This update courtesy of Proletariat Mook. The Jan13 matter was adjourned to 2020Feb10. This is convenient, as Dr Yaniv seems insistent on kicking the can down to road.. even as Dr Yaniv continues to demonstrate aggressive behaviour that would demonstrate the need for a custodial sentence.
After all is said and done, it turns out that CSO-SUR-P-A-237804 has been stayed by BCProsecution, and CSO-SUR-P-A-237805 is scheduled for a hearing of its merits on Feb 3rd at 1400PST in Surrey Provincial Court #310.
Here's a short clip from Roadkill Radio providing an update from someone who isn't afraid to get her hands dirty.
That is very convenient. Hypothetically, it allows for the collation of exculpatory evidence that proves the malicious nature of the prosecution Crown started at the behest of Yaniv, possibly with falsified/distorted information. As demonstrated in Drainville v. Vilchez it is possible in extreme case (extreme like a predator potato) for damages to be awarded in a malicious prosecution case where the defendant wasn’t the police or the Crown, but a private individual. Wherein the informant acted malicuiously and in bad faith, and a malicious prosecution suit is being brought against a private individual.
Although, Adrian Picard seems a bit detached. I think he's retained by Legal Aid, or a state-provided attorney.
SUR-PA-237538 — The most recent victim of Dr Yaniv's vexatious litigation (Dec30 process application, Yaniv v Smith) is due in the Surrey Provincial Courts on 2020Jan29 at 0930PST.
This is for a release on bail.. Crown really shat the bed with this one, making an idiot of itself by being Yaniv's mule, and thoroughly calling the fair and equitable administration of justice into question.
SUR-PA-237538 | Interesting, almost slipped the schedule.. The most recent victim of Dr Yaniv's vexatious litigation (Dec30 process application by Yaniv) is due in room #102 of the Surrey Provincial Courts on 2020Jan21 at 0930PST.
This is for disposition of the charges, so we're actually hoping that Mr Smith's counsel requests bail, and Crown doesn't make an idiot of itself by being Yaniv's mule any longer.
There was an update today, with the response of KOR INNOVATIONS, one of the manufacturers. The complete updated 18pg PDF package is now available. Enjoy the show, my friends.. God bless, and keep digging!
There's probably nothing to see here, it's likely just Yaniv pursuing more vexatious process against the mentally handicapped Mr Donald Francis Smith, or yet another step in the SLAPP-fest initiated by Dr Yaniv in the saga of Donald v Yaniv.
Dr Yaniv specializes in pursuing attacks under a cloak of secrecy, and we are here to shed what light we may upon this scenario we can...
The Potato is in SURREY Court #310 on 2020Feb3 @1400PST... Do as thou whilt, my furry friends!
"..there may be a different lawyer in my office that you're looking for, I think that there's another lawyer.. you're right, Mr Yaniv as you say, or Ms Yaniv as he says, she says, has a bunch of litigation matters before the Court and Human Rights Tribunal.. I can't unfortunately give you any information because the file that I'm involved with is confidential, and has not been released, so it's not a court matter before the courts.. I can't confirm or deny anything about that, but what I'll tell you is, I'm of exactly the same opinion as you."
Employers have been submitting to threats made by #DrYaniv and thereby putting the employees at risk of emotional or financial harm. By not refusing service to Yaniv on the grounds that #Yaniv will most assuredly go after their employees if they don't wax the good doctor's balls or suck the doctor's derriere. Either with a hissy fit or by sic'ng Miriam Yaniv on them, or dragging the into court on orchestrated charges, as was done with Donald Francis Smith.
Any employer who does NOT refuse service to Yaniv is putting their employees' fundamental rights and freedoms at risk, and consequently providing the employee with a #CauseOfAction to sue the employer for not providing a workplace free from predatory persons, transgender or otherwise.
Civil contempt is where a person or corporation breaches a court order, and the nature of the conduct interferes with the interests of another private party. Criminal contempt is where a court order is breached, but the nature of the conduct interferes with the public’s interest in the “proper administration of justice”. Conduct that is determined to interfere with the proper administration of justice is criminal contempt.