I was advised that in civil cases involving men versus women that he tended to side with the women's testimony. Whether accurate or not it was evident in my case in which allegations of defamation were made against myself. Now of course after reading up on libel law it seemed clear that the truth was the best defence against libel or defamation claims. That may be so but what I found was that the truth simply did not hold up against a biased or ignorant judge right from the start. Also keep in mind that the school board were involved as they backed the other party. Perhaps the dishonourable R. Reilly merely was biased in favour of the local power establishment.
I was manipulated by both the Judge and the Plaintiff's attorney out of my right to a jury trial. Without advising myself, an unrepresented defendant, the Judge agreed to a on the surface ridiculous pre-trial Motion stating that I could not attend the Plaintiff's property. I asked the Judge why this was necessary as I had not been alleged to have already done so and furthermore I had absolutely no idea or interest as to where she lived. Regardless he granted the Motion which I was later told then gave the Judge the right to remove my choice of a jury trial in favour of him (Judge) alone. What a scam!
During the trial the dishonourable judge asked me if I would appeal a verdict made against myself. While warning bells were going off as this felt like a weird question mid trial nevertheless I answered no. I honestly didn't see how losing was possible with the numerous parent witnesses I had ready to give supporting testimony to my case. Turned out that answer likely emboldened a possibly corrupt (stupid?) judge.
Judge Reilly also refused to enter as documentary evidence written reports by the Council of Teachers. Now if I have that name incorrect the group I am referring to were the provincially mandated oversight committee who had made detailed notes of interviews they had done with a number of my witnesses. I had copies of those detailed notes and my multiple witnesses had done an excellent job in detailing odious behaviour by the Plaintiff. Judge Reilly flatly refused to enter them into the record claiming that my witnesses could speak for themselves on the stand as they did. My view was that the notes would help my defence as my witnesses testimony was reaffirmed by their earlier testimony. Then of course when Judge Reilly found against me without any legitimate contradictions or breakdown in testimony by my witnesses he flatly stated that they had all been enthralled by me and actually referred to me as the Pied Piper without a shred of any such evidence before him. He did this with confidence that if I didn't have the money for a defence lawyer at his trial, combined with my suggesting I wouldn't/couldn't appeal his decision ; then he could decide the case not based upon evidence but based upon his biases or worse.
How many other asshats sit as judges in Ontario? In Canada? Could what I view as bias actually be corruption or maybe simple influence? Did the dishonourable judge have somebody important whisper in his ear that I was a *hit disturber causing trouble for the school board? Did they whisper that I was a *hit disturber causing trouble for Uniroyal Chemical in Elmira? Regardless the facts were clear. The Plaintiff had a long history of poor behaviour. Thirty years later the province (and the courts) have both commented and acted upon bad behaviour of the same board. How much damage and disrespect have all parties including the courts suffered because of this gross miscarriage of justice?
No comments:
Post a Comment