Update: Dec. 21, 2013
In her own words: Madam Justice Sanderson Speaks…
A Fabulous Merry Christmas Greeting
for Norval & All Canadians
from Madam Justice Mary Anne Sanderson
In a stunning, and incredibly detailed and thoughtful ruling, Madam Justice Sanderson, totally backed up the landmark ruling of Deputy Judge Paul J Martial in the Hatfield v Child case, and dismissed entirely the Appeal of Jonathan Sommer for Ms. Hatfield. Madam Justice Sanderson supported entirely, the right of Judge Martial to dismiss in their entirety, the expertise, the expert reports, and the testimony of both Sommer’s witnesses, Donald Robinson of Toronto’s Kinsman Robinson Galleries and its outreach worker Ritchie Sinclair.
Having sat through the entire three-and-a-half hour Appeal, and seen the unconvincing arguments put forward by Sommer for his case and his client, I published over a week ago that she would make this ruling.
So Ms. Hatfield has lost almost $60,000 for listening to bad advice she got on a Morrisseau internet dating site run by some malevolent and ignorant cyber terrorist mischief makers.
This makes it four judicial rulings in a row – Mogan 1996, Godfrey 2011, Martial 2013, and Sanderson 2013 – which have soundly rebuffed Donald Robinson’s expertise, expert reports, and credibility of his testimony as to the existence of any Morrisseau fakes that he and his business associate Ritchie Sinclair have promoted.
Much more to come here…
Sinclair’s reference to the “black dry-brush” is where he made numerous allegations to Toronto police causing them to press criminal charges v Joe Otavnik. In that case heard before Judge Lacavera over some two years, His Honour, totally discounted Sinclair’s allegations of Criminal Harassment against Joe Otavnik, and completely “acquitted Otavnik on all counts.”
In judicially circumspect legal language, Judge Lacavera impugned both the Crown, Stefania Fericean, and Sinclair’s lawyer, Zak Muscovitch, for proceeding with the case v Otavnik without previously examining with due diligence the allegations made by Sinclair.
Judge Lacavera also basically said – my interpretation – that Sinclair was lying to police and to him. Which is why he totally dismissed the “two charges” as bogus.
This finding mirrored what happened two years earlier when Judge Godfrey “dismissed” similar allegations Sinclair made against Otavnik. And told him to pay his own costs.
In fact Sinclair was, himself, charged by Toronto Police, in a different matter with multiple acts (some 6) of Criminal Harassment, against 82 year-old Joe McLeod.
In his Hatfield Appeal Lawyer Jonathan Sommer wrongly told Madam Justice Sanderson that Sinclair – his witness – was “acquitted” – his word – of those serious criminal charges, suggesting that McLeod, whom he had already impugned as associated with forgeries, was also a liar.
In fact both allegations were totally base falsehoods. I was in the courtroom where the police criminal harassment case against Sinclair was conducted and Sommer was not. Sinclair was absolutely not “acquitted,” a word which Sommer, who went to law school, ought to know the meaning of.
Or is he just mindlessly used to repeating what Sinclair – whom no judge has yet believed – told him to say?
In fact I have seen Sommer taking legal directions, from Sinclair, multiple times, in both the Martial and the Sanderson courtrooms.
One such loud Sinclair interruption of the proceedings occurred in the Sanderson court, when Sinclair loudly snorted his objection to something Sommer had told Judge Sanderson. In response to Sinclair’s outburst, Sommer quickly spun around to face Sinclair, wide-eyed and questioning. He handed back a paper with a question to Sinclair and Hatfield, who were both sitting immediately adjacent to my seat in the public gallery. Sinclair directed Hatfield what to write and Sinclair handed the paper with his comments back to Sommer. Sommer, read it, then stood up and told Madam Justice Sanderson he had misspoken and wanted to correct himself.
Though a number of lawyers on the Morrisseau file have played fast and loose with the truth, all the judges I have seen have been unanimously free from being bamboozled about the scam – as Brian Shiller called it before Justice Sanderson – to victimize gullible proxies into spending thousands on lawyers to promote a HOAX.