Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s Judge Julie “For Oral Reasons Given” Audet (“Audet”)
Errors, Omissions and Obfuscation Analysis
of her “Legal Decision” prepared to facilitate Fraud & multiple torts against a devoted mum and her two children
- Most of Audet’s crimes occurred in Family Court; essentially, it was court-enabled fraud
- Describe and link to attempted fraud via Ontario’s Financial Responsibility Office implicating SCJ Judge Pamela MacEachern, Bell Baker LLPs Cheryl Hess and ex John Kiska
Note that after the fraud was executed, the #TDVCA football was tossed to career-criminal Judge Tracy Engelking who executed the court-enabled parental alienation.
Audet’s Decision: —– not available on canlii.org to my knowledge >> (link to article for Twitter: “See the Problem? Canada’s Divorce Act is Currently Useless”
Transcript of the yymmdd hearing: —–
List of citations used by Audet to support her decision: ?zero? (to be verified)
PAGE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUTION: 20220928
Audet’s Three Scandalous Decisions || Link back to Julie Audet Main Page
Decision #1: released the day of the hearing (2018mmdd): the skank’s actual decision is here.
|Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z)||ERRORS|
|001_01 For oral reasons given [by career criminal Wade Smith of Bell Baker LLP (now retired)], the following order shall issue:
||Skip to end of page to see the written testimony submitted.
|002_01 The parties shall share the children’s S. 7 expenses 60% from the father and 40% from the mother.||002_01 This is how the FRO Scam gets started. I have described it here. (In a nutshell, by registering an illegally-obtained, financially-abusive court order with the FRO, Kiska would have been able to convert me into a revenue stream … even though I had zero income due to, among other things, widespread defamation that I was severely mentally ill and false allegations of criminal harassment that led to my imprisonment, curfew, restrictions, etc. until all (but one) of the 14 bogus charges were eventually dropped by crooked Crown prosecutor Mike Boyce.|
|003_01 The mother is given leave to bring a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home but only after the OCL has made its recommendations known.||003_01 LOL. The OCL recommendations were that I should get sole custody! The John Kiska arranged for career-criminal Mohammed Said and multiple OPS officers to illegal abduct my children. (insert evidence & link to court-enabled TDVCA) #TDVCA|
|004_01 On a with prejudice basis, the mother’s claim for temporary spousal support is denied.||004_01 And this would be evidence of Fraud against Audet.|
|005_01 On the issue of costs, and in light of the father’s Offer to Settle which was more beneficial to the mother than the result achieved in this motion, I find that the father is entitled to $2,000 in costs.
005_02 The outcome, however, might very well be different when the nature/tax treatment of the dividends is known.
005_03 Therefore, I will give the parties, or either one of them, 30 days within which to submit to me, if they wish, further written submissions not exceeding 2 pages, in addition to brief affidavits providing me with the additional evidence confirming the nature/tax treatment of the dividends, and I will then make a final decision on the issue of temporary support.
005_04 My decision re costs may vary depending on that.
005_05 If no additional submissions are provided to me within 30 days, my cost award will stand and it shall be repaid by the mother at the rate of $200/month.
|005_01 TO BE CONTINUED (20220928 16:33 e.s.t.)|
Summary Omissions from Audet’s First Decision