Originally posted by standing on the sidelines
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Sandra Levesque - OCL Investigator
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Pierre555 View PostI've read that case, CanLII - 2011 ONSC 2101 (CanLII)
The case of Brown v. Brown, CanLII - 2011 ONSC 2101 (CanLII)
appears to be an advertisement for her rather than a report.
When you see such long winded words of praise by a judge
about someone who authored a report, it begs the question
as to WHY did the judge do that?
In any case, the judge does not make "long winded words of praise," the judge briefly identifies how much experience the author has, which is required to establish whether or not they qualify as an expert witness. The judge is required to make such references in his decision.
Odds are, he did it because he had concerns about the objectiveness
of the report and wanted to bury the matter.
In this case, Levesque made serious criticisms of the mother's behaviour, pointed out that she and her fiance were taking active steps to alienate the children from the father, and the judge accepted this evidence.
So, please assume I am slow, explain to me in detail, step-by-step, what the issues were with objectiveness and what did the judge do to bury the matter?
So, What is in Brown v. Brown?
Sandra Levesque recommended "Supervised Access to the Father"
dressed up with "joint custody".
The fact that you made it up calls into question your own objectiveness, your credibility, your honesty, and your mental competence. The case is linked several times in this thread, most people would have no problem clicking on the link and reading it for themselves, and would realize how much you are fabricating. Why on earth would you write such a blatant lie if you were mentally competent? One possible reason is that you are assuming that most people would not read carefully through the entire case decision, and so your lies would be accepted by at least a portion of the readers. So which is it, are you an idiot, or are you a manipulative liar?
Now, these reports often have no resemblance to reality.But, IF, we take some of the the judge said, I would not have given that
father anything more than supervised access either.
But wait, perhaps the problem is with your reading comprehension skills. The actual quote from the decision is, "In addition she recommended that Mr. Bennett not be left unsupervised in the presence of the children." Now think carefully, even though I know this is hard for you. What is the name of the children's biological father? Is it Bennett, or is it Brown? Here is a hint: The case is Brown v. Brown.But,
these reports are often a work of fiction dressed up to sound objective.
(That is, if I believed the entire report was correct)
From what I've read, I'd like to know a lot more before I drew the same conclusions.
There are some very disturbing aspects to the Brown v. Brown decision.
It's so disturbing that it begs the questionas to if it was just another fabrication to get rid of a father, or, it could all be very true.
The father won the decision.
The father was only seeking joint custody. That is what the OCL investigator recommended, and that is what judge ordered.The problem isdecisions are all often based upon false allegations that could be nothing more that repetitions of "she said" without any corroboration.
Most of the reports like this are NEVER published.
My lawyer showed me several of her reports that were not published and NONE Of them were favorable to the father.
I defy anyone to come up with ANY report by Sandra Levesque
that does not favour the mother.Without exception, every report my lawyer could find out about was favorable to mothers only. That makes her a great choice if you are a woman.At the end of the day, this report, Brown v. Brown, in effect made serious allegations about the father, that somehow , warranted, that draconian solution of "supervised access", the classic weapon of choice used and justified with all the usual classic false allegations.
So again, what we know is that your own statements are completely unreliable. What we don't know is if you are lieing mindfully to mislead us all, or if you deluding yourself to support your own paranoia, or if you are simply not capable of understanding what you read.
The mother most probably had her car and Trailer packed for the move to Arkansas with the three children just as soon as the order was issued.
It's one of those remarkable "joint custody' decisions where the father was probably never ever going to be substantially involved with the children again. She had a lot at stake, three kids, child support, etc.
When the stakes are that high, lies and fabrications become the norm.
Comment
-
"Standing on the sidelines"
Your attack is uncalled for and offensive,
and you are a moderator?
I simply replied to the post of suzukiguy72
regarding Sandra Levesque.
As staysingle says, OCL has a mother bias.
I'd like to hear of a single lawyer who works for the OCL
who is NOT biased in the favor of Mothers.
Sandra Levesque despite her extensive experience
is known as a mother's supporter.
That is common knowledge in Ottawa.
Now, if you don't like my comments, why did you
approve the posts of Susukiguy72 and stay single?
I'm just probably one of hundreds of fathers is aware
of Sandra Levesque.
My concern is that its a very common name, and I would not want any
of the other Sandra Levesque's being confused for the one referred to
in the Brown v. Brown decision where she recommended
"supervised access" to the father and basically labeled him
as one of the worst of society.
Thats a outcome that screams warnings
that the conclusions may well have been repetitions
of what "she said".
Thanks
Pierre.
Comment
-
I don't know what anyone else has tried to post, but my post was pretty clear.
She was either forced down a path by the lawyer or is completely incompetent in her own right. Either way, she failed to execute her duties with any kind of what you would call due dilligence. She also perjured herself in court.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre555 View Post"Standing on the sidelines"
Your attack is uncalled for and offensive,
and you are a moderator?.
You have either been maliciously and willfully posting lies and slander against Leveseque, or you are not of sound mind. You have not answered to my critique of your ridiculous posting.
Nothing you have posted has had any factual support other than your own completely bias and fantastical assertions. If you have any factual support you are welcome to present it, but at present you are in violation of the posting rules. You are slandering, and you are making inflammitory posts.
Comment
-
Yes,
I replied but the post did not show
I must have hit the wrong button.
Your comments regarding Sandra Levesque are in my opinion deadly
accurate.
The other post that mentions the case of Brown v. Brown
appears to be an judges advert written for her.
Ray says "she has investigated 100 cases", and only one gets to be in a reported decision on CanLii?
Wonder why only one in a hundred?
The Brown v. Brown still only left the father as a visitor in the child's life,
the mother dropped the move to the USA but it was quite obvious,
she sought out a partner who lived thousands of kilometers away, and married him. That speaks volumes about her future plans.
That was not in the decision and it begs the question as to why not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre555 View PostNo "Mess"
You are jumping to conclusions.
No, I have had nothing to do with
either of them, or Sandra Levesque.
That's a question you should have sent by PM.
I don't appreciate the innuendo.
Originally posted by Pierre555 View PostThe censorship on this forum
is unbelievable.
We are apparently not allowed to comment
about S.L. unless of course it paints her
as a mother terresa
Comment
Comment