The complainant is a licensee of the Law Society of Ontario.
Witness #1 is also a licensee of the Law Society of Ontario.
Witness #2 is also a licensee of the Law Society of Ontario.
Cumualtively the 3 counsels represent 5 of 7 defendants in my law suit.
- York Region
- YR Police Services Board
- YR Police
- H…. C…. and T……. 4 P…..s
And what the 5/7 of my defendants have done is to conjure up a structure, a set of 11 complaints to get me 3 days in prison, a $2,600 LEGAL BILL, 100% house arrest, loss of all communication devices AND anything using the internet.
Of the 11 charges the 3 witnesses came up with, 8 were judged as not credible by Det. Goobie. He then chose 3 counts which he could prove. And he never read the Probation order or the court’s recognizances FIRST.
He believed the LSO Licensee because they swear to not lie to police. She said I breached 11 times, and so he CHARGED me with breaching just 3 times. So, right away, he should have known she had a VERY different interpretation of the SAME terms he could have read.
Only 3 out of 11 were true?
Why did Goobie not say: Hold on, she’s an LSO Licensee and she got 8 out of 11 wrong? I should reconsider and ask the Crown for guidance before I charge Mr. Lepp.
But, the Crown accepted all 3 counts, trusting Goobie’s trust in the faith of the LSO Licensee. It was a “Faith Fest!”. A daisychain of trust. A clusterfaith.s
All chains have a weakest link by definition. The LSO Licensee was that link. She had helped write term #6 and son she had a very different view on its purpose. In her mind, I must erase her existence and that of her 2 friends and one corporation and simply live without EVER speaking or writing theio\r names ANYWHERE.
Because in her mind I was banned, she visualized crimes where other people see normal life. She then EXPLAINED her vision to Det. Doobie and he believed her.
Likely because his boss, DS Bentham, ordered him to agree with the complainant’s view. He does not arrest me to right injustices. He does it to keep me silent talking about crimes committed, money wasted, taxes evaded.
Then, despite the costly investigation by Det, Doobie, the Crown nevertheless rejected one of the three and only 2 counts are being tried this Friday, Nov. 27. Both are alleged breaches.
- Speaking to an LSO Licensee inside court room 405
- Typing the defendants’ names on a court filing made to Superior Court through Llyshelle Barrett, scheduler, then coming to room 405 to have it heard.
They will produce my Recognizance or Probation order as at March 4, 2020 and they will argue that the orders FORBID both actions.
- The recognizance in effect March 4 was ALREADY ordered corrected by Justice Dawe 4 months earlier and one month before THAT by Senior Regional Justice Fuerst.
- Both orders were ignored by Crown Greg Elder. Justice Dawe cited him twice in his June 2020 release order review as he struck the term #6 “Not to mention…”
- Det. Goobie did NOT have a corrected recognizance or probation order to compare the complaints to. If he HAD such a copy he would see both charges were falsely laid. He believed what the complainant orally described as breaches instead of using the wording issued by the court.
The Root Cause Of My Charges
The same court and police who IGNORED Bill C-75 and continue to over charge Admin. of Justice…. ALSO control what the various Ontario departments see as my REAL orders.
Police, Probation and Courts if Justice have THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS of my Probation order and Recognizances. And each will assure you on the witness stand that all three are identical.
They are not identical.
- The real orders lie in a folder on filing trays in the Court Office, but are seen only by the Crown and the justice.
- Police use the version in CPIC, whenever someone chooses to update CPIC, or not.
- Probation officers have something, they will not tell me what, but they DO tell me it does NOT permit them to confirm my recognizance terms at meetings. They have not way to KNOW what I am NOT supposed to be doing.
- A 4th version is in my hands. All 4 can be different and they usually are.
- Other copies ar win the hands of the complaionants.
- Bottom Line: Paper systems cannot keep up.
You can see the flaws instantly:
- A woman comes in to complain and waves her copy, a piece of paper, at a cop and claims 11 breaches
- The cop believes her without checking HIS copy, but THEN decides 8 claims do not match the terms in effect by the courts… without reading HIS copy OR her copy of the terms
- The Crown believes the cops have detected (pun intended) crime in all 3 acts and they now take steps to commit at least $10,000 to prosecute the 3 charges… which affected no one at all
- A few months later, the Crown reads the actual recognizance terms and withdraws Count #1, the FIRST one they approved.
- They leave the other 2 counts which are NOT covered by the terms even as much as COUNT #1 was.
- The Crown then refuses to accept my evidence of innocence, proof of the previous statements, and demand an expensive Judicial Pre-Trial November 27, 2020.
And the SAME Crown who prosecuted me FAILED to even confirm I was in the alleged court room #405 on February 14, 2020.
And they did NOT check the audio recording of the court reporters.