ANOTHER, CANADIAN JUDGE, LEONARD RICCHETTI, A SENIOR JUDGE, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, NOW INCLUDED, ON MY LIST OF CANADIANS, WHO I HAVE NOW BROUGHT BEFORE, THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. IT'S A CONSPIRACY, TO DESTROY ME AND THEY ARE ALL INVOLVED.

I AM DONE, WITH THE INHUMANE TREATMENT, OF ME, BY THE CANADIAN JUDGES, WHO HAVE NO REGARDS, FOR MY HUMAN RIGHTS, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND THEY MUST ALSO ANSWER, FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

LET THE WORLD WATCH, AS CANADA'S CORRUPTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE,  EXPOSES, ITSELF, TO THE WORLD. WATCH HOW CORRUPT, CANADIAN JUDGES, REALLY ARE.

I AM CHARGING, THIS CANADIAN JUDGE, LEONARD RICCHETTI, BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FOR HIS ACTIONS, AGAINST ME. 

A SENIOR JUDGE, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN ONTARIO, LEONARD RICCHETTI, IS  THE MOST RECENT JUDGE, WHO HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE LIST OF CANADIAN JUDGES, WHO I HAVE INCLUDED, AS DEFENDANTS, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FOR CARRYING OUT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AGAINST ME. 

WHAT THIS SENIOR JUDGE DID, VERY OPENLY, WAS TO MOCK ME, AND MY SITUATION AND TO ALSO SHOW, NO REGARD FOR IT.  HE ALSO VERY OPENLY, SYMPATHIZED, WITH THE DEFENDANT, AND EVEN ASKED THEIR OPINION, ABOUT WHETHER THE UNIT I HAD OCCUPIED, WAS TAKEN AND THE JUDGE'S OBVIOUS RELUCTANCE, IN REVERSNG THAT DECISION, SINCE IT THE DEFENDANT, WHO HAD ALSO CAUSED ME TO BE HOMELESS, BY EVICTING ME, BEFORE THE COURT COULD HEAR THE CASE ON ITS MERITS, AND BEFORE THE COURT HAD ALL OF THE EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS, IN THE MOTIONS OF BOTH MYSELF AND THE DEFENDANT, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.  NO THIS JUDGE, WAS ALREAY SYMPATHETIC, ABOUT DISTURBING, THE SITUATION, IF THE DEFENDANT, HAD ACTED TO GIE AWAY MY SPACE, AT THE SHELTER. MORE THAN WHAT I AM NOW FACING. AND THIS WAS ALSO A DIRECT RESULT, OF THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS, AGAINST ME.

THE CORUPTION OF THIS CANADIAN JUDGE, IS THAT WHILE HE IS MAKING HIS DECISION AND SHOWING CONCERN FOR THE DEFENDANT, HE IS ALSO WELL AWARE OF THE SITUATION, THAT I AM PUT INTO AND SHOWED NO CONCERN, FOR ANY HARM, THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO ME, OR THAT I WOULD STILL FACE. RATHER, HE SHOWED, IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, MORE CONCERN, OVER ANYONE, WHO MAY HAVE REPLACED, MY POSITION, THAT THEY MAY LOSE IT,  IF HE SHOULD CCNSIDER, THE MADATORY ORDER, TO LET ME BACK INTO THE SHELTER AND TO PREVENT ME, FROM BEING HOMELESS. WHILE HE PRETENDS, TO CARRY OUT A COURT HEARING, ON THE MATTER.  NOWHERE, DID HE EVEN MENTIONED, OR TO CONSIDER, MY CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING, MY HUMAN RIGHTS, TO BASIC SHELTER.  IF HE HAD DONE THIS, HE WOULD ALSO NOT BE CONCERNED, ABOUT WHAT THE DEFENDANT, SHIP, MAY THINK ON THE MATTER, SINCE THEY HAD ALSO GONE AGAINST, THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE COURT AND HAD EVICTED ME, WHILE THE MATTER WAS STILL NOT HEARD, OR DECIDED, BY THE COURT.  AND THE SENIOR JUDGE, IS ACTING, LIKE IT WAS OKAY, FOR THEM TO DO WHAT THEY HAD DONE, WHICH WAS TO CIRCUMVENT, THE NORMAL PROCESS OF THE COURT. THIS SENIOR JUDGE, DID NOT SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM, WITH THEIR ACTIONS. NOR DID HE CARED, WHAT KIND OF HARDSHIP, OR OTHER HARM, THAT THEY HAD CREATED FOR ME, BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIONS, AGAINST ME.

THEIR LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, IS PROBABLY GOING TO TELL THE COURT, THAT SHE CANNOT PARTICIPATE, AT THE HEARING TOMORROW, IN TRYING TO DELAY, THE MATTER FURTHER AND TO CAUSED ME HARM.  MORE SO THAN THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE, BY EVICTING ME, WHILE THE MATTER WAS, STILL BEFORE THE COURT. AND BASED ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN SO FAR, THE JUDGE, LEONARD RICHETTI, WILL ALSO ACCEPT THEIR RESPONSE AND ALSO CAUSED ME FURTHER HARM, BY DELAYING THE MATTER, OR NOT GRANTING, THE EQUITABLE RELIEF, THAT I HAVE ALSO SOUUGHT, IN THE URGENT MOTION.  OR THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, MAY SHOW UP AT THE HEARING.  SINCE IT IS ALL  A CIRCUS AND SHE ALSO KNOWS VERY WELL, WHAT THIS JUDGE IS UP TO AND WHAT THEY ARE ALL UP TO.

BUT IT IS ME, WHO WILL ALSO GET THE LAST LAUGH. SINCE I LIVE TO SEE THE DAY, WHEN THEY THEMSELVES, ARE BEFORE, THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, DEFENDING THEMSELVES, AGAINST THE CHARGES. THOSE CHARGES, UNDER THE ROME STATUTE, ARTICEL 15, CRMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

LET ME SEE, IF THEY WILL THINK, IT IS FUNNY THEN. 

WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO, WAS TO HAVE ALL OF THE MOTIONS HEARD, AT ONE TIME. THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVED, WHICH WAS ALSO NOT ALLOWED, UNDER THE LAW. HE WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO HEAR THE MATTER, THAT WAS BEFORE HIM, AT THAT TIME. THE LAW STATES VERY CLEARLY, THAT IT WOULD BE  AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE AND A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, IF A JUDGE HEARS A CASE, (ESPECIALY, SINCE THE DEFENDANT, ALSO DID NOT FILE ANY RESPONDING MOTON MATERIALS), THAT WAS NOT BEFORE HIM. I WILL PROVIDE A CASE LAW: Paladin Labs Inc. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et. al. v His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia et. al. 

" Except re a statute or court rules authorize the court to make an order on its own initiative or where the inherent jurisdiction of the court empowers it to make an order to control its own processes, it is against the principles of nature justice and procedural fairness for a judge to make an order on an application that is not before him or her..."

I HAVE POSTED THE ENDORSEMENT, OF THE JUDGE, LEONARD RICCHETTI, BELOW AND YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF, WHAT HE IS UP TO. PARAGRAPH [5] IS TROUBLING TO ME, BECAUSE I HAD SERVED, THE MOTION, ON THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, ON APRIL 3 AND ON APRIL 11TH. THE FIRST HAD TO DO WITH THE INSTRUTIONS OF THE JUDGE, GERARD DOW, AND THE SECOND SERVICE, WAS MADE ON HER ON PRIL 11TH. ONLY MY MOST RECENT URGENT MOTION, THAT I HAD FILED ON APRIL 22ND, WAS NOT SERVED ON THE LAWYER, BECAUSE IT WAS AN EX-PARTE MOTION. 

HERE IS PROOF, THAT I HAD SERVED, THE DEFENDANT, WITH MY MOTION MATERIALS, ON APRIL 3RD. PLUS, I HAD ALSO SERVED THEM, WITH MY MOTION, TO TRANSFER THE FILE TO BRAMPTON, AS WELL. THAT ONE THE LAWYER, HAS CONSENTED ON AND THE JUDGE ORERED (SEE PARA. [4], IN HIS ENDORSEMENT). 

THE FIRST THING, THAT WAS READ OUT IN THE COURT, WAS TO FORBADE THE RECORDING, OF THE HEARING.  HERE, I HAVE EXPRESSED, MY RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF MY OPINION.  I AM ALSO REPORTING, ON THE TRUTH AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. CANADA, SHOULD NEVER BE REGARDED, AS TELLING THE TRUTH, ABOUT ITS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, UNTIL IT HAS AN OPEN COURTROOM, THAT ALLOWS, A HEARING, TO BE BOTH VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDED AND TO ALSO BE TRANSPARENT, IN THAT WAY, SO THAT THE PUBLIC AND THE WHOLE WORLD, GETS TO SEE, WHAT IS HAPPENING, FOR THEMSELVES.  IN THE MEANTIME, I WILL KEEP ON REPORTING, WHAT I HAVE BOTH SEEN AND HEARD, AND IN MY CASE, AS EVIDENCE, IN REGARDS TO HOW I AM BEING TREATED, BY THE CANADIAN COURTS. UNLESS, YOU HAD SEEN IT FOR YOURSELF, IT WOULD NOT BELIEVED. IT IS STILL UNBELIEVABLE, AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY, IT SHOULD ALSO BE EXPOSED. THIS KIND OF TREATMENT, IS AGAINST, THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, THAT IS ALSO UNIVERSAL. AND WHEN THEY ABUSE MINE, I WILL NOT BE QUIET ABOUT IT.

TORONTO LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, EXPOSED!!!. HOW SHE ACTED CORRUPTLY, AND AGAINST, THE ETHICAL CODE OF CONDUCT, WITH THE LAW SOCIETY, TO CIRCUMVENT, THE COURT'S DECISION, ON A LEGAL CASE, THAT IS BEFORE THE COURT.

THIS IS NOTHING, BUT A JEWISH PLOT, AGAINST ME.  TWO RACIST JEWS, WHO HAVE CONSPIRED, TO CAUSED ME HARM, BY FORCING ME, TO BE EVICTED, IN THEIR CONSPIRACY, TO DO ME HARM. ONE OF WHOM, LESLEY NAGODA, WHO THINKS, THAT I WAS SO MUCH, BENEATH HER, THE FOOL THAT SHE IS, THAT SHE HAS NEVER, ENDEAVERED, TO RETURN MY CALLS. BOY! WAS SHE EVER WRONG. 

TORONTO LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, MUST HAVE BELIEVED, THAT HER CLIENTS, SHIP AND ITS CORRUPT AND INFAMOUS DIRECTOR, LESLEY NAGODA, HAS SO MUCH MONEY, (PUBLIC MONEY, FROM BEING A REGISTERED, PUBLIC CHARITY, AND RECEIVING FUNDING, FROM ALL THREE LEVELS, OF GOVERNMENT AND ALSO FROM, PRIVATE FUNDERS), TO PAY FOR THEIR LEGAL FEES, THAT AS A, GREEDY LAWYER, SHE WAS ALSO WILLING, TO TAKE THE RISK, OF GOING AGAINST, THE LAW SOCIETY'S, ETHICAL AND MORAL, CODE OF CONDUCT,  AND TO GO MISSING IN ACTION, (MIA), OR TO MAKE HERSELF, UNAVAILABLE, AFTER HER CLIENTS SHIP AND LESLEY NAGODA, DIRECTED, THOSE UNDER HER, TO CARRY OUT AN, UNLAWFUL EVICTION, THAT ZOHAR LEVY, AS THEIR LAWYER, ON RECORD, HAD ALSO INSTIGATED, I BELIEVED AND HAS ALSO BEEN SILENT ABOUT IT, EVER SINCE.  ZOHAR LEVY, SHOWED, A LACK OF INTEGRITY, IN DELIBERATELY, AVOIDING, THE ISSUE, WITH ME, EVEN THOSE SHE WAS THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, OR LAWYER.  ZOHAR LEVY, WAS MIA, WHEN NEEDED, TO CLARIFY, THE SITUATION,WITH THOSE WORKING, UNDER THE DIRECTIVES, OF LESLEY NAGODA, TO GO AGAINST, THE ORDER OF THE COURT. ZOHAR LEVY, WENT ALONG WITH THEIR DECISION. SHE CONVENIENTLY FORGETS, AS A LAWYER, THAT SHE IS ALSO SUPPOSE TO NOT DO ANYTHING, THAT WOULD ALSO INTERFERE, IN THE ADMINISTRATION, OF JUSTICE. WHICH ALSO INCLUDED, ACTING WITH INTEGRITY, CONCERNING HER PROFESSION AND ALSO THE LAW.
LAWYER, ZOAR LEVY, WOULD ALSO BE PAID, REALLY WELL, TO AVOID ALL FORMS OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH ME, IN ORDER, TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE. SHE KEPT SILENT, WHILE THOSE OTHERS, WHO NEITHER KNEW THE LAW, AS WELL AS SHE DID, NOR HAD TAKEN ANY OATH, TO NOT INTERFERE, WITH IS ADMINISTRATION, CARRIED OUT THE UNLAWFUL EVICTION, THAT SHE MOST ASSUREDLY, ALSO KNEW ABOUT AND ALSO, AGREED WITH. 

THROW OUT THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES, AND MORAL DILEMA, BECAUSE SHE HAD NONE. AFTER INSTRUCTING HER SECRETARY, OR ASSISTANT, TO TELL ME, THAT SHE WAS IN A MEETING AND HER ASSISTANT CLAIMING, THAT SHE WOULD ALSO BE FREE TO TALK WITH ME, IN HALF AN HOUR, SHE NEVER DID. ZOHAR LEVY, NEVER CALLED ME BACK, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DAY, DESPITE MY MESSAGES TO HER, AS THE LAWYER, REPRESENTING HER CLIENT, SHIP, TO CONTACT THOSE WHO NEEDED CLARIFICATION, ON THE ISSUE, THE SUPERVISOR, AND TO LET HIM KNOW, THAT THE MATTER, WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT, TO BE RESOLVED, BY THE COURT. SHE DID NO SUCH THING. 

LAWYERS SHOULD NOT GO MISSING, OR TO AVOID MEETING, THE OTHER PARTY, TO A DISPUTE, WHO WAS ALSO RELYING, ON THE LAWYER, TO CLEAR UP, ANY LEGAL ISSUES, REGARDING THEIR CLIENT'S ACTIONS, AS A LAWYER. IF THERE WAS SOME LEGAL ISSUES, THAT HER CLIENTS, DID NOT UNDERSTAND, IT WAS THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY'S LEGAL DUTY, TO EXPLAIN, THE LEGAL ISSUE, TO THEM, AND THAT WOULD ALSO, NOT GO AGAINST, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. IN OTHER WORDS, SHE ALSO HAD A DUTY, TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND TO THE LAW. HER ACTIONS MUST ALSO NOT GO AGAINST THE LAW, OR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  

WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE OUTCOME, IF THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, HAD ALSO CONTACTED, THE SUPERVISOR OF THE SHELTER, THAT WAS OPERATED BY SHIP, AND LET HIM KNOW, THAT THE  MATTER WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT, TO DECIDE ON THE ISSUES, BETWEEN SHIP AND THE TENANT AND THAT HE WAS NOT TO ACT IN ANY WAY THAT WOULD CAUSED THE COURT'S FUNCTION OR ROLE IN THE MATTER, TO BE DIMINISHED, BUT TO ALLOW THE LAWYER AND THE COURT TO FOLLOW THE COURT'S PROCESS.  BUT SHE DID NOT DO THAT. SHE KEPT SILENT AND DID NOT CALL ANYONE,NOR DID SHE EVEN RETURNED MY TELEPHONE CALLS TO HER, TO CLARIFY THE SITUATION FOR HER CLIENT.  I MET TORONTO LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ON APRIL 18,2024, WHEN SHE EMAILED ME, ABOUT BEING THE LAWYER, FOR HER CLIENT SHIP AND WANTED ME TO FILL HER IN, ON MY RECENT MOTION, THAT WAS FILED WITH THE COURT ON APRIL 15TH, TO TRANSFER MY CASE FILE, TO ANOTHER REGION. SHE WAS ALSO ASKING ME, ABOUT MY BLOG POST, ABOUT HER CLIENT, LESLEY NAGODA, THAT SEEMED TO HAVE, ALSO, RESONATED WITH HER NEGATIVELY. WOULD I TAKE THE POSTS DOWN, SHE HAD ASKED ME. I SAID NO. THAT THEY WERE WRITTEN, TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST, IN THE MATTER. THAT MY LOYALTY, WAS WITH THE PUBLIC AND NOT HER CLIENT.  THE NEXT DAY, ONHER CLIENT'S DIRECTIVES, THEY STAGED AN UNLAWFUL EVICTION, WHILE THE MATTER WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT, AND DURING WHICH TIME, THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, ALSO WENT MISSING IN ACTION (MIA) AND DID NOT RETURNED MY PHONE CALLS, AFTER HER ALLEGED MEETING, ACCORDING TO HER ASSISTANT.  WHO CLAIMED THAT ZOHAR LEVY, WOULD BE CALLING ME BACK IN HALF AN HOUR, BUT WHICH SHE NEVER DID. THROUGHT THE DAY.  

LAWYERS ACT, ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS, THIS IS THE NORM. SOME LAWYERS GO BEYOND THAT, TO INTERFERE, DELIBERTELY, WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. SOMETHING, THAT THEY ARE ALSO, EXPRESSLY, FORBIDDEN, TO DO SO, BY THE LAW SOCIETY. IN ZOHAR LEVY'S CASE, SHE ACTED CORRUPTLY, AND AIDED HER CLIENT, IN CAUSING AN EVICTION, OF THE TENANT, WHILE THE MATTER,WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT AND THE COURT, HAD ALSO NOT YET HEARD, FROM BOTH PARTIES, TO THE DISPUTE. ZOHAR LEVEY'S ACTION, TO CONSPIRE WITH HER CLIENT, LESLEY NAGODA, THE DIRECTOR OF SHIP, TO CIRCUMVENT, THE COURT PROCEDURE, AND TO CAUSE A PREMATURE EVICTION OF THE TENANT, WAS WHAT SHE ALSO INTENED. SHE ACTED WITH A LACK OF INTEGRITY, BOTH PROFESSIONAL AND OTHERWISE. 

SHE HAS ALSO EARNED HERSELF A COMPLAINT WITH THE LAW SOCIETY.

CANADIAN JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, IS NOT ONLY CORRUPT, BUT SHE IS ALSO WICKED AND EVIL. PERIOD. SHE IS ONE OF THE FIRST, CANADIAN JUDGES, THAT I WILL BE CHARGING, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FOR CARRYING OUT, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AGAINST ME.

I WASTED MY TIME AND EFFORT, ASKING FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, FROM THIS WICKED JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS. SHE NEVER EVEN, CONSIDERED, SUCH A REQUEST.

SHE IS JUST ANOTHER, CORRUPT, CANADIAN JUDGE, NOW BEING EXPOSED. ONTARIO JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, IS RACIST AND UNDESERVING, TO REPRESENT, THE PUBLIC, IN HER ROLE AS A JUDGE.

CANADIAN JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, IS NOT ONLY CORRUPT, BUT SHE IS ALSO WICKED AND EVIL. PERIOD. SHE IS ONE OF THE FIRST, CANADIAN JUDGES, THAT I WILL BE CHARGING, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FOR CARRYING OUT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AGAINST ME. SHE HAS NO REGARD, FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND IS ALSO A RACIST AND AFTER MY DEALINGS WITH HER, I HAVE NO RESPECT, FOR THE CANADIAN COURT.

She is undeserving, as a judge, to represent the Canadian public. She is a disgusting, human being, if I can even consider her as such. I am so disgusted, by her corruption, as a judge, and her lack of regard, for administering the law, that I will also charge her, in the ICC.

I AM USUALLY TEMPERED, IN MY REPORTS, ABOUT CANADIAN JUDGES, GIVING SOME RESPECT, TO THEIR OFFICE, BUT AFTER SEEING HOW, THIS JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, ACT BEHIND CLOSE DOORS, AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC'S VIEW, THAT RESPECT, WAS FOREVER GONE.

I WASTED MY TIME AND EFFORT, ASKING FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, FROM THIS WICKED JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS. SHE NEVER EVEN, CONSIDERED, SUCH A REQUEST. SHE ALSO NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED, THE HARM, THAT WOULD ALSO RESULT, TO ME, BY REFUSING TO GRANT ME, EQUITABLE RELIEF, WHICH UNDER CANADIAN LAW, TAKES PRECEDENCE, AND EVEN PARAMOUNTCY, OVER THE COMMON LAW. THE ONTARIO STATUTE, THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT. R.SO. 1990. c, C-43 STATES, UNDER SECTION 96(1) AND (2), THAT THIS RULE OF LAW, IS TO BE APPLIED, CONCURRENTLY, WITH THE COMMON LAW. AND IF THERE IS A CONFLICT, THEN THE LAW OF EQUITY, MUST ALSO PREVAILED.

THIS WAS NOT SO, WITH THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, WHO EVEN IN HER CORRUPTION, MADE THE SAME DECISION TWICE, IN TWO DIFFERENT URGENT MOTIONS, (FOR WHICH THE SECOND, URGENT MOTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE ALSO, BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE HER, BUT WHICH SHE ACCEPTED, FROM THE EQUALLY, CORRUPT, SUPERVISOR, CHRISTINE DAVIES OLIVERIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, WHO INSISTED, THAT THE SAME JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, MUST HEAR THE SAME URGENT MOTION, SINCE SHE WAS THE JUDGE, WHO HAD HEARD THE FIRST URGENT MOTION. SO THIS SUPERVISOR, BROUGHT THE SECOND, URGENT MOTION, BACK TO THE SAME JUDGE, AFTER SHE HAD RULED, NEGATIVELY, ON THE FIRST URGENT MOTION. BOTH MOTIONS, WAS ASKING FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, ALONG WITH HER ADMINISTRATION, OF THE COMMON LAW. THE WICKED JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, KNEW THAT I WOULD BECOME HOMELESS AND ALSO SUFFER HARM, IF SHE DID NOT MAKE AN ORDER, TO STOP THE RESPONDENT, FROM GOING AGAINST, THE EXISTING ORDER, OR ENDORSEMENT, FROM ANOTHER JUDGE, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, AFTER BEING SERVED, WITH MY EX PARTE MOTION, THAT I HAD FILED IN THE COURT AND ALSO SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT, AND ALSO THE MOTION, THAT I HAD FILED, WITH THE SCJ, IN THE BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE, TO TRANSFER THE FILE, TO THAT COURTHOUSE, WHICH WAS ALSO, THE PROPER JURISDICTION, TO HEAR THE CASE. THE MOTION BEING FILED, ON APRIL 15TH AND TO BE HEARD, BY THE COURT, ON APRIL 23RD, AFTER SERVICE WAS ALSO MADE, ON THE RESPONDENT,SHIP.

WHEN THE RESPONDENT, SHIP'S LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, CONTACTED, ME ON APRIL 18, 2024, CLAIMING, THAT SHE HAD ONLY RECEIVED, THE MOTION AND FACTUM, (FROM HER CLIENT, SHIP) AND NOT THE MOTION RECORD, AND ALSO CLAIMED, THAT SHE HAD ALSO NOT RECEIVED, THE JUDGE'S ENDORSEMENT, FROM THE PREVIOUS JUDGE, FROM THER CLIENT, THIS WAS ALSO LEADING, UP TO SOMETHING, SINISTER, ON HER PART. (SHE IS HERE CLAIMING, THAT SHE DOES NOT KNOW, ABOUT THE ORDER, OR ENDORSEMENT, FROM THE PREVIOUS JUDGE, JUSTICE GRANT DOW AND BY DOING SO, SHE IS NOW FREE TO ACT, IN A CONSPIRACY, WITH HER CLIENT, TO EVICT ME). IT WAS THE COURT'S JOB, TO SEND OUT THE ENDORSEMENT, TO BOTH PARTIES. AND IF THE LAWYER WANTED THE ENDORSEMENT, SHE COULD HAVE ASKED THE COURT, FOR A COPY. THE ENDORSEMENT, CAME FROM THE COURT AND NOT ME. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN MY MOTION, THAT WAS ALSO SERVED ON HER CLIENT, ON APRIL 15TH, TO TRANSFER THE FILE, TO THE BRAMPTON COURT. WHICH WAS ALSO IN MY URGENT MOTION, THE WICKED JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, ALSO KNEW THAT EVERYBODY, WAS ON BOARD, AS FAR AS THE CASE. SHE SHOULD HAVE NOT ALLOWED, THE RESPONDENT SHIP AND THEIR LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, TO EVICT ME, WHILE THE MATTER WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT. AND AFTER I HAD DONE ALL THAT THE COURT, HAD ORDERED ME TO DO. THE PREVIOUS JUDGE, HAD NOT DISMISSED MY URGENT MOTION, BUT HAD PUT CERTAIN CONDITIONS, FOR IT TO BE HEARD, BY THE COURT. WHY DID THE CORRUPT JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, ALSO NOT ALLOWED THE COURT'S PROCESS, TO CONTINUE, UNINTERRUPTED, BY THE RESPONDENT AND TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS, WHILE THE MATTER WAS STILL BEFORE THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE?. I WILL TELL YOU WHY, BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT HAVE CARED LESS, IN HER CORRUPTION, AS A JUDGE, WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, WAS IMPLEMENTED, IN MY CASE. SHE WAS BIAS AND CORRUPT, BY EVEN DECIDING TWICE, ON THE SAME MATTER. RES JUIDICATA. SOMETHING THE PREVIOUS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, HAD ALSO TRIED TO AVOID, IN HIS ENDORSEMENT. THIS JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, TOOK UP WHOLEHEARTEDLY. HAS SHE NOT EVER READ MY BLOG?. I CANNOT WAIT, TO START PROCEDURES AGAINST HER, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

AS A LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED HER CLIENT, TO RESPECT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND TO LET THE COURT DO ITS JOB AND NOT TO ACT IN PLACE OF THE COURT. NOWHERE IN THE ENDORSEMENT, DID IT STATE, THAT THE CASE WAS FINAL. RATHER, IT STATED, THAT THE ORDER WAS MADE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND THAT SERVICE OF MY EX-PARTE MOTION, WAS TO BE MADE, ON THE RESPONDENT AND THAT FINALLY, THAT I SHOULD HAVE THE CASE, TRANSFERRED, TO THE BRAMPTON COURT, FROM TORONTO SCJ, SINCE THAT WAS WHERE BOTH PARTIES, WERE LOCATED. I FIRMLY BELIEVED, THAT ZOHAR LEVY, INSTRUCTED HER CLIENT, TO IGNORE THE COURT PROCESS AND TO EVICT ME, WHILE THE CASE WAS WAITING, TO BE HEARD, BY THE COURT. SINCE NOW, BOTH PARTIES' MOTIONS, WERE NOW TO BE HEARD AND DECIDED BY THE COURT. LAWYER ZOHAR LEVY AND HER CLIENT, TRIED TO CIRCUMVENT THIS PROCESS, AND THE WICKED JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, KNEW THAT THIS WAS THE CASE, AND ALSO ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN. THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY, ALSO DID NOT BOTHER TO FILE, HER RESPONDING MOTION, AFTER BEING SERVED, WITH MY EX-PARTE MOTION, AFTER THE JUDGE, GRANT DOW, HAD MADE IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, THAT I SERVED THE RESPONDENT, WITH MY EX-PARTE MOTION.

I WILL BE BACK IN COURT, NEXT WEEK, TO TAKE FURTHER, LEGAL ACTIONS, AGAINST THE LAWYER, ZOHAR LEVY AND THE DIRECTOR OF SHIP, LESLEY LAGODA, WHOSE ACTIONS, BY INSTRUCTING ME, TO FORCIBLY, BREAK AN ORDER OF THE COURT, THE ORDER BEING, THE ENDORSEMENT, OF THE JUDGE, GRANT DOW, WHICH DID NOT TELL ME TO LEAVE, BUT WHICH THEY DID, BY THIS EVICTION, IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. IT IS CALLED, COUNCELLING TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE. CONSPIRACY, CORRUPTION AND BREACH OF TRUST, CHARGES, AGAINST THEM, ARE ALSO PENDING.

AS FAR AS MY CIVIL MATTER, I WILL BE FILING ANOTHER URGENT MOTION IN THE SCJ, TO RECTIFY, WHAT THE WICKED AND EVIL JUDGE, RIA TZIMAS, HAD DONE, TO UNDERMINE MY POSITION, REGARDING THIS CIVIL LITIGATION. I WANT THE COURT,

SHOCKING!! JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SANDRA LOPES DAMOTA. LOOK WHAT SHE HAS ...

WHEN A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, LIKE SANDRA L. DAMOTA, SAYS THAT SHE IS BUSY, WITH THE JP'S OFFICE, FULL OF EMPTY CHAIRS, THIS SHOULD ALSO BE, REGARDED, AS BRINGING, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, TO DISREPUTE.

ONTARIO, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SANDRA LOPES, VIERA DAMOTA, A FORMER SOCIAL WORKER, NOW TURNED JUSTICE IF THE PEACE AND HER ACTIONS, IN THE OFFICE, OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, AT THE BRAMPTION COURTHOUSE, IN PEEL REGION.  THIS CORRUPT JP, CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS BUSY, DESPITE ALL OF THE EMPTY CHAIRS, IN THE OFFICE. 

EMPTY CHAIRS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, IN THE BRAMPTON COURT LOCATION, PROVED, THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SANDRA L. DAMOTA, WAS NOT REALLY BUSY.  THE ROOM WAS EMPTY OF PEOPLE, EXCEPT FOR ONE PERSON, ME. 

I HAD TO REPORT THIS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND TO ALSO PROVED, THAT I AM ALSO, TREATED DIFFERENTLY, IN THE CANADIAN COURT.  IT WAS MY PRIVATE INFORMATION, THAT THE JP, SANDRA DAMOTA, DID NOT WANT TO BOTHER, ACCEPTING, AFTER HAVING ME WAITING, FOR ABOUT HALF AN HOUR, AFTER THE INFORMATION, WAS ALSO GIVEN TO HER. AND ME ALSO BELIEVING, THAT SHE WAS GOING TO NOW CALL ME, INTO THE PRIVATE OFFICE AND TO FIND OUT MORE, ABOUT THE INFORMATION.  INSTEAD, SHE TOLD THE CLERK, TO TELL ME, THAT SHE WAS BUSY AND THE CLERK THEN ADVISED ME, TO COME BACK ANOTHER DAY, TO LAY THE PRIVATE INFORMATION.  

AND AS YOU CAN ALSO SEE FROM THE EMPTY CHAIRS IN THE JP'S OFFICE, SHE WAS NOT BUSY, AT ALL.  SHE JUST DID NOT WANT TO BOTHER SERVING ME, AND ENDED UP, DENYING ME THE SERVICE, TO WHICH I WAS ALSO ENTITLED.

 

Today, I was at the Justice of the Peace office, in Brampton, Ontario. I wanted to lay some private information (charges) and after sitting in the general area for about 30 minutes or more and waited to be called in to see the JP, Sandra Lopes Damota, after the clerk had taken my information to her, earlier, she told the clerk in the office, of the Justice of the Peace Office, in the Brampton court, that she was not going to see me, because she was too busy. What!. No other person was in the office of the Justice of the Peace, except myself. The clerk tried to explain, that even though, the Justice of the Peace Office, was empty of people, that they were still busy doing "electronic work", in the office. I didn't buy it. So when she stepped away from the front counter, I decided to record the Justice of the Peace Office, to show that the place was empty of people. And to prove that the JP, Sandra Lopes Damota, was also acting corruptly. Not knowing, that her actions, would also be exposed, such as her bias against me. Why did she claim that she was busy and also obviously lied, since the place was empty?. It may have to do with the fact, that I was at the JP's office, the day before and the previous JP, Sean Michael McKenna, had my private information before him and would also not proceed with laying the information. This was because, when he had mentioned to me, in the private office of the Justice of the Peace, that he had to established, the prima facie evidence of the case, I had to stop him right there and told him, that he could not do that.That he was not the crown attorney, whose job it was to do that. He was not happy with my response and did not accept the information. But not before I also told him, that I was going to order the transcript, of the hearing before him, in the private office. For the purpose of my complaint, with the Judicial Council against him. I kid you not, he wanted to hear full evidence and to established, the prima facie evidence, of the charges, that I wanted to lay, as a private information. I was not having it. While the JP does require some information, relating to the charge, he is definitely not required, to prove any prima facie, evidence, before accepting the information. Just the minimal amount of information, that is required, to lay the private information. So fast forward to today, when I went back to see a different Justice of the Peace, in the Brampton court and I had this encounter, with the JP, Sandra Lopes Damota. She never came out of her office and relayed the information to the clerk, who was also smiling, as if it was all too funny. I asked the clerk why the JP would also say that she was busy, when the office was completely empty. The clerk said that they had, "electronic work", to do in the office and could not accommodate me, as the JP, had also told her. I had to record this in the interest of the public. While I was in the office of the Justice of the Peace, two other persons walked in and now I am wondering, if they had also accommodated her, after I had left the office of the justice of the peace. I am sure that they did.

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SEAN MICHAEL MCKENNA, AND HIS STATEMENT, THAT HE HAD TO "ESTABLISHED THE PRIMA FACIE" EVIDENCE, BEFORE ACCEPTING, THE PRIVATE INFORMATION.

 SHOCKING YES!. BUT THIS WAS ACTUALLY, THE STATEMENT, OF AN ONTARIO JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SEAN MICHAEL MCKENNA, WHO HAD MADE THIS, DISTURBING COMMENT, WHILE HE WAS ACTING, AS A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, IN THE LAYING OF A PRIVATE INFORMATION, AT THE BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE, IN BRAMPTON, ONTARIO. 

THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SEAN MCKENNA, WANTED TO CONDUCT, A FACT FINDING HEARING, AND SAID SO. HE SAID THAT HE HAD TO ESTABLISHED, THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, BEFORE ACCEPTING, THE PRIVATE INFORMATION. 

WHEN HE WAS INFORMED, THAT THIS WAS THE ROLE, OF A CROWN ATTORNEY AND NOT A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, WHO WAS SITTING IN THE OFFICE, OF A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, WHOSE ROLE WAS TO ACCEPT, THE PRIVATE INFORMATION, THIS DID NOT SIT TOO WELL, WITH THE SAID, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.

HE IS BEING EXPOSED HERE, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC, GENERALLY, DO NOT KNOW, WHAT IS BEING SAID, OR DONE, IN THE OFFICE OF, THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. THAT SOME OF THE JPS, WHO ARE COMPETENT AT THE LAW, (MAYBE), WILL ALSO TRY TO ABUSE THAT AUTHORITY AND THAT OTHER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, (SUCH AS SANDRA DAMOTA, ANOTHER JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, IN THE ONTARIO COURTS), MAY NOT BE SO MUCH SO. AT LEAST NOT BY JUDGING OF HER CONDUCT. BOTH OF THOSE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, WORKED AT THE BRAMPTON JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OFFICE, ALTHOUGH, JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, ARE ALSO KNOWN TO WORK AT DIFFERENT, COURT HOUSES, IN ONTARIO. IN ROTATING SHITS, SUCH AS ONE WEEK AT THIS COURTHOUSE AND THEN MOVED TO ANOTHER COURTHOSE. 

SERVICES AND HOUSING IN THE PROVINCE, OR SHIP, CEO LESLEY NAGADO AND CFO, THOMAS DICARLO, ARE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR DISOBEYING AN ORDER OF THE COURT AND FOR BREACH OF TRUST AND CORRUPTION.

SHIP CEO AND BOARD MEMBER, LESLEY NAGADO, IS FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR CORRUPTION, CONSPIRACY, BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST AND FOR DISOBEYING AN ORDER OF THE COURT.

ALSO FACING THE SAME CHARGES, IS SHIP'S CFO, THOMAS DICARLO, WHO AS THE CFO, HE AND LESLEY NEGADO, HAD DECIDED, TO USE THEIR POSITIONS, TO CARRY OUT REPRISAL ACTIONS, AGAINST THE RESIDENT AND TO DISOBEY THE COURT ORDER, IN THE EVICTION OF THE RESIDENT FROM THE SHELTER, AS AN ACT OF REPRISAL, DESPITE BEING SERVED WITH THE ORDER FROM THE COURT,  AND WHILE THE MATTER, WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT AND TO BE DECIDED, BY THE COURT.  

Lesley Nagado, CEO of SHIP

Services and Housing in the Province

and her personal corruption. She is facing criminal 

charges, for breach of public trust, conspiracy, disobeying an order

of the court and corruption. 

THE CEO AND BOARD MEMBER, FOR THE ORGANIZATION, SERVICES IN THE PROVINCEOR SHIP, LESLEY NAGODA AND THOMAS DICARLO, THE CFO, OF SHIP, ARE BOTH FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR CORRUPTION, BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST AND DISOBEYING, AN ORDER OF THE COURT.  

THIS IS IN RELATION, TO A COURT ORDER, THAT WAS MADE LAST WEEK, ON MARCH 28, 2024, DIRECTING SERVICES UPON SHIP, THE ORGANIZATION, THAT THEY ALSO OVERSEES. THE ORDER WAS BASED ON AN EX-PARTE MOTION, THAT WAS FILED BY THE RESIDENT, TO PREVENT THEM FROM EVICTING HER FROM THE SHELTER, IN AN ACT OF REPRISAL AND FOR TAKING LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST THEM, FOR CHARTER RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WHEN THEY AUTHORIZED, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH, OF THE RESIDENT'S PERSONAL PROPERTY, REGULARLY, AS PART OF THEIR PRACTICES, AT THE SHELTER.

Both Lesley Nagoda and Thomas Dicarlo, decided that in giving the staff of the shelter, the directives, to evict the resident, which they have set for April 4, 2024, they can therefore act above the court, which says in the order, for them to be served with the resident's motion document, since it was an ex-parte motion, before the court would hear the resident's motion, about the impending eviction. 

They will now both have the opportunity, to stand before the court and to answer for their actions, regarding the order.  As well for the other charges, that have been made against them.

Also to be put on official notification, about these two persons, Lesley Nagado and Thomas Dicarlo, are the funders for SHIP. And what they also plan to do, about their corrupt actions. If they would continue to fund SHIP, with both of them managing the organization, or to cut their funding, based on their actions and also how they run the organization.

SYSTEMATIC RACISM, IS PRACTICED, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS. I AM EXPOSING, AN ONTARIO JUDGE, GRANT DOW, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN TORONTO, WHO IS A CANADIAN JUDGE, THAT PRACTICES RACISM, GAINST BLACKS.

I AM DECLARING, THAT THIS TORONTO JUDGE, GRANT DOW, IS A RACIST AND PRACTICES, SYSTEMATIC RACISM, IN THE CANADIAN COURT, AGAINST BLACKS. 

I AM A BLACK WOMAN AND IT IS MY DUTY, TO EXPOSE, SYSTEMATIC RACISM, AGAINST BLACKS, THAT IS PRACTICED, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS, BY SOME , IF NOT BY MOST JUDGES.  JUDGES LIKE THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE JUDGE, GRANT DOW.  

IN ORDER TO ERADICATE, THIS FORM OF DISCRIMINATION, IT IS ALSO NECESSARY, TO EXPOSED, THE PERPETRATORS OF IT. HENCE, I AM EXPOSING, JUDGE GRANT DOW, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN TORONTO, WHO IS A RACIST.

TORONTO JUDGE, GRANT DOW,
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN TORONTO

I  AM CONVINCED, THAT HAD I BEEN A WHITE WOMAN, WHOSE CASE WAS ALSO BEFORE THIS JUDGE, HE WOULD HAVE ALSO, ACTED DIFFERENTLY.

AND IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, IF A JUDGE PRACTICES, SYSTEMATIC RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION, HE ALSO BRINGS, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, INTO DISREPUTE. THEY GO TOGETHER. 

AND WHEN THAT IS ALSO MINGLED, WITH HIS OWN PERSONAL BIAS, THAT OFTEN SHOWS UP, WITH HIS CORRUPT PRACTICES, THEN THIS IS OFTEN THE RESULT. AN ORDER THAT IS VAGUE AND HAD OTHER OBJECTIVES, SINCE HE DID NOT COME RIGHT OUT AND DISMISSED, THE URGENT MOTION, BUT TO SKIRT AROUND THE ISSUE, TO THE POINT OF TRIVIALIZING, THE URGENCY OF THE MOTION. HERE IS WHAT HE HAD SAID, IN THE ENDORSEMENT, THAT HE HAS MADE, REGARDING MY URGENT MOTION, FOR THE MANDATORY ORDER, OR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. 

[1] "THE MATTER WAS DIRECTED TO ME BY THE URGENT MOTIONS OFFICE.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT NOR ANY REASON GIVEN FOR PROCEEDING WITH OUT GIVING NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT (ASIDE FROM URGENCY)". 

 (Notice how he also downplayed the, urgency, of the situation, by his statement and also actions). This is also one of the key factors, in coming to terms, with a judge, like Grant Dow, who have acted bias, or has discriminated, against the person, in other so called "protected" areas of the law, such as racism and discrimination, based on other factors.

[2] "MS GUILLAUME SEEKS INTERIM INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PREVENT THE RESPONDENT FROM EVICTING HER FROM THEIR TEMPORARY SHELTER, [...] WHILE SHE SEARCHES FOR ALETERNATIVE SHELTER".

[3] "AS A RESULT, I DECLINE TO MAKE THE ORDER REQUESTED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO IT BEING RENEWED FOLLOWING SERVICE OF THIS APPLICATION".

[4] "I URGE MS GUILLAUME TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE.  FURTHER, MAY I SUGGEST SHE CONSIDER EITHER REISSUING HER CLAM AT THE BRAMPTON OFFICE OF THIS COURT LOCATED AT 7755 HURONTARIO STREET, MISSISSAUGA (OR REQUEST THAT IT BEE TRANSFERRED THERE) AS IT APPEARS BOTH PARTIES ARE LOCATED CLOSER TO THAT OFFICE AND WITHIN THAT JUDICIAL REGION". 

End of the Endorsement.

NOTICE HOW THIS RACIST JUDGE, SHOWED, HOW HE ALSO CARED, VERY LITTLE, IF THE MOVING PARTY (THIS BLACK WOMAN), ALSO SUFFERS ANY FURTHER HARM, IF SHE WAS EVICTED FROM THE SHELTER, AND HOW HE ALSO SKIRTED AROUND THE ISSUE, BY TELLING HER TO REQUEST, THAT THE CASE ALSO  BE TRANSFERRED, TO ANOTHER REGION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, DID NOT COME OUT AND SAY, THAT HE WAS DISMISSING, HER URGENT MOTION.  (RATHER, BY DIRECTING, THAT SHE SERVED, THE EX-PARTE MOTION, ON THE RESPONDENT). AND IN WHICH CASE, HE WOULD HAVE ALSO, HAD TO PROVIDE HIS REASONS, FOR DOING SO. REGARDLESS, HE IS MANDATED, TO PROVIDE REASONS, FOR HIS DECISION. WHICH HE ALSO DID NOT DO, IN THIS CASE. 

A JUDGE, IS MANDATED, TO ACT, ETHICALLY AND MORALLY AND TO CONSIDER, NOT ONLY THE LAW, WHEN DEALING WITH CASES, BUT ALSO TO CONSIDER, THE IMPACT OF THE DECISION, ON THE PERSON, BEFORE THE COURT.  THIS HAS TO DO WITH PROTECTING, THEIR SO CALLED, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,  SUCH AS THOSE "GUARANTEED RIGHTS", UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AS WELL AS IN REGARDS TO, PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS. WHICH MUST ALSO BE BASED, ON A JUDGE, WHO ACTS OBJECTIVELY, AND WHOSE OPINIONS AND ACTIONS, SHOULD ALSO BE FREE FROM HIS OWN, PERSONAL BIAS AND OTHER INJUSTICES.  THAT ALSO MEANS, THAT THE HEARING, HAS TO BE A FAIR ONE.  A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND HENCE A LACK OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IS AN ERROR OF LAW. WHICH IS ALSO GROUNDS, TO HAVE A JUDGE'S DECISION, SET ASIDE AND HIS ACTIONS, LOOKED INTO FURTHER, TO SEE IF IT GOES ANY DEEPER, THAN THAT.  (SUCH AS AN ACTION BY THE JUDGE, OR COURT, THAT WOULD ALSO SHOW, THE INJUSTICE OF, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, THAT WAS ALSO METED OUT BY THE JUDGE, IN THIS CASE).  TO PROTECT THE LITIGANT RIGHTS AND ALSO TO PROTECT, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, BY THE COURT.  WHICH THE CANADIAN COURTS, DO NOT PRACTICE, OR IMPLEMENTS, IN MY CASE.

THIS TORONTO JUDGE, GRANT DOW, ALSO GAVE NO REASONS, FOR HIS DECISION, OTHER THAN TO MAKE, THE ENDORSEMENT. JUDGES ARE ALSO MANDATED, TO GIVE REASONS, OTHERWISE, THE HEARING OF THE CASE, WOULD ALSO LACK PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.  IN MY MATTER, THE JUDGE MADE A ONE PAGE, ENDORSEMENT, THAT WAS ALSO DELIBERATELY, WORDED, TO BE AMIBIGIOUS AND EVEN MORE SO, WITHOUT HIS REASONS.  AT FIRST GLANCE, IT APPEARS TO BE CLEAR, BUT WHEN YOU REALIZED, THAT HE HAD REQUIRED, THAT SERVICE BE MADE, UPON THE RESPONDENT, BEFORE THE COURT WOULD, ALSO HEAR THE CASE, YOU REALIZED ALSO, THAT THE CASE WAS, NOT CONCLUDED. (AS THE RESPONDENT, IS ALSO, CURRENTLY, TREATING THE MATTER). IF IT WAS ENDED, THE MOVING PARTY, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TOLD, TO SERVE THE OTHER PARTY, WITH HER URGENT MOTION DOCUMENTS, WHERE THE COURT WOULD ALSO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES, AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE, MOTION DOCUMENTS, WERE ALSO FILED WITH THE COURT.  THAT IS WHAT USUSALLY HAPPENS, IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS.  THE MATTER IS SUPPOSE TO CONTINUE, AFTER THE RESPONDENT, IS SERVED, WITH THE MOVING PARTY'S MOTION, THAT WAS FILED AS AN EX-PARTE MOTION.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS A MATTER THAT WAS INTENDED, FOR THE COURT TO HEAR LATER ON, AFTER SERVICE WAS MADE AND TO DECIDE ON THE ISSUES, BASED ON THE MERITS.

AS TO THE JUDGE, GRANT DOW, INSTEAD OF HEARING, THE URGENT MOTION, THAT WAS SITTING ON HIS DESK, THAT HE HAD DELAYED, THE ENTIRE DAY AND EVEN BEYOND THAT DAY, TO THE NEXT DAY,  AND WORSE, TELLING THE LITIGANT, TO TRANSFER HER URGENT MOTION, TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION, WHICH WOULD ALSO DELAY IT FURTHER, SINCE HE HIMSELF, WOULD ALSO NOT HEAR, THE URGENT MOTION, AS AN EXPARTE MOTION, WAS HIS EXCUSE. HE COULD HAVE ALSO MADE,  A MORE "JUST" DECISION.  ONE THAT TOOK INTO FACTOR, THE HARM THAT  THE MOVING PARTY, WOULD ALSO SUFFER, IF HER MATTER WAS DELAYED, INDEFINITELY, AS HIS ENDORSEMENT, ALSO INDICATED, SINCE HE ALSO LEFT IT UP TO HER, IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, TO DECIDE ON HOW, SHE WAS GOING TO ACT UPON THE ORDER MADE.  NO WONDER HE ALSO INCLUDED IN HIS STATEMENTS, IN THE SAID ENDORSEMENT, "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", WHICH COULD ALSO HAVE A DOUBLE MEANING.  ON THE ONE HAND, IT COULD MEAN THAT HE WAS JUST PROTECTING, HIS STATEMENT AND HIMSELF.  AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THE "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", COULD ALSO MEAN, THAT THE LITIGATION, WAS CLEARLY NOT OVER.   AND THAT IT WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO "PRESERVED, THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES", UNTIL THE COURT HEARS THEIR MOTIONS, AT A LATER TIME. THIS PRECEDENT, WAS MADE BY ANOTHER JUDGE, JUSTIE PRICE, ON HIS VIEW, OF WHAT AN ORDER, (OR ENDORSEMENT, FROM A JUDGE), USING THE TERM, "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", IN HIS ORDER, MEANS LEGALLY.   IN THAT REGARD, IT WAS A "PROTECTIVE CLAUSE" INSERTED INTO THE ORDER, TO PROTECT BOTH PARTIES. IT WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO HAVE TEMPORARY POWERS, IN PROTECTING THE EACH PARTY'S POSITION, UNTIL THEIR MOTIONS, CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT, AFTER SERVICE WAS MADE.  AND ON THE OTHER HAND, IF USED OUTSIDE OF AN ORDER, IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT WHAT WAS SAID, SHOULD NOT BE USED, LATER ON IN THE COURT. AND THEREBY PROTECTING THE ISSUER OF THAT STATEMENT.  

I LEAVE IT UP TO THE LEGAL MINDS (WHO ALSO READ MY BLOG), TO DETERMINE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE, GRANT DOW, ALSO MEANT, BY INSERTING THE PHRASE, "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, PERTAINING TO MY CASE.

THE KIND OF ENDORSEMENT, THAT THE JUDGE HAD MADE, IS NOT THE USUAL PRACTICE OF THE COURT.  MOTIONS EITHER GETS DISMISSED, OR ABANDONED, IN THE COURT.  NOT LEFT IN LIMBO, LIKE THE ONE THAT THIS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, HAS MADE, HIS ENDORSEMENT ABOUT. ON THE ONE HAND, TO SERVE THE RESPONDENT AND ON THE OTHER HAND, TO REISSUE IT, OR TO HAVE IT TRANSFERRED, TO ANOTHER JUDICIAL REGION.

HE IS ALSO, IN MY OPINION, AND NOT UNLIKE, A LOT OF OTHER CANADIAN JUDGES, CORRUPT, IN HIS ACTIONS, CONCERNING, HOW HE CAN BEND THE LAW, OR MANIPULATE IT, TO SUIT HIS PURPOSE.  SO IF HE WANTS TO MAKE A DECISION, AGAINST SOMEONE, BASED ON HIS OWN PERSONAL BIAS, HE WILL DO JUST THAT.

 AND THAT IS ALSO WHAT HE HAS DONE, IN REGARDS TO MY CASE, THAT WAS BEFORE, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE.  HE REGARDED, MY URGENT MATTER, WITH LITTLE CONCERN AND ALSO CONTEMPT,  AS IF IT WAS ALSO A BOTHER TO HIM, PERSONALLY, IN EVEN RESPONDING TO IT.  

MOST JUDGES TRIES TO COVER UP THEIR PERSONAL BIASES, AND OFTEN SHROUDED IT, IN MUCH DETAILS, IN THEIR REASONS.  THIS JUDGE, DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO GIVE HIS REASONS, WHICH IS ALSO A LEGAL REQUIREMENT, UNDER THE LAW.  THE REASON WHY HE DID NOT GIVE ANY REASONS, I BELIEVED, IS THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT CAME OUT PLAINLY AND SAY IN HIS INDORSEMENT, THAT HE WAS DISMISSING, MY URGENT MOTION, IN WHICH CASE HE WAS ALSO MANDATED, TO GIVE HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO. HE SHROUDED HIS DECISION, IN CAREFULLY WORDED STATEMENTS, IN HIS INDORSEMENT, THAT HE ALSO MADE ON MARCH 27, 2024, WHERE I HAD SOUGHT AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUCTION, OR A MANDATORY ORDER, IN ORDER TO STOP, THE HARM FROM HAPPENING TO ME, WHICH WOULD ALSO FORCED ME TO BECOME HOMELESS, HAVING LOSS MY PRIVATE HOME AND THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, DID NOT THINK THAT SUCH A SITUATION, WOULD ALSO BE HARMFUL TO ME.  GETTING ANOTHER PRIVATE RESIDENCE, IS ALSO A TOP PRIORITY FOR ME, WHICH I AM ALSO WORKING TO OBTAIN, AT THIS TIME. BUT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE AND ITS COURT, COULD NOT HAVE CARED LESS, IF I HAD FROZEN TO DEATH, BEING PUT OUT ON THE STREET, BY THE SHELTER.  JUST BECAUSE I WAS SEEKING AN EXTENSION, TO STAY AT THE SHELTER, WHILE I LOOKED FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOME, OF MY OWN.  THE SHELTER IS ALSO MANDATED, NOT TO PUT PEOPLE OUT, ON THE STREET. BUT THIS ONE WANTED TO DO THE OPPOSITE AND PUTS THE BURDEN ON YOU, TO FIND YOUR OWN PLACE TO LIVE, OR ELSE BE PUT OUT, ON THE STREET. THIS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, DID NOT REGARD, THIS AS BEING HARMFUL TO ME, OR REQUIRING THE COURT, TO IMMEDIATELY, INTERVENED, IN THE SITUATION, THAT WOULD ALSO CLEARLY CAUSED ME HARM, IF CARRIED OUT, BY THE RESPONDENT.  

 I ALSO HAVE THE RESPONDENT'S AGENTS, THE STAFF AT THE SHELTER, TRYING TO GET ME TO GO AGAINST THE ORDER, OR ENDORSEMENT, THAT WAS MADE BY THE COURT, AS A MEANS OF CIRCUMVENTING, ANY HEARING, BY THE COURT, OF THE ISSUES, AS RELATED TO MY URGENT MOTION, THAT HAS ALSO BEEN SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT, AS THE COURT, HAS ALSO INDICATED, THAT I DO.  THIS ACTION IS ALSO CRIMINAL ON THEIR PART, SINCE TELLING SOMEONE TO BREACH A COURT ORDER, EVEN IF IT IS AN ENDORSEMENT, BY SELF EVICTING THEMSELVES, OR BY DOING OTHER THINGS AGAINST THE ORDER, WOULD ALSO BE A CRIMINAL ACT. THE OFFENCE BEING, COUNSELLING TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE, UNDER SECTION 22(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. THE OFFENCE BEING MADE, AGAINST THE ORDER, SINCE IT DID NOT TELL ME TO SELF EVICT MYSELF, FROM THE SHELTER, BUT TO SERVE THE RESPONDENT, WHERE IT WAS ALSO INTENDED BY THE SERVICE, FOR THE COURT TO HEAR BOTH SIDES, AT A LATER DATE. 

ONE THING THAT WAS MADE, ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, WHEN MY CASE WAS BEFORE HIM RECENTLY, WAS THAT HE ENFORCES, IN THE COURTROOM, THAT THE LIVES OF BLACKS, DO NOT MATTER TO HIM, AS A JUDGE, PRESIDING OVER CASES, THAT ALSO REQUIRES, THAT HE NOT ONLY RESPECT PEOPLE'S, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BUT TO ALSO RESPECT, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND NOT TO BRING, ILL REPUTE TO IT.  SINCE I BELIEVED, THAT HIS ACTIONS, WAS ALSO DIRECTED, IN TARGETING ME, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AS WELL.

 EVERY JUDGE, IS LEGALLY OBLIGATED, TO MAKE A DECISION, THAT IS JUST, OR AT LEAST ONE, THAT APPEARS TO BE JUST.  IGNORING, AN IMPENDING HARM, THAT THE PARTY, COULD HAVE ALSO SUFFERED, SHOWS A CORRUPT JUDGE.  I HAD TO MAKE DO, WITH THE ORDER, THAT HE HAD ALSO MADE, HAVING A GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, OF THE LAW, MYSELF.  HE WANTED ME, TO NAVIGATE MY WAY, AROUND HIS DECISION AND TO GLEAN SOME KIND OF BENEFIT, FROM IT.  HE DID NOT CAME STRAIGHT OUT AND GRANTED ME THE ORDER, THAT I HAD ALSO SOUGHT, BUT FOUND WAYS TO AVOID DOING SO, BY TELLING ME, THAT THE ORDER WAS BENG MADE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ALSO THAT THE OTHER PARTY, MUST BE FIRST SERVED, ON MY EX-PARTE MOTON. AND THEN TO ALSO HAVE IT TRANSFERRED, TO ANOTHER JUDICIAL REGION, TO BE DEALT WITH BY THE COURT, IN THAT REGION.

ONE OF THE DILEMA, THAT I AM ALSO FACING WITH HIS ENDORSEMENT, IS IF ANOTHER JUDGE HEARING THE MATTER, WOULD ALSO REGARD THE SITUATION AS A RES JUDICATA, SITUATION.  IT WOULD SEEM THAT THIS JUDGE,  ALSO LEFT THE SITUATION UNCLEAR, BY STATING THAT SERVICE SHOULD ALSO BE MADE UPON THE RESPONDENTS, WITH THE EX-PARTE MOTION.  THAT WOULD ALSO SUGGEST, THAT THE MOTION WOULD AND SHOULD ALSO CONTINUE, FOLLOWING SERVICE BEING MADE UPON THE RESPONDENT, AND NOT A MATTER THAT IS ALSO FINISHED IN THE COURT.  

A MOTION THAT IS USUALLY FINISHED IN THE COURT, WOULD ALSO INDICATE THIS FINALITY, WITH THE REASONS OF THE JUDGE, ALSO GIVEN IN THE ORDER, OR ENDORSEMENT.  AND ALSO WITH THE DISMISSAL, OF THE MOTION.  WHY WOULD I REISSUE A MOTION, IF I WAS ALSO DIRECTED, BY THE JUDGE, OR COURT, TO SERVE THE SAID MOTION, ON THE RESPONDENT?. AND WHAT ABOUT THE COURT FILE NUMBER, THAT WAS ALSO ATTACHED TO THE URGENT MOTION AND ALSO THE CLAIM FOR TORT, THAT ALSO GOES WITH THE MOTION?. AM I TO START ALL OF THIS OVER AGAIN, IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION, WHEN I HAD ALREADY STARTED THIS PROCESS BEFORE?. I WAS ALSO TOLD, THAT I NEEDED TO FILE A MOTION, TO HAVE THE PREVIOUS URGENT MOTION, TRANSFERRED TO THE DIFFERENT REGION, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE, IN THAT REGION, WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE LOCATED. DO YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, HAS ALSO, COMPLICATED THE MATTER, REGARDING MY MATTER, BEFORE THE COURT, AS A SELF REPRESENTED, LITIGANT.  TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS, UNNECESSARY ACTIONS, JUST TO GET AN URGENT MOTION, TO BE HEARD BY THE COURT.