Filed/Served: Fresh 202302xx pdf A-A Statement of Claim (& online version with links to evidence of allegations)                      CV-22-89804  

Snir‘s 202302xx Statement of Defense: Statement of Defense (& my EOMO Analysis)

Addelman’s 20230320 Statement of Defense (& my EOMO Analysis)

My 20230628 Combined Reply (& my two, now-required, separate 20230629 versions re: Snir and Addelman)

Addelman’s 20230608 Motion to Set Aside Default || My 20230801 Motion for Extension || Back to intro: Craig O’Brien (& a fun limerick!) 

work-in-progress > Books of Documents: #1   #2   #3   #4                    

(back to w-i-p court-enabled fraud as this Civil Action progresses)

ONTARIO

COMBINED REPLY

pdf version

b e t w e e n

Deirdre Moore   (plaintiff)

and

Addelman Baum Gilbert Robinson LLP   (defendant)

Snir Law Office   (defendant)

 

Para #

  

Statement

 New

Para # in Sep Reply

  

Evidence

  

Actor/Enabler Reference

  

Torts/Crime

 Other
             
A. Summary – Snir          
01 The plaintiff (“Moore”) acknowledges the blanket, conditional denial made by Snir at para. 1 of its 28-para. 20230213 Statement of Defense (“Snir’s Defense”).
2. 		          
02 Moore admits to statements made in paras. 6, 10, 15 and 17-18 of Snir’s Defense.          
03 Moore denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16, 19-22, 24-28 of Snir’s Defense.          
04 Moore submits that any pleading deficiencies including, but not limited to, that noted at Snir’s para. 23 regarding defamation could be easily improved with a simple amendement to her Fresh Amended, Amended Statement of Claim (“Claim”).          
05 Moore’s Reply to Snir’s co-defendant will be made in sections C. and D.          
B. SPECIFICS RE: SNIR          
06 Snir’s para. 2 is misleading. While Snir did, in fact, “act” for Moore, its “performance” was for the benefit of Moore’s estranged husband (Jonathan Kiska, “Kiska” and his accomplices at the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa “CAS”) to the detriment of Moore and her children (“Sean & Cate”). At no point did Snir “work” for Moore or “produce” anything of value for Moore, Sean & Cate. This was evidenced by Snir’s actions and inactions including, but not limited to:
   a. in 201911 and later, Snir’s failure to immediately appeal the scandalous, “temporary-final”, unlawful, illegally-obtained, custody, access and restraining Order granted pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (“CYFSA”) by Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”) judge Calum MacLeod (“MacLeod”) on 20190408 (the “CYFSA Order”);
   b. in 201911 and later, as already plead in her Claim at paras. 63-66;
   c. in 201912 and later—in tandem with that of co-defendant Addelman Baum Gilbert Robinson LLP (“Addelman”)—Snir’s coercion that Moore volunteer for a court-ordered psychiatric assessment in order to counter CAS’s and Kiska’s malicious mental health-related allegations; this, despite having evidence that:
           i. Kiska was a pathological liar and
          ii. all of Moore’s 2013-2019 mis-diagnosis were the result of Kiska’s false collateral information following Moore’s abuse-induced psychotic breaks
and
   d. from 202001 to 202008, Snir’s:
          i. refusal to assist Moore in any meaningful way and
         ii. allegations already plead in Moore’s claim at paras. 71-78.		          
07 Snir’s para. 3 is misleading. Moore was not only being terrorized by Kiska’s accomplices at the CAS: she was also being terrorized by Kiska’s accomplices at Ottawa’s Crown Attorney’s Office (“OCA”) including, but not limited to prosecutors:
   a. Mike Boyce (“Boyce”),
   b. John Ramsay (“Ramsay”),
   c. Malcolm Savage (“Savage”) and
   d. Moiz Karimjee (“Karimjee”)
who were conspiring to prosecute Moore for multiple crimes of which she was not guilty. Collectively “the Crowns”, those named at para. 7 a-d above were clearly violating multiple sections of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CCC”) including, but not limited to:
   e. S. 465(1)(b) Conspiracy to Prosecute;
   f. S. 380(1)(b) Fraud—against Moore via S. 23(1) Accessory after the fact and against the Ontario taxpayer via obstuction of justice, etc.;
   g. S. 126 Disobey a Statute; namely, the Crown Attorney’s Act (“CAA”);
   h. S. 131 Perjury (as Crown prosecutors are under oath pursuant to S. 8 of the CAA);
   i. S. 269.1(1) Torture;
   j. S. 279.01(1) Trafficking in Persons and
   k. S. 83.18 Terrorist Activities.		          
08 Snir’s para. 4 is misleading. SCJ’s J. A. Parfett (“Parfett”) granted a temporary order placing Sean & Cate in the “care” of Kiska based on false allegations of both he and CAS “agent” Brian Fisher (“Fisher”). Furthermore, the order of Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) legal counsel for Sean & Cate was granted so Kiska’s SCJ-related accomplices including, but not limited to, judge Tracy Engelking (“Engelking”) could circumvent the 20180711 OCL Report that:
   a. documented Moore as the superior parent,
   b. documented some of Kiska child abuse, domestic violence and pathological lying and
   c. recommended that Moore receive sole custody of Sean & Cate;
all information with which Snir was provided before, during and after its 201911 retention.		          
09 Snir’s para. 5 is misleading. MacLeod’s 20190408 “final order”:
   a. was made while Moore was maliciously detained by another of Kiska’s accomplices, Quebec-based psychiatrist Dr. Paule Kemgni (“Kemgni”), who:
        i. prepared a malicious Not Criminally Responsible (“NCR”) opinion1 for Kiska’s benefit though Moore had committed no crime and
       ii. detained Moore long enough for her 3-bedroom home to be emptied without her knowledge via an eviction scam that involved a real estate agent, a paralegal, Kiska and a fictitious landlord
and prevented Moore from being in a position to defend herself against Kiska and the CAS;
   b. was made for reasons including, but not limited to, a claim by MacLeod that “this is a four-month order which will then be subject to review” and
   c. was based on documents that were not produced until 20190408 and not filed with the court until after the hearing … on 20190412. L O L		          
10 Snir’s para. 7 is misleading as already plead in Moore’s claim at paras. 26-31.          
11 Snir’s para. 8 is misleading as already plead in Moore’s claim at paras. 8-17 which were all executed so Kiska would accomplish both parental and child alienation in order to gain strategic advantage in the divorce that was scheduled for September 2019.          
12 Snir’s para. 9 is false. In addition to pleadings in Moore’s Claim at paras. 60, 62-64:
   a. prior to Snir’s 20191114 retention, Moore detailed how Kiska and CAS were twisting her abuse-induced episodes of “Brief Psychotic Disorder with marked stressors” (previously known as nervous breakdowns) into some sort of severe, chronic, unnamed, undocumented mental disorder so they could frame Moore as a danger to her children:
        i. verbally, in Snir’s office on 20191111 and
       ii. in writing via e-mails sent to both Snir and Addelman on 20191111 and 20191113,
   b. Moore’s transparency regarding her mental health is evidenced by Snir’s and Addelman’s coercion that she volunteer for an independent, psychiatric assessment via Criminal court (as confirmed by Addelman’s Defense para. 7 and
   c. Moore had no choice but to retain Snir as CAS was threatening to have Ontario’s Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (“OPGT”) maliciously appointed to ensure Moore would be denied the right to represent herself (as evidenced by Snir’s immediate adjournment of the CAS-scheduled 20191120 third-party records Motion.)		          
13 Snir’s para. 11 is false as already plead in Moore’s Claim at paras. 71-78.          
14 Snir’s para. 12 is misleading as already plead in Moore’s Claim at paras. 71-78.          
15 Snir’s para. 13 is false. Following another malicious arrest/detention by the OPSB and the Crowns one month after Snir’s release, Moore was forced to retain another Kiska-and-accomplices-favouring lawyer, Cedric Nahum (“Nahum”), as the CAS was again planning to maliciously have the OPGT appointed so she would not be in a postion to defend herself.          
16 Snir’s para. 14 is misleading. In additions to the Moore’s Claim paras 79-83:
   a. Former taxpayer-funded, for-profit, accountability-and-oversight-free CAS employee, Engelking, scheduled a Summary Judgment Motion (“SJM”) for Kiska’s benefit—despite the 12-volumes of evidence of severe domestic violence contained in divorce file FC-15-2446 of which she was the case manager—as well as a CYFSA trial is case the SJM-strategy somehow failed.
   b. Kiska’s lawyer, Wade Smith of Bell Baker LLP (“BellBaker”):
        i. commissioned Kiska’s affidavit despite having knowledge that it contained nothing but errors, omissions and malicous obfuscation,
       ii. filed both Kiska’s affidavit and his Factum which sought the onging emotional and psychological abuse of Moore, Sean & Cate,
      iii. deceived the court via false and defamatory oral arguments—not unlike the manner in which he committed Fraud during Moore’s 2018 Motion for interim financial support—and
      iv. short-served on Moore a Motion for a restraining order that “piggy-backed” the SJM so that it was impossible for Moore to defend herself in the time permitted—the Motion materials were actually served after Moore’s response materials were due!2		          
17 Snir’s para. 16 is misleading. In addition to paras. 84-86 of Moore’s Claim:
   a. SCJ’s judge Mary Fraser (“Fraser”) ignored:
        i. Moore’s testimony and evidence regarding:
            a) Kiska’s pathological lies and
            b) the CAS’s burial of evidence of Kiska’s verbal, emotional, psycological and financial abuse of Moore, Sean & Cate
       ii. the fact that the private lawyer, Susanne Galarneau (“Galarneau”), retained by OCL to “represent” Sean & Cate fully ignored:
           a) the contents of the 2018 OCL report and
           b) Moore’s evidence of ongoing domesic violence.		          
18 Snir’s para. 19 is false. In addition to paras. 82-83 of Moore’s claim, Snir stated at his own para. 12 that we was removed from Moore’s files prior to both the CAS SJM and the CAS Appeal.          
19 Snir’s para. 19 is also self-incriminating. The 20211220 Divisional Court decision stated that:
   a. Moore’s was “impecunious”. Had Snir brought the Motion to change interim spousal support as requested when he was retained in 2019, she could have been receiving at least $60,000/year in spousal support instead of merely $14,760/year;
   b. Moore was “homeless”. Despite that being entirely false as she resided in a two-bedroom apartment at the time of appeal, Moore also co-owns a $1,000,000+ home from which Snir and Addelman have thus-far refused to remove their excessive $250,000 lien even though they did nothing but obstruct justice in both criminal and family court for Kiska’s obvious benefit that he enjoys to this day. If not for their involvement in fraud, conspiracy to prosecute and other crimes, Moore could have purchased a decent condo until her divorce was finalized;
   c. Moore was impeded by mental illness. As e-mailed to OPGT’s Walter Kim (“Kim”) prior to the hearing and orally argued by Snir on 20200827 in order to have himself removal from Moore’s files (to trigger his $60,000-for-nothing fee), “[there is nothing wrong with Moore’s mental health]”.
   d. Federal paramountcy of Canada’s Divorce Act over Ontario’s CYFSA was not an issue: clearly, it was as:
        i. domestic violence has been codified in the Divorce Act,
       ii. a judge must consider financial abuse and psychological abuse when determining parenting time and decision-making (formerly labelled custody and access) during Divorce Act-jurisdiction prodeedings and[corrected in “separated” version to add:  (insert)		          
20 Snir violated S. 21(1) of the CCC, Parties to Offence, by not reporting Kiska and all of his accomplices already named in this section of this Reply to law enforcement; as well as three appellent-level, SCJ-employed judges namely:
   a. J. Matheson (“Matheson”),
   b. J. Perell (“Perell”) and
   c. J. Kristjanson (“Kristjanson”)
who, collectively, ignored Moore’s evidence of severe domestic violence, obstructed justice, participated in mental torture and terrorist activities; and, intentionally defrauded Ontario taxpayers every time they submitted materials for and/or entered into a courtroom.		          
21 Snir’s paras. 20-22, 24-25 are ridiculous. Among other things, at time of writing:
   a. Sean & Cate have been denied Moore’s love and protection from Kiska for over four years: she has not heard their voices and no one has sent to her a single picture,
   b. Moore’s income is zero as:
        i. the widespread smear campaign regarding her mental health has spread like wildfire and
       ii. Kiska stopped paying any spousal support in January 2023 and
   c. Moore now resides in a donor-funded women’s shelter while Kiska:
        i. lives in her $1,000,000+ matrimonial home,
       ii. continues to gaslit her two alienated teens—the loves of her life: Sean & Cate,
      iii. drives his Volvo,
      iv. wears his Hugo Boss and
       v. enjoys avoiding the damages which Moore was permitted to seek in the 2017 precedent-setting decision of SCJ’s Justice Darlene Summers; namely those for Kiska’s multiple torts, crimes and those permitted via CJA’s Family Law Rules.		          
[22] Snir’s para. 26 is false. Snir was illegally removed from Moore’s files 2020827 and Moore’s Claim was originated 20220729, less than two years later.          
[23] Snir’s paras. 27-28 are a self-serving, mish-mash of relief sought from the SCJ; typical of lawyers involved in Ottawa’s taxpayer-funded (“#TDVCA”) crime syndicate.          
C. SUMMARY – ADDELMAN          
[24] Moore acknowledges the blanket denial made by Addelman at para. 1 of its 18-para. 20230330 Statement of Defense (“Addelman’s Defense”) notably re-served as is despite its receipt of Motion materials after 20230330—evidence of, among other things, defamatory libel, fraud and/or torture.          
[25] Moore admits to statements made in paras. 6, 8 of Addelman’s Defense.          
[26] Moore denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 2-5, 7 and 9-18 of Addelman’s Defense.          
[27] Moore submits that any pleading deficiencies including, but not limited to, that noted at Addelman’s para. 13 regarding defamation could be easily improved with a simple amendement to her Claim.          
[28] Moore’s Reply to Addelman’s co-defendant was made in sections A. and B. above.          
D. SPECIFICS RE: ADDELMAN          
[29] Addelmans’s para. 2 is misleading. While Addelman did, in fact, “act” for Moore, its “performance” was for the benefit of Moore’s estranged husband (Jonathan Kiska, “Kiska” and his accomplices at the OCA to the detriment of Moore, Sean & Cate. At no point did Addelman “work” for Moore or “produce” anything of value for Moore, Sean & Cate. This was evidenced by Addelman’s actions and inactions including, but not limited to:
   a. in 201911 and later, Addelman’s failure to inform the Crowns that—as documented by subsequent defense attorney, Alyssa Jervis, on 20210707:
        i. “Moore, as a lawful co-owner to the residence in question could not have been:
            a) causing mischief to the property under $5,000 or
            b) unlawfully in a dwelling house or
            c) [break and entering ],
as the house and property are legally possessed, at least in part, by [Moore]”
       ii. “Moore could not have been criminally harassaing a party by way of repeated communication when that party was under an Order from family court to communicte with [Moore] by electronic means for the purposes of facilitating child access and
   b. in 201912 and later, Addelman’s other inactions included at paras. 41-45 of Moore’s Claim and
   c. in 201912 and later—in tandem with that of co-defendant Snir—Addelman’s other actions included at paras. 36-40 of Moore’s Claim.		          
[30] Addelmans’s para. 3 is misleading:
   a. the “acrimonious divorce” and “child protection proceedings” existed prior to, during and after Addelman’s 3-month retention;
   b. Kiska is not Moore’s former husband: they are still married;
   c. it would be obvious to any layperson that Kiska leveraged the CAS, OPSB, OCA and OCJ/SCJ in a retaliatory maneuvre to gain a strategic advantage in the divorce proceedings which, at time of writing, have yet to occur because:
        i. another of Kiska’s accomplices, BellBaker’s Cheryl Hess (“Hess”), no longer responds to e-mails and
       ii. it is now illegal for Moore to contact Kiska directly due to the unlawful 20220524 Probation Order extorted from Moore by Boyce and executed by OCJ’s judge Jonathan Brunet (“Brunet”) despite Moore’s pre-sentencing information package requesting an absolute discharge.		          
[31] Addelmans’s para. 4 is misleading as already details at para. 11 above.          
[32] Addelmans’s para. 5 is misleading. In addition to pleadings in Moore’s Claim at paras. 60, 62-64:
   a. Prior to Addelman’s under-documented 20191114 retention:
        i. Moore detailed how Kiska and CAS were twisting her abuse-induced episodes of “Brief Psychotic Disorder with marked stressors” (previously known as nervous breakdowns) into some sort of severe, chronic, unnamed, undocumented mental disorder so they could frame Moore as a danger to her children:
            a) verbally, in Addelaman’s office on 20191111 and
            b) in writing via e-mails sent to both Snir and Addelman on 20191111 and 20191113,
   b. Moore’s transparency regarding her mental health is evidenced by Snir’s and Addelman’s coercion that she volunteer for an independent, psychiatric assessment via Criminal court (as confirmed by Addelman’s Defense para. 7) and (Insert missing content??)		          
[33] Addelmans’s para. 7 is misleading: Moore consented to volunteering for an independent psychiatric assessment because:
   a. Addelman refused to do anything else to assist her as noted at para. 27 a. and b. above,
   b. Moore had read the CCC and knew she was not guilty of committing any crime and
   c. Moore was aware that she possessed superior mental fortitude.
Moore was not aware, however, that the psychiatrists to be chosen by the Crowns to perform/approve said assessment—Zeynep Selaman (“Selaman”) and Joel Watts (“Watts”) of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC”)—were just as complicit in organized crime as was Kemgni as noted at para. 9 a. above.		          
[34] Addelman’s para. 9 is false:
   a. As stated at para. 22 above, Addelman’s Defence (dated 20230330 and illegally served after they were noted in default and therefore in violation of S. 126 of the CCC, Disobey a Statute) was not revised to reflect the knowledge that it had, or ought to have had, following its receipt of Moore’s 20230608-related Motion materials.
   b. Addelman’s Defence was simply re-served on 20230620 without revision; an intentional attempt to deceive the court with errors, omissions and malicious obfuscation including, but not limited to, those which were previously evidenced in Moore’s 20230601 Affidavit Exhibit D—despite the questionable 20230620 decision of SCJ judge Syliva Corthorn (“Corthorn”) to exclude Moore’s evidence-laden 20230601 exhibits from who-knows-what by stating at her para. [56] 1 …
“The plaintiff is granted leave to rely on the substantive contents of, but not the exhibits to, the affidavit sworn by her on June 1, 2023.”		          
[35] Addelman’s paras. 10-12, 14-15 are ridiculous as already refuted at para. 19 above.          
[36] Addelman’s para. 16 is false. Although Addelman was released in February 2020, Moore did not receive a copy of ROMHC’s scanadalous NCR opinion until:
   a. after Moore was maliciously re-arrested/detained by the OPSB and the Crowns
   b. immediately following the service and filing of her evidence-laden, 41-paragraph, SCJ/OCJ Bail Review Application (with 33 exhibits A-AG)
   c. dated 20200922 on Savage and to the Criminal counter at Ottawa’s demon-possessed courthouse.Moore’s Claim was originated 20220729, less than two years later.		          
[37] Addelman’s paras. 17-18 are a self-serving, mish-mash of relief sought from the SCJ; typical of lawyers involved in Ottawa’s #TDVCA crime syndicate including, but not limited to, those listed in Appendix A.          
E. CONCLUSION AND REFERENCE TO OTHER #TDVCA7 PERPETRATORS          
[38] Given above paragraphs 1-35, Moore’s Claim and submissions made at Appendix A, Moore’s damages claimed are not “excessive, exaggerated, speculative, unforseeeable, remote, unmitigated and/or otherwise unrecoverable at law” as alleged by Snir and Addelman at their respective statement of defense paragraphs 27 and 17.          
[39] It is in the public interest that, at a minimum, severe pecuniary damages be awarded to Moore and, by extension, Sean & Cate so they are in a position to heal and help establish legitimate victims’ services across Canada as well as raise awareness on those involved (including, but not limited to, the 85 individuals named in Appendix A) in #TDVCA so they may be, at a minimum, shamed out of business as people who—as salaried human traffickers—literally couldn’t care less about abused women, men or children.          

Appendix A i/iii

Appendix A ii/iii

Appendix A iii/iii