Canadalawcourts.com - Dr. Philip Anthony White

_{dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld, dr, dr., doctor. philip, anthony, white, supreme, court, british columbia, appeal, expert, evidence, kelowna, kamloops, judgement, decision, consent, dishonest, dispute, law, legal, precedent, failure, see, bc, b.c., fraud, withheld,}

This case is different from all who seek treatment for any existing illness in that the Plaintiff did not require this operation for any health reason, he was purely healthy before accepting the elective operation, supported by real health records, physical examinations and documents, upon leaving the hospital the Plaintiff was immediately in long term pain, prostate and swelling at the site of the operation something the Plaintiff never accepted.

The Canadian Charter of Rights, the supreme law of the land above all other law. Above Governments, above Courts, guarantees that Canadian law is applied equally to every Canadian. This family have reserved all future equality and legal rights. Until overturned this forms the accepted standard for Supreme Court Judges.

The legal council for the doctors openly told Justice Blair they never disputed the fact of pain, swelling and prostate following the operation to save lengthy submissions. The evidence supported their conclusions. Whatever other claims Justice Blair has made is purely of his own making. Justice Blair excluded prior medical records and physical examinations days and immediately before the operation in order to provide benefit within judgement.

Take Note: Justice Blair made serious unsupported allegations that alleged experts employed by the doctors claimed an informed consent. Absolutely no inference can be taken from alleged doctor experts who provided him with some form of evidence that an informed consent was provided or any discussions had taken place, when these alleged discussions had not. Experts hired by the doctors, who failed to see any evidence from the Plaintiff, when fraud is claimed have absolutely no credibility. Fraud is claimed on an alleged consent. Fraud is claimed on judges allegations that failed to appear anywhere in the evidence.

Within submissions Justice Blair was told legitimate health records clearly showed an excellent before the operation health followed by real documented evidence of pain and swelling occuring immediately at the site of the operation. No mention of these facts are made in his judgement. Judge Blair introduced questions he knew could not be answered.

With the exclusion of documented legitimate, reasonably understood evidence Justice Blair seriously attacked the Plaintiff personally, he gained believablity on unsupported claims. Alleged experts employed by the doctors failed to see any evidence presented by the Plaintiff. Doctor's documents had dates just days before this application. Judge Blair knew that the Plaintiff evidence was not seen by the alleged experts employed by the doctors. Judge Blair introduced questions he knew could not be answered in a court ordered closed court. Justice Blair ordered no cross examination of experts, the upcoming trial was denied. B.C. Court of Appeal makes unlawful claims. An appeal was not permitted. Judge Blair's judgement has been approved by the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of Canada and sets this case as the Government accepted standard of conduct for Canadian Judges. All rights are claimed.

"To deliver selective facts is dishonest when the exclusion of fact can modify perception that can lead to inequality in law." Presented at the closed courtroom trial and withheld from judgement is any mention of prior to the operation doctors health records that had been presented to the court, Dr. White's complete doctors full physical examination just days prior to the operation, Dr. Morrow's two examinations including moments before the operation.....These documents proved no prior history of pain and swelling at any time before and immediately before the operation. Justice Blair is not required to explain why he withheld these legitimate, reasonably understood medical records.

[ Beginning of Website ]	[ Introduction to Courts ]
[ Methods of Fraud ]	[ Tell-a-Friend ]
[ Executive Summary ]	[ Editorial Comment Board ]

	Justice Richard Blair must be removed from the Supreme Court.
	There is proof Kamloops B.C. Justice Richard Blair is a fraud.