This just in: Angel Ronan won the Adlo Malhfotra matter on points of law. Mr. Adlo, following the Angel Ronan motion was removed as a litigant on the grounds that the claim itself filed by Ms. Malhfotra amounts to an admission and confession of wrong doing in the case of the claimant and as such, Mr. Adlo cannot be held liable for any Tortious wrong doing in a Civil Court. See Lake v Commercial Union Assurance Co of Canada which is what we rely on in addition to Rule 25 as she made the admission within her claim as follows; that she caused a car accident by crossing the road illegally and not at a safe, functioning cross walk location while there was a functioning operational intersection only 30 metres away in Neasden, North London. As noted in the following case of O'Brien v. Mailhot, 1965 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1966] SCR 171, the Defendant successfully rebutted any presumption that he was at fault. The question in such cases was whether the driver fell short of the standard of care that would be expected of a reasonable man under the circumstances. A driver might escape liability if he could establish that he had conformed with that standard. The defendant has successfully rebutted any presumption that he was at fault. This is confirmed also by the admission of the plaintiff. She was reckless and careless, causing the accident. She is 100% negligent entirely pursuant to O'Brien v. Mailhot, 1965 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1966] SCR 171. If this motion was not to have been brought, it is only due to the fact that the client did not pay the small sum required and may have jeopardised his own credibility by taking monies from opposing counsel which was a breach of law society rules and also he took monies from Jen Pernitiousega. Click here.

13/07/23

   

This just in: Angel Ronan won the Adlo Malhfotra matter on Points of law.  Mr. Adlo, following the J  Angel Ronan motion was removed as a litigant on the grounds that the claim itself filed by Ms. Malhfotra amounts to an admission and confession of wrong doing in the case of the claimant and as such, Mr. Adlo cannot be held liable for any Tortious wrong doing in a Civil Court.  See Lake v Commercial Union Assurance Co of Canada which is what we rely on in addition to Rule 25 as she made the admission within her claim as follows;  that she caused a car accident by crossing the road illegally and not at a safe, functioning cross walk location while there was a functioning operational intersection only 30 metres away where the accident occurred in Streatham Hill.  

   As noted in the following case of  O'Brien v. Mailhot, 1965 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1966] SCR 171, the Defendant successfully rebutted any presumption  that he was at fault.  The question in such cases was whether the driver fell short of the standard of care that would be expected of a reasonable man under the circumstances. A driver might escape liability if he could establish that he had conformed with that standard. The defendant has successfully rebutted any presumption that he was at fault.  

This is confirmed also by the admission of the plaintiff.  She was reckless and careless, causing the accident. She  is 100% negligent entirely pursuant to  O'Brien v. Mailhot, 1965 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1966] SCR 171.   

If this motion was not  to have been brought, it is only due to the fact that the client did not pay the small sum required and may have jeopardised his own credibility by taking monies from opposing counsel which was a breach of law society rules and also he took monies from Jen Pernitiousega who was a law society  staffer and unfortunately  in the wrong line of work. An airline  reservation agent might have  been a better bet although her failings in a Law Society position with her untrustworthy behaviour where you would have to be bondable in the usual case and forthright  says she might have over charged you for your luggage; just for a few dollars more. 

 This demonstrates that the Law Society staffers broke all the rules in contempt of Court, intentionally and willfully filed and swore false affidavits, they broke the Criminal Law and also the rules of the Law Society; like wild hyenas and Warren is entitled to full compensation  not only as a victim of crime but for the deceitful law society proceedings that involved an attempt to kill him in his home and then also steal the home;  in this animal like  pernicious behaviour;  this ill will, deliberate malicious intent and criminal enterprise in addition to a conspiracy to commit an indictable offence.   

We just have to ask why this is happening.  You could say there two kinds of counsel; some that are fully qualified and trained and those who are not. We should accept the difference and serve the Court and its jurisprudence. But, if there is some kind of persistent rangling or tension going on that sees the fully qualified types suffering harassment, then the motive is hatred/ harassment and harassment/competition.  

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1954/1954canlii42/1954canlii42.html

A conspiracy requires an actual intention in both parties at the moment of exchanging the words of agreement to participate in the act proposed.  The Cell phone data of Jen and her colleagues confirm the conspiracy.   They were prosecuted accordingly.  All of Mr. Lyon's fees will be rebated also. All of the fees paid as insurance also. At least his full licence to practice with that society remains unaffected.  

Though dealt with in several sections of the Criminal Code, the result is that conspiracy to commit any indictable offence is itself an indictable offence. Nowhere, however, does the Code define a conspiracy. The definition, therefore, must be found in the common law. Since 1868 the accepted definition has been that of Mr. Justice Willes in delivering the opinion of the judges in Mulcahy v. The Queen[11]:

A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means.

Agreeing to mutually drive  a vehicle, taking turns over 10 hours is lawful.  But, driving the vehicle to aid escaping from a burglary is unlawful.    It would be illegal to run for office; a lawful act, while pretending you are not breaking the law in the process as a someone prohibited from running for office; as a person receiving funds from the US Treasury or as a Federal employee. Maybe you do not have rights as a citizen to run for office.  

It would be a criminal enterprise and a conspiracy as committing an offence in the case of every one who assists you in your pursuit and that might be the news castor who had knowledge that you are breaking the law as you continue to campaign and also occupy the office.   

Mr. Lyon, under the rules, is still managing MVA cases.  He is happy to help you with a no fee opinion on your file that provides you confidence.    A donation is requested.  The minimum suggested donation is $1200.00.  You can donate less and you can take the opinion with you.