Rev. Diane Rollert Is Courting Disaster On Behalf Of The Unitarian Church of Montreal
Well I had my first court appearance today with respect to the latest spurious criminal charges that have been brought against me by outrageously hypocritical Montreal Unitarian U*Us. I had expected to simply plead not guilty to these dubious criminal charges and have a first trial date scheduled today however things did not quite work out that way. . . Prior to today's court appearance I had no idea who was behind the latest criminal charges against me, although it was pretty obvious that it pretty well had to be one or more Montreal Unitarian U*Us. It was unclear however if these spurious criminal charges, by which someone was claiming that they had "reasonable grounds" to believe that I would commit a "serious physical injury offence" against another person, were being brought against me by the leadership of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, or if they were the result of a U*U loose cannon going off. Most ironically, as it turns out, it is indeed the leadership of the Unitarian Church of Montreal AND someone who might be considered to be something of a U*U "loose canon" as it were. . .
Yes, believe it or not, it is no less a figure than the brand spanking new minister of the alleged Unitarian Church of Montreal, Rev. Diane Rollert herself, who is the primary complainant in this case; although it does seem that she has the full approval and backing of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and most likely its so-called "Legal Action Committee". . . To be honest I was quite surprised to learn that it was Rev. Diane Rollert who was responsible for bringing these highly questionable criminal charges against me, albeit not *that* surprised based on some things that I have heard about the rather questionable role that she has chosen to take on in this ongoing conflict. I was not "thrown for a loop" by any means and I took it all in stride.
I am getting a little ahead of myself here however since a few interesting things happened before I learned that it is Rev. Diane Rollert who is pretending in formal written complaints to the Montreal police force to have "reasonable grounds" to fear that I might commit a "serious personal injury" offence against her. As I said, I was expecting to simply plead not guilty to the spurious charges and have an initial court date set. This did not happen. Instead I was informed that the prosecution were requesting/demanding that I sign an "810" which is a promise to "keep the peace" for a year and is effectively a kind of restraining order that would prevent me from continuing my peaceful public protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
I made it clear to the court that I had little or no intention of voluntarily signing any such document but I was persuaded to at least have a look at what was being proposed before rejecting it. I am a reasonable person and agreed to sit down with a legal aid lawyer who would explain to me what the "810" was all about. We met in a separate private room across the hall from the courtroom and the legal aid lawyer proceeded to fill me in on what an "810" was. It was during this conversation that I was informed that Rev. Diane Rollert was the complainant. The lawyer spoke of "events" that had taken place in the fall of last year, specifically the emails that I had sent to Rev. Rollert and my personal encounter with Rev. Rollert on Sunday November 19th, 2006 which is described in considerable detail in this Emerson Avenger blog post. Apparently Rev. Diane Rollert is pretending that some of the words and phrases in my emails constitute threats. Maybe U*Us can skim through the emails and try to guess just which words and phrases Rev. Diane Rollert, the apparently not so settled minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, is construing as "threats" that give her "reasonable grounds" to believe that I might commit a "serious physical injury" offence against her person.
I made it clear to the legal aid lawyer that I considered the charges of "criminal harassment" to be unfounded and that I fully intended to contest the charges. She hinted at the possibility that I could potentially be found guilty of the charges and that it was better to sign the "810" than risk a criminal record. I made it clear that I had no expectation of being found guilty of the charges and that I did not even need the services of a lawyer in this case due to the highly questionable nature if these dubious charges. The legal aid lawyer then said that I should at least have a look at what the conditions were and I agreed to do so, however it seems that the specific conditions of the "810" were not immediately available to her in the documentation that she had in her possession. The legal-aid lawyer asked me to wait while she looked into what conditions the "810" might entail. I figured that, one way or another, they probably entailed not coming with several hundred feet of the Unitarian Church of Montreal for a year. She said it would take her about half an hour to look into the conditions. I said that I would wait for her to return back in the courtroom.
About a half hour later the lawyer returned to the courtroom but she had to deal with another case or two. I was then called up to the witness stand and there seemed to be some confusion about what conditions were attached "810". It seems that the lawyer was unable to discover what they might be. The upshot is that the judge then began to ask the prosecutor to answer some questions about my case and the prosecutor seemed to be unable to satisfactorily answer the judge's questions. At one point the judge made a statement that seemed to indicate that he had some doubts about whether the charges, or perhaps certain other elements of the case, were well-founded. I cannot however be sure about that. In any case I never learned anything more about the "810" and the judge decided to set a new date for a "pro forma" hearing at the end of August. So not only did I not even plead yet, but no date for an actual trial will be set before the end of August at the earliest.
Before leaving the courtroom I requested that the court provide me with the dossier of the prosecution's evidence against me and I was given the file. The file contained the reports of the detective assigned to the case, police officers who were called to the Unitarian Church of Montreal in late November of 2006, although for some reason there does not appear to be a report from the two officers who actually arrested me on Sunday May 6th of this year, and of course Rev. Diane Rollert's written declarations to the police in which she claims to be a "victim of harassment" from yours truly, that my emails to her constituted "threats", and why she is "afraid" of me (indeed even "very frightened" of me) and believes that I am "being threatening" to her personally. I don't want to go into any more detail than that for the moment but the police reports, and Rev. Diane Rollert's highly questionable testimony, make for interesting reading.
I look forward to this case going all the way to trial so that I can fully and completely defend myself against these spurious criminal charges but I have a feeling that for a variety of reasons this case will not actually ever go to trial. In fact I expect that once Rev. Diane Rollert and the Unitarian Church of Montreal realize that Rev. Rollert's highly questionable testimony can be, and will be, very thoroughly questioned under cross-examination in a free and responsible effort to determine the truth (or lack thereof) and meaning of her allegations, some of which are quite ludicrous, to say nothing of bordering on perjurious. . . that they will probably drop their spurious charges like the rather hot potatoe that they are.
Not a bad way to celebrate Independence Day is it?
Yes, believe it or not, it is no less a figure than the brand spanking new minister of the alleged Unitarian Church of Montreal, Rev. Diane Rollert herself, who is the primary complainant in this case; although it does seem that she has the full approval and backing of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and most likely its so-called "Legal Action Committee". . . To be honest I was quite surprised to learn that it was Rev. Diane Rollert who was responsible for bringing these highly questionable criminal charges against me, albeit not *that* surprised based on some things that I have heard about the rather questionable role that she has chosen to take on in this ongoing conflict. I was not "thrown for a loop" by any means and I took it all in stride.
I am getting a little ahead of myself here however since a few interesting things happened before I learned that it is Rev. Diane Rollert who is pretending in formal written complaints to the Montreal police force to have "reasonable grounds" to fear that I might commit a "serious personal injury" offence against her. As I said, I was expecting to simply plead not guilty to the spurious charges and have an initial court date set. This did not happen. Instead I was informed that the prosecution were requesting/demanding that I sign an "810" which is a promise to "keep the peace" for a year and is effectively a kind of restraining order that would prevent me from continuing my peaceful public protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
I made it clear to the court that I had little or no intention of voluntarily signing any such document but I was persuaded to at least have a look at what was being proposed before rejecting it. I am a reasonable person and agreed to sit down with a legal aid lawyer who would explain to me what the "810" was all about. We met in a separate private room across the hall from the courtroom and the legal aid lawyer proceeded to fill me in on what an "810" was. It was during this conversation that I was informed that Rev. Diane Rollert was the complainant. The lawyer spoke of "events" that had taken place in the fall of last year, specifically the emails that I had sent to Rev. Rollert and my personal encounter with Rev. Rollert on Sunday November 19th, 2006 which is described in considerable detail in this Emerson Avenger blog post. Apparently Rev. Diane Rollert is pretending that some of the words and phrases in my emails constitute threats. Maybe U*Us can skim through the emails and try to guess just which words and phrases Rev. Diane Rollert, the apparently not so settled minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, is construing as "threats" that give her "reasonable grounds" to believe that I might commit a "serious physical injury" offence against her person.
I made it clear to the legal aid lawyer that I considered the charges of "criminal harassment" to be unfounded and that I fully intended to contest the charges. She hinted at the possibility that I could potentially be found guilty of the charges and that it was better to sign the "810" than risk a criminal record. I made it clear that I had no expectation of being found guilty of the charges and that I did not even need the services of a lawyer in this case due to the highly questionable nature if these dubious charges. The legal aid lawyer then said that I should at least have a look at what the conditions were and I agreed to do so, however it seems that the specific conditions of the "810" were not immediately available to her in the documentation that she had in her possession. The legal-aid lawyer asked me to wait while she looked into what conditions the "810" might entail. I figured that, one way or another, they probably entailed not coming with several hundred feet of the Unitarian Church of Montreal for a year. She said it would take her about half an hour to look into the conditions. I said that I would wait for her to return back in the courtroom.
About a half hour later the lawyer returned to the courtroom but she had to deal with another case or two. I was then called up to the witness stand and there seemed to be some confusion about what conditions were attached "810". It seems that the lawyer was unable to discover what they might be. The upshot is that the judge then began to ask the prosecutor to answer some questions about my case and the prosecutor seemed to be unable to satisfactorily answer the judge's questions. At one point the judge made a statement that seemed to indicate that he had some doubts about whether the charges, or perhaps certain other elements of the case, were well-founded. I cannot however be sure about that. In any case I never learned anything more about the "810" and the judge decided to set a new date for a "pro forma" hearing at the end of August. So not only did I not even plead yet, but no date for an actual trial will be set before the end of August at the earliest.
Before leaving the courtroom I requested that the court provide me with the dossier of the prosecution's evidence against me and I was given the file. The file contained the reports of the detective assigned to the case, police officers who were called to the Unitarian Church of Montreal in late November of 2006, although for some reason there does not appear to be a report from the two officers who actually arrested me on Sunday May 6th of this year, and of course Rev. Diane Rollert's written declarations to the police in which she claims to be a "victim of harassment" from yours truly, that my emails to her constituted "threats", and why she is "afraid" of me (indeed even "very frightened" of me) and believes that I am "being threatening" to her personally. I don't want to go into any more detail than that for the moment but the police reports, and Rev. Diane Rollert's highly questionable testimony, make for interesting reading.
I look forward to this case going all the way to trial so that I can fully and completely defend myself against these spurious criminal charges but I have a feeling that for a variety of reasons this case will not actually ever go to trial. In fact I expect that once Rev. Diane Rollert and the Unitarian Church of Montreal realize that Rev. Rollert's highly questionable testimony can be, and will be, very thoroughly questioned under cross-examination in a free and responsible effort to determine the truth (or lack thereof) and meaning of her allegations, some of which are quite ludicrous, to say nothing of bordering on perjurious. . . that they will probably drop their spurious charges like the rather hot potatoe that they are.
Not a bad way to celebrate Independence Day is it?
Comments
btw, anonymous up there obviously didn't read. i knew damn well there was no lawyer involved. personally, i do think is is scary, but only because in this day and age, the church has everyone wrapped so tightly around their finger that sometimes truth doesn't ever get a chance to ring loud and clear over the uproarious filth spouted by churches and their patrons.
None-the-less your criticism is otherwise very valid. Montreal Unitarians, and the U*U "religious community" more generally, have not only behaved in an incredibly thoughtless manner throughout this conflict, they have been just plain stupid in their negligent and punitive responses to my legitimate grievances. Their is no question that U*U power-trips are a major part of the problem here. Once again U*Us are trying to use highly questionable, if not outright criminal. . . "power over" tactics in their deeply misguided efforts to censor and suppress my criticism and dissent rather than responsibly address my grievances.
Even your parting shot is applicable to Montreal Unitarians and U*Us more generally. The various truths that I am trying to present to U*Us, to say nothing of the rest of the world, has not been given a chance to ring loud and clear over the uproarious filth spouted by U*Us. In fact I am very tempted to make a picket sign slogans that say -
ARE U*Us FULL OF SHIT?
and
DON'T LET A U*U SHIT ON YOU
I will probably refrain from doing so but, if U*Us continue to "shit" on me and other people, I may just let their "shit" hit the fan. . .
obviously they're not very godly if they're pulling this sort of crap. i mean, how can one be a good christian by manipulating others and using god's name to one's advantage? COMPLETELY UN-CHRISTIAN!
Rev. Diane Rollert is a newcomer to the Unitarian Church of Montreal and had no previous involvement in this conflict. All of a sudden Rev. Rollert is front row center in it. . . A benighted U*U "knight" in rather tarnished armour. Actually another female blogger privately expressed dismay that Rev. Diane Rollert seems to be playing the female victimization card and, based on Rev. Rollert's written testimony that is in the dubious police "evidence" against me, there is very good reason to believe that this too is part and parcel of the "leverage" and manipulation that you have good reason to perceive. Thus your point about a woman crying "my baby this my baby that so you can't do this" is a very pertinent and valid one. In this case Rev. Diane Rollert's "baby" is the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Tis is not inappropriate considering the remarkably infantile manner that in which Montreal Unitarians have behaved throughout this conflict. . . ;-)
*in reality Rev. Diane Rollert is rather more properly described as a U*U "Knight In Tarnished Armour". . .