The False Allegations Of Jeremy Searle
I just came across a recent article in 'The West End Chronicle', a weekly newspaper that serves the Montreal suburb of N.D.G., in which Montreal U*U, and washed-up "populist" municipal politician, Jeremy Searle is accused of making false allegations by Michael Applebaum, the current mayor of N.D.G. These alleged false allegations of Jeremy Searle are really quite minor and inconsequential compared to the highly misleading and outright false allegations that he made about me in his letters and depositions to the Montreal police force in his own, and other DIM Thinking Montreal Unitarians, deeply misguided efforts to have me falsely arrested on trumped up criminal charges in order to bring an end to my peaceful public protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. In fact, Jeremy Searle's sworn testimony as a *star* U*U prosecution witness against me, during the criminal trial that followed my false arrest on dubious trumped up charges of disrupting a religious service, was not only highly misleading and peppered with various false allegations but it even contained outright fabrications that Jeremy Searle had dreamed up in his futile efforts to convince the judge that I was guilty of disrupting church services at the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
Since the online version of the article allowed for the posting of comments I took full advantage of that opportunity to expose to public view these far more serious false allegations of Jeremy Searle that include outright perjury in a court of law. Most ironically the most perjurious of the outright fabrications that Jeremy Searle dreamed up, unless of course he was in fact delusional. . . were totally irrelevant to the criminal charges that were brought against me by the police and prosecutors at the behest of Jeremy Searle and other DIM Thinking Montreal Unitarians. Simply put, even if the perjurious false allegations that Jeremy Searle made about me and my protest activities during his sworn testimony in the criminal trial were true, they would not have helped to prove the charges against me. In other words Jeremy Searle committed perjury for nothing. . .
Herewith the comments that I made in response to the article in the West End Chronicle.
Jeremy Searle's Foot In Mouth Disease
Jeremy Searle is one of those third-rate "populist" politicians who fit the following saying that I came up with decades ago to describe another municipal politician -
I don't know if he keeps putting his foot in his mouth because his mouth is so big or his mouth is so big because he keeps putting his foot in it. . .
Jeremy Searle's alleged false allegations in this matter pale in comparison to other highly misleading or blatantly false allegations that he has made in the past, to say nothing of other examples of foot-in-mouth disease such as his apparently racist "black dog" gaffe of some years ago. . .
In depositions that he made to Montreal police in his and other Montreal Unitarians' deeply misguided efforts to have me falsely arrested on trumped up criminal charges in order to censor and suppress my ongoing protests against Unitarian aka U*U injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy, Jeremy Searle falsely accused me of "hate speech" and "hate crime". Jeremy Searle was one of the Unitarian Church of Montreal's *star* prosecution witnesses during the criminal trial that resulted from my false arrest on totally spurious criminal charges that my peaceful public protest activities outside of the so-called Unitarian Church of Montreal on any given Sunday disrupted religious services at said alleged "church".
Jeremy Searle's sworn testimony in criminal court contained highly misleading and even completely false allegations. Jeremy Searle dreamed up complete fabrications about my conduct during my peaceful protest activities. There is a word for making false allegations during sworn testimony in a court of law. That word is perjury. In have seriously considered trying to bring perjury charges against Jeremy Searle for his highly misleading and outright false sworn testimony as a prosecution witness against me. As far as I am concerned he is also guilty of knowingly and willfully misleading the Montreal police force in his written depositions.
There is no question that Jeremy Searle pressured the MUC police to have me arrested. It is abundantly clear from the letters and depositions that Jeremy Searle made to the MUC police which were provided to me as part of the Crown's dubious evidence against me that he made highly msileading and outright false statements to the police. I can't help but wonder if Jeremy Searle misused and abused his power and influence as a Montreal city councillor in his deeply misguided efforts to undermine and abrogate my constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful public protest and I suggested as much during the criminal trial.
In the end truth and justice prevailed and I was rightfully acquitted of the totally spurious criminal charges that Jeremy Searle and other outrageously hypocritical members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal were responsible for bringing against me. The trial recordings are really quite amusing and I do get a chuckle out of listening to Jeremy Searle making an U*U out of himself in criminal court during his sworn testimony. I am tempted to post the most entertaining snippets to the internet so that others may share in the fun.
Jeremy Searle prides himself in being Montreal's "Pothole Czar" but as far as I am concerned one of the biggest potholes in Montreal is the one between Jeremy Searle's ears. . .
Since the online version of the article allowed for the posting of comments I took full advantage of that opportunity to expose to public view these far more serious false allegations of Jeremy Searle that include outright perjury in a court of law. Most ironically the most perjurious of the outright fabrications that Jeremy Searle dreamed up, unless of course he was in fact delusional. . . were totally irrelevant to the criminal charges that were brought against me by the police and prosecutors at the behest of Jeremy Searle and other DIM Thinking Montreal Unitarians. Simply put, even if the perjurious false allegations that Jeremy Searle made about me and my protest activities during his sworn testimony in the criminal trial were true, they would not have helped to prove the charges against me. In other words Jeremy Searle committed perjury for nothing. . .
Herewith the comments that I made in response to the article in the West End Chronicle.
Jeremy Searle's Foot In Mouth Disease
Jeremy Searle is one of those third-rate "populist" politicians who fit the following saying that I came up with decades ago to describe another municipal politician -
I don't know if he keeps putting his foot in his mouth because his mouth is so big or his mouth is so big because he keeps putting his foot in it. . .
Jeremy Searle's alleged false allegations in this matter pale in comparison to other highly misleading or blatantly false allegations that he has made in the past, to say nothing of other examples of foot-in-mouth disease such as his apparently racist "black dog" gaffe of some years ago. . .
In depositions that he made to Montreal police in his and other Montreal Unitarians' deeply misguided efforts to have me falsely arrested on trumped up criminal charges in order to censor and suppress my ongoing protests against Unitarian aka U*U injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy, Jeremy Searle falsely accused me of "hate speech" and "hate crime". Jeremy Searle was one of the Unitarian Church of Montreal's *star* prosecution witnesses during the criminal trial that resulted from my false arrest on totally spurious criminal charges that my peaceful public protest activities outside of the so-called Unitarian Church of Montreal on any given Sunday disrupted religious services at said alleged "church".
Jeremy Searle's sworn testimony in criminal court contained highly misleading and even completely false allegations. Jeremy Searle dreamed up complete fabrications about my conduct during my peaceful protest activities. There is a word for making false allegations during sworn testimony in a court of law. That word is perjury. In have seriously considered trying to bring perjury charges against Jeremy Searle for his highly misleading and outright false sworn testimony as a prosecution witness against me. As far as I am concerned he is also guilty of knowingly and willfully misleading the Montreal police force in his written depositions.
There is no question that Jeremy Searle pressured the MUC police to have me arrested. It is abundantly clear from the letters and depositions that Jeremy Searle made to the MUC police which were provided to me as part of the Crown's dubious evidence against me that he made highly msileading and outright false statements to the police. I can't help but wonder if Jeremy Searle misused and abused his power and influence as a Montreal city councillor in his deeply misguided efforts to undermine and abrogate my constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful public protest and I suggested as much during the criminal trial.
In the end truth and justice prevailed and I was rightfully acquitted of the totally spurious criminal charges that Jeremy Searle and other outrageously hypocritical members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal were responsible for bringing against me. The trial recordings are really quite amusing and I do get a chuckle out of listening to Jeremy Searle making an U*U out of himself in criminal court during his sworn testimony. I am tempted to post the most entertaining snippets to the internet so that others may share in the fun.
Jeremy Searle prides himself in being Montreal's "Pothole Czar" but as far as I am concerned one of the biggest potholes in Montreal is the one between Jeremy Searle's ears. . .
Comments
Most recently you lied about having answered the very first question I posed in the thread you tried to pigeon-hole me into. You could start to make yourself an honest man by answering it now:
I once asked:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
When and where did you directly answer this question?
A "habitual liar" indrax? I think not. Indeed I know not. And I am very confident that most people of intelligence and conscience can quite readily determine that you are one U*U who really is full of sh*t. . .
:Most recently you lied about having answered the very first question I posed in the thread you tried to pigeon-hole me into.
Most recently? Lied? What a joke.
:You could start to make yourself an honest man by answering it now:
I once asked:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
When and where did you directly answer this question?
You really are a piece of work indrax. That whole issue has already been done to death severakl times over and I will not waste any more of my time on it. Anyone who bothers to review old posts will see that I more than adequately answered that question. I never claimed to have done so "directly" in the old thread that it was posted in. In fact I have made a point of not answering your idiotic question, .What was said?" in the original thread precisely because it was so idiotic. Anyone who knows anything about this conflict knows what Rev. Ray Drennan said.
Any further off-topic SPAM posts from you will be relegated to the U*U Hole where they belong.
I never claimed to have done so "directly" in the old thread that it was posted in. In fact I have made a point of not answering your idiotic question, .What was said?" in the original thread precisely because it was so idiotic.
Thank you for that admission.
You HAVE claimed that you were 'not evasive at all'. To evade means to avoid giving a direct answer to.
You also claimed you answered my question 'a year ago' (now a year an a half.)
I asked that question on Dec 16 '05, I was even more explicit in Jan '06 when you agreed with me that context was important, but didn't provide me with any more.
You said you answered my question, but you didn't. That is the form most of your lies take. If you had answered it anything close to 'a year ago', you would be able to link to where. On the contrary, you have admitted that you had decided not to answer it.
What evidence do you have that Jeremy Seale lied at all? Why should we believe you?
It is a form of censorship if the posts are removed from the pertinent threads that they were posted to and "pigeon holed" in a single area
A site that claims to be anti censorship shouldn't move posts period.
You have not exposed much in the way of hypocrisy indrax. I never claimed that this site would be totally 100% censorship free. I said that "censorship is ascorned" and it is. I also said that nothing would be "memory holed" and in fact nothing has been "memory holed" in spite of your claims to the contrary. In any case many U*Us would disagree with your assertion that I have engaged in "censorship" by doing nothing more than removing your off-topic SPAM from certain posts whole fully disclsoing what I was doing and directing people to where your SPAM could be read if they should want to read it. Censorship of the written word usually entails making it impossible read something that someone has written. I have done no such thing, except for one little exception that was done for strategic purposes. . .
:Isn't this a thread where you condemned someone for lying?
Indeed I did. Not just lying indrax but lying in the course of presenting sworn testimony during a criminal trial. That is commonly known as 'perjury' indrax. . .
:(though you never demonstrated that he did in fact lie.)
Oh I have not yet stated what all of Jeremy Seale's perjurious lies specifically consisted of yet, but I have everything in writing or recorded on digital audio. When I choose to do so I can quite readily expose Jeremy Searle's lies in complete detail.
::I never claimed to have done so "directly" in the old thread that it was posted in. In fact I have made a point of not answering your idiotic question, .What was said?" in the original thread precisely because it was so idiotic.
:Thank you for that admission.
It's not new indrax. I have said pretty much the same thing before. *You* are the one who tries to so narrowly interpret what I have said in order to pretend that I am lying or am a "habitual liar". I am very confident that most people of intelligence and conscience can see through your foolish games.
:You HAVE claimed that you were 'not evasive at all'. To evade means to avoid giving a direct answer to.
Oh dear. Perhaps I was a little eensy teensy weensy bit "evasive" according to that definition that you have provided indrax but if you are going to accuse me of being evasive because I decided that one of your idiotic questions was barely worthy of a reply I guess you will have to admit that your religious leaders are far far more evasive than I have ever been when it comes to failing to provide direct answers to serious questions that are far from idiotic. The proof is in the U*U pudding and that is just one recent example. . . Here's another. There's a lot more where that came from indrax, including UUA President Bill Sinkford's highly evasive non-responses to most of my communications.
:You also claimed you answered my question 'a year ago' (now a year an a half.)
Because I did so indrax. . . I never claimed that my answer to your ridiculous "What was said?" question was made in the same thread that you originally asked it in. You know as well as I do that that question has been answered to many times over now even if you don't like how I chose to answer to it. . .
:I asked that question on Dec 16 '05, I was even more explicit in Jan '06 when you agreed with me that context was important, but didn't provide me with any more.
Because you didn't need any more context to know "What was said?" by Rev. Ray Drennan and there was virtually no difference between the pertinent "snippets" that I have repeatedly provided and the "full sentences". You know this indrax. It has already been done to death and I simply will not waste any more time than I am wasting right now on that issue.
:You said you answered my question, but you didn't.
Wrong. I dare say that you are lying indrax. Your question was answered many times over on other threads. You know more than enough about *what was said* by Rev. Ray Drennan to make an informed decision about *what was said*. In fact you knew more than enough about what was said at the time that you asked your stupid "What was said?" question.à
:That is the form most of your lies take.
Lies? What lies indrax? I have answered your "what was said?" question many times over as a result of your repeated badgering and harassment.
:If you had answered it anything close to 'a year ago', you would be able to link to where.
I am able to link to where I provided an answer to your question iindrax. I just choose not to because you are such an obnoxious U*U ass and I am fed up with wasting my time on you. . . Even responding to this latest U*U crap from you is a waste of time.
:On the contrary, you have admitted that you had decided not to answer it.
Wrong. I decided not to answer it in the thread that it was originally asked in but I have repeatedly answered it in subsequent threads.
:What evidence do you have that Jeremy Seale lied at all?
I have Jeremy Searle's written depositions to the police and I have a digital recording of every single word he said during sworn testominy in court indrax. What evidence does Jeremy Searle have to support the lies that he told to the Montreal police force and to the judge during my criminal trial?
:Why should we believe you?
We? You are an individual indrax and a rather unique one at that. You do not represent U*Us. I am very confident that pretty much all people of intelligence and conscience, and even most DIM Thinking U*Us, can quite readily determine that my testimony is highly credible whereas your ridiculous attempts to paint me as a "habitual liar" have very little credibility.
:It is a form of censorship if the posts are removed from the pertinent threads that they were posted to and "pigeon holed" in a single area
Yes, *if* no notification is given that posts have been removed and people are not directed to where they have been moved to. I told readers that your SPAM posts had been moved and provided links to where they could find them. FUUSE did no such thing when they censored me by removing my quite pertinent posts and hiding them elsewhere on the FUUSE web site which still fraudulently claims to "censor nothing". . . Indeed I have reason to believe that FUUSE permanently deleted one of my posts but can't investigate that suspicion because FUUSE permanently banned me from posting *anything* to their site. Censorship free? My U*U. . .
:A site that claims to be anti-censorship shouldn't move posts period.
Well that is certainly true of FUUSE which fraudulently claims to "censor nothing." If someone comes under a serious attack by a SPAMMING troll like you I believe that they do have a right to remove genuinely off-topic SPAM from as long as they notify people and tell them where they can read the SPAM if they so choose.
Just for clarification, that's not the hypocrisy I was talking about. That would have been off topic.
Indeed I did.
And not just perjury, but also lying to the police and the public at large. Or am I mistaken in thinking that the alleged lies referred to in the linked article were not under oath?
When I choose to do so I can quite readily expose Jeremy Searle's lies in complete detail.
So why don't you? I can think of many reasons why you should.
Perhaps I was a little eensy teensy weensy bit "evasive" according to that definition that you have provided indrax
I'm confused, it's from the dictionary, you've never disputed that definition before.
What lies indrax?
Are you seriously asking? Do you want a list?
I have Jeremy Searle's written depositions to the police and I have a digital recording of every single word he said during sworn testominy in court indrax.
Robin, you have a pattern of phantom evidence.
Yes, *if* no notification is given that posts have been removed and people are not directed to where they have been moved to.
Interesting
This is as far as this off-topic conversation goes on this thread indrax. If you post any more off-topic SPAM I will move ALL of it, including your initial post and my responses to the U*U Hole where it belongs.
I'm confused again. Are you saying that it is off topic to post about your alleged lies in a forum where you post about Jeremy Seale's alleged lies? In any case, you can see I've kept my replies in this post to a minimum, just points of clarification.
:Are you seriously asking? Do you want a list?
Yes I would like a list of my alleged lies, I expect it will be quite a short list and will not support your "wild*ass statement" that I am a "habitual liar". Post your list of my alleged lies to the 'Arguing With indrax' thread where it belongs.
::I have Jeremy Searle's written depositions to the police and I have a digital recording of every single word he said during sworn testominy in court indrax.
:Robin, you have a pattern of phantom evidence.
Another "wild*ass statement" indrax and one that you really should know better than to have uttered. I dare say that you definitely have a pattern of making "wild*ass statements" and that other people noted that fact some time before I ever had anything to do with you. It is patently absurd for you to assert that I "have a pattern of phantom evidence" when many documents arising from my conflict have been posted to the internet in electronic form. Many pertinent documents are right here on this blog as anyone can easily see. All, or almost all, pertinent documents were available on my web site that was devoted to exposing U*U clergy misconduct. There is nothing "phantom" about the documents and digital recordings that serve as evidence of Jeremy Searle's perjurious lies. Just because they are not posted to the internet does not make them "phantom evidence". In fact there is nothing "phantom" about any other documents or recordings that serve as evidence in this "case". The fact that they are not posted to the internet in no way makes them "phantom evidence".
In fact it is U*Us who suffer from an embarrassing and indeed debilitating "pattern of phantom evidence" as should be clear from the fact that lying U*Us, and not just Jeremy Searle by any means. . . have repeatedly made all kinds of false allegations about me that they cannot back up with the slightest scrap of evidence. N'est-ce pas indrax?
In fact I was once again falsely arrested earlier today on trumped up criminal charges that are even flimsier than the false charges that I was allegedly guilty of disrupting church services. U*U prosecution witnesses Val Bourdon and Jeremy Searle could not provide the slightest evidence that any church service at the Unitarian Church of Montreal had ever been disrupted by me as a result of my peaceful protest outside of their alleged U*U "church". Indeed, under my cross-examination, fundamentalist atheist U*U Val Bourdon ultimately had to admit that a "church" service had never actually been disrupted as a result of my protest activities. It is unfortunate that the police and prosecutors never properly examined the "phantom evidence" of the U*us before arrestiong me and prosecuting me. Had they done so they might have saved the Unitarian Church of Montreal from a shameful and embarrassing part of its recorded history. It looks like the Unitarian Church of Montreal is heading towards another similarly shameful and embarrassing part of its history in the coming weeks and months if not years. . . I will be generous enough to offer Montreal U*Us yet another opportunity to begin "waging peace" and thus avoid making U*Us out of themselves again but chances are pretty good that they will ignore and/or reject my offer to begin "waging peace" by waging genuine justice, equity and compassion in human relations rather than yet again making a total mockery of the purported principles and purposes of the U*U "religion".
I'll get to work on that, in fact I'll go you one better. But it will not be posted here.
I dare say that you definitely have a pattern of making "wild*ass statements" and that other people noted that fact some time before I ever had anything to do with you.
That is false, which you would likely be aware of if you had any concern for the truth.
:I'll get to work on that, in fact I'll go you one better. But it will not be posted here.
Wonderful! Maybe you can make a habit of posting your dubious SPAM about me to your own 'The Truth About Robin Edgar' blog.
::I dare say that you definitely have a pattern of making "wild*ass statements" and that other people noted that fact some time before I ever had anything to do with you.
:That is false, which you would likely be aware of if you had any concern for the truth.
Oh I have plenty of concern for the truth indrax. Unlike you and your own disregard for all kinds of well documented truth about yours truly. . . Looks like you're disimmulating again indrax. I am fully confident that most people of intelligence, to say nothing of conscience. . . will agree that June 28th, 2005 predates any contact that I recall having with you. The earliest contacts with you that I can recall are in the fall of 2005. That would seem to be "some time" after Citizen X wrote, "This bozo indrax takes the cake. He makes all sorts of wild-ass statements. . ." I suppose it is within possibility that there were some earlier contacts with you that I have simply forgotten, and can't readily track down using appropriate Google searches etc., but it is oh so typical of you indrax to characterize a possible lapse of memory on my part as a lack of "any concern for the truth." That brazen and indeed false allegation about me stands as yet another example of a wild-U*U statement courtesy of the indrax troll. Since you are oh so anal retentive indrax perhaps you can remind me of when we had a contact that predated June 28th, 2005. . .
Yes, but that is entirely irrelevant.
The earliest contacts with you that I can recall are in the fall of 2005. That would seem to be "some time" after Citizen X wrote, "This bozo indrax takes the cake. He makes all sorts of wild-ass statements. . ."
Nope, try again.
and can't readily track down using appropriate Google searches etc.,
Ha!
But no, We might have crossed paths briefly on beliefnet, but nothing I remember either.
Oh I have plenty of concern for the truth indrax.
Then why didn't you check your facts?