JEWISH KING JESUS IS COMING AT THE RAPTURE FOR US IN THE CLOUDS-DON'T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD.THE BIBLE TAKEN LITERALLY- WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE MAKES GOOD SENSE-SEEK NO OTHER SENSE-LEST YOU END UP IN NONSENSE.
OTHER LEV TAHOR NEWS I DONE
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2014/02/lev-tahor-update.html
OTHER LEV TAHOR NEWS I DONE
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2014/02/lev-tahor-update.html
Dear Mr. Bowman,
This is further to your
submission that was copied to the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman, which
enclosed a letter addressed to the Chatham-Kent Children's Aid Society
(CAS), concerning the actions and involvement of the CAS with families
of the Lev Tahor community.
Please be advised that the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman does not have any authority over matters involving the CAS.
You
may wish to seek legal advice regarding any circumstances involving the
CAS, through a community legal clinic, or the Lawyer Referral Service
of the Law Society of Upper Canada at 1-900-565-4577. You may also
address complaint issues regarding CAS, which are not before the courts,
directly to the Child and Family Services Review Board at
1-888-728-8823.
Child & Family Services Review Board
2 Bloor Street W., 24th Floor
Toronto ON M4W 3V5
Toronto ON M4W 3V5
Given
the above, no further action can be taken by our Office. If you have
any questions regarding the information provided to you, please feel
free to contact our Office at 1-800-263-1830.
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman.
Regards,
Angela Alibertis
Early Resolution Officer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/2/14
Does someone expect us to neglect our children?
Sometimes it is worthwhile to state clearly the truth reality that is known to everyone. About the trial!
The Judge notes that it really seemed illegal to his opinion, that we had a plan that if the DYP for example would want to sue a family to court, we shall immediately leave. What is it?! You could not notify the DYP! You do not want them to be under the Judgment of Quebec? Do you seriously think that you have the right to decide who the Judge that will judge you will be? This behavior indicates of an intention not Lawful! Not only do you not cooperate with the Authority, with the DYP, but you also try to avoid contact with them, so this behavior is not very legal, we will not say this explicitly, but this behavior reminds something like cul... First let's draw the course of events and remind the conversation between Dennis Barabie and Meyer Rosner that was right after Lev Tahor left Ontario. We will examine the conversation in the light of the judgment. "Simply because the parents have decided as a tactical maneuver to absent themselves from Quebec in order to frustrate the process of justice that had started,” Did "Lev Tahor" moved to Ontario as a tactical step? Maybe, but it seems to be that the important question is if there was a real significant reason for this leaving! We will quote the words of Mr. Meir Rosner in his answer to Mr. Dennis Barabie for the question why did "Lev Tahor" leave:
At the same time that we showed the books to you, and the answer was not that you are planning to call some families to court, with 94 pages of complaints, I think that the worst criminal in Canada will not have that, it doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't make sense to me, 94 pages of complaints, after doing so much, so much, you came day by day without calling before, the people were sitting in their homes, never knew when you are coming, doing so much , and I didn't see that the DYP has shown to us that they are so happy and so satisfied when they were taking people to court, Why you need to call people to court, It was a big, big shock for people a big, big shock and its' very hard to explain it, I cannot explain it, after so much doing you talking to people that showed to you how much we tried to be good people, we tried so much, we did much more than a small community, you know how many people we have? And how we can make so much movement at the time when it was holiday, don't forget. At the time that you came, It was the month of the holidays, and still we did that much, And with no certification, we didn't see anything certified, we think that you are hiding some plan that someone wants to demolish the community, wants to destroy us, And we can't we are human beings, I was crying to the DYP, please if you want to ask information you can ask, we can come in, we can go out, we can do our normal lives three months we are so chocked, so chocked, so depressed. Which community can take this, a normal family can't take that, the kids are driving crazy from that, another time and another time checking something, another time knocking the door, you don't think that in Canada there are people that have their own lives…any time, any hour you have been…
Meir Rosner basically says that "Lev Tahor" has a problem, not with the court, but with the DYP. Rosner says that he has a significant reason for leaving. He says that the DYP's report of 94 pages is an inflated report that exhibits normal findings as deviations. Rosner understands that if Barabie will come with this report to court, then Rosner will be in a problem. Is it like that? Let us remember the course of events. At 07/08/14 the DYP performed its first raid on the community. After the raid, by the way, most of the community members were happy , they saw the results of the raid as a proof that the allegations against the community are false while all children were examined in the raid and nothing was found. But the DYP that was exerted presumably by Mr. David Koolt decided not to end with this. the congregation had three months of humiliating and abusive raids, in which children in the community, and the community houses, were tested in a microscopic examination. Whenever the results of this microscopic examinations were positive, rotten vegetable was found in the refrigerator, water were leaking from the air conditioner etc. the "evidence" was filmed and filed. In this way the DYP constructed a portfolio. The existence of this file was hidden from the members of the community, who suspected but could not do much more on the subject. All of this was done till the DYP had come to a point where the DYP estimated that it has enough microscopic evidence to prosecute the community. The community that heard about the intent of the DYP could indeed originally argue in court that the test of the DYP was not fair... Everyone agree that the tests of the claims in the report were biased, such as filming a child's foot in a dark room with a flashlight lighting on the foot that creates the effect of a large fungus on each foot when there is only a small stain on the foot with a slightly different color leather. Everyone agree that the community have done everything that it was requested and it did it immediately. Everyone agrees that some of the claims were proven as false claims, such as the fungus claim that was discredited by a dermatologist, and the other part of the claims had not been proven. This means that everyone agrees that the allegations against the community were not proven, although the community was tested at least a hundred times more than a normal welfare service examination. Rosner allegedly saved the children of the two families and all of the community children by the move that he decided to make. To which person does the judge usually believe, the social worker, or to the family being tested? Was the fact that many social workers (including the director of social services) standing behind this portfolio the reason for the judge to believe even more to their version?
Let us now examine the first part of the words of the judge. "It would be impractical at best and potentially harmful at worst if the society were now required, in the context of the need to protect the children, to conduct a separate and new investigation into all of the issues currently before the Court of Quebec." The first question that we have to ask is what is the meaning of "to conduct a separate and new investigation into all of the issues currently before the Court of Quebec"? Isn't the fact that the CAS checks us hundred times more than any other standard Family/Community or maybe 50 times more not enough? Are the CAS's statements that the community was examined by them and they did not find what the DYP found are sufficient to say that the CAS did enough investigation? Does anyone suspect that these statements of the CAS are derived from a great affection towards "Lev Tahor"? Does anyone suspect that the CAS could not achieve the results of the DYP because the press has seen that the situation in the community is completely normal and reported it? First of all let's understand one thing on the subject of jurisdiction , which is the issue before us , whether the jurisdiction of Quebec continues to apply to those who had left Quebec to Ontario after they received an oral note about the trial that will be held against them? Generally, the judiciary of each person is determined by its domicile more than by its actual residence (habitual residence), that is where he sees the real place of residence is more important than were he actually lives. For example a Canadian soldier that lives in the UK, see Canada as his domicile despite he does not have an apartment in Canada and has an apartment in the UK instead etc. It is clear to everyone that our domicile was not Quebec about six months before we left Quebec, and, without a shadow of a doubt, at least, from the time of the DYP raids. Courts usually use habitual residence because domicile is being more difficult to prove, here the situation is reversed and it's obvious why! Obviously everyone wanted to leave for at least three months before our actual leaving of Quebec. Suppose there is a person who wants to leave to another authority and there is a bully that prevents him from doing so, is the bully entitled then sues the person on trial according to the rules of the authority in which that person was forced to stay? What is the answer if the mentioned person eventually left to another authority? If the mentioned person brought evidence of his will to leave to another authority, when you know that the bully scared this person from leaving? When you know that the court believes almost always to the bully? Well then, how can you leave Quebec like that, in the middle of the night? Why not openly and honestly? Which sin did the unfortunate children do that their sweet and innocent lives were shocked by this trip! Besides, who said you really wanted to leave? The fact is that you didn't leave! Suppose we were acting as suggested to us here: Inviting the DYP to a meeting and telling them about our plans to leave for reasons of education! About that we have some questions to our educators: Is the DYP by darkening the room, lighting a flashlight and photographing the legs of the children, to empower each sign and to turn the photo to a giant fungus, taking at a magnification a photo of any rotten vegetable, filming any leakage in any air conditioner, is worthy of our trust? Is it not expected that once it could only put on us its paws, it will do so? Does anyone dream that the DYP would have left us friendly transmitting the case to Ontario? Can we really rely on the DYP running by David Koolt , who received a direct order to the Knesset Committee to act , if possible , even without the law? - remember the indirect teaching of MK Margi to the representative of the international department of the advocacy, to act upon the "Law plus". "Not the law but the law plus, and whether you talk in circles again, we will stop you again, when I say under the law plus this plus point priorities"?! - We can also add that Renana Tchelet the representative of the international department of the ministry of social affairs in Israel is in daily contact with the CAS. What was MK Margi's purpose if not to teach the Canadians the way of the "law plus"? The DYP didn't think even to apologize of its distorted examination. Were the Sphotos, that were taken by the DYP, within the law or within the framework of the law plus?
Suppose we were leaving in the light of day, such a leaving is a message to the DYP, isn't it? And we know the meaning of such a message from what was said here! Let us not forget that the CAS said several times in the media that the allegations of the DYP are not proven! By the way, what would people say to us if we would behave in the moral behavior of the DYP? We just want to know what our teachers want from us? To give our beloved children, straight, to the hands of the DYP?
It is obvious that such a message would nail us to Quebec till dismantle of the community! Do you understand now why we did not leave, at least in the last three months of our stay in Quebec, where there was a danger to stay and a greater danger to leave! So now it's understandable why we belong to Ontario!!! Beyond that, the testimony of the social worker is at most an evidence of a public servant; it is difficult to call it even an expert testimony. The social worker is not in the role of an arbiter, quoting his allegations while they are not proven could lead to demoralization of the other side that feels that there is no will to believe him, even if the court itself does not mean that. Especially when there is a tendency to condemn those who criticized the social worker, this is a demoralization that can also grow. Does anyone have questions of our behavior now? We would gladly answer any serious question!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/2/14
Does someone expect us to neglect our children?
Sometimes it is worthwhile to state clearly the truth reality that is known to everyone. About the trial!
The Judge notes that it really seemed illegal to his opinion, that we had a plan that if the DYP for example would want to sue a family to court, we shall immediately leave. What is it?! You could not notify the DYP! You do not want them to be under the Judgment of Quebec? Do you seriously think that you have the right to decide who the Judge that will judge you will be? This behavior indicates of an intention not Lawful! Not only do you not cooperate with the Authority, with the DYP, but you also try to avoid contact with them, so this behavior is not very legal, we will not say this explicitly, but this behavior reminds something like cul... First let's draw the course of events and remind the conversation between Dennis Barabie and Meyer Rosner that was right after Lev Tahor left Ontario. We will examine the conversation in the light of the judgment. "Simply because the parents have decided as a tactical maneuver to absent themselves from Quebec in order to frustrate the process of justice that had started,” Did "Lev Tahor" moved to Ontario as a tactical step? Maybe, but it seems to be that the important question is if there was a real significant reason for this leaving! We will quote the words of Mr. Meir Rosner in his answer to Mr. Dennis Barabie for the question why did "Lev Tahor" leave:
At the same time that we showed the books to you, and the answer was not that you are planning to call some families to court, with 94 pages of complaints, I think that the worst criminal in Canada will not have that, it doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't make sense to me, 94 pages of complaints, after doing so much, so much, you came day by day without calling before, the people were sitting in their homes, never knew when you are coming, doing so much , and I didn't see that the DYP has shown to us that they are so happy and so satisfied when they were taking people to court, Why you need to call people to court, It was a big, big shock for people a big, big shock and its' very hard to explain it, I cannot explain it, after so much doing you talking to people that showed to you how much we tried to be good people, we tried so much, we did much more than a small community, you know how many people we have? And how we can make so much movement at the time when it was holiday, don't forget. At the time that you came, It was the month of the holidays, and still we did that much, And with no certification, we didn't see anything certified, we think that you are hiding some plan that someone wants to demolish the community, wants to destroy us, And we can't we are human beings, I was crying to the DYP, please if you want to ask information you can ask, we can come in, we can go out, we can do our normal lives three months we are so chocked, so chocked, so depressed. Which community can take this, a normal family can't take that, the kids are driving crazy from that, another time and another time checking something, another time knocking the door, you don't think that in Canada there are people that have their own lives…any time, any hour you have been…
Meir Rosner basically says that "Lev Tahor" has a problem, not with the court, but with the DYP. Rosner says that he has a significant reason for leaving. He says that the DYP's report of 94 pages is an inflated report that exhibits normal findings as deviations. Rosner understands that if Barabie will come with this report to court, then Rosner will be in a problem. Is it like that? Let us remember the course of events. At 07/08/14 the DYP performed its first raid on the community. After the raid, by the way, most of the community members were happy , they saw the results of the raid as a proof that the allegations against the community are false while all children were examined in the raid and nothing was found. But the DYP that was exerted presumably by Mr. David Koolt decided not to end with this. the congregation had three months of humiliating and abusive raids, in which children in the community, and the community houses, were tested in a microscopic examination. Whenever the results of this microscopic examinations were positive, rotten vegetable was found in the refrigerator, water were leaking from the air conditioner etc. the "evidence" was filmed and filed. In this way the DYP constructed a portfolio. The existence of this file was hidden from the members of the community, who suspected but could not do much more on the subject. All of this was done till the DYP had come to a point where the DYP estimated that it has enough microscopic evidence to prosecute the community. The community that heard about the intent of the DYP could indeed originally argue in court that the test of the DYP was not fair... Everyone agree that the tests of the claims in the report were biased, such as filming a child's foot in a dark room with a flashlight lighting on the foot that creates the effect of a large fungus on each foot when there is only a small stain on the foot with a slightly different color leather. Everyone agree that the community have done everything that it was requested and it did it immediately. Everyone agrees that some of the claims were proven as false claims, such as the fungus claim that was discredited by a dermatologist, and the other part of the claims had not been proven. This means that everyone agrees that the allegations against the community were not proven, although the community was tested at least a hundred times more than a normal welfare service examination. Rosner allegedly saved the children of the two families and all of the community children by the move that he decided to make. To which person does the judge usually believe, the social worker, or to the family being tested? Was the fact that many social workers (including the director of social services) standing behind this portfolio the reason for the judge to believe even more to their version?
Let us now examine the first part of the words of the judge. "It would be impractical at best and potentially harmful at worst if the society were now required, in the context of the need to protect the children, to conduct a separate and new investigation into all of the issues currently before the Court of Quebec." The first question that we have to ask is what is the meaning of "to conduct a separate and new investigation into all of the issues currently before the Court of Quebec"? Isn't the fact that the CAS checks us hundred times more than any other standard Family/Community or maybe 50 times more not enough? Are the CAS's statements that the community was examined by them and they did not find what the DYP found are sufficient to say that the CAS did enough investigation? Does anyone suspect that these statements of the CAS are derived from a great affection towards "Lev Tahor"? Does anyone suspect that the CAS could not achieve the results of the DYP because the press has seen that the situation in the community is completely normal and reported it? First of all let's understand one thing on the subject of jurisdiction , which is the issue before us , whether the jurisdiction of Quebec continues to apply to those who had left Quebec to Ontario after they received an oral note about the trial that will be held against them? Generally, the judiciary of each person is determined by its domicile more than by its actual residence (habitual residence), that is where he sees the real place of residence is more important than were he actually lives. For example a Canadian soldier that lives in the UK, see Canada as his domicile despite he does not have an apartment in Canada and has an apartment in the UK instead etc. It is clear to everyone that our domicile was not Quebec about six months before we left Quebec, and, without a shadow of a doubt, at least, from the time of the DYP raids. Courts usually use habitual residence because domicile is being more difficult to prove, here the situation is reversed and it's obvious why! Obviously everyone wanted to leave for at least three months before our actual leaving of Quebec. Suppose there is a person who wants to leave to another authority and there is a bully that prevents him from doing so, is the bully entitled then sues the person on trial according to the rules of the authority in which that person was forced to stay? What is the answer if the mentioned person eventually left to another authority? If the mentioned person brought evidence of his will to leave to another authority, when you know that the bully scared this person from leaving? When you know that the court believes almost always to the bully? Well then, how can you leave Quebec like that, in the middle of the night? Why not openly and honestly? Which sin did the unfortunate children do that their sweet and innocent lives were shocked by this trip! Besides, who said you really wanted to leave? The fact is that you didn't leave! Suppose we were acting as suggested to us here: Inviting the DYP to a meeting and telling them about our plans to leave for reasons of education! About that we have some questions to our educators: Is the DYP by darkening the room, lighting a flashlight and photographing the legs of the children, to empower each sign and to turn the photo to a giant fungus, taking at a magnification a photo of any rotten vegetable, filming any leakage in any air conditioner, is worthy of our trust? Is it not expected that once it could only put on us its paws, it will do so? Does anyone dream that the DYP would have left us friendly transmitting the case to Ontario? Can we really rely on the DYP running by David Koolt , who received a direct order to the Knesset Committee to act , if possible , even without the law? - remember the indirect teaching of MK Margi to the representative of the international department of the advocacy, to act upon the "Law plus". "Not the law but the law plus, and whether you talk in circles again, we will stop you again, when I say under the law plus this plus point priorities"?! - We can also add that Renana Tchelet the representative of the international department of the ministry of social affairs in Israel is in daily contact with the CAS. What was MK Margi's purpose if not to teach the Canadians the way of the "law plus"? The DYP didn't think even to apologize of its distorted examination. Were the Sphotos, that were taken by the DYP, within the law or within the framework of the law plus?
Suppose we were leaving in the light of day, such a leaving is a message to the DYP, isn't it? And we know the meaning of such a message from what was said here! Let us not forget that the CAS said several times in the media that the allegations of the DYP are not proven! By the way, what would people say to us if we would behave in the moral behavior of the DYP? We just want to know what our teachers want from us? To give our beloved children, straight, to the hands of the DYP?
It is obvious that such a message would nail us to Quebec till dismantle of the community! Do you understand now why we did not leave, at least in the last three months of our stay in Quebec, where there was a danger to stay and a greater danger to leave! So now it's understandable why we belong to Ontario!!! Beyond that, the testimony of the social worker is at most an evidence of a public servant; it is difficult to call it even an expert testimony. The social worker is not in the role of an arbiter, quoting his allegations while they are not proven could lead to demoralization of the other side that feels that there is no will to believe him, even if the court itself does not mean that. Especially when there is a tendency to condemn those who criticized the social worker, this is a demoralization that can also grow. Does anyone have questions of our behavior now? We would gladly answer any serious question!
