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).
