Sunday, January 15, 2006

Saskatchewanjustice.ca - Note to prosecutor (Confidential)

I am speechless, this is the most corrupt bunch of judges and courts in Canada.

- John Lucas picketed and was arrested the second time in September, 2003.

- Justice Paul Hrabinsky and Chief Justice Gerein were named by Mr Lucas on his signs and posters.

- The prosecutor tells Justice Kyle that the Crown does not require any conditions of release other then the standard requirement to keep the peace.

- Justice Kyle considers that Mr Lucas’s words are dangerous and that his words are some way a danger to the public.

- Justice Kyle ignores the prosecutor and imposes a gag order on Mr Lucas that is with out question outrageous and unsupported.

- Justice Kyle is heard stating that, “he is a friend of mine”. He was referring to none other then Justice Hrabinsky. One corrupt judge protecting another corrupt judge.

- Chief Justice Gerein appoints Justice Malone as the trial Judge.

- At a pre-trial, Justice Malone tells Mr Lucas that the prosecutor is going to drop some of the charges against him.

- Mr Lucas and the prosecutor are looking at each other in stunned silence.

- It was later discovered that Justice Malone received this information from Chief Justice Gerein. I think that one of these two judges forgot to inform the prosecutor. I am beginning to wonder what the prosecutor was needed for, show only.

- The prosecutor asks Mr Lucas to request the removal of Justice Malone as the trial judge. Mr Lucas tells the prosecutor to do his own dirty work.

- The prosecutor requests that Justice Malone remove himself as the trial judge.

- It was discovered that justice Hrabinsky and justice Malone conspired and filed a false police report in 2002 regarding Mr Lucas.

- Justice Malone contacted the police.

- Justice Hrabinsky informed the police that he feared for the safety of his wife Johanna Hrabinsky. Justice Kyle protected the public from the words of John Lucas and Justice Hrabinsky feared that some how the words of John Lucas were a danger to his wife Johanna Hrabinsky.

- Justice Hrabinsky advised the police that he would and could not get involved by leaving any sort of statement.

- There was a concern by other judges that Mr Lucas would not receive a fair trial as Justice Malone and Chief Justice Gerein were clearly fixing the outcome of Mr Lucas’s jury trial.

- There are honourable judges in the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatoon. If one of them was appointed as the trial judge the judgement would be as predictable as the Baynton Judgement. There would be public outrage, demanding a public inquiry into the rape, sodomy and torture of two 8 year old girls and the corruption within Saskatchewan Justice.

- The request to appoint a Court of Appeal Judge as the trial judge was denied.

- Chief Justice Gerein appointed Justice Ball as the trial judge.

- If there was a concern that Mr Lucas would not receive a fair trial then nothing has changed. If anything there would be a greater concern, not because of the appointment of Justice Ball, but because of who appointed Justice Ball.

The corruption within Saskatchewan Justice can not be allowed to continue, a public inquiry is long over due. I would have input as would many others, the publics image of the court demands an inquiry. The administration of justice will not come crashing down with the removal of known corrupt judges from the court. Justice Hrabinsky , Dovell, G A Smith are corrupt judges. If they are allowed to continue to sit in the courts the publics distrust and respect for the court will increase. This will place the court into disrepute in the eyes of the public and bring into question why they were not removed and who was responsible.

Saskatchewanjustice.ca
Note to prosecutor (Confidential)- The misled follower
Saskatchewan’s Judiciary

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

"There would be public outrage, demanding a public inquiry into the rape, sodomy and torture of two 8 year old girls and the corruption within Saskatchewan Justice.
"

As with many of your other posts, do you think you may be overstating issues for the dramatic effect? If I understand it correctly it was the girl's older brother sexually assaulting them. If even he was not old enough to determine informed consent is this issue equal to "rape, sodomy, and torture"? Perhaps it can be argued, because of his young age, that the brother as well was sexually abused in this process? Some may argue that you are using the children's unfortunate youth to wage your war the justice system.

In many of your posts you make connections and inferences that cannot be substantiated. They are simply your opinion. I would suggest your arguments would carry more weight if there was less drama and more fact.

Anyone else out there have an opinion?

Anonymous said...

"There would be public outrage, demanding a public inquiry into the rape, sodomy and torture of two 8 year old girls and the corruption within Saskatchewan Justice.
"

As with many of your other posts, do you think you may be overstating issues for the dramatic effect? If I understand it correctly it was the girl's older brother sexually assaulting them. If even he was not old enough to determine informed consent is this issue equal to "rape, sodomy, and torture"? Perhaps it can be argued, because of his young age, that the brother as well was sexually abused in this process? Some may argue that you are using the children's unfortunate youth to wage your war the justice system.

In many of your posts you make connections and inferences that cannot be substantiated. They are simply your opinion. I would suggest your arguments would carry more weight if there was less drama and more fact.

Anyone else out there have an opinion?

11:06 AM

Anonymous said...

“Dramatic effect“? There is no other way to describe what happened to the Ross girls. "rape, sodomy, and torture"

The twins brother was a victim. “The children's unfortunate youth” was a result of not receiving the help they needed.

“cannot be substantiated” Please, take the time to read the Baynton Judgement.

I would suggest your arguments would carry more weight if you took the time to inform yourself of the facts before you comment. If there are connections and inferences that you do not understand, or that I have not presented clearly, I would be more then willing to point you to documents that support what I have stated. The best way to see clearly what happened to the Ross children is to follow the story as it is being posted on Saskatchewanjustice.ca.

I had the misfortune of getting involved with Saskatchewan’s corrupt administration of justice when I reported a Saskatoon lawyer Nicolas Stooshinoff, a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan to the Saskatoon Police. Justice in Saskatchewan is not based on the law. It is based on who you know, your political affiliation and religious values. Saskatchewan Justice is the meanest, angriest, most corrupt and unashamed group of people in Saskatchewan.

Anonymous said...

Ok, let me give you two specific examples. # 1: "Rape, sodomy, and torture" are in quotations marks. That means someone said exactly that. Who said it? Was their comment based on facts and not simply emotion? It is your responsibility to make sure your source is credible before you quote them. Just because it is posted on the internet does not necessarily mean it is accurate.

You mention the brother was also a victim. How can he be a victim and a perpetrator at the same time?

example # 2: You have made references to the "Doukabor Mafia."
Where does that come from? If it is unsubstantiated it is simply racist.

Anonymous said...

R. (M.L.) V. DUECK
QB02124
Date of Judgment: April 1, 2002
Number of Pages: 14
FIAT DOVELL J.
April 1, 2002

"Likewise [M.L.R.] knew that he was raping and sodomizing his sisters in 1993."

Saskatchewan Justice was jailing people for saying what Justice Baynton found to be true in his December 30, 2003 judgement. Justice Dovell new this was true in April, 2002. Some peoples kids are just not very bright.

The Baynton Judgement.

[491] Miazga and Hansen, the two prosecutors, claim that Richard Klassen published and distributed two posters and a letter that contained statements of fact that defamed them. Richard Klassen resists the claim on the basis that any statements contained in the posters and the letter were true as established by the evidence in this trial and any expressions of opinion constitute fair comment as defined by the law. He also contends that the first poster was not authored or published by him but he admits that one or two copies may have been inadvertently distributed by him in conjunction with the distribution of other papers. The words in the posters and letters relied upon by Miazga and Hansen as defamatory are as follows:

(a) in a document distributed widely including the postering in public places in Saskatoon at various times since February 10, 1993:

"crooked prosecutors
Sonia Hanson (sic), a crooked prosecutor, used the above manufactured evidence to advance her career.
Matt Miazga, a crooked prosecutor, used the above manufactured evidence to advance his career."

(b) in a document over the signature "Richard Allen Klassen" distributed widely including by postering in public places in Saskatoon at various times since February 10, 1993 included the following entry:

"I, Richard Allen Klassen, demand that Crown Prosecutor Matt Miazga be arrested for covering up the rape and sodomy of an eight year old girl, in order to keep his manufactured case together.

I, Richard Allen Klassen, demand that Crown Prosecutor Sonia Hanson (sic), be arrested for covering up the rape and sodomy of an eight year old girl, in order to keep her manufactured case together.

(c) in a letter dated November 11, 1993 and distributed widely including by postering in public places in Saskatoon at various times since February 10, 1993 included the entry:

"Crown Prosecutor Matt Miazga should be held criminally responsible for aiding and abetting the criminal actions of the aforementioned people."

[492] Some of the terms used, and the context in which they are used, are capable of different interpretations. Given a contextual yet literal interpretation, the statements of fact are not actionable because they have been proven to be true. In the circumstances of this case, the remaining terms are not actionable because they are expressions of opinion or desire and constitute fair comment.

[494] The counterclaim of Matthew Miazga and Sonja Hansen is dismissed against Richard Klassen.

The fact that the Ross twins were left for a period of 43 months between May 29th, 1990 & January 1994 and that they were sodomized, raped and tortured with the full knowledge of the authorities during this time can not be disputed. The police tapes, Thompson Papers and a letter from one of the girls asking for help can not be dismissed as “simply emotion”.

Why were the girls not separated from their brother at the first instance of an official finding out, from the twins, that their brother was raping them? This is when the girls brother should have received the help he needed. He was a seriously disturbed child in need of help, he was not a perpetrator. He was known to be seriously dysfunctional and showing unusual sexual behaviour before he was apprehended. He did not become a victim until the moment that the authorities found out that he was raping his sisters and refused to help him, or his sisters. An operation to lower his sexual urges was not the proper treatment that he needed.

My Doukhobor Mafia posts and comments are below.

http://starchamberproceedings.blogspot.com/2005/12/danger-of-patronage-appointments-to.html

http://starchamberproceedings.blogspot.com/2005/06/saskatchewan-doukhobor-mafia.html

Below are two links to other internet sites.

http://www.saskatchewanjustice.ca/

http://www.injusticebusters.com/05/Sabo_Russell.shtml

Anonymous said...

Ok, rape and sodomy have been documented. Where is the torture?

Do not dilute your message with emotion. Verifiable facts are required.

You have listed links for the Doukabor Mafia remarks but where is the substantiated evidence? That's what we want if you want us to take your posts seriously.

Anonymous said...

There is irrefutable evidence that the Ross twins were raped, sodomized and tortured. I would think that most people would conclude after reading and viewing the evidence that 8 year old children left to be raped and sodomized for four years with the full knowledge of the people entrusted with their care was torture.

There is no possible way for anyone to describe what happened to the children in Saskatchewan without the emotion. Take the time to read about these children and what happened to them, there are many links on Star Chamber Proceedings, injusticebusters.com, saskatchewanjustice.ca, and many other sites.

Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) was an Italian explorer who sailed across the Atlantic Ocean in 1492. The Ross twins were raped, sodomized and tortured in Saskatchewan for 43 months. Verifiable facts are not required. What is required is an interest in the subject and a little research.

The information I have supplied to you in answer to your inquiry is easily available on the internet, in court documents and evidence posted. The documents have been admitted in courts of law as evidence.

I can understand that people would be sceptical reading about the children and what happened to them in Saskatchewan. I can also understand that some people would not be able to read about what happened to the children without becoming ill.

You have ignored the many valid issues in my posts. Corruption within Saskatchewan Justice being one of them and choose instead to focus on the issue of documented, emotion, and then you play the race card. Where are the quotations marks in my posts you claim, rape, sodomy, and torture are enclosed within. I enclosed rape, sodomy, torture within quotations marks in my comment response to your question as I stated this in my post, not someone else.


“Ok, rape and sodomy have been documented. Where is the torture?”

You answered your own question.


Supreme Court of Canada
John David Lucas and Johanna Erna Lucas Appellants
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

and

The Attorney General of Canada, the
Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney
General of Manitoba and the Canadian Civil
Liberties Association Interveners

Indexed as: R. v. Lucas
File No.: 25177.
1997: October 15; 1998: April 2.

“On the basis of these documents, the appellants apparently understood that one of the children had raped, sodomized and tortured one of his sisters and repeatedly participated in sexual activities with the other sister.”

6 “On the basis of these documents, the appellants apparently understood that Michael had raped, sodomized and tortured his sister Kathy and repeatedly participated in sexual activities with his other sister, Michelle.”


LUCAS V. DUECK
QB02001
Date of Judgment: January 2, 2002
Number of Pages: 14

2002 SKQB 1

Q.B.G. A.D. 2001
No. 2291 J.C.S.

IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON


(b) The Plaintiff says and the fact is, that the Plaintiff has taken extreme care regarding Rule 173 c., in the Rules of Court, but it should be noted that this lawsuit revolves around the now undisputed fact that Defendant Dueck and Defendant Bunko-Ruys, allowed [M. 2] R. and [K.] R. to be raped, sodomized and otherwise tortured, for a period of 43 months.

[7] Other paragraphs allege that "all of the Defendants or more than one of them" committed perjury, suborned evidence, interfered with witnesses, failed to make a full and complete disclosure or failed in their duty to report "the foregoing" (para. 4); did not have an honest belief in the guilt of the Plaintiff and conspired against him to avoid
criticism "for allowing [[M. 1] R.] to rape, sodomize and torture [his sisters] (para. 5) or "for allowing the cover-up that followed their discovery that. . .Dueck and. . .Bunko-
Ruys had allowed [[M. 1] R. to do the acts described.]" (para. 6); removed [M. 1] R. to an undisclosed location after the Plaintiff attempted to subpoena him in 1993 and then falsely portrayed to the Court that [M. 1] R. was only a ten or eleven year old child with a "touching problem" although, in fact, he was at the time 14 years old and the allegations against him were on going and much more serious (para. 7(a)).