In correspondence sent to Council, the complainant alleged that the judges, the law professionals and the authorities working on a family matters trial were conniving together and trying to sway the outcome of the case through fraudulent actions.webid-20150000
In correspondence sent to Council, the complainant alleged that the judges, the law professionals and the authorities working on a family matters trial were conniving together and trying to sway the outcome of the case through fraudulent actions. The complainant requested a postponement of the trial, which was refused because, in the opinion of the complainant, the judge lied, did not consider important facts concerning disclosure, and did not accept an affidavit that was filed. The complainant suggested that the judge’s behaviour was untrustworthy and dangerous for his child and that the judges and lawyers were working for, and being bribed by, whoever was working behind the scenes to sabotage his case.
The complainant was advised by the Council that if a person alleges bias and impartiality, they must be in a position to demonstrate the real or apparent lack of impartiality of the judge. This requires credible evidence and cannot rest on a mere allegation or personal opinions.
The complainant explained that he felt that going to court would only benefit people with money and terrorists, although he was not able to prove this with court records because he claimed a fraud had been committed by the legal professionals involved in the case.
The Council expressed to the complainant that in family matters where conflicts are prevalent, judicial decision-making is often made difficult by contradictory evidence, the position of the parties and by the highly emotionally-charged issues before the Court. It was apparent that the complainant disagreed strongly with the conclusions of fact and law, and with the assessment of evidence by the judges. The lack of evidence and the disagreement with the outcome did not raise issues of conduct. The matter was closed.Back