The judges have deliberately attempted to deceive the Canadian public. The judges are implying that Matthew Miazga negotiated a plea bargain with one of the children’s parents or the boyfriend. There was no order for a new trial for the boyfriend so it had to be one of the children’s parents. That is not true and all seven of the judges know this is false. If the person “is not a respondent in this case” then they are implying that it was one of the three accused, one of the parents or the boyfriend.
Richard Klassen’s father was scammed into pleading guilty in return for the Crown staying proceedings against respondents in this case. He was not a party to this case. The children recanted their allegations against him.
Its incredible that it took the children recanting years after before the people of Saskatchewan accepted that there was no truth to the crowns evidence of satanic ritual child abuse. No dead babies, no barbecued babies and the children’s parents and a Saskatchewan war hero were not guilty. The case was gagged and sealed years ago along with the gross misconduct of the Crown and Saskatchewan judges.
What is disturbing about this is that the court without any evidence is implying that one of the children’s parents was guilty. This pattern of deception has been a part of all the satanic child abuse cases and related cases in Saskatchewan. The pattern and deception was the same in the judgement of the Saskatchewan court of appeal. They found the children’s mother was guilty of sexually abusing her children. They did this years after the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the convictions. That was a lie, and everyone involved knew it was a lie.
When two appellant courts conspire openly to deceive the public with no fear of being held accountable as they have done with this case then all the judgments of the court are suspected as being frauds. There is not one of the seven judges who has any credibility.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Miazga v. Estate of Dennis Kvello - Lie number 2
“M negotiated a plea bargain with one of the three accused (who is not a respondent in this case).”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment