Tuesday, November 7, 2023

A TORONTO JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, CAUGHT ACTING CORRUPTLY. I HAVE POSTED A COURT DOCUMENT, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNED, BY HIM AND WHICH HE DID NOT DO. YET HE SENT, THE DOUCUMENT, TO THE PARTIES, UNSIGNED.

 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.

A Superior Court of Justice 
judge in Toronto, Ontario Canada

WHAT THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, DID AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, TODAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2023.
1. HE BROUGHT UP AND WENT INTO MUCH DETAILS, ABOUT AN OLD CASE, THAT I HAD FILED, IN THE DIV. COURT, AGAINST BARNEY RIVERS INVESTMENT LTD. TWO YEARS AGO AND THEN USED THAT CASE, AS A REFERENCE, TO MAKING HIS DECISION, TODAY, TO NOT GRANT ME, THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, OR MANDATORY ORDER, THAT I WAS SEEKING, WITH THE URGENT MOTION, THAT I HAD FILED. 

2. HE HEARD FULL EVIDENCE, FROM THE RESPONDENTS, WHEN THEY HAD NOT EVEN FILED, ANY RESPONDING MOTION MATERIALS, WITH THE COURT. INCLUDING, AN AFFIDAVIT, YET ACCEPTED, THEIR STATEMENTS, AS THE TRUTH. 

3. HE MADE THE DECISION, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, HEARING, TODAY, THAT THE URGENT MOTION, FOR A MANDATORY ORDER, WAS ALSO NOT GOING TO GO, TO A HEARING, OR TRIAL. THAT HE WAS GOING TO END, THE MATTER, RIGHT THERE, AT THE CONFERENCE HEARING, BY DENYING, THE ORDER SOUGHT. SO HE WAS BOTH THE CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE AND THE TRIAL JUDGE, ALL IN ONE. WHICH IS NOT HOW, THIS MATTER, IS TO BE HANDLED, BY THE COURT. 
4. HE BANNED, ALL RECORDING OF HIS ACTIONS, KNOWING, THAT HE WAS GOING TO ACT CURRUPTLY, IN THE MATTER AND WANTED NO RECORD, OF HIS ACTIONS, TO BE MADE PUBLIC.

                                        5. HE MADE A SECOND ENDORSEMENT, OF HIS                             DECISION, OF THE CASE CONFERENCE, THAT WAS HEARD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2023, AT 8:30 A.M.  AND WHEN I HAD ASKED FOR ANOTHER COPY, THINKING THAT I HAD LOST THE COPY THAT WAS SENT TO ME, HIS ASSITANT THEN SIMPLY ASKED, FOR THE ENTIRE ENDORSEMENT, TO BE RECALLED.  THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE JUDGE, SHOWED A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, WHEN HE OPENLY DISCUSSED, A PREVIOUS CASE THAT I HAD IN THE DIVISIONAL CASE, THAT WAS SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT CASE AND HOW HE HAD USED THAT CASE, TO DETERMINED THE OUTCOME, OF THE PRESENT CASE. TO MOOT THE CASE AND TO PREVENT IT FROM HAVING, A HEARING. 

NOTICE THAT THIS COURRUPT JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, DID NOT SIGN THIS DOCUMENT, THAT HE HAD THE COURT, SENT TO ME, SO THAT I COULD SERVE IT, ON THE RESPONDENTS. HE ALSO LEFT OUT, OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION,
SUCH AS THE RELIEF SOUGHT.
HE ALSO DISMISSED, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, AN URGENT MOTION, FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER, TO STOP THE ILLEGAL EVICTION, WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, AFTER I WAS LOCKED OUT OF MY HOME, BY THE LANDLOD,



MORE ABOUT THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS
HE IS ALSO, A DEFENDANT, WHO WILL BE FACING CHARGES, BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRMINAL, AGAINST ME.
AS A CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE, HE HEARD FULL EVIDENCE, FROM THE RESPONDENTS, WITHOUT THEM, PUTTING THEIR RESPONS
This judge, acted as a case conference judge, when I had filed an urgent motion, for an interlocutory injunction and for a mandatory order, after being illegally forced out of my home, without an eviction order. As a case conference judge, he, then "heard the case", including, the hearing of evidence, from the witnesses and then made his decision, that the matter will not go for a hearing, and decided, not to grant the interlocutory order, that I was seeking, to stop the landlord's actions, against me. This judge also had never considered, that harm done to me, as a result of the actions of 

He also read out loud, to all of the participants, at the case conference, that was held this morning, a prior case, that I had filed, against Barney Rivers Investments, Ltd. two years ago, which he had dug up and read at the case conference. And also based his decision on, which was that I should apply to the When I mentioned that his actions, had prejudiced me, by discussing a previous case, at the case conference, that was also not before the court, today, and was a case, that before the Div. Ct, two years ago, he said nothing. He also made the clerk read out loud, at the case conference, about the prohibition, of recording a hearing, just to make sure that his corrupt actions, will not be exposed. He was wrong!!. 
I am exposing, the fact that this judge, aside from his personal bias and attacks against me, acted against the administration of justice. He had the clerk sent me an endorsement document, WHICH THE JUDGE, OBRIEN, CHALMERS, also did not sign, or had the clerk filled out, the endorsement form. that the court had instructed me, to serve a copy on the other parties. I have posted page 1 and 2, of the documents here, on my blog.


UPDATE:  A SECOND ENDORSEMENT, OF THE CASE CONFERENCE, HEARING, ON NOVEMBER 7, 2023, WAS SENT OUT TO ME, ON NOV. 8TH, BY EMAIL AND WAS RECALLED, BY THE JUDGE'S ASSISTANT, ANNA MARIA TIBERIO. 
See the conversation below

Recall: Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8, 2023 - Chalmers J

Inbox

  Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD)

Nov 8, 2023, 12:21PM (5 days ago)

to me

Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) would like to recall the message, "Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8, 2023 - Chalmers J".


Nov 8, 2023, 12:21
PM (5 days ago)

 

Val Henry Guillaume 

Nov 9, 2023, 5:39PM (4 days ago)

to Anna

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: 

 

Val Henry Guillaume 

Wed, Nov 8, 12:03PM (5 days ago)

to Civil

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

Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto

Nov 8, 2023, 12:27PM (5 days ago)

to me

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-Toronto@ontario.ca>
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-Toronto@ontario.ca> wrote:

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-Toronto@ontario.ca>; palacemason@gmail.comBPARDIS@BIJANPARDIS.COM
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>, Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <Civilurgentmatters-SCJ-Toronto@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

 

 


 

































Thursday, October 19, 2023

EXPOSING, THE TORONTO DIVISIONAL COURT, JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, AS SHE IS PART OF THE OVERALL CORRUPT, JUDGES, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT.

HOW THE JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, CORRUPT DECISION, ON OCTOBER 13, 2023, HAS ADVERSELY, AFFECTED MY CASE, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT. 

ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT JUDGE
SANDRA NISHIKAWA


THIS JUDGE, I BELIEVED, WAS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY, IINVOLVING, THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO, TO KNOCK DOWN EVERY SINGLE MATTER, THAT I HAVE BEFORE THAT COURT. SHE ALONG WITH OTHER JUDGES, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, SUCH AS WENDY MATHESON, SEAN OBRIEN AND OTHERS.  WHAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE OF, IS HOW MUCH THEY ACT, AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, 

WHAT ARE AT STAKE, ARE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND MY FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS. SHE REGARDED NEITHER ONE, IN REGARDS TO HER ACTIONS.

A SUMMARY OF WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THE HEARING.


ON OCTOBER 13, 2023, I HAD A HEARING, BEFORE THIS JUDGE, ON MY URGENT MOTION, FOR A STAY, OF THE ORDER THAT WAS MADE, BY THE ACRB, OR THE ANIMAL CARE REVIEW BOARD, ON AUGUST 4, 2023, WHICH DID NOT HAVE A HEARING, ON MY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION APPLICATION, THAT I HAD FILED WITH THE BOARD, INVOLVING, MY THREE APPEALS, THAT WERE BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE BOARD ALSO MADE A DECISION IN THE ORDER, FOR A PAYMENT OF COSTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $23, 969.00, IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, REGARDING THE SHELTER CARE, OF MY ANIMALS, WHILE IN THE CARE OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE SERVICES.  AND FOR THE PAYMENT TO BE MADE, WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE ORDER MADE, ON AUGUST 4TH, OR ELSE THE ANIMALS, WOULD ALSO BE FORFEITED TO THE CROWN. ON AUGUST 14, 2023, I FILED AN APPEAL, WITH THE DIVISIONAL COURT, OF THE ORDER MADE, WHICH WAS WITHIN THE TEN DAYS, STIPULATED IN THE ORDER. THE DIVISIONAL COURT, THEN DENIED THE APPEAL AND ADVISED ME TO CONVERT THE APPEAL TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, WHICH I DID. THE DIVISIONAL COURT, THEN SET A DATE FOR OCTOBER 13, 2023, FOR THE HEARING OF THE URGENT MOTIION, THAT I HAD ALSO FILED, TO GO WITH MY JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, SINCE THERE WAS NO AUTOMATIC STAY OF THE ORDER, UNDER SECTION 25(1), OF THE STATUTORY POWERS PROCEDURE ACT, INVOLVING, THE DECISION OF THE BOARD. EVEN THOUGH, UNDER THE LAW, IT IS AN AUTHOMATIC STAY, OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD, OR TRIBUNAL, WHEN A DECISION OF A BOARD, INVOLVED, THE PAYMENT OF MONEY.  BECAUSE I WAS DENIED THE RIGHT, TO APPEAL THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, AND WHICH WOULD HAVE ALSO ALLOWED ME, THE AUTOMATIC STAY OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, I THEN FILED A MOTION FOR A STAY, IN ORDER TO STAY THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, UNTIL THE HEARING OF MY JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT.

ON OCTBER 13, 2023, AFTER THE RESPONDENT'S LAWYERS, JASON TAM AND DOUGLAS LEE, MADE THEIR ARGUMENT, THAT THE MOTION FOR A STAY, SHOULD BE DENIED, BASED ON THE STATUTORY LIMITATIONS, OF THE ORDER OF TEN DAYS, THIS JUDGE THEN MADE HER DECISION, TO DENY THE MOTION FOR A STAY, THAT FILED WITH THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, AND IN EFFECT, ENDED THE CASE, BEFORE IT COULD THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, COULD BE HEARD, BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT. WHICH, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS FILED, WITHIN THE TIME GRANTED BY THE COURT, THERE HAS YET, TO BE A DATE SET FOR THE HEARING, OF THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, THAT WAS ALSO FILED AS URGENT, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT.

THIS SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED, THE MOTION FOR A STAY AND ENDED MY CASE, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT, BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION. WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE, IS THE FACT THAT, THE DIVISIONAL COURT'S, PANEL OF JUDGES, HAS NOW BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT, TO HEAR THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, OF THE BOARD'S DECISION AND TO REVIEW, THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, INVOLVING, MY CASE. THIS SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, NISHIKAWA, HAS IN EFFECT, MADE THAT DECISION, FOR THE PANEL OF JUDGES, BY DENYING THE MOTION FOR A STAY, WHICH THEN ALLOWS THE BOARD'S DECISION TO STAND.  

WHAT THIS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, WAS THE FACT THAT THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT, WAS ALSO BASED, ON A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE BOARD, DID NOT HEAR MY CONSTTUTIONAL APPLICATION, BEFORE THE HEARING, OF THE APPEALS, AND HAD BASED IT'S DECISION, ON EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS, AT THE HEARING, WHICH SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN ECLUDED, FROM THE HEARING, UNDER SECTION 24(2) OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND ALSO UNDER, SECTION 52(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION.  WHICH ALSO RENDERS IN EFFECT, ANY LAWS THAT WAS INCONSISTENT, WITH SECTION 52(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE OTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR, WAS ALSO THE COST MADE IN THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, IN REGARDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $23, 969.00, WHICH THE SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, ALSO PREVENTED, THE DIVISIONAL COURT'S PANEL OF JUDGES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT DECISION MADE ON THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, IN THE ORDER OF THE BOARD. SHE ALSO DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, THAT I HAD ALSO APPEALED, THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, WITHIN THE TEN DAYS OF THE ORDER BEING MADE ON AUGUST 4, 2023, IN WHICH I HAD ALSO APPEALED, ON AUGUST 14, 2023. ALBEIT, THAT THE APPEAL WAS  CONVERTED, TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, ON THE ORDER OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, BY THE JUDGE, WENDY MATHESON. 

BY NOT ALLOWING THE MOTION FOR A STAY, OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, SO THAT THE DIVISIONAL COURT, COULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, TO REVIEW THE BOARD'S DECISION, REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW, SHE HAS IN EFFECT, DENIED THE COURT, THE OPPORTUNITY TO MADE A DECISION, ON THE ORDER OF THE BOARD. THE DECISION, THAT SHE HAS MADE ON OCTOBER 13, 2023, TO DENY THE MOTION FOR A STAY, OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, UNTIL THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, COULD BE HEARD BY THE COURT, IN EFFECT, ALLOWS THE BOARD'S DECISION TO STAND, BEFORE THAT THE DIVISIONAL COURT, HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE BOARD'S DECISION. SHE ALSO CLAIMED, IN HER DECISION, THAT THERE I HAD NOT PROVEN, THAT THERE WAS ANY HARM, TO BE SUFFERED BY ME, AND THAT I HAD ALSO NOT PROVEN, THAT THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE, PROVIDES FOR THE GRANTING OF THE STAY. SHE ALSO SKIPPED THE FIRST PART OF THE TEST, FOR THE GRANTING OF THE STAY, WHICH WAS THAT THERE WAS A SERIOUS ISSUE TO BE TRIED, WHICH IN THIS CASE, WAS THE HEARING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, REGARDING THE BOARD'S DECISON, NOT TO HAVE A VOIR DIRE HEARING, OF MY THREE APPEALS, ON MY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION APPLICATION, THAT WAS ALSO FILED, WITH THE ACRB. 

THE DECISION, OF THE SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO, IS ALSO UNDER APPEAL.

THIS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO, IS PART OF THE BIGGER CONSPIRACY, OF THE DIVISONAL COURT'S JUDGES, TO DELIBERATELY, DENY ME MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BEFORE THAT COURT. MY RIGHTS UNDER THE CHARTER, TO THE EQUAL BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF THE LAW, DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM, IN REGARDS TO ANY DECISIONS, THAT THEY MAKE, IN REGARDS TO MY CASES, BEFORE THAT COURT. FOR INSTANCE, ALL OF MY URGENT MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS, THAT WERE FILED IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT, WERE GIVEN DATES FOR HEARINGS, AT A LATER TIME, THAN WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED, AS PROTECTING MY RIGHTS, UNDER THE LAW. SUCH AS THE OCTOBER 13TH DATE, FOR THE HEARING OF THE URGENT MOTION FOR A STAY, THAT WAS GIVEN WELL BEYOND WHAT WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS NORMAL, FOR SUCH AN URGENT MOTION. I HAVE ALSO YET TO BE PROVIDED WITH A DATE, BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT, FOR THE HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, THAT WAS ALSO FILED AS URGENT, BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT. MY BELIEF, IS THAT THEY HAD EXPECTED, THE MOTION FOR A STAY, TO BE DENIED, SO WHY BOTHER PROVIDING A DATE, FOR THE HEARING, OF THE URGENT JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, SINCE THIS WAS ALSO A PART OF THE OVERALL CORRUPTION, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT'S ACTIONS, AGAINST ME. 

AND EVEN IN THE DECISION, THAT WAS MADE ON OCTOBER 16, 2023, BY THE SINGLE JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, THAT ORDER WAS NOT SENT OUT TO ME, BY THE REGISTRAR, TASHEKAH GENTLES, OR BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR SAURABH BAWEJA, EVEN THOUGH THE COURT, HAD TAKEN THE TIME, TO SEND THE ORDER, OUT TO THE RESPONDENTS, BUT NOT TO ME.  I HAD TO ASKED THE COURT FOR THE ORDER, THAT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE OTHER PARTIES, BUT NOT TO ME. MY REQUEST WAS ALSO IGNORED BY THE COURT AND BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SAURABH, BAWEJA, UNTIL I MADE IT CLEAR TO HIM, THAT I WAS GOING TO HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, LOOKED INTO THE MATTER, AS WELL AS THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, IN REGARDS TO THE SERVICES, THAT I HAD NOT RECIEVED, FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, OF THE COURT, PERTAINING TO THE ORDER, THAT WAS BEING WITHHELD BY THE COURT STAFF. THE ORDER WAS THEN PROMTLY SENT TO ME, BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SAURABH BAWEJA. 

ALSO, IMPLICATED IN THIS CONSPIRACY, TO PERVERT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, WAS ALSO THE JUDGES OF THE DIVIDIONAL COURT, JUDGE WENDY MATHESON AND SEAN OBRIEN. THEY BOTH KNEW, THAT A JUDICIAL EVIEW APPLICATION, WAS NOT A RIGHT, BUT WAS DISCRETIONARY, UNLIKE AN APPEAL AND HAD BOTH INSISTED, THAT I FILED A JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, INSTEAD OF AN APPEAL, OF THE BOARD'S DECISION. THEY ALSO KNEW, I BELIEVED, THAT THE MOTION FOR A STAY, OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, WOULD ALSO BE DENIED, AS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY, OF THAT COURT AGAINST ME. IT WAS A DELAY TACTIC, ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE, WENDY MATHESON, IN ALLOWING THE COURT, TO PROVIDE ME WITH A DATE, FOR OCTOBER 13TH, FOR THE HEARING OF MOTION FOR A STAY, RATHER THAN FOR THE COURT, TO PROVIDE ME WITH AN EARLIER DATE. NONE OF THOSE SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGES, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, ALSO CONSIDERED, THE FACT, THAT I HAD ORIGINALLY FILED THE APPEAL, OF THE BOARD'S DECISION, ON AUGUST 14TH, AND WITHIN THE DAYS, AS STIPULATED IN THE ORDER OF THE BOARD AND ALSO UNDER THE STATUE. IT WAS THE DIVISIONAL COURT, WHICH HAD CONVERTED THE APPEAL, TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, IN WHICH CASE, THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, WITH THE DIVISIONAL COURT, ON AUGUST 14TH, SHOULD HAVE STILL STAND, BUT WHICH THE SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, ALSO DISMISSED, IN HER ORDER, ON OCTOBER 16, 2023.




Wednesday, October 18, 2023

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN WAR, UPDATE. ISRAELI BLASTS, KILLS FIVE HUNDRED CIVILIANS, IN A GAZA HOSPITAL. ANGER IS MOUNTING, AS THIS IS THE LAST STRAW.

AN ISRAELI, AIR RAID, ON AL AHLI ARAB HOSPITAL, IN GAZA, KILLS OVER FIVE HUNDRED PEOPLE. 

THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT'S, ASSAULTS ON GAZA, INCLUDES, AIR, SEA  AND LAND INVASION.  ISRAEL HAD PROMISED, TO DELIVER AND IT DID. AND LIKE THE COWARDLY BULLY, THAT NETANYAHU IS, HE IS NOW TRYING TO PUT THE BLAME, ON SOMEONE ELSE. 

IN EARLIER TWEETS, ON SOCIAL MEDIA, THE ISRAELI MILITARY, ADMITTED TO THE AIR STRIKE, ON THE AL AHLI ARAB HOSPITAL. AND IN ONE INSTANCE, AN ISRAELI COLONEL, SAYS THAT IT WAS "UNINTENTIONAL", IN AN INTERVIEW, THAT HE GAVE, ABOUT THE DEADLY BOMB, THAT HIT THE HOSPITAL. THE IDF, LATER TRIED TO BLAME HAMAS, FOR THE DEADLY ATTACK. AND THEN LATER ON, PUT OUT FURTHER DUBIOUS "EVIDENCE", THAT NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, WOULD ALSO BELIEVED. FOR ONE THING, NONE OF HAMAS ROCKETS, HAD THE KIND OF POWER, THAT COULD KILL OVER 500 HUNDRED PEOPLE AT ONCE. BUT THE ISRAELI MILITARY DID.  AND IT ALSO HAD, EVEN MORE POWERFUL ONES. ONE THING WE DO KNOW, IS THAT THE ISRAELI MILITARY, HAD ALSO CONSIDERED, THE AL AHLI ARAB HOSPITAL, TO BE A BASE FOR HAMAS. AND IT HAD ALSO MADE IT CLEAR, TO DESTROY HAMAS, "OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH".  IN ITS EARLIER REPORTS, THE ISRAELIS ADMITED, "UNINTENTIONALLY" HITTING, THE AL AHLI HOSPITAL. BUT IT ALSO VERY QUICKLY, CHANGED ITS STATEMENTS, AS IT FACED THE BACKLASH, OVER ITS ACTIONS.

THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, HAS STARTED A WAR, THAT IT CANNOT FINISH. THE AXEL, IS SLOWLY TURNING, AGANST ISRAEL, IN THIS WAR OF AGRESSION, AGAINST PALESTINE. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, AND THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, ARE SCARED SHIT, RIGHT NOW.  WHAT WE DO KNOW NOW, IS THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING MORE ANGRY  AND THAT COUNTRIES, ARE NOW ALIGNING THEMSELVES, TO STRIKE ISRAEL. THIS IS A STRATEGIC WAR, THAT ISRAEL IS GOING TO LOSE. 






THE LOOK OF TERROR,  ON THE FACES OF THE CHILDREN AND OTHER VICTIMS, OF THE DEADLY BOMB BLAST, THAT KILLED OVER 500 PALESTINIANS, IN A HOSPITAL, IN GAZA.

NETANYAHU, WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY, AS THE MOST FOOLISH, WAR MONGERER, THAT EVER EXISTED, WHOSE BRAIN, WAS THE SIZE OF A PEA. A PEA BRAIN, IDIOT. TO PLAN A WAR, YOU MUST HAVE STRATEGY, THAT CAN WIN THE WAR, IN ALL POSSIBLE OUTCOME. BARBARISM, WILL NOT MAKE YOU, WIN A WAR. 

IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS WAR, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, WAS ALL ECSTATIC, THAT HE WAS GOING TO WIN. THAT THE WAR WOULD BE EASY, FOR ISRAEL. APPARENTLY, HE DID NOT CONSIDER, ALL OF THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES, THAT COULD HAPPEN, IN THIS WAR.  THE FIRST OF WHICH, IS THAT ISRAEL WOULD BE OUT NUMBERED. THE WORLD IS UNITED, AGAINST THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT'S ATROCITIES, AGAINST THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE.

WE HUMANS KNOW, THAT YOU CANNOT GO INTO A FAMILY'S HOME AND KILL ONE OF THE MEMBER, AND THE ENTIRE FAMILY, DON'T TURN ON YOU AND KILL YOU, FOR YOUR PRESUMPTIOUS, ACTION.  FOR YOUR STUPIDITY. THAT WHEN YOU TOUCH ONE, YOU TOUCH ALL.  NETANYAHU, HAS NOW STIRRED UP, THE MUSLIM WORLD, IN A FURY WANTING REVENGED. AND THEY ARE NOT ALONE. THE WHOLE WORLD IS ANGRY, AT ISRAEL, FOR ITS MONSTROCITY, TOWARDS THE PALESTINIANS. THEY ARE SICKENED, WITH THE KILLINGS, OF THE INNOCENT CHILDREN, DYING NEEDLESSLY, BY THE ISRAELI'S BOMBARDMENT, OF GAZA. THEY WANT IT TO STOP, IMMEDIATELY. OR ELSE ISRAEL WILL FEEL, THEIR WRATH. 

AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE, IN THIS WAR, OTHER MUSLIM COUNTRIES, ARE ALSO JOINING IN. TURKEY, SYRIA AND IRAN, HAS MADE IT CLEAR TO ISRAEL, THAT THE WAR IS THEIRS, AS WELL.  RUSSIA AND CHINA, HAS ALSO WARNED ISRAEL, ON WHOSE SIDE, THEY WILL BE ALLIED WITH.  AND IT IS NOT ISRAEL.  AND BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, IS GETTING, A MUCH CLARER PICTURE, OF THE MESS, THAT HE IS IN.  IT IS STARTING TO SINK INTO, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU'S HEAD, THAT THIS WAR IS AN UNEVEN WAR AND THAT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, IS BY FAR OUTNUMBERED, IN THIS WAR. NETANYAHU, MAY HAVE STARTED, BY GOING AFTER HAMAS, AND FELT OVER CONFIDENT IN THIS WAR, BECAUSE OF ITS NUCLEAR ARSENAL AND CAPABILITIES.  NETANYAHU, IS NOW REALIZING, THAT HE IS ALSO UP AGAINST, THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES, NUCLEAR ARSENALS AND CAPABILITIES, AS WELL. IT IS A SOBER THOUGHT, FOR THE ARROGANT, ZIONIST TERRORIST, NETANYAHU. WE HAVE SEEN HIM NOW BACKED DOWN, FROM HIS BRAVADO, SINCE THE GAZA HOSPITAL WAS HIT, BY THE ISRAELI AIR SRIKE, TO SEE HIM NOW POINTING THE FINGER AT HAMAS. A FEW DAYS AGO, HE HAD TOLD THE WORLD AND THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE, TO EXPECT SOMETHING BIG, IN THE ISRAELI'S OFFENSIVE, AGAINST HAMAS. WELL, THIS LATEST ATTACK, ON THE HOSPITAL IN GAZA, MAY HAVE BEEN WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.



ROXANNE PARIS, A MANAGER, IN THE URGENT CIVIL INTAKE OFFICE, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, TO BE FACE A CHARGE, OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, CONSPIRACY AND CORRUPTION, AND BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST. IN DELIBERATELY, BLOCKING, MY URGENT MOTION, IN THE COURT.

AFTER FILING MY URGENT MOTION, AT THE COURTHOUSE, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, I WAS TOLD THAT IT WENT DIRECTLY, TO THE CIVIL URGENT MO...