This is a proof you can do yourself.
Find any business on Google Maps and then submit a review for it.
When the business responds to YOUR comments, YOU will get an email advising you to go read the company’s response.
Did you get that email?
No? – The business did not care to respond at all.
Yes? – The business DID reply and so the reviewer, YOU, is advised.
So, once you get a reply that your review has had a reply… go ask EVERYONE in the world if they got the same email.
You will find of course that ONLY the reviewer gets a reply…. otherwise every person in the work would get millions of such emails every day.
So, ipso facto, ONLY ONE of Jaclyn or Helen was using pseudonym Daria Morgendorffer and could have legal possession of a screen capture taken of me typing Helen instead of “her”. I submit Jaclyn used it as the words in all her email taunts to me sound like they came from her. Not proof, conjecture.
To Prove Jaclyn Was Daria… I will ask questions at her Examination for Discovery.
Det. Ward was asked twice in court who he got the screen capture from and he answered Helen and the other time he answered Jaclyn. So, Daria, whomever she is in real life, gave a copy to the other person. So, I ask them both how they obtained the screen capture. There are three choices of course: Jaclyn, Helen, Neither.
At trial Helen said in part:
I did go look at that review so I knew that he had breached his bail.
I don’t recall how…, I’m not sure…., Jaclyn Solomon knew…, I don’t know if I provided them…,
I told them it was there and they went and looked for themselves…,
I may have provided a screen shot of that, yes. I was aware of that review and I did go look at that review so I knew that he had breached his bail.
OK, as you can read, here is Helen’s problem at trial:
She lied on the stand. She said she DID GO see the word HELEN in the review so she knew I was in breach.
However, no one EXCEPT Daria saw and captured the word HELEN in the short span between getting the announcement in an email, and ME CHANGING IT… everyone else in the world saw the final edited response by me.
It is physically impossible for Helen to have seen the word HELEN because she had no idea I had typed it, only Daria knew, and only Daria got there quick enough to see HELEN.
Helen will be asked about this AGAIN at Discovery for Examination. And if her answers do not MATCH what she said on the stand, she is perjured. She SWORE on the stand that she KNEW I had breached because she saw HELEN in my response but she never saw HELEN on it. Not BECAUSE Jaclyn told her as she earlier stated.
Helen did not and does not understand how Google Business Reviews work.
It does NOT say… “EVERYBODY in the world gets an instant notification when you reply to their review.”
Just Daria got the notification and could screen grab my temporary error.
Just Daria could have screen captured it. BOTH Jaclyn and Helen could NOT be Daria, just one of them could. Or neither of them was Daria, and some third party gave them BOTH the SAME screen capture. Which is why the capture Helen claimed to take is IDENTICAL to the one Jaclyn claimed to take.
This will be put in writing at their Examination for Discovery. They will be asked again where they got the screen capture, and if that differs from where they told J. Harper they got it then they are guilty of the CRIME of Perjury.
Det. James Ward Swears He Got Daria’s Screen Capture From Jaclyn
At my trial July 22, 2019, Det. James Ward was asked by Crown Greg Elder…
ROBERT LEPP: Q. Detective Ward, since May 17th when you first got involved in the case, have you met Angela Rivet, the paralegal to my left?
A. Yes, a few times.
Q. Did you – do you remember talking to her in the hallway about the case with Lesley Pasquino?
Q. October 15th, perhaps?
A. Yes, probably.
Q. Okay. And Ms. Rivet asked you a question and
you answered it freely in front of Ms. Pasquino. Do you recall…
Q. …that? Now, the question she asked was why would a person like myself who has no criminal record, who’s never done anything, is only trying to get along, why you didn’t offer me a peace bond instead of 16 charges. And you answered her, do you remember what your answer was?
A. I just want him to stop communicating with these women.
Q. Did you say these women, or emailing the town?
Q. The women?
A. The women.
Q. Okay. And you had a reason for saying that to her?
A. Yes. Because…
A. …I want you to stop emailing these women.
Q. All right. There are three, correct? Ms. Clarke, Ms. Solomon?
Q. All right. If we just go through them very briefly. (one) had me arrested in 2017 on two charges.
MR. ELDER: Your Honour, I don’t see the relevance of this line of questioning.
ROBERT LEPP: I’m still under recognizance of bail for it.
THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait, Mr. – wait a minute, gentleman. There’s been an objection. Mr. Lepp, again, we’re – you seem to be getting into the propriety of the investigation. And the investigation has been done, the charges have been laid, they’re now in the, the court’s hands. I have to deal with the evidence…
ROBERT LEPP: I hear you.
THE COURT: …and whether it does or does not amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt these things the Crown has alleged. There is no Charter application, which might otherwise take us back into the process by which these charges were laid…
ROBERT LEPP: Oh, I understand.
THE COURT: …and whether it was abusive or delayed or something else that was not up to snuff. And I don’t have that before me, I’ve just got the charges as they are. So I, I don’t want to spend time going back into the manner in which the police investigated this offence or had a discussion with you or a representative of you out of the court or – unless it has to do with this case and, and what I’ve just heard from this officer doesn’t have anything to do with this case. He, he meant three women, he didn’t want you communicating with them any further. That was why he, he made the remark he did to Ms. Rivet. But that, that really doesn’t have to do with whether the Crown can prove its case against you.
ROBERT LEPP: This is the only time I get to address the key witness for the prosecution. After today, I don’t have a chance to ask him any questions. I will err on the side of asking too many and I – please forgive me, I don’t know which are material to Your Honour. I only ask them
because they, they are material to me. And I understand the fine line that – there are specific charges and, and I’m, I’m to defend myself against those charges. There are 16 of them…
THE COURT: You’re, you’re not…
ROBERT LEPP: …and….
THE COURT: …under any positive onus when it comes to defending. The Crown has the onus…
ROBERT LEPP: Bears the onus.
THE COURT: …throughout this. They have to prove your guilt. If they haven’t summoned up any evidence which suggests that you’re guilty, you don’t have to do a thing and you’re going to be acquitted. If on the other hand you feel that something that they have presented to the court needs an answer, then you want to bring out whatever you feel is the answer. And I assume that’s what you’re trying to do on, on your cross-examination. But…
ROBERT LEPP: And….
THE COURT: …that means that the things you have to be bringing out aren’t things that are of, of concern to you apart from our proceeding. Because those – I can’t take court time to deal with. I, I certainly will hear from you on any questions that bring out a matter that pertains to what I have to find. Either the, the Crown has proven its case or that it has not. But, you know, why he said what he did to Ms. Rivet and the court or – on October of 2018 doesn’t have anything to do with what I have to decide.
ROBERT LEPP: I understand now, Your Honour.
THE COURT: So go, go ahead.
ROBERT LEPP: Oh.
ROBERT LEPP: Q. What is – what was the complaint from?
A. Defamatory and liable was the original complain.
Q. And you charged me under what section?
A. I believe at the time it was section 301.
Q. Correct. Which is titled publish defamatory libel. In, in your role as a police officer, do you look at the essential elements of what’s needed to prove a charge? Or do you only look at the wording of the charge in the Criminal Code?
A. The term we use is facts in issue. And I do look at the facts in issue and I found that you qualified for all of the facts in issue for defamatory liable at the time.
Q. Sorry, what’s that term you used?
A. Facts in issue.
Q. Facts in issue?
Q. The question I had was, are you aware of the essential elements that must – that a judge must be comfortable with before a charge is proven to find a person guilty?
Q. Okay. When you looked up 301, what did you find?
THE COURT: This – it’s not even a charge that’s before me, Mr. Lepp. Why am I dealing with this? The, the Crown isn’t proceeding any defamatory liable charge against you. You haven’t been arraigned on that charge.
MR. ELDER: It’s, it’s…
ROBERT LEPP: I was arraigned on…
MR. ELDER: …in a separate…
ROBERT LEPP: …that….
MR. ELDER: …proceeding before Justice Halikowski.
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
MR. ELDER: But….
THE COURT: Before me, it’s not, it’s not in issue. It may be elsewhere, but in, in my matter, it’s not.
ROBERT LEPP: Understand.
MR. ELDER: I’m, I’m just – I’m a little bit concerned, Your Honour, this is getting into some sort of discovery for other separate proceedings, both criminal and non-criminal.
THE COURT: Well, it, it’s – collaterally, that might happen, I suppose, Mr. Elder. And if it does, I – that’s to the benefit of Mr. Lepp, but it is collateral. If these are matters that should arise or can be dealt with in the course of the charges that Mr. Lepp is facing, I’m going to allow the questions to be…
MR. ELDER: Oh, certainly.
THE COURT: …asked and answers given. But on the section 301 and whether the officer went through in his mind whether there were reasonable and probable grounds, none of that is something that I should be hearing about because that’s not a proceeding that is before me. Even if it were a proceeding before me, the, the rightness or wrongness of the weighing process that an officer has gone to in coming to a conclusion absent a Charter application isn’t a matter that the court is going to be considering.
ROBERT LEPP: Your Honour, I have no interest in a Charter application.
THE COURT: Okay. So, so…
ROBERT LEPP: The….
THE COURT: …I suggest that you not investigate – or attempt to investigate through your questions the officer’s thinking in laying the charge under section 301 of the Criminal Code.
ROBERT LEPP: No problem. Understand.
THE COURT: Okay.
ROBERT LEPP: Yes.
ROBERT LEPP: Q. You said you didn’t want me emailing to those three women, for what reason?
A. You were under a recognizance not to.
Q. No. You, you were asked the question when faced with what charge and why, you, you skipped past a peace bond and went straight to 16 criminal charges. And you said it’s because you wanted to stop him emailing three women.
A. That would be the crux of the criminal harassment and harassing communications charges.
Q. Correct. So – and I’m just affirming that you, you told Ms. Rivet you didn’t offer me a peace bond, which would accomplish the same thing, you went to 16 criminal charges because you wanted me to stop emailing these three women.
A. As a police officer, I don’t have the authority to offer you a peace bond. A peace bond is a result of the resolution through the courts upon a guilty plea. That is something that a police officer does not have the authority to do.
Q. Okay. The charges were picked up by the prosecutor. The prosecutor did not offer a peace bond and wanted to proceed with the charges based on your testimony.
THE COURT: I’m, I’m not going to hear evidence about negotiations of resolution…
ROBERT LEPP: Oh.
THE COURT: …of the charges short of trial. That’s not for me as the trial judge to hear anything about.
ROBERT LEPP: Okay. Your Honour, he said he wanted me to not email these three women and I’m just asking what was it in these emails that he purports to have that he didn’t want me communicating. And he’s not shown any evidence of any harassment. He’s not shown any evidence of any defamatory liable for the…
THE COURT: No. Your, your, your question….
ROBERT LEPP: …other case. And, and I just….
THE COURT: Just listen to me.
ROBERT LEPP: Sure.
THE COURT: Your, your question was, have you met with Ms. Rivet since May the 17th…
ROBERT LEPP: I’m passed that.
THE COURT: …2018. Just, just hear me out. And he said, yes, I discussed the case with her in October of 2018 in the corridor. And he told her at that time that he wanted you to stop emailing these women. But I think what you’re trying to suggest is that that evidence is the equivalent of the officer having laid all these charges because he wanted you to stop emailing the women and only that. And I haven’t heard evidence to that effect.
ROBERT LEPP: You haven’t heard evidence of anything harassing to the women?
THE COURT: I, I can’t say to you at the moment whether I have or haven’t. What I can say to you is that I haven’t heard any evidence from this officer that his sole reason for having spoken as he did – well, on that note, for having laid the charges, I’ve gone ahead with these charges against you was because he wanted you to stop emailing the women.
ROBERT LEPP: Okay.
THE COURT: And that seems to be the premise of your questions right now.
ROBERT LEPP: Okay.
ROBERT LEPP: Q. Let’s forget October and Ms. Rivet. Forget that all even happened. You laid a total of 16 charges and we – we’re on a third day, fourth day of trial and no one has yet introduced any email from any of the three women from me that show criminal harassment mentality, no mens rea, no – none of that other legal stuff. Okay. Don’t testify, ask a question. Would you be able to show us the worst possible email that I’ve sent to any of these women?
MR. ELDER: It, it’s just – it’s not for the officers to say. I mean, it’s – his opinion is not relevant to your – what Your Honour must consider.THE COURT: No. I'm, I'm the one who has to look at the emails and the conduct of the parties from the May date on and decide whether or not there has been harassment. ROBERT LEPP: Okay. THE COURT: Or repeated telecommunications with a view to harassing. ROBERT LEPP: Okay. THE COURT: Or both. It's not for this officer undergo questions as to whether or not in fact these things have been made out. ROBERT LEPP: I'm trying to ask a question, Your Honour, that simply can be answered honestly and openly what he saw in any communication from me that caused any person to fear for their safety. THE COURT: Again, that, that's... ROBERT LEPP: I can't do that? THE COURT: ...the ultimate issue for me. ROBERT LEPP: Okay. And it doesn't matter what.... THE COURT: And, and whether he saw it or he didn't, I'm the one who has to decide. ROBERT LEPP: Okay. Okay. That throws me for a bit of a loop for a few pages. If I could just have a minute to... THE COURT: Might save... ROBERT LEPP: ...catch up? THE COURT: ...might save a few pages. ROBERT LEPP: I'm sorry? THE COURT: It might save a few pages. ROBERT LEPP: You did. You saved a lot of questions, Your Honour. MS. RIVET: Is your phone on silent? I thought it made a noise. ROBERT LEPP: It made a noise? I'm sorry. It's on. I turned it on at lunch time, Your Honour. Let me turn it off. Pardon me, Your Honour. ROBERT LEPP: Q. Ms. Clarke xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx had a complaint about me, one as an employee, one as a contractor. They said - they told you that they feared me, correct? A. Yes. Q. Right. And they further said – I think both said the same thing, that it was the emails, not interactions phone calls or whatever. It was emails that they said made them fearful of me.A. Yes. Q. Can you confirm that from your... A. Yes. Q. ...in your notes? Okay. THE COURT: Could you repeat that question, please, Mr. Lepp? ROBERT LEPP: No. I was just trying to – without asking the wrong kind of question.... THE COURT: I think it was a good question, I just... ROBERT LEPP: Oh, darn. THE COURT: ...I just – I wasn't quick enough to note it. ROBERT LEPP: Could the reporter read it back? THE COURT: Yes. Madam Reporter? ROBERT LEPP: May the reporter... COURT MONITOR: Yes? THE COURT: Could you read that back, please? COURT MONITOR: You said further said that it was the emails said that made him – made them fearful of him. ROBERT LEPP: Oh, right. It was only the emails that made the, the person fearful of me. THE COURT: As opposed... ROBERT LEPP: Right. THE COURT: ...to any other conduct? Is, is that the question? ROBERT LEPP: Correct. THE COURT: Is that right, officer? Detective Ward? A. That's correct, sorry, Your Honour. THE COURT: So it was the emails that made them fearful – or they said it was the emails that made them fearful, not other contact – conduct of Mr. Lepp. A. I know that one had personal contact Q. This is the same woman who said I fear for his emails and I don't want to be in the same – I don't want to be in the courtroom next to him, let alone in the same courtroom. Do you recall that in your interview? with Mr. Lepp that caused her fear of him. And a previous incident. ROBERT LEPP: Q. She expressed fear after giving me a xxxxxxxx? That's the incident – it's the only incident I've ever met her. I presume you're.... THE COURT: You have to ask the question. ROBERT LEPP: Oh. ROBERT LEPP: Q. When shetold you that, was it in reference to an interaction?A. No. It was reference – in reference to other comments that were made at the time and I was not part of the investigation, but I read a report. Q. Okay. Just for the court record, you're saying it's only emails that caused these women, let's just talk Solomon and Clarke. The charges before the court today are Solomon and Clarke, and you're saying it's only emails that made them concerned. A. Yes. Q. They feared from me – okay. When I made first appearance, you escorted Jaclyn Solomon to court to watch me being indicted, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Why did she want to be at my arraignment? Why, why did she tell you that she wanted you to take her to my arraignment? A. She didn't tell me she wanted me to take her to the arraignment. I went to the arraignment as the officer in charge... A. Yes. Q. Mm-hmm. A. ...and she is the victim. And I.... Q. Why did she attend with you? A. I think you would have to... Q. Is that common? A. ...ask Ms. Solomon that. She has – under the Victim's Bill of Rights, she has a right to be present for trials that involve her as a victim. Q. Okay. And it's just because I don't know... A. Okay. Q. ...so it's common for somebody to be abused orbeaten and then want to go to court to see the person get dealt with? A. Well, I wouldn't reference Ms. Solomon as someone who's been abused or beaten. But she was a victim and she had a right to be there. Q. Correct. She was a victim. A. Yes. Q. Because you brought her to many appearances after that time. A. No, I came as the officer in charge and she as a victim came of her own volition. Q. You just happened to meet her in court so many times? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. A. When you're an officer in charge, you're expected to work with your victims to help them through the court process. Q. Okay. You attended an entire Small Claims Court session on July 10th, 2018, 2018. There was a uniformed officer as well there. Did you remember that uniformed officer? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Why did you attend my Small Claims suit against Helen Clarke? Q. Incorrect? Okay. What date was the instigated instigational [sic] date for all of this? A. May 10th... Q. May 10th? Okay. A. I was asked to be there by Ms. Solomon. Q. For what reason did she tell you? A. You would have to ask Ms. Solomon that. Q. I would? A. She told me she would... Q. What's your... A. ...like me there. Q. ...understanding of why you were there. A. Potential evidence that would be arriving during the Small Claims in relation to the criminal investigation. Q. So you were there to listen to the negotiations and perhaps make notes for your investigation? A. If anything arose that I thought would be germane to my investigation, I would make notes of it, yes. Q. Correct. Because everything started with the May 11th lawsuit I, I posted, you, you would agree? A. Incorrect. A. ...was the email that occurred after you being told not to email her in December of the year before. Q. Okay. So, so you do agree, it's the May 10th email to Time 4 Paws and her reply on behalf of Time 4 Paws to me that caused me to sue her the next day? A. I don't know what caused you to file a civil suit, Mr. Lepp. Q. You attended the entire session that day, July 10th. That was – that's the only settlement conference that we've had and you heard everything ongoing. You must have heard details of the entire suit. A. Mr. Lepp, you're asking me to try and figure out what's going on in your mind. I can't. Q. I didn't ask that. In, in, in Jaclyn Solomon's mind, why were we - on July 10th being attended...Q. All right. From the testimony, was it apparent 30 that I sued Helen Clarke for liable? THE COURT: Was – I, I don't know what happened on July the 10th. I don't know whether it was, it was THE COURT: Well, he, he... Q. ...by you... THE COURT: ...he can't... Q. ...to protect her? THE COURT: ...tell you about what was going on in Ms. Solomon's mind or, or anyone's mind other than his own. ROBERT LEPP: His own? THE COURT: Yes. ROBERT LEPP: Okay. ROBERT LEPP: Q. On July the 10th, did you wonder – did you yourself wonder why we were there? A. I many times wondered why we're here. Yes.part of the trial or it was the settlement conference you've mentioned and if it was the latter, was evidence given? Or were – did people just talk to one another. So the, the officer, I guess, is going to have to enlighten me about that, because he's the witness. I'll find out. What happened on July the 10th? A. So it, it was, it was a conference before a justice on that day, attempted resolution or settlement conference for a civil claim and a counter civil claim from Helen Clarke against Mr. Lepp. THE COURT: Was evidence given? A. No evidence was given that I can best recall. There was no testimony, there was discussion about whether or not there was going to be resolution. THE COURT: And I gather you were in attendance at this settlement conference? A. Yes. THE COURT: Do, do you know anything about whether that's a normal procedure? That someone who's not one of the parties is in attendance at a settlement... A. It's not a normal... THE COURT: ...conference in Small Claims... A. ...procedure... THE COURT: ...Court? A. ...but it was, it was at the request of Ms. Solomon. THE COURT: And Ms. Solomon was representing Ms. Clarke at that proceeding? A. That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. Is that something that was cleared with whoever it was who was running the conference? A. I believe so. THE COURT: And was that a Small Claims Court judge? A. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. A. I don't remember his name. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, go ahead. ROBERT LEPP: Q. Do you recall what the judge's opinion was at the end of the attempted settlement? A. No. Q. No? Okay. The judge's opinion was that.... THE COURT: Well, you can't, can't give evidence, Mr. Lepp, and again, I just don't know what relevance there would be to the issues in this criminal court with what a judge in the Small Claims Court at a resolution conference said about the relative merits of the parties' cases. It doesn't matter to me. ROBERT LEPP: Your Honour, there are multiple charges in the informations before you. Nowhere in the questioning does the prosecutor say, okay, now I'm talking about charge number 1, or count number 1, or 2 or 3. He simply presents evidence, evidence, evidence. It may be confusing to others than me about which count he's providing evidence for. I'm left with looking at the exhibits that he's entered and trying to figure out what he's presenting as evidence against me. I realize the onus is on him to prove it and I understand that 100 percent, 100 percent. I'm trying to determine how the officer saw this situation with this woman and felt that he had to charge me 16 times. The, the May 10th email is the key to the entire mess. THE COURT: But, again, the, the propriety of his charging you isn't an issue in this trial. ROBERT LEPP: The propriety? Okay. THE COURT: He, he did charge you. ROBERT LEPP: Yes. THE COURT: The charges are before the court. ROBERT LEPP: Correct. THE COURT: The Crown is trying to make out that you in fact committed these offences. The background, the way he got to the stage where he decided to charge you is just not in issue. ROBERT LEPP: Okay. Is the motivation of the.... THE COURT: No. His motivation is not.. ROBERT LEPP: I can't ask a question? THE COURT: ...an issue. ROBERT LEPP: The motivation of the victims is meaningless. THE COURT: I, I, I don't know what that means. ROBERT LEPP: If, if a person has a motivation to get me arrested, they will say or do anything to get me arrested. THE COURT: Oh, I, I – you're perfectly entitled in cross-examination to try to bring out that somebody here had an axe to grind against you and, and decided to go to the police and cook up some charges because of that, that bias against you. That's fair. ROBERT LEPP: Okay. THE COURT: But this officer isn't one of those witnesses. He's not a victim. He's a person who received information from people who said they were victims. ROBERT LEPP: Okay. I wasn't permitted to ask questions of the victims. The court ordered me not to. THE COURT: Yes. But you're – you can't, you can't say to me or you can't effectively argue that, gee, I didn't get a chance to ask that, this appointed lawyer for me did the asking. So I shouldn't be saddled with the limitations on her question – questioning. That, that just isn't right. You're stuck with that, that counsel and that counsel's questions. ROBERT LEPP: Am I stuck with the counsel that refuses to ask my questions? Outright walks out of the room and yells at me, I'm not asking your questions. MR. ELDER: This is not related to this case... ROBERT LEPP: I understand. MR. ELDER: ...at this point. ROBERT LEPP: But the same thing happened in your trial, Your Honour. You'll remember Ms. Trombley came in three minutes before trial and was expected to represent me and it's impossible. THE COURT: Wasn't that when we adjourned so that you could have some time with Ms. Trombley? ROBERT LEPP: We had two hours that afternoon, Your Honour. THE COURT: Okay. In any event, I'm, I'm – I'd like to go on. I'd like to deal only with the issues in this case. I don't want you to spend time on the background of the laying of these charges, because that isn't relevant to what I have to decide. ROBERT LEPP: Okay. All right. ROBERT LEPP: Q. And how many of your charges are you alleging I made harassing telephone calls? A. None. Q. Why on the wall today do four of them say I made harassing telephone calls? MR. ELDER: If Mr. Lepp is referring to the, the docket that's posted outside the courtrooms, I think I'm safe in saying that the docket is not what gives the court jurisdiction. It's the information before the court. THE COURT: I don't think you need to do the exercise about what it said on the docket, Mr. Lepp. Although, it's unfortunate that it seems to have been incorrect. You're not facing charges of, of harassing phone calls. ROBERT LEPP: Your Honour, I am, when every judge I've seen since May 30th last year, has accused me of making harassing telephone calls because the way the case gets given to them.... THE COURT: I don't think the judges would be accusing you of... ROBERT LEPP: Yes. THE COURT: ...harassing telephone calls. Judge's don't usually... ROBERT LEPP: Yes. THE COURT: ...accuse people of these things. But, go ahead. ROBERT LEPP: And, and the Crown prosecutors would get up and say – they would read the synopsis and of course, they're reading – which I know, I'm a computer guy, this is a flaw in your computer systems that spits out harassing telephone calls instead of telecommunications. In the old, old days, telephone used to be the only form.
THE COURT: Right.
SO, Here Is Proof Of Faulty Investigation by Det. James Ward
Solomon Accused Me Of Introducing Criminal Charges Unnecessarily, Ward Never Checked Her Claims
Jaclyn had to come up with a “reason” my emails trying to settle my suit of Helen harassed her. That is a real stretch because of course Helen was paying her to defend her from my suit. We had to communicate to negotiate, so what Jaclyn did was to claim I spoke of the criminal charges in an attempt to extort her.
But, Jaclyn is the one who introduced my charges in HER claim. And in her defense she even asked for more time to get some documents copied from the criminal matters.
Jaclyn never told Det. Ward that she had initiated discussions of criminal charges in her defense and counterclaim. He never asked her to prove that she DID or DID NOT start the discussion. This is not good investigation. An office does not get to say “I believe my witnesses until it is proven otherwise.” because ONLY the witness knows she. is lying and unless Det. Ward asked to see the defense or her claim, he simply has no idea whether she is lying or not. He did not take steps to confirm ANYTHING she said, he simply believed it all. At the same time, he disbelieved EVERYTHING I told him. He interviewed me for two hours he says in this notebook. BUT, not one question or answer made it into his notebook. He decided in advance to not record my answers so he had plausible deniability to anything I said.
Look at para. 28….. “The defendant believes there are ulterior motives for this frivolous claim” She cannot figure out why I sued, and so she come sup with a bizarre theory that I am a time traveller, and that on May 11, 2018 I must have time travelled ahead 19 days to see myself arrested by Helen.
In fact, it was Helen who an ulterior motive for arresting me. She wanted revenge on my slander suit of her.
Det. Ward made no attempt to figure out the sequence of events. Jaclyn and Helen obscured the sequence by raging on and on without showing documents. Ward failed to understand Helen arrested ME May 30 because I sued HER first May 11. She went on to claim time travel and extortion and tampering, saying my efforts to settle for $0.00 and no apology were harassing her.
Jaclyn breached her oath to always act in her client;’s best interests. By REFUSING to settle for $0.00, Jaclyn kept Helen in the suit and when Lucas Kittmer advised I sued in the wrong court, Jaclyn was escalated to this Superior Court but as well.
Helen is being kept in this $7,000,000 suit today by Aurora counsel Painter and her own current counsel. No lawyer of any of the 7 parties wants to negotiate at all. They al want their clients in this at the trial in November.
So I am blessed with that aberrant behaviour. Helen cam sue her lawyers later for keeping her in the suit.