By Bob Livingstone

January 9, 2015

Is there anything more corrupt than to fraudulently alter official court documents? Subtle, purposeful changes are extremely meaningful because they are meant to dillute clear messages, and the following is a classic illustration of methods too commonly deployed to manipulate the judicial process.

A cursory examination indicates that the transcripts are practically identical and that is rather typical because when a transcript is fraudulently altered the obsession to conceal dictates the subtlety of the changes. Fraudulent intent is exposed through the meticulous and deliberate alteration of the message.

Paragraphs 5, 17 and 19 of the transcript were fraudulently altered to conceal the simple fact that a Judge who presided over a hearing which was the subject of an appeal did not have the jurisdiction to rule in the first place because another judge had made a contrary ruling.

The judge confirmed the fact that she lacked jurisdiction when she said, "That's like, easy peasy, two sentences by the Court of Appeal and whoever wins, loses. And I think that's a colossal waste of time."

As illustrated above, those two sentences were entirely erased from the official transcript, to conceal the judge's lack of jurisdiction.

The paragraph 17 alteration is the most interesting. The creative fraudsters had to really brainstorm to turn "Appellate jurisdiction" into "fell into jurisdiction" and the enormous significance of that alteration is quite obvious.

The paragraph 19 alteration which saw the switch from the word "clearly" to the vague "truly" is equally significant. This single word alteration dilluted the meaning of the Judge's repeated claims that she did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case and made the rule of law arguable rather than definite.

Now that we know what was changed, all we have to do is to figure out when it was changed, and in this particular case, that is very easy to do.

The Bank ordered the transcript that was altered on August 3, 2015 and not liking what it read, the Bank pretended that Justice Pollak refused to release the first draft of the transcript.

It is not reasonable to think that the Bank sacrificed its right to read the transcript it ordered and paid for and granted Justice Pollak the opportunity to interfere with the independent, transcript-ordering process. When there is no court order with respect to obtaining a transcript, it is the ordering party, not the judge, who controls the release of a transcript.

Follow the money; the transaction for the release of transcripts is controlled by Ontario Regulation 94/14. Transcripts for Judges are paid for by the Province of Ontarion, not the Bank of Nova Scotia and there is therefore no reason to think that the Bank of Nova Scotia did not receive the first draft of the transcript that was altered when the Bank ordered it in August of 2015.

By sworrn affidavit dated November 6, 2015, Bank of Nova Scotia lawyer Adrian Visheau wrote; "BNS has made payment to Mr. Dolaram for work done in preparing the transcripts."

By the same sworn affidavit, Bank of Nova Scotia lawyer Adrian Visheau said that the court transcriptionist "was not able to provide a specific reason as to why the transcripts were not to be released."

Under the circumstances, the failure to provide a specific reason for the failure to release the transcript speaks for itself.

The Bank of Nova Scotia refused to release the transcript until it had been altered and then, it used the fraudulently altered transcript as evidence to derail what should have been an "easey peasy" appeal and Canadians ought to stop applauding the legitimacy of their judicial process as long as such corruption is tolerated.

People frequently suffer crushing losses in court not because they have done anything wrong, but simply because they are the victims of miscarriages of justice. This disgraceful failure of the legal system must be taken very seriously because it clearly happens in both the civil as well as in the criminal arena, and it is not acceptable in either.

In the US, Martha Bergmark, the Executive Director of Voices for Civil Justic, wrote as follows;

"In 2014, a Louisiana woman, J., landed in court after a dispute with her landlord over a $25 parking fee. J., 52, was suffering from cancer and did not have an attorney. The court ruled against her, and ordered her to vacate her home within 24 hours.

J.ís case, which was later taken on by Southeast Louisiana Legal Services, sounds extreme, but for someone who canít afford legal counsel, the outcome isnít surprising. The sad reality is that many Americans facing the loss of a home, family or livelihood are going it alone in civil court, and theyíre losing.

In well over two thirds of critical cases in Americaís civil courts, people appear without a lawyer, even though the stakes are often just as high as in criminal proceedings. Many people suffer crushing losses in court not because theyíve done something wrong, but simply because they donít have legal help."

The more significant question is why do people who have done nothing wrong need legal help in the first place? Why aren't they treated as if they are equal, in the eyes of the law?

The suitable assertion to such questions was recently enunciated (December 18, 2014) by Jonathan Rosenthal, a criminal defence lawyer and professor adjunct at Osgoode Hall law school. According to Mr. Rosenthal, "it is time to challenge a disturbing complacency that has crept into the social conversation about miscarriages of justice."

It is difficult to argue with Mr. Rosenthal's skepticism about the proper administration of justice when we have more wrongful murder convictions than lawyers who are willing, available or able to expose them;

"Three in a single week? Weren't wrongful convictions supposed to be a historical aberration, akin to aboriginal residential schools, that have been methodically cleared up? Have not advances in forensic science, the stuff of countless television crime series, eliminated the problem? Did the justice system not learn lasting lessons about the perils of tunnel vision, faulty eyewitness testimony, junk science and police deception?"

Mr. Rosenthal conclusions demands action now, because, as he clearly indicates; "Every day of every year, in cases both big and small, the stage is set for a wrongful conviction. To believe otherwise is to perpetuate a cycle of devastating legal error."

Indeed, this study of miscarriages of justice should probably be mandatory reading given the continued need expose fraud.



Can you see the difference? Justice Pollak improperly handed the Bank of Nova Scotia an endorsement without even granting us the opportunity to make our case. This is the kind of corruption you would expect to find in a banana republic, not Canadaís judicial process.


Page #

Line #

Alleged Error or Omission 

(What was transcribed)

What was Actually Stated



What is transcribed at right should be between lines 14 and 15 of page 24 but the entire passage has been removed from the official record.

THE COURT: You know, thatís like, easy peasy, two sentences by the Court of Appeal and whoever wins, loses.  And I think thatís a colossal waste of time.



THE COURT: Fell into jurisdiction, well my other concern is that even if both of your agree--

THE COURT: Appellate jurisdiction, well my other concern is that even if both of you agree--



THE COURT:  Madame Registrar, the Endorsement fell off, can you Ė I donít mean to do it now but I just donít want to lose it. Can I give it to you?




THE COURT:   It needs to be stapled back to the Motion Record, okay?  Thank you.

THE COURT:  Iíll give you an endorsement capturum. Ė I donít mean to do it now but I just donít want to lose it. Can I give it to you?





THE COURT:  And you can bring it back



The above is the form that is filled out to complain about an altered transcript but the authorities refuse to acknowledge it because the transcript was ordered by the Bank of Nova Scotia, not me the complainant, and we are therefore being denied the opportunity to obtain a correct transcript.

This fraud is difficult to comprehend but there you have it. Total corruption without the opportunity to correct a fraudulently altered court transcript. Is there any justice in Canada?

NEXT:  The Bank of Nova Scotia is richer for the wrong reasons.


Copyright © 2016


Look who's talking

It's not CNN, it's not CNBC, it's not NBC, it's not Fox.

Message Board -Click Here !