THE LATEST CORRUPT, CANADIAN JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, WHO HAVE ACTED, AGAINST ME, AS PART OF THE OVERALL, ATTACKS, THAT I HAVE FACED, FROM THEM.
THIS CORRUPT, ONTARIO JUDGE, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, COURT, IN TORONTO, ACTIONS SPEAK, FOR THEMSELVES.
MY NUMBER ONE CHARGE, AGAINST HIM, WAS IN MAKING A FINAL DECISION, ON MY URGENT MOTIONS, FOR WHICH HE ALSO LACKED THE JURISDICTION, TO DO SO, AS THE CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE. FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, OR MANDATORY ORDER. HE THEN MADE HIMSELF, BOTH THE TRIAL JUDGE AND ALSO THE CASE CONFERENCE, JUDGE AND ALSO PROCEEDED, TO ACT AS BOTH, HEARING ORAL EVIDENCE, FROM THE RESPONDENTS, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, WHO HAD NEITHER FILED AN AFFIDAVIT, IN SUPPORT OF THEIR STATEMENTS, NOR ANY RESPONDING MOTION MATERIALS. ALL THIS CORRUPT JUDGE NEEDED, WAS THEIR ORAL STATEMENTS. HE ALSO SPENT A LOT OF TIME, ROLLING HIS EYES AT ME, AS IF TO SAY, "I DON'T WANT TO HEAR, FROM YOU". BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HAD ALLOWED THE RESPONDENTS, TO SPEAK, WITHOUT HIM, ALSO INTERUPTING THEM, AS HE HAD THE HABIT, OF INTERUPTING ME, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE. INCLUDING, MUTING MY MICROPHONE. AT ONE POINT, I TOLD THIS JUDGE, TO RECUSED HIMSELF, FROM MY CASE, BECAUSE OF HIS OBVIOUS BIAS AND SHOWING NO INTEREST, IN THE HARM DONE TO ME, BY THE RESPONDENTS, IN LOCKING ME OUT OF MY HOME. HE EVEN TOLD ME, TO TAKE MY MATTER TO THE LTB, WHICH HE ALSO KNEW, WOULD NOT HEAR THE MATTER, ON MY BEHALF. THAT ONLY THE COURT, COULD GRANT ME THE RELIEF, THAT I HAD SOUGHT, FROM THE COURT. AND THE FINAL STRAW, WAS THE ENDORSEMENT, THAT HE HAD THE CLERK SENT TO ME, THAT HE ALSO DID NOT SIGNED, OR HAD THE DOCUMENT, FILLED OUT COMPLETELY, BY THE COURT. (See the evidence, posted below, of the document, which I had also blackened out, the details of it, from the public. I wanted the public to see, the document that the judge had written his statements about, without bothering to sign it. Or even to have the documents, prepared properly. And to mock me and the situation, this same judge, Obrien Chamlers, and the clerk, also wanted me to served the respondents, the same document, of his endorsement, without him actually signing and making official, that document.
Recall: Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8,
2023 - Chalmers J
Inbox
Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) would like to recall the message,
"Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8, 2023 - Chalmers
J". |
|||||||||
|
|
Nov 9, 2023,
5:39 PM (4 days ago) |
|
||
|
Could you explain, why you would recalled this document?.
I am actually, demanding that you do, as part of this legal process and my
right to know this information.
Valerie Guillaume
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 12:21 PM Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca> wrote:
Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) would like to recall the message,
"Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8, 2023 - Chalmers
J".
HERE IS THE FULL CONVERSATION:
|
Wed,
Nov 8, 12:03 PM (5 days ago) |
|
||
|
Could
you send me that document again?. I can't seem to find it. I am here referring
to, the endorsement of the judge, Chalmers O.
Thanks
Valerie
Guillaume
|
Nov
8, 2023, 12:27 PM (5 days ago) |
|
||
|
Good afternoon,
I do not have the endorsement from
the last case conference.
Please reach out to the judicial
assistant for a copy of the endorsement.
From: Val Henry Guillaume
<valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Sent: November 8, 2023 12:03 PM
To: Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-
Subject: Re: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 -
Endorsement dated Nov 6, 2023 - Chalmers J
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender.
Could you send me that document again?.
I can't seem to find it. I am here referring to, the endorsement of the judge,
Chalmers O.
Thanks
Valerie Guillaume
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 11:32 AM Val
Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com> wrote:
I will do so.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 11:00 AM Civil
Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-
Good morning,
Please reach out to the judicial
assistant for a copy of the endorsement.
From: Val Henry Guillaume
<valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Sent: November 8, 2023 10:59 AM
To: Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-
Subject: Fwd: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 -
Endorsement dated Nov 6, 2023 - Chalmers J
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender.
To: the Superior Court of Justice
Civil Urgent Matters
This is a reminder, to my earlier email
to you, in regards to getting the judge's endorsement, for the case conference
hearing, regarding the urgent motions, that was held yesterday, on November 7,
2023. As I had mentioned previously, A CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE, CANNOT MAKE ANY
FINAL DECISION, ON THE MATTER, SINCE HE IS NOT THE TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY THE TRIAL
JUDGE, CAN MAKE A FINAL DECISION, ON THE URGENT MOTIONS. AND THAT WOULD
ALSO BE DONE, AFTER A HEARING. A case conference judge, as Chalmers O.
was yesterday, do not have the jurisdiction, to determine, the final outcome,
of those matters that I have before the court, currently. First of all, he was
privy to information, at the case conference hearing yesterday, that a trial
judge would not have. Case conference hearings, are also not generally recorded
and an oral hearing on a motion, by a trial judge, is recorded. The judge also
cannot be both a trial judge and also the case conference judge, on the
matter. That is against the law and practices of the court. In one of my other
previous matters, that was before the Divisional court, I had to ask the case
conference judge, Justice Corbett, to recused himself, from being the trial
judge, in my civil matter, before that court. In fact, he even recused himself,
from continuing to be the case conference judge, with regards to that matter.
At the case conference hearing, with the judge, Chalmers O. I also asked him,
to recused himself, because of his personal bias and I will follow the practice
of the court and put my request in a motion, for him to removed himself, from
being the case conference judge, who is monitoring the case. And he also
certainly, will not be the trial judge, handling my urgent motions, as well.
While the court has continued to delay, the hearing of my urgent motions, that
are before the court, I also continue to suffer harm, which is not the purpose
of the court to do, regarding my legal rights.
I choose to disregard, the case
conference judge, Chalmers O. about the finality of my urgent motions, since
the urgent motion, has not been heard as yet, outside of the case conference,
which was not intended to be a trial. Instead of having the respondents, give
their evidence at the trial, or by way of a sworn affidavit, as part of their
written responding motion record, the case conference judge, had them rambling
on about their evidence, which he also took as the truth, without them swearing
or affirming, under oath, to tell the truth. Needless to say, there was a lot
of things that were wrong, with the case conference judge's actions, yesterday,
that will also be investigated. I also have the option, to have the
Ontario Judicial Council, investigate his actions. This judge knows the
difference, or ought to have known the difference, between the two roles, that
are mandated by the practices of the court and also under the law, concerning a
case conference hearing, by a judge and a trial hearing, by a trial judge. A
case conference judge, manages the case and can also, if the parties consented,
resolved some of the issues, before a trial. Whatever is discussed at a case
conference hearing, is almost never heard at a trial. This is also one of the
reasons, why a judge who manages a case conference, cannot also be the same
judge, who conducts the hearing, or trial, on the motion that was filed. Such a
trial would not be a fair one.
I am still expecting, that my urgent
motions be heard, preferably, by a difference case conference judge and also
that a trial date, be also set for a hearing on the urgent motion, since this
case conference judge, has now asked that the respondents, be served with the
urgent motion. And it is no longer a motion, that was made without notice.
Likewise, the respondents are now mandated, under the Rules, to serve their
responding motion materials on me and to then file it with the court. After
which a hearing, to decide the outcome of the case, will be then set by the
court.
I am expecting the court, to respond to
this inquiry, so that my matter can proceed, as it should, in the court.
Valerie Guillaume
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 2:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 - Endorsement dated Nov
6, 2023 - Chalmers J
To: Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca>
There was a case conference, that was
held this morning, by the judge, Obrien Chalmers and the matter will be looked
into further. As the case conference judge, he has taken it upon himself, to
claim that the urgent motions, will no longer go any further, with the court.
He has no legal jurisdiction, to do that, since he is not the trial judge, who
is hearing the motions. A case conference judge, cannot hear evidence at the
case conference and then to make a decision, on the motions, to end it.
His actions will be investigated, by the Ontario Judicial Council. He lacked the
jurisdiction, to make any kind of final outcome, with regards to the urgent
motions, that I have filed with the court. And he cannot be both the case
conference judge, and also the trial judge, on the same case.
As such, I would like a hearing, scheduled
for my urgent motion, as this case conference, obviously, did not go in my
favor. Either, another judge has to be assigned to this case, since I have also
asked this same judge, Chalmers, to recused himself, from the case. The court
must continue to proceed with this matter, since a case conference judge,
cannot end the matter, without a hearing first, on the matter. And that is the
role of the trial judge and not the case conference judge,in order to make sure
that the process was fair to me. You can provide me, with the judge's
endorsement, in writing, for todays, case conference hearing and I need that
asap, in order to proceed with my complaint, against that judge, as well as to
proceed with the matter, before the court.
Valerie
Guillaume
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 - Endorsement dated Nov
6, 2023 - Chalmers J
To: Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca>
I will be filing a complaint, with the
judicial council, against the judge, for issuing this document, that he also
did not sign, knowingly, as part of his corruption.
Valerie Guillaume
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at
1:47 PM Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
On behalf of Justice Chalmers, attached please
find the endorsement on the above-noted matter. If you have any questions
or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Please confirm receipt of this e-mail.
Thank you
Anna Maria Tiberio
Judicial Assistant to
Justice Lococo, Justice Nakonechny,
Justice Chalmers, and
Justice Pinto
361 University Avenue,
Room 140
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1T3
Tel: (416) 327-5284
PLEASE NOTE:
Under
Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, no party to the
proceeding and no party’s lawyer shall communicate about the proceeding with a
judge out of court directly or indirectly unless (a) all the parties consent in
advance to the out-of-court communication or (b) the court orders otherwise.
Judges
have asked that you comply with Rule 1.09 and cease from sending any
communication directly to them, whether by e-mail, letter, or otherwise.
Thank
you
|
ReplyForward |