If you've followed either my Pronoiasecret or Toumai blog on a fairly regular basis, then you're likely aware that in 2000 I was involved in a car accident that's ended up being taken to the Supreme Court and to the Appeal Courts here in Nova Scotia. You're also likely aware then, that I consider the accident to be the direct result of the other driver's (Raymond Sullivan) inner-twin working in conjunction with my own inner twin (referred to as "Tou") who worked together in a conspiracy involving a broader "Inner Twin World" agenda.
For those who are just coming on board, I recommend that before continuing, you read the following information from the header of both blogs:
Some coincidences are not as they appear, but are in fact intricate patterns that are purposely generated for two reasons: to make us aware that the subconscious mind is not "ours" as we have long considered it to be; and to communicate a message so important that lives are being sacrificed in the process.
“Tetragametic Chimerism” in Humans essentially means that some of our body parts can belong to a twin. In the case of Lydia Fairchild, geneticists discovered that her womb belongs to her fraternal twin. This blog documents patterns that many consider to be synchronicity, however they are patterns purposely generated by "inner twins" as a means of “coming out and “communicating” to us.
As it stands now, after 13 years of battling numerous atrocities within the insurance/judicial systems I find myself once again making application to the Appeal Court. The following document is my recent Appeal Application :
***************************************************************************************
2013
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Between:
May
Ocean Appellant
-And-
The
Economical Mutual Insurance Company,
Mr.
Raymond Patrick Sullivan, Respondents
Notice of Appeal
(General)
To Respondents: the Economical Mutual Insurance Company of Canada (herein
“Economical”) at Halifax, Nova Scotia, represented by Stewart McKelvey (Suite 900, Purdy’s Warf Tower I, 1959 Upper Water St., Halifax,
NS, B3J 2X2) Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Machum,
and from McInnis Cooper( Purdy's Warf Tower II, 1300-1969 Upper Water St,
Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1) Mr. Belliveau.
Raymond Patrick Sullivan
(herein “Mr. Sullivan”) at 301-17 Highfield Park Drive, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,
B3A 4T8). Self Represented.
Appellant appeals: The entire Judgement of Associate
Chief Justice Deborah K. Smith (“ACJ Smith”) in the Supreme Court of Nova
Scotia pertaining to citation: Ocean v. Economical Mutual Insurance
Company, et al 2013 NSSC 120; docket: Hfx.
No. 190673. This
appeal addresses mitigating circumstances resulting in ACJ Smith erring in this
Decision due to breaches in her obligations as set forth in Canada Law,
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Procedure Rules, therefore ALL
Decision made in relation to this case are in question. This
is NOT an appeal to costs only. ACJ Smith proceeded with matters
relating to and making a Decision while ignoring the threats in the context brought forward via Documents,
an Expert Report, and materials submitted to ACJ Smith and Parties prior to her
recent Decision.
Decision appealed from: April 25, 2013, Appellant
received on Apr 27/13 in Nova Scotia.
Grounds
of appeal: As
per Civil Procedure Rule 90.11 (1) An appellant may not rely on any
ground of appeal not specified in the notice, unless the Court of Appeal or a
judge of the Court of Appeal permits otherwise.
Circumstances surrounding this case make it imperative to call on Civil Procedure Rule 1.01: These Rules
are for the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
proceeding. The key word
is “just”, given that a “speedy” and
“inexpensive” determination of proceedings occurring at the expense of justice
constitutes as an injustice. Similarly,
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enable my dealings with the Justice
System to be subject to Sections 7: right to life, liberty, and security of
the person, and Section 12: right not to be subject to cruel and unusual
punishment. The
abuses I have suffered in the past 13 years on the road to justice ARE an
intricate part of my grounds for Appeal, making it “just” and within my
“rights” to provide pertinent detail that lessens an otherwise much more dangerous
situation for me. It suffices to say that
abusers benefit from silenced victims.
The most important grounds for
appeal lay in the actions of ACJ Smith that fostered a “veiled” threat
and causing duress and fear to the point that during the first “Liability”
trial pertaining to this case, I was unable to tell the truth in full context
during my testimony on the stand. Written
judgements made by ACJ Smith give a “History” of proceedings that include
issues involving threats, except for one, hence taking out of context the THREATS
I am under and as I put forth to all parties in an “Expert Report” Court
Stamped June 10, 2010, filed in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 55, and subsequently
rejected by ACJ Smith.
To
preserve my well being and due to insurmountable obstacles, I chose to opt out of proceedings involving my case until which
time at various intervals since February 2013 I responded to ACJ Smith’s demands
that I re-involve myself in proceedings. My response entailed the revisiting of
Evidence as laid out in the June 10, 2010 “Expert Report” as well as to provide
further evidence all of which would affect the outcome of this case except it
was denied the right to come forward. As
to the recent materials, the only response came from ACJ Smith’s Assistant
Beverly Weldon who acknowledged having receiving my emails and attached
documents, and that these were handed to ACJ Smith as well as forwarded on to
the Defendant Mr. Sullivan.
This is not the first time that a problem has
arisen where ACJ Smith has erred. In
2009 I successfully Appealed her ORDER requiring that I undergo psychiatric
assessment to determine if I’m mentally competent to Self Represent in this
case ( Appeal Court Decision: 2009 NSCA 81, of July 17, 2009). The Appeal Court overturned ACJ Smiths Order, however my request
to have a new judge assigned was denied.
Understandably, this left me in the position of having to bring forward
proof/evidence regarding my claims to ACJ Smith who shows a lack in grasping the
logic, let alone proof that has a bearing on my case. The
Expert Report of June 10, 2010 provides Evidence of a conspiracy that resulted
in the occurrence of the Motor Vehicle Accident of 2000 pertaining to this case,
a harm caused to me that CONTINUES TO POSE A THREAT TO MYSELF AND TO OTHERS, AS A RESULT
OF ACJ SMITH TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THIS
INJUSTICE. ACJ Smith
refusing to allow this Expert Report prevented certain witnesses from giving
testimony at trial in the only way they can be heard in a manner that is concise,
coherent and in a context that the existing circumstances allow.
The
next excerpt is taken from ACJ Smith's Written Decision of January 23rd,
2013 to dismiss The “Damages” Trial re: Citation: Ocean v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2013 NSSC 14:
[2] The events leading up to this motion have been
referred to in a number of previous decisions relating to this action but need
to be repeated here in order to put the situation in context.
The context that ACJ Smith refers to in
[2] above is one sided in that it doesn’t contain more pertinent issues before
the court that reveal abuse on behalf of the Defendant Parties, others within
the insurance system and ACJ Smith herself as is clearly evident by her written
and verbal Decisions. Her agenda is
contrary to Justice, has harmed my case and my person.
It is difficult to effectively describe
the marathon of horror in proceedings that I've been forced to endure over the
years since the Motor Vehicle Accident of 2000, all of which has occurred under
the guise of an “adversarial” system promoted as being just, but is wholly against
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There is nothing “adversarial” about the slow and ruthless slaughter by lawyers
that Economical’s wealth can buy to manipulate and pervert justice to their
unfair advantage in a bid to thwart my case.
Note this excerpt from ACJ Smith's written Decision as per the above (2013 NSSC 14)
[62] There is one final matter
that I should address - that is the possibility that Ms. Ocean’s mental health may be affecting her
judgment including her decision whether to participate further in the trial of
this matter
ACJ Smith drawing question to my mental
health constitutes an Abusive of Process that serves to demoralize and terrify
me as well as blind side the general public who may otherwise support me or
fight for their rights as victims. This
is astounding in light of the Court of Appeal's reprimand of ACJ Smith having
previously done this very thing, whereby overturning ACJ Smith's 2008 Order they
stated the following ( 2009 NSCA 81):
[58] As was recognized in R. v. Swain, supra,
raising a question about a litigant’s mental competence represents a
profound attack on the dignity and autonomy of an individual. One of the issues before the Court in
Swain was whether the common law criteria permitting the Crown to adduce
evidence of an accused's insanity violated ss. 7, 9, and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the course of his reasons Lamer, C.J.
commented at p. 972:
Given that the
principles of fundamental justice contemplates an accusatorial and adversarial
system of criminal justice which is founded on respect for the autonomy and
dignity of human beings, it seems clear to me that the principles of
fundamental justice must also require that an accused person have the right to
control his or her own defence. . .
ACJ
Smith dare not regard me as a sane individual confronted with the dilemma of trying
to do the impossible in terms of fending off the attacks of a vast conglomerate.
I REITERATE, WHAT I'VE ENDURED IN THIS PROCESS IS NOT ADVERSARIAL,
BUT A SLAUGHTER, WITH ACJ SMITH DEALING OUT MANY OF THE FINAL BLOWS!!
Note
this next excerpt from the same Court of Appeal Decision:
[31] This narrative does not begin to
capture the volume of interlocutory issues that were before the courts at this time. As these matters were
being addressed the parties were fully engaged preparing for the September
trial. This gave rise to additional applications which are not directly
relevant to the issue on this appeal. To provide one such example: believing
that counsel for Economical had been complicit in Economical’s ill treatment of
her, Ms. Ocean subpoenaed Ms. Mitchell to appear at trial. Ms. Mitchell applied
to quash the subpoena. In response to the motion to quash Ms. Ocean filed a
lengthy affidavit, again including considerable detail about her writings and
discoveries
THE
interlocutory issues mentioned above occurred in rapid fire succession many of
which were designated to be heard at the same sitting. Given the time constraints I chose to deal with
many issues in a single format. This is
reasonable, since I don’t have the same privilege of hiring burgeoning law
firms with exhaustive teams and resources.
As
an example, one interlocutory Notice I brought forward was to gain access to
the portion of RCMP Accident Report relating to the Defendant Mr. Sullivan that
requires his consent and subsequently denied by his lawyer, hence leaving me to
acquire this evidence via the court!!
Another
interlocutory Notice that I was in the midst of bringing forward before the
kerfuffle involving a motion to trifurcate my case only three weeks before
trial was set to commence, concerned the Minister of Insurance who was
attempting to block my subpoena of him.
The Minister of Insurance, David Morse at the time, turned a blind eye to
the abuses whereby Economical, who was my insurer at the time of the Accident
had not procured a timely accident reconstruction hence resulting in evidence
being lost/buried— a power abuse that postured their “ruthless superiority” over me during
my time of need and designed to pave the way for a grand theft extortion
involving other regular vehicle Insurance Companies monopolizing in a bid to deny me coverage and
force me onto the High Risk Facility Insurance where my premiums soared from
$2,000 to a gargantuan $10,000
per year. An abuse of this magnitude
where even the Superintendent of Insurance and the Minister of Insurance turns a
blind eye furthers the posturing of the Insurance Monopoly while crushing
victims who dare to fight for their right NOT to be abused and NOT to be forced
into settling for far less than deserved.
Matters of the record in this
case and others that have come before Canadian Courts is evidence that Laws
governing Insurance that are supposedly designed to protect exceptionally
vulnerable members during their hour of need, essentially do the opposite. As such, the Laws governing Insurance
Companies is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights And Freedoms. Obviously
this position that I was aware of in the very beginning, is precarious.
In
the blitz of activity before trial, I attempted to put forth another Interlocutory
Application for a Court Order requiring the Superintendent of Insurance Office
to provide copies of the 2001 correspondence between the Minister of Insurance
and I, with the purpose of having these delivered “directly” into the hands of
the Court, given that my earlier request of the Superintendent of Insurance's
Office to do so, had ended in their refusal, based solely on their presumption that
they should hand these over to me personally since I'm requesting the
file. It is inappropriate to simply hand
over key evidence in a manner that would leave the door wide open for the
Defendants to then argue at trial that I had the opportunity to tamper with the
evidence hence forcing the court to deem it inadmissible. This Application was thwarted by the sudden
hullabaloo generated by ACJ Smith and defendant lawyers, including a third Lawyer
hired by Economical, Mr. Belliveau from McInnis Cooper. Between the two Defendants, there were 4
lawyers, each doing their share of bogging me down so I’m unable to forward Applications
of great urgency. The flurry of activity
came not only from the four Defendant lawyers, but from ACJ Smith herself,
hence resulting in her Decision to trifurcate the trial!! With trial only 3 weeks away and my energy
and finances diminished, I had no choice but to drop the Interlocutory Notice
with the Superintendent of Insurance and with the Minister of Insurance. Since Government files are purged after 10
years, this window is lost. ACJ Smith's
Decision to trifurcate proceedings damaged my case and harmed my person.
From
the very beginning of my case, I have asserted that since the motor vehicle of
2000, my injury of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the Accident
left me vulnerable to the prey herding activity of a corrupt insurance/conglomerate
system that worsened my weakened condition as stemming from the Accident and
whereby they attempt to make me malleable prey.
For ACJ Smith to make any Decision in regards to this case when she
herself is a party to the damages I claim as per the Motor Vehicle Accident is
wholly against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and as such the
Attorney General needs to become involved in order to ensure that a balance is
had and justice is served at the end of the day. Economical and their entourage are no
different than if a pack of wolves on smelling blood honed in while laying
helpless and trapped after the accident to worsen the damages caused by the
collision, as it can be argued that the damage by the wolves constitutes as
part of the damages from the accident, the same remains true of damages caused
by the prey herding antics of Economical and their entourage including ACJ
Smith. This reprehensible activity is an
affront on all that Canada puts forth in its Constitutional Democracy.
Note
this excerpt taken from ACJ Smith's Decision re Citation Ocean v. The
Economical Mutual Insurance Company et al. 2013 NSSC 120:
[7] In July 2010, the proceedings were
trifurcated so that the issue of damages would be dealt with after the motor
vehicle accident trial and the trial of the negligence and bad faith claims
brought against Economical.
Note
this excerpt from the Appeal Courts Decision re Citation: Ocean v. Economical
Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 NSCA 81:
[107] A particular challenge for Ms. Ocean will be
separating the issues in the original action from those that arise on the
negligence claim. As I understand it, one of the reasons for bifurcating the
claim was to preserve the September 2008 trial dates for the original action.
Those dates have been lost. The trial court
may wish to consider revisiting the bifurcation order to determine whether it
would be more efficient to try both claims in a single proceeding. This
is not an order but an observation. As matters now stand, the main action and
the negligence claim will proceed as separate trials.
ACJ
Smith trifurcate proceedings after the Appeal Court recommended that she undo
the bifurcation, hence further tipping the balance of justice in favour of
Economical who already has so many more advantages over me that it has become
blatantly obvious that our “Adversarial” system as it stands now, is unjust and
in violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that are essentially designed
to protect the general public from being ruthlessly targeted by wealthy and
power abusive predator types who pack together. The level of abuse is so horrific, so damaging
to my personal well being, that I reiterate: it is of utmost importance that
I bring to light enough of the atrocities that are a matter of the record, as a
means of protecting myself and as afforded by our Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, our Constitution and the Civil Procedure Rules and to do
otherwise threatens to bring our Judicial System into further disrepute.
One
of the Appeal Courts final statements as per their Citation:
Ocean v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 NSCA 81, can be appropriately applied in this Appeal:
Although
Ms. Ocean may have difficulty confining her oral and written submissions to material which the
judge and opposing counsel view as clearly relevant to her case she is able to provide a rational explanation which
connects her reference to her writings and discoveries to the matters at issue
in the litigation. She says: (1) the writings and research demonstrate the
impact of the hyper-vigilance which accompanies the PTSD; and, (2) she was
forced to defend the integrity of her research because it formed the basis of
Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion of incompetence.
In
the same respect I have provided a rational explanation as to why it is
necessary for me to reveal just the bare bones of horrific abuse that I have
been subjected to over a period of 13 years—simply put, my life depends on
it. Note this excerpt taken from ACJ
Smith's “Liability” trial Decision re Citation Ocean v. The Economical
Mutual Insurance Company et al. 2011 NSSC 202:
[118]
In a ruling that I gave that day, I indicated that I was not going to
permit a general inquiry into conglomerate or monopolistic activity by the
insurance industry. However, I indicated that if Ms. Ocean had specific
evidence that a witness had been threatened by either of the Defendants then I would
hear that evidence. Various witnesses were questioned about this issue.
[119] Having heard the
evidence and viewed the demeanor of the witnesses that testified in this
proceeding, I conclude that there is no evidence whatsoever that either of the
Defendants threatened the Plaintiff or any of the Plaintiff’s witnesses in any
way nor did these witnesses testify under duress. I have no doubt that the
Plaintiff believes that she and some of her witnesses have been threatened by
one or both of the Defendants but the evidence simply does not support such a
view.
At
this point I’m threatened by her involvement in furthering the conglomerate…
I’m simply going through the motions of trying to keep my senses while fighting
against the insurmountable odds. Again,
ACJ Smith mentions nothing about the evidence I brought forward in the Expert
Report of June 10, 2010 that contains evidence pertaining to the first trial
and a threat that she virtually ignores.
She repeats [118] and [119] above in her Decision (Citation Ocean v.
The Economical Mutual Insurance Company et al. 2013 NSSC 120), despite my
previous emails and attachments that serve to remind her of this fact and gives
further evidence of the conspiracy I speak of where a completely “other” THREAT
exists!! It's not possible for ACJ
Smith to simply say she forgot when it’s more than obvious that the thousands
of pages of Research, evidence and testimony was blatantly denied and ignored.
The
evidence found in the Expert Report is complex, however it makes perfect sense
when taken in a full context as put forth not only in the Report, but in the
emails and email attachments sent to ACJ Smith and the Defendant parties during
the last few months. The following are
excerpts of the first email in the group of emails sent to ACJ Smith:
•
Please find attached, documents for Associate Chief Justice
Deborah K. Smith. The evidence within more than adequately puts forward
the truth in regards to a main reason why I am no longer participating in any
court hearings/trials at the Supreme Court Level, other than providing this
material.
•
ACJ Smith has expressed that she would like my involvement in
regards to the February 5th Hearing. As I have stated previously, it is
within my rights (as per the Canadian Constitutions) to not be subjected to
cruel and unusual punishment, which I continually experience at court
hearings/trial,
•
The evidence in the attached documents and/or the blog post as
mentioned above, prove that the accident of 2000 which is now before the courts
was caused by inner twin's working in a manner that would bring awareness to
them and enable them to communicate to us.
•
There is a case that came before the US Courts, involving a person
by the name of Lydia Fairchild who was in a situation whereby an injustice
would have occurred had the presiding Judge not stepped in to do what a Judge
ought to- ensuring that a fair and equal opportunity is afforded for the truth
and justice to prevail. The Judge
overseeing the case of Lydia Fairchild, enabled experts and evidence to be
brought forward, and a result, Lydia's children were not taken away from her,
as would otherwise have been the case, given that genetic testing used to
ensure that the children were her own (a prerequisite for receiving Social
Assistance in the US), had come back false.
In the end it was proved that she was a Tetragametic Chimera--
essentially her womb was that of her "absorbed fraternal twin" -- a
complete body organ that remains alive and functioning within her own body
having different DNA than that found in other areas of her body where the
original DNA samples had been taken.
•
Geneticists have stated that it is possible and plausible for
another type of "human chimera" to occur -- involving identical
twins, and because they would have the same DNA, it would be very
difficult to determine via this method.
•
There is one other way to determine that chimera's exist other
than by DNA testing, and that is if it could be proved that we possess within
ourselves, the brain of our inner/conjoined twin and that this
"other" twin/brain is fully able to think independently as well as
influence our thoughts and actions that they are then able to generate
"patterns" without our being aware.
•
In fact it is already proven that such a "dual brain"
relationship could exist, given the living proof with twins Krista and Tatiana
Hogan who are con-joined at their heads/brains, and whereby evidence
reveals that they are able to share thoughts-- see what the other can see and
feel what the other feels.
Researchers
are able to determine this because the twins are able to express freely-- they
both have mouths. In the case of our inner twins they either don't have
mouths at all, or we share a mouth together-- as near perfectly conjoined twins
in the vertical/lateral sense-- very much like the Hensel conjoined twins
except taking it a step further, with our heads being joined like the rest of
the body so that in the end we "appear" as a single individual, but
in reality are not.
Either
way, it is obvious by the evidence provided in the attachments/ blog post, that
this inner twin world, chooses to communicate to us by influencing our thoughts
and actions that in turn generate the patterns, which at the end of the day
enables them to communicate unimpeded ... with very limited interference
from us-- outer twin and outer twin world. The patterns are
intricate clusters that are cryptic, and yet when deciphered, are as meaningful
and as colorful as any language.
•
My Blogs include evidence to prove that our subconscious minds are
really that of our absorbed/conjoined inner twin who is able to influence our
thoughts and actions and work together in such a way that they are able to
create patterns that "appear" to be synchronicity. The
patterns are such that they form a complex and intricate communication-- It is
their voice and their testimony that you, ACJ Smith, have shrugged off in the
past. I could simply move on with an appeal is the likely scenario,
however, putting this out there gives you the opportunity to turn
from your stance against me and against my own inner twin and the inner twin
world and do the right thing, but more than that, am also putting this out
there as an opportunity for the truth to be justly heard .
The
important issue meant to be garnered from the above, is my claim as Expert
Researcher and Interpreter of which I am the first and only one (that I am
aware of) that is able to provide the evidence and proof of the claims/testimony of my inner twin and
the inner-twin/parallel world. In
support of this is the recent Genetic discovery of Tetragametic Chimera humans
AND by the fact that they are able to communicate to us by influencing our
thoughts and actions in such a way that “pattern-clusters” occur that have
meaning, in other words, a language that is decipherable. Via
series of “pattern-clusters” the inner twin world have and continue to
communicate evidence in support of the fact that the accident of 2000 was
deliberately caused by them as a bid to “come out” and “communicate” to us at
this time. Evidence as provided in my Expert Report of
June 10, 2010, and evidence provided in my email/attachment submissions to ACJ
Smith and Defendant Parties, and evidence found in Posts made to my blogs--
Toumai and Pronoiasecret, proves my claims and the inner twin world’s testimony
without a shadow of doubt.
What this Appeal Court will become aware of while
reading the evidence/testimony of the inner twin world, is that they continue
to do horrific things beyond causing accidents such as the vehicle accident of 2000:
they sacrifice lives (their own in the process) as a means of “coming out” and
“communicating” to us. Obviously, there is something of great importance
for them to resort to strong measures in staging events designed to get our
attention and communicate to us. The
accident of 2000 and all the issues that have come forth in subsequent years
have been purposely staged by “Key” players whose lives have been influenced in
various ways (playing good guy/bad guy) in such a way that enables things to be
played out precisely as they have planned with a few hiccups and mostly timed
to precision, as such and putting my own feelings aside, kid gloves are needed
by the Appeal Court.
As a final
I would like to bring attention to excerpts from an Ontario Court Case with Justice
Acton presiding a similar case experienced by Plaintiff Luciano Branco as per LUCIANO
BRANCO v. The AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CAMECO
CORPORATION, KUMTOR OPERATING COMPANY and ZURICH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED,( QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKQB 98)
[192] AIG have profited
from failing to provide monthly benefits since December of 2004. If Branco had
been unable to withstand the years of pressure with no payments and continuing
court applications, AIG would have profited significantly. Most of the general
public would not have the persistence, stamina and fortitude to continue this
action for 12 years without finally weakening and giving in to an unjustifiably
low offer of settlement. Every time someone gives in to the unjustifiably low
offers of settlement, the insurance company profits from its conduct.
[211] The court therefore
assesses punitive damages against Zurich in the amount of $3,000,000.
Considering that Zurich is doing business worldwide, it would only take six individuals
worldwide who accept low offers like the ones made to Branco to save Zurich
$500,000 each and recoup the amount of this award.
[214] The cruel and
malicious acts of AIG and Zurich combined with the previously ignored award of
punitive damages against AIG is evidence of how calculated and abhorrent the
actions of AIG were in dealing with Branco. The actions of AIG and Zurich
establish a pattern of abuse of an individual suffering from financial and
emotional vulnerability.
[215] Although Canadian
court may have believed that the $1 million award in the Whiten case would
catch the attention of the insurance industry and the court’s disapproval of
such actions, it is apparent that the $1 million was not sufficient. These
decisions were rendered during the same time period that AIG and Zurich were
continuing their pattern of aggressive non-activity on the claim of Branco.
[216] The court is
cognizant of the fact that a punitive damages award of $3 million may not be
particularly significant to the financial bottom line of a successful worldwide
insurance company. It is hoped that this award will gain the attention of the
insurance industry. The industry must recognize the destruction and devastation
that their actions cause in failing to honour their contractual policy commitments
to the individuals insured.
[217] Both AIG and Zurich
failed to deal with Branco’s claim in good faith. Each tried to take advantage
of Branco’s economic vulnerability to gain leverage in negotiating a
settlement. The fact that Branco was able to continue to withstand this pressure
for so many years from two different fronts is truly remarkable and almost superhuman,
even though his resistence may have resulted in irreparable mental distress
which may last for the remainder of his lifetime.
[218] The court has grave
concerns as to how often this type of action occurs in dealing with insurance
claims. The court is only cognizant of the cases such as Sarchuk, Whiten and
Branco which come before them. If Whiten (in the Whiten case) and Branco, in
this case, had not been able to withstand the unbelievable pressure to settle
on the terms and conditions originally offered these cases would not have
received the attention of the courts either. The question remains: how many individuals
have been unable to withstand the financial and psychological pressure ofthese
tactics?
The
question that remains to be asked is what part do Lawyers have to play in the
atrocities as well as others within the judicial system? Why are lawyers allowing themselves to be the
highly paid henchmen/women performing dirty deeds for wealthy, corrupt
companies within the Insurance Industry?
How are Lawyers made to pay for these atrocities that they so obviously
play a part in?! AND who is ACJ
Smith?! Was she one of those lawyers who
favored taking on Big Insurance Companies like Economical as clients before her
position as judge and “Associate Chief Justice”?! I have since learned that she worked as a
Lawyer for McInnis Cooper—one of the law firms that Economical has hired to
battle against me. Regardless of who she
actually worked for as a lawyer, if her clients and the clients of the law
firm that she worked during earlier days as lawyer were predominantly “return
customers” – Insurance Companies like
Economical, then it stands to reason that she has a bias. This is enough to warrant this court taking
into consideration the aspects of her history as new evidence. Regardless, there is the obvious issue of
“clout”—the Insurance Companies are powerful and ruthless and so it stands to
reason that they have an effect on the smaller law firms that tend to take on
the victims as clients where corruption in the insurance and judicial system is
such that these lawyers end up doing whatever is needed to keep the
monopolizing insurance companies from using their clout to wreck havoc in their
firm and lives and to keep the money flowing via “quickie” out of court
settlements. I am personally aware of
the different forms of arm twisting and lack of support and willingness to turn
a blind eye on behalf of my previous lawyer.
If the Insurance conglomerate can threaten me, they can pose a threat to
others, including ACJ Smith. Obviously
she’s not of the same caliber as Justice Acton.
These
issues put forth in this Appeal Application reveals that the fabric of our
Justice, Legal and Government systems have been breached in a way that brings
disrepute and threatens our Constitutional Democracy. A full and independent enquiry/investigation
needs to be ordered by the Justice Minister/Attorney General of Nova Scotia,
the Honorable Ross Landry.
1) Under the Constitutional Question Act[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 68 section 8
2)
Under section 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms
4)
Under
the Civil Rules and Procedures 88 (88.01 section 1,2, 3)—Abuse of Process.
5) Civil Rule and Procedure 1.01-- These Rules are for the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every proceeding.
6)
Civil
Rule and procedure 88—Abuse of Process
7)
Under the Criminal Code
of Canada Section 139 Obstructing Justice.
8)
“Force Majeure”: a
witness is not liable for infractions brought about by extraordinary circumstances existing
beyond their control-- such as threats.
9)
Appeal Court Decision Citation: Ocean v.
Economical Mutual Insurance Co.,2009
NSCA 81, which states:
[66]
In Phillips et al. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al., [1971] 2 O.R. 637, referred to by Cromarty, J., Evans,
J.A., writing for himself and two others of a five member panel of the Ontario
Court of Appeal, observed that the purpose of appointing an expert under Rule
267 is solely to assist the judge in understanding the evidence (at para. 74).
And further:
[76] The expert is not a judicial officer
charged with the responsibility of determining the matters in issue, nor is he
a Court-appointed investigator impowered to advance possible theories and
state, as conclusions of fact, opinions based on matters not advanced in
evidence. While Rule 267 permits the Court to obtain the assistance of
experts in such way as it thinks fit, such assistance must be restricted to the
purpose of better enabling the Court to determine from the evidence adduced the
questions of fact in issue. . . .
[77] One of
the functions of a trial Judge is to make findings of fact and a proper
exercise of that duty requires that the Judge understand the evidence. If there
is failure to understand and appreciate the evidence, it follows that there
cannot be a proper judicial finding of fact, and it is to avoid such error that
Rule 267 is invoked. An
expert who is appointed has the limited role of explaining to the Judge that
evidence adduced by the parties which is within his particular area of
competence to the end that the Court may be better informed in the spheres of
knowledge requisite for the proper determination of those complex questions of
fact presented to it.
10) LUCIANO
BRANCO v. The AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CAMECO
CORPORATION, KUMTOR OPERATING COMPANY and ZURICH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED,( QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKQB 98)
Order requested
The
appellant says that the court should allow the appeal and order the following:
1.
THAT
the Appeal Court allows this appeal and reverses the decision of ACJ Smith.
2.
THAT
ACJ Smith erred in her decision of April 25, 2013 whereby she did not give just
consideration to evidence of threats that resulted in my not being afforded the
proper opportunity to tell the truth at trial or to continue my case as I
otherwise would.
3.
That
the Appeal Court use their inherent jurisdiction and Power to order or at the
very least to recommend that a formal and independent Judicial inquiry be made,
looking into the allegations and/or any other inquiry by legal/government
authority that is possible to order and which works toward justice and sees
that my/our civil rights and freedoms are properly and securely upheld now and
as well as in the future.
4.
That
the Liability trial in 2011 is declared a mistrial and overturn the Decisions
and Orders in relation to this case that occurred subsequent to the trial.
5.
THAT
ACJ Smith is removed as trial judge in relation to this case. Given that
her actions of thwarting my case makes her a perpetrator in a wider conspiracy
to benefit Economical, the overall Insurance Industry and others who have
benefitted from a corrupt insurance System.
6.
THAT
Section 88 of the Civil Rules and Procedures—Abuse of Process be applied in
regards to ACJ Smith’s mishandling of this case.
7.
THAT
the Appeal Court recognizes “Force Majeure”— extraordinary circumstances beyond
the control of the parties that in turn frees all parties from liability or
obligation in aspects regarding this case.
8.
THAT
the Appeal Court determine ACJ Smith’s lack of proper response to the threats
and evidence that pertains to this case, as resulting in unjust proceedings and
Decisions and as such, she has acted contrarily to the “Living Tree Doctrine”(Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) [1930] A.C. 124 – also known as the Persons
Case) a doctrine of constitutional interpretation that says that a
constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and liberal manner so as to
adapt it to changing times.
9.
I ask that the Appeal Court realize the dire circumstances
surrounding my case and the reason for this Appeal, and to use the inherent
Jurisdiction of the Court to intervene in any way that is possible in order to
bring me relief from this horror.
10.
This Appeal warrants the intervention of the Attorney General of
Canada who I have named as a Respondent.
These issue now before the Appeal Court reveals that the fabric of our Justice/Legal/Government
system has been breached in such a way that brings disrepute and threatens our
Constitutional Democracy, hence affecting every citizen in Canada. A full and independent enquiry/investigation
needs to be ordered by the Justice Minister/Attorney General of Nova Scotia,
the Honorable Ross Landry in order to assist with this Appeal. If they fail to act appropriately to this
concern and bring a balance to tip the scales of Justice to where they should
be, then the Appeal Court must recognize the part that our Government plays in
upholding a corrupt system. It is within
the jurisdiction of the Appeal AND as citizens of this land to recognize and
not turn a blind eye to the abuse that I have faced and continue to face, and
as well the Appeal Court needs to recognize the violation against the “Living
Tree Doctrine” that keeps our Democracy alive and healthy and that should our
very own government not intervene in an
appropriate manner, then the Appeal Court needs to take decisive action to take
appropriate measures to penalize the Government as per the Attorney General’s
“Respondent” status in this Appeal. In
the same manner, the Appeal Court must recognize and take action against the
horrific level of abuse doled out to me by Economical and Mr. Sullivan that
resulted in my case being thwarted and further injury to my person.
Motion for date and
directions: The appeal will be heard on a
time and date to be set by a judge of the Court of Appeal. The appellant must not more than eighty days
after the date this notice is filed, make a motion to a judge of the Court of
Appeal to set that time and date and give directions. You will be notified of the motion. Absence if you or your counsel fails to
attend and the court may determine the appeal without further notice to you.
Contact information: The appellant designates the following address:17 Indian Point
Road, Prospect, NS, B3T 2B2. Documents on notification by email and delivered to
this address are considered received by the appellant on delivery. Further
contact information is available from the prothonotary.
The Judgement decision appealed from is Attached.
Signature
signed _____________________________________________________
May Ocean
(Appellant /Self Represented Party)
Prothonotary’s
certificate
I certify that this notice of
appeal was filed
with the court on ,
2013
____________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment