CORRUPTION, AT THE COURT OF APPEAL. AND BRINGING DISHONOR UPON THE COURT. THERE SHOULD BE CHARGES LAID, FOR OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, IN THIS CASE, BY THE COURT STAFF.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, ACTED OUTSIDE OF HER JURISDICTION AND ADJOURNED, THE URGENT MOTION, THAT A JUDGE WAS TO DECIDE ON, AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING DATE, OF MARCH 3, 2021.
HOW THE COA AND ITS STAFF, INCLUDING, THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, DELAYED, MY URGENT MOTION, THAT THEY KNEW, WOULD CAUSED ME HARM.
I was directly told, by the Deputy Registrar, Sandra Theroulde, on March 3rd, at about 3 p.m. that the urgent motion, would NOT be presented, to the sitting judge and going back on her word earlier, that the scheduled urgent motion, would be heard at 10. a.m. today. I had contacted her, to find out the status of the urgent motion, and she told me that SHE WILL NOT, present the urgent motion, to the judge to be heard, and that AFTER speaking with the lawyer, Jafari Delaram, that the matter WILL be adjourned, until Friday, March 3rd. It was clear from her actions and words, that she had made the decision, to adjourned the matter, on her own and her actual words to me were that, THE COURT WILL NOT HEAR, THE URGENT MOTION TODAY, after it was scheduled to be heard. And that was not a decision, that the court had made at the time.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, DID NOT PRESENT MY URGENT MOTION, TO THE JUDGE, AFTER CONFIRMING ON MARCH 3, 2021, CONTRARY TO HER EARLIER STATEMENT, THAT THE MATTER WOULD BE HEARD TODAY, AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD. INSTEAD, SHE DECIDED ON HER OWN, TO ADJOURN THE MATTER, UNTIL FRIDAY, MARCH 5TH. WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF HER JURISDICTION, TO DO SO. ONLY A JUDGE CAN ADJOURNED THE MATTER, AFTER REVIEWING IT, NOT THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, AFTER CONFIRMING WITH ME, BY TELEPHONE, THIS MORNING, WEDNESDAY MARCH 3RD, THAT MY URGENT MOTION, FOR A STAY ORDER, WOULD BE BEFORE THE JUDGE, AT THE COURT OF APPEAL, AT 10:A.M, NOW WENT BACK ON HER WORD AND DID NOT PRESENT MY MATTER TO THE COURT, BUT INSTEAD HAS ACTED UPON THE ADVICE OF THE LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, TO DELAY MY MATTER, UNTIL FRIDAY MARCH 5TH, SO THE EVICTION, CAN BE CARRIED OUT, ON MARCH 4TH.
The excuse presented by the Deputy Registrar, Sandra Theroulde, that the court did not get the lawyer's reponding motion is a lie and contradicts the actual evidence, that the court had received, the motion record of the lawyer, Jafari Delaram, on March 2nd, at 10:33 a.m. after she had served me with her motion record. The lawyer was served, with the Amended motion for a Stay order, on March 1, st. (See the article below, to view the proof, of the filing of the lawyer, Jafari Delaram's motion record, with the court, on March 2nd, at 10:33 a.m. Which contradict what the Deputy Registrar, Sandra Theroulde, is saying about the court's position. And for delaying the matter, on that basis. The lawyer herself, after filing the document, has said in her response, that delaying the matter, until Friday, March 5th, WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY. (See the actual document, with her statement, in the copy of the image in this article below).
The Deputy Registrar, Sandra Theroulde, is now saying, that the court of appeal and the judge, need time to review the respondent's materials. WELL, IT WAS FILED WITH THE COURT, TWO DAYS AGO. AND IT IS AN URGENT MOTION, THAT I HAVE FILED!
In lawyer, Jefari Delaram's email to the court on Monday, March 1st, she claimed, that my urgent motion should be thrown out and she sent the email to a staff at the COA, Taneka Adams, who in all appearance, is helping this lawyer, in ways that goes against the law. That is, in trying to interfere with the procedure of the court, regarding my matter. It is also called obstructing justice.
WHY WOULD THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, NOT PRESENT THE URGENT MOTION FOR A STAY, BEFORE THE JUDGE, HAS SHE HAS SAID TO ME, THIS MORNING, WHEN THE URGENT MOTION WAS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD?. WHY HAS SHE NOW DELAYED MY MATTER FURTHER, ON THE ADVICE OF THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, UNTIL FRIDAY MARCH 5TH, SO THAT THE EVICTION, CAN BE CARRIED OUT AGAINST ME, ON MARCH 4TH?. HOW CAN ANYONE NOT SEE THAT THIS DELAY, IN CHANGING THE DATE, OF SCHEDULED MOTION, AND NOT BY THE JUDGE, WAS ILLEGAL AND OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION, OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE?
ONLY A JUDGE, CAN CHANGE THE DATE, ON A MOTION TO BE HEARD AND NOT THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR. IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION, OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE MOTION, THAT WAS ALREADY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD, BY A JUDGE. THE URGENT MOTION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORWARDED, TO THE JUDGE AND FOR THE JUDGE TO DECIDE ON THE MATTER, WHETHER TO PROCEED OR NOT, AND NOT FOR THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, TO ADJOURN IT ON HER OWN. THAT IS ILLEGAL.
Note: After contacting, the Deputy Registrar, Sandra Theroulde, again and and informing her, that it was outside of her jurisdiction, to adjourned my matter, and that only a judge can do so, I later received an email from the clerk, advising me that the matter, was reviwed by a single motion judge, (no name of the judge was given, or any endorsement of the judge, was forwarded in the email, unlike the endorsement of the judge on February 25, who had reviewed the ex parte motion and I had a record, via the endorsement, of the decision of the judge directly). 
PLEASE NOTICE, THAT THERE IS NO ENDORSEMENT, FROM THE JUDGE AS PROOF, THAT THE MATTER, WAS REVIEWED BY A JUDGE. ONLY A STATEMENT THAT IT WAS, WITHOUT ANY PROOF. THIS EMAIL WAS SENT, ONLY MINUTES AFTER THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, WAS ADVISED, THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION, OR AUTHORITY, TO ADJOURNED THE MATTER AND ONLY A JUDGE COULD DO SO. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MOST UNLIKELY, THAT A JUDGE (WHO WAS UNNAMED IN THE EMAIL), COULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CASE AND TO MAKE THAT DECISION, AND FOR THE COURT NOT TO HAVE HAD THAT DECISION, IN WRITING BY THE JUDGE, VIA AN ENDORSEMENT.
Sandra Theroulde's, emails below and her response, about the lack of proof, that a judge had reviwed my matter and claiming that the judge, only gave instructions to the clerk, to adjourned the urgent motion, without putting her decision in writing, as the law requires a judge to do. There is no proof provided by the Deputy Registrar, concerning the judge who has made such a decision, or a copy of the endorsement, with the reasons that are given by the judge, in making the decision, to adjorned the matter, to March 5th.
A judge is bound by law, to put the decision in writing, as well as the reasons for the decision. Sandra Theroulde herself, had directly told me, that she would not present the matter, to the judge. And that the matter will be adjourned, from the hearing date of March 3rd, to March 5th. In her attempt to delay the urgent motion, until after the eviction date, of March 4th.
