|
This website addresses a miscarriage of justice with the hope that justice will be served and that other victims of the legal system will be shielded from perjury permitted by Officers of the Court. The author of this website was swindled by or through the Courts and unfairly deprived of his Charter right to equal benefit of the law, as the Courts wrongly prefer the word of their fellow colleagues. In this travesty of justice, a lawyer, Jeffrey David Broadbent, assisted by the Canadian Sault Ste. Marie Police either threatened or attempted to prosecute me, James Townsend, more than twenty times as a result of his animosity or his obsession with my right-of-way over his property. From the start the Police engaged in a campaign to assist the lawyer to interfere with my civil rights. The greatest injustice is that the Courts have brought the administration of justice into disrepute and allowed the lawyer to go unpunished for fabricating a story that would have most likely resulted in the death of his baby if true. Sadly and unjustly, Judge Lajoie did not require the Crown to prove that I committed a crime, and in ignorance of truth and reality he unlawfully used false "similar fact evidence" to convict me.
The lawyer swore that he never accused me of a crime but simply wanted to have me charged with something. Then, after continually being refused a warrant, the Police arrested me on December 30, 1996 before executing a fruitless search warrant, and without an arrest warrant or an investigation. A video tape shows that the Police knew the lawyer was criminally harassing me when they charged me with Criminal Harassment without a reason to believe that I committed a crime and on nothing but the word of a lawyer "in order to apply conditions for [my] release". It seems that Sgt. Clarida told the lawyer he would abuse his power if I continued to remove the log the lawyer placed on my driveway and knew that I was prosecuted on a fabrication because he received two different stories and saw the videotape that showed the reason the lawyer had me arrested. The malicious purpose was to deny my rights over the lawyer's property as shown via an offer to end the prosecution if I agreed to "make no use of the land in dispute, (my driveway) save and excepting vehicular travel for commuting purposes only."
The evidence shows that the lawyer fabricated a story for a malicious purpose on December 8, 1996, when he falsely reported that I drove his wife's eight-year-old son, Dylan, off the road with my car. This was a barefaced lie as the boy simply moved over to let me by when I came home from church. The Officer did not question Dylan nor make any note or report about the allegation and thus proved that he knew the story was a fabrication. But more condemning to the Officer is the fact that he did not investigate in accordance with his duty when such a serious allegation was reported; and that shows not only that he knew it was a false report but that he was part of the plot to aid and abet in the lawyer's crime for the purpose of interfering with my civil rights over the lawyer's property. Sgt. Clarida certainly knew the report was false when he first received statements from my false accusers two weeks later, along with the contradictory statements in that report. He admits that lawyer Broadbent implied on December the 8th that I tried to kill Dylan and he admits that he received a report on December 23rd that implied I endangered the life of his baby on December 8th and which stated Dylan was not on the road. Common sense dictates that on the lawyer's advice he planned to use false similar fact evidence, without investigating its veracity, so that he would not need to prove that a crime was committed, else he would not have arrested me and pursued a prosecution with such total absence of evidence.
After the Police and the lawyer forced me to sue them by arresting me a second time without a warrant or reason I was defrauded of my action for malicious prosecution as a result of Judge Lajoie's interference with and ignorance of evidence. This Judge saw the tape of the false reason I was prosecuted and he knew too, that there were no police reports or complaints that I had ever committed a crime and that the Crown prosecuted me on a fabrication that was made up because I removed a hazard from my driveway. The Civil Courts were misled and then due to further misleading, all of the Courts effectively abetted in the crimes committed, by depriving me "of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his [my] rights." This matter is of great public interest and concern and a Judge ignored vindicating evidence and convicted me without reason or evidence. A just outcome of this case is important to all persons except lawyers and judges who may operate as birds of a feather. Even the Supreme Court of Canada allowed justice to be defeated (Court File #29269) and neither had nor gave a reason to dismiss my case.
PREAMBLE
I built my driveway over the lawyer's property before he bought it from his client who had used threat of violence to prevent me from building a road over my easement. His client was determined to prevent me from building my home in "his private area" and he forced me to sue him by removing the gravel I used to build my driveway, and by digging holes in it. Eventually a Justice of the Peace issued a warrant for his arrest and after the trial he decided to back off and allow my lawful rights. He even widened our shared driveway over his property in April of 1994, just before he sold it to his lawyer, Mr. Broadbent. The road was excellent then and had not been used to harass me since October 1993. By the time the lawyer pretended he was involved in a dispute over the road with me there had been no trouble for over a year and there was no reason for the lawyer to sue my wife and me, other than the fact that our case against his client had not yet been heard by the Court.
HISTORY
When my case against the lawyer's client was heard there was an issue of a false accusation that I drove over his client with my truck. The lawyer must have instructed his friend to give false "similar fact evidence" as she came up with the story that I tried to run her over with my car. However, the lawyer's client admitted that I did not hit him with my truck but it did no good as the Judge preferred to rule that I brushed him with my truck. The same witness who gave false evidence did it again at my criminal trial and again the lie was revealed, but the next Judge preferred not to accept the truth either and used the false evidence for a conviction. I am quite certain it was that Judge, Mr. Richard Lajoie, whom I saw talking with the lawyer just before my trial, and that he may have conspired to convict me. Mr. Lajoie must have seen me looking at them as he stopped before reaching the bench and declared that he may have a conflict of interest. I was naive and said nothing when he stopped as he approached the bench and indicated a conflict. Then he asked if I was related to Roger Townsend. I doubt he would have pretended Roger was the conflict if I mentioned his meeting with Mr. Broadbent.
THE CAMPAIGN
Soon after the lawyer took possession of his clients' property he began his malicious campaign to bring civil and/or criminal charges against me. The road I built over the right-of-way was required by law to be a public street, and the lawyer and I shared the road without doing anything to it until September 21, 1994 when the Gas Company buried a line along the road and repaired it with quality road gravel. The lawyer had the road graded so that it was raised on his side (Exhibit 13, #5) and then he warned me that he would sue me and charge me with trespass if I raised my side to make the road level. This worried me, so I allowed his new watercourse that would (and did) flood the comfortable access I had.
On September 26th the lawyer clearly displayed his animosity or malicious campaign when I filled in and leveled a small pothole that was about sixty feet from his watercourse. The lawyer expressed his animosity and obsession when he saw the road was made nice and smooth. He became violent and threatening, and viciously warned me to stay off the right-of-way. Then he advised me that I would be served with an injunction in one week and said he was calling the Police. Sgt. Clarida attended to the lawyer's complaint that I repaired my shared driveway, but the Officer ignored my complaint of criminal harassment and insulted me with his false accusation that I had acted uncivilly.
After the lawyer gained nothing through the Police he fabricated evidence for his lawsuit by sending us letters full of false accusations. Meanwhile he continued digging holes in the road and I continued filling them in. Then he began digging holes near a tree on my side of the driveway. On October 22, 1994 he dug against the tree and apparently cut a root with his shovel. He dared me to come out and fight so I complained to the Police about his conduct, and they watched while I refilled the hole. The next day, on October 23rd, the lawyer got the Police to read me my rights on the false accusation that I damaged the tree, and in contravention of the criminal code, but the Crown refused to prosecute me. The lawyer used the Police knowing that he had no rights to engage them in a civil matter.
PERJURY
On October 27th the lawyer and his wife committed perjury to sue my wife and me and filed his letters in which he falsely accused me of widening and raising the road, damaging trees, filling drainage ditches, and harassing his family. Then he prepared a deceptive affidavit for the Police and used it to get the injunction he wanted. He also prepared another untruthful affidavit containing a charge of obstruction of justice against me and gave it to both the Crown and Police, but again the Crown refused to prosecute me, and continued to block an arrest. A tape recorder used with written notice, on October 22nd, five days before he sued us proves there was no dispute or reason for him to sue us. Apparently he did it on behalf of his client, as he involved himself on the false pretense that the same issues with our shared driveway were being disputed with him.
BIAS
Judge Whalen, who I believe is an honourable person, heard the lawyer's motion for the injunction he promised me on October 31, 1994. However, this is when the Courts first demonstrated bias or preference for a fellow officer of the court. Earlier that same year this Judge heard the pretrial of the lawyer's client and advised my wife and I to raise our claim as nobody had a right to dig holes in our driveway. He understood then that the late Justice S. Loukidelis did advise us that we had a right to remove every tree from our easement. However, now that a lawyer sued us and requested an injunction he changed his opinion, and further advised us that the lawyer could dig all the holes he wanted to dig in our driveway, and then he ordered us not to fill them back in. How unreasonable! !
Again the Courts demonstrated bias when Judge G. Pardu unduly influenced me, and pressured me for about an hour to give Mr. Broadbent the Order that gave him control of my right-of-way and an opportunity to have me arrested on the lie that I breached the Order. (Sgt Clarida did that for him later) This Judge knew full well that I was opposed to her terms for Minutes of Settlement when she caused my wife and me to fear "devastating" loss (Pretrial transcript, page 43) if we refused her (unlawful) Order. She made no attempt to assist in a fair settlement and never even suggested that the lawyer keep the agreement he had already gladly accepted. They were both willing and pleased to respect our lawful rights before we were pressured and before the lawyer sought an injunction. (pretrial p. 13) After these two professionals took advantage of us the lawyer later had the nerve to deceitfully swear that the Order was allowed as a result of my conduct. (exam Q. 173)
It was wrong for Judge Pardu to rule that I had to give up my lawful rights too, (pretrial p. 48) but more bias and disregard for justice occurred when I objected to signing the Minutes of Settlement under duress. Judge Trainor deprived me of $4300 for objecting to the injustice and $800 of that was a gift from the Court to the lawyer from my savings to pay for the lawyer's survey of his personal property. On top of that the lawyer had altered the road and then used a surveyor to defraud me and defeat the settlement, and Judge Trainor soon ordered me to pay costs ($6,000) to the lawyer's client. Effectively, he rewarded the lawyer's client for criminally harassing me. He may have decided to disrespect my lawful right to justice because the lawyer bought his client's property while it was under litigation and a fair ruling would have negated his Order that favoured his "fellow officer of the court".
My lawyer advised me that he would enforce the Order against the lawyer after he wrote letters of warning so that a Judge would not accuse him of acting unreasonably. My lawyer seemed more interested in defending the other lawyer who was probably his friend. Consequently, after being conned for more than a year I presented Lawyer Broadbent with my complaint to the Law Society but I only got a tiny bit of the gravel expected by the Order. By December of 1996 it was clear that my lawyer was acting with a conflict of interest and he admitted he had no intention of enforcing the Order against the other lawyer, and quit. He even told me he would never represent me in a civil case. I knew he would never sue Mr. Broadbent and when he told me he would not even cross-examine him I decided to handle the criminal case myself. Later, my lawyer was forced to sue Broadbent for strategic reasons but he had no genuine intention of doing so and resigned when it was time to act.
Now that I was without counsel I was an easy target for the lawyer. On December 8, 1996 the lawyer and his family were skiing and sledding on my driveway when I arrived home from church. I stopped and waited for Mrs. Broadbent and her son, Dylan, to move over so I could get by with my car. At my trial the lawyer, Mr. Broadbent, swore that he called the Police to report that Dylan and his wife had to take cover to avoid being hit. Basically, he was falsely reporting an attempted murder. Sgt. Clarida deceived the Court about being called on December 8th and must have known the report was false as he made no record of anything, not even the fact that he was called. He could only say he first knew about the allegation used to prosecute me when he got Mrs. Broadbent's December 23rd statement.
On December 10th the lawyer's wife told me I was a nothing and since her husband was a lawyer they could do as they pleased with me. Then on the 13th Mr. Broadbent placed a sheet of plywood over my house number, and on the 19th he placed a log with sharp pointy broken branches sticking out towards my tires in order to prevent me from driving on the part of the road it was agreed I could use. The lawyer was just as obsessed and determined to defraud me as he was on August 27, 1996 when he cut my driveway down with a backhoe in the area the Court Ordered him to dump a load of gravel to raise the road.
ARBITRARY ARRESTS
The lawyer swore (Q.94) that he made a series of complaints to the Police about me, and on October 17, 1995 he attempted to have me arrested for walking on my driveway. The Police favoured the lawyer as usual and gave me a warning. The records show that the lawyer and the Police made another attempt to arrest me on November 2, 1996, but again the Crown refused to prosecute me. I was accused of clearing snow at my property line this time and the record shows that the Police wanted to arrest me even though they talked the lawyer into settling for a warning. It seems clear now that the Police were involved in a conspiracy to have me wrongfully prosecuted, and planned to arrest me without a warrant.
After the lawyer harassed me on December 22, 1996, and after he had made many attempts for more than two years to have me charged, Sgt. Clarida arrested me on December 30th on the pretense that I was criminally harassing the lawyer. He did this on nothing but the statements of the lawyer and his wife, and without a warrant or investigation, and before executing a search warrant. In doing so he chose not to consult with the Crown or take into account the records of the Crown's refusal to prosecute me. Sgt. Clarida later implied that he was depending on the "similar fact evidence" statements of other witnesses. (Discovery Exam, Q. 34) By keeping the story about my car from me for more than two months after the date chosen for the story, Sgt. Clarida assured there would be less chance of finding witnesses to refute it. He even hid the fact that the story he received on December 8th differed from the one used at the trial.
The purpose of the Justice of the Peace is to act as a buffer between the Police and the accused; and since Sgt. Clarida and Mr. Broadbent were well acquainted, this may be one reason why Sgt. Clarida bypassed the J.P. and ignored his responsibility and duty to investigate before arresting me. Since Mr. Broadbent is a criminal lawyer and an expert on criminal law a possible motive would be that Sgt. Clarida wished to do his friend a favour, and give him the opportunity to win a conviction by means of "similar fact evidence". And since Sgt. Clarida ridiculously denies any knowledge of the intended false evidence at the time of the arrest (his exam Q. 12) it is clear that he either conspired to make a false arrest or he had no grounds for an arrest, as the prosecution proceeded on this false evidence.
Before the trial began, Sgt. Clarida attempted to arrest me again but was unable to do so as he had to consult with the Crown Attorney and was stopped, but that did not stop the lawyer, as Officer Rowe agreed to arrest me on nothing but the word of the lawyer and without a warrant. This proves the Police conspired to prosecute an innocent person. There was no reason to arrest me again or to refuse to examine proof of my innocence and his only reason for arresting me without a warrant was that (admitting he checked the records) he knew Sgt. Clarida tried to get a warrant and failed.
CIVIL ACTION
As a result of the second arrest made without a warrant my lawyer decided to launch an action for false arrest and imprisonment and for malicious prosecution against the Crown, the Police and the Broadbent team. Neither my lawyer nor I had any desire or intention to sue but we did in hope that a civil action would cause them to drop the prosecution. At that time there was absolutely no chance of being convicted and there was no chance that I would lose my action for malicious prosecution. However we had no idea then that they would resort to false similar fact evidence. We were advised about the phony evidence more than six months after I was arrested and the law says the officer must believe he has a case at the time of the arrest. The officer swore he had no similar fact evidence then, yet the Court dismissed my case on Summary Judgment without respect for the law and without a reason to ignore the evidence against the lawyer, and on the pretense that I had no cause of action.
I was ordered to pay costs of about $45,000 and the Court of Appeal upheld the unfair ruling without considering my evidence. In the final analysis justice was not done and thus the Courts unjustly defeated the rule of law. My case was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada and the application was dismissed without reason even though arbitrary arrest is of great public concern and the administration of justice was brought into disrepute to the benefit of criminals.
My experience with the Courts in this case convinced me that Lawyers and Judges are birds of a feather, and I believe I was swindled by or through the Courts as a result of this. Mr. Broadbent swore he dealt "with police officers and crown attorneys" and no doubt this gave him an unfair advantage in bringing his false criminal charges against me. There is no doubt about it, that had Mr. Broadbent and Sgt. Clarida not been friends or "fellow officers of the court" I would never have been charged or prosecuted in the first place. And if the lawyer and Judge Lajoie had not met before my trial or had not been "fellow officers of the court" I would not have been abused or maliciously convicted without a shred of evidence. The malicious conviction also affected my civil action that was unjustly dismissed.
THE TRIAL
Just about two weeks before the trial Sgt. Clarida produced his similar fact evidence witness without checking the obvious fact of the untruthfulness of his witness. The witness stated in writing that when she gave evidence at a previous trial she swore that I tried to run her over with my car in May of 1993 and that I admitted doing so to the Judge. Neither the Police nor the Crown had the decency to check the taped recording available of the trial and the transcript of the evidence, which would have shown that their witness was untruthful. Even though the witness contradicted the previous evidence Judge Lajoie used it unlawfully to convict me.
The Crown did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and as a result of the Court's disrespect for truth and justice it cost me about twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for transcripts and a new lawyer for my appeal. My lawyer who had been deceiving me refused to launch an appeal on the grounds that he didn't handle the case. He even advised me to accept the false sentence and plead guilty and I believe it was because he didn't want to sue Broadbent and he had already launched an action against him. When the appellate Court ruled that the use of the similar fact evidence was improper and removed it, my new lawyer for the appeal told me that I was convicted without a shred of evidence. Judge Lajoie improperly used my photos too, and he chose to call me a liar but my evidence and purpose was shown to be proper by notes on the back of my photos.
FALSE EVIDENCE
The lawyer's wife gave evidence at the trial that I drove a car at her and her baby in a sled on a snow covered road at a high rate of speed and didn't turn away until I was ten feet from her. She further swore that she could not see who was in the car because she was bent over her baby. However, on cross-examination she swore she was standing up and saw the car start to veer off when it was eight feet from her (as measured in the courtroom). When she was caught in her lie, she changed her evidence with the approval of Judge Lajoie who likely knew that a speeding car cannot turn away within eight feet or ten feet on a slippery road, and thus he knew or likely knew her story was a fabrication. The lawyer's wife also swore that Sgt. Clarida was called about her allegation on the 8th of December, but Sgt. Clarida disagreed. This evidence normally precludes a conviction but Judge Lajoie ruled that it was irrelevant and ignored it. (trial transcript, Vol. 1, p. 221)
Judge Lajoie also assisted the lawyer's wife after she had testified that she could not see who was in the car because she was "hovering over her baby" and then said during cross-examination, "Can you not see me standing there?" When she changed from "hovering over" to "standing" Judge Lajoie quickly interfered with the examination and then ignored the contradiction. He also ignored her sworn evidence that she was over as far as physically possible when she made it clear on cross-examination that she could have moved away from the car but was over as far as she felt she should go. In fact, she told the Police she moved into the tree line and told the Judge she couldn't get off the road because of deep snow. Then on examination for Discovery she said she was off the road. If there is no corruption, I cannot explain why the Courts dismissed my proven case or why the Courts will not admit that the lawyer and his wife fabricated a case to prosecute me.
Mrs. Broadbent swore that my car was speeding and told her husband it darted at her at the last moment. She says she started to get the baby right off the road when the car was about ten feet from her, and then came back to get between the baby and the car. Obviously she would not do that if she was already off the road, and it couldn't be done if the car was only going 20 MPH, which is 30 feet per second and 1/3 of a second to go the ten feet.
MALICIOUS CONVICTION
The evidence Judge Lajoie resisted the most was the December 22, 1996 videotape I made that clearly showed the reason I was being prosecuted. There is no record that the lawyer filed a complaint of criminal harassment against me before I continually removed a log from my driveway for three days, so Sgt. Clarida falsely swore that he received a criminal harassment complaint on December 21st. However, he knew the complaint made on the 21st was about me moving the log and he hid that fact from the Court since the purpose of arresting me was to stop me from moving the log with sharp pointy branches that the lawyer placed on my driveway where they could cut my tires. Judge Lajoie saw the video and determined to keep any reference to the log off the record, and out of his reasons for judgment.
Even when I showed Judge Lajoie that the lawyer's wife lied about the log he defended her and ignored the evidence. But Judge Lajoie cannot change the evidence shown on the videotape, nor the fact that the lawyer called Sgt. Clarida on December 22nd to falsely report that I was criminally harassing him. Sgt. Clarida swore that he viewed the video and then contradicted his evidence to conceal the lawyer's crime as shown by his exam at questions 1, 2, and 52. Common sense says he knew the lawyer made a false report and that he agreed on the 21st only to make records and charge me if I moved the log again. This is fortified by the fact that Sgt. Clarida deceived the Court (trial transcript page 45) and admitted that he arrested me to put conditions on me. The Crown's March 26, 1997 letter further shows Sgt. Clarida arrested me for moving the log. He wanted me to say it was a survey line and agree to plead guilty to a crime by moving it, and to agree "to make no use of the land in dispute save and excepting vehicular travel for commuting purposes only."
The fabricated story that the lawyer typed out for his wife was not even realistic and the summation of the evidence proves perjury. At trial Mrs. Broadbent swore she was in front of the car and could not get off the road, and on Examination for Discovery she swore she watched the car drive within ten feet of her and then got right off the road before returning to "hover over" her baby and get between her baby and the car. On Summary Judgment the Judge accepted that this was done in one third of a second and he ignored more than the video taped evidence that showed Sgt. Clarida knew his reason for arresting me was false and malicious. So I was defrauded of a fair trial and ordered to pay court costs even though it wasn't possible for the accusation against me to be true. At the criminal trial, the Crown pursued a conviction based on the allegation that I drove a car at Mrs. Broadbent and Judge Richard Lajoie pursued a conviction on the pretense that taking pictures for a court record was conduct of a threatening nature in contravention of sec. 264 (1) (2d) of the C.C.C. Mr. Broadbent got his wish and I was convicted by the use of similar fact evidence that was proven false at trial. Judge Lajoie sought pictures he could use "for his purposes" (trial transcript Vol. 2 page 174) and was so determined to convict on the grounds he pursued that when the Crown attempted to close arguments he held up the pictures (as indicated in his February 5, 1998 Reasons for Judgment on page 41) and motioned to the Crown to continue so that the pictures would be part of the Crown's case. The material in this website may be a real eye-opener and may assist the reader someday.
My advice from experience is not to trust the Courts to do justice unless you have a lawyer and too much money, and have never spoken out against Judges who favoured lawyers. It may all depend on who you are and who the Judges choose to favour. Judge Lajoie said it didn't matter if the evidence he used to convict me was true or not as he intended to use it anyway as long as it was similar to the evidence of the lawyer and his wife. (trial transcript p. 253) Since the lawyer swore he told Sgt. Clarida a different story about their December 8th allegation than his wife did, and there was no Police report, a fair Judge would have dismissed the charges without delay. Justice Bolan understood this and suggested it wasn't reasonable that there would be no report or record if someone tried to kill a person.
NOTES:
The logical proof that Judges favour lawyers and that I am a victim of the Courts lies in the fact that no Judge or Court ever considered the evidence against the lawyer and no Court ever gave nor could give a reason for dismissing my action against the lawyer. It was more than clear that the lawyer and his wife fabricated a story to have me prosecuted, and the law does not permit a Judge to dismiss a case on Summary Judgment where there is any hope of proving the case, as there was in this case, yet he did. It was not even the right of the Court to weigh the evidence, as my Statement of Claim contains a cause of action, and it was unfair to misrepresent the evidence for the Factum that may have been meant to be used to mislead the Court of Appeal for Ontario which also made an inaccurate finding.
Judge Lajoie deceptively hid my September 17, 1996 letter, and pretended he made it an exhibit. He ignored the importance of it and most likely knew I took pictures because of Mr. Broadbent's false accusations and disrespect for his Court Order and that I was arrested and put on trial simply because I had refused to allow a lawyer to maintain a risk of damaging my tires with the sharp points of a log. The Courts did not care to consider this lawyer's obsession with my driveway and his untruthfulness, and as a result of this and his false accusations and perjury I have lost my life savings and more than $100,000 by far.
Counsel for the Police untruthfully said an investigation was made but that was impossible two weeks after the date of the allegation; and withholding the fabricated story from me for more than two months made it impossible for me to defend myself or prove that the story was false. Judge Lajoie didn't care if the evidence was true as long as it was similar, and he didn't care if the lawyer lied about calling the Police on a certain date. He didn't care if the lawyer tried many times to have me falsely arrested. He interfered with the evidence of the log, especially concerning the lie about the log being in two pieces.
The bottom line: Mr. Broadbent asked Sgt. Clarida to arrest me when I first started to move the log from my driveway on December 19, 1996. Sgt. Clarida asked for a written statement from Broadbent, and because I continued to move the log, he then pursued charges on December 22nd as shown on the video of that day. Broadbent must have been depending on his friend to give false similar fact evidence else I would not have been arrested and jailed at all. Broadbent fabricated a similar story in order to assist Sgt. Clarida to arrest me and Judge Lajoie used the false evidence even though it was proven false. Then Judge Del Frate dismissed my action against Broadbent without having or giving a reason, and effectively he ordered me to pay Broadbent's court costs to reward him for committing perjury and for fabricating evidence for a court case.
|
