Tag: Yana Skybin

Yana Skybin fundraising “for her parents”

Millions of Ukrainian people are displaced by Putin’s war, thousands of them are coming to Canada, taxpayers pay for their social housing, health care, education etc. And off course it’s another big opportunity for Yana Skybin to beg for money.

Yana Skybin fundraising

She probably heard about gofundme 1st time from recent truckers’ protest in Ottawa, and was like “Hmm, interesting, let me try that. May be I can catch a few idiots I would suck a dollar or two from!”. Some of her friends, who I watched perjuring at the Trial, like the idea and are doing the same. Almost every one of them has their own fundraiser now. Interesting concept, isn’t it: living in Canada and working for YMCA many years, Skybin still cannot afford to support her parents and begs for money on every opportunity, but she uses her YMCA position to destroy those who can. What a character!

Related Images:

How Justice Mulligan twists the facts

Look how easy it is to put a bad spin on good things, if you already made up your mind and just need to bend a few things which don’t fit in it, just a touch:

[13]      The following key dates will provide context for the discussion that follows:

2003 The Danilovs immigrate to Canada
2005 Alla Nikityuk visits the Danilovs in Canada
2007 Alla and Valentin Nikityuk visit the Danilovs in Canada
January 2008 Pavel Danilov e-mails the Nikityuks with financial projections to assist with their immigration decision
June 2008 The Nikityuks immigrate to Canada
August 2008 The Nikityuks move to a newly constructed residence in Innisfil owned by the Danilovs
June 2009 The Danilovs move into the residence in Innisfil occupying it jointly with the Nikityuks
October 17, 2011 The Nikityuks move out of the Innisfil residence into social housing

This is how the same table should look like, if Honorable Justice Mulligan would not omit the most important events, presented in details and proven at the Trial verbally and with documents:

2003 The Danilovs immigrate to Canada.
2004 Nikityuks make decision to immigrate to Canada and Alla Nikityuk signs the Sponsorship Agreement. Pavel co-signs the Agreement because Alla promises him personally, in case if they permitted to immigrate, to sell all family property in Russia and transfer monies to Svetlana.
2005 Alla Nikityuk visits the Danilovs in Canada and confirms her intention to immigrate.
July 2007 Danilovs purchase the house in Innisfil; mortgage pre-approved by TD bank. Will Nikityuks be permitted to immigrate or not is not known yet: the procedure takes about 3 years and costs a lot of money.
November 2007 Alla and Valentin Nikityuk visit the Danilovs in Canada, and both confirm their intention to immigrate.
January 2008 Long waited permission to immigrate finally obtained and Pavel e-mails the Nikityuks with financial projections to assist with their immigration decision plans. Svetlana rents apartment for Nikityuks in the same building in Etobicoke.
February 2008 Builder calls Danilovs and says that Innisfil house will be ready in August. Nikityuks saw the site in 2007, beg not to sell it and let them live in it because they want fresh air by the lake and don’t want to live in a city. Danilovs lose deposit for the apartment.
June 2008 The Nikityuks immigrate to Canada.
August 2008 The house is ready ahead of expectations, and Danilovs, instead of selling it as planned, allow the Nikityuks to move to a newly constructed residence in Innisfil owned by the Danilovs, rent free.
August 2008-2009 Worldwide financial crisis and recession. Danilovs lose a lot of money in the August 2008 market crash. So do millions of other people, organizations and even pension funds. Danilovs are not responsible for the market crash.
June 2009 Danilovs’ daughter finds her own place and moves out from apartment in Etobicoke, and the Danilovs finally are able to move into their new residence in Innisfil occupying it jointly with the Nikityuks.
Summer 2009 Danilovs purchase a condo in Barrie for Nikityuks which should be built in a year or two. Overwhelmed with full time YMCA English classes and having multiple health issues, Nikityuks say that they cannot live separately. Danilovs cancel the purchase agreement.
2009-2011 Multiple major surgeries and free Canadian health care dramatically improve Nikityuks’ quality of life and in 2011 they out of blue want to live separately again, but remembering the lost deposit and condo stories hesitate to ask because every time they change their mind Pavel ends up with multi-years commitments.
Spring 2011 The Nikityuks visited their YMCA friends in Toronto and got obsessed with the idea of social housing. Yana Skybin explains them how to avoid long waiting lists by imitation of abuse in the family. It’s her know-how, her friends call her “professor”.
Summer 2011 Both Nikityuks and Yana Skybin are trying to engage Danilovs into their scheme to obtain social housing on a high priority basis. Danilovs reject to participate because it’s disgusting. Svetlana calls Yana Skybin and requests to stop to populate her parents’ minds with stupid ideas.
August 20, 2011 The Nikityuks attend Yana Skybin’s birthday party and make an expensive gift. On the same evening Yana writes them in email how generous they are and how grateful she is.
August 23, 2011 Three days later, after the weekend, the Nikityuks come to Yana’s office in YMCA and start the process of obtaining social housing on a high priority basis, instructed and guided by Skybin at every step, all in accordance to Yana’s plan developed in April 2011.
October 17, 2011 The Nikityuks move out of the Innisfil residence into social housing.

When you twist it back, it’s amazing, right?

[68] The Nikityuks were supplied with credit cards for their use, but their finances were controlled, managed and overseen by Svetlana Danilova. She took them to a Russian- speaking lawyer where they executed general Powers of Attorney in her favor. She opened an account at the CIBC in the name of the Nikityuks with her as power of attorney. This account received their Russian pensions and she controlled all withdrawals of these funds. The Nikityuks were required to give her two days’ notice in the event that they required cash. The Russian pensions were as a result of their years of work in Russia.

1) Yes Nikityuks were supplied with credit cards and had immediate access to approximately $30,000, even after they left the house and started to apply for all kinds of social assistance. This covers at least 6 years of their Russian pension, so what is the issue with this Russian pension and “2 days notice” is not clear. Even Alla doesn’t take any issue with her pension and testifies that they always had access to it (Bornmann was not happy when she said that because the entire Nikityuks’ counterclaim is his baby). Also not clear why supplying Nikityuks with credit cards (paid by Danilovs) constitutes as a financial abuse. They liked them, and it also was convenient for Danilovs. Win-win, what is the “abuse”?

2) Family finances were indeed managed by Danilovs, but someone had to manage them. For the entire family, which was still a family back then. Only later, in September-October 2011 YMCA destroys the family and Skybin takes Nikityuk’s finances under her control. And on the other hand, only Trudeau’s budget “balances itself”, for ordinary people it doesn’t work. Nikityuks aggressively admitted on many occasions that they “did not come to Canada to manage finances” and “never were interested in family financial affairs“. They are “engineers, not financiers“. Which is not true by the way, Alla is not an engineer.

3) Russian pension was coming once in a quarter to a savings account and withdrawals from that account could be made only on the next business day. In Innisfil there were no CIBC branch, and trip to the closest one in Barrie to withdraw cash usually needed to be planned at least a day ahead because there were only two cars in the family, one used by Pavel to drive to work, another by Nikityuks for YMCA English classes. That’s where “2 days notice” comes from. It all was discussed and acceptable for everybody because the only reason why Nikityuks needed cash once in a while was if they wanted to send a gift to their friends or relatives in Russia, or to bribe someone like Yana Skybin. And they didn’t want to withdraw cash themselves because simply could not memorize ATM pin and did not understand English, always asked Svetlana to do it for them. They stopped trying when Valentin once was going to put some gas at the pump and ended up purchasing a couple of car washes instead.

4) Yes PoA was executed in 2009 in Russian speaking firm in Toronto. What Honorable Justice Mulligan omits here is Valentin’s perjury all over the case that the firm was not Russian and he did not understand what he was signing. Nice twist, isn’t it? Makes Svetlana a bad guy and Valentin Nikityuk a victim of abortion in one short!

5) It’s impossible to open a bank account in Canada using Power of Attorney, attendance in person is almost always required. That is why CIBC account on the name of Alla and Svetlana was opened in 2005 during the 1st visit of Alla to Canada: personal attendance of every co-owner is mandatory. By the way, the Power of Attorney was executed in 2009, 4 years after that. And it comes to a pile of perjury again because Nikityuks testified that they didn’t know about accounts opened on their names because Svetlana allegedly opened them using PoA. In fact they were present in person every time, used accounts since 2005, even still being in Russia, when withdrew Danilovs’ support in Russian ATM, and there is documentary proof of that in every case. But our Honorable Honor is not a big fun of common sense and doesn’t care about perjury if it makes YMCA responsible.

6) What is this final phrase “The Russian pensions were as a result of their years of work in Russia.” here for? Even a chipmunk knows that pension is always a result of years of work. Do we have to cry now? Well, our Captain Obvious, all in tears, makes this wise statement with a big purpose: to make all this pile of absurd look reasonable, and we all get the final impression that Danilovs are bad guys, and Nikityuks are victims of something, not clear of what exactly though, but wait for it.

Combination Skybin + Bornmann + Mae + Mulligan is just a deadly fact twister.

[69] When the Nikityuks first moved into the house in Innisfil, Pavel used about $15,000 of the Nikityuks’ money to furnish the home for family living.

So freaking what? Is it again “abuse” of some kind? Half furniture for the new house was purchased by Nikityuks, another half by Danilovs. For the family living together, that’s fair, isn’t it? New house needs furniture, unless you plan to sell the house or sleep in bags on a floor. Nikityuks enjoyed the furniture shopping by the way, and there are plenty of pictures taken in Brick and Leons with them choosing mattresses, arm chairs, fridge etc. But just put good thing in bad place, and oops: now furniture shopping with your parents becomes some kind of fraud. Your Honor, have you discovered in your findings did Svetlana use Power of Attorney when she bought a new mattress for Valentin, or not?

[74] I accept Mr. Nikityuk’s evidence that he gave the Danilovs $15,000 when they first arrived from Russia. These were the funds available to them when they liquidated their final Russian bank account balances before departure. This was in addition to the prior wire transfers.

You do, do you, your honor? This $15,000 story is so funny and educational about Canadian justice system that it worth a separate post which I will submit on Danilovs’ behalf in a few days. Keep in touch, folks, it’s gonna be interesting.

[82] When the Danilovs first moved in the relationship was good. Mr. Nikityuk was able to sponsor one of his daughters for a visit to Canada from Russia. The parties took trips and outings together. Ms. Danilova made arrangements for the Nikityuks to take English as a second language classes at the local YMCA. She continued to support them with medical visits and other aspects of daily living. But it is clear that the Nikityuks’ desire to live separately became an ongoing issue. Ms. Danilova acknowledged that her parents did have the right to live separately if they wished to. She denied that the situation got so bad that Mr. Nikityuk wanted to move back to Russia.

Well, your Honor. You either were sleeping through the entire Trial, or you are twisting facts on purpose. Let’s look:

1) Danilovs “first moved in” on June 1, 2009.

2) “Ms. Danilova made arrangements for the Nikityuks to take English” classes at the local (20 km one way) YMCA in the same 2009, through Yana Skybin by the way.

3) After 3 years of those classes, in 2012, Nikityuks still “don’t speak, don’t read, don’t write and don’t understand English“, but they definitely picked up in YMCA a lot of ideas how to scam Canadian social assistance system. What the hell do they teach on those “classes”, sponsored by the Government, i.e. by taxpayers, by the way?

4) “Mr. Nikityuks was able to sponsor one of his daughters” in July-August 2011, just one month before the idiotic “abuse” story started to roll over. During that visit Nikityuks showed Valentin’s daughter the house in Barrie where “they will be living soon”, so they had big plans already then, way before all alleged abuse incidents.

What a twist! So, basically, in your Honor’s words, “relationship was good” till July-August 2011. That is totally true, your Honor, for a change. To be precise, till August 20, 2011 (Yana’s birthday party), when Nikityuks decided to pursue with Skybin’s plan of obtaining social housing on a high priority basis.

Now, your Honor, with that being said, you can through away a good half of your “decision” because it just doesn’t make any sense. According to Pavel, in Russia they would call it “бред сивой кобылы в лунную ночь”, but I am not sure I understood it correctly – please translate yourself.

See? Just omit a few events, mess with dates, put some facts from left column to right, make up a few missings, bend the rest a little bit, and boom! Now YMCA’s bribery, conspiracy and fraud becomes a boring family matter, sort of “divorce”. YMCA is all white and fluffy, no shit on their head at all.

Good job Mr. Mae. Seriously.

Related Images:

Witness Credibility

To get YMCA off-hook, Honorable Justice Mulligan has to come up with his own definition of witness credibility:

[59] Because of the immediate stock market loss, an improvident investment, and the lack of candor about the financial circumstances that were created, I find the Danilovs not to be credible witnesses. When there is a dispute about evidence between the Danilovs and the Nikityuks, I prefer to accept the evidence of the Nikityuks. Pavel prepared the inducement e-mail. Svetlana received the money wired from Russia and allowed her husband to access it. She witnessed the loan agreement, and she controlled the Nikityuks’ finances. She became a registered owner of the Innisfil property bought with a down payment from the Nikityuks’ funds.

First of all, your Honor, please don’t twist the facts. That’s what Erik Bornmann is really good at, but you don’t want to be associated with him because Briber flipped his personality many times and probably he is not a very good person.

1) Email sent by Pavel in 2008 cannot induce Nikityuks to make a decision in 2004. If you disagree with that you need to see a doctor.

2) Svetlana received a gift from her mother and was free to do with her money whatever she wanted, including investment into family business, specifically designed, by the way, to support Nikityuks, – Danilovs did not need it.

3) Loan agreement was designed to protect Nikityuk’s interests and was created by recommendation of CRA hot line. Svetlana witnessed it because she was the only witness available at the moment when Nikityuks signed it.

4) Svetlana became a registered owner of her property because it was her property, purchased in 2007. Nikityuks were allowed to immigrate to Canada in 2008 and no one could possibly count on their money until that permission was finally obtained.

5) Down payment was made with Svetlana’s share in family property sold in Russia, and not Nikityuks’ funds. Nikityuks were totally on-board with the transaction, because it was convenient at the moment; until the same Erik Bornmann came up with the marazmatic idea of “they told me that the house was purchased on my name but  3 years later it turned out to be not true”.

Basically, Danilovs are not credible because they traded stocks on a stock market and lost. I.e. in Justice Mulligan’s Supreme Court of Ontario view , millions of people who trade on a stock market, cannot be trusted. Especially, if they had some stocks on their RRSP or 401K and lost in 2008-2009 market crash, all of them are just frauds or at least incapable idiots.

For your information, your Honor, this is legal definition of a credible witness:

CREDIBLE WITNESS. A credible witness is one who is competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief. 5 Mass. 219 17 Pick. 134; 2 Curt. Ecc. R. 336. In deciding upon the credibility of a witness, it is always pertinent to consider whether he is capable of knowing the thing thoroughly about which he testifies. 2. Whether he was actually present at the transaction. 3. Whether he paid, sufficient attention to qualify himself to be a reporter of it; and 4. Whether he honestly relates the affair fully as he knows it, without any purpose or desire to deceive, or suppress or add to the truth.

Your Honor, what in this definition made you think that Danilovs cannot be trusted and Nikityuks can? Pavel honestly testified that he lost a lot of money in that August 2008 market crash and explained in details what kind of damage control he and Svetlana did in subsequent months, so Nikityuks did not even notice any problem and kept happily enjoying their new life in Canada for at least 3 years, till 2011, when Yana Skybin got special interest in family finances and decided to put her hand on them. Honesty does not go in your Court and does not add up to your private definition of credibility, does it, your Honor?

Maybe in your opinion Danilovs are incompetent and therefore not credible? Well, Nikityuks could not write a check, memorize an ATM pin and after 3 years of YMCA “English classes” still could not read, write, speak or understand English. Can they be more credible than Danilovs because of this reason?

So what was that, your Honor? You just hate those geeks, don’t you?

Related Images:

Alleged physical abuse

Determining the fact if there was physical abuse in the family or not is the corner stone of the entire case. Every word in Justice Mulligan’s decision must be flipped to the opposite if there were no physical abuse.

If there was abuse then Nikityuks’ and Skybin’s story is true, i.e. they were concerned about their safety and left to social housing to avoid confrontation.

If there were no abuse then Danilovs’ story is true, i.e. Nikityuks just wanted to live separately by all means and imitated family abuse to avoid 4 year waiting list for social housing. They probably even thought that they were doing a good thing and the family would thank them later.

Let’s look:

[170] I am satisfied that the Nikityuks were financially abused from the time they arrived in Canada. They wanted to live separately. That was the plan in the inducement e-mail. Social housing was not their first choice, but it seemed to them that it became their only choice. The Danilovs discouraged any talk of social housing and for good reason. They knew that if the Nikityuks moved to social housing, it would constitute a breach of their Sponsorship Agreement with the Government of Canada. The continual discussion about moving out and social housing became an irritant and led to emotional arguments. I am satisfied that there was a physical altercation as well, some pushing by Svetlana of her mother. But even if I am wrong on that finding, it is clear that financial abuse and emotional abuse had already occurred.

Basically, after 5 weeks of Trial Justice Mulligan could not find any evidence of alleged physical abuse despite of all effort made by YMCA, Graham Partners and Community Legal Clinic. Common sense says that if you cannot find evidence of something, that something simply is a lie.

But Ontario Supreme Court Justice Mulligan is “satisfied with his findings even if he is wrong“! How about that? This simply means that he made up his mind already before the Trial and despite of all evidence decided to send his “message” by all means.

There was no “pushing” mentioned in any evidence, neither in oral nor in written. Quite the opposite, the evidence was ”grabbing” which allegedly caused bruises “looking like fingerprints”, “5 centimeters diameter”, not “some pushing”. Bornmann even organized an idiotic “demonstration” where poor Alla, chocking on laugh, tried to improvise how she was “grabbed” and “shaken”, not very convincing but very funny.

Yana’s letter “To whom it may concern”, widely circulated (attached to Anastasia’s affidavit):

Alla showed me her arms, and there were bruises on both arms. On the weekend their daughter came for a visit from Toronto, and they showed her the bruises, too.

Well, the daughter’s affidavit is right here, and guess what? All this bullshit about bruises is just a lie! By the way, the above mentioned “weekend” was August 20, 2011, Yana’s birthday party, when Nikityuks visited her, made an expensive gift, and nobody saw any bruises on Alla who was wearing short sleeves.

August 20, 2011 – Yana Skybin’s birthday party – Alla (on the right) wearing short sleeves. No one sees any bruises.

Transcript of oral examination of Skybin:

Q626: Minor bruises?
A: There were multiple bruises on both arms.

Q627-629: How bad they were, they were just very minor bruises, slightly visible?
A: I wouldn’t call them minor. They were visible. She was wearing a shirt and they were under the sleeves. They were obvious and visible.

Q630: How did they look like?
A: A few bruises in may be 5 centimeters range on both arms, they were grey, yellow, green color

Q631-634: There were multiple bruises, 5 centimeters apart?
A: 5 centimeters in size. They were visible like if you would not mistaken them for anything else.

Q635: Mistaken them from what?
A: From an occasional bruise a person can get

Skybin’s testimony at Trial:

Q. And so let me stop you there. Are you absolutely certain that Mrs. Nikityuk showed you bruises?
A. Yes, she showed them to me. I saw them with my own eyes.

Q. And where were the bruises?
A. They were on her upper shoulders, both – like – okay, shoulders. I don’t know how to say that. Arm…

Q. Well, maybe if you could…
A. …upper arm.

Q. …direct His Honour to where….
A. Yeah, like they were upper arms, like here. And they were multiple, like from fingerprints. Like fingerprints.

Q. So, above the tricep?
A. Yeah, but – like yeah. So the arms.

Q. On both arms?
A. Both arms, yeah.

Q. And…
A. And multiple.

Q. …so you said multiple. Can you describe the bruises as best as you can?
A. Like finger – from fingerprints. From….

Q. And just another question about the bruises. You said there were multiple bruises. What did they look like to you?
A. Like fingerprints.

So, to sum up, bruises looking like “fingerprints”, 5 centimeters diameter, all kinds of colors, nobody can mistake from an occasional bruise a person can get, but nobody actually can see when Alla wears no sleeves. Not very convincing, right? So Mr. Mae needs some damage control and look what he came up with:

Cross-exam of Svetlana by Mae on Trial – Volume 3:

Q. So my last question to you, would it be a surprise to you that when Ms. Malisheva comes to this court to give evidence, she’s going to say that she went out with your mother in August 2011 and she saw the bruises on your mother’s shoulders. Would it be a surprise to you?
A. I don’t know what – how to answer the question because I don’t know. You do whatever you want to do.

Q. Well, I’m telling you that is the evidence we’re going to hear. She saw the bruises on your mother and your mother told her exactly how the bruises happened. They were caused by you and she saw exactly the same things that Yana Skybin saw on August 23, 2011 but on different day.

This obviously was a very important testimony for Mae. With proven that Yana could not see any bruises in August 2011 because there were no bruises, Mae and his buddy Bornmann delay the Trial till autumn by all means and during that 5 months gap “prepare” his new “witness” Malisheva. As a matter of fact, Mae delegated this duty to Russian-speaking Yana who basically wrote the entire script for Malisheva’s testimony, but Malisheva is not a very good actor, cannot memorize the entire script and happily screwed up. Perjury is difficult. Conspiracy to commit perjury is a felony offense, but Justice Mulligan doesn’t care about perjury at all:

Malysheva ’s testimony about “attack” which allegedly took place in August 2011:

Q Did you spend time together with them (Nikityuks) in the summer of 2011?
A Yes.

Q. During this time, were you ever told about any issues they were having?
A. No.

Q. Did you spend any time with Alla during that summer, the two of you?
A. We spent time all together: Alla, myself, Valentin, my husband, and my children.

Q. During that time in that summer 2011.
A In August, we were at the park, and Alla shared with me a problem – a family problem. Yes, we were at the park. We’re enjoying our time, and Alla complained to me that she had serious problems with her daughter in the family.

Q. What kind of problems?
A. Well first of all, she showed me bruises on her arms, and told me that her daughter attacked her at home.

Q. What did those bruises look like?
A. They looked like fingerprints.

There you go. “Fingerprints” again. Sound familiar, right? Did Skybin ever see how fingerprints look? How bruises can look like “fingerprints”? Especially 5 centimeters in diameter. How “some pushing by Svetlana of her mother” can cause bruises looking like “fingerprints” of “5 centimeters diameter”?

Malysheva Cross-ex:

Q. You spoke about Alla telling you in August of 2011, that her daughter, Svetlana, had attacked her?
A. I did not say 2011.

Q. Okay, so when did you have this conversation with Alla?
A. I met with them in October 2011. It couldn’t have been August at any rate.

Oops!

Q. Thank you. So, maybe I misunderstood. Could you tell us when Alla told you about her daughter attacking her?
A. In August. It must have been 2012, since I met them in 2011. Don’t confuse me.

Q. Okay. I’m not trying to confuse you. Do you recall where this conversation took place?
A. Of course, in a park. Killbear Park.

Q. And you had gone to Killbear Park with the Nikityuks?
A. Yes.

Q. So, I’d like to now have the witness look at the first volume of the white binder, Tab 89. And I will give you the page number, just a moment.
Q. Do you recognize these photographs?
A. Yes, of course.


Q. And is this the trip to Killbear Park you took with Nikityuks?
A. Yes

Q. Yes, and would you agree that that was on October 2nd, 2011?
A. Was – well, that’s wonderful that there is a date here. Again, it has been five years. I’m sorry, forgive me, I can’t give you exact dates. I can remember the events that took place, not the dates. I’m sorry.

Q. And so, is this the park visit that Alla showed you the bruises?
A. Yes.

Q. And this is also when Alla told you about the attack, that Svetlana had attacked her?
A. The same day, not at the same time when the pictures were taken, because everybody’s very happy in the pictures. We were there for sufficiently long time.

After that Killbear trip Nikityuks came home and Valentin said that their “friends” to whom he told that they sold property in Russia and sent all monies to Svetlana as a gift, asked him if he is a fool.

Another alleged episode of physical abuse was Pavel throwing plates at the wall. Even assuming that it happened, but there is no any proof that it did, not clear how it is physical abuse but not just damage to the wall.

There are some pictures provided by Valentin to “prove” that damage. But they:

  1. Were not listed in the Affidavit of Documents before the oral discovery, and that Affidavit specifically states that there are no more documents in Nikityuks’ possession relevant to the case, i.e. at the moment of swearing the Affidavit they did not have those wall pictures. And even despite Valentin is apparently doesn’t have a problem to lie in affidavits, it’s very difficult to come up with a motive why would he lie in this case that he doesn’t have any more documents related to the case. This is a unique situation when he actually swear the truth: as of April 13, 2013 he doesn’t have any more pictures or other documents relevant for the case:
    Affidavit of Documents of Nikityuks before Oral Discovery
  2. Were produced by Nikityuks after oral discovery by plaintiffs’ demand because they were stupidly mentioned by Valentin during examination.
  3. Do not prove anything: those are the pictures of some wall with some minor scratches which could be taken anywhere and at any time, but definitely not in plaintiffs’ house were the incident allegedly happened, because Nikityuks did not have access to the house since October 2011, and Discovery, when the pictures were produced 1st time, was in 2014, i.e. at that time they yet did not exist. Even the color of the wall is totally different, so those pictures of damaged wall are just fake.

Even Justice Mulligan who trusts Nikityuks and doesn’t trust Danilovs because they trade stocks, doesn’t say a word in his “decision” about that plates. But come on Your Honor, you cannot ignore the fact that Valentin Nikityuk perjured himself by bringing up this ridiculous “story”. And what does it say about Valentin’s credibility?

All the effort YMCA lawyers allocated on delaying the Trial into the 2nd session, finding more “witnesses” of alleged bruises during the 5 months break and preparing those “witnesses” proves the importance of the issue.

The fact that despite of that effort YMCA failed to prove that bruises ever existed, had to be properly assessed by Justice Mulligan and to dramatically affect his decision. The fact that it did not means again that he either forgot about all spring testimonies and evidences after 5 months gap, or was biased against Danilovs.

Related Images: