Truth is in a man's actions, not in someone else's blind accusations.

Click for the video
August 13 2022

Family Law Settlement Conference brief July 19 2012
Vincent audience: Public
Family Law Ontario Canada Settlement Conference Brief Settlement Conference Brief ...
Never take children to a place where CAS aka FACS SCAS LCAS CPS etc workers are present
a helping hand audience: Public
Most families attacked by Children's Aid can not spend the over fifty thousand dollars ...
Phone conversation with a terrified mother March 21 2015 Algoma Children's Aid
Alyssa Mcgenerty audience: Authenticated Login and access Phone conversation with a terrified mother March 21 2015 Algoma Children's Aid
Another sad message I received. Children's Aid took her kid. This young mother had...
Fathers have Rights movement to help other fathers that is going throw a krupt family court system
audience: Public
Re: I made the page called Fathers have Rights movement thank you Jared Say for your wo...
Father Rights Canada / title to be edited
audience: Authenticated Login and access Father Rights Canada / title to be edited
looking for comments regarding the service- Law On Demand. I am looking for legal advice f...

Authors & content contributions
Member Login
Page Grid

FOLLOW Brainsyntax VIA EMAIL Enter your email address and receive notifications of selective new pages by email.

Join 12050 other brainsyntax email notification followers

Searching for my children

Fathers in distress if you ever need to talk, or just vent, please message us Contact: Fathers Rights Canada
Deadly Epidemic Against Dads


To my children & To those that may be concerned ...
Advocacy Canada
I will make sure I point a gun to my self and she won't receive a penny
Luis Frazao
audience: Public

I am making a statement if my ex wife brings me to court for more child support I will ...
Re: Financial gag unless my son comes up with over $100,000 to bring a motion to the courts
Ken Klock
audience: Public

Appeal on the right to redress a grievance I'm not sure if you guys have the same ...
Father Rights Canada / Froze my bank account
Not disclosed
audience: Public

MEP has too many enforcement powers. Froze my bank account unjustly Contact...
Re: We Judges know that women lie and deceive in family court but we accept that as part of the process

audience: Public

How sad as a female, awareness is important. I did not push for record of abuse in my case...
Re: Dartmouth Halifax Lawyer who accepts Child Protection cases
Jamie Francis Jennifer Reid
audience: Public

Jennifer Reid is very good and not afraid of cas
Alienated from your child I felt your pain and your frustration Contact details
audience: Authenticated Login and access Alienated from your child I felt your pain and your frustration Contact details

This message is in response to a contact request at: 3/1/2016 6:56:56 PM local time. Us...
Police Caught Using Cocaine Prostitutes And Drunk Driving
Terry Wilson Canadian Awareness Network
audience: Authenticated Login and access Police Caught Using Cocaine Prostitutes And Drunk Driving

A report issued by the provincial Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner shows fou...
Re: Natalias Birthday
Jay M Cormier
audience: Public

The system is so screwed up and if you take matters into your own hands your getting just ...
Father Rights Canada / baby mom won't let me see her for no good reason
Not disclosed
audience: Public

I have a court order. All it says is I should revive generous time with my daughter. My...
Kelowna lawyer Charlotte Keis quits case after confronted with malfeasance
Anthony Dewar
audience: Authenticated Login and access Kelowna lawyer Charlotte Keis quits case after confronted with malfeasance

Anyway i had enough and sent an email off to my ex's second lawyer. This laywer hasnt r...

★★★ Join brainsyntax

Log On as Member


Notice of Civil Claim to the Supreme Court by Leanne McIvor Oct 15 2015

Friday, November 13, 2015 - SupremeCourt - Leanne McIvor - Canada

Notice of Civil Claim to the Supreme Court - Plaintiff: Attorney General of British Columbia,, Crown Counsel, Constable Cara Voltz, Minister of Justice Canada, Rachel Lammers, Garrett Wynne, Law Society of British Columbia, Part 1 Statement of Facts, Part 2 Relief Sought, Part 3 Legal Basis

1. l, Leanne Faye Mclvor am the plaintiff. I was married for 18 years and filed for divorce October 2012 from Loren Rodney Mclvor from where this claim begins to arise. There are two children of this marriage _____ who turns 18 ______  and _____ who is 16 years and turns 17 December 18. The children reside with the Plaintiff.

2. I was the primary care giver for the duration as Mr. Mclvor worked away in the oil and gas industry. The marriage was plagued with alcohol abuse by Mr. Mclvor. The



alcohol abuse started to include my teen agers and contributing to minors on days off— binge drinking, which is a social problem stemming from the culture of the oil and gas industry. Involving my children was ‘the last straw’ and it was not officially the end of the marriage but very close to the end, and l gave my ex an ultimatum. This incident of alcohol abuse involving my minor children happened in August 2012.

This divorce has been a highly contentious family file which involved issues of property division, pension division and support both child and spousal and could accurately be labeled high conflict.

November 2012, Mr. Mclvor withdrew $40,000 equity on the joint Royal Bank LOC and capped the amount available. These monies that were withdrawn did not benefit me or my children and was added to the family debt which I assumed.

April 21, 2013 there was an incident of physical violence in front of my children. The physical violence that ensued was an isolated incident as there has been no domestic violence in the 20 year period. Mr. Mclvor injured my arm and there was bruising and I was not able to lift it. It was quite extensive but not enough to go to the doctor. This incident is reported briefly on the police report.

I uttered threats to Mr. Mclvor on his cell phone as he was driving away and they were recorded that if he didn't come back and fulfill his promise to his children that l would "bash his brains out with a baseball bat” and that l would "beat him with a two by four". l was under extreme duress and had highly emotional and mental disturbances at the time of the incident. When you are in despair rationality becomes blurred. I did not have properjudgement or grace.

The separation had turned into 'matrimonial warfare’ after it was discovered that my husband had moved on into a new relationship with a Doctor and my children became the causalities.

April 25, 2013 was the first JCC held in this matter with Master Bishop residing. Both parties had the assistance of counsel — the lawyer that I retained was Garrett Wynne. This money that I obtained to hire a lawyer, I cashed in a spousal RRSP.

By consent, Master Bishop made a mutual protection order against the parties —to stem the physical violence, uttering threats, and harassing emails — most importantly to behave like responsible co-parents and move on to the task at hand at having the properties appraised and resolution. The matter of any violence or escalating abuse was stymied by the protection order and I was very happy and encouraged with the outcome of the JCC, for the benefit of all.

A day later April 26, 2013 I was arrested for uttering threats and criminally charged by Constable Cara Voltz.

Mr. Mclvor as I was told by the arresting officer, left the JCC meeting unbeknownst to me or my lawyer (l thought) and took the taped threats to the police. Const. Voltz at the time of arrest told me "your ex doesn't want you charged or more drama, but brought this by the advice of his lawyer." I was also told by the of?cer that "he didn't believe that I would carry out the threats, that there has never been any





violence or threats of violence and he was not scared for his life". This is not recorded on the police report. This was very important information that my children received - then they could not blame their father for any betrayal or ill will to their mother and they hung on to every one ofthose words.

None of this circumstantial evidence was mentioned in the disclosures — no extenuating circumstances were mentioned only the taped cell phone message and no mention anywhere of a signed protection order the day before, both in the police report and the Crown disclosure.

I was arrested with no warning— no warning to me or to my lawyer that l would be arrested in my home at 10 pm on a Friday evening in bed in my pajamas in front of my children, with excess force — handcuf?ng me behind my back at the tightest setting so that indents and bruises were left was not necessary in the given situation.

The police report mentions that l was told "if l cooperated they would not have to hand cuff me". I was handcuffed and there was no indication that l was not cooperating or wouldn't cooperate. l kept pleading to her "to loosen them.” This omission is proof that Constable Voltz felt that handcuffing me was unnecessary and excessive, purged herself on the police report and went ahead anyway, or cuff my hands in the front would have caused less trauma.

I was never given the opportunity to properly explain and defend myself- that l had uttered the threats and now we have the protection order at the JCC and it was instigated from my ex physically assaulting me in front of my children. The assault is briefly mentioned in the police report but not in Crown disclosure.

l was completely blindsided that this could happen immediately after signing a mutual protection order and at the time I assumed the same for my lawyer. What was the purpose? It felt like malicious entrapment and malicious prosecution and would be if not for missing one element.

When l tried explaining that we had just signed a protection order for this very incident I was told "it is not enforceable by police".

Ms. Lammers I assume is going to have her lawyer defend herself by saying a lawyer has no ‘duty of care’ to a non-client but she does have a ‘duty of care’ to the courts and to opposing counsel, and to the Law Society of British Columbia - which in turn has a duty to me.

Canadians have the inherent right not to be harmed by the wrongful acts (or torts) of someone else, and if you are harmed by someone's negligence, you can sue the wrong doer in court —that is my premise and the basis for this action the tort of negligence and the tort of wrongful conviction which in turn breached my Charter rights.

Ethical responsibility does not begin and end with a lawyer’s client. As not only courts and professional bodies, but also society at large takes seriously the ethical responsibilities of their professional roles.

While it is clear that lawyers must and should put their client's interest first, this does not mean that they should not or need not take into account the interests of others, especially when there are children involved.

The duty to be a zealous partisan in the pursuit of clients’ interests, not the obliteration of everyone else's. This is the very opposite of an appropriate and honourable ethic for professional lawyers.

Most importantly acting in the best interests of client's should not be an excuse or pretext for acting unethically toward others. Lawyers have duties that go beyond and above the welfare oftheir clients.

In regarding professional duties, lawyers can by no means be said to hold no particular ethical obligation to non-clients.

There is a general requirement that the lawyer's conduct toward all persons with whom the lawyer comes in contact should be characterized by good faith. Professional conduct demands lawyers not to treat non-clients "as if they were barbarians and enemies". This is no longer or ever was an acceptable and ethical way to proceed.

A lawyer must show a general care to and for others, especially when children are involved...every special consideration should be taken into account.

In adversarial proceedings that will likely affect the health, welfare and security of children, a lawyer, should take into account the best interests of the child, if this can be done without prejudicing the legitimate interests ofthe client. Ms. Lammers client was protected legally by a protection order, therefore mitigating any risk of further harm to himself and ensuring his legitimate interests.

Lawyers have a ‘duty of care’ to the administration of Justice. ignoring Master Bishops ruling on a protection order like it was ‘not good enough’ is having no regard to the process. Although it was legal to have me criminally charged it was clearly motivated by malice on the part ofthe client and was brought solely for the purpose of injuring me the other party. A strategic move in upcoming litigation.

A lawyer is the minister ofjustice and an officer of the courts and should always have the utmost integrity - that is a duty.

The injury to me by the lawyer advising her client to have me criminally charged (unless the police officer lied) was not fair, just or reasonable considering the circumstances and reeked of malice and this imposes a duty of care. 

A lawyer shall act with integrity to ensure civil conduct and a lawyer may not be able to act in a way that serves the clients best interest if doing so would put the administration ofjustice and the community's confidence in the profession at risk which in turn caused damaged.

A lawyer has a duty to act with integrity and professionalism while ensuring civil conduct:

a) Avoid sharp practice
b) Having respect for the court


c) Maintaining civility in dealing with others

d) Shall not interfere with the administration oflustice

Ms. Lammers did not give any advance notice to my lawyer at the JCC when we signed a protection order that her client was planning to have me criminally charged — an egregious breach ofthe principles of civility to my lawyer, if in fact he knew nothing of the plan.

A lawyer must take all reasonable measures to avoid the risk of causing psychological harm to any person that she has a reason to know may suffer as a result of the lawyer's advice.

There is evidence of ethics violation and is admissible in a personal injury claim. The rules of ethics are designed to establish a minimum level of competence. Consequently, when a lawyer's conduct does not conform to the rules, the lawyer is negligent.

The majority rule today is attorneys in certain circumstances do owe a duty to non- clients where malice is present or misrepresentation to the courts.

An attorney may be liable to a non-client when it is reasonably foreseeable that negligent advice on behalf of the client could cause harm to others —one could clearly see that a criminal conviction could cause harm to the plaintiff and in turn her children, especially when there was no risk to her client, solved by a protection order that was in fact enforceable by police. The only point was to cause harm.

An attorney's undertaking of a duty to the third party must be the result of a conscious decision.

An attorney can be liable to a third party and these circumstances arise when the attorney has committed a malicious or tortious act, including misrepresentation to the courts and perjury.

Like all professionals, lawyers and police owe a series of duties to the public at large, to individuals with whom they have contact, and to peer professional communities and colleagues. These are the legal and moral responsibilities.

As a general rule, lawyers can owe a duty to a third party (even if that party is represented) and the courts have been prepared to go as far as imposing a fiduciary duty on lawyers to non-clients when in a situation will be at risk of causing personal injury vulnerable to non-clients by offering advise that could causeldamage.

Another general requirement is that the lawyer's conduct towards all persons with whom the lawyer comes into contact in practice should be characterized by courtesy and good faith. Ms. Lammers shook my hand and my lawyers hand after the JCC.

Abusive tactics interfere with the orderly administration of justice and have no place in our legal system, to gain a planned and unfair advantage.

A lawyer shall avoid sharp practice and shall not take advantage or act without fair warning. What is the purpose of wanting to ‘blindside’ some unsuspecting person, unless you intended to do additional harm and damage, otherwise my lawyer would and should have been forewarned.


A lawyer’s dluty to the court is to use tactics that are legal, honest and respectful. Do not employ strategies that will mislead the court this includes misleading the court on evidentiary and legal points.

A lawyer's duty to act with integrity and professionalism while avoiding sharp practice. This disregard to notice and lack of proper notice was malicious and breached principles of civility. Acts of incivility to me and my lawyer. Rachel Lammers owed a duty to my council to be civil and to act with advance warning and not take advantage of slips, (unless intentional) and in turn my counsel had a duty to protect me.

Lawyers have the duty to be honest and truthful with opposing counsel and if not are liable to third party injury.

The essence of professional responsibility is that the lawyer must act at all times uberrimae fidei, with utmost good faith to the court, to the client, to other lawyers, and to members of the public.

The greatness and strength of the legal profession depend on high standards of professional conduct that permit no compromise.

lt is improper for a lawyer to advise, threaten or bring a criminal, proceeding in order to secure some civil advantage for the client. A plan to ‘cast me a bad person’ in all forthcoming proceedings. Premeditated — "one doesn't have to operate with great malice to do great harm. The absence of empathy and understanding are sufficient”.

In performing legal services, an attorney must exercise the care, skill, and diligence that are commonly exercised by other attorneys in similar conditions and circumstances. However, if a reasonably prudent attorney with the skill and competence level necessary to provide the same legal advice would not make the decision made by the attorney or the attorney's client, there may have been a breach of duty when it was intended to cause harm and used for an unethical ulterior motive.

Would another lawyer with ethics and integrity in accordance to their ‘oath’s do the same thing — advise to have the opposing party criminally charged after you signed a protection order, when they are the ones with the ‘duty of care’ to the children? Or would they advise their disgruntled client that a protection order that was enforceable by police be sufficient and better in the long run for all concerned? Unless the public is at risk, do you not think that the children would suffer when their mother is arrested, handcuffed and lead away to be criminally charged —twice?

This advice proved to be not in the best interest of society. Huge resources were used by all areas of government. This advice caused an avalanche of breaches. High conflict divorces consume a disproportionate amount of resources best served elsewhere and there is no more evidence ofthis happening then this case file and all for billable hours.


The police office came to arrest me at my home in front of my children. Constable Voltz knew a protection order had been signed after the incident in question but she thought (wrongly) that it was not police enforced and in fact it was, as she stated to me. This protection order was not "good enough" and wanton damage ensued.

We shook hands at the JCC in good faith and next I know I was thrown under the bus — where was my lawyer to help me — to protect my rights — to be my advocate — to be loyal? He was nowhere and he never addressed it (my criminal charge) or discussed it with me. He was embarrassed and ashamed of me. Did my lawyer and Ms. Lammers have this all planned out, a conspiracy of sorts to capitalize on profits and billable hours? Take advantage of estranged clients that legally cannot communicate? This maneuver destroyed any chance of successful co-parenting which is a duty to the children and a loss to my consortium.

It mentions in the police report that Constable Voltz told me "if I co-operated she wouldn't put cuffs on me”. Cuffs were put on me anyway behind my back and tightened to as tight as they could go and had nothing to do with my cooperating because I did at all times. I complained all the way to the police station that they were too tight and to hurry that I could not take how tight they were, they were unbearable, I couldn't wait to get them off. Nothing compares to those hand cuffs when I think back to that time — those handcuff's being so tight was unwarranted.

There was unlawful execution of this police warrant. This arrest appeared unwarranted, unfair, and traumatizing to my children as well as myself, it was overkill in the worst way — it had nothing to do with justice and everything to do
with ‘ego’ and tunnel vision.

Damage serving the warrant of arrest could have been mitigated with some respect and courtesy, albeit empathy and integrity — nobody really believed anyone's life was at risk or in danger — it was all about getting the conviction the power trip ofthe arrest after all there was solid evidence - a cell phone message and a very powerful divorce lawyer. I could have been called to the station.

My particular situation did not call for this amount of force. This was a decision made in bad faith - it was not necessary and I believe it was not considered, to make any decision very prudently when the situation involves children — this caused psychological harm to my children especially the youngest and changed the course of events in our life forever.

There was no circumstances given to Crown by the police officer — all Crown seen was a taped message and a slam dunk of a conviction. Concealing exculpatory evidence and failure to disclose important information is a breach of my Charter rights.

The law in Canada is clear that the police officers owe a duty of care to suspects to conduct a competent investigation and to not conveniently leave out important evidence that would help in my defense or even information that would enable the Crown to dismiss or have the opportunity.

This was a flawed investigation and it could cause foreseeable harm to the suspect.
The damage to my reputation does not compare to the emotional distress.

The of?cer, I believe there was two of them, came into the bathroom with me for me to relieve myself. I was taken down in my pajamas and was humiliated in front of my neighbours. My children were left alone while I was taken away, handcuffed behind my back. The arrest warrant was unjustified the way it was executed. It was all for show, I was home in bed blissfully unaware of what was to come next.

How can there be no warnings from my lawyer that a criminal arrest is forthcoming? How can the other party not in good faith and civility forewarn my lawyer for the sack of my children? Completely blindsided (I suspect my lawyer was not) and I went immediately into shock —- this was the purpose.

My liberty and security were compromised at this moment when I was so maliciously arrested. If it was not malicious and in ‘good faith’ then I would have had the opportunity to turn myself in if only for the sake of my children.

The motives of the police withholding information (extenuating circumstances) from the Crown is a breach of Charter rights to a fair and honest trial.

The codes of conduct of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police state that members act with integrity, fairness and impartiality, and do not abuse or compromise their authority, power or position.

The arresting Constable had tunnel vision for a conviction that on the surface looked very convincing and a sure thing, it is only when you look deeper and you see the reason why, but nobody looked deeper.

It is the duty and mandate of Crown counsel to play an important role in the prevention of wrongful convictions and to ensure the Charter of Rights to every individual that they come in contact. Crown counsel assess the evidence and thus is crucial that the Crown counsel are aware of the factors and circumstances that have been identified as common in wrongful conviction cases, and charter breaches.

They must take all necessary steps within their mandate to help ensure that innocent persons are not convicted of crimes that have factors that have not been identified and constitute extenuating circumstances.

I have been stymied by a police and law system that practiced unethical violations to codes of professional conduct and charter rights.

I have been classified as a perpetrator, spousal abuser, my reputation scorned, and my psychological wellbeing severely compromised as well as my children because my legal rights were non-existent.

I had a legal right to proper court procedures and the Charter protects the individual and ensures fairness during any legal proceedings.

It was my right to be fully explained and aware of all factors of a guilty plea:
a) An allegation that describes events that did occur, but were perpetrated by an individual who is not accused, and in which the accused person is innocent by default.

b) I have never ever at any time had ‘a guilty state of mind’ it was more like I got sold out’.

c) There were exceptional circumstances that were never brought forth to the Crown and if they had then they were absent from the disclosure.

d) I was never explained what a criminal record would entail and how it could affect my liberty and security and I didn't know until my criminal record check was flagged and I was stalled for two month of my education getting it sorted out sol
can complete my practicum and certi?cation.

e) I had no idea that the judge does not have to follow what that the Crown are recommending and could stay the charge.

f) You can only plead guilty legally is if you agree with all the facts and these were
not presented.

g) There was exonerating evidence that was not brought to light.

h) Did not understand the effects of pleading guilty or the advantage of facts and exonerating evidence.

i) Individuals who are involved in legal proceedings are treated fairly, especially those charged with a criminal offence.

j) I did not understand the danger to my personal security (psychological) — accused persons face huge risk that if convicted liberty was lost.

Must be free from any ‘superior power on earth’ and not be subject to the unknown wills of others. Being blindsided by malicious motives. If it was not malicious then why was my lawyer not forewarned? The duty says "must give fair warning" to avoid sharp practice and unethical maneuvers. Ms. Lammers
may be able to do damage to a non-client, without a duty of care, she may argue, but she cannot throw opposing counsel "under the bus” and misconduct of duty of care that is owned to the courts because then in turn it breaches my duty of care owed to me. |

I plead guilty to save money, time, psychological stress of trial, energy that was required to prove my innocence due to extenuating circumstances. It is against the law to plead guilty to save money. I was quoted four thousand to defend a criminal
trial — probation on the other hand at my wage potential ($10 per hour) is a lot more economical. I did not take into consideration or have the education or proper advice about the physiological damage and risk to my liberty that this wrongful conviction has cost me and my children, and will continue to cost me in legal proceedings in the future. 

My duty council advised me to plead guilty, which they must not do if in fact the client does not admit to all of the elements of the offence, but it wasn't his fault because there was nothing on the disclosure that stated otherwise, and I was in no way able to enlighten him or help defend myself because I was in ‘shock’.

This criminal proceeding was solely commenced for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice and the protection of society and her client.

Ms. Lammers putting her clients best interest first as her duty requires would have been surely assured that her client was safe and secure with a protection order that stated it was enforceable by police. What then, if her client was protected would be the benefit of me being criminally charged, what would be the benefit to society and my children and the fair resolution of this family ?le - when all the facts and circumstances are taken into consideration? The whole charge was absurd and preposterous —- but the Crown (I believe) did not get to see this.

The judicial system had been misused and in fact used for a malicious and vexatious litigation case. I believe the Crown Prosecutor was tricked into prosecuting without seeing all the facts and I believe that if they would have been properly disclosed by Constable Voltz clearly outlining circumstantial evidence (protection order) and physical violence. If Crown had the opportunity to see that this is a highly contentious divorce file and realized it was a onetime occurrence that had been rectified in a court by Master Bishop, by way of a protection order, could clearly have made a difference to my defense.

A lawyer's duty is to respect decisions of the court and not advise going over a Judges’ head. Lawyers and police owe a duty to be truthful and not breach statutory duty which is a basis for the tort of abuse of public office. Dismissing Master Bishop's protection order and going out immediately before the ink is dry to garner a criminal conviction so to be able to cast me a ‘bad person’ and to use against me was something that was capitalized on when the opportunity so blatantly landed itself.

This criminal case because of lack of facts was initiated with improper purpose. The sheer ill will constituted an improper purpose and proves that the defendants wanted some how to harm the plaintiff and was motivated by something other than for the purpose of justice. Casting me as ‘an abusing criminal’ and ruining my reputation, garnered for them leverage which succeeded at trial and all other hearings.

My legitimate sovereignty has been unsurped by breaches of integrity. My right in protecting my "psychological welfare" was denied and in place I was in?icted with harm and damage.

This is an incident where the Crown counsel and the police had tunnel vision. Crown counsels must be diligent for signs of tunnel vision among the police officers involved in the investigation of a case. Have a duty to remain fair and impartial, and to ensure they review the evidence in an objective, rigorous and thorough manner.

Crown counsel fulfil a gatekeeper function by virtue of the Crown's duty to critically and independently assess the evidence.

The theory of this case was incorrect, and for Crown to support that theory and ignore lack of facts and circumstances that do not support it is a duty of care that is a constitutional right to be upheld.


due the length of this statement of claim the remaining pages are within a pdf, finish reading the statement of claim by clicking the images above or click here

Links to attachment(s): Full PDF 

- Canada
Reply Count
last update
Friday, November 13, 2015
legal disclaimer
Add new
Share this Page
Generate PDF file
Generate document Notice of Civil Claim  to the Supreme Court by Leanne McIvor Oct 15 2015
Download PDF
Search Google about
Search bing.com about
Content feed
RSS content feed: Notice of Civil Claim  to the Supreme Court by Leanne McIvor Oct 15 2015
Notified by email email notification on replies to this page: Notice of Civil Claim to the Supreme Court by Leanne McIvor Oct 15 2015 click here and receive notification of this specific page
Add your Comment Reply add your comments to: Notice of Civil Claim to the Supreme Court by Leanne McIvor Oct 15 2015 Reply to in a new window
Create a new page
4 replies

Please help My country needs judicial reform and the ending of judicial corruption

Help | Leanne McIvor Voice Page created 11/21/2015 7:10:18 AM Audience: Public

Karen T Voice Please help My country needs judicial reform and the ending of judicial corruption

Notice of Civil Claim to the Supreme Court by Leanne McIvor Oct 15 2015

Information | Kevin Pedersen Voice Page created 11/15/2015 5:46:08 AM Audience: Public

Sign in as Member here to access this reply and all other authenticated Members posts

Notice of Civil Claim to the Supreme Court by Leanne McIvor Oct 15 2015

I am interested in more info re: Leanne McIvor civil clai... Mike Doyle Louine Feindell
Log in or register and review this post and other non public posts.

Access the reply Notice of Civil Claim  to the Supreme Court by Leanne McIvor Oct 15 2015

Affidavit 1 by Leanne McIvor Supreme Court Civil Claim Case

SupremeCourt | Leanne McIvor Voice Page created 11/12/2015 9:37:49 AM Audience: Public

Access Brainsyntax

★★★ ★★★ Become a brainsyntax Member ★★★ ★★★

Access non public pages as Member
Introduce or record new content We are also assisting with content placement, subjects: Family Courts, Family Law Cases, Parental Alienation, Lawyers & Judges, Obstructions of Justice, Police, Courts, spiteful ex's, Hostile aggressive parenting, injustice, malice, obstruction, oppression and many other subjects ... Contact us

★★★ ★★★ Brainsyntax Members, Add new content, build the brainsyntax.com application ★★★ ★★★
Back || Home
Latest pages on brainsyntax.com: