Justice Deborah Anschell small claims court supports polyamoury, sex clubs, racial hate speech and violence against women

In 2017, it was alleged that Luke Halstead paramedic and ex-military sexually assaulted Country singer Jade Naraine. Police neglected her case because he had friends on the police force. After she reported her sexual assault to police, he went to his friends at 41st division to falsely accuse her of forgery. After forensic examination, it was found she did not sign the character reference letter. The crown also concluded credibility issues and potential obstruction of justice in Luke. Luke also stated in a police report that he never liked Jade, even when they were on good terms. This meant that his abuse towards her was targeted because he had a history of looking for women with low self esteem who are vulnerable, to take advantage of them. One victim, who alleges being pushed down the stairs and always subject to verbal, mental and physical abuse was a crown ward who came from a mother with skitzophrenia, according to public records. Jade came from two parents who did not care for her either. He then manipulates these women into harmful sexual lifestyles that turn their lives upside down ad forever scar them. Many women believe that he should be in jail but few are strong enough to stand up against him. He is also known to con women and women often have to pay for food, trips and things for him as he pretends he is a part-time paramedic, when he really has two jobs according to tax returns.

He would make fun of Jade for being part black, and having acne and write racial hate speech all over the internet. Unfortunately, according to lawyers in Toronto. Often times judges can be misled by sociopaths as they often appear extremely credible. Despite all of the bad and harm and evilness in Luke, this judge said she could not see any malice in the slanderous and false statements he made about Jade to an officer. He was rooted entirely by malice. He could not handle it that one woman would stand up and stop the harm he was doing to women in the community. It was sad to a lot of women to see that a woman judge would be another woman manipulated by such a harmful man. We are all hoping and praying that the judge for her sexual assault is smart enough to see through it. She has retained a contingency lawyer who agreed that often times judges can be misled. Luke was the epitome of malicious. It just goes to show that even judges, who are educated, often lack basic common sense.

Jade is a wonderful woman who is kind, never touched drugs or even a cigarette and is now a rising country singer who is going to law school, just to be able to help women get their sociopaths held accountable. Luke had mental health issues that would interfere with the rights and safety of others. He would be noted in default multiple times and always make up some excuse and blame others. But then he would end up in default again.

On her site it was released that she actually told two credible witnesses before they got into the fight he tried to blame her coming forward on. Justice Anschell supported this man, according to her site, after all the abuse he has put various women through and his malice towards Jade. He has been alleged of pushing a woman down the stairs in the past and had use friends on the police force, to commence frivolous proceedings against Jade campaigning to get her in jail and making racial hate remarks towards her being part black and manipulating women into polyamorous relationships. The judge found him to not be malicious in a slander claim she brought against him, where he accused her of making up her PTSD and Depression.

The reason why Jade’s allegation was so credible was because of chronology and witnesses. There have been many cases in the past where judges have said that even if there was something else that the woman could have been upset about later, the fact that she told witnesses prior to that incident, meant that the sexual assault must have happened.

The crown thought that maybe Jade came forward because of a little instagram account dispute that the perpetrator tried to blame it on, but Martin Lask, her witness, was a stranger that she met for the first time the day after the sexual assault. His evidence was that she told him and said she was in pain and appeared in pain and uncomfortable and offered to take her to the hospital.

Martin was a stranger who had no interest in helping her. This is another thing judges look at, what interest the person has in this. Martin stated it is expensive and obviously a hassle to fly to Toronto for hearings all the time, but stated that he would do it because he felt that she was truly injured. Mike, her producer had also been deemed by a judge at a prior hearing to be very credible by Justice Borenstein, so she had two credible, genuine witnesses with no reason to lie.

The accused may try to blame it on something else or say the girl is vindictive or doing it for something else, but there are many cases, such as the Zando case, where despite that police did not press charges and he claimed she was vindictive, the judge could not see how that version was possible when witnesses said she mentioned the sexual assault before the incident the man describes. In Jade’s case, the assault happened on March 2nd, and she met Martin the next day, and then the perpetrator brought up an instagram account issue a week later. The instagram account had nothing to with their breakup or why she told Martin and Mike she was sexually assaulted a week beforehand.

Superior Court Justice O’Marra had stated to another car accident matter, that the fact that someone has been previously charged with a car accident related issue and the charge was withdrawn should be struck from the statement of claim, as prejudicial. He stated that the matter was never determined in the court.

The crown using Jade’s past harassment charge with was also prejudicial. It was a different relationship, one with a man who did not abuse her. If someone is charged with an offense and it’s withdrawn or ongoing, it is obviously prejudicial to use that as any kind of proof that a person is not credible, because its only one side and not a full picture. Using unrelated things to determine credibility for a sexual assault, undermines the seriousness of the sexual assault.

Judges have also continuously said that credibility is also pertaining to consistent story of events at different times. For example if the girls testimony to her lawyer, the police report, psychologist and under oath on the stand were all the same, then a judge can find her to be credible. In this case, the officer Maureen Trueman said there was an inconsistent date in her police report, apparently to something online, but regardless, the fact that sexual activity happened on March 2nd, was never in dispute between the perpetrator and her. Sometimes victims make small slip ups with dates when they have a lot on their minds. Judges have stated that only significant things that could not have been forgotten matter.

This assault was also premeditated because the perpetrator had stated to police that he never cared about or trusted her during their relationship and would never say good things about her. He would also con women and pretend he only had one part-time job. Women alleged to have been asked to pay for food, trips and expensive guns.

He had a lengthy history with the law. He had *** with an underage homeless woman and got her involved in alcohol and pregnancy. He is known to file frivolous contempt motions at the same time when he is in contempt, to bring commotion to the court. This was when he was guilty and found in contempt. His main ammunition is to go to cops first and he has slandered multiple women with personality disorders, where judges said there was no evidence of it. He spread that Jade made up her PTSD and Depression symptons, despite that she suffered with them severely for years. Then he made up his own PTSD symptoms and said he researched it and had a book on it.

Here are some details of his questionable criminal history:

From an anonymous source. We are pointing you here to publicly available information, with references on CanLii. We want to be of assistance but will remain anonymous.

Citation: Roth v. Halstead, 2017 ONCJ 593 – 2017-07-31
From the Judgment of Justice O’Connell:

[24] In July of 2010, the father brought an ex parte motion for custody of Thomas. According to the father, the mother had quit her job without a contingency plan and could no longer afford her rent and was facing homelessness. Mr. Halstead deposed that the mother was behaving in an increasingly erratic manner and that she was financially and emotionally unstable so he offered to take Thomas for a period of time.
[25] Mr. Halstead obtained a temporary without prejudice custody order of Thomas and brought him to his home in Pembroke. Mr. Halstead then abandoned his application in August of 2010 when Ms Roth agreed to move to his mother’s basement apartment, where she had lived previously and been assisted by the paternal grandmother. Mr. Halstead returned Thomas to Ms Roth’s primary care shortly after that.
This is also when Luke’s Court Martial took place according to the public records. The actual date when the ‘offense’ for this court martial took place is unknown, but it can be assumed, based on the seriousness of the charge, it was shortly before the trial:

It’s assumed that Luke failed to inform the judges, that he was scheduled to attend a court martial only 5 days later to face charges “for having in your possession without lawful excuse a number of blank and live ammunition and different grenades, simulators, basically, pyrotechnic devices.” He was found guilty.

Citation: R. v. Halstead, 2010 CM 3018 – 2010-09-01
The Judge noted:
• “But the quantity is a very serious aggravating factor. You kept a lot, which is very unusual; it’s more than keeping a souvenir in your house.”
• “The other thing is the type of ammunition; hand grenades, simulators, or trip flares contain substances which are very dangerous, especially—and it brings me to the second aggravating factor I consider—is the place for storing all those things.”
• “You bring this at your home. You know in the Canadian Forces we keep that in a special place in order to avoid—for security reasons and because we don’t want to have all people accessing this and playing with that. You brought this at your house. So I understand that from your perspective you probably had access to this, but it also means that others may have access to this, and other people that may come in your house, not having a clue how to handle this, and expose themselves to any kind of injury or any other thing.”
• “…but you didn’t have on your mind how dangerous it could have been if somebody, not knowing how to use this, would have played with that.”
• “It’s difficult to the court to reconcile the fact that you’re wearing this appointment and that you kept all those things at your home. You should have, at some point, decided to bring back all those things knowing how dangerous it could have been for yourself and anybody else.”

Citation: R. v. Halstead, [1999] O.J. No. 5418 (SCJ) [MISSING!].
Referenced in: R. v. Pangan, 2014 ONCJ 327 (CanLII) and R. v. Braithwaite, 2010 MBPC 53 (CanLII)

From R. v. Braithwaite, 2010:

[17… In R. v. Halstead, [1999] O.J. No. 5418, a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, an offender, with four others, participated in the savage beating of a victim. The victim was chosen at random and attacked for money and to steal his stereo. The group beat him into unconsciousness, broke some of his teeth and permanently mangled one ear. The offender was 19 at the time and lived on the street where he abused alcohol and drugs. He had no prior record and was on bail for nine moths with no problems. He had addressed his substance abuse and was back in school. He was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment and probation. An important factor was that by the time of sentencing, he did not seem to be a continuing risk to the community. …
Luke was 17 at the time just turning 18; however, sometimes they get the ages wrong. Information is not always accurate. Luke has allegedly had a criminal record that he had expunged. This was from a period when Luke was an adult. We don’t know the exact date of the 1999 incident or when it was expunged. Since it was expunged, the records cannot be searched.

Everything else lines up, substance abuse, homelessness etc

Also, from the Court Martial:

[12] c. The fact that you did not have an entry on your conduct sheet related to similar offences. Despite the fact that you have a conduct sheet, the entry on it has no relation, as mentioned by your counsel, to the facts or to the kind of offence you are facing today. (This would have been his drug charges, which happened before the army.
This means that Luke had a separate disciplinary action or hearing while employed full-time by the Canadian Army. We don’t know what that is, but we do know that Luke DID have at least one assault charge for sure. This would be in addition (one would assume) from whatever this indecent on his conduct sheet might be.
Luke probably fails to tell anyone during trials that he had previously been court martialed and charged with munitions charges. This would have likely affect the court’s decisions based on the fact that the activity Luke seems to admit to doing, is a contravention of the Canadian Firearms Act; and would represent a pattern of firearms abuse.

[76] However, Mr. Halstead admitted that shortly after the recommendations of the
JFCS child protection worker and the OCL clinical investigator, Mr. Halstead took Thomas
to a shooting range on Crown land where Mr. Halstead then created an explosive device
using Tannerite taped to a saline bag on a propane tank, taped to a tree. He and Thomas then
watched it explode. This occurred during their two week summer holiday together in July of
2016.
[110] Ms Roth believes that despite the OCL recommendations that Thomas not be
exposed to firearms, the father continues to do so and that the father does not respect Thomas’s wishes in this regard. She cites the Tannerite explosive device incident that occurred during Thomas’s summer holiday with his father in July of 2016 as an example. This incident occurred after the 2016 recommendations of the both the OCL investigator and the children’s aid society that Thomas not be exposed to firearms.
[267] When told during cross-examination that after the release of the OCL Report and
recommendations, the father had exposed Thomas to an explosion on a shooting range near
his property, Ms. Barlas testified that she would be very concerned about this given Thomas’
clear views and preferences about being exposed to gun activity.
[313] The father’s decision to arrange for an explosive device to be detonated in a
shooting range during his summer holidays with Thomas only months after the OCL
clinician recommended that Thomas not be exposed to guns or gun activity was ill advised to
say the least and an example of very poor judgment. The father’ evidence that he did not
recall whether he used a gun to cause the explosion was not credible and simply did not
accord with common sense.
As with the pattern of firearms abuse – if Luke was the offender in the earlier assault incident cited in R. v. Braithwaite, 2010; and if the incident on the conduct sheet is at all related to assault, how is it that those records would have been expunged?
If the facts here are lined up:

• It seems that Luke maybe have had an assault incident that is sealed due to the fact that he was underaged at the time.

• He had an assault charge (for which he received probation) expunged as an adult. This was an incident that happened while he was an adult.

• He has a second (non-munitions) entry on his army conduct sheet that likely the Superior Court did not know about at the time his records were expunged. It seems clear that, as with the munitions charges, he also fails to mention his previous assault-related incidents when he went before the court to request his records be expunged.

Luke does brag about being able to ‘get out of trouble’ because of his job and uniform as a paramedic. Specifically, multiple traffic violations.

When an officer stops a person for a traffic violation, is a record kept of the ‘search’ on the license plate, even when no charge or official warning is given to the driver?
– If so, it’s likely there is a long list of traffic stops associate with Luke, but with no charges or fine levied.

He has abused so many women. He raped a Toronto woman and pushed another down some stairs.

Reply
Anonymous helperJanuary 23, 2019 at 12:57 PM
From an anonymous source. We are pointing you here to publicly available information, with references on CanLii. We feel sorry for everything the women are going through and want to be of assistance but will remain anonymous.

Citation: Roth v. Halstead, 2017 ONCJ 593 – 2017-07-31
From the Judgment of Justice O’Connell:

[24] In July of 2010, the father brought an ex parte motion for custody of Thomas. According to the father, the mother had quit her job without a contingency plan and could no longer afford her rent and was facing homelessness. Mr. Halstead deposed that the mother was behaving in an increasingly erratic manner and that she was financially and emotionally unstable so he offered to take Thomas for a period of time.
[25] Mr. Halstead obtained a temporary without prejudice custody order of Thomas and brought him to his home in Pembroke. Mr. Halstead then abandoned his application in August of 2010 when Ms Roth agreed to move to his mother’s basement apartment, where she had lived previously and been assisted by the paternal grandmother. Mr. Halstead returned Thomas to Ms Roth’s primary care shortly after that.
As it turns out – This is also when Luke’s Court Martial took place according to the public records. The actual date when the ‘offense’ for this court martial took place is unknown, but it can be assumed, based on the seriousness of the charge, it was shortly before the trial:

It’s assumed that Luke failed to inform the judges, that he was scheduled to attend a court martial only 5 days later to face charges “for having in your possession without lawful excuse a number of blank and live ammunition and different grenades, simulators, basically, pyrotechnic devices.” He was found guilty.

Citation: R. v. Halstead, 2010 CM 3018 – 2010-09-01
The Judge noted:
• “But the quantity is a very serious aggravating factor. You kept a lot, which is very unusual; it’s more than keeping a souvenir in your house.”
• “The other thing is the type of ammunition; hand grenades, simulators, or trip flares contain substances which are very dangerous, especially—and it brings me to the second aggravating factor I consider—is the place for storing all those things.”
• “You bring this at your home. You know in the Canadian Forces we keep that in a special place in order to avoid—for security reasons and because we don’t want to have all people accessing this and playing with that. You brought this at your house. So I understand that from your perspective you probably had access to this, but it also means that others may have access to this, and other people that may come in your house, not having a clue how to handle this, and expose themselves to any kind of injury or any other thing.”
• “…but you didn’t have on your mind how dangerous it could have been if somebody, not knowing how to use this, would have played with that.”
• “It’s difficult to the court to reconcile the fact that you’re wearing this appointment and that you kept all those things at your home. You should have, at some point, decided to bring back all those things knowing how dangerous it could have been for yourself and anybody else.”

Citation: R. v. Halstead, [1999] O.J. No. 5418 (SCJ) [MISSING!].
Referenced in: R. v. Pangan, 2014 ONCJ 327 (CanLII) and R. v. Braithwaite, 2010 MBPC 53 (CanLII)

From R. v. Braithwaite, 2010:

[17… In R. v. Halstead, [1999] O.J. No. 5418, a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, an offender, with four others, participated in the savage beating of a victim. The victim was chosen at random and attacked for money and to steal his stereo. The group beat him into unconsciousness, broke some of his teeth and permanently mangled one ear. The offender was 19 at the time and lived on the street where he abused alcohol and drugs. He had no prior record and was on bail for nine moths with no problems. He had addressed his substance abuse and was back in school. He was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment and probation. An important factor was that by the time of sentencing, he did not seem to be a continuing risk to the community. …
Luke was 17 at the time just turning 18; however, sometimes they get the ages wrong. Information is not always accurate. Luke has allegedly had a criminal record that he had expunged. This was from a period when Luke was an adult. We don’t know the exact date of the 1999 incident or when it was expunged. Since it was expunged, the records cannot be searched.

Everything else lines up, substance abuse, homelessness etc

Also, from the Court Martial:

[12] c. The fact that you did not have an entry on your conduct sheet related to similar offences. Despite the fact that you have a conduct sheet, the entry on it has no relation, as mentioned by your counsel, to the facts or to the kind of offence you are facing today. (This would have been his drug charges, which happened before the army.
This means that Luke had a separate disciplinary action or hearing while employed full-time by the Canadian Army. We don’t know what that is, but we do know that Luke DID have at least one assault charge for sure. This would be in addition (one would assume) from whatever this indecent on his conduct sheet might be.

Luke probably fails to tell anyone during trials that he had previously been court martialed and charged with munitions charges. This would have likely affect the court’s decisions based on the fact that the activity Luke seems to admit to doing, is a contravention of the Canadian Firearms Act; and would represent a pattern of firearms abuse.

[76] However, Mr. Halstead admitted that shortly after the recommendations of the
JFCS child protection worker and the OCL clinical investigator, Mr. Halstead took Thomas
to a shooting range on Crown land where Mr. Halstead then created an explosive device
using Tannerite taped to a saline bag on a propane tank, taped to a tree. He and Thomas then
watched it explode. This occurred during their two week summer holiday together in July of
2016.
[110] Ms Roth believes that despite the OCL recommendations that Thomas not be
exposed to firearms, the father continues to do so and that the father does not respect Thomas’s wishes in this regard. She cites the Tannerite explosive device incident that occurred during Thomas’s summer holiday with his father in July of 2016 as an example. This incident occurred after the 2016 recommendations of the both the OCL investigator and the children’s aid society that Thomas not be exposed to firearms.
[267] When told during cross-examination that after the release of the OCL Report and
recommendations, the father had exposed Thomas to an explosion on a shooting range near
his property, Ms. Barlas testified that she would be very concerned about this given Thomas’
clear views and preferences about being exposed to gun activity.
[313] The father’s decision to arrange for an explosive device to be detonated in a
shooting range during his summer holidays with Thomas only months after the OCL
clinician recommended that Thomas not be exposed to guns or gun activity was ill advised to
say the least and an example of very poor judgment. The father’ evidence that he did not
recall whether he used a gun to cause the explosion was not credible and simply did not
accord with common sense.
As with the pattern of firearms abuse – if Luke was the offender in the earlier assault incident cited in R. v. Braithwaite, 2010; and if the incident on the conduct sheet is at all related to assault, how is it that those records would have been expunged?

If the facts here are lined up:

• It seems that Luke maybe have had an assault incident that is sealed due to the fact that he was underaged at the time.

• He had an assault charge (for which he received probation) expunged as an adult. This was an incident that happened while he was an adult.

• He has a second (non-munitions) entry on his army conduct sheet that likely the Superior Court did not know about at the time his records were expunged. It seems clear that, as with the munitions charges, he also fails to mention his previous assault-related incidents when he went before the court to request his records be expunged.

Luke does brag about being able to ‘get out of trouble’ because of his job and uniform as a paramedic. Specifically, multiple traffic violations.

When an officer stops a person for a traffic violation, is a record kept of the ‘search’ on the license plate, even when no charge or official warning is given to the driver?
– If so, it’s likely there is a long list of traffic stops associate with Luke, but with no charges or fine levied.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *