Obstruction of justice...

REDBALLS

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I want to file obstruction of justice charges against several court official's in a Court house in Ontario . The court reporter's office and Judge have altered and fixed official court documents.

The Court transcripts are significantly inaccurate. Statements made in court by the Judge are missing and other statements made by the judge and witnesses have been altered in a manner which would lessen the ability to appeal the court's decision.

After seeing how official court transcripts have been "fixed" in my case which appear to me to prevent any kind of an appeal, I am shocked at how justice has been perverted by those in positions of power and authority in the justice system.

I do believe that the original and unaltered audio recordings of my trial will show that the official transcripts have been altered and that a thorough investigation will show that the Judge had the court reporter alter the transcripts to sabotage any chance of appeal. I believe that the sections of the transcripts which have been removed and/or altered would clearly support an appeal or a mistrial. Portion of my testimony and the testimony of others has been removed or significantly altered. I know what I heard in court and I know without any doubt that the official transcripts given to me have been altered. There were witnesses in the court as well who will testify that the court transcripts which I have been given by the court staff are not an accurate of what was stated in court.

I can understand that judges do not want the public to learn about their behaviours in court and how they may pervert justice. I have also been told by court staff that the judges get to approve court transcripts before they are released. The justice system should have checks and balances to prevent judges from fixing official court transcripts. There should be no reason for judges to have access to court reporters for the purpose of fixing transcripts before they are released. My trial lawyer has advised me that fixing of court transcripts is considered obstruction of justice and should be treated as a criminal matter.

Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent not on seeking justice in my case, but to insure that a guilty conviction sticks in spite of the evidence before the court. I can now understand how innocent people get thrown into prison by over-zealous Crown attorneys and judges who make the assumption of guilt before innocence and then fix up transcripts to cover up their acts to obstruct justice.

Court staff also were discussing my court matter in the court room and yelling down the halls within earshot of the jury while the jury was deliberating. The Judge told the jury not to believe me or my witnesses as everyone wanted the charges to stick.

I contacted the Attorney General's office requesting a mistrial. If a mistrial could not be granted, then I asked to be allowed to obtain a copy of the audio recordings from the court during my trial. If the audio recordings appeared to be altered, then I asked that a forensic examination of the tapes be conducted by an independent expert to determine if the recordings have been altered. I suggested possibly the RCMP should be called in to investigate this matter. I have heard of stories where electronic recordings from courts in Ontario have been altered in the past.

Based on my research I am not the first to complain about the fixing of transcripts at the courts and the obstruction of justice by judges by preventing people from exercising their rights under the Courts of Justice Act to record their own hearing.

I received a letter back from the Ministry of the Attorney General telling me that they do not have the authority to comment on or intervene in any court proceedings, including matter that are or were before the courts. They went further on the explain that one of the fundamental principles of our justice system is that the judiciary must be free to make decisions in court without any control or influence exerted by government or any other outside the judicial system.

They directed me that complaints regarding the conduct of federally appointed judges must be forwarded in to the Canadian Judicial Council. The Canadian Judicial Council is an agency that is independent of the government and is established under the Courts of Justice Act to investigate complaints of misconduct made about federally appointed judges. They also noted that the Council does not have the power to interfere with or change a judge's decision on a matter. Only an appeal court can change a judge's decision.

They went on the explain with respect to my concerns regarding the altering of transcripts, to be advised that the completion of transcripts is a matter between the court reporter and the requesting party. The Manager of Court Reporters of a Court House in Ontario, had advised that the transcripts provided to me are certified true copies of the original court proceedings.

Last but not least I was told that a court order is required to access the court audiotape. I was asked to consult a lawyer to obtain the best possible advice to assist me in obtaining a court order.

Flash forward to yesterday in a meeting with my lawyer. My new Lawyer informed me that there is an audio recording of my trial, but the court reporter will not give him a copy because they are her "Personal" recordings. The court reporter went on to say that the transcript's I was given are not complete even though they are sworn and certified. The court reporter's office has asked me to return my original transcript and sign a sworn statement that I have not made any copies for an exchange of a new transcript. I informed my Lawyer of this and that he can not possibly prepare for my sentencing or an appeal if he does not have an accurate account into what happened in the court room.

I understand I can file a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council, but that is not where I want to stop. I want to file charges of obstruction of justice against these court officials. I contacted the Justice of the Peace this morning, and they told me to contact the police. I then contacted the RCMP and they told me to contact the OPP because the allegations happened in an Ontario court. I contacted the OPP and they told me to contact the Toronto Police Service's, because these allegation's happened in Toronto. I then contacted the Toronto Police Services and they told me to contact the Law Society of Upper Canada, because they didn't think it was a criminal matter. After contacting the LSUC I was told to file a complaint with the Ontario Judicial Council.

Does anyone know where and how I can file charges of obstruction of justice against a federally appointed Judge and a court reporter's office? My new Lawyer will not tell me; he keep's avoiding the question and quickly changing the subject.
:rolleyes:
 
wow
 
I have a quick general answer for you but you won't like it. I will not comment on the merits of your case for obvious reasons.

What you are looking for is a private prosecution. You bascially lay an information under oath to a JP and the Crown gets a copy. The JP can decide to issue a summons/warrant or not.

Here is the part that sucks. The Crown has the right to take over your prosecution and conduct it in whatever way they see fit ( there is a long story on the reason for this but it has to do with PETA -- YES.. THAT PETA). If the Crown takes it over, they simply do what they do, which means that they can withdraw the charge if they wish, making your charge go away.

Don't bother with telling me about whether its right or wrong, I don't care. This is just information.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/private_prosecution.asp
 
Usually, when you fight the system, the system wins. But good luck with that.
 
I think you need to start with the method that you have been already advised ... with a complaint to the judicial council.
 
You could also make a request to the Ontario Onbudsman. He may be able to assist you. You could leak it to the media. Get the Toronto Star behind you.
 
I have a quick general answer for you but you won't like it. I will not comment on the merits of your case for obvious reasons.

What you are looking for is a private prosecution. You bascially lay an information under oath to a JP and the Crown gets a copy. The JP can decide to issue a summons/warrant or not.

Here is the part that sucks. The Crown has the right to take over your prosecution and conduct it in whatever way they see fit ( there is a long story on the reason for this but it has to do with PETA -- YES.. THAT PETA). If the Crown takes it over, they simply do what they do, which means that they can withdraw the charge if they wish, making your charge go away.

Don't bother with telling me about whether its right or wrong, I don't care. This is just information.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/private_prosecution.asp

Thanks, for the information.

I think you need to start with the method that you have been already advised ... with a complaint to the judicial council.

I have already. This morning I sent off letter's to the Canadian Judicial Council, Ontario Judicial Council, and the Supreme Court of Canada. I have read similar stories about court transcripts being altered in other courts. One case I found which made headlines involved a senior judge, Justice Zucker of the court on Sheppard Avenue in Toronto. Justice Zucker was found to have altered official court transcripts to avoid an appeal. I am not satisfied with what Judicial Council's can do; I will not be satisfied with a slap on the wrist for the Judge and a 'fall from grace'.

I will be satisfied when the preparation of transcripts are done without the involvement of judges. Any influential testimony whether valid or invalid should and must be documented accurately without the coercion or influence of the judge. Even if there are grammar mistakes we don't need judges to fix these mistakes at their high salaries. The integrity of the transcripts must be upheld and all opportunities to judicial tampering removed through effective procedures.

The courts should clearly notify and encourage participants to audio record their court proceedings as is allowed under Section 136(2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act. Currently the courts misinform citizens with signs on the court doors saying that recording is not allowed.

The courts should make available audio copies immediately at the end of each hearing each day and to provide audio recording on CD to parties immediately. I have been told by others that the practice of giving audio recording to parties shortly after the court is done in Quebec.

The solutions as I have listed above will save money and boost confidence in the administration of justice at our courts.


You could also make a request to the Ontario Onbudsman. He may be able to assist you. You could leak it to the media. Get the Toronto Star behind you.

Thanks for the Information.

+1 to the media.

A law student suggested this; if the Judge does not rule a mistrial, put's a publication ban on the transcript, and order's the Crown not to re-prosecute this will be my next step after private prosecution.
 
Last edited:
What if you were to sue for damages?

If I am sent to prison, and my conviction is overturned because of the judge's improper conduct; I could possibly start civil action on the grounds of wrongful imprisonment. I am not looking to sue anyone. I just want to get back to supporting my family, and raising 11 month old my daughter.
 
Anyone else wonder what the case actually is about?

/nosey
 
I would say only go to the media once you can back up what you're claiming with the audio recordings of the trial and official transcripts. Take that to the media and you'll get **** straightened out.

Good luck, you'll need it my friend.
 
Anyone else wonder what the case actually is about?

/nosey

I'm going to start off by saying I am NOT a lawyer and I am NOT offering legal advice.

Without a doubt many people will be curious, myself included. However I think it is safe to say that the charges are serious as it involved a jury and sentencing. It would seem the OP has enough of a challenge ahead of him that I'm not going to ask and have it lead to a thread jack. If he wants to talk about it, fine, its entirely his prerogative.

Based on what the OP has described his lawyer(s) are the kind that give their profession the somewhat deserving reputation it has. I say somewhat because we (the public) need lawyers who dedicate themselves to using the law to protect innocent people i.e. children and those wrongly convicted. But I digress.

Redballs not to be a pessimist but it seems like you have a bit of an uphill battle on your hands. I don't know what your financial situation is but chances are if you've been paying retainers it's not terribly great unless you happen to be well off to begin with or are on legal aid.

Depending on what the future holds and if convicted and depending on the sentence, you may need to seek help from an organization such as Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted. This and other similar associations are bombarded with requests and thus it can be difficult to get their help; if you get handed a 2 month sentence you'll be out long before they even read your file. If you get a 10 year sentence, that's an entirely different situation. Although slow, these wrongfully convicted groups are better than nothing for those whom are truly wrongfully convicted.

Regardless of the charge or whether you are guilty it sounds like the judge's instructions to the jury were inappropriate and could have created bias. To my limited knowledge I would think that a judge cannot tell a jury to disregard testimony or evidence unless the evidence wasn't legally obtained or an inadmissible statement is made by someone.

If/when Turbodish was on this thread he undoubtedly would tell you to seek the advice of a competent lawyer and I agree entirely. However with his keen insight to the legal system he might have some prudent advice for a person in your position. Hopefully he chimes in here help provide some perspective to you and to educate me on the law in this area.

Moving on, if I were in your circumstance I would be doing everything possible within the confines of the law to get my hands on those audio recordings as it seems it might make a significant difference in your situation. If the court reporter is refusing to provide the recording it very well could be to prevent him/herself from being charged or sued. If there was/is a legal way to indemnify him/her by way of agreement or otherwise from being sued or charged; he/she might be more willing. Unless she likes playing God that is. Heck, I'd give her immunity if it meant I had what I needed to rake the judge over the coals!

Guilty or not, everyone is intended to a fair trial. Good luck!
 
I'm going to start off by saying I am NOT a lawyer and I am NOT offering legal advice.

Without a doubt many people will be curious, myself included. However I think it is safe to say that the charges are serious as it involved a jury and sentencing. It would seem the OP has enough of a challenge ahead of him that I'm not going to ask and have it lead to a thread jack. If he wants to talk about it, fine, its entirely his prerogative.

Based on what the OP has described his lawyer(s) are the kind that give their profession the somewhat deserving reputation it has. I say somewhat because we (the public) need lawyers who dedicate themselves to using the law to protect innocent people i.e. children and those wrongly convicted. But I digress.

Redballs not to be a pessimist but it seems like you have a bit of an uphill battle on your hands. I don't know what your financial situation is but chances are if you've been paying retainers it's not terribly great unless you happen to be well off to begin with or are on legal aid.

Depending on what the future holds and if convicted and depending on the sentence, you may need to seek help from an organization such as Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted. This and other similar associations are bombarded with requests and thus it can be difficult to get their help; if you get handed a 2 month sentence you'll be out long before they even read your file. If you get a 10 year sentence, that's an entirely different situation. Although slow, these wrongfully convicted groups are better than nothing for those whom are truly wrongfully convicted.

Regardless of the charge or whether you are guilty it sounds like the judge's instructions to the jury were inappropriate and could have created bias. To my limited knowledge I would think that a judge cannot tell a jury to disregard testimony or evidence unless the evidence wasn't legally obtained or an inadmissible statement is made by someone.

If/when Turbodish was on this thread he undoubtedly would tell you to seek the advice of a competent lawyer and I agree entirely. However with his keen insight to the legal system he might have some prudent advice for a person in your position. Hopefully he chimes in here help provide some perspective to you and to educate me on the law in this area.

Moving on, if I were in your circumstance I would be doing everything possible within the confines of the law to get my hands on those audio recordings as it seems it might make a significant difference in your situation. If the court reporter is refusing to provide the recording it very well could be to prevent him/herself from being charged or sued. If there was/is a legal way to indemnify him/her by way of agreement or otherwise from being sued or charged; he/she might be more willing. Unless she likes playing God that is. Heck, I'd give her immunity if it meant I had what I needed to rake the judge over the coals!

Guilty or not, everyone is intended to a fair trial. Good luck!

There is a simple reason why his lawyer is not really paying attention to his request. its because trying to charge anyone with obstruction of justice does absolutely nothing in terms of getting him an acquittal. let me reiterate the NOTHING part.
Your lawyer isn't there to do whatever you tell him to do, that is standard professional responsibility stuff, we are retained to help you, but that doesn't give you * the client * to tell the lawyer to do anything you want, we try to get your the best outcome. if your idea has no merit, your lawyer would (and should) ignore you. This is why Warren Jeffs has no lawyer. Ideally the two of you come up with a course of action that makes sense together, but if you can't agree on that, fire each other.

There are many lawyers who have dedicated themselves to the wrongfully convicted and I have had the pleasure of working with many of them. They care about what they do and its pretty asinine to talk about lawyers needing to dedicate themselves to the public while talking about how they deserve a bad reputation out the other side of your mouth. Being a criminal lawyer is one of the lowest paying, thankless, yet most demanding of the legal disciplines out there, you are on call 24/7, get paid like **** (because legal aid pays like ****), and do a bunch of driving offences and real estate deals on the side because thats what it takes to keep your assistant around. You pretty much HAVE to believe in it in order to get into criminal law, my criminal law colleagues, who work for big name criminal firms, still struggle to pay their car insurance, and they turned down offers from bay street firms offering 6 figures starting to do so.

Aidwyc is a good organisation and I have nothing but good things to say about them, but it is true that its very difficult to get cases accepted because I have previously made those decisions ( as part of a committee ). The truth is there are far more deserving cases than there is manpower. We also focus on grounds of appeal / fresh evidence, in the absence of either of these, its very unlikely that the case will be taken on.
 
There is a simple reason why his lawyer is not really paying attention to his request. its because trying to charge anyone with obstruction of justice does absolutely nothing in terms of getting him an acquittal. let me reiterate the NOTHING part.
Your lawyer isn't there to do whatever you tell him to do, that is standard professional responsibility stuff, we are retained to help you, but that doesn't give you * the client * to tell the lawyer to do anything you want, we try to get your the best outcome. if your idea has no merit, your lawyer would (and should) ignore you. This is why Warren Jeffs has no lawyer. Ideally the two of you come up with a course of action that makes sense together, but if you can't agree on that, fire each other.

There are many lawyers who have dedicated themselves to the wrongfully convicted and I have had the pleasure of working with many of them. They care about what they do and its pretty asinine to talk about lawyers needing to dedicate themselves to the public while talking about how they deserve a bad reputation out the other side of your mouth. Being a criminal lawyer is one of the lowest paying, thankless, yet most demanding of the legal disciplines out there, you are on call 24/7, get paid like **** (because legal aid pays like ****), and do a bunch of driving offences and real estate deals on the side because thats what it takes to keep your assistant around. You pretty much HAVE to believe in it in order to get into criminal law, my criminal law colleagues, who work for big name criminal firms, still struggle to pay their car insurance, and they turned down offers from bay street firms offering 6 figures starting to do so.

Aidwyc is a good organisation and I have nothing but good things to say about them, but it is true that its very difficult to get cases accepted because I have previously made those decisions ( as part of a committee ). The truth is there are far more deserving cases than there is manpower. We also focus on grounds of appeal / fresh evidence, in the absence of either of these, its very unlikely that the case will be taken on.

Your response laughable and it's got me thinking you could be a lawyer.

If the judge or crown attorney participated in illegal conduct which compromised the defendant's right to a fair trial then it does matter. As with any profession there are crooked lawyers and there are good ones. Dr. Charles Smith offered "expert" testimony in court which helped convict innocent people, clearly his opinion influenced the jury. Exactly how is that any different from tampering with transcripts or any other evidence if it results in a wrongful conviction?

I don't have any desire to hijack this thread to debate the the merits of the legal profession. If you begin another thread on that subject then I might consider this subject there.
 
There is a simple reason why his lawyer is not really paying attention to his request. its because trying to charge anyone with obstruction of justice does absolutely nothing in terms of getting him an acquittal. let me reiterate the NOTHING part.
Your lawyer isn't there to do whatever you tell him to do, that is standard professional responsibility stuff, we are retained to help you, but that doesn't give you * the client * to tell the lawyer to do anything you want, we try to get your the best outcome. if your idea has no merit, your lawyer would (and should) ignore you. This is why Warren Jeffs has no lawyer. Ideally the two of you come up with a course of action that makes sense together, but if you can't agree on that, fire each other.

There are many lawyers who have dedicated themselves to the wrongfully convicted and I have had the pleasure of working with many of them. They care about what they do and its pretty asinine to talk about lawyers needing to dedicate themselves to the public while talking about how they deserve a bad reputation out the other side of your mouth. Being a criminal lawyer is one of the lowest paying, thankless, yet most demanding of the legal disciplines out there, you are on call 24/7, get paid like **** (because legal aid pays like ****), and do a bunch of driving offences and real estate deals on the side because thats what it takes to keep your assistant around. You pretty much HAVE to believe in it in order to get into criminal law, my criminal law colleagues, who work for big name criminal firms, still struggle to pay their car insurance, and they turned down offers from bay street firms offering 6 figures starting to do so.

Aidwyc is a good organisation and I have nothing but good things to say about them, but it is true that its very difficult to get cases accepted because I have previously made those decisions ( as part of a committee ). The truth is there are far more deserving cases than there is manpower. We also focus on grounds of appeal / fresh evidence, in the absence of either of these, its very unlikely that the case will be taken on.


This guy is right, weither or not you agree with his reasoning, the lawyer in charge of your case wants to keep you out jail. Like now

As much as the op's case has merit, this is not something that is new or even, dare i say, all that uncommon. And its not going to do him any good if he sits in jail for 2 years while his lawyer is trying to get the case reviewed.

OpenGambit-- I take it you are a lawyer-- correct me if I am wrong, but I have been told (by lawyers- corporate though) that most cases actually dont make it too trial and get pleaded down, even in cases were the suspect will more then likely go free, they dont grant bail and by the time the case actually makes it too trial, he will have served more time then if they would have taken the plea deal. Is this misguided or incorrect assumption?
 
Your response laughable and it's got me thinking you could be a lawyer.

If the judge or crown attorney participated in illegal conduct which compromised the defendant's right to a fair trial then it does matter. As with any profession there are crooked lawyers and there are good ones. Dr. Charles Smith offered "expert" testimony in court which helped convict innocent people, clearly his opinion influenced the jury. Exactly how is that any different from tampering with transcripts or any other evidence if it results in a wrongful conviction?

I don't have any desire to hijack this thread to debate the the merits of the legal profession. If you begin another thread on that subject then I might consider this subject there.

I invite you to explain how pursuing an obstruction of justice charge on the judge would possibly aid his appeal. You might want to throw your disclaimer back on for your response.

And regardless of your opinion of the legal profession, it has been there to defend you and your rights for centuries. It will continue to do so in spite of your attitude.
 
OpenGambit-- I take it you are a lawyer-- correct me if I am wrong, but I have been told (by lawyers- corporate though) that most cases actually dont make it too trial and get pleaded down, even in cases were the suspect will more then likely go free, they dont grant bail and by the time the case actually makes it too trial, he will have served more time then if they would have taken the plea deal. Is this misguided or incorrect assumption?

Plea bargaining is definately a huge huge part of our criminal justice system and many cases, the issue isn't really about guilt or innocence, but more about sentencing, in these situations, plea bargaining is essentially what your lawyer will do.

As to your situation about pre-trial custody being longer than what would have been sentenced for the plea deal. It could happen, but I would hesitate to say it happens a lot. Bail is usually granted in Canada unless the offence is quite serious /flight risk / some other factors that I don't really want to dig up right now.
 

Back
Top Bottom