I HATE CANADA. AND I HATE ITS HYPOCRITICAL STANCE, BEFORE THE WORLD. I HATE HOW IT HIDES ITS CRIMES AND PRETEND TO BE A GOOD COUNTRY.

CANADA IS A RACIST COUNTRY, THAT TREAT PEOPLE, BASED ON THEIR RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION AND OTHER FACTORS THAT ARE FORBIDDEN, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS. YET IT DOES SO AND GET AWAY, WITH ITS ACTIONS. 

SOME OF THE WORST CRIMES, AGAINST HUMANITY, SUCH AS GENOCIDE AND SLAVERY, HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, IN CANADA. GENOCIDE AGAINST THE NATIVE CANADIANS AND SLAVERY, AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE. IT ALSO PERSECUTES INDIVIDUALS, LIKE MYSELF AND CARRIES OUT HEINOUS CRIMES AGAINST THEM, SUCH AS TORTURE, THAT INCLUDES INTENSE SUFFERING, WHICH ITS CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND POLICE, ENJOYS DOING, TO THE INNOCENT AND THE VULNERABLE, IN ITS SOCIETY. 

THE MORE CORRUPT AND DEGENERATE THAT YOU ARE, THE MORE THAT YOU WILL ADVANCE IN CANADIAN SOCIETY. WHERE YOU WILL ALSO SEE, SHOCKINGLY, THAT THE ONES WHO ARE SUPPOSED, TO UPHOLD THE LAW, SUCH AS JUDGES AND POLICE, AS WELL AS, LAWYERS AND THE COURT, ARE THE ONES WHO ARE BREAKING IT. YOU WILL ALSO SEE POLITICIANS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, BREAKING THE LAW AND THIS IS VERY COMMON PLACE.  YOU WILL ALSO SEE VERY OPENLY, THE POLICE WORKING, WITH CRIMINALS AND PROTECTING THEM. YOU WILL SEE HOW THE FAMILY COURTS, SEPARATE CHILDREN FROM GOOD PARENTS AND TRAUMATIZED THEM. YOU WILL SEE A GREAT MANY PEOPLE, WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO NOTHING AND MANY OF THEM ARE LIVING ON THE STREETS, HAVING BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS, WHEN THEY DID NOT HAVE, ONE BEFORE. AND OF THOSE WHO ARE LABELED AS SOCIETY'S REJECTS, ARE MANY VISIBLE MINORITIES, INCLUDING BLACKS, ESPECIALLY. 

THE HOMELESS AND THE OTHER VULNERABLE PERSONS, WITHIN CANADIAN SOCIETY, ENDED UP BECOMING, UNWITTING AND NON CONSENTING VICTIMS, OF GOVERNMENT EXPERIMENTS, SUCH AS THE MK-ULTRA PROGRAM, THAT IT STILL CARRIES OUT ON SELECT TARGETS, LIKE THIS WRITER. MK-ULTRA AND THE GESTAPO PROGRAMS, OF NAZI GERMANY, ARE REGULARLY PRACTICED IN CANADA, AND EVEN OUTSIDE OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION, AND DIRECTLY, BY THE CANADIAN POLICE AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, SUCH AS CSIS. THOSE EXPERIMENTS, ARE DESIGNED TO TRAUMATIZED, ITS VICTIMS, SUCH AS THIS WRITER AND ANYONE ELSE WHO SPEAK THE TRUTH, OR TO GO AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED NORMS, OF CANADIAN SOCIETY, WHICH IS BASED ON CORRUPTION.  

THE MK-ULTRA, BLACK OPERATION PROGRAM, UNDER THE GUISE OF MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS, THAT HAVE ALSO LEFT, MANY CANADIAN LIVES DESTROYED. SATANIC ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS THE FREEMASON, POLICE DIVISIONS, ARE ALSO CARRYING OUT PUBLIC MURDERS, FROM TIME TO TIME AND DOING SO, BY SELECTING THEIR VICTIMS, FROM AMONG THOSE WHO ARE MOST VULNERABLE AND WHOSE RESISTANCE, THEY CAN EASILY OVERPOWER, SUCH AS THOSE WHO ARE LABELED, AS MENTALLY ILL, BY THE POLICE, SO THAT THEY CAN KILL THEM AND NO QUESTIONS ARE ASKED, AS TO THE TRUE CIRCUMSTANCES, OF THEIR DEATHS BY THE POLICE.

THE TORONTO POLICE HEADQUARTERS, LOCATED, AT 40 COLLEGE STREET, IS A FREEMASON BUILDING, AND THIS IS EVIDENT IN ITS ARCHITECTURE, BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING, THAT HAS A LOT OF FREEMASON SYMBOLISM. THE COURTS TOO ARE FULL OF FREEMASONS, AND THE JUDGES AND LAWYERS, AND PROSECUTORS, WHO ARE A PART, OF THE COURT SYSTEM, IN CANADA, REGULARLY, PUT THEIR PERSONAL ALLEGIANCE, BEFORE THE LAW ITSELF. EVEN BEFORE THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION, WITH ITS SO CALLED GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, THAT ARE ALSO NON EXISTENT, FOR SOME PEOPLE LIVING IN CANADA, BUT APPLY TO OTHERS, BASED ON THEIR COLOR, RACE, SOCIAL STATUS, AND OTHER FACTORS.

IN CANADA ONE DOES NOT REALLY HAVE THE FREEDOM ASSOCIATED WITH FREE SPEECH, AS MANY CANADIANS ARE CURRENTLY LANGUISHING IN JAIL, AND MANY OTHERS LIKE MYSELF, ARE RELENTLESSLY PERSECUTED, FOR DOING JUST THAT. 

WHEN I EXPOSED, THE HIDDEN SECRETS OF THIS COUNTRY AS A BLOGGER, I AM PERSECUTED FOR IT AND SUBJECTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, THAT ARE CARRIED OUT AGAINST ME, SECRETLY. WHEN I ASK FOR HELP, FROM THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES, IT BLOCKS MY EFFORT TO GET HELP, AGAINST ITS ATTACKS. AND IT IS ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO SILENCE ME, OR TO DESTROY ME. 

MOST OF MY BLOG, IS DEDICATED TO MY SUFFERING, AT THE HAND OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT. FOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS AS A BLOGGER, I HAVE SUFFERED AT THE HAND OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, WHICH CARRIED OUT BOTH OVERT AND COVERT, ATTACKS AGAINST ME. IT HAD HOPED TO DESTROY ME, BY NOW. IT HAS FAILED. I CONTINUE TO INSPIRE, THOSE WHO ARE SUFFERING, LIKE MYSELF. THEY ARE THE TARGETED INDIVIDUALS, WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY, AND WHO ARE NOW UNWITTING VICTIMS OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT AND ITS POLICE AND MILITARY. CARRYING OUT NON-CONSENSUAL EXPERIMENTS ON THEM, TO SEE HOW STRONG THEY ARE, MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY. JUST LIKE IN NAZI GERMANY, IN THE GESTAPO. OR UNDER STALIN, OR OTHER CRUEL DICTATORS. 

THE TRUTH MUST BE TOLD, ABOUT CANADA, BECAUSE IT HAS BLOOD ON ITS HANDS. IT IS NO DIFFERENT TODAY, THAN IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF, THE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS, WHERE NATIVE CHILDREN, WERE VICTIMIZED, OR DURING SLAVERY, WHERE THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN, PREVENTED YOU, FROM ADVANCING IN SOCIETY. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE TODAY, IS THAT IT IS DONE SECRETLY. PEOPLE SHOULD REALLY THINK, OF THE MANY LIVES THAT ARE DESTROYED, THIS WAY AND STILL IT CONTINUES, IN THIS COUNTRY OF CANADA. AND IF I HAVE DONE ONE THING WORTHWHILE IN MY LIFE, IT IS TO EXPOSED THIS EVIL, PERPETRATED, BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.

MY APPEAL IS NOW, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT.

ABANDONING MY APPEAL, IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT AND FILING AN APPEAL, IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL, AGAINST THE ORDER, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT AND JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY. 

AND FINDING THAT MY EFFORTS, ARE ALSO BEING BLOCKED, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOR ONTARIO.  SO FAR, BY THE COURT'S ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF. 

I HAVE SINCE ABANDONED MY APPEAL IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT AND HAS NOW FILED AN APPEAL IN THE HIGHER COURT, THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. THE COURT WAS SERVED WITH MY NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT AND MY CASE IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT IS FINISHED, AS OF NOW.

BUT THAT HAS NOT STOP THE EFFORTS, BY THE CANADIAN COURTS, TO BLOCK MY EFFORT AND TO CARRY OUT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, AGAINST ME. BOTH THE DIVISIONAL COURT AND NOW THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, IN REGARDS TO MY LEAVE TO APPEAL, TO THAT COURT, ARE STILL ACTING IN A CONSPIRACY, TO CAUSE ME HARM AND TO IGNORE MY RIGHTS, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  I AM EXPERIENCING THE SAME DELAYS, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, AS I HAVE JUST SEEN IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT AND THIS IS BEING DONE DELIBERATELY, IN REGARDS TO MY CASE. 

I AM OF THE OPINION, THAT BOTH COURTS ARE WORKING TOGETHER, TO ABUSE MY HUMAN RIGHTS AND MY OTHER RIGHTS, UNDER THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION. MY APPEAL WAS FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, ON FEBRUARY 23RD AND SO FAR, I HAVE GOTTEN NO RESPONSE, FROM THE COURT, AFTER FILING MY APPEAL. EVEN THOUGH, I HAVE ALSO SENT EMAILS AND HAVE SPOKEN TO THE CLERK, WHO ANSWERS THE TELEPHONE, TO HAVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, ADDRESSED SOME OF MY CONCERNS, UNTIL MY LEAVE TO APPEAL, CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT. NO RESPONSE, SO FAR. I WAS TOLD THAT SOMEONE WILL RESPOND, TO MY EMAIL REQUESTS, BUT NO SUCH RESPONSE, BY THE COURT AFTER THREE DAYS, EVEN THOUGH MY REQUESTS, ARE URGENT. I AM SEEING THE SAME KIND OF TREATMENT, BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, AS I HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED, IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT AND THIS IS NO COINCIDENCE. THEY ARE ALL WORKING TOGETHER, TO DO AS MUCH AS THEY CAN, TO BLOCK MY EFFORTS AND TO CAUSE ME HARM. AND MY APPEAL HAS NOT EVEN BEEN HEARD AS OF YET, IN THAT COURT.

IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT, I WILL MENTIONED THE NAMES, OF THE STAFF, WHO I BELIEVE, WERE ACTING AGAINST ME, IN THE COURT: NIZHANE PARA AND TAYLOR MCIVER. NIZHANE PARA, WAS OPENLY MOCKING ME AND ALSO SIDED WITH THE LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM. FOR INSTANCE, WHEN I HAD SENT IN MY MOTION FOR A STAY, PENDING MY APPEAL BEFORE THE PANEL OF JUDGES, WITHIN MINUTES OF RECEIVING THE REQUEST, NIZHANE PARA, RESPONDED, BY SENDING AN EMAIL TO JAFARI DELARAM AND MYSELF AND TELLING JAFARI DELARAM, THAT THE ORDER OF JUDGE MICHEAL PENNY, LIFTING THE STAY, WAS READY FOR PICK UP AT THE COURT, BETWEEN 9-11 A.M THE NEXT DAY. HOWEVER, THE ORDER ITSELF, IS DEFECTIVE AND JAFARI DELARAM, IS NOW SEEKING THE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, TO AMEND IT, AFTER THE COURT, HAD ALSO ADVISED THE PARTIES, OF THE DISCREPANCY IN THE ORDER, BY THE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, FROM WHAT WAS IN (OR IN THIS CASE, WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL MOTION), THAT WAS FILED BY THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM. BUT WHICH THE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, HAD NOW INCLUDED IN THE ORDER.

SPEAKING PLAINLY, THE ORDER OF JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, THAT HE HAD MADE ON FEBRUARY 22, 2021 AND IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION, WHICH HE ALSO GRANTED, HAD MADE PROVISIONS IN THE ORDER, THAT WAS NOT ASKED FOR, IN THE MOTION.

THE ORDER IS NOW BEING APPEALED, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ONTARIO. FOR ITS MANY ERRORS OF LAW, MOST NOTABLY AMONG THOSE ERRORS, THAT THE JUDGE WAS BIAS AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND SHOWED A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, AND ALSO IN PROCEEDING WITH A MOTION, THAT WAS INADMISSIBLE, BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE, IN THE MOTION.

IN THE MEANTIME, BOTH COURTS HAVE DONE ITS BEST, TO PREVENT ME FROM HAVING A STAY, WHILE MY APPEAL IS PROCEEDING IN THE COURT. THIS IS WHERE THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF'S CORRUPTION, AT THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, IS ALSO SHOWN. THEY ARE TRYING TO PREVENT MY MATTER, FROM PROCEEDING AS IT SHOULD, IN THAT COURT AS WELL. NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS, I WILL DEAL WITH THE ISSUE, WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COURT STAFF, ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS. THE STAFF HAS NO ALTERNATIVE, THAN TO COMPLY WITH MY REQUEST, BUT THEY ARE TAKING THEIR TIME DOING IT AND CAUSING A DELAY THAT THEY KNOW, WOULD BE HARMFUL TO ME.

 

URGENT!!!TORONTO DIVISIONAL COURT STAFF, IS BLOCKING MY EFFORTS. SAURABH BAWEJA AND TAKESHA GENTLES, HAVE IGNORED MY REQUEST, AS PART OF MY APPEAL, IN PROVIDING ME WITH A STAY, FROM THE COURT, UNTIL MY APPEAL BEFORE, THE PANEL OF JUDGES CAN BE HEARD, AGAINST THE ORDER OF, JUDGE MICHEAL PENNY'S DECISION.

THIS IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!

THE ACTIONS, OF THE REGISTRAR, TAKESHA GENTLES AND THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SAURABH BAWEJA AND OTHER STAFF, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO, SHOULD BE REGARDED, AS AN ATTEMPT, TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, IN MY CASE. 

THE DELIBERATE, DELAY, IN PROVIDING ME WITH THE STAY, AS PART OF THE PROCEDURE, AND WHICH THE COURT KNOW THAT I NEED, AND THAT ANY DELAY IN DOING SO, WILL CAUSED ME HARM, SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED, AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND TO INTERFERE WITH THE NATURAL COURSE OF JUSTICE.

AS PART OF THE DELAY, MY EMAILS HAVE BEEN IGNORED, BY THE COURT, IN THE MATTER.  DUE TO THE COVID-19 SITUATION AND THE EMERGENCY ORDER, IN PLACE, COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT, IS DONE ELECTRONICALLY, AS THE COURT IS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. 

I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED, IF THE JUDGE IS ALSO NOT INVOLVED, IN THIS CONSPIRACY, I BELIEVE, TO CAUSE ME TO BE EVICTED. IF THAT HAPPENS, I HAVE EXPOSED THEIR ACTION HERE, NOW ON MY BLOG. THERE IS NO OTHER LOGICAL REASON FOR THE DELAY, BY THE COURT STAFF, IN THIS MATTER. 

THE ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED, BY JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, ON FEBRUARY 22, 2021, WHICH ALSO HAVE ERRORS IN IT, BECAUSE HE HAS MADE PROVISIONS IN THE ORDER, THAT WAS NOT IN THE MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT. ERRORS, WHICH THE COURT HAS NOW RECOGNIZED AND IS NOW ASKING THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM TO AMEND, BY DRAFTING UP A NEW ORDER AND FOR THE JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES, TO THE NEW ORDER. 

AND WHILE THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IS IGNORING MY REQUEST, IT IS ON THE OTHER HAND, WORKING IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER, IN GRANTING THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM. WHOSE HEARSAY MOTION TO QUASH MY APPEAL, WAS GRANTED BY THE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY AND THEREBY LIFTING THE STAY, REGARDING MY APPEAL. THE EVICTION ITSELF IS EXPEDITED, SO THE DELAY BY THE COURT, TO DEAL WITH MY MATTER FOR A STAY, IS OBVIOUSLY INTENDED, TO CAUSE ME HARM.

WHILE THE APPEAL OF MY MOTON, TO THE PANEL OF JUDGES, IS PROCEEDING, THROUGH THE COURT. THE COURT IS ALSO SUPPOSE TO PROVIDE ME WITH THE STAY, UNTIL THE MATTER IS HEARD, BY THE COURT. UPON  FILING A MOTION AND REQUESTING A STAY, UNTIL THE CASE IS REVIEWED BY THE PANEL OF JUDGES, HAVE BEEN IGNORED, FOR SOME REASON.  SINCE I HAVE FILED MY DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT, YESTERDAY, ON FEBRUARY 22ND, AFTER THE ORDER WAS MADE, THEIR DELIBERATE DELAY, BY IGNORING, THE MOTION FOR A STAY, IS SO THAT I CAN BE EVICTED. 

JUDGE MICHEAL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, AND THE COURT STAFF, HAS BEEN DOING EVERYTHING, IN THEIR POWER, TO ASSIST THE DEFENDANT, THROUGH HER LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, AGAINST MY APPEAL.

THE NATURAL PROCESS OF JUSTICE, DO NOT SEEM TO APPLY, IN MY CASE, WHEN MY EFFORTS ARE BEING BLOCKED, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS, AS PART OF THE PERSECUTION, THAT I AM FACING.

MY MATTER IS URGENT, OTHERWISE MY RIGHTS, WILL BE ABUSED BY THE COURT AND I WILL SUFFER IRREVOCABLE HARM.

MY RIGHTS WERE ALREADY ABUSED, BY THE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, YESTERDAY, WHO UPHELD A HEARSAY MOTION, THAT WAS FILED TO DISMISS MY APPEAL AND TO LIFT THE STAY, PENDING MY APPEAL. THE MOTION ITSELF, WAS INADMISSIBLE AND LACKED ANY MERIT. AND THE EVIDENCE IN IT, WHICH IT HAS RELIED UPON, WAS PROVIDED, NOT BY THE DEFENDANT, BUT BY HER COUNSEL, WHO WAS A THIRD PARTY AND THE ONLY DEPONENT, IN THE MOTION. MAKING IT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DISQUALIFYING IT TO BE HEARD, MUCH LESS GRANTED BY THE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WHO HAVE IGNORED ALL OF THIS, IN HIS DECISION TO GRANT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION, TO DISMISS MY APPEAL.  THIS IS PART OF THEIR CONSPIRACY TO HAVE ME EVICTED AND TO BECOME HOMELESS. THE DELAY OF THE COURT IS CAUSING ME HARM AND THIS KIND OF CORRUPTION SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED.

NOTE: I HAVE SINCE ABANDONED MY APPEAL, IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT AND HAS NOW FILED AN APPEAL IN THE HIGHER COURT, THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. THE COURT WAS SERVED WITH MY NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT AND MY CASE IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT IS FINISHED, AS OF NOW.

TORONTO JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, UPHELD THE HEARSAY MOTION, TO DISMISS MY APPEAL. HE HAS ACTED IN REPRISAL.

JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY'S ACT OF REPRISAL, AGAINST ME. AND WHY I BELIEVED, THAT HE HAD DISMISSED MY APPEAL, NOT BASED ON THE MERIT, OF THE APPEAL, BUT BASED ON SOME OTHER REASONS, MORE SINISTER. 

THE NATURAL PROCESS OF JUSTICE, DO NOT SEEM TO APPLY, IN MY CASE, WHEN MY EFFORTS ARE BEING BLOCKED, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS, AS PART OF THE PERSECUTION, THAT I AM FACING.

THE FACT THAT HE RULED IN FAVOUR OF A HEARSAY MOTION, WHERE A THIRD PARTY, IS GIVING EVIDENCE AND NOT BASED ON BEING AN EYE WITNESS, BUT TESTIFYING, ON BEHALF OF HER CLIENT, AS COUNSEL TO THE DEFENDANT.  AND RULING IN FAVOUR OF SUCH A MOTION, SHOULD SHOW YOU JUST HOW CORRUPT, THIS JUDGE AND THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THAT HE ALSO REPRESENTS, BOTH ARE.

MY COMPLAINT, AGAINST CANADA I BELIEVED, ALSO PROMPTED THIS JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, TO MAKE THE DECISION, TO DISMISS MY APPEAL. WHICH HE HAD MADE, VERY SHORTLY AFTER MY ARTICLE, WAS PUT UP ON MY BLOG, ABOUT COMPLAINING, TO THE UN COMMITTEE ON TORTURE, FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, THAT I AM FACING AND THE CRIMES, THAT THIS COUNTRY AND ITS COURTS, HAVE DONE TO ME. HE ALSO ACTED IN REPRISAL, WHEN I DECIDED TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC, ABOUT THE CASE, BY POSTING MY OWN EVIDENCE, WHICH ALSO REFUTED THE CLAIM AGAINST ME, ON MY BLOG. ACTS THAT ARE CARRIED OUT AGAINST ME, SECRETLY. 

I WILL STILL MOVE FORWARD TO PROTECT MY HUMAN RIGHTS, BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE OTHER BODIES, THAT ARE SET UP TO DEAL WITH THOSE VIOLATIONS, THAT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT AGAINST ME, BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT AND ITS OFFICIALS AND THE COURTS. INDIVIDUAL CHARGES WILL BE LAID, WHERE NECESSARY, REGARDING THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT, OR PUNISHMENT, THAT WAS CARRIED OUT AGAINST ME, AS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT. AND I WILL ALSO BE LAYING INDIVIDUAL CHARGES, AGAINST THOSE WHO HAVE CARRIED OUT, THOSE ACTIONS AGAINST ME, WITH THE I.C.C.

FILING A COMPLAINT, AGAINST CANADA, WITH THE UN COMMITTEE, AGAINST TORTURE.

THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE. 

CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT, OR PUNISHMENT, ARE OUTLINED, IN THE UNITED NATIONS, TREATIES, AND ARE ENFORCEABLE, AGAINST COUNTRIES OR STATES, WHICH CARRY THEM OUT, AGAINST INDIVIDUALS, OR GROUPS OF PEOPLE.

THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, UNDER THE ROME STATUTE, COVERS BOTH TORTURE AND CRUEL AND INHUMAN, DEGRADING TREATMENT, OR PUNISHMENT, THAT ARE CARRIED OUT AGAINST PERSONS, BY THE STATE, WHICH HAS RATIFIED THOSE TREATIES.  INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS, CAN ALSO BE FILED, WITH THE UN'S COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE, OR WITH THE I.C.C, WHICH FOCUSED, ON THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, OF PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN ACCUSED, OF CARRYING OUT TORTURE AND OTHER CRIMES, UNDER THE ROME STATUTE. THOSE ARE OFTEN STATE OFFICIALS, WHO ARE ACCUSED, OF TORTURING VICTIMS, AND SUBJECTING THEM TO OTHER CRIMES, THAT ARE FORBIDDEN, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

MY INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT AGAINST CANADA, FOR SUBJECTING ME TO TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT, OR PUNISHMENT, AND OVER A COURSE OF A NUMBER OF YEARS, THAT HAS BEEN DETRIMENTAL TO ME, AND HOW IT MUST NOW ANSWER TO THE UN, FOR SUCH VIOLATIONS. INDIVIDUAL CANADIAN OFFICIALS, ARE ALSO SUBJECTED TO CHARGES, WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF VIOLENCE, COMMITTED UNDER THE ROME STATUTE, AGAINST ME, SUCH AS TORTURE AND OTHER INHUMAN TREATMENT, OR PUNISHMENT. THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND WILL NOT BE SURPRISED, WHEN CONTACTED BY THOSE GOVERNING BODIES, AS
PART OF THE PROCEDURE.

THERE ARE SOME GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, OR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, WHICH EACH OF US IS ENTITLED TO, AND SHOULD NEVER BE TAKEN AWAY, AS A FORM OF CRUEL PUNISHMENT, UNAUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW. THERE IS A DIGNITY ASSOCIATED, WITH BEING A HUMAN BEING, AND TREATING ANYONE, LESS THAN A HUMAN BEING, SHOULD BE AND IS ALSO PUNISHABLE, UNDER THE LAW. I INTEND TO ENFORCED, MY GOD GIVEN AND BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, AGAINST THOSE WHO HAVE VIOLATED IT.

JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT AND THE CASE OF THE HEARSAY MOTION, AGAINST MY APPEAL.

UPDATE:  THE HEARING DID COMMENCED, TODAY, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2021, A STATUTORY HOLIDAY. IT STILL WENT AHEAD AND THE JUDGE HAS RESERVED HIS DECISION, AND WILL LET THE PARTIES KNOW, WHAT THE OUTCOMES ARE.

1. The Appellant wanted to raise the preliminary issues about the defendant's motion, but the judge allowed the motion to continue and both sides were given thirty minutes, to raise their arguments. Also the appellant's motion for a contempt order, against the defendant, was also brought up. Unfortunately, even though it was not a trial and the Divisional Court, is an appellate court, and that the whole basis of my appeal, was to point out the error of law, and to get from the court a remedy for it, in regards to the Board's, decision, in going ahead with the hearing, when it knew that I was not able to attend and to give a defense, being a self represented litigant, and that being ill at the time, had prevented me from attending the hearing, to give evidence in my defense, had gone ahead and made an eviction order, against me. The member claiming that he was not aware, or was in position of the medical document, the Board had received, prior to the hearing. So the grounds for the appeal was citing bias, or the presumption of bias and a lack of procedural fairness, on the part of the member and the Board. Those are errors of law.

2. The defendant's motion, which should have not been allowed to proceed, where arguments were then have to be made, and both sides suck at it, and that is to give arguments, like a professional lawyer, keeping in mind that one of those parties, was in fact a lawyer. The grounds for the motion to be dismissed, was that it was made by the defendant's counsel, or former counsel, Shellyann Pereira, who did not seem to be present, at the hearing and her affidavit was then argued by the defendant's other counsel, Jafari Deleram, on her behalf. This is significant too, legally, because she could not be cross examined, by the Appellant, since the deponent, was not at the hearing. Or was being very quiet and did not make her presence known. The judge Michael Penny, did not want to hear the fact, that the deponent, was still the counsel for the defendant, in her other matters at the Board, or at least the fact that she was her former counsel. This matters of course, in regards to the law. Whether the deponent was the former, or still the counsel for the defendant, it still raised the legal question, of a conflict of interest, in the eyes of law. Which only cared that the deponent and the defendant in the motion, did in fact have a counsel and client relationship at some point. There is no question, that the law view this relationship, as a conflict of interest, if the counsel is now giving sworn evidence, on behalf of her client, or former client. The judge cannot change that point, in the law. And he should not ignore it either legally, in regards to his decision, on the case. The deponent and paralegal Shellyann Pereira, relationship with the defendant, her client, is a conflict of interest. Regardless of how the judge want to see it personally. Judge Michael Penny knew, that there was a counsel and client relationship, between the deponent and the defendant, in the case.

 3 The second argument against the motion, was that it was based on heresay evidence, since the deponent, was not a direct witness to any of the allegations, that were made in her affidavit and based on allegations, that were made at the Board, by the defendant. The fact is that the deponent, got her evidence from the defendant second hand. And that made the evidence, a hearsay evidence. And hearsay evidence is not allowed in a court of law. Worst, the deponent was not even present to be cross examined on the evidence, that she had provided in her affidavit. This should matter legally, in the decision of the court. I guess the judge's view was that because it was evidence that was already sworn, then it should be accepted as evidence by the court. But evidence sworn by who?. A third party, who was not a witness to the allegations made, in the affidavit?. I would accept that reasoning, if the deponent was the defendant and she had given her sworn statement, but did not later attend the hearing. But who would accept this evidence from a third party?. And much less the defendant's counsel at that?. So the grounds for a hearsay evidence, in the motion to dismiss my appeal, still stands. As well as the grounds for a conflict of interest, regarding the same motion.

4. The third reason for the defendant's motion to be dismissed, is the fact that it contained evidence, that were not before the court. Which the lawyer, Jafari Delaram delved into in great detail. Particularly, evidence about previous hearings at the Board and what was said and done. And none of  those evidence also contained, any mention of any violence of the Appellant, against the defendant, for which the order on December 18, 2020, was made by the member, Alex Bryic. Interestingly, Shellyann Pereira also kept the information, about the medical illness from the Board at the hearing, even though she knew of its existence, as the Board also did. But the member at the hearing on December 18, 2020, claimed that he did not see such a evidence, at the hearing and then made his order, against the tenant. The tenant and appellant should not be blamed, for the member not having the information, regarding her medical illness, since the Board had the medical document and made sure that the member allegedly did not get it. Or that the member, Alex Bryic, simply ignored that evidence, in his decision. Either way, his decision was bias against the tenant (he could have for instance, inquired about the medical document, from the Board itself, rather than to rush and make a decision against the tenant, that would expedite an eviction against the tenant, based only on some allegations, that were made by the landlord, with no single document of evidence, proving such allegations). And to separate the tenant's application, when the matters were originally scheduled to be heard together and to only proceed, with the landlord's application, was also bias against the tenant/appellant, at the hearing on December 18,2020. So the appellant has every right, to claim a lack of procedural fairness and bias, on the part of both the Board and the member, Alex Bryic, in the order against her. Those are legal grounds for any appeal in the Divisional Court. 

5. Will Judge Michael Penny, view the evidence at the hearing, on Monday February 15th, through the eyes of the law, which he is also bound by, or based on his own views on the matter?. It remains to be seen. Will he overlook the role of the deponent, Shellyann Pereira's evidence, for which the motion is entirely based on?. That both she and her evidence, in her affidavit, is not admissible.  Because as the counsel, or former counsel for the defendant, this posed a conflict of interest and also that her evidence is based on hearsay and that she was not a direct witness, but got her information, from her client, secondhand?.

6 The respondent's motion, against the appellant's appeal, must also stand the legal test, if it is admissible or not. Which it did not, for the reasons already cited. And the appellant's appeal should be allowed to proceed, as part of her right to the have the protection of the court, when it was violated by the lower Board, in this case.

7 As for my motion for a contempt order, against the defendant for defying, the order of the Divisional Court, that was made on January 4th, and to try to evict the tenant on her own terms, by changing the locks on the doors, does not take away from the fact that she has committed the deed.  It took another judge of the Divisional Court, to get her to produced the replacement keys, to the appellant. This fact should also figure into the judge's decision, regarding the contempt of court motion, against the defendant, Angela Sterling. And if he believes that she is sorry over her actions, he should think again. This is someone who has a history, of ignoring court orders and notices. Take her illegal rental building for instance, she has never gotten around to closing it down, despite the notice to do so. And that was almost two years ago. And as for illegally changing the locks on the doors and locking the tenants out, she has done this three times already, within the last four month. Including to a disabled tenant. 

8. I also believed that I have met the three point test, regarding an in the Divisional Court and I have certainly, provided a lot of case law evidence, to back up every area of my appeal. Being forced to do so, at this stage of the proceeding, by the defendant's motion, against my appeal. It is the defendant's motion, that should be dismissed, by the court, because of the way, it was brought before the court. It was a "no rules apply"  motion, where the law, was concerned. Where the defendant's counsel, seeing that I am a self represented litigant, wanted to take advantage of the process, and to present a motion before the court, that disregarded the law, in every area. Conflict of interests, (based on counsel/client relationship), hearsay evidence, presented by a third party, who was not the defendant, and also full of the opinions, of the deponent, counsel for the defendant. And last but not least, the affidavit evidence contained information, that was not before the court. Those are indisputable facts, about the motion. To start off with, we know that the deponent in the motion, is not the defendant. And the rest follows after that fact.

9. The question is, will the judge and the court, allow that motion to stand?. Since it did not meet the legal test in the first place, to proceed. Or will he ignore the evidence, that just on the merits alone, the motion should not proceed?. And I have cited the reasons, many times in this article, not based on my opinions, but on the direct evidence, from the motion itself. That is, those legal issues, or questions, that must be addressed by the judge in the motion, before it even has the legal grounds, to proceed. Unless the judge wants to overlook, those evidence, that goes against such a motion. Example: Is Judge Michael Penny, now going to say that a counsel for a client, formerly, or otherwise, can now be the deponent, in the defendant's motion and the only deponent whose affidavit evidence, on which the motion relies upon, is now acceptable under the law?. Or does the Conflict of Interest Act, S.C. 2006, c 9 s. 2 and other laws come into play here?

JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO AND CONCERNS ABOUT HIS CONDUCT.

ALERT!!! WHY IS JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, TORONTO DIVISIONAL COURT, CONDUCTING A HEARING, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2021, FAMILY DAY HOLIDAY, WHEN THE COURTS ARE CLOSED?

DO YOU SEE THE CORRUPTION IN THIS CASE?

(I have contacted the Divisional Court, just to confirm whether the hearing, that was scheduled for February 15, 2021, would be adjourned, because it is a holiday, in Canada and I was told by Rina Badwal, (through email), that it will still go ahead. Why is Judge Michael Penny, conducting a hearing, on a Statutory Holiday?. He could not wait, one more day?. Courts are reopened on Tuesday, February 16th. (The Superior Court of Justice, is opened on February 15th, but not to deal with certain matters). He also made it preemptory, on the Appellant to attend the hearing and claimed, that it will not be adjourned, for any reason.  All of the local media, have also reported that the courts are closed, on February 15, 2021, on Family Day.

I was being professional and nice, in my comments about the judge below, But let's face it, he has acted corruptly. And he may continue to do so, if he acts in a reprisal manner, against me at the hearing, for exposing his actions and exercising my right, to freedom of speech. In this case it is more than that to me, it is ALSO about making the Canadian courts, as transparent, as it should be. Let Canadians and the rest of the world, see how it operates. (If we can't go to the court, to get our rights protected, then what kind of society, do we live in?). There is the Judicial Council and the Human Rights Commission, that are available to me, to have my complaints investigated, to start with. And I hope my matter, also go ahead with the other matter, that is also up for a hearing, on the same day. They were supposedly scheduled together, on February 1st, according to the other judge, in her endorsement, on February 2nd. Why does the court and this judge, only want to go ahead, with one of those cases, and to leave out the other?. Judge Michael Penny, is seized of both cases, so why is he now only proceeding with one? 

JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, IS BOUND BY LAW, TO CONDUCT A HEARING, IN THE MANNER, IN WHICH THE LAW, PROVIDED HIM TO DO. HOWEVER, THERE ARE CONCERNS, THAT ARE NOW RAISED, IN REGARDS TO HIS CONDUCT, AT THE HEARING, ON FEBRUARY 11, 2021.

I WILL PRESENT THOSE CONCERNS, AND LET THE PUBLIC AND THOSE OTHERS, OF THE CANADIAN JUDICIARY, VIEW THEM AND MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT, ABOUT HIS CONDUCT.

NOTE:  ALTHOUGH THE HEARING, DID NOT PROCEED, BECAUSE OF THE MALFUNCTIONING, OF THE DEVICE, THAT ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE, WAS USING AT THE TIME, THE JUDGE WAS IN FACT, PRESIDING OVER THE MATTER AND HAD SAID AND DONE SOME THINGS, THAT ARE QUESTIONABLE.

1. JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WAS PREPARED TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING, AS A WITNESS, WITHOUT PROVIDING A SWORN STATEMENT, OR AFFIDAVIT.

THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING, WAS ON THE TELEPHONE, THE JUDGE MENTIONED, AT THE HEARING AND "WAS PREPARED TO GO".  WE MUST TAKE THIS TO MEAN, THAT SHE WAS PREPARED, TO ACT AS A WITNESS AND TO GIVE EVIDENCE, WITHOUT SWEARING, THAT EVIDENCE FIRST, IN AN AFFIDAVIT  AND TO SERVE IT ON BOTH THE APPELLANT AND THE COURT, AS IS THE PROCEDURE OF THE COURT.

2. THE JUDGE WAS UNWILLING, TO ADJOURNED THE MATTER, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A SITUATION, THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE APPELLANT'S ABILITY TO CONTROL. WHEN HER DEVICE COULD NOT WORK, SHE ASKED SOMEONE AND A TOTAL STRANGER, TO USE THEIR TELEPHONE, TO CONTINUE WITH THE HEARING, BUT THE PERSON WANTED THEIR DEVICE BACK, SO SHE COULD NOT CONTINUE, WITH THE HEARING. SHE THEN ASKED THE JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, TO ADJOURNED THE MATTER, FOR A FEW DAYS SO THAT SHE COULD GET A DEVICE, THAT WOULD WORK PROPERLY. JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WAS OBVIOUSLY, UNWILLING TO DO SO, BY HIS DEMEANOR AND HIS WORDS. 

3. HE THEN ASKED THE LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, TO COMMENT ON THAT ISSUE, (STANDARD PROCEDURE) AND SHE THEN RAISED CONCERNS, ABOUT THE URGENCY OF HER MOTION, TO DISMISS MY APPEAL AND TO LIFT THE STAY, WHICH WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE APPELLANT, TO BE EVICTED IMMEDIATELY, AND BASED ON JUST THE ALLEGATIONS, OF A THIRD PARTY (NOT THE DEFENDANT), BUT THE DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, WHO WAS THE ONLY DEPONENT, TO THE MOTION.

4. THAT THE JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, HAVE ALLOWED THE COUNSEL, OF THE DEFENDANT, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, A PARALEGAL, TO PARTICIPATE AT THE HEARING, ON FEBRUARY 11, 2021, ON BEHALF OF HER CLIENT, THE DEFENDANT. AS SHE WAS SHOWN, TO BE AT THE HEARING, THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY VIDEO, AND SHE WAS SHOWN TO BE IN THE QUEUE, ALONG WITH THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS, THE APPELLANT AND THE DEFENDANT. 

5. THAT THE PARALEGAL, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, AS THE CURRENT COUNSEL, FOR THE  DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING, WAS ALSO THE ONLY DEPONENT, IN HER AFFIDAVIT, TO THE MOTION. AND THAT THE JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, WAS PREPARED TO HAVE HER PARTICIPATE AS A WITNESS, AND TO GIVE EVIDENCE, AS THE DEPONENT IN HER AFFIDAVIT, THAT IS NOT ALLOWED, UNDER THE LAW.  SINCE BEING A COUNSEL, FOR THE DEFENDANT, WOULD HAVE CAUSED, A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, AS THE DEPONENT BEING BOTH THE COUNSEL AND THE WITNESS, AT THE HEARING.

THE CONCERNS RAISED, IS THAT JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, MAY NOT ALLOW THIS ISSUE, TO BE RAISED, AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE, OF THE HEARING THAT IS SCHEDULED, TO BE HEARD ON FEBRUARY 15TH AT 10.A.M. AND MAY ALLOW THE HEARING TO GO AHEAD, WITHOUT ADDRESSING, THAT VERY IMPORTANT, PRELIMINARY ISSUE FIRST. THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED, THAT HE WILL NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE, OF THE HEARING.

6. THE CONCERNS, OVER THE PRESUMPTION OF BIAS, BY THE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, AT THE HEARING. WHERE NO MENTION WAS MADE, OF THE OTHER MATTER, THAT WAS ALSO SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD, REGARDING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION, FOR A CONTEMPT ORDER, AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, IN GOING AGAINST THE ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED, BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT, ON JANUARY 4, 2021, REGARDING THE STAY, AND TO CHANGE THE LOCK ON THE DOOR, WITHOUT A SHERIFF, ON JANUARY 18TH. ON FEBRUARY 1ST. AN ORDER WAS MADE BY ANOTHER JUDGE, FOR HER TO PROVIDE THE APPELLANT, WITH THE REPLACEMENT KEYS, BUT THE MOTION FOR A CONTEMPT OF COURT, BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS NOT ON THE DOCKET, AS IT WAS ALSO SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD, ON FEBRUARY 11TH AND JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, DID NOT ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE, AT THE HEARING.

7 SERIOUS CONCERNS, ABOUT WHETHER, JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WILL ALLOW THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES TO BE RAISED, PRIOR TO THE HEARING, BEING COMMENCED, OR TO GO AHEAD WITH THE HEARING, WITHOUT ALLOWING THOSE PRELIMINARY ISSUES, TO BE RAISED, AT THE HEARING, ON FEBRUARY 15TH. AS A JUDGE, HE IS BOUND BY THE LAW, TO ALLOW THOSE PRELIMINARY ISSUES TO BE RAISED, BEFORE COMMENCING THE HEARING.

8. NOTHING IN JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY'S DEMEANOR, OR ACTION, ON FEBRUARY 11TH, WOULD SUGGEST THAT, HE WOULD ALLOW THE APPELLANT, TO RAISE ANY PRELIMINARY ISSUES, AT THE HEARING. WHICH WOULD DISMISS THE MOTION.

9. PRELIMINARY ISSUES, ARISING FROM THE (a) CONFLICT OF INTEREST, OF THE DEPONENT, AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT.

10. AND THE (b) HEARSAY EVIDENCE, IN HER AFFIDAVIT, (NOT BEING A DIRECT WITNESS, TO WHAT SHE HAS SWORN, IN HER AFFIDAVIT, BUT RELYING ON THE STATEMENTS OF HER CLIENT, THE DEFENDANT).

11.AND(c) MATTERS THAT ARE NOT, BEFORE THE COURT, IN HER AFFIDAVIT, BUT WHICH SHE INTENDED, FOR THE COURT TO ADDRESS, IN HER AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE. OR (d) REGARDING THE OPINIONS, STATED IN HER AFFIDAVIT,THAT ARE HER OWN, AND RELYING ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE, IN HER AFFIDAVIT, AS THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT. (e) THE INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, PRESENTED, AT THE HEARING.

12. CONCERNS THAT JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WILL CONTINUE TO ALLOW, THE DEFENDANT, TO PARTICIPATE, AT THE HEARING, ON FEBRUARY 15TH, WITHOUT GIVING A SWORN STATEMENT, IN AN AFFIDAVIT, TO THE COURT. THAT MUST BE FIRST SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AND THEN FILED WITH THE COURT, AS PART OF ITS RECORD. CONCERNS, THAT THE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WILL ALLOW THE DEFENDANT, TO PARTICIPATE AT THE HEARING, BY TELEPHONE, AS HE HAS DONE PREVIOUSLY, ON FEBRUARY 11TH, AND TO ACT AS A WITNESS, IN A COURT OF LAW, WITHOUT SWEARING THE TRUTH, OF HER STATEMENTS, BEFOREHAND AND FOR THIS TO BE ACCEPTED, AS EVIDENCE, AT THE HEARING. 

13. JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IS BOUND BY LAW, TO ACT FAIR AND JUST AND WITHOUT BIAS, OR THE PRESUMPTION OF BIAS, IN THE HEARING. WHICH MEANS THAT HE MUST ADDRESSED THE ISSUES, OR CONCERNS THAT ARE RAISED, AT THE HEARING, INCLUDING, AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE, OR PRIOR TO THE HEARING, REGARDING THE CASE. ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, MUST BE HEARD, BY THE JUDGE. AND ALSO ADDRESSED, AT THE HEARING. AND IT IS THEN RECORDED, BY THE COURT.

14. INCLUDING, THE INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, PROVIDED AT THE HEARING, OR TO THE COURT, WHETHER REGARDING, THE HEARING ITSELF, OR THE MATERIALS FILED, OR REGARDING THE PROCEDURE, IN REGARDS TO OBTAINING THAT EVIDENCE, SUCH AS WHETHER A WITNESS, WHO HAVE NOT PROVIDED, A SWORN STATEMENT (AFFIDAVIT) AND IS ALLOWED TO PROCEED, OR NOT. 

THESE CONCERNS ARE RAISED, BECAUSE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO, MAY NOT HAVE FOLLOWED, THE PROCEDURES OF THE COURT, SET FORTH IN THE LAW, IN REGARDS TO THE HEARING ON FEBRUARY 11TH, CONCERNING THE WITNESSES, AT THE HEARING. THAT IS, THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS PREPARED TO GIVE EVIDENCE, WITHOUT SWEARING IT FIRST, WHO WAS ON THE TELEPHONE AND AS THE JUDGE MENTIONED, AT THE HEARING, "WAS PREPARED TO GO". THAT IS, SHE WAS PREPARED, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING, AS A WITNESS AND JUST BY STATING HER VIEWS, OR COMMENTS, WITHOUT MAKING, A SWORN STATEMENT FIRST. OR THE OTHER WITNESS, WHO IS A PARALEGAL AND THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT, CURRENTLY, IN HER OTHER MATTERS AT THE BOARD, WHO HAVE SWORN AN AFFIDAVIT, ON BEHALF OF HER CLIENT, THE DEFENDANT, WHICH RAISES THE ISSUE OF A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, IN THE PROCEEDING.

THE DIVISIONAL COURT CASE, THAT JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, IS PRESIDING OVER AND WHICH HE APPEARS TO FAVOUR, THE DEFENDANT ANGELA STERLING'S, DESPITE THE FACT THAT, HER MOTION, TO DISMISS MY APPEAL, LACKED ANY MERITS.

WHO IS VIOLENT AGAINST WHO?. (take a stroll, down this blog, and you will also see, the mountain of evidence, to prove her violence. Video evidences, of her death threats, or turning the hose on my window, etc. do not lie).

THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING, HAS FILED A MOTION, TO DISMISS MY APPEAL, FROM THE L&T BOARD, GRANTING HER AN EVICTION, CLAIMING THAT I WAS VIOLENT, TO THE THE LANLDORD. WITH NOT A SINGLE, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, TO BACK UP THAT CLAIM. (AND IN FACT THE BOARD, ALREADY HAD VIDEO EVIDENCE, OF HER DEATH THREATS, AGAINST ME, AND OTHER VIOLENCE, THAT WAS VIEWED, BY THE MEMBER, SHELBY WHITTICK, IN 2019. BUT THE MEMBER, ALEX BRKIC, WHO HAS GRANTED, HER THE EVICTION, NEVER BOTHERED TO LOOK INTO THE FILES, AND THE DISHONEST, PARALEGAL, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, ALSO NEVER MENTIONED, ITS EXISTANCE, AT THE HEARING.

I CHOSE TO DISCUSS THE CASE, HERE ON MY BLOG AND I WILL ALSO PRESENT, THE EVIDENCE, FROM MY AFFIDAVIT,  SINCE I BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE ANOTHER INSTANCE, WHERE THE CANADIAN COURT, WILL TRY TO ABUSE MY RIGHTS. SO FAR I HAVE BEEN RIGHT, IN HOW THE CASE HAS BEEN HANDLED, BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO AND EVEN BY THE JUDGE, WHO IS SEIZED OF THE MATTER, MICHAEL PENNY. 

(THE FIRST THING, THAT HE DID AT THE HEARING, ON THURSDAY FEBRUARY 11TH, WAS TO MAKE IT A "CLOSED DOOR HEARING". HE PROCEEDED TO BAN, ALL RECORDINGS, OF THE HEARING.  INCLUDING, PICTURES, AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING, BEFORE THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED, TO ANOTHER DATE. WHICH IS ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15TH). 

Note: If Canada, had an open court system, I would not be making my case, public today. With a closed door hearing, many things go on at those hearings, which the public cannot see. And I have been the victim, of most of those systematic, discrimination.

FOR EXAMPLE, MY URGENT MOTION, FOR A CONTEMPT ORDER, AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING, WHICH WAS FILED ON JANUARY 27th, WAS NOT EVEN ON THE DOCKET TO BE HEARD, ON FEBRUARY 11TH. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD ON THAT DAY. WHEN CHECKING THE STATUS OF THE MOTIONS, ON CASE LINES, THAT WERE UP FOR A HEARING, ON THAT DAY. THE MOTION FOR A CONTEMPT ORDER, WAS NOT PRESENT. ALL OF THE MATTERS, WERE SUPPOSEDLY, SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD, ON FEBRUARY 11th. HOWEVER, MY MOTION WAS NOT ON THE DOCKET. IN DEED THE DEFENDANT, ONLY APPEARED BY TELEPHONE, AT A VIDEO HEARING, AND THIS WAS OKAY BY THE JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, BECAUSE WHY SHOULD THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING, BE CONCERNED, ABOUT ANY CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE, AGAINST HER, WHEN THE COURT, DID NOT BRING THE MOTION, THAT WAS AGAINST HER, TO BE HEARD?. THE COURT ONLY WANTED TO PROCEED, WITH THE MOTION TO DISMISS MY APPEAL. A MOTION THAT ON THE FACE OF IT, LACKED ANY MERITS.

IN FACT, THE CONSPIRACY, INVOLVING THIS CASE, IS THAT THEY ARE TRYING, TO FORCE ME TO BECOME HOMELESS, (INCLUDING THE COURT). The defendant's case now present them with an opportunity, to do that, even though base on the merits alone, it should not move forward. Unless for example, the judge agrees that the defendant's counsel, is not in a conflict of interest. And as I have already mentioned, she is already being investigated, by the Law Society, in regards to that very fact. And the role that she has played so far, in this case, as the paralegal counsel, for the defendant, in her other matters, that are before the L&T Board, currently. She did not recused herself, from any of her client's matters, citing a conflict of interest. But we will hear, or see how the court, will view her actions, when the motion is heard. And if he will accept her affidavit evidence, in the Divisional Court.

 

PARALEGAL, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, IS THE DEPONENT, IN HER AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE, TO THE MOTION. SHE IS ALSO THE PRESENT COUNSEL, FOR THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING. AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DID NOT STOP HER, FROM FURTHERING THE INTERESTS OF HER CLIENT, IN HER AFFIDAVIT.

IF YOU QUESTIONED THAT JUDGEMENT, HERE ARE THE MAIN ISSUES, OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION, THAT ARE TO BE ADDRESSED, IMMEDIATELY, BY THE COURT, BEFORE IT SHOULD EVEN PROCEED. THE MATTER IS UP FOR A HEARING, BY JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2021. HIS DEMEANOR AT THE HEARING (ADJOURNED), ON THURSDAY, WAS QUESTIONABLE. I STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE, IF HE IS GOING TO OVERLOOK, THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, THAT WAS FILED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING. OR TO OVERLOOK THE OTHER EVIDENCE, WHICH IS WHY I HAVE PRESENTED, MOST OF THEM HERE ON MY BLOG, (BUT NOT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION, SINCE THE MATTER IS STILL BEFORE THE COURT. I WILL SPEAK ON MY OWN EVIDENCE, BECAUSE IT IS MY RIGHTS, THAT ARE BEING HABITUALLY VIOLATED, BY THE COURT). BUT AS A PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST, YOU CAN TAKE MY WORD, THAT ALL OF WHAT I HAVE REPORTED, IS TRUE. AND I HAVE HAD OVER TEN YEARS, OF BLOGGING EXPERIENCE, TO PROVE MY CREDIBILITY. 

THE DEFENDANT'S OTHER COUNSEL, IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT CASE, IS JAFARI DELARAM, A LAWYER, WHO WANTS AN EASY WIN. AND SHE ALSO BELIEVES THAT SHE CAN GET IT, BY THE SHENNIGANS OF THE COURT SO FAR. SHE CAME UP WITH THE SO CALLED "BRILLIANT" IDEA, OF HAVING THE DEFENDANT'S OTHER COUNSEL, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, AS THE SOLE DEPONENT, IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, TO DISMISS MY APPEAL. IN THAT AFFIDAVIT, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, DID A LOT OF MUDSLINGING AND ATTACKS, AGAINST MY CHARACTER. MAINLY, HER OWN OPINIONS AND THAT OF HER CLIENT, THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING. THE MUDSLINGING WAS NECESSARY, SINCE THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, PRESENTED IN HER AFFIDAVIT, TO BACK UP HER CLAIM, THAT I WAS VIOLENT TO THE DEFENDANT. 

SOME OF THE MAIN ISSUES, IN THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION, ARE THE FOLLOWING GLARINGLY, OBVIOUS ONES, THAT ON THE FACE OF IT, CANNOT PROCEED IN A COURT OF LAW. CONFLICT OF INTEREST, HERESAY EVIDENCE, MATTERS THAT ARE BASED ON OPINIONS, RATHER THAN FACTS AND MATTERS TO BE HEARD, THAT ARE NOT BEFORE THE COURT. 

1.THAT THE EVIDENCE, OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BY THE (ONLY) DEPONENT, TO THE MOTION, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, A PARALEGAL AND ALSO THE COUNSEL, FOR THE DEFENDANT ANGELA STERLING, IN HER OTHER MATTERS, AT THE L&T BOARD, CURRENTLY, PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND SHOULD NOT PROCEED, ON THAT BASIS. 

2. HERESAY EVIDENCE, IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEPONENT, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT, WHICH SHE HAS GOTTEN, FROM THE DEFENDANT HERSELF, AND NOT AS A DIRECT WITNESS AND EVIDENCE WHICH ARE BASED ON THE ALLEGATIONS, THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS MADE, WITHOUT ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 

3. THE EVIDENCE IN THE DEPONENT, SHELLYANN PEREIRA'S AFFIDAVIT, IS FULL OF HER OPINIONS, AND LACKED ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. ASIDE FROM EXHIBITS, THAT SHE HAS ALSO PRESENTED IN HER AFFIDAVIT, THAT SHE HAS TAKEN FROM THE OTHER MATTERS, THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEFORE THE BOARD (THAT IS, MATTERS THAT ARE NOT BEFORE THE COURT) AND NONE OF WHICH INCLUDED, ANY EVIDENCE OF VIOLENCE, AGAINST THE APPELLANT. WHICH THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, IS ALSO RELYING ON. THAT THE APPELLANT IS VIOLENT, TO THE DEFENDANT, AND SO THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED, BASED ON THAT ASSUMPTION.

4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE APPELLANT'S RESPONDING MOTION AND THE EVIDENCE, THAT SHE HAS PROVIDED IN HER AFFIDAVIT, SHOWS THAT THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING, HAS BEEN VIOLENT TOWARDS THE APPELLANT. EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM HER AFFIDAVIT, INCLUDED, THE NUMEROUS CRIMINAL CHARGES, AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING.

5. SHELLYANN PEREIRA, PARALEGAL AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT, IS ALSO UNDER AN INVESTIGATION, BY THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA. AND SHE IS NOT ALLOWED, LEGALLY, TO PRACTICE IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT. IN FACT, SHE WAS ADVISED, EARLY ON IN THE CASE, BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, TO NOT CONTINUE TO INTERFERE IN THE CASE, AS A PARALEGAL. BUT SHE HAS FOUND ANOTHER WAY, TO DO JUST THAT, BY SWEARING AN AFFIDAVIT, WHICH WAS USED AS THE ONLY EVIDENCE, TO THE MOTION. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, WAS ABLE TO ATTACK THE CHARACTER, OF THE APPELLANT, WITH HER OPINIONS AND INSISTED THAT THE APPEAL, SHOULD BE DISMISSED, BECAUSE OF THE APPELLANT'S VIOLENCE, TO THE DEFENDANT AND NOT A SINGLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, OF SUCH A VIOLENCE, WAS PRESENTED IN HER AFFIDAVIT. 

6. PARALEGAL SHELLYANN PEREIRA, HAS CONTACTED THE DIVISIONAL COURT AND  THREATENED, TO CONTACT THE M.P.P., TO GET HIS INVOLVEMENT, IN THE CASE. TO WHICH THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ADVISED HER THAT AS A PARALEGAL, SHE MUST NOT INTERFERE, IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT MATTERS. I HAVE VIEWED THE DOCUMENT, CONTAINING, SHELLYANN'S PEREIRA'S THREATS, TO GET OTHERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE. TO WHICH I HAVE RESPONDED, THAT THE MPP HAS NO MORE LEGAL AUTHORITY, TO MOVE THE COURT, THAN A BELLHOP, OR A MUSICIAN. THEN SHE FOLLOWED UP WITH AN AFFIDAVIT, THAT WAS FULL OF HER OPINIONS, OF WHY THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE APPEAL AND ALL TAKEN FROM THE ALLEGATIONS, THAT WERE MADE BY HER CLIENT, ANGELA STERLING, IN REGARDS TO THE APPELLANT. 

7. SHELLYANN PEREIRA, WAS ALSO A WITNESS, AND THE DEPONENT IN HER AFFIDAVIT, IN THE MOTION, AND WAS AT THE HEARING, ON FEBRUARY 11TH. EVEN THOUGH THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED, BECAUSE OF THE MALFUNCTIONING, OF THE EQUIPMENT, OF THE APPELLANT, AT THE HEARING. WHERE SHE HAD TO BORROW SOMEONE'S TELEPHONE, TO ASKED FOR THE MATTER, TO BE ADJOURNED, BECAUSE HER OWN DEVICE, HAD BROKEN DOWN. THE APPELLANT NOTICED, THAT THE PARALEGAL SHELLYANN PEREIRA, WAS ALSO SHOWN, AS BEING PRESENT, AT THE HEARING. AND TO GIVE EVIDENCE, ON BEHALF OF HER CLIENT,,ANGELA STERLING.

I WILL PRESENT HERE, THE APPELLANT'S RESPONDING MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE, WITH EXHIBITS, OPPOSING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION, TO LIFT THE STAY AND TO DISMISS HER APPEAL. BASED ON THE SO CALLED "EVIDENCE", IN THE AFFIDAVIT, WHICH ONLY CONTAINED, THE OPINIONS OF THE DEPONENT, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, BASED ON THE ALLEGATIONS, OF HER CLIENT, THE DEFENDANT ANGELA STERLING. (I will try to provide an hyperlink, with both the Appellant's, Affidavit and Factum, later).  

NOTE: MY AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE, EXHIBITS, "I", "J", "K" "Q", ARE AUDIO, OR VIDEO EVIDENCE, CONTAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THAT ARE ALREADY, MADE PUBLIC. SUCH AS ON MY BLOG, OR AS YOUTUBE VIDEOS. EXHIBIT "L" IS A COPY, OF AN INJUNCTION MOTION, THAT I HAVE FILED, AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND TOO LARGE TO PUT THE WHOLE MOTION DOCUMENT HERE, WITHOUT A HYPERLINK. EXHIBIT "N" HAS PRIVATE NAMES AND SIGNATURES, REGARDING THE PETITION, AND EXHIBIT "P", EVIDENCE, IS AVAILABLE, THROUGH THE ACTUAL VIDEO, THAT IS POSTED ON THIS BLOG, THAT SHOWS THE WINDOW SCREEN, PRIOR TO THE ACCUSATIONS MADE, AND ALSO REFUTED THOSE CLAIMS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                 

SOME OF THE EXHIBITS, THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE APPELLANT'S AFFIDAVIT, ARE THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE, AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING AND ALSO CONTAINED, BOTH AUDIO AND VIDEO EVIDENCE, OF HER DEATH THREATS, (which has also been published on this blog, earlier. As well as on my Youtube channel. Also posted on this blog, two years ago, is the video of the window, showing that it was already damaged, contrary to the deponent and also the defendant's evidence). (I will also be uploading the factum, as well).