Corrupt Ottawa Judges: Ontario Judical Council Receives Complaint

Canadian judges by and large are champions of affirming the due process of law.  However, the letter below written to the Ontario Judicial Council suggests that there are judges who are less than ethical in their conduct.  In Ontario, two particular Justices have been responsible for breaching all sorts of judicial guidelines as a result of having been unduly influenced by efforts of the Defendant who has sought to manipulate the judicial system.

As a result of the activities of these Justices, an elderly woman has been subjected to over one year of abuse and neglect by her husband who sought to keep her son away from championing the rights of his Mother.  Evidence points to an apparent illicit relationship between these two Justices and the abusive husband which have resulted in the Mother who has not seen her son in over one year no longer being able to walk, talk or write.

Ontario Superior COURT FILE NO: 15-66772

The Ontario Judicial Council -  OPEN LETTER
P. O. Box 914,
Adelaide Street Postal Station,
31 Adelaide Street East,
Toronto, Ontario M5C 2K3

September 12, 2016

Criminal Misconduct - Justice P. E. Roger and The Hon. James McNamara

Dear Ontario Judicial Council,

It has been my experience that the great majority of judges in Ontario are steadfastly committed to principles of balance, fairness, impartiality, ethics and the due process of law, even when judgements have not been in my favour. I have also observed Court administrative staff emulating the professional tone set by these judges.

However, bribery and collusion can affect the integrity of justice.

Apparently Justice P.E. Roger and The Hon. James McNamara have been accepting “tribute” in exchange for favourable justice.

Does the Ontario Judicial Council support the practice of Judges meeting with a litigant in a case to then coordinate favourable justice for that litigant?

The Defendant was worried about possibly losing the Motion for Leave to Appeal to another Judge whom they could not unduly influence.

They then appealed to Justice P. E. Roger who looked for, and seized control of the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in violation of 12.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the following principles established by the Ontario Judicial Council –

    3.1 Judges should maintain their personal conduct at a level which will ensure the public’s trust and confidence.

      3.2 Judges must avoid any conflict of interest, or the appearance of any conflict of interest, in the performance of their judicial duties

In the Eastern Division of the Superior Court of Justice, certain lawyers are also aware of The Hon. James McNamara's reported support for what is referred to as “donations”.

Donations” is also a word used by high end escorts to avoid the legal jeopardy of clients paying for sex which is illegal. By making a “donation” prostitution laws can be circumvented. When a Judge correspondingly asks for a “donation” he or she seeks to circumvent laws of s 119 of the Criminal Code of Canada against bribery and collusion.

Bribery of judicial officers, etc. - Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
  • 119 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

    • (a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

    • (b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

In Justice P. E. Roger's Endorsement dated 2016-09-07, he declared that he got the file for the Motion for Leave to Appeal as a “coincidence” – but it was no coincidence. Indeed, Justice Roger had specifically communicated to the Plaintiff in a very bellicose / hostile tone back in Fall 2015 that he regarded the matter as “personal”. This admission is in violation his Oath of Office and Ontario Judicial Council guidelines.

His so-called “Endorsement” which levied $1500.00 against the Plaintiff seeking to see his own sick and disabled Mother is little more than a polemic that seeks to take vengeance against the Plaintiff for having received Justice Patrick Smith's Order that went against Justice P. E. Roger's commitment to his “handlers”. In so doing, Justice Roger disregarded not only s. 96 of the Courts of Justice Act but Canadian laws which affirm the blocking of visitation access as constituting elder abuse by the Defendant.

Justice P. E. Roger violated the integrity of the Superior Court of Justice for his own personal self-aggrandizement and with the blessings of his accomplice The Hon. James McNamara. In the process, both these two Justices totally ignored all evidence and supporting documents by the Plaintiff in the execution of collusion and conspiracy.

Both these Justices have degraded the Superior Court of Justice to a corrupted modus operandi often found in the “Third World”. That is to say, a “Kangaroo Court”.

It's apparent that Justice P. E. Roger and The Hon. James McNamara have betrayed the high standards set forth by other justices of the Superior Court of Justice; and are acting as “operatives” of the Defendant. Justice P. E. Roger and The Hon. James McNamara have committed prima facie criminal acts that require immediate investigation.

Justice P. E. Roger and The Hon. James McNamara subverted the honourable decision rendered by Justice Patrick Smith on 11 February 2016 that enabled and empowered the Plaintiff to see his Mom on a daily basis, as a result of Justice P. E. Roger and The Hon. James McNamara having an illicit relationship with the manipulative Defendant.

Lacking a substantive Defence against the Plaintiff not being able to see his Mom who has been subjugated to abuse and neglect by the Defendant, criminal conspiracy became the only strategy to maintain the unlawful blocking of visitation access against the Plaintiff seeing his sick and physically disabled Mom who has sought to see her son.

Thanks for your consideration.




There are 0 comments on this post

Leave A Comment