First, that she told police she was drunk that night, but then denied being
drunk in court; second, she failed to tell investigators that she knew she had
not closed the door to her house properly behind her — an omission she called
“not insignificant”; and third, she submitted to police an account of the
night’s events, as written by a friend, without reviewing it properly and later
said it contained information that was not true.
“I do not disbelieve the complainant,” Judge Sparrow told the court. “As
stated, she was clear and consistent in most of her testimony … but his unshaken
testimony, viewed in the light of certain flaws in her evidence outlined above,
leaves me in a state of reasonable doubt on the issue of whether or not there
was consent of sexual contact.”
Mr. Payne, who is in his fifties and has stepped away from his teaching
duties, declined to comment. He faces another allegation of sexual assault,
brought forward by a woman after this case was publicized in the media.
“This was the result we had expected all along,” said Steven Stauffer, Mr.
Payne’s lawyer. “We didn’t know it would take this long to get there, but we
were confident this is where we would end up.”
He said they expect the same result from the second trial, which is due to
begin at the end of April.
Reached for comment, the complainant wrote in an email: “I’m shaken but not
shocked. I’ve survived a sexual assault and four difficult years battling the
case in court. I feel like I can do anything now. It’s clear to me that we work
with a legal system and not a justice system. I’m happy it’s now over, it’s time
for me to move on and heal the wounds this process has left me.”
Male Sharia Applies in Canada is what this decisions says. Judges typically
all end up applying extreme feminist reasoning that "the victim" as long the
victim is Female should be believed.
Across Canada Judges engage in
"justification" or what is known as "the illegal legal process of
justification" which means, females have an assumption of credibility and
Judges have an obligation to "infer" that anything a woman alleges will
result in negative credibility findings for any male accused which is
probably why James Ander Payne declined to testify.
Judges are notorious for rejecting any exculpatory evidence of witnesses
who might cast a concern regarding the credibility of a "complainant" when
the complainant is female.
Across Ontario, Judges find men "guilty" for improper purposes that
reflect the Government's extreme feminist agenda that includes giving
custody of children to women even when they have incredible records for
violence and obvious anger and or mental health issues.
Judges like the Dishonourable Monique Metivier grant orders for Mothers "ExParte"
without service or notice upon a father and equally dishonourable judges
like Robert Maranger, Jennifer Belishen, Maria Linhares Desousa and even
Paul Kane can't help themselves from protecting "the Rats" of the Judiciary
like Timothy Minnema a former CAS lawyer who blatantly fabricate evidences
and or ignores fabrication of evidence by CAS lawyers or females, to assist
the most violent and dis-credible females.
Our case law on credibility is fraught with serious problems that in
practice encourages and promotes violence and false allegations by women
towards men because at the end of the day, the most violent and or
"untrustworthy" of females know, that "they always believe the woman".
While our Judges treat the courts as a political machine, it will promote
violence and false allegations towards men for obvious reasons that are
generally connected to a large financial reward.
Ottawa Mens Centre
"That "rehearsed ring" Justice Sparrow refers to is a new "creative" way
that Judges use to use as a "justification" for making negative credibility
findings against men who are accused of crimes by women and when, they have
no other "reason" they can come up with for making credibility findings for
a female, against a male, to satisfy what is called "sufficiency of reasons"
to allow "appellate review".
The idea is to find a man not guilty but to destroy his reputation while
protecting blatant false allegations despite, a lack of credibility of the
complainant.
Typically Dishonourable Judges use "omission" to avoid saying anything
about the lack of credibility that was proven during the trial.
Expect to read more about this issue in the future as our courts become
increasingly clogged with false allegations that are given a feminist sugar
coating that destroys the publics confidence in the administration of
Justice in Ontario.
Ottawa Mens Centre