Liberator. Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) The Supreme court and you.A new book is coming out to expose them: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/supreme%20court%20and%20you/the-supreme-court-and-you/924440767001 Edited July 21, 2011 by Liberator. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 The Supreme court and you.A new book is coming out to expose them: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/supreme%20court%20and%20you/the-supreme-court-and-you/924440767001 There isn't much here to start a discussion on. What are the main points ? What are your thoughts ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) The description of the book doesn't seem to be an indication that "the supreme judges we have is the worst in history," rather it appears to be an indictment of the supreme court justices being appointed and not having any sort of balance of power. Edited July 21, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
Liberator. Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Edited July 21, 2011 by Liberator. Quote
Liberator. Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Posted July 21, 2011 For some reason i don't know,the image isn't showing up. Quote
charter.rights Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 There isn't much here to start a discussion on. What are the main points ? What are your thoughts ? Just delete the thread. This really isn't a book review club is it? Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Michael Hardner Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 There seems to be an attempt at discussion here. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Oleg Bach Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 The rule of law consists and originates in judgement - good solid intelligent wise judgement that is supposed to up hold a moral and ethical code - so as we can live in freedom and harmony. The Judges that sit on the Supreme Court have one major defect...They are NOT judges! In order to be a judge you must be judged by what you do. A professional is a person how is what they do - a writer, writes. The people who inhabit the highest judical seats in the land DO NOT MAKE JUDGEMENTS. It is simple as that! They have a mechanical and pseudo intellectual postion, that consists - the same as welfare workers - of being administrators of policy - they never make a personal or even a collective judgement. The Canadian public assume that if an issue is brought before this high court that - some very learned and experienced lawyers who were APPOINTED to a judgeship in the lower courts - then promoted and appointed to the highest court are going to use their judgement in regards to the maintainance of public and private justice. For instanced the Chief Justice and those who sit around her are not even slightly interested in matters of "national concern" - they get a bigger kick out of toying with matters of international concern - They communicate more with lawyers and judges from other nations than they do with their own - because dealing with Canada is boring and below them...frankly these are twits full of self importance - who ONLY come from certain families that are in the old established loop. These people are handed appointments no differently than corporate heads are granted favour - In fact it is our buisness community and their high lawyers that install SCC judges...The average Joe lawyer working out of a strip mall will NEVER be sent to serve at the SCC - because the sole purpose of this club is to maintain the status quo that is friendly only to our shifty and secretive elite. Quote
Jack Weber Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Wow... Something from Sun News.. Lemme guess... The Supreme Court judges are rife with "(L)liberal bias" and are activist?? Is that about it? Edited July 21, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
WWWTT Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I actually found this authors views interesting and the subject being handled in an unbiased analytical approach by the interviewer. I believe this book would make a good read for those interested on how we can make our justice and political system more accesible to average citizens. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 The Judges that sit on the Supreme Court have one major defect...They are NOT judges! In order to be a judge you must be judged by what you do. A professional is a person how is what they do - a writer, writes. The people who inhabit the highest judical seats in the land DO NOT MAKE JUDGEMENTS. It is simple as that! They have a mechanical and pseudo intellectual postion, that consists - the same as welfare workers - of being administrators of policy - they never make a personal or even a collective judgement. In my opinion this statement is not true in regards to judges ruling over some past cases involving innocent people who have bein wrongly convicted. Case point is Guy Paul Mouran. The judge did not believe he was innocent and gave more merrit to the prosecution and police,crown witnesses etc. In fact thanks to DNA evidence,he was completely innocent and had a strong defence(at the time).But the judge incorrectly decided against him! If a judge makes a wrong decission then how is he/she or was he not using their judgement? This happens frequently! This is why I am against the police becoming politically active while still in the force(Fantino)And the media glorifying police,and the media over covering some cases before the justice system.It projects an illusion "The police can do no wrong" and will "Always defend the innocent". But ultimately if the judge decides to favour with one side or the other its a judgement call. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Oleg Bach Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Wow... Something from Sun News.. Lemme guess... The Supreme Court judges are rife with "(L)liberal bias" and are activist?? Is that about it? They have that elite disease called Trotskyism - same one Hillary Clinton has. Funny how the rich and privledged like to have a hobby born out of poverty. Hobbies like socialism - rich running a communist empire...so typical and so shallow. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 The description of the book doesn't seem to be an indication that "the supreme judges we have is the worst in history," rather it appears to be an indictment of the supreme court justices being appointed and not having any sort of balance of power. There is no high court in Canada - IT's all about buisness and how to maintain contiued profits and control through social engineering - the SCC - are hacks and henchmen for very clever lawyers who run corporations and they do not want any rulings going down that might loosen the noose of slavery. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Going back in time my power rube beer swilling carpenter brother actually thought ----------"I am going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court and get justice" _ I suspected it that there would be no justice to be found - He actually believed in the system - what a mistake and a waste of 5 years in the court - BUT even if there is no justice it is your duty to at least make them bleed and embarass the bastards a bit - but they know no shame so I suggest to anyone considering going for it _not to bother...They waste your time and your life and money...By the time you reach the SCC - you are pretty much burned out - what the SCC does is toss in the last bit of kindling to finish you off. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 I would be interested in seeing this SCC case you keep complaining about. Quote
charter.rights Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 I would be interested in seeing this SCC case you keep complaining about. Me too. Want to provide a cite title? Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Oleg Bach Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 I would be interested in seeing this SCC case you keep complaining about. It's complex- It started off with a tiff about money and my brothers French Canadian wife who he had two infant sons with at the time - The Catholic mother - who was once married to a Jew - decided when she heard rumors that her Jewish husband had come into a lot of money - decieded to jettison the whole family...and go back to the former spouse - in the end my brothers family is re-united and living well including the crazy mother... What she did was approach who was at the time Jewish Family And Child Services...because as she stero-typically put it "The Jews have the most money" - She simply and on the sly out of spite insisted she was Jewish (a Jewish Roman Catholic) - which was untrue - and she simply gave away the two boys to the "society" - Then the JFCS deemed the two boys who were born of a Catholic mother and a Russian Orthodox Christian father (my younger brother) - were Jewish - and "in need of protection" from what they were led to believe were anti-semites...and rural rubes. We found out that there was never a protection order...nor was there any formal consent - The mother was having some sort of strange breakdown - we are not sure what happened to the poor mother....so - they kept the kids for seven months - put them on drugs - abused them and put them in foster care with nasty Jehovas Witness carreer foster mother who kept them locked in a basement....Odd how they deem the kids as Jews and send them off to a Jehhova Witness household. So - we disclosed all documents during the law suit...THE JFCS - hired a firm called Learners LLP...who hid some documents for nearly five years...one particular paper was the initial endorsement from a judge who allowed this travesty to take place. We did not find this endorsement untill after we lost the case - we dug up the transcript and it stated that my brother and I were in the body of the court and we along with the mother had granted "consent" - mean while - we were not physically present nor did we even know of this court date. Eventually affidavits from the mother - the father and myself were sent to the SCC - and it clearly showed that my bothers former lawyer had double crossed his own client - It showed that judges were aware of this improper and illegal ruling by the lower court regarding the consent...BUT they did nothing about it - because members of the bar - and a chain of judges all did not follow their own rules - which was to disclose fully - they refused to disclose...In the end the Supreme Court ruled that a father did not have the right to known or understand what was taking place in the courts regarding his own children... I told my brother that he would not win and we would in the end make things worse for all Canadian fathers - which we did - In order to win this case - the court of appeal - the lower courts - and the SCC would have had to convict themselves..that was not about to happen - To behave in such a rotten conspiratorial manner was heart breaking - to know that the SCC - could not be trusted to be honest or to reprimand lawyers and judges, broke my confidence in the whole system. How can a person grant consent if the person is not present or have knowledge of that fact - even if his own lawyer at the time (who was very buisness minded wanted to please the JFCS because as he put it "I have to work with these people all the time" - They knew my brothers original lawyer went out of his way to please the state at the expense of two small children and a loving father and mother - The mother who thought she had control over the situtation was also abused by the system and NOW holds resentment for it. They acted as if feminists were at her side and there to help a poor woman - they did not give a damn in the end for the woman - the children or the father - all they cared about was protecting their own postions and pay cheques... Peter Bachlow vs. Jewish Family and Child Services. It was a nasty affair but as I put it to my brother - "give me a tax problem - take my home and car - ruin me financially - but if you touch the children - we will come for you and make your life miserable - which I did....was it worth the effort? Yes in the memory of my mother and father who escaped communism and famine - to come here and have these crazed idealogs take away my brothers life and damaged the kids...was not going to happen on my watch - so I fought them to the bitter end...and rightfully so - They do not bother my brother or his family at this point - because we cost them a ton of money and layed down the weight of embarassment on their heads...plus - the boys are happy and healthy - IF we did not fight - they would have destroyed the children incrimentally with emotional abuse - and drugs - that they did NOT need. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 It's complex- It started off with a tiff about money and my brothers French Canadian wife who he had two infant sons with at the time - The Catholic mother - who was once married to a Jew - decided when she heard rumors that her Jewish husband had come into a lot of money - decieded to jettison the whole family...and go back to the former spouse - in the end my brothers family is re-united and living well including the crazy mother... What she did was approach who was at the time Jewish Family And Child Services...because as she stero-typically put it "The Jews have the most money" - She simply and on the sly out of spite insisted she was Jewish (a Jewish Roman Catholic) - which was untrue - and she simply gave away the two boys to the "society" - Then the JFCS deemed the two boys who were born of a Catholic mother and a Russian Orthodox Christian father (my younger brother) - were Jewish - and "in need of protection" from what they were led to believe were anti-semites...and rural rubes. We found out that there was never a protection order...nor was there any formal consent - The mother was having some sort of strange breakdown - we are not sure what happened to the poor mother....so - they kept the kids for seven months - put them on drugs - abused them and put them in foster care with nasty Jehovas Witness carreer foster mother who kept them locked in a basement....Odd how they deem the kids as Jews and send them off to a Jehhova Witness household. So - we disclosed all documents during the law suit...THE JFCS - hired a firm called Learners LLP...who hid some documents for nearly five years...one particular paper was the initial endorsement from a judge who allowed this travesty to take place. We did not find this endorsement untill after we lost the case - we dug up the transcript and it stated that my brother and I were in the body of the court and we along with the mother had granted "consent" - mean while - we were not physically present nor did we even know of this court date. Eventually affidavits from the mother - the father and myself were sent to the SCC - and it clearly showed that my bothers former lawyer had double crossed his own client - It showed that judges were aware of this improper and illegal ruling by the lower court regarding the consent...BUT they did nothing about it - because members of the bar - and a chain of judges all did not follow their own rules - which was to disclose fully - they refused to disclose...In the end the Supreme Court ruled that a father did not have the right to known or understand what was taking place in the courts regarding his own children... I told my brother that he would not win and we would in the end make things worse for all Canadian fathers - which we did - In order to win this case - the court of appeal - the lower courts - and the SCC would have had to convict themselves..that was not about to happen - To behave in such a rotten conspiratorial manner was heart breaking - to know that the SCC - could not be trusted to be honest or to reprimand lawyers and judges, broke my confidence in the whole system. How can a person grant consent if the person is not present or have knowledge of that fact - even if his own lawyer at the time (who was very buisness minded wanted to please the JFCS because as he put it "I have to work with these people all the time" - They knew my brothers original lawyer went out of his way to please the state at the expense of two small children and a loving father and mother - The mother who thought she had control over the situtation was also abused by the system and NOW holds resentment for it. They acted as if feminists were at her side and there to help a poor woman - they did not give a damn in the end for the woman - the children or the father - all they cared about was protecting their own postions and pay cheques... Peter Bachlow vs. Jewish Family and Child Services. It was a nasty affair but as I put it to my brother - "give me a tax problem - take my home and car - ruin me financially - but if you touch the children - we will come for you and make your life miserable - which I did....was it worth the effort? Yes in the memory of my mother and father who escaped communism and famine - to come here and have these crazed idealogs take away my brothers life and damaged the kids...was not going to happen on my watch - so I fought them to the bitter end...and rightfully so - They do not bother my brother or his family at this point - because we cost them a ton of money and layed down the weight of embarassment on their heads...plus - the boys are happy and healthy - IF we did not fight - they would have destroyed the children incrimentally with emotional abuse - and drugs - that they did NOT need. The effect this prolonged fight had was that in the end - it damaged my health...which is part of the game - My brother who was building a very nice home for his family - was lost..Now he rents and will never own his own home...the worst effect it had on me was in the firm fact that the people who are to protect all Canadian citizens from injustice and abuse...are prejudice elitists ass holes...sorry - that is just the way I see it....The out come was already carved in stone from the begining...law suits in general are for a privledged class - poor people never have success - it is about one privledged group taking money form the other then passing it back again - THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IS NOT THE PEOPLES COURT ...It is disheartening to be a citizen and know that if you are offended and harmed you really have no recourse - especially if you go against a policy driven judicary that is not capable of making a moral judgement. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Bitter? Damned right - they stole 5 years of my life. Time can not be refunded - personally this great effort to truely offer protection to my nephews cost my family dearly also...I would never attend a court of any kind if it could be avoided..My advice would be to boycott as much of the judicary until there is reform and they have come to their senses - At present they all live in la la land and their last concern is to serve the people- Legalist are a privledged class...and morality is not part of their make up......as one lawyer said....and I repeat..."IT is immoral but it is legal". I will never forget that statement...especially regarding my wifes inheritance..She was by natural law..to inherit the bulk of an estate that consisted of 40 year old gas stocks..she was robbed and now lives like a pauper..thanks a lot .... for the justice - denied. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 It sounds like your family went through a pretty difficult situation there. I'm curious why it was ruled that the children needed to be put into interim protective custody. From your description, it would make sense if the mother was "having some sort of strange breakdown" that she would not be fit to care for the children and they would need to take custody of them. If JFCS operated within the framework of the Child and Family Services Act, then it makes sense that the SCC and the appellant courts would dismiss the case. Quote
charter.rights Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Here's the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. Peter Bachlow and Jewish Family and Child Services The SCoC decision was to dismiss the applicant's appeal. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
cybercoma Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 I see the problem from that. the appellant was represented by counsel during the court appearance when the order was made. He did not agree to it in person and claims that counsel did not act in his interest. It makes sense then that he represented himself during the appeals. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) Jesus... this is shady. There is no evidence before us to support any allegation of ineffective legal representation at that time, nor is there any evidence that the appellant’s legal counsel lacked authority to act on the appellant’s behalf or to bind him as of the date of the impugned order. Why would he go through the hassle of the appealing, representing himself and financing this fight if his counsel was acting in his interests? Admittedly, that's not evidence for ineffective legal representation, but it definitely makes it look questionable after the fact. To me, Oleg is right. It seems that counsel acted unilaterally or at least without Oleg's brother being fully aware of what was going on. Edited July 22, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
Oleg Bach Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 It sounds like your family went through a pretty difficult situation there. I'm curious why it was ruled that the children needed to be put into interim protective custody. From your description, it would make sense if the mother was "having some sort of strange breakdown" that she would not be fit to care for the children and they would need to take custody of them. If JFCS operated within the framework of the Child and Family Services Act, then it makes sense that the SCC and the appellant courts would dismiss the case. The mother was driven by greed and spite and some crazed sense of power - What you are saying is incorrect - They treated the mother as if she were fit to parent - and was some sort of victim..there was extreme bia and a policy in place that was not adhering to reality . My brother and extended family were more that fit and ready to care for the children...The mother slandered the our family...insinuating that we were bad people - for instance I was doing some guardening and wearing a long red sailing jacket...sometimes I wore riding boots when I was out on the property - As I decorated around a rock with shrubs and flowers I joked to my brothers wife - You can stand on this rock and give speeches... Later she twisted that moment and gave a report to the JFCS ..That I would dress up as "Hitler" and stand on the rock giving speeches - It was slander and a clever attempt to generate the idea that we were anti-semites - The JFCS did not investigate anything - they simply took her word for it. The snatching of the children was some sort of punitive measure done by these agents....Sad to say when we spoke to lawyers in the begining no one would take the case - Later in private one lawyer from north of the city had a meeting with us. It was quite bizzare what we heard. First thing he asked if we were wearing any sort of recording device..Later he went on to say that rumors were abound in the court house that suggested that my family where white supremists and belonged to some sort of para military group. It got worse as time went on..I repeat there was never a protection order nor any other order from the courts regarding the kids - who were found to be healthy - well nourished and clean...These urban Jewish social workers who had never seen a fire place would make it a huge issue that the fire place did not have a screen on it... The primary person who gave the order was a person named Finnigan who had a primary postion at the JFCS - He a Catholic took the stand imagining himself as an expert on Judaism..also the defendant refered to our family as "nominal Christians" as if a Jewish orgainization were experts on the Christian faith...They simply did not like us because we were a very conservative family..and very independant. As for the Family Service act - it is to protect the WHOLE family - not to pit one against the other - seperating father from children and wife from husband..there was total and rampant bias on the part of the defendant. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Jesus... this is shady. Why would he go through the hassle of the appealing, representing himself and financing this fight if his counsel was acting in his interests? Admittedly, that's not evidence for ineffective legal representation, but it definitely makes it look questionable after the fact. To me, Oleg is right. It seems that counsel acted unilaterally or at least without Oleg's brother being fully aware of what was going on. It was after we ran through the court of appeal at Osgoode and were dismissed - that we were finally aware of the initial endorsement that falsely stated that we were present and gave consent - Under the rules of civil proceedure - BOTH sides are to disclose all documents under their power and control - The defendant at the last moment tossed the original endorsement on the judges bench - causing the trial judge to dismiss the claim - At that moment, we had no idea what was passed to the judge..and could not counter - Because I am more literate than my brother - the defendant had me barred from even listening to the proceedings in most cases..My brother was victimized...In fact there were spectators from the general public in the body of the court - they were also ejected so as not to hear the proceedings...In eccense it became a secret affair. The curx of the matter was that our of hundrends of documents supplied by the defendant - there were all there except for the KEY one that would have won the case - This was shabby and dishonest and against all rules - YOU do NOT with hold a document and hide it for five years then present it in the last five minutes of trial - KNOWING full well that the plaintiff did not know of it's existance - IT was as if the lawyer pulled out a dagger at the last moment and stabbed my poor brother in the back in order to win - IT was improper...disclosure is the primary tool in lititgation....again I mention - in their list of documents...every thing was there except for that intitial endorcement - THAT IS CALLED CHEATING IN ORDER TO WIN...it was super unethical and the intent was crimminal. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.