Saturday, May 18, 2013

The Appeal Court a Car Accident, and the Inner Twin World

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 INJUSTICEACJ 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. Oceans 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. 
Authority for appeal:  The appellant appeals under consideration of the following
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 
3)      Under section 24 (1)(2) 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 2B2Documents 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