740-5 CANADIAN GOVERNMENT THEFT OF CHAVALI FAMILY $57 MILLION.
4. Applicants served and filed before Mr. Justice Nordheimer the Constitutional Question
dated August 23, 2002 and February 15, 2005 and the corrected written submissions on the
Constitutional Question on March 7, 2005. The Attorney General for Ontario [AGO] on March
9, 2005 stated that "AGO does not intend to intervene at this stage of the proceeding"
Admitting that s.140 Courts of Justice Act is in violation of the Constitution Act and the manner
of applying is Unconstitutional knowing of the fraudulent conspiracy of the Attorney General of
Ontario and 44 lawyers and unethical conduct of Judges namely MacPherson J. and Cumming J.
5. Mr. Justice Nordheimer in his decision of April 18, 2005 stated that "It does not appear that the Constitutionality of section 140 was raised either before Mr. Justice Cumming or before the Court of appeal, 77se Court of appeal would not normally consider such a question, at this latter stage, without having a decision of first instance on the issue." Mr. Justice Nordheimer acted as a Judge of the Court of Appeal, clearly outside of his jurisdiction.
"First Instance": here also has to be considered that the Superior Court as the competent Court
and Mr. justice Nordheimer is the Judge of the Superior Court and unequivocally it is his duty also to see the Constitutional material filed in front of him, instead of stating contrary to the fact that the Constitution question has been in front of both the Judges namely Cumming J and
Nordheimer J.
Reasons for decision of Nordheiner J, of April 18, 2005 P6 Para 14.
6. The Leave application 02-CV-240696CM1 cites violations of Sections 21,122, 139, 319,
322, 341, 363, 366, 380, 429(1) and 430 of the Criminal Code and Sections l, 2(d), 7, 8,
11(a)(b), 12, 15, 24(l)(2) and 52 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
Sections 1(a)(b), 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Costs These violation have been
uncontradicted and the order herein does not address the Criminality of the
Respondents.
7. The Trial in fraud Action 97-CV-120561 was scheduled by the Honourable Mr.
Justice Wilkins for 5 weeks and arranged Trial Judge as Mr. Justice Mandel. While all
the parties, including lawyers and witnesses were ready to proceed, on March 30,1998,
and making opening statements, Mr. Justice Mandel stated that Mr. Justice Cumming
came running to his Chambers, moments before the Trial and stopped Trial with s.140
CJA Order of March 30, 1998, contrary to the evidence before him. This is a clear
violation of Constitutional Rights under s. 7 and s.15 of the Applicants
dated August 23, 2002 and February 15, 2005 and the corrected written submissions on the
Constitutional Question on March 7, 2005. The Attorney General for Ontario [AGO] on March
9, 2005 stated that "AGO does not intend to intervene at this stage of the proceeding"
Admitting that s.140 Courts of Justice Act is in violation of the Constitution Act and the manner
of applying is Unconstitutional knowing of the fraudulent conspiracy of the Attorney General of
Ontario and 44 lawyers and unethical conduct of Judges namely MacPherson J. and Cumming J.
5. Mr. Justice Nordheimer in his decision of April 18, 2005 stated that "It does not appear that the Constitutionality of section 140 was raised either before Mr. Justice Cumming or before the Court of appeal, 77se Court of appeal would not normally consider such a question, at this latter stage, without having a decision of first instance on the issue." Mr. Justice Nordheimer acted as a Judge of the Court of Appeal, clearly outside of his jurisdiction.
"First Instance": here also has to be considered that the Superior Court as the competent Court
and Mr. justice Nordheimer is the Judge of the Superior Court and unequivocally it is his duty also to see the Constitutional material filed in front of him, instead of stating contrary to the fact that the Constitution question has been in front of both the Judges namely Cumming J and
Nordheimer J.
Reasons for decision of Nordheiner J, of April 18, 2005 P6 Para 14.
6. The Leave application 02-CV-240696CM1 cites violations of Sections 21,122, 139, 319,
322, 341, 363, 366, 380, 429(1) and 430 of the Criminal Code and Sections l, 2(d), 7, 8,
11(a)(b), 12, 15, 24(l)(2) and 52 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
Sections 1(a)(b), 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Costs These violation have been
uncontradicted and the order herein does not address the Criminality of the
Respondents.
7. The Trial in fraud Action 97-CV-120561 was scheduled by the Honourable Mr.
Justice Wilkins for 5 weeks and arranged Trial Judge as Mr. Justice Mandel. While all
the parties, including lawyers and witnesses were ready to proceed, on March 30,1998,
and making opening statements, Mr. Justice Mandel stated that Mr. Justice Cumming
came running to his Chambers, moments before the Trial and stopped Trial with s.140
CJA Order of March 30, 1998, contrary to the evidence before him. This is a clear
violation of Constitutional Rights under s. 7 and s.15 of the Applicants
posted by politician theft at 1:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home