Ontario’s Law Society normalizing convicted pedophiles as lawyers
A Law Society Tribunal has once again approved a convicted and jailed pedophile to practice law in Ontario. Not only that, the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) supported the pedophile’s application during the tribunal hearing, agreeing that he meets the ‘good character’ standard for licensing. (Tribunal’s decision is here 425kb pdf)
With this latest in a series of similar approvals, it is apparent that the licensing of pedophiles and other convicted criminals as lawyers is, effectively, LSUC policy. Has the law society turned down any pedophile yet? I haven’t been able to find such a case in the archives.
Lawyer had child-sex videos showing 5-year-olds
Pedophile lawyer Ronald Davidovic
This time the pedophile applicant was Canadian-born Ronald Ori Davidovic – who was a Florida lawyer in 2004 when he was arrested and convicted for possessing and viewing thousands of child-sex videos and photos where the victims were as young as five years old.
That’s right – Davidovic is excited by five-year-old children. For years while he was a Florida lawyer, he collected child sex videos showing pre-pubescent children being abused in sexual acts.
Sentenced to five years in prison, and released after three, Davidovic is permanently registered as a sex offender the United States, but now wants to practice law in Ontario.
The Law Society of Upper Canada just declared convicted pedophile Ronald Davidovic to be ‘of good character’ and gave him the approval and support he needs to be licensed – this despite a medical diagnosis that his risk of re-offending is as high as 8.4%. The phrase ‘compulsive magnetic attraction to child pornography’ appears in Davidovic’s medical record.
Pedophile lawyer John David Coon
Will the law society pay damages when a known compulsive pedophile attacks a child while serving in his capacity as a lawyer? It happened before when the law society licensed known pedophile John David Coon, who again attacked a child while performing his duties as a lawyer.
Not having learned its lesson, the Law Society continues to license other pedophile lawyers (see Martin Schultz) with little regard for the public safety or the reputation of the legal profession.
This time, Chair Raj Anand and member Jan Richardson crafted the tribunal’s decision. LSUC prosecutor Amanda Worley also supported the applicant Davidovic.
The one dissenting voice against the pro-pedophile lobby was Tribunal member and criminal defense lawyer Paul M. Cooper.
The backgrounds of the individual tribunal members make for an interesting study.
Tribunal Chair Raj Anand’s work centers around the human rights of minorities as well as youths, the mentally ill, drug addicts and other persons living on the edges of society. Jan Richardson has made a career of working with the homeless.
Could it be that Anand’s and Richardson’s natural inclination to view people as victims has clouded their judgment and caused them to ignore their duty to protect the public and the reputation of Ontario lawyers?
Odd man out Paul M. Cooper is a criminal lawyer who, like all criminal lawyers, probably has a healthy dose of reality when it comes to sorting the wolves from the sheep.
Mr. Cooper’s dissenting position is supported by law and common sense, but he was outnumbered by those who put children and families at risk to promote their social agendas and personal beliefs that everyone is good at heart and can be redeemed.
Law Society Tribunal members who approved licensing of pedophile Martin Schultz: (L-R) Sabita Maraj, Susan T. McGrath (chair), Frederika ‘Freddy’ M. Rotter.
There’s nothing new here, really. As the Toronto Star’s ‘Broken Trust’ series revealed, the Law Society of Upper Canada has covered up and whitewashed hundreds of cases where lawyers committed criminal acts against their clients.
The law society’s ‘good character’ licensing standard includes thieves, pedophiles and fraudsters. That is the way it is because the legal profession in Ontario lacks independent civilian oversight, transparency or outside accountability – and continues to ignore the profession’s duty to the public trust.
It is time to bring Ontario’s legal profession into compliance with modern standards of independent oversight and external accountability.
Written and published by Donald Best in Ontario, Canada
The House of Commons needs to form a Commons Committee to review the Criminal Code and the application of the judicial system as it applies to victims. Professional organizations do not protect victims. Criminals have millions of dollars of benefits, victims have nothing compared to criminals. The committee should review concerns expressed by victims and concerned citizens. The Committee needs to be on going and report to the House of Commons regularly to recommend legal changes or additional legislation to protect victims. The Federal Government has a moral obligation to protect victims.
Please copy the above and send it to your Member of Parliament.
Until the public unites as one voice, in numbers, the government will not listen. Who will lead such a public initiative?
We each have to be a leader, and do what’s right day by day, hour by hour in one’s own life – we can never recognize a powerful leader without doing that first! putting the cart before the horse is pointless. But, many millions have reached that point, and it’s happening – and that leader happens to be President Trump
: ) What we’re told about leadership by the Fake News and Hollyweird is malarky, to send us on wild goose chases and down rabbit holes & dead ends : ) (& no, I am not a “paid troll,” or any such thing – this explains why they hate him, slander & attack him non-stop )
The reason that decades of legal and judicial abuse have gone unchecked has been because we insist on a ‘commercial’ system of justice, where there is no ‘humanity’ or ‘equity’, only fictitious legal entities who swear allegiance to the corporation called the Crown (owned by the Vatican City), writing fictitious laws that no human being can survive.
In the commercial/admiralty system, ALL regulations and laws are designed to create commercial opportunities…revenue for corporations.
What is needed and what we were guaranteed in 1976 with the signing of the International Covenants (ICCPR) and (ICESCR), which the SCC has said are binding on Canada, was a common law court which would evolve going forward from 1976, to prioritize the individual human being. We were entitled to common-law courts manned by the People.
But we were told that only those studied in ‘law’ could provide justice, when the fact is that the lower courts rarely follow precedent, most ignore binding Supreme Court of Canada decisions, almost all ignore witness tampering by lawyers and frauds on the court, and in fact, simply and unabashedly re-construct legislation on the spot that they don’t agree with or that is ‘against’ the government.
Yet, after 1976, we were guaranteed courts that would stand between the government atrocities and the individual to protect the individual. What we have is a court system that perpetrates fraud and abuse on the People to advance corporate government objectives.
What is needed is a whole new system of governance…a government that swears allegiance to the People and not HerMajesty/Crown. Iceland got free, so can we, but we are stuck in a mindset where we can ‘fix’ a system that works beautifully for the Crown Corporation and the Provincial Corporation and the Municipal Corporations….
Why wouldn’t the Law Society of Upper Canada want pedophiles as lawyers? They give law licenses to every other type of criminal and coverup when one of their club gets sticky fingers in the trust funds or gets caught lying to clients or the court. Why shouldn’t Ontario’s legal profession include kiddy diddlers too? The law society crossed a whole lot of lines a long time ago and there is no turning back.
So as well as all my normal worrying about my divorce I have to worry about whether my lawyer is kiddy diddler? How can you check if your lawyer has been to jail?
Your comment is so true–they cover up for criminals thus putting our public safety at risk. Take for example the Muzzos (billionaire family) are related to the Rizzuttos (crime family of Montreal) by marriage who are then related by marriage to the Papalias (hamilton crime family) who are then related in marriage to the Musitanos(crime family in toronto and hamilton) and then when we google http://www.unchartered.ca and read up on that website and all its dealings with respect to FSCO and then the Ontario Securities commission and the slap on wrists they give to huge fraudsters with links to the Ontario Government then we read all this stuff about this law firm involved it gives each individual reader the chance to ask important questions—so google all the links given on this website and judge for yourself what type of cover ups there are and who protects who. Then as one poster states ask revenue canada why they are not concerned with a phony company that could include money laundering and a link to the law firm involved in this website and a link to the Ontario Government. Unless they do they cant be trusted either.
There is a lying lawyer in the law firm listed at unchartered.ca . They got rid of an important fax that the bugs in.the union hall would have recorded that she received and confirmed by the rep as receiving. lBoth the lawyer and rep caught lying at the lawyers office in front of the union president. No fax in the file and they pretended it was never received . They lied about a second meeting being held a lie confirned by an.email sent by the rep then forwarded to the lying lawyer. Caught in a web of deceit. What measures did they take along with IO washington and IO first district mississauga to cover up.their llies?? Do the police know ?
Why wouldn’t the Law Society of Upper Canada want pedophiles as lawyers?
I can think of dozens of reasons, and I can think of dozens of reasons why the law society shouldn’t want to license thieves either. Why are we forced to have this conversation anyway? For what is wrong with the law society and lawyers today the example can’t get any clearer.
While were on the subject of asking questions Mr. Best you were charged with contempt of court and served time in jail thereby causing you to never be able to work in law enforcement again and we know that contempt of court is an important court matter but when it comes to children and child pornography and sexual assault of children that is far more serious then the contempt of court (phony contempt of court in this case)but these lawyers are able to return to their fields for much serious charges.
Does anyone see a problem here? In fact I think this whole website is loaded with problems for the judicial counsel of Canada, the OMAG, the law society of canada and ontario, the canadian government and especially these lawyers who began the incredible journey of obviously fabricating evidence and having an innocent man thrown in jail further compounded by a incompetent and then corrupt judge.
If you notice this pedophile lawyer attended a tribunal to be reinstated to practice law. Did this pedophile lawyer pay the tribunal to hear his case. If he failed would he have had to pay costs to the tribunal. Nope . Therefore why has Donald Best been directed by the federal court to pay the OMAG when the OMAG is responsible for ensuring the rights of Canadians and especially here in Ontario are upheld by a fair and impartial judge and when a complaint is filed it is the OMAG responsibility to cover the costs and then reward the complainant if there is just cause to do so.
The problem we have here is the OMAG sidestepped their duty and they breached public trust and they shattered the charter of rights of Donald Best and then in turn all Ontario citizens and the lame excuses used in Court to try and sweep the charter under the carpet and then used by the federal court judge to deny Donald his rights when in fact the judge should have forced the OMAG to do the job they are paid to provide to Ontario citizens this has in fact opened up a huge legal argument as other posters have stated and one for which does in fact scream cover up and a biased judge not skilled in the charter of rights field who has made such a blunder in ruling Donald Best to pay a government entity that screwed up so royally that it borders on gross negligence in the courts .
Donald Best lets us know that law firms are reading and no doubt human rights organizations so perhaps they can give their imput. The whole process that Donald Best has had to embark on to prove wrongful convictiin is astounding.
Would Donald have had to pay the CJC for investigating the complaint. NOPE . So when the CJC refused to do their job then what recourse is there for the citizen. That’s the charter of rights violation by an incompetent branch of government giving to much power to one individual then a further charter of rights violations by a judge not telling the OMAG to pack their bags and get lost and go and defend the rights of the citizen namely Mr. BEST .
This justice system is screwed up plagued with corruption and cover up.
Women are usually the ones who believe everyone can be saved. The song ‘The Snake’ comes to mind.
Al Wilson, The Snake
Lyrics:
On her way to work one mornin’,
Down a path alongside the lake,
A tender-hearted woman,
Saw a poor half-frozen snake.
His pretty colored skin
Had been all frosted with the dew,
“Poor thing,” she cried, “I’ll take you in,”
“And I’ll take care of you.”
“Take me in, tender woman,
Take me in, for heaven’s sake,
Take me in, tender woman,”
Sighed the snake.
She wrapped him up all cozy,
In a comforter of silk.
And laid him by the fireside
With some honey and some milk.
Well she hurried home from work that night
And soon as she arrived,
She found that pretty snake
She’d taken in had been revived.
“Take me in, tender woman,
Take me in, for heaven’s sake,
Take me in, tender woman,”
Sighed the snake.
Now, she clutched him to her bosom,
“You’re so beautiful,” she cried.
“But if I hadn’t brought you in,
By now you might have died.”
Now she stroked his pretty skin again,
And then kissed and held him tight.
Instead of saying, “Thanks,”
That snake gave her a vicious bite.
“Take me in, tender woman,
Take me in, for heaven’s sake,
Take me in, tender woman,”
Sighed the snake.
“But, I saved you,” cried that woman,
“And you’ve bitten me, but why?
You know your bite is poisonous,
And now I’m gonna die.”
“Aw, shut up, silly woman,”
Said that reptile, with a grin.
“You knew damn well I was a snake,
Before you brought me in.”
“Please, take me in, oh, tender woman,
Take me in, for heaven’s sake,
Take me in, tender woman,”
Sighed the snake.
What is with the Law Society of Upper Canada that they can’t see how this plays on main street? Suppose the police, nurses, doctors or other respected professions allowed convicted pedophiles? The next time we hear the lawyers criticizing the police or any profession for their hiring standards, we should give it right back double. It’s bad enough that they let trust fund thieves stay in the legal profession but this is madness if lawyers want respect from Canadians.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. What can the public do about this Donald?
Hi Judy,
That is a great question – and I think I might finally have an answer.
All of us who have been abused by the legal profession tell our stories individually – and there are thousands of similar stories online. It is good that we proclaim the truth about the disturbing amount of misconduct within the legal profession by both lawyers and former lawyers now called ‘judges’. It is also good when we expose the coverups by law societies and the courts as the profession protects its members even at the expense of the credibility of the justice system.
It is good that we shame the legal profession for its arrogance and abandonment of the rule of law and the public trust.
But where does that get us, apart from raising awareness with the public about the extent of the corruption?
As well as exposing the reality of the legal profession, we need to communicate what will stop the abuse. We need to clearly state what changes Canadians desire. And, we must change our ‘desires’ or ‘wishes’ for the legal community to demands for change.
Canadians should demand that the laws be changed so the legal profession complies with modern standards of independent oversight and external accountability.
It is no longer acceptable to have this powerful profession that exerts influence and authority into every area of Canadian life – overseeing itself without transparency, independent civilian oversight and external accountability to Canadians at large.
We don’t allow the police to operate without external oversight and accountability, and neither should the legal profession that is far more powerful and far more subject to abuse of authority than any police officer or policing organization.
Canadians must DEMAND laws that will force upon the legal profession real transparency, independent civilian oversight and external accountability to Canadians at large. Self-regulation of lawyers must end.
Donald
Will be published on my blog as well with your permission
Hi Arif,
You may re-publish any of my work as long as the words are exactly as they are on my website. Also please give credit and a link back here.
Thanks!
Donald