THE ICC AND THE VICTIM'S RIGHT, TO PROTECTION.

IT IS TIME TO REMIND THE ICC, OF MY RIGHTS AS A VICTIM BEFORE THE COURT. INCLUDING, THE PROTECTION FROM THE COURT,  THAT IS ALSO A PART OF THOSE RIGHTS.


ARTICLE 68(1), SPECIFICALLY, SETS OUT THE PROTECTION OF THE VICTIM, WHOSE CASE IS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. SO WHY HAVE I NOT BE ALLOWED, THE SAME PROTECTION BY THE COURT?. THAT HAS TO CHANGE.
IT IS  TIME TO REMIND THE ICC, OF MY RIGHTS AS A VICTIM, BEFORE THE COURT. AND THAT I WILL NOT STAND, FOR ANY FURTHER INFRINGMENT, OF THOSE RIGHTS.








It has been months, since I heard from the International Criminal Court, regarding my case before that court, in prosecuting some Canadian government officials, who has carried out human rights abuse against me. And while it is dallying and taking its time on the matter, I am in still in need of the protection of the court. In fact, I am in urgent need to have the protection from the court, that are offered to me as a victim, under the Rome Statute. Since the Canadian authorities are still carrying out gross human rights abuse against me.  And whose idea it was that I as a victim, I was also not entitled to all of the protection of the court?. There are those who would also like to see this matter go away quietly. And they are also working to undermine my efforts, in getting the justice I so deserved, against those criminals. But the court need to know, that I will not stand for any bull shit, either. So it better get around to assisting me, as it should. The court should be reminded, that at various stage of the proceedings, the victim also has the right to legal representation and also the protection of the court, to prevent further harm being done to the victim. And in my case, no one seem to care if I have been subjected to more injury, since filing my case with the ICC. Well, let me remind them and the court, that I have suffered and is still suffering from the harm being done to me, by those mentioned. And that their actions has also not stopped, in inflicting this cruel and unusual punishment against me, to bring about my demise. That is their goal. But it is also not the duty of this court, to allow this to happen. So, again, I am reminding the ICC of its duty towards me, as the victim. And that I will also not tolerate, any more procrastination on its part, in prosecuting those Canadian criminals.




THE HORROR OF BEING PERSECUTED AND THE WAYS IN WHICH THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, HAS GONE ABOUT CARRYING OUT CERTAIN KIND OF INHUMANE PUNISHMENTS AGAINST ME, CANNOT EVEN BE LIGHTLY TOUCHED UPON HERE.


I pose this question to the public. Should the Canadian government, local or otherwise, deliberately force someone from their home (and in my case it was intended to punish me) and to only provide them with accommodation for only two weeks. And then left the person, whose life has been turned upside down, because of those actions taken, by the Office of the Emergency Management, to live a life that she or he, would not have lived, had those actions not been taken against them, in regards to the forced displacement. The government cannot be putting people out on the street, claiming an immediate danger to their health and well being, (from a fire) without providing them with a place to live. The responsibility should lie soley with the Office of Emergency Management, to see that those persons whom they have displaced, that they are also housed permanently. Since it was their actions that had caused them to be homeless, in the first place. And to make it worst, in my case, the move was sudden and not imminent, by those Canadian government officials from the fire department, to cite my home as an immediate danger to my safety, which they also care nothing about. Their intentions was to cause me harm. And they also achieved that goal. Not only that, but their actions since, has also caused me harm. Not the least of which the fire captain, who also conspired with other persons to rigged the fire alarm, and to caused it to go off when I would approached a locker that I had rented. They also conspired to blocked me from getting permanent housing.
Most people would have collapsed under the strain of it all. Still, I have kept going. Being resilient against their attacks. And again, this is where the ICC court should have stepped in to protect my rights, while this matter is pending before the International Criminal Court. But it has not done so. because, for the  most part, I have also sat down and allowed this to happen. Well, no more.
I am now demanding the protection of the court, until my matter has been dealt with by the ICC.
I want the full protection offered to me under the Rome Statute. And I also intend to get it.

BLOGGERS, NEED AS MUCH PROTECTION, AS OTHER JOURNALISTS, AND AGAINST ATTACKS FOR REPORTING, ON A COUNTRY'S ACTIONS.

ARTICLE 19, OF UNESCO, WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT BLOGGERS, PARTICULARLY, AGAINST THE STATE’S ENCROACHMENT, ON THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

In 2003, from September 29 to October 27, at its 32 session, the United Nations, through one of its governing bodies, UNESCO, implemented Article 19, to protect Bloggers, from unwarranted persecution and other limitations, to their expression in the electronic media. Usually, through social media.

Article 19, was then formally launched in June of 2011, after its third session.

On September 26, 2017, new guidelines were put in place, which is supposed to guarantee, the protection of journalists and among them, Bloggers, who are also reporting, on the ongoing (actions), of governments around the world. The new guidelines set out the commitment that States have, to prevent and protect against, and prosecute attacks in UN Human Rights Council resolution, under resolution 11/2. It says nothing about if those actions, such as persecution, is also directed by the State, against a journalist, or blogger.  And as is often the case in a country that does not respect freedom of speech, because of its own mandate to hide its actions. The guidelines also sets out how UN human rights mechanisms, should be used, to ensure the safety of all of those who reports on what is happening, in those countries.

For Bloggers in Canada, who report on human rights abuse in that country, like myself, that article is very important, in getting the other world governances, to take our complaints seriously, when it comes to the protection of our freedom of speech, in reporting on human rights abuse in Canada.

About Article 19, of the Convention, and Its Objective: The Exchange, Analysis and Dissemination, of Information.  (A short synopsis, or in a nutshell). It is intended to “facilitate, through the use of existing mechanism within the Secretariat, the collection, analysis and dissemination of all relevant information, statistics and best practices”.  And further to that, “ to ensure the relevance, and to the extent possible, the comparability of information, statistics and best practices, to be collected, analyzed and disseminated..”

And one of its main focus is on cultural expression. And that’s a term that can be used broadly, here. It should be taken as, reflecting, on a particular society, or State, within the confines of the UNESCO Convention, as far as the implementation of Article 19.  Meaning, that Article 19, is hereby calling for the freedom of expression of “anyone” within that culture, to be free to collect, analyzed and disseminate, information about that society, or culture. And also within a State.  Article 19, as far as its interpretation  is also intricately linked, to Article 9, on information sharing and transparency. And that is where the protection of Bloggers, come into force, under Article 19.  

Under the section, “Contribution of Civil Society”, under Article 19, it gets more specific, in regards to who is protected. And the answer is almost anyone, really. But here is what it says, specifically, under section 10, of Article 19. “ Civil society actors should be involved as information and data producers as well as distributers”.  Although I do not like the word ‘actors’ in the wording of that provision, it would mean that Bloggers too, should be able to get involved in the information gathering and data producing, as well as in the distributing of that information, about the society that they live in. Whether the State likes it or not.

And websites such as Blogger.com, which is a popular site for bloggers who have expressed their opinions, and also without having to worry about if their contents will be censored, or actually removed, i.e. shut down by the host site. So far, Blogger.com, is pretty lenient and somewhat liberal about its views, in allowing for freedom of expression, via blogging, on its website. And unless you are breaking the law, it will not shut you down. In some countries though, it does not matter which site is used, and the mere attempt by anyone, and usually bloggers, to exposed it actions, mean that it will take measures to persecute you. And the means of carrying that out, can either be overt, or covert. Or both. 
The whole purpose of any article that is written, by either a blogger, or a regular journalist, is to educate the public. At least that is what it should be about. But we know, also, that some countries also regulate, very stringently, what is written, or said, about its actions. The regular media also cooperate with the country's position, on such important issues, as the dissemination of information, which also reflected the "official" position of the government, it is reporting on. A blogger has no allegiance to any government, but only to the public. So bloggers will report on the actions of some governments, that they would rather that information, did not get out to the public. When a blogger does that, she will be persecuted and for most bloggers, they also do not have any protection from the kind of persecution, that a particular country, or government, is also willing to carry out against them, for exposing their actions.


In my opinion, it remains to be seen how much teeth, Article 19 actually has, as far as the protection of bloggers, in particular. Why?. Because it should also be challenged by Bloggers, everywhere. And I  intend to follow up on the provisions, that are also supposed to be made available to bloggers and to all journalists, as far as the safety measures that are offered to them, under the UNESCO Convention, and Article 19. Including, contacting the UN, if any of those measures are also not being implemented, which are to protect my rights as a blogger. According to Article 19, civil society actors (meaning anyone), should be involved in the information process, as data producers and distributers. Article 19, also ties in with Article 9, on information sharing and transparency. And that is one of the most accurate description of a blogger, that exist.  

THE CASE OF THE MISSING DOCUMENTS, FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT FILE, IN TORONTO.

A PUBLIC REQUEST, TO THE REGISTRAR, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT,  LOCATED AT 130 QUEEN STREET WEST, IN TORONTO, TO FIND OUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO MY MISSING COURT FILE DOCUMENT?.

To:  The Registrar, of the Divisional Court, Tashekah Gentles.

Could you answer this pertinent question, as to why an important document, such as the Certificate of Perfection, which is necessary in order to proceed with my Appeal, in the Divisional Court, has now gone missing from the file?. Could it be tied in with the overall conspiracy, by Canadian courts, to hider and or to block all of my efforts in those courts?. On the day that my Appeal book and Compendium and Factum were filed with the Divisional Court, in regards to my appeal, from the Landlord and Tenant Board, you were also present at the counter and witnessed that the document in question was also filed. In my subsequent conversation with you, in regard to that matter, you said that it may have been an error, on the part of the staff.  Well, if that is the case and it was not done deliberately, then I am requesting that you fix the problem. 

We know that the Divisional Court, has already acted and in its typically usual bias manner against me, has also not allowed my appeal to be heard earlier. That is, to shorten the time of the Appeal, which can often be a very long process in the courts. According to the Judge of the Divisional Court, who is also the Administrative judge of that court, Judge I. Northheimer, and to whom you did take my matter to, (without me filing a formal motion to have the time shortened), he had also denied me the request to shorten the time of the Appeal and had responded that if I wanted that to be done, to file a motion and to make the request to the court. (In that case, it would have just gone before another judge like him, who more than likely, would not have granted that request anyways. Thanks to the conspiracy in the Canadian courts against me. And which also involved ALL judges, and justices of the peace and administrative staff, of the court.  Which brings me back to the issue, of why my Certificate of Perfection, was not filed on your electronic system? And why do the Divisional Court, has the Appeal showing up as not being perfected?. I even perfected my Appeal in less than a week, just so that the matter could be heard sooner, than the usual time. Which as I said before, usually take months to be heard. Now after waiting for the 60 days for the respondent to file his response, (which he has not done), I am now being told by the court, that "My appeal is not perfected as yet". Which you know to be an error, on the part of the court. So again, I ask you, as the Registrar of the court, to fix this problem, as I am sure that it was one of the administrative staff, who has made this "error". In fact, I believe that it was also done deliberately. Now you have my opinion on the matter.
I do not have to tell you here, that, removing documents from files, hat would either cause unnecessary delays and for other more insidious reasons, would indicate an attempt by such a Divisional Court staff, to interfere with the normal procedures of the court and with the appellant's
right to have her matter by the court without such hindrances. And also without a court staff trying to impede justice in this case. I hope that it was an oversight and that the matter can now proceed properly, as it should have been. I have had many dealings with this court and do know that my matters has NEVER been treated fairly by this court. Let's hope that an administrative staff, attempting to obstruct justice in this case, is also now not an issue that I would have to deal with at this time. In the past I have seen such attempts made by Rina and others in that office, to hinder my matters from proceeding as they should, in the Divisional Court. And I have also made complaints about her actions to the previous Registrar. As for my dealings with the scheduling clerk, Sobey Boweja, I also hold the same sentiment, in this case.

As the Registrar, I am also publicly asking you, how my document could go missing and  not be filed as it should have been, in this case?. (Especially since you also witnessed it being filed) and what has really happened in this case?.  I also expect you and the Divisional court, to due its due diligence and not to delay my matter any further, as you are aware that it is also of an urgent nature, still,  in regards to my appeal and I would like to prevent any further delays, to having my appeal heard as soon as possible. As this office already know, that this is a matter that the Landlord and Tenant Board also did not address and this was the primary nature of this appeal, concerning that error of law, when the Board dismissed the matter without holding a hearing, by the Member, Louise Horton.

Also, since I spoke with you last, maybe you can also explain to me, publicly, why the actual file, was not in the administrative office of the court, but in some records department?. And as I also posed this question to you directly?. That since the Appeal has not been heard by the court as yet, shouldn't the file be made available, so that if either party comes to the court to file any thing, it is also available to them?. Who at the Divisional Court, as far as the administrative staff are concerned, are also trying to undermine my matter before that court?.

As this may not have been an error on your part, but on the part of your staff, I will now expect you to investigate this matter further, as I have also requested on your voice mail, after one of the clerks in the Divisional Court, Rina, also refused to either look into the matter, as she had said that she would do, or even to get back to me about it. What she did was to hang the telephone up when I asked her to transfer my call to you, in order for you to investigate, both her actions, as well as those of the other clerks in the Divisional Court, whose job it was to file those documents and to update that information on your electronic system. So that this information is available to everyone, involved in the proceeding. According to my conversation with you, you said that you would.

 I have asked you to look into the request of the missing document, my Certificate of Perfection that was filed, along with my Appeal Book and Compendium and Factum, as you well know and have also witness and which has now gone missing from my file. As reported to me, by one of your delinquent and may I also add disgustingly rude staff, Rina, today, as I wanted to know about the dates, that would also be provided by the court, to have my appeal heard and in  in regards to my landlord and tenant matter.
It was not enough that the Administrative Judge, I Northeimer, has denied my request to have the matter heard sooner, but now I'm told that my Certificate of Perfection which I also filed, has now gone missing. At the very least, it was not filed on your electronic system, with the court and that also makes all of the difference, because that is where both of the parties, as well as the court, keep up to date, with the processes, involving the Appeal.

As an afterthought:

To those members of the public who are not aware of the details of this matter, here is a synopsis of the events leading up to the appeal, in the Divisional Court. I, as a tenant was forced out of my home by Canadian government officials, meaning those in the fire services. I was not evicted by the Landlord and Tenant Board, nor did my landlord ever applied for an order evicting me as a tenant. Yet, as part of the conspiracy involved, the landlord and Tenant Board, decided not to hear the matter and to dismiss it at the preliminary stage. And thereby committing a whole bunch of errors and wrongs against me, as a tenant. Including, some of the most important ones, which was to leave me homeless and without any kind of compensation, to which I am also entitled as a tenant, under the Residential Tenancies Act. Which is precisely why the Member, Louise Horton, dismissed the matter and without holding a hearing. Most people has never heard of such a thing, as that which was done to me, by the Canadian authorities and the Landlord and Tenant Board. It is beyond the presumption of bias against me, by the Landlord and Tenant Board Member. It is also about the denial of natural justice, in my case, and how the entire matter, was designed to bring about that result. Now I am also seeing the extension of that with the Divisional Court and it is also not the first time. Such actions won't be tolerated by me. And should not be tolerated by anyone.

A FORMER ADVOCATE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM, IS NOW ACCUSED OF GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE, AUNG SAN SUU KYI, OF MYANMAR, FORMERLY BURMA, HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF HUMAN RIGHTS ATTROCITIES, AGAINST THE MUSLIM MINORITY, IN MYANMAR.


AUNG SAN SUU LYI, HAS TURNED HERSELF INTO A DICTATOR, THOUGH NOT OFFICIALLY, THE LEADER OF THE COUNTRY. SHE HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF ETHNIC CLEANSING, OF THE ROHINGYA MUSLIM MINORITY, IN MYANMAR.

Aung San Suu Kyi, was a 1991 Nobel Peace Prize Winner.




THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE COMMITTEE, HAS PUBLICLY STATED, THAT HER AWARD WILL NOT BE REVOKED!.
"A peace prize has never been revoked and the committee does not issue condemnations or censure laureates", So says former Norwegian politician and Committee member. He continued. "The principle we follow is the decision is not a declaration of saint". "When the decision has been made and the award has been given, that ends the responsibility of the Committee".
We know the people who give out the award are also exceptionally MAD, because they have also given the award to George Bush Jr. and Barak Obama! George Bush Jr. as most people believed, should also be tried for war crimes. Along with George Bush Sr. Aung San Suu Kyi, has publicly stated that the sufferings of the Rohingya Muslim minority, in her country, is not an "ethnic cleansing". No one expected her to keep silent on the matter, has she has done so far, rarely commenting on the issue. But more and more accusations has been thrown at her, over the crisis. They say that silence is agreement and Aung San Suu Kyi, has chosen to not speak out on issue.  That certainly says a lot.

THE OAS, HAS NOT LIVED UP TO ITS OWN STANDARDS, WHEN IT COMES TO CORRUPTION.

THE OAS IS RIFE WITH CORRUPTION. TAKEN FROM A FIRST HAND ACCOUNT, BUT THERE ARE ALSO PLENTY OF OTHER REPORTS, TO BACK UP WHAT I AM SAYING. THE OAS IS JUST ANOTHER US GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED ORGANIZATION, ACTING AS AFRONT AGENCY FOR THE US GOVERNMENT. WHOSE MAIN GOAL IS TO TAKE THE FOCUS OFF OF THE US (AND CANADA) AND TO GO AFTER THOSE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES, THAT THE US WANTS TO TAKE OVER.
I HAVE BEEN NAIVE FOR A LONG TIME, OVER WHY THE OAS AND THE IACHR, REFUSES TO GO AFTER CANADA, FOR ITS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE AGAINST ME. NOW I KNOW THE REAL REASON. AS FAR AS THE OAS AND ITS OWN CORRUPTION?. CANADA AND THE US GOVERNMENTS, WILL NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, FOR COMMITTING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, AGAINST ITS PEOPLE.
CAN IT GET ANY WORST?. IF THE OAS WILL NOT HELP HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS, BECAUSE OF ITS  OWN CORRUPTION, THEN IT SHOULD ALSO CEASED TO EXIST. IT HAS BECOME TOTALLY USELESS.

OAS, Secretary General, Luis Almagro. He is just another puppet, of the US government and Washington D.C. backed
organization, which was created to further the US agenda, in those Latin American and Caribbean countries.
Without the USA's involvement, also, becoming too obvious, to the public. Countries like Venezuela, which is a target of the
US government and for several reasons, (including for it's oil) has faced major accusations from the OAS. It is a primary target of the OAS, over its alleged human rights abuse, and corrupt government. The real reason of course, is something entirely different.

THE BIG QUESTION IS, WHY THE OAS, WILL NOT GO AFTER, THE USA AND CANADA?

HOW DOES THE OAS PLAYED THE GAME?.  IT DOES WHAT THE US GOVERNMENT TELLS IT TO DO, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IF YOU HAVE EVER WONDERED, WHY THE USA AND CANADA, HAS NEVER COME UNDER FIRE, OVER THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, NOW YOU KNOW WHY.

THE OAS IS FULL OF CORRUPTION. AT LEAST TWO SECRETARY GENERALS AND A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE OAS, HAS RESIGNED OVER CORRUPTION CHARGES. AND THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, LUIS ALMAGRO, HAS ALSO THREATENED TO RESIGNED, SOME MONTHS AGO, AS A WAY OF CONTROLLING THE VENEZUELAN ELECTION. IT WAS A TACTIC THAT WAS IMPOSED ON HIM BY HIS BOSS, IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND THE US CAPTIAL.  ALMAGRO HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO FOLLOW HIS ORDERS. BUT IF HE THOUGHT THAT HE HAD SOME PEOPLE FOOLED, OR IF HE WAS TRYING TO ELECIT ANY SYMPATHY, OVER HIS SOCALLED INTEGRITY, IT ALSO DID NOT WORK.  THE VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT, CERTAINLY WAS NOT FOOLED. AND NEITHER WERE SOME OF THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE KNOW, LIKE CELAC. (OF NOTE HERE, IS THE FACT, THAT, CELAC MEMBER COUNTRIES, ALSO DO NOT INCLUDE BOTH THE USA AND CANADA). CELAC, OR THE COMMUNITY OF LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STATES, TOOK OVER FROM CALC, OR THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN SUMMIT ON INTEGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT. CALC, WAS FORMED BACKED IN 1986, AS AN OAS REPLACEMENT. IT DID NOT HELP THAT HUGO CHAVEZ, THE FORMER VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT, WHO DIED ON MARCH 5, 2013, WAS AT ONE TIME, A LEADER OF THE CELAC SUMMIT BACK IN 2011.

ROOSEVELT SKERITT, PRIME MINISTER OF DOMINICA, AND A MEMEBER OF CELAC, HAS DEMANDED THAT LUIS ALMAGRO, DO IN FACT RESIGNED FROM THE OAS. SKERITT'S POSITION IS THAT CELAC, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE COUNTRIES, WHICH MOSTLY DO NOT GO ALONG, WITH THE USA'S BACKED AGENDA, TO WHICH THE OAS HAS PROMOTED OVER THE YEARS. (AND CONSPICIOUSLY MISSING, FROM THOSE COUNTRIES, IS THE LITTLE ISLAND OF JAMAICA. A COUNTRY WHICH IS SOLIDLY BACKED BY THE US GOVERNMENT, AND IS ALSO A PUPPET OF THAT COUNTRY).


THE QUESTION SHOULD BE, WHY WOULD LUIS ALMAGRO RESIGNS, IF VENEZUELA HOLDS A FREE ELECTION?. ISN'T THAT WHAS THE OAS IS ALL ABOUT?. DEMOCRACY?. SO THE OAS DOES NOT WANT THE VENZUELAN GOVERNMENT, TO HOLD A FREE ELECTION, TO HELP TOPPLE THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, NICHOLAS MADURO, AND SO MUCH SO THAT IT'S LEADER, IS ALSO WILLING TO RESIGN OVER IT. THE FACT THAT LUIS ALMAGRO, HAS THREATENED TO RESIGN OVER VENEZUELA'S ELECTION, PROVES THAT THE OAS IS ALSO BACKED, BY WASHINTON'S POLITICAL AGENDA, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. THE OAS IS NOTHING BUT A PUPPT ON A STRING, TO KEP ANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES UNDER THE OAS'S JURISDICTION IN LINE.


THE OAS CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION, IS ONE SYSTEM THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THE OAS TO DEAL WITH GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION IN THE AMERICAS AND THE CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES.  BUT WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE OAS ITSELF WOULD ALSO BE DISCREDITED OVER ITS OWN CORRUPTION?

THE OAS AS THE REGIONAL BODY FOR NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA, AS WELL AS THE CARIBBEAN, HAS NOT LIVED UP TO ITS OWN STRINGENT STANDARDS WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH CORRUPTION. SO HOW CAN ANYONE THINK THAT THE OAS IS ALSO FIT, TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION, IN REGARDS TO THOSE COUNTRIES, THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER?.  I AM TALKING THE ONES THAT HAS COOPERATED (AND CANADA HAS NOT DONE SO, BUT IT WOULD ALSO BE A MISTAKE TO UNDERESTIMATE, IT’S INFLUENCE WITH THE OAS, ESPECIALLY IN REGARDS ITS OWN CORRUPTION).

THE OAS GOES AROUND POLICING THOSE COUNTRIES AND SOME OF THEM LIKE VENEZUELA, IT HAS ALSO DELIBERATELY TARGETED, IN REGARDS TO THEIR ALLEGED CORRUPTION. EVEN THE SMALL COUNTRY OF JAMAICA, DID NOT ESCAPE AN OAS REPORT ON CORRUPTION BACK IN 2014, DESPITE JAMAICA HAVING PROVIDED, SEVERAL CITIZENS WHO ARE ON THE OAS STAFF. AND JAMAICA IS A CORRUPT COUNTRY BY THE WAY. FOR A SMALL LITTLE ISLAND, IT IS BIG ON CORRUPTION. FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER ALL THE WAY DOWN, YOU WILL FIND THAT IT’S GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OFTEN ACTS WITH IMPUNITY, AND FACES NO REAL PENALTIES OVER THEIR ACTIONS. I MYSELF HAS DEALT WITH A FEW OF THEM, DIRECTLY AND KNOWS THIS TO BE TRUE. INCLUDING, SOME OF THE ONES HOLDING POSITIONS IN CANADA AND ON BEHALF OF THAT GOVERNMENT. THEY INCLUDE THE HIGH COMMISSIONER OF JAMAICA, JANET MILLER, THE CONSULATE GENERAL IN TORONTO AND ALICIA TAYLOR, A CONSUL IN THE CONSULATE GENERAL’S OFFICE AND SOME OTHER ONES. BUT THE FOCUS OF THIS ARTICLE IS THE OAS, NOT SOME LITTLE  COUNTRY LIKE JAMAICA, THAT FOLLOWS THE NORTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES, LIKE A LAP DOG.
AND WHICH, ALSO, UNLIKE VENEZUELA, HAS NO REAL NATURAL RESOURCES AND THEREFORE NO SOURCE OF WEALTH, OTHER THAN BAUXITE. WHICH OF COURSE, THE TWO COUNTRIES IN QUESTION, CANADA AND THE USA, HAS ALSO TAKEN OVER, EXCLUSIVELY, FOR A VERY LONG TIME. TO BOTH THE DETRIMENT, OF THE JAMAICAN PEOPLE, AND ESPECIALLY THOSE LIVING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, TO THOSE BAUXITE COMPANIES, WHO HAS BEEN DYING OFF WITH ALL KINDS OF CANCERS, FROM THE TOXINS LEAKED INTO THE WATER SUPPLY, FROM BOTH ALCAN AND ALCOA COMPANIES, IN RURAL JAMAICA. AND ALSO TO THE JAMAICAN ECONOMY. BUT OF MORE INTEREST TO ME AT THIS TIME AND TO ALSO MOST OTHER INTELLIGENT PERSONS, IS THE OAS AND DEALING WITH ITS OWN CORRUPTION, ESPECIALLY REGARDING THOSE COUNTRIES THAT COMMIT FLAGRANT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE. AS FAR AS COUNTRY OF VENEZUELA IS CONCERNED AND WHY IT HAS BECOME THE TARGET OF BOTH THE OAS AND THE US GOVERNMENT?. COULD IT BE BECAUSE VENEZUELA IS ONE OF THE RICHEST OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES ON EARTH?. YET ALSO DESCRIBED AS "ONE OF THE POOREST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD". COULD THE USA BE AFTER THAT COUNTRY'S OIL RESERVES?. IS THAT WHY ITS EVILS ARE SO, WELL, EVIL?. AND THE REAL REASONS BEHIND THE SANCTIONS AGAINST THAT COUNTRY?. WHY DOES THE OAS TARGETS ONE COUNTRY, LIKE VENEZUELA, OR EVEN CUBA, AND NOT SAY, CANADA?. WHY IS THE OAS COVERING UP THE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE OF BOTH CANADA AND THE US, DELIBERATELY. DOES THE PROVERBIAL SAYING, ONE DOES NOT BITE THE HAND THAT FEED YOU, MATTERS IN THIS CASE. OBVIOUSLY IT DOES. AS MUCH AS THE CARIBBEAN AND LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES, UNDER CELAC, HAS TRIED TO DISMANTLE THE OAS, THROUGH THEIR ORGANIZED EFFORTS, THE OAS WILL UNFORTUNATELY CONTINUE TO EXIST, AS LONG AS THE US AGENDA FOR THOSE REGIONS EXIST. THE OAS IS A FRONT ORGANIZATION, THAT WAS CREATED BY THE US AND THE POWERS THAT BE, TO FORWARD THE AGENDA OF THAT COUNTRY AND OTHERS LIKE IT. IT WILL ONLY CEASE TO EXIST WHEN THEY WANT IT TO BE SO. OTHERWISE IT WILL STILL CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE US AND CANADAS INTERESTS AND TO ALSO IGNORE THOSE COUNTRIES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.

THE BEST THAT THE PUBLIC CAN DO TO TOPPLE THAT ORGANIZATION, IS TO CUT OFF ITS FUNDING. LIKE THE IACHR AND MANY OF THOSE OTHER USELESS HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, THEY ARE ALSO ALWAYS ASKING FOR MONEY ON THEIR WEBSITES. DO NOT FUND THEM. ONE YOU NOW KNOW THAT THE OAS IS ALSO GUILTY OF THE SAME THINGS WHICH IT HAS SWORN TO PROTECT, LIKE HUMAN RIGHTS AND PEOPLE'S LIVES, BUT DO  NOT DO SO, WHY SHOULD YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT?. I HAVE PERSONALLY SUFFERED BECAUSE THE OAS AND THE IACHR DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTIONS AGAINST CANANDA, OVER ITS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE AGAINST ME. THERE ARE ALSO MANY OTHER VICTIMES LIKE ME, WHO HAS ALSO BEEN DENIED THE HELP THAT THEY NEEDED FROM THE OAS AND THE IACHR, DUE TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS OWN CORRUPTION.

FOR THE SAKE OF HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS, IN NORTH AMERICA, LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN, DO NOT SUPPORT THE OAS, FINANCIALLY. IT SERIOUSLY IS A TERROR ORGANIZATION, BEING COMPLICIT IN HELPING TO CAUSE INJURY TO VICTIMS, OF THEIR GOVERNMENT'S HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, BY TURNING A BLIND EYE AND NOT LIFTING A FINGER TO HELP THOSE VICTIMS. PETITIONS AFTER PETITIONS COMING FROM CANANDA, HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE OAS. THE OAS HAS BEEN PROVEN GUILTY IN CAUSING MORE HARM AND MORE DEATHS, IN REGARDS TO HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME, IF ITS ACTIONS ARE IGNORED. AGAIN I SAY, STOP THE FUNDING TO THE OAS, IN ORDER TO STOP ITS OWN CORRUPTION. IN THAT WAY, YOU WILL BE HELPING THE VICTIMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE.

THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES, NORTH COMMAND DIVISION, UNDER CAPTAIN ROB PAT...

PUBLIC STORAGE, ON ARROW ROAD IN TORONTO, USES FIRE ALARM, TO HARASS CUS...

NEVER RENT FROM PUBLIC STORAGE, TORONTO, CANADA. HERE IS WHY?.

CANADA, PUTS BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, THROUGH TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT.

SHOULD CANADA'S ACTIONS, BE IGNORED, FOR CARRYING OUT TORTURE AGAINST BLOGGER?.  AND FOR BLOCKING EVERY EFFORT OF THIS BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, TO GET LEGAL PROTECTION, UNDER ITS OWN LAWS, AS WELL AS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS?.


LOUISE HORTON: LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBER, ACCUSED TENANT (AND THIS BLOGGER), OF "ABUSING THE PROCESS", ON TUESDAY JULY 26TH, AFTER THE TENANT TRIED TO GET A HEARING, AT THE L&T BOARD, OVER AN ILLEGAL EVICTION, BY HER LANDLORD, WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, FROM THE L&T BOARD. HORTON, DISMISSED THE MATTER, WITHOUT HAVING A HEARING, LEAVING THE TENANT WITHOUT ANY PROTECTION, UNDER THE ACT.
(The tenant now has to file an application, with the Divisional Court, to have the matter addressed. The Div. Court, can either address the matter, directly, or send it back the L&T Board, to be addressed).





BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY EVICTED AND WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, BEING ISSUED BY THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. THE BLOGGER'S LANDLORD, YINGGUO AI, HAS NEVER APPLIED TO THE BOARD, FOR AN ORDER, TO EVICT THE TENANT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HAS ALSO NEVER ISSUED AN EVICTION ORDER, AGAINST THE TENANT.


YET, THE TENANT AND ALSO BLOGGER, HAS HAD TO FACE INCREDILE HARDSHIP, FROM BEING FORCED OUT OF HER HOME, AS PART OF CANADA'S MKULTA AND OTHER FORMS OF PYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE, TARGETED AGAINST THIS BLOGGER.

THE TENANT'S LEGAL RIGHTS, ARE BEING ABUSED.

THE ACTIONS, OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, IN THIS CASE, HAS DIVERTED SO MUCH, FROM NORAL PRACTICE, IN REGARDS TO FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEDURE, INVOLVING THE TENANT, THAT MORE THAN ONE SECTIONS OF THE LAW, HAS BEEN VIOLATED. THOSE RIGHTS OF THE TENANT, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, THOSE UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AND EVEN THOSE UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE (FOR CORRUPTION, BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS) SHOULD ALSO APPLY HERE, AND IN THIS CASE. (AND AGAINST THOSE ADJUDICATORS INVOLVED).




1. WHY HAS THIS TENANT, BEEN DENIED, A HEARING AT THE BOARD?. THE LATEST EFFORT ON JULY 26TH, WHEN SHE WAS TOLD THAT SHE WAS "ABUSING THE PROCESS", BY FILING AN APPLICATION, TO DEAL WITH THE ILLEGAL EVICTION. THAT WAS CARRIED OUT AGAINST HER, BY THE LANDLORD (WHO ALSO CHANGED THE LOCKS ON THE DOOR, ILLEGALY, ON APRIL 1ST, WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD), AND BY THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES.




2. THE CLEAREST EVIDENCE, OF GOVERNMENT ABUSE, AS ALL EFFORTS BY THE BLOGGER/TENANT, TO GET ANY LEGAL REMEDY FOR HER SITUATUION, HAS ALSO BEEN BLOCKED, BY THOSE CANADIAN AUTHORITIES. BOTH WITHIN CANADA AND ALSO OUTSIDE OF THAT COUNTRY.




3. THE ILLEGAL EVICTION, OF THE TENANT/BLOGGER, WAS THE LATEST EFFORT MADE, BY CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, TO DESTABILIZED THE BLOGGER. AND TO CAUSE DETRIMENTAL HARM, TO THE BLOGGER, BY INFLICTING PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING, UPON THE BLOGGER.




4. THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE, TO SUGGEST, THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD AND BY MEMBER, LOUISE HORTON, ON JULY 26TH TO DENY THE TENANT A HEARING, WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO BLOCK THE TENANT FROM GETTING ANY FINANCIAL COMPENSATION, REGARDING THE ILLEGAL EVICTION. 


5. ONLY THE LANDLORD AND BOARD (AS WELL AS THE COURT), HAS THE LEGAL JURISDICTION TO EVICT A TENANT, IN ONTARIO. NOT THE FIRE SERVICES, NOR ANY LANDLORD. LEGALLY, THE TENANT/BLOGGER , IS ALSO STILL ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTION, AS A TENANT, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT. INCLUDING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE HOUSED, BY THE LANDLORD, UNTIL SUCH A TIME, WHEN AN EVICTION ORDER, IS ISSUED AGAINST THE TENANT.




6. CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO SUCH ORDER, BY THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AGAINST THE TENANT. IN THE EYES OF THE BOARD, THE EVICTION ORDER IS NOT NECESSARY, SINCE IT HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED, THE ILLEGAL EVICTION OF THE TENANT, BY THE LANDLORD.  AND THAT CONTRARY TO THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, THE TENANT'S EFFORTS TO GET REHOUSED, BY THE LANDLORD, OR TO GET ANY COMPENSATION, FOR HIS ACTIONS AGAINST HER, HAS ALSO BEEN
DENIED BY THE BOARD. AND IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT, OF THE TENANT/BLOGGER.




7. THE TENANT ALSO, HAS NEVER RECOVERED, FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, ANY EXPENSES THAT SHE HAS PAID OUT, AS A RESULT OF THE LANDLORD AND/OR FIRE SERVICES ACTIONS, REGARDING THE ILLEGAL EVICTION.




8. BECAUSE THE TENANT'S RENTAL UNIT, WAS DEEMED TO BE UNSAFE, BY THE FIRE SERVICES AND ALSO WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR AND OR RENOVATIONS, TO BRING IT UP TO FIRE CODE STANDARDS, THE TENANT IS ALSO ENTITLED TO RECOVER COMPENSATIONS, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, SECTIONS 37(1), 48-57, INCLUDING 3 MONTHS RENT, UNDER EACH CATEGORY OF THE ACT, WHERE THE TENANT'S RENTAL UNIT WAS CONFISCATED BY THE LANDLORD, (REGARDLESS OF HIS REASONS ON HIS PART), BUT UNDER THE ACT, FOR RENOVATIONS AND OR REPAIRS.


Below are portion of the Residential Tenancies Act 2006, as well as the new law, The Rental Fairness Act, both of which has been ignored, in recognizing the rights of this particular tenant, Valerie Guillaume. And this should be viewed as part of the ongoing AND discriminatory practice against this individual, by the Canadian government, in its effort to destabilized this person.

Residential Tenancies Act
Part V

                         Security of Tenure and Termination of Tenancies


Security of Tenure
Termination only in accordance with the Act
37.(1) A tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with this Act. 2006, c.17, s. 37(1)

(In other words, where there was no order issued by the Board, the tenancy is still in effect).
Termination by notice

(2) If a notice of termination is given in accordance with this Act and the tenant vacates the rental unit in accordance with the notice, the tenancy is terminated on the termination date set out in the notice. 2006, c. 17, s. 37 (2).
Restriction on recovery of possession

39. A landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit subject to a tenancy unless,

(a) the tenant has vacated or abandoned the unit; or

(b) an order of the Board evicting the tenant has authorized the possession.

2006, c. 17, s. 39.

(In other words, where there was no order issued by the Board, the tenancy is still in effect). As in my case, currently. Yet this has also been ignored, by the Board.
Notice of Termination - General
Notice of termination

43. (1) Where this Act permits a landlord or tenant to give a notice of termination, the notice shall be in a form approved by the Board and shall,

(a) identify the rental unit for which the notice is given;

(b) state the date on which the tenancy is to terminate; and

(c) be signed by the person giving the notice, or the person’s agent.

2006, c. 17, s. 43 (1).
Same

(2) If the notice is given by a landlord, it shall also set out the reasons and details respecting the termination and inform the tenant that,

(a) if the tenant vacates the rental unit in accordance with the notice, the tenancy terminates on the date set out in clause (1) (b);

(b) if the tenant does not vacate the rental unit, the landlord may apply to the Board for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant; and

(c) if the landlord applies for an order, the tenant is entitled to dispute the application.

2006, c. 17, s. 43 (2).
Notice, demolition, conversion or repairs

50. (1) A landlord may give notice of termination of a tenancy if the landlord requires possession of the rental unit in order to,

(a) demolish it;

(b) convert it to use for a purpose other than residential premises; or

(c) do repairs or renovations to it that are so extensive that they require a building permit and vacant possession of the rental unit.

2006, c. 17, s. 50 (1). Same

(2) The date for termination specified in the notice shall be at least 120 days after the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term. 2006, c. 17, s. 50 (2).

Same

(3) A notice under clause (1) (c) shall inform the tenant that if he or she wishes to exercise the right of first refusal under section 53 to occupy the premises after the repairs or renovations, he or she must give the landlord notice of that fact in accordance with subsection 53 (2) before vacating the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 50 (3).
Compensation, demolition or conversion

52. A landlord shall compensate a tenant in an amount equal to three months rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) the tenant receives notice of termination of the tenancy for the purposes of demolition or conversion to non-residential use;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) in the case of a demolition, it was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of any other Act.

2006, c. 17, s. 52.

Tenant's right of first refusal, repair or renovation

53. (1) A tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy for the purpose of repairs or renovations may, in accordance with this section, have a right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed. 2006, c. 17, s. 53 (1).

Tenant's right of first refusal, repair or renovation


53. (1) A tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy for the purpose of repairs or renovations may, in accordance with this section, have a right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed. 2006, c. 17, s. 53 (1).


Tenant's right to compensation, repair or renovation

54. (1) A landlord shall compensate a tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy under section 50 for the purpose of repairs or renovations in an amount equal to three months rent or shall offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) the tenant does not give the landlord notice under subsection 53 (2) with respect to the rental unit;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) the repair or renovation was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of this or any other Act.

2006, c. 17, s. 54 (1).

 Same

(2) A landlord shall compensate a tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy under section 50 for the purpose of repairs or renovations in an amount equal to the rent for the lesser of three months and the period the unit is under repair or renovation if,

(a) the tenant gives the landlord notice under subsection 53 (2) with respect to the rental unit;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) the repair or renovation was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of this or any other Act.

2006, c. 17, s. 54 (2).

 Tenant's right to compensation, severance

55. A landlord of a residential complex that is created as a result of a severance shall compensate a tenant of a rental unit in that complex in an amount equal to three months rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) before the severance, the residential complex from which the new residential complex was created had at least five residential units;

(b) the new residential complex has fewer than five residential units; and

(c) the landlord gives the tenant a notice of termination under section 50 less than two years after the date of the severance.

2006, c. 17, s.55.

 Security of tenure, severance, subdivision

56. Where a rental unit becomes separately conveyable property due to a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act or a plan of subdivision under section 51 of that Act, a landlord may not give a notice under section 48 or 49 to a person who was a tenant of the rental unit at the time of the consent or approval. 2006, c. 17, s. 56.

Former tenant's application where notice given in bad faith:
(Note: You have a right as a former tenant, who has been illegally evicted, as I have been, to apply to the board for a hearing and to seek a redress, for this illegal action that was carried out against you. Only in my case, the L&T Board, has regarded it as an "abuse of process", as quoted by the Member, Louise Horton, to me on July 26th, at a hearing, in regards to the said matter. She, also, ceremoniously, dismissed the matter. So I was left without my rental accommodation, and also without any compensation, for the wrong done to me). In the view of the L&T Board, section 57 (see below) did not apply to me, as a tenant.

57. (1) The Board may make an order described in subsection (3) if, on application by a former tenant of a rental unit, the Board determines that,

(a) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 48 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 48 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit;

(b) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 49 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 49 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) or 49 (2) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit; or

(c) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 50 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and the landlord did not demolish, convert or repair or renovate the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit.

2006, c. 17, s. 57 (1).
Time limitation

(2) No application may be made under subsection (1) more than one year after the former tenant vacated the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 57 (2).
 Orders
(3) The orders referred to in subsection (1) are the following:

1. An order that the landlord pay a specified sum to the former tenant for,

i.
all or any portion of any increased rent that the former tenant has

incurred or will incur for a one-year period after vacating the rental unit, and

ii. reasonable out-of-pocket moving, storage and other like expenses that the former tenant has incurred or will incur.

2. An order for an abatement of rent.

3. An order that the landlord pay to the Board an administrative fine not exceeding the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

4. Any other order that the Board considers appropriate.

2006, c. 17, s. 57 (3).  (Note: the Landlord and Tenant Board, did not apply any of these sections, of the Residential Tenancies Act, in my case. What it has done is to dismiss my T2 application and also regarded it as "an abuse of process", on my part (to  reclaim my legal rights under the law). And by doing so has also accomplished two things. 1. To ensure that I never get back into my rental unit. (which was also the aim of the government officials, who started this whole process, against me, back in March 2017). 2. To ensure that I do not get the same treatment as other tenants, in the same situation, including, no financial compensation, to me. Either in recovering the financial loss, I have experienced, as a result of the illegal eviction, by the landlord and the T.O. Fire Services, or in receiving any damages awarded to me, as a result of the illegal actions taken against me, by those mentioned. Either way, it has achieved its goal, in destabilizing me by forcing me out of my home and also in causing me unnecessary hardship and suffering, through its corruption. And also the personal corruption, of those other Canadian government officials, who are also involved.


As A Follow Up, To The Matter, Mentioned Above:  On Friday, July 29th, I held a protest at the Landlord and Tenant Building, (which also housed the Family Court and other government offices). The public response was also encouraging, including, some members of the public, advising me to also get a petition signed, to removed the corrupt L&T Board Members, such as Louise Horton, Sylvia Watson and the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah, from their current positions, with the L&T Board. There will be further protests at the L&T Board, until I either get a hearing, or the Board members mentioned, are removed. There will also be a petition for the public to sign, to be sent to the Premiere of Ontario, and the Society of Adjudicators and Regulators, to get those persons removed, from their current positions. The unbelievable thing about it all, is that those same persons all have a legal background and knows about the law, when it comes to a fair process, involving a hearing. That they could act so corruptly, in my case, is beyond what any rational mind can comprehend, on the matter, beyond the fact that they should also face the worst penalty and consequences for their actions.

 

                           

LOUISE HORTON AND THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HAS DENIED ME A HEARING...

I was denied a hearing in order to block me from getting any compensation, by the Landlord and Tenant Board. The conspiracy by the Canadian government, to destroy me and to prevent me from being compensated for wrongs done to me. I want to hear from the UN about it and the IACHR. As well, as I want an update from the International Criminal Court, about the matter before that court, in regards to those Canadian government officials, that I have charged before that court.

CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT, RULED ON BESTIALITY: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, DID NOT REGARD MAN, WHO COMMITTED BESTIALITY, AS A CRIME.

CANADIAN JUDGES, SHOULD JOIN, THE WALK OF SHAME.

CANADIAN LAW HAS FAILED TO PROTECT ANIMALS,WHO HAVE SUFFERED BESTIALITY, FROM HUMANS. IN A RECENT SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULING, BACK IN 2016,  THE S.C.C.  HAS NARROWED THE SCOPE OF THE LAW,
CONCERNING ZOOPHILLIA AND BESTIALITY. IT REFUSED TO CHANGED THE OUTDATED LAW, TO INCLUDE OTHER ACTS, OTHER THAN FULL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH AN ANIMAL. ORAL SEX IS OKAY WITH AN ANIMAL, THE S.C.C. SAYS. ANIMALS ARE ALSO IN NEED OF PROTECTION TOO, AGAINST SEXUAL PREDATORS, UNDER THE LAW.




BLAME THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, JUSTICE THOMAS CROMWELL, FOR UPHELDING, THE CRUEL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, IN THIS CASE FOR BESTIALITY, AFTER NOT RECOGNIZING, THAT FORCING AN ANIMAL TO ENGAGE, IN ANY KIND OF SEXUAL CONDUCT, IS A CRIME AGAINST THAT ANIMAL. WHO CANNOT GIVE ITS CONSENT AND ARE IN FACT ABUSED BY ITS OWNER, AND BY OTHERS PERPETRATING THOSE ACTS.

Former Supreme Court of Canada Judge, Thomas Cromwell,
now a lawyer again, with BLG, Bordon, Ladner and Gervais
law firm, made a legal blunder, in not recognizing the scope of
zoophillia, and specifically, bestiality, in a ruling last year, when he
ruled that oral sex with a dog (or any animal for that matter), was
not bestiality.

B.C. Supreme Court Judge, Arne Silverman, gave a
suspended sentence, to Brian Anthony Cutteridge,
  a notorious zoophilic monster, of having sex with his dogs.
The man had taken videos of himself, having sex with his dogs.
He got no jail time, from Judge Silverman.

  (Picture is Missing) Calgary, Ablerta,

Judge Gordon Wong, acquitted a man of the charge of bestiality. The man was accused of having sex, as well as forcing his stepson to have sex with animals. Including, a calf and a bull. The man had sex with the bull and then forced his stepson to have oral sex with a calf. The Canadian judge, acquitted the man at trial, to the outrage of the family and the public.

CROMWELL'S RULING THAT FORCING A DOG TO ENGAGE IN A SEXUAL ACT IN CANADA, IS NOT BESTIALITY, IF IT DOES NOT INCLUDE PENETRATION. AND YOU WONDER WHY HE "CHOSE" EARLY RETIREMENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CROMWELL IS NOW BACK TO BEING A REGULAR LAWYER, (SO THE EXCUSE OF AN EARLY RESIGNATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT WAS A FARCE. A LANGUAGE USED BY THOSE IN THE PUBLIC, WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THEIR DISMISSAL IS ALSO IMMINENT.

Perhaps he has performed bestiality on his own dog and so does not regard it as a crime and a cruel act against the poor and defenseless animal. This would also de sensitized him, further, on making any ruling on that subject, as he later did. 

Cromwell' infamous words in ruling on the case, "It is not court to expand the criminal liability for this (ancient) offence". His full statement in his ruling on bestiality, Cromwell said, "The term bestiality has a well established legal meaning and refers to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal". " Penetration has always been an essential element of bestiality", says the former Supreme Court of Canada judge. And with that decision the S.C.C. upheld the acquittal, of the man (who cannot be identified, in order to protect his stepdaughters) convicted and then acquitted, of the bestiality charge against his dogs.

CROMWELL WAS HARPER'S CHOICE, TO BE APPOINTED TO THE SURPREME COURT AND THE REST OF THE PROTOCOL FOLLOWED SMOOTHLY, AFTER THAT. AND JUST AS THE FORMER P.M. WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN HAVING CROMWELL APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL, SO TOO THE NEW P.M. JUSTIN TRUDEAU WAS ALSO INSTRUMENTAL, IN BRINGING ABOUT HIS EARLY RETIRMENT AND OR RESIGNATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT. CROMWELL SERVED 8 YEAR ON THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.

TRUDEAU'S COMMONS SENSE APPROACHED HAS CONTINUED, WHEN LAST AUGUST HE PROPOSED SOME NEW CHANGES TO CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT.  The new process will permit any lawyer or judge who fits a specified criteria to apply for a seat on the Supreme Court of Canada, through the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

The more common sense approach by Supreme Court Judge Rosalie Abella ,showed a humane answer to the question of bestiality, as she took a different view from her peers. "“I do not see the absence of a requirement of penetration as broadening the scope of bestiality,” she wrote in her dissenting opinion. “I see it more as a reflection of Parliament’s common sense assumption that, since penetration is physically impossible with most animals and for half the population, requiring it as an element of the offence eliminates from censure most physically exploitative conduct with animals.”

Zoophilia is the more legal term and covers a much broader spectrum concerning humans engaging in sexual acts with animal and includes among those acts, bestiality. Unfortunately, in Canada oral sex with an animal in not considered as bestiality, or as a crime for that matter. Since the SCC made that absolutely clear in its ruling. Satanists and pedophiles are rampant in the courts, social agencies.  And they are also protected by their fraternity as freemasons, which most of them are. All that we can do is to exposed the ones that are caught making decisions that lead us to believe that they are not acting on behalf of the public in regards to their decisions, but "something else". Certainly human rights was far from this judge's mind as well as animal cruelty. He was as unapologetic about his decision, as were all of the other 7 Supreme Court judges who also agreed with him, over what is bestiality, and what is not.

With Justice Rosalie Abella, dissenting on the matter. I wonder if they also owned animal, or would like their animals to be abused in that way?

Former judge, Thomas Cromwell, now a
practicing lawyer. Most lawyers aspire to be
on the Supreme Court. He's had his tenure and now
he is back to being a lawyer, again. You'd think that
he would have been more wise in his decisions,
and to stick around longer. I can't help thinking that
some of his decisions, as a former Supreme Court
judge, also provided his hasty retreat, from Canada's
highest court.

THE UNFORGIVABLE BLUNDER, OF THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, MAY HAVE LED TO HIS EARLY RESIGNATION, FROM CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT. TRUDEAU REPLACED HIM LAST YEAR AND NO DOUBT IT MAY HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH SOME OF HIS EARLIER CONTROVERSIAL RULINGS. THE ONE THAT STANDS OUT THE MOST HERE, IS CROMWELL'S ACCENTING TO KEEPING THE BEASTIALITY LAWS, FROM INCLUDING ORAL SEX WITH AN ANIMAL, ALONG WITH PENETRATION.  CROMWELL RULED IN 2016, THAT A B.C. MAN DID NOT COMMIT BEASTIALITY UPON HIS DOG, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PENETRATION AND ONLY ORAL SEX. HE ALSO FORCED THE DOG TO PERFORM A SEXUAL ACT UPON A SIXTEEN YEAR OLD AND THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE, also JUDGED WRONG AND DID NOT SEE IT AS AN ABOMINABLE ACT, PERFOMED ON THE ANIMAL.

NO WONDER THAT, THE FORMER SUPREME COURT JUDGE, IS BACK TO BEING A LAWYER AGAIN, AFTER HIS "EARLY RETIREMENT" I.E EXIT FROM THE SUPREME COURT, BY THE NEW P. M. JUSTIN TRUDEAU. (at least he can tell his new clients that he was a former judge on the supreme court of Canada, but he will also left out the part on some of his more controversial rulings, that got him to make an earlier exist, than the norm).

BLAME THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, JUSTICE THOMAS CROMWELL, FOR UPHELDING, THE CRUEL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, IN THIS CASE FOR BESTIALITY.  AFTER NOT RECOGNIZING, THAT FORCING AN ANIMAL TO ENGAGE, IN ANY KIND OF SEXUAL CONDUCT, IS A CRIME AGAINST THAT ANIMAL. WHO CANNOT GIVE ITS CONSENT AND ARE IN FACT ABUSED BY ITS OWNER.

The Supreme Court of Canada Judges.
This should have been an outdated picture, but it is not.
What the f--k are they smiling about?

Take a look at this picture and tell me if there isn't something (fundamentally) wrong with it and also with the legal process in Canada?.

Don't you think that it is time the Supreme Court of Canada changed it's own image from that

of  being snow white and add some diversity to its judges, who are all white? Not one black, or any other minority are represented on Canada's highest court. And if you think that those white judges on the supreme court of Canada, are any different from those at the trial level, you are sadly mistaken. They ruled to uphold the status quo and that is why there are no real changes to any kind of equality, or to any real progress in this country.