeal. I have every right to have my appeal continued at the next level, which is the Court of Appeal for Ontario and this judge's statement regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the Divisional Court is just obsurd. If this is not a case for the presumption of bias, by the judge against me, then I really don't know how much more I can say about her actions, at this point.

" THE COURT OF APPEAL DON'T HEAR LANDLORD AND TENANT MATTERS" - says another judge of the Court of Appeal, Eileen E. Gillese, J. last week at another motion hearing that I had in that court, which she also adjourned to April 22, 2016. She intended to discouraged me from proceeding in that court and thereby to protect my rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is supposed to guaranteed me the right to equal access to and benefit of the law and other protections. But in reality, those so called guaranteed protections, are only for 'some' people and not others. We are dealing with a systematic abuse of the rights of some persons, or groups, by the Canadian judicial system. Those actions need to be exposed.












Wednesday, April 20, 2016

HOW THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT AND ITS COURTS, HAS CAUSED ME, IRREPARABLE HARM.

HOW THE COURT OF APPEAL, HAS USED THE DELAY TACTIC, SO THAT THE DIVISIONAL COURT, COULD MAKE A (NEGATIVE) DECISION, ON MY MATTER.

EXPOSING CANADIAN CORRUPT JUDGES.  HOW THEY HAVE CAUSED MORE HARM THAN GOOD, REGARDING THEIR DECISIONS. IN OTHER WORDS THEY ARE CORRUPT.
Judge Grant Huscroft
Court of Appeal for Ontario

Judge Eileen E. Gillese
Court of Appeal for Ontario
























Judge Linhares de Sousa
Divisional Court, Toronto














WHEN YOU GO BEFORE THOSE JUDGES, AS A MINORITY, YOU ARE FACING MANY OBSTACLES. FROM SYSTEMATIC RACISM, TO DEALING WITH THE PERSONAL CORRUPTION, OF THOSE CANADIAN JUDGES.


IT IS DIFFICULT TO RESPECT THEM, AS THEY HAVE NEITHER ANY REGARD FOR THE LAW, THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO UPHELD, NOR ANY REGARD FOR THE PERSONS, APPEARING BEFORE THEM.  AS FAR AS THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE CONCERNED, UNDER THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION. THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.


For me, personally, the matter has taken on an added dimension, when you also include the fact, that, I am also a targeted person by the Canadian government, which has persecuted me. And no where is this persecution more apparent than with the courts?.


MY MATTERS BEFORE THE CANADIAN COURTS NOW REQUIRE THE IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION  BY HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS OR COMMISSIONS, TO STOP THE HARM THAT IT HAS DONE IN MY CASE.  I WILL ALSO BE SEEKING THIS HELP FROM THEM REGARDING MY CURRENT SITUATION WHERE THE GOAL IS TO PUSH ME OUT UNTO THE STREET WHERE I WILL BECOME HOMELESS.

Judge Eileen E. Gillese, has used the delay tactic to avoid hearing my motion on April 15, 2016. The reason? Because she did not want to grant the request in my motion and also to give the Divisional court, the opportunity to rule on the other party's motion, which was to quash my appeal in that court.
And that did happen on April 18, 2016, by another Judge of the Divisional Court, Maria Linhares de Sousa. The Judge ruled to quash my appeal against the Landlord and Tenant Board, which had a hearing, while I was still appealing the decision of the lower court in the matter and was waiting for the scheduled hearing of the matter, at the Court of Appeal. This judge, de Sousa has committed some errors of law, which I will argue against, should my motion be allowed to be heard on Friday April 22nd. (With my other motion).  But the conspiracy and the corruption of the Canadian courts do not stop there. Naturally I have filed a motion for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal after that decision, and also a stay of the judge's order to lift the automatic stay on the appeal. Now I am facing another obstacle in the Court of Appeal, where I also have a motion scheduled for April 22, 2016, put over from last week by  Eileen Gillese J.
Now I am being told by the Coordinator Daniel Murphy at the Court of Appeal that my motion that I filed to stay the order of the Divisional court until the Court of Appeal has heard my matter, won't be added on to the other motion that I have in that court for Friday April 22nd, because it is too short a notice to the court, even though I did request in the motion for the time to be shorten so that this motion against the Order of April 18, 2016 could also be heard with my other motion in the Court of Appeal that is scheduled for April 22, 2016.

They claim that the motion will go before the Judge, Grant Huscroft, who will then decide if my urgent motion, to stay the order of the Divisional Court's judge on April 18th, will be stayed. Judge Grant Huscroft, is the judge in the motions court for this week. Last week it was Gillese. Like the Justices of the Peace, those judges also operate on a rotating basis, for one week at a time.

This is what I believed has happened. After serving the lawyer for the respondents, David S. Strashin, with the motion materials on April 20th, today (it is an urgent motion), I believe that he somehow got in touch with the court staff and conspired with them, specifically, with the Coordinator Daniel Murphy to delay my motion by not filing it with the court, on April 20th, though he has accepted the document and also claimed that the judge Grant Huscroft will decide on the 21st if the matter should be heard on April 22,nd with my other motion in that court.

He is trying to convince me that two days notice to the court of appeal is not sufficient time to have the urgent motion heard by a judge in that court which is totally B.S. crap. In fact urgent motions can be heard the same day. And usually are, if you are a lawyer, but a self represented individual and especially one which both the court and this government has targeted will find that there are obstacle to having any kind of equal treatment in the court.



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.

Thursday, April 7, 2016

RACISM, GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND POLICE VIOLENCE.

RACISM, GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND POLICE VIOLENCE.: ...

HOW DO WE STOP THE TORONTO POLICE VIOLENCE AGAINST THE BLACK COMMUNITY.

My own persecution by the Toronto police, is also proof of this violence.