Tom Marazzo – An Open Letter to Canadian Law Enforcement: The Crisis of Confidence

Canadian Police handcuff visibly pregnant mom behind the back for refusing to reveal her medical vaccination status while watching her son play hockey.

“If the trust between law enforcement and the public isn’t re-established soon, we will find ourselves in a society where the concept of policing by consent is a relic of the past”

Let’s have a real talk about a real issue that’s affecting our beautiful nation from St. John’s to Vancouver. I’m a part of a brave group of people—current and former EMS, military and police officers called Police On Guard For Thee, or POG for short.

We stand for the principles embedded in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But what’s happening now in our nation is an affront to these principles.

“What do you do when the very institution that is designed to protect your freedom starts to erode it… When unchecked power becomes the gateway drug to corruption and government overreach?”

Make no mistake; this is not an isolated phenomenon. It’s widespread, and it’s terrifying. If our law enforcement officers can disregard the rule of law with zero repercussions, then what does that say about the state of justice in Canada? The POG Officers have seen this devolution and are vocal in their opposition to what they rightfully see as an abuse of power.

I pose a question to those in the ranks of our so-called “law enforcement”… If you disregard our Constitution, our Rule of Law, and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why should any Canadian citizen continue to respect your authority?

It’s simple: they shouldn’t.

To the virtuous officers who have been on the side of justice, I say this: Your time to be silent is over. If you truly honor your oath to serve and protect, then you must become vocal in your opposition to the unions and the managers who allow this to continue. You see, the silence of the good is more damaging than the brutality of the bad.

It’s time for a reckoning. If the trust between law enforcement and the public isn’t re-established soon, we will find ourselves in a society where the concept of policing by consent is a relic of the past. This is a reference to the Peelian Principles, the foundational ethical guidelines for law enforcement that stress the importance of a mutually respectful and consensual relationship between the police and the public.

Canada, we are at a crossroads.

For the police who still hold a sense of duty and righteousness, the time is now. Take a stand, be heard, and act in a manner that reflects the principles upon which our great nation was built. We need you now, more than ever.

 

Guest Column by Tom Marazzo

Tom Marazzo was a volunteer for the Canadian Trucker Freedom Convoy 2022 and was integral in helping to coordinate truck movements and logistics, as well as negotiations with Police Liaison Teams from the city of Ottawa. A retired officer of the Canadian Army, his advice on how to safely and responsibly achieve the objectives of the Convoy was instrumental in the success of the Convoy which can be measured by the mandates removed in the province of Ontario. Tom acted as the main spokesperson, doing press conferences, almost daily, on behalf of the Freedom Convoy.

Witnessing Canadians losing their inalienable human rights is not something to ignore or abide by. Tom’s unwavering commitment to Canadians is the reason he’s written a highly person and detailed account of his life experiences leading up to, during and in the after math of the Freedom Convoy.

Tom’s Book – The People’s Emergency Act: Freedom Convoy 2022
 – Available on Amazon Now

Famed NYPD Detective Frank Serpico: Helen Grus Case “breakthrough in Police transparency”

NYPD Detective Frank Serpico following case of Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus

Legendary New York Police Detective and Medal of Honor recipient Frank Serpico has praised the Ottawa Police Service for publicly broadcasting the disciplinary hearing against Detective Helen Grus.

On September 9, 2022, Frank Serpico posted on his Twitter account that the public broadcasting of the Detective Grus Internal Hearing was a “breakthrough in Police transparency.”

Detective Grus faces internal Police Act charges for conducting “unauthorized” investigations into the sudden deaths of nine infants – where she sought to know the vaccine status of the mothers.

Public Invited to View Online Hearing Thursday, September 15, 2022

The next hearing date for Detective Grus is Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 1pm. The public is invited to watch online. (The links to the video and audio broadcast appear at the end of this article.)

Frank Serpico has been following the Detective Grus case since at least August 26, 2022 when he first posted a link to a one-hour broadcast by First Freedoms Foundation lawyer Barry Bussey in conversation with Donald Best.

During that interview, Donald Best stated…

This Detective Grus case is going to be far more important, and garner far more public interest than the Ottawa Police ever thought possible… Thousands and thousands of people have seen the articles I’ve written. (Many) contacted me and discussed it. And that’s from all over the world. Because this is a police officer whose investigation has been shut down.

(Former Toronto Police Sergeant Detective Donald Best)

The transcript and link to the Bussey – Best video can be found here:

Barry Bussey Interviews Donald Best About Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus

New York Police Detective Frank Serpico

Retired NYPD Detective Frank Serpico rose to fame with his whistleblowing on widespread police corruption in 1970. His testimony before the Knapp Commission resulted many indictments against corrupt New York police officers. He also testified in court to convict corrupt police officers.

In 1971, Detective Serpico was shot in face during a drug raid that had the hallmarks of a set-up by corrupt cops as revenge for his testifying against fellow officers.

A best-selling biography by author Peter Maas (Serpico, The Valachi Papers, King of the Gypsies, Underboss) brought Serpico’s story of police corruption to the world. In 1973 actor Al Pacino – fresh off his success in The Godfather – played the role Serpico in the award-winning movie of the same name.

At 86 years of age, Frank Serpico continues his decades of activism – speaking out about civil liberties, police brutality and corruption.

Detective Serpico inspired an entire generation of young police officers to stand against corruption and was probably single-handedly responsible for the end of general ‘beat collections’ in New York City and throughout North America – including in Toronto, Canada where I was sworn as a Police Constable in 1975.

An overview of the Helen Grus case can be found in our previous article here…

Worldwide Interest in Ottawa Police Detective’s Sudden Infant Death Investigations

 

Online Access to the September 15, 2022 1pm Helen Grus Hearing

The hearing will be conducted using MicroSoft Teams software – so be sure to start early to download the videoconferencing program if it is not already installed on your computer.

There is also an audio-only feed available for those who wish to call into the hearing. (See below)

The Helen Grus hearing is scheduled for September 15, 2022 at 1 pm.

Click here to join the meeting [teams.microsoft.com]

Meeting ID: 243 524 493 109

Passcode: iq8eQ8

Download Teams [microsoft.com] | Join on the web [microsoft.com]

Or call in (audio only)

+1 343-803-4734    (Canada, Ottawa-Hull)

Phone Conference ID: 612 496 313#

For any problems, please contact Ottawa Police Service Media Relations via email…

[email protected]

Some lawyers would do well to read Peter A. Allard’s message to new Law School Grads

Here is an inspiring message from Peter A. Allard to this year’s graduates of the law school that bears his name. It’s good reading for all lawyers – and should especially be read by those BigLaw lawyers who long ago lost their way and discarded the Rule of Law in pursuit of money…

Congratulations to the Peter A. Allard School of Law Graduates of 2020!

As you all know, lawyers are involved in and affect every segment of our lives, often behind the scenes. I don’t have to remind anyone that lawyers, besides practicing law, enter into politics, become judges, and pursue a host of other occupations in the private and public sectors.

“Buried deep within each legal strategy or decision must be a social contract and equity that provides for the long term greater good in society, no matter how trivial the task, no matter how small the retainer.”

Peter A. Allard, Q.C.

Many of you know or can expect that the practice of law can be a grind. I have a deep respect for those who “do the grind” year in and year out in their ethical service to society. But I have even greater respect for those who believe that buried deep within each legal strategy or decision must be a social contract and equity that provides for the long term greater good in society, no matter how trivial the task, no matter how small the retainer.

When we do our job well, we see that the Rule of Law is upheld, and we protect our clients, our neighbours, and fellow citizens against the vagaries of unchecked abuses of power and corruption. If we didn’t do this, day in and day out, we would lose our freedom. It is more than eternal vigilance that is the price of freedom but a strong and moral judicial activism to enforce these concepts.

Your hard work, sacrifices, and achievements will open your world to new possibilities. While graduation is a time to celebrate the ending of a chapter, it is also a time to celebrate your achievements and a new beginning.

Here’s to you and your continued success.

Yours truly,

Peter A. Allard, Q.C.

Did Superior Court Judge interfere with St. Michael’s College School sex assault investigation to protect his football coach son?

St. Michael’s College School teacher & football coach Kevin Shaughnessy with his father Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy in promotional video.
  • Legal experts say an Ontario Superior Court Justice should not have involved himself in the ongoing sex-assault investigation at St. Michael’s College School.
  • Judge’s son is a teacher & football coach of students charged with gang sexual assault & making / distributing child porn video of the attack.
  • Two sources say that in November 2018, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy attended St. Michael’s College School meetings during the sexual assault investigation where he called for the firing of principal Greg Reeves and school president Father Jefferson Thompson. The two school officials subsequently resigned on Thursday, November 22, 2018.
  • A source states that one of the meetings was ‘open’, but the other was a small private meeting that included various school board members, respected senior alumni and advisors who discussed with Justice Shaughnessy options in handling the scandal.
  • Justice Shaughnessy’s son Kevin Shaughnessy is a ten-year teacher at the school and was one of the teachers / coaches of the now-dismantled football team whose students were videoed in the school locker room (allegedly) sexually assaulting a boy with a broom handle.
  • Justice Shaughnessy is a St. Michael’s College School alumnus (1968) who has remained heavily involved in school affairs including law classes and mock trials. He founded and donated two longstanding student awards. His three sons also graduated from the school where one, Kevin, is employed as a teacher.
  • In May 2018 Justice Shaughnessy appeared in a promotional video for the school, associated with his receiving the ‘Order of St. Michael’. The video makes revelations about his involvement with other organizations, some of which are also involved with the courts and law enforcement in Durham Region where the judge sits on the bench – raising further questions about potential and/or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • Did Justice Shaughnessy have any contact whatsoever with law enforcement personnel concerning the St. Michael’s College School matter?
  • In an unrelated civil case, there are four known improper police involvements associated with Justice Shaughnessy. This raises strong suspicions of Shaughnessy’s improper use of, and relationship with, law enforcement. In 2017 Durham Regional Police launched major investigation into Donald Best immediately after Best’s lawyer filed legal documents about Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct in a civil case. In 2009, a Durham Regional Police officer assigned to Justice Shaughnessy’s courthouse improperly conducted a secret investigation into Donald Best “in aid of the court”.
  • Justice Shaughnessy is already embroiled in separate litigation concerning his corrupt behaviour in a matter outside the St. Michael’s investigation. In the Donald Best civil case, Justice Shaughnessy – in a backroom after court closed – secretly and illegally doubled Best’s prison time for Contempt of Court without informing Best or placing any record of the judge’s secret order into the court record. Only the prison was notified of the increased sentence.
  • In the same Donald Best civil matter Justice Shaughnessy also backdated a court order by ten days to assist the opposing lawyers – and then convicted and imprisoned Donald Best for failing to deliver business records to opposing lawyers two days before Shaughnessy made and signed the backdated order that required Best to present the business records. (Yes, you read that correctly.)
  • Several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney call Justice Shaughnessy’s behaviour in the Donald Best civil case “despotic”, “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.” His corrupt actions earned Bryan Shaughnessy the monikers ‘Backroom Bryan’ and ‘Canada’s Backroom Judge’ with both the public and (quietly) in the legal community.
Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy in May 2018 promotional video for St. Michael’s College School.

How Involved is Teacher & Football Coach Kevin Shaughnessy?

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

The scandal at St. Michael’s College School exploded in November 2018 and is only partially about the horrific behaviour of some members of the school’s football team who (allegedly) sexually assaulted a fellow student with a broomstick, videoed the attack and then distributed the child pornography.

Seven students now stand criminally charged involving multiple incidents on school property over a number of months.

In a breach of professional ethics and perhaps even the criminal code, for at least two days senior school administrators (and probably some teachers, board members and parents) failed to report the horrific sex attack and existence of the child-sex video to the police or Children’s Aid. Some possessed copies of the child-sex video during this time and distributed it to others.

It was not until the police were notified by the news media and came to the school that principal Greg Reeves surrendered the video to the police and informed them of the sexual attack – some two days after he knew and first possessed the child-sex video.

Why did so many senior members of the St. Michael’s College School community fail to report the existence of the child-sex video and horrific sex-attack to the police? 

Were the school staff and board members honestly just overwhelmed and unprepared to deal with such events? Were they naïve about their duty to protect a child at risk?

Or… was it an attempted cover-up? Were the staff and board trying to find some way out to protect the international reputation of the school? Did the worldwide revelations about child sexual abuse and coverups by the Catholic Church and clergy influence the St. Michael’s College School individual and corporate decisions?

Roster showing Kevin Shaughnessy as a football coach with St. Michael’s College School. From the OFSAA Team Rosters – St. Michael’s vs Cardinal Newman

What did Justice Shaughnessy know and when did he know it?

It would be only natural for Justice Bryan Shaughnessy and his son Kevin Shaughnessy to discuss the sexual assaults the moment either of them learned of the events. 

As a ten-year St. Michael’s teacher and football coach, Kevin Shaughnessy might have been worried about the school image and about his own career. He would naturally inform and ask advice of his father who is both a senior justice in the Ontario Superior Court and a respected member of the St. Michael’s College School community.

“(There should be) a full accounting of coaches, clergy and staff members assigned to sports teams. Where were they when that kid was screaming for help?”

Toronto Sun journalist Joe Warmington November 23, 2018

Both Justice Shaughnessy and his son Kevin would have known that public questions were bound to be asked about the school’s athletic and football team culture, why the assault was not prevented and when each staff member became aware of the assaults and videos. The public and parents would also want to know if anyone had knowledge of this type of behaviour happening in the past and what the response of the school was at the time. (Note: At least one former student has gone public claiming that hazing and assaults at the school have been part of the school culture for decades.)

Justice Shaughnessy should have recused himself from any involvement whatsoever.

In this situation, it would be a natural instinct for senior school officials, staff, board members and parents to contact Justice Shaughnessy for advice – perhaps not even considering that contacting a senior judge during a criminal investigation was improper. 

Bryan Shaughnessy, however, is no ordinary person, no ordinary alumnus or parent – ‘Bryan’ is Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy whose public and private statements on anything carry real influence and the heavy credibility of a senior judge. 

Further, Justice Shaughnessy’s son Kevin is a teacher and football coach and therefore directly involved at the very least as a witness – and potentially as the subject of investigations into the school’s staff and football culture.

“It was up to Justice Shaughnessy to recuse himself from the picture, but instead he deliberately chose to become involved.

Upon learning of the sexual assault at the school, as a sitting Ontario Superior Court Justice who is the father of an involved teacher and football coach, Bryan Shaughnessy should have immediately recused himself from any discussion, communication or any role at all in the school.

Further, he had a duty imposed by law to report any incidents himself unless he was absolutely sure they had already been properly reported.” (Senior Law Society of Ontario lawyer to Donald Best.)

There are recognized limitations on what a judge may or may not do both officially and in private life. According to several senior lawyers and a law professor I consulted with during the writing of this article, Justice Shaughnessy crossed the line when he made recommendations to the school in the middle of a criminal investigation – whether he made those recommendations in public at the general meeting or in private with school officials.

As a senior Ontario Superior Court Justice, Bryan Shaughnessy should not have involved himself in any way in a criminal matter likely to go before the courts.

According to the senior lawyers, Justice Shaughnessy’s actions during the criminal investigation crossed the line even before considering the obvious conflict of interest created by his son’s employment as a teacher and involved football coach at the school. 

Parents, staff and members of the public would naturally wonder if Justice Shaughnessy’s recommendation that St. Michael’s College School fire principal Greg Reeves and president Father Jefferson Thompson was intended to take the heat away from Shaughnessy’s son and his son’s fellow teachers and football coaches.

Too many unanswered questions.

Did Justice Shaughnessy’s teacher-son have a copy of the video or know of it and not report it to the police? Did anything that Kevin Shaughnessy do or failed to do influence his father to call for the firing of the school principal and director?

Exactly when and how did Justice Shaughnessy learn of the sexual assaults and of the existence of the video? Did he immediately call the police to report the crime himself? Did Justice Shaughnessy see or possess a copy of the child-sex video?

When sitting judges insert themselves or allow themselves to be inserted into criminal investigations – at the very least this causes public doubt about the judiciary and the rule of law. At worst, such actions bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Add to that the fact that Justice Shaughnessy’s own son is at the very best a potential witness and at the worst an involved teacher and football coach.

Justice Shaughnessy made a deliberate choice to insert himself into an ongoing criminal investigation despite his obvious conflicts of interest.

He knew or should have known that his involvement had the potential to cause doubt about the integrity of both the internal and police investigation and to bring both his personal judgment and the administration of justice into disrepute.

Yet, Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy chose to become involved in the St. Michael’s College School scandal.

Coming in Part II…

  • Update on the St. Michael’s College School criminal charges, including known timeline.
  • Analysis of the Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy promotional video for St. Michael’s College School.
  • Discussion of what public activities are permissible for sitting judges. Is fundraising for organizations permitted? What if the organizations have an acknowledged role with the police or the courts in the judge’s jurisdiction?
  • Details of all police involvement associated with Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy in the Donald Best civil case.

Further Reading

CBC Toronto, Nov 22/18 St. Michael’s College School principal and president resign amid student sex assault scandal

Toronto Star, Dec 19/18 What we know and don’t know about the scandal at St. Michael’s College School — and what we can’t report

Dec 2/15 Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy secretly increased prisoner’s jail sentence – in a backroom, off the court record, without informing the prisoner.

Jan 1/18 News media censorship of Julian Fantino’s Canadian Judicial Council Intervention Crumbles as Toronto Star Publishes bombshell article.

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in this article

As always, if anyone disagrees with anything published at DonaldBest.CA or wishes to provide a public response or comment, please contact me at [email protected] and I will publish your writing with equal prominence. Comments left on articles are moderated at least once a day. Or, of course, you can sue me and serve my lawyer Paul Slansky. You can find Mr. Slansky’s information here.

Readers are also encouraged to thoroughly study all the evidence available here at DonaldBest.CA, to perform independent research on the Internet and elsewhere, to consider all sides and to make up their own minds as to the events reported on DonaldBest.CA.

Photos have been included to put context to the article. Their use is the same as with other Canadian news outlets. With the exception of Kevin Shaughnessy who is a legitimate subject of this news article, all other members of Justice Shaughnessy’s family have been edited out of the photos.

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

Donald Best is a former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective) who is now an independent journalist, documentary filmmaker and an anti-corruption advocate. He is the recipient of the 2018 Ontario Civil Liberties Award, and has been called “One of Canada’s most methodical and well documented whistleblowers.”

Hamilton Councillor Sam Merulla embraces police investigation of Mafia connections – with custom Godfather logo

Hamilton Councillor jokes about leaked police investigation – but offers no explanation to citizens.

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

When DonaldBest.CA re-published leaked police documents showing Hamilton politician Sam Merulla under investigation for apparent association with notorious ‘Ndrangheta Mafia members Antonio Agresta and brothers Angelo and Pat Musitano – Merulla responded by blocking your writer Donald Best from reading his Twitter feed.

Now the newly re-elected council member’s Twitter profile @SamMerulla shows him wearing a custom Godfather-style logo ‘The Councillor’ in an apparent attempt to defuse the issue through humour and mocking.

Left unsaid by Merulla is any real reply or explanation to the concern that an elected official appears as a subject in a long term investigation into organized crime. ‘Project SCOPA’ also revealed corrupt Hamilton cops in the pay of the mob.

Nothing from Sam Merulla – and very surprising during the recent municipal election – not one word about the police investigation into Merulla from the Hamilton Spectator, the Toronto Star or any other local news media. 

Whether due to ‘libel chill’ or the corrupt influence of organized crime, the result is the same: the mainstream news media failed in its duty to the public and to the public trust.

Hamilton politician Sam Merulla blocked Donald Best on Twitter

Hamilton Citizens deserve the Truth from Merulla and the Police

In 2016, the Toronto Star reported on a lawsuit by undercover officer Paul Manning – who alleges he was betrayed by the Hamilton Police Service and by corrupt police officers working for the Mafia.

Then about a year ago Oakville-based private investigator Derrick Snowdy published confidential police reports into organized crime showing connections between Hamilton mobsters, corrupt cops and several politicians – including Councillor Sam Merulla and former Hamilton Police Board Chair Bernie Morelli. (Morelli passed at 70 years old in 2014 after a long illness.)

In late 2017 I published two articles:

Leaked police report: Hamilton City Councillor Sam Merulla & former Police Board Chair linked with organized crime, ‘Ndrangheta mafia

Domenic Violi arrest a reminder that Organized Crime has penetrated Canadian police for decades

On November 15, 2017 the Toronto Star published a teaser about the Derrick Snowdy material – but only mentioned mob figures and corrupt cops. Again, the mainstream news media lacked the courage and integrity to report the full story, including that Sam Merulla was a target / subject of a major police investigation into the Hamilton mob.

Is it any wonder that Canadians no longer trust the mainstream news media as they once did?

‘The Councillor’ Sam Merulla wouldn’t be wearing a mocking Godfather shirt if the Hamilton and Toronto mainstream news media was doing its job.

Hamilton Councillor Sam Merulla and Musitano brothers (montage from original document below)

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in this article

As always, if anyone disagrees with anything published at DonaldBest.CA or wishes to provide a public response or comment, please contact me at [email protected] and I will publish your writing with equal prominence. Comments left on articles are moderated at least once a day. Or, of course, you can sue me and serve my lawyer Paul Slansky. You can find Mr. Slansky’s information here.

Photos have been included to put context to the article. Their use is the same as with other Canadian news outlets.

Readers are also encouraged to thoroughly study all the evidence available here at DonaldBest.CA, to perform independent research on the Internet and elsewhere, to consider all sides and to make up their own minds as to the events reported on DonaldBest.CA.

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

 

Retired Ontario Provincial Police Inspector Bill Van Allen publicly attacks Julian Fantino for exposing brother’s corruption

Donald Best highly recommends Bill Van Allen’s Criminal Investigation textbook.

Corrupt cop’s brother attacks Fantino in National Post.

I like and respect retired OPP Inspector Bill Van Allen although I’ve never met him. We do seem to have a difference of opinion about his brother, former OPP Detective Sergeant Jim Van Allen. Since Bill has publicly jumped into the discussion by launching Ad hominem attacks against former OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino and yours truly in the National Post, I’ll pick up gauntlet here and lead Bill through the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that proves corrupt and illegal acts by his brother Jim.

(Interesting that Bill Van Allen’s National Post comment doesn’t mention that he has skin in the game as his brother is the retired OPP officer whose criminal misconduct Fantino condemns in his affidavit. Also interesting is that Bill Van Allen does not (because he cannot) argue against the evidence that shows his brother committed corrupt acts. Bill can only question Fantino’s motives and call me ‘delusional’ – the very essence of an Ad hominem attack.)

Bill publicly attacked former Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police Julian Fantino for filing a sworn affidavit that includes evidence that Bill’s brother Jim Van Allen – also a retired OPP officer – committed provincial, federal and criminal offences while he was a Detective Sergeant in charge of the OPP’s elite Criminal Profiling Unit.

In this case, Bill’s affection and loyalty to his brother has caused him to ignore the overwhelming evidence and to publicly attack a fellow (former) police officer for breaking the silence, the Omertà, of the police brotherhood by exposing corruption in the ranks.

I wish I could say that this was the first time I have seen a police officer attack another police officer for exposing corruption, but sadly it is all too common.

In the mid-1980s when it became known that my Toronto Police colleagues and I had successfully infiltrated a corrupt downtown squad and were starting to arrest police officers, we couldn’t park our personal cars anywhere near the station. Calls in the middle of the night to our families, locker room threats and bullying by senior officers was the collective response to our anti-corruption investigation. My squad soon had to move from downtown to a secret office that wasn’t even at a police facility.

The most difficult part of any anti-corruption investigation is not the work itself, but the attacks that always follow as various cabals try to save valued friends and family members from prosecution and disgrace.

Retired OPP officers Jim Van Allen (left) and brother Bill Van Allen

The Evidence against Jim Van Allen

It’s unfortunate that Bill’s brother Jim created his situation by corruptly taking a few thousand dollars ‘on the side’ from lawyers who wanted access to the confidential police information that Jim Van Allen illegally provided.

You can understand how a man would want to defend his brother – but if Bill Van Allen is truly In Search of the Truth, he might want to start by looking at the invoices that his brother issued to the lawyers who hired him.

That’s right – Jim Van Allen issued at least two invoices to Fasken law firm and lawyer Gerald L. Ranking that detail his corrupt employment as an unlicensed private investigator. (October 24, 2009 and November 7, 2009)

Bill might also want to look at Jim Van Allen’s October 21, 2009 affidavit wherein Jim illegally details my drivers licence number and address history and confirms that he received my confidential Toronto Police employment record. And yes, Jim swore his affidavit on a Wednesday, his normal workday as manager of the OPP’s Criminal Profiling Unit. Very profitable for Jim Van Allen to double-dip – get paid for being on duty and get paid for doing private work on the side while on duty. Very profitable indeed.

Bill Van Allen launched Ad hominem attacks against Julian Fantino and Donald Best in the National Post, but cannot argue against the overwhelming quantity and quality of evidence detailed in Julian Fantino’s affidavit.

Readers can view a summary of Fantino’s affidavit here.

Full copies of Julian Fantino’s affidavit are available below.

What Julian Fantino’s Affidavit says about Corrupt Cop Jim Van Allen

  • “The prosecuting lawyers hired and submitted an affidavit from Mr. Van Allen. They claimed that he was a private investigator and failed to disclose that he was a serving police officer with access to police resources. This police officer obtained confidential information not available to the public which was then used by the Judge to convict, sentence and imprison Mr. Best for contempt.”
  • “Although the lawyers regularly referred to Van Allen as a ‘private investigator’ in their legal documents and on the court record in verbal submissions and discussions with the Judge, Jim Van Allen was not a licensed private investigator. James ‘Jim’ Arthur Van Allen, was in fact a serving Ontario Provincial Police Detective Sergeant and manager of the OPP’s Criminal Profiling Unit who was working secretly and illegally as an unlicensed private investigator.”
  • “From my examination of the evidence that is already filed in court and was easily available to the courts and the CJC had they examined it, it is reasonable to conclude that OPP Detective Sergeant Jim Van Allen’s inappropriate employment as a private investigator, his access to confidential information and the distribution of the same, and the very creation of his affidavit in order to benefit private parties in a civil lawsuit, represents a flagrant violation of various Provincial and Federal laws including the Police Services Act, the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, the Criminal Code and the Freedom of Information Act.”
  • “In no small way, Detective Sergeant Jim Van Allen violated his oath of office.”
  • “Detective Sergeant Van Allen’s conduct and behavior in relation to this case occurred while I was OPP Commissioner. Had I known about it at the time, I would have immediately ordered an investigation to gather all evidence to determine the details, extent and duration of his activities with a view to possible provincial and/or criminal charges against Van Allen and, potentially, charges against other involved persons.”
  • “It is inconceivable that all the involved lawyers and Judge were unaware that ‘private investigator’ and expert witness Jim Van Allen was an OPP police officer. Considering many factors, including Detective Sergeant Van Allen’s high public profile, the rules and normal vetting practices by lawyers and judges concerning Expert Witnesses, and the fact that Van Allen’s affidavit and redacted invoices were clearly suspect on their face to any ordinary person let alone lawyers and judges, it is unbelievable that nobody in that courtroom knew the truth about Van Allen or otherwise cared to find out.”
  • “I notice that Van Allen’s two redacted invoices are numbers 11 and 12 for the year 2009, which to me raises serious questions about how many other illegal investigations he had performed and which lawyer clients might have retained him previously. Had I known of his transgressions, I would have acted immediately as OPP Commissioner to deal with his rogue conduct.”

Julian Fantino affidavit & exhibits

In .PDF format for downloading. Size indicated.

1/ Affidavit of Julian Fantino sworn September 28, 2017, Notice of Motion, Written Submissions NO EXHIBITS (72 pages – PDF 8.7mb)

2/ Julian Fantino: Full affidavit including exhibits.

Fantino Vol1 with exhibits sworn Sept 28, 2017 (344 pages – PDF 43mb) – very large, will fix soon.

Fantino Vol2 with exhibits sworn Sept 28, 2017 (245 pages – PDF 22.3mb) – very large, will fix soon.

Bill Van Allen’s book, Criminal Investigation: In Search of the Truth

Bill Van Allen’s book ‘Criminal Investigation: In Search of the Truth‘ is an excellent textbook for new and aspiring law enforcement officers. The book is widely used in Canadian college policing courses and is even popular with experienced police officers. A friend gave me a copy of the second edition for Christmas back in 2010. I’ve read it cover to cover twice and strongly recommend it to all serving police officers and private investigators no matter what their background or training. Yup… that’s me at the top of this article reading Bill’s textbook.

Notice to readers, including Persons and Entities mentoned in articles

As always, if anyone disagrees with anything published at DonaldBest.CA or wishes to provide a public response or comment, please contact me at [email protected] and I will publish your writing with equal prominence. Comments left on articles are moderated about once a day. Or, of course, you can sue me and serve my lawyer Paul Slansky. You can find Mr. Slansky’s information here.

Photos have been included to put context to the article. Their use is the same as with other Canadian news outlets.

Readers are also encouraged to thoroughly study all the evidence available here at DonaldBest.CA, to perform independent research on the Internet and elsewhere, to consider all sides and to make up their own minds as to the events reported on DonaldBest.CA.

Donald Best
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

What Bill Browder didn’t know about Paul Schabas and Canada’s corrupt Bay Street lawyers

 

Cowardice and lack of Integrity at Ontario’s Law Society.

LSUC Treasurer Paul Schabas

Last week at the Cambridge Lectures, Hermitage Capital CEO and author Bill Browder spoke to a capacity crowd of top legal minds including Canada’s Chief Justice, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin.

But while Browder kept the audience on the edge of their seats with true stories of corruption and murder in Putin’s Russia, he didn’t know that the moderator beside him – the leader of Ontario’s Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), Paul Schabas – continues to whitewash corruption and criminal acts by members of Ontario’s Bay Street legal cabal.

Without courage, integrity means little

Bill Browder was client and friend of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky; an honest and courageous law firm auditor who was falsely arrested after he exposed a corrupt scheme to steal hundreds of millions of dollars in Russian tax revenues. When Sergei refused to cower and retract his evidence, he was held without charges for almost a year, tortured and finally beaten to death in solitary confinement by Putin’s thugs.

Browder documented that story of the corrupt Russian justice system in his best-selling book Red Notice. His lobbying brought forth the USA’s Magnitsky Act that authorizes sanctions against the involved Russians, including the crooked police and justice officials who are servants in the architecture of corruption.

Now Browder and his family are also paying the price that comes from courageously standing against corruption. They are targets of death threats, surveillance operations, kidnapping plots and a well-financed media smear-campaign against Browder and his murdered lawyer.

“Bill Browder did not know that the moderator who introduced him, Paul Schabas, doesn’t have the integrity or courage to hold corrupt Bay Street lawyers accountable. By his continued silence, Paul Schabas facilitates corruption and protects rogue members of Ontario’s legal elites.”

Bill Browder with photo of his murdered lawyer Sergei Magnitsky*

Canadians don’t have to go to Russia to find corruption

Threats to rape and murder witnesses (1,2), falsifying evidence (3,4,11), lawyers bribing police (5,6,7), putting an innocent man in prison (3,4,11), and protecting the elites against charges of money-laundering (8,9,10) and other crimes doesn’t just happen in Russia: it happens in Canada as well.

And nobody knows that better than Toronto lawyer Paul Schabas, the current Treasurer of Ontario’s Law Society of Upper Canada.

In his capacity as a lawyer, as a law society bencher and finally as LSUC Treasurer, Schabas knew of and received every piece of evidence in the Nelson Barbados and Donald Best civil cases where three corrupt Bay Street lawyers (Lorne Silver, Gerald Ranking and Sebastien Kwidzinski) were caught red-handed fabricating evidence and lying to the court to imprison an innocent man.

Paul Schabas also was aware of the hundreds of anonymous internet threats against witnesses in the Nelson Barbados case – including threats to rape and murder the victims of a massive US$100 million dollar fraud. Schabas and his law society received solid forensic evidence that many of the anonymous internet threats against witnesses originated from the computer network at Toronto’s Miller Thomson LLP law firm. (1,2)

Schabas and the Law Society of Upper Canada ignored anonymous threats against witnesses proven to be emanating from Bay Street law firm Miller Thomson LLP

Paul Schabas and his law society also knew that lawyer Gerald Ranking of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP’s Toronto office fraudulently claimed that his purported client was a registered Barbados business – when in fact the ‘company’ was a phony non-entity conjured up to deflect liability from Ranking’s actual clients. Schabas and the law society also knew that Ranking received over a million dollars court costs payments in the name of the phony ‘company’ that Ranking knew didn’t really exist – a badge of money laundering. (8,9,10)

Paul Schabas and the law society knew that lawyers Sebastien Kwidzinski and Gerald Ranking illegally paid a corrupt Ontario Provincial Police detective sergeant, James ‘Jim’ Van Allen, to work for them illegally on the side as an unlicensed private investigator, using police resources to gather evidence for their clients in a private civil case. (5,6,7)

Senior Ontario lawyers Gerald Ranking (center), Lorne Silver (right) and junior Sebastien Kwidzinski (left) lied to the courts.

Paul Schabas and the Law Society of Upper Canada ignored, whitewashed and covered up the entire mess to save three corrupt Bay Street lawyers: Lorne Silver, Gerald Ranking and Sebastien Kwidzinski.

And that was only the Nelson Barbados and Donald Best Ontario civil case.

As the Toronto Star newspaper’s Broken Trust series revealed, in the last few years the Law Society of Upper Canada also covered up several hundred other cases where Ontario lawyers committed criminal offences. (12,13)

At the Cambridge Lectures when Bill Browder gave his talk on corruption in Russia, he did not know that the moderator who introduced him, Paul Schabas, lacks the integrity and courage to hold corrupt Bay Street lawyers accountable. By his continued silence, Paul Schabas facilitates corruption and protects rogue members of Ontario’s legal elites.

“I will leave it to my readers to make what they will of the fact that in all these years, none of the people I name has sued me or asked the court for an injunction to remove my evidence and writings, or to curtail my future statements.”

Supporting Evidence for Statements of Fact

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

For three years I, Donald Best, have published court documents and exhibits (including voice recordings and forensic reports) that detail my ten year journey through Ontario’s civil courts and prove criminal and/or other serious wrongdoing by senior Ontario lawyers, police personnel and at least one judge.

The corrupt senior lawyers and those in the legal profession who protected them made sure that no jury of my peers would ever be able to consider this evidence in a court. They were successful in preventing my civil case from reaching trial because the legal profession and the Canadian justice system closed ranks and did everything possible to protect these senior lawyers who are members of a very exclusive club.

Nonetheless, for three years I’ve told my story here and at other venues, including in the Globe and Mail newspaper and at the University of Windsor Law Faculty’s National Self-Represented Litigants Project.

For three years I’ve publicly named certain senior lawyers and police officers – called them “corrupt”, and published evidence of their criminal acts and other wrong-doing. I have published the name of an Ontario Superior Court judge and provided evidence of his actions that several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney call “despotic”, “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.”(14)

I will leave it to my readers to make what they will of the fact that in all these years, none of the people I name has sued me or asked the court for an injunction to remove my evidence and writings, or to curtail my future statements. Read more

Federal Court to review whitewashed Canadian Judicial Council decision about Justice Bryan Shaughnessy on November 20, 2017

Justice Bryan Shaughnessy (r) & his lawyer, Peter Wardle

Canadian Judicial Council cover-up exposed on November 20, 2017

The Federal Court of Canada has scheduled two full days on November 20 & 21, 2017 to review a Canadian Judicial Council (‘CJC’) decision about a complaint against Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy.

The hearing will review how and why CJC Director Norman Sabourin summarily dismissed a complaint by former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective) Donald Best, without an investigation and in the face of irrefutable evidence that Justice Shaughnessy committed what has been described by various lawyers and a retired Crown prosecutor as ‘despotic, disgusting and reprehensible misconduct’.

“In all my years of practicing law, this is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen a judge do.” 

Senior Ontario lawyer writes to Donald Best after examining the evidence against Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy.

Donald Best alleged that after sentencing him to three months in prison for Contempt of Civil Court, Ontario Superior Court Judge J. Bryan Shaughnessy went to a back room after court ended, and – off the court record – illegally made a secret new court order increasing the Best’s sentence by a month, without telling the self-represented prisoner and without placing the new secret order into the court record. This was a deliberate, vindictive and premeditated extra-judicial abuse of Justice Shaughnessy’s position and authority.

Several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney call Justice Shaughnessy’s behaviour “despotic”, “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.”

Canadian Judicial Council said to be operating ultra vires – in violation of the law.

As well as looking at the circumstances of the CJC dismissal of Best’s complaint, the Federal Court will be considering whether or not CJC Director Norman Sabourin is operating beyond his authority under the laws which established the CJC. This issue has been previously raised in public discussions, but has never been formally brought before the court as it is in the Judicial Review filed by Donald Best’s lawyer, Paul Slansky.

Packed Courtroom Expected

Many Canadians wrote expressing support for Donald Best and asked to be notified of the hearing date so they can attend and observe the process. A court artist and several independent journalists also state they will cover the hearing.

The hearing will be held:

Monday November 20th and Tuesday November 21, 2017 at 9:30am

Federal Court: 180 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario.

About The Public Trust – Statement by Donald Best

by Donald Best, former Sergeant, Detective, Toronto Police

I believe that the vast majority of judges and lawyers do their utmost to deliver the best justice they can within our imperfect system. There are, of course, systemic problems that need attention – but when a lawyer or a judge goes rogue, Canada’s legal profession must take action or the entire justice system is tainted.

Justice Shaughnessy’s reprehensible backroom misconduct is egregious but, fortunately, exceedingly rare – so rare that no one I’ve spoken with has ever heard of any other judge doing what Justice Shaughnessy did.

The evidence of his misconduct is so strong that when the Canadian Judicial Council dismissed my complaint without an investigation it really was a self-indictment of the CJC, its director Norman Sabourin, and the CJC’s processes and decisions. Within the legal community, the CJC’s decision to dismiss my complaint produced disdain and contempt for the CJC – not to mention guffaws and comments of “If this isn’t judicial misconduct, then nothing is.”

It is hoped that a Judicial Review of the CJC’s Shaughnessy decision will provide Canadians with answers about how this happened and result in changes that could begin to restore confidence in our judicial system and in the Canadian Judicial Council that is mandated to bring accountability to those we Canadians entrust as judges.   Read more

Did lawyers assist in Justice Bryan Shaughnessy’s “disgusting” misconduct? #3 in a series

Big Law Firm lawyers Gerald Ranking (left), Lorne Silver & Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

Did lawyers Lorne S. Silver and Gerald L. Ranking know of Justice Shaughnessy’s intentions? Did they assist? If so, they are co-conspirators with the judge.

In articles over the past months (listed below), we told how after court ended on May 3, 2013, Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy went to a backroom where, off the court record, he secretly increased a prisoner’s sentence without a trial and without telling the self-represented prisoner (Donald Best). In that backroom, Justice Shaughnessy signed a secret new warrant of committal – that he did not place into the court record and that he provided only to prison authorities.

Several senior lawyers and a retired Crown Attorney called Justice Shaughnessy’s behaviour “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “malicious” and “worthy of his removal from the bench.”

Donald Best complained of Shaughnessy’s misconduct to the Canadian Judicial Council – (Best’s Jan 5, 2016 12-page CJC complaint without exhibits. PDF 218kb).

After CJC Director Norman Sabourin summarily dismissed the complaint without conducting an investigation or providing reasons, Best’s lawyer filed for a Judicial Review of the CJC decision. That judicial review is now before the Federal Court.

Our second article in this series explained how big law firm partners Lorne S. Silver and Gerald L. Ranking certainly witnessed parts of Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct in court.

In Part #3 of this series, we look at evidence that lawyers Ranking and Silver actually participated in Justice Shaughnessy’s serious misconduct – perhaps secretly meeting with the judge in a backroom after court.

On May 3, 2013, lawyers Lorne S. Silver and Gerald L. Ranking were in court and witnessed Justice Shaughnessy state on the record that he was lifting the stay on his January 15, 2010 Warrant of Committal for Donald Best, and that Best would now be taken to prison to serve the sentence indicated on that January 15, 2010 warrant – for contempt of court during a civil case costs hearing.

On May 3, 2013, Silver and Ranking also witnessed Justice Shaughnessy state on the record that “Approval of the order by Mr. Best will be dispensed with and I direct that this order shall be prepared by Messrs. Ranking and Silver and presented to me for signature by Monday, May 6, 2013.” (May 3, 2013 transcript, pg 57, line 32)

Silver and Ranking also witnessed Justice Shaughnessy order that Best was never again to be brought before him.

Thus, Justice Shaughnessy ordered Ranking and Silver to create a Judgment Order to be presented to him on May 6, 2013, and also that self-represented litigant Donald Best was not to participate or be provided with a copy of the judgment order. This judgment order (download here) did not order the creation of a new warrant of committal or increase Best’s sentence, and was not the secret new warrant of committal signed by Justice Shaughnessy after court on May 3, 2013.

 

Secret new May 3, 2013 Warrant of Committal. Click to enlarge.

Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct was premeditated with malicious intent.

Shaughnessy ordered in court on May 3, 2013 that:

1/ Best was not to participate in the creation of a judgment order, and,

2/ Best was never to be brought before Justice Shaughnessy again.

As indicated in Best’s complaint to the CJC, these orders on the record are evidence of Shaughnessy’s premeditation and malicious intent to secretly increase Best’s sentence after court, and to not place the new secret warrant of committal or increased sentence on the court record.

We know that after court ended on May 3, 2013, Justice Shaughnessy left the courtroom and went to a backroom where he signed a secret new order dated May 3, 2013 that illegally increased Best’s sentence. Best only learned of the order from prison authorities after his arrival at the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, Ontario.

Did lawyers Lorne Silver and Gerald Ranking meet secretly with Justice Shaughnessy in a backroom after court on May 3, 2013?

We do not know at this point if Gerald Ranking or Lorne Silver knew in advance of Justice Shaughnessy’s intention to secretly increase Best’s jail sentence after court was over. Whether they knew or did not know in advance, is important evidence.

We do not know if Ranking and Silver learned of the secretly increased sentence and new warrant perhaps days or weeks afterwards – or, if Justice Shaughnessy secretly instructed them in a backroom meeting on May 3, 2013 to draft the secret new warrant of committal with the increased sentence.

Were the lawyers with Justice Shaughnessy on May 3, 2013 when he signed the secret warrant and illegally increased Best’s sentence? Did the lawyers draft the secret warrant upon private backroom instructions from the judge?

If lawyers Lorne Silver and Gerald Ranking had any part in the creation or delivery of the illegal and secret warrant of committal, or if they knew about it on May 3, 2013 or were present when Justice Shaughnessy signed it – then the lawyers are co-conspirators with the judge in his egregious misconduct.

What did the judge’s secretary and other court staff witness?

Justice Shaughnessy’s secretary and other court staff may have witnessed the lawyers meeting with the judge after court ended. The judge’s secretary and court staff may have knowledge of the creation and forwarding of the secret warrant of committal to prison authorities.

Drafts of the secret warrant warrant of committal might exist on court computers – or the secret warrant might have been created using one of the lawyers’ laptop computers and therefore does not appear on court computers.

CJC Executive Director Norman Sabourin summarily dismissed Best’s complaint without an investigation and without providing reasons.

Justice Shaughnessy, his court staff and lawyers Silver and Ranking must be witnesses in any valid CJC investigation or public inquiry – but so far both Lorne Silver and Gerald Ranking refuse to be cross-examined about any of their conduct in relation to Donald Best’s conviction, sentencing and imprisonment.

As indicated in our first two articles in this series, Justice Shaughnessy is now personally represented at the judicial review by Law Society of Upper Canada senior bencher Peter C. Wardle. Wardle has a conflict of interest as he also represented lawyers Lorne S. Silver and Gerald L. Ranking in a related matter.

With the Federal Attorney General representing the CJC, and the Ontario Attorney General absent after formerly representing Justice Shaughnessy, no one is representing the public interest at the judicial review.  

. Read more

Ontario’s Bay Street Cabal and law society circle the wagons to protect judge; Ignoring conflicts of interest and the public trust – #2 in a Series

Law Society of Upper Canada sides with Judge over misconduct some lawyers call “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “worthy of removal from the bench.”

Surrounded by Law Society Benchers, newly elected Treasurer, Paul B. Schabas (centre), chairs his first meeting.

Our first article in this series exposed how Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy hired a conflicted lawyer to represent him in an ongoing Judicial Review of a Canadian Judicial Council decision about Justice Shaughnessy.*

Law Society of Upper Canada senior bencher Peter C. Wardle is Justice Shaughnessy’s new attorney. However, in a closely related matter Wardle also represented two lawyers who are almost certain to be called as primary witnesses in a CJC investigation or public inquiry into allegations of serious misconduct against Justice Shaughnessy.**

Of the over 50,000 licensed lawyers in Ontario, Justice Shaughnessy just happens to be represented by Mr. Wardle – the only lawyer in Canada who:

  1. represented two important witnesses to the judge’s misconduct in a closely associated legal matter, and,
  2. represented eleven high profile law firms and lawyers (including the current Treasurer of the law society) in the same closely related matter, and,
  3. is a senior bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada (‘LSUC’) – the regulator of all lawyers and paralegals in the province that has been extensively involved in this very series of legal actions, and,
  4. works closely with LawPRO, the law society’s company insuring lawyers in Ontario that is also involved in legal matters closely associated with the current Judicial Review.

Senior bencher Peter Wardle represented lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver during a civil law suit launched in July, 2014 by former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective) Donald Best. Wardle represented a total of 11 lawyers and law firms in that lawsuit, including some of Canada’s largest Bay Street law firms. (Best was forced to discontinue that lawsuit in 2015 when he could not pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs previously awarded against him on the basis of false testimony by Ranking and Silver.***)

The Law Society of Upper Canada and its insurance company LawPRO have been following this series of actions in the courts since at least 2009, and became even more involved in 2014 when Donald Best sued lawyers Gerald Ranking, Lorne Silver, bencher Paul Schabas and other people and entities who acted in the civil lawsuit that saw Best maliciously convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to prison upon provably fabricated and false evidence.

Paul Schabas

Today, Paul Schabas is law society’s highest elected official, the Treasurer. Schabas and his Blakes law firm appeared extensively before Justice Shaughnessy on the Best legal cases and acted in concert with lawyers Ranking and Silver during many motions and submissions against Best and his company.

As a senior bencher, Peter C. Wardle is an elite on the inside of the law society. He regularly acts for the law society’s LawPRO lawyer insurance arm and probably did so during Donald Best’s civil lawsuit against Ranking, Silver and Schabas. He serves on internal committees and often works directly with Treasurer Paul Schabas.

Wardle undoubtedly gained privileged, insider information about the case and about Justice Shaughnessy’s actions during the case, from his clients Ranking, Silver and Schabas. Wardle also likely gained similar insider information about the case that he obtained formally or informally as a direct result of his position as senior bencher and/or his relationship working with LawPRO.

Many persons find this arrangement and the relationship between the Law Society of Upper Canada, LSUC senior management, LawPRO insurance, Bay Street law firms and Justice Shaughnessy, to be all too cozy.

Who is looking after the public trust and the broader interests of lawyers in Ontario in this Judicial Review of the Canadian Judicial Council? With these potential and real conflicts of interest, both ordinary citizens and lawyers I’ve spoken with have little confidence that the Law Society of Upper Canada is doing anything other than circling the wagons to protect a judge facing strong – even irrefutable – evidence of serious misconduct.

The question is asked by many:

Are the law society’s actions in this judicial review being driven by the broad public and professional interests… or, are the law society’s actions more closely aligned with the personal agendas of the involved LSUC senior leadership and Bay Street law firms?

Big Law Firm lawyers Gerald Ranking (left), Lorne Silver & Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy

Lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver are witnesses to Justice Shaughnessy’s serious misconduct

Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver are connected to Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct through a series of civil court actions involving Donald Best, and due to their presence with Justice Shaughnessy on May 3, 2013 during at least some parts of the judicial misconduct.

The lawyers were also involved in a previous incident during the same civil case where Justice Shaughnessy backdated a court order for them on November 12, 2009 – backdated ten days to November 2, 2009.****

Here is a basic summary of what lawyers Ranking and Silver witnessed and may have witnessed during Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct on May 3, 2013:

  • On May 3, 2013, both Ranking and Silver were present in court and witnessed Justice Shaughnessy declare (on the transcript) that he would not set aside his January 15, 2010 conviction of self-represented litigant Donald Best for contempt of court. Justice Shaughnessy ordered that the stay on his original January 15, 2010 warrant for the arrest and imprisonment of Donald Best would now be lifted, and that Best would be taken to prison to serve his 3 month sentence according to Justice Shaughnessy’s January 15, 2010 warrant of committal and court order.
  • Ranking and Silver also witnessed Justice Shaughnessy order that Best was not to have input into any court order to be made on that day May 3rd 2013 and that Ranking and Silver would prepare an order for Justice Shaughnessy.
  • Ranking and Silver also witnessed the judge order that Donald Best was never again to be brought before him, and that some other judge must deal with Best in the future.
  • Ranking and Silver witnessed that court ended, the judge left and then the court staff packed up and left. Court Police allowed Donald Best 10 minutes to pack up, after which he was taken in handcuffs to the basement cells and then to prison.
  • After court had finished on May 3, 2013 and Donald Best had been taken away to serve his three-month sentence, Justice Shaughnessy went to a backroom and secretly signed a new and secret warrant of committal that increased the Best’s prison time by a month. Justice Shaughnessy did this off the court record, out of court, without telling the self-represented prisoner and without placing the new warrant of committal or any mention of it or the increased sentence into the court record. This was all contrary to the sentence and order the judge himself delivered earlier in court on the record.
  • The judge gave the only copy of the new warrant to prison authorities after ordering that Best was not to have knowledge of the creation of the court order.
  • As secretly planned and arranged by Justice Shaughnessy, Best only discovered the increased sentence when informed by authorities at the prison.

The above shows that lawyers Ranking and Silver are, at the very least, important witnesses to parts of Justice Shaughnessy’s misconduct on May 3, 2013 – raising questions about conflicts of interest now that Peter C. Wardle is representing Justice Shaughnessy.

Complicating the conflicts of interest even further, lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver may not be just witnesses. Court transcripts indicate it is also possible that these lawyers assisted Justice Shaughnessy in carrying out his judicial misconduct.

Details on the Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver story are coming next week.

New Series: Abandoning Public Trust: Conflicts of Interest by Ontario’s legal profession

The series…

Part 1: Justice Bryan Shaughnessy chooses conflicted lawyer as personal counsel in Judicial Review.

Part 2: Ontario’s Bay Street Cabal and law society circle the wagons to protect judge; Ignoring conflicts of interest and the public trust.

Part 3: Did Lawyers Ranking and Silver know of Justice Shaughnessy’s intentions and actions? Did they assist in his judicial misconduct?

Part 4: Should conflicted lawyer Peter C. Wardle resign from representing Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy?

Part 5: Abandoning the Public Interest. When Canada’s legal profession circles the wagons to save club members, who looks after the interests of Canadians?

Part 6: Previous incident – How Justice Shaughnessy backdated a court order for lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver.

… Additional articles in this series will be added later.

Notes

*  Justice Bryan Shaughnessy chooses conflicted lawyer as personal counsel in Judicial Review.

**  Federal Court refuses to release judge from Judicial Review of Misconduct Complaint

*** Best secretly and legally recorded phone call with lying lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver

**** Details and court exhibits coming in Part 6 – Previous incident – How Justice Shaughnessy backdated a court order for lawyers Gerald Ranking and Lorne Silver.

 

1 2 3 5