The Trial – With BC Judge Ross Tweedale

So the day of the trial was in play. I was confident with my case while at the same time not being too over confident as to not being prepared for it. The only thought that lingered on my mind is that based on the trial conferences this case will heavily depend on the judge. As demonstrated, if a judge ignored facts and doesn’t take the time to understand the case then it can make things seem very complicated.

So the trial began. I stated that I was ready. Now I saw that the defendant only brought in one person from his list of “witnesses”. From what I saw, it was the person that was deemed as being irrelevant before. Considering he didn’t even disclose his final list of witnesses, I assumed she wouldn’t be allowed and that the judge read the application to the judge that I submitted before. Basically, saves a lot of time. Funny enough, he allowed her to go through as a witness still.

I presented my case by mostly discussing about the evidence. Now my assumption is that a judge reads all of the statements of claims, statement of replies and statement of facts ahead of time so that they can prepare themselves for the case. To me, it seemed like he either didn’t read it or that it was read carelessly. My reason for saying this is that he seemed confused about the cases and claims in general.

There was a lot of stuff to go through as there was a massive amount of e-mails. However, the judge even stated:
“Trial
Q = Judge | A = Myself

Okay, so I assumed that should make things quicker too as there are a ton of e-mails where he acknowledges debt, he made promises to me that he did not fulfill, etc. As a side note, I realize how court transcripts are not the way to go if you want to find out what happened in court. Like with these transcripts, as you can see so much dialogue was missing and you don’t get to see things like the body language and expressions of people. People should be video recording these I’d say and is what I actually wanted to do initially.

I personally believe even submitting evidence such as the defendant’s gameplan document really made the judge think in terms of weighing in who is telling the truth and which version of the story makes more sense. I then wanted to cross compare my evidence with the defendant’s evidence. My case was all about the facts. However, the judge suggested that I hold off. Basically, I guess he wanted to let the defendant present it instead. So, it was the defendant’s turn.

So the defendant then went up. Guess what? He mostly just goes up there and reads off a piece of paper. Basically, it’s like there is almost no challenge to the evidence I present. Here is an example:
”Trial

I believe I was able to prove he contradicted himself under oath and think you as the reader will agree with me. Now this comes to one of the reason why I think the judge didn’t read the materials ahead of time. As you know from the third trial conference many of the defendant’s claims were dismissed as well as being amended. Hence, it was forced. When this judge asked him about the claims this is what he said:
”Trial

THE COURT= Judge | A = Johnny Ho

Basically, it’s like he is making it sound like he voluntarily withdrew the claims and that he simply reduced it because of the court limitation. Isn’t this super easy to verify by looking at the trial conference notes that they were forcefully dismissed? Are judges forced to make sure that they do their homework on cases before even hearing a case?

One really obvious contradiction of the defendant, under oath, which again makes me think that the judge did not read the claims ahead of time, is in his scripted speech he stated the following:
”Trial

As you can see, now he claims that “In those three years I received less than $25,000 in total”.  If you read the statement of claim and statement of facts did he not say it was $30,000? Talk about inconsistencies. Not only that, again if you add up all the cheques and bank record deposits you will know mathematically he took more than $25,000. Is that not clear the guy lied under oath?

I did find it interesting on how now in court he says that he put in “Hundreds of hours”. Didn’t he allege in writing that he put “40-55 per weeks, often much more” for 3 years and he started the business relationship in January 2005? I don’t know about you…but simple math….52 weeks in a year. 52 X 3 = 156. That means assuming he did put in “40-55 per weeks, often much more” the hours should be 6240-8580. Wouldn’t it be more accurate for him to say he put in “thousands of hours” instead? In my opinion, even he knew the facts I submitted were pretty damning evidence and so he couldn’t.

Now another statement he talks about that employee vs independent contractor form he filled out:
”Trial

As shown in the other section where I broke this down, this should show that the guy contradicts himself about so many things. Not only that, he did it under oath. However, in the end after that ridiculous speech the judge gave the defendant a funny look as basically he didn’t really do anything in terms of showing evidence to debunk my case or to prove his. Therefore, he just told the defendant to call his witness. To me it seemed like he just wanted to get it over with for the sake of a procedure since it seemed like the defendant had nothing.

Now as mentioned, the defendant was questioned about his “witnesses” in terms of their relevancy and knowledge about the situation during the pre-trial. Result, there was a big question mark on the trial conference sheet and in the third trial conference it was just marked down that he would be bring two. As you know, I submitted my application to a judge too as I wanted full disclosure so I know exactly who to bring in. Assumption, if they don’t disclose them then too bad it can’t be used. Hence, saves me time from say having to bring in the real employee to testify what he saw.

Despite this the judge still allowed this one person to go on stand. I was still prepared though as I assumed one can’t change their story/testimony as I knew the testimony as indicated before would be useless just like with the trial conference judge. While I can go into detail on why he was able to get this person specifically, here is a quick point that I made about this person and I think you will be smart enough to understand why the defendant was able to convince this person to say what she did:
”Witness

Q= Judge| A = Myself

My assumption and way of thinking was that the defendant figured if you get two people say testifying how they “had no input” in terms of compensation that it would make you think “Hmm…maybe something was up”. So I felt that this was an easy thing to help prove my case even more. Because assuming I can prove to you that the person is being deceitful shouldn’t that factor in with the overall case when it comes to credibility and what really happened?

Here is an example of me cross examining the person which I believe should have killed two birds with one stone:
”Witness
”Witness

Q= Myself| A = Witness
“Sorry for my broken English”? What kind of excuse is that? Does the “Me no speak English” excuse still work in court too? Ridiculous I thought.

”Witness

Q= Myself

For the record, this is the same e-mail I posted before:
 Highway Robber E-mail
 Highway Robber E-mail 2
”Witness

THE COURT = Judge | Q= Myself | A = Witness

Now do you agree with this judge that “This is not helping my case” per se? Is not one of my main goals to prove that there was indeed a business agreement that the defendant fully understood where he played a huge role in generating quotes as oppose to this alleged “I’m an employee” routine?

Like in this example, you can see the judge cut me off when I talked about the part where I was asking the witness whether or not this e-mail showed that we were all trying to generate a quote. Is this irrelevant in your mind due to the nature of the case? Again, review everything yourself. Is there any clear cut things you can say where something is definitely a lie?
For the most part, I think this witness put the defendant under a bus too which should have helped me more. Example, she claimed that with the e-mail she was asking the both of us, the defendant and I, if we could give her classmate a discount.

Despite her denial for herself, it seemed like she pretty much implied that the defendant did indeed play a factor in determining what to charge people. Don’t you agree? Hence, that factors in with even what is stated on our initial written agreement where compensation is determined based on a percentage of revenue received from the clients.

Afterwards we took a quick break and I went back on stand as the judge said that I do have to respond to his claim. I thought that this was the time where the defendant and I could cross examine each other now based on everything that was submitted. So, first the judge asks me why I think the defendant is making the claim that he did. In a nutshell, basically I just stated that he knows he owes me money and so this is a way for him to try and make something up to try and nullify that. It was pretty quick as again it seemed like the judge was doing this for the sake of following a procedure.

”Trial

Q= Judge| A = Myself
Here was the funny thing. The defendant seemed like he wanted to question me but the judge kept telling him to hold off. In the end, I stepped down and figured it was the defendant’s turn to go on stand. Strangely, enough, the judge tells us to give our summary. I was surprised as I was wondering why the defendant wasn’t brought up and being questioned the same way. This was scheduled to last the whole day too.

However, I assumed that it was just that obvious since the defendant had nothing really. But still, I wanted to go in-detail about things like the cheques I submitted as evidence versus the defendant’s bank record statement for me to prove that his numbers are made up and that the money he denied taking from me could easily be proven. To my surprise, this is what the judge stated:
”Trial

To start off, I just need to comment again how horrible I think these transcripts are as they should be video taping these. Essentially, I wanted to make sure that this judge was truly on the ball. Example, do you as a regular citizen think the evidence submitted where I am putting up the cashed cheques versus the defendant’s submitted bank record statements shows loans or deceit of any kind to help uncover the truth?

Would you not take the time to look over the numbers and evidence in-detail with the plaintiff to verify any inconsistencies from either side? How can one comment “You can’t really prove that something is invented” as a valid reason to not do so?

I ask you as a regular citizen, if you look at his bank record statement there are many times where he alleges in writing that certain funds came from his dad. Hence, denying that I even gave him it at all. I have the actual cheques that he cashed in to prove that it was from me. Are you honestly telling me that still doesn’t prove that he is simply inventing these numbers or that this is an important detail to go over?

This reminded me again that with our current court system it’s not so much about the facts as opposed to the judge. Unacceptable in my view if this is supposed to be a non partial environment where all you need is the facts and the truth to get justice.

In the end summary I just tried to state as many facts again as possible. The defendant? Scripted speech again while reading it off a piece of paper.
This was the judges verdict:
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”

”
”

What can I say? I was surprised. The judge’s ruling was so contradicting and illogical I thought. Example, he found that the defendant was an independent contractor. If that is the case how can one not put the facts together and rule in my favor? Like for his defense and counter claim it’s based on the notion that he put in all these magical hours as an “employee” who was to be paid an hourly wage. By saying he is not an employee by logic should mean you don’t believe the defendant’s facts and statements about his work was truthful. You have to then look at all the money he received and go over the facts on how so many times he magically got money when there was no work. You know it couldn’t be for a “wage” too because he is not an employee. He can’t say it was a gift as proof shows there are so many communications indicating a debt and promises that were made.

It makes no sense too for his closing statement for the defendant. Unless I am wrong, it’s like he implied that his case was dismissed simply because there is no real legally binding proof that money is owed to him. Logically, his case should just be dismissed because he is not an employee as the judge stated and then go over what agreements he made with me. His “shield” as stated in court was essentially this ridiculous “employee” claim. By saying he is not an employee should mean he has no more excuse to now evaluate this like a business agreement to see which side failed to fulfill their end of the bargain.

“Trial

There were so many other contradictions too. Example, the judge stating that the initial contract he signed was missing how the defendant was supposed to be paid even though it is written right there combined with his own proof that admits it. While I am not sure if this is a typo, the transcript mentions that he stated that the business relationship started in 2001. That sure was weird too.

The judge stated too that he felt that this business was started with much enthusiasm. I was thinking, how can anyone conclude that based on the testimonies and documentation? Even if you read the defendant’s statement of facts he paints a pretty gloomy picture.  If anything, both parties are painting a gloomy picture. It kind of felt like the facts are irrelevant where he was insistent in going with his own beliefs.

As well, how can there be no acknowledgment of a loan or “indebtedness”? Even in the e-mails it states he had a debt as well as him failing to fulfill his promise that he made to me. What does a “debt” mean to you?  That brings me back to the point of the judge ruling that he was not an employee. Hence, there was a business agreement. Now in many of the documentations the defendant clearly states that he failed to fulfill his promises with specific items. So at minimum wouldn’t the case be looking at compensating the person where one party basically took everything without returning the benefit?

Judge Ross Tweedale also mentioned that it is my job to prove “It was more likely than not there was a loan.” Yes I agree. That’s why there are facts such as bank record statements, e-mail exchanges and even video evidence. As a judge it should be one’s “job” to read and digest the facts and not give people reasons such as “You can’t really prove that something was invented” as a valid excuse for you to essentially not do your “job.” Doesn’t matter if you feel the world is flat or how in your lifetime no one has successfully proven such a thing with their evidence. If I have proof which I believe clearly demonstrates that the world is not flat then all evidence must be reviewed in an impartial manner.

In court, isn’t it all about the facts and proving your case? I submitted everything to prove my case. The defendant mostly just tells a sob story. Hence, he has no real defense or real challenge to my evidence. Isn’t it up to the individual to prove that something is false or true?  Example, I submit proof in the form of a cashed cheque that a specific $2000 was from me which I allege was an example of loan that resulted in a debt. The defendant’s proof was that he marked down on his bank statement that the money came from his dad. Hence, no real proof other than him saying so. How can you argue over who is telling the truth when you have the actual cheque there VS someone’s word?

Again, this showed me that it doesn’t matter how much proof in the world you have with our current system as it comes down to the competency and gullibility level of a judge.