The judge called the Plaintiff to the stand, requested perjury to protect the lawyer’s fraud, and preferred that testimony, over the transcript.
What the CJC wrote to me was
“The admissibility and weighing of evidence is a matter that falls within the ambit of judicial discretion. Chief Justice Pidgeon is of the view that Justice Shaw exercised his judicial discretion when he preferred certain evidence over others. The exercise of judcial discretion is not a matter of conduct.”
This is the first instance of obstruction of justice and breach of the Rule of Law, and everything following flows from this point and the scheme of protection is exposed all the way through the system. I’ve worked on this statement for awhile trying to get impact and the truth in the statement. I’ll break down the timeline as I’ve not done that for awhile.
Justice Metzger removes my “right to approve as to form” the court order on a minor hearing where I was self-represented, despite my protesting on this issue and no reasons provided.
Plaintiff’s lawyer writes up the court order based on the judges words at the hearing however makes some minor edits to favor himself and sends me the court order. The judge had ordered “mortgage payments” to be paid by the Plaintiff however lawyer writes “mortgage payments ( of approx. $976 ). I write to him disagreeing with the court order as written and he does make some of the corrections that I request however does not alter the qualification of $976 when in fact there were two mortgage payments to be made, the second one was $1000 p.m. I write to the lawyer again and include the clerk’s notes from the court file where it is pretty clear that there was no mention of the qualification. He refuses to alter the document and pays only the one mortgage, the property falls into arrears on the mortgage and when that happens the bank stops accepting payments altogether and sues for full payment of the mortgage which would require the selling of the property. For the lawyer however he is now pocketing all the proceeds that were supposed to be going to mortgage payments. Minor money matters I know, but severe consequences result.
At this time enough other things had happened that were getting beyond my ability to cope, including the plaintiff’s lawyer was not complying with a court order to provide monthly copies of the trust account statement where this money was supposed to be accounted for. The problem was that the lawyer could see that his case was falling apart and he was not going to get judgement in his favor and he would not be able to secure payment from his client. However my hiring a lawyer resulted in the two of them colluding to create a result that would ensure he got paid. I believe that this is a very common occurrence however it’s hard to prove and unless I had been self-represented for a period it would never have been exposed. I was the one who got the court order against the lawyer to provide monthly trust account statements, another lawyer would not have done that, they would have dealt with it internally.
I had sufficient evidence at this time that I knew that the two lawyers were working together to achieve a desired result which was certainly not to my benefit and did not represent my interests at all. I couldnt believe that we could go to the final trial when the plaintiff’s lawyer had not been complying with a court order to produce monthly trust account statements for almost a year. It was mind boggling. At this point in time I was basically going to trial ONLY to dispute this problem and the fraud on the court order. The lawyers altered ALL of the documents to remove any evidence of wrong doing regarding the trust account, but for a couple of months I had been documenting the issue in emails to BOTH lawyers. They both swear to the law society that the issue was fully presented to the judge. A couple days before the trial I ordered the transcript where there is no mention of the qualification ( of $976 ) on the mortgage payments and I essentially force my lawyer to present this to the court, which he does but very weakly but he does make the argument that the court order should be changed.
The Judge decides to deal with the matter by taking the very interesting step to personally recall the plaintiff to the witness stand. He then asks her what she heard the judge say in a hearing that occured almost a year ago. The Plaintiff of course claims she heard the judge say what her lawyer wrote in the court order and the judge dismisses her from the stand and the matter is over.
Only recently when I was reading through the criminal code regarding the crime “to incite perjury” did I realize that what the judge did was actually not just a perversion of justice but a criminal offense. The Judge knew that trial transcript was the best possible evidence ( apart from the actual audio tape – but that’s another matter for another story ) and he should have just accepted the fact and corrected the court order written by the lawyer and it would have been handled judicially. No big deal. However, he personally requested her to present evidence which he knew would be false. Incredible. I sat there stunned. However no-one in the court room skipped a beat, no-one reported the incident to the CJC, except myself.
The judge then took the extraordinary step to “prefer” the Plaintiff’s hearsay evidence of what a judge said months before over the official court documentation, the transcript. For a long time I used words from the charter, like “arbitrary” to describe this conduct however it is not arbitrary at all, it is completely biased and one-sided and clearly protecting the conduct of a lawyer.
Trying to summarize so many situations like this into a paragraph or into a sentence in order to communicate the issue succinctly to others has been my challenge. The fact that it is so unbelievably destructive to our concept of fairness and how our legal institutions work that it’s been hard to get others to accept the story. We want to trust. We want our institutions to work the way they say they do.
Unfortunately every step along the way the system of review doubled down on the obstruction of justice to attempt to shut me down. I just recently watched the movie “Rainmaker” on Netflix from one of the early books by John Grisham – whom we have lots to thank for exposing some of the way the world works in the legal sector. In that book an insurance company was essentially operating a scam, insuring lots of low income people with few legal rights and then just denying them their coverage until they hired a lawyer which they rarely did lacking the funds to take on the financial might of an insurance company. The insurance company wrote 7 denial letters, finally just telling her, as her son is dying of treatable disease, that she is stupid, stupid, stupid. The quote from that movie that stood out for me is in the final scene :
“Every lawyer, at least once in every case, feels himself crossing a line that he doesn’t really mean to cross… it just happens… And if you cross it enough times it disappears forever. And then you’re nothin but another lawyer joke. Just another shark in the dirty water.”
Rainmaker by John Grisham
I tried to communicate this issue all the way down the line in an appropriate and respectful way and every time those that should have done their job have doubled down and attempted to shut me down and now it’s a huge problem because it exposes the system as a sham and if the system itself is operating outside of it’s legal authority then it loses all of the protections of the law and the entire system is exposed as a protection racket where you pay money to a lawyer for protection money not based on facts or the law but on the fact that they can alter the facts and hurt you and you have no protection. And that is the problem that is facing the institution at this time.
I hope you all enjoyed reading. I would like to meet you all one day. Thank you for your time, the efforts that you personally have contributed and of course all of the people throughout history that have contributed to a body of evidence regarding the abuse of power and human rights. It is a hard but inspirational journey that in some ways defines the meaning of life.