FB-RSS

Alberta Youth Voice Radio #opexposecps

January 19, 2017 Judicial Council c/o Chief Judge Provincial Court of Alberta 6th floor Law Courts North 1A Sir Winston Churchill Square Edmonton, AB T5J 0R2 Re: Complaint Against Actions and Behavior of R. J. O'Gorman, Assistant Chief Judge, Family & Youth Court in Calgary We are filing a complaint against judge O'Gorman because he showed a pattern of behaving and ruling in a manner such, that it prevented and hindered us from receiving a full, fair and impartial hearing. He infringed our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thus, the result of his actions were against our grandchildren, and their return to those who raised them from birth, their ‘in loco parentis’. With his actions of not allowing a full, fair and impartial hearing, this judge achieved the abortion of a full and fair and impartial administration of justice. Such blatant violation of judicial ‘due process’ is an indicator of bias, predetermined judgements, and reflects a systemic, flawed judicial due process. As noted during the Nixon era, the fish rots from the head’. When the Assistant Chief Judge wittingly dishonors the citizen’s rights, then all ‘trust’ in the judicial due process is gone. We can only speculate on what basis he acted with bias and disrespect for the justice system. Why was he NOT impartial? Did judge O'Gorman act the way he did because he had a ‘bad commute’ in to work that very snowy day? Did he act the way he did, because he had a quarrel with his wife prior to leaving for his commute to work? Did he act the way he did because of who we are, a family belonging to an identifiable, distinct minority group within the dominant society? Did he act the way he did because we have filed complaints against his subordinate judges? Did he act the way he did because of these complaints we filed in September 28, 2014, with Chief Judge Matchett? Why did Judge O’Gorman approach his duty on the bench with palpable hostility and anger? Given the history of the issues we faced, and knowing himself as not being impartial and biased towards our case, shouldn’t he have recused himself especially from taking any actions and/or proactive actions against litigants standing before him? As per the Family Law Act, as well as per Alberta Rule of Court we proceeded to follow the expressed wishes of our grandchildren to be reunited with us, as they have stated in over 60%!o(MISSING)f the CFSA 4K pages of contact notes in the disclosure documents, as well as on the witness stand when testifying at the ‘faux’ criminal trial being staged at the request of the Director. Further, as per judge Shaw’s decision as specified on para 128, of his written decision dated November 13, 2014 (there were three written decisions), wherein he stated that “at this time” of writing, we should not be given legal guardianship. This time has passed – it is a good 24 months ago that he wrote that -- and thus we are entitled to reapply for guardianship. On advice of Family Justice Services personnel, and under their guidance, the necessary paper work was prepared, and again, with the Family Justice Services guidance and their active involvement in the filling process, on December 7, 2016 we filed two documents, the Claim-Family Law Act, form FL-10 and form FL-34 Adult Statement – Guardianship of Child. The Provincial Court Clerk gave us the hearing date for January 12, 2017 at court room 1208 for the afternoon. See Attachment. A copy of the same document was filed with the Director and an Affidavit of Service was also filed on the same day (Dec.7, 2016). On December 13, 2016 while attending the Provincial Court Clerk counter on an unrelated matter, the manager of the office approached me and said “David I am sorry but it is not up to me. Changes to your appearance at the court need to be made by instruction from the assistant chief judge”. When I asked as to the reasons and as to the implication of the change. The manager responded that she was instructed to do the change and that she can not give me any other explanation. I indicated to her that according to the form the application for guardianship, for Leave of Court is not required. I also pointed out to her that Leave of Court is required only when a person applies for contact. She agreed with me but again stated that it is out of her hands. It should be noted that the lawyer for the Director did not present any written application and affidavit. See attached correspondence with this lawyer. As per the attached evidence, this lawyer did not know about the intent of the judge. This lawyer did not present any verbal or written argument at the hearing. So on what basis did judge O'Gorman make himself to be prosecutor judge and jury? Again, the location of the hearing was at the Youth Court. Judge O'Gorman showed up at about 9:30 am at court room 303 apparently quite angry. Right away requested our presence. The ‘behaviour’ we observed was that Judge O’Gorman, approached the bench with hostility and anger. His tone of voice was so enraged, it was difficult to register what he was vocalizing. He barked at the litigants, four times, ‘what’s your course of action’. The litigants were astonished and taken aback at the rage being directed at them. After a few minutes, Mr. D spoke about ‘why was the court room switched? Why was the time ‘switched’? We were there to speak to our private guardianship application as per the Family Law Act. Why did we need a ‘Leave of Court’? This judge did not allow us to make presentation, instead he barked “what is your course of action”. I asked him again “why are we here in this court room”? “We are supposed to be on the 12 floor to present our application for guardianship”. This judge continued barking the same question and did not respond to my question. When I responded as to the our plan ie our “course of action” this judge interrupted me, immediately declaring us to be vexatious litigants and fined us $5.000.00. Court dismissed. He jumped up and fled the courtroom. Altogether from beginning to end, in this ‘matter of life and death for our family members, adults and children, took roughly less than 10 minutes. The Crown’s demeanor reflected conflict between his authoritative tone of voice and shocked facial expression. It should also be noted that the court room was filled with youths and their guardians, who all looked quite astonished at such a brusque disrespectful presentation of what ‘justice’ looks like in the Calgary court house. It should be noted that we observed, as did other witnesses the director’s lawyer’s bodily reaction was one of surprise as to the action judge O'Gorman took against us and is actually reflected in this lawyers response to us(see attachment). The evidence indicates that judge O'Gorman had preplanned as indicated by the date of December 13, 2016 to become prosecutor, judge and jury without reasons or proper hearing from either the respondent and/or the appellant. This is contrary to Natural Justice and Fair Hearing. There was no request from the Crown to declare us vexatious litigants. We were told by many lawyers and judges in the provincial court and in the Queens Bench Court that requests for action and judgements must come from the parties to the dispute and only via a written format request such as application and affidavit. Can this judge throw in our face, evidence of certain transpired actions that were dealt with at the QB court, that was NOT presented to him by either party in any court hearing, and is NOT a part of any judicial due process at the provincial court level? That is, is it lawful for QB judges and Provincial Court judges, to trade ‘war stories of what has happened in their respective courts? When such ‘trading’ occurs, and it impacts pending cases coming back into the lower courts, is that not a violation of a judges professional ethics? In our case, on January 12, Judge O’Gorman ‘threw’ into our face, that he had knowledge that judge Dario at the QB session on August 18, 2016, had spent an hour reading her decision regarding our Appeal of the PC Judge Shaw’s misapprehensions of facts and law, when all she was to do was ‘resolve two outstanding procedural issues’. This was information that Judge O’Gorman had that was NOT in the provincial court and public domain. We believe that Assistant Chief Judge O'Gorman acted contrary to natural justice and its ‘fair hearing’ edict. Consequently administration of justice was prevented as a result of his actions against our grandchildren and their return to those who raised them, their ‘in loco parentis’. Sincerely, D M, M.A.Sc.

from FB-RSS feed for Op Expose DCS Arizona #opexposecps https://www.facebook.com/opexposeCPSAlberta/posts/1067461963362621