It is difficult to support an underdog when you are an underdog. Do it anyways. Like a ripple in the water, your voice will disturb the calm before the storm, and one day, the tide will rise to the point where every miscarriage of justice enabler will be loathed. It is time to hold people accountable.

Justice never sleeps. It merely picks up where the ripple left off.

Some underdogs are more equal than others. For example, lawyer Michael Lomer (1951-2010), a passionate defender of underdogs, was an unrecognized giant. His sense of justice drove him to become a criminal lawyer, however, the stress of justice denied drove him from the profession, and that is an extremely serious indictment about the quality of the judicial process in Canada.

In 1994, Lomer took on the appeal of William Mullins-Johnson, who served 12 years in prison for strangling and raping his 4 year old niece even though she died of natural causes. Needless to say, it did not take Lomer long to realize that the evidence against his client did not add up, and if we live in a society where the facts are supposed to matter, that should disturb everybody.

Apparently that is not the world we live in because William Mullins-Johnson served a lifetimem in prison, having been convicted of a horrific crime that did not even exist because some authorities do not merit recognition and that is not excusable.

In 1996, Lomer managed to persuade one member of a three-judge panel at the Ontario Court of Appeal that Mullins-Johnson’s first-degree murder conviction should be set aside, for reasons unrelated to the pathology evidence. The majority upheld his conviction, and in mmy experience, the Ontario Court of Appeal has some judges who are absolutely out of touch with reality, and that is very disturbing.

Not surprisingly, Michael Lomer was personally horrified by the fact that William Mullins-Johnson's appeals were dismissed by both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

It was the theory of the Crown that the accused killed the deceased in the course of sexually assaulting her and Chief Coroner, Smith’s conclusions, which were routinely unscientific and flawed, were used to convict him.

Legend has it that pathologist, Dr. Stuart Smith is exclusively responsible for making a total mockery of the judicial process in Canada and everybody else gets a pass, and as long as that is the case, innocent people are convicted over, and over, and over again, without adequate acknowledgment, and as long as that is the case both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada are absolutely irrelevant for obvious reasons -the facts are supposed to matter.

Canadian authorities made Dr. Stuart Smith their scapegoat to evade liability and that is the disturbing reality that still prevails.

Smith erred in at least 20 child-death investigations, 12 of which resulted in convictions. At least four of those convictions have since been quashed, including Mullins-Johnson's. Authorities use the same scapegoat to "win" in a court of law because they have proved to be "relaible" in the past, but that does not excuse the clockwork efficiency of any miscarriages of just ("fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me).

The trail of devastation (ruined families) left by the once acclaimed forensic pathologist, Dr. Smith, is not unique. Hired guns/common "nutcases" (biased advocates) are frequently used to enable mmiscarriages of justice and as long as that is the case the judges, lawyers and prosecutors who use them are directly responsible for corrupting the judicial process and they must be held accountable because they peddle the narratives of lunatics and they are consequently equally liable for the damage they cause.

The father of wrongful convictions that arise from unreliable expert testimony is the prosecution and the mother is judges who treat the crown like a God. There is never any mystery behind any miscarriage of justice. The crowd that empowered Dr. Charles Smith has the very same characteristics of every other crowd that repeats the same, and it is time to expose the malignancy of the cabals that are responsible for every miscarriage of justice in Canada.

The lessons of the bizarre arrest and conviction of Canada's most famous, wrongfully convicted, Guy Paul Morin, have not been learned and it is time to revisit them.

Represented by Clayton Ruby, who was supposed to be one of the best lawyers in Canada, the fate of Guy Paul morin was ultimately sealed by the rather extreme obsession with expert witnesses. In order to craft what he viewed to be a bullet-proof defence, Mr. Ruby challenged the mental stability of his own client for tactical reasons, the prosecution exploited what appeared to be a gimmick and convicted an innocent man, not because he was guilty, but because the prosecution outsmarted the defence. Needless to say, "outsmarted" merely means "won in court" and when an unjust verdict is secured in the process, that is the equivalent of miscarrying justice.

In essence, Mr. Ruby's essentially muzzled the only man who knew he was not guilty guilty through addressing the jury with comments like, "You are listening to someone with a communication disorder and a thinking disorder." Sounding like he represented a guilty client who was trying to get away with murder, it was certainly no surprise that the tunnel-visioned prosecution exploited the situation in a rather predictable manner.

To his credit, Clayton Ruby convinced the jury that Guy Paul Morin was not not guilty but the overzealous Crown appealed, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial, and Morin was ultimately convicted.

Unlike the United States, where double jeopardy rules prevent an accused person from being tried again on the same charges, the crown in Canada is not likewise restrained.

Consequently, Guy Paul Morin was charged in 1984, convicted in 1992, and his case has the unique distinction of being the longest running murder trial in Canadian history.

It should be a "must review" for every lawyer and judge because every aspect of that case was so completely corrupted, it provides the clearest wake up call for those who like to think that Canada's extreemly flawed judicial process is infallible.

In truth, Guy Paul Morin should have never been arrested in the first place and to that effect, on November 1, 1990 I sent defence lawyer Clayton Ruby the following letter;

Dear Mr. Ruby:

I was extremely surprised and disturbed by the Supreme Court decision to allow an appeal in the Morin case. Unless the media has reported nothing but the most frivolous evidence which relates to the case, I cannot avoid the belief that the evidently emotional drive to convict Morin, reflects an abhorrent miscarriage of justice. The process of arresting someone and then trying to produce evidence to justify confinement is such a vulgar proposition that it insults every measure of decency, reason and justice. The Supreme Court of Canada is supposed to defend, not to make a mockery of ordinary human rights, and when the presumption of innocence is perverted by a general, authoritative willingness to assume the worst, justice is extremely elusive.

One of the most appalling suggestions of the Morin case is the prosecution claim that psychiatric evidence could have been used to connect Morin to the murder... Theoretical testimony of experts who claim that Morin is capable of murder is relatively meaningless [in their eyes, every sloppy thinker is schizophrenic]. Experts who view the world through theoretical convictions ignore the more significant individual reality. Even Freud, the father of psychoanalysis was so dogmatic that he deliberately suppressed the truths which disputed his theories. Freud was evidently so overzealous he routinely and deliberately lied because he was more concerned about the reputation of his theories than he was about the truth. Unfortunately, most people are not as even-handed and as rational as genuinely reputable psychoanalysts like Eric Fromm, who apply logic and reason to theory.

Obviously, with so many unknown variables, I cannot assess the guilt or the innocence of Morin. But from everything which has thus far been exposed in the media, reliable evidence which even remotely suggests that Morin is guilty does not exist. My intuition consequently suggests that Morin is a scapegoat and reports that he was nervous at his trial suggest that he is a normal human being, not a cold-hearted, masterful murderer.

When I studied abnormal psychology in university I learned that instances of abnormal behavior reflect, in the majority of cases, behavior which is maladaptive rather than bizarre. The belief that abnormal behavior is bizarre [and causing somebody to be capable of murder] is a common misconception which ignores the fact that even the behavior of psychologically disturbed people is, in the majority of instances, within the bounds of ordinary, understandable, human experience. A brief, psychological analysis, like intelligence tests, do not provide reliable evidence because they ignore the scope of the human condition and that, in the final analysis, dictates the realm of human potential.

Certainly, if there is evidence to suggest insanity, Morin requires treatment and the appeal is legitimate. But that should be determined by evidence, not theoretical speculation...

Like the prescient letters Michael Lomer sent to plead the innocence of William Mullins-Johnson, mine was predictably ignored and that is what I in fact believed even before I sent it.

Defence lawyer, Clayton Ruby, used a hired gun to advance the claim that Guy Paul Morin was inclined to do the unthinkable, even though, under the circumstances, it was just a bizarre theory, of the sort that disgraced pathologist, Dr. Stuart Smith, had used to advance the cases of overzealous prosecutors.

According to Thomas Stephen Szasz, psychiatrist and academic who has been Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center since 1990; "Psychiatric diagnoses are stigmatizing labels phrased to resemble medical diagnoses and applied to people whose behavior annoys or offends others."

Guy Paul Morin was ultimately convicted because he was stigmatized by his own lawyer and that rather peculiar diagnosis was inappropriately exploited by the prosecution.

The flaws that the Morin conviction exposed, persist. When William Mullins-Johnson was finally exonerated, the Province of Ontario promised "to prevent miscarriages of justice but also to take allegations of miscarriages of justice extremely seriously." That promise has been broken and miscarriages of justice are not only ignored, they persist with clockwork regularity.

In 2018, author, Kathryn Campbell wrote a book titled Miscarriages od Justice in Canada and the bottom line is: "Innocent people are regularly convicted of crimes they did not commit. A number of systemic factors have been found to contribute to wrongful convictions, including eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, informant testimony, official misconduct, and faulty forensic evidence."

Recently, Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau named Richard Wagner the new chief justice of Canada, and that will hopefully become the best thing he has ever done, to facilitate the desperate need to expand access to justice in Canada.

A champion of an impartial and non-politicized judiciary, Chief Justice Wagner views the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a living, evolving document, and he hopefully possesses the wisdom and the intelligence required to be able to improve access to justice in Canada because it is greatly needed.

Yesterday, I was granted the rare privillege of conversing with the chief justice of Canada. Here was my chance, I thought, to advocate on behalf of every single person who has ever been shafted by the judicial process. "In my opinion," I said to the most powerful man in Canada, "a miscarriage of justice is a mischaracterization which dictates the outcome of a legal proceeding. Do you accept that?"

"It depends on the context", Chief Justice Wagner replied.

"In any context", I retorted.

"Well, can you repeat your statement then?" the chief justice of Canada prudently asked.

"A miscarriage of justice is a mischaracterization which dictates the outcome of a legal proceeding," I slowly repeated.

"Yeah, that could be okay," he repeated twice.

I hope, from hereonin, every mischaracterization is carefully reviewed for the sake of evading the next miscarriage of justice or correcting one that has been ignored.