Here is a sign of the moral rot that has infected our legal system-with some comments of my own in brackets): Law Society tribunal lawyer calls sex assault 'minor offence'. By Michele Mandel, Toronto Sun. First posted: Friday, April 28, 2017 07:20 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, April 29, 2017 09:59 AM EDT Raj Anand is not only a lawyer but the former Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission — so you’d think he’d know better. So why did the vice-chair of the Law Society of Upper Canada tribunal make several disturbing comments that appeared to minimize a sexual assault complaint while deciding whether paralegal Nephat Siziba should be suspended? “The motion arose out of an allegation that while acting as an Uber driver on September 23, the paralegal took the hand of his female passenger (the passenger) and initiated sexual contact with her,” Anand wrote in reasons released last month. Police alleged Siziba, 55, sexually assaulted a 20-year-old woman during a 4 a.m. Uber ride from Thornhill to Toronto. After she complained to Uber, he was suspended for a week while they investigated. “We were informed that the paralegal resumed driving for Uber, but resolved not to pick up intoxicated passengers.” The woman then went to police and the driver was charged with sexual assault. Siziba, who has no criminal record and stated he will vigorously defend himself against the allegations, is free on bail under conditions he not work as an Uber or taxi driver. (WE will never know what really happened between driver and passenger. Maybe driver is a sexual predator seeking out drunken passengers as easier prey? Or maybe she is the villain. From my own experience in the taxi business I can state that the VAST MAJORITY of people in a taxi at 4am are drunks, pimps, hookers and drug dealers! And it is not unusual for a few women to offer to `pay` for the ride with sexual services. Perhaps driver decided passenger was too skanky to be appealing and this offended passenger-and prompted the complaint by the woman scorned? We will NEVER KNOW!) But could he still work as a paralegal? The Law Society urged the tribunal to suspend Siziba’s licence while his charge is pending. Lawyer Amanda Worley said the optics were terrible: “The fact he was charged with a sexual offence against a vulnerable young woman harms the public’s confidence in the integrity of the legal profession and the ability of the Law Society to govern the profession in the public interest.” (A sexual assault charge is not a laughing matter but in this case with NO EVIDENCE other than the word of a passenger who may have been trying to weasel out of full payment of the fare-the seriousness of the offense sinks to insignificance. Your old Granny would tell you that a woman who goes out late at night intoxicated- as this passenger apparently was- is inviting trouble! And Granny is probably RIGHT!) Anand and the two others on his panel ultimately refused to suspend Siziba. Instead, in remarks reminiscent of several controversial judges in recent news, the vice-chair seemed to blame the complainant and downplay the allegations. “I think boiled down to its essence, you have obviously contested evidence about what took place over a matter of a few minutes,” Anand said in a transcript obtained by the Sun. (Apparently there was no blood shed .no physical marks, no indication of any trauma-and with such a total lack of evidence of real injury what can a judge do but dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Our courts are jammed with more serious cases with too many of them dropped due to the length of time it takes to get to trial-and here we are wasting time and money on a matter of NO importance since it is unprovable and unresolvable- with NO evidence and NO chance of reaching a fair verdict for EITHER driver or passenger!) (The ugly truth is that the bigoted LIE-beral version of justice simply assumes all men are probably rapists AND GUILTY unless strong contrary evidence is supplied! LIE-berals do not want to offend feminazis by promoting tales of woman as instigator or trouble maker seeking to weasel out of payment or hooker! In this case what 55 year old man would assume a 20 year old girl would find him attractive? Unless he was offering a very nice wad of cash? “Obviously, sexual assault is serious in principle. But it is a relatively minor offence compared to some of the other criminal conduct that is referenced in some of the other cases, like viewing child pornography or something like that.” (We accept that a woman is not a plaything to be handled whenever a guy wants to -but the total lack of evidence in this case- and evidence that she was drunk and mandates dropping the case- and advising the passenger NOT to be wandering around-drunk and stupid at 4am. There is something STRONG to be said for in car cameras to record events and to provide protection AND EVIDENCE for all involved!) “You have no evidence other than the fact that the charge is made, essentially. Obviously, the complainant said something to the police. We don’t actually know what she said to the police,” he continued. “The question is, really: By virtue of being charged with this offence, is that enough for (Siziba) to be suspended indefinitely?” (Clearly suspending Siziba from his paralegal job would be a cruel and unusual punishment for a crime he cannot be proven guilty of since there is no evidence.) Did he actually say “it is a relatively minor offence?” Tell that to the young woman. After the recent “knees together” and “drunks can consent” judgments, it seems that once again, the law doesn’t take sexual assault as seriously as it should. (Deplorable comments made by a few old fossil judges who are frustrated by the stream of hung over females entering their courts to complain about guys touching their thighs should not be allowed to influence cases where there is NO evidence!) When reached by the Sun, Anand said he wasn’t in a position to address any criticism. “I don’t think I’m able to comment as an adjudicator.” The law society’s lawyer was obviously struggling with Anand’s remarks. “I am not sure I would agree with you that it is a relatively minor offence. It is predatory in nature. The victim was confined to a vehicle,” Worley said during the hearing. (A vehicle that she SUMMONED for her service and for which she would have to pay-and it`s a costly ride from Thornhill-again I ask if this complaint is not simply part of a negotiation ploy by the female to avoid paying full fare? With no proof 9of anything- how serious can it all be? LOE-berals can be as hostile as they plese and it will not conjure up a SINGLE logical fact!) “So I think we have to be careful not to sort of make judgment calls about comparing this offence to this offence. If you are satisfied that it does present a risk, then you need to act,” she insisted. “We cannot diminish the seriousness of allegations of sexual assault.” Yet Anand seemed to do just that: “I am just saying that here we have simply a sort of “he said, she said” at this point.” (A “sort of he said, she said”? Who is there AVAILABLE to this case who can say ANYTHING except he said and she said? And how would the public react if lawyers tried to compare a momentary hand on a thigh to the gory details of a genuine rape?) How would the public feel knowing they did nothing to protect the public? asked Worley. (I ask again how the public can be protected by a witch hunt with no evidence? Certainly NO MAN will be safe if such witch hunts become common! Unless you are prepared to dismiss all males as not being part of the public? What about our right not to be harassed by vindictive women with false stories-using the politically correct legal system as a weapon?) The optics didn’t trouble the tribunal. They found “no reasonable grounds to believe there was significant risk” to the public, or to the administration of justice. They dismissed the law society’s motion to suspend Sizibo’s licence and said the public would be satisfied with his offer to work under supervision in his son’s law office and not provide legal services or meet with clients alone. That may be so. But how do they feel about the tribunal’s vice-chair minimizing the seriousness of an alleged sexual assault? (That the tribunal minimized the seriousness of the alleged assault is NOT evidence of contempt for women-it is an open acknowledgment THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME! Statements to the contrary are a form of sexist dictatorship!) (And how does the public feel about a vindictive woman possibly using the courts to get out of paying an Uber fare? We don’t know and cannot honestly find out what happened so the witch hunt is discriminatory if it goes any further-throw it out since it is beneath the attention of the court which has MUCH BIGGER fish to fry with more serious criminals anyway!)
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
Woman who made false rape claim gets 1 year in jail

Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Woman who made false rape claim gets 1 year in jail


"Judge William Holden said he hoped Yovino would spend her jail time contemplating her actions. Prosecutor Tatiana Messina said Yovino's crimes were a "disservice" to true sexual assault victims, who often are not believed."

That they are and this should be a lesson to all those #metoo groupies who have piled onto the movement without so much as a whit of thought towards eventual criminal investigations that could very well see their lies exposed and true justice meted out.
A year in jail for a woman who perjured herself in a rape case? GOOD STUFF!!!!! Too many women regard our courts as a handy way to legally harass men! Some years back- Toronto woman with a drinking problem moved in with a guy who had an apartment near Parkdale. She accuses the guy of rape and he spends 18 months in jail waiting for results of cop investigation. He loses all his stuff, car, tv, clothes, the apartment etc. Turns out the witch had gone drinking in a bar. Then had sex with two guys in a van. Then staggers home to boyfriend who blows up and wants her GONE! AT THAT POINT- not waiting to lose her handy apartment home and enraged at losing her gravy supply guy - she accuses the guy of RAPE! Cops eventually expose her as a liar and the guy is released! Yeah- just a legal shrug and apology: sorry guy, we had to investigate. Too bad you could not afford bail"! She LIES! And he PAYS!

Similar Threads

100 Celebrity Women Rebuke #metoo Movement
by Hoof Hearted | 3 weeks ago